I think he would be a zero percenter.
Scripture contrary to his view does not seem to move him.
The Trinity and the Incarnation
- Thread starter Rory Wilson
- Start date
Scripture contrary to his view does not seem to move him.
Jesus describing his body as the temple actually shows how Jesus can be 100% man (the temple) and 100% God -- of God indwelling this temple. I shared previously with him how God could design humans with the god-shaped vacuum (to borrow a concept a bit outside of its original use). I just use this idea as a loose concept, not as the exact scenario of Jesus.
Peterlag
Well-known member
Only if I can be God too...
Ephesians 3:19
19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
Do you imagine you have the fullness of God or fullness of the divine nature?
If not, how can you deny those speak of deity?
It's even worse if you think that you do.
I definitely agree Jesus is 100% man and 100% God but that guy (the reference) I'd call a zero percentor on his Godhood
Peterlag
Well-known member
The early church was always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus...
until the development of the Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century. The Catholics acknowledge baptism was changed and Scripture such as Matthew 28:19 that was never in the Bible was added by them.
Britannica Encyclopedia, 11th Edition, Volume 3, page 365 – Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to words Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the 2nd Century.
Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53 – The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century.
Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 2 – Christian baptism was administered using the words "in the name of Jesus." page 377. Baptism was always in the name of Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr, page 389.
Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, page 263 – Here the authors acknowledged that the baptismal formula was changed by their church.
Schaff – Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Volume 1, page 435 – The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus.
Hastings Dictionary of Bible, page 88 – It must be acknowledged that the three fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus.
until the development of the Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century. The Catholics acknowledge baptism was changed and Scripture such as Matthew 28:19 that was never in the Bible was added by them.
Britannica Encyclopedia, 11th Edition, Volume 3, page 365 – Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to words Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the 2nd Century.
Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53 – The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century.
Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 2 – Christian baptism was administered using the words "in the name of Jesus." page 377. Baptism was always in the name of Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr, page 389.
Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, page 263 – Here the authors acknowledged that the baptismal formula was changed by their church.
Schaff – Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Volume 1, page 435 – The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus.
Hastings Dictionary of Bible, page 88 – It must be acknowledged that the three fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus.
um these were before the second century
John 1:1–2 (NASB95)
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2He was in the beginning with God.
John 20:28 (NASB95) — 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
Hebrews 1:8–12 (NASB95) — 8 But of the Son He says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. 9 “YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS.” 10 And, “YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; 11 THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN; AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT, 12 AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP; LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED. BUT YOU ARE THE SAME, AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END.”
From online
You make a charge that the text of a verse was altered; however, you provided no evidence of the change. You should be able to cite manuscripts before and after the change to prove your assertion. You didn't. In truth, you can't because such evidence doesn't exist. The manuscript evidence is consistent: "in the name of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" appears from the earliest copies and citations of the Scriptures. Many of these manuscripts predate the declaration of the bishop in Rome that he was the Universal Father of the church.
One barrier to claiming that the biblical text was intentionally altered is that there are so many copies of the text scattered around the world. A concerted effort to alter the text cannot succeed because the editors cannot access all the manuscripts to make the change. Nor could editing be done without leaving traces of alterations. These are not computer documents. They were handwritten with ink. Your claim of adding additional words to the verse causes major problems because the remainder of Matthew would have to be rewritten to make room for the extra text. In some manuscripts, there isn't enough space. Changes like that leave evidence of erasure, changes in handwriting, and changes in the ink used. Thus, while you can theorize that a change was made, such a change would leave a trail of evidence that the change was made. Such a trail doesn't exist.
What you are advocating is a figment of your imagination.
Peterlag
Well-known member
Speaking of baptism...
These words also are not found in any Greek Manuscript before the 15th century and in no ancient Version. E. W. Bullinger., A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament: (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1975), Appendix A. p. 11.
1 John 3:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
These words also are not found in any Greek Manuscript before the 15th century and in no ancient Version. E. W. Bullinger., A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament: (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1975), Appendix A. p. 11.
1 John 3:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
Bing search engine.
By the time all other translating was done, only Catholicism translating remained of the NT. Plus a few fragments older, but not many. Error filled and altered.@Keiw1
Are you familiar with the Leningrad Codex?
Not done in Latin. Not done in Greek... and written about 1008 CE.
View attachment 1797
A MASTERPIECE OF THE MASORETES. The Masoretes established an astoundingly accurate tradition of Bible transmission. This carpet page from the Leningrad Codex (1008 C.E.)—of the tradition of the Masoretes—is the base text for Biblia Hebraica Quinta. The scribe of the manuscript Samuel son of Jacob, one of the Masoretes, even records his name. Photo by Bruce and Kenneth Zuckerman, West Semitic Research/With the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center/Courtesy Russian National Library.
