Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

John 1

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joecroft
Why exactly is it presumptions, to try to understand it?

As before, you're misquoting what I said.
I did not say it was presumptuous to try to understand it, did I?
I said it was presumptuous to expect to understand it.
I gave the reason the first time I made the point; God is infinite and our minds are finite. We cannot comprehend him fully any more than a gallon of water can be contained within a pint pot. Therefore it is presumptuous to try to limit his nature to what we can fully understand.


And just to reiterate, isn’t that exactly what the Trinitarian Doctrine has already done, by pronouncing itself, as the truth?

Just to re-iterate, this argument depends on the misquotation "try to understand". Once we get back to what I actually did write, the answer is no, it doesn't. In fact the declaration that God is "incomprehensible" is in itself one of the explicit statements of Trinitarian doctine (see, for example, the Athanasian Creed on the subject).

And to take it a step further, Yeshua makes a clear distinction, between himself, and God/Father, in the verse below.

As I pointed out in a previous post, the fact there there is a distinction, in one sense, between God the Father and God the Son is built into Trinitarian teaching.
For that reason, I remarked, you could quote a milllion verses highlighting the distinction and it would make no difference.
You have forgotten that point, and you are drawing on your list of a million verses
As I said, it makes no difference. We already believe there is a distinction of some sort between Father and Son, so establishing the point doesn't get you anywhere.


In other words, you can’t just base your whole conclusion, on John 1 only!

Well, this is a thread asking us to give our understanding of John ch1 v1.
That in itself narrows down the issue.
That's what we need to focus on.




edit on 22-7-2012 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhill76


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.


It says in the beginning, the Word was with God, but then it says the Word was God. To some this is confusing. How can one be with, but be self?

What is your take on this particular verse?

My takes on the verses, one by one:

In the beginning was the Word,:
Jesus Christ was the first created, He is the Word made flesh. He basically embodied the spirit of the law, which only the pure of hearts would naturally understand and follow as all is from God, not the letter of the law. The "Word" meaning the simple laws of God that really got mixed up in the details of Israel's forefathers, such as love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor.

And the Word was with God:
Jesus Christ is "with" God, meaning he is a part of God, or having God's spirit, instead of an average man's spirit.

And the Word was God:
IF Jesus Christ has God's spirit, he is in fact Lord! What other individual can say truthfully that his spirit is God's? Father and the Son are two complete different entities, one in the same, but Father is still the boss, as Jesus Christ spoke to Father in prayer.

He was with God in the beginning:
When Father made Jesus, the first created, that was the beginning of creation; the summation of the above explanations described.


How can one be with, but be self? [/quot]

Good question.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 



Sorry for the delay…I had a few things I needed to take of…



Originally posted by Joecroft
Why exactly is it presumptions, to try to understand it?






Originally posted by DISREALI
As before, you're misquoting what I said.
I did not say it was presumptuous to try to understand it, did I?
I said it was presumptuous to expect to understand it.


I think you’re being slightly pedantic on the wording…here’s what you wrote below…




Originally posted by DISREALI

I said that "expecting to fully understand" was presumptuous.


So allow me to ask the question again.

Why exactly is it presumptions, to try and expect to understand it?




Originally posted by DISREALI
I gave the reason the first time I made the point; God is infinite and our minds are finite. We cannot comprehend him fully any more than a gallon of water can be contained within a pint pot. Therefore it is presumptuous to try to limit his nature to what we can fully understand.


Ok Fair statement I suppose…

BUT…




Originally posted by DISREALI
I don't think any Trinitarian would claim that the Trinity doctrine amounts to full understanding. It is just the closest approximation that we can manage.


In your own words above, your stating that it’s the closest approximation etc

How can you/anyone, make that claim???


Because from where I’m standing, you’re kind of saying that the Trinitarian approximation is the closest we have to understanding it, and any other possible ideas, are just too presumptuous to be considered, as a possible forerunner.

