John 1:1 real problems in there for Trinitarians

[Tom Boots]

He did deal with the three verses that speak of pros ton theon, in no other place is pros ton theon translated WITH as Jn.1:1.
I believe they use the smoke and mirrors in showing it in other places to hide there not showing how it was used in modifying Theos.

I believe it is attempt to have the multiple god view.

[MacG]

Originally Posted by Tom Boots

He did deal with the three verses that speak of pros ton theon, in no other place is pros ton theon translated WITH as Jn.1:1.
I believe they use the smoke and mirrors in showing it in other places to hide there not showing how it was used in modifying Theos.

I believe it is attempt to have the multiple god view.

Did you re-read the blog again? First you said he did not deal with it then you said he did. I read it again and saw this this time "2 Corinthians 5:8 "pros ton kurion" (“with the Lord”)".

[Tom Boots]

Theos was not modified in any other p***age as Jn 1:1, go retread it.
he didn't want to deal with what exposed his position, by not posting the three other p***ages as I mentioned, that tells me he wanted to intentionally misinform, or he really didn't know Greek as much as he Put on.

Pros ton Theon = in things pertaining to God .
Heb 2:17,5:1, and yes Rom. 5:17.
John 1:1 should have been the same.

Now please tell me do you believe God is The/A Trinity?
If so you must change your belief thatGod is such and make up a different view to fit your doctrine than what you folks say you believe.

Is God three persons? Or not? Is God three beings as stated by so many or are those Trinitarians in error or is it you are in error?

Tell me MacG do you have any books written by Oneness ministers or authors or read any? And what might they be, I know Trinitarians have done little study about us Apostolics and or our Doctrine.

Shot 83 Sa****ay best round this year.

[MacG]

Originally Posted by Tom Boots

Theos was not modified in any other p***age as Jn 1:1, go retread it.
he didn't want to deal with what exposed his position, by not posting the three other p***ages as I mentioned, that tells me he wanted to intentionally misinform, or he really didn't know Greek as much as he Put on.

Pros ton Theon = in things pertaining to God .
Heb 2:17,5:1, and yes Rom. 5:17.
John 1:1 should have been the same.

As Pros ton is rendered "with" so many more times than pertaining to, which grammar rules would disallow the following:

Rom 15:17 ""Therefore in Christ Jesus I have found reason for boasting in with God."

Heb 2:17 "Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest with God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people."

Heb 5:1 "For every high priest taken from among men is appointed on behalf of men with God, in order to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins;


2 Corinthians 5:8 "pros ton kurion" (“with the Lord”): 8 We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord" or "8 We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home pertaining to the Lord"

Why is pros ton rendered as 'with' in 2 Cor?

Now please tell me do you believe God is The/A Trinity?
If so you must change your belief thatGod is such and make up a different view to fit your doctrine than what you folks say you believe.

Is God three persons? Or not? Is God three beings as stated by so many or are those Trinitarians in error or is it you are in error?

Just examining Scripture here. There is but one God.

Tell me MacG do you have any books written by Oneness ministers or authors or read any? And what might they be, I know Trinitarians have done little study about us Apostolics and or our Doctrine.

I have not.

Shot 83 Sa****ay best round this year.

Always feels good to do your best. My last outing on Mother's Day, I had two holes in one, the windmill was usually kind.

[Tom Boots]

84 ON A DIFFERENT COURSE SUNDAY, I hit the stick and missed hole in one by a foot at 150 yds.
Hit the stick at 100 yds two holes latter, but jumped off the green.

Now I don't know what version you are using, but it would seem to be one that someone translates what is not in the KJV regarding the three verses that translate
PROS TON THEON 'IN THINGS PERTAINING TO GOD'.

I use the KJV, if another version is used, one should put what version abbreviation at the end.
LIKE GAL. 2:20 AMPLIFIED
20 Now a go-between (intermediary) has to do with and implies more than one party [there can be no mediator with just one person].
Yet God is [only] one Person [and He was the sole party in giving that promise to Abraham. But the Law was a contract between two, God and Israel; its validity was dependent on both].

Note scripture says God is only ONE PERSON, which is what the Greek grammar of heis Theos means from the p***age.

*** 13:7-8 Here God is called a person in the KJV, why not three persons, or will you say this only meant one of a pack of persons making up God and which one?

