Bible says there is only one GOD, then why Christian says....

"There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time" (I Tim. 2:5-6).

Bible say there is only one GOD, then why Christian says Jesus (Peace Be upon Him) is a god or believe in trinity (3 gods)?

And please keep the replies to the topic; don't wander off to some other argument

Best Regards,

Waqar Ghori

 

Christians believe in only 1 God. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God, three persons. Some people like to look at it simply and metaphorically like water. Water can be ice, a liquid, or steam. However, it is still water. In regards to the Trinity, humans cannot and never will understand it perfectly. That is because we are not perfect, and only God is perfect. God came to earth in the human being of a man (Jesus, who was fully human and fully God at the same time), and both God and Jesus have sent the Holy Spirit to be with us until Jesus' return. There are some groups who claim to be Christian but don't believe in the Trinity (i.e Jehovah's witness and mormon). However, these groups are not looked at as Christian by mainstream christians (Catholics and protestants).

I hope this gives you a better understanding.

 

How many genies are in the "never had a friend like me" scene from Aladdin?

God also revealed himself as a burning bush, a pillar of smoke, a pillar of fire, a still small voice, etc.

Is the burning bush a god too?

 

I once heard the Trinity explained to someone who just could not get the concept that one thing (in this case person) could be three things (three personalities of the same Being).

The analogy given him was of fire. Fire, yes, but also light... also heat.

 

I just explain it as being manifestations like the Genie did in the cave. He was a genie, a bunch of dancing girls, etc but it was all just one Genie revealing himself in many ways.

It's close enough. God doesn't expect you to understand him. He just wants you to understand what he did.

 

Therein lies the error. The Trinity is NOT 3 gods, but one. This is the best explanation of the Trinity that I've come across - Understanding The Trinity

 

Try to understand what this verse says:
"There is one God , and one mediator between God and men , the man Christ Jesus ; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time" (I Tim. 2:5-6).

That is God’s words, as Bible is God’s word, right? If you say that there are three gods then you are saying that GOD lied in bible or Jesus lied in bible, are you calling them liar? Simple wordings, explaining a simple thing no concept in it.

Jesus is the mediator between GOD and men and he is the MAN not a GOD in form of MAN.

There are some things that GOD simply can't do. Like GOD can't lie, GOD can't cheat, GOD can't be unjust, and GOD can't take Human form. The moment he do all those things he cease to be a GOD same as the moment he take the human form then he ceases to be god, because human dies, get killed, get hurt, human bleed. GOD can't do all that. He is surely capable of doing all those things but he can't do it.

 

This is on that link you gave me

Rest of the explaination on that page is illogical conflicting with each other.

The original language in which bible was revealed was aramaic. And in that language Jesus refered GOD as ELOI or ELI. It literaly means GOD in aramaic. This word is wrongly translated into other langauges as the word Father. There is no single verse in the original bible in which Jesus refered GOD as father. He used the word ELOI that means LORD or GOD.

 

Is It Clearly a Bible Teaching?

IF THE Trinity were true, it should be clearly and consistently presented in the Bible. Why? Because, as the apostles affirmed, the Bible is God’s revelation of himself to mankind. And since we need to know God to worship him acceptably, the Bible should be clear in telling us just who he is.

First-century believers accepted the Scriptures as the authentic revelation of God. It was the basis for their beliefs, the final authority. For example, when the apostle Paul preached to people in the city of Beroea, “they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.”—Acts 17:10, 11.

What did prominent men of God at that time use as their authority? Acts 17:2, 3 tells us: “According to Paul’s custom . . . he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references [from the Scriptures].”

Jesus himself set the example in using the Scriptures as the basis for his teaching, repeatedly saying: “It is written.” “He interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures.”—Matthew 4:4, 7; Luke 24:27.

Thus Jesus, Paul, and first-century believers used the Scriptures as the foundation for their teaching. They knew that “all Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”—2 Timothy 3:16, 17; see also 1 Corinthians 4:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:20, 21.

Since the Bible can ‘set things straight,’ it should clearly reveal information about a matter as fundamental as the Trinity is claimed to be. But do theologians and historians themselves say that it is clearly a Bible teaching?

“Trinity” in the Bible?

A PROTESTANT publication states: “The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century.” (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary) And a Catholic authority says that the Trinity “is not . . . directly and immediately [the] word of God.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia.

The Catholic Encyclopedia also comments: “In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word τρίας [tri′as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. . . . Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian.”