Or put another way…

“The Trinitarian Doctrine is the closest approximation we have to understanding it, even though God is a mystery. Anything other ideas are just too presumptuous to think they could possible understand it etc, therefore you just should accept the Trinitarian Doctrine.”




Originally posted by DISREALI
Just to re-iterate, this argument depends on the misquotation "try to understand". Once we get back to what I actually did write, the answer is no, it doesn't. In fact the declaration that God is "incomprehensible" is in itself one of the explicit statements of Trinitarian doctine (see, for example, the Athanasian Creed on the subject).


Yes, stating God is "incomprehensible", is fine, but your also saying it’s the closest approximation etc. How can you say that, considering that God is "incomprehensible"?




Originally posted by DISREALI
As I pointed out in a previous post, the fact there there is a distinction, in one sense, between God the Father and God the Son is built into Trinitarian teaching.


Yes, that particular distinction is built into Trinitarian teaching, but like I said in one of my other posts, the Trinitarian teaching, takes this a step to far IMO, by defining it further, which leads to clear contradictions in the 4 gospels. And I might add, that the Trinitarian doctrine, freely admits, that the contradictions exist, but as you probably know, the contradictions are explained away, by stating that God is a mystery!




Originally posted by DISREALI
For that reason, I remarked, you could quote a milllion verses highlighting the distinction and it would make no difference.


Yes it would, because the more verses you use, the greater those distinctions are defined, where as using one verse to reach conclusions, is just ridiculous.




Originally posted by DISREALI
You have forgotten that point, and you are drawing on your list of a million verses


You have forgotten the point, and are drawing on verse 1 verse only.




Originally posted by DISREALI
As I said, it makes no difference. We already believe there is a distinction of some sort between Father and Son, so establishing the point doesn't get you anywhere.


Yes we agree that there is a distinction, but the Trinitarian doctrine is adding extra criteria, onto that distinction. And IMO because of the contradictions, I just don’t think there in a position to do that.


- JC



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by jhill76


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.


It says in the beginning, the Word was with God, but then it says the Word was God. To some this is confusing. How can one be with, but be self?

What is your take on this particular verse?


it's not complicated. This verse you quote refers to Jesus, as is clear if you look at the context.

Verse 14 of John 1 states: 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.

John 1:1-3 states: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

It's important to get all of that together.

Romans 8:9 - But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

The Spirit is of the father and the Son.

1 Corinthians 12:13: For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

There is but the one Spirit. These together show that the father, the Son, and the Spirit are One.

Colossians 2:2 states - That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;
and Colossians 2:9 follows with - or in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Those speak of the Godhead, the Trinity - Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

1 Timothy 3:16 - And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

All about God - "manifest in the flesh" clearly means Jesus, and "justified in the Spirit" refers to the Holy Spirit. Same God.

John 8:8 - Jesus said unto them,Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

There we see that Jesus and the Father are both God. We see that again in Isaiah 9:6 -
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Hebrews 13:8 - Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Only God fits that description.

1 John 1:5 - God is light.
John 8:12 - Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying,“I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”

God is light. Jesus is light. Do you need more?

Hebrews 1:6-12 -
And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

The Son is clearly called God, and spoken of as the Creator, and as unchanging.

Genesis 1:6 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Verse after verse after verse, showing one God, in Three Persons. That is the nature of God, and we cannot fully understand it. We can make comparisons, but there is none like the Lord.


edit on 2-1-2013 by LadyGreenEyes because: oops
edit on 2-1-2013 by LadyGreenEyes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by jhill76
So what do we have:
- It was Father talking to Moses?
- We are strictly going off Moses word and it is subjective at best?


In John 5:37, Jesus states, "And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

It was God talking to Moses (VERY clear in the Bible). Since Jesus states that no one has heard the voice of God the Father, then Moses heard the voice of God the Son. More proof of the Trinity.






top topics
 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join