What is the Word (John1:1)?

[MJFlores]

For example, God is Life because he has life within himself. Jesus is life because God has given him also to have life within himself.

John 5:26

For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.

Anyone that say the Trinity is not to be found in the Old Testament is wrong, and does their best to ignore what is written.
Look at MJFlores on how he remains in total denial about Isaiah 48: 16.
he challenged me to work through the passage step by step, only to now come up with an argument, "No Trinity there!"

I'm sorry but you are just seeing things.
If it is not there, it is not there.
Even the Catholic priests says it isn't there
An irony since the trinity is the prima dogma of the Catholic church.
And the Catholic church formulated the Trinity dogma

The Faith Explained” has this to say:

“One such truth is the fact that though there is only one God ,yet in that one God there are three divine Persons – the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. There is only one divine nature, but there are three divine Persons…So when we try to think of God as Three Persons possessing one and the same nature, we find ourselves batting our head against the ceiling.” [Trese, Leo J. The Faith Explained. Nihil Obstat: Louis J. Putz, C.S.C., University of Notre Dame. Imprimatur: Leo A. Pursley, D.D. Bishop of Fort Wayne, Notre Dame, Indiana. USA: Fides Publishers Inc.,1969, pp. 25-26.]

This is a Catholic book wriitten by a Catholic and approved by Catholic authorities. The book said, “So when we try to think of God as Three Persons possessing one and the same nature, we find ourselves batting our head against the ceiling” (Emphasis mine).

This book also admits that no one will understand the doctrine of the Trinity even the greatest theologian:

“We are dealing a mystery of faith: no one, not even the greatest theologian, can hope in this life to really understand it. At best, there will merely be varying degrees of ignorance.” (Ibid., p. 29.)

Catholic authorities further admit that no one, not even the greatest theologian, can understand the doctrine of the Trinity because it's an absurdity:

“God, of course, cannot perform an absurdity, a contradiction in terms. He cannot, for instance, make two and two equal five.” (Walsh, John. This is Catholicism. New York: Image Book, 1959, p. 25)

 

[Desert Snake]

I do not see any error in John 1 in the NIV.
But look how the Jehovah witnesses translated it to change the meaning that Jesus is not God.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
Then, when one look at how the NIV translated Isaiah 48:16
Isaiah 48:16 - New International Version
"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, endowed with his Spirit.
Not God anymore.
At least the jehovah witnesses knew they will be called out if they did it.
Isaiah 48:16 new World Translation
'Come near to me, YOU people. Hear this. From the start I have spoken in no place of concealment at all. From the time of its occurring I have been there.' And now the Sovereign Lord Jehovah himself has sent me, even his spirit.

All these subtile changes not supported by any manuscript, combines into a movement of unitarianism.
I stay with the KJV, for one reason.
it has the least translation errors and there is in this regard no WILLFULL subtile changes towards the destruction of the Trinity.
I can give you one translation error from the Greek to the English.

Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

here the translators translated the wrong tense.
It is the Aurist, or mere past tense.
it should read:
Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believed; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

meaning:
The apostles and disciples who believed Jesus rose from the dead, will receive these gifts.

I remember how zakir Naik challenged Dr Campbell to translate forom some Indian paper money (telling he would not force Dr Campbell to drink poison to prove he was a Christian)
What the Atheist and Muslim does is to take these verses as the "Acid test" where Christians can prove they believe in Christ, and they will not die because they believe.
Jesus sent his disciples and Apostles out on 2 occasions, each time giving them gifts.
Luke 9: 1-2 and Matt 10: 1.

Therefore, not every Christian received these gifts and this is not some Christian Test!
But a mere small translation error which is so insignificant, it can be ignored.
I see the Afrikaans 1933 did translate in the past tense, and it is the same as the KJV

What is happening here is that

• Biblical God includes the Lord, and God, when written in greek language, and english
• because scholars and churches have been trying for ages to separate jesus from JHVH, they delineate the name Lord, where it shouldn't be delineated.
• the greek and english language usage of Lord, correlates to aspect of God, that is worshipped, called God, [Elohim, so forth.
• Judaic belief has either name for Lord, and He is called God. I call this Elohim or God, thusly
• Yehudah and Judah are named after the 'true God', at least that is my interpretation of the verse
• we therefore have Judaic God, as JHVH, and we do place Him as the personal aspect of God.
• The Greek bible, using God Theos, and Lord Kurios, delineates between God, and the Lord.
• Jesus correlates to the Lord, aspect, in the text, therefore when the Bible says there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, this means the 'Lord' in the Old Testament, is either Jesus Himself, or the over-self association. Otherwise you derive two different gods Jesus being the Tetragrammaton .
• therefore because we have Judaic belief, and Jesus basically tells us that that is the religion construct, we derive a necessary
Jehovah
Jesus
Holy Spirit,

