Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Jafar moh

One explanation of the trinity?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Salam 

I was wondering what our fellow brothers/sisters thought of about this video below if you care to watch:

 

it is an explanation of the trinity that does sound nice but I have no clue as to what the point was... a little lost and wondering if someone could help me understand what RZ was trying to say here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jafar moh said:

Salam 

I was wondering what our fellow brothers/sisters thought of about this video below if you care to watch:

 

it is an explanation of the trinity that does sound nice but I have no clue as to what the point was... a little lost and wondering if someone could help me understand what RZ was trying to say here?

Wow, that's a lot of talking. I didn't quite see what he was saying either. 

Sometimes I think people give long answers with big or rhyming words that sound nice enough together to lull you into believing what they are saying must be true, even if you didn't understand it..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All i heard was trinity, unity, and diversity. The best explanation I could give about the trinity (The Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is a analogy to water, ice, and steam. Water (The Father) can remain in liquid form and is used for hydrating/quenching your thirst. Frozen water aka ice (The Son) is still water, but rigid and solid, so it plays a different role than it's liquid form. Ice therefore can be used for swelling of bruises to relieve blood clots or soothing of the throat. Steam (Holy Spirit) is a evaporated form of water that can be used to relieve nasal congestion or remove toxins that can cause sickness. The Trinity explained in the Bible all had different purposes but all exist, existed, and will exist simultaneously.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The_Bible said:

All i heard was trinity, unity, and diversity. The best explanation I could give about the trinity (The Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is a analogy to water, ice, and steam. Water (The Father) can remain in liquid form and is used for hydrating/quenching your thirst. Frozen water aka ice (The Son) is still water, but rigid and solid, so it plays a different role than it's liquid form. Ice therefore can be used for swelling of bruises to relieve blood clots or soothing of the throat. Steam (Holy Spirit) is a evaporated form of water that can be used to relieve nasal congestion or remove toxins that can cause sickness. The Trinity explained in the Bible all had different purposes but all exist, existed, and will exist simultaneously.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Jafar moh said:

 

That does not apply to Christians bc our trinity doctrine comes from the Orthodox Christians that were part of the Nicene Councils. It is only heresy to those Catholics that refused to accept the doctrine from their opposing councils, and they were already brought up with pagan beliefs so they would not know the scriptures accurately. Think about it, these Romans who were the same Romans that crucified Christ claiming the name Christianity with Catholicisim and somehow people will believe that they are the true and righteous Christians? Constantine probably didn't have the knowledge of Christianity and wanted to merely use the religion for power. The Jews were the first named Christians and the teachings of Apostle Paul were kept by these Orthodox Christians.

Acts 11:26 - And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.        

Regardless, the holy spirit was mentioned already in the old testament and Jesus being the Son of God or God in the flesh proves the trinity doctrine. Therefore, the trinity doctrine is not really a matter of understanding bc that would be like trying to understand God himself which by Christian theology is exactly what it is. Only way to debunk trinity is by judging the scriptures. I find it funny that Catholicism condemns the trinity as heresy but believe in it.

 

Edited by The_Bible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, The_Bible said:

That does not apply to Christians bc our trinity doctrine comes from the Orthodox Christians that were part of the Nicene Councils. It is only heresy to those Catholics that refused to accept the doctrine from their opposing councils, and they were already brought up with pagan beliefs so they would not know the scriptures accurately. Think about it, these Romans who were the same Romans that crucified Christ claiming the name Christianity with Catholicisim and somehow people will believe that they are the true and righteous Christians? Constantine probably didn't have the knowledge of Christianity and wanted to merely use the religion for power. The Jews were the first named Christians and the teachings of Apostle Paul were kept by these Orthodox Christians.

Acts 11:26 - And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.        

Oh okay. Does this mean that we can at least say that the earliest accounts of 'christian' teachings, whether or not you agree so, are roman catholics? (Roman Catholic Church) That's also very surprising because obviously we have differences between Catholics and orthodox christians however I would have never thought that the way they both look at the trinity are different? So you are telling me that a catholic himself would try to debunk your water analogy, correct??

24 minutes ago, The_Bible said:

Regardless, the holy spirit was mentioned already in the old testament and Jesus being the Son of God or God in the flesh proves the trinity doctrine. Therefore, the trinity doctrine is not really a matter of understanding bc that would be like trying to understand God himself which by Christian theology is exactly what it is. Only way to debunk trinity is by judging the scriptures. I find it funny that Catholicism condemns the trinity as heresy but believe in it.

Well being told that the trinity is the one thing that is essential to salvation, and yet having it be a concept we cannot understand is very problematic indeed

Personally, would you consider the trinity to be part of salvation? Do you think Unitarians and Catholics have salvation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MuhammedAli said:

I still believe that it's a Roman innovation. Why do the original Judaeo-Christian scriptures say absolutely nothing about the Trinity?

1 John 5:7 (Trinity Doctrine) belongs in the King James Bible and was preserved by faithful Christians. But the passage was removed from many Greek manuscripts, because of the problems it seemed to cause. 

