The Holy Trinity

[Fortigurn]

Could you show me the evidence from these texts which you believe supports your view?

Answer:
I have done so and others on forum have posted it too. Please do your own research.

You gave me a handful of quotes, only two of which said anything about Jesus, neither of which said what you claimed, and I responded to them. I ask you for more evidence, and incredibly you tell me to 'do your own research'. In other words, you want me to go out and try to find evidence to support your view. This is ridiculous, firstly because the evidence isn't there to find, and secondly because you're abandoning the support of your own case.

Here is good scientific answer for all:

Please do the following experiment as well as the audience reading this thread and you'll discover true textual criticism:

One last word on textual criticism argument: Here is a simple experiment one should do as long as they do not have a problem with writing or marking a bible. Go out a purchase a bible that has text notes that state — oldest text omit verse or word or translate word this way or that.

For example, in the NKJV or NIV etc., it states for John 7:53 through John 8:11 that these verses were not in the original text. Therefore, take a black magic marker and cross these verses out. Do this everywhere, where it says, not included in oldest text or the most reliable text. Where it says to add a word in exchange for another — blot out the typed word and write in the old text, most reliable word for it.

After doing this for the New Testament and do so for the old. Something amazing occurs after this. You see what is taken out! Then you discover that references to miracles in Mark 16:9-20 are gone, the woman caught in adultery story is gone showing Jesus forgiving sins, and in other passages you find the deity of Christ is called into question as well as also deleted. You will see other strange interpretations not seen before.

Rather strange in the light of what the Apostle Paul wrote in Colossians chapter two warning of a Gnostic version creeping into the church as well as other strange teachings. He warns of these things elsewhere too as does the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 2)

Next honestly examine, does this new, better, modern text version, with all the text and certain words blotted out in black marker and new words added teach any of the things the Apostles warn about?

The answer, I'll leave for you to decide. Truly, a tree is known by its fruit.

I'm afraid that your 'test' doesn't actually lead to the conclusion you claim (though it's true that the number of 'Jesus is God' texts drops). You really need to spend some time studying textual criticism before you make these wild statements.

[Fortigurn]

What I mean by this is to clarify if you believe Jesus became Deity when he was begotten. Is this what you mean by your statement - Christ was a man empowered by God to do all that he did, and performed acts with the authority of God which God delegated to him.

No I do not believe that Christ became Deity when he was begotten. Christ was a man empowered by God to do all that he did, and performed acts with the authority of God which God delegated to him. He was a man, not Deity.

Thank you, I needed this clarification and again thank you for again proving that the Doctrine of the Trinity is reveled in the bible. The doctrine stands or falls on who Jesus is. Let's let the word speak:

It is amazing then that scripture, states in Hebrews 6:13 “For when God made a promise to Abraham, since He had no one greater by whom to swear, He swore by himself” (RSV)

And in context, Hebrews 6: 17-18 “Wherein God, willing to show more abundantly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of his purpose, intervened by an oath, that by two unchangeable things, in which it was impossible that God should lie, we might have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us (Darby)”

Mr. Fortigurn, I would like to thank you again for proving that Jesus Christ was God manifest in the Flesh and proving without doubt that Jesus is the second person of the trinity

because as it is written in Isaiah 48: 11 “For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another (RSV)”

God states clearly that He will not give His glory to another and that “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?” Numbers 23:19 - RSV

Therefore the Messiah spoken of in Isaiah 42:1-8 “Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him, he will bring forth justice to the nations. He will not cry or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street; a bruised reed he will not break, and a dimly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice. He will not fail or be discouraged till he has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his law. Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread forth the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people upon it and spirit to those who walk in it: "I am the LORD, I have called you in righteousness, I have taken you by the hand and kept you; I have given you as a covenant to the people, a light to the nations, to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness. I am the LORD that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to graven images — RSV.”

Isaiah 43:11-14 — “I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior. I declared and saved and proclaimed, when there was no strange god among you; and you are my witnesses," says the LORD. "I am God, and also henceforth I am He; there is none who can deliver from my hand; I work and who can hinder it?" Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.” RSV

Isaiah 44:6-7, 8 “Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and His Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. Who is like me? Let him proclaim it, let him declare and set it forth before me. Who has announced from of old the things to come? Let them tell us what is yet to be… Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any."” RSV

Isaiah 45: 19-23I did not speak in secret, in a land of darkness; I did not say to the offspring of Jacob, 'Seek me in chaos.' I the LORD speak the truth, I declare what is right. "Assemble yourselves and come, draw near together, you survivors of the nations! They have no knowledge who carry about their wooden idols, and keep on praying to a god that cannot save. Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me. "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall not return: 'To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. ” RSV

Philippians 2:9-11 “ Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

Revelations 1:7, 17-4-18 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty…17-18 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, "Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades. ”

Hebrews 1:1-2 “ In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs. (RSV)”

Acts 4:8-12 — speaking in context of Jesus Christ, “ And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. ” KJV

1 Thessalonians 5:9 —“For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ” KJV

Yes, Mr. Fortigurn, you have done it again — proved that Jesus Christ was God truly manifest in the flesh. As the bible proclaims — We see that Jesus created the universe and worlds! That Salvation is by Jesus and no other! Jesus is the First and the Last! If not, Mr Fortigurn, GOD LIED!!!!

