Should You Believe In The Trinity?

[Angryamerican]

Mr. Homer, Was quoted extensively by AA recently. And since he was used as a reference, I felt it prudent to bring out his reliability. Since he wrote for the watchtower, I find that I can not trust anything he has to say. This I base on the many watchtower publications I have in my files.

I have not taken the time to read Mr. Hommel, but I will and get back to you. Why do you wish to point away from the subject I called into question? Mr. Homer.

We can play what I called Bible ping-pong till we both fall over. Personally, I would welcome you to look at why I beleive as I do. And if you find where I have not been told an untruth, I wish you would point it out to me. You seem to draw from watchtower matierial which I find to be less than truthful. Personally, I do not feel I am attacking JW's. What I am attacking
is the lack of truthfulness they put forward. You, are obviousely an intellegent person,and I can not understand why you would accept the teachings of the watchtower when your eternal soul is a stake.

Are you even paying attention that the earliest translation by Christians of John 1:1 translated "a god" i am pretty sure they were not Jw's then.

[Angryamerican]

Death has no control over God, and it had none over Jesus.

What is the passage that you are referring to?

He was dead for three days.

[Angryamerican]

[QUOTE=the oldtimer;50280341][quote=Warrior4God;50277891]What denomination are you?

Are all those in your denomination so disrespectful to others faith?

I am not JW but I am about fed up with your posts that are pointed right at JW.


I would like to read about why you believe as you do and why there is so much venom and disrespect towards other faiths.

where can I read that?
Since when does telling the truth, contain venom, and how is it disrespectful. Do you want me to lie to you, to make you feel respected. How will that work?? If I could not prove what I post, I simply would not say it. How does it fit this thread?? Truth is the very core of the discussion is it not?.




Look man,the only thing I see wrong is the way you are going about it.

DRS has NEVER posted a single watchtower publication or even qouted it.

Stick to debating the view and leave the denomination bashing out of it.

PLEASE!!!!!


This really can be a very fun thread and would miss it if it was removed again.

I would like to debate with you in a kind and fun way and know we can........can't we?

I abmire your passion and knowledge but you have made it very clear about your views on JW's, so can we just deal with debate of views and leave out the denonational bashing.

I myself am not a member of or part of any denomination and have a church in my home like it was in the first century.

What denomination if any are a member of?


I would like to extend my hand in friendship towards you and will do my very best to respect your views and faith.

I agree,if we could just stay on topic and leave ones faith out of the discussion.

And i to don't want to lose the thread either, it upset me that it was my actions that had the thread locked for a while.

[the oldtimer]

Are you even paying attention that the earliest translation by Christians of John 1:1 translated "a god" i am pretty sure they were not Jw's then.

And, you would offer as proof of that statement ????????
You are right, there were no JW's then

[Angryamerican]

And, you would offer as proof of that statement ????????
You are right, there were no JW's then

I posted that to,at the bottom was all sources quoted.:eh:

[the oldtimer]

I posted that to,at the bottom was all sources quoted.:eh:
and that is as close as you are willing to get???????

[Angryamerican]

and that is as close as you are willing to get???????

Google sahidic coptic text.

You can find all the info you want on it.

[ralittlefield]

Isaiah 44 is talking about Jehovah vs the false gods that were being worshipped none of them had a hand in creation

Proverbs 8:22-31 already shows another helping creation and Job shows other present at creation

The other thing that seems to be ignored is creation is only made possible by Jehovah's Holy Spirit without that powerful force creation does not happen

Now since Jesus did the work he too can be created with creation just as there are those called saviours in the bible aknowledging the work they do, it would not be possible without Jehovah as salvation belongs to Jehovah

Even the name of Jesus is hebrew shows it is from Jehovah that salvation come

Yehoh‧shu′a
Jehovah Is Salvation


The language in Isaiah 44 does more than say that the false gods were not in creation.

God is quoted as saying "alone" and "by myself". That seem to be a clear statement that no one else did it. Did God misspeak when He said He did it alone?

What does "alone" & "by myself" mean?

If I play on a team, and my team wins, is it correct for me to say that I won alone, by myself?

[ralittlefield]

Really?

Not one thing came into existence through Christ?

Did you misspeak here, or is that what you intended to say?

Another chance for DRS to respond and clarify what this quote from the NWT of John 1:3 means:

"and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. "

It seems that DRS believes that means that not one thing was created through Jesus. I am very surprised to hear that, and want to find out if he really believes that or just misspoke.

It means that through him not one thing came into existence since he was the first thing that came into creation created life started with him so there is nothing that is apart from him

[Fire Watch]

The language in Isaiah 44 does more than say that the false gods were not in creation.

God is quoted as saying "alone" and "by myself". That seem to be a clear statement that no one else did it. Did God misspeak when He said He did it alone?

What does "alone" & "by myself" mean? Great Oneness verses..thanks for reposting them.

If I play on a team, and my team wins, is it correct for me to say that I won alone, by myself?
No it isnt ;) A Godhead consisting of more than one individual would be a lot like a team wouldnt it? A corporate unity which couldnt rightly be called "myself", but would need to be called "ouselves". The singular term is very revealing. I agree with you that Jesus is God, but I believe him to be God all by himself.

[Angryamerican]

The language in Isaiah 44 does more than say that the false gods were not in creation.

God is quoted as saying "alone" and "by myself". That seem to be a clear statement that no one else did it. Did God misspeak when He said He did it alone?

What does "alone" & "by myself" mean?

If I play on a team, and my team wins, is it correct for me to say that I won alone, by myself?

Who is God speaking to since you think God created alone ?

Gen 1:26 And God said, let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.

[Angryamerican]

Great Oneness verses..thanks for reposting them.


No it isnt ;) A Godhead consisting of more than one individual would be a lot like a team wouldnt it? A corporate unity which couldnt rightly be called "myself", but would need to be called "ouselves". The singular term is very revealing. I agree with you that Jesus is God, but I believe him to be God all by himself.

I'll ask you the same question.

Who is God speaking to since you think God created alone ?

Gen 1:26 And God said, let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.

[ralittlefield]

Who is God speaking to since you think God created alone ?

Gen 1:26 And God said, let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.


This is a verse that is commonly used in support of the Trinity.

I believe that it is the individual members of the Trinity speaking among themselves.

[ralittlefield]

Great Oneness verses..thanks for reposting them.


No it isnt ;) A Godhead consisting of more than one individual would be a lot like a team wouldnt it? A corporate unity which couldnt rightly be called "myself", but would need to be called "ouselves". The singular term is very revealing. I agree with you that Jesus is God, but I believe him to be God all by himself.

Or....... great verses showing the unity of the Trinity.

[gpd®]

Or....... great verses showing the unity of the Trinity.

I found this great quote and I though of this thread.

Tell me how it is that in this room there are three candles and but one light, and I will explain to you the mode of the divine existence.

John Wesley

[DRS]

Another chance for DRS to respond and clarify what this quote from the NWT of John 1:3 means:

"and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. "

It seems that DRS believes that means that not one thing was created through Jesus. I am very surprised to hear that, and want to find out if he really believes that or just misspoke.

It seems your ability to rad posts are lacking

LIfe was created through Jesus and then Jesus was used to create other things

[DRS]

The language in Isaiah 44 does more than say that the false gods were not in creation.

God is quoted as saying "alone" and "by myself". That seem to be a clear statement that no one else did it. Did God misspeak when He said He did it alone?

What does "alone" & "by myself" mean?

If I play on a team, and my team wins, is it correct for me to say that I won alone, by myself?

Have you read Isaiah 44?

What is going on in Isaiah 44?


I do not think you have read that whole chapter because if you did you would see this too

; the One saying of Jerusalem, ‘She will be inhabited,’ and of the cities of Judah, ‘They will be rebuilt, and her desolated places I shall raise up’

God decreed this but it was the order of someone else that had this happen

[DRS]

This is a verse that is commonly used in support of the Trinity.

I believe that it is the individual members of the Trinity speaking among themselves.

There is only one Almighty God and it is Jehovah and since Jesus is not Jehovah there is not triune god to be worshipped

[DRS]

Psalm 16 is quoted by Peter in Acts 2 along with with Psalm 110 with regards to Jesus

*8*I have placed Jehovah in front of me constantly.
Because [he] is at my right hand, I shall not be made to totter
10*For you will not leave my soul in She′ol.
You will not allow your loyal one to see the pit

The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is:
“Sit at my right hand
Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet

36*Therefore let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom YOU impaled

Jesus did not make himself lord or christ it was God

[Angryamerican]

This is a verse that is commonly used in support of the Trinity.

I believe that it is the individual members of the Trinity speaking among themselves.

I have a real problem wrapping my mind around the idea God was talking to himself since there was on lookers,or for any reason.

I have the same problem with God coming in a cloud,and saying this is my beloved son, who i have approved.

And God did that twice to on lookers.

And when God did that ,why would any onlooker think that Jesus was God ?

[the oldtimer]

I Googled " When did the "a god" translation of John 1:1, first appear"?
Reading through the answers surprised even me.

[Angryamerican]

I Googled " When did the "a god" translation of John 1:1, first appear"?
Reading through the answers surprised even me.

Between the second and third century.

Before the was God translation.

And before the council of nicea.

[terri910]

I have a real problem wrapping my mind around the idea God was talking to himself since there was on lookers,or for any reason.

Three persons, Angryamerican. God in three persons. Three distinct persons definitely can speak among themselves. That part I'm quite sure you can wrap your mind around. What is more difficult to understand is that the three persons can be one God.

I understand that there definitely is something about the doctrine of the Holy Trinity that you are not able to wrap your mind around....but there's no need to even try to wrap your mind around something that has nothing to do with the Trinity, such as God talking to Himself.

[the oldtimer]

Between the second and third century.

Before the was God translation.

And before the council of nicea.


AA, You are "dead wrong". Admit it, you did not even look at the site I posted did you?

[Angryamerican]

I Googled " When did the "a god" translation of John 1:1, first appear"?
Reading through the answers surprised even me.

Here is an unbiased opinion.and it seems he could go either way.

First, we have to note what Dr. Layton (and others) say about the use of the
Coptic indefinite article and separate it from inferences drawn from it.

1- IF used qualitatively, with John 1:1c as an example, we would have "the
Word was divine."

2- IF used regularly, in the indefinite sense, we would have "the Word was a
god/a God."

3- In neither sense does the Coptic use of the indefinite article 'predicate
equivalence with the proper name God, which is always without exception
supplied with the definite article.'

4- Thus, "the Word was divine" or "the Word was a god" are grammatically
acceptable, whereas "the Word was God" is not, according to the Coptic
construction found at John 1:1c.

Source http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2006-July/039198.html

[Angryamerican]

AA, You are "dead wrong". Admit it, you did not even look at the site I posted did you?

Source

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2006-February/037663.html

Dear Solomon,

>In the post by Dave Smith some interesting points were made about the Latin
>translation of the Greek of John 1:1c. In a similar vein, I would like to
>make some points about an often overlooked ancient translation of that same
>verse in the Sahidic Coptic version.
>
>Coptic is more like English (and unlike Greek and Latin) in that it has both
>an indefinite article and a definite article. The Sahidic Coptic version
>was translated in late 2nd or early 3rd century C.E. and is of the
>Alexandrian
>text variety as found in codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus, two
>well-regarded ancient Greek codices.

[Angryamerican]

AA, You are "dead wrong". Admit it, you did not even look at the site I posted did you?

You need to stay off sites that have a dog in the hunt.

[Angryamerican]

Three persons, Angryamerican. God in three persons. Three distinct persons definitely can speak among themselves. That part I'm quite sure you can wrap your mind around. What is more difficult to understand is that the three persons can be one God.

I understand that there definitely is something about the doctrine of the Holy Trinity that you are not able to wrap your mind around....but there's no need to even try to wrap your mind around something that has nothing to do with the Trinity, such as God talking to Himself.

Yeah,it's not just that though terri,i just don't see it in the scriptures.

For me anyways.

[terri910]

Yeah,it's not just that though terri,i just don't see it in the scriptures.

For me anyways.
Well, those are the things you are having difficulty with then, Angryamerican.

I just don't want to see you struggling to try and understand something that has nothing to do with the Trinity, that's all.

The whole idea of "God talking to Himself" has NOTHING to do with the Trinity, so there's no need to even say it.

[the oldtimer]

You need to stay off sites that have a dog in the hunt.
In other words, sites that might point to the" truth".
And, we were not talking about about Dave Smith, or Dr. Layton, were we. The use of the term " a god' can be traced no further back in history than, George Horner's translation of the Coptic text in the 1800's. And Mr. Horner had, absolutely no formal training in the Coptic language, did he.? I do not say this in any kind of anger, I say it because it is true, and I do care where you spend eternity.

[Angryamerican]

In other words, sites that might point to the" truth".
And, we were not talking about about Dave Smith, or Dr. Layton, were we. The use of the term " a god' can be traced no further back in history than, George Horner's translation of the Coptic text in the 1800's. And Mr. Horner had, absolutely no formal training in the Coptic language, did he.? I do not say this in any kind of anger, I say it because it is true, and I do care where you spend eternity.

That was when it was first translated to english.

Here is some more interesting reading on the subject.

http://books.google.com/books?id=KYktt_ZiTGcC&pg=PA311&lpg=PA311&dq=history+of+the+sahidic+coptic+christian+scriptu res&source=bl&ots=6ycMYuzUbr&sig=blyZYIZsZdNYGFBI7ajzLoZXAfE&hl=en&ei=k3KwSfq0OpLQsAPp_4V4&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA313,M1

Is that how you try to make a point, you read something that makes you think it contradicts what i say and then you run with it ?:D

You should spend more time on the subject before you dismiss it,but i do understand why you dismiss it.

[Angryamerican]

In other words, sites that might point to the" truth".
And, we were not talking about about Dave Smith, or Dr. Layton, were we. The use of the term " a god' can be traced no further back in history than, George Horner's translation of the Coptic text in the 1800's. And Mr. Horner had, absolutely no formal training in the Coptic language, did he.? I do not say this in any kind of anger, I say it because it is true, and I do care where you spend eternity.

I do care where you spend it as well thanks:D

[Angryamerican]

AA, You are "dead wrong". Admit it, you did not even look at the site I posted did you?

Sorry i did not see a site that you posted and i can't find that post.

[ralittlefield]

It seems your ability to rad posts are lacking

LIfe was created through Jesus and then Jesus was used to create other things

I will take that to mean that you misspoke when you said:

It means that through him not one thing came into existence since he was the first thing that came into creation created life started with him so there is nothing that is apart from him

So, now you are saying that life was created through Jesus, (the verse says by means of Him) then all other things were created through Jesus.

That would be a little more in line with what the verse says. Although if life had a beginning, was there a point when God did not have life? I do not see how that is possible. Is not anything without life dead. I believe life has to be as etenal as God is.

John 1 (NWT)
3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

What has come into existence 4 by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men.

It still seems to me that Jesus was involved, without exception, in everything that was created. First life, then everything else.


The NIV puts it a little differently, but agrees with you that everything that was created, was created through Jesus.

John 1
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.


The KJ is very similar:

John 1
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.


I do not believe that Jesus created life, because I do not believe that life was ever created. I believe that life has existed as long as God has. Life was in Jesus, not created by Him.


So if Jesus created all things that are created, it is not possible for Him to have been created. Where am I wrong?

[ralittlefield]

Have you read Isaiah 44?

What is going on in Isaiah 44?


I do not think you have read that whole chapter because if you did you would see this too

; the One saying of Jerusalem, ‘She will be inhabited,’ and of the cities of Judah, ‘They will be rebuilt, and her desolated places I shall raise up’

God decreed this but it was the order of someone else that had this happen


I am sure that you can see the difference in those examples. He does not use the same language in reference to Jerusalem. He does not use the words "alone" or "by myself".

Don't you see the difference?

[DRS]

Since Jesus was the first creation and then used to create there is no creation that is not without Jesus

Jesus the firstborn of creation, the beginning of creation the begotten god the whom Jehovah brought forth first who was installed from eternity

The bible is clear in it's description of Jesus as being created, it is also good to use the OT examples and prefigurements to best understand Jesus instead of taking a handful of NT scripture and applying Palto's duality and pagan theology to them

[DRS]

I am sure that you can see the difference in those examples. He does not use the same language in reference to Jerusalem. He does not use the words "alone" or "by myself".

Don't you see the difference?

