The Trinity.
- Thread starter Aussie52
- 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.
Jesus received the Holy Spirit so he cannot be the Holy Spirit.
No it doesn't. That's poor reading comprehension. It clearly says his name will be called many things, including everlasting Father. He is eternal so everlasting, and he is a father just not his own father.
The bible never says God is one person.
Rev 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
Rev 5:7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.
That's two people, one taking a book from the other.
Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
Dan 7:14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
Here's the same two people again.
Did you forget about these passages when you accepted the God is one person doctrine?
No it doesn't. That's poor reading comprehension. It clearly says his name will be called many things, including everlasting Father. He is eternal so everlasting, and he is a father just not his own father.
The bible never says God is one person.
Rev 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
Rev 5:7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.
That's two people, one taking a book from the other.
Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
Dan 7:14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
Here's the same two people again.
Did you forget about these passages when you accepted the God is one person doctrine?
If it exists, it is there because they ARCHIVE it all.
here's a perfect example of them Archiving:
The Catholic Encyclopedia:
The baptismal formula was changed from the name of JESUS CHRIST to the words Father, Son, & Holy Ghost by the Catholic Church in the second century.
Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ.
The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until development of Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
Vol 2, Pg 263
Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church.
Vol 2, Pg 377
Christian baptism was administered using the words “In the name of Jesus”.
Vol 2, Pg 378
The use of a Trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in early Church history.
Vol 2, Pg 389
Baptism was always in the name of Lord Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr when Triune formula was used.
^
SO, if this GREEK Copy, that [[supposedly]] has the J. Comma in it EVER EXISTED, it would be easy to find because the RCC Archived everything!
here's a perfect example of them Archiving:
The Catholic Encyclopedia:
The baptismal formula was changed from the name of JESUS CHRIST to the words Father, Son, & Holy Ghost by the Catholic Church in the second century.
Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ.
The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until development of Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
Vol 2, Pg 263
Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church.
Vol 2, Pg 377
Christian baptism was administered using the words “In the name of Jesus”.
Vol 2, Pg 378
The use of a Trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in early Church history.
Vol 2, Pg 389
Baptism was always in the name of Lord Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr when Triune formula was used.
^
SO, if this GREEK Copy, that [[supposedly]] has the J. Comma in it EVER EXISTED, it would be easy to find because the RCC Archived everything!
i personally believe, the Spirit of God, is giving me the Discernment to understand, that when the RCC changed the Baptismal Formula, they also changed and added to the Bible. because, things like the J. Comma NEVER existed. Cyprian, RCC, created it.
The RCC created these Doctrines that fools follow.
The RCC created these Doctrines that fools follow.
I beg to disagree with your conclusion as said. Cyprian can easily speak or talk Greek language because he received an excellent classical education.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Saint_Cyprian_of_Carthage
Whether he was citing an Old Latin Bible or a Greek Bible, Cyprian knows full well that he is in agreement with 1 John 5:7 which he learned from his master Tertullian which explains the details concerning the text of 1 John 5:7, and that of the Gospel-John 10:30.
“Where Jerome sought to correct the Old Latin text with reference to the best recent Greek manuscripts, with a preference for those conforming to the Byzantine text-type, the Greek text underlying the revision of the rest of the New Testament demonstrates the Alexandrian text-type found in the great majuscule pandects of the mid 4th century, most similar to the Codex Sinaiticus. The reviser's changes generally conform very closely to this Greek text, even in matters of word order; to the extent that the resulting text may be only barely intelligible as Latin”
https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/36371#:~:text=Jerome himself translated all books,additions to the book of
So, Jerome actually didn’t have all the variant reading especially that of J. Comma or if he had, the translation from the Old Latin must conformed to the Alexandrian text type similar to Codex Sinaticus and or the Vaticanus.
