All Claims of The Son's Deity

[Victoria]

Are you suggesting that unitarian would have controlled access to the Greek manuscripts to as to hide vital information that has never been corrected since Westcott and Hort started this project? I'm not sure how it could be that even hidden motives could have obscured the testimony of the manuscripts found across various centuries.
What seems evident in KJV-only writings is the false testimony or representation about the views and actions of Westcott and Hort. That makes it appear the concern should be about those KJV-only writings.

I was grabbing a bite to eat, missed this post earlier.

Okay, fair. I'll consider your rebuttal if you could show me where the Byzantine translators got the Godhead, Gospels, salvation, etc. wrong. I've asked before, but you haven't yet responded. It's about translation errors, not a personal attack on the person(s) who made such translations.

 

[mikesw]

I was grabbing a bite to eat, missed this post earlier.

Okay, fair. I'll consider your rebuttal if you could show me where the Byzantine translators got the Godhead, Gospels, salvation, etc. wrong. I've asked before, but you haven't yet responded. It's about translation errors, not a personal attack on the person(s) who made such translations.

Just as a point of consistency and continuity, why do you trust a KJV based on the common accepted Greek and Hebrew text of the 1600s but then accept an eschatology that was predominantly developed in the mid 1800s?

 

[Victoria]

Just as a point of consistency and continuity, why do you trust a KJV based on the common accepted Greek and Hebrew text of the 1600s but then accept an eschatology that was predominantly developed in the mid 1800s?

I could just as easily use other Byzantine translations, such as the Geneva Bible, or Bishop's Bible, though the English is a bit more difficult to read. Is there anywhere in those that demote Christ's deity, the Gospels, salvation, etc.?

Not according to the early church, it wasn't an invention of the 1800's.

 

[Victoria]

Irenaeus believed in the catching up, & future tribulation.

“And therefore in the end when the Church is suddenly caught up from this, it is said, ‘There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.’ For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome, they are crowned with incorruption." Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.29.1

“For Enoch, when he pleased God, was translated in the same body in which he did please Him, thus pointing out by anticipation the translation of the just. … Wherefore also the elders who were disciples of the apostles tell us that those who are translated are translated to … paradise … in which place also Paul the apostle, when he was caught up, heard unspeakable words … and that those who have been translated shall remain there until the consummation [the end], as a prelude to incorruptibility.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.5.1

​

Papias of Hierapolis (circa 70–155 AD)

Papias, a bishop and a disciple of John:

"There will be a period of a thousand years after the resurrection of the dead when the kingdom of Christ will be established in material form on this earth." (Fragments of Papias)

Tertullian (155–240 AD)

"We confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth... after the resurrection, for a thousand years."
(Against Marcion, Book 3, Chapter 25)

Hippolytus (170–235 AD)

"When the times are fulfilled, and the ten horns spring from the beast in the last times, then Antichrist will appear among them... then may we expect the manifestation of the Lord from heaven." (Commentary on Daniel, 2.7)

Eusebius (260-339 AD)

"As all perished then except those gathered with Noah in the ark, so also at this coming, the ungodly in the season of apostasy shall perish. While according to the pattern of Noah, all the righteous and godly are to be separated from the ungodly and gathered into the heavenly ark. For in this way comes a time when not even one righteous man will be found among mankind and when all the ungodly have been made atheists by the antichrist, and the whole world is overcome by apostasy, the wrath of God shall come upon the ungodly." (Fragments on Luke (Luke 17:26, Migne 24.584-585)

Ephrem The Syrian (306–373 AD)

Sermon on Repentance and Judgment:

"For the elect shall be gathered prior to the tribulation, so they shall not see the confusion and the great tribulation coming upon the unrighteous world."

Sermon On the Fathers Who Have Completed Their Course:

"Behold, now the holy and the just are chosen and gathered into the harbor of life that they should not see the tribulation and the snares coming upon us because of our sins."

A Pattern in History

But what’s fascinating is that belief in the Millennium resurfaced in the 1600s and 1700s—well before Darby or modern dispensationalism.

Peter Jurieu (1687) wrote that Christ would return before the battle of Armageddon and rapture the saints.

Philip Doddridge (1738) and John Gill (1748) taught about a literal rapture and millennial reign.

 

[amazing grace]

It's not so much about a particular version, it's about God's Word in general. There are two sets of manuscripts that has created a lot of confusion, unfortunately.

What two sets of manuscripts created a lot of confusion?

