One and Triune God.

[farouk]

You know what they say about an oft repeated lie; it becomes the truth. Two thousand years of a lie is hard to shake. I understand that. But, geez, when presented with clear cut evidence that totally goes against tradition ought to at least cause one to pause and reconsider.

Here's the big problem with tradition:

Matt 15:6,

...Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
​

That doesn't sound good to me.

God bless

You are saying that Biblical Christianity as understood for 2000 years is all wrong, supposedly. So why do you come here and post?

 

[DavidB]

The fact that you see contradictions in sound doctrine is proof that you don't know Him and remain entirely carnal in your thinking.

You declare it is sound doctrine but that is just your opinion. You referenced 1 Tim 3:16. Here is the study that Tigger 2 did on that verse. Please read it to see that many Bible translators (mostly if not all trinitarians) do not agree with the Bible you quoted

“Although the KJV translates 1 Tim. 3:16 with “God” as above, nearly all other translations today use a word which refers, not to God, but to Jesus: “he”(NIV; RSV; NRSV; JB; NJB; REB; NAB [‘70]; AT; GNB; CBW; and Beck’s translation), “he who” (ASV; NASB; NEB; MLB; BBE; Phillips; and Moffatt), “who,” or “which.” Even the equally old Douay version has “which was manifested in the flesh.” All the very best modern NT texts by trinitarian scholars (including Westcott and Hort, Nestle, and the text by the United Bible Societies) have the NT Greek word ὃς (“who”) here instead of θεὸς (“God”).Why do the very best trinitarian scholars support this NON-trinitarian translation of 1 Tim. 3:16?

Noted Bible scholar Dr. Frederick C. Grant writes:

“A capital example [of NT manuscript changes] is found in 1 Timothy 3:16, where ‘OS’ (OC or ὃς, ‘who’) was later taken for theta sigma with a bar above, which stood for theos (θεὸς, ‘god’). Since the new reading suited …. the orthodox doctrine of the church [trinitarian, at this later date], it got into many of the later manuscripts .....” – p. 656, Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 3, 1957 ed. (This same statement by Dr. Grant was still to be found in the latest Encyclopedia Americana that I examined – the 1990 ed., pp.696-698, vol. 3.)

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by the United Bible Societies (1971 ed.) tells why the trinitarian UBS Committee chose ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’]as the original reading in their NT text for this verse:

“it is supported by the earliest and best uncials.” And, “Thus, no uncial (in the first hand [by the ORIGINAL writer]) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports θεὸς [“God”]; all ancient versions presuppose ὃς [or OC, “who” - masc.] or ὅ [“which” - neut.]; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century [370 A.D.] testifies to the reading θεὸς. The reading θεὸς arose either (a)accidentally, through the misreading of OC as ΘC, or (b) deliberately....” - p. 641.

In actuality it appears to be a combination of both (with the emphasis on the latter). You see, the word ὃςwas written in the most ancient manuscripts as OC (“C” being a common form for the ancient Greek letter “S” at that time). Most often at this time the word for God (θεὸς) was written in abbreviated form as ΘC. However, to show that it was an abbreviated form a straight line, or bar, was always drawn above ΘC. So no copyist should have mistaken ὃς (or OC) for ΘC, in spite of their similarities, simply because of the prominent bar which appeared over the one and not over the other.

What may have happened was discovered by John J. Wetstein in 1714. As he was carefully examining one of the oldest NT manuscripts then known (the Alexandrine Manuscript in London) he noticed at 1 Tim. 3:16 that the word originally written there was OCbut that a horizontal stroke from one of the words written on the other side of the manuscript showed through very faintly in the middle of the O. This still would not qualify as an abbreviation for θεὸς, of course, but Wetstein discovered that some person at a much later date and in a different style from the original writer had deliberately added a bar above the original word! Anyone copying from this manuscript after it had been deliberately changed would be likely to incorporate the counterfeit ΘC [with bar above it] into his new copy (especially since it reflected his own trinitarian views)!

