The Trinity.

[ewq1938]

'correction' - if its inspired does God need to be corrected?

The correction mentioned in the verse is about correcting people not God.

 

[ewq1938]

I'm quite sure by "Bible" you mean KJV.

You are wrong. You should stop with your baseless assuming. That would be a great correction to make.

 

[Cameron143]

The correction mentioned in the verse is about correcting people not God.

You are correct. And nice job correcting the correction correctly.

 

[Nehemiah6]

The majority recognise this passage as being a later "insertion" of the Church and most recent versions of the Bible do NOT have the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: KJV being a few that still do.

Since that passage goes all the way back to the 4th century in the Latin Vulgate, that is just more baloney from the naysayers. Why are they never happy with the truth? Here's what is found in the Geneva Bible (1599): For there are three, which bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.

 

[CS1]

'correction' - if its inspired does God need to be corrected?

if it is inspired its lines up with the Word Of God Because the Holy Spirit has to be the inspiration, or it is the flesh doing it.

The Holy Spirit speech is what Jesus said and not of himself.

 

[evyaniy]

'correction' - if its inspired does God need to be corrected?

That question or comment discredits your views. It is obvious from the verse that we are told Scripture is profitable to us for our correction. To make the insinuation you did with that question is disingenuous. Thank you for asking. It helps clarify your position.

 

[ResidentAlien]

You are wrong. You should stop with your baseless assuming. That would be a great correction to make.

It's not a baseless assumption. Since the KJV and NKJV are basically the only translations that have the JohAnnie Are Ya Okayne Comma, it's not much of a stretch to conclude that when you say "It's part of the Bible" you mean the KJV.

Yes, I'm aware there may be a few others. But these, like the KJV, are based on the TR; or the Vulgate.

 

[williamjordan]

Yes, if you don’t mind I will forward to my colleague - she has big issues with the Gospel of John - I’ll come back to you when she replies.

Well yes, we know this "colleague" of yours has "big issues with the Gospel of John." But this lady can't even get her story straight.

In the context from which John draws from (Isaiah 45), lies an example of how John could have written Jn. 1:1 had he intended an indefinite rendering. Had John intended to mean that the Word was “a god,” then he probably would have done so the way Isaiah 45 stresses indefiniteness. Had he followed the verbal patterns of Isaiah 45, it “definitely” (pun intended) would have been more emphatic, and laid stress on the fact that there was “a god” with God. The allusion being drawn upon needs to guide our interpretation and translation in the same way it governed and encapsulated John’s thought when he penned Jn. 1:1; after all, we have to assume he’s not trying to contradict the very place he alludes. John is not trying to expand on some “all new” concept about the λόγος, but is in keeping with the OT’s reflections on λόγος (cf. Jer. 1:4-9, 32:26). John just gives us a little bit of his own Christological ponderings and reflections in light of an era so saturated in λόγος speculation. It’s John’s way of expressing his own Christological convictions and reflections (“from the margins,” so-to-speak), in keeping with his own Jewish heritage. John is “riding on the curtails” of Isaiah 45, Genesis 1, all the meanwhile, incorporating his very own personal “style/touch” to the text to demonstrate that Christ was there, using language (πρὸς τὸν θεόν) exclusively used elsewhere to illustrate the relationship between God the Father and Christ (cf. Jn. 1:1b, 13:1, 13:3, 14:6, 14:12, 16:5, 16:10, 16:17, 16:28) without also contradicting the very place governing his line of thought (Isaiah 45).

Envision a playwright: Who in the narrative is playing the lead roles? In John's narrative, Christ wears the “hat” of “the Word.” Yet, in the OT (cf. Jer. 1:4-9, 32:26), the λόγος is nowhere depicted as a “second god,” but the force and power — God's own words — through whom He used to create. It is in this light that John places Christ right into the paradigm.

