Three person God identified in the Bible?

[justbyfaith]

I think you need to much slower to assume (speak) and quicker to read (listen). Anyone who is even half paying attention to my posts can see that I post from the ESV almost exclusively, as it is a solid version and certainly better than the KJV. It has absolutely nothing to do with finding a translation that agrees with me, much less thinking that other "translations are not the inspired word of God."

You made a number of illogical jumps there.


This is what happens when you don't branch out and actually study, especially when you use inferior versions or don't bother to study the original language behind the translations. The NASB immediately shows the problem with your understanding based on what the KJV states.

Rom 4:24 but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead,
Rom 4:25 He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification. (NASB)

The italicized "He" at the beginning of verse 25 means that it doesn't appear in the Greek text. This is backed up by my KJV Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. Of course, the KJV is not disagreeing with me, it just appears that way with the addition of "He" to begin verse 25, but it actually is a reference to Jesus.


You again assumed to much, especially now that your argument has been shown to be lacking. Some translations are better than others, which is why it is best to reference six or ten, rather than just one or two. In the least, reference the NASB so you can see which words are not actually in the text. And a Greek-English interlinear is incredibly helpful at times, such as this.


That meaning just isn't there. Everyone knows that it was "Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification." The verses about that are abundant and clear, not the least of which are:

Mar 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (ESV)

Luk 23:34 And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments. (ESV)

Clearly not one and the same.

However, you have to discount the kjv and the nlt as being not the word of the Lord, in order to discount the manner in which they translate this passage.

I think that the kjv and the nlt are more accurate as to what the subject of the sentence really is.

But you can truly discount the truth in your own thinking because of the way that your translation translates this verse.

I'm just not going to discount the truth.

For I believe in the inspiration of such translations as the kjv and the nlt.

So I am not going to do away with those translations in favour of a translation that seems to fit Trinitarian theology better.

But you have your out.

However, I think that the only reason why you have your out is because you have done what was prophesied in 2 Timothy 4:3.

You may have rejected the kjv as a whole some time ago. And if so, you are still heaping to yourself teachers in other translations in that you have rejected the kjv and have gone to other translations, thinking them to be better. You have said of the kjv as a whole, that you don't like it as a translation. And therefore you have gone to versions that are your preference instead of the kjv; you have heaped to yourself teachers to tell you what your itching ears want to hear. Undoubtedly.

 

[justbyfaith]

I think that I could very easily prove to you that Jesus is satan out of both the ESV and the NASB versions.

So I wouldn't put my trust in them if I were you.

 

[Free]

However, you have to discount the kjv and the nlt as being not the word of the Lord, in order to discount the manner in which they translate this passage.

No, I don't.

I think that the kjv and the nlt are more accurate as to what the subject of the sentence really is.

Of course you do, because that would support your position. However, I clearly showed that "He" in verse 25 was added into the English of the KJV when it doesn't appear in the Greek. The NLT simply follows suit. The ESV, in this case, sticks to what the Greek actually says, which is rather important.

But you can truly discount the truth in your own thinking because of the way that your translation translates this verse.

I'm just not going to discount the truth.

For I believe in the inspiration of such translations as the kjv and the nlt.

So I am not going to do away with those translations in favour of a translation that seems to fit Trinitarian theology better.

But you have your out.

However, I think that the only reason why you have your out is because you have done what was prophesied in 2 Timothy 4:3.

Of course you do. Do you know how translation works? You do understand that there are underlying texts behind the English that aren't English, correct?

You may have rejected the kjv as a whole some time ago.

No, I haven't.

And if so, you are still heaping to yourself teachers in other translations in that you have rejected the kjv and have gone to other translations, thinking them to be better.

There are better translations, based on superior manuscripts, and much more manuscript evidence. The KJV is a good translation, it's just outdated and not as good as some newer ones. It's still God's word to us just as much as the others.

You have said of the kjv as a whole, that you don't like it as a translation.

Please quote where I said that.

And therefore you have gone to versions that are your preference instead of the kjv; you have heaped to yourself teachers to tell you what your itching ears want to hear. Undoubtedly.

It's interesting that in your entire response, you didn't even attempt to address the actual problem for your position. Your whole post was one red herring. As such, your claim that I am the one who has "heaped to [myself] teachers to tell [me] what [my] itching ears want to hear," doesn't apply to me at all; it might apply to you though. I am not the one ignoring the clear evidence.

 

[Free]

I think that I could very easily prove to you that Jesus is satan out of both the ESV and the NASB versions.