You seem to miss the entire chapter and the point being made Jehovah is showing the difference between those man made gods and Himself they are made He is the one who made the Earth

9*The formers of the carved image are all of them an unreality, and their darlings themselves will be of no benefit; and as their witnesses they see nothing and know nothing, in order that they may be ashamed. 10*Who has formed a god or cast a mere molten image? Of no benefit at all has it been. 11*Look! All his partners themselves will be ashamed, and the craftsmen are from earthling men. They will all of them collect themselves together. They will stand still. They will be in dread. They will be ashamed at the same time.
12*As for the carver of iron with the billhook, he has been busy [at it] with the coals; and with the hammers he proceeds to form it, and he keeps busy at it with his powerful arm. Also, he has become hungry, and so without power. He has not drunk water; so he gets tired.
13*As for the wood carver, he has stretched out the measuring line; he traces it out with red chalk; he works it up with a wood scraper; and with a compass he keeps tracing it out, and gradually he makes it like the representation of a man, like the beauty of mankind, to sit in a house.
14*There is one whose business is to cut down cedars; and he takes a certain species of tree, even a massive tree, and he lets it become strong for himself among the trees of the forest. He planted the laurel tree, and the pouring rain itself keeps making it get big. 15*And it has become [something] for man to keep a fire burning. So he takes part of it that he may warm himself. In fact he builds a fire and actually bakes bread. He also works on a god to which he may bow down. He has made it into a carved image, and he prostrates himself to it. 16*Half of it he actually burns up in a fire. Upon half of it he roasts well the flesh that he eats, and he becomes satisfied. He also warms himself and says: “Aha! I have warmed myself. I have seen the firelight.” 17*But the remainder of it he actually makes into a god itself, into his carved image. He prostrates himself to it and bows down and prays to it and says: “Deliver me, for you are my god.”
18*They have not come to know, nor do they understand, because their eyes have been besmeared so as not to see, their heart so as to have no insight. 19*And no one recalls to his heart or has knowledge or understanding, saying: “The half of it I have burned up in a fire, and upon its coals I have also baked bread; I roast flesh and eat. But the rest of it shall I make into a mere detestable thing? To the dried-out wood of a tree shall I prostrate myself?” 20*He is feeding on ashes. His own heart that has been trifled with has led him astray. And he does not deliver his soul, nor does he say: “Is there not a falsehood in my right hand?”

The other thing you seem to miss is it was Jehovah's power alone that made creation possible Jesus is not described as having the energy to create only Jehovah does

[ralittlefield]

Since Jesus was the first creation and then used to create there is no creation that is not without Jesus


You have that just a little twisted in my opinion.

There is no clear language to indicate that Jesus is created.

There is language that says all created things were created by Jesus.



Jesus the firstborn of creation, the beginning of creation the begotten god the whom Jehovah brought forth first who was installed from eternity

I agree. However to me that means Jesus began the creation.


The bible is clear in it's description of Jesus as being created, it is also good to use the OT examples and prefigurements to best understand Jesus instead of taking a handful of NT scripture and applying Palto's duality and pagan theology to them

To the contrary. You have to interpret the Bible to mean Jesus was created. It is not clear at at all. I prefer clear language to questionable interpretation.

[DRS]

Proverbs 8:22-31 goes hand in hand with John 1

The beginning is not the same things as the one who starts creation, beginning is not a verb

You have to alter the English language now in an effort to make your theology fit scripture

[ralittlefield]

You seem to miss the entire chapter and the point being made Jehovah is showing the difference between those man made gods and Himself they are made He is the one who made the Earth

9*The formers of the carved image are all of them an unreality, and their darlings themselves will be of no benefit; and as their witnesses they see nothing and know nothing, in order that they may be ashamed. 10*Who has formed a god or cast a mere molten image? Of no benefit at all has it been. 11*Look! All his partners themselves will be ashamed, and the craftsmen are from earthling men. They will all of them collect themselves together. They will stand still. They will be in dread. They will be ashamed at the same time.
12*As for the carver of iron with the billhook, he has been busy [at it] with the coals; and with the hammers he proceeds to form it, and he keeps busy at it with his powerful arm. Also, he has become hungry, and so without power. He has not drunk water; so he gets tired.
13*As for the wood carver, he has stretched out the measuring line; he traces it out with red chalk; he works it up with a wood scraper; and with a compass he keeps tracing it out, and gradually he makes it like the representation of a man, like the beauty of mankind, to sit in a house.
14*There is one whose business is to cut down cedars; and he takes a certain species of tree, even a massive tree, and he lets it become strong for himself among the trees of the forest. He planted the laurel tree, and the pouring rain itself keeps making it get big. 15*And it has become [something] for man to keep a fire burning. So he takes part of it that he may warm himself. In fact he builds a fire and actually bakes bread. He also works on a god to which he may bow down. He has made it into a carved image, and he prostrates himself to it. 16*Half of it he actually burns up in a fire. Upon half of it he roasts well the flesh that he eats, and he becomes satisfied. He also warms himself and says: “Aha! I have warmed myself. I have seen the firelight.” 17*But the remainder of it he actually makes into a god itself, into his carved image. He prostrates himself to it and bows down and prays to it and says: “Deliver me, for you are my god.”
18*They have not come to know, nor do they understand, because their eyes have been besmeared so as not to see, their heart so as to have no insight. 19*And no one recalls to his heart or has knowledge or understanding, saying: “The half of it I have burned up in a fire, and upon its coals I have also baked bread; I roast flesh and eat. But the rest of it shall I make into a mere detestable thing? To the dried-out wood of a tree shall I prostrate myself?” 20*He is feeding on ashes. His own heart that has been trifled with has led him astray. And he does not deliver his soul, nor does he say: “Is there not a falsehood in my right hand?”

The other thing you seem to miss is it was Jehovah's power alone that made creation possible Jesus is not described as having the energy to create only Jehovah does


I do not miss that point at all. I agree with you that that is the context.

The point that I seem unable to get you to see is the specific language that He uses.

If God created through someone else, why would He not say that, instead of using the language "alone" and "by myself"? Words have meaning.

[the oldtimer]

Sorry i did not see a site that you posted and i can't find that post.
You do not want to find the truth, making this a huge waste of every bodies time.

[ralittlefield]

Proverbs 8:22-31 goes hand in hand with John 1

The beginning is not the same things as the one who starts creation, beginning is not a verb

You have to alter the English language now in an effort to make your theology fit scripture


I, and many others, do not agree with your interpretation of Pro. 8

[ralittlefield]

You do not want to find the truth, making this a huge waste of every bodies time.

Ouch! Don't you think that was a little hard? It does get frustrating some times, doesn't it? I sometimes lose my focus and get a irritated also, but we need to be respectful.

[Angryamerican]

You do not want to find the truth, making this a huge waste of every bodies time.

I guess you didn't understand,post the website you are talking about.

[Angryamerican]

Ouch! Don't you think that was a little hard? It does get frustrating some times, doesn't it? I sometimes lose my focus and get a irritated also, but we need to be respectful.

Yeah he gets a little defensive when he gets corrected. :D

[ralittlefield]

Mat 13:54 And coming into His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, Where did this One get this wisdom, and the powerful works?

Mar 6:2 And a sabbath having come, He began to teach in the synagogue. And hearing, many were amazed, saying, From where came these things to this One? And what is the wisdom given to Him, that even such works of power come about through His hands?

Luk 2:40 And the Child grew, and became strong in spirit, being filled with wisdom. And the grace of God was upon Him.

Luk 2:52 And Jesus progressed in wisdom and stature and favor before God and men

Luk 11:49 And because of this, the wisdom of God said, I will send prophets and apostles to them, and they will kill and drive out some of them,

Luk 21:15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all those opposing you will not be able to withstand or contradict.


Sounds like the wisdom in proverbs chapter 8 to me.

You must see what a stretch this is.

Are you really connecting those verses to Prov 8 just because they use the word wisdom?

If I find a verse that uses the word wisdom in reference to someone else, say Solomon, would that mean Pro 8 is speaking about Solomon?


These verses have NOTHING to do with Pro 8.

[Angryamerican]

You must see what a stretch this is.

Are you really connecting those verses to Prov 8 just because they use the word wisdom?

If I find a verse that uses the word wisdom in reference to someone else, say Solomon, would that mean Pro 8 is speaking about Solomon?


These verses have NOTHING to do with Pro 8.

No ,you didn't need these verses to know proverbs 8 was about Jesus:)):)):)):))


You guys need to lighten up,it was actually done for oldtimer :angel:

[Angryamerican]

You do not want to find the truth, making this a huge waste of every bodies time.

Here is another outside source that also specialized on the coptic texts.

Lance Jenott

Lance Jenott is completing doctoral studies at Princeton in the religions of late antiquity, specializing in Coptic texts. (June 2006)
From the Review

But here is his translation of john 1:1

1:1 ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙΠϢΑϪЄ, ΑΥѠ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ. ΑΥѠ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ

In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed with God, and the Word was a God

Source http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml

Don't you think maybe there is plenty of reason to look in to this further ?

[Angryamerican]

You must see what a stretch this is.

Are you really connecting those verses to Prov 8 just because they use the word wisdom?

If I find a verse that uses the word wisdom in reference to someone else, say Solomon, would that mean Pro 8 is speaking about Solomon?


These verses have NOTHING to do with Pro 8.

Why don't you use this line of reasoning, when it comes to Jesus having the same titles as his Father ?and then men being called the same titles as Jesus.

[DRS]

I, and many others, do not agree with your interpretation of Pro. 8

Acually if you do some research on this scripture you will find that even many early church fathers aknowledged this was about Jesus

Which showed Jesus being created as he was brought forth

In Revelation 3:14 Jesus refers to himself as 14*“And to the angel of the congregation in La‧o‧di‧ce′a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God


Jesus was created by God in this same chapter Jesus refers to his God

[ralittlefield]

Acually if you do some research on this scripture you will find that even many early church fathers aknowledged this was about Jesus

Which showed Jesus being created as he was brought forth

In Revelation 3:14 Jesus refers to himself as 14*“And to the angel of the congregation in La‧o‧di‧ce′a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God


Jesus was created by God in this same chapter Jesus refers to his God

Believing it to be about Jesus, and believing it shows Jesus to be created are not the same thing. Not even close.

[DRS]

I do not miss that point at all. I agree with you that that is the context.

The point that I seem unable to get you to see is the specific language that He uses.

If God created through someone else, why would He not say that, instead of using the language "alone" and "by myself"? Words have meaning.

What was the point he was making?

Was it about creation or was he trying to get Israel to quite their idolatry by showing it was by His will things were done?

He talks about how He was the one saying

the One saying of Jerusalem, ‘She will be inhabited,’ and of the cities of Judah, ‘They will be rebuilt

When it was said by a prophet and carried out by another

[DRS]

Believing it to be about Jesus, and believing it shows Jesus to be created are not the same thing. Not even close.

What does brought forth mean as the beginning of His ways mean?

Espicially in light of Revelation 3:14?

[Angryamerican]

Believing it to be about Jesus, and believing it shows Jesus to be created are not the same thing. Not even close.

This is from chadbad online tanach.

Proverbs 8

22. The Lord acquired me at the beginning of His way, before His works of old. כב.
23. From the distant past I was enthroned, from the beginning, of those that preceded the earth. כג.
24. I was created when there were yet no deeps, when there were no fountains replete with water. כד.
25. I was created before the mountains were sunk, before the hills; כה.
26. when He had not yet made the land and the outsides and the beginning of the dust of the earth. כו.
27. When He established the heavens, there I was, when He drew a circle over the face of the deep; כז.
28. when He made the skies above firm, when He strengthened the fountains of the deep; כח.
29. when He gave the sea its boundary, and the water shall not transgress His command, when He established the foundations of the earth כט.
30. I was a nursling beside Him, and I was [His] delight every day, playing before Him at all times; ל.
31. playing in the habitable world of His earth, and [having] my delights with the children of man. לא.
32. And now, my children, hearken to me, and fortunate are those who observe my ways


Did God always have wisdom ?

Did God enthrone wisdom or a son ?

[ralittlefield]

What was the point he was making?

Was it about creation or was he trying to get Israel to quite their idolatry by showing it was by His will things were done?

He talks about how He was the one saying

the One saying of Jerusalem, ‘She will be inhabited,’ and of the cities of Judah, ‘They will be rebuilt

When it was said by a prophet and carried out by another

If I am talking about a race, and I say the red car won, just because the context of the conversation is the race, does not take away from the fact that the color of the winning car is red. The context may not be the color of the cars, but the fact that the car is red is still true.


Just because creation is not the context of the passage does not diminish the fact that He said "alone" and "by myself".

All the facts in the passage are true, whether they relate to the main context or not.

[DRS]

The red car won was it driving itself?

[the oldtimer]

Here is another outside source that also specialized on the coptic texts.

Lance Jenott

Lance Jenott is completing doctoral studies at Princeton in the religions of late antiquity, specializing in Coptic texts. (June 2006)
From the Review

But here is his translation of john 1:1

1:1 ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙΠϢΑϪЄ, ΑΥѠ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ. ΑΥѠ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ

In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed with God, and the Word was a God

Source http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml

Don't you think maybe there is plenty of reason to look in to this further ?
Thank you for your input. I went to. " http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text," as you suggested.
The very first line after the heading says , " According to the Coptic text in G. Horner, The coptic version of the new Testament in the southern dialect, vol.III (oxford: Clarendon Press,1911-1924)pp.2-4.
In other words He copied Mr. Horners translation.
Go to , http://forananswer.org, scroll down to, Christian apologetic's , scholars & NWT, scroll down till you come to George Horner.
Also, http://vintage:aomin.org/john1_1
Very interesting if you are willing to read it. FYI the term "a god" was first published by the NWT in 1950.

[gpd®]

God the Father is a deep root, the Son is the shoot that breaks forth into the world, and the Spirit is that which spreads beauty and fragrance.

--Tertullian

[Angryamerican]

Thank you for your input. I went to. " http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text," as you suggested.
The very first line after the heading says , " According to the Coptic text in G. Horner, The coptic version of the new Testament in the southern dialect, vol.III (oxford: Clarendon Press,1911-1924)pp.2-4.
In other words He copied Mr. Horners translation.
Go to , http://forananswer.org, scroll down to, Christian apologetic's , scholars & NWT, scroll down till you come to George Horner.
Also, http://vintage:aomin.org/john1_1
Very interesting if you are willing to read it. FYI the term "a god" was first published by the NWT in 1950.

I don't see anything here that supports what you are saying, and the other link does not work.

[Angryamerican]

Thank you for your input. I went to. " http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text," as you suggested.
The very first line after the heading says , " According to the Coptic text in G. Horner, The coptic version of the new Testament in the southern dialect, vol.III (oxford: Clarendon Press,1911-1924)pp.2-4.
In other words He copied Mr. Horners translation.
Go to , http://forananswer.org, scroll down to, Christian apologetic's , scholars & NWT, scroll down till you come to George Horner.
Also, http://vintage:aomin.org/john1_1
Very interesting if you are willing to read it. FYI the term "a god" was first published by the NWT in 1950.

So what problem do you have with George Horner ?

Do you want to post it ?

[the oldtimer]

I don't see anything here that supports what you are saying, and the other link does not work.
You could not have read it!!! Scroll down to you find, George Horner. http:// forananswer.org scholars & NWT

The other link. http://vintage:aomin.org/john1_1 Scroll down to where it says "section 1" click it. Remember the sites listed there are not mine. They are just on the same page. Section 1 is the only one I am interested in.

[the oldtimer]

So what problem do you have with George Horner ?

Do you want to post it ?
Lack of training in the subject!!!

[Angryamerican]

You could not have read it!!! Scroll down to you find, George Horner. http:// forananswer.org scholars & NWT

The other link. http://vintage:aomin.org/john1_1 Scroll down to where it says "section 1" click it. Remember the sites listed there are not mine. They are just on the same page. Section 1 is the only one I am interested in.

What is the difference whether it is translated a god or was divine ?

Bottom line "was God" is the wrong translation.


And i have read a lot on both sides and horner was not the only translation that translated john 1:1 different than the was God.the unbiased scholars i came across agree that a god or divine was a better translation than was God.

[Angryamerican]

Lack of training in the subject!!!

The very first translation was not done by horner,it was done by coptic egyptians.

[Angryamerican]

Lack of training in the subject!!!

You know what really is funny, that is the same excuse i heard about the ones that translated the nwt.

This was not John Horner.

At least by the third century C.E., the first translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures had been made for the Coptic natives of Egypt.” – Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2, page 1153 * Similarly, the Anchor Bible Dictionary states, “All these data point to the 3rd century as the latest terminus a quo [point of origin] for the earliest Coptic translation.” **

This earliest Coptic (from an Arabic/Greek word for “Egyptian”) translation was in the Sahidic dialect, approximately 1,700 years ago. The scribes who were translating the Gospel of John from Koine Greek into their own Egyptian language encountered an issue that still faces translators today. It is the question of correctly translating John 1:1.

The Coptic translators rendered John 1:1 in this way (Transliterated):

1. a. Hn te.houeite ne.f.shoop ngi p.shaje
1. b. Auw p.shaje ne.f.shoop n.nahrm p.noute
1. c. Auw ne.u.noute pe p.shaje 1

Literally, the Coptic says:

1. a. In the beginning existed the word
1. b. And the word existed in the presence of the god
1. c. And a god was the word

[the oldtimer]

[quote=Angryamerican;50434371]You know what really is funny, that is the same excuse i heard about the ones that translated the nwt.

