I came to Jesus through a Trinitarian&#33;

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Feb. 15 2011,09:35)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 01 2008,00:14)

And of course, John 3:16 itself is a proof verse that God is not a Trinity. If you replace the word “God” for “Trinity”, the verse completely breaks apart.

For the Trinity so loved the world that the Trinity gave his only begotten son…

Yet John 1:18 says, No man has comprehended God at any time, the only begotten God, who is from the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”

Here we see that the first use of the word “God” refers to the Father while the second use refers to God, the Only Begotten. Likewise in John 3:16 the word has refrence to the Father.

The anti-Jesus folk base their Christology on the select use of the scriptures.

February 22, 2011 at 3:43 pm#236832

Participant

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Feb. 22 2011,08:39)

Quote (t8 @ Feb. 15 2011,09:35)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 01 2008,00:14)

And of course, John 3:16 itself is a proof verse that God is not a Trinity. If you replace the word “God” for “Trinity”, the verse completely breaks apart.

For the Trinity so loved the world that the Trinity gave his only begotten son…

Yet John 1:18 says, No man has comprehended God at any time, the only begotten God, who is from the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”

Here we see that the first use of the word “God” refers to the Father while the second use refers to God, the Only Begotten. Likewise in John 3:16 the word has refrence to the Father.

The anti-Jesus folk base their Christology on the select use of the scriptures.

Jack

I wonder if most ever give any thought to this poll?

Most anti Jesus is God people admit they were saved through a Trinitarian.

I wonder what made them change Jesus for another Jesus or change the Gospel they had recieved for another Gospel?

February 22, 2011 at 5:26 pm#236847

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 23 2011,01:43)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Feb. 22 2011,08:39)

Quote (t8 @ Feb. 15 2011,09:35)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 01 2008,00:14)

And of course, John 3:16 itself is a proof verse that God is not a Trinity. If you replace the word “God” for “Trinity”, the verse completely breaks apart.

For the Trinity so loved the world that the Trinity gave his only begotten son…

Yet John 1:18 says, No man has comprehended God at any time, the only begotten God, who is from the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”

Here we see that the first use of the word “God” refers to the Father while the second use refers to God, the Only Begotten. Likewise in John 3:16 the word has refrence to the Father.

The anti-Jesus folk base their Christology on the select use of the scriptures.

Jack

I wonder if most ever give any thought to this poll?

Most anti Jesus is God people admit they were saved through a Trinitarian.

I wonder what made them change Jesus for another Jesus or change the Gospel they had recieved for another Gospel?

Keith,

Check out my reply to Mike's beating his chest again in the “Hot Seat” forum. That Mike is a character isn't he?

Jack

February 22, 2011 at 9:12 pm#236865

Participant

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Feb. 23 2011,00:39)

Quote (t8 @ Feb. 15 2011,09:35)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 01 2008,00:14)

And of course, John 3:16 itself is a proof verse that God is not a Trinity. If you replace the word “God” for “Trinity”, the verse completely breaks apart.

For the Trinity so loved the world that the Trinity gave his only begotten son…

Yet John 1:18 says, No man has comprehended God at any time, the only begotten God, who is from the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”

Here we see that the first use of the word “God” refers to the Father while the second use refers to God, the Only Begotten. Likewise in John 3:16 the word has refrence to the Father.

The anti-Jesus folk base their Christology on the select use of the scriptures.

Hi Jack,

If you can read Greek (as you claim),
why do you Post a mistranslation of the Greek?

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

(Google) No one seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, in the bosom of the Father, he hath.

Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH! (Psalm 45:17)
117=יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Isaiah 49:16 / Isaiah 60:14 / Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org …(Eccl.9:12-16)

February 22, 2011 at 9:35 pm#236868

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 23 2011,07:12)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Feb. 23 2011,00:39)

Quote (t8 @ Feb. 15 2011,09:35)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 01 2008,00:14)

And of course, John 3:16 itself is a proof verse that God is not a Trinity. If you replace the word “God” for “Trinity”, the verse completely breaks apart.

