The Longest Known English Word

[Paidion]

Just think about Jesus being a literal door (in a child's mind) and you'll get it.

[dwight92070]

And that proves .......????

[darinhouston]

I'm not getting it. Please tell us what point you just proved through absurdity.

I think you must be goading me. But, the point is that your point is far too simplistic. Anyone who believes in the trinity and merely points to John 1:1 or like verses are being far too superficial to have any sort of informed belief. I also doubt VERY seriously that the rank and file in any pew could point to any single verse or series of verses to show why they think the Holy Spirit is a person of a triune God. Most relate to hymns and creeds, not scripture for their positions. Very few have thought it much farther than the literal recitation of Jesus being a door or a lamb.

[dwight92070]

I'm not getting it. Please tell us what point you just proved through absurdity.

I think you must be goading me. But, the point is that your point is far too simplistic. Anyone who believes in the trinity and merely points to John 1:1 or like verses are being far too superficial to have any sort of informed belief. I also doubt VERY seriously that the rank and file in any pew could point to any single verse or series of verses to show why they think the Holy Spirit is a person of a triune God. Most relate to hymns and creeds, not scripture for their positions. Very few have thought it much farther than the literal recitation of Jesus being a door or a lamb.

Dwight - It's really too bad that John 1:1 and 14 isn't deep enough for you. Any person with a child-like faith will take those verses at face value and see clearly that Jesus is God. Your need for deeper truths is a stumbling block for you. God is not impressed with our intelligence - He's impressed with our genuinely, humble and seeking hearts.

[darinhouston]

I'm not getting it. Please tell us what point you just proved through absurdity.

I think you must be goading me. But, the point is that your point is far too simplistic. Anyone who believes in the trinity and merely points to John 1:1 or like verses are being far too superficial to have any sort of informed belief. I also doubt VERY seriously that the rank and file in any pew could point to any single verse or series of verses to show why they think the Holy Spirit is a person of a triune God. Most relate to hymns and creeds, not scripture for their positions. Very few have thought it much farther than the literal recitation of Jesus being a door or a lamb.

Dwight - It's really too bad that John 1:1 and 14 isn't deep enough for you. Any person with a child-like faith will take those verses at face value and see clearly that Jesus is God. Your need for deeper truths is a stumbling block for you. God is not impressed with our intelligence - He's impressed with our genuinely, humble and seeking hearts.

Child-like faith does not relate to philosophical and doctrinal positions beyond Jesus being our Messiah and deliverer and that he died and rose and that he is our path to a right relationship with our Creator. It does not mean being a simpleton and failing to be a Berean and not to use your whole mind and to seek to understand historical context and style of literature, etc. Most people today are dispensationalists for much the same reason. They read things in Revelation and take them blindly as literal when even just a little bit of academic interest would lead them to a better understanding of the texts. You simply can't base truth on what most people believe, and even more you can't assume what people believe based on the denominations they belong to. I used to think the only real question of the trinity was whether the JW's use of "it" instead of "he" in their bible translation was legitimate.

I saw a survey a while back and can't find it now, but it showed a large percentage of protestant evangelical pastors of mainline denominations didn't believe in the Trinity as it has been traditionally understood and avoid preaching on it.

[dwight92070]

Do you think that the Apostle John himself was an intellectual slouch? John tells us in his first epistle, chapter one, verses 1-4, that they had heard, seen with their eyes, looked at and touched with their hands, the Word of Life, which was from the beginning. This Life was manifested and they had seen and testified and now proclaimed to us the Eternal Life, WHICH WAS WITH THE FATHER AND WAS MANIFESTED TO THEM. "what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.
These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete."

How can anyone miss what John is saying?: Jesus is the Word of Life, who they saw physically. He was from the beginning, He was with the Father, God, and He WAS God - John 1. Is that not sufficiently intellectual enough for you?

What about Steve Gregg? His forte is the fact that he has been reading, studying, and teaching the Bible since he was 16. That, in itself, does not make his interpretations correct, but it carries great weight, and it behooves us to listen to what he has to say. He has come to the conclusion that there is a Trinity. Is it because he is superficial in his understanding of the Bible, that he has come to that conclusion? Did he not go deep enough? Or, if he did go after and study the scripture deeply, how is it that he came to a different conclusion than you?