This was not John Horner.
Who is John Horner?
History, says it was George Horner's translation,of the Coptic text of John 1:1, that was used by the watchtower when they first published it in 1950. I cannot translate Greek to Coptic. Can You?? Therefore I must rely on the experts in history. I simply do not believe the people you seem to trust are very accurate. I do know that until 1950 there is no record of the translation into English. and since that is the language I use, it is really the only one that interests me. However, if you can show me where it is in any other language than, Greek to Coptic, I will be glad to check it out.

[ralittlefield]

The red car won was it driving itself?

Perhaps, but that does not matter. What matters is that even though the color of the car was not the context of the conversation, we do learn from the conversation what the color is.

I take it that you now agree with me. Just because creation is not the context of the passage, it is true that God said that He alone, by Himself, is the Creator.

[ralittlefield]

Gen 1:1 Jehovah created the heavens and the earth.

Is 44:24 He did it alone, by Himself.

John 1:1 Jesus is God

John 1:3 Jesus created everything that is created.

John 20:28 Jesus is Thomas' God

1 Cor 8:5 Although there are so called gods, for us there is only one.

Therefore, I believe in the Trinity.

[Angryamerican]

[quote=Angryamerican;50434371]You know what really is funny, that is the same excuse i heard about the ones that translated the nwt.

This was not John Horner.
Who is John Horner?
History, says it was George Horner's translation,of the Coptic text of John 1:1, that was used by the watchtower when they first published it in 1950. I cannot translate Greek to Coptic. Can You?? Therefore I must rely on the experts in history. I simply do not believe the people you seem to trust are very accurate. I do know that until 1950 there is no record of the translation into English. and since that is the language I use, it is really the only one that interests me. However, if you can show me where it is in any other language than, Greek to Coptic, I will be glad to check it out.


Everyone that i have quoted,have provided their sources about the first translation. And even the trinity defenders admit that it was the first translation of the greek scriptures.

They don't dispute if it was translated at all back then they try dispute whether it was translated right.

And so what, whether the Jw's quoted or used his work.Most bibles were translated from the kjv and the kjv was found to have many mistakes in it and even some those versions disagreed with the kjv in other areas.

Can you show me what the problem is with George Horners education?

[Warrior4God]

Gen 1:1 Jehovah created the heavens and the earth.

Is 44:24 He did it alone, by Himself.

John 1:1 Jesus is God

John 1:3 Jesus created everything that is created.

John 20:28 Jesus is Thomas' God

1 Cor 8:5 Although there are so called gods, for us there is only one.

Therefore, I believe in the Trinity.

I am amazed at the accuracy of Gods Word and how bias was inserted into it by translators and I realize that you think I am biased in my acceptance of certain translation of words too but I believe as a whole my view fits the overall context of Gods Word but respect your view.

John 1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. (KJV)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




1. Trinitarians use this verse to show that Christ made the world and its contents. However, that is not the case. What we have learned from the study of John 1:1 above will be helpful in properly interpreting this verse.

John 1:1-3
(1) In the beginning was the Word [the wisdom, plan or purpose of God], and the Word was with God, and
the Word was divine.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by it [the Word]; and without it was not anything made that was made.

2. The pronoun in verse 3 can legitimately be translated as “it.” It does not have to be translated as “him,” and it does not have to refer to a “person” in any way. A primary reason why people get the idea that “the Word” is a person is that the pronoun “he” is used with it. The Greek text does, of course, have the masculine pronoun, because like many languages, including Spanish, French, German, Latin, Hebrew, etc., the Greek language assigns a gender to all nouns, and the gender of the pronoun must agree with the gender of the noun. In French, for example, a table is feminine, la table, while a desk is masculine, le bureau, and feminine and masculine pronouns are required to agree with the gender of the noun. In translating from French to English, however, we would never translate “the table, she,” or “the desk, he.” And we would never insist that a table or desk was somehow a person just because it had a masculine or feminine pronoun. We would use the English designation “it” for the table and the desk, in spite of the fact that in the original language the table and desk have a masculine or feminine gender.


read the rest here..........http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=86

It closes on this verse with EXACTLY my view on the verse.........


The opening of John reveals this simple truth in a beautiful way: “In the beginning there was one God, who had reason, purpose and a plan, which was, by its very nature and origin, divine. It was through and on account of this reason, plan and purpose that everything was made. Nothing was made outside its scope. Then, this plan became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ and tabernacled among us.” Understanding the opening of John this way fits with the whole of Scripture and is entirely acceptable from a translation standpoint.

[Angryamerican]

Gen 1:1 Jehovah created the heavens and the earth.

Is 44:24 He did it alone, by Himself.

John 1:1 Jesus is God

John 1:3 Jesus created everything that is created.

John 20:28 Jesus is Thomas' God

1 Cor 8:5 Although there are so called gods, for us there is only one.

Therefore, I believe in the Trinity.

Your whole theory blows up at John 1:1.

Your theory is built on faulty understanding of words. Imho of course.

[Angryamerican]

Believing it to be about Jesus, and believing it shows Jesus to be created are not the same thing. Not even close.

This is from chadbad online tanach. I am still waiting for your view on this ?

Proverbs 8

22. The Lord acquired me at the beginning of His way, before His works of old. כב.
23. From the distant past I was enthroned, from the beginning, of those that preceded the earth. כג.
24. I was created when there were yet no deeps, when there were no fountains replete with water. כד.
25. I was created before the mountains were sunk, before the hills; כה.
26. when He had not yet made the land and the outsides and the beginning of the dust of the earth. כו.
27. When He established the heavens, there I was, when He drew a circle over the face of the deep; כז.
28. when He made the skies above firm, when He strengthened the fountains of the deep; כח.
29. when He gave the sea its boundary, and the water shall not transgress His command, when He established the foundations of the earth כט.
30. I was a nursling beside Him, and I was [His] delight every day, playing before Him at all times; ל.
31. playing in the habitable world of His earth, and [having] my delights with the children of man. לא.
32. And now, my children, hearken to me, and fortunate are those who observe my ways


Did God always have wisdom ?

Did God enthrone wisdom or a son ?

[Angryamerican]

[quote=Angryamerican;50434371]You know what really is funny, that is the same excuse i heard about the ones that translated the nwt.

This was not John Horner.
Who is John Horner?
History, says it was George Horner's translation,of the Coptic text of John 1:1, that was used by the watchtower when they first published it in 1950. I cannot translate Greek to Coptic. Can You?? Therefore I must rely on the experts in history. I simply do not believe the people you seem to trust are very accurate. I do know that until 1950 there is no record of the translation into English. and since that is the language I use, it is really the only one that interests me. However, if you can show me where it is in any other language than, Greek to Coptic, I will be glad to check it out.

This is another source of the Jw's as well but it was not their work,and it was translated by manuscripts that was in possession by the Catholic church.

The Emphatic Diaglott
(Interlinear Text)
1865 by Benjamin Wilson

Joh 1:1 In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.

[ralittlefield]

I am amazed at the accuracy of Gods Word and how bias was inserted into it by translators and I realize that you think I am biased in my acceptance of certain translation of words too but I believe as a whole my view fits the overall context of Gods Word but respect your view.

John 1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. (KJV)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




1. Trinitarians use this verse to show that Christ made the world and its contents. However, that is not the case. What we have learned from the study of John 1:1 above will be helpful in properly interpreting this verse.

John 1:1-3
(1) In the beginning was the Word [the wisdom, plan or purpose of God], and the Word was with God, and
the Word was divine.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by it [the Word]; and without it was not anything made that was made.

2. The pronoun in verse 3 can legitimately be translated as “it.” It does not have to be translated as “him,” and it does not have to refer to a “person” in any way. A primary reason why people get the idea that “the Word” is a person is that the pronoun “he” is used with it. The Greek text does, of course, have the masculine pronoun, because like many languages, including Spanish, French, German, Latin, Hebrew, etc., the Greek language assigns a gender to all nouns, and the gender of the pronoun must agree with the gender of the noun. In French, for example, a table is feminine, la table, while a desk is masculine, le bureau, and feminine and masculine pronouns are required to agree with the gender of the noun. In translating from French to English, however, we would never translate “the table, she,” or “the desk, he.” And we would never insist that a table or desk was somehow a person just because it had a masculine or feminine pronoun. We would use the English designation “it” for the table and the desk, in spite of the fact that in the original language the table and desk have a masculine or feminine gender.


read the rest here..........http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=86

It closes on this verse with EXACTLY my view on the verse.........


The opening of John reveals this simple truth in a beautiful way: “In the beginning there was one God, who had reason, purpose and a plan, which was, by its very nature and origin, divine. It was through and on account of this reason, plan and purpose that everything was made. Nothing was made outside its scope. Then, this plan became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ and tabernacled among us.” Understanding the opening of John this way fits with the whole of Scripture and is entirely acceptable from a translation standpoint.

Note the part that I underlined. Especially the word can.

I have no training in the translation of Greek, but it seems to me that the author that you are relying on is not putting a very strong position out here.

If he is only willing to say that "it" can be used, rather than stronger language, then you have to accept that "him" at least can be used also. I believe that there may be some grammar rules that apply here. I doubt that correct translation would ignore gender.

Perhaps it would be good to get someone who has knowledge of the Greek language involved here. Your website, after all, is not unbiased.

[ralittlefield]

Your whole theory blows up at John 1:1.

Your theory is built on faulty understanding of words. Imho of course.

I understand that that is your opinion.

[ralittlefield]

This is from chadbad online tanach. I am still waiting for your view on this ?

Proverbs 8

22. The Lord acquired me at the beginning of His way, before His works of old. כב.
23. From the distant past I was enthroned, from the beginning, of those that preceded the earth. כג.
24. I was created when there were yet no deeps, when there were no fountains replete with water. כד.
25. I was created before the mountains were sunk, before the hills; כה.
26. when He had not yet made the land and the outsides and the beginning of the dust of the earth. כו.
27. When He established the heavens, there I was, when He drew a circle over the face of the deep; כז.
28. when He made the skies above firm, when He strengthened the fountains of the deep; כח.
29. when He gave the sea its boundary, and the water shall not transgress His command, when He established the foundations of the earth כט.
30. I was a nursling beside Him, and I was [His] delight every day, playing before Him at all times; ל.
31. playing in the habitable world of His earth, and [having] my delights with the children of man. לא.
32. And now, my children, hearken to me, and fortunate are those who observe my ways


Did God always have wisdom ?

Did God enthrone wisdom or a son ?


I have stated my view on this.

I believe God always had wisdom.

I do not believe that Proverbs 8 teaches that Jesus was created.

[Angryamerican]

I have stated my view on this.

I believe God always had wisdom.

I do not believe that Proverbs 8 teaches that Jesus was created.

He says he was created,and you just admitted, that God always had wisdom. So who was that,that was talking ?

Who was created ? in that passage.

Who was at Gods side ?

Who was enthroned ?

The jews had it wrong about the messiah.Imho of course

Isa 9:6 For a Child is born; to us a Son is given; and the government is on His shoulder; and His name is called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

The jews have a different translation of Isa 9:6 it's actually 9:5

5. For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."



The thing is the jews did not know God had a son,The jews did not know Jesus because they rejected him. The Jews did not know that Jesus was a heavenly being that was gonna become a man.

Everyone here knows i have great respect for the jewish people, so i don't mean any disrespect towards them at all.

[Warrior4God]

Note the part that I underlined. Especially the word can.

I have no training in the translation of Greek, but it seems to me that the author that you are relying on is not putting a very strong position out here.

If he is only willing to say that "it" can be used, rather than stronger language, then you have to accept that "him" at least can be used also. I believe that there may be some grammar rules that apply here. I doubt that correct translation would ignore gender.

Perhaps it would be good to get someone who has knowledge of the Greek language involved here. Your website, after all, is not unbiased.


Go read the rest and you will find that the arguement you make is the position that is not a"strong position".


Does it not bother you that the trinity doctrine is shrouded in mystery and lacks reason and logic for 1 to really be three but yet they are one because they are all equal yet one is God the Father and superior to the other two who are subject to the one?



IMO the fact is that the ratio of clear verses that prove Jesus has a God and not God are 1000 to 1 and the verses used to try to fit the trinity in the Bible are easily explained and refuted when understanding the culture and usage of language in the time it was written and the fact that almost EVERY translation is biased towards a doctrine that was forced into being at the council of nicea .


See,I believe that what men call a mystery is actually contradiction.

Jesus declared throughout the Gospels who his God is and that God alone is God and he is not a three headed being.

Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

[ralittlefield]

He says he was created,and you just admitted, that God always had wisdom. So who was that,that was talking ?

Who was created ? in that passage.

Who was at Gods side ?

Who was enthroned ?

The jews had it wrong about the messiah.Imho of course

Isa 9:6 For a Child is born; to us a Son is given; and the government is on His shoulder; and His name is called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

The thing is the jews did not know God had a son,The jews did not know Jesus because they rejected him. The Jews did not know that Jesus was a heavenly being that was gonna become a man.


And proverbs 8 is why a lot of jews have now been converted to Christianity. I know of two of them on this board that credits proverbs chapter 8.

This is the bottom line for me:

John 1:3 uses clear language to state that Jesus created, without exception, everything that is created.

There is no clear language in Pro 8 to indicate that Jesus is created. In order to come to that understanding, we have to interpret Pro 8 to say that.

I prefer clear language to interpretation.

[Angryamerican]

This is the bottom line for me:

John 1:3 uses clear language to state that Jesus created, without exception, everything that is created.

There is no clear language in Pro 8 to indicate that Jesus is created. In order to come to that understanding, we have to interpret Pro 8 to say that.

I prefer clear language to interpretation.

Ok fair enough,but the trinity is not clear language for interpretation,it is built on comparisons between Jesus and God.

Where is the clear language ?

I'll let this go, i will not continue to the point of upsetting you.

[DispensationalJim]

...
Most bibles were translated from the kjv and the kjv was found to have many mistakes in it and even some those versions disagreed with the kjv in other areas.
...


It would appear, AA, that you have not paid attention to the posts I have made about the various English Bible translations and their sources.

First, I have challenged many on here to show me supposed mistakes in the King James, which -- when they were given -- IMO they turned out to be without real solid evidence. In other words, they were -- as I see it -- OPINIONS given by folks who could have been biased against the KJ.

Second, I have stated many times that the King James was translated from the Textus Receptus group of manuscripts (over 5,000 sets) while almost every other English Bible today was translated from the Wescott and Hort Greek lexicon of 1870 based on the Vaticanus and Sanaiticus manuscripts which many theologians consider to be quite corrupted.

But that is a debate for other threads. I just wanted to point out that your statement above (that most Bibles were translated from the King James) is not at all correct.

[Angryamerican]

It would appear, AA, that you have not paid attention to the posts I have made about the various English Bible translations and their sources.

First, I have challenged many on here to show me supposed mistakes in the King James, which -- when they were given -- IMO they turned out to be without real solid evidence. In other words, they were -- as I see it -- OPINIONS given by folks who could have been biased against the KJ.

Second, I have stated many times that the King James was translated from the Textus Receptus group of manuscripts (over 5,000 sets) while almost every other English Bible today was translated from the Wescott and Hort Greek lexicon of 1870 based on the Vaticanus and Sanaiticus manuscripts which many theologians consider to be quite corrupted.

But that is a debate for other threads. I just wanted to point out that your statement above (that most Bibles were translated from the King James) is not at all correct.

Yes you are right,and it is off topic for me to say that.

I rather stick to the issues of God and Jesus and whether they are the same God.

[DispensationalJim]

Go read the rest and you will find that the arguement you make is the position that is not a"strong position".


Does it not bother you that the trinity doctrine is shrouded in mystery and lacks reason and logic for 1 to really be three but yet they are one because they are all equal yet one is God the Father and superior to the other two who are subject to the one?



IMO the fact is that the ratio of clear verses that prove Jesus has a God and not God are 1000 to 1 and the verses used to try to fit the trinity in the Bible are easily explained and refuted when understanding the culture and usage of language in the time it was written and the fact that almost EVERY translation is biased towards a doctrine that was forced into being at the council of nicea .


See,I believe that what men call a mystery is actually contradiction.

Jesus declared throughout the Gospels who his God is and that God alone is God and he is not a three headed being.

Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

I would, of course, totally disagree, and respond with the exact opposite statement.

I would say boldly that IMO the ratio of verses supporting the deity of Jesus Christ is 1,000 to 1 in favor of the idea that JESUS WAS GOD, and that the verses you keep quoting showing that Jesus was a man are quite accurate since JESUS -- WHO WAS GOD, THE CREATOR -- MADE HIMSELF INTO A MAN SO HE COULD DIE FOR OUR SINS. Then, He returned from the earth He made to the Heaven He made and regained His rightful position as KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS and is now the perfect mediator between God and man since He is now both man and God.