It is true that there is a small number of Scriptures that are not the same between the King James Bible and the so-called "Majority" Greek text. There are a number of reasons for this:

1 The so-called "Majority" text was not really based on the majority of texts, but rather a relatively small number of manuscripts. The last person to try to find the differences between the majority of Greek manuscripts, Dr. Von Soden, did not collate more than 400 of the more than 5,000 Greek texts. In other words, what is commonly called the "Majority" Greek text is not a collation of the majority of manuscripts at all.

2 The "Majority" Greek text is also the main Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox religion. They had a vested interest in changing (or deleting) some texts. More on this in a moment.

3 John itself is not in a large number of extant Greek manuscripts.

The growing religion that became known as Roman Catholic, after many debates eventually agreed on the doctrine of the Trinity. So they had no reason to remove 1 John 5:7 from their Bibles, since it supported what they taught.

But the Greek Eastern Orthodox religion was combatting a heresy called "Sabellianism," and would have found it easier to combat the heresy by simply removing the troubling passage from their Bibles.

The "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD and they do in fact contain 1 John 5:7. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD.

This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc.. John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.

 

Who Has the Most to Gain? Who Has the Most to Lose?

 

The evidence of history shows us that the Roman Catholic religion was relentless in its effort to destroy the Vaudois and their Bible. It took them until the 1650s to finish their hateful attacks. But the Vaudois were successful in preserving God's words to the days of the Reformation.

Now we have to ask ourselves a question: Who had the most to gain by adding to or taking away from the Bible? Did the Vaudois, who were being killed for having their Bibles, have anything to gain by adding to or taking from the words of God? Compromise is what the Roman religion wanted! Had the Vaudois just followed the popes, their lives would have been much easier. But they counted the cost. This was not politics; it was their life and soul. They above all people would not want to change a single letter of the words they received from Antioch of Syria. And they paid for this with their lives.

Source: http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, The_Bible said:

All i heard was trinity, unity, and diversity. The best explanation I could give about the trinity (The Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is a analogy to water, ice, and steam. Water (The Father) can remain in liquid form and is used for hydrating/quenching your thirst. Frozen water aka ice (The Son) is still water, but rigid and solid, so it plays a different role than it's liquid form. Ice therefore can be used for swelling of bruises to relieve blood clots or soothing of the throat. Steam (Holy Spirit) is a evaporated form of water that can be used to relieve nasal congestion or remove toxins that can cause sickness. The Trinity explained in the Bible all had different purposes but all exist, existed, and will exist simultaneously.  

 

I appreciate the water example, and it is better than the argument put forward in the video.

However, when we (Jews, Christians and Muslims etc) say we all believe in one God, in what sense is God one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

I appreciate the water example, and it is better than the argument put forward in the video.

However, when we (Jews, Christians and Muslims etc) say we all believe in one God, in what sense is God one?

Mark 12:29  - And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

In the sense of the water example lol...no but we believe in ONE God that is a spiritual being or "Holy Spirit". And with this Spirit he uses messengers and prophets to manifest with miracles, prophecies, commandments, visions etc etc.. The Spirit of God can therefore become a physical human and be 100% God & 100% Man. The matter of the trinity is not to be claimed corrupted or heresy bc it is not understood bc that would be like trying to explain God himself which by Christian theology is exactly what it is. The ONLY way to be able to debunk the trinity is by going inside the scriptures and deciding if this was prophesied or mentioned before. The Jewish or Islamic view differentiates so that would be your role to compare and contrast. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jafar moh said:

Oh okay. Does this mean that we can at least say that the earliest accounts of 'christian' teachings, whether or not you agree so, are roman catholics? (Roman Catholic Church) That's also very surprising because obviously we have differences between Catholics and orthodox christians however I would have never thought that the way they both look at the trinity are different? So you are telling me that a catholic himself would try to debunk your water analogy, correct??

Well being told that the trinity is the one thing that is essential to salvation, and yet having it be a concept we cannot understand is very problematic indeed

Personally, would you consider the trinity to be part of salvation? Do you think Unitarians and Catholics have salvation?

No, actually I am stating the opposite. The teachings of Christianity was passed down by Christ through his apostles and the apostles then preached unto the people and taught/influenced the Church Fathers the doctrine of the NT, and they then established the creed of the trinity. Catholicism came after everything was set and done with Constantine. According to the video you posted it seems that at the beginning Catholics made a mistake in labeling the trinity as heresy with the first council of Constantinople, but by the second council they agreed to accept it by realizing their mistake. So no they wouldn't disagree with the water analogy but if you would've brought up how their first council denied the trinity it would be embarrassing for them. I don't think there's really a significant difference in how we view the purpose of the holy spirit except for the process on how to receive it through their own personal rituals. I believe Roman Catholicism played a big part in Christianity bc of their huge political power since they were/are the longest reigning empire so they pretty much have dominated religion. That's why many scoffers view religion as something that was created by the government to control the people through propaganda. 

