Holes in the trinity

[yokomodoful]

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.

Examining the Trinity: MYGOD




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.

Yea, it must be hard when many there are many translations of the bible that say one thing and you and a few theologions have a different version of the bible.

 

[savagewind]

Yea, it must be hard when many there are many translations of the bible that say one thing and you and a few theologions have a different version of the bible.

Matthew 7:14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

 

[Shermana]

Yea, it must be hard when many there are many translations of the bible that say one thing and you and a few theologions have a different version of the bible.

Welcome to the world of Bible scholarship.

However, keep in mind that most Translations of the Bible are published by traditionalist Trinitarians, and there are numerous smaller lesser known versions by scholars who are very skilled at the language who agree that there are some outright errors in these "mainstream" works.

However, in this case of John 20:28, why don't you try addressing the actual specifics that I brought up? Do you not agree that the ending of John completely clashes with the endings of Matthew and Luke? If not, how do you reconcile them?

 

[yokomodoful]

Welcome to the world of Bible scholarship.

However, keep in mind that most Translations of the Bible are published by traditionalist Trinitarians, and there are numerous smaller lesser known versions by scholars who are very skilled at the language who agree that there are some outright errors in these "mainstream" works.

However, in this case of John 20:28, why don't you try addressing the actual specifics that I brought up? Do you not agree that the ending of John completely clashes with the endings of Matthew and Luke? If not, how do you reconcile them?

The more I argue the harder you will argue back. Pray for me and I will pray for you and all those who hunger and thirst for God.

Peace Be with You.

 

[Shermana]

The more I argue the harder you will argue back. Pray for me and I will pray for you and all those who hunger and thirst for God.

Peace Be with You.

It's not about who argues the hardest, it's about who debates the best using facts and logic.

May your heart be opened that you will not be guided by confirmation bias but by the truth, logic, and the facts, that you may see the true Christological nature and past the invented doctrines of man.

 

[yokomodoful]

It's not about who argues the hardest, it's about who debates the best using facts and logic.

May your heart be opened that you will not be guided by confirmation bias but by the truth, logic, and the facts, that you may see the true Christological nature and past the invented doctrines of man.

Logic tells me that I have to rely on my faith in the sacred tradition and scripture of the catholic church. Not a version of the bible that I do not have and I can not read. Jesus` actions are the actions of God in all the gospels. Raising a man from the dead, healing a man born blind the mud and spittle, forgiving sins that are not his own. Saying whoever sees me sees the father. I know Jesus and I am not searching for a different version. I also know that no matter what I say, you will not hear. The battle is the Lords.

 

[savagewind]

Logic tells me that I have to rely on my faith in the sacred tradition and scripture of the catholic church. Not a version of the bible that I do not have and I can not read. Jesus` actions are the actions of God in all the gospels. Raising a man from the dead, healing a man born blind the mud and spittle, forgiving sins that are not his own. Saying whoever sees me sees the father. I know Jesus and I am not searching for a different version. I also know that no matter what I say, you will not hear. The battle is the Lords.

Why can these things be true about Jesus because he has the power of God, God in him?

1Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, 3 being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.


One Lord. It is Jesus
One God. It is The Father

 

[savagewind]

If you want to believe Jesus IS God then you have two lords, don't you?

 

[savagewind]

If Jesus is God he can't be one of us. He must be one of us for us to be saved. He conquered so that we might conquer too.

Jesus the True Vine John 15
…5"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. 6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. 7"If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.

Why do you think we can't do anything apart from him? Isn't it because he is one of us? See how we are all one plant?

Daniel 4:20-22
New International Version (NIV)
20 The tree you saw, which grew large and strong, with its top touching the sky, visible to the whole earth, 21 with beautiful leaves and abundant fruit, providing food for all, giving shelter to the wild animals, and having nesting places in its branches for the birds— 22 Your Majesty, you are that tree! You have become great and strong; your greatness has grown until it reaches the sky, and your dominion extends to distant parts of the earth.

See what a man can be? The man was a sinner. Jesus is not a sinner. He hasn't even presumed to be a great tree. He is just a vine. But all of us together can become much greater than Nebuchadnezzer's tree. Not if Jesus is God though because God is for Heaven. Jesus is for the Earth. Why do you think he came here? Why was he sent? Isn't it so the children of God can really be God's plenty and God's rest? But the vine can not agree, can it? So who are God's enemies?

