- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I have read your passage debunking the Trinity doctrine. I am praying that God reveals the truth to me about this topic. You have strong points in your passage. However there are two scriptures that seem to be hard to swallow for a person not believing in the Trinity. I am also curious as to why you did not include these two scriptures into your passage considering all of the well documented research you have compiled for your message. These two scriptures are: 1John5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven:the Father,the Word, and the Holy Spirit;and these three are one. The second verse you include but the translation is in the point you are favoring. Your NIV version of Acts2:32 “God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.” If you quoted form the NKJV the verse reads like this Acts2:32 “This Jesus God has raised up,of which we are all witnesses.” Are we not to take the Bible for how it reads. If Jesus is God of man then he is also God. Why not say this Jesus Lord or this Lord Jesus and Christ Jesus.
Quote (Oneway2besaved @ June 09 2006,11:01) The second verse you include but the translation is in the point you are favoring. Your NIV version of Acts2:32 “God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.” If you quoted form the NKJV the verse reads like this Acts2:32 “This Jesus God has raised up,of which we are all witnesses.” Are we not to take the Bible for how it reads. If Jesus is God of man then he is also God. Why not say this Jesus Lord or this Lord Jesus and Christ Jesus.
Hi OW2BS:Welcome on board.
I didn't follow your point on Acts 2:32. Could you clarify? I would say this, that Acts 2 as pertains to the Apostle Peter's sermon, does not support the trinity, nor does acts 4, nor 5, 7, 13, 26 and undoubtedly any part that you choose to read.
Try not to focus on a verse (though you could and I am sure in the end it would confirm what I am saying). Consider yourself as part of the audience that the Apostle was speaking to… you are at an outdoor crusade or something, and here come these disciples that Jesus himself hand picked. They are telling you the news about God's kingdom, who Jesus is. Listen intently and let the Holy Spirit of God give you understanding. For sure, they were not saying that Jesus Christ is God Almighty, but the Son of God and Messiah.May God bless you.
There are a lot of scriptures that tell us Jesus is one with God. I believe that God is greater than Jesus but that Jesus is also a part of God the father just as the Holy spirit is. For example John10:37-38 If I do not do the works of my father, do not believe me; but if I do, though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the father is in me, and I in him. Or how about 1John5:7 For there are three that bear witness on in heaven; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. The Father is eternal and immutable, without beginning nor end… the Word, the Son is also eternal, The Father has Word from the beginning, and the Word is the Son who became flesh, Jesus the Christ. So, the Word, the Son, was not created but eternally begotten of the Father, begotten not made, one in Being with the Father always, since eternity to eternity.
On top of it, if just for a second the Word would have not existed, for that second the Father would have been no “Father” because for that second He would have had no “Son”, which is an impossible, because He is eternally immutable.
Hello Oneway,
There is a whole thread on 1 John 5:7 in the “bible discussions” section.
Basically, the latter part of that scripture “these three are one” has absolutely no right being in any Bible. Newer translations don't include it. It was added to support the trinity. It shouldn't be there.Your point on this scripture:
Acts2:32 “This Jesus God has raised up,of which we are all witnesses.”There are no comma's in the manuscripts from which this verse is taken. Clearly it is not saying “Jesus God” has been raised up. It says that This Jesus, “God” raised up. Many other verses show that God raised Jesus up. Jesus did not resurrect himself. This scripture does not support the trinity belief and it's not even something trinitarians use to support the trinity belief. It shouldn't trouble you.
Quote On top of it, if just for a second the Word would have not existed, for that second the Father would have been no “Father” because for that second He would have had no “Son”, which is an impossible, because He is eternally immutable. Well, no. We know that in other parts of the Bible God is spoken of as becoming a Savoir, a Redeemer or repurchaser, etc. He wasn't always these things. God's personality, characteristics, thinking on matters, etc are unchangable however.
There is one main “trinity” thread in the “bible discussions” section. And there's many other threads on the trinity, including one on 1 John 5:7.
david.
Quote (Oneway2besaved @ June 11 2006,02:24) There are a lot of scriptures that tell us Jesus is one with God. I believe that God is greater than Jesus but that Jesus is also a part of God the father just as the Holy spirit is. For example John10:37-38 If I do not do the works of my father, do not believe me; but if I do, though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the father is in me, and I in him. Or how about 1John5:7 For there are three that bear witness on in heaven; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. The Father is eternal and immutable, without beginning nor end… the Word, the Son is also eternal, The Father has Word from the beginning, and the Word is the Son who became flesh, Jesus the Christ. So, the Word, the Son, was not created but eternally begotten of the Father, begotten not made, one in Being with the Father always, since eternity to eternity. On top of it, if just for a second the Word would have not existed, for that second the Father would have been no “Father” because for that second He would have had no “Son”, which is an impossible, because He is eternally immutable.