Now I have a different view of what One God means, I mean one, not a plurality of beings making up a godhead to make a plural one, I don't believe God was seen or spoken by Jews as such and nor did the 1st century APostles, Disciples and Christ do so.

My one God is the only true God and Father, Jesus the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY, the Holy One and the only deity we Oneness Apostolics worship and not try to divide God into plurality of persons in a triune godhead.

Now I believe the difference in with as you see in 2 Cor. 5:8 has to do with how something was with Lord as to pertaining to God, it is the language of action, something with Lord is not meaning it was pertaining to God.
"PARA' WOULD BE NEEDED TO BE 'WITH".
"PROS" to pertain to God himself.
With gives the connotation something alongside, God is not with another God as Jn 1:1 attempts to say by translaters, but rather Pertaining to God as in that verse coming from God, in this case the LOGOS or Word, God's Logos not meaning a person or being or another like God or another God, but from God as to pertaining to him.
Logos means IDEA=THOUGHT-EXPRESSION.
NOT ANOTHER GOD, NOT A PART OF A GOD MADE UP OF THREE BEINGS.

So how do you accept what you are in and believe as the truth, when there is another group claiming the same as you, but holding a different viewpoint that Jesus is God and not with two others making up a deity as you hold?
And I am not speaking of a religion like Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons or Christian Scientists etc which have no doctrine or history going back further than the 19th century or 16th century, but which has people named and known to hold a Monarchian view as we do today.
I searched and studied about Oneness Monarchianism and as well Trinitarianism, and found the one (Oneness) to be the church of the Bible and Trinitarianism to be the false church, denying Jesus as God.

[cheachea]

Originally Posted by Tom Boots

Trinitarianism to be the false church, denying Jesus as God.

I agree with you that The Lord Jesus Christ is God. Trinitarians believe that Jesus Christ is God. What's the Problem ?

[Tom Boots]

You also believe He is with two others you call God who are persons or beings in a godhead, namely the Father first person in a godhead and the Holy Ghost/Spirit who he is not and thus two others as well like He who is members or individuals or separate persons, A.T. Robertson in John 1:1 of his Greek Word pictures likens them to being face to face, that to me is three gods.
You deny that Jesus is the Father despite Isa. 9:6speaking about Jesus was and is to be called Father( without taking a caveat of the word everlasting and making up another Father being with the Father).
We see as wellin Rev. 21:6-7 that Jesus himself says he would be our God and we his son/s.

Apostolic Oneness Pentecostals of Monarchian faith hold Jesus is God and Father for scripture over and over says God is the Father and that there is only one true God, the Father Jn 17:1-3.

We have problems withthegentile pagan idea that your Catholic Church started and did not get from Jesus Christ,the Apostles, any bible writer or God himself.

One means one to us, not a plurality of beings as corporate members making a group of god being this one God you have.

Tom

[MacG]

Originally Posted by Tom Boots

84 ON A DIFFERENT COURSE SUNDAY, I hit the stick and missed hole in one by a foot at 150 yds.
Hit the stick at 100 yds two holes latter, but jumped off the green.

Now I don't know what version you are using, but it would seem to be one that someone translates what is not in the KJV regarding the three verses that translate
PROS TON THEON 'IN THINGS PERTAINING TO GOD'.

I use the KJV, if another version is used, one should put what version abbreviation at the end.
LIKE GAL. 2:20 AMPLIFIED
20 Now a go-between (intermediary) has to do with and implies more than one party [there can be no mediator with just one person].
Yet God is [only] one Person [and He was the sole party in giving that promise to Abraham. But the Law was a contract between two, God and Israel; its validity was dependent on both].

Note scripture says God is only ONE PERSON, which is what the Greek grammar of heis Theos means from the p***age.

*** 13:7-8 Here God is called a person in the KJV, why not three persons, or will you say this only meant one of a pack of persons making up God and which one?

Now I have a different view of what One God means, I mean one, not a plurality of beings making up a godhead to make a plural one, I don't believe God was seen or spoken by Jews as such and nor did the 1st century APostles, Disciples and Christ do so.

My one God is the only true God and Father, Jesus the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY, the Holy One and the only deity we Oneness Apostolics worship and not try to divide God into plurality of persons in a triune godhead.

