PERSON-TATION

[ScottA]

There is soooooo much confrontation regarding the Trinity doctrine--I hate to add to it. But it is all really quite simple:

Each would-be "person" of the so-called Trinity, are simply known by their revelation and presentation given by God--who is otherwise One God. Hence, the term "person-tation." But each presentation does not actually mean another "person."

First an anecdotal example: A newborn boy learns of his father by sight and by his voice, and then is walked by the hand out into the world. At some point the son learns that his father has "a job", but really doesn't understand for some time, with only little bits of information coming home with him over time. And then comes the time when the boy learns of what seems to be the life of another person--where his father spends "a third" of his time doing things he had only imagined before.​

​

So, since the father spends a third of his time at home, a third of his time sleeping, and a third away working--does that make him three persons? Perhaps, or so it would seem--but only on an elementary level.​

​

Remember, the details of the above example are the "image" by which we were created.​

Dare I say, the Trinity doctrine came about during the elementary years of the church? As such it is not wrong, just elementary. Is that where we still are, or should be at this time? Do we need more time?

Once we have the elementary idea, the timing of moving beyond that to a greater level of maturity and understanding [came] (past tense) 2,000 years ago when Jesus said, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." Which should, for anyone ready to advance, have been the point where we mentally connect the Two. That statement was Jesus teaching middle school.

Even so, there are new babes born every minute. None of whom should grow up being taught that the Two are not One. And yet--here we are.

For those who are not sure how to go about "following" Jesus' teachings--go ahead, give it a try: "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." And "The Father and I are One."

 

[CadyandZoe]

There is soooooo much confrontation regarding the Trinity doctrine--I hate to add to it. But it is all really quite simple:

Each would-be "person" of the so-called Trinity, are simply known by their revelation and presentation given by God--who is otherwise One God. Hence, the term "person-tation." But each presentation does not actually mean another "person."

First an anecdotal example: A newborn boy learns of his father by sight and by his voice, and then is walked by the hand out into the world. At some point the son learns that his father has "a job", but really doesn't understand for some time, with only little bits of information coming home with him over time. And then comes the time when the boy learns of what seems to be the life of another person--where his father spends "a third" of his time doing things he had only imagined before.​

​

So, since the father spends a third of his time at home, a third of his time sleeping, and a third away working--does that make him three persons? Perhaps, or so it would seem--but only on an elementary level.​

​

Remember, the details of the above example are the "image" by which we were created.​

Dare I say, the Trinity doctrine came about during the elementary years of the church? As such it is not wrong, just elementary. Is that where we still are, or should be at this time? Do we need more time?

Once we have the elementary idea, the timing of moving beyond that to a greater level of maturity and understanding [came] (past tense) 2,000 years ago when Jesus said, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." Which should, for anyone ready to advance, have been the point where we mentally connect the Two. That statement was Jesus teaching middle school.

Even so, there are new babes born every minute. None of whom should grow up being taught that the Two are not One. And yet--here we are.

For those who are not sure how to go about "following" Jesus' teachings--go ahead, give it a try: "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." And "The Father and I are One."

The Trinity Doctrine is not elementary; it is false teaching based on Greek philosophy. The Bible has never taught the doctrine. The church accepted the doctrine under the authority of Constantine and under penalty of death.

 

[Truth7t7]

There is soooooo much confrontation regarding the Trinity doctrine--I hate to add to it. But it is all really quite simple:

Each would-be "person" of the so-called Trinity, are simply known by their revelation and presentation given by God--who is otherwise One God. Hence, the term "person-tation." But each presentation does not actually mean another "person."

First an anecdotal example: A newborn boy learns of his father by sight and by his voice, and then is walked by the hand out into the world. At some point the son learns that his father has "a job", but really doesn't understand for some time, with only little bits of information coming home with him over time. And then comes the time when the boy learns of what seems to be the life of another person--where his father spends "a third" of his time doing things he had only imagined before.​

​

So, since the father spends a third of his time at home, a third of his time sleeping, and a third away working--does that make him three persons? Perhaps, or so it would seem--but only on an elementary level.​

​

Remember, the details of the above example are the "image" by which we were created.​

Dare I say, the Trinity doctrine came about during the elementary years of the church? As such it is not wrong, just elementary. Is that where we still are, or should be at this time? Do we need more time?