God cannot lie — Jesus is other than what you think him to be!

Can you join in and sing?

Revelation 19:1 — “After these things I heard a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, “Alleluia! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God.” NKJV

Oh, I forgot, your superior text omits 'belong to our God' in this verse!

Next Frame

How is any of this supposed to support the trinity, or even the idea that Jesus is God? You haven't even made an argument here.

[Believer]

From what I have seen between Fortigurn (Christadelphian) and other Christians on this discussion is that he does believe we still get to heaven through Jesus, he isn't denying that. A lot, in my opinion, of what he states is true but some things aren't like stating that Jesus Christ was just a man, given God abilities, I don't believe that, I believe He was/is both Man and God. Jesus was born from Mary and was conceived by God/Holy Spirit. He is therefore God as well. This discussion will not end unless locked, but I think there really is no concern over Fortigurn's beliefs, at least not a lot. Although the Anti-Christ can be VERY convincing while being deceptive!

[Byblos]

The apostles do not say that 'God sent his eternal Word to empower a human being', they say that Jesus was a man appointed and empowered by God:

I refer you back to John 1:1. We've been thru this before many times but you tend to forget that which you do not like.

I don't do anything of the kind. It was you who stopped replying on the issue of John 1:1. Can you honestly tell me that John 1:1 says 'God sent His eternal Word to empower a human being'? It says nothing of the kind.

The discussion of John 1:1 stopped when you stated that you understood the Word differently than we do. No point in continuing. And I can honestly tell you that the eternal Word became flesh and resulted in Jesus the man and Jesus the Word.

Yet you still do not comprehend what they say.

They say, very clearly, that Jesus was a man who was appointed and authorised by God. The apostles never preached that Jesus was God, or a 'God-man', and you can search the entire book of Acts to see this.

Yes, he was a man. But he did have another side which you consistently miss and which the apostles and everyone around them clearly understood.

Tell me, what do you think is the difference between 'Son of man' and 'Son of God' and why is Jesus the only one to be called both?

The phrase 'son of man' simply means 'a human being'. The phrase 'son of God' means 'caused to come into being by God'. We can see this from the fact that the only other person to be called 'son of God' is Adam, who was also a created being. The phrase 'son of God' does not mean 'God', any more than the phrase 'son of Byblos' means 'Byblos'.

Wrong. Son of 'Byblos' refers to a person. Son of man refers to a man in general. When someone was called the son of man, everyone understood to mean a human. When Jesus was called both the son of man as well as the son of God, there is no mistaking the distinction. It was undersood that Jesus was both man and God. No one thought of Adam as God. He was referred to as the son of God in the literal sense as he was the first human made in the image of God. Jesus was not merely made in the image of God, he is (I AM).

Please do not concern yourself with my well-being. Whether or not Arians understood it to mean Jesus and God are separate beings is their business not mine. The fact that you attribute their postion to mine is questionable at best.

Well you're the one saying that God created through Christ. That's what the Arians believed, and that's what you say you believe. If you don't believe it, why did you say it?

The way I see it is exactly the way John wrote it:

1:1In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things came into being, not one thing came into being except through him.

This is not Arian, it is Christian, but I do not fault you for not comprehending it.

I do comprehend it, it's perfectly simple when you read the Old Testament first (the Old Testament is that big thick bit trinitarians skip on their way to the gospel of John).

You love saying that, don't you? Even though we've presented you with OT evidence but yet again, you just dismiss it. Who's not reading whose posts? You should heed your own advice every once in a while. Old and tiring.

I didn't say you invented it.

Of course you didnt. You couldn't say anything about it until I wrote it. I was simply pre-empting the usual response.

Now you've graduated to answering your own jibberish.

What I am saying is that I interpret it to mean exactly as John 1:1 is to be interpreted, not as the Arians saw it. So please do not tell me if I see it that way then I'm supporting an Arian view point, I'm not and you know it. I am merely disagreeing with you.

Well you're the one saying that God created through Christ. That's what the Arians believed, and that's what you say you believe. If you don't believe it, why did you say it?