Of course, since Wetstein’s day many more ancient NT manuscripts have been discovered and none of them before the eighth century A.D. have been found with ΘC (“God”) at this verse!

Trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris also concludes:“The strength of the external evidence favoring OC [‘who’], along with considerations of transcriptional and intrinsic probability, have prompted textual critics virtually unanimously to regard OC as the original text, a judgment reflected in NA(26) [Nestle-Aland text] and UBS (1,2,3) [United Bible Societies text] (with a ‘B’ rating) [also the Westcott and Hort text]. Accordingly, 1 Tim 3:16 is not an instance of the Christological [‘Jesus is God’] use of θεὸς.” - Jesus asGod, p. 268, Baker Book House, 1992.

And very trinitarian (Southern Baptist) NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson wrote about this scripture:

“He who (hos [or OC in the original text]). The correct text, not theos (God) the reading of the Textus Receptus ... nor ho (neuter relative [pronoun]), agreeing with [the neuter] musterion [‘mystery’] the reading of Western documents.” - p. 577, Vol. 4, WordPictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press.
And even trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace uses the relative pronoun ὃς (‘who’) in this scripture and tells us:

“The textual variant θεὸς [‘god’] in the place of ὃς[‘who’ or ‘he who’] has been adamantly defended by some scholars, particularly those of the ‘majority text’ school. Not only is such a reading poorly attested, but the syntactical argument that ‘mystery’ (μυστήριον) being a neuter noun, cannotbe followed by the masculine pronoun (ὃς) is entirely without weight. As attractive theologically [for trinitarians, of course] as the reading θεὸς may be, it is spurious. To reject it is not to deny the deity of Christ, of course; it is just to deny any explicit reference in this text.” [italicized emphasis is by Wallace]. - pp. 341-342, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996.

The correct rendering of 1 Tim. 3:16, then, is: “He who was revealed in the flesh ….” - NASB. Cf. ASV; RSV; NRSV; NAB; JB; NJB; NIV; NEB; REB; ESV; Douay-Rheims; TEV; CEV; BBE; NLV; God’s Word; New Century Version; Holman NT; ISV NT; Lexham English Bible; The Message; Weymouth; Moffatt; etc.

Even if we were to insist that those later manuscripts that used theos were, somehow, correct, we would have to recognize that it is the anarthrous (without the definite article) theos which we find. This is rarely, if ever, the form used for the only true God (when the known exceptions are taken into account - see MARTIN study). Instead, it either points to the probability that it is a corrupted OC (which of course would not have the article in the first place), or, less probable, but still possible, that Christ is being called “a god” - see the BOWGOD and DEF studies.

 

[Rich R]

You are saying that Biblical Christianity as understood for 2000 years is all wrong, supposedly.

The key here in your phrase "Biblical Christianity." Is it really Biblical?

So why do you come here and post?

In the interest of inclusion.

I looked at the rules and I don't see anything that says I have to believe Jesus is God, but if I'm wrong I'll respect the rules and leave. BTW, I do see a mention about respecting other Christians. I would think that the many accusations of my not being a Christian that I've received ought to at least border on not respecting me. It's not like I really care about myself though. It hurts the accuser more than myself (1 John 2:9), and I don's like to see anyone hurt, especially my brother or sisters.

1 Cor 4:3-4,

3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.

4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
​

The Lord knows my heart. I don't think you do. No matter what you may think of me though, I love you much in Christ.

 

[Rich R]

You declare it is sound doctrine but that is just your opinion. You referenced 1 Tim 3:16. Here is the study that Tigger 2 did on that verse. Please read it to see that many Bible translators (mostly if not all trinitarians) do not agree with the Bible you quoted

“Although the KJV translates 1 Tim. 3:16 with “God” as above, nearly all other translations today use a word which refers, not to God, but to Jesus: “he”(NIV; RSV; NRSV; JB; NJB; REB; NAB [‘70]; AT; GNB; CBW; and Beck’s translation), “he who” (ASV; NASB; NEB; MLB; BBE; Phillips; and Moffatt), “who,” or “which.” Even the equally old Douay version has “which was manifested in the flesh.” All the very best modern NT texts by trinitarian scholars (including Westcott and Hort, Nestle, and the text by the United Bible Societies) have the NT Greek word ὃς (“who”) here instead of θεὸς (“God”).Why do the very best trinitarian scholars support this NON-trinitarian translation of 1 Tim. 3:16?