Now I believe the difference in with as you see in 2 Cor. 5:8 has to do with how something was with Lord as to pertaining to God, it is the language of action, something with Lord is not meaning it was pertaining to God.
"PARA' WOULD BE NEEDED TO BE 'WITH".
"PROS" to pertain to God himself.
With gives the connotation something alongside, God is not with another God as Jn 1:1 attempts to say by translaters, but rather Pertaining to God as in that verse coming from God, in this case the LOGOS or Word, God's Logos not meaning a person or being or another like God or another God, but from God as to pertaining to him.
Logos means IDEA=THOUGHT-EXPRESSION.
NOT ANOTHER GOD, NOT A PART OF A GOD MADE UP OF THREE BEINGS.

So how do you accept what you are in and believe as the truth, when there is another group claiming the same as you, but holding a different viewpoint that Jesus is God and not with two others making up a deity as you hold?
And I am not speaking of a religion like Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons or Christian Scientists etc which have no doctrine or history going back further than the 19th century or 16th century, but which has people named and known to hold a Monarchian view as we do today.
I searched and studied about Oneness Monarchianism and as well Trinitarianism, and found the one (Oneness) to be the church of the Bible and Trinitarianism to be the false church, denying Jesus as God.

This is Gal 2:20 "20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."


"In the beginning was the THOUGHT-EXPRESSION. The THOUGHT-EXPRESSION was pertaining to God. The THOUGHT-EXPRESSION was God. The same was with God...and the THOUGHT-EXPRESSION was made flesh and dwelt among us" This is not making sense to me I am not so sure about this.

Pros is used 600+ times in the new testament. Many times translated with and no para in sight. In fact Pros is used in Jn1:2 "The same was in the beginning with God" What is the "same" in this p***age?

In the previous post I asked you about the grammar rules for the translation of pros when it comes to the use of 'with' or 'pertaining to'. I think I have asked twice. Do you not know them?

I have never denied Jesus is God - on that the scripture is clear. "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men". Phil 2:5ff KJV It that says before His incarnation, He was equal with God. Additionally it says that He thought I thought that Word means THOUGHT-EXPRESSION. Are you telling me that the THOUGHT-EXPRESSION has thoughts?

[Tom Boots]

Sorry didn't check that should be Galatians 3:20not 2:20.
Gal. 3:20 Amplified says God is one Person, not persons or three persons.

Yes I was trying to explain that with gives the connotation used by Trinitarians that something an be along side of and not pertaining to God.
Theos God was not modified in the other three pros ton theon p***ages as "with", but pertained to God, just like it should have been in Jn 1:1.
The Word is not another person, being, en***y to be with it as Robertson in his word pictures of the N.T. Tries to make it, that would be more than one God.

Notice it says "the same" ,and not like many modern versions HE for the Word-Logos.

We explain it that in the beginning the Logos of God, his idea, thoughts were pertaining to him, [with]{if you keep it in proper context, that it was not a being or person but something he had withhim and always did as. To his ideas and thoughts which eventually expressed them as
As a plan or idea.
As spoken word
As a written word
As a Living word the idea made real.

Phil. 2:5 does not say before his incarnation in that verse.
Matter of fact that is a clear attempt to insert a idea into the verse.
The son ofGod was knot eternal, but was begotten not eternally, but in TIME!
Was made (something Trinitarian creeds deny and I believe mostTrinitarians hold versus made as Gal. 4:4 says).
Was born in time.

Let me ask can God die in your religion?
Or God's Son?
What is God's son to you, another God or god being?
Or a flesh and bones human perfect and sinless or a hybrid god-man second to another almost always referred to as God and always as Father?
I believe you folks have the problem of any of your gods dying and if all three do, we'll you are in trouble, for you haven't way of getting them out of hell if that be the case and God can die.
Oneness say that the Son of, not God the Son died.
Son, the man Christ Jesus according to scripture 1Tim. 2:5.
Son= the flesh and bones of Jesus Christ the Son or tabernacle of God, Luke 24:39.

The Greek is against the idea of persons.
The English is plain that God is Spirit and not his own Son, the man Christ a flesh and bones human in which God indwelt as Father the Spirit deity 2 Cor. 5:19, Jn 14:10-11.

[MacG]

We explain it that in the beginning the Logos of God, his idea, thoughts were pertaining to him, [with]{if you keep it in proper context, that it was not a being or person but something he had withhim and always did as

" Christ Jesus. Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" When was the cogniscient Christ Jesus in the form of God?