Romans 10:9 - That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

I do not know whether or not if someone denies the trinity would enter heaven if they have confessed Christ as savior. I do know tho that denying that would be consider heresy and when one confesses Christ he receives the holy spirit by many Protestant's belief, but I don't know if he will in fact receive it if they don't believe. I would just say that It's a must to believe in it just to avoid heresy and speaking on something I'm not sure. Anybody can enter heaven if they follow the verse above and genuinely prays a prayer in resemblance to the "sinner's prayer", remaining in faith of the acceptance the individual has done. So I believe that would include them (Catholics and/or Unitarians) as well but NOT those who are in charge of political power and UNDERSTAND that they are for example, changing the word of God around OR preaching heresies. That proves they were never saved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, The_Bible said:

Your link represent the opinion of KJB fans. Wikipedia claims that scholars make the opposite conclusion: 

"The Comma Johanneum, also called theJohannine Comma or the Heavenly Witnesses, is a comma (a short clause) found in some manuscripts of the First Epistle of John[1] at 5:7–8. The scholarly consensus is that that passage is a Latin corruption that entered the Greek manuscript tradition in some subsequent copies.[1] The Comma and the question of its authenticity have particular bearing on the development of the theological doctrine of the Trinity, which is central to most mainstream Christian denominations".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, The_Bible said:

Mark 12:29  - And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

In the sense of the water example lol...no but we believe in ONE God that is a spiritual being or "Holy Spirit". And with this Spirit he uses messengers and prophets to manifest with miracles, prophecies, commandments, visions etc etc.. The Spirit of God can therefore become a physical human and be 100% God & 100% Man. The matter of the trinity is not to be claimed corrupted or heresy bc it is not understood bc that would be like trying to explain God himself which by Christian theology is exactly what it is. The ONLY way to be able to debunk the trinity is by going inside the scriptures and deciding if this was prophesied or mentioned before. The Jewish or Islamic view differentiates so that would be your role to compare and contrast. 

Let me put it to you this way. What is the difference between what your claiming about water/trinity and what the Hindus or other polytheists may say about God being represented in different forms or split into different aspects?

Surely the phrase "One God", must have a meaning? If you give the meaning of "one" to "three", then there is no value in words. We might as well say "yes" and you may think "no".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest turmoil here is that Islam teaches that God cannot have a son. I'm not seeing that used in any reference other than to a flesh and blood Jesus thus the trouble with the trinity doctrine. 

In the Bible it speaks often of God, and the Son of God, and everybody thinks that son was Jesus. The very addition of "son of" is a very strong suggestion that these are two entities, not one in the same, but on the same playing field. Same intellectual level, same knowledge and understanding of the universe, plus, same message, same direction, same everything leading to the concept of absolute unity, oneness in every aspect that a father, (over there) and a son (over here) could possibly be. 

Before thinking about the man Jesus being 100% God, you have to understand that nothing can be 200%, and or 300%. 

We all know Jesus was "called" the son of God, yet He called Himself the son of man. He continually called God His Father, then called Him Our Father. Paul goes on to explain how we become sons of God. People get pretty caught up in mistaking Jesus as the begotten son of God. 

Logically, the son would be of the same essence as the Father and was introduced to Christianity by John as the Word. John notes the differences and similarities in 1:1.  In English translations we see God, and God, but nobody has explained to me why in Greek they are θεον and θεος. In the next verse where it goes back to speaking of the first mentioned God, it's back to θεον. Both names are given the same meaning, but let's not forget that the original Greek meaning was; 

a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities. Strongs interpretation added the trinitarian aspect to the original meaning 

Note that the Word became flesh, so we know He didn't start as flesh. The physical birth of Jesus was not a physical birth for God, but for Jesus and the Word, which John has explained in an Arius sort of fashion. Go back to Genesis, Exodus, and you will see that "The Word" was already a very active entity on earth going about the creation.

The Word, who indwelled Jesus was there for creation. That is best shown in the Quran where Jesus is capable, (by the will of God) to form a bird from clay and give it the breathe of life. That is a very strong indication that (not Jesus), but the Word, who indwelled Him knew how creation worked, and was there in the beginning.

What was Jesus called next?  John goes on to call Jesus the "light" of the world. How can a flesh and blood human be light? The Word, was light. When did this light come into existence? Just like the Muslims say, God said "Be" and it is. Gen 1:3 God said "Let there be light" and there was light. Interesting to see that this light was extensive enough to get the earth growing before the sun was created. This is an area where people think there is a contradiction, but that "light" was not the sun.

In whatever terms you choose not to use, God created a "son".

This is not to be confused with God being represented in different forms. I'm sure all Muslims would have to agree that Gabriel was the representation of God to Muhammad. For the sake of logic, nobody is calling Gabriel a god, although, Gabriel, also from the beginning stages of the earth, could have been just as easily been called "Elohim" in the OT, which is close to the same meaning as θεος.

What I'm saying is, not every time there is a divine reference in the Bible does it mean God Almighty. I believe that attributing all these references to one God has created the concept of one god being many things, rounded out to three distinct features. The big mistake comes from not being able to make out the distinction between Jesus and the Word. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

Let me put it to you this way. What is the difference between what your claiming about water/trinity and what the Hindus or other polytheists may say about God being represented in different forms or split into different aspects?