I just think your conclusion understandably lacks depth and conveys misinformation
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Saint_Cyprian_of_Carthage
Whether he was citing an Old Latin Bible or a Greek Bible, Cyprian knows full well that he is in agreement with 1 John 5:7 which he learned from his master Tertullian which explains the details concerning the text of 1 John 5:7, and that of the Gospel-John 10:30.
“Where Jerome sought to correct the Old Latin text with reference to the best recent Greek manuscripts, with a preference for those conforming to the Byzantine text-type, the Greek text underlying the revision of the rest of the New Testament demonstrates the Alexandrian text-type found in the great majuscule pandects of the mid 4th century, most similar to the Codex Sinaiticus. The reviser's changes generally conform very closely to this Greek text, even in matters of word order; to the extent that the resulting text may be only barely intelligible as Latin”
https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/36371#:~:text=Jerome himself translated all books,additions to the book of
So, Jerome actually didn’t have all the variant reading especially that of J. Comma or if he had, the translation from the Old Latin must conformed to the Alexandrian text type similar to Codex Sinaticus and or the Vaticanus.
I just think your conclusion understandably lacks depth and conveys misinformation
i was TRYING to be NICE HERE when i posted the Catholic Encyclopedia concerning Baptism, that the RCC also had on record the J. COMMA. but clearly YOU refused to look it up. SO, i will show YOU what the RCC claims about the Authenticity of the J. COMMA is.
from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Integrity
The only part of the letter concerning the authenticity and canonicity whereof there is serious question is the famous passage of the three witnesses: "And there are three who give testimony (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth): the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one" (1 John 5:7-8). Throughout the past three hundred years, effort has been made to expunge from our Clementine Vulgate edition of canonical Scripture the words that are bracketed. Let us examine the facts of the case.
Greek manuscripts
The disputed part is found in no uncial Greek manuscripts and in only four rather recent cursives — one of the fifteenth and three of the sixteenth century. No Greek epistolary manuscript contains the passage.
^
Notice: in only four rather recent cursive [[so the J. Comma]] NOT in the ORIGINAL TEXT but Recently ADDED [at the time of this Documentation into the Catholic Encyclopedia]
as YOU CAN SEE, the J. COMMA [[[NEVER]]] existed in the GREEK, so John the Apostle, NEVER wrote this PASSAGE, it was NEVER INSPIRED by GOD.
it's a FALSE MYTHICAL ADD-IN.
and as i said, when the RCC changed the Baptismal Formula they ALSO added to our Holy Bible, which JESUS Commanded to NEVER do. but, they did it nonetheless.
from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Integrity
The only part of the letter concerning the authenticity and canonicity whereof there is serious question is the famous passage of the three witnesses: "And there are three who give testimony (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth): the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one" (1 John 5:7-8). Throughout the past three hundred years, effort has been made to expunge from our Clementine Vulgate edition of canonical Scripture the words that are bracketed. Let us examine the facts of the case.
Greek manuscripts
The disputed part is found in no uncial Greek manuscripts and in only four rather recent cursives — one of the fifteenth and three of the sixteenth century. No Greek epistolary manuscript contains the passage.
^
Notice: in only four rather recent cursive [[so the J. Comma]] NOT in the ORIGINAL TEXT but Recently ADDED [at the time of this Documentation into the Catholic Encyclopedia]
as YOU CAN SEE, the J. COMMA [[[NEVER]]] existed in the GREEK, so John the Apostle, NEVER wrote this PASSAGE, it was NEVER INSPIRED by GOD.
it's a FALSE MYTHICAL ADD-IN.
and as i said, when the RCC changed the Baptismal Formula they ALSO added to our Holy Bible, which JESUS Commanded to NEVER do. but, they did it nonetheless.
NASB textual basis if I am not mistaken is the NA 26 or a safe Nestle Aland where Metzger is one of the key figures. However,
In the 3rd edition of his book. Bruce Metzger retracted the false accusations against Erasmus. ...