I do believe it but my belief does NOT translate to Jesus and God are separate beings. You are the one making the leap. Please stop doing that.

And you are the one to tell me what my Christological position is?

No, I didn't say that, I referred to the history of your Christological position.

This is from a person who believes Jesus was just a man, professes both God and Jesus as his Lord and God (page 17 of this thread I believe) yet does not see how this is idolatry? By your own admission, not only are you not Christian, you don't even practice a monotheistic religion. Please, no lectures from you sir.

The problem is that you don't read what I write. I have no problem confessing Christ as KURIOS and THEOS in the sense of adonai and elohim, which would have been the words Thomas used. That is not idolatry, as I have shown previously.

Except Thomas and all the other apostles believed Jesus was of human as well as of divine natures. You don't and that makes you an idolator for calling him your Lord and God.

As I did in another thread, I will extend you the benefit of a reply to my post any which way you wish as I am very comfortable leaving it as is. Over and out.

To all: Always in Christ,

Byblos.

[IRQ Conflict]

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

[Fortigurn]

The discussion of John 1:1 stopped when you stated that you understood the Word differently than we do. No point in continuing.

The problem here was that I presented Biblical evidence for my understanding of the Word, whereas you didn't present any evidence for yours.

And I can honestly tell you that the eternal Word became flesh and resulted in Jesus the man and Jesus the Word.

I'm sure you think so, very sincerely. This does not mean it is correct.

Yes, he was a man. But he did have another side which you consistently miss and which the apostles and everyone around them clearly understood.

If 'the apostles and everyone around them' did indeed 'clearly understand' this 'other side', then why is it not found in the preaching of the apostles? Where is it taught? Where is it articulated? Why is it not stated? Why is it that even Daniel Wallace acknowledges that there are only half a dozen passages in the New Testament which can be advanced as explicitly referring to Jesus as God?

The phrase 'son of man' simply means 'a human being'. The phrase 'son of God' means 'caused to come into being by God'. We can see this from the fact that the only other person to be called 'son of God' is Adam, who was also a created being. The phrase 'son of God' does not mean 'God', any more than the phrase 'son of Byblos' means 'Byblos'.

Wrong. Son of 'Byblos' refers to a person. Son of man refers to a man in general. When someone was called the son of man, everyone understood to mean a human.

You say 'wrong', but what you have said here agrees with me.

When Jesus was called both the son of man as well as the son of God, there is no mistaking the distinction. It was undersood that Jesus was both man and God.

Could you please prove this to me? Jesus himself answered the accusation that he was calling himself God by saying that he was calling himself the son of God, and quoted a passage of Scripture in which God referred to mortal men as His sons. It is clear that he did not use the expression with the sense 'I am God'.

No one thought of Adam as God. He was referred to as the son of God in the literal sense as he was the first human made in the image of God.

I agree. The onus is on you to demonstrate that people thought that this phrase meant Jesus was God, but not Adam.

Jesus was not merely made in the image of God, he is (I AM).

Jesus never claimed to be 'I AM'.

You love saying that, don't you? Even though we've presented you with OT evidence but yet again, you just dismiss it. Who's not reading whose posts? You should heed your own advice every once in a while. Old and tiring.

The problem is, the only Old Testament 'evidence' you've provided is contradicted by standard trinitarian scholarship.

I didn't say you invented it.

Of course you didnt. You couldn't say anything about it until I wrote it. I was simply pre-empting the usual response.

Now you've graduated to answering your own jibberish.

No, I was simply pre-empting the usual response. You've accused me before of 'inventing' arguments which are in fact standard trinitarian arguments. This is a result of you not being well informed on this subject.

What I am saying is that I interpret it to mean exactly as John 1:1 is to be interpreted, not as the Arians saw it. So please do not tell me if I see it that way then I'm supporting an Arian view point, I'm not and you know it. I am merely disagreeing with you.

Well you're the one saying that God created through Christ. That's what the Arians believed, and that's what you say you believe. If you don't believe it, why did you say it?

I do believe it but my belief does NOT translate to Jesus and God are separate beings. You are the one making the leap. Please stop doing that.

Firstly, I didn't claim that you believe Jesus and God are separate beings. Secondly, I have demonstrated that grammatically and logically, if X is the agent of Y, then X is not Y. If Byblos is the agent of General Motors, then Byblos is not General Motors. If Christ is the agent of God, then Christ is not God.

The problem for you is that in this passage God and Christ are distinguished as separate entities. In order to be supportive of the trinity, the text would need to say that God the Father created all things through God the son. But it doesn't say that. In this passage, as in many others, 'God' is in one category, and 'Christ' is in another category.