Hi O,
Does scripture ever say that God has always been a father?Quote (Oneway2besaved @ June 10 2006,01:01) I have read your passage debunking the Trinity doctrine. I am praying that God reveals the truth to me about this topic. You have strong points in your passage. However there are two scriptures that seem to be hard to swallow for a person not believing in the Trinity. I am also curious as to why you did not include these two scriptures into your passage considering all of the well documented research you have compiled for your message. These two scriptures are: 1John5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven:the Father,the Word, and the Holy Spirit;and these three are one. The second verse you include but the translation is in the point you are favoring. Your NIV version of Acts2:32 “God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.” If you quoted form the NKJV the verse reads like this Acts2:32 “This Jesus God has raised up,of which we are all witnesses.” Are we not to take the Bible for how it reads. If Jesus is God of man then he is also God. Why not say this Jesus Lord or this Lord Jesus and Christ Jesus.
The writing you talk of does contain a section on 1 John 5:7.
Taken from:
https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity-05.htmQuote below:
The next verse we will look at is a blatant attempt by man to give the doctrine of the Trinity credibility. That verse is 1 John 5:7 (English-KJV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.All other translations do not have the words ” the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” ; Apart from the King James translation. Translators agree that the last part of this verse was added in later and is actually a footnote in the Textus Receptus, the Greek text that the King James Bible was translated from. Now this same verse in the NIV for example simply says the following:
1 John 5:7 (English-NIV)
For there are three that testify:How did the disputed words find there way into the New testament?
The first published Greek NT was edited in 1516 by Catholic priest, scholar, and humanist Erasmus in 1516. This edition did not include the disputed words. A revised edition in 1519 also did not include these words. Erasmus was severely criticised by other Catholic priests for not including in Greek these words which were well-known to them from the Latin. Erasmus said that the words were left out simply because he did not find them in any of the Greek manuscripts he had examined, and promised to insert them if they were found in even one Greek manuscript.
An Irish monk deliberately fabricated such a manuscript to meet Erasmus' requirement. This manuscript (no. 61) was copied from an early manuscript which did not contain the words. The page in this manuscript containing the disputed words is on a special paper and has a glossy finish, unlike any other page in the manuscript. On the basis of this one 16th century deliberately falsified manuscript, Erasmus inserted the disputed words in his 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions of the Greek NT, though he protested that he did not believe the words were genuine.
Nearly all printed Greek NTs from Erasmus until the 19th century were simply reprints of Erasmus' 4th or 5th edition, and so the words continued to be printed in Greek as part of I John even though there is no sufficient evidence for their inclusion. Recent editions of the Greek NT follow the manuscript evidence and therefore do not insert the words.
The earliest English New Testament, the translation of Wycliffe in the 1380s, was made from medieval Latin manuscripts, and so it includes the disputed words, though it reads “son” instead of “word.” Tyndale's translation of 1525 was based on Erasmus' 3rd edition and so it included the words. In the 2nd and 3rd editions of his translation, Tyndale placed the disputed words in parentheses to show that their genuineness was doubtful. Several editions of the NT edited by Tyndale's assistant Miles Coverdale also placed the disputed words in parentheses or smaller type or both to show that they were disputed. Jugge's 1552 edition of Tyndale's NT omitted the parentheses and printed the words in standard type, a practice followed in later English Bibles, including the KJV (based on Beza's 1598 Greek NT, a virtual reprint of Erasmus' 4th edition). Recent conservative translations of the NT (ASV, NASB, NIV) delete the disputed words entirely or put them in a footnote because the evidence is conclusive that they were not an original part of John's letter. [Verse numbers were not added until 1551 in a Greek NT based on Erasmus' 4th edition]
Now 1 John 5:7 is about the closest verse in the Bible that hints at a Trinity and yet that verse is not actually scripture, rather a footnote that was inserted into some texts fraudently. In scripture we find that Jesus himself never taught the Trinity, on the contrary he taught us that his Father is his God and our God see John 20:17 (English-NIV)
Jesus said, Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, `I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.