One ought to understand John as placing Christ (a second person) within the “metaphysic” of God, not misplacing Him outside of God's very own “metaphysic” as an external force (a “second god”).

I would love to have more of a one-on-one with this individual so I could press them directly.

 

[williamjordan]

Well, the “Johannine Comma” may not have been in an earlier Greek extant text but it does not mean it is not as authentic as many claim to be, including JW’s Emphatic Diaglot. The counter attestation for the inclusion in the Johannine Cooma are the following:

1. The evidence of certain Greek Texts. Although they were late and had few manuscripts, the question is where did they come from? These few copies are descended from the faithful copies of a master copy. If ascertaining text is based on the "addition", it could be well said it was an "omission" as the style of the writing of John proves the unity of the Godhead.
2. Cyprian quoted this fact. While modern scholarship is trying to disprove this, the fact remains the same. The evidence is quite clear. The updated Nestle-Aland Greek, the NA-28 has it in its footnote of Cyprian and even Primasius.

View attachment 257128
The Lord says, "I and the Father are one;" and again it is written of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one." Paragraph 6.
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.i.html?scrBook=1John&scrCh=5&scrV=7#iv.v.i-p33.1

Obviously, Cyprian quoted scripture for he says “The Lord says” and giving importance of a written text for he said “it is written”.

3. The Internal evidence which demands Greek rendering necessitates the inclusion of the Johannine Comma . Not familiar with Greek grammars but this one thing is viewed by Greek grammarians that it demands the presence of it. The heavenly witness corresponds to the plural Greek article. Not only that, secular leading Greek expert Georgios Babiniotis justified the need of ”JC” based on its “syntactic parallelism” or stylistic selection. In an email sent to Mr. Nick Sayers here, is what he says:

• I will not discuss the opinion of the really great theologist and scholar (yet not a linguist) bishop Ευγένιος Βούλγαρης as I do not know on what conditions it was formulated. However, linguistically —though with another explanation— Ευγένιος Βούλγαρης is right to consider verse 5.7 obligatory for the existence of verse 5.8.
• What you are asking has two aspects: a theological and a linguistic one. I can only say my own opinion on the linguistic aspect of the specific text within the frame of what is quite often used in regard to the Greek language and passages of New Testament Greek.
• The use of masculine gender and not neuter on 5.8.
• «καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ,
• τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα
• καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν»
• is linguistically justified on the pattern of “syntactic parallelism”, i.e. on the ground that it makes a pattern completely the same (“parallel”) in structure with that of 5.7.
• ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ,
• ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα
• καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν είσι
• So for Modern Linguistic analysis what is important is not the mere grammatical “gender agreement rule” (which would lead to the usage of neuter gender : «καὶ τρία εἰσὶ τὰ μαρτυροῦντα ἐν τῇ γῇ…»), but the overruling schema of “syntactic parallelism” which is much more stronger than a simple gender agreement rule.
• Conclusion. The issue we refer to has more to do with the linguistic style of the passage; it is the result of a stylistic selection which is far beyond the usage of a grammatical/syntactic rule that would lead to neuter gender and which furthermore would eliminate verse 5.7.

You of all know that I am a Trinitarian of Trinitarians. We have crossed paths before. If you recall, we had previously discussed several passages on another thread ("Omitted Verses"), of which have also been employed in this thread, particularly 1 Peter 3:15.

Hopefully that conversation pushed you to certain limits, as I thought it was a very engaging discussion, and was healthy for the audience to see.

But this text (1 Jn. 5:7) was not discussed. Are you ready for round two?

 

[Needevidence]

That question or comment discredits your views. It is obvious from the verse that we are told Scripture is profitable to us for our correction. To make the insinuation you did with that question is disingenuous. Thank you for asking. It helps clarify your position.

Not at all - if it’s a correction of man and I read it wrong that’s fine apologies, but the message cannot be corrected if 'inspired' is my point - how can we change / correct what God has inspired!