[Tom Boots]

AS THE MAN CHRIST, THE EXPRESS IMAGE OF THAT INVISIBLE GOD, MADE VISIBLE.
HEB. 1:3
I hold that Jesus Christ would not grasp after divine prerogatives though his as God enfleshed, he would not make of himself any reputation and call himself openly God, Father, Spirit, Deity.
HE SPOKE IN PROVERBS JOHN 16:25.
God was in Christ 2 Cor.5;19
Christ was a man 1 Tim. 2:5

[MacG]

Originally Posted by Tom Boots

AS THE MAN CHRIST, THE EXPRESS IMAGE OF THAT INVISIBLE GOD, MADE VISIBLE.
HEB. 1:3
I hold that Jesus Christ would not grasp after divine prerogatives though his as God enfleshed, he would not make of himself any reputation and call himself openly God, Father, Spirit, Deity.
HE SPOKE IN PROVERBS JOHN 16:25.
God was in Christ 2 Cor.5;19
Christ was a man 1 Tim. 2:5

No one doubts the humanness of Jesus. The question remains: When did the thinking, self aware Christ Jesus exist in the form of God as opposed to the form of man?

"Have this attytude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, thought...humbled himself ... and being made in the likeness of men." NASB Phil2:5-7

"5 Have this attytude [e]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 [f]grasped, 7 but [g]emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death [h]on a cross."

[Tom Boots]

Originally Posted by MacG

No one doubts the humanness of Jesus. The question remains: When did the thinking, self aware Christ Jesus exist in the form of God as opposed to the form of man?

The form of God was morphe, that God had no physical form as Spirit, his only form was his own body, his tabernacle of flesh.
Jesus Christ was the express image of the invisible God, Jesus was the Spirit God and Jesus begot a son a physical human of flesh, the Word was that plan or idea made real or flesh and was God's invisaging of a Son that did come or was sent a baby-child-man.

"Have this attytude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, thought...humbled himself ... and being made in the likeness of men." NASB Phil2:5-7

"5 Have this attytude [e]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 [f]grasped, 7 but [g]emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death [h]on a cross."


GOD=Spirit was in Christ, God was not the Christ man, for God is not a man, but God counted that body as his and always will, he will not leave us, he will not forsake mankind, he will eternally dwell in a body he fashioned for himself, what he chose in his Logos, his plan his invisaging.
God said He was not a man, Jesus said God was Spirit, Jesus said Spirit {God} hath not flesh and bones as you see me have.
YET! Jesus was God, Jesus was the man, Jesus is that Spirit which dweils in his saints, Jesus is all.

Tom Boots Apostolic

[MacG]

The form of God was morphe, that God had no physical form as Spirit, his only form was his own body, his tabernacle of flesh.
Jesus Christ was the express image of the invisible God, Jesus was the Spirit God and Jesus begot a son a physical human of flesh, the Word was that plan or idea made real or flesh and was God's invisaging of a Son that did come or was sent a baby-child-man.

If I understand you correctly, the idea was God. Correct?

If I am not mistaken morphe is a feminine noun.

[Tom Boots]

In the beginning was the Word=Logos and the Word=Logos was with or pertaining to God and the Word=Logoswas God.
Nota person with God, but his ideal, his plan, his envisaging, his thought was with him and it was him when it became to fruition.
Yes morphe is feminine noun and your point?

The problem which you have yest to reply to in a coupe of posts is that Trinitarians in John 1:1 must change the definition in mid stream of Theos God which you people give as the definition as Trinity when it is convenient and then here must change it to fit your idea of taking a round peg into a triangle shape hole.
You switch fromThree persons as your godhead to mean here God Father and a second being god in the verse of a god the son and the third god member is obviously missing.

SoGod is not aTrinity when you need into be and God is not the Father in all cases as scripture says it is and you conjure up two other god with a first person god and thus have three gods or god.

[MacG]

Originally Posted by Tom Boots

In the beginning was the Word=Logos and the Word=Logos was with or pertaining to God and the Word=Logoswas God.
Nota person with God, but his ideal, his plan, his envisaging, his thought was with him and it was him when it became to fruition.

The confusing part of this is that I had an idea once and it was not me. I have in fact a lot of ideas, dreams, thoughts and none of them are me. How can God have and idea and it be Him?

Yes morphe is feminine noun and your point?

