dzim77

The doctrine of Trinity is a paradox. A paradox that is clearly stated in the Bible. You may choose not to believe it (of course) and say that it's ludicrous, but it is still clearly there.

Steven Avery

Dzim is on solid ground on this part of the discussion. I remember when I first considered that interpretation it was like a lightbulb going off ... ahhh, that is a kewl understanding .

John Gill goes into this in some depth..
http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/.../matthew19.htm

why callest thou me good? not that he denied that he was so; for he was good, both as God and man, in his divine and human natures; in all his offices, and the execution of them; he was goodness itself, and did good, and nothing else but good. But the reason of the question is, because this young man considered him only as a mere man, and gave him this character as such; and which, in comparison of God, the fountain of all goodness, agrees with no mere man: wherefore our Lord's view is, by his own language; and from his own words, to instruct him in the knowledge of his proper deity ...

What Christ here says of God, the {b} Jews say of the law of Moses, whose praise they can never enough extol; hrwt ala bwj Nya "there is nothing good but the law." The law is good indeed; but the author of it must be allowed to be infinitely more so.

{b} T. Hieroa. Roshhashanah, fol. 59. 1. Tzeror Hammor, fol. 151. 2

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

For this post we will just discuss the early church writer references.

(The attempt to write in such a way as to hide the overwhelming manuscript evidence .. even the majority of the "great uncials" .. can be discussed separately. It involves lots of par-for-the-course language parsing where even one oddball, corrupt manuscript can be related in such a way that it sounds like it weighs as more than a wide swath of compelling manuscript evidences. I am thinking particularly of the Syriac yet the concept holds true on the Greek and Latin as well.)

====

Please remember that the dating of the ante-Nicene early church writer references on this post precedes the extant manuscripts. As these men and writings were quoting the long ending of Mark from their Bibles, Matthew with the long ending was in their hands before the earliest extant manuscripts that are the basis of the Westcott-Hort error.

btw, I wonder if Roger could help with the question of whether Eusebius (and Jerome) would have had access to all these references as we do today.

The real dishonesty here is JW knowingly and deliberately pretending yet again (this was covered before on this forum) to present the early church writer evidence - while omitting many ante-Nicene writings with 10+ references, starting from the second century. Clear references.

While this skewers the evidences (eg. Jerome considered the long ending as scripture in both the Vulgate and his commentary) that is not the main trickery and is discussed elsewhere.

What is to be noted carefully is the reason Joe quotes Metzger as the starting point. It is the Metzger omissions that tags the presentation as dishonest. Joe piggy-backs his own unscholarly presentation by selectively using Metzger's faulty, incomplete presentation.

The following early church writer references are simply omitted by Joe. Even one or two would be extremely significant.

2nd Century
Irenaeus
Diatessoran

Ante-Nicene
Apostolic Constitutions (3 references)
Tertullian
Treatise on Rebaptism
Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes

Solid references.

And as Peter Kirby mentioned.

"A good number of scholars think that the passage was also known to
Justin Martyr (c. 155) and to the Epistula Apostolorum (c. 145)"

And important quotations are also from the -

Council of Carthage (Vincentius) under Cyprian
Apostolic Tradition - Hippolytus

Also there are a number of ante-Nicene apocrypha references.

And then by the early post-Nicene period, (the same time period as the earliest significant manuscript omissions) the evidences snowball even more).

So .. how can anybody discuss the possible evidence from silence of Origen and Clement as of seemingly great significance ? ..

While deliberately leaving out, not mentioning, direct evidences from voice of Irenaeus, Diatessoran Apostolic Constitutions, Tertullian, the Treatise on Rebaptism and many more.

In a very real sense Joe does do an excellent job of demonstrating dishonesty, his purpose in the thread. In his own presentation of evidences, and not in the origin of Mark 16:9-20.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Iasion

Greetings,

Yes.
A doctrine that is not found in the Bible.


The trinity doctrine developed later as a means of reconciling these inconsistent views.