Are you familiar with the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Are you familiar with.... any of the following or are you only interested in a smack down of the Roman Catholics and Protestants
who only were able to translate things given to them?
Errors in the Masoretes’ “Original” Hebrew Manuscripts of the Bible?
Why critical editions of the Bible—like Biblia Hebraica Quinta—are essential
BAS Staff May 06, 2025 53 Comments 63191 views Share
A MASTERPIECE OF THE MASORETES. The Masoretes established an astoundingly accurate tradition of Bible transmission. This carpet page from the Leningrad Codex (1008 C.E.)—of the tradition of the Masoretes—is the base text for Biblia Hebraica Quinta. The scribe of the manuscript Samuel son of Jacob, one of the Masoretes, even records his name. Photo by Bruce and Kenneth Zuckerman, West Semitic Research/With the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center/Courtesy Russian National Library.
The Hebrew Bible—or Old Testament—that we have today differs from the Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible penned in the first millennium B.C.E. When transmitting any sort of a document from generation to generation, small alterations—some intentional, others not—are made. Even the most careful scribe makes errors, which are perpetuated and often compounded by future scribes. Thus, it should not surprise us that the Hebrew Bible, which has a transmission history of several millennia, contains textual difficulties, corruptions and even mistakes. Critical editions of the Bible examine these differences by looking at varying Hebrew witnesses and try to accurately reconstruct the original Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible. In the November/December 2013 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, David Marcus and James A. Sanders discuss why critical editions of the Bible are necessary and describe the work that goes into creating such an edition in the article “What’s Critical About a Critical Edition of the Bible?”
Marcus and Sanders are both involved with the publication of Biblia Hebraica Quinta, the latest revision of Biblia Hebraica, which refers to the series of critical Bible editions published in Germany since 1905. The base for Biblia Hebraica Quinta is the Leningrad Codex, which dates to 1008 C.E. and was written by Samuel son of Jacob, who was part of a group of rabbinic scribes called the Masoretes.
THE MASORETES DOING WHAT THE MASORETES DO BEST. This page comes from the Aleppo Codex. Until a third of it was burned in a 1947 anti-Jewish uprising in Syria, the Aleppo Codex was considered to be the oldest, most complete, and most accurate of the Masoretes’ manuscripts. The Masoretes filled its margins with notes to safeguard against corruption. Credit: David Harris/Ben-Zvi Institute in the Shrine of the Book.
Working in Tiberias during the Middle Ages, the Masoretes recognized the possibility of human error when copying the Hebrew Bible. They tried to combat it by adding supplements to the text. In the margins of the Masoretes’ manuscripts, there are innumerable notes—masorah—to safeguard the text. The precision with which the Masoretes were able to preserve the Hebrew text beginning in the seventh century C.E. is astounding. Nevertheless, the Masoretes were not working with the original Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible. Corruptions had already crept into the versions they copied.
The Masoretes’ efforts preserved the Biblical text in the first millennium C.E. Modern scholarship, with critical editions of the Bible like Biblia Hebraica Quinta, is bringing us even closer to reconstructing the original Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible.
Read the full article “What’s Critical About a Critical Edition of the Bible?” by David Marcus and James A. Sanders as it appears in the November/December 2013 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.
But you havbe to join and YOU should for it offers much insight into things that you get many errors fereom
They saw Catholicism didn't have Jesus. As the Protestant religions did as well.
So where is the reference?
Wasn't the reason for the split. Try again.
MTMattie
Well-known member
Who is they?
The RCC had and always have venerated Mary. Even Frankie asked from his hospital bed just a couple of months ago, or even less... for folks to pray to Mary for her prayers on his healing.
It is online but I am not wasting anymore time on him. I could be quite less then charitible to him but the man is finally dead...
lets let him rest while he can.
As to the Protestant religions as well.... they did not have Jesus?
YOU cannot start making comments until about 200 CE because it is true the RCC changed up things in their translations.
It is said the earliest true manuscripts we have are those from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
And they also.... did not have Jesus, by name, in their old testament cause they are old testament.
So lets have a bible burning and start meditating for enlightenment. Sheeesh
Catholicism =2Thess 2:3-The son of peredition= the great apostasy-- They screwed translation up. Protestants used screwed up translating and could not fix very much thus are mislead just like Catholicism.