"What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus' promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion." Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, 3rd Edition, p 291 fn 2.
In essence, those hundreds of scholars or more should heed Metzger's claim of error, but despite that modern scholarship we now have may just ignore Metzger, and that is the biggest problem.
In the 3rd edition of his book. Bruce Metzger retracted the false accusations against Erasmus. ...
"What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus' promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion." Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, 3rd Edition, p 291 fn 2.
In essence, those hundreds of scholars or more should heed Metzger's claim of error, but despite that modern scholarship we now have may just ignore Metzger, and that is the biggest problem.
i was TRYING to be NICE HERE when i posted the Catholic Encyclopedia concerning Baptism, that the RCC also had on record the J. COMMA. but clearly YOU refused to look it up. SO, i will show YOU what the RCC claims about the Authenticity of the J. COMMA is.
from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Integrity
The only part of the letter concerning the authenticity and canonicity whereof there is serious question is the famous passage of the three witnesses: "And there are three who give testimony (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth): the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one" (1 John 5:7-8). Throughout the past three hundred years, effort has been made to expunge from our Clementine Vulgate edition of canonical Scripture the words that are bracketed. Let us examine the facts of the case.
Greek manuscripts
The disputed part is found in no uncial Greek manuscripts and in only four rather recent cursives — one of the fifteenth and three of the sixteenth century. No Greek epistolary manuscript contains the passage.
^
Notice: in only four rather recent cursive [[so the J. Comma]] NOT in the ORIGINAL TEXT but Recently ADDED [at the time of this Documentation into the Catholic Encyclopedia] : No Greek epistolary manuscript contains the passage.
as YOU CAN SEE, the J. COMMA [[[NEVER]]] existed in the GREEK, so John the Apostle, NEVER wrote this PASSAGE, it was NEVER INSPIRED by GOD.
it's a FALSE MYTHICAL ADD-IN.
and as i said, when the RCC changed the Baptismal Formula they ALSO added to our Holy Bible, which JESUS Commanded to NEVER do. but, they did it nonetheless.
from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Integrity
The only part of the letter concerning the authenticity and canonicity whereof there is serious question is the famous passage of the three witnesses: "And there are three who give testimony (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth): the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one" (1 John 5:7-8). Throughout the past three hundred years, effort has been made to expunge from our Clementine Vulgate edition of canonical Scripture the words that are bracketed. Let us examine the facts of the case.
Greek manuscripts
The disputed part is found in no uncial Greek manuscripts and in only four rather recent cursives — one of the fifteenth and three of the sixteenth century. No Greek epistolary manuscript contains the passage.
^
Notice: in only four rather recent cursive [[so the J. Comma]] NOT in the ORIGINAL TEXT but Recently ADDED [at the time of this Documentation into the Catholic Encyclopedia] : No Greek epistolary manuscript contains the passage.
as YOU CAN SEE, the J. COMMA [[[NEVER]]] existed in the GREEK, so John the Apostle, NEVER wrote this PASSAGE, it was NEVER INSPIRED by GOD.
it's a FALSE MYTHICAL ADD-IN.
and as i said, when the RCC changed the Baptismal Formula they ALSO added to our Holy Bible, which JESUS Commanded to NEVER do. but, they did it nonetheless.
Hi,
Your resource in an RCC Encyclopedia, right? And they did mention of the Clementine Vulgate, the Old Latin meaning to say it is older than Jerome’s work. The Old Latin therefore which is mostly of Byzantine Text Type rather than the Alexandrian Text Type have been omitted rather than added. The Codex Fuldenses asserts the passage and made this clear that the Old Latin was indeed an omission.
Here is what the Old Latin of Byzantine Text Type
1 John 5:7
Clementine_Vulgate(i) 7 Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt.
Here is what Jerome patterning his translation to Alexandrian Text Type
1 John 5:7
Vulgate(i) 7 quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant
So, the Clementine Vulgate differs exactly to the Jerome’s works. His work is in accordance to pope Damasus.