Once we have the elementary idea, the timing of moving beyond that to a greater level of maturity and understanding [came] (past tense) 2,000 years ago when Jesus said, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." Which should, for anyone ready to advance, have been the point where we mentally connect the Two. That statement was Jesus teaching middle school.

Even so, there are new babes born every minute. None of whom should grow up being taught that the Two are not One. And yet--here we are.

For those who are not sure how to go about "following" Jesus' teachings--go ahead, give it a try: "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." And "The Father and I are One."

1 John 5:7-8KJV
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

 

[ScottA]

The Trinity Doctrine is not elementary; it is false teaching based on Greek philosophy. The Bible has never taught the doctrine. The church accepted the doctrine under the authority of Constantine and under penalty of death.

There are an equal number of rebuttals as there are theories possible. And yes, many are to be considered false doctrine...at least in a legal sense.

Still, it is not wrong to count "the Father", "the Son", and "the Holy Spirit" as three. The error then is one of not recognizing that God is revealing Himself, "here a little, there a little" over time--which by definition does make it elementary.

 

[CadyandZoe]

There are an equal number of rebuttals as there are theories possible. And yes, many are to be considered false doctrine...at least in a legal sense.

Still, it is not wrong to count "the Father", "the Son", and "the Holy Spirit" as three. The error then is one of not recognizing that God is revealing Himself, "here a little, there a little" over time--which by definition does make it elementary.

I agree Scott. You are not wrong to count them as three.

 

[ScottA]

I agree Scott. You are not wrong to count them as three.

The point is, God over time, has revealed Himself in three ways, and yet is One.

 

[A Freeman]

1 John 5:7-8KJV
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Excerpt below from:

https://www.ucg.org/learn/bible-study-aids/god-trinity/god-trinity/spurious-reference-trinity-added-1-john-5-verses-7-8

Some Bible translators of past centuries were so zealous to find support for their belief in the Trinity in the Scriptures that they literally added it. A case in point is 1 John 5:7-8.​

It reads in the King James Version, also known as the Authorized Version: "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." The words in italics are simply not a part of the generally accepted New Testament manuscripts. Regrettably, in this particular passage some other versions read essentially the same.

Most Bible commentaries that mention this addition tell us that it is a spurious comment added to the biblical text. Consider the words of The New Bible Commentary: Revised: "Notice that AV [the Authorized Version] includes additional material at this point. But the words are clearly a gloss [an added note] and are rightly excluded by RSV [the Revised Standard Version] even from its margins" (1970, p. 1269).

In the New Revised Standard Version, 1 John 5:7-8 correctly and more concisely reads, "There are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree." John personifies the three elements here as providing testimony, just as Solomon personified wisdom in the book of Proverbs.

Many other more recent Bible versions likewise recognize the spurious added text and omit it, including the New International Version, American Standard Version and New American Standard Bible, English Standard Version, New English Bible and Revised English Bible, New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible and New Jerusalem Bible, Good News Bible, New Living Translation, Holman Christian Standard Bible, Bible in Basic English and the Twentieth Century New Testament.

"The textual evidence is against 1 John 5:7," explains Dr. Neil Lightfoot, a New Testament professor. "Of all the Greek manuscripts, only two contain it. These two manuscripts are of very late dates, one from the fourteenth or fifteenth century and the other from the sixteenth century. Two other manuscripts have this verse written in the margin. All four manuscripts show that this verse was apparently translated from a late form of the Latin Vulgate" (How We Got the Bible, 2003, pp. 100-101).

The Expositor's Bible Commentary also dismisses the King James and New King James Versions' additions in 1 John 5:7-8 as "obviously a late gloss with no merit" (Glenn Barker, Vol. 12, 1981, p. 353).

Peake's Commentary on the Bible is very incisive in its comments as well: "The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed in RSV and rightly [so] .  .  . No respectable Greek [manuscript] contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th century Latin text, it entered the Vulgate [the 5th-century Latin version, which became the common medieval translation] and finally NT [New Testament] of Erasmus [who produced newly collated Greek texts and a new Latin version in the 16th century]" (p. 1038).