However, this is no proof in itself that Tertullian taught the Trinity. The Catholic work Trinitas—A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity, for example, notes that some of Tertullian’s words were later used by others to describe the Trinity. Then it cautions: “But hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from usage, for he does not apply the words to Trinitarian theology.”

Testimony of the Hebrew Scriptures

WHILE the word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible, is at least the idea of the Trinity taught clearly in it? For instance, what do the Hebrew Scriptures (“Old Testament”) reveal?

The Encyclopedia of Religion admits: “Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity.” And the New Catholic Encyclopedia also says: “The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament].”

Similarly, in his book The Triune God, Jesuit Edmund Fortman admits: “The Old Testament . . . tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. . . . There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead. . . . Even to see in [the “Old Testament”] suggestions or foreshadowings or ‘veiled signs’ of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers.”—Italics ours.

An examination of the Hebrew Scriptures themselves will bear out these comments. Thus, there is no clear teaching of a Trinity in the first 39 books of the Bible that make up the true canon of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures.

Testimony of the Greek Scriptures

WELL, then, do the Christian Greek Scriptures (“New Testament”) speak clearly of a Trinity?

The Encyclopedia of Religion says: “Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity.”

Jesuit Fortman states: “The New Testament writers . . . give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. . . . Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead.”

The New Encyclopædia Britannica observes: “Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament.”

Bernhard Lohse says in A Short History of Christian Doctrine: “As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity.”

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology similarly states: “The N[ew] T[estament] does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. ‘The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence’ [said Protestant theologian Karl Barth].”

Yale University professor E. Washburn Hopkins affirmed: “To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it.”—Origin and Evolution of Religion.

Historian Arthur Weigall notes: “Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word ‘Trinity’ appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord.”—The Paganism in Our Christianity.

Thus, neither the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures nor the canon of 27 inspired books of the Christian Greek Scriptures provide any clear teaching of the Trinity.

Taught by Early Christians?

DID the early Christians teach the Trinity? Note the following comments by historians and theologians:

“Primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds.”—The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.

“The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the [Trinity] idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they recognised the . . . Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and united in One.”—The Paganism in Our Christianity.

“At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian . . . It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the N[ew] T[estament] and other early Christian writings.”—Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics.

“The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. . . . Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia.

What the Ante-Nicene Fathers Taught

THE ante-Nicene Fathers were acknowledged to have been leading religious teachers in the early centuries after Christ’s birth. What they taught is of interest.

Justin Martyr, who died about 165 C.E., called the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is “other than the God who made all things.” He said that Jesus was inferior to God and “never did anything except what the Creator . . . willed him to do and say.”

Irenaeus, who died about 200 C.E., said that the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior to him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the “One true and only God,” who is “supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other.”

Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 C.E., called Jesus in his prehuman existence “a creature” but called God “the uncreated and imperishable and only true God.” He said that the Son “is next to the only omnipotent Father” but not equal to him.

Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., taught the supremacy of God. He observed: “The Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent.” He also said: “There was a time when the Son was not. . . . Before all things, God was alone.”

Hippolytus, who died about 235 C.E., said that God is “the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all,” who “had nothing co-eval [of equal age] with him . . . But he was One, alone by himself; who, willing it, called into being what had no being before,” such as the created prehuman Jesus.

Origen, who died about 250 C.E., said that “the Father and Son are two substances . . . two things as to their essence,” and that “compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light.”

Summing up the historical evidence, Alvan Lamson says in The Church of the First Three Centuries: “The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity . . . derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and . . . holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact.”

Thus, the testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter.

 

I remember the good old days with the Inquisition... flames... burn everyone with questions like these...

 

I've heard some anti-Trinitarians argue from mathematics — "How can 1+1+1 = 1?"

My response? I say, "I can make three ones = one" — 1X1X1 = 1

If the Creator of the world can make three things (here, numbers) in His world equal one, then surely He Himself can be three-yet-one.

 

Because it is total BS and nonsense, humans have the tendency to see through BS.
If Jesus really existed and he believed he was 3 person at the same time then most likely he was suffering from multiple personality disorder.

 

GOD can't take Human form.

Answer:

Jhn 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jhn 1:14 ¶ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us

 

These are valid questions to ask, and there are good biblical answers, including several above.

 

Obviously you did not read what I posted. Maybe, you can make sense of this then?