 

[jetson]

In Col. Chapter 1:14-19 is your answer. It states that God is invisible and Jesus Christ is the image of God and the first born of everything. Hebrews Chapter 1 verse 1 states Jesus Christ created everything that is. Col. 1:16 says the same. If Jesus Christ created it all, He had to be the one in Gensis who did the creating. In the book of Isaiah 9: it states, 6 A child is born. Call Him mighty God, Governor, the Prince of Peace, Councilor and Wonderful. Also, Jesus Christ said, when you see me you have seen the Father. Also he said before Abraham was I was. Yes, you have God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit, a total 1 unit. Understand it this way, water is a liquid, ice a solid, steam is a gas, yet is the same. Take an egg, it has a shell, the white, the yellow, but is just one egg. Maybe, this will help

 

[savagewind]

In Col. Chapter 1:14-19 is your answer. It states that God is invisible and Jesus Christ is the image of God and the first born of everything. Hebrews Chapter 1 verse 1 states Jesus Christ created everything that is. Col. 1:16 says the same. If Jesus Christ created it all, He had to be the one in Gensis who did the creating. In the book of Isaiah 9: it states, 6 A child is born. Call Him mighty God, Governor, the Prince of Peace, Councilor and Wonderful. Also, Jesus Christ said, when you see me you have seen the Father. Also he said before Abraham was I was. Yes, you have God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit, a total 1 unit. Understand it this way, water is a liquid, ice a solid, steam is a gas, yet is the same. Take an egg, it has a shell, the white, the yellow, but is just one egg. Maybe, this will help

Hebrews does not say Jesus created everything. Please look it up and quit trusting man.

In the Greek:

In these last days he spoke to us in (his) son whom he appointed heir of all things _____whom also he made the age of perpetuity

_______ word is translated "by whom", "through whom" BUT it means "on account of" or "because of". Jesus is sinless. Agree? It is obvious it is God's purpose to rule over people who do no harm to life. That is what it means. And that it is Jesus means.

Look it up here: Strong's Greek: 1223. ??? (dia) -- through, on account of, because of

 

[savagewind]

In other words life would not have been created except that it was created for sinless people. Yehoshua is the Leader of sinless humankind. He is a man.

Romans 5:15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You say Jesus is God. But Jesus is God's son. Do you believe in the trinity that God and Jesus is one and that Jesus is God's son? How? The definition of son is someone born to or adopted. That means a beginning. Do you believe God has a beginning?

The KJV says that Jesus was begotton of the father. While begotton can mean to procreate it also means to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth. Jesus can be interpeted as being an outgrowht of the Father. What was procreated was the body that jesus inhabited. John chapter 1 says that Jesus is the Word and was in the beginning with the Father.

 

[savagewind]

The KJV says that Jesus was begotton of the father. While begotton can mean to procreate it also means to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth. Jesus can be interpeted as being an outgrowht of the Father. What was procreated was the body that jesus inhabited. John chapter 1 says that Jesus is the Word and was in the beginning with the Father.

I actually believe Jesus was at the beginning. But it wasn't the man Jesus. It was his conception that was from the beginning. He was birthed through Israel. as a man. Before that he was a plan. Actually a purpose, but plan rhymes with man. It was God's purpose to make the way for him right from the beginning.

 

[Shermana]

The KJV says that Jesus was begotton of the father. While begotton can mean to procreate it also means to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth. Jesus can be interpeted as being an outgrowht of the Father. What was procreated was the body that jesus inhabited. John chapter 1 says that Jesus is the Word and was in the beginning with the Father.

The word "Begotten" is simply put a mistranslation or embellishment that doesn't reflect the Greek. It's "One and only", monogenes.

In this case, the KJV is indisputably, without question or doubt, necessarily and inarguably wrong. It should read:

New International Version
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

The KJV-onlyists who insist it should read "begotten" are simply deluding themselves and going against what the Greek says as if they can rewrite the Greek.


The word Monogenes has absolutely nothing to do with any implication of how the methodology works. It's simply a way of saying "Unique" or "only one".

As well, even if it said "begotten", the word "begotten" comes from "beget", which in the KJV "begat" is only ever used for literal offspring reproduction, so the definition would probably not be radically changing to some vague abstract interpretation all of the sudden. It technically means "Obtain" but by the 1600s it was most likely only be used in the sense of "obtaining offspring through natural methods".

Online Etymology Dictionary

As well, the word "beginning" does not necessarily mean "The absolute beginning". The Logos is most likely referring to the same personified "Wisdom" of Proverbs 8, in that "Wisdom" was the First Created being, which corresponds to Jesus being the "Firstborn of Creation".

 

[Shermana]

]In Col. Chapter 1:14-19 is your answer.

I agree, it unquestionably describes what is otherwise the "Arian" position when read in correct context.