The way this verse is phrased, it makes no sense from a trinitarian point of view. To the trinitarian, the word 'God' means 'Father, son and Holy Spirit', but this is clearly not a possible interpretation of this passage ('The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit created all things through Jesus' doesn't make sense).

But if we interpret the verse as 'The Father created all things through Jesus', then it only gets worse for the trinitarian, because this defines 'God' as one person - the Father (which is, of course, how Scripture defines God).

This is precisely why the Arians seized on this passage, and precisely why trinitarians either left it alone, or interpreted it in a manner which did not refer to the literal creation.

The problem is that you don't read what I write. I have no problem confessing Christ as KURIOS and THEOS in the sense of adonai and elohim, which would have been the words Thomas used. That is not idolatry, as I have shown previously.

Except Thomas and all the other apostles believed Jesus was of human as well as of divine natures.

You need to actually prove this. I find it incredible that you are claiming a man like Thomas - who didn't even believe that Jesus had risen from the dead - was in a single moment converted wholly to a doctrine which wasn't even defined until the 4th century.

Are you seriously telling me that a man who believed Jesus was so utterly mortal that he hadn't even come back from the dead, made a split second conversion to the trinity?

You don't and that makes you an idolator for calling him your Lord and God.

I am not an idolator for referring to him as my KURIOS and my THEOS, my adonai and my elohim.

[Locker]

I am not doing any such thing. I am presenting you with the standard modern scholarship in this field, the same scholarship which is accepted as authoritative by standard Trinitarian scholarship. If you want to put yourself out on the fringe, feel free to disagree with it. Please do some study of the field of textual criticism, it is obvious from this that you don't understand it.

I normally do not respond to this thread - but is does provide me with great humor. I just returned form many hours of travel due to work and catching up on this thread.

I have to agree with B. W. on his experiment. During my stint in college, I took two semesters revolving around textual ctricisim. We did the same experiment. The experiment taught us much about text research as it forced us to discover on or own why there were textual changes made. However, we used whiteout instead of a black marker becaucse - marker bled thru the pages.

This is what we found:

The translations of greek were made with all the letter's crutched together and hand copied and then translated. This can cause minor errors.

What was more interesting is that we discovered through whiting out text that most were frivolous changes, along with few major changes. Most were frivolous and had no bearing on basic Christain doctrine.

We did discover that major changes were found - like John 8: 1-11 and in single scripture words/phrases. If these single words /phrases changes were not read within the context of the train of thought/flow you could twist the bible to teach odd things. Without the words whited out, it was more difficult to scripture twist. As fox news quotes - We report, you decide.

That was the findings of the whole class.

That is why I agree with the experiment.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... rigin.html

has a good links on the subject textual criticisim.

I wish the Fort - would hush up on the matter of textual crticsism as he uses it to silence protest to his views.

Even with the "Modern text translations' as long as you read the context/flow of disputed text you will discover no violation of traditional Christian doctrine.

However, if single passages/phrase are read out of context of these modern text- you could make the bible slanted toward an error of point of view.

Try the white-out method to a bible and you will see what B. W. is attempting to say.

We need to test all things and come to our own conclusions. When someone tries to cram a view down your throat based on experts and does not allow you to think on your own - error can creep in big time.

Test the Experts!

In regards to Fort's comments back to me - please do not waste your time responding - I will not answer you. I am surprised you have not been looked off this thread yet, but - you do provide comic relief!

[Locker]

Mr. Fortigurn, if we listen to you then - GOD LIED!!! By having a mere man, no matter how empowered, to rule a reign as a god violates the 1’st Commandment:

Duet. 5:7-11 "'You shall have no other gods before me. 'You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. "'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.” RSV

I don't have 'a mere man to rule as a god', so I don't see what your issue is. Ruling as God's representative is another matter entirely, and that is what the annointed kings of Israel did (Solomonm, for example, sat on the throne of Yahweh).

Your doctrine – violates God’s Law because a man, a man empowered as prophet or any manner, cannot save as Jesus did – only God can. If you declare that Jesus was a man – Jesus lied.

Only God can save as God did, and God saved using Christ as the means.

If you say he was begotten to be empowered as a great man so He can rule like God or in God’s Place – God Lied.

Fortunately I'm not saying that.

If you think Jesus spoke in Isaiah – then He was not begotten or even if you claim Isaiah use of the word ‘Lord’ is wrong – you make both God and Jesus a lair. If you think this was empowered speech proclaiming Jesus as your doctrine makes him out to be – you make God a lair.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Fort - you cannot read can you? Read Isaiah 42 - 66.

God's will send his right arm to save because no man can- this is prophcey revealing Jesus.