Sorry about that. I had to go back and reread something you said but I was wrong about it.

The problem which you have yest to reply to in a coupe of posts is that Trinitarians in John 1:1 must change the definition in mid stream of Theos God...

If I am not again mistaken I seem to recall asking you for the Greek grammar rules regarding the p***ages in question. I am not a Greek student. I know those who are and yet to bring them or their understanding of the grammar rules which allow for the standard translation that you and yours are kicking against.

You switch fromThree persons as your godhead to mean here God Father and a second being god in the verse of a god the son and the third god member is obviously missing.

SoGod is not aTrinity when you need into be and God is not the Father in all cases as scripture says it is and you conjure up two other god with a first person god and thus have three gods or god.

"Well, there you go again" (Ronald Reagan) There is only one God and yet you keep misrepresenting the Trinity doctrine as polytheism. Where's the R-E-S-P-E-C-T for diverse views? All it seems that you are trying is Sock it to me, Sock it to me, Sock it to me. Some Creationists have a hard time in science cl*** because they refuse to understand what their teachers are saying. Understanding and testing well on a given subject means that you comprehend it but it says nothing about having to believe it. The Breathearians are a people who believe that all nutrition is in the air, food is poison and we need to wean off of it. Having that understanding does not make me out to be supportive of such doctrines. But if I did not have that understanding I might make conclusions that they are the "Supreme White People that Breathe" Along with their offshoot "VeteranArians" (Who are really just animal doctors). Such such divisive word play would serve no purpose other than to insult them and if I knew better it would make me a false witness against my neighbor.

Not missing just not called out in 1:1 as there is but One God. This is danger of proof texting and the importance of the whole collection of writings. Luke tells us the Holy Spirit (it is so confusing when God uses all of these interactive personal pronouns for himself) was present where verse 14 of John 1 tells us that the Word was made flesh.

If you are going to argue against the Trinity at least use the the proper definitions. There is One God, but three persons who are addressed as God and in relationship to each other as demonstrated by the dialogues which take place amongst themselves as opposed to a one man play interchanging masks to create the illusion of relational dialogue where apparently there is none.

[Tom Boots]

Where is one God addressed as three persons ever?
Where are they called three persons in scripture and historically speaking who stated they wear three persons first?
Jesus?, an Apostle? Any disciple? Or a philosopher from the third century almost 200 yrs removed from Christ?

There is no misrepresenting the Trinity by me, there is me exposing it.
If someone called it or found some bible writer teaching it, I would have accepted and believed it, I can't and won't a lie from a Catholic Church which had blood on it's hands and which forced this Mithraic religion mixed with some Cgristian words to sooth the gentile pagans who held and hold a triad.

There is no Greek grammar rules for Jn 1:1 (you people think a common language and not in use had some rules every time, Robertson made up some but like he speaks in Gal. 3:20 it can have a broad and not only one meaning).
What did the English say?, where is Trinity language, why force something into the p***age and avoid the other three usages of pro ton theon , and make God with a god ?

I have no respect for false views, diverse views from scripture are lies, and I don't have to accept or even nod my head, that there can be a different view acceptable, for there is not.

Lastly your ideas and thoughts are yours, not someone else, let you die and they say they are your words, your thoughts as well ate yours, attributed to YOU, not a different beng, they pertain to you and God's Word the Logos was idea, before it became real and was clothed with a body of flesh and became Christ the man, I dwelt by the Father, the only true God.

[MacG]

There is no Greek grammar rules for Jn 1:1

Then how do you know that your tradition is right? No rules, seriously? All language has rules and exceptions to those rules but you want me to believe that this particular verse has no rules?

Lastly your ideas and thoughts are yours, not someone else, let you die and they say they are your words, your thoughts as well ate yours, attributed to YOU,

When I die no one is going to say MacG had a thought and the thought was MacG. The Word was God.

I dwelt by the Father, the only true God.

This is a thought speaking? A thought that knew it was not only with God but was God? For he thought it not robbery to be considered equal with God but humbled himself. An idea thinking it not robbery to be equal with God, gives up its stature submits to authority and casts aside the glory to be found in the form of a man. This is confusing.