It states that God is invisible and Jesus Christ is the image of God

"Image" in this case probably means "Representation". Still a different being altogether, not just another "person" in the Trinitarian logic. The concept is that Jesus was created to serve the purpose as the Father's direct representative, down to the look. (And the idea that God himself didn't have a body is a much later Rabbinical concept, one thing I agree with the Mormons on)

and the first born of everything.

It is most likely stating very literally that he was the First-created being. As in a Created Being. Like the Arians say. Not a metaphorical way of saying "premier". And even if so, it would still imply a created being.

Hebrews Chapter 1 verse 1 states Jesus Christ created everything that is.

Which coincides with Philo's Logos Theology and Proverbs 8 saying that the personification of "Wisdom" was the means of which all things were created, the instrument that God used.

Col. 1:16 says the same. If Jesus Christ created it all, He had to be the one in Gensis who did the creating.

Or the instrument of the one doing the Creating. The Jewish tradition has been that the Angels were the "We" and "Us" involved in the creation process.

In the book of Isaiah 9: it states, 6 A child is born. Call Him mighty God,

"A mighty god", El Gibbor. Justin Martyr translated it as "Angel of Great Council". The word "god" does not mean THE god necessarily. Even Trinitarian translators have rendered it as "mighty hero".

Governor, the Prince of Peace, Councilor and Wonderful. Also, Jesus Christ said, when you see me you have seen the Father.

Because he is the Son, he is the representative. No man has seen God and lived, so why wouldn't that logic apply to Jesus if that were the case?

Also he said before Abraham was I was.

Congratulations on translating John 8:58 correctly, indeed it does not say "I am" but "I was". However, this is merely saying he as a spiritual being existed before Abraham, nothing more.

Yes, you have God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit, a total 1 unit.

"1 unit" in the sense of a unit of ideological unity in thought and purpose, but nothing close to a unity of being itself.

Understand it this way, water is a liquid, ice a solid, steam is a gas, yet is the same. Take an egg, it has a shell, the white, the yellow, but is just one egg. Maybe, this will help

That is actually understood as a Modalist interpretation (considered a heresy by Trinitarians). It's yet another example of how the Trinity is so confusing that most Trinitarians actually end up being Modalists. If you find this comparison to be an easy way of understanding what the Bible is saying, you probably should consider being a Oneness Pentacostal, but it may actually be Tritheism.

"The Trinity is Like 3-in-1 Shampoo". . . And Other Stupid Statements | Parchment and Pen

2. The Trinity is like an egg. This is most definitely tritheism. While the egg is one, each of the substances that makes up the parts (shell, white stuff, and yoke), are most definitely distinct. The yoke is completely separate in nature from the shell.
3. The Trinity is like water. This is a modalistic illustration. Ice, steam, and liquid are examples of the same nature which at one time or another has a particular mode of existence. Sometimes it is liquid, sometimes it is ice, and sometimes it is steam. God is not sometimes Son, sometimes Father, and sometimes Spirit. He is eternally each, always at the same time.

 

[Shermana]

Logic tells me that I have to rely on my faith in the sacred tradition and scripture of the catholic church. Not a version of the bible that I do not have and I can not read. Jesus` actions are the actions of God in all the gospels. Raising a man from the dead, healing a man born blind the mud and spittle, forgiving sins that are not his own. Saying whoever sees me sees the father. I know Jesus and I am not searching for a different version. I also know that no matter what I say, you will not hear. The battle is the Lords.

Logic tells me that it's emotion, not logic telling you this. Why would logic require you to rely on a particular organization's interpretation and translation without regard to the scholarly disputes? Because you believe the claim that they are the same church as that of the Apostles? Where's the logic in that? Logic tells me you're not interested in debating or addressing counter arguments but simply prosletyzing your views.

I ALSO know that no matter what I say, you will not hear. The difference is, I at least will hear and address what you say with counter arguments and sources. Do you think you are immune to the same curteousy?

When Jesus said whoever sees me sees the Father, he's saying he's the representative of the Father and nothing more. It says that anyone who sees God will die, why is it now different for Jesus?

Now I'm assuming by your logic that because Jesus raised the dead and healed the sick that He's God, that you also believe Elisha was God since he also raised the dead and did miracles as well, right? Hmm, somehow I'm guessing you have a double standard in that regard when it comes to the other prophets (And Jesus did call himself a prophet) who also perform miracles like making oil appear out of nothing and healing the sick and lepers, but for some reason Jesus is God in the flesh when he does the same thing they did?