This - I hope will be my last respone to you - if you relpy, I will not answer you back - no point. A proud person hears only what they want too and seeks to pick fights when none was started.

The Trinity is a doctrine. You will not find the precise word in the bible but you will find it taught. You cannot find the words Virgin Brith either but it is taught. Because you cannot find a clear statement on trinity does not mean it is not there as well as Virgin Brith. If you apply your logic, then you must deny the virgin birth because the bible does not say the precise words virgin birth but you do believe that.

God is not liar, He is not man that he should Lie. His Glory God will not give another, yet He gave His Glory to Jesus not as a representitive but because he was God manifest in the Flesh sent to the world because no mortal man can forgive - only God's arm can! What is the problem? You cannot understand figure of speach and analogies? The Word was God!

Poor Fort - you are quite the jester here.

[Fortigurn]

I am not doing any such thing. I am presenting you with the standard modern scholarship in this field, the same scholarship which is accepted as authoritative by standard Trinitarian scholarship. If you want to put yourself out on the fringe, feel free to disagree with it. Please do some study of the field of textual criticism, it is obvious from this that you don't understand it.

I normally do not respond to this thread - but is does provide me with great humor. I just returned form many hours of travel due to work and catching up on this thread.

I have to agree with B. W. on his experiment. During my stint in college, I took two semesters revolving around textual ctricisim. We did the same experiment. The experiment taught us much about text research as it forced us to discover on or own why there were textual changes made. However, we used whiteout instead of a black marker becaucse - marker bled thru the pages.

This is what we found:

The translations of greek were made with all the letter's crutched together and hand copied and then translated. This can cause minor errors.

What was more interesting is that we discovered through whiting out text that most were frivolous changes, along with few major changes. Most were frivolous and had no bearing on basic Christain doctrine.

We did discover that major changes were found - like John 8: 1-11 and in single scripture words/phrases. If these single words /phrases changes were not read within the context of the train of thought/flow you could twist the bible to teach odd things. Without the words whited out, it was more difficult to scripture twist. As fox news quotes - We report, you decide.

That was the findings of the whole class.

That is why I agree with the experiment.

What I see from this 'experiment' is that it results in conclusions you do not wish to face, so you assume that the current textual scholarship is wrong. I'm afraid this is not the way to determine whether or not the current textual scholarship is wrong.

Do I take it that you're a 'KJV Only' person, or do you simply reject the current textual scholarship?

http:www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html

has a good links on the subject textual criticisim.

It does indeed. I note with interest that it is quite sympathetic to the current texual scholarship.

I wish the Fort - would hush up on the matter of textual crticsism as he uses it to silence protest to his views.

I am not doing any such thing. I am simply pointing out where people are appealing to texts long since known to be flawed.

Even with the "Modern text translations' as long as you read the context/flow of disputed text you will discover no violation of traditional Christian doctrine.

However, if single passages/phrase are read out of context of these modern text- you could make the bible slanted toward an error of point of view.

I certainly agree.

Try the white-out method to a bible and you will see what B. W. is attempting to say.

What he is attempting to say is that such an exercise results in conclusions in his mind with which he is uncomforatable. But textual scholarship is not based on our comfort zone.

We need to test all things and come to our own conclusions. When someone tries to cram a view down your throat based on experts and does not allow you to think on your own - error can creep in big time.

Test the Experts!

I certainly agree. I await with eager anticipation your personal examination of the relevant textual evidence.

[Fortigurn]

Fort - you cannot read can you? Read Isaiah 42 - 66.

God's will send his right arm to save because no man can- this is prophcey revealing Jesus.

I agree with this. What's the point?

This - I hope will be my last respone to you - if you relpy, I will not answer you back - no point. A proud person hears only what they want too and seeks to pick fights when none was started.

It's ironic you should say that, because the person who started this thread was not me.

The Trinity is a doctrine. You will not find the precise word in the bible but you will find it taught.

I have been through this before. I don't care if the precise word is in the Bible or not. That's not relevant. What is relevant is whether or not the concept is found in the Bible.

You cannot find the words Virgin Brith either but it is taught.

I think 'born of a virgin' does it pretty well.

Because you cannot find a clear statement on trinity does not mean it is not there as well as Virgin Brith. If you apply your logic, then you must deny the virgin birth because the bible does not say the precise words virgin birth but you do believe that.

If you had read my posts, you would know that I am not saying the trinity isn't in the Bible on the basis that the word trinity doesn't appear in the Bible, I am saying the trinity isn't in the Bible on the basis that the concept doesn't appear in the Bible.

I have asked for all the verses which define God as three persons in one being. After 22 pages, I have been presented with no such verses. It has been acknowledged that there are no such verses.