So I wouldn't put my trust in them if I were you.

I'm sure you could, but not in this thread.

 

[justbyfaith]

I'm sure you could, but not in this thread.

I wouldn't want to in any thread.

 

[justbyfaith]

No, I don't

You do.

Of course you do, because that would support your position. However, I clearly showed that "He" in verse 25 was added into the English of the KJV when it doesn't appear in the Greek. The NLT simply follows suit. The ESV, in this case, sticks to what the Greek actually says, which is rather important.

Rom 4:24 but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead,
Rom 4:25 He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification. (NASB)

The "He" doesn't have to be there for the meaning to exist.

Even without it, the subject is "Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead" (i.e. the Father) and it is the same Person who "was delivered over because of our transgressions and was raised again for our justification."

It's interesting that in your entire response, you didn't even attempt to address the actual problem for your position.

What problem is that?

 

[justbyfaith]

Please quote where I said that.

Have you, ever, in your heart of hearts?

If you haven't, then it would appear that you have singled out Romans 4:24-25 as being a verse where you do not accept the kjv's authority.

 

[justbyfaith]

There are better translations, based on superior manuscripts, and much more manuscript evidence.

There are no "superior manuscripts" to the Received text which the kjv is based in.

As a matter of fact, we do not even any longer have the original manuscripts.

And therefore, we have to rely on copies of copies; and trust that they are inspired.

 

[BB1956]

Proof?

You don't want to believe it's been proven, then don't.

 

[Cooper]

I have addressed this before. We were created in God's image in Gen 1, thousands of years before Christ. So, you cannot use that argument to support the idea that our bodies are made in the image of God. This becomes more apparent when considering Phil 2:5-8, where it clearly says that Christ was in the form of God but he was "found in human form, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." You've put the cart before the horse.


Of course I don't want you to leave. I would like it, though, if you would actually address the difficulties with your position, as they are quite serious. If a person's position has irreconcilable contradictions or serious problems that cannot be fixed, as with Oneness, then it should be abandoned. This is one of the most difficult topics to discuss because it is ultimately not fully comprehensible. We cannot fully understand the nature of God, but he has given us some revelations about himself that we are to make the best sense of that we can.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. We are made in the image of God. God is one, and we are one. The human soul is extremely complex, and beyond my understanding.

What is the human soul? | GotQuestions.org

What is the human soul? What does the Bible say about the nature of the human soul? How is the human soul related to the body and spirit?

www.gotquestions.org

However, if you want to act as judge and jury and dictate theology, you go ahead, but I'm not foolish enough to even try. All I will say is that God cannot be divided, and I think it is wrong of people to do so, and there I end it.
.

 

[Randy]

The pre-incarnate Jesus is the Father in my view; and the risen Jesus, who is ascended to exist outside of time, is also the Father. One God, even the Father.

Who do you think raises us up on the last day? Was He not speaking truth?
And did not that same person ask to be gloried in the Fathers presence with the glory He had with the Father before the world began?

You think God is role playing?
As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
5“Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6“Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

You reject the testimony of Christ and His throne and His testimony of having a Father.
He who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I myself conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne

Since Jesus stated He came down from heaven while stating we have one Father who is in Heaven you reject He came down from Heaven and all the testimony about "The Son who was".

You reject that God made the creation through Jesus and by Jesus and for Jesus as your Jesus didn't exist.

You reject the testimony that the Kingdoms of the world will become the Kingdom of God and His Christ.

You reject the testimony of Jesus when He informed His accusers at His trail that they would see the Son of Man at the right hand of God and coming on the clouds of Heaven.

You reject the testimony that it is through Jesus that we live and that He is the mediator of a new covenant between God and Man.

And you reject Gods oath in regard to Jesus
The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”

You reject this person
Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

 

[Randy]

My position is straight from the Word of God. There are no errors, except your own.
.

God did not appoint Himself as His own High Priest.
The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”

If the Father is His own Son why the need to note glory to the lamb along side the Father as in another?
In a loud voice they were saying: “Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!”

Why a separate throne? And by the way the saints are promised a place on Christs throne so its very real.
To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne.
You ignore all the testimony about the Son who was and is and is to be. Is Christ confused in stating such things as to having a God?
The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name.

You believe in one true unbegotten God. Believe also in one begotten like to like Son. The Son is shown from the beginning with His God and Father and has no end.

Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me.

Col 1:19, (gifted and from the will of another), does not clash with Isaiah 43:10.

Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.