John 10:29
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.If we try to push a doctrine that is not biblical then the scriptures are there to correct us according to 2 Timothy 3:16 (English-NIV)
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
If we continue to push a false doctrine contrary to the scriptures then God hands us over to that way of thinking and we will reap the fruit of that doctrine. I have no problem understanding how some Christians got involved in worshipping Mary and the Saints. If we see men pushing to have the doctrine of the Trinity accepted then that pushing will complete its path and manifest to its extreme, so that not only is Jesus exalted to be equal with the Father but then we probably should exalt Mary as well, after all she is Jesus Mother and if Jesus is God then Mary must be the Mother of God and being the Mother of God means that she must also be sinless. And why not worship the saints after all if we can exalt Mary, then we should exalt the saints as they are legends and are worthy of special recognition?
I think history demonstrates to us that the wisdom of this doctrine is a false wisdom because the fruit of that doctrine is bad. God allows such things to mature so he can judge it and also to allow such thinking to be exposed in the light in order for creation to witness the result of such deception. In fact God does the same thing with the Devil and his children. Remember that Jesus wants the tares (children of the devil) and wheat (children of God) to mature so all can be understood so that all things can be judged. This is the harvest and the harvest is the end of the world.
Also try this article in Wikipedia.
Check out my thread showing the error of using the NIV to make any sort of doctrine from, here
One of many things is that the NIV calls Jesus and Satan by the same name, would you like to base doctrine off of a Bible that does that?
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
(1 John 5:7 KJV)Even if you want to throw out the 1 John verse the next two help to sum it up along with many other verses, just dont trust the newer translations.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.
(John 1:1-2 KJV)And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
(John 1:14 KJV)Hi M,
Yes the truth is in those verses.
The Word was WITH GOD.
Two beings, not one.
Unity came by agreement.In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.
(John 1:1-2 KJV)Hi,
Is it not odd that those who favour the trinity can see past the middle of the verse to the end? We cannot break scripture so these matters must be reconciled. We do not deny the divine nature of the Word as the image of God so the end of the verse is no problem. How do you reconcile the Word being WITH God as is written three times at least in scripture?Simple, He was there from the beginning He is the Alpha and Omega. I never looked past the middle part of the verse though i recognize that they are different yet one.
Hi M,
Job 1.6
“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord..”Were these sons part of the Lord they were presenting themselves before?
Hi M,
“The beginning “is the epoch before time stretching back into eternity. To be “from' then does not state one has no origin.Quote (Moriet @ June 12 2006,21:52) Simple, He was there from the beginning He is the Alpha and Omega. I never looked past the middle part of the verse though i recognize that they are different yet one.
Hi M,
The Book of Revelation is, as you will see from the first few verses
from God
from Jesus
from the angel
from Johnto us.
Revelation is the ultimate challenge as far as exegesis goes and it is meant to be so to make us fight to extract the truth. In the book all of the first four speak, as well as recording the words of others such as angels and the elder who spoke with John. They all speak and one verse may quote one and the next another.
Anyone who can define as being the words of Jesus any statement such as “I am the Alpha and Omega” has to prove the source as correctly applied to get beyond this situation.
Quote (Moriet @ June 13 2006,16:44) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.
(John 1:1-2 KJV)
To Moriet,John 1:1 (English-NIV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.a) In the beginning was the Word, (en arch hn o logoV)
b) and the Word was with God, (kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon)
c) and the Word was God. (kai qeoV hn o logoV).John 1:1b says that the Word was with God and John 1:1c says that the Word was God, so how can the Word be God and be with God at the same time? Well part of the answer to discovering the meaning of this verse is found in 1 John 1:1-2
“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life and the life was manifested, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was made manifest to us”.
So when we read 1John 1:2, it suggests to us that the God in John1:1b is the Father himself.
Moving on we seee In John 1:1c, the last word God is missing the definite article, (the). That article is before all other instances of the word 'God' and 'Logos' in John 1:1. (E.g., the Word, The God.)
There is an understanding among scholars that in Greek sentence construction, if a noun does not have a preceding article, (e.g., the) it should be considered an adjective (a predicate adjective); and if such a noun does have a preceding article it should be considered a noun (a predicate nominative). Understanding this, many scholars saw the benefit of the rule for affirming the deity of Christ in John 1:1, but didn't make the difference clear regarding identity and nature.
Is Theos in John 1:1c qualitative? The most likely candidate is that the last instance of 'theos' (in John 1:1c) is qualitative. This is true both grammatically and theologically. (Also, if The Logos was God himself, then the verse would be saying that the Logos is exclusively God and no other.) So we have 2 good reasons now for reading the last word 'God' as qualitive.
Anyhow, John explains the conclusion for his Book and that conclusion is not the Trinity Doctrine.
John 20:30-31.
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. ”This is what is taught here. That Jesus is the Christ and the son of God. This belief is imperative if we are to have life in his name.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