Some of us may know that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, which confirms His deity, but what about those who hold modern translations that omitt this truth? We can see this evidenced in this thread. They say 1 John 5:7 is an error, as one example.

How does being the only begotten Son of God confirm Jesus' deity? I don't think not having 'begotten' is necessarily damaging to the text. Yes, a lot of scholars have researched older text and found 1 John 5:7 to not be in some text.

Israel, 'nor the early Christians of Antioch had a translation preference. Paul even warned of those forging his epistles. Scripture was under attack back then, so why would it not continue to be since? Hidden motives, Satan is crafty.

The early first century Christians had translations of their scrolls? Paul's letters were written to the church and probably in the language prevalent to that church, prevalent to the people. There was a great divide between the upper, middle and lower class of people - with basically only the upper class having the ability to learn to read. So, I really don't know what your point is.

Do you honestly believe that ANY Bible translation is 100% without some error? The Bible is the closest thing we have to the word of God ---- but we must remember, it was translated by men. Whether to leave a word capitalized, numbered verses, chapter breaks and chapter headings were all added by men. Transcribing the original text was difficult.

The Gnostics, Philosophists, & Spiritists from Alexandria, Egypt interpretted the scriptures differently than Christians in Antioch. Paul warns us of philosophy, & vain deceit in Colossians 2:8-9. The Godhead was under attack. Witchcraft was corrupting Peter's ministry in Acts 8:18-20, Simon wanting to purchase the power of the Holy Ghost from Peter. Again, in 2 Peter 1:20-21, there were Gnostics figuratively interpretating prophecy. Then there was Hymenaeus in 2 Timothy 2:17-18, stating the resurrection had past already.

Yes, Paul did warn against philosophy and human tradition that would lead away from Christ.
Yes, in Acts 8, Simon selfishly thought he could purchase the ability of laying on hands to give the holy spirit, aka the gift of God with money.
Where does 2 Peter 1:20 say anything about Gnostics 'figuratively interpreting prophecy'? I do agree that the Gnostics were 'bothersome' I think more in the thought process that Christ couldn't have come in the flesh because NOTHING good could come from the flesh which, I believe, is why John kept reiterating the fact the one must confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. (1 John & 2 John)
Yea, and there were the Saduccees who didn't believe in the resurrection . . . the early Christians always had people around who carried their own philosophies and traditions.

I believe that some transcribers, being men, transcribed with bias but I don't believe any of the references above had anything to do with the transcription of scripture.

 

[101G]

Victoria was just using a little banter, 101G.
Even Paul used banter at times

(smile) .... LOL, LOL, LOL, ok, you got 101G.

now lets even up the score. do you agree with what the Lord Jesus said here.... Matthew 19:3 "The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" Matthew 19:4 "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,"

V ...... in the beginning only one person made man male and female. ... question, "was this Jesus who made man male and female in the beginning?" yes or no. .... looking to hear your answer, read Matthew 19:3 4 real good before you answer.

101G.

 

[Runningman]

Agreed, only God Himself can be tempted, & NOT sin. Only God can live a sinless, holy, perfect life. Only God can give, keep, the Ten Commandments, & the Mosaic law, perfectly. Worshiping anyone other than God alone is idolatry. Jewish monotheism strictly reserved worship for God alone, which explains the anger at Jesus' claim.

I hope you don't think God gave His people a list of commandments to keep, fully expecting them to fail them all, and judge them severely for the alleged insurmountable obstacle that you seemed to think God placed in front of their pace. The commandments are things people can reasonably keep. Think back to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Who went to torment for ignoring Moses and the prophets and who went to paradise?

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;" Exodus 20:3-5

Worshipping men as God is explicitly forbidden by this passage you quoted: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:"

So are humans something on earth ?

If Jesus isn't God, why didn't He rebuke Thomas? John 20:28

Jesus did rebuke Thomas immediately after he said that. He said in John 20:29 "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

As you can see, Thomas was not blessed.

If Jesus isn't God, then how could He possibly forgive sins? Mark 2:1-12

Matthew recorded that Jesus and the other "men" (plural) Jesus was with had received authority from God to forgive sins:

Matthew 9
5For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? 6But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. 7And he arose, and departed to his house. 8But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.

If Jesus isn't God, why did people bow down before Him in worship? Matthew 2:11; Mark 5:6; John 9:38

Bowing isn't about deifying someone. It is a cultural sign of respect and deference to do that.