The Big Book of Bible Difficulties tells us: "This verse has virtually no support among the early Greek manuscripts . . . Its appearance in late Greek manuscripts is based on the fact that Erasmus was placed under ecclesiastical pressure to include it in his Greek NT of 1522, having omitted it in his two earlier editions of 1516 and 1519 because he could not find any Greek manuscripts which contained it" (Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, 2008, pp. 540-541).

Theology professors Anthony and Richard Hanson, in their book Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith, explain the unwarranted addition to the text this way: "It was added by some enterprising person or persons in the ancient Church who felt that the New Testament was sadly deficient in direct witness to the kind of doctrine of the Trinity which he favoured and who determined to remedy that defect . . . It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament" (1980, p. 171).

Still, even the added wording does not by itself proclaim the Trinity doctrine. The addition, illegitimate though it is, merely presents Father, Word and Holy Spirit as witnesses. This says nothing about the personhood of all three since verse 7 shows inanimate water and blood serving as such.

 

[APAK]

I agree Scott. You are not wrong to count them as three.

And then what do these three subjects mean, according to the holy writ? The three principle ways of God? And for what purpose? To share in 'his' being? Pray that the Spirit of God is with us as we ponder and search for truth, as complete answers. And then for so many, without a ready answer, they question the ways of God? And is it/he one person, two or three, or many more in doing these 3 or more ways, or are they gods working for this one supreme being? And that is where most go awry.....

 

[A Freeman]

God has revealed Himself in countless ways.

We have an entire, natural world FILLED with amazing designs, balance, abundance and beauty.

We have the sun to provide us with warmth and light and the moon and stars to guide us by night.

We have His Perfect Law of Liberty, with its perfect system of governance, its perfect system of justice, its perfect agricultural policy, its perfect economic policy, and its perfect healthy diet.

We have Prince Michael/Christ and Gabriel, along with all of the other angels, whom God has sent to deliver His Message/Word to us.

We have all of the Prophets, whom God has moved to speak and write.

We have 6000 years of human history, that God has graciously and mercifully provided us to learn from Him, both directly and through all of the built-in lessons we are constantly surrounded by.

We have His Love, His Blessings, His Punishments to correct our errant behavior, His Truth and Wisdom if we seek it, and so much more.

What we don't have is God ever telling us that He divided Himself into three separate persons that are three, but not three, one, but not one, and the rest of the confusion that is taught in satanic churches by satanic priests, pastors, etc. And the reason that God has never told us that is very, very simple to understand:

It's because it isn't true.

God is ONE.

God isn't schizophrenic, nor is He divided into 3 different people, nor does He role play as His own Son or His own Father, nor does He have conversations with Himself, nor did God or any of God's Prophets EVER teach anyone this utter confusion.

God provided us with human families, so that we would easily understand what the relationship is between a dad and his son, to avoid any confusion.

How could God be so misunderstood by so many, who seem hell-bent on hammering Him into some 3=1 nonsensical pagan deity, so they can go on pretending they don't have to obey God or take ANY personal responsibility for their own actions?

God wants us to LOVE Truth and one another. And to do that, the insanity of all of these satanically-derived man-made doctrines and traditions -- all of which make the Commandments of God of no effect -- MUST stop.

And they will. On Judgement Day (SOON).

 

[Truth7t7]

Excerpt below from:

https://www.ucg.org/learn/bible-study-aids/god-trinity/god-trinity/spurious-reference-trinity-added-1-john-5-verses-7-8

Some Bible translators of past centuries were so zealous to find support for their belief in the Trinity in the Scriptures that they literally added it. A case in point is 1 John 5:7-8.​

It reads in the King James Version, also known as the Authorized Version: "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." The words in italics are simply not a part of the generally accepted New Testament manuscripts. Regrettably, in this particular passage some other versions read essentially the same.

Most Bible commentaries that mention this addition tell us that it is a spurious comment added to the biblical text. Consider the words of The New Bible Commentary: Revised: "Notice that AV [the Authorized Version] includes additional material at this point. But the words are clearly a gloss [an added note] and are rightly excluded by RSV [the Revised Standard Version] even from its margins" (1970, p. 1269).