Surely the phrase "One God", must have a meaning? If you give the meaning of "one" to "three", then there is no value in words. We might as well say "yes" and you may think "no".

 

Hindus do not originate from the Abrahamic Faith. They may have similar views but the origin is different since they were pagans. They believe in 3 in 1 but they have hundreds of other sub-deities in each of their 3 main gods. They're instructed to bow down to their statues and to rituals DEDICATED to MANY of their gods. That means that is basically a competition of who can worship the most gods along with the deities that belong in their categorized group. According to scriptures it was prophesied that God was going to have a Son and be God himself incarnated in the flesh, as there is no more than one God. Jesus himself did not come and claim another God even tho the Jews much like you guys believe currently thought he was, He always claimed he was one with the Father and spoke about giving us the Holy Spirit (which is also mentioned in the OT) still being a part from the same God. God probably knowing that people was going to have a hard time believing this knew that he was going to be crucified and prophesied it in the OT so that way nobody could say it wasn't stated before. Therefore, the difference is that it has been mentioned in the the scriptures beforehand.

John (16:1-3) - These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended. They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quran 4:171 - Ya ahla alkitabi lataghloo fee deenikum wala taqooloo AAala Allahiilla alhaqqa innama almaseehu AAeesaibnu maryama rasoolu Allahi wakalimatuhu alqahaila maryama waroohun minhu faaminoo billahiwarusulihi wala taqooloo thalathatun intahookhayran lakum innama Allahu ilahun wahidunsubhanahu an yakoona lahu waladun lahu ma fee assamawatiwama fee al-ardi wakafa billahiwakeela

I have heard that, that verse doesn't mention Jesus was "only", or "but a messenger" of Allah. It mentions him as a prophet of Allah, and "roohun minhu" means that he is a spirit of God. Is there a website that transliterates it in English exactly with no extra input?

Quran 3:7 - He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

This is why Allah said, (seeking Al-Fitnah) meaning, they seek to misguide their following by pretending to prove their innovation by relying on the Qur'an -- the Mutashabih of it -- but, this is proof against and not for them. For instance, Christians might claim that ﴿`Isa is divine because﴾ the Qur'an states that he is Ruhullah and His Word, which He gave to Mary, all the while ignoring Allah's statements ― Ibn Kathir 

If the commentator uses an example of Christians being able to use a passage from the Quran to claim that Jesus is divine due to him being "Ruhullah" and Word of God (which goes exactly with the trinity doctrine). Then what is left to conclude from those passages when bible already claims that God creates with his word and is eternal?

Quran 2:87 - And verily We gave unto Moses the Scripture and We caused a train of messengers to follow after him, and We gave unto Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs (of Allah's sovereignty), and We supported him with the Holy spirit. Is it ever so, that, when there cometh unto you a messenger (from Allah) with that which ye yourselves desire not, ye grow arrogant, and some ye disbelieve and some ye slay?            

Why would the Quran also acknowledge him having a holy spirit that Christians already believe it's part of the trinity doctrine? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, andres said:

Your link represent the opinion of KJB fans. Wikipedia claims that scholars make the opposite conclusion: 

"The Comma Johanneum, also called theJohannine Comma or the Heavenly Witnesses, is a comma (a short clause) found in some manuscripts of the First Epistle of John[1] at 5:7–8. The scholarly consensus is that that passage is a Latin corruption that entered the Greek manuscript tradition in some subsequent copies.[1] The Comma and the question of its authenticity have particular bearing on the development of the theological doctrine of the Trinity, which is central to most mainstream Christian denominations".

So because it is "biased" it is wrong? He showed a chart with evidence that other manuscripts contained the trinity verse WITHOUT needing the Latin translation. We follow the original Greek so that would be a problem for the Catholics. Why would one be a Christian and accept corruptions from Catholic based translations that would hurt HIS OWN religion? Wikipedia is not a reliable source bc anybody can edit something out whereas the source i gave are people who HAD to study their research to prove it belonged there.

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/pages/KJV/early-manuscript-evidence-for-including-1-john-5-7-king-james-version.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/01/2017 at 3:47 AM, The_Bible said:

All i heard was trinity, unity, and diversity. The best explanation I could give about the trinity (The Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is a analogy to water, ice, and steam. Water (The Father) can remain in liquid form and is used for hydrating/quenching your thirst. Frozen water aka ice (The Son) is still water, but rigid and solid, so it plays a different role than it's liquid form. Ice therefore can be used for swelling of bruises to relieve blood clots or soothing of the throat. Steam (Holy Spirit) is a evaporated form of water that can be used to relieve nasal congestion or remove toxins that can cause sickness. The Trinity explained in the Bible all had different purposes but all exist, existed, and will exist simultaneously.  

 

This popular analogy promotes the idea that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three manifestations of the same thing, which is considered by mainstream Christianity (including Protestants) as a heresy, known as Modalism (or Sabellianism). Traditional trinitarianism teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons. The same water cannot at the same time be liquid, solid, and gas.

