A request

[Runningman]

Did you read what I posted to Peter in reply #174?

It is way to long to copy and paste, or I would have.

Does make me gleeful to be able to add another notch against the KJV, so cant really blame the folks as it is in quite a number
of translations... the latest being in 2020. Who would have thought you cannot trust the bible?

But why in the world did Jesus tell them to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?

What was the purpose when they were already baptizing in His name, and seemingly continued while he was alive?

I believe Bruce is most likely correct on it being a marginal note which explains why none of the other scribes seemingly accidentally included it in the main body of Scripture until before the 15th or 16th century.

Matthew 28:19 says "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" but it doesn't say they are one God and that isn't the baptismal formula anyone seemed to explicitly follow in Acts either. The baptism in the name of Jesus is along the same lines as the one they called John's baptism in Acts 19:3. It just shows who's discipleship they were baptized into.

 

[FreeInChrist]

Peter and I agreed to debate, even though that debate was not organized by either of us. Are you saying that the challengers are backing out now?

No, Red is still in. He is your only challenger so far.... but you said that you were not going to.

Red is happy to take on both of you but Admin wants him to have a second to offset you two.

Or else civic suggested maybe One on one ... and then someone move into the spot... something like that.

I am only volunteer traffic control and obviously doing a terrible job of it.

Red asked me to join but I am deferring that because you two and I mix it up enough I bet we could copy and paste our threads and it would look like a debate.

Anyway, if you have not checked it out the earliest 1 Jn 5:7 was noted to be in the bible was 385... a long time before any of our current known translations... and Tertullian supposedly had it in one of his writings, but it is up in the air if it was or was not.

So what else was added because someone felt it should be there?

 

[FreeInChrist]

As long as this locked debate stays holy and reverent to the LORD, it could turn out okay. But already in this thread alone, I can see personal attacks, etc. Hey, let’s not make this debate a spectacle.

s e l a h

@Selah.

That might be the funniest idea I have read all day.

One of the 2 hottest subjects in this or any other forum... I expect a spectacle but NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. Listen up folks....
NO PERSONAL ATTACKS.

I am sending you a DM

 

[Runningman]

No, Red is still in. He is your only challenger so far.... but you said that you were not going to.

Red is happy to take on both of you but Admin wants him to have a second to offset you two.

Or else civic suggested maybe One on one ... and then someone move into the spot... something like that.

I am only volunteer traffic control and obviously doing a terrible job of it.

Red asked me to join but I am deferring that because you two and I mix it up enough I bet we could copy and paste our threads and it would look like a debate.

I'm seeing a lot of misudnerstandings about this debate. Sometimes there's one debater, sometimes two, and claims that people are saying they are not debating even after they said they will. Where is the sign up form so people can just represent themselves without all of the confusion?

Anyway, if you have not checked it out the earliest 1 Jn 5:7 was noted to be in the bible was 385... a long time before any of our current known translations... and Tertullian supposedly had it in one of his writings, but it is up in the air if it was or was not.

So what else was added because someone felt it should be there?

There's a lot. Some things that were later additions are the new Granville-Sharp "rule" which didn't exist before the 18th century. There are also several little things here and there. What else comes to mind is the word "God" in Acts 7:59, which doesn't exist in the actual Greek mansucript, but is still printed in the KJV and NKJV. All of the Bible variations is definitively a pretty invovled topic.

 

[Peterlag]

Yes indeed. I haven't seen anyone quote 1 John 5:7 except for novice debaters on the topic. It's possible some of them don't even know 1 John 5:7 is a fake. Often times, the reaction for the natural trinitarian in the wild, on finding out the Bible doesn't actually contain any statements about the trinity, is initially skepticism. I've seen very few of them cede the trinity is false after losing one point. Expect them to to attempt to yank your chain from one end of the Bible to the other, but remember... they still can't provide any statements about God being a trinity, three persons in one God, or any such similar statements in Scripture.

There's nothing in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Nothing. And these guys are still 1 billion percent sure of themselves that somehow Jesus is God. A friend said if God wanted to come to the earth. Then why would He start out as a baby.

 

[synergy]

There's a lot. Some things that were later additions are the new Granville-Sharp "rule" which didn't exist before the 18th century. There are also several little things here and there. What else comes to mind is the word "God" in Acts 7:59, which doesn't exist in the actual Greek mansucript, but is still printed in the KJV and NKJV. All of the Bible variations is definitively a pretty invovled topic.

If you honestly want to go back to "the actual Greek manuscripts", I am all for it. Unfortunately, I have yet to meet any unitarian that understands the Greek language, its nuances, Greco-Roman History and its Culture.