EVEN at the end of his first letter to Christians the apostle John brings us to the same understanding, namely, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that humans begotten of God are children of God with Jesus Christ. An American Translation presents the end of John’s letter as follows: “We know that no child of God commits sin, but that he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one cannot touch him. We know that we are children of God, while the whole world is in the power of the evil one. And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us power to recognize him who is true; and we are in union with him who is true.” How? “Through his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. Dear children, keep away from idols.”—1 John 5:18-21, AT; RS.

59 Since the One of whom Jesus Christ is the Son is “the true God and eternal life,” and since Jesus Christ is “he who was born of God” and who protects God’s other children, how are we to understand John 1:1, 2, of which there are differing translations? Many translations read: “And the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Others read: “And the Word (the Logos) was divine.” Another: “And the Word was god.” Others: “And the Word was a god.” Since we have examined so much of what John wrote about Jesus who was the Word made flesh, we are now in position to determine which of those several translations is correct. It means our salvation.

60 Take first that popular rendering by the Authorized Version or Douay Version: “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.” Here a few lines deserve to be quoted from the book The Four Gospels Harmonized and Translated, by Count Leo Tolstoy, as follows:

If it says that in the beginning was the comprehension, or word, and that the word was to God, or with God, or for God, it is impossible to go on and say that it was God. If it was God, it could stand in no relation to God.

Certainly the apostle John was not so unreasonable as to say that someone (“the Word”) was with some other individual (“God”) and at the same time was that other individual (“God”).

61 John proves that the Word who was with God “was made flesh” and became Jesus Christ and that Jesus Christ was “the Son of God.” So it would be proper to say that the Word was the Son of God. For anyone to say that the Word was God, “the only true God,” would be contrary to what the apostle John proves by the rest of his writings. In the last book of the Bible, namely, in Revelation 19:13, John calls him “The Word of God,” saying: “And his name is called The Word of God.” (AV; Dy) Note that his name is not called “God the Word,” but is called “The Word of God,” or God’s Word. Hence John 1:1 must mean, at most, that the Word was of God.

62 At hand here we have a book entitled “The Patristic Gospels—An English Version of the holy Gospels as they existed in the Second Century,” by Roslyn D’Onston. The title page tells how this version was put together. In John 1:1 this version reads: “and the Word was God.” But it has this footnote: “The true reading here is, probably, of God. See Critical Note.”—Page 118.

63 Now why is it that translators disagree as to what the Word was—“God,” or, “god,” or, “a god”? It is because the Greek word for “God” is at the beginning of the statement although it belongs to the predicate, and it also does not have the definite article “the” in front of it. Below, to illustrate this, we give on the first set of lines the Greek text according to the fourth-century uncial manuscripts; and then on the second line, how the Greek text is pronounced in our language today; and on the third line a word-for-word English translation. Note Greek abbreviations for “God.”

ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΚΑΙ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ

EN ARKHEI Ä’N HO LOGOS, KAI HO LOGOS

IN BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD

HΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΝ ΚΑΙ ΘΣ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ

Ä’N PROS TON THN, KAI THS Ä’N HO LOGOS.

WAS WITH THE GOD, AND GOD WAS THE WORD.

ΟΥΤΟΣ ΗΝ ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΝ

HOUTOS Ä’N EN ARKHEI PROS TON THN.

THIS WAS IN BEGINNING WITH THE GOD.

64 Please note the omission of the definite article “THE” in front of the second “GOD.” On this omission Professor Moule asks: “Is the omission of the article in theós ēn ho lógos nothing more than a matter of idiom?” Then, in the next paragraph, Moule goes on to say:

On the other hand it needs to be recognized that the Fourth Evangelist [John] need not have chosen this word-order, and that his choice of it, though creating some ambiguity, may in itself be an indication of his meaning; and [Bishop] Westcott’s note (in loc.), although it may require the addition of some reference to idiom, does still, perhaps, represent the writer’s theological intention: ‘It is necessarily without the article (theós not ho theós) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person. It would be pure Sabellianism to say “the Word was ho theós”. No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word. Compare the converse statement of the true humanity of Christ five 27 (hóti huiòs anthrópou estín . . . ).’

