Can the Trinity be Biblically proven?
- Thread starter bluto
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Mark 10:18 (ESV)
[SUP]18 [/SUP]And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
Jesus is questioning his motive for calling Him good, not the fact that he did call Him good.
John 10:11 (ESV)
[SUP]11 [/SUP]I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
John 10:14 (ESV)
[SUP]14 [/SUP]I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me,
"KNOW" is that inner personal LOVE relationship that only comes AFTER one is Born Again.
John 10:17 (ESV)
[SUP]17 [/SUP]For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again.
John 2:19 (ESV)
[SUP]19 [/SUP]Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
John 2:21 (ESV)
[SUP]21 [/SUP]But he was speaking about the temple of his body.
Acts 10:40-41 (NASB)
[SUP]40 [/SUP]"God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible,
[SUP]41 [/SUP]not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead.
If Jesus is not GOD incarnate, then JESUS LIES, which is a sin.
1 John 3:5 (HCSB)
[SUP]5 [/SUP]You know that He was revealed so that He might take away sins, and there is no sin in Him.
[SUP]18 [/SUP]And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
Jesus is questioning his motive for calling Him good, not the fact that he did call Him good.
John 10:11 (ESV)
[SUP]11 [/SUP]I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
John 10:14 (ESV)
[SUP]14 [/SUP]I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me,
"KNOW" is that inner personal LOVE relationship that only comes AFTER one is Born Again.
John 10:17 (ESV)
[SUP]17 [/SUP]For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again.
John 2:19 (ESV)
[SUP]19 [/SUP]Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
John 2:21 (ESV)
[SUP]21 [/SUP]But he was speaking about the temple of his body.
Acts 10:40-41 (NASB)
[SUP]40 [/SUP]"God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible,
[SUP]41 [/SUP]not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead.
If Jesus is not GOD incarnate, then JESUS LIES, which is a sin.
1 John 3:5 (HCSB)
[SUP]5 [/SUP]You know that He was revealed so that He might take away sins, and there is no sin in Him.
Jaybird, read my post again, you missed the whole meaning.
I was stating that IF those who DENY the DEITY of CHRIST are right, then JESUS lied when HE said HE would raise up HIS dead Body. The ONLY way both GOD raised Him from the dead and I will raise it up can both be absolute truth is the fact that JESUS is GOD in the Flesh.
My post validates that the following verse is LITERAL TRUTH:
Colossians 2:9 (NRSV)
[SUP]9 [/SUP] For in Him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,
I was stating that IF those who DENY the DEITY of CHRIST are right, then JESUS lied when HE said HE would raise up HIS dead Body. The ONLY way both GOD raised Him from the dead and I will raise it up can both be absolute truth is the fact that JESUS is GOD in the Flesh.
My post validates that the following verse is LITERAL TRUTH:
Colossians 2:9 (NRSV)
[SUP]9 [/SUP] For in Him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,
J
i did read it which is why i made the commit. what ur saying is anyone who disagrees with your opinion is calling Jesus a liar. your opinion is based on doctrine and your bending the words of the bible to make it fit.
no one disputes the truth of the bible, just your opinion of what it says.
the reason there is a dispute to begin with is because there are many many many passages in the bible, many the words of Jesus Himself, about Himself, that say different.
what we are arguing about is not a big deal but people like you make it a big deal. if it was a big deal Jesus would have made a clear, easy to understand teaching on it. the roman councils that make the doctrines make them clear and easy to understand, was this beyond Jesus and the 12, i dont think so.
no one disputes the truth of the bible, just your opinion of what it says.
the reason there is a dispute to begin with is because there are many many many passages in the bible, many the words of Jesus Himself, about Himself, that say different.
what we are arguing about is not a big deal but people like you make it a big deal. if it was a big deal Jesus would have made a clear, easy to understand teaching on it. the roman councils that make the doctrines make them clear and easy to understand, was this beyond Jesus and the 12, i dont think so.
What do Maggots Eat?
What Do Maggots Eat? | eHow
Maggots eat rotting meat, no matter where it is located.
They do not eat any flesh that is still alive.
-
What do maggots eat?