In Christian belief, Judaic Christian belief.
This doesn't really match, the separate persons trinity because the totally distinct persons trinity idea, means that Jesus is the Tetragrammaton , and the other aspect is the 'other god'

•

This is apples and oranges, obviously, and further obfuscated by established churches now saying that the "pater" aspect, , is the Tetragrammaton, where they didn't before. So these churches now have a mix n match that doesn't work with the text, and doesn't match their trinity concept, as it means a contradiction when they say that the "pater" is the Tetragrammaton.

 

[MJFlores]

Well, remember you said we will work through isaiah 48?
Or is your answer, No trinity there!
Then you will have too tell me?
How is it possible that the Creator of heaven and earth, was sent by YHWH and His Spirit?
Your answer telling me,
No trinity there is actually a display if how bias you are, and will not even commit to an agreement we had.
Untill you answer the following question, I will have to ignore any other statements.
I was very lenient to facilitate you, and we had an agreement to investigate Isaiah 48, but now you run in circles.
Do you realise that you are actually admitting that you will never accept anything else but what your church claims?
Do you know that what |I have learned from discussing everything with you on the Trinity, you actually sharpened my points of debate for future conversations.

There is no Trinity
Even the church who invented the trinity said so.
How can you be so wise than the Catholic priests who made the Trinity?
When they said - it does not exist, just take it.

“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 author admits that they cannot seriously maintained that the doctrine that there are three persons in one God (the doctrine of the Trinity) was clearly revealed in the Old Testament. The reason of this admission is because the doctrine of the Trinity is not known before the advent of Christ:

“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 found the word “Trinity” in the New Testament? This is the admission of another Catholic book:

“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 message 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.)

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, it is truly "not a gospel at all."

So these Roman Catholic priests declared on their books that - the Trinity isn't mentioned, isn't known and does not appear in the Old Testament [including your Isa 48] and in the New Testament Christian Bible.

 

[Augustus]

Any theologian, student or scholar, who knows koine greek knows that logos simply means word. your word, his word, you say, I say, he says. It's logos. The plural is logous and always translated as 'words'. Plural of words.

That 'logos' can mean word is not in question.

Logos in a Christian, Jewish, Stoic, Neoplatonist, Aristotelian, etc. context definitely did not simply mean the same as the modern English 'word' though.

 

[firedragon]

That 'logos' can mean word is not in question.

Logos in a Christian, Jewish, Stoic, Neoplatonist, Aristotelian, etc. context definitely did not simply mean the same as the modern English 'word' though.

Logos in the Bible, in the synoptic gospels mean word as I explained. Just simple 'word'.

 

[Augustus]

Logos in the Bible, in the synoptic gospels mean word as I explained. Just simple 'word'.

That you keep saying it doesn't make it true though.

The problem is your explanation goes against the understanding of both Christian theologians and the cultural context in which the texts were written.

The idea that, by pure coincidence, Jesus was referred to as the logos with absolutely no other intended meaning, connotation, or allusion than 'word' when other belief systems also used the term in a similar manner to mean something very different is not very persuasive.

Why do you think early Christians didn't realise it was just simply 'word' and that was it?

 

[firedragon]

That you keep saying it doesn't make it true though.

The problem is your explanation goes against the understanding of both Christian theologians and the cultural context in which the texts were written.

The idea that, by pure coincidence, Jesus was referred to as the logos with absolutely no other intended meaning, connotation, or allusion than 'word' when other belief systems also used the term in a similar manner to mean something very different is not very persuasive.

Why do you think early Christians didn't realise it was just simply 'word' and that was it?

Its true. All over. Please read the Bible.

At least read the Gospel of Mark, Luke, Matthew.

Matthew 5:37, 28:15,
Mark 4:15,
Luke 4:32, 4:36, 5:15, 7:17, 8:11,

Wish you well.

 

[LightofTruth]

That you keep saying it doesn't make it true though.

The problem is your explanation goes against the understanding of both Christian theologians and the cultural context in which the texts were written.

The idea that, by pure coincidence, Jesus was referred to as the logos with absolutely no other intended meaning, connotation, or allusion than 'word' when other belief systems also used the term in a similar manner to mean something very different is not very persuasive.

Why do you think early Christians didn't realise it was just simply 'word' and that was it?