It has also been acknowledged that the concept of the trinity is a post-apostolic conclusion which is derived from a process of reasoning applied to the Biblical statements concerning God and Christ. It is not, however, a concept declared in the Bible.

God is not liar, He is not man that he should Lie. His Glory God will not give another, yet He gave His Glory to Jesus not as a representitive but because he was God manifest in the Flesh sent to the world because no mortal man can forgive - only God's arm can!

Can you see that if Christ was God, then God couldn't give His glory to Christ, Christ already had it? Can you see that if Christ was God, then he couldn't manifest God in the flesh, he would be God in the flesh?

Can you see that referring to Christ as the arm of God is in fact referring to Christ as the representative and agent of God?

Is your arm you, or is your arm the means by which you get things done?

What is the problem? You cannot understand figure of speach and analogies? The Word was God!

It is precisely because I can understand figures of speech and analogies that I don't read them and take them literally, as you do.

[B. W.]

I normally do not respond to this thread - but is does provide me with great humor. I just returned form many hours of travel due to work and catching up on this thread.

I have to agree with B. W. on his experiment. During my stint in college, I took two semesters revolving around textual ctricisim. We did the same experiment. The experiment taught us much about text research as it forced us to discover on or own why there were textual changes made. However, we used whiteout instead of a black marker becaucse - marker bled thru the pages.

This is what we found:

The translations of greek were made with all the letter's crutched together and hand copied and then translated. This can cause minor errors.

What was more interesting is that we discovered through whiting out text that most were frivolous changes, along with few major changes. Most were frivolous and had no bearing on basic Christain doctrine.

We did discover that major changes were found - like John 8: 1-11 and in single scripture words/phrases. If these single words /phrases changes were not read within the context of the train of thought/flow you could twist the bible to teach odd things. Without the words whited out, it was more difficult to scripture twist. As fox news quotes - We report, you decide.

That was the findings of the whole class.

That is why I agree with the experiment.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... rigin.html

has a good links on the subject textual criticisim.

I wish the Fort - would hush up on the matter of textual crticsism as he uses it to silence protest to his views.

Even with the "Modern text translations' as long as you read the context/flow of disputed text you will discover no violation of traditional Christian doctrine.

However, if single passages/phrase are read out of context of these modern text- you could make the bible slanted toward an error of point of view.

Try the white-out method to a bible and you will see what B. W. is attempting to say.

We need to test all things and come to our own conclusions. When someone tries to cram a view down your throat based on experts and does not allow you to think on your own - error can creep in big time.

Test the Experts!

Thank you Locker for the Marker bled thru — yes, whiteout would be better for the experiment. You are correct, The purpose of the experiment drives one to seek out the how and why's a text was left out, added, or remain and from this point one must move on.

Unfortunately, many well meaning persons camp out in this stage — exploring endlessly all the how and why text was omitted or added. They stagnate here and proceed no more. It is sad, but it is a fact because when one remains in this frame of mind, they can incur bias.

What I discovered is as you pointed out: The best modern-old-text-best-text philosophy does not subvert traditional bible doctrine; however, if one chooses only the modern translations, they must adhere to context of scripture more. That is why, for a balanced study of the bible, one should use a KJV based translation along side a modern version. The KJV versions appear to hold the context of scripture together and aid the modern versions.

For example, in I John 4:1-3 (NKJV) it reads, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God…”

Compare to a revised modern text - I John 4: 1-3 “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God.

Note much change except verse three: NKJV “and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God.”

Modern Translation: “and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God.”

If you read verse three out of context with verse two in the modern translations, you could easily twist the scripture to mean just about anything when confessing Jesus. Does it mean that those that use cuss words along with Jesus' name are of God? Get the point.

The KJV based text — contains the context of verse two in verse three: “and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God.”

Does this mean the KJV based text are better? No — it is also prone to error as history has pointed out. Despite the vast tragic evidence of people scripture twisting of the Majority Text — those translations that are based on KJV - it is far more easier to scripture twist the modern translations by ignoring context and flow. Our class discovered the same conclusions as yours by exploring the above stated text.

We also discovered that much of the debate over textual criticism comes from those who remain in the first stages of the experiment and proceed no further.

What I learned from the experiment is this: those that shout the textual criticism argument loudest are usually those most prone to take the modern text-best argument as basis for some sort of scripture twisting to prove some odd point of view.

This is sad, real sad. In my humble opinion, it is best to use several various translations for scripture study, not just one at the exclusion of the other and should be the concern when studying Tim 3:16 - God manifest in the flesh' scripture means as this was my purpose of doing so in this thread, not get stagnated on text criticism. Let's move on.
-
"God was manifest in the Flesh" what does this mean concerning Jesus and the second person of the Trinity?
-
-

[B. W.]