What do maggots eat
Maggots eat any type of food, including rotten fruit, and dead bodies
-
maggots will feed on dead bodys
What Do Maggots Eat? | eHow
Maggots eat rotting meat, no matter where it is located.
They do not eat any flesh that is still alive.
-
What do maggots eat?
What do maggots eat
Maggots eat any type of food, including rotten fruit, and dead bodies
-
maggots will feed on dead bodys
NO, I said anyone who denies that Jesus is part of the ONE and only GOD there is, the HOLY TRINITY, is himself making JESUS a liar when HE said HE (JESUS) would raise up His dead body; when it clearly says that GOD RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD. Therefore, JESUS HAS TO BE DEITY for both statements to be true.
NOW it is MY TURN to ask you a question.
Do you believe in the DEITY of Jesus Christ? Yes or No?
NOW it is MY TURN to ask you a question.
Do you believe in the DEITY of Jesus Christ? Yes or No?
The subject of Hell is complicated due to transliteration errors by both the KJV as well as the NIV.
1. The KJV translated OT Hebrew Sheol as Hell, regardless of whether it refers to temporal or permanent punishment intended from the original translations.
2. The NIV translated it as the grave, when it is also the place where the spirits of the dead went in the OT times.
Quote from the Bible Dictionary describes Hell as follows:
"The real existence of hell is irrefutably taught in Scripture as both a place of the wicked dead and a condition of retribution for unredeemed man. It is plain that 'to die in sin' is a dreadful thing. [e.g. Ez.3:18; NIV footnote].
The nature of hell is indicated by the repeated reference to eternal punishment [Mt.25:46], eternal fire [Mt.18:8, Jude 7], everlasting chains [Jude 6], the pit of the Abyss [Rev.9:2, 11], outer darkness [Mt.8:12], the wrath of God [Rom.2:5, second death [Rev.21:8], eternal destruction from the face of God [2 Thes.1:9], and eternal sin [Mk.3:29]. While some of these terms are symbolic and descriptive, they connote real entities, about whose existence there can be no doubt."
To start with, both the English term Hell, as well as the Greek term Hades come from the transliteration of the OT Hebrew term, Sheol - which has several meanings. Therein come the mistranslations.
First of all, the direction for Sheol is always downward, into the earth below. The first meaning for Sheol, is simply reference to the grave for the dead body. All in all, Sheol was believed to be temporary, in connection with the wicked, but not the righteous, which will be covered a little later on.
In the second place, both the wicked as well as the righteous spirit/souls went to Sheol when the body died, in the OT [As found in Jesus narrative of Lk.16:19-31 about Lazarus and the rich man, which is a perfect profile of Sheol]. The righteous went there because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins, according to Heb.10:4. Therefore, the righteous ones in Sheol, had to await Jesus death and resurrection before their sins were forgiven them, as Paul explains in Rom.3:25-26, as well as in Ps.49:14-15.
In the third place, documentation Sheol was the place where the wicked went, separated from God and awaiting judgement, in Ps.6:5; 30:3, 9; 88:3-6; Job 17:13-16 and Isa.38:18.
The next important element in the Biblical teachings about Hell, comes from the Hebrew term, 'Topheth,' in Jer.7:31-32, which means, 'Place of fire,' that was located in the Valley of [ben] Hinnom,' or the Valley of the son of Hinnom,' or just plain, 'the Valley of Hinnom' [It is now nothing but a rubbish dump], with the fire going continually as a reminder of its origins, as follows:
It received its name from the wicked kings of Judah, Ahaz and Manasseh, who sacrificed their own children to the god, Molech, through the fire at Topheth, which formed part of the border between Judah and Benjamin. [2 Kgs.16:3 and 2 Chr.28:3 re Ahaz, and 2 Kgs.21:6 and 2 Chr.33:6 re Manasseh].
The Greeks used the term, Gehenna [Also geenna], to describe the Valley of the son of Hinnom, meaning, the 'place of fire,' in Hebrew, or 'The Lake of Fire," in English, the place of permanent punisment for the wicked. Jesus used this very term in the following passages of Scripture that were rendered 'Hell' in the KJV. [Mt.5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mk.9:43, 45, 47; Lk.12:5. James also used it in Jas.3:6]. In each case, Jesus clearly meant, permanent punishment. The term Tartarus is found in some translations, in 2 Pet.4:2, in reference to the fallen angels/sons of God, found in Gen.6:2 and 4.