I think that is as logical and reasonable as anything you said, IMO, and just makes good common sense to me, thank you very much. :)

[terri910]

Yes you are right,and it is off topic for me to say that.

I rather stick to the issues of God and Jesus and whether they are the same God.
Not totally off-topic, Angryamerican. The basis for most of the arguments here is Holy Scripture. How that scripture is to be understood would hinge greatly on its translation.

It is obvious to me that one has to accept or reject a particular translation in order to argue the accdeptance or rejection of the Trinity.

[Angryamerican]

Not totally off-topic, Angryamerican. The basis for most of the arguments here is Holy Scripture. How that scripture is to be understood would hinge greatly on its translation.

It is obvious to me that one has to accept or reject a particular translation in order to argue the accdeptance or rejection of the Trinity.

Here you guys go confusing me again :D

[terri910]

Note the part that I underlined. Especially the word can.

I have no training in the translation of Greek, but it seems to me that the author that you are relying on is not putting a very strong position out here.

If he is only willing to say that "it" can be used, rather than stronger language, then you have to accept that "him" at least can be used also. I believe that there may be some grammar rules that apply here. I doubt that correct translation would ignore gender.

Perhaps it would be good to get someone who has knowledge of the Greek language involved here. Your website, after all, is not unbiased.
Constantine has knowledge of the Greek language. I'm not certain if he's addressed this particular bit or not. But he has certainly weighed in, in the past. He could be a professor in the subject and some people would dismiss him.

[Angryamerican]

Constantine has knowledge of the Greek language. I'm not certain if he's addressed this particular bit or not. But he has certainly weighed in, in the past. He could be a professor in the subject and some people would dismiss him.

But there is two arguments on the translating of the scriptures,the deciding factor Imho is, which one does the best job in keeping Gods word free of contradiction.

[terri910]

But there is two arguments on the translating of the scriptures,the deciding factor Imho is, which one does the best job in keeping Gods word free of contradiction.
Am I understanding you correctly? You would accept a translation, even if someone knowledgeable about the language being translated told you that translation was wrong, because it -- in your opinion -- keeps God's word free of contradiction, according to your understanding?

I will take the truth, even when it is more difficult to understand.

[Angryamerican]

Am I understanding you correctly? You would accept a translation, even if someone knowledgeable about the language being translated told you that translation was wrong, because it -- in your opinion -- keeps God's word free of contradiction, according to your understanding?

I will take the truth, even when it is more difficult to understand.

Does that lead to the truth,if the word of God,is kept from contradiction ?

Just because someone knows the language of today don't mean they understood what the writer meant back than.

So yes,the word of God must be kept from contradiction.

[terri910]

Does that lead to the truth,if the word of God,is kept from contradiction ?

Just because someone knows the language of today don't mean they understood what the writer meant back than.

So yes,the word of God must be kept from contradiction.
There is not one believer here (whether they believe in the Trinity or not) that believes the word of God, in the translation they accept, contains contradiction. There may be "apparent" contradictions -- that is, verses that, on the surface and without proper understanding of the whole of scriptures, seem contradictory. I believe that is true of every translation. Most Christians mature in their faith are aware of this. (I think it may take some "young" Christians by surprise the first time they are confronted with them...usually by atheists. I don't believe any of the participants in this thread are "young" Christians)

But I am surprised to have read your admission that you would accept a faulty translation if it made those apparent contradictions disappear.

[Angryamerican]

Am I understanding you correctly? You would accept a translation, even if someone knowledgeable about the language being translated told you that translation was wrong, because it -- in your opinion -- keeps God's word free of contradiction, according to your understanding?

I will take the truth, even when it is more difficult to understand.

So are you saying the ones that disagree with the john 1:1 translation of "was God" are wrong ?

How do you know who is right ?

[Angryamerican]

There is not one believer here (whether they believe in the Trinity or not) that believes the word of God, in the translation they accept, contains contradiction. There may be "apparent" contradictions -- that is, verses that, on the surface and without proper understanding of the whole of scriptures, seem contradictory. I believe that is true of every translation. Most Christians mature in their faith are aware of this. (I think it may take some "young" Christians by surprise the first time they are confronted with them...usually by atheists. I don't believe any of the participants in this thread are "young" Christians)

But I am surprised to have read your admission that you would accept a faulty translation if it made those apparent contradictions disappear.

I don't think Gods word is faulty so yes i believe we get the message trough several different versions.but bottom line our beliefs must not contain contradictions.Imo

I will not accept beliefs based on mistranslated material,i don't agree with the translation of John 1:1 in the kjv but the bible i read from most of time is the kjv.

[terri910]

So are you saying the ones that disagree with the john 1:1 translation of "was God" are wrong ?

How do you know who is right ?
I suppose everyone must decide who they believe is most accurate.

I know who I will believe is right because of the promise I believe Jesus gave to His Church. 2000+ years works for me.

[Warrior4God]

I would, of course, totally disagree, and respond with the exact opposite statement.

I would say boldly that IMO the ratio of verses supporting the deity of Jesus Christ is 1,000 to 1 in favor of the idea that JESUS WAS GOD, and that the verses you keep quoting showing that Jesus was a man are quite accurate since JESUS -- WHO WAS GOD, THE CREATOR -- MADE HIMSELF INTO A MAN SO HE COULD DIE FOR OUR SINS. Then, He returned from the earth He made to the Heaven He made and regained His rightful position as KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS and is now the perfect mediator between God and man since He is now both man and God.

I think that is as logical and reasonable as anything you said, IMO, and just makes good common sense to me, thank you very much. :)

Logic and reason and common sense are certainly not words that can be used to describe the trinity when it must be accepted as a mystery

You have very few verses by the way to try to support your "mystery" versus a whole Bible full of any mention of a trinity.

In fact the WHOLE OT mentions nothing even suggesting the messiah being God.

Jesus himself in ALL the Gospels does not mention that he is God or even close to it.(He does mention that he HAS a God and prays to him.........go figure)

What you call mystery I call contradiction

Thats not mystery .

I believe that to believe a trinity you must overlook the words of Jesus.

[Angryamerican]

I suppose everyone must decide who they believe is most accurate.

I know who I will believe is right because of the promise I believe Jesus gave to His Church. 2000+ years works for me.

I agree.

But i do not accept what i think is faulty,but i have been wrong in the past,and i feel i am a humble enough person ,to accept when i am wrong and adjust my beliefs.

I know this, it seems i learn something new every time i get in the scriptures or i missed something from an earlier time of reading.

[terri910]

I don't think Gods word is faulty so yes i believe we get the message trough several different versions.but bottom line our beliefs must not contain contradictions.Imo

I will not accept beliefs based on mistranslated material,i don't agree with the translation of John 1:1 in the kjv but the bible i read from most of time is the kjv.
But the determining factor (as to whether a particular verse is mistranslated) for you, if I understand you correctly, is whether or not it aligns with your belief or understanding of other particular verses.

I would rather have a trusted (that is, one I believed was true to the inerrant word of God) translation (not several where I would pick and choose verses out of each) and try to understand all the scriptures, as a whole, and how apparent contradictions were reconciled.

[terri910]

I agree.

But i do not accept what i think is faulty,but i have been wrong in the past,and i feel i am a humble enough person ,to accept when i am wrong and adjust my beliefs.

I know this, it seems i learn something new every time i get in the scriptures or i missed something from an earlier time of reading.
That will serve you well in your journey, Angryamerican. As long as you let God lead you, I believe your journey will be to Him.

[terri910]

:hug:

To anyone who reads this: Have a good Saturday!

I'm logging off for a while to get a little housework done.

[Angryamerican]

But the determining factor (as to whether a particular verse is mistranslated) for you, if I understand you correctly, is whether or not it aligns with your belief or understanding of other particular verses.

I would rather have a trusted (that is, one I believed was true to the inerrant word of God) translation (not several where I would pick and choose verses out of each) and try to understand all the scriptures, as a whole, and how apparent contradictions were reconciled.

That thinking can be said about every bible and every religion,but i think we have over 25,000 different denominations of Christianity.

do You think only one is 100% correct ?

If you do, point me to them i will check them out.

[Angryamerican]

That will serve you well in your journey, Angryamerican. As long as you let God lead you, I believe your journey will be to Him.

Once again we agree. :D

[DispensationalJim]

...

I would rather have a trusted (that is, one I believed was true to the inerrant word of God) translation (not several where I would pick and choose verses out of each) and try to understand all the scriptures, as a whole, and how apparent contradictions were reconciled.

Thank you, terri, for that perceptive statement. AMEN!

[DispensationalJim]

That thinking can be said about every bible and every religion,but i think we have over 25,000 different denominations of Christianity.

do You think only one is 100% correct ?

If you do, point me to them i will check them out.

As I believe we all know, terri is a devoted Catholic. I'm not sure which Catholic Bible she prefers, but I would recommend the Douay-Rheims. It was translated at about the same time as the King James, and I find it to be quite similar to the KJ -- with the obvious exception of the Apocrypha :).

[DispensationalJim]

Logic and reason and common sense are certainly not words that can be used to describe the trinity when it must be accepted as a mystery

You have very few verses by the way to try to support your "mystery" versus a whole Bible full of any mention of a trinity.

In fact the WHOLE OT mentions nothing even suggesting the messiah being God.

Jesus himself in ALL the Gospels does not mention that he is God or even close to it.(He does mention that he HAS a God and prays to him.........go figure)

What you call mystery I call contradiction

Thats not mystery .

I believe that to believe a trinity you must overlook the words of Jesus.

I don't recall ever calling the deity of Christ a mystery. Can you show me where I ever said that, please?

The mystery I often speak of is the mystery of THE BODY OF CHRIST which was spoken of ONLY by my apostle, Paul. Paul tells us that we now can know all about that mystery.

• Rom. 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, 26 But now is made manifest, ...
• Eph. 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
• Eph. 6:19 And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,
• Col. 1:26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: 27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
• 1Tim. 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

And as we have been discussing with AA, I see no contradictions in my Bible whatsoever!

[Angryamerican]

As I believe we all know, terri is a devoted Catholic. I'm not sure which Catholic Bible she prefers, but I would recommend the Douay-Rheims. It was translated at about the same time as the King James, and I find it to be quite similar to the KJ -- with the obvious exception of the Apocrypha :).

On the OT i prefer the chabad tanach. I just put it back on my computer,my computer crashed and i did not have it for a while,so i had to get a hold of harmonious to find it.

On the nt i prefer the The Emphatic Diaglott
(Interlinear Text)
1865 by Benjamin Wilson

For just one bible i prefer the mkjv.

But i am becoming a fan of the Sahidica: The New Testament According to the Egyptian Greek Text

[terri910]

As I believe we all know, terri is a devoted Catholic. I'm not sure which Catholic Bible she prefers, but I would recommend the Douay-Rheims. It was translated at about the same time as the King James, and I find it to be quite similar to the KJ -- with the obvious exception of the Apocrypha :).
Online I usually just go to New Advent's Bible...

[the oldtimer]

That thinking can be said about every bible and every religion,but i think we have over 25,000 different denominations of Christianity.

do You think only one is 100% correct ?

If you do, point me to them i will check them out.

It is very true that there are many different denomination in Christianity. They differ on the things that don't really matter. Such as how we, baptize, how we administer the sacraments. But in the core issues we are in complete agreement. That is why we can worship together in harmony

[Angryamerican]

It is very true that there are many different denomination in Christianity. They differ on the things that don't really matter. Such as how we, baptize, how we administer the sacraments. But in the core issues we are in complete agreement. That is why we can worship together in harmony

Not all Denominations of Christianity believe in the trinity.

Not all Denominations of Christianity believe in eternal torment as in the lake of fire. Ect Ect

I think we all believe in the son of God and his Father.

[terri910]

I think we all believe in the son of God and his Father.
I would also include the Holy Spirit....

....but I'm never certain what all the many other Christian sects do and don't believe in. I discover new "takes" all the time, it seems.

[DispensationalJim]

Online I usually just go to New Advent's Bible...

I just checked the web site, and it turns out that is actually the Douay-Rheims! Very good! :)

[DispensationalJim]

On the OT i prefer the chabad tanach. I just put it back on my computer,my computer crashed and i did not have it for a while,so i had to get a hold of harmonious to find it.

On the nt i prefer the The Emphatic Diaglott
(Interlinear Text)
1865 by Benjamin Wilson

For just one bible i prefer the mkjv.

But i am becoming a fan of the Sahidica: The New Testament According to the Egyptian Greek Text

From what I read on the internet, "The Emphatic Diaglott" was translated from the same manuscripts used by Wescott and Hort, which IMO were corrupted, but feel free to check it out yourself. :)

[Angryamerican]

I would also include the Holy Spirit....

....but I'm never certain what all the many other Christian sects do and don't believe in. I discover new "takes" all the time, it seems.

If i believed, the Holy Spirit was a person, i would have :D

[Angryamerican]

From what I read on the internet, "The Emphatic Diaglott" was translated from the same manuscripts used by Wescott and Hort, which IMO were corrupted, but feel free to check it out yourself. :)

Why do you think it is corrupted ?

[terri910]

If i believed, the Holy Spirit was a person, i would have :D
Who said anything about "persons"?

You said
I think we all believe in the son of God and his Father.

I think we all believe in the son of God and His Father, too (even though some of us believe they are two of the three persons of the Trinity and some do not).

Do you not believe in the Holy Spirit (even if you do not believe the Holy spirit is the third person of the Trinity)?

[DRS]

Perhaps, but that does not matter. What matters is that even though the color of the car was not the context of the conversation, we do learn from the conversation what the color is.

I take it that you now agree with me. Just because creation is not the context of the passage, it is true that God said that He alone, by Himself, is the Creator.

Yes it matter because even though the red car won it was not by itself when it won, so even if you say the red car alone won, that statement is true to the extent that no other cars won but it does not negate the fact there were others who could be called the winner of the race

Jehovah shows that He is responsible for creation not these other gods.

Now since Jehovah created through Jesus as the bible shows in John and Proverbs and it was Jehovah who decreed who decreed what was to be created as shown in Psalms and it was Jehovah's Holy Spirit that enabled creation as shown in Genesis and Psalms then Jehovah is the Creator

Jesus though is not Jehovah

Even in the trinities that predate the invention of the one you worship all three persons in those triads had their own names

[Angryamerican]

Who said anything about "persons"?

You said


I think we all believe in the son of God and His Father, too (even though some of us believe they are two of the three persons of the Trinity and some do not).

Do you not believe in the Holy Spirit (even if you do not believe the Holy spirit is the third person of the Trinity)?

I believe two are persons,and the spirit is the power of God.

Yes i believe in the Holy Spirit,but not in the same way as you.

[terri910]

I honestly didn't think that was THAT difficult of an analogy or point.

[terri910]

I believe two are persons,and the spirit is the power of God.

Yes i believe in the Holy Spirit,but not in the same way as you.
That's what I thought!

But honestly, for all I know, there may be some Christian denominations that don't even recognize the Holy Spirit, even as just the power of God.

[Angryamerican]

I honestly didn't think that was THAT difficult of an analogy or point.

Come on now i am speaking with a trinitarian :)):angel:

[terri910]

Come on now i am speaking with a trinitarian :)):angel:
I am talking about ralittlefield's point about the red car in context. (I didn't make that clear; I apologize for that)

DRS is making it as convoluted as possible. I don't know if it is by design or he simply doesn't understand the analogy or the point.

But, honestly, it wasn't that difficult.

[DRS]

I am talking about ralittlefield's point about the red car in context. (I didn't make that clear; I apologize for that)

DRS is making it as convoluted as possible. I don't know if it is by design or he simply doesn't understand the analogy or the point.

But, honestly, it wasn't that difficult.

Does the red car have a driver?

And if you take the position that this scripture negates anyone else from being involved in creation then again you are now imposing a view on the bible which creates contradiction

If creation was through Jesus then there has to be someone behind it

[terri910]

Does the red car have a driver?

DRS, that is exactly what I'm talking about. It has NOTHING to do with the analogy or the point being made.

So, I'm left wondering if you just didn't get the point or are purposely obfuscating.

[DRS]

DRS, that is exactly what I'm talking about. It has NOTHING to do with the analogy or the point being made.

So, I'm left wondering if you just didn't get the point or are purposely obfuscating.

IT has everything to do with the analogy

You say the red car won and later on I read the Jeff Gordon won

So which is it the Red care of Jeff Gordon

Or is Jeff Gordon the Red Car

The word of God is alive one has to go through it all to best understand it and not seek our one sentence

[terri910]

IT has everything to do with the analogy

You say the red car won and later on I read the Jeff Gordon won

So which is it the Red care of Jeff Gordon

Or is Jeff Gordon the Red Car
No, it has NOTHING to do with the analogy or the point.

Since you are insisting it does, I will have to assume that the analogy and its point escaped you completely.

[the oldtimer]

I think we all believe in the son of God and his Father.