 

[Needevidence]

Well yes, we know this "colleague" of yours has "big issues with the Gospel of John." But this lady can't even get her story straight.

In the context from which John draws from (Isaiah 45), lies an example of how John could have written Jn. 1:1 had he intended an indefinite rendering. Had John intended to mean that the Word was “a god,” then he probably would have done so the way Isaiah 45 stresses indefiniteness. Had he followed the verbal patterns of Isaiah 45, it “definitely” (pun intended) would have been more emphatic, and laid stress on the fact that there was “a god” with God. The allusion being drawn upon needs to guide our interpretation and translation in the same way it governed and encapsulated John’s thought when he penned Jn. 1:1; after all, we have to assume he’s not trying to contradict the very place he alludes. John is not trying to expand on some “all new” concept about the λόγος, but is in keeping with the OT’s reflections on λόγος (cf. Jer. 1:4-9, 32:26). John just gives us a little bit of his own Christological ponderings and reflections in light of an era so saturated in λόγος speculation. It’s John’s way of expressing his own Christological convictions and reflections (“from the margins,” so-to-speak), in keeping with his own Jewish heritage. John is “riding on the curtails” of Isaiah 45, Genesis 1, all the meanwhile, incorporating his very own personal “style/touch” to the text to demonstrate that Christ was there, using language (πρὸς τὸν θεόν) exclusively used elsewhere to illustrate the relationship between God the Father and Christ (cf. Jn. 1:1b, 13:1, 13:3, 14:6, 14:12, 16:5, 16:10, 16:17, 16:28) without also contradicting the very place governing his line of thought (Isaiah 45).

Envision a playwright: Who in the narrative is playing the lead roles? In John's narrative, Christ wears the “hat” of “the Word.” Yet, in the OT (cf. Jer. 1:4-9, 32:26), the λόγος is nowhere depicted as a “second god,” but the force and power — God's own words — through whom He used to create. It is in this light that John places Christ right into the paradigm.

One ought to understand John as placing Christ (a second person) within the “metaphysic” of God, not misplacing Him outside of God's very own “metaphysic” as an external force (a “second god”).

I would love to have more of a one-on-one with this individual so I could press them directly.

Reply by her:
With respect this does not add to what you have already stated and just opinion / assumptions with no evidence. Jeremiah 1 doesn’t help – that’s just saying God knows his plans before he even sets them in motion. Otherwise what you are saying God formed Jesus, how can God be formed or created!

I think this conversation has been exhausted.

 

[williamjordan]

Reply by her:
With respect this does not add to what you have already stated and just opinion / assumptions with no evidence. Jeremiah 1 doesn’t help – that’s just saying God knows his plans before he even sets them in motion. Otherwise what you are saying God formed Jesus, how can God be formed or created!

I think this conversation has been exhausted.

I think a closer reading of the text is much needed. Jer. 1:4-9 does not speak of the Word being formed or created. Rather, it is speaking about the Word’s participation in the action, just like Isaiah 44:24 does when it speaks of God “who formed you in the womb.”

Where Isaiah 44:24 speaks of God performing the action of the verb, Jeremiah 1:5 places the action of the verb also God, who acts through His Word. The Word becomes apart of God’s “metaphysic.”

How in the world does anyone take Jer. 1:4-9 to suggest the Word is created?

 

[Needevidence]

I think a closer reading of the text is much needed. Jer. 1:4-9 does not speak of the Word being formed or created. Rather, it is speaking about the Word’s participation in the action, just like Isaiah 44:24 does when it speaks of God “who formed you in the womb.”

Where Isaiah 44:24 speaks of God performing the action of the verb, Jeremiah 1:5 places the action of the verb also God, who acts through His Word. The Word becomes apart of God’s “metaphysic.”

How in the world does anyone take Jer. 1:4-9 to suggest the Word is created?