Abraham bowed to the Hittites (Genesis 23:7,12)
Jacob bowed to Esau (Genesis 33:3)
Joseph's brother bowed to him (Genesis 42:6)
Ruth bowed to Boaz (Ruth 2:10)
David bowed to king Saul (1 Samuel 24:8)
and many more....

So we don't automatically think they were committing idolatry or attempting to deify others when they bowed. The matter is, none of them were being worshipped as God when they were physically bowed down to. So there isn't a good reason why we would suddenly think Jesus was God to be worshipped, especially since Jesus taught against worshipping himself.

Jesus taught that true worship is to worshipping the Father. If Jesus is God why would he infer that only the true worshippers worship the Father and not himself?

John 4
23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Only God alone can be the saviour of humanity (i.e. Isaiah 43:3; Isaiah 45:21). That's why 1 John 4:3 is extremely important b/c Satan wants you to believe otherwise to keep you lost. Remember, "Yea, hath God said"...

I believe you have a category error. We can discuss how Jesus is not the same savior as God if you will understand that Jesus' saviorhood is itself a created office, that he now holds, when he previously did not. God's ability to save was not created for Him by someone else or something that was given to Him right? Acts 2:36 says Jesus' status as Lord and Christ were constructed.

Acts 2
36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

I AM THAT I AM
(Exodus 3:13-14)

I also quote that verse. Cross reference it with Acts 3:13. Jesus is not the God of Abraham despite only the God of Abraham being YHWH the I AM.

I am the bread of life (John 6:35)
I am the light of the world (John 8:12)
I am the door of the sheep (John 10:7)
I am the good shepherd (John 10:11)
I am the resurrection, and the life (John 11:25)
I am the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6)
I am the true vine (John 15:1)
Before Abraham was, I am (John 8:58)

John 6:35 was a comparison between himself and the manna given to the Israelites in the desert.

Matthew 5:13 says, :Ye are the light of the world.:

John 10:7 is accurate, but not sure what point you're making.

Who resurrected Jesus and gave Jesus his life?

Who gave Jesus his way, truth, and life?

Jesus is the true vine, but who is the Vinedresser?

John 8:58 is not a claim to pre-existing Abraham.

"I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." John 8:24

So again, the word repent doesn't mean to "stop/turn" from sin. Repent means a change of mind/heart.

Why do you believe Jesus is who he said he is? He only ever claimed to be the Son of God, a title he also assigned to others repeatedly, and the Messiah. Do you believe the word messiah means someone is God?

 

[Peterlag]

"The doctrine of the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine...

it's the product of theological reflection." - The Christian Doctrine of God Trinitarian. E. Brunner, 1949, p. 236.

“Trinity is not a biblical doctrine" - New Bible Dictionary, J. Douglas, F. Bruce, 1982, p. 1298.

“Scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the Trinity as such in either the Old or the New Testament” - The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, 1995, p. 564.

“The Bible has no statements or speculations concerning a trinitary deity." - Encyclopedia Britannica, volume 12, p. 383, 1979.

“Three coequal partners in the God head cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the Bible. It's important to avoid reading the Trinity into places where it does not appear." - Oxford Companion to the Bible, Bruce Metzger, M. Coogan, p. 782-3.

“The doctrine of the Trinity is not present in biblical thought... it goes beyond, and even distorts, what the Bible says about God.” - A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity - God in Three Persons: Professor M. Erickson, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, p. 12, 20.

“The belief (in a Trinity-God) was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief." -Dictionary of the Bible, 1995, (trinitarian) J. Mckenzie, p. 899.

“The doctrine of the Trinity was formulated in the post-biblical period." - Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1985.

“In the New Testament there is no direct suggestion of a doctrine of the Trinity." - An Encyclopedia of Religion, V. Ferm (ed.), 1945, p. 344.

“No passage of Scripture discusses the threeness of God." - The New International Version. Disciples Study Bible, p. 173, note for Mt. 3:16.

“The Bible does not state that there is one God who exists in three persons” - Basic Theology, Professor C. Ryrie, p. 89.

“The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity” - Christian Doctrine, Professor S. Guthrie, Columbia Theological Seminary, 1994, p. 92.

“The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be justified on the basis of Scripture. Indeed it's hard to imagine Jesus speaking in such terms" - An Outline of Biblical Theology, Professor M. Burrows, Yale Divinity School, p. 81.

“The doctrine of God as existing in three persons and one substance is not demonstrable by scriptural proofs." - Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, 1898.

