I believe you know what "textual criticisms" means Peterlag.
See Britannica define it below;
textual criticism, the technique of restoring texts as nearly as possible to their original form.
Your Views on The Trinity
- Thread starter Cyrus
- Start date
See Britannica define it below;
textual criticism, the technique of restoring texts as nearly as possible to their original form.
Peterlag
Active Member
I have no idea how anyone restores Bible texts without asking me first.
Peterlag
Active Member
Oh this explains everything. You're looking at AI. No that is not the original oldest text. That's a computer giving you what some religious person programmed it to say who is mostly someone's church. You got nothing.
Again, I believe you know what "textual criticisms" means Peterlag.
See Britannica definition below;
textual criticism, the technique of restoring texts as nearly as possible to their original form.
Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort were pioneering and highly influential textual critics, known for their landmark 1881 work, The New Testament in the Original Greek, which established a new standard for modern Greek New Testament texts
It's from Britannica, is it really hard to face the truth Peterlag?
Really?
And why they will ask you first Peterlag?
Peterlag
Active Member
The same kind of encyclopedias say there is no trinity. And when I post it folks on here say I'm posting data from outside the Bible. Now when you post one it becomes the most accurate statement known to man.
"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 Godhead 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 Godhead. And there is no doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament” - The Known Bible and its Defense, Reverend M. Hembre, 1933, p. 25.
civic
Active Member
We must remember what the religious Pharisees did when confronted with the truth , from the One who is the source of all truth. They also rejected Him.
synergy
Active Member
Huh? Read Rev 3:21 and you will see that you're terribly mistaken.
Rev 3:21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
Next, read and believe John's Prologue and your Arian heresies will evaporate.
I believe the same with "Unitarian" Peterlag not in the Bible.
I've already proven to you through "Bible original wordings," Jesus as the "only begotten God," as one in the nature of God.
Now, who do you want me to prove Peterlag to complete the Trinity?
Last edited:
Yup, proven that there are modern Pharisees here.
Peterlag
Active Member
You have not proven the trinity to me for a number of reasons. I will list two...
1.) Your source is not original wordings from good manuscripts. It's a modern-day AI
2.) There is no trinity so it can't be proven that there is.
Your number 1. list is strawman, can you prove that my source of Jesus as the "only begotten God," as the Bible original wordings is from AI?
Or you tried to make a lie Peterlag.
Peterlag
Active Member
Can we talk about these seven or only just the first one...
- Jesus had limited knowledge.
- Jesus grew in wisdom, but God is all wise.
- Jesus and God have separate wills (Luke 22:42).
- Christ said his doctrine was not his own (John 7:16).
- Jesus counted himself and his Father as two (John 8:17).
- The Bible always portrays God and Christ as two separate beings.
- The Bible makes it clear that Jesus is an "heir" of God (Romans 8:7).
Peterlag
Active Member
You sent me a link and when I clicked on it I saw AI.
I believe it is hard for you to face the truth what "textual critic" Updated American Standard Version+ render John 1:18 in original wordings Peterlag.
All that points to Jesus in His human nature.
The same worship to the Almighty God the Father is also rendered to Jesus, is it hard to sink in that they're worshiped together Peterlag?
Rev 5:13 And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever."
Rev 5:14 And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen." And the elders fell down and worshiped.
Peterlag
Active Member
I will look at it again if you still have it. What I saw was AI when I clicked on it.
Did you missed my Post#3824?
Your response was in Post#3829, really hard to face the truth Peterlag?
OK, to make it easy for you, see it whole;
Below is from literal word for word Bible translation that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to the original languages Peterlag.
From Updated American Standard Version+ (UASV+) rendered the same with Westcott and Hort's New Testament in the Original Greek. As I've said there are variant readings but they were not described as original wordings.
Notice the note "N7."
(UASV+)John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten GodN7 who is in the bosom of the Father,N8 that one has made him fully known.
N7 John 1:18 (UASV+)The original words were μονογενὴς θεός or ο μονογενης θεος “only-begotten God” or “the only-begotten God” (P66 P75 א B C* L 33 syrhmp 33 copbo) A variant reading is ο μονογενης υιος “the only begotten Son” A C3 (Ws) Θ Ψ f1, Maj syrc).
(NAS95+) John 1:18 R1NoG3762 oneG3762 has seenG3708 GodG2316 at anyG4455 timeG4455; R2the onlyG3439 begottenG3439 GodG2316 who is R3in the bosomG2859 of the FatherG3962, R4He has explainedG1834 Him.
(NT Westcott and Hort+) John 1:18 θεονG2316 N-ASM ουδειςG3762 A-NSM-N εωρακενG3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT πωποτεG4455 ADV μονογενηςG3439 A-NSM θεοςG2316 N-NSM οG3588 T-NSM ωνG1510 V-PAP-NSM ειςG1519 PREP τονG3588 T-ASM κολπονG2859 N-ASM τουG3588 T-GSM πατροςG3962 N-GSM εκεινοςG1565 D-NSM εξηγησατοG1834 V-ADI-3S
Peterlag
Active Member
You crack me up with this "original" or "original words" because Jesus is not God and so no real translation would say he is.
Similar threads