Before I became a Christian I was reading the Bible one day and it dawned on me that when Jesus, approached a demon possessed person, He never introduced himself as the, Son of God. It was always the demon who spoke first. They knew He was the, Son of God. I had to ask myself, " What was the difference in what I believed, and what the demons believed. They accepted that He was the "Son of God" And "God the Son"

[terri910]

Just so others don't have to search back for ralittlefield's analogy:
If I am talking about a race, and I say the red car won, just because the context of the conversation is the race, does not take away from the fact that the color of the winning car is red. The context may not be the color of the cars, but the fact that the car is red is still true.


Just because creation is not the context of the passage does not diminish the fact that He said "alone" and "by myself".

All the facts in the passage are true, whether they relate to the main context or not.

[DRS]

Before I became a Christian I was reading the Bible one day and it dawned on me that when Jesus, approached a demon possessed person, He never introduced himself as the, Son of God. It was always the demon who spoke first. They knew He was the, Son of God. I had to ask myself, " What was the difference in what I believed, and what the demons believed. They accepted that He was the "Son of God" And "God the Son"

Where does it say they called him God the son?

[the oldtimer]

Where does it day they called God the son?
You, are an intelligent person, you know what I mean.

[Angryamerican]

From what I read on the internet, "The Emphatic Diaglott" was translated from the same manuscripts used by Wescott and Hort, which IMO were corrupted, but feel free to check it out yourself. :)

I will read a lot more on the subject, but looks like they both have critics,and both have supporters.

Wescott and hort,and the textus receptus that is.

But i am curious about the changes made in the textus receptus.

I have been off with kidney stones,i will read a lot and come back with my opinion.

[terri910]

You, are an intelligent person, you know what I mean.
Well, your post made me wonder the same thing, oldtimer...

Could you clarify for us?

[terri910]

I have been off with kidney stones,i will read a lot and come back with my opinion.
You are still having kidney stone problems, Angryamerican?

I am so sorry!!! :pray::pray:

[DRS]

You, are an intelligent person, you know what I mean.

Actually the demons called him Son of the Most High God

6*But on catching sight of Jesus from a distance he ran and did obeisance to him, 7*and, when he had cried out with a loud voice, he said: “What have I to do with you, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I put you under oath by God not to torment me.”

[DRS]

I will read a lot more on the subject, but looks like they both have critics,and both have supporters.

Wescott and hort,and the textus receptus that is.

But i am curious about the changes made in the textus receptus.

I have been off with kidney stones,i will read a lot and come back with my opinion.

I have been wondering something about the KJV myself why in some verisions does it say Jehovah at Psalm 83:18 and others it does not

If they are using the same manuscripts should they not all read the same

[Angryamerican]

You are still having kidney stone problems, Angryamerican?

I am so sorry!!! :pray::pray:

Yeah and thanks,i have to have surgery next friday,if i don't pass this last stone by then.

It's the big one :))

The Dr said, i must drink much more fluids, and he is gonna work on a diet for me.

It really really hurts to be me.:D

[Angryamerican]

I have been wondering something about the KJV myself why in some verisions does it say Jehovah at Psalm 83:18 and others it does not

If they are using the same manuscripts should they not all read the same

That is how i see it.

What is really interesting is the Johannine comma verse.

1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma) - "These Three are One" (Trinity/Godhead)
The passage is called the Johannine C

That has been rejected by many translationsn,because it is not found in many greek manuscripts.

[DRS]

That is how i see it.

What is really interesting is the johnny comma verse.

That has been rejected by many translations.

I found this an interesting read

Erasmus's hurried effort (Erasmus said it was "rushed into print rather than edited"[17]) was published by Froben of Basel in 1516 and thence became the first published Greek New Testament, the Novum Instrumentum omne, diligenter ab Erasmo Rot. Recognitum et Emendatum. Erasmus used several Greek manuscript sources because he did not have access to a single complete manuscript. The manuscripts were, however, late Greek manuscripts of the Byzantine textual family and Erasmus used the best manuscript the least because "he was afraid of its supposedly erratic text." [18] He also ignored much older and better manuscripts that were at his disposal.[19]

In the 2nd (1519) edition the more familiar term Testamentum was used instead of Instrumentum. This edition was used by Martin Luther in making his German translation of Bible for his own religious movement. Together, the first and second editions sold 3,300 copies only 600 copies of the Complutensian Polyglot were even printed.. The 1st- and 2nd-edition texts did not include the passage (1 John 5:7–8) that has become known as the Comma Johanneum. Erasmus had been unable to find those verses in any Greek manuscript, but one was supplied to him during production of the 3rd edition. That manuscript is now thought to be a 1520 creation from the Latin Vulgate, which likely got the verses from a fifth-century marginal gloss in a Latin copy of I John. The Roman Catholic Church decreed that the Comma Johanneum was open to dispute (June 2, 1927), and it is rarely included in modern scholarly translations.

The 3rd edition of 1522 was probably used by Tyndale for the first English New Testament (Worms, 1526) and was the basis for the 1550 Robert Stephanus edition used by the translators of the Geneva Bible and King James Version of the English Bible. Erasmus published a definitive 4th edition in 1527 containing parallel columns of Greek, Latin Vulgate and Erasmus's Latin texts. He used the now available Polyglot Bible to improve this version. In this edition Erasmus also supplied the Greek text of the last six verses of Revelation (which he had translated from Latin back into Greek in his first edition) from Cardinal Ximenez's Biblia Complutensis. In 1535 Erasmus published the 5th (and final) edition which dropped the Latin Vulgate column but was otherwise similar to the 4th edition. Subsequent versions of Erasmus's Greek New Testament became known as the Textus Receptus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus

[DRS]

You want to see something really funny go to scriptures4all.org and look at greek interlinear and then the ASV beside it for 1 John 5:7,8

[Angryamerican]

I found this an interesting read

Erasmus's hurried effort (Erasmus said it was "rushed into print rather than edited"[17]) was published by Froben of Basel in 1516 and thence became the first published Greek New Testament, the Novum Instrumentum omne, diligenter ab Erasmo Rot. Recognitum et Emendatum. Erasmus used several Greek manuscript sources because he did not have access to a single complete manuscript. The manuscripts were, however, late Greek manuscripts of the Byzantine textual family and Erasmus used the best manuscript the least because "he was afraid of its supposedly erratic text." [18] He also ignored much older and better manuscripts that were at his disposal.[19]

In the 2nd (1519) edition the more familiar term Testamentum was used instead of Instrumentum. This edition was used by Martin Luther in making his German translation of Bible for his own religious movement. Together, the first and second editions sold 3,300 copies only 600 copies of the Complutensian Polyglot were even printed.. The 1st- and 2nd-edition texts did not include the passage (1 John 5:7–8) that has become known as the Comma Johanneum. Erasmus had been unable to find those verses in any Greek manuscript, but one was supplied to him during production of the 3rd edition. That manuscript is now thought to be a 1520 creation from the Latin Vulgate, which likely got the verses from a fifth-century marginal gloss in a Latin copy of I John. The Roman Catholic Church decreed that the Comma Johanneum was open to dispute (June 2, 1927), and it is rarely included in modern scholarly translations.

The 3rd edition of 1522 was probably used by Tyndale for the first English New Testament (Worms, 1526) and was the basis for the 1550 Robert Stephanus edition used by the translators of the Geneva Bible and King James Version of the English Bible. Erasmus published a definitive 4th edition in 1527 containing parallel columns of Greek, Latin Vulgate and Erasmus's Latin texts. He used the now available Polyglot Bible to improve this version. In this edition Erasmus also supplied the Greek text of the last six verses of Revelation (which he had translated from Latin back into Greek in his first edition) from Cardinal Ximenez's Biblia Complutensis. In 1535 Erasmus published the 5th (and final) edition which dropped the Latin Vulgate column but was otherwise similar to the 4th edition. Subsequent versions of Erasmus's Greek New Testament became known as the Textus Receptus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus

Ain't no hanky panky going on there :eh::mad:

[Angryamerican]

You want to see something really funny go to scriptures4all.org and look at greek interlinear and then the ASV beside it for 1 John 5:7,8

Hey genius,i went there now what do i have to download ? :D

[the oldtimer]

Actually the demons called him Son of the Most High God

6*But on catching sight of Jesus from a distance he ran and did obeisance to him, 7*and, when he had cried out with a loud voice, he said: “What have I to do with you, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I put you under oath by God not to torment me.”


Matt.4:3&5 Satan Himself Challenged Jesus saying " if you are the Son of God" And he knew Jesus was the , Son of God.
Matt.8:29 " Son of God"
Mk.1:24 "Holy one of God"
Mk.5:7 "Son of the Most High God"
Lk.4:34 "Holy One of God"
Lk.4:41 "Son of God"
Lk. 8:28 " Son of the Most High God"

You left out a few. I have noticed in your posts that if something is not worded just as you think they should be you will not accept the statement. Well, where does it say, "Jesus, is not God" Or that "the Holy Spirit isn't really God" Show me, verse & chapter???

[DRS]

Matt.4:3&5 Satan Himself Challenged Jesus saying " if you are the Son of God" And he knew Jesus was the , Son of God.
Matt.8:29 " Son of God"
Mk.1:24 "Holy one of God"
Mk.5:7 "Son of the Most High God"
Lk.4:34 "Holy One of God"
Lk.4:41 "Son of God"
Lk. 8:28 " Son of the Most High God"

You left out a few. I have noticed in your posts that if something is not worded just as you think they should be you will not accept the statement. Well, where does it say, "Jesus, is not God" Or that "the Holy Spirit isn't really God" Show me, verse & chapter???



Interesting thing about Matthew there is no definite article there in front of son

So using your logic then show me where it says Zeus is not God


The bible says Jehovah is God Almighty, it also says Jehovah is Most High God alone

The bible shows that Jesus is anointed by Jehovah, raised up by Jehovah and is a servent of Jehovah

[DRS]

Hey genius,i went there now what do i have to download ? :D

You should not have to download to see anything but I downloaded the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer

Handy to have

[Angryamerican]

You should not have to download to see anything but I downloaded the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer

Handy to have

I did download that, but how do you decide which translation to view ?

[DRS]

I did download that, but how do you decide which translation to view ?

I do not know as I did not pick I just used the default I guess

[Angryamerican]

I do not know as I did not pick I just used the default I guess

I am getting a data base error oh well.

[Angryamerican]

I do not know as I did not pick I just used the default I guess

Did you see oldtimers post ?

[the oldtimer]

Interesting thing about Matthew there is no definite article there in front of son

So using your logic then show me where it says Zeus is not God


The bible says Jehovah is God Almighty, it also says Jehovah is Most High God alone

The bible shows that Jesus is anointed by Jehovah, raised up by Jehovah and is a servent of Jehovah

That was an answer?????

[terri910]

Yeah and thanks,i have to have surgery next friday,if i don't pass this last stone by then.

It's the big one :))

The Dr said, i must drink much more fluids, and he is gonna work on a diet for me.

It really really hurts to be me.:D
Oh, my.....I hope you don't have to have surgery, Angryamerican.

Definitely follow your doctor's orders!

[DRS]

Did you see oldtimers post ?

Yep and it seems he did not like the response

But it seems to me if there is one God and Jesus is the son of God and Holy one of God then he is not God

If being all those things makes one God then the angels and Aaron are God also since in bible they are called by those titles

[Angryamerican]

Oh, my.....I hope you don't have to have surgery, Angryamerican.

Definitely follow your doctor's orders!

Yes i intend to,but if anyone else out there don't mind me saying, the doctor recommends a few beers a day with this problem or to prevent it.

But i am not much on beer a good glass of wine now and than is not so bad though.:D

[Angryamerican]

Yep and it seems he did not like the response

But it seems to me if there is one God and Jesus is the son of God and Holy one of God then he is not God

If being all those things makes one God then the angels and Aaron are God also since in bible they are called by those titles

Yep Yep,titles titles titles can take you down the wrong road.

[DRS]

Yes i intend to,but if anyone else out there don't mind me saying, the doctor recommends a few beers a day with this problem or to prevent it.

But i am not much on beer a good glass of wine now and than is not so bad though.:D

Beer is good for going through you

Man now I am thinking of running out and getting some Sleeman Clear

[terri910]

Yep and it seems he did not like the response

But it seems to me if there is one God and Jesus is the son of God and Holy one of God then he is not God
Yes, it seems that way to you. Of course, some of us believe otherwise. Some of us believe that The Father is God, The Son is God, and The Holy Spirit is God, but there is only one God.

If being all those things makes one God then the angels and Aaron are God also since in bible they are called by those titlesI think your statement here is something of a straw man.

[the oldtimer]

[quote=DRS;50462801]Yep and it seems he did not like the response

That would be because it did not respond to what I asked. Again you ducked the question!

[DRS]

Yes, it seems that way to you. Of course, some of us believe otherwise. Some of us believe that The Father is God, The Son is God, and The Holy Spirit is God, but there is only one God.

I think your statement here is something of a straw man.

What does the bible say though

The bible says there is One is Most High Alone and that same One identifies Himself as Almighty

You can call it a strawman but when Jesus and the apostles were walking the Earth and teaching it was from the OT scriptures so any thoughts or ideas put forth had to coincide with what was being taught there, or prefigured

[DRS]

[quote=DRS;50462801]Yep and it seems he did not like the response

That would be because it did not respond to what I asked. Again you ducked the question!

Is this answer not true?

The bible says Jehovah is God Almighty, it also says Jehovah is Most High God alone

The bible shows that Jesus is anointed by Jehovah, raised up by Jehovah and is a servent of Jehovah

[terri910]

What does the bible say though

The bible says there is One is Most High Alone and that same One identifies Himself as Almighty
Yes. I'm afraid I say, "So?" Trinitarians do not disagree.

You can call it a strawman but when Jesus and the apostles were walking the Earth and teaching it was from the OT scriptures so any thoughts or ideas put forth had to coincide with what was being taught there, or prefigured
I call your premise a strawman.

[ralittlefield]

IT has everything to do with the analogy

You say the red car won and later on I read the Jeff Gordon won

So which is it the Red care of Jeff Gordon

Or is Jeff Gordon the Red Car

The word of God is alive one has to go through it all to best understand it and not seek our one sentence

I have trouble believing that you are being serious here, but I will play along.

My point is that in a discussion about a race, it may be revealed that the winner of the race was driving a red car.

The context of the discussion was the race.

Even though the context of the discussion was not the color of the car, it is still true that the car was red. That truth can be learned even if it is not the context of the discussion.

Even so with the passage we were discussing. The context is not creation, but God's statement that He alone , by Himself, created the heavens is still true.

[the oldtimer]

[quote=the oldtimer;50463211]

Is this answer not true?

The bible says Jehovah is God Almighty, it also says Jehovah is Most High God alone

The bible shows that Jesus is anointed by Jehovah, raised up by Jehovah and is a servent of Jehovah Again you did not answer the question Where does it say," Jesus is not God, Or the Holy Spirit is not God"???????

[ralittlefield]

Constantine has knowledge of the Greek language. I'm not certain if he's addressed this particular bit or not. But he has certainly weighed in, in the past. He could be a professor in the subject and some people would dismiss him.

Perhaps he would be willing to comment. I'll ask him.

[ralittlefield]

Does the red car have a driver?

And if you take the position that this scripture negates anyone else from being involved in creation then again you are now imposing a view on the bible which creates contradiction

If creation was through Jesus then there has to be someone behind it


God acted alone in the creation. God = Father, Son, & Holy Spirit.

Jesus had the Father & the Holy Spirit "behind Him".

[DRS]

God acted alone in the creation. God = Father, Son, & Holy Spirit.

Jesus had the Father & the Holy Spirit "behind Him".

God is not a team

God also equals angels and Moses

Jehovah= Father Almmighty Most High God alone

Jesus=beginning of creation

Holy Spirit no name and Ruach is not a person

[Angryamerican]

God acted alone in the creation. God = Father, Son, & Holy Spirit.

Jesus had the Father & the Holy Spirit "behind Him".

You have a point,assuming you can answer for sure who God was speaking to at Gen 1:26.

Otherwise you are just assuming.

Clearly more than one was involved in creating.

26. And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth.

[DRS]

[quote=DRS;50463451] Again you did not answer the question Where does it say," Jesus is not God, Or the Holy Spirit is not God"???????

You have been given an answer if you do not like it prove it wrong

The bible says Jehovah is God Almighty, it also says Jehovah is Most High God alone

The bible shows that Jesus is anointed by Jehovah, raised up by Jehovah and is a servent of Jehovah

[ralittlefield]

You have a point,assuming you can answer for sure who God was speaking to at Gen 1:26.

Otherwise you are just assuming.

Clearly more than one was involved in creating.

26. And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth.


Us is the Trinity. Why is it hard to understand that the members of the Trinity would communicate with each other?

[DRS]

You have a point,assuming you can answer for sure who God was speaking to at Gen 1:26.

Otherwise you are just assuming.

Clearly more than one was involved in creating.