 

[Runningman]

There's nothing in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Nothing. And these guys are still 1 billion percent sure of themselves that somehow Jesus is God. A friend said if God wanted to come to the earth. Then why would He start out as a baby.

Yep and the Bible is pretty specific about what to believe regarding the gospel of salvation. The various commands are also quite specific. Nothing in the Bible says believing Jesus is God is required or a commandment to follow. With how specific the Bible is about these things, it being excluded was no doubt intentional, because the commands are an important subject

 

[Runningman]

If you honestly want to go back to "the actual Greek manuscripts", I am all for it. Unfortunately, I have yet to meet any unitarian that understands the Greek language, its nuances, Greco-Roman History and its Culture.

Right off the bat, the Word is not The God in John 1:1.

Unitarianism - 1
Trinitarianism - 0

This isn't off to a good start for you.

 

[FreeInChrist]

I'm seeing a lot of misudnerstandings about this debate. Sometimes there's one debater, sometimes two, and claims that people are saying they are not debating even after they said they will. Where is the sign up form so people can just represent themselves without all of the confusion?

There's a lot. Some things that were later additions are the new Granville-Sharp "rule" which didn't exist before the 18th century. There are also several little things here and there. What else comes to mind is the word "God" in Acts 7:59, which doesn't exist in the actual Greek mansucript, but is still printed in the KJV and NKJV. All of the Bible variations is definitively a pretty invovled topic.

@Administrator

Runningman sent me this reply.

He is confused and I honestly do not know where people sign up at this poiint.

 

[FreeInChrist]

Right off the bat, the Word is not The God in John 1:1.

Unitarianism - 1
Trinitarianism - 0

This isn't off to a good start for you.

You are having your own debate.

There is not biblical translation that says that John says the Word was The God.

Unitarianism - 1
Trinitarianism - 1

Spend some time reading this explanation of where it is and how it was translated.

From an ancient manuscript from The Hebrew Gospels , John https://www.hebrewgospels.com/_files/ugd/c68db9_a93ec196f4b144948b2632acae6fefab.pdf

Hebrew Gospel of John | HebrewGospels.com

The first ever English translation of an authentic Hebrew manuscript of John! Can we learn anything from this Hebrew Gospel of John? Absolutely! In the introduction to the translation, we discuss the following topics: John 1:1 – Does the Gospel of John describe Yeshua as the Word or the Son...

www.hebrewgospels.com

YOCHANAN

1. In the beginning was the Son of Eloah. The Son of El was both with El, and the Son of El was Eloah

And that right there, boys and girls is the proof that The Son of God was God.

14. And so El was made flesh and dwelt among you. And we saw his light - and that he is echad alone, and was brought forth
from the Father, who is full of grace and truth.

Check mate.

 

[synergy]

Right off the bat, the Word is not The God in John 1:1.

You just exposed your ignorance of Greek.

In John 1:1c — “the Word was God” (Greek: καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) — the noun θεός (“God”) appears without the definite article. In linguistic terms, this is called an anarthrous predicate nominative.

In Koine Greek, an anarthrous predicate nominative that appears before the verb has a qualitative sense. It describes the nature or essence of the subject rather than identifying it as the same person as another.

Thus, John is not saying, “the Word was the God [the Father]” — which would make the Word identical in person to the Father — but rather, “the Word was of the very nature of God.” The emphasis is on what the Word is (fully God), not who the Word is (the Father). We are not Modalists. Do you understand?

This grammatical structure supports the idea that the Word shares the divine God Nature, while still being distinct in person from God the Father.

Learn some Greek and then we can talk. Ok?

Unitarianism - 1
Trinitarianism - 0

This isn't off to a good start for you.

Who made you the Score Keeper? Talk about egotistical conflict of interests. You take the cake.

 

[Red Baker]

There's nothing in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Nothing.

Yep and the Bible is pretty specific about what to believe regarding the gospel of salvation. The various commands are also quite specific. Nothing in the Bible says believing Jesus is God is required or a commandment to follow. With how specific the Bible is about these things, it being excluded was no doubt intentional, because the commands are an important subject

The scriptures are very clear as to confessions made by God's children as to who Christ was, and to deny who Christ truly was is to reject the word of God.

Jehovah God, revealed first to Moses, came into this world as a Man to redeem His elect people. The invisible, incomprehensible, and infinite God was made flesh to bodily, physically die for us in the person of of His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. He was not a phantom or spirit, for He said, “A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me have.”

The Almighty Creator God took on the flesh of mere human creatures well below His own angels. The infinite God of heaven became intimately connected to an infant of poverty in the earth. Great! He that the heaven of heavens cannot contain limited Himself to a child of a poor couple in a stable. Manifest. Clearly revealed to the eye, mind, or judgment; open to view or comprehension; obvious. The Word became flesh to declare and reveal God, and the Word of life was manifested (John 1:14, 18; 1st John 1:1:2). Jesus is the brightness of His glory and the express image of God far above the angels (Hebrews 1:1-4). Men and devils have sought for over 2000 years to compromise or deny the full deity of Jesus Christ.

