OK. Here is a reply to Yorick I prepared earlier but have not previously posted:
Quote originally posted by Yorick:
Fljotsdale, I was brought up the son of a fundamentalist Anglican minister. I do not have the Theology of a fundamentalist Anglican. I do not believe in an eternal hell for example. I am more attuned to certain pentecostal practices than most Anglicans. I have openly read Buddhist, Hindu, Confucionist and New Age thought, and indeed been influenced by some of their ways of thinking - even if that influence manifested in a swing to the opposite of that thought (LOL) no one can ever tell me that I have my eyes shut, nor that I believe because of my upbringing because I simply don't. I do not however delve into examining the myriad Greek, Hebrew references and various translations for two reasons. a) there are many more skilled and better versed at such things that I, a professional musician can ask and refer to on this matter; and b) My relationship with God, while rooted in the bible, and an understanding of it's contents from an early age, is now, dependant more on the Rhema aspect, and what I see in creation. The bible serves to keep me on the track and highlight aspects, but now I spend more time praying than reading. I feel you may have argued me into a corner in some areas as you have more specific information at your fingertips, however - I draw my conclusions about the Trinity from the bible, from logos, from the written word. The beginning of John is as clear as day to me:
Yorick, you know I am not trying to undermine your faith, just want to point out some facts! So I am going to use the scriptures you are using below to highlight some points.
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
WITH is not the same as IS. In the Greek it says the Word was WITH ‘o theon (or ton theon) and the Word was theos: 'THE God' and 'god'. If you are WITH someone you are automatically SEPARATE from the one you are WITH.
There is also a clear distinction between 'THE god' and 'god'.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
Again, WITH, not IS. YOU, Yorick, can be WITH your father, but that does not make you your father. You can even be of 'one mind' and 'one spirit' with your father, but that does not make you and your father 2 parts of one person. You remain 2 separate individuals.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Yes, THROUGH. The whole garden can be watered THROUGH one hose, but the hose is only the conduit for the water, which originates elsewhere. Likewise, Christ was the conduit though which God created the universe - the power came from god, THROUGH christ: that no more makes christ the creator than the hose was the originator of the water.
4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.
11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.
12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--
13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
Yes? But what point are they making about God and Jesus being parts of a trinity? or about them both being THE God? (4)Clearly, the Son of God would have life in him.(10) Note my comment on THROUGH above)(11)I cannot see what point you are making here. (12)(13) So, it was not Jesus choice but his Father's. How is this proving the Trinity?
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth
Who CAME FROM. Not WHO IS!! And on the point of being 'full of grace and truth', Jesus said plainly 'The Father is greater than I am'. To me, that means exactly what it says - that God is greater than Christ. Remember the scripture that says 'Do not go beyond the things that are written'
(1 Corinthians 4:6)
Come on Fljotsdale! "We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only"? yet also "who came from the father". Same but different.
"The Word was God" AND "he was with God from the beginning"? "Through him all things were made"? Again, same but different, the Son who created the world. How much more do you want? Whether you agree with the sentiment or not, in this quote from the NIV, the most reliable translation available, the Gospel of John starts by setting down the concept of the Trinity. The concept is, as I said, certainly not "unbiblical", which was your initial phrase that I took issue with.
I honestly cannot see how you can possibly reach the conclusion from those scriptures that the Trinity is biblical, when it is patently obvious that it is not and that it is quite difficult to construe those scriptures as meaning that. In my opinion, such a construction goes well beyond 'the things written' which is what I am concerned with, following, as it does, the Greek philosophies introduced introduced into the early post-Apostolic 'church'.
1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Note what I pointed out before
2
The same was in the beginning with God.
Yeah.WITH.
3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Correct. Note my Christopher Wren and St Paul’s example in earlier post.
4
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Yeah.
5
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not
Yeah.(dunno what happened to 6, 7, 8 and 9)
10
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
See the first (3) above
11
He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
Yeah.
12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Yeah.
13
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Yeah.
14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth
Yeah. Only begotten. Begotten, Yorick. Begotten. The only begotten of the father. The firstBORN of all creation. Something born contains the essence (genetic makeup) of the father, but is NOT the father. What is begotten is a separate, individual, person.
In these quotes from the King James Bible, which drew on different sources than the NIV we see the same thread. Reference to the Word - Jesus - as THE CREATOR! "and the world was made by him"
So far as I can see, Yorick, the scriptures you use all show Jesus as a CONDUIT of the creative force of God rather than being the actual CREATOR himself. Christ was the ONLY DIRECT CREATION of the Father. All other creation was done THROUGH the Son rather than BY the Son according to the scriptures you quote.
Regarding the Holy Spirit:
Acts
17" 'In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
19I will show wonders in the heaven above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
21And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved.'
Peter is actually quoting from the OT book of Joel in this speech in Acts, there is no specification that the day of the Lord is either Jesus or God, just the day of the lord. Frequently Jesus is refered to as "our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ" and referred to Jesus later on in this same speech :
The ‘great and glorious day of ‘the Lord’ should read ‘of YHWH’ in Joal, which makes it easier to comprehend, doesn't it?
Jesus was referred to as Lord throughout his ministry, as was his right as the son of God. Merely being called Lord does not make him God. In one place there is a scripture which reads 'The Lord saith to my Lord..' which can be difficult to understand until you realise that originally it read 'YHWH saith to my Lord..', showing which two individuals were being spoken of. Jesus himself said that he would make the name of his father known. Not his own name. The name of his Father.
36"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
"Made" in this context not meaning "created", but "employed, "assigned the role of", or "given the job of".
God says he will pour out his spirit. If I pour out my spirit into my music, it sure means I am pouring fourth some of myself. No-one else is that's for sure.
Agreed. And God’s spirit is God’s. Note that GOD MADE JESUS both Lord and Christ. Jesus did not MAKE HIMSELF Lord and Christ, his Father did. The Greater makes the Lesser. Which is not to denigrate Christ, but to acknowledge his rightful position as SECOND to the Father - a position of great power and authority.
Fljotsdale, what more do you want? Let me define bible. The Bible is the collection of books widely regarded by Christians worldwide as the inspired word of God. In English, the most accurate versions are deemed to be the NIV and the KJV depending on the school of thought. The word "biblical" refers to ideas and facts that are referred to or discussed, mentioned directly or implied in the said Bible.
The Trinity is a biblical concept.
No, Yorick. I fail to see how you can be so convinced that the Trinity is a biblical concept. Every scripture you have used makes it so clear that it is NOT!
We agree on much, Yorick, but yet come to totally opposite conclusions based on the same evidence!
I think we must agree to disagree! 
Warm good wishes, my friend.
It is a great pity that some of the posts in this thread have gone missing.
------------------