26. And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth.

IF the assumption is that the us is three persons who make up the triune god then question has to be asked in light of 3

And Jehovah God went on to say: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad, and now in order that he may not put his hand out and actually take [fruit] also from the tree of life and eat and live to time indefinite


Which one of the us did man become like

Now if the trinity was true then God would simply say he man has become like us, but if those being spoken to are all indivuals and they are being spoken to by an indivual then it makes sense to say "one of us" another indivual

[Angryamerican]

Us is the Trinity. Why is it hard to understand that the members of the Trinity would communicate with each other?

UH because it's the same being :D

[DRS]

Us is the Trinity. Why is it hard to understand that the members of the Trinity would communicate with each other?

There is only one Almighty in the bible and man is made in the image of God when we start having conversations with ourselves it is the result of mental illness

If we have more than one personality it is mental illness

Only one person is God Almighty

Is not Jehovah called Most High God alone?

Is not Jehovah called the Almighty God?

Did not Jehovah raise Jesus from the dead as prophecied?

Did not Jehovah anoint Jesus with His spirit as prophecied?

[Angryamerican]

IF the assumption is that the us is three persons who make up the triune god then question has to be asked in light of 3

And Jehovah God went on to say: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad, and now in order that he may not put his hand out and actually take [fruit] also from the tree of life and eat and live to time indefinite


Which one of the us did man become like

Now if the trinity was true then God would simply say he man has become like us, but if those being spoken to are all indivuals and they are being spoken to by an indivual then it makes sense to say "one of us" another indivual

Good point again Drs.

[ralittlefield]

IF the assumption is that the us is three persons who make up the triune god then question has to be asked in light of 3

And Jehovah God went on to say: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad, and now in order that he may not put his hand out and actually take [fruit] also from the tree of life and eat and live to time indefinite


Which one of the us did man become like

Now if the trinity was true then God would simply say he man has become like us, but if those being spoken to are all indivuals and they are being spoken to by an indivual then it makes sense to say "one of us" another indivual

What are you talking about?

All of the members of the Trinity knew good and evil. Man became like all of them in the sense that man now knows good and evil.

[ralittlefield]

Good point again Drs.

Did you read his post? How can you say that was a good point. That made less sense than his comments about the red car analogy.

[DRS]

You know the thing I find astounding on top of all this

Monotheism one God based in the judaism the religion of the Jews in the Ot

Triune god-prevelant in the nations around Israel Egypt Babylon etc

If the roots of something take into pagan systems and you really want to serve the God of the bible then it would seem you would get rid of the pagan thoughts

Everytime Israel started embracing the pagan rituals and ideas of the nations around them they got God's wrath not blessing

[ralittlefield]

UH because it's the same being :D

What do you mean by that?

You understand that the Trinity is one God, three persons, right? Three persons can communicate among themselves, right?

[DRS]

What are you talking about?

All of the members of the Trinity knew good and evil. Man became like all of them in the sense that man now knows good and evil.

God is speaking to indivuals

Now when you read the bible you see there were times when God asked question of those in heaven and spoke to the spirit creatures in heaven

In fact Daniel tells us there a thousand thousands angels before Jehovah

[ralittlefield]

God is speaking to indivuals

Now when you read the bible you see there were times when God asked question of those in heaven and spoke to the spirit creatures in heaven

In fact Daniel tells us there a thousand thousands angels before Jehovah

Yes, God is speaking to individuals. The other members of the Trinity.

He says that man now knows good and evil just as all the members of the Trinity do.

What is your point?

[Angryamerican]

What do you mean by that?

You understand that the Trinity is one God, three persons, right? Three persons can communicate among themselves, right?

Yes,and i agree with none of it.

[DRS]

Yes, God is speaking to individuals. The other members of the Trinity.

He says that man now knows good and evil just as all the members of the Trinity do.

What is your point?

Prove that scripturally I can prove my side scripturally with other examples of God conversing with indivuals in heaven

And I can show other present at creation

But no where in the bible does it say there are three person who are Almighty God

Only Jehovah identifies Himself as the Almighty, the Holy Spirit has no name, it is simply God's spirit which He gives to those in need and is the power He used for creation

Jesus is anointed by Jehovah and is a servent of Jehovah and is raised from the dead by Jehovah

Jehovah Most High God

Jesus son of the Most High God

[Angryamerican]

What do you mean by that?

You understand that the Trinity is one God, three persons, right? Three persons can communicate among themselves, right?

Why do you expect someone that don't believe in the trinity,to agree with it's concept ?

[ralittlefield]

It makes more sense to me than, thinking God talks to himself in front of the on looking Angels.

God does not talk to Himself.

The members of the Trinity love and communicate with each other.

Please stop using the expression "God talks to Himself". I believe it shows disrespect to God. I know that it misrepresents my views.

[DRS]

What do you mean by that?

You understand that the Trinity is one God, three persons, right? Three persons can communicate among themselves, right?

Give me the names of the three person of the Trinity since the bible is God's word their name should be all over it and even the Jew should know who they are

[Angryamerican]

Yes, God is speaking to individuals. The other members of the Trinity.

He says that man now knows good and evil just as all the members of the Trinity do.

What is your point?

You can rationalize the concept, why do you expect us to?we would be agreeing with something we don't agree with.

[DRS]

God does not talk to Himself.

The members of the Trinity love and communicate with each other.

Please stop using the expression "God talks to Himself". I believe it shows disrespect to God. I know that it misrepresents my views.

Maybe you should look in the mirror and ask youself are my views misrepresenting God and disrespecting Him

[Angryamerican]

God does not talk to Himself.

The members of the Trinity love and communicate with each other.

Please stop using the expression "God talks to Himself". I believe it shows disrespect to God. I know that it misrepresents my views.

If all three persons are talking to each other who are they talking to ?

I will back away from that comment, i am sorry,but don't ask questions if you can't take the answer.

Misrepresenting your view ,by giving my opinion and answering your question.

[the oldtimer]

[quote=the oldtimer;50465451]

You have been given an answer if you do not like it prove it wrong

The bible says Jehovah is God Almighty, it also says Jehovah is Most High God alone

The bible shows that Jesus is anointed by Jehovah, raised up by Jehovah and is a servent of Jehovah
Again that was not an answer to my question. If you do not have an answer, why don't you just say so??

[terri910]

You can rationalize the concept, why do you expect us to?we would be agreeing with something we don't agree with.
You do not have to agree with a concept in order to understand it well enough not to misrepresent it, Angryamerican.

Being able to understand the concept of three persons being able to talk among themselves and to one another, does not mean you must accept the concept of God in three persons.

[DispensationalJim]

Why do you think it is corrupted ?


That, IMO, was best explained by Dean John William Burgon, who dealt personally with Wescott and Hort back in the 1870s and wrote a book entitled "The Revision Revised.".

Here is a web site to begin with...

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/DeanBurgon/whowasdb.htm

There are several more, but I can provide some of them later. We just lost an hour (spring forward), so I'd better call it a night. :)

Hope you can pass that stone. That was the most pain I ever had about 40 years ago, so I really feel for you. :frown: :pray:

[Angryamerican]

You do not have to agree with a concept in order to understand it well enough not to misrepresent it, Angryamerican.

Being able to understand the concept of three persons being able to talk among themselves and to one another, does not mean you must accept the concept of God in three persons.

I answered his question,and i was honest with my answer.

I don't think i am misrepresenting trinitarians view, when i am asking a question.

A question i asked,and still didn't get a reply .

I asked, if all three persons are speaking to each other,who are they speaking to ?

[Angryamerican]

That, IMO, was best explained by Dean John William Burgon, who dealt personally with Wescott and Hort back in the 1870s and wrote a book entitled "The Revision Revised.".

Here is a web site to begin with...

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/DeanBurgon/whowasdb.htm

There are several more, but I can provide some of them later. We just lost an hour (spring forward), so I'd better call it a night. :)

Hope you can pass that stone. That was the most pain I ever had about 40 years ago, so I really feel for you. :frown: :pray:

Thank you Dj.

[ralittlefield]

Give me the names of the three person of the Trinity since the bible is God's word their name should be all over it and even the Jew should know who they are

We have had this discussion before.

You feel that the Holy Spirit must have a name, and that we must know that name.

Other than the fact that it is your opinion, you can give no reason why we must know the name of the Holy Spirit.

Where does it say that you must know the name of the Holy Spirit?

What do the Jews say is the name of God?


The Names of God
I have often heard people refer to the Judeo-Christian God as "the nameless God" to contrast our God with the ancient pagan gods. I always found this odd, because Judaism clearly recognizes the existence of a Name for God; in fact, we have many Names for God.

The most important of God's Names is the four-letter Name represented by the Hebrew letters Yod-Hei-Vav-Hei (YHVH). It is often referred to as the Ineffable Name, the Unutterable Name or the Distinctive Name. Linguistically, it is related to the Hebrew root Hei-Yod-Hei (to be), and reflects the fact that God's existence is eternal. In scripture, this Name is used when discussing God's relation with human beings, and when emphasizing his qualities of lovingkindness and mercy. It is frequently shortened to Yah (Yod-Hei), Yahu or Yeho (Yod-Hei-Vav), especially when used in combination with names or phrases, as in Yehoshua (Joshua, meaning "the Lord is my Salvation"), Eliyahu (Elijah, meaning "my God is the Lord"), and Halleluyah ("praise the Lord").


Emphasis mine

Read the rest at the link below:

http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm



So, DRS, I do not believe that it is accurate to say that Jehovah is THE name of God. Why then, would anyone insist that we know the name of the Holy Spirit?


Edit to add:

What does the expression "in the name of" mean.

In Matt 21:6 it was proclaimed "“Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!"

What does that mean? Clearly Jesus was not conveyed by some name in the form of a mode of transportation. The phrase "in the name of" is the same as "in the authority of". It does not require an actual name that we can write on a piece of paper.

If it did, the expression "in the name of the law" would have no meaning, because, obviously, we do not have "a name" for the law.

[DRS]

You should have read that article closer, all those names refer to one person who is God

Yehoshua for instance which is Joshua or the Hebrew name for Jesus

Which means Jehovah is salvation, so even in his name Jesus sknowledged that it was Jehovah responisble for salvation

The scripture you are referring to is the people quoting Psalm 118:25*Ah, now, Jehovah, do save, please!
Ah, now, Jehovah, do grant success, please!
26*Blessed be the One coming in the name of Jehovah;


Jesus came in the name of Jehovah just as prophets of old did

” 22*when the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word does not occur or come true, that is the word that Jehovah did not speak. With presumptuousness the prophet spoke it. You must not get frightened at him.’

David when battling Goliath said he was coming with the name of Jehovah

[matt1618]

Bump.

So far Terri, The OldTimer and myself have spoken up.

Sorry for not contributing the last few days or so my wife had to go to the hospital, she's ok, though. Ok, Jesus is fully man and fully God, I agree.

[matt1618]

Hmm, going back in an earlier post, I just noted how Hebrews 1:10 points to Jesus as being the God who not only 'found the earth in the beginning and the heavens are the work of thy hands', quoting from Psalm 102:25-27. That means He is the creator of the heaven and the earth. And I asked who the Psalm is speaking about and I heard it was God, and I asked why was this referencing Jesus if He was not God, and then I get a rendition on why John 1 doesn't mean what it says, and translations on a god or whatever, something I didn't ask about, as the reference point was Hebrews 1, especially v. 10.

[terri910]

I answered his question,and i was honest with my answer.

I don't think i am misrepresenting trinitarians view, when i am asking a question.

A question i asked,and still didn't get a reply .

I asked, if all three persons are speaking to each other,who are they speaking to ?
Your question doesn't make any sense to me. Take the entire idea of "God" out of your question. Let's say, Angryamerican, ralittlefield and terri910 are speaking to each other....and here is your question:
If all three persons (Angryamerican, ralittlefield and terri910) are speaking to each other, who are they speaking to?

Don't you see how your question answers itself? If Angryamerican, ralittlefield and terri910 are speaking to each other, then obviously, they are speaking to one another. That is, terri910 is speaking to Angryamerican and ralittlefield; Angryamerican is speaking to terri910 and ralittlefield; and ralittlefield is speaking terri910 and Angryamerican. Is this confusing to you? How can it be confusing when we do it in this thread all the time?

[DRS]

Hmm, going back in an earlier post, I just noted how Hebrews 1:10 points to Jesus as being the God who not only 'found the earth in the beginning and the heavens are the work of thy hands', quoting from Psalm 102:25-27. That means He is the creator of the heaven and the earth. And I asked who the Psalm is speaking about and I heard it was God, and I asked why was this referencing Jesus if He was not God, and then I get a rendition on why John 1 doesn't mean what it says, and translations on a god or whatever, something I didn't ask about, as the reference point was Hebrews 1, especially v. 10.

Psalm is directed to Jehovah

The scripture can be applied to Jesus as he was used in creation as seen in Proverbs 8:22-31 after Jehovah Himself created Jesus we see Jesus being used in creation

[DRS]

Your question doesn't make any sense to me. Take the entire idea of "God" out of your question. Let's say, Angryamerican, ralittlefield and terri910 are speaking to each other....and here is your question:
If all three persons (Angryamerican, ralittlefield and terri910) are speaking to each other, who are they speaking to?

Don't you see how your question answers itself? If Angryamerican, ralittlefield and terri910 are speaking to each other, then obviously, they are speaking to one another. That is, terri910 is speaking to Angryamerican and ralittlefield; Angryamerican is speaking to terri910 and ralittlefield; and ralittlefield is speaking terri910 and Angryamerican. Is this confusing to you? How can it be confusing when we do it in this thread all the time?

So then if we apply your answer to God then there are three gods

AA would be god Terri would be god and Ralp would be god

The bible though says Jehovah is most high alone, so if we apply that to your post which one of you is the most high?

[Angryamerican]

Your question doesn't make any sense to me. Take the entire idea of "God" out of your question. Let's say, Angryamerican, ralittlefield and terri910 are speaking to each other....and here is your question:
If all three persons (Angryamerican, ralittlefield and terri910) are speaking to each other, who are they speaking to?

Don't you see how your question answers itself? If Angryamerican, ralittlefield and terri910 are speaking to each other, then obviously, they are speaking to one another. That is, terri910 is speaking to Angryamerican and ralittlefield; Angryamerican is speaking to terri910 and ralittlefield; and ralittlefield is speaking terri910 and Angryamerican. Is this confusing to you? How can it be confusing when we do it in this thread all the time?

You have made a good point,but you are coming from a point of view that they are separate, the twist is they are still the same person God.

If they are all the same God then each and everyone of them is speaking to God.

Not to mention, i know Jesus was created, so to me ,Jesus being God is a moot point.

Both sides needs to be careful with our questions,both sides are coming at this from a different point of view.

[Angryamerican]

Hmm, going back in an earlier post, I just noted how Hebrews 1:10 points to Jesus as being the God who not only 'found the earth in the beginning and the heavens are the work of thy hands', from Psalm 102:25-27. That means He is the creator of the heaven and the earth. And I asked who the Psalm is speaking about and I heard it was God, and I asked why was this referencing Jesus if He was not God, and then I get a rendition on why John 1 doesn't mean what it says, and translations on a god or whatever, something I didn't ask about, as the reference point was Hebrews 1, especially v. 10.

After reading more on this,i was wrong in my view that Jehovah created the heavens and earth alone.

After reading proverbs 8 i do believe Jesus had a part in creating all things except himself.

Although i believe the alone means, if it were not for Jehovah there would have been no creation.

Without God there would have been a whole lot of nothing.

But it is now clear to me that Jesus was created,and that he had an active part in creating.

Pro 8:22 Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of His way, from then, before His works.
Pro 8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from that which was before the earth.
Pro 8:24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no springs heavy with water.
Pro 8:25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I was brought forth;
Pro 8:26 before He had made the earth and the fields, or the highest part of the dust of the world.
Pro 8:27 When He prepared the heavens, I was there; when He set a circle on the face of the deep,
Pro 8:28 when He formed the clouds above, when He made the strong fountains of the deep,
Pro 8:29 when He gave to the sea its limit, that the waters should not pass beyond His command; when He decreed the foundations of the earth,
Pro 8:30 then I was at His side, like a master workman; and I was His delights day by day, rejoicing before Him at every time;
Pro 8:31 rejoicing in the world, His earth; and my delight was with the sons of men.
Pro 8:32 And now listen to me, O sons, for blessed are those who keep my ways.

[terri910]

So then if we apply your answer to God then there are three gods

AA would be god Terri would be god and Ralp would be god

The bible though says Jehovah is most high alone, so if we apply that to your post which one of you is the most high?
No, if we apply the trinitarian view to my answer to God, there is still ONE GOD.

That is the mystery, and that is the part that I understand you do not accept, but that is the correct trinitarian view, and to say otherwise, when you have been told repeatedly the correct trinitarian view, is to purposely and deliberately misrepresent the trinitarian belief.

It has been said many times here, but I will repeat it again:
God in three persons.

The Father is God, The Son is God, The Holy Spirit is God, but there is ONLY ONE GOD.