The Greek term Hades is used to describe the 'state of the dead,' and was considered temporal, in contrast to the permanent punishment of the wicked, described by their term, "Gehenna." Hades was the Greek god of the lower regions. The KJV rendered it 'Hell' ten times, when it should have been translated Gehenna, for permanent punishment.
Therefore, there are two parts to Hell: those in [temporal] Tartarus, Sheol, Hades and Hell, awaiting the second resurrection and great white throne judgement, and those whose names are not found written in the book of life, will be thrown into [Gehenna] the Lake of Fire - along with death, and [temporal] Tartarus, Hades [Sheol and Hell]. Rev.20:11-15.
Hope this helps.
Quasar
To the Reader,
Thou hast given a standard to them that fear thee;
that it may be displayed because of the truth
— Psalm 60:4
The teaching of the Godhead or Trinity is found in the Bible! Jesus said it! (Matthew 28:19) Paul taught it in his benediction!(2 Corinthians 13:14) Matthew recorded it! (Matthew 3:16-17) Peter mentioned it! (1Peter 1:2) and Apostle John proved it! 1John 5:7
Quasars’ system of theology is mixed and holds many heretical teachings of the past. Quasar’s opinion is flawed not the scriptures. It’s a mix up mind including the today’s teaching of the JW, SDA, Armstronganism, Unitarians and others. Later, we will unearth his claimed that he developed his teaching for how many years since he rejected the Trinitarian view of the Bible for teaching it in the past 45 years. One thing, what he is trying to promote is the idea of non co-equal or co-eternal of Christ in the Godhead thus ever denying the “eternal Sonship of the Christ.” So aside from the testimony of Christ himself and his Apostles , Quasar92 basically attacked the foundational Christian belief of the “fullness of the Godhead of Christ” or the full Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Of course, Quasars’ belief about Christ being not eternal Son of the Father which he claimed he developed was actually been fully developed during the 16[SUP]th[/SUP] and 17[SUP]th[/SUP] ce. By Faustus Sozinni…then again, this teaching goes back a long, long way to a 4[SUP]th[/SUP] ce. To a named Bishop Photinus. Here is a glimpse of factual researched for consideration.
Photinus (Greek Φωτεινός; died 376),[SUP][1][/SUP] was best known for denying the incarnation of Christ.
At the time Photinus voiced his own theological system, according to which Jesus was not divine and the Logos did not exist before the conception of Jesus.[SUP][9][/SUP] For Photinus the Logos was simply a mode of manifestation of the Father, hence he denied the pre-existence of Christ and saw theophanies in the Old Testament as of the father, and the image of the "Son of God" (actually, Son of man) in front of (and distinct from) the Ancient of Days as prediction only.[SUP][10][/SUP] As a matter of fact, Photinus' apprehension of God as Father, and his teachings about the nature of Jesus
Christ are maybe more complex than has been thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photinus
Then again
Socinianism (pronunciation: /səˈsɪniːənizm/) is a system of doctrine named for Fausto Sozzini (Latin: Faustus Socinus), which was developed among the Polish Brethren in the Minor Reformed Church of Poland during the 16th and 17th centuries[SUP][1][/SUP] and embraced by the Unitarian Church of Transylvania during the same period.[SUP][2][/SUP] It is most famous for its Nontrinitarian Christology but contains a number of other unorthodox beliefs as well.
…the Sozzinis, rejected the pre-existence of Christ and held that Jesus Christ did not exist until he was conceived of the virgin birth as a human being. This view had been put forward before by the 4th-century bishop Photinus, but it differed from the mainline Christian views, which hold that the Logos referred to in the Gospel of John was God, thus is uncreated and eternal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socinianism
So, Quasar’s teaching is not even new!
Indeed, the Bible clearly teaches that there’s a triune Godhead.
Quasar said “The Hebrew tetragramaton YHWH, is the EXCLUSIVE name of Almighty God, the Holy Spirit and Father, His title, of Jesus, who's title is Son, as documented in Mt.1:20 and in Lk.1:35. Yahshua is the Hebrew name of Jesus.”
