>No, what is evident is that you do not understand Hebrew.

Obviously I understand it better than you

>Rather, as I'm sure your rote teachers have indoctrinated you against

I don't think my teachers- the holy spirit and the Bible- are "rote"
perhaps your cultic references would say so

>the anarthrous denotes essence.

Certain scholars have pointed out that anarthrous predicate nouns that
precede the verb in Greek may have a qualitative significance. That is,
they may describe the nature or status of the subject. Thus some
translators render John 1:1: "The Logos was divine," (Moffatt);
"the Word was divine," (Goodspeed); "the nature of the Word was
the same as the nature of God," (Barclay); "the Word was with God
and shared his nature," (The Translator's New Testament).

Does being "divine" or godlike mean that Jesus Christ is himself
almighty and coeternal with God the Father?

It is true that trinitarians attach special significance to the divine
status of Jesus. They even employ a special non-Biblical Greek term,
homoousios ("of one substance," or "of one essence"), in this
regard. The New Catholic Encyclopedia explains under the heading
"Consubstantiality," which is an English rendering of homoousios:
"The consubstantiality defined by [the Council] Nicaea I [325 C.E.],
then, . . . affirms essentially that the Son is equal to the Father, as
divine as the Father, being from His substance and of the same
substance with Him; it follows necessarily that the Son cannot belong
to the created . . . Because of the absolute unicity, unity, and
simplicity of God, the identity of the substance is not merely specific
[as in the case of humans having human nature in common] but absolute,
or numerical."

Where, though, in the Scriptures does one encounter such reasoning? The
answer is simple: Nowhere.

>"through" as in "agent."  This is in perfect
keeping with John's use
of
>"logos."  "No man has seen God at anytime."

The Bible is filled with countless examples of personages- Chrsit-
angels- men- speaking as God's agent- thus for all intensive purposes
they were "God speaking" and even were addressed as God but that does
not make them part of a ludicrous trinity.

>Also, the offices of the Trinity reflect personhood.  The Father
"will", the Son's "wisdom" and the Spirits "(e)motion."

unBiblical human philosophy- and sophistry. God (YHWH) and Jesus have a
separate "wills" thus they cannot be part of a trinity. (see Luke
22:42)

>There is absolutely NO
> hint at any polytheism or pagan trinity here.

>Couldn't agree with you more because Trinitarianism was completely
>unknown to man and therefore never existed until Christ revealed it
>after His incarnation.

let me correct that for you (i'll assume your lie was unintentional)

Couldn't agree with you more because Trinitarianism was completely
unknown to man and therefore never existed until Satan created it well
after Jesus' ascension

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/14/05 4:56:55 PM ---