This grammatical structure supports the idea that the Word shares the divine God Nature, while still being distinct in person from God the Father.

Learn some Greek and then we can talk. Ok?

Here is one main reason I truly desire to debate this alone against any other person with me, because I refuse to use the Greek to prove any doctrine, I trust the word of God in the KJV bible that was given to the English speaking people of this world. Also, I believe in the trinity in this sense: According to the work of redemption of God's people. The Godhead is ONE, manifest to us as three according to the redemption of the elect. That's one reason that the trinity is for the most part a NT teaching. Even though some saints understood that the Messiah was God incarnate according to Isaiah 9:6, etc.

The Word did not just share the divine nature, the Word was God PERIOD! Without any qualifications. The Word was made flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, by the Word joining Himself to the tabernacle of God's only begotten Son. Jesus being manifest in the flesh has little meaning, for without flesh there is no Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus was not manifest in the flesh; God manifest in the flesh was Jesus; know the difference. The Son of God was not manifest in flesh; God manifest in flesh was the Son; know the difference.

 

[Jim]

Here is one main reason I truly desire to debate this alone against any other person with me, because I refuse to use the Greek to prove any doctrine,

And if you were to debate a native Greek Christian would you insist that he submit to your KJV English translation?

 

[Red Baker]

No, he can use his bible that was first given to them back whenever. But, Jim, most Greeks are too busy seeking after wisdom instead of seeking their wisdom from the scriptures; and if a true believer among them believes, then I would almost 100% believe that he and I could agree on most of the essential truths from the scriptures.

Jim I have said more than once that I have read behind many men from different nations, and when quoting scriptures, you would think they were using the KJV, for I have never once read where I thought otherwise...... Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and so many more.

 

[synergy]

Here is one main reason I truly desire to debate this alone against any other person with me, because I refuse to use the Greek to prove any doctrine, I trust the word of God in the KJV bible that was given to the English speaking people of this world.

So not only do you not understand the Koine Greek of the NT originals but you go as far as to refuse to use Greek at all. Wow. Now I see where many of your misunderstandings of the Greek NT come from. It's a miracle that you place yourself on the Trinitarian side.

The Word did not just share the divine nature, the Word was God PERIOD! Without any qualifications. The Word was made flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, by the Word joining Himself to the tabernacle of God's only begotten Son. Jesus being manifest in the flesh has little meaning, for without flesh there is no Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus was not manifest in the flesh; God manifest in the flesh was Jesus; know the difference. The Son of God was not manifest in flesh; God manifest in flesh was the Son; know the difference.

Are you saying that the Word Person joined Himself to the Person of God's only begotten Son? If so, that would make 2 Persons. IOW, tell me if you believe in the Hypostatic Union teachings.

 

[civic]

So not only do you not understand the Koine Greek of the NT originals but you go as far as to refuse to use Greek at all. Wow. Now I see where many of your misunderstandings of the Greek NT come from. It's a miracle that you place yourself on the Trinitarian side.

Are you saying that the Word Person joined Himself to the Person of God's only begotten Son? If so, that would make 2 Persons. IOW, tell me if you believe in the Hypostatic Union teachings.

There are some unorthodox view of the Father/ Son and their eternal identities.There may also be an unorthodox view of the H.U. It sounds like 2 persons, not 1 Divine Person who assumed a human nature. A misunderstanding of person and nature.

 

[Red Baker]

@synergy

So not only do you not understand the Koine Greek of the NT originals but you go as far as to refuse to use Greek at all. Wow. Now I see where many of your misunderstandings of the Greek NT come from. It's a miracle that you place yourself on the Trinitarian side.

I do not even seek to understand any Greek, who cares, surely not God, nor do I. The Greek have their own language and how many men/women among them know any truth and are willing to defend it with all of their hearts? Not many ~ how many are on forums such as this one? I have yet to met one, not ONE.

Truth comes by divine revelation, not through knowing a certain language. Where in the book of the Acts of the apostles did they ever refer to the original Hebrew, in order for one understand truth. Never. They used scriptures handed down to them by ready scribes over many years, trusting God to protect his word in the process of thsi, so do we today ~ we put our faith in such scriptures as Psalms 12! You would show your self to wise by doing the same ~ only fools and unbelievers look outside of the scriptures for truths, and they will never find God's truth by doing so.

I'll come back to answer your other question after a couple of things I must first do.

