There is no trinity in John 1:1

[Rejoice evermore.]

According to the Word of God (which is able to make us wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus), there was no one in the beginning with God. It is written:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
— (John 1:1-3).

There is only one person mentioned here. It is God, even the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort. Words do not come out of a woman's womb, neither does a Son come out of a man's mouth. God the Father is the only true God. Jesus Christ said:

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
— (John 17:3).

God hath said that there is no God beside him:

"...Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any."
— (Isaiah 44:8).

Therefore, bibles which say "He was in the beginning with God" in John 1:2 ought to be cast to the dunghill.

 

[Rhema]

According to the Word of God

Which Word of God?

The Bible speaks of two "Word of God"(s). The RHEMA of God and the LOGOS of God. To conflate these is to start out in confusion.

It is written:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
— (John 1:1-3).

Technically NO it is not written. At best one might say "It is translated..."

This is what is written:

Joh 1:1-3 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον παντα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν ο γεγονεν ​

So are you really sure your translations are adequate?

I would state that one cannot understand the Gospel named John unless one has read Philo. The style of writing and the type of literature of this gospel indicates it was written either as polemic against Philo, or as an expansion upon Philo by a student who was then converted to Christianity.

Out of years of studying this type of literature, I offer the following more accurate English rendition of John 1:1. But I'm not going to append the PhD thesis notes, nor make a detailed defense here. So you can reject or accept as... whatever.

(John 1:1) The Pattern (λογος) was suffused throughout the cosmic protoplasm, and the Pattern was only of the Divine Good, and Sovereign is the Pattern.​

To establish doctrine on false first principles and inadequate linguistic conclusions can only lead to compounded error.

Thanks kindly,
Rhema

 

[Twistie]

According to the Word of God (which is able to make us wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus), there was no one in the beginning with God. It is written:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
— (John 1:1-3).

There is only one person mentioned here. It is God, even the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort. Words do not come out of a woman's womb, neither does a Son come out of a man's mouth. God the Father is the only true God. Jesus Christ said:

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
— (John 17:3).

God hath said that there is no God beside him:

"...Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any."
— (Isaiah 44:8).

Therefore, bibles which say "He was in the beginning with God" in John 1:2 ought to be cast to the dunghill.

So no son no Holy Spirit just The Father..

I see in the Word all three r mentioned.. how can one b saved with no Son..who will intercede for your worldess groans if there h no Spirit...

Twistie

 

[Rhema]

Therefore, bibles which say "He was in the beginning with God" in John 1:2 ought to be cast to the dunghill.

Given that ουτος is Masculine in gender and not neuter, how would you read this word?

Are we to be promoting gender fluidity right now?

Rhema

 

[Br. Bear]

@Rhema

Greetings,

without getting into an anti-trinity position, it is interesting to have presented offerings as you have....

Out of years of studying this type of literature, I offer the following more accurate English rendition of John 1:1. But I'm not going to append the PhD thesis notes, nor make a detailed defense here. So you can reject or accept as... whatever.

(John 1:1) The Pattern (λογος) was suffused throughout the cosmic protoplasm, and the Pattern was only of the Divine Good, and Sovereign is the Pattern.
To establish doctrine on false first principles and inadequate linguistic conclusions can only lead to compounded error.

Thanks kindly,
Rhema

I see that what your 'rendition' proposes, is much the same as the good olde KJV, but with a different dialect. Some might suggest you speak in an unknown tongue, writing such,
but it is the Lord Who opens the eyes of the blind and the deaf ears.

We do well to take in or be taken in ? or come to, adjoin or whatever it was (sorry for my short memory) by and to the whole meal we have in Scripture, and I think you would agree with that/this.

It's one thing to debate about a topic, it is another to present a few facts for consideration and build discussion on that/them. As you note, if we race in with preconceived error, we only make a mess and convince only those who have swallowed the same delusion > error.

thank you for sharing from your storehouse.


As @Twistie pointed out....

I see in the Word all three r mentioned.. how can one b saved with no Son..who will intercede for your worldess groans if there h no Spirit...

my candle has a very hot flame which gives me light which i can not see. Take any of those three aspects away and my candle can not be a light for me to see.
With my candle i can see to walk by...

a light unto my path
and darkness cannot; does not comprehend

God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father


Bless you ....><>


user discretion advised

 

[Rejoice evermore.]

Which Word of God?

The Bible speaks of two "Word of God"(s). The RHEMA of God and the LOGOS of God. To conflate these is to start out in confusion.


Technically NO it is not written. At best one might say "It is translated..."

This is what is written:

Joh 1:1-3 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον παντα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν ο γεγονεν ​

So are you really sure your translations are adequate?

I would state that one cannot understand the Gospel named John unless one has read Philo. The style of writing and the type of literature of this gospel indicates it was written either as polemic against Philo, or as an expansion upon Philo by a student who was then converted to Christianity.

Out of years of studying this type of literature, I offer the following more accurate English rendition of John 1:1. But I'm not going to append the PhD thesis notes, nor make a detailed defense here. So you can reject or accept as... whatever.