We ask, if the Hebrew tetragramaton YHWH in English JHVH, is the EXCLUSIVE name of the Almighty God, then Jesus is JHVH pronounced Jehovah because Jesus is the Almighty, who was and is to come the Almighty God! (Revelation 1:8)
Scriptural verses that seem to promote Quasar’s opinion are either refuted in its context or can be easily understood and harmonize with the clear teaching of the Bible.
That’s right, wisdom is existed with God and Christ is the wisdom of God but it will be noticed that it was said unto Him while on His physical manifestation of God which Bluto had already mentioned it. 2 Timothy 2:15; 1 Corinthians 1:24. Christ pre-existence is called the “Word” in John 1:1. When God speaks in His creation, the words came out from the mouth of God and thus all has been created. The Father who said in His Word, and the Spirit that moves are very active in the Creation recorded in the Book of Genesis.
The word “Possessed”, “Firstborn” are not actually to means the same as the Bible taught being compared with Quasars man made theory. The Bible has defined itself more than man defined it. So basically Quasar’s understanding is solely based on his owned imagination. Above all, The Son of God is not a created spirit as Quasar claimed. Not only is that he tries to fix words to fit his system, he is fond of wresting God’s Word for his own destruction.
An educated Guess/ emendation by Quassar92 attempting to alter sound proof of the existence of the Trinity as found in Matthew 28:19 was very obvious, and his derogatory remark on 1 Jn.5:7, “… that was a late Latin insert around the 11th or 12th centuries that never appeared in any of the earlier, more reliable Greek manuscripts..”
Only a few critics/ agnostics say that Matthew 28:19 is altered by scribes. Matthew 28:19 is one of the full proofs of the trinity hence there is hatred behind its motivation. Many of the bible believers believe the very existence of the verse with only a few but full of unbelief. AT Robertson has devoted some commentaries on the subject and many more theologians like John Gill, Matthew Henry to name a few. Countless external evidence whether from both conservative and critical readings has these. For the 1 John 5:7 that the researched on believing that it is a late Latin insert around 11[SUP]th[/SUP] or 12[SUP]th[/SUP] Ce. is farther from the truth. Here is some evidence for retaining the verse of 1 John 5:7-8 in line with the preservation of God’s words. May I the refer you to the following site
Please see: 1 JOHN 5:7-8 - THE JOHANNINE COMMA
Quasar92 said “Annotation from the 1967 Scofield KJV version of the Bible, page 677:
"[Pr.8:22-36] That wisdom is more than the personification of an attribute of God, or the will of God as best for man, but is a distinct foreshadowing of Christ, is certain. Pr.6:22-36 with Jn.1:1-3; 1 Cor.1:24, Col.2:3, can refer to no one less than the eternal Son of God. Some say that "possessed" [Verse 22] should be rendered "created," which would thus indicate that Christ was a created being. As recorded in Gen.14:19 and 22."
However, What Quasar forget in quoting the 1967 Scofield KJV version is that the Editorial Committee did in fact believe in the “eternal Son of God”. What the footnotes stated was ”Some say…” not Editorial Committee say. Of course, the scriptures fully supported eternal pre-existence of Christ as known by David in Psalms 2: 7, 12; By Solomon Proverbs 8: 22, 30; by Daniel from whom it is probable Nebuchadnezzar had it,Daniel 3:25, from which it appears he was, and was known to be, the Son of God before he was born of the virgin, or before his incarnation, and therefore not called so on that account.
Another thing about the footnote, here is the exact rendering:
The wisdom is more than personification of an attribute of God, or of the will of God as best for man, but is a distinct foreshadowing of Christ is certain. Proverbs 8:22-26 with Jn.1:1-3; 1 Cor. 1:24; Col. 2:3 can refer to no one less than the eternal Son of God. Some say that “possessed” should be rendered “created” which would thus indicate that Christ was a created being. “Create” might fit the word in Genesis 14:14, 22, in other instances such a meaning would be absurd. The Hebrew word means possess or secure possession, and is frequently translated “get” or “buy” as in 4:5, 7; 23:23…
So Quassar92 “altered” the footnote to fit his own system:
Quassar92 said: Some say that "possessed" [Verse 22] should be rendered "created," which would thus indicate that Christ was a created being. As recorded in Gen.14:19 and 22."
