Holes in the trinity

[Katzpur]

I don't understand the above. Could you reword that.

Well, you just pointed out that baptisms were to be performed in "the name of" (as opposed to "the names of") the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Is God's name "God"? Or is it "Jehovah?" Or "Jesus"? You stress that there is only one name, so I'm wondering what it is.

 

[yokomodoful]

I forgot that one, my bad.

So as you can see, only the Father ever calls himself "Alpha and Omega".

As stated before, Jesus calls himself the first and the last Revelation 1:17. This has been used with the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. An example of Jesus and the Father being of the same nature.

 

[Shermana]

As stated before, Jesus calls himself the first and the last Revelation 1:17. This has been used with the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. An example of Jesus and the Father being of the same nature.

As stated before, twice now, First and Last is not the same thing as "Alpha and Omega", and "First and Last" can be applied to more than one person, since Jesus is "The Firstborn" and the "Last Adam", whereas Alpha and Omega is a specific title that has more depth than a flat out "First and Last".. Regardless, being of "the same nature" is a vague concept, the Angels can be of "thee same nature" as well.

 

[yokomodoful]

It actually most likely originally just said "In my name" as in Eusebius's copy, the "Formula" was certainly shoe horned into various other accounts such as the "Church Father writings" (like in the "Long form" of Ignatius's alleged epistles). It is most odd that the passage seems to be coincidentally missing from numerous ancient witnesses.

Is the original wording of Matthew 28:19 the same

I researched the above. It is hardly proof that the bible was altered or added. If it was we are going back to around AD 107. What else do you believe has been altered? or is it just Mathew 28?

 

[Shermana]

I researched the above. It is hardly proof that the bible was altered or added. If it was we are going back to around AD 107. What else do you believe has been altered? or is it just Mathew 28?

Anyone can say what's "Hardly proof" according to what they want it to be proof of or how they want it to interpret it. It's plenty of proof even for many ardent Trinitarian professors and scholars. There's plenty of proof that it was in fact added and that there were arguments about what it was originally. In any case, Acts 2:38 should be all the evidence you need that it was directly changed.

There's a LOT that was altered, such as 1 John 5:7 and Revelation 1:11, but that's for another discussion.

 

[Pann]

well if jesus is God as the son
and Jahova is God as a father
then the Holy Spirit is God without any distinctions...
or at least thats how i take it.

 

[Shermana]

then the Holy Spirit is God without any distinctions...

If that's the case, then why does the Spirit serve as something sent from God?

 

[yokomodoful]

As stated before, twice now, First and Last is not the same thing as "Alpha and Omega", and "First and Last" can be applied to more than one person, since Jesus is "The Firstborn" and the "Last Adam", whereas Alpha and Omega is a specific title that has more depth than a flat out "First and Last".. Regardless, being of "the same nature" is a vague concept, the Angels can be of "thee same nature" as well.

Just because you state, "First and Last", unlike Alpha and Omega, can apply to more than one being. Jesus is the "Firstborn" and "Last Adam". Does not mean it is true. Why was Alpha and Omega used redundantly with the beginning and the end. Isn't Alpha the first letter and Omega the Last-can't alpha and omega apply to more than one being also?

 

[yokomodoful]

Anyone can say what's "Hardly proof" according to what they want it to be proof of or how they want it to interpret it. It's plenty of proof even for many ardent Trinitarian professors and scholars. There's plenty of proof that it was in fact added and that there were arguments about what it was originally. In any case, Acts 2:38 should be all the evidence you need that it was directly changed.

There's a LOT that was altered, such as 1 John 5:7 and Revelation 1:11, but that's for another discussion.

Acts 2:38
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Do you believe the Holy Spirit is God?

 

[Shermana]

Just because you state, "First and Last", unlike Alpha and Omega, can apply to more than one being. Jesus is the "Firstborn" and "Last Adam". Does not mean it is true. Why was Alpha and Omega used redundantly with the beginning and the end. Isn't Alpha the first letter and Omega the Last-can't alpha and omega apply to more than one being also?