In the New Revised Standard Version, 1 John 5:7-8 correctly and more concisely reads, "There are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree." John personifies the three elements here as providing testimony, just as Solomon personified wisdom in the book of Proverbs.

Many other more recent Bible versions likewise recognize the spurious added text and omit it, including the New International Version, American Standard Version and New American Standard Bible, English Standard Version, New English Bible and Revised English Bible, New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible and New Jerusalem Bible, Good News Bible, New Living Translation, Holman Christian Standard Bible, Bible in Basic English and the Twentieth Century New Testament.

"The textual evidence is against 1 John 5:7," explains Dr. Neil Lightfoot, a New Testament professor. "Of all the Greek manuscripts, only two contain it. These two manuscripts are of very late dates, one from the fourteenth or fifteenth century and the other from the sixteenth century. Two other manuscripts have this verse written in the margin. All four manuscripts show that this verse was apparently translated from a late form of the Latin Vulgate" (How We Got the Bible, 2003, pp. 100-101).

The Expositor's Bible Commentary also dismisses the King James and New King James Versions' additions in 1 John 5:7-8 as "obviously a late gloss with no merit" (Glenn Barker, Vol. 12, 1981, p. 353).

Peake's Commentary on the Bible is very incisive in its comments as well: "The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed in RSV and rightly [so] .  .  . No respectable Greek [manuscript] contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th century Latin text, it entered the Vulgate [the 5th-century Latin version, which became the common medieval translation] and finally NT [New Testament] of Erasmus [who produced newly collated Greek texts and a new Latin version in the 16th century]" (p. 1038).

The Big Book of Bible Difficulties tells us: "This verse has virtually no support among the early Greek manuscripts . . . Its appearance in late Greek manuscripts is based on the fact that Erasmus was placed under ecclesiastical pressure to include it in his Greek NT of 1522, having omitted it in his two earlier editions of 1516 and 1519 because he could not find any Greek manuscripts which contained it" (Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, 2008, pp. 540-541).

Theology professors Anthony and Richard Hanson, in their book Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith, explain the unwarranted addition to the text this way: "It was added by some enterprising person or persons in the ancient Church who felt that the New Testament was sadly deficient in direct witness to the kind of doctrine of the Trinity which he favoured and who determined to remedy that defect . . . It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament" (1980, p. 171).

Still, even the added wording does not by itself proclaim the Trinity doctrine. The addition, illegitimate though it is, merely presents Father, Word and Holy Spirit as witnesses. This says nothing about the personhood of all three since verse 7 shows inanimate water and blood serving as such.

I Disagree

 

[quietthinker]

There is soooooo much confrontation regarding the Trinity doctrine--I hate to add to it. But it is all really quite simple:

Each would-be "person" of the so-called Trinity, are simply known by their revelation and presentation given by God--who is otherwise One God. Hence, the term "person-tation." But each presentation does not actually mean another "person."

First an anecdotal example: A newborn boy learns of his father by sight and by his voice, and then is walked by the hand out into the world. At some point the son learns that his father has "a job", but really doesn't understand for some time, with only little bits of information coming home with him over time. And then comes the time when the boy learns of what seems to be the life of another person--where his father spends "a third" of his time doing things he had only imagined before.​

​

So, since the father spends a third of his time at home, a third of his time sleeping, and a third away working--does that make him three persons? Perhaps, or so it would seem--but only on an elementary level.​

​

Remember, the details of the above example are the "image" by which we were created.​

Dare I say, the Trinity doctrine came about during the elementary years of the church? As such it is not wrong, just elementary. Is that where we still are, or should be at this time? Do we need more time?

Once we have the elementary idea, the timing of moving beyond that to a greater level of maturity and understanding [came] (past tense) 2,000 years ago when Jesus said, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." Which should, for anyone ready to advance, have been the point where we mentally connect the Two. That statement was Jesus teaching middle school.

Even so, there are new babes born every minute. None of whom should grow up being taught that the Two are not One. And yet--here we are.

For those who are not sure how to go about "following" Jesus' teachings--go ahead, give it a try: "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." And "The Father and I are One."

'There is soooooo much confrontation regarding the Trinity doctrine--I hate to add to it. But it is all really quite simple:'
If you really did hate it you wouldn't add to it. Speaking from both sides of your mouth?