Scofield Reference 1967: Some say that “possessed” should be rendered “created” which would thus indicate that Christ was a created being. “Create” might fit the word in Genesis 14:14, 22, in other instances such a meaning would be absurd.
The footnote says “Create” might fit…”meaning the Editors were only expressing possibility or probability, but not a precisely giving the signals to mean “Create” or “Creator” as Quassar92 claimed, in fact if anyone find the footnote in Genesis 14 in the said Reference Bible, the Editorial Committee has nothing to say of the word “create”. See footnotes on p.23
On the other hand, using the New Scofield Reference Bible footnotes in Matthew 29:19 pp. 1045-1046 , the Editors confessedly believe in the Trinity. BTW, Quassar92 must be kidding in mentioning CI Scofield as one of the Editorial Committee of the 1967 Edition of the said Reference Bible when in fact CI Scofield was already dead on July 24, 1921 that was 46 years past. The question asked: Is this the result of an in depth researched by Quassar92?
For me, I have to think it twice or even thrice!
God bless
Thou hast given a standard to them that fear thee;
that it may be displayed because of the truth
— Psalm 60:4
The teaching of the Godhead or Trinity is found in the Bible! Jesus said it! (Matthew 28:19) Paul taught it in his benediction!(2 Corinthians 13:14) Matthew recorded it! (Matthew 3:16-17) Peter mentioned it! (1Peter 1:2) and Apostle John proved it! 1John 5:7
Quasars’ system of theology is mixed and holds many heretical teachings of the past. Quasar’s opinion is flawed not the scriptures. It’s a mix up mind including the today’s teaching of the JW, SDA, Armstronganism, Unitarians and others. Later, we will unearth his claimed that he developed his teaching for how many years since he rejected the Trinitarian view of the Bible for teaching it in the past 45 years. One thing, what he is trying to promote is the idea of non co-equal or co-eternal of Christ in the Godhead thus ever denying the “eternal Sonship of the Christ.” So aside from the testimony of Christ himself and his Apostles , Quasar92 basically attacked the foundational Christian belief of the “fullness of the Godhead of Christ” or the full Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Of course, Quasars’ belief about Christ being not eternal Son of the Father which he claimed he developed was actually been fully developed during the 16[SUP]th[/SUP] and 17[SUP]th[/SUP] ce. By Faustus Sozinni…then again, this teaching goes back a long, long way to a 4[SUP]th[/SUP] ce. To a named Bishop Photinus. Here is a glimpse of factual researched for consideration.
Photinus (Greek Φωτεινός; died 376),[SUP][1][/SUP] was best known for denying the incarnation of Christ.
At the time Photinus voiced his own theological system, according to which Jesus was not divine and the Logos did not exist before the conception of Jesus.[SUP][9][/SUP] For Photinus the Logos was simply a mode of manifestation of the Father, hence he denied the pre-existence of Christ and saw theophanies in the Old Testament as of the father, and the image of the "Son of God" (actually, Son of man) in front of (and distinct from) the Ancient of Days as prediction only.[SUP][10][/SUP] As a matter of fact, Photinus' apprehension of God as Father, and his teachings about the nature of Jesus
Christ are maybe more complex than has been thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photinus
Then again
Socinianism (pronunciation: /səˈsɪniːənizm/) is a system of doctrine named for Fausto Sozzini (Latin: Faustus Socinus), which was developed among the Polish Brethren in the Minor Reformed Church of Poland during the 16th and 17th centuries[SUP][1][/SUP] and embraced by the Unitarian Church of Transylvania during the same period.[SUP][2][/SUP] It is most famous for its Nontrinitarian Christology but contains a number of other unorthodox beliefs as well.
…the Sozzinis, rejected the pre-existence of Christ and held that Jesus Christ did not exist until he was conceived of the virgin birth as a human being. This view had been put forward before by the 4th-century bishop Photinus, but it differed from the mainline Christian views, which hold that the Logos referred to in the Gospel of John was God, thus is uncreated and eternal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socinianism
So, Quasar’s teaching is not even new!