Thank You, Mr. Fortigurn, for clarifying your position so clearly. Each argument you pose, keeps solidifying the Doctrine of the Trinity as a fact. As I stated before, the whole doctrine of the Trinity stands or falls on whom Jesus is because, as we Christians believe and know, Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. Disprove Jesus and whom He claimed to be, the Doctrine of the Trinity will fall. This, Mr. Fortigurn, you have not been able to do.

Let's review, you claim Jesus Christ was just only a mere man, empowered by God to be a representative of God, as God would so endow a mere man to be a prophet or king. Because Jesus remained sinless as a man by keeping the whole Law, he earned right to rule and reign as God would do as stated in Hebrews chapter One.

Yes, Christian would agree that Jesus was a man but he was also more than a man: He was God manifest in the flesh. He had to be. Why? If Jesus was not and remained a mere man, He would be guilty of committing sin as the scriptures clearly show.

Exodus 3: 14 God said to Moses “I Am who I Am,” and Isaiah 43:11, “I, even, I, am the Lord and besides me there is know savior.” Isaiah 45:5 “I Am the Lord and there is No Other; there is No God besides Me.” And in verses 21-22 “Who has declared this from ancient times? Who has told it from that time? Have not I says the Lord? And there is no other God and a savoir. There is none beside me. Look to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth, for I Am God and there is No Other!” NKJV.

Isaiah 59:1-2 “Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save, or his ear dull, that it cannot hear; but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you so that he does not hear.” And Verse 16 “He (God) saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no one to intervene; then His own Arm brought Him victory, and His righteousness upheld Him.” RSV.

Remember that God will not give His glory to another and He can swear no oath greater than upon Himself. Isaiah:64:1-7 “Oh that You would rend the heavens, that You would come down, that the mountains might shake at thy presence…5.. for we have sinned: in these ways we continue, and we need to be saved. 6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities like the wind have taken us away. 7 And there is no one who calls upon Your name..: for You have hidden Your face from us, and have consumed us, because of our iniquities.” (NKJV)

Therefore, if Jesus was just a mere man, no matter how empowered to be a representative, God would not share His Personal Glory to any man as it is clearly written in the bible. Man's righteousness is but filthy rags to God. In order to atone, redeem, God would have to swear upon Himself to bring this about because God cannot lie and neither can God deny Himself. The Father would have to send His own Right Hand to save humanity as He could not depend on just only a mere man. Remember - King Solomon sinned it! King David Sinned! Moses Sinned! All Humanity sinned!

John 8:58 - When Jesus was confronted by the Religious leaders during His time, Jesus boldly confessed that before Abraham was, I AM. This was not a qualified statement of a prophet but of God; before Abraham was, I AM said Jesus. Again, in John 10: 29 Jesus declared that He and the Father were one.

In John 17: 4-5 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. I glorified thee on earth, having accomplished the work which thou gavest me to do; and now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made.” RSV

Jesus was with God before the world was ever made. Jesus was the Father's right Hand. Jesus was the arm of salvation; Jesus was God's Oath that could not be sworn to any other except onto God Himself. Jesus was God manifest in the Flesh to bring salvation to the world of Humanity because such a charge could not be trusted to a mere mortal representative as God would not be swearing to Himself to confirm the oath of a new covenant, instead God would be sharing His Glory with another, thus God would violate His own oath and words. He cannot do this: Isaiah 45:18-19, 22-25. Isaiah 46:9-13. Oh the eternal Logos of God!

If Jesus was a mere man, and said that He was the, I AM. He committed sin and violated the 1st and 2nd Commandments. If He was more than a mere man — truly - God manifest in the Flesh, the right arm of God, The Son, the second person of the blessed Trinity, The Oath sworn, The Word of God, The Logos, He could not have lied, and He could never have been guilty of committing sin — transgressing the law of God.. He could change the old covenant to a new covenant and usher in a new era and dawn for humanity because He was God's oath sworn unto Himself. Hebrews 6:17-18, Isaiah 48: 11-13. Isaiah 55: 8-11. Isaiah 56: 1-2, 16.

A mere mortal man could not do this — because a mere mortal man's claim of being in existence before Abraham was and being the Great I AM and being one with the Father before the world existed would make that man, a lair, another God, and any sacrifice that such a mortal made would be based on a lie. Now if Jesus was more than just a mere mortal man, truly God manifest in the flesh, the sacrifice would last because the One who swore the oath lives forever because He swore upon Himself who liveth forever and ever.