65 The late Bishop Westcott, coproducer of the famous Westcott and Hort Greek text of the Christian Scriptures, speaks of the “true humanity of Christ” and yet he argues that Jesus Christ was not “true humanity” but a mixture, a so-called God-Man. However, note that the Bishop says that the omission of the definite article the before the Greek word theós makes the word theós like an adjective that “describes the nature of the Word” rather than identify his person. This fact accounts for it that some translators render it: “And the Word was divine.” That is not the same as saying that the Word was God and was identical with God. One grammarian would translate the passage: “And the Word was deity,” to bring out his view that the Word was not “all of God.” According to trinitarians the Word was only a third of God, a coequal Second Person in a three-in-one God. However, our consideration of all that John has written has proved how false such a teaching is, a teaching that even the trinitarians themselves cannot understand or explain. The Word is the Son of God, not the Second Person of God.

66 The Four Gospels, by C. C. Torrey, shows the difference between theós with ho (the definite article) and theós without ho by printing his translation as follows: “And the Word was with God, and the Word was god.” (Second edition of 1947)

67 The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson, of 1864, shows the difference by printing its translation as follows: “And the LOGOS was with GOD, and the LOGOS was God.”

68 Even translations printed in those ways indicate that the Word, in his prehuman existence in heaven with God, had a godly quality but was not God himself or a part of God. The Word was the Son of God. So the question arises, What would we call such a Son of God who first of all had this godly quality among the sons of God in heaven? We remember that Jesus Christ told the Jews that those human judges to whom or against whom God’s word came were called “gods” in Psalm 82:1-6.—John 10:34-36.

“THE SONS OF GOD”

69 The Hebrew Scriptures mention “the sons of God” (beneí ha-Elohím) in Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1 and 38:7. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, on page 418, paragraph 2, comments on those Bible verses and says the following:

There is another use of ben- [“son of”] or beneí [“sons of”] to denote membership of a guild or society (or of a tribe, or any definite class). Thus beneí Elohím [“sons of God”] or beneí ha-Elohím [“sons of The God”] Genesis 6:2, 4, Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 (compare also beneí Elím Psalms 29:1; 89:7) properly means not sons of god(s), but beings of the class of elohim or elim; . . .

And then this Grammar goes on to explain the Hebrew expression in 1 Kings 20:35 for “sons of the prophets” as meaning “persons belonging to the guild of prophets”; and the Hebrew expression in Nehemiah 3:8 for “son of the apothecaries” as meaning “one of the guild of apothecaries.”—See also Amos 7:14.

70 The Lexicon for the Old Testament Books, by Koehler and Baumgartner, agrees with Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. On page 134, column 1, lines 12, 13, edition of 1951, this Lexicon prints first the Hebrew expression and then its meaning in German and in English and says: “BENEI ELOHIM (individual) divine beings, gods.” And then on page 51, column 1, lines 2, 3, it says: “BENEI HA-ELOHIM the (single) gods Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7.”

71 In Psalm 8:4, 5 David speaks prophetically of how the Word of God became flesh and David calls the angels of heaven elohím or “gods,” using the same word that occurs in Psalm 82:1, 6. The Authorized or King James Version reads: “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels; and hast crowned him with glory and honour.” Hebrews 2:6-9 applies those words to Jesus Christ, how in becoming flesh he “was made a little lower than the angels.” (AV) However, An American Translation renders Psalm 8:5 to read: “Yet thou hast made him but little lower than God.” The Book of Psalms, by S. T. Byington, translates it: “And you have made him little short of God.” Moffatt’s translation reads: “Yet thou hast made him little less than divine.”

72 The New World Translation reads: “You also proceeded to make him a little less than godlike ones.” Is this last translation a teaching of polytheism or the worship of many gods? Not at all! Why not? Because the Hebrew Scriptures actually contain these things and apply the title elohím or “gods” to men and to angels, and still those Hebrew Scriptures did not teach polytheism to the Jews.

73 Do not forget that the Bible teaches that the spirit creature who transformed himself into Satan the Devil was originally one of those “sons of God” or one of those “godlike ones,” one of those elohím. Also the spirits that became demons under Satan were once numbered among those “godlike ones.” So it is no remarkable thing that the apostle Paul calls Satan “the god of this world,” or that he says that the pagan nations have made the spirit demons their gods and offer sacrifice to them.—2 Cor. 4:4; 1 Cor. 10:20, 21, AV.

74 Paul said: “Though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many)”; but Paul was not teaching polytheism thereby. For he added: “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” (1 Cor. 8:5, 6, AV) We worship the same God that the Lord Jesus Christ worships, and that is the “one God, the Father.” This worship we render to him through the Son of God, our “one Lord Jesus Christ.”