Noted Bible scholar Dr. Frederick C. Grant writes:

“A capital example [of NT manuscript changes] is found in 1 Timothy 3:16, where ‘OS’ (OC or ὃς, ‘who’) was later taken for theta sigma with a bar above, which stood for theos (θεὸς, ‘god’). Since the new reading suited …. the orthodox doctrine of the church [trinitarian, at this later date], it got into many of the later manuscripts .....” – p. 656, Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 3, 1957 ed. (This same statement by Dr. Grant was still to be found in the latest Encyclopedia Americana that I examined – the 1990 ed., pp.696-698, vol. 3.)

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by the United Bible Societies (1971 ed.) tells why the trinitarian UBS Committee chose ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’]as the original reading in their NT text for this verse:

“it is supported by the earliest and best uncials.” And, “Thus, no uncial (in the first hand [by the ORIGINAL writer]) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports θεὸς [“God”]; all ancient versions presuppose ὃς [or OC, “who” - masc.] or ὅ [“which” - neut.]; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century [370 A.D.] testifies to the reading θεὸς. The reading θεὸς arose either (a)accidentally, through the misreading of OC as ΘC, or (b) deliberately....” - p. 641.

In actuality it appears to be a combination of both (with the emphasis on the latter). You see, the word ὃςwas written in the most ancient manuscripts as OC (“C” being a common form for the ancient Greek letter “S” at that time). Most often at this time the word for God (θεὸς) was written in abbreviated form as ΘC. However, to show that it was an abbreviated form a straight line, or bar, was always drawn above ΘC. So no copyist should have mistaken ὃς (or OC) for ΘC, in spite of their similarities, simply because of the prominent bar which appeared over the one and not over the other.

What may have happened was discovered by John J. Wetstein in 1714. As he was carefully examining one of the oldest NT manuscripts then known (the Alexandrine Manuscript in London) he noticed at 1 Tim. 3:16 that the word originally written there was OCbut that a horizontal stroke from one of the words written on the other side of the manuscript showed through very faintly in the middle of the O. This still would not qualify as an abbreviation for θεὸς, of course, but Wetstein discovered that some person at a much later date and in a different style from the original writer had deliberately added a bar above the original word! Anyone copying from this manuscript after it had been deliberately changed would be likely to incorporate the counterfeit ΘC [with bar above it] into his new copy (especially since it reflected his own trinitarian views)!

Of course, since Wetstein’s day many more ancient NT manuscripts have been discovered and none of them before the eighth century A.D. have been found with ΘC (“God”) at this verse!

Trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris also concludes:“The strength of the external evidence favoring OC [‘who’], along with considerations of transcriptional and intrinsic probability, have prompted textual critics virtually unanimously to regard OC as the original text, a judgment reflected in NA(26) [Nestle-Aland text] and UBS (1,2,3) [United Bible Societies text] (with a ‘B’ rating) [also the Westcott and Hort text]. Accordingly, 1 Tim 3:16 is not an instance of the Christological [‘Jesus is God’] use of θεὸς.” - Jesus asGod, p. 268, Baker Book House, 1992.

And very trinitarian (Southern Baptist) NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson wrote about this scripture:

“He who (hos [or OC in the original text]). The correct text, not theos (God) the reading of the Textus Receptus ... nor ho (neuter relative [pronoun]), agreeing with [the neuter] musterion [‘mystery’] the reading of Western documents.” - p. 577, Vol. 4, WordPictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press.
And even trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace uses the relative pronoun ὃς (‘who’) in this scripture and tells us:

“The textual variant θεὸς [‘god’] in the place of ὃς[‘who’ or ‘he who’] has been adamantly defended by some scholars, particularly those of the ‘majority text’ school. Not only is such a reading poorly attested, but the syntactical argument that ‘mystery’ (μυστήριον) being a neuter noun, cannotbe followed by the masculine pronoun (ὃς) is entirely without weight. As attractive theologically [for trinitarians, of course] as the reading θεὸς may be, it is spurious. To reject it is not to deny the deity of Christ, of course; it is just to deny any explicit reference in this text.” [italicized emphasis is by Wallace]. - pp. 341-342, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996.