The Word of God is a name given to Jesus. but it still means word. Jesus is given other names of God also. Everlasting Father, Mighty God, YHVH (Lord), God of Israel..etc

 

[Augustus]

Its true. All over. Please read the Bible.

At least read the Gospel of Mark, Luke, Matthew.

Matthew 5:37, 28:15,
Mark 4:15,
Luke 4:32, 4:36, 5:15, 7:17, 8:11,

We seem to be talking about different things. These don't relate to Jesus being called the Logos.

What you are establishing is that the word logos can mean word in certain contexts which I agree with. I don't agree that it always means word (in the basic sense), and can only mean word (in the basic sense).

Compare these 2 passages:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (Word, capitalised as a title, and relating to an eternal feature of God/the nature of Jesus. This is logos used in a roughly analogous context to that of stoicism, Judaism, Neoplationism [later], etc.)

And came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on the sabbath days. And they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word was with power. (word, simply meaning what he said)

Wish you well.

You too

 

[Augustus]

The Word of God is a name given to Jesus. but it still means word. Jesus is given other names of God also. Everlasting Father, Mighty God, YHVH (Lord), God of Israel..etc

It is most commonly, although not exclusively, translated as word.

It isn't as simple as that though. A range of issues are discussed here:

Logos (Christianity) - Wikipedia

 

[firedragon]

We seem to be talking about different things. These don't relate to Jesus being called the Logos.

What you are establishing is that the word logos can mean word in certain contexts which I agree with. I don't agree that it always means word (in the basic sense), and can only mean word (in the basic sense).

Compare these 2 passages:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (Word, capitalised as a title, and relating to an eternal feature of God/the nature of Jesus. This is logos used in a roughly analogous context to that of stoicism, Judaism, Neoplationism [later], etc.)

And came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on the sabbath days. And they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word was with power. (word, simply meaning what he said)



You too

Zigackly.

 

[SA Huguenot]

There is no Trinity
Even the church who invented the trinity said so.
How can you be so wise than the Catholic priests who made the Trinity?
When they said - it does not exist, just take it.

View attachment 32048

“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 author admits that they cannot seriously maintained that the doctrine that there are three persons in one God (the doctrine of the Trinity) was clearly revealed in the Old Testament. The reason of this admission is because the doctrine of the Trinity is not known before the advent of Christ:

View attachment 32049

“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 found the word “Trinity” in the New Testament? This is the admission of another Catholic book:

“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 message 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.)

View attachment 32050

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, it is truly "not a gospel at all."

So these Roman Catholic priests declared on their books that - the Trinity isn't mentioned, isn't known and does not appear in the Old Testament [including your Isa 48] and in the New Testament Christian Bible.

You know, never have I ever claimed that the word, "Trinity" is in the Bible.
Why even post such a quote as an answer that the Trinity does not exist in the Bible?
Do you see what a huge strawman you are creating?
But let me show you how you are even missing the point from your own QUOTE!
You used this reference as evidence that the Trinity does not exist:
“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 message 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.)

Wow!
You do not even realise what your own refrence tells you.
Well, I am also not English in mothertounge, but let me explain this in more simple English, of which I am a master!
it says:
The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible, but you know what, the Early Church used what the New Testament teaches, and simply "coined" a name to describe the way God is explained in the Bible.

now how the heck did you miss out on this?
There is not a single early Church father that did not deny the divinity of Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit!
Now that you yourself proven to me that the idea of the Trinity was taken from the Bible, and given a descriptive name, you should now agree that you were wrong.

 

[MJFlores]

The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible, but you know what, the Early Church used what the New Testament teaches, and simply "coined" a name to describe the way God is explained in the Bible.

If the TRINITY is not in the Bible and
if the TRINITY is just a man-made doctrine
if the TRINITY is false and cannot be explained
if the TRINITY should be thrown out like garbage as a false belief

Why then eat from it?

Galatians 1:6-8 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
A short time ago God chose you to follow him. He chose you through his grace that came through Christ. But now I am amazed that you are already turning away and believing something different from the Good News we told you. There is no other message that is the Good News, but some people are confusing you. They want to change the Good News about Christ. We told you the true Good News message. So anyone who tells you a different message should be condemned—even if it’s one of us or even an angel from heaven!


Galatians 4:3 Amplified Bible (AMP)
So also we [whether Jews or Gentiles], when we were children (spiritually immature), were kept like slaves under the elementary [man-made religious or philosophical] teachings of the world.

The Trinity is a man-made religious teachings of the world.
It is something different from the Good News [taught by the apostles in the Bible]
All of those who preach this different message will definitely go....

 

[SA Huguenot]

Ok, some more flashing adverts, and deliberate attempts to destract the whole issue.