On 09/01/2017 at 7:18 AM, The_Bible said:

That does not apply to Christians bc our trinity doctrine comes from the Orthodox Christians that were part of the Nicene Councils. It is only heresy to those Catholics that refused to accept the doctrine from their opposing councils, and they were already brought up with pagan beliefs so they would not know the scriptures accurately. Think about it, these Romans who were the same Romans that crucified Christ claiming the name Christianity with Catholicisim and somehow people will believe that they are the true and righteous Christians? Constantine probably didn't have the knowledge of Christianity and wanted to merely use the religion for power. The Jews were the first named Christians and the teachings of Apostle Paul were kept by these Orthodox Christians.

Acts 11:26 - And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.        

Regardless, the holy spirit was mentioned already in the old testament and Jesus being the Son of God or God in the flesh proves the trinity doctrine. Therefore, the trinity doctrine is not really a matter of understanding bc that would be like trying to understand God himself which by Christian theology is exactly what it is. Only way to debunk trinity is by judging the scriptures. I find it funny that Catholicism condemns the trinity as heresy but believe in it.

Catholicism doesn't condemn the trinity as a heresy. It just condemns your understanding of the trinity as heresy, as do most Protestants.

 

23 hours ago, The_Bible said:

1 John 5:7 (Trinity Doctrine) belongs in the King James Bible and was preserved by faithful Christians. But the passage was removed from many Greek manuscripts, because of the problems it seemed to cause. 

What 'problems' did it cause? It conformed with what everyone believed at that time. The only problem was the lack of attestation in the Greek manuscripts. On the other hand, it was much more prominent in the Latin Vulgate tradition. When Erasmus (a Roman Catholic priest) first published his Greek New Testament, he didn't include the verse, because it didn't occur in any of the Greek manuscripts that he could find, but after coming under strong pressure, he relented in his third edition. This was then eventually incorporated into the King James Version.

23 hours ago, The_Bible said:

It is true that there is a small number of Scriptures that are not the same between the King James Bible and the so-called "Majority" Greek text. There are a number of reasons for this:

1 The so-called "Majority" text was not really based on the majority of texts, but rather a relatively small number of manuscripts. The last person to try to find the differences between the majority of Greek manuscripts, Dr. Von Soden, did not collate more than 400 of the more than 5,000 Greek texts. In other words, what is commonly called the "Majority" Greek text is not a collation of the majority of manuscripts at all.

2 The "Majority" Greek text is also the main Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox religion. They had a vested interest in changing (or deleting) some texts. More on this in a moment.

3 John itself is not in a large number of extant Greek manuscripts.

The growing religion that became known as Roman Catholic, after many debates eventually agreed on the doctrine of the Trinity. So they had no reason to remove 1 John 5:7 from their Bibles, since it supported what they taught.

But the Greek Eastern Orthodox religion was combatting a heresy called "Sabellianism," and would have found it easier to combat the heresy by simply removing the troubling passage from their Bibles.

This makes no sense. In any case, the verse isn't in any Greek manuscript from before the split between the Eastern and Western churches even occurred. So who removed it back then?

 

23 hours ago, The_Bible said:

 

The "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD and they do in fact contain 1 John 5:7. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD.

This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc.. John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.

If this is true, then why isn't the King James Version simply a translation of the Vaudois Bible into English?

 

23 hours ago, The_Bible said:

Who Has the Most to Gain? Who Has the Most to Lose?

 

The evidence of history shows us that the Roman Catholic religion was relentless in its effort to destroy the Vaudois and their Bible. It took them until the 1650s to finish their hateful attacks. But the Vaudois were successful in preserving God's words to the days of the Reformation.

Now we have to ask ourselves a question: Who had the most to gain by adding to or taking away from the Bible? Did the Vaudois, who were being killed for having their Bibles, have anything to gain by adding to or taking from the words of God? Compromise is what the Roman religion wanted! Had the Vaudois just followed the popes, their lives would have been much easier. But they counted the cost. This was not politics; it was their life and soul. They above all people would not want to change a single letter of the words they received from Antioch of Syria. And they paid for this with their lives.

Source: http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp

It was the Roman Catholics that pressured Erasmus to keep the Comma Johanenum, and the verse is mostly found in their manuscript tradition, so why would they want to remove it? And I thought it was the Greek Orthodox who were supposed to have done it anyway?

Anyway, Jack Chick is not a reliable source when it comes to the textual history of the New Testament. Why don't you read what the actual experts have to say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The_Bible said:

So because it is "biased" it is wrong? He showed a chart with evidence that other manuscripts contained the trinity verse WITHOUT needing the Latin translation. We follow the original Greek so that would be a problem for the Catholics. Why would one be a Christian and accept corruptions from Catholic based translations that would hurt HIS OWN religion? Wikipedia is not a reliable source bc anybody can edit something out whereas the source i gave are people who HAD to study their research to prove it belonged there.