(John 1:1) The Pattern (λογος) was suffused throughout the cosmic protoplasm, and the Pattern was only of the Divine Good, and Sovereign is the Pattern.​

To establish doctrine on false first principles and inadequate linguistic conclusions can only lead to compounded error.

Thanks kindly,
Rhema

He that is of God heareth God’s words: thou therefore hearest them not, because thou art not of God.

 

[Rhema]

without getting into an anti-trinity position, it is interesting to have presented offerings as you have....

Thank you, but the English rendition of John 1:1 (or its Greek original for that matter) doesn't address the Trinity one way or the other. ( I'm making no comment on any other verse.)

The author DOES, though, dismiss the ancient theological belief of Dualism (that there are equal forces of Good and Evil; cf. Zoroastrianism or Manichaeism) when saying -

"....the Pattern was only of the Divine Good..."​

... while at the same time rejecting the Gnostic notion that the physical world is evil.

"... and Sovereign is the Pattern" (or logos - to mean the scientific principles, aka "laws" that are at work in the physical world).​

There is a large body of Greek literature (cf. Thales of Miletus, Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, Archimedes) that has a rather unique style, and the Gospel named John follows that linguistic style, which is why even in English, the sayings found in John are Enigmatic and Expansive if not, well, Cosmic. A Greek scholar would have recognized the style of John and understood his vocabulary such as ARXE and LOGOS to reflect their definitions. There was much lost in the Dark Ages.

Rhema

Take any of those three aspects away and my candle can not be a light for me to see.

Yet the Doctrine of the Trinity (according to Trinitarian scholars) doesn't use the word "aspect," but MUST use the word Person. Anything else is NOT Trinitarian by definition.

Even the Modalists recognize "three aspects" (or modes) while rejecting the Trinitarian doctrine of three "persons" in "the Godhead."

And I reiterate that while John 1:1 never addresses (nor ever addressed) a concept of Trinity, that doesn't mean that other verses elsewhere don't.

 

[Rhema]

He that is of God heareth God’s words: thou therefore hearest them not, because thou art not of God.

You DO realize that I agree with the OP premise, don't you?

So why the slander?

Rhema

 

[Br. Bear]

Greetings Rhema,

Thank you, but the English rendition of John 1:1 (or its Greek original for that matter) doesn't address the Trinity one way or the other. ( I'm making no comment on any other verse.)

The author DOES, though, dismiss the ancient theological belief of Dualism (that there are equal forces of Good and Evil; cf. Zoroastrianism or Manichaeism) when saying -

"....the Pattern was only of the Divine Good..."​

... while at the same time rejecting the Gnostic notion that the physical world is evil.

"... and Sovereign is the Pattern" (or logos - to mean the scientific principles, aka "laws" that are at work in the physical world).​

There is a large body of Greek literature (cf. Thales of Miletus, Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, Archimedes) that has a rather unique style, and the Gospel named John follows that linguistic style, which is why even in English, the sayings found in John are Enigmatic and Expansive if not, well, Cosmic. A Greek scholar would have recognized the style of John and understood his vocabulary such as ARXE and LOGOS to reflect their definitions. There was much lost in the Dark Ages.

Rhema


Yet the Doctrine of the Trinity (according to Trinitarian scholars) doesn't use the word "aspect," but MUST use the word Person. Anything else is NOT Trinitarian by definition.

Even the Modalists recognize "three aspects" (or modes) while rejecting the Trinitarian doctrine of three "persons" in "the Godhead."

And I reiterate that while John 1:1 never addresses (nor ever addressed) a concept of Trinity, that doesn't mean that other verses elsewhere don't.

Do you think that the Lord had a few Greekish thinkers and the predominance of such, in mind when orchestrating the Gospel you refer to?

Seems as if the thinking of the philogreeks has stuck around for a while. So, perhaps the 'style' you share about was for good reason?

Thank you for your further input in kindly helping others to understand some of what you have discovered.

Forgive my term, 'aspect' please. My paraphrasing is not so good. I probably will take the hint and not take up paragliding!

If we look past my crude terminology, can we see what the candle might bring to light in the dark of the night?
Excuse also, my poor poetic skill.


Bless you ....><>

 

[Admon Mikha'el]

According to the Word of God (which is able to make us wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus), there was no one in the beginning with God. It is written:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
— (John 1:1-3).

There is only one person mentioned here. It is God, even the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort. Words do not come out of a woman's womb, neither does a Son come out of a man's mouth. God the Father is the only true God. Jesus Christ said:

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
— (John 17:3).

God hath said that there is no God beside him:

"...Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any."
— (Isaiah 44:8).

Therefore, bibles which say "He was in the beginning with God" in John 1:2 ought to be cast to the dunghill.

Did you actually READ John 1:1? The Word was with God? and the Word was God....there you two parts of our triune God. Jesus IS the Word of God. When you read the Word, don't do it alone...You have the Holy Spirit to teach you....Listen to Him! Not to your own intelligence.

 

[Rhema]

Do you think that the Lord had a few Greekish thinkers and the predominance of such, in mind when orchestrating the Gospel you refer to?