75 Against the background of the teachings of the apostle John, yes, of all the Scriptures of the Holy Bible, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures renders John 1:1-3 as follows: “In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in [the] beginning with God. All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.”

76 Certainly the Word or Logos, whom God his Father used in bringing into existence all other creatures, was the chief or the firstborn among all the other angels whom the Hebrew Scriptures call elohím or “gods.” He is the “only begotten Son” because he is the only one whom God himself created directly without the agency or cooperation of any creature. (John 3:16, AV; AS; Dy) If the Word or Logos was not the first living creature whom God created, who, then, is God’s first created Son, and how has this first creation been honored and used as the first-made one of the family of God’s sons? We know of no one but the Word or Logos, “The Word of God.” Like a word that is produced by a speaker, the Word or Logos is God’s creation, God’s first creation. Since unjust judges on earth against whom God’s word of judgment came were Scripturally called “gods” (elohím), the Word or Logos whom God has appointed to be a just Judge and by whom God’s word has come to us is also Scripturally called “a god.” He is more mighty than human judges.

“THE WORD”

77 His very title “The Word” marks him as the Chief One among the sons of God. Here we are reminded of the Abyssinian Kal Hatzè, described by James Bruce in Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile in 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772 and 1773:

There is an officer, named Kal Hatzè, who stands always upon steps at the side of the lattice-window, where there is a hole covered in the inside with a curtain of green taffeta; behind this curtain the king sits, and through this hole he sends what he has to say to the Board, who rise and receive the messenger standing. . . . Hitherto, while there were strangers in the room, he had spoken to us by an officer called Kal Hatzè, the voice or word of the king. . . . exhibitions of this kind, made by the king in public, at no period seem to have suited the genius of this people. Formerly, his face was never seen, nor any part of him, excepting sometimes his foot. He sits in a kind of balcony, with lattice windows and curtains before him. Even yet he covers his face on audiences or public occasions, and when in judgment. On cases of treason, he sits within his balcony, and speaks through a hole in the side of it, to an officer called Kal Hatzè, “the voice or word of the king,” by whom he sends his questions, or any thing else that occurs, to the judges, who are seated at the council-table.

78 Somewhat suggestive of this is the article entitled “Indonesians’ Idol—Sukarno,” as appearing in the New York Times under date of September 12, 1961. Under his picture is the legend “Tongue of the Indonesian people,” and the article goes on to say:

. . . Almost without fail the speaker will add: “When I die, do not write in golden letters on my tomb: ‘Here lies His Excellency Doctor Engineer Sukarno, First President of the Republic of Indonesia.’ Just write: ‘Here lies Bung [Brother] Karno, Tongue of the Indonesian People.’”

In calling him “Tongue,” it means he speaks for the whole people.

79 The Bible, in Exodus 4:16, uses a like figure of speech, when God says to the prophet Moses concerning his brother Aaron: “And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.” (AV) As a spokesman for the godlike Moses, Aaron served as a mouth for him. Likewise with the Word or Logos, who became Jesus Christ. To show that he was God’s Word or spokesman, Jesus said to the Jews: “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” Explaining that he spoke for God, Jesus also said: “Whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.”—John 7:16, 17; 12:50, AV.

80 Since Jesus Christ as the Word of God occupies a position held by no other creation of God, we can appreciate why the apostle John wrote, in John 1:1: “And the Word was a god.” We can appreciate also John’s words in John 1:18, as recorded in the most ancient Greek manuscripts: “No man hath seen God at any time: an Only Begotten God, the One existing within the bosom of the Father, he hath interpreted him.” (Ro) Since he is “an Only Begotten God” who has interpreted his heavenly Father to us, we can appreciate the proper force of the words of the apostle Thomas addressed to the resurrected Jesus Christ: “My Lord and my God.”—John 20:28.

81 Because Jesus Christ as “the Word of God” is the universal Spokesman for God his Father, the apostle John very fittingly presents Jesus Christ as God’s Chief Witness. The bearing of witness was the chief purpose of the Word or Logos in becoming flesh and dwelling among us creatures of blood and flesh. Standing before the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate when on trial for his life, the Word made flesh said: “To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.”—John 18:37, AV.