Nope - just your interpretation - formed would imply being created as with Isaiah 44 - God is stating that he formed the Israelites.

 

[smid]

Coming out of discussion in one of the threads, "Can you be a true Christian and deny belief in the Trinity?"
Let's discuss.

I believe that you must believe in the trinity because it's because it's a father son and the holy spirit he must believe in all three

 

[PaulThomson]

Coming out of discussion in one of the threads, "Can you be a true Christian and deny belief in the Trinity?"
Let's discuss.

Yes. Very few people understand the Trinity doctrine, and it promotes dishonesty to require people who don't understand the Trinity doctrine to confess they believe it to get saved. What? You must lie to get saved? If a person sees the deity of The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in scrioture, only then should they confess believing it.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Yes. Very few people understand the Trinity doctrine, and it promotes dishonesty to require people who don't understand the Trinity doctrine to confess they believe it to get saved. What? You must lie to get saved? If a person sees the deity of The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in scrioture, only then should they confess believing it.

Any time someone says, "Very few people understand," it's time to run.

 

[evyaniy]

Believing in the Son for the forgiveness of sins is what is required to be saved. Most believers know very little Scripture when they first believe. They embark on a journey when they first believe and ask for forgiveness. They begin to study Scripture and learn and mark favorite verses and ponder what they read. It is a process as they begin to clean up their lives and relationships as the Spirit works in them. They come to fuller understanding over time and grow through their own experiences and even their failures. They view the world and what is taking place through their faith and grow in grace as they come to realize their own sinfulness and need of their Savior in their daily lives.

Those who know the Scriptures and willfully try to subvert what the Word teaches and push their interpretations on others as required doctrine is a separate issue. That enters the realm of Scribal and Pharisaical insistence on exactly what people must believe and do to be saved which usually includes some set of manmade rules and rituals that are required for Salvation, which they do not even really follow themselves. They want to lord over other people and their understanding and allegiances.

The discussions are worthwhile in that they make us dig deeper into Scripture for fuller understanding. Those who think they have it all figured out on either extreme often treat others with disdain revealing it has become about pride in their assertions. That is a telltale indication of those who are not acting in sincerity. Then it becomes a spitting match between the various extremes which results in people saying inappropriate things to each other. It is no longer about sharing and learning and becomes about winning an argument which makes believers look bad to discredit their faith.

That is why we are instructed to walk away from such contentious exchanges after a couple attempts to share our understanding of what is being discussed. Sharing relevant Scripture verses can be helpful as well and is usually not appreciated by those who want to argue. Many recent examples can be given and those who only want to argue go away after people stop talking with them. Others are in it for the long haul and get some kind of twisted satisfaction from putting others down. To each their own. Everything will eventually be know. In the mean time living with grace and love and baby faith is the answer.

 

[CS1]

Yes. Very few people understand the Trinity doctrine, and it promotes dishonesty to require people who don't understand the Trinity doctrine to confess they believe it to get saved. What? You must lie to get saved? If a person sees the deity of The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in scrioture, only then should they confess believing it.

No one can fully understand the Eternal Godhead

 

[Nehemiah6]

No one can fully understand the Eternal Godhead

This is true. At the same time the Gospel is crystal clear. God the Son became a sinless Man to die for our sins. Therefore to believe on Him is to recognize that it is God who came to die for us. Then when a person is baptized, they also see the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as being involved in salvation.

 

[CS1]

This is true. At the same time the Gospel is crystal clear. God the Son became a sinless Man to die for our sins. Therefore to believe on Him is to recognize that it is God who came to die for us. Then when a person is baptized, they also see the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as being involved in salvation.

amen 100% agree. This is why those who attack the "Trinity" also attack the Lord Jesus as God, not all but many of them. Therefore

They can't be saved. They have tey to be enlightened. This is spiritually discerned.

1Cor 12 : 3 says

3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.


It is not the statement. What saved you it is the faith and belief in the Statement that was said.