Trinity

[Ross]

Where did this concept come from?

I would suggest it began with John 1:1

[2timothy316]

Attempting to prove implausible concepts like god-man, ....... you, in all your hermeneutical prowess, offer only two or three verses.

John 1:1

"In the beginning was The Word
And The Word was with God
And The Word was God"

John 1:14
"And The Word became flesh and dwelt among us"

Two verses are enough, so John thought.
God became man. Crystal clear!

It doesn't work! If Jesus is the word in the first clause, then he cannot be both with God, and be God - get it?
Or, if God is the word in the first clause, the He cannot be both with God, and be God - get it?

Proper rendering:
In the beginning was the word - God's will and purpose for His creation
And the word was with God - as was wisdom, righteousness, and love....
And the word was God - the word was divine, sublime, holy and righteous

Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: “The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself.”
Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . ‘the word was a divine being.’”

For two reasons these scholars see it this way:
One is the same reason above in this post. The Greek grammar doesn't fit The Word as being God Almighty.
Second, the word Greek word god in John 1:1c is missing the definite article where is in John 1:1b it's there.

[Ross]

Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: “The Logos was divine,"

Yes, he got it. "The Word was God"
'God' here is a noun

"not the divine Being himself.”

Yes he got it, well almost. Not The Father.

For two reasons these scholars see it this way:
The Greek grammar doesn't fit The Word as being God Almighty.

Correction: The Word is not The Father.

Second, the word Greek word god in John 1:1c is missing the definite article where is in John 1:1b it's there.

If the definite article was present in John 1:1 c this would mean that The Father was The Word and The Word was The Father.

It is missing to indicate that God in John 1:1 c is a noun. The Word Was God. The same as the Father is God.

[Ross]

Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: “The Logos was divine,"

Yes, he got it. "The Word was God"
'God' here is a noun

"not the divine Being himself.”

Yes he got it, well almost. Not The Father.

For two reasons these scholars see it this way:
The Greek grammar doesn't fit The Word as being God Almighty.

Correction: The Word is not The Father.

Second, the word Greek word god in John 1:1c is missing the definite article where is in John 1:1b it's there.

If the definite article was present in John 1:1 c this would mean that The Father was The Word and The Word was The Father.

It is missing to indicate that God in John 1:1 c is a noun. The Word Was God. The same as the Father is God.

Even the New World Translation demonstrates and testifies, does it not, that John 1:1 c means that God there, or 'god' is a noun?

[2timothy316]

Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: “The Logos was divine,"

Yes, he got it. "The Word was God"
'God' here is a noun

"not the divine Being himself.”

Yes he got it, well almost. Not The Father.

For two reasons these scholars see it this way:
The Greek grammar doesn't fit The Word as being God Almighty.

Correction: The Word is not The Father.

Second, the word Greek word god in John 1:1c is missing the definite article where is in John 1:1b it's there.

If the definite article was present in John 1:1 c this would mean that The Father was The Word and The Word was The Father.

It is missing to indicate that God in John 1:1 c is a noun. The Word Was God. The same as the Father is God.

But the Word is not THE God and not THE divine bring. The Word is not the God, just a god. But Moses was a god as well. Exodus 7:1 "And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet." Yet Moses wasn't THE God.

We should also look at the word was. Nowhere is the Father called was God.

[kjw47]

Where did this concept come from?

I would suggest it began with John 1:1

Most translations are erred at John 1:1--In the LXX- The true God called HoTheos in the second line, plain Theos to the word in the last line. To clearly show a difference of what one was being called-HoTheos=God, when Theos is in the same paragraph-a god or was godlike is correct. The sad part of this scenario is that all trinity scholars know its fact. but to tell the truth would prove 40,000 religions claiming to be christian as false religions. Billions of $$$ would be lost every year, and most likely 2 billion mortals suing those religions for taking their $$$ all these years.
The teachings of Jesus proves it is fact as well.
No trinity God was served until the council of Constantinople in 381 ce.