82 In view of his record when he was on earth as God’s chief witness, the “Word of God” in heavenly glory could say, in Revelation 3:14: “These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.” (AV) Consequently the apostle John could pray for grace and peace to the Christian congregations from God and “from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth.” (Rev. 1:4, 5, AV) He is the Chief of the Christian witnesses of Jehovah God.

83 Since Jesus Christ is now the glorified “Word of God” in heaven, we do well to listen to what he says, for when he speaks it is as if Jehovah God himself were speaking. (Rev. 19:13) By listening to the voice of the glorified, living “Word of God” we prove that we are “of the truth.” By knowing his voice and listening and responding to his voice we prove that we are his “sheep.” (John 10:3, 4, 16, 27) If we hear his voice and open the door and let him in where we live, he will come in and have a spiritual supper with us. (Rev. 3:20) More than any other inspired Christian writer of the Bible the apostle John wrote of witnesses and of witnessing. If we, like John, listen to the voice of the royal “Word of God,” we too will be faithful witnesses, bearing witness to the truth that sets men free and that leads to life everlasting in God’s righteous new world. Finally, we say, Thanks to Jehovah God for using the apostle John to make known to us who the Word is.

 

A bit full of yourself there, no?

Yes, I read what you posted. I disagree with your interpretation. Fundamentally and entirely. I believe you are wrong. I believe you detract from the Grace of our Lord by your interpretation.

I would also like for you to explain what exactly IS the Son of God if Himself not a God. Then, if you do find Him a God, then, without the Trinity, how do you consider yourself a believer in but one God.

If you do not find Him a God or, as we who believe in the Trinity do, actually God - what is He to you? A hibrid?

 

The word that describe god in OT is elohim which is a plural form...

 

SEO

Jhn 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Now just to avoid any confusion of who, exactly, "the Word" is, John elaborates: Jhn 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.

Indications told in the O.T.

"1. The Angel of Jehovah... As the Angel of Jehovah He appeared to Hagar (Gen. 16:7-14, to Abraham Gen 22:11-18) to Jacob (Gen 31:11, 13) to Moses (Ex 3:2-5), to Israel (Ex 14:19) to Balaam (Num 22:22-35) to Gideon (Judges 6:11-23) to Minoah (Judges 13:2-25) to David (I Chron 21: 15-17) to Elijah (I Kings 19:5-7); He stood among the myrtle trees in Zechariah's vision (Zech 1:11, and He defended Joshua the high priest against satan (Zech 3:1).

IN Gen 18 one of the three "men" that appeared to Abraham is repeatedly represented as Jehovah (vss. 13, 17, 20, 22-33).

New Testament affirmations
Matt 28:19; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; I Cor 12:4-6; I Peter 1:2; 3:18; 2 Cor 13:14."

But for me one of the most strikingexamples of the Trinity in the Bible is found in Genesis. When the Angel of the Lord appeared and told Abraham NOT to kill Isaac. For when He stopped him he said:


Gen 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me.

From whom??? The Angel of the Lord said "from me." The Angel of the Lord tells Abraham "for now I know... now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me."

Now Saul learned many years later that not following the Lord's order was a very bad thing indeed, no matter what supposed prophet he thought he might have been listening to... it cost him his kingdom.

Had the Angel of the Lord not also been the Lord, Abraham would have been disobeying the Lord's commandment by NOT sacrificing his son on that altar. Hardly a recipe for the "faith" that was attributed to Abraham by this act.

 

SEO... sorry about the wrong thread thing

 

Not full of myself at all. The original texts make it very clear and that is what I go by. The Bible and not what man thinks or believes. Look, we can reason until the cows come home but unless you are willing to look at the translation process I use and the translation process you use, then there is not going to be much of a positive conversation.

To me, having three gods in one does not make any sense according to the scriptures. Sure, there are a few scriptures that you have pointed out that could be taken a certain way. However, there are so many other scriptures that point to one God, one Jesus and one Holy Spirit.

For example, does it say in the Bible that Jesus was moving to and fro across the waters in Genesis? No, why not? Does it say Jesus destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah? No, why not? Does it say the Holy Spirit struck Uzzah dead for placing his hand on the wagon that was transporting the ark of the covenant? No! Why not?

If we were to assume that all three are in fact one then the entire Bible must be interconnected to support this. The Bible supports three separate entities.

This is all about taking things out of context. I know you have studied for years. So have I. I don't want to get into an argument with you over this matter. I have my views and I am willing to talk calmly about this and not use ridicule as a way to talk another down like some have done.

Truce?

Col