THEN, the trinity passage was added to the NT.


Because the earliest MSS do NOT have the passage. The earliest Greek MSS with this passage is from the 16th century.

Did you really not know this passage was added? Perhaps you should study this subject before preaching anymore.


Wrong.
I asked what THIS passage had to do with the Trinity -

No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

A passage which says NOTHING about any 3 in 1.
Then YOU had the hide to insult me, when YOUR passage had NOTHING to do with your claims.


YOU claimed the Trinity doctrine was not made clear until the NT. I pointed out that the NT proclaimed the trinity - but not any early Christian.

Jesus did not proclaim the trinity,
Paul did not either,
1,2 Peter didn't mention it,
nor 1,2,3 John originally,
nor Jude,
nor James,
nor G.Mark
nor G.Matthew
nor G.Luke
nor G.John
nor Clement,
nor Barnabas
nor the Didakhe
etc. etc.

Instead the trinity doctrine was developed centuries after the time of Jesus.

But you don't see a problem with that?


Iasion

Iasion

Greetings Heidi,

Sorry.
The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with compiling the bible.

It's a very common urban legend.


Iasion

Iasion

Greetings,

Well, "tradition" means "what Christians believe". In other words, you are preaching faithful Christian beliefs.

But the view of modern scholars however is quite different :

G.Matthew was not written by Matthew, or any witness to any historical Jesus.

None of the NT books were written by anyone who met any historical Jesus.


Iasion

Steven Avery

Should we put these fiat claims in the same category as your recent claim about John 1 -

"This passage was a later addition to the NT"

I asked you on post 62 on this thread to discuss this claim. John 1 has substantive early church writer usage and no manuscript problems so it appeared to be only doctrinally motivated. Very dicey.

Do you simply look for a scholar-of-sorts who says something you like, for itching ears, and then blithely quote a vague remembrance as fact ? And then ferget by who, and even the reasons why, supposedly, the claim was made ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Iasion

Greetings praxeus,

Trinity

According to modern NT scholars,
1 John 5:7 is an interpolation.

It is true that I am not arguing from personally evaluating the MSS. I am simply going by what the experts say.

How do you respond to the consensus of NT scholars arguing it is a later interpolation?

Your case has gone no further than preaching how reliable this passage is (without dealing with the actual MSS evidence), and citing some apologists.

But you fail to address the specific facts that have been cited here - e.g. that ALL the Greek MSS are MISSING this passage (until 16th C.)

How do you explain that?

Mark 16:9-20

Most Bibles these days bracket this passage with a comment such as :

"The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20"

How do you explain that most Bibles disagree with you?


Iasion

Iasion

Greetings,

Originally Posted by Iasion
the view of modern scholars however is quite different : G.Matthew was not written by Matthew, or any witness to any historical Jesus. None of the NT books were written by anyone who met any historical Jesus.

Not a fiat claim, but merely a simple observation -
I read many modern NT scholars (Brown, Jerome commentary, Metzger, Ehrman, Aland et al).

I see that the general consensus is:
* Paul never met any Jesus (obvious)
* the epistles are pseudo-graphs
* the Gospels are pseudo-graphs

Not one of the NT books is considered to be have been written by anyone who actually met any Jesus. (Although they don't usually say it that directly, and there are some uncertainties on many issues.)

If YOU think there is a book which the consensus of modern NT scholars agree is by a witness to Jesus - then tell us which book, and which scholars.


Iasion

Amaleq13

This is simply a false statement and your efforts show it. The closest you get to "clearly stated" is the passage in question and even that is arguable given that "and these three are one" can be understood as "in total agreement" rather than the mystical babble Christians embrace.

Jesus is consistently depicted throughout the Synoptics as considering and referring to God as a separate entity from himself. Likewise with the "Holy Spirit". That the fundamental incoherence of the concept allows you to read it into those texts changes nothing.

No, I am incapable of choosing to believe such incoherence.