[Ross]

But the Word is not THE God and not THE divine bring. The Word is not the God, just a god.

You are adding words to the text that are not there. And please keep the discussion in context. We are not talking about Moses.
John 1:14 identifies "The God" as "The Father"
The Word is not The Father but he "was" with The Father before time. Eternally.
It says The Word was God. Not Angel, or little god, or Mini-me.

[Ross]

Most translations are erred at John 1:1 The sad part of this scenario is that all trinity scholars know its fact.

The sad fact is that the 'translation' that you read, the New World Translation came into being to trick its followers into believing that Jesus Christ in his pre-existing form was a creation, an angel.
The wording in that translation has been unfaithfully changed from what is present in manuscript form, to reflect your movements pre- conceived doctrine. All koine' Greek scholars are aware of this, Trinity or any other persuasion.

[Runner]

Ah, no you don't. You don't get out of answering by shifting the responsibility. It's Still Yours to Go First

It makes no sense at all for me to be expected to prove a concept that you claim is taught in Scripture when my very argument is that it's not found anywhere in Scripture. If that is the case, I submit the entire Bible for my first evidence.

Now it's your turn. Show us where the Bible "TEACHES" the concept of God being three people.

If you continue to dodge and refuse to do so, your argument is to be considered forfeited which is an admission that the Bible does not teach a trinity concept anywhere.

[Miles]

Ah, no you don't. You don't get out of answering by shifting the responsibility. It's Still Yours to Go First

It makes no sense at all for me to be expected to prove a concept that you claim is taught in Scripture when my very argument is that it's not found anywhere in Scripture. If that is the case, I submit the entire Bible for my first evidence.


If you continue to dodge and refuse to do so, your argument is to be considered forfeited which is an admission that the Bible does not teach a trinity concept anywhere.

Remember this little exchange we had?

Then just what scripture says:

I didn't claim my personal explanation was Sola Scriptura, but it is far more supported by Scripture than the quotes from your extra-biblical authors.

Then cite the supporting scripture you say exists.

But the onus is on you to produce Scripture that supports a concept taught anywhere in the Bible that God is three people.

Why? I never said there was any such scripture. All I did was answer Ross's question: "Where did this concept come from?"

.

You're still liable for producing the supporting Scripture you say exists. I await.

Now it's your turn. Show us where the Bible "TEACHES" the concept of God being three people.

Why? I never said it did. If you think so simply point it out.

If you continue to dodge and refuse to do so, your argument is to be considered forfeited which is an admission that the Bible does not teach a trinity concept anywhere.

Right now, I'll admit just that: "The Bible does not teach a trinity concept anywhere." However, this doesn't relieve you of citing the supporting scripture you say exists.


Here. Let me refresh your memory

In reply to the World History Encyclopedia's piece on the origins of the trinity concept you said, (post 28) "The problem with these extra-biblical sources is that they don't align with Scripture, then or now."

To which I asked of your statement ↓ (also in post 28)

The trinity was created around the time the Roman Catholic Church was created in order to mix existing pagan beliefs with Christian concepts.

The Roman Catholic Church was created because Christianity could not be destroyed any other way, though they tried desperately. It was intended, and is still employed, as a counterfeit to supplant the True church; and it taught, and still teaches, nothing but heresy."

"Then just what scripture says [this]" ↑:

To which you said "I didn't claim my personal explanation was Sola Scriptura, but it is far more supported by Scripture than the quotes from your extra-biblical authors."

Which is where we are right now, waiting for this supporting scripture you say exists.

.

[Runner]

Right now, I'll admit just that: "The Bible does not teach a trinity concept anywhere."

That's all I needed.

Thank you.

By the way, you claim to be an atheist in a post in this thread to another member.

Can you explain that?

You don't believe in God/gods, yet you're quite certain that the God (that you don't believe in) is three people.

How does that make a lick o' sense?