The school of Philo was the focal point of a massive Jewish colony in Alexandria Egypt, so no, not a "few." And they all spoke Greek, so to say "Greekish thinkers" seems to imply non-Jew, and that would give the wrong impression. Remember, the Greeks don't call themselves "Greek," they called themselves Hellenes (after Helen of Troy of course - who was actually Greek and kidnapped by the Trojans so it can get confusing), and it is well accepted that Paul was a Hellenistic Jew.

Hellenistic Judaism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As mentioned, the Gospel named John was written either as a refutation to the teachings of Philo, or by a student of Philo who was converted. Please note that Antioch was the other major center of Hellenistic Jews.

That said, it is most certain that this Gospel was addressing a portion of the population that was educated in Hellenistic science. It reads like a Greek philosophy.

Sometimes I think the Catholic Church was right to prohibit the "dirt farmer" from just reading scripture and trying to figure things out on his own. (That is if they could even read.)

Forgive my term, 'aspect' please.

Doesn't bother me... I've been looking at the "Trinity" thread and just don't know where to even begin to fix that one. (How wonderfully arrogant of me.) It might be there, but I don't think the term PERSON as in "God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity," is even being discussed.

I have, on the other hand, found that the engraved inscriptions inside the Dome of the Rock are actually about Jesus, not Mohammed, and specifically written to reject the Trinity.

"So believe in God and His messengers, and say not 'Three' - Cease! it is better for you! - God is only One God. Far be it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son."​

The Dome of the Rock has been rebuilt 11 times, and it looks like the octagonal shape came from a Byzantine Church that was dedicated to Mary when the Doctrine of Theotokis was created. (The ruins were recently found.) I submit that in the 600's, the Muslims dismantled that church and physically took each stone into Jerusalem to build the first structure of the Dome of the Rock to reject the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.

Hope you've found all this intriguing,
Rhema

 

[Rhema]

Did you actually READ John 1:1?

Have you?

Joh 1:1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος ​

Or are you merely dealing with poor translations?

FYI, my questions are just questions... The reason I ask is that this verse is NOT easy to understand. It just isn't. Much has been lost in translation. Which is why it took me about a decade to learn how the Greek actually reads.

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

Listen to Him! Not to your own intelligence.

And just what has He said to you?

(Because I know what He's said to me.)

Rhema

 

[Admon Mikha'el]

And just what has He said to you?

(Because I know what He's said to me.)

Rhema

I came here to discuss Word. I did not come here to be belittled and get a demonstration of how smart you are...or are not.....I like you Rhema but truely....I am not interested in how smart you are.

 

[Rhema]

I did not come here to be belittled

Then you ought not to have belittled @Rejoice evermore - here:

Did you actually READ John 1:1?

As my grandma would say, "Don't dish it out if you can't take it." You thought it appropriate enough to chide someone else, but can't deal with the exact same question. Don't blame me for that. If you don't have an answer, then at least be honest enough to say so.

I am not interested in how smart you are.

Then answer the same question you asked.

Did you actually READ John 1:1?

Or is it that you can only read translations?

I came here to discuss Word.

So lets discuss "Word." Which one?

Rhema

(And I see you have a fan who also hates education; someone who demands I leave her alone, but sees fit to insult me. How is that not hypocritical?)

 

[Admon Mikha'el]

Whai I said to Rejoice evermore was very good advice for any Christian...even you. I did not belittle her in any way.

You didn't say it is your job to judge people. I didn't know.

 

[Br. Bear]

Greetings,

we are interrupting this program for a short break....


let everyone here go to the grace department and put off all 'digs' at each other, exchange hugs, cuddles and kisses... and move on from what is turning mucky.... please.

None of us have an elite standing above another and we must remember that.

let this opportunity be for our good.

Please, also remember that your comments to one another are being viewed by people who may be seking the Lord and His healing salvation and the witness we bare will speak much more than our theology or whatever you want to call it.


Post in peace, with love, or do not post at all.
-----------------------

program resumed


Bless you all ....><>

 

[Curtis]

1Jn 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

 

[Admon Mikha'el]

1Jn 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Curtis Please defind "We are in Him"

 

[Curtis]

Curtis Please defind "We are in Him"

2Co 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

1. It brings one into Christ (2Co_5:17). (Luk_22:3).
2. One is a new creature (2Co_5:17).
3. Old things are passed away (2Co_5:17). The Greek word for "old" is archaios (G744), ancient, original, old. Such things are no more in one.
4. All things are new (2Co_5:17). The life is just the opposite of the old life.
5. All things are of God (2Co_5:18). The true Christian does not permit anything in his life which is ungodly and unChristlike (Rom_6:14-23; Rom_8:1-13; Gal_5:16-26).
6. One is reconciled to God (2Co_5:18; Rom_5:10; Eph_2:14-18; Col_1:20-21).
7. He has part in the ministry of reconciliation (2Co_5:18-20; 2Co_1:18-24).
8. He has been trusted with the Word of reconciliation (2Co_5:19; Mar_16:15-20).
9. He is an ambassador of God in Christ’s stead (2Co_5:20; Pro_13:17).
10. He is the righteousness of God in Christ (2Co_5:21; Rom_3:21-31; Rom_8:4).