For the Trinity so loved the world that the Trinity gave his only begotten son…

Yet John 1:18 says, No man has comprehended God at any time, the only begotten God, who is from the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”

Here we see that the first use of the word “God” refers to the Father while the second use refers to God, the Only Begotten. Likewise in John 3:16 the word has refrence to the Father.

The anti-Jesus folk base their Christology on the select use of the scriptures.

Hi Jack,

If you can read Greek (as you claim),
why do you Post a mistranslation of the Greek?

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

(Google) No one seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, in the bosom of the Father, he hath.

I posted the reading in the oldest manuscripts. You posted the corrupted version.

Jack

February 22, 2011 at 9:37 pm#236870

Participant

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Feb. 22 2011,15:35)

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 23 2011,07:12)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Feb. 23 2011,00:39)

Quote (t8 @ Feb. 15 2011,09:35)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 01 2008,00:14)

And of course, John 3:16 itself is a proof verse that God is not a Trinity. If you replace the word “God” for “Trinity”, the verse completely breaks apart.

For the Trinity so loved the world that the Trinity gave his only begotten son…

Yet John 1:18 says, No man has comprehended God at any time, the only begotten God, who is from the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”

Here we see that the first use of the word “God” refers to the Father while the second use refers to God, the Only Begotten. Likewise in John 3:16 the word has refrence to the Father.

The anti-Jesus folk base their Christology on the select use of the scriptures.

Hi Jack,

If you can read Greek (as you claim),
why do you Post a mistranslation of the Greek?

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

(Google) No one seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, in the bosom of the Father, he hath.

I posted the reading in the oldest manuscripts. You posted the corrupted version.

Jack

True!

February 22, 2011 at 9:42 pm#236871

Participant

Hi Jack,

What are the oldest manuscripts to which you refer?

God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

February 22, 2011 at 9:54 pm#236872

Proclaimer

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 23 2011,01:43)

Jack

I wonder if most ever give any thought to this poll?

Most anti Jesus is God people admit they were saved through a Trinitarian.

I wonder what made them change Jesus for another Jesus or change the Gospel they had recieved for another Gospel?

WJ, do you ever consider that there was a time that most who came to God through Christ would have heard the message through a believer who likely believed that salvation was attached to adhering to the established Church of its time. Through the Reformation, some truths such as “salvation being a free gift of God” were realised, yet people were still receiving salvation despite being doctrinally ignorant.

The Trinity Doctrine will go the way of other doctrines such as Indulgences. Only the hardest of hearts will continue to promote such doctrines in the light of truth that is revealed in our time.

February 22, 2011 at 10:15 pm#236879

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Feb. 22 2011,15:54)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 23 2011,01:43)

Jack

I wonder if most ever give any thought to this poll?

Most anti Jesus is God people admit they were saved through a Trinitarian.

I wonder what made them change Jesus for another Jesus or change the Gospel they had recieved for another Gospel?

The Trinity Doctrine will go the way of other doctrines such as Indulgences. Only the hardest of hearts will continue to promote such doctrines in the light of truth that is revealed in our time.

So you say, but if your gospel is the True Gospel and your Jesus is the True Jesus then why doesn't the majority of those getting saved, healed and delivered by the power of God come through the anti-Jesus is God crowd?

Surely God would not bless such a blasphemous doctrine (as you say the Trinity is) by saving most through those who believe in the Trinity would he?

Why wouldn't most salvations come through the anti Jesus is God crowd?

You anti-trins have had 2000 years to figure it out.

Since you mentioned Martin Luther and salvation by Grace which is a major doctrine accepted in the reformation and is responsible for the revivals of that time meaning millions coming to Christ…

Why did God choose a “Trinitarian” to bring this major truth to the Body?“

How many major doctrines and truths from the “anti-Jesus is God” folks have there been?

How many great revivals have there been with the “anti- Jesus is God” crowd?