Your resource in an RCC Encyclopedia, right? And they did mention of the Clementine Vulgate, the Old Latin meaning to say it is older than Jerome’s work. The Old Latin therefore which is mostly of Byzantine Text Type rather than the Alexandrian Text Type have been omitted rather than added. The Codex Fuldenses asserts the passage and made this clear that the Old Latin was indeed an omission.
Here is what the Old Latin of Byzantine Text Type
1 John 5:7
Clementine_Vulgate(i) 7 Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt.
Here is what Jerome patterning his translation to Alexandrian Text Type
1 John 5:7
Vulgate(i) 7 quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant
So, the Clementine Vulgate differs exactly to the Jerome’s works. His work is in accordance to pope Damasus.
that is the LATIN.
it never existed in the GREEK.
if something NEVER existed in the GREEK, how does it magically appear in the LATIN [it's not in the GREEK and the GREEK came before the Latin]?
Greek manuscripts
The disputed part is found in no uncial Greek manuscripts and in only four rather recent cursives — one of the fifteenth and three of the sixteenth century. No Greek epistolary manuscript contains the passage.
it never existed in the GREEK.
if something NEVER existed in the GREEK, how does it magically appear in the LATIN [it's not in the GREEK and the GREEK came before the Latin]?
Greek manuscripts
The disputed part is found in no uncial Greek manuscripts and in only four rather recent cursives — one of the fifteenth and three of the sixteenth century. No Greek epistolary manuscript contains the passage.
The Witness of the Latin Fathers is older that the SIN VAT. Anyways examining the Vatican Mss have this umlaut.
The presence of umlauts or the dotted lines meant there was a variant reading and it’s quite clear that the scribe of Vaticanus knows well that there is a variant reading and there are no other readings besides the Byzantine Type text which is the original reading being expunge or omitted attested by the Old Latin and quotations from the Latin Fathers.
The presence of umlauts or the dotted lines meant there was a variant reading and it’s quite clear that the scribe of Vaticanus knows well that there is a variant reading and there are no other readings besides the Byzantine Type text which is the original reading being expunge or omitted attested by the Old Latin and quotations from the Latin Fathers.
i was hoping you would research, but, you're in such denial i will help you.
from the same Page, the other info i added:
The Fathers
(1) Greek Fathers, until the twelfth century, seem one and all to have had no knowledge of the three witnesses as canonical Scripture.
SEE, it did not come from the GREEK, it was made up by the RCC:
(1) Greek Fathers, until the twelfth century, seem one and all to [[[(((have had no knowledge)))]]] of the three witnesses as canonical Scripture.
This means, the Apostle John, DID NOT WRITE THIS!!
so, it's a FORGERY and FAKE!
from the same Page, the other info i added:
The Fathers
(1) Greek Fathers, until the twelfth century, seem one and all to have had no knowledge of the three witnesses as canonical Scripture.
SEE, it did not come from the GREEK, it was made up by the RCC:
(1) Greek Fathers, until the twelfth century, seem one and all to [[[(((have had no knowledge)))]]] of the three witnesses as canonical Scripture.
This means, the Apostle John, DID NOT WRITE THIS!!
so, it's a FORGERY and FAKE!
Greek manuscript or the external evidence is not all the proof my friend, sure Vaticanus and the Sinaticus are 4th ce RCC manuscripts and earlier than the extant TR's but I believe that the Greek earlier copies have been ommited because the Vaticanus itself has dotted lines called umlauts which means to say there is a variant reading. Perhaps this is an interesting read for the Umlaut.
https://www.linguistsoftware.com/Payne2000NovT-Vaticanus_umlauts_1Cor14_34-35.pdf
https://www.linguistsoftware.com/Payne2000NovT-Vaticanus_umlauts_1Cor14_34-35.pdf