"The Word", who is he according to John?
2. John 1:1 talks about "in the beginning", well Is not the "Holy Ghost" also God Almighty in the beginning? then where is he and why does HE not have a beginning HERE? Where in the Bible does it say the "Holy Ghost" specifically has no beginning?
3. Concerning the "Word", if this says he has a beginning, then why does Psalms 90:2 say God had no beginning?
4. 'In the beginning the Word was, and the Word with Trinity, and the Word was Trinity. This wone was in the beginning with Trinity' So, if "God" is a trinity, and the "Word" was WITH "God", that means there are 4 persons here, according to logic and proper english translation. What was John REALLY trying to say?
5. Why in the SAME chapter in verse 18 it says "No man may see God at any time" and live, yet we've seen Jesus tons of times? we even "beheld his glory". Are you trying to say it's because he was in the flesh? Well, where IN THE BIBLE (not opinion) does it SAY that "Jesus is God Almight in the flesh, but if you SEE Jesus God Almighty in the spirit you die"? Why does it only apply this to the Father? Why does it only apply The Father to being "God alone" throughout the WHOOOOOLE Bible, but never does it apply the statement to Jesus?
6. Pathetically, why doesn't John 1:1 even prove that there is a TWO-in-ONE God? Let alone three.
7. Where in the Bible does it say that specifically a person can be WITh another person, and yet BE that same person? "The Word was WITH God", yet "The Word was God"? Why do scholars knowingly toss their theology ideas on translation that is obviously incorrect? Why do even the best ones actually admit this biased translation?
8. Why does the King James, and several other popular common Bibles 'ADD' an "a" in Mark 11:32 or even perhaps John 6:70, or maybe Acts 28:4? "a prophet", "a slanderer", "a murderer", but mysteriously for no apparent reason DECIDE to TAKE IT OUT of John 1:1? For example, "a god" or "a divine being".
9. What is more reasonable in simple english, "He's a murderer" or "Hes murderer!"? What language do you speak?
10. If the "Word" is actually just the second person of the 'Trinity' and the Father is the first person of that 'Trinity', then how could it be said that the "Word", who you say is "God the Son" is also "God the Father"?
11. If "God" in John 1:1 makes up for the "Holy Ghost" and the Father, doesn't that obviously contradict "God" being "FIRST PERSON"? How confusing can twisted ideas get? If the "Holy Ghost" is embedded in the Father, how is "God" here First Person at all?
12. Why is God NOT a God of confusion as opposed to the trinity? How blind can people be? Why are you so confused? Why don't you let JOHN explain the scripture? Are your efforts futile? Epic failure.
8 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Trinity, and the Word was the Trinity. The same was in the beginning with the Trinity.” But how could such a thing be? If the Word was himself a Person and he was with the Trinity, then there would be four Persons. But the Word is said by the trinitarians to be the Second Person of the Trinity, namely, “God the Son.” But even then, how could John say that the Word, as God the Son, was the Trinity made up of three Persons?
Yes, where in Genesis 1:2 does it pronounce that "spirit" as God Almighty? Where does it EVER pronounce the "spirit" as God Almighty? And still again, what basis did John have for NOT adding the "Holy Ghost" in John 1:1? Are you saying it's because the "spirit" was already mentioned in Genesis 1:2? Where in the Bible does it say the spirit can't be mentioned at John 1:1 because it was already mentioned in Gen 1:2?
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying, partly due to the fact that I presented my questions a little awkward. Your line of reasoning is out of harmony with the rest of the Bible. Yahoo doesn't seem to have enough space for me to sit here and go through all of this. Email me with your reasoning again at email@example.com.
Yes, it WAS Jesus, that was just a title to the topic I posted.
"1a)Because only 2 are under discussion. This is like asking, "If the U.S. government consists of the Executive, Judicial and Congressional branches, why is it so often that only the President is mentioned?" It's because at times the President is the only official relevant to the discussion. The question is wholly illogical."
This scripture is used to support the Trinity. Your reasoning that "only 2 are under discussion" is false. This is not what Trinitarians believe. Are you a Trinitarian? I have been told by other Trinitarians differently from you.
"He absolutely was not attempting to do so. This passage is used by many Christians to support directly the deity of Christ, which only *indirectly* supports the doctrine of trinity."
Yes he was, according to the Trinitarians I've spoken too. Was I misinformed?
"Clearly it is not a friend of yours."
What are you trying to say? You cannot pro