How many great ministries to the poor and the sick have been established through the ant-Jesus is God crowd have there been?

Check it out, most all of the major ministries that are doing these works are Trinitarian.

You shall know them by their fruit. For they were not of us so they went out from among us!

February 22, 2011 at 10:29 pm#236883

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 23 2011,07:42)

Hi Jack,

What are the oldest manuscripts to which you refer?

God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

The Critical Text and the NU text. The NU text is what the NWT translators used which is an anti-trinitarian translation.

February 22, 2011 at 11:52 pm#236888

…http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/grktxt.html

Participant

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Feb. 23 2011,08:29)

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 23 2011,07:42)

Hi Jack,

What are the oldest manuscripts to which you refer?

God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

The Critical Text and the NU text. The NU text is what the NWT translators used which is an anti-trinitarian translation.

Hi Jack,

Here is an article taken from here… (What do you think of it?)

The Critical Text

During the 19th and 20th centuries, however, another form of Greek New Testament has come into the forefront and is used for most modern New Testament translations. This Critical Text, as it is called, differs widely from the Traditional Text in that it omits many words, verses and passages which are found in the Received Text and translations based upon it.

The modern versions are based mainly upon a Greek New Testament which was derived from a small handful of Greek manuscripts from the 4th century onwards. Two of these manuscripts, which many modern scholars claim to be superior to the Byzantine, are the Sinai manuscript and the Vatican manuscript (c. 4th century). These are derived from a text type known as the Alexandrian text (because of its origin in Egypt); this text type was referred to by the textual critics Westcott and Hort as the 'Neutral text'. These two manuscripts form the basis of the Greek New Testament, referred to as the Critical Text, which has been in widespread use since the late 19th century. In recent years there has been an attempt to improve this text by calling it an 'eclectic' text (meaning that many other manuscripts were consulted in its editing and evolution), but it is still a text which has as its central foundation these two manuscripts.

Problems in the Critical Text

There are many problems of omission which characterize this Greek New Testament. Verses and passages which are found in the writings of Church Fathers from around 200 to 300 A.D. are missing in the Alexandrian Text manuscripts which date from around 300 to 400 A.D. In addition, these early readings are found in manuscripts in existence from 500 A.D. onwards. An example of this is Mark 16.9-20: this passage is found in the writings of Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the 2nd century, and is in almost every manuscript of Mark's Gospel from 500 A.D. onwards. It is missing in two Alexandrian manuscripts, the Sinai and the Vatican.

This is but one of many examples of this problem. There are many words, verses and passages which are omitted from the modern versions but which are found in the Traditional or Byzantine Text of the New Testament, and thus in the Textus Receptus. The Critical Text differs from the Textus Receptus text 5,337 times, according to one calculation. The Vatican manuscript omits 2,877 words in the Gospels; the Sinai manuscript 3,455 words in the Gospels. These problems between the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text are very important to the correct translation and interpretation of the New Testament. Contrary to the contention of supporters of the Critical Text, these omissions do affect doctrine and faith in the Christian life.

Several examples of doctrinal problems caused by the omissions from the Critical Text follow. This is by no means an exhaustive list. The modern reconstructed Critical Text

* omits reference to the Virgin Birth in Luke 2.33
* omits reference to the deity of Christ in 1 Timothy 3.16
* omits reference to the deity of Christ in Romans 14.10 and 12
* omits reference to the blood of Christ in Colossians 1.14

In addition, an error is created in the Bible in Mark 1.2; in this passage in the Critical Text Isaiah is made the author of the book of Malachi. In numerous places in the New Testament the name of Jesus is omitted from the Critical Text; seventy times 'Jesus' is omitted and twenty-nine times 'Christ' is omitted.(1)

Another problem with the modern Critical Text is that the two main manuscripts upon which this text is constructed, the Sinai and the Vatican, disagree between themselves over 3,000 times in the Gospels alone. Thus, the Alexandrian text presents itself as a text type which is characterized in many places by readings which are not common to the manuscripts of their own tradition. The Critical Text is characterized by wording which in the original language is difficult, abrupt or even impossible. It appears that no matter how peculiar or aberrant the variant reading is, it must have been in the original autographs because (as is sometimes claimed) a scribe would never make a change which disagrees with other manuscripts; he would, instead, make a change which would make a passage read more smoothly.