Hebrews 1:1-4 “In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs..” RSV

Of course, Mr. Fortigurn, you will deny all this with great swelling words of emptiness, but this you can never disprove; God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself and Jesus as a man was truly more than a mere mortal representative of God — He was God manifest in the flesh! If not, the mere mortal man Jesus sinned and you have proved God the Father a lair too. This you cannot do but my have you tried.

Truly as it is written, “God our Savior and Our God and Savior Jesus Christ!” is true. (Titus1:2-3 and 2 Peter 1:1).

Mr Fortigurn, Jesus is still knocking at your door — this is not a mindless rant — you have the scriptures of Isaiah confronting you. Jesus is knocking. Time will tell.
-
-
-

[Locker]

Great points B. W.

It is true when using modern text bibles to stay tuned in to context. I also find it true that the KJV based text guards against missinterpreting the context of scripture. Therefore, as you pointed out, it is best to use a mix of transaltions when studying the bible on issues such as trinity etc..

Anyone else agree - disagree?

B. W. great points on Isaiah! Jesus was God - he had to be in order not to break the law!! as well as to change it too

great thread!!

[Locker]

I found this interesting that others have pointed out:

Matthew 1:23 - "and they shall call his name Immanuel, which is translated 'God is with us"

same as in Isaiah 7:14

And in Luke 1:31 - "and shall call his name Jesus"

Three accounts declaring the Jesus was God is with Us!

Interesting!! Next -- I did not want too respond to 'Fort' but this was too good to pass up...

Can you see that if Christ was God, then God couldn't give His glory to Christ, Christ already had it? Can you see that if Christ was God, then he couldn't manifest God in the flesh, he would be God in the flesh?

To bad that you cannot see it either - Yes, Jesus had to be God for the various reason you cite. Maybe you will recognize that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity and realize in Luke 1:37 - it does say "with God nothing is impossible" and what that means...

Truly "and they shall call his name Immanuel, which is translated 'God is with us"

Yes - God was manifest in the Flesh! Our Savior and Redeemer!

[B. W.]

I found this interesting that others have pointed out:

Matthew 1:23 - "and they shall call his name Immanuel, which is translated 'God is with us"

same as in Isaiah 7:14

And in Luke 1:31 - "and shall call his name Jesus"

Three accounts declaring the Jesus was God is with Us!

Interesting!! Next -- I did not want too respond to 'Fort' but this was too good to pass up...

Can you see that if Christ was God, then God couldn't give His glory to Christ, Christ already had it? Can you see that if Christ was God, then he couldn't manifest God in the flesh, he would be God in the flesh?

To bad that you cannot see it either - Yes, Jesus had to be God for the various reason you cite. Maybe you will recognize that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity and realize in Luke 1:37 - it does say "with God nothing is impossible" and what that means...

Truly "and they shall call his name Immanuel, which is translated 'God is with us"

Yes - God was manifest in the Flesh! Our Savior and Redeemer!

Very Good points Locker!

Also, Mr Fortigurn likes to use the Bible.org web site for sources but he always fails to cite how this very source contradicts Him.

Here is one example of Mr. Fortigurns's tactic employed in this discussion thread about the Doctrine of the Trinity began many weeks ago.

I have been through this routine many times before, so I know all the usual arguments. I'm going to see the In Imago Nos of Genesis 1:16, the Trisagion of Isaiah, and the Comma Johanneum, along with the other traditional arguments (many of which have been discarded by modern trinitarian scholarship).

To Readers: The above statement is a tactic often used to silence critics of a particular point of view to prevent honest investigation. It is meant to steal one's thunder.

Also when it is convenient He often uses the Christadelphians Forums for sources on varied subject of Elohim as well as the bible.org web site to back up his claims.

http://www.thechristadelphians.org/foru ... wtopic=464

http://www.bible.org/netbible/gen1_notes.htm#147

He will also fail to recommend other readings from Christian Sites he uses that refute His claims against the Trinity, such as:

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=215
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1531
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=219

We have on the Trinity thread ample quotes from him and we can answer his objections to the Trinity in a rational manner if anyone so chooses.

Fortigurn uses these tactics and others as this entire thread shows. The best example his argument is when it comes to John 1-1-14. He will often quote from Bible.org and other Christian web site as long as it appears to back his beliefs but closer readings reveal otherwise - see Bold highlighted ending.

John — New English Translation

From Bible.org

http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. The Word was with God in the beginning. All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created.

John 1:14 Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory — the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father.

Comments on these Passages Below and note the final comment I placed in Bold:

3tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell's Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell's Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell's Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.”

From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too.

This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers.

Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.

sn And the Word was fully God. John's theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.
-
-
-