There is no trinity in John 1:1

[Butch5]

They are the same thing. Jesus isn't ink on papyrus pages obviously.
But every word in this Book is the very essence and character of God.
The written/spoken word is God.

I've heard the "Logos" argument many times. But it doesn't matter what the word here is...
It could say God was a hamster, or a unicorn, or a loaf of bread.... whatever it is was.. it was God.

John 1:1; In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2; He was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3; All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Why does it say "was", for the same reason it says "In the beginning". In context, it's talking about ages, eons, millennia ago.
He was God then, and He is God now.

That's where the argument falls apart. John didn't say the Word is God, he said the Word was God. The Word is a living being, but He is not the Father. Paul also tells us that He "was" God.

5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but aemptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

New American Standard Bible, 1995 Edition: Paragraph Version (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Php 2:5–7.

Paul said, He was in the form of God, emptied Himself, and took the form of man. That's the same as John saying the Word was God and later, the Word became flesh.

They can't be one and the same if one is God and one was God. That's not possible.

 

[Butch5]

I'm always puzzled at the discussion of this doctrine, It is not found anywhere in Scripture. It is flatly refuted by Scripture. It is completely illogical. It's a Catholic doctrine not found in church history until the 5th century and yet Christians will turn themselves inside out trying to defend it. I just don't get it. Many places won't even discuss it because they know it's indefensible. Seriously, why is this doctrine so important to Christians when it's found nowhere in Scripture?

Think about this. God the Father says He is the only God. This doctrine says no, there are two more who are coequal.

 

[Butch5]

One of the issues we have with this doctrine is that of inconsistent interpretation. It's argued that Jesus is the true God because the Bible refers to Him as God. Thus, being called God makes one the true God. The problem with this is that the Bible also calls Baal and Molech gods. However, I've not seen anyone argue that Baal or Molech are the true God. If simply being called god makes one the true God as is argued in Jesus' case, the same should hold true of others called god. But people don't make that case. Why? Because their theology is driving their interpretation. They don't believe that Baal or Molech are the true God so they don't equally apply the argument. They do already believe Jesus is the true God. They're being inconsistent. Being called god makes one the true God in situations they favor, but when they don't favor it suddenly being called god doesn't make one the true God. They simply pick and choose what they want. That's allowing one's theology to drive their interpretation. If rules apply, they apply all of the time, not just when we want them to.

 

[Curtis]

Think about this. God the Father says He is the only God. This doctrine says no, there are two more who are coequal.

Who was God speaking to when he said, "let US make man in OUR image........."? Who is the "us" and who is the "our"?

 

[Butch5]

Who was God speaking to when he said, "let US make man in OUR image........."? Who is the "us" and who is the "our"?

Was He speaking to Himself?

 

[Butch5]

Who was God speaking to when he said, "let US make man in OUR image........."? Who is the "us" and who is the "our"?

If there are two coequals, isn't that robbing the Father of His glory? Consider what Paul said.

5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but aemptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

New American Standard Bible, 1995 Edition: Paragraph Version (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Php 2:5–7.

Paul said that even though the preincarnate Jesus was in the form of God, He did not think equality with God was something to be grasped.

 

[Curtis]

If there are two coequals, isn't that robbing the Father of His glory?

Not if they are one God. In fact Jesus is the brightness of the Glory of the Father.

Heb 1:3 The Son is the gleaming brightness of God's glory. He is the exact likeness of God's being. He uses his powerful word to hold all things together. He provided the way for people to be made pure from sin. Then he sat down at the right hand of the King, the Majesty in heaven.

Joh 17:5 So now, Father, give glory to me in heaven where your throne is. Give me the glory I had with you before the world began.

 

[Butch5]

Not if they are one God. In fact Jesus is the Glory of the Father.

But they're not one God. If the Father is God and Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God, there are three Gods. It's impossible for three who are fully God to be one who is fully God.

 

[Butch5]

Not if they are one God. In fact Jesus is the Glory of the Father.

How can there be three coequals when Jesus didn't consider equality with God something to be grasped?

 

[Curtis]

How can there be three coequals when Jesus didn't consider equality with God something to be grasped?

Php 2:6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

Jesus who is God the son can never stop being God no matter what physical body he had taken on.

 

[Curtis]

But they're not one God. If the Father is God and Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God, there are three Gods. It's impossible for three who are fully God to be one who is fully God.

Joh 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

 

[Butch5]

Joh 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Were all of the apostles one being or were they 12?

 

[Butch5]

Php 2:6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

Jesus who is God the son can never stop being God no matter what physical body he had taken on.

Then why did John say He "was" God? Why did Paul say, being in the form of God, He emptied Himself and took the form of man? You're arguing against the apostles my friend.

 

[Butch5]

Not if they are one God. In fact Jesus is the brightness of the Glory of the Father.

Heb 1:3 The Son is the gleaming brightness of God's glory. He is the exact likeness of God's being. He uses his powerful word to hold all things together. He provided the way for people to be made pure from sin. Then he sat down at the right hand of the King, the Majesty in heaven.

Joh 17:5 So now, Father, give glory to me in heaven where your throne is. Give me the glory I had with you before the world began.

Notice In Heb 1:3 Paul said, "He is the exact likeness of God's being". A likeness of something is not the thing itself.

 

[B-A-C]

Notice In Heb 1:3 Paul said, "He is the exact likeness of God's being". A likeness of something is not the thing itself.

He is the spitting image of his father. A family could have a father, a mother, a daughter and a son.
Two twins could an exact likeness. A person can say my family is in Europe. But I'm still a part of that family even if I'm not in Europe.

Then why did John say He "was" God?

Because "In the beginning" He was God. The verse is about the beginning, not now.
Past tense, not present tense. If the verse said.. "At the current time"... it would say He is God.

 

[Butch5]

He is the spitting image of his father. A family could have a father, a mother, a daughter and a son.
Two twins could an exact likeness. A person can say my family is in Europe. But I'm still a part of that family even if I'm not in Europe.

But a likeness of something still isn't the thing itself. We don't say the Father is the likeness of God. He is God. If Jesus is the likeness of God, He's not the God He's the likeness of. Why defend the indefensible?

Because "In the beginning" He was God. The verse is about the beginning, not now.
Past tense, not present tense. If the verse said.. "At the current time"... it would say He is God.

Which indicates that He wasn't God at the time John wrote.

 

[Butch5]

If Jesus didn't consider Himself equal with God, why do Christians?

 

[Curtis]

Were all of the apostles one being or were they 12?

1Co 12:12 The human body has many parts, but the many parts make up one whole body. So it is with the body of Christ. (NLT)

 

[Curtis]

If Jesus didn't consider Himself equal with God, why do Christians?

Joh 5:18 So the Jewish leaders tried all the harder to find a way to kill him. For he not only broke the Sabbath, he called God his Father, thereby making himself equal with God. (NLT)

 

[Butch5]

1Co 12:12 The human body has many parts, but the many parts make up one whole body. So it is with the body of Christ. (NLT)

Correct. But, no one part is the whole body.