“There is in the Old Testament no indication of interior distinctions in the God-head. And there is no doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament” - The Known Bible and its Defense, Reverend M. Hembre, 1933, p. 25.

 

[mikesw]

"The doctrine of the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine...

it's the product of theological reflection." - The Christian Doctrine of God Trinitarian. E. Brunner, 1949, p. 236.

“Trinity is not a biblical doctrine" - New Bible Dictionary, J. Douglas, F. Bruce, 1982, p. 1298.

“Scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the Trinity as such in either the Old or the New Testament” - The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, 1995, p. 564.

“The Bible has no statements or speculations concerning a trinitary deity." - Encyclopedia Britannica, volume 12, p. 383, 1979.

“Three coequal partners in the God head cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the Bible. It's important to avoid reading the Trinity into places where it does not appear." - Oxford Companion to the Bible, Bruce Metzger, M. Coogan, p. 782-3.

“The doctrine of the Trinity is not present in biblical thought... it goes beyond, and even distorts, what the Bible says about God.” - A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity - God in Three Persons: Professor M. Erickson, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, p. 12, 20.

“The belief (in a Trinity-God) was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief." -Dictionary of the Bible, 1995, (trinitarian) J. Mckenzie, p. 899.

“The doctrine of the Trinity was formulated in the post-biblical period." - Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1985.

“In the New Testament there is no direct suggestion of a doctrine of the Trinity." - An Encyclopedia of Religion, V. Ferm (ed.), 1945, p. 344.

“No passage of Scripture discusses the threeness of God." - The New International Version. Disciples Study Bible, p. 173, note for Mt. 3:16.

“The Bible does not state that there is one God who exists in three persons” - Basic Theology, Professor C. Ryrie, p. 89.

“The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity” - Christian Doctrine, Professor S. Guthrie, Columbia Theological Seminary, 1994, p. 92.

“The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be justified on the basis of Scripture. Indeed it's hard to imagine Jesus speaking in such terms" - An Outline of Biblical Theology, Professor M. Burrows, Yale Divinity School, p. 81.

“The doctrine of God as existing in three persons and one substance is not demonstrable by scriptural proofs." - Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, 1898.

“There is in the Old Testament no indication of interior distinctions in the God-head. And there is no doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament” - The Known Bible and its Defense, Reverend M. Hembre, 1933, p. 25.

You have to advise people against the improper inferences people can make, as if all these sources are speaking against recognition of the Triune God. Try balancing these quotes with the broader view and meaning. It is just another way of proof texting if you disregard the broader views and meaning. Without the broader view relating to that quote, the text can be just be a reflection of lying or ignorance rather than a real argument.

 

[Runningman]

"The doctrine of the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine...

it's the product of theological reflection." - The Christian Doctrine of God Trinitarian. E. Brunner, 1949, p. 236.

“Trinity is not a biblical doctrine" - New Bible Dictionary, J. Douglas, F. Bruce, 1982, p. 1298.

“Scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the Trinity as such in either the Old or the New Testament” - The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, 1995, p. 564.

“The Bible has no statements or speculations concerning a trinitary deity." - Encyclopedia Britannica, volume 12, p. 383, 1979.

“Three coequal partners in the God head cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the Bible. It's important to avoid reading the Trinity into places where it does not appear." - Oxford Companion to the Bible, Bruce Metzger, M. Coogan, p. 782-3.

“The doctrine of the Trinity is not present in biblical thought... it goes beyond, and even distorts, what the Bible says about God.” - A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity - God in Three Persons: Professor M. Erickson, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, p. 12, 20.

“The belief (in a Trinity-God) was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief." -Dictionary of the Bible, 1995, (trinitarian) J. Mckenzie, p. 899.

“The doctrine of the Trinity was formulated in the post-biblical period." - Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1985.

“In the New Testament there is no direct suggestion of a doctrine of the Trinity." - An Encyclopedia of Religion, V. Ferm (ed.), 1945, p. 344.

“No passage of Scripture discusses the threeness of God." - The New International Version. Disciples Study Bible, p. 173, note for Mt. 3:16.

“The Bible does not state that there is one God who exists in three persons” - Basic Theology, Professor C. Ryrie, p. 89.

“The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity” - Christian Doctrine, Professor S. Guthrie, Columbia Theological Seminary, 1994, p. 92.

“The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be justified on the basis of Scripture. Indeed it's hard to imagine Jesus speaking in such terms" - An Outline of Biblical Theology, Professor M. Burrows, Yale Divinity School, p. 81.