But it will not help you at all!!!!
You still have to answer me on isaiah 48: 12-16.
And you would have to reply to my post where I caught you out not understanding what your own references said on the origins of the Trinity.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Sorry pal, you failed in anny form of constructive debate, and proven to me you dont know zilch about the Bible!

 

[RESOLUTION]

John 1:1 says: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The Word was with God and God Himself is the Word? How does that work? Every man also has his own word and he himself is his own word. With your word you can swear, bless, curse and honour God. Your word is powerful, because through your word you can destruct yourself, but you can also save yourself through your word. Your word reflects your personality, your word is you. It is the same with God, just as we humans have a word, so God has his word.
It is also written: In the beginning was the Word, and through the Word everything is created - what does that mean?
God can do with His Word something that our Word cannot do. It can create. The Word is already mentioned in the beginning. For in Genesis 1:3 it says, "And God said, Let there be light. And it became light - "Let there be light" is his word, through his word he created everything. Through his mouth came the Word.
And this word became flesh, God made his own word to flesh. This flesh is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is His Word and God Himself is Jesus Christ.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

1. So shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. Isaiah 55:11

1. But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” Matt 4:4

The power of God is such, that whatever he speaks comes to pass.

Jesus was foretold and the word became flesh. Gods word came to pass. Confusion could be avoided if they obeyed what God told them.

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.


Have no doubt God spoke through Jesus as he did the prophets. Be sure that Christ himself said: "My words are Spirit and they are life."

The baptism every believer needs is the Holy Spirit.

 

[MJFlores]

You still have to answer me on isaiah 48: 12-16.

I told you that Jesus is not in Isaiah 48:12-16.
Next it is the verse you picked and therefore the explanation should come from you.
I have no idea on why you chose that and what you want to show.
Apparently you chose it so....

 

[SA Huguenot]

If the TRINITY is not in the Bible and
if the TRINITY is just a man-made doctrine
if the TRINITY is false and cannot be explained
if the TRINITY should be thrown out like garbage as a false belief

Why then eat from it?

Galatians 1:6-8 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
A short time ago God chose you to follow him. He chose you through his grace that came through Christ. But now I am amazed that you are already turning away and believing something different from the Good News we told you. There is no other message that is the Good News, but some people are confusing you. They want to change the Good News about Christ. We told you the true Good News message. So anyone who tells you a different message should be condemned—even if it’s one of us or even an angel from heaven!


Galatians 4:3 Amplified Bible (AMP)
So also we [whether Jews or Gentiles], when we were children (spiritually immature), were kept like slaves under the elementary [man-made religious or philosophical] teachings of the world.

The Trinity is a man-made religious teachings of the world.
It is something different from the Good News [taught by the apostles in the Bible]
All of those who preach this different message will definitely go....

So, when will you avail yourself to discuss Isaiah 48?
Remember how you broke your word on discussing it step by step?
The Bible warn you not to go back on your word pal!
if you made a commitment and just simply dont follow up, it renders you a liar!
Christians dont lie!
or is this what you are taught at your church ?
Oh, I also realise that you just can not place a post without all your selfies as you burn in hell.
I feel sorry for you my man.

 

[SA Huguenot]

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

1. 
   
   
   • So shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. Isaiah 55:11

1. 
   
   
   • But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” Matt 4:4

The power of God is such, that whatever he speaks comes to pass.

Jesus was foretold and the word became flesh. Gods word came to pass. Confusion could be avoided if they obeyed what God told them.

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.


Have no doubt God spoke through Jesus as he did the prophets. Be sure that Christ himself said: "My words are Spirit and they are life."

The baptism every believer needs is the Holy Spirit.

I have it as Jesus spoke, and Jesus was God, therefore it was God speaking when Jesus spoke.

 

[SA Huguenot]

I told you that Jesus is not in Isaiah 48:12-16.
Next it is the verse you picked and therefore the explanation should come from you.
I have no idea on why you chose that and what you want to show.
Apparently you chose it so....

And this was not what I asked of you!
I said, please answer me:
Who is this Creator who created the Heavens and the earth, who said I Am the beginning and the End.
Then Why does this Creator say, the Elohim YHWH and His SPIRIT sent Me!

That was all I asked.
You then went haywire, saying, No Trinity....NO Jesus.... and everything else I did not ask.

Simple question:
Who is this Creator that was sent by YHWH and His Spirit?

 

[SA Huguenot]

And to top it all off,
You promised to discuss Isaiah 48 12-16 with me step by step!
Why dont you do as you vowed to do?