Greetings again Lon, I suggest that your trust in your two degrees may be an impediment when it comes to considering what the Bible actually says. If Matthew and Luke were written before John’s record, then the early disciples may have understood Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 some years before they compared John 1:1-14. My early education was in the earlier two and only in my mature years did I consider the latter. Most Trinitarians seem to start with John 1 and ignore Matthew and Luke. But as you suggest in the following, let us look at the Scriptures.
I doubt that many Trinitarians would support your conjecture that because God the Father was the father of Jesus that this made him exactly half God.
"Your" deduction. I didn't say that. I find those who draw conclusions of this nature, do so with scriptures as well. What being the offspring of God does, indeed ensure, is that He inherits deity. Is this the part where we trample one-another's education and where-with-all? So be it. God does cover our mistakes, but it is problematic if they are arrogant and willful. We have to own our own. I'll leave you to your's.
I thought that Trinitarians believed that the 2nd Person of the Trinity was somehow incarnated in this process and Jesus thus possessed two natures.
It isn't that easy. We know He became man to understand man, thus, though God knows His creation, we simply have to read, listen, and watch what He means. Every Trinitarian understands this.
You then state that this is why Jesus is the Son of God
"Son of God" means that He God's Son, yes, and that He is close to Him as well.
Yand you then move to your next deduction that Son of God=God.
It is
inductive as well.
YI will remain in my cult instead of accepting your logic.
Or God's? Seems like, Trevor. Stay in it then. Why come to a Triune (Trinitarian) board and argue about it then? I'm definitely not, as a well-educated scholar, going to see anything one who has no degree in any of this, has to say. Tell me: Why would I even want to listen to a laymen not nearly as vested in this as I am? I mean you don't care as much about this kind of study (not a slam, just a recognition that you didn't care to get this degree), why should one who cares less, be listened to? What is my motivation? What is the point?
Also you have not explained WHEN Jesus was begotten John 1:14,3:16.
Er, you think 'created' means 'begotten?' I realize a lot of cultists confuse the two, not having an adequate English degree nor Bible degree, but why is this means for an odd cult? Why not listen to your pastors, who are all Trinitarian, instead?
Yes, this was my first real encounter with the Trinitarian view of John 1:1,14. I wrote a reply including the reference Psalm 33:6-9 and Isaiah 55:8-11 including the sense of partial personification. We did not progress any further, but we remained friends. He was close to retirement and I was in my early 20s.
As you stated before, someone got to me early, while Trinitarians are told to start in John’s Gospel and virtually ignore Matthew and Mark.
Poor deductive reasoning on your part. I've read Matthew and Mark AND before I read John. You are simply grasping at straws here. The reason? Isn't this the place where you take exception, become indignant, and belligerent because you cannot accept you are wrong? Isn't it acting out? Let me state this. CLEARLY: "IF" I ever were convinced of the Unitarian/ Arian position, FROM scripture, I'd change on a dime. The fact of the matter is I'm very well versed in my bible and know exactly what it says. I cannot be but a trinitarian because it is the ONLY mediating position between Modalism and Arian (polytheism) heresies. Modalists believe (rightly) that Jesus is God, but wrongly believe "He and the Father are One (and the same). I've more patience with Modalists because they are more biblical and deny much less of the given scriptures (try to remember you are pitting Matthew and Mark against John). Modalists don't do that. I don't do that. Arians and Unitarians do that! There are several on here that don't accept Paul as an Apostle :noway:
While looking at Tyndale in response to you comment below, I couldn’t help myself, and I copied Exodus 3:14 and its CONTEXT. Perhaps when we fail to progress on John 1:1 you may like to consider this. My cult youth leader introduced me to some of these concepts at a Youth Study Weekend when I was 19.
A youth leader does not a studied theologian make. You are preferring 'ad hoc' to 'tried, studied, and proven.'
Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you. 15 And God spake further vnto Moses: thus shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israell: the Lorde God of youre fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Iacob hath sent me vnto you: this is my name for euer, and this is my memoriall thorow out all generacyons.
Perhaps I am slow or dumb, but you seem to be replacing the “WORD” with “Jesus” or the 2nd Person of the Trinity.
But neither of these two references seem to demand that we use “he” rather than “it” in John 1. Here is my Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon:
846 αὐτός [autos /ow·tos/] pron. From the particle au [perhaps akin to the base of 109 through the idea of a baffling wind] (backward); GK 899; 5118 occurrences; AV translates as “him” 1947 times, “them” 1148 times, “her” 195 times, “it” 152 times, not translated 36 times, and translated miscellaneously 1676 times. 1 himself, herself, themselves, itself. 2 he, she, it. 3 the same.
Tyndale was persecuted for a number of reasons, and one was that he worked outside the established Church. Perhaps for one thing, they did not like his use of the word “Congregation” rather that “Church”.
Revelation 2:1 (Tyndale) Unto the messenger of the congregacion of Ephesus wryte: These thynges sayth he that holdeth the vii. starres in his right honde and walketh in the myddes of the vii. golden candlestyckes.
▲notice above that 'it' is rarely used? Look again "him" almost 2000 times. "Them" over 1000. "it" less than 200. I ALREADY told you why AND how one would be able to use 'it' (impersonal pronoun). Autos is a 'personal' pronoun, buddy.
Look: If 'it' were acceptable, you'd have to follow 'it' as the translation down to John 1:12 "It gave to all who believed in 'its' name...
"It" doesn't make sense because 'it' doesn't have a name to believe in, nor can 'it' give a 'right to become children of God.'
John 1:14 gets worse: we have seen 'its' glory, the "Glory of the of the Only Son of the Father." :doh:
TRY TREVOR! TRY~!
Seeing you also contribute to Calvinism, you would be against the concept of “The Clarity of the Scriptures” and the ploughboy and non-conformists. This seems to be what you are saying next:
Seems a valid deduction to me. The NT is based upon the OT, not Greek philosophy.
Kind regards
Trevor
No. Not kind at all, Trevor. Your unstudied angst is showing. I'm a bit confrontational, but only in the sense that you are literally trying to post your imagined prowess as if it were a pearl of great price you've spent literally nothing on obtaining. No degree. Proverbs 4:7 Why do you disdain GOOD teaching? I'm not teaching you anything bad!
Is this the part where we leave John 1 behind so you can prognosticate and try to use your backyard studying for no other purpose than to be arrogant and disdainful? There are a lot of scholars that ignore this kind of thing and try the gentle approach, but I'm one of those who believes it a problem, if not a sin, to be this arrogant, disdainful, and forgive, ignorantly willful. My 'Calvinism' is smoke and mirrors. It is of no consequence in this discussion (whether I am one or not). It is just again, your use of unfair play, ignorance, and disdain without any regard for the Lord and His scriptures, Trevor. No, it isn't kind of you at all in regards. I'm sorry to be this confrontational, but you need to take a solid look inward for awhile. You've no intention of EVER changing, even should the Lord Jesus Christ come and rebuke you Himself. You are posturing. I wish it were 'for' the Lord Jesus Christ rather than against Him here.
In sorrow -Lon