Much is said about the Alexandrian manuscripts being very old. This is true, but the emphasis in the study of textual criticism should not be upon how old the manuscript is but upon how many copies removed from the original it is. A manuscript which is dated as having been copied during the 10th century could have been the fifth in a line of copies originating with the original autograph, whilst a manuscript dated as having been copied during the 3rd century could have been the one hundredth in the line of copies. Since it is difficult to tell the genealogy, the family of any given manuscript, it is important to note that age is relative in the sense that you could have a corrupt 3rd century manuscript or a faithful 10th century manuscript.

A good illustration would be to suppose that, in the year 3000, a copy of the English Bible was found which dated from the 1970s. Suppose this Bible happened to be the oldest existing Bible available, and this Bible happened to differ in hundreds of places from the Bible that was in use by Christians in the year 3000. One could well imagine the scientific critics, with their methodology, extolling the virtues of the ancient age of this Bible, the page design showing quality, careful care in the layout and the paper of this particular volume, the binding and so on. But their arguments would tend to fall apart when, after beginning to translate Bibles into modern languages on the basis of this ancient book, Christians discovered that this version of the Scriptures was the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

February 23, 2011 at 5:48 am#237084

kerwin

Participant

Worshipping Jesus,

My family was Seventh Day Adventist, who are Trinitarians, but I never really thought about the Trinity until someone asked if I believed Jesus was God. I then searched scripture to find an answer. Many of my change in beliefs have resulted from such challenges as I simply do not think to study on many issues I am not challenged on.

I was a member of the Church of Christ, A Trinitarian sect, when challenged.

March 15, 2011 at 7:48 am#239329

Wispring

Participant

Hi WJ,
I came to Jesus by praying to God for a way for me know him and have a relationship with him. God told me to follow Jesus and his teachings and to let the Spirit of Truth guide me on my way to him because he is my only saviour and my only salvation.
Love Wispring

March 15, 2011 at 6:33 pm#239380

Participant

Quote

I came to Jesus through a Trinitarian!, Since then I have denounced the Trinity!

Hi WJ,

Wouldn't you have to answer “false” to your question if EITHER of these are true?…

1. I did not come to Jesus through a Trinitarian!
2. I have not denounced the Trinity!

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

March 15, 2011 at 8:29 pm#239382

Participant

Quote (Wispring @ Mar. 15 2011,02:48)

Welcome Wispring!

I hope you are strong in your faith in Jesus because it will be challenged here. Many go and come to this sight.

Blessings and again, Welcome.

In his Love Keith

March 15, 2011 at 8:30 pm#239383

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 15 2011,13:33)

Quote

I came to Jesus through a Trinitarian!, Since then I have denounced the Trinity!

Hi WJ,

Wouldn't you have to answer “false” to your question if EITHER of these are true?…

1. I did not come to Jesus through a Trinitarian!
2. I have not denounced the Trinity!

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

No, because the option is they never were Trinitarians when they got saved!

March 15, 2011 at 8:40 pm#239384

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 16 2011,07:30)

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 15 2011,13:33)

Quote

I came to Jesus through a Trinitarian!, Since then I have denounced the Trinity!

Hi WJ,

Wouldn't you have to answer “false” to your question if EITHER of these are true?…

1. I did not come to Jesus through a Trinitarian!
2. I have not denounced the Trinity!

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

No, because the option is they never were Trinitarians when they got saved!

Hi WJ,

That only addresses my point #1 here.
Why would point #2 not be equally valid
based on the way your question is worded?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

March 15, 2011 at 9:09 pm#239387