Futile attempts by one Trinitarian to uphold the Trinitarian cause! Another refutation! James Clark, said; "I like what John MacArthur has to say about John 1:1c "If John’s meaning was that the Word was divine, or a god, there were ways he could have phrased it to make it unmistakably clear. For example, if he meant to say that the Word was merely in some sense divine, he could have used the adjective theios (cf 2 Peter 1:4). Or if he had wanted to say that the Word was a god, he could have written ho logos en theos. If John had written ho theos en ho logos, the two nouns (theos and logos) would be interchangeable, and God and the Word would be identical. That would have meant that the Father was the Word, which, as noted above, would deny the Trinity. But as Leon Morris asks rhetorically, “How else [other than theos en ho logos] in Greek would one say ‘the Word was God’?” Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, John chose the precise wording that accurately conveys the true nature of the Word, Jesus Christ. By theos without the article, John neither indicates, on the one hand, identity of Person with the Father; nor yet, on the other, any lower nature than that of God Himself." Excerpt from John A MacArthur Gospel of John Commentary" Reply, ” By theos without the article, John neither indicates, on the one hand, identity of Person with the Father; nor yet, on the other, any lower nature than that of God Himself." This doesn’t work and is typical rhetoric and spin... of some professional Trinitarians! John was a Jew, a Hebrew and therefore, a strict monotheist, so how would John convey this monotheism without slipping into polytheism, as his wider audience, would have consisted of those who were polytheists…! Greek has a special way of highlighting nature or character (or both) when used in association with predicate nouns before the verb, the NT is replete with such and John 1:1c is nothing special in this regard, below are some examples: New World Translation King James Version An American Translation New International Version Revised Standard Version Today’s English Version Mark 6:49 an apparition a spirit a ghost a ghost a ghost a ghost 11:32 a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a real prophet a prophet John 4:19 a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet 6:70 a slanderer a devil an informer a devil a devil a devil 8:44 a manslayer a murderer a murderer a murderer a murderer a murderer 8:44 a liar a liar a liar a liar a liar a liar 9:17 a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet 10:1 a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief 10:13 a hired man an hireling a hired man a hired hand a hireling a hired man 10:33 a man a man a mere man a mere man a man a man 12:6 a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief Upon investigation of the above samples, it should be clear that something is being emphasised and that is nature or character etc., and John 1:1c is no different; MacArthur is reading his Trinitarian theology into John 1:1c, so in John 1:1 it is not equality with “God” that is being emphasised, but the nature…of the one called “ho logos” and that nature…which is of “ho logos” is “divine”, and many Trinitarian translators recognise this, all except the MacArthur types of course...not equality and the fact that there are scriptures that show that Jesus, “ho logos” has himself One who is God to him, shows clearly, that there is no equality, but that of subordination! [1 Cor 8:6; 2 Cor 1:3; Eph 1:3;17…] also, if Jesus was equal to God, then in mark 13:32 he would have of necessity known “the day or hour” and (again) the argument of Jesus being in the flesh is nor excuse, as he was supposed to have a united nature, one nature, one person, one centre of consciousness and as “God in the flesh” (supposedly) this one person with a united nature, would have 100% knowledge, but how can that be, how can Jesus, who is supposed to be the Almighty, Omniscient God in the flesh have 100% knowledge and not have 100% knowledge simultaneously, as we see in Mark 13:32 = Do Trinitarians, lay or professional have an answer? Also, if there are truly three persons in the one God, why is it, that when we read John 4:24 John 4:24 KJV “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” The above text evokes the question in that, when the text says that; “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” Here we see the terms “God” and “him”, but therein lies the Trinitarian paradox? The term “God” is synonymous with “God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit” so, this allows us to exchange the term “God” for “God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit”, as these three constitute “the one God” and there can be, only one God, not three Gods! So, legitimately we could have, instead of “God” in John 4:24 we could have “God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit”, so that we could have; “God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit a Spirit: and they that worship them must worship him in spirit and in truth.” …the term “them” denoting the three persons in the “one God”, as God is constituted of three persons, not one person…! If one removes bias and preconceived notions (perhaps Trinitarians like MacArthur could learn a thing or two, if only they could put the biased theology to one side) they would immediately see how absurd the Trinity becomes, as it is seen to be flawed by simple observations, like the one above! Also, in john 4:24, if Trinitarians have not noticed, the singular pronoun “him” is used, again and further denoting one person only and not three persons, otherwise, why the singular pronoun and not the plural “them”? the problem with Trinitarians like MacArthur, is that they employ theology to achieve their goal, but it falls apart upon examination, just as in the above! MacArthur and Morris are, so typical of many (professional) Trinitarians, where they use specious argument to achieve their goal!
Posted on: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 00:05:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015