Okay, I can just go ahead and say that you saying "First and Last" is the exact same concept as "Alpha and Omega" isn't true, and that if it was, the author would be being very redundant. The concepts are similar but not entirely so. There's a reason Jesus specifically doesn't say "Alpha and Omega" (except in the blatantly interpolated versions of Rev 1:11).

 

[Shermana]

Acts 2:38
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Do you believe the Holy Spirit is God?

No.

God's mechanism for enacting His will on Earth?

Perhaps.

What's the relevance as to the fact that Acts 2:38 is proof that Matthew 28:19 contains an interpolated "Fomula" and originally said what Eusebius's copy said?

 

[yokomodoful]

As stated before, twice now, First and Last is not the same thing as "Alpha and Omega", and "First and Last" can be applied to more than one person, since Jesus is "The Firstborn" and the "Last Adam", whereas Alpha and Omega is a specific title that has more depth than a flat out "First and Last".. Regardless, being of "the same nature" is a vague concept, the Angels can be of "thee same nature" as well.

The angels were spirits created by God. Surely you don't mean the angels can be of the same nature as God?

 

[yokomodoful]

No.

God's mechanism for enacting His will on Earth?

Perhaps.

What's the relevance as to the fact that Acts 2:38 is proof that Matthew 28:19 contains an interpolated "Fomula" and originally said what Eusebius's copy said?

The relevance is that once again the spirit is mentioned with the son. Just like the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River. The Father's voice, the Son being baptized and the Spirit of God descending like a dove.

 

[Shermana]

The relevance is that once again the spirit is mentioned with the son. Just like the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River. The Father's voice, the Son being baptized and the Spirit of God descending like a dove.

That has absolutely nothing to do with them being the same beings. If anything, that proves they are different beings.

 

[yokomodoful]

Okay, I can just go ahead and say that you saying "First and Last" is the exact same concept as "Alpha and Omega" isn't true, and that if it was, the author would be being very redundant. The concepts are similar but not entirely so. There's a reason Jesus specifically doesn't say "Alpha and Omega" (except in the blatantly interpolated versions of Rev 1:11).

John 20:26-28
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

Why did Thomas call Jesus, "My Lord and my God?" Is this another altered part of the bible?

 

[yokomodoful]

That has absolutely nothing to do with them being the same beings. If anything, that proves they are different beings.

Those three beings sure hang out a lot!

 

[yokomodoful]

That has absolutely nothing to do with them being the same beings. If anything, that proves they are different beings.

Look at Phillipians 2:6

6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

 

[Shermana]

Look at Phillipians 2:6

6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

I've been over this one many times on this site on multiple threads, it should read "form of a god", just like it says "Form of a slave". There is no such thing as "Form of God". What is the "Form of God"? There is "Form of a god", but what "form" would God have? Also, by the traditional interpretation's logic, this means that Jesus wouldn't be God before he took on the "Form" of such. In any respect, "Form of God" simply makes no sense. What sense would it make? What "Form" would Jesus take on "As God"? The word "Morphe" implies an actual physical type or shape or model. Not just a characteristic. "Form of a Human" for example. So what would "Form of God" be if it's not "Form of a god"? Even some of the more learned Trinitarian scholars (sometimes grudgingly) admit this.

Examining the Trinity: PHIL 2:6

If we should decide to translate the second half of this parallel as "form of a slave," then there can be no honest objection on grammatical grounds for translating the first part of this parallel as "form of a god." In fact it would seem more appropriate to translate it this way instead of "form of [the] God."


Ernst Haenchen uses this interpretation in his commentary on the Gospel of John:

"It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ" - John 1, translated by R. W. Funk, 1984, pp. 109, 110, Fortress Press.

It's an excellent example of how Trinitarians have distorted the grammar in a way which actually ends up defeating their own logic when its taken to its full extent.

Otherwise, explain why it says "Form of a slave" but shouldn't be "form of a god", gramatically speaking.

And let me tell you ahead of time, the word "god" meant "A divine being" back then. That's why THE god had the article, to separate from the lesser "divine beings".

 

[Shermana]

John 20:26-28
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

Why did Thomas call Jesus, "My Lord and my God?" Is this another altered part of the bible?

Another excellent example of some interesting issues involving possible interpolations.

