sunsettommy

Well it is important to understand who god is.Therefore it does matter if a trinity is real or not.

The word trinity is not in the bible.There is no explicit verse stating one.There is not even circumstantial verses stating one.

Surely god would be specific on it if there was indeed a trinity.

Otherwise why create a belief with no biblical support?

sunsettommy

It has been confirmed to be a FORGERY.

Compare it to the one that is accepted as genuine.It is quite different.

RED DAVE

Considering the fact that xtians are arrogant enough to think that their religion is a fulfillment of the Jewish religion, I would love to see anything in the OT that refers to a trinity that doesn't involve extensive quote mining.

Obvious, if God is a trinity, the dude has always been a trinity, and he would have said so at some point.

RED DAVE

Paradox

I agree with the first sentence, but why is it necessary to understand that god is a Trinity? Considering how ilogical the concept is, one can only get around it by saying that god, by definition, is not completely understandable to a finite humanbeing. That being the case, the Trinity may very well be one of god's descriptions, but not a necessity to human understanding.

:banghead: Didn't I just explain that in my last post?

Just because the specifics aren't layed out in obvious sight within the texts, does not mean that it isn't in there. There are those that would say that god enjoys and expects christians to study the bible so that they can discover these things for themselves. There's nothing quite like the thrill of discovery.

There are other more important issues which really should be spelled out obviously but aren't. The Trinity isn't one of those things.

Steven Avery

One mathematician (and physicist) who wrote on this would be Robert A. Herrmann, "Oneness, the Trinity and Logic"

Steven Avery

Hmm... I must have missed who and where "confirmed" this accusation. Do you have some real evidence ?

Please keep in mind that the Johannine Comma is referenced in the early church writings as early as Cyprian in the early third century and again and again the early church, with no accusations of forgery made in those times in response.

As to the history of the Comma, and why it dropped out of most of the Greek line, there are actually almost opposite theories offered by the theorists (among those who believe that it is original). We tend to look at ancient discussions and debate through a lens of our modern glasses, placing modern apologetics over their early writings.

For consideration, note that the Comma was quoted by the non-Trinitarian Priscillian (late 4th century), and it is very possible that in the early centuries the final part of the verse was considered more as ammunition for a one God (or Sabellian) viewpoint, rather than primarily seeing the verse as a Trinitarian help.

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

JoeWallack

JW:
"5.7–8 μαÏ?Ï„Ï…Ï?οῦντες, 8 τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωÏ? καὶ τὸ αἷμα {A}
After μαÏ?Ï„Ï…Ï?οῦντες the Textus Receptus adds the following: á¼?ν Ï„á¿· οá½?Ï?ανῷ, á½? �*ατήÏ?, á½? Λόγος, καὶ τὸ á¼?γιον �*νεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ Ï„Ï?εῖς ἔν εἰσι. (8) καὶ Ï„Ï?εῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαÏ?Ï„Ï…Ï?οῦντες á¼?ν τῇ γῇ. That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.
(A) External Evidence. (1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. The eight manuscripts are as follows:
61:
codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.
88v.r.:
a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
221v.r.:
a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
429v.r.:
a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.
636v.r.:
a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.
918:
a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
2318:
an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.
(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.
(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541–46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).
The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars. (For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1 John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.)
(B) Internal Probabilities. (1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.
(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.
For the story of how the spurious words came to be included in the Textus Receptus, see any critical commentary on 1 John, or Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 101 f.; cf. also Ezra Abbot, “I. John v. 7 and Luther’s German Bible,� in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays (Boston, 1888), pp. 458–463."

Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. 1994. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition; a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) . United Bible Societies: London; New York


JW:
The Metz is currently as good as Christian Textual Criticism gets but I, Joseph, say unto you O ZEhermanBharttle, that you will become the Cornerstone of honest Christian Bible scholarship.

Ehrman's fellow Evangelicals warned him not to go to Princeton and Fall under the influence of Evil Conservative Christianity and (the) Ghost of Einstein but the Gravitational pull of Intellectualism was too strong. Now he has Turned to the Dahk Side of The Verse.

So in an Irony that I think the Original Author of "Mark" Mark's View Of The Disciples would really appreciate Bart Ehrman is Living Testimony that Schmuelman! is correct in saying that a Careful reading of Christian Scripture can Turn you into an Honest man. Baruch HaShem!



Joseph

TRINITY, n.
In the multiplex theism of certain Christian churches, three entirely distinct deities consistent with only one. Subordinate deities of the polytheistic faith, such as devils and angels, are not dowered with the power of combination, and must urge individually their clames to adoration and propitiation. The Trinity is one of the most sublime mysteries of our holy religion. In rejecting it because it is incomprehensible, Unitarians betray their inadequate sense of theological fundamentals. In religion we believe only what we do not understand, except in the instance of an intelligible doctrine that contradicts an incomprehensible one. In that case we believe the former as a part of the latter.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

John Kesler

An inference can be made from Acts 5:3-4:

nygreenguy

im confused, are you agreeing, or disagreeing with me? I dont accept the trinity doctrine and pretty much agree with everything you just wrote.

Steven Avery

Really it is more on the level of ultra-creative eiesegesis than quote-mining.
Jews for Jesus would go as far as to use "Holy, holy, holy ..." (3 times), and another that I will leave offline.

Another methodology is Hebrew-mangling, such as in the "echad" discussion.

Quote-mining is only an effective tool (for good or evil) when you have some quotes to mine.

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