The correct rendering of 1 Tim. 3:16, then, is: “He who was revealed in the flesh ….” - NASB. Cf. ASV; RSV; NRSV; NAB; JB; NJB; NIV; NEB; REB; ESV; Douay-Rheims; TEV; CEV; BBE; NLV; God’s Word; New Century Version; Holman NT; ISV NT; Lexham English Bible; The Message; Weymouth; Moffatt; etc.

Even if we were to insist that those later manuscripts that used theos were, somehow, correct, we would have to recognize that it is the anarthrous (without the definite article) theos which we find. This is rarely, if ever, the form used for the only true God (when the known exceptions are taken into account - see MARTIN study). Instead, it either points to the probability that it is a corrupted OC (which of course would not have the article in the first place), or, less probable, but still possible, that Christ is being called “a god” - see the BOWGOD and DEF studies.

Now that's exactly what I think Paul had in mind when he told Timothy to rightly divide the Word of truth. Excellent job of honest research brother!

 

[DavidB]

Now that's exactly what I think Paul had in mind when he told Timothy to rightly divide the Word of God. Excellent job of honest research brother!

It is Tigger 2’s research. I found his website several years ago. He also posted his research on this thread about Elohim and Echad.

The question is, who will even read it?

 

[Rich R]

It is Tigger 2’s research. I found his website several years ago. He also posted his research on this thread about Elohim and Echad.

The question is, who will even read it?

Very good, but at least you saw the truth in what he said.

It's funny; in my last post I said 2 Timothy 2:15 said, "rightly dividing the Word of God." But how ironic that I misquoted it. It says, "the word of truth." The road is narrow indeed and easy to end up in the boonies! :)

 

[Illuminator]

Modalism is a heresy that denies the doctrine of the Trinity. Often surprising to some Christians, United Pentecostals ascribe to this ancient heresy. Modalism teaches that God is a single person who has eternally existed and yet He has revealed himself in three modes or forms. Modalism rejects the Trinitarian belief that God exists at all times as three distinct persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Rather, the modalist believes that God is one person made known in three modes. In the Old Testament, God manifested Himself in the mode of the Father. With the incarnation, God manifested Himself in the mode of the Son. And following Jesus’s ascension, God made Himself known through the mode of the Holy Spirit. Problematically, modalism rejects that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist simultaneously, which means that modalists deny the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity.

This problem is compounded when you consider the baptism of Jesus. At His baptism, we see all three persons of the Trinity present. The Father speaks from heaven, the Son is baptized, and the Spirit descends upon Jesus like a dove (See Matthew 3:16-17). Furthermore, after His resurrection, Jesus told His disciples to baptize people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). New converts were to be baptized in the One Name (God) who exists in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

The problem is obvious—to embrace modalism is to reject the Trinity. And to reject the Trinity is to reject orthodox Christianity. Thought to Ponder Modalism rejects Trinitarianism for a more nuanced form of Unitarianism.

source

 

[BreadOfLife]

Oh, my. What then are we to do with:

1 Cor 8:6,

But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
​

Timothy seems to be a glaring contradiction with Corinthians. Yikes! Any ideas on how to solve it?

It's really quite simple for anybody of Christian faith.

What YOU and pthers here reject are the ROLES (Persons) of the Trinity that are clearly spoken of here. 1 Cor 8:6 doesn't deny that the Son is also God.
As a metter of fact - as the Creator - He HAS to be God. Both 1 Cor 8:6, ans John 1:3 state explicitly that ALL things were created through HIM:
1 Cor 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, FROM whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, THROUGH whom all things came and through whom we live.