There are two ways of explaining this one.

The first, the one I prefer, is to notice that John's ending completely clashes with Matthew's and Luke's. Where did the Disciples first meet Jesus? Where did Thomas first see Jesus? In the room or on the Mountain? It's clearly an interpolated account, and Bernard Miller agrees, as he explains that John likely originally ended at 20:18-24. Besides, this would mean that Thomas was not there to receive the Spirit.

Additions to the original John's gospel



The second, is that it is interpreted as a statement of exclamation towards God, the equivalent of "OMG!". This is how it was interpreted back in the dark ages even by Trinitarians.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/mygod.html

This may be, then, one of those places where the idioms of an ancient language are not completely understood by modern translators.

As the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th ed., vol. 13, p. 25, puts it:

"And it is not certain that even the words Thomas addressed to Jesus (Jn. 20:28) meant what they suggest in the English Version." - (Britannica article by Rev. Charles Anderson Scott, M.A., D.D. Dunn Professor of New Testament, Theological College of the Presbyterian Church of England, Cambridge.)

And John M. Creed, as Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge, wrote:

“‘my Lord and my God’ (Joh.xx.28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself ... (v.17): ... ‘I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.’” - The Divinity of Jesus Christ, J. M. Creed, p. 123.

....

No, the context of John 20:24, 25, and 29 shows that Thomas refused to believe that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead. (See footnote for John 20:8 in The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985: “John did not say what [the disciple who saw the empty tomb of Jesus] believed, but it must have been that Jesus was resurrected.” - Also see Barclay’s The Daily Study Bible Series: The Gospel of John, Revised Edition, Vol. 2, p. 267, and pp. 275, 276.)

Certainly, being resurrected from the dead does not make you God. Other persons in the Scriptures had been resurrected from the dead before (and after) Jesus, and no one, for a moment, ever suspected them of being God! In fact, being resurrected from the dead would have been used as evidence that a person was not God, since God has always been immortal and cannot die in the first place!

Furthermore, Jesus’ statements before and after Thomas’ exclamation (“my Lord and my God!&#8221 show not only that Jesus wanted Thomas to believe that he had been resurrected to life but that he could not possibly be God!!

Jesus’ command to Thomas to literally touch his wounds and actually see his hands proves that he meant, “See, I am the same person you saw die, but now I am alive ... be believing that I have been resurrected to life” (not, “see, these wounds prove I am God ... be believing that I am God&#8221.

Notice that the reason given for Thomas to “be believing” is that he can see Jesus’ hands and their wounds. Likewise, after Thomas says “My Lord and my God,” Jesus reaffirms that Thomas now believes (as did the other disciples after seeing - Jn.20:20) that Jesus has been resurrected (not that he is God) “because you have seen me” 29).

Certainly Jesus wouldn’t mean, “you believe I am God because you can see me.” Instead, this is proof that Jesus, Thomas, John, and the other disciples did not believe Jesus was equally God with the Father! How? Because John himself has made it manifestly clear that “no one [no human] has ever seen God” - 1 John 4:12, RSV. (See the SF study; also OMN 3-5.)

....This respected Bishop of Mopsuestia was a very early trinitarian and a friend of John Chrysostom and of Cyril of Alexandria. - Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th ed., Vol. 22, p. 58. This highly-respected, very early trinitarian wrote, 1600 years ago, that Thomas’ statement at John 20:28 was “an exclamation of astonishment directed to God.” - p. 535, Vol. 3, Meyer’s Commentary on the New Testament (John), 1983, Hendrickson Publ. [2]

You will find that almost every single one of the Trinitarian proof texts either has some controversial grammar or interpolation issues, many of them proven beyond the shadow of a doubt like 1 John 5:7, so there's definitely a precedent and a pattern.

I've been through every one of these possibly literally hundreds of times by now.

 

[savagewind]

Alpha and Omega are letters of an alphabet. Letters of an alphabet are arranged to make words. Isn't Jesus The Word?

James 1:17 Every good act of giving and every perfect gift is from above coming down from The Father of lights with whom there is not a variation of the turning of shadow 18 having willed he brought us forth (by) word of truth for us to be first fruits of his creatures