Peterlag
Well-known member
There are many descriptions, titles, and names for God in the Bible...
and I would like to add God’s proper name is “Yahweh” which occurs more than 6,000 times in the Hebrew Old Testament and is generally translated as “LORD.” But God is also referred to as Elohim, Adonai, El Shaddai, the Ancient of Days, the Holy One of Israel, Father, Shield, and by many more designations. Furthermore, God is holy (Leviticus 11:44), which is why He was called “the Holy One” (the Hebrew text uses the singular adjective “holy” to designate “the Holy One." He is also spirit (John 4:24). It makes perfect sense since God is holy and God is spirit that “Holy” and “Spirit” are sometimes combined and used as one of the many designations for God.None of the dozens of descriptions, titles, or names of God are believed to be a separate, co-equal “Person” in a triune God except for the “HOLY SPIRIT” and there is no solid biblical reason to make the "Holy Spirit” into a separate “Person.” In other contexts the “HOLY SPIRIT” refers to the gift of God’s nature that He placed on people and the new birth to the Christian. This holy spirit nature of God was a gift from God to humankind and we see this in the case of Acts 2:38 when the spirit is specifically called a "gift" when given to the Christian.
MTMattie
Well-known member
If they tried to fix I give an A for effort. If they cannot fix then the RCC destroyed the originals.
But I have read, more then once that the change ups came around 200 CE.
You mean to tell me that there are no original docs earlier then that. The Church destroyed them all?
They did not destroy the OT. The Jews have kept them safe, and rightly translated.
And what about the Etheopian bible.... even though they have Catholic ties it is claimed thay have the oldest existing... kept under lock and key.
Have you read what was translated there?
I did... especially Genesis and I can assure you it paralells what our translations say but the wording would make you wonder as to why ours reads as it does.
Anyway.... if it be true that the RCC ____ it up by changing things... I do not see any reason to read or follow to arrive at
personal beliefs.
That may well be why we do not agree.... because our wonderful Heavenly Father is keeping much a jumble because what we read is not the truth.
We could well be a version of those scrambled at the tower of babel....
101G
Well-known member
NONESENSE, that's not God ... "PROPER NAME". YHWH is a man made NAME, and as for "LORD" is a title as to what he is and not "WHO" he is in NAME.
Lets put this in layman’s terms so that everyone can understand. Appellation, Epithet, and Title, are names to identify what something, or someone is. notice I said “WHAT”, and not “WHO” someone or thing is. understand this, Appellation, Epithet, and Title, are common. these nouns identify “WHAT” someone or thing is. there is a noun that is called the PROPER, or PERSONAL noun that identify “WHO” a person or thing is. that’s the difference. A proper noun usually denotes a single unique entity, but the term proper noun pertains to a word's grammatical properties rather than to its meaning”. example “Eve” means mother of all living. Eve is a proper noun, but the meaning, “mother of all living” is Personal. also note this, Nouns, and proper nouns as well, have many different functions in a sentence. They can act as a subject, an adjective, an adverb, as a direct or indirect object, an appositive, or a subject or object complement. so a name, be it common, or proper can Identify another name.
Lets see this in action, “WHAT” vs “Who” in God name. Exodus 3:13 "And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? 14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT IAM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you". notice Moses asked, "what is your name", that is very important. because God Gave Moses exactly what he asked for. so, what do I AM means? according to Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Greek and Hebrew Dictionaries, "I AM", isa verb, and not a noun, that alone should wake one up. but this verb is emphatic?. H1961 הָיהי hayah (haw-yaw) v. 1. to exist
2. to be or become
3. to come into being, i.e. to happen, to occur (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary). what is emphatic: positive, energetic, forcible, pronounced, decided, unequivocal, definite. So we see that, "I AM", is a description of what he is, and NOT "WHO" he is and only one person carry that description, so it's emphatic, hence our subject. but, "I AM" is, and lets be clear, is not a proper, or Personal name, or EVEN a NOUN. "IAM" or "hayah", is an action verb in description of “WHAT” God is. VERBS are NOT PROPER, nor PERSONAL NOUNS. in this case a title, or appellation, which describe what he, (GOD), is, "I AM". I Exist, the Eternal ONE. God is a God of Action. so the action here is WHAT God is?, and not WHO God is in name. understand Moses asked "WHAT" is your name, and God gave to Moses just exactly what he asked for. nothing more or nothing less. WHAT he is, is not "WHO" he is in NAME.
101G.
The protestants didn't translate until about the 1300,s. The only remaining NT translations at that point was The Latin Vulgate( Jerome 4th century) and the codex sinacticus( 4 translators-4th century)-and a few minor older fragments remained. I doubt Catholicism destroyed the oldest ones. Old age, they disintegrated from usage is most likely the case. Possibly they destroyed them to cover up their errors that mislead.
The JW,s were allowed in the Catholic archives years ago. They came out with 100% proof the 3 witness bearers at 1 John= the water, spirit and blood. Catholicism put Father, son and holy spirit. The JW,s were never allowed back in for exposing that truth.
The Judaism religion as you say has real OT manuscripts and they say( but how old are they--Wasnt most things destroyed in 70 ce? And prior when Babylon took Daniel and some as slaves?)--There is no -i am that i am from Hebrew to English--I will be what i will be is correct.
Write ups about Jerome says he didn't like the septuagint and switched to a corrupted Latin text for the OT.
Similar threads