[Tom Boots]

I didn't say NO rules, but you people make them up.
i.e. Sharp's rule and Trinitarians insinuating that Matthew 28:19 has Sharp's rule ***ociated with it, when in fact he never used that very important p***age to support his idea and about a Trinity using such., others tried to say it was so.
Seems awfully strange, Trinitarians want to believe certain rules till one smashes them in the face like GAL. 3:20 Grk. Grammar heis Theos a masculine one , meaning God cannot be a plurality, but singular a sole numeric one, as one person/man.
AS WELL PROS TON THEON usage actually in the scriptures and then changed.
Then we see you folks change your own definition and rules to suit you as in John 1;1 , the word God=Theos all of a sudden becomes what you want it to and that is GOD THE FATHER first person of the Trinity and the next time in the vefse GOD=THEOS becomes your god the son second person in the Trinity.

The reason no one will say MACG's thoughts is not MACG is because you are not Jesus.
The word Logos has a broad meaning, which includes the envisaging as well as what was spoken of, written about and made flesh.

God's Word =Logos is God is it not? You seem to reject that, because in your finite mind, you cannot see that Word is more than a Spoken Word, a written Word, it is a idea and Living Word.
wHY IS THAT SO HARD?
Before something is written, it is idea!
Before the Word became flesh, it was a plan or thought of God, HIS WORD, not someone else's and then in time that Word=Logos went from that idea and became real and walked amongst us and that Word was God (Be it thought, written, spoken, living).

You are now confusing Phil. 2:5-8 with John 1;1, you seem to want to insert separate persons so much, you are willing to confuse my words.

I never said a idea thinking was equal with God, nothing is equal with God, God is and there is not another or something other that equals him.
Jesus was the God, the man, the Spirit, three manifestations of his.
This idea of thought it not robbery to be equal to God , means he did not grasp after and try to rape as a man, which was God's.
AS THE MAN CHRIST, JESUS WOULD NOT AND COULD NOT DO SO.

[MacG]

Originally Posted by Tom Boots

I didn't say NO rules, but you people make them up.

In response to my question which grammar rules do you use you said "http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/s...455#post145455There is no Greek grammar rules for Jn 1:1" And went on to say the Robertson made some up.

So I ask again what are the greek grammar rules that you are using to come up with a variant translation from what is the dominant understanding?

I never said a idea thinking was equal with God, nothing is equal with God, God is and there is not another or something other that equals him.

It seems to me that your position is at variance with Phil 2:5-11 Jesus is thinking prior to exercising humility and willfully becoming human that it was not robbery to be considered equal with God. How does this pre-incarnate thought/idea have self aware reasoning ability?

[RealFakeHair]

Wow, three persons in this room, that makes us a trinity!

[Tom Boots]

That is exactly what a Trinity is three men, three people, three persons each separate and not what the other is and not as God would be.

God is stated to be a person, not person in *** 13:8 and the Amplified in Gal. 3:20 makes it clear from the correct translation of heis Theos , one God, that God could only be One Person.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Tom Boots

That is exactly what a Trinity is three men, three people, three persons each separate and not what the other is and not as God would be.

God is stated to be a person, not person in *** 13:8 and the Amplified in Gal. 3:20 makes it clear from the correct translation of heis Theos , one God, that God could only be One Person.

Houston, we have a problem.
I admire your persistence, but as I once said about Theos; "Greek, is only a language, and I aint no Greek.
My sinus are bothering me today so I will indulge you today, aint I nice?
John 1;1 says The Word= Logos, and The Word= Theos, so we have a Theos, and a Logos and that make two Words.
A Word here and a Word there, and so forth and so on. I can't see where you get only one person out of the two persons mention, but heck I once tried pulling a rabbit out of a hat, did I ever tell you about that?

[Tom Boots]

I showed the other three text that "pros ton Theon" was translated as things pertaining to God, I believe it was by choice that Robertson who was trying to have a FTF meeting with three beings used it as with, hoping that it sufficed to have met his propping up his Trinity idea.

Heb.2:17, 5:1, Rom 15:17

I wonder why you have yet to seem to answer my questions about who and what name God is called in the p***age, that your kind needs to change the definition of God and where you make more than one God in the p***age.

[MacG]

After multiple requests for which grammar rules you are using and not receiving them I can only surmise that you do not know the grammar rules. What I have seen is "I believe" statements about what the Trinitarian's use of the grammar rules are made up but no mention of the rules to prove otherwise which leaves us with opinion. So how can you be sure which side is right?

And again it is not three beings.