John 1:3
THROUGH him (Jesus) all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

ALL things - that means EVERYTHING - was created FROM the Father THROUGH the Son.
It doesn't get ANY more explicit than that.

ANY other readig of these verses would present a gigantic contradition.

 

[Rich R]

It's really quite simple for anybody of Christian faith.

What YOU and pthers here reject are the ROLES (Persons) of the Trinity that are clearly spoken of here. 1 Cor 8:6 doesn't deny that the Son is also God.
As a metter of fact - as the Creator - He HAS to be God. Both 1 Cor 8:6, ans John 1:3 state explicitly that ALL things were created through HIM:
1 Cor 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, FROM whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, THROUGH whom all things came and through whom we live.

John 1:3
THROUGH him (Jesus) all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

ALL things - that means EVERYTHING - was created FROM the Father THROUGH the Son.
It doesn't get ANY more explicit than that.

ANY other readig of these verses would present a gigantic contradition.

Well, if we don't substitute the word "Jesus" for "Word." It all makes sense, but we must first discover what the logos actually is. It's not that difficult.

Even virtually all Trinitarian scholars understand that the word "logos" means, more or less, a plan. God had a plan from the beginning. The next few verses go on to summarize that plan, culminating with the advent of Jesus in verse 14 who made the plan that was in God's mind from the beginning a reality on this earth.

It is assumed that the "him" in verse 3 refers to Jesus. But there is a simple rule in pretty much any language that says a pronoun refers to it's nearest antecedent. So what is the nearest antecedent in this case? None other than God from verse 2. It says God created all things which is exactly what Genesis 1: 1 declares.

The word "through" ought to be a clue. When one person does something "through" another person, wouldn't that indicate 2 persons? And there is no reason to make these two people actually one. I mentioned the Hebrew principle of agency, or "sheliah." I wonder if anyone bothered to look it up in Google or wherever. It's not very obscure for anyone who wants to investigate it.

Do you know of any Hollywood star or football player that talks directly with their producer or team owner? There isn't any. They all go THROUGH their agent. God sent many people throughout the scriptures as His agent to communicate His will, both humans and angels. Jesus happens to be the only perfect agent, the one who followed the one who sent him to the letter. That's all there is to it. But I guess it's more comfortable to stick with the tradition, with the vast majority of those who agree with them. The actual truth too often takes a back seat to tradition. What more can I say?

Well, I could say, God bless!

 

[michaelvpardo]

You declare it is sound doctrine but that is just your opinion. You referenced 1 Tim 3:16. Here is the study that Tigger 2 did on that verse. Please read it to see that many Bible translators (mostly if not all trinitarians) do not agree with the Bible you quoted

“Although the KJV translates 1 Tim. 3:16 with “God” as above, nearly all other translations today use a word which refers, not to God, but to Jesus: “he”(NIV; RSV; NRSV; JB; NJB; REB; NAB [‘70]; AT; GNB; CBW; and Beck’s translation), “he who” (ASV; NASB; NEB; MLB; BBE; Phillips; and Moffatt), “who,” or “which.” Even the equally old Douay version has “which was manifested in the flesh.” All the very best modern NT texts by trinitarian scholars (including Westcott and Hort, Nestle, and the text by the United Bible Societies) have the NT Greek word ὃς (“who”) here instead of θεὸς (“God”).Why do the very best trinitarian scholars support this NON-trinitarian translation of 1 Tim. 3:16?

Noted Bible scholar Dr. Frederick C. Grant writes:

“A capital example [of NT manuscript changes] is found in 1 Timothy 3:16, where ‘OS’ (OC or ὃς, ‘who’) was later taken for theta sigma with a bar above, which stood for theos (θεὸς, ‘god’). Since the new reading suited …. the orthodox doctrine of the church [trinitarian, at this later date], it got into many of the later manuscripts .....” – p. 656, Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 3, 1957 ed. (This same statement by Dr. Grant was still to be found in the latest Encyclopedia Americana that I examined – the 1990 ed., pp.696-698, vol. 3.)