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/pages/KJV/early-manuscript-evidence-for-including-1-john-5-7-king-james-version.htm

From your link:

Quote

Question 3: Why would the Johannine Comma be absent from some Greek manuscripts, but present in the Latin manuscripts?
Answer: Firstly, because of a similar ending in v.7 and v.8, a scribe may have been distracted in v.7, but when resuming his copying, his eye fell on v.8 from where he continued copying,thus accidentally omitting the Johannine Comma. Copies of this would have multiplied the mistake.
Secondly, between 220 - 270 AD, the heresy that Greek Christians were fighting was not Arianism (denying Christ's deity) as this had not yet arisen, but Sabellianism (named after Sabellius) which taught that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were identical, and that God the Father died on the cross when Christ died on the cross. The statement in the Johannine comma that "these three are one" seemed to support the Sabellian heresy that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are identical. If, during the course of this controversy, manuscripts were discovered which had accidentally lost the Johannine Comma as described above, it is easy to see how the orthodox party would consider these mutilated manuscripts to be the true text.
In the Greek speaking east, where the struggle against Sabellianism was most intense, the Johannine comma came to be unanimously rejected. However, in the Latin manuscripts of Africa and Spain, where the influence of
Sabellianism was not so great, the Johannine Comma was retained. This explains why the Johannine comma is strongly represented in the Latin manuscripts, and why we should retain it today. Source: "KJV defended". E.F. Hills, p.204 - 208.

The most famous critic of Sabellianism was Turtullian, who was "was a prolific early Christian author from Carthage in the Roman province of Africa.[2] Of Berber origin,[3][4][5][6][7] he was the first Christian author to produce an extensive corpus of Latin Christian literature. He also was a notable early Christian apologist and a polemicist against heresy, including contemporary Christian Gnosticism.[8] Tertullian has been called "the father of Latin Christianity"[9][10] and "the founder of Western theology."[11]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian

As for the idea that people were removing verses from the Bible to fight against Sabellianism, then why didn't they remove John 10:30 ("I and the Father are One")?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2017 at 5:00 PM, Haydar Husayn said:

This popular analogy promotes the idea that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three manifestations of the same thing, which is considered by mainstream Christianity (including Protestants) as a heresy, known as Modalism (or Sabellianism). Traditional trinitarianism teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons. The same water cannot at the same time be liquid, solid, and gas.

 

Just out of curiosity, im going to respond to this.  Why couldnt water, or more specifically, atoms of water, not take 3 distinct phases while still remaining the same atoms?

You might say, liquid cannot simultaneously be gas in the same location at the same time.

I could say, why not the same location at different times or different locations at the same time?

 

My initial thoughts are that you would say, God as a single entity couldnt be divided in the sense that it might take different forms in different places.  Yet, this seems to be somewhat common in scripture.

What do you think?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two replies:

1]

On ‎1‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 10:47 PM, The_Bible said:

All i heard was trinity, unity, and diversity. The best explanation I could give about the trinity (The Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is a analogy to water, ice, and steam. Water (The Father) can remain in liquid form and is used for hydrating/quenching your thirst. Frozen water aka ice (The Son) is still water, but rigid and solid, so it plays a different role than it's liquid form. Ice therefore can be used for swelling of bruises to relieve blood clots or soothing of the throat. Steam (Holy Spirit) is a evaporated form of water that can be used to relieve nasal congestion or remove toxins that can cause sickness. The Trinity explained in the Bible all had different purposes but all exist, existed, and will exist simultaneously.  

 

Similar to your "All l heard was ..." my thought is "jibberish". The preacher just threw in a lot of ideas to make himself sound sophisticated.

l never heard the 3 Phases of Water being used as an analogy before, but l do not like it for this reason: independent of your or my beliefs, people who denigrate religion will use this as drink-urinate, medical-ice to hazardous ice, nasal relief to steam bath of the private parts. In short, it leads to blasphemous responses (the Quran warns about provoking such things). Analogies have to be carefully thought out.

To use the Bible itself for some internally defined consistency, another real problem about a 'triplety' is in the 10 Commandments. To wit: Ex 20, "l-swt am a jealous god". "Jealous" is used as an Revealed Attribute(Name) of Allah-swt.  The speaker in the video does yap about Love and asked "what did god love before the Creation?" (pre-Genesis --and we only know the Creation we see) , so why does he not address how 1 'superbeing' is not jealous of the other two? And did the other 2 exist before the creation we know?

2] l don't know you, nor you me, so l'Il make a prefacing remark:

There are something like 30,800 different denominations. Some are very different to the others. An easily understandable example are with the Copts -they have Pontius Pilate as a saint. Something shocking to people in the West. So, you get the idea.

The Christian church l grew-up in did not have the trinity as part of the belief. Reason: Gospels say, Satan says, 'son of god'. That is the preponderance of what is written there. So, in Matthew's Last Supper with Peter is read two ways: Satan is 'controlling' Peter's speech, or as in other denominations Jesus calls Peter a 'satan'. For a Muslim the key is in the "get behind me" so four us it is similar to the former.