“The doctrine of God as existing in three persons and one substance is not demonstrable by scriptural proofs." - Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, 1898.

“There is in the Old Testament no indication of interior distinctions in the God-head. And there is no doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament” - The Known Bible and its Defense, Reverend M. Hembre, 1933, p. 25.

The Mormons and Scientologists do the same thing. They think you can just quote anything they want completely out of context and say it means something the Bible never actually states in the first place. It's why Protestantism is severely fractured into literally tens of thousands of groups. They tend to only see the parts of the Bible that seem to confirm their beliefs when isolated from all context rather than viewing the entire book as one cohesive narrative.

 

[Peterlag]

The Mormons and Scientologists do the same thing. They think you can just quote anything they want completely out of context and say it means something the Bible never actually states in the first place. It's why Protestantism is severely fractured into literally tens of thousands of groups. They tend to only see the parts of the Bible that seem to confirm their beliefs when isolated from all context rather than viewing the entire book as one cohesive narrative.

It absolutely floors me when I point out that the trinitarians are taking the verse out of context, or not understanding how the words were used in the culture they were written in, or from a bad translation that they then say that I refuse to believe the Bible. Or they say that I'm saying that Paul lied or that Jesus lied. It absolutely floors me.

 

[Peterlag]

You have to advise people against the improper inferences people can make, as if all these sources are speaking against recognition of the Triune God. Try balancing these quotes with the broader view and meaning. It is just another way of proof texting if you disregard the broader views and meaning. Without the broader view relating to that quote, the text can be just be a reflection of lying or ignorance rather than a real argument.

I can give you the broader view. Behold...

The Trinity does not come from Scripture. It comes from the doctrine of devils that the churches teach (and in most cases it's the first thing they teach) and then they begin to look for Scripture that supports such a concept. They do this by taking the verses out of context, or not understanding how the words were used in the culture they were written in, or from a bad translation.

There's reasons why the Bible does not teach the Trinity in one whole paragraph in a few different places or a whole chapter or two on it. There's reasons why there's no teaching on why God would come to the earth as a man. There's reasons why there was never a debate about the Trinity in Scripture like we see with justification by works or who should be circumcised. Such an important subject matter like the Trinity and the Bible is silent on all of it.

And there's the spinning and twisting from the trinitarians who can't come up with one verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Trinitarians who can't come up with one verse that says why God would come to the earth as a man. Trinitarians who have to make up their own words that are not in the Bible. Words like Trinity, Deity, and Incarnated.

If any of this nonsense was true and since it's so important and a huge subject to Christianity and is necessary for salvation like many teach. Then it would have been taught by someone somewhere. And it is not.

 

[mikesw]

I can give you the broader view. Behold...

The Trinity does not come from Scripture. It comes from the doctrine of devils that the churches teach (and in most cases it's the first thing they teach) and then they begin to look for Scripture that supports such a concept. They do this by taking the verses out of context, or not understanding how the words were used in the culture they were written in, or from a bad translation.

There's reasons why the Bible does not teach the Trinity in one whole paragraph in a few different places or a whole chapter or two on it. There's reasons why there's no teaching on why God would come to the earth as a man. There's reasons why there was never a debate about the Trinity in Scripture like we see with justification by works or who should be circumcised. Such an important subject matter like the Trinity and the Bible is silent on all of it.

And there's the spinning and twisting from the trinitarians who can't come up with one verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Trinitarians who can't come up with one verse that says why God would come to the earth as a man. Trinitarians who have to make up their own words that are not in the Bible. Words like Trinity, Deity, and Incarnated.

If any of this nonsense was true and since it's so important and a huge subject to Christianity and is necessary for salvation like many teach. Then it would have been taught by someone somewhere. And it is not.

uh. there were other details to work out before people could change focus on how Jesus's divinity meshed with his Father's. Some people just want everything to be said up front and history squeezed into a minute. We already know Son of God, the only begotten Son, means having the same nature as his Father

We see a bad sign of the unitarian view in that they have to quote writings that maybe sound like support the unitarian view but only because the unitarians are sharing half truths. The quoted texts they list do not deny the existence of the Triune God but only that the scriptures do not mention God explicitly as triune in essence. When deceit is needed for their argument, they lack a true argument.

 

[Runningman]

It absolutely floors me when I point out that the trinitarians are taking the verse out of context, or not understanding how the words were used in the culture they were written in, or from a bad translation that they then say that I refuse to believe the Bible. Or they say that I'm saying that Paul lied or that Jesus lied. It absolutely floors me.