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by the United Bible Societies (1971 ed.) tells why the trinitarian UBS Committee chose ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’]as the original reading in their NT text for this verse:

“it is supported by the earliest and best uncials.” And, “Thus, no uncial (in the first hand [by the ORIGINAL writer]) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports θεὸς [“God”]; all ancient versions presuppose ὃς [or OC, “who” - masc.] or ὅ [“which” - neut.]; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century [370 A.D.] testifies to the reading θεὸς. The reading θεὸς arose either (a)accidentally, through the misreading of OC as ΘC, or (b) deliberately....” - p. 641.

In actuality it appears to be a combination of both (with the emphasis on the latter). You see, the word ὃςwas written in the most ancient manuscripts as OC (“C” being a common form for the ancient Greek letter “S” at that time). Most often at this time the word for God (θεὸς) was written in abbreviated form as ΘC. However, to show that it was an abbreviated form a straight line, or bar, was always drawn above ΘC. So no copyist should have mistaken ὃς (or OC) for ΘC, in spite of their similarities, simply because of the prominent bar which appeared over the one and not over the other.

What may have happened was discovered by John J. Wetstein in 1714. As he was carefully examining one of the oldest NT manuscripts then known (the Alexandrine Manuscript in London) he noticed at 1 Tim. 3:16 that the word originally written there was OCbut that a horizontal stroke from one of the words written on the other side of the manuscript showed through very faintly in the middle of the O. This still would not qualify as an abbreviation for θεὸς, of course, but Wetstein discovered that some person at a much later date and in a different style from the original writer had deliberately added a bar above the original word! Anyone copying from this manuscript after it had been deliberately changed would be likely to incorporate the counterfeit ΘC [with bar above it] into his new copy (especially since it reflected his own trinitarian views)!

Of course, since Wetstein’s day many more ancient NT manuscripts have been discovered and none of them before the eighth century A.D. have been found with ΘC (“God”) at this verse!

Trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris also concludes:“The strength of the external evidence favoring OC [‘who’], along with considerations of transcriptional and intrinsic probability, have prompted textual critics virtually unanimously to regard OC as the original text, a judgment reflected in NA(26) [Nestle-Aland text] and UBS (1,2,3) [United Bible Societies text] (with a ‘B’ rating) [also the Westcott and Hort text]. Accordingly, 1 Tim 3:16 is not an instance of the Christological [‘Jesus is God’] use of θεὸς.” - Jesus asGod, p. 268, Baker Book House, 1992.

And very trinitarian (Southern Baptist) NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson wrote about this scripture:

“He who (hos [or OC in the original text]). The correct text, not theos (God) the reading of the Textus Receptus ... nor ho (neuter relative [pronoun]), agreeing with [the neuter] musterion [‘mystery’] the reading of Western documents.” - p. 577, Vol. 4, WordPictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press.
And even trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace uses the relative pronoun ὃς (‘who’) in this scripture and tells us:

“The textual variant θεὸς [‘god’] in the place of ὃς[‘who’ or ‘he who’] has been adamantly defended by some scholars, particularly those of the ‘majority text’ school. Not only is such a reading poorly attested, but the syntactical argument that ‘mystery’ (μυστήριον) being a neuter noun, cannotbe followed by the masculine pronoun (ὃς) is entirely without weight. As attractive theologically [for trinitarians, of course] as the reading θεὸς may be, it is spurious. To reject it is not to deny the deity of Christ, of course; it is just to deny any explicit reference in this text.” [italicized emphasis is by Wallace]. - pp. 341-342, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996.

The correct rendering of 1 Tim. 3:16, then, is: “He who was revealed in the flesh ….” - NASB. Cf. ASV; RSV; NRSV; NAB; JB; NJB; NIV; NEB; REB; ESV; Douay-Rheims; TEV; CEV; BBE; NLV; God’s Word; New Century Version; Holman NT; ISV NT; Lexham English Bible; The Message; Weymouth; Moffatt; etc.