The other major apparent contradiction is in the opening to Mark. Mark was a book the early church had to get control of --as it part of the heretics' library. So the church adopted it, removed the part strongly suggesting Jesus was homosexual, yet kept the opening (The manufacture of differences between the early church leaders and the Jewish orthodoxy was deliberate which is how we are burdened with the trinity blaspheme). This differencing is why the Pauline letters were adopted, knowing that Babylonious Paul, rabbi or not, preached the Words of the Devil. Read Acts 9. If the Apostles 'doubted' that Paul was anything and ignored him, why the heck would you or l have anything to do about Paul???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2017 at 11:10 PM, iCambrian said:

Just out of curiosity, im going to respond to this.  Why couldnt water, or more specifically, atoms of water, not take 3 distinct phases while still remaining the same atoms?

You might say, liquid cannot simultaneously be gas in the same location at the same time.

I could say, why not the same location at different times or different locations at the same time?

 

My initial thoughts are that you would say, God as a single entity couldnt be divided in the sense that it might take different forms in different places.  Yet, this seems to be somewhat common in scripture.

What do you think?

 

As I mentioned earlier, in what sense is God one?

Islamically, we do not mean just numerically one, we mean He is completely God, unchangeable, unified, without parts or distinctions.

So we couldnt say that is Gods part there, and over there is a distinct different part of God.

I think Christian concept of "one" God is very different, and this is what Im trying to understand. So for example from what I see so far, the Christians could actually accept that God maybe in many different forms all distinct and separate from one another. Just like Jesus is was separate from God and the Holy Spirit separate from them both.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, iraqi_shia said:

As I mentioned earlier, in what sense is God one?

Islamically, we do not mean just numerically one, we mean He is completely God, unchangeable, unified, without parts or distinctions.

So we couldnt say that is Gods part there, and over there is a distinct different part of God.

I think Christian concept of "one" God is very different, and this is what Im trying to understand. So for example from what I see so far, the Christians could actually accept that God maybe in many different forms all distinct and separate from one another. Just like Jesus is was separate from God and the Holy Spirit separate from them both.

 

What is the difference between God manifesting himself in the form of a human being and God manifesting himself through a miracle or a burning bush or through speaking to prophets or speaking to angels, or manifesting through you and I to give us strength?

because God cannot really be defined, it is hard to say what God could or could not do, or to say how God could or could not manifest Himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

What is the difference between God manifesting himself in the form of a human being and God manifesting himself through a miracle or a burning bush or through speaking to prophets or speaking to angels, or manifesting through you and I to give us strength?

because God cannot really be defined, it is hard to say what God could or could not do, or to say how God could or could not manifest Himself.

There is a big difference.

Lets take your example of the bush. Lets imagine God makes the bush go on fire, and its a miracle. This is the work of God. We do not say the Bush is God. We do not worship the bush.

If we take the Christian view that Jesus is God in human form. Then we are saying that Jesus is actually God, so there is one part of God in the form of a man, and somewhere else another part of God and so on. So I ask again, if that is the case, on what basis do you say God is one, when quite clearly you are making him into parts, which are more than one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

What is the difference between God manifesting himself in the form of a human being and God manifesting himself through a miracle or a burning bush or through speaking to prophets or speaking to angels, or manifesting through you and I to give us strength?

because God cannot really be defined, it is hard to say what God could or could not do, or to say how God could or could not manifest Himself.

God does not take forms. In the matter of a fire in the bush, God did not take form as a bush in the fire.

It was a focal point for Moses. Fire in the bush was used as a *Symbol* of no direction, absoluteness and doesnt have parts

As Fire has no direction nor has God, heat in fire is spread all over, God is absolute and spread all over, so the God who encompasses the clouds is the same as the God under the ground.

Human on the other hand is always in various states and parts, from wakefulness, to slumber, to hunger, etc...

So if God had to manifest as a human he should neither sleep, nor go to the washroom to relief himself, nor have sexual intimacy, nor be born thru the womb, neither get hungry etc.

And since Jesus had all those human traits, It is not logical way for God to express his absolute needlessness.

So the perfect symbol thru God uses should be either thru fire, light or light between the clouds.

This is the Islamic perspective.

Edited by certainclarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2017 at 4:47 AM, The_Bible said:

The best explanation I could give about the trinity (The Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is a analogy to water, ice, and steam.

Um, the persons of the trinity coexist, while the different forms of water can't, Can water be ice, liquid and steam at the same time? Furthermore, you've proved yourself a heretic, I hope that you do study the trinity meticulously before saying anything that might prove that you're not that well informed about the trinity.

It might be between two phases i.e., when ice melt and become water, but this can't be coexistence, but somewhat a transformation. Do the persons in the trinity transform? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, iraqi_shia said:

There is a big difference.

Lets take your example of the bush. Lets imagine God makes the bush go on fire, and its a miracle. This is the work of God. We do not say the Bush is God. We do not worship the bush.

If we take the Christian view that Jesus is God in human form. Then we are saying that Jesus is actually God, so there is one part of God in the form of a man, and somewhere else another part of God and so on. So I ask again, if that is the case, on what basis do you say God is one, when quite clearly you are making him into parts, which are more than one?