 

[synergy]

@synergy

I do not even seek to understand any Greek, who cares, surely not God, nor do I. The Greek have their own language and how many men/women among them know any truth and are willing to defend it with all of their hearts? Not many ~ how many are on forums such as this one? I have yet to met one, not ONE.

I wasn't talking about Greeks, I was talking about the Greek language. Your attempt to divert the subject to Greeks is a cop out on your part. Your attempt to change the subject because of your disdain for the original NT manuscripts has been noted.

Truth comes by divine revelation, not through knowing a certain language. Where in the book of the Acts of the apostles did they ever refer to the original Hebrew, in order for one understand truth. Never. They used scriptures handed down to them by ready scribes over many years, trusting God to protect his word in the process of thsi, so do we today ~ we put our faith in such scriptures as Psalms 12!

There are dozens of OT quotes in the Greek NT, both from the Greek OT (LXX) and from the Hebrew NT (converted to Greek). Are you saying that the Apostles errored in doing so? You're digging yourself quite a grave for your disdain of the original manuscripts.

You would show your self to wise by doing the same ~ only fools and unbelievers look outside of the scriptures for truths, and they will never find God's truth by doing so.

So stop your foolish act of looking outside the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

 

[FreeInChrist]

No, he can use his bible that was first given to them back whenever. But, Jim, most Greeks are too busy seeking after wisdom instead of seeking their wisdom from the scriptures; and if a true believer among them believes, then I would almost 100% believe that he and I could agree on most of the essential truths from the scriptures.

Red, not to be argumentative, exactly.

We all know your only preference is the KJB.

But it does have its faults that are pointed out by others every so often.

IMO... it is not the Greeks that do not seek after their scriptures... that falls on the congregants of the RCC who still are told
that the church comes first and many still do not own bibles.

There in NO perfect translation but I will tell you one I just read that is from the Vatican archives..... OH NO... you wont read it I know.

There is one of the original 3 debating partners you wanted to debate that won't either....

Hebrew Gospel of John | HebrewGospels.com

The first ever English translation of an authentic Hebrew manuscript of John! Can we learn anything from this Hebrew Gospel of John? Absolutely! In the introduction to the translation, we discuss the following topics: John 1:1 – Does the Gospel of John describe Yeshua as the Word or the Son...

www.hebrewgospels.com

Yes, the Hebrew Gospel of John.

This has an extensive write up of how it came to be translated, etc.

Everyone needs to read the scripture part of it if nothing else.

Because of the copyright warnings, only parts can be reproduced, therefore no copy and paste, and if you try you can't
(I know cause I tried)

https://www.hebrewgospels.com/_files/ugd/c68db9_a93ec196f4b144948b2632acae6fefab.pdf

John 1:1

YOCHUM

1. In the beginning was the Son of Eloah, the Son of El was both with El, the Son of El was Eloah.

DO YOU READING THIS UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS ANCIENT HEBREW SCRIPTURE SAYS. IT SAYS, THE SON OF GOD WAS GOD! PERIOD.
Further:
14. And so El was made flesh and dwelt among you. And we saw his light - that he is echad alone, and was brought forth from the Father, who is full of grace and truth.

Now after the debate I am going to get into 1 John 5:7 with supporting evidence that this truly was an add-on going back to after Tertullian as there are no earlier supporting parchments, papers, scrolls, or texts and Tertullian's mention of it is in doubt.
Not a guaranteed doubt but based on 3 things an educated guess doubt....
But Priscillian clearly reveals that at least one Latin manuscript existed no later than 385 containing an early version of the Comma.
Yet none mentioning it before Tertullian.

So stay tuned.

 

[synergy]

Yes, the Hebrew Gospel of John.

I'm curious. Who produced the NT Greek to Hebrew translation and when?

This has an extensive write up of how it came to be translated, etc.

Everyone needs to read the scripture part of it if nothing else.

Because of the copyright warnings, only parts can be reproduced, therefore no copy and paste, and if you try you can't
(I know cause I tried)

https://www.hebrewgospels.com/_files/ugd/c68db9_a93ec196f4b144948b2632acae6fefab.pdf

John 1:1

YOCHUM

1. In the beginning was the Son of Eloah, the Son of El was both with El, the Son of El was Eloah.

DO YOU READING THIS UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS ANCIENT HEBREW SCRIPTURE SAYS. IT SAYS, THE SON OF GOD WAS GOD! PERIOD.
Further:
14. And so El was made flesh and dwelt among you. And we saw his light - that he is echad alone, and was brought forth from the Father, who is full of grace and truth.

Personally, I prefer John's version where he refers to the Word instead of the Son of God. There are many "sons of God" mentioned in the OT Bible but only One Word of God. That disarms the unitarians who say that there are many sons of God but they cannot say the same thing about the Word of God, found in both the OT and the NT.