Even if we were to insist that those later manuscripts that used theos were, somehow, correct, we would have to recognize that it is the anarthrous (without the definite article) theos which we find. This is rarely, if ever, the form used for the only true God (when the known exceptions are taken into account - see MARTIN study). Instead, it either points to the probability that it is a corrupted OC (which of course would not have the article in the first place), or, less probable, but still possible, that Christ is being called “a god” - see the BOWGOD and DEF studies.

Unsound teaching isn't worth a reading. The Holy Spirit teaches me and He's never wrong.

 

[michaelvpardo]

You know what they say about an oft repeated lie; it becomes the truth. Two thousand years of a lie is hard to shake. I understand that. But, geez, when presented with clear cut evidence that totally goes against tradition ought to at least cause one to pause and reconsider.

Here's the big problem with tradition:

Matt 15:6,

...Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
​

That doesn't sound good to me.

God bless

You know what they say about an oft repeated lie; it becomes the truth. Two thousand years of a lie is hard to shake. I understand that. But, geez, when presented with clear cut evidence that totally goes against tradition ought to at least cause one to pause and reconsider.

Here's the big problem with tradition:

Matt 15:6,

...Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
​

That doesn't sound good to me.

God bless

“I will send out the curse,” says the Lord of hosts; “It shall enter the house of the thief And the house of the one who swears falsely by My name. It shall remain in the midst of his house And consume it, with its timber and stones.” Zechariah 5:4

Smelling smoke yet?

 

[michaelvpardo]

I don’t think it is that they don’t care about 1 Corinthians 8:6 or 1 Corinthians 11:3 or 1 Corinthians 15:27, 28 or the simple relationship of a Father and Son. I think there is another reason.

2 Corinthians 4:3, 4
“If, in fact, the good news we declare is veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.”

If someone can’t even see that there is at least a contradiction, a question that needs to be examined, that is blindness. Satan has prevented them from seeing that the Christ is, not God, but the image of God. Anyone, in their view, who does see the contradiction is antichrist. The Devil is the master deceiver.

Your father is the father of lies. That's why you give him the glory.

 

[Rich R]

“I will send out the curse,” says the Lord of hosts; “It shall enter the house of the thief And the house of the one who swears falsely by My name. It shall remain in the midst of his house And consume it, with its timber and stones.” Zechariah 5:4

Smelling smoke yet?

I'd think that trying to make make three gods somehow really one god would definitely make one's brain smoke.

Just kidding around. :)

 

[DavidB]

Unsound teaching isn't worth a reading. The Holy Spirit teaches me and He's never wrong.

Maybe you would be willing to look at about 60 translations and see how many do not read that God was manifest in the flesh. Here is the link to Biblegateway.com.
1 Timothy 3:16 - Bible Gateway

It is a shame that the holy spirit is teaching different things to different people.

 

[JunChosen]

If someone can’t even see that there is at least a contradiction, a question that needs to be examined, that is blindness. Satan has prevented them from seeing that the Christ is, not God, but the image of God. Anyone, in their view, who does see the contradiction is antichrist. The Devil is the master deceiver.

Read my lips, "There are No contradictions in Scripture!" God does everything perfectly. However, I will agree there seems to be "apparent?" passages that are contradictory but only BECAUSE they are misunderstood!

1 Corinthians 2:13-14 reads:
13) Which things also we speak, not in the words of man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Romans 3:3-4 reads:
3) For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
4) God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, that thou might be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Satan has nothing on a child of God as He promised: "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you."

To God Be The Glory

 

[JunChosen]

I'd think that trying to make make three gods somehow really one god would definitely make one's brain smoke.

Just kidding around. :)

That's right! Who can really understand a God that speaks and things begin to exist?

The things of God are not to be joked about. Either you receive eternal life or die.

 

[DavidB]

Read my lips, "There are No contradictions in Scripture!" God does everything perfectly. However, I will agree there seems to be "apparent?" passages that are contradictory but only BECAUSE they are misunderstood!