Differences aside, why can't, hypothetically, God manifest himself in physical reality? In any fashion.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, certainclarity said:

God does not take forms. In the matter of a fire in the bush, God did not take form as a bush in the fire.

some, part of God manifested itself in that bush. Something metaphysical altered the physical.

3 hours ago, certainclarity said:

It was a focal point for Moses. Fire in the bush was used as a *Symbol* of no direction, absoluteness and doesnt have parts

As Fire has no direction nor has God, heat in fire is spread all over, God is absolute and spread all over, so the God who encompasses the clouds is the same as the God under the ground.

Human on the other hand is always in various states and parts, from wakefulness, to slumber, to hunger, etc...

Huh? Fire has direction. And it splits into parts as do clouds and the ground.

3 hours ago, certainclarity said:

So if God had to manifest as a human he should neither sleep, nor go to the washroom to relief himself, nor have sexual intimacy, nor be born thru the womb, neither get hungry etc.

If he can manifest as a flame, why not in the form of a human? Or if he can manifest through any physical matter or element, why not through a man?

3 hours ago, certainclarity said:

So the perfect symbol thru God uses should be either thru fire, light or light between the clouds.

This is the Islamic perspective.

Light is physical as well, derived of particles that have direction, speed, motion etc.

ultimately I don't see why God should be limited to only manifesting Himself through fire or light or water or energy, but not through a human being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

some, part of God manifested itself in that bush. Something metaphysical altered the physical.

Huh? Fire has direction. And it splits into parts as do clouds and the ground.

If he can manifest as a flame, why not in the form of a human? Or if he can manifest through any physical matter or element, why not through a man?

Light is physical as well, derived of particles that have direction, speed, motion etc.

ultimately I don't see why God should be limited to only manifesting Himself through fire or light or water or energy, but not through a human being.

I did mention, He ***does not manifest in any form.*** The fire was used symbolically. 

Can you tell me which direction is a fire in a bush? Are the flames to the left? right? down? up? When the wind blows the fire may seem tilting from one side or the other, but its flames are in all direction.

Light can be spread all over, it does not have parts its one, when you see it. I am not talking rainbow here , pure white light. The light which you can see with your eyes, not the scientific definition of light and fire.

The particles/ atoms etc was later discovered with science. We are just talking VISUAL data here. Not scientific data.

***Light is the symbol of purity.***

Unfortunately we humans are too visual, and depend too much on sight, other wise these symbols were not necessary either.

Plus excuse me here, I would really like you to answer this, is it ok for you if God went to the bathroom, and passed gas also? Isn't it weird, in the middle of a conversation God would excuse you to go to the bathroom for number 1 or number 2???

These are atleast the things that should be void if God were to manifest in a human form, unless you are ok with the concept ....

Unless you have accounts that Jesus never used the washroom, etc...

Energy, light, water , fire etc...could be used Symbolically. But humans consists of parts which discharge filth also and cause arousal in the opposite gender.

In Islam, God doesn't have to be in a human form to understand what it means to be human nor show humility to humans,and to prove himself like a human and go to the wash room like them! Just so people can relate to God!

We don't need God to go to the bathroom to feel close to him, and relate to him.

At least in the Islamic context we don't lower God to this extent.We willingly accept he is holiness and absoluteness.

He is ever greater than to be even described....

Edited by certainclarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, certainclarity said:

I did mention, He ***does not manifest in any form.*** The fire was used symbolically. 

Can you tell me which direction is a fire in a bush? Are the flames to the left? right? down? up? When the wind blows the fire may seem tilting from one side or the other, but its flames are in all direction.

Fire does have a direction, it moves from its base in an upward direction, and its heat energy radiates in waves.

 

Quote

Light can be spread all over, it does not have parts its one, when you see it. I am not talking rainbow here , pure white light. The light which you can see with your eyes, not the scientific definition of light and fire.

Light does have parts.  The light you see with your eyes is the same light understood in science.

 

Quote

Plus excuse me here, I would really like you to answer this, is it ok for you if God went to the bathroom, and passed gas also? Isn't it weird, in the middle of a conversation God would excuse you to go to the bathroom for number 1 or number 2???

This isnt a question of how you or I would "feel" about something.  It is a question of what is or is not possible.  As of right now, I dont see any reason why God could not manifest Himself through a form of physical matter, be it through light, fire, a burning bush or even a human being.

 

 

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, iCambrian said:

Fire does have a direction, it moves from its base in an upward direction, and its heat energy radiates in waves.

 

Light does have parts.  The light you see with your eyes is the same light understood in science.

 

This isnt a question of how you or I would "feel" about something.  It is a question of what is or is not possible.  As of right now, I dont see any reason why God could not manifest Himself through a form of physical matter, be it through light, fire, a burning bush or even a human being.

 

 

No problem, I understand you see no problem with such a God. To each its own,until the return of Jesus to clarify the matter himself, which ever way that might be, and if we are alive to realize this or in the day of judgement :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...