So, going deeply into the study of the Bible is, in itself, not sufficient. One's heart must be like a small child. A small child acknowledges what he sees and does not attempt to explain it away. The Apostle John's heart was like a small child, saying, I have seen, heard, and touched Jesus, but he had the intellect of a grown man, saying, He is the Word of Life. He was in the beginning with the Father and He was manifested to us. In fact, He was God.

Micah tells us that from Bethlehem, "One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity."
Micah prophesied in the 700's B.C., and yet he prophesied that this ruler existed LONG BEFORE THAT, from the days of eternity.

Listen to Steve's teachings - on ANY subject. Are they highly intellectual, by your standard? I don't think so. So is Steve coming to a wrong conclusion about the Trinity, because his beliefs are too simplistic? Again, I don't think so. In fact, take any writer of the New Testament. Are their writings too simplistic, since the average person can understand much of what they are saying? Not all, but much.

[darinhouston]

I still intend to work back through Steve's lectures on this. But, he has stated quite plainly numerous times that this is simply an area he hasn't felt the need to re-evaluate and consider unfamiliar historic contexts or philosophical alternatives as it seems plain to him and seems not to matter much. However, I am not saying two people approaching the same set of scriptures and historic understandings can't have different views about what they believe is plainly taught. You seem to be the one saying no one can honestly reach a different conclusion to something taught so plainly. Most scholars, while they may differ on much, would be at odds with this and at least recognize that it is a difficult proposition to prove definitively.

I disagree with Steve on his Young Earth Creationism as well -- that is also something plain to many who read Genesis. But, again, it is something he has acknowledged he hasn't explored in great academic interest as he doesn't think it matters a whole lot. Those are pretty much the only two things where I tend to differ on my understanding from that of Steve. No man, no matter how intellectually he approaches a subject can be perfect.

Though, yes, I do find Steve's approach to most biblical subjects to be intellectually rigorous, and sufficiently though not overly academic. He avoids superficial wooden literal approaches to most things and many of his unique or unconventional readings are informed by balancing and comparing with other scripture and other truths, not from simplistic grammatical views of questionable translations. I honestly don't think he has applied that same rigor to this topic, but to be fair he has challenged me/us to answer his lecture points and I have yet to do that. That will not be a passive exercise, and will require much re-deliberation and deserves great care to use that time wisely. I have had far too many personal challenges lately as a parent and employee to engage in that, but I do intend to. That doesn't negate the value of what I have already learned and considered, and applying that to your questions/challenges is far easier and less time consuming. (though perhaps less valuable)

Trinitarianism was simply not a majority view in much of the 4th Century. (even Nicea itself was a VERY small collection of the bishops at the time compared with later "truly ecumenical" councils where Nicea was "reversed" only to be reversed again) Were all those people refusing to see the clear teaching in John? I maintain that the Trinitarians were highly influenced by pagan hellenization and syncretism, and that John himself was speaking into this milieu as well in the 1st. Without a better understanding of those issues, I don't see how anyone can draw conclusions from today's simplistic credal understandings after 2 millennia following the burning of books and those people who disagreed and many questionable translation issues.

There was a resurgence of these debates during the Reformation and again (mostly by Calvin no less) that was crushed as well. Read only of the intellectual fervor of Servetus and his passion for our Lord that led to him to martyrdom at the hand of Calvin and tell me it's a simple issue only someone who doesn't love the Lord could believe otherwise.

[Paidion]

Thanks Darin. Much appreciated!

[dwight92070]

In John 1 , John tells us that the Word, as the second person of the Trinity, existed, even before Creation, with God, and in fact, was God. The fullness of the Godhead and the Word are the same. The Word became flesh and was no less God on earth than God is in heaven. Both the Word and His relationship to the Eternal God are eternal. There is not any other means of creation than God Himself, since He is called The Creator, and yet John states clearly here, that ALL things came into being through the Word, and apart from Him, nothing came into being that has come into being.

Any person who does not see the Deity of Jesus here - simply does not want to see it, even though it is plainly in front of him.

[Paidion]

In John 1 , John tells us that the Word, as the second person of the Trinity, existed, even before Creation, with God, and in fact, was God

.

John 1:1 says NOTHING about the Word being "the second person of the Trinity".
Yes, He existed with God even before creation. For God begat Him as the first of His acts.
John 1 does not state that He was God, but rather that He was "God stuff", that is, that He was divine—the divine Son of God.