You do NOT know Jesus, and you SHOULD be searching for a different version than what you've been told. Telling me that you know Jesus and are not searching is simply a way of brushing off any attempt to actually debate and trying to console yourself that you have some Spiritual enlightenment that others who've read into it don't have...just because it makes you feel better.

As sure as God lives, He does not approve of the Trinity, and your belief on the matter is wrong. I hate to have to say things like that, but I'll go to your level when you want to refuse to debate. But sadly that is how pretty much all Trinitarians act when they are unable to deal with inconvenient facts.

 

[yokomodoful]

Logic tells me that it's emotion, not logic telling you this. Why would logic require you to rely on a particular organization's interpretation and translation without regard to the scholarly disputes? Because you believe the claim that they are the same church as that of the Apostles? Where's the logic in that? Logic tells me you're not interested in debating or addressing counter arguments but simply prosletyzing your views.

I ALSO know that no matter what I say, you will not hear. The difference is, I at least will hear and address what you say with counter arguments and sources. Do you think you are immune to the same curteousy?

When Jesus said whoever sees me sees the Father, he's saying he's the representative of the Father and nothing more. It says that anyone who sees God will die, why is it now different for Jesus?

Now I'm assuming by your logic that because Jesus raised the dead and healed the sick that He's God, that you also believe Elisha was God since he also raised the dead and did miracles as well, right? Hmm, somehow I'm guessing you have a double standard in that regard when it comes to the other prophets (And Jesus did call himself a prophet) who also perform miracles like making oil appear out of nothing and healing the sick and lepers, but for some reason Jesus is God in the flesh when he does the same thing they did?

You do NOT know Jesus, and you SHOULD be searching for a different version than what you've been told. Telling me that you know Jesus and are not searching is simply a way of brushing off any attempt to actually debate and trying to console yourself that you have some Spiritual enlightenment that others who've read into it don't have...just because it makes you feel better.

As sure as God lives, He does not approve of the Trinity, and your belief on the matter is wrong. I hate to have to say things like that, but I'll go to your level when you want to refuse to debate. But sadly that is how pretty much all Trinitarians act when they are unable to deal with inconvenient facts.

The inconvenient fact is that your version of the bible doesnt exist. If you can interpret the original so well, why don't you write a new one. Then I will read it and then we can discuss. Jesus didnt come here for the biblical scholar, and I doubt he woul only reveal the truth to thos enlightened ones who know the best translation of the original greek.

 

[Shermana]

The inconvenient fact is that your version of the bible doesnt exist.

What are you talking about? There doesn't need to be a "Version of the Bible", there needs to be scholars who know the facts and manuscript details and can assess it. You didn't even answer my question regarding how you reconcile the ending of John and Matthew and Luke. This is a cop out answer if ther eever was one. The Bible is a series of books, epistles, and gospels from various manuscript versions. There doesn't need to be one single "Bible" to be able to discuss the particular issues in each regard. With that said, you didn't actually bother addressing anything I said. The honorable thing to do would be either concede that you can't address those topics or simply stay silent.

If you can interpret the original so well, why don't you write a new one.

Maybe I will one day after I save up to go to Theology school and become certified in Koine and Biblical Hebrew. But you're ultimately avoiding the issue that others who have done so have brought up, in typical Trinitarian style. This is a debate forum, if you're not willing to debate, then why are you here?

Then I will read it and then we can discuss.

If you're only looking to debate with people who have written versions of the Bible and are going to dismiss and handwave notions and quotes from others who are noted scholars, some who have even written their own Bible versions like the aforementioned Goodspeed, that have addressed such issues, get out of this forum and stick to teh DIRS.

Jesus didnt come here for the biblical scholar,

What does that even mean? Jesus came here for people who knew the Hebrew scriptures at the time and debated with the Pharisees on how to interpret various passages and what such interpretations entailed, but that's completely irrelevant as to what we know the Bible says and what was likely an interpolation. Jesus came here for the "Lost Sheep of the House of Israel", and no one else if you want to get technical.

and I doubt he woul only reveal the truth to thos enlightened ones who know the best translation of the original greek

But you don't doubt that the RCC has all the answers for some reason? What is your objection even? Why are you on a debate forum if you don't want to actually debate the facts and evidence in question? I think you're looking fort the Catholic DIR where you don't have to deal with pesky counter arguments.

 

[yokomodoful]

Mathew commissioned the apostles to baptize in the nam of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Mathew and Luke ended with the ascension of jesus. All the same Jesus. All the same God. I have difficulty debating because the words I read you claim are false and you bring up other words which you pull out of somewhere. To debate, it should be out of the same book. Not the bible and your book