[terri910]

You have made a good point,but you are coming from a point of view that they are separate, the twist is they are still the same person God.
No, Angryamerican, they are not the same person. They are three distinct persons, but one God.

If they are all the same God then each and everyone of them is speaking to God.They are one God, three separate persons. I know that is the difficult thing to wrap your mind around.

Not to mention, i know Jesus was created, so to me ,Jesus being God is a moot point.You believe Jesus was created, just as we believe Jesus was not created.

Both sides needs to be careful with our questions,both sides are coming at this from a different point of view.
But...are both sides understanding the different point of view?

[Angryamerican]

No, Angryamerican, they are not the same person. They are three distinct persons, but one God.

They are one God, three separate persons. I know that is the difficult thing to wrap your mind around.

You believe Jesus was created, just as we believe Jesus was not created.


But...are both sides understanding the different point of view?

Are they three distinct persons at all times ?

[terri910]

Are they three distinct persons at all times ?
I believe so. And one God at all times.

[Angryamerican]

I believe so. And one God at all times.

3 distinct persons at all times that are 1 God.

All equal and that are All knowing and All eternal.

No beginning and no end.

Are they All spirits ?

Who leads them ?

Who Do you worship ?

Why is the title Almighty only applied to one of them ?

Is the name of God Jehovah or Jesus ?

I am trying to better understand your belief.

[terri910]

3 distinct persons at all times that are 1 God.I believe so, yes.

All equal and that are All knowing and All eternal.I believe so, yes.

No beginning and no end.I believe so, yes.

Are they All spirits ?They are all one God.

Who leads them ?All equal, one God.

Who Do you worship ?the one God.

Why is the title Almighty only applied to one of them ?I don't even know if that is the case.

Is the name of God Jehovah or Jesus ?
Or is God called by many names? God knows when I am speaking to Him, and for me, that is all that is important.

I am trying to better understand your belief.I appreciate that, Angryamerican. :hug: I also try to better understand yours! It doesn't mean that either of us has to agree with what the other believes...but it helps to understand it!

[Angryamerican]

I believe so, yes.

I believe so, yes.

I believe so, yes.

They are all one God.

All equal, one God.

the one God.

I don't even know if that is the case.


Or is God called by many names? God knows when I am speaking to Him, and for me, that is all that is important.

I appreciate that, Angryamerican. :hug: I also try to better understand yours! It doesn't mean that either of us has to agree with what the other believes...but it helps to understand it!

Agreed terri :hug:

I at times have not been fair to the other side,i promise to be so.

I really am gonna focus on both beliefs, and try to be open minded enough to accept correction if needed.

I stumbled on to a website i feel is very interesting,it's by ex-Jw's and they make a very convincing argument on behalf of the trinity.

Not to mention it has a lot of other information pertaining to this subject.

It seems both sides makes a pretty good argument,but i do want to get to the bottom of this subject.

I will post the site if anybody would like to check it out.

http://www.4jehovah.org/index.php

No offense Drs.

[terri910]

It seems both sides makes a pretty good argument,but i do want to get to the bottom of this subject.
Both sides believe in God's word, they just have different understandings of what it all says.

We may never "get to the bottom" of it, in the sense that it is obviously settled to the satisfaction of all believers for all time.

But just think! One day, God will get us to the bottom of it! *L*

[the oldtimer]

Not to mention, i know Jesus was created, so to me ,Jesus being God is a moot point.


You, confused me again, Back when I asked how you differed from JW theology, you said " You did not believe Jesus was created". Have you changed your mind??

[Angryamerican]

You, confused me again, Back when I asked how you differed from JW theology, you said " You did not believe Jesus was created". Have you changed your mind??

I have been going back and forth with this.

If this is Jesus speaking yes i think he was created,if it is not Jesus ,then i believe he was begotten of God,how i don't know.

Proverbs chapter 8

22. The Lord acquired me at the beginning of His way, before His works of old. כב.
23. From the distant past I was enthroned, from the beginning, of those that preceded the earth. כג.
24. I was created when there were yet no deeps, when there were no fountains replete with water. כד.
25. I was created before the mountains were sunk, before the hills; כה.
26. when He had not yet made the land and the outsides and the beginning of the dust of the earth. כו.
27. When He established the heavens, there I was, when He drew a circle over the face of the deep; כז.
28. when He made the skies above firm, when He strengthened the fountains of the deep; כח.
29. when He gave the sea its boundary, and the water shall not transgress His command, when He established the foundations of the earth כט.
30. I was a nursling beside Him, and I was [His] delight every day, playing before Him at all times; ל.
31. playing in the habitable world of His earth, and [having] my delights with the children of man. לא.
32. And now, my children, hearken to me, and fortunate are those who observe my ways.

[ralittlefield]

You should have read that article closer, all those names refer to one person who is God


I agree. They refer to one God.

My point is that I see no reason for you to insist that we have a name for the Holy Spirit. We do not have a name that we can say with certainty is THE name of God. God has several names.

[the oldtimer]

I was reading in the NWT, and in John 17:11 I found an interesting passage. "Also, I am no longer in the world. But, they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy father watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given to me, in order that they may be one just as we are."
Does this verse not tend to support the trinity theology??

[DispensationalJim]

I found this an interesting read

Erasmus's hurried effort (Erasmus said it was "rushed into print rather than edited"[17]) was published by Froben of Basel in 1516 and thence became the first published Greek New Testament, the Novum Instrumentum omne, diligenter ab Erasmo Rot. Recognitum et Emendatum. Erasmus used several Greek manuscript sources because he did not have access to a single complete manuscript. The manuscripts were, however, late Greek manuscripts of the Byzantine textual family and Erasmus used the best manuscript the least because "he was afraid of its supposedly erratic text." [18] He also ignored much older and better manuscripts that were at his disposal.[19]

In the 2nd (1519) edition the more familiar term Testamentum was used instead of Instrumentum. This edition was used by Martin Luther in making his German translation of Bible for his own religious movement. Together, the first and second editions sold 3,300 copies only 600 copies of the Complutensian Polyglot were even printed.. The 1st- and 2nd-edition texts did not include the passage (1 John 5:7–8) that has become known as the Comma Johanneum. Erasmus had been unable to find those verses in any Greek manuscript, but one was supplied to him during production of the 3rd edition. That manuscript is now thought to be a 1520 creation from the Latin Vulgate, which likely got the verses from a fifth-century marginal gloss in a Latin copy of I John. The Roman Catholic Church decreed that the Comma Johanneum was open to dispute (June 2, 1927), and it is rarely included in modern scholarly translations.

The 3rd edition of 1522 was probably used by Tyndale for the first English New Testament (Worms, 1526) and was the basis for the 1550 Robert Stephanus edition used by the translators of the Geneva Bible and King James Version of the English Bible. Erasmus published a definitive 4th edition in 1527 containing parallel columns of Greek, Latin Vulgate and Erasmus's Latin texts. He used the now available Polyglot Bible to improve this version. In this edition Erasmus also supplied the Greek text of the last six verses of Revelation (which he had translated from Latin back into Greek in his first edition) from Cardinal Ximenez's Biblia Complutensis. In 1535 Erasmus published the 5th (and final) edition which dropped the Latin Vulgate column but was otherwise similar to the 4th edition. Subsequent versions of Erasmus's Greek New Testament became known as the Textus Receptus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus

Sorry to be so slow to respond... another busy weekend in various ministries.

First, let me say that I have a fairly large book about Erasmus which I am going to reread as soon as I can so I can comment more appropriately on the claims made above from that Wikipedia site.

Secondly, I have been comparing the Douay/Rheims Catholic Bible to my King James once again, and have found them to be incredibly similar (with the obvious exception of the Apocrypha), so I wonder if the problems many find with the King James also see the same problems in the Douay-Rheims Bible?

I do see 1John 5:7 in the DR, so do the non-trins think the DR translators were wrong putting it in there, too?

Maybe terri can fill us in on the "history" of the Douay-Rheims. :)

[Angryamerican]

I was reading in the NWT, and in John 17:11 I found an interesting passage. "Also, I am no longer in the world. But, they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy father watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given to me, in order that they may be one just as we are."
Does this verse not tend to support the trinity theology??

I'm curious, how does this verse support the trinity ?

[DispensationalJim]

That is how i see it.

What is really interesting is the Johannine comma verse.

1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma) - "These Three are One" (Trinity/Godhead)
The passage is called the Johannine C

That has been rejected by many translationsn,because it is not found in many greek manuscripts.

As I mentioned earlier, Dean Burgon delves into that verse deeply in his "The Revision Revised" book of 1883, but as I just mentioned, that verse is in the Douay-Rheims, so do you have any evidence that it is another "bad" translation? Can you prove that the "older manuscripts" are superior to the "textus receptus" (the source for the KJ) or even superior to the source for the DR?

Would you concede that if 1Jn. 5:7 were to be confirmed as a legitimate verse, that it would settle the "trinity" debate?

I have given this site before, but here it is again:

http://www.1john57.com/1john57.htm

[barre53]

Go read the rest and you will find that the arguement you make is the position that is not a"strong position".


Does it not bother you that the trinity doctrine is shrouded in mystery and lacks reason and logic for 1 to really be three but yet they are one because they are all equal yet one is God the Father and superior to the other two who are subject to the one?



IMO the fact is that the ratio of clear verses that prove Jesus has a God and not God are 1000 to 1 and the verses used to try to fit the trinity in the Bible are easily explained and refuted when understanding the culture and usage of language in the time it was written and the fact that almost EVERY translation is biased towards a doctrine that was forced into being at the council of nicea .


See,I believe that what men call a mystery is actually contradiction.

Jesus declared throughout the Gospels who his God is and that God alone is God and he is not a three headed being.

Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Which obviously means that if Jesus was "a god" and then there is the "only true God" you believe that there are two gods, both approved by God...or is it gods?

[Angryamerican]

Sorry to be so slow to respond... another busy weekend in various ministries.

First, let me say that I have a fairly large book about Erasmus which I am going to reread as soon as I can so I can comment more appropriately on the claims made above from that Wikipedia site.

Secondly, I have been comparing the Douay/Rheims Catholic Bible to my King James once again, and have found them to be incredibly similar (with the obvious exception of the Apocrypha), so I wonder if the problems many find with the King James also see the same problems in the Douay-Rheims Bible?

I do see 1John 5:7 in the DR, so do the non-trins think the DR translators were wrong putting it in there, too?

Maybe terri can fill us in on the "history" of the Douay-Rheims. :)

It is a catholic bible.

As an earlier translation, the Rheims New Testament had a minor influence on the translators of the King James Version (see below). Afterwards it ceased to be of interest in the Anglican church. The city is now spelled Douai, but the Bible continues to be published as the Douay-Rheims Bible, and has formed the basis of some later Roman Catholic Bibles in English.

Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay-Rheims_Bible

[terri910]

Maybe terri can fill us in on the "history" of the Douay-Rheims. :)
Terri is not a historian or a Biblical scholar.

I'm afraid you'll have to find the history of Douay-Rheims elsewhere!

[the oldtimer]

I'm curious, how does this verse support the trinity ?
He was given the same name,,,Why if he was lower than God??
In order that they may be one,just we are?? Did not Jesus, say here
that He and the Father are "One"

[Angryamerican]

As I mentioned earlier, Dean Burgon delves into that verse deeply in his "The Revision Revised" book of 1883, but as I just mentioned, that verse is in the Douay-Rheims, so do you have any evidence that it is another "bad" translation? Can you prove that the "older manuscripts" are superior to the "textus receptus" (the source for the KJ) or even superior to the source for the DR?

Would you concede that if 1Jn. 5:7 were to be confirmed as a legitimate verse, that it would settle the "trinity" debate?

I have given this site before, but here it is again:

http://www.1john57.com/1john57.htm

There is a few websites i have read up on it.

Source http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1186

This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence—both external and internal—is decidedly against its authenticity. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence.1

This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note which was added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity.2 The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church.

Another one here.

Source http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp

[terri910]

Oh, no you did-n't! (*LOL*)

You did not just use Chick publications as a source!!!

[ralittlefield]

<snip>

Jesus declared throughout the Gospels who his God is and that God alone is God and he is not a three headed being. <snip>




Nice! Talk about misstating a belief!

[terri910]

Nice! Talk about misstating a belief!
I didn't see that, but....indeed!

Warrior! :naughty:

[Angryamerican]

Oh, no you did-n't! (*LOL*)

You did not just use Chick publications as a source!!!

I thought it was interesting.

He was wanting reading material :))

[Constantine the Great]

I am amazed at the accuracy of Gods Word and how bias was inserted into it by translators and I realize that you think I am biased in my acceptance of certain translation of words too but I believe as a whole my view fits the overall context of Gods Word but respect your view.

John 1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. (KJV)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




1. Trinitarians use this verse to show that Christ made the world and its contents. However, that is not the case. What we have learned from the study of John 1:1 above will be helpful in properly interpreting this verse.

John 1:1-3
(1) In the beginning was the Word [the wisdom, plan or purpose of God], and the Word was with God, and
the Word was divine.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by it [the Word]; and without it was not anything made that was made.

2. The pronoun in verse 3 can legitimately be translated as “it.” It does not have to be translated as “him,” and it does not have to refer to a “person” in any way. A primary reason why people get the idea that “the Word” is a person is that the pronoun “he” is used with it. The Greek text does, of course, have the masculine pronoun, because like many languages, including Spanish, French, German, Latin, Hebrew, etc., the Greek language assigns a gender to all nouns, and the gender of the pronoun must agree with the gender of the noun. In French, for example, a table is feminine, la table, while a desk is masculine, le bureau, and feminine and masculine pronouns are required to agree with the gender of the noun. In translating from French to English, however, we would never translate “the table, she,” or “the desk, he.” And we would never insist that a table or desk was somehow a person just because it had a masculine or feminine pronoun. We would use the English designation “it” for the table and the desk, in spite of the fact that in the original language the table and desk have a masculine or feminine gender.


read the rest here..........http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=86

It closes on this verse with EXACTLY my view on the verse.........


The opening of John reveals this simple truth in a beautiful way: “In the beginning there was one God, who had reason, purpose and a plan, which was, by its very nature and origin, divine. It was through and on account of this reason, plan and purpose that everything was made. Nothing was made outside its scope. Then, this plan became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ and tabernacled among us.” Understanding the opening of John this way fits with the whole of Scripture and is entirely acceptable from a translation standpoint.


Except the Greeks, whose language we're actually speaking about here, refer to Christ as the Logos of God. John wrote his Gospel in Greek, and in Greek it is its proper context, and the proper context is Christ is the Logos.

[Constantine the Great]

Go read the rest and you will find that the arguement you make is the position that is not a"strong position".


Does it not bother you that the trinity doctrine is shrouded in mystery and lacks reason and logic for 1 to really be three but yet they are one because they are all equal yet one is God the Father and superior to the other two who are subject to the one?



IMO the fact is that the ratio of clear verses that prove Jesus has a God and not God are 1000 to 1 and the verses used to try to fit the trinity in the Bible are easily explained and refuted when understanding the culture and usage of language in the time it was written and the fact that almost EVERY translation is biased towards a doctrine that was forced into being at the council of nicea .


See,I believe that what men call a mystery is actually contradiction.

Jesus declared throughout the Gospels who his God is and that God alone is God and he is not a three headed being.

Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.


Our God is never referred to as 3-headed. You are one to preach about taking the high road, and then you speak an outright vulgarity about what Trinitarians believe because you know full well we do not believe God to be what you just described Him.

[DispensationalJim]

Except the Greeks, whose language we're actually speaking about here, refer to Christ as the Logos of God. John wrote his Gospel in Greek, and in Greek it is its proper context, and the proper context is Christ is the Logos.

Ah, good to have you joining the discussion again, CTG!

The non-trins like to claim expertise in the Greek on here, so we appreciate you "straightening them out" whenever you can. :)

[Angryamerican]

Ah, good to have you joining the discussion again, CTG!

The non-trins like to claim expertise in the Greek on here, so we appreciate you "straightening them out" whenever you can. :)

One more read for you to check out, about John 1:1

Does John 1:1 Indicate that God and
Christ (the Logos) are One-And-The-Same?

Source http://www.greeklatinaudio.com/john11.htm

[ralittlefield]

One more read for you to check out, about John 1:1

Does John 1:1 Indicate that God and
Christ (the Logos) are One-And-The-Same?

Source http://www.greeklatinaudio.com/john11.htm

I understand your source to say that because the definite article is missing from the second instance of the word theos, it must be translated "a god".

How, then, do we explain the use of "God" rather than "a god" in verses 6, 12, 13, and 18? The definite article is missing in those verses also, but I doubt that you, or the source you quote above, would think that they should be translated "a god".

[terri910]

It was not until the trin bishops, and your namesake changed the idea of rightness,<snip>.... that the idea of Jesus being God was solidified.
When do you figure that? Before or after AD 110?

