Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,865 Year: 4,122/9,624 Month: 993/974 Week: 320/286 Day: 41/40 Hour: 7/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Idiocy of the most amusing kind.....
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6275 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 33 of 91 (16817)
09-06-2002 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tokyojim
09-02-2002 2:43 AM


Dear Tokyojim;
I have to agree with Joz on this one. The Bible never refers to Jesus as the creator. John 1:1 is translated differently by different translations, my favorite is 'he was like God.' which is what John was saying as shown by the context. In any case using wording favored by some translators, but not others, is poor support for a doctrine. The Bible is clear that Jesus is the first born of creation, the beginning of creation by God, not the creator. Even if you follow the trinity doctrine, it is improper to refer to the 'God Head' or the creator as Jesus, just as it is incorrect to call Jesus the holy spirit. Yes this is certainly a case of some very bad theology since that would indeed leave only answer 4 which is hardy the target they were aiming for. They should have read Palms 83:18 in the old KJV, pretty shameful that as Christians they don't even know the name of God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tokyojim, posted 09-02-2002 2:43 AM Tokyojim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Tokyojim, posted 11-04-2002 9:39 AM wmscott has replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6275 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 89 of 91 (24805)
11-28-2002 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Tokyojim
11-04-2002 9:39 AM


Dear Tokyojim;
By context, I meant the book of John as a whole and the Bible as a whole. The context of Bible verses should always be interpreted in harmony with the rest of the Bible. To choose a particular rendering of a verse because translating of the original languages permits it and it happens to then support a popular doctrine, but conflicts with the rest of the Bible, is foolish. A close unbiased examination of the Bible reveals that the Trinity is non biblical in origin. Even just looking at the book of John by itself shows that John did not believe in the Trinity. At a number of verses in John it is shown that John believed that Jesus was sent by God and did not act on his own initiative but was submissive to doing his father's will rather than his own and thus set a model for Christians to follow. John 6:38; 3:17; 5:36; 8:28; 12:49, 50. Now if he was God almighty, then it would not have been possible for him to have set an example of submission for he would have been doing his own will if he was truly God. The book of John teaches that Jesus was one with his father in unity but not in body as the Trinity teaches. This concept is explained by Jesus himself in John Chapter 17. The Trinitarians have taken John 1:1 where John meant to express how Jesus was one with his father in purpose and unity as shown by the rest of the book of John, and have reinterpreted it try to support the idea that Jesus and his father are one in a literal sense when John meant it in a figurative sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Tokyojim, posted 11-04-2002 9:39 AM Tokyojim has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024