 

[Soldiers]

You don't want to believe it's been proven, then don't.

If it's been proven then SHOW ME. It's so hard for people to back up their claims these days because they want people to just believe it and not question them because of their foundation being based on lies or hearsay.

 

[justbyfaith]

You reject the testimony of Christ and His throne and His testimony of having a Father.

Jesus does have a Father...the Spirit who without flesh inhabits eternity...while Jesus is that same Spirit come in human flesh. Jesus is the Son in that He is in flesh.

Since Jesus stated He came down from heaven while stating we have one Father who is in Heaven you reject He came down from Heaven

No, I don't.

You reject that God made the creation through Jesus and by Jesus and for Jesus as your Jesus didn't exist.

Untrue.

You reject the testimony that the Kingdoms of the world will become the Kingdom of God and His Christ.

How so?

You reject the testimony of Jesus when He informed His accusers at His trail that they would see the Son of Man at the right hand of God and coming on the clouds of Heaven.

How so? I believe that Jesus is a distinct Person from the Father.

You reject the testimony that it is through Jesus that we live and that He is the mediator of a new covenant between God and Man.

How so?

And you reject Gods oath in regard to Jesus
The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”

Again, how so?

You reject this person
Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

How so? I believe that Jesus is a distinct Person from the Father.

 

[justbyfaith]

God did not appoint Himself as His own High Priest.

He did. But the Father appointed a distinct Person from Himself; for Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

If the Father is His own Son why the need to note glory to the lamb along side the Father as in another?

Because the Father is a Spirit without flesh and the Son is the same Spirit come in the flesh.

Why a separate throne?

It is the same throne, as you quoted below:

To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne.

.

You ignore all the testimony about the Son who was and is and is to be. Is Christ confused in stating such things as to having a God?
The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name.

Jesus is a distinct Person from the Father.

Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.

 

[Free]

You do.

No, I do not. Please stop misrepresenting my position as that is a violation of the ToS.

Rom 4:24 but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead,
Rom 4:25 He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification. (NASB)

The "He" doesn't have to be there for the meaning to exist.

It would, but even then, it doesn't mean that Jesus was the Father. Not only does that idea not exist in Scripture, everything is against it.

Even without it, the subject is "Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead" (i.e. the Father) and it is the same Person who "was delivered over because of our transgressions and was raised again for our justification."


What problem is that?

No, they are not the same person. The person spoken of here, "Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead," is the only time that person is mentioned. When it switches to "Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered over . . .," is only talking about Jesus. It's entirely an unnatural and forced reading to say that the first person mentioned is then the one "who was delivered over . . .". We know without a doubt that it was Jesus who died and was raised again. So, the natural reading is, whether or not "He" is used, that everything beginning with "Jesus our Lord," is only a reference to Jesus. And "Him who raised," is all that refers to that specific person, God.

Have you, ever, in your heart of hearts?

If you haven't, then it would appear that you have singled out Romans 4:24-25 as being a verse where you do not accept the kjv's authority.

No offense, but you really don't seem to understand the issues with translations. As I have stated, the Greek simply does not have "He" to start verse 25. Period. It isn't even needed in the English but the translators decided to add it. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the KJV is authoritative.

 

[Soldiers]

If the Father is His own Son why the need to note glory to the lamb along side the Father as in another?

Your attempt to encapsulate and infinite God quality into a finite brain is futile. God is like a triangle at best, 3 sides yet one triangle. He can be in 3 and in 1 at the same time, it's a divine attribute of being triun. Just like us how we have the flesh, the soul, and the spirit in one human, same as Christ. Please don't confuse the body of Christ.

 

[Free]

I have said it before, and I will say it again. We are made in the image of God. God is one, and we are one.

We are one person, yes, but, as I have stated numerous times, there is not a single verse in the Bible that clearly or explicitly states that God is only one. In fact, the evidence shows that there is a plurality to God.

The human soul is extremely complex, and beyond my understanding.

What is the human soul? | GotQuestions.org

What is the human soul? What does the Bible say about the nature of the human soul? How is the human soul related to the body and spirit?

www.gotquestions.org

However, if you want to act as judge and jury and dictate theology, you go ahead, but I'm not foolish enough to even try.

I'm not dictating anything. I'm simply pointing out what the God reveals of himself in the Bible, some of which is very problematic for your understanding but you simply refuse to address those issues.

All I will say is that God cannot be divided, and I think it is wrong of people to do so, and there I end it.
.