Yeah, it's called eisegesis. Take a little bit from this verse, take a little bit from that verse, put it all in a blinder and out pops a trinity. When asked to find a verse where the trinity is talked about, described, or explained they can't deliver.

As I said, that's what other groups like Mormons and Scientologists do with their bizarre ideas, they can quote verses for everything, but they can't actually demonstrate that anyone adhered to their philosophy with practical examples. No trinitarian can do that. Eventually they just cop out and say "it's a great mystery."

Really this isn't so much of a Bible discussion most of the time, but rather a lesson in elementary level reading comprehension.

 

[mikesw]

Yeah, it's called eisegesis. Take a little bit from this verse, take a little bit from that verse, put it all in a blinder and out pops a trinity. When asked to find a verse where the trinity is talked about, described, or explained they can't deliver.

As I said, that's what other groups like Mormons and Scientologists do with their bizarre ideas, they can quote verses for everything, but they can't actually demonstrate that anyone adhered to their philosophy with practical examples. No trinitarian can do that. Eventually they just cop out and say "it's a great mystery."

Really this isn't so much of a Bible discussion most of the time, but rather a lesson in elementary level reading comprehension.

the bad things the unitarians do to deny the Triune God is to list bible dictionaries that just mention that no passages say specifically that God is triune. The unitarians deceitfully use this to imply that the dictionary and related texts would be saying that the Trinity is false.

 

[Runningman]

the bad things the unitarians do to deny the Triune God is to list bible dictionaries that just mention that no passages say specifically that God is triune. The unitarians deceitfully use this to imply that the dictionary and related texts would be saying that the Trinity is false.

The text book definition of eisegesis is interpreting a text by reading your own ideas or biases into it, rather than drawing out the meaning that’s actually there. There is literally no mention or description of God being a trinity in the Bible, which is something trinitarians agree with. Yes, many of your organization's "doctrines" are simply eisegesis, just bad theology.

 

[mikesw]

The text book definition of eisegesis is interpreting a text by reading your own ideas or biases into it, rather than drawing out the meaning that’s actually there. There is literally no mention or description of God being a trinity in the Bible, which is something trinitarians agree with. Yes, many of your organization's "doctrines" are simply eisegesis, just bad theology.

scriptural wisdom includes deeper search. unitarians are not ready for searches into scripture, from what I have seen.
so you are saying my organization involving me just studying scripture by the Spirit of God is wrong? How come you cannot prove your misconception of Christ?

 

[Runningman]

scriptural wisdom includes deeper search. unitarians are not ready for searches into scripture, from what I have seen.
so you are saying my organization involving me just studying scripture by the Spirit of God is wrong? How come you cannot prove your misconception of Christ?

So an example of eisegesis would be reading Matthew 28:19 and saying that it means God is a trinity. Matthew 28:19 doesn't say they are a trinity and doesn't define God that way. There area dozens of examples of eisegesis that trinitarians use. It's so frequent and the arguments so circular I have stopped making the effort to call it out just for the sake of discussion.

 

[mikesw]

So an example of eisegesis would be reading Matthew 28:19 and saying that it means God is a trinity. Matthew 28:19 doesn't say they are a trinity and doesn't define God that way. There area dozens of examples of eisegesis that trinitarians use. It's so frequent and the arguments so circular I have stopped making the effort to call it out just for the sake of discussion.

Wow. No wonder you have problems. Can you find someone that says "this is saying God is Triune?" I suppose you might. But it certainly has that concept within it. There is no reason to list those three together unless they are related in some fashion like the Triune God.
I think also that I have never heard the way a unitarian twists this. I think Peterlag just says that those verses do not belong there.

 

[Victoria]

(smile) .... LOL, LOL, LOL, ok, you got 101G.

You're alright, 101G... you're alright

now lets even up the score. do you agree with what the Lord Jesus said here.... Matthew 19:3 "The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" Matthew 19:4 "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,"

V ...... in the beginning only one person made man male and female. ... question, "was this Jesus who made man male and female in the beginning?" yes or no. .... looking to hear your answer, read Matthew 19:3 4 real good before you answer.

101G.

Even up the score Yes, God made them male, & female.

Victoria will reason w/ 101G. Although 101G has an unorthodox view of the Godhead, at least Victoria, & 101G, can both agree that Jesus Christ is God, eh? We cannot afford to get that one wrong.

I never knew what modalism was until I joined the forum