Indeed, the Bible clearly teaches that there’s a triune Godhead.
Quasar said “The Hebrew tetragramaton YHWH, is the EXCLUSIVE name of Almighty God, the Holy Spirit and Father, His title, of Jesus, who's title is Son, as documented in Mt.1:20 and in Lk.1:35. Yahshua is the Hebrew name of Jesus.”
We ask, if the Hebrew tetragramaton YHWH in English JHVH, is the EXCLUSIVE name of the Almighty God, then Jesus is JHVH pronounced Jehovah because Jesus is the Almighty, who was and is to come the Almighty God! (Revelation 1:8)
Scriptural verses that seem to promote Quasar’s opinion are either refuted in its context or can be easily understood and harmonize with the clear teaching of the Bible.
That’s right, wisdom is existed with God and Christ is the wisdom of God but it will be noticed that it was said unto Him while on His physical manifestation of God which Bluto had already mentioned it. 2 Timothy 2:15; 1 Corinthians 1:24. Christ pre-existence is called the “Word” in John 1:1. When God speaks in His creation, the words came out from the mouth of God and thus all has been created. The Father who said in His Word, and the Spirit that moves are very active in the Creation recorded in the Book of Genesis.
The word “Possessed”, “Firstborn” are not actually to means the same as the Bible taught being compared with Quasars man made theory. The Bible has defined itself more than man defined it. So basically Quasar’s understanding is solely based on his owned imagination. Above all, The Son of God is not a created spirit as Quasar claimed. Not only is that he tries to fix words to fit his system, he is fond of wresting God’s Word for his own destruction.
An educated Guess/ emendation by Quassar92 attempting to alter sound proof of the existence of the Trinity as found in Matthew 28:19 was very obvious, and his derogatory remark on 1 Jn.5:7, “… that was a late Latin insert around the 11th or 12th centuries that never appeared in any of the earlier, more reliable Greek manuscripts..”
Only a few critics/ agnostics say that Matthew 28:19 is altered by scribes. Matthew 28:19 is one of the full proofs of the trinity hence there is hatred behind its motivation. Many of the bible believers believe the very existence of the verse with only a few but full of unbelief. AT Robertson has devoted some commentaries on the subject and many more theologians like John Gill, Matthew Henry to name a few. Countless external evidence whether from both conservative and critical readings has these. For the 1 John 5:7 that the researched on believing that it is a late Latin insert around 11[SUP]th[/SUP] or 12[SUP]th[/SUP] Ce. is farther from the truth. Here is some evidence for retaining the verse of 1 John 5:7-8 in line with the preservation of God’s words. May I the refer you to the following site
Please see: 1 JOHN 5:7-8 - THE JOHANNINE COMMA
Quasar92 said “Annotation from the 1967 Scofield KJV version of the Bible, page 677:
"[Pr.8:22-36] That wisdom is more than the personification of an attribute of God, or the will of God as best for man, but is a distinct foreshadowing of Christ, is certain. Pr.6:22-36 with Jn.1:1-3; 1 Cor.1:24, Col.2:3, can refer to no one less than the eternal Son of God. Some say that "possessed" [Verse 22] should be rendered "created," which would thus indicate that Christ was a created being. As recorded in Gen.14:19 and 22."
However, What Quasar forget in quoting the 1967 Scofield KJV version is that the Editorial Committee did in fact believe in the “eternal Son of God”. What the footnotes stated was ”Some say…” not Editorial Committee say. Of course, the scriptures fully supported eternal pre-existence of Christ as known by David in Psalms 2: 7, 12; By Solomon Proverbs 8: 22, 30; by Daniel from whom it is probable Nebuchadnezzar had it,Daniel 3:25, from which it appears he was, and was known to be, the Son of God before he was born of the virgin, or before his incarnation, and therefore not called so on that account.
Another thing about the footnote, here is the exact rendering:
The wisdom is more than personification of an attribute of God, or of the will of God as best for man, but is a distinct foreshadowing of Christ is certain. Proverbs 8:22-26 with Jn.1:1-3; 1 Cor. 1:24; Col. 2:3 can refer to no one less than the eternal Son of God. Some say that “possessed” should be rendered “created” which would thus indicate that Christ was a created being. “Create” might fit the word in Genesis 14:14, 22, in other instances such a meaning would be absurd. The Hebrew word means possess or secure possession, and is frequently translated “get” or “buy” as in 4:5, 7; 23:23…
So Quassar92 “altered” the footnote to fit his own system:
Quassar92 said: Some say that "possessed" [Verse 22] should be rendered "created," which would thus indicate that Christ was a created being. As recorded in Gen.14:19 and 22."