And I appreciate your use of the word "solidified" since it does recognize that the doctrine of Jesus being God existed with the Church from the beginning.

[God is My Rock]

When do you figure that? Before or after AD 110?

And I appreciate your use of the word "solidified" since it does recognize that the doctrine of Jesus being God existed with the Church from the beginning.

What do you mean? I do not understand your post.

As far as I am aware, "Christians" were not putting to death, burning books, utilizing the force and power of the state, against other "Christians" at this time.

So this was happening before 110 AD? or around 110 AD?

[Angryamerican]

I understand your source to say that because the definite article is missing from the second instance of the word theos, it must be translated "a god".

How, then, do we explain the use of "God" rather than "a god" in verses 6, 12, 13, and 18? The definite article is missing in those verses also, but I doubt that you, or the source you quote above, would think that they should be translated "a god".

In sections three and four he answers your question,but read the whole study slowly and pay attention to the articles used by the greek language and the english language. The greek language uses no indefinate articles where the english language does.

Without the indefinate articles being used, how can one that speaks english properly understand whats being said ? in the greek language.


Source http://www.greeklatinaudio.com/john11.htm

It was demonstrated that English speakers ROUTINELY refer to God Almighty as simply "God" (without a definite article) and, in so doing, leave no ambiguity as to WHO is meant.

This author explains the verse very well, if someone is truly serious in wanting to know the proper translation at John 1:1

[Angryamerican]

And in spite of all the drek and drivel in this post, you failed to address the simple point I made; the Greeks, whose language we are speaking about, and whose language the Gospel of St. John was written in, know (not believe) and understand Christ is the Logos referred to in the Gospel of St. John and it needs no interpretation. Everything else you've written is irrelevant to the point. I'm sorry you have such a hate filled view of Christians and their faith and the history of the Church, but for all your animosity and vitriol, you still cannot provide evidence to support your position, and cannot provide evidence to refute and deny ours. It's nice to see that after all your preaching, pomposity, and high minded arrogance about showing us humility all the while you display your hatred for Christianity in its true biblical, scriptural and historical form, you still have nothing else to resort to but your seething anger.

Do you agree CTG,that to translate from Greek to english,you must understand what the author is meaning in his writings.

And must take in to consideration the definate articles and indefinate articles of english to get the correct translation.

Greek translated in to english without the definate and indefinate articles would not make much sense to us english speakers.

We both know greek,don't contain indefinate articles.

[God is My Rock]

And in spite of all the drek and drivel in this post, you failed to address the simple point I made; the Greeks, whose language we are speaking about, and whose language the Gospel of St. John was written in, know (not believe) and understand Christ is the Logos referred to in the Gospel of St. John and it needs no interpretation. Everything else you've written is irrelevant to the point. I'm sorry you have such a hate filled view of Christians and their faith and the history of the Church, but for all your animosity and vitriol, you still cannot provide evidence to support your position, and cannot provide evidence to refute and deny ours. It's nice to see that after all your preaching, pomposity, and high minded arrogance about showing us humility all the while you display your hatred for Christianity in its true biblical, scriptural and historical form, you still have nothing else to resort to but your seething anger.


Who used the word hate?

I did not.

I would take back what you said, or I will report you.

I do not hate christians.

I stated history.

I did not express my feelings once.

But your response truly does speak to the point in a sense.

You performed eisegesis on it.

When in fact you should have read it for what it said, not what you imposed upon it.

And as my post stated, the EARLY greek speakers did not think as the modern POST Nicene greek speakers do today.

I wonder why that is?

Could it be that all of the early books, and writings were burned and destroyed?

Could it also be that those who would have taught differently were murdered?


Could it be that our Latin speaking brothers "defined" or "codified" certain understandings of the holy scriptures to suit their own beliefs?




And while we are at it, it is time for you to put up or shut up about "knowing"

Give me the reference of any of the early fathers, that declare that any of the apostles "told" them that Jesus was THE GOD and that is what they meant in their writings.


Otherwise you need to get a grip on the concept of eisegesis, and realize that what you believe is based upon the eisegesis of a group of men that also believed that burning books, murdering, conquering, using the state to convert, etc.... were of God also.

[DispensationalJim]

...
This author explains the verse very well, if someone is truly serious in wanting to know the proper translation at John 1:1

Thank you for another arrogant opinion, AA. After over 50 years of SERIOUS STUDY in genuinely wanting to know and understand God's Word, I guess you think I was just wasting my time. Thanks a lot. :)

BTW, I have been reading everything I can find on Erasmus, and I have found authors who say that the quotes in DRS's post earlier which tried to make Erasmus look like a poor translator were actually from a guy named Doug Kutilek and later quoted by James White in his book against the King James (which I have). One particular writer, who the book calls the world's leading scholar on Erasmus (his name is Henk de Jonge) says that they were "patently incorrect" and also says that the famous Bruce Metzger even admits in his appendix to his third edition of "The Text of the New Testament" that White and Metzger's own book are both wrong about Erasmus.

I'll keep digging, but I think, AA, you owe some of us an apology for the above statement.

[Angryamerican]

Who used the word hate?

I did not.

I would take back what you said, or I will report you.

I do not hate christians.

I stated history.

I did not express my feelings once.

But your response truly does speak to the point in a sense.

You performed eisegesis on it.

When in fact you should have read it for what it said, not what you imposed upon it.

And as my post stated, the EARLY greek speakers did not think as the modern POST Nicene greek speakers do today.

I wonder why that is?

Could it be that all of the early books, and writings were burned and destroyed?

Could it also be that those who would have taught differently were murdered?


Could it be that our Latin speaking brothers "defined" or "codified" certain understandings of the holy scriptures to suit their own beliefs?




And while we are at it, it is time for you to put up or shut up about "knowing"

Give me the reference of any of the early fathers, that declare that any of the apostles "told" them that Jesus was THE GOD and that is what they meant in their writings.


Otherwise you need to get a grip on the concept of eisegesis, and realize that what you believe is based upon the eisegesis of a group of men that also believed that burning books, murdering, conquering, using the state to convert, etc.... were of God also.

What i found also to be interesting,is how manuscripts that was used for translation, were changed or had things added to them and then they took on a new name. like textus receptus and the latin vulgate.

Why change them or add to them if they were credible, just leave them alone. So it seems we are all victims of doctrine driven translators.

[Angryamerican]

Thank you for another arrogant opinion, AA. After over 50 years of SERIOUS STUDY in genuinely wanting to know and understand God's Word, I guess you think I was just wasting my time. Thanks a lot. :)

BTW, I have been reading everything I can find on Erasmus, and I have found authors who say that the quotes in DRS's post earlier which tried to make Erasmus look like a poor translator were actually from a guy named Doug Kutilek and later quoted by James White in his book against the King James (which I have). One particular writer, who the book calls the world's leading scholar on Erasmus (his name is Henk de Jonge) says that they were "patently incorrect" and also says that the famous Bruce Metzger even admits in his appendix to his third edition of "The Text of the New Testament" that White and Metzger's own book are both wrong about Erasmus.

I'll keep digging, but I think, AA, you owe some of us an apology for the above statement.

First off, quit looking at biased sites get an outsiders opinion.

Second,why were manuscripts changed and had things added to them and then renamed ?

If that don't stink i don't know what does,as far as wasting your time Djim, i don't have an answer for.

Calling someone arrogant,because they don't agree with you do i need to explain what that is ?

[DispensationalJim]

What i found also to be interesting,is how manuscripts that was used for translation, were changed or had things added to them and then they took on a new name. like textus receptus and the latin vulgate.

Why change them or add to them if they were credible, just leave them alone. So it seems we are all victims of doctrine driven translators.

Some historical studies show that the infamous Vaticanus and Sanaiticus manuscripts actually took out the verses, so the ones you are referring to actually put them back later. Can you prove that idea wrong?

[the oldtimer]

What do you mean? I do not understand your post.

As far as I am aware, "Christians" were not putting to death, burning books, utilizing the force and power of the state, against other "Christians" at this time.

So this was happening before 110 AD? or around 110 AD?

Once again you are dead wrong. Read, "Foxes book of Martyrs", As a place to start. All this was done in the name of the Church at that time, Not the so called "Trins". Back then if you were found with a page of the Bible, that was grounds for death. Those who stood against the Catholic Church were the one's being put to death. The Church doesn't do that anymore.
And, How does that affect you. You weren't there. Why the hatred? At least get your history straight.

[DispensationalJim]

First off, quit looking at biased sites get an outsiders opinion.

Second,why were manuscripts changed and had things added to them and then renamed ?

If that don't stink i don't know what does,as far as wasting your time Djim, i don't have an answer for.

Calling someone arrogant,because they don't agree with you do i need to explain what that is ?

And you think the sites you are recommending are not biased? Please give me a break, AA.

You, AA, are the one who wrote this:
"... if someone is truly serious in wanting to know the proper translation at John 1:1" thus implying that anyone who is serious about it will ultimately agree with you. That sounds arrogant to me.

[Angryamerican]

Thank you for another arrogant opinion, AA. After over 50 years of SERIOUS STUDY in genuinely wanting to know and understand God's Word, I guess you think I was just wasting my time. Thanks a lot. :)

BTW, I have been reading everything I can find on Erasmus, and I have found authors who say that the quotes in DRS's post earlier which tried to make Erasmus look like a poor translator were actually from a guy named Doug Kutilek and later quoted by James White in his book against the King James (which I have). One particular writer, who the book calls the world's leading scholar on Erasmus (his name is Henk de Jonge) says that they were "patently incorrect" and also says that the famous Bruce Metzger even admits in his appendix to his third edition of "The Text of the New Testament" that White and Metzger's own book are both wrong about Erasmus.

I'll keep digging, but I think, AA, you owe some of us an apology for the above statement.

Look up and do more research on these manuscripts.

Textus Receptus,Desiderius Erasmus,Byzantine text type,Latin Vulgate.

Over 2,000 inconsistencies between them all,looks like the manuscripts evolved over time from the original writings.

[Angryamerican]

Once again you are dead wrong. Read, "Foxes book of Martyrs", As a place to start. All this was done in the name of the Church at that time, Not the so called "Trins". Back then if you were found with a page of the Bible, that was grounds for death. Those who stood against the Catholic Church were the one's being put to death. The Church doesn't do that anymore.
And, How does that affect you. You weren't there. Why the hatred? At least get your history straight.

Come on oldtimer, Jesus said you can tell my sheep by their works,it's obvious the ones doing those things were not Jesus's sheep.

[the oldtimer]

And must take in to consideration the definate articles and indefinate articles of english to get the correct translation.

Greek translated in to english without the definate and indefinate articles would not make much sense to us english speakers.

We both know greek,don't contain indefinate articles.

Your logic lost me again?

[Angryamerican]

And you think the sites you are recommending are not biased? Please give me a break, AA.

You, AA, are the one who wrote this:
"... if someone is truly serious in wanting to know the proper translation at John 1:1" thus implying that anyone who is serious about it will ultimately agree with you. That sounds arrogant to me.

UH i try not to get biased sites, you on the other hand post ones that started this whole mess,give me a break.

I know you didn't even read what i posted,if you had you would know the author is correct.

Atleats i read the biased rubbish you post.

Why don't you check your sources back ground before you knock another.

[Angryamerican]

Your logic lost me again?

Sorry :D

[Constantine the Great]

Do you agree CTG,that to translate from Greek to english,you must understand what the author is meaning in his writings.
Yes. Here's the problem; to "understand what the author is meaning from his writings" can be highly subjective which gives rise to various distortions and heresies. Everyone who espouses the various doctrines do so because they claim to understadn the author, the language, the proper translation, the original language, the intent that was there but only implicitly stated, et al. So tell me, which one of us debating here understands what the author is meaning in his writings? I say I do. You say you do.

And must take in to consideration the definate articles and indefinate articles of english to get the correct translation.
Greek translated in to english without the definate and indefinate articles would not make much sense to us english speakers.

We both know greek,don't contain indefinate articles.
Here's the problem.
Example (in transliterated Greek to keep it simple).

O Nikos einai agori

Definite article "O" in front of "Nikos", proper name (Nick).

How would it be properly translated, given both rules of grammer AND understanding what the author means?

Would the proper translation be

"The Nick is a boy?"
or

"Nick is a boy"?

What may seem to be proper grammar in translation to you (subjective) does not properly convey or show a proper understanding of what I intended to write because I would never have intended to refer to Nikos as THE NICK, but just plain Nick.

[the oldtimer]

Come on oldtimer, Jesus said you can tell my sheep by their works,it's obvious the ones doing those things were not Jesus's sheep.
That was my point, It was the Catholic church. Read the history!!! Just because you happen to believe something does not make it a fact. And here you are wrong.

[Constantine the Great]

Who used the word hate?

I did not.
Hate, just as the doctrine you espouse regarding Christ, can be implicitly conveyed.

I would take back what you said, or I will report you.
Go for it. You know where TTTM is.

I do not hate christians.
Your failure to address my post and instead post vitriol was your choice, not mine.

I stated history.

I did not express my feelings once.
Read my first section in this response to you.

[DRS]

Yes. Here's the problem; to "understand what the author is meaning from his writings" can be highly subjective which gives rise to various distortions and heresies. Everyone who espouses the various doctrines do so because they claim to understadn the author, the language, the proper translation, the original language, the intent that was there but only implicitly stated, et al. So tell me, which one of us debating here understands what the author is meaning in his writings? I say I do. You say you do.


Here's the problem.
Example (in transliterated Greek to keep it simple).

O Nikos einai agori

Definite article "O" in front of "Nikos", proper name (Nick).

How would it be properly translated, given both rules of grammer AND understanding what the author means?

Would the proper translation be

"The Nick is a boy?"
or

"Nick is a boy"?

What may seem to be proper grammar in translation to you (subjective) does not properly convey or show a proper understanding of what I intended to write because I would never have intended to refer to Nikos as THE NICK, but just plain Nick.

Except in the verse being discussed it would be more accurate to use to a term that can have more then one sense espicially when a definite article applied to it

So in a case like this

Nick was with the man and nick was man

Now if you are going to try and say Nick was The Man (authority) then you would say and Nick was The Man

But if you are using man to describe his being then you would say Nick was a man

[DRS]

I understand your source to say that because the definite article is missing from the second instance of the word theos, it must be translated "a god".

How, then, do we explain the use of "God" rather than "a god" in verses 6, 12, 13, and 18? The definite article is missing in those verses also, but I doubt that you, or the source you quote above, would think that they should be translated "a god".

Is there two instances of the word God in those verse with one of them have the definite article?

[Angryamerican]

Some historical studies show that the infamous Vaticanus and Sanaiticus manuscripts actually took out the verses, so the ones you are referring to actually put them back later. Can you prove that idea wrong?

I am beginning to believe, until someone is open to be wrong or open to both sides of the argument,it is a waste of time to discuss it.

John 1:1 is critical to both of our beliefs.

If we get the proper translation here, it would go along way in establishing doctrine,do you agree ?

[DispensationalJim]

UH i try not to get biased sites, you on the other hand post ones that started this whole mess,give me a break.

I know you didn't even read what i posted,if you had you would know the author is correct.

Atleats i read the biased rubbish you post.

Why don't you check your sources back ground before you knock another.

But IMO you DO get biased sites, AA. The very one you are referring to was incredibly well written and also incredibly biased, IMO.

AA, IMO you again showed what I would call arrogance when you said this:

I know you didn't even read what i posted,if you had you would know the author is correct."

First, you were flat wrong, AA, because I not only read it, I read it three times, and I also read all the other pages of that web site. But I just did not agree with the writer. Does that make you smart and me dumb because you "bought it" and I didn't, or what?

I read all the other pages of that "wierd" site because I was trying to find a clue as to what the writer's (John Simon) "agenda" was. He was clever enough to not give himself away, but I would guess him to be at least a Unitarian.

I wondered earlier, though, AA, if you read all of my post about the Douay-Rheims Bible because you responded by saying that it was a Catholic Bible when I had already said at least twice in my post that it was a Catholic Bible.

So, AA, how do you decide when a web site is biased? And how did you decide that beyond a doubt Mr. Simon's conclusions about John 1:1 were absolutely correct but my sources about Erasmus were absolutely biased?

[DRS]

Which obviously means that if Jesus was "a god" and then there is the "only true God" you believe that there are two gods, both approved by God...or is it gods?

The term god was applied to men in the OT and to angels, so those famaliar with bible would have known exactly what was being said

Remeber when Jesus and the apostles walked the Earth it was the books of the OT they had to use to back up their points

[okierepub]

yes you should believe in the Trinity. I dont believe you can be saved without believing in it! Jesus wasn't crucifide for being being a teacher or rabbai----he was crucified for saying he was equal to God. Me and my father are one. If you know me, you have also known the father. But God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit have always been-- and created everything together. Read Genesis 1st chapter. You must know who you call upon to be saved. We call upon Jesus to save us. Jesus is God! We don't have to understand everything---but the Bible say it---I believe it!