1 Corinthians 2:13-14 reads:
13) Which things also we speak, not in the words of man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Romans 3:3-4 reads:
3) For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
4) God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, that thou might be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Satan has nothing on a child of God as He promised: "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you."

To God Be The Glory

Now that you have told me to read your lips, what more could possibly be said?

 

[JunChosen]

Even if we were to insist that those later manuscripts that used theos were, somehow, correct, we would have to recognize that it is the anarthrous (without the definite article) theos which we find. This is rarely, if ever, the form used for the only true God (when the known exceptions are taken into account - see MARTIN study). Instead, it either points to the probability that it is a corrupted OC (which of course would not have the article in the first place), or, less probable, but still possible, that Christ is being called “a god” - see the BOWGOD and DEF studies

This is what natural man will say or do is add or subtract to the word of God without considering that by doing so they are in violation of Revelation 22:18-19.

Now that you have told me to read your lips, what more could possibly be said?

"It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." [Luke 16:17]

"Go ye therefore and teach all nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever the Lord Jesus have commanded you."
[Matthew 28:19-20] (paraphrased).

To God Be The Hlory

 

[Rich R]

That's right! Who can really understand a God that speaks and things begin to exist?

The things of God are not to be joked about. Either you receive eternal life or die.

How sad to have no sense of humor.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well, if we don't substitute the word "Jesus" for "Word." It all makes sense, but we must first discover what the logos actually is. It's not that difficult.

Even virtually all Trinitarian scholars understand that the word "logos" means, more or less, a plan. God had a plan from the beginning. The next few verses go on to summarize that plan, culminating with the advent of Jesus in verse 14 who made the plan that was in God's mind from the beginning a reality on this earth.

It is assumed that the "him" in verse 3 refers to Jesus. But there is a simple rule in pretty much any language that says a pronoun refers to it's nearest antecedent. So what is the nearest antecedent in this case? None other than God from verse 2. It says God created all things which is exactly what Genesis 1: 1 declares.

The word "through" ought to be a clue. When one person does something "through" another person, wouldn't that indicate 2 persons? And there is no reason to make these two people actually one. I mentioned the Hebrew principle of agency, or "sheliah." I wonder if anyone bothered to look it up in Google or wherever. It's not very obscure for anyone who wants to investigate it.

Do you know of any Hollywood star or football player that talks directly with their producer or team owner? There isn't any. They all go THROUGH their agent. God sent many people throughout the scriptures as His agent to communicate His will, both humans and angels. Jesus happens to be the only perfect agent, the one who followed the one who sent him to the letter. That's all there is to it. But I guess it's more comfortable to stick with the tradition, with the vast majority of those who agree with them. The actual truth too often takes a back seat to tradition. What more can I say?

Well, I could say, God bless!

Not sure where you get your gobbledygook – but I can only surmise that it comes from your pathetic need to win an argument.

First of all – terms like “ALL Trinitarian scholars understand” means absolutely NOTHING without a long list of actual quotes from these scholars.
“Logos” – as used in John 1 means “WORD”. As you have been shown MANY times now – the context of John 1 can ONLY mean that “Logos=Jesus”. The CONTEXT simply does not allow for ANY other interpretation than this.

The entire chapter is about Jesus - how He (the WORD) became flesh (v. 14), the testimony about Him from John the Baptist (v. 19-34), His Baptism (v. 29-34), how John’s disciples eventually left him to follow Jesus (v. 35-42) and how more disciples came to follow Him (v. 43-51).

YOUR problem – besides a woeful lack of faith in God– is that you pretend that the Trinitarian position has NOT been explained to you, ad nauseam and you continue to make absurd arguments about “2 Persons” being “1 Person”.

This is NOT the Trinity. As I have explained to you – it is Three PERSONS in One GOD. It is NOT Three Persons in One Person - so your argument fails yet again.
As I have repeatedly educated you – it’s NOT 1+1+1=1. It’s 1+1+1=3 in 1.

So – either pay attention to the conversation at hand – or simply admit that you don’t know what you’re talking about.