Scofield Reference 1967: Some say that “possessed” should be rendered “created” which would thus indicate that Christ was a created being. “Create” might fit the word in Genesis 14:14, 22, in other instances such a meaning would be absurd.
The footnote says “Create” might fit…”meaning the Editors were only expressing possibility or probability, but not a precisely giving the signals to mean “Create” or “Creator” as Quassar92 claimed, in fact if anyone find the footnote in Genesis 14 in the said Reference Bible, the Editorial Committee has nothing to say of the word “create”. See footnotes on p.23
On the other hand, using the New Scofield Reference Bible footnotes in Matthew 29:19 pp. 1045-1046 , the Editors confessedly believe in the Trinity. BTW, Quassar92 must be kidding in mentioning CI Scofield as one of the Editorial Committee of the 1967 Edition of the said Reference Bible when in fact CI Scofield was already dead on July 24, 1921 that was 46 years past. The question asked: Is this the result of an in depth researched by Quassar92?
For me, I have to think it twice or even thrice!
God bless
Last edited:
Mt.28:19 and 1 Jn.5:7 is an alteration and an additive, respectively as the Scripture prove in the following:
1. What is God? He is Spirit, according to Jesus, in Jn.4:24 and Paul, in 2 Cor.3:17-18. That no one has ever seen Him and that He is invisible, are found in Jn.1:18; Rom.1:20; Col.1:15; 1 Tim.1:17; Heb.11:27 and in 1 Jn.4:12. [Moses, Abraham and Jacob saw the pre-incarnate Jesus, not God, the invisible Holy Spirit].
2. God, who is Spirit according to the Scriptures, is also Holy, according to Lev.11:44-45; Lev.19:2; Ps.99:3; Ps.99:5 and 1 Pet.1:15-16.
Therefore, according to the above Scriptural facts above, it becomes clear why Mt.28:19 as found in our Bibles today is an alteration from that which was originally written by the author. Jesus would never have made a statement like the present day translation, because He knew very well His Father was/is the Holy Spirit, according to Mt.1:20 and Lk,1:35. Jesus stated that His Father lived in Him doing His work, in Jn.14:10, clearly revealing His Father to be the Holy Spirit.
In addition, the practice of baptism by the Apostles, was always in the name of Jesus Christ, confirming the prophecy of John the Baptist, in Mt.3:11; Mk.1:8; Lk.3:16 and Jn.1:33, as found in Acts 2:38. Never in the triune theology Godhead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit - for the above Scriptural reasons.
In regards to 1 Jn.5:7, it is a late Latin insert of about the 12th century. It does not appear in any of the early Greek mss.
That the above views come from only a"few critics/agnostics is nothing but opinion as the two verses are actively debated by many who do not hokld to the doctrine of the Trinity. The Scriptures prove them both to be false.
As to the annotation I quoted from the Scofield version of the KJV, Yes, I left out the final statement,“Create” might fit the word in Genesis 14:14, 22, in other instances such a meaning would be absurd," because that is their opinion, and it is not absurd, and I can fully support it. Review the NIV translation of Gen.14:14 and 22, where it is ranslated possessir in the KJV, it is CREATED, in the NIV. Same as the pre-incarnated Jesus was possessed in the KJV, Pr.8:22. He was brought forth and given birth in Pr.8:22-25, in the NIV.
Get this straight! I have written where Jesus became the od/God the Son in Mt.1:20 and in Lk.1:35 mjany times over on this thread. I have NEVERdenied the deity of Jesus Christ.
I have studied this issue for 35 years and I herewith challenged to prove the Trinity from the Bible! And when you have finished your best effort, I will refute you from the Scriptures and show you who and what God is together with the origin of Jesus Christ, that can be taught from the Bible, the Trinity cannot be!
Quasar92
Quasar