Again, no one is dividing God. We are to be faithful to the biblical witness, to God's revelation of himself to us, and he has shown that there is a plurality to his nature.

 

[BB1956]

If it's been proven then SHOW ME. It's so hard for people to back up their claims these days because they want people to just believe it and not question them because of their foundation being based on lies or hearsay.

Trinitarians go by what they claim to be true, but there is no evidence in the Bible to support their claims. So it's kind of historical that a tinitarian would ask for evidence when they haven't given any evidence in the scriptures of the Trinity or that Jesus is God. You make claims. Trinitarians take a scripture out of context or interpret a scripture to mean something completely opposite of what's written down to try to prove what they believe, and I understand they have a right to their interpretations but I don't go by an imperfect individual/individuals interpretations. I rather go by what's written down. I think God is able to inspire men to write down his thoughts accurately so I think the scriptures should interpret themselves since interpretations do belong to God.

I texted the explanation of how 1 John 5:7 was added to scripture at post #1900 & 1901

 

[BB1956]

The Story of an Interpolation—1 John 5:7, 8 Part 1

MODERN scholars do not hesitate to omit from their Bible translations the spurious passage found at First John 5:7, 8. After the words “For there are three witness bearers” this added passage reads, “in heaven, the Father, the Word and the holy spirit; and these three are one. [Verse 8] And there are three witness bearers on earth.” (Omitted by the American Standard Version, An American Translation, English Revised Version, Moffatt, New English Bible, Phillips, Rotherham, Revised Standard Version, Schonfield, Wade, Wand, Weymouth, etc.) Commenting on these words, the famous scholar and prelate B. F. Westcott said, “The words which are interpolated in the common Greek text in this passage offer an instructive illustration of the formation and introduction of a gloss into the apostolic text.”1 So what is the story behind this passage, and how did the science of textual criticism finally show it to be no part of God’s inspired Word, the Holy Bible?

WHEN THE PASSAGE FIRST APPEARS

With the falling away from true Christianity came the rise of much controversy regarding the doctrine of the trinity, yet, though these words would have been most pertinent, early church writers never once used them. Verses six to eight of First John chapter five are quoted by Hesychius, Leo called the Great, and Ambrose among the Latins; and Cyril of Alexandria, Oecumenius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus and Nicetus among the Greeks, to name just a few, but the words in question never appear in the quotations. As an example, the anonymous work entitled “Of Rebaptising,” written about A.D. 256, states, “For John teaching us says in his epistle (1 John 5:6, 7, 8) ‘This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.’”2 Even Jerome did not have it in his Bible. A prologue attributed to him that defended the text has been proved to be a false one.

The “comma Johanneum,” as this spurious addition is usually called, first appears in the works of Priscillian, leader of a sect in Spain near the end of the fourth century A.D.3 During the fifth century it was included in a confession of faith presented to Hunneric, king of the Vandals, and it is quoted in the Latin works of Vigilius of Thapsus, in varying forms. It is found in the work entitled “Contra Varimadum” composed between 445 and 450 (A.D.), and Fulgentius, an African bishop, used it a little later.

Until then the “comma” had appeared as an interpretation of the genuine words recorded in the eighth verse, but once it had become established in this way, it next began to be written in as a gloss in the margin of Latin Bible manuscripts. But a marginal gloss can easily be construed as an omission from the genuine text, and so in later manuscripts it is interlined, then finally it became an integral part of the Latin text, though its position in consequence varies, and it is sometimes before the eighth verse and sometimes after it. (Compare John Wesley’s New Testament where the seventh verse follows the eighth.) An interesting survey made some years ago of 258 Latin Bible manuscripts in the National Library of Paris showed the progressive absorption of this interpolation through the centuries.

The text was further promoted at a council held in 1215 by Pope Innocent III when a work of the Abbot Joachim on the trinity was condemned. The entire passage with the interpolation was quoted from the Latin Vulgate in the acts of the council, which were translated from Latin into Greek. From here some Greek writers took up the text, notably Calecas in the fourteenth century and Bryennius in the fifteenth.

ERASMUS AND STEPHENS

The invention of printing gave rise to much increased production of the original Bible text. The interpolation at 1 John 5:7, 8 was omitted in the Greek texts of Erasmus (1516 and 1519), Aldus Manutius (1518) and Gerbelius (1521). Desiderius Erasmus was violently attacked for not including the text, both by Edward Lee, later Archbishop of York, and J. L. Stunica, one of the editors of the Complutensian Polyglott, which had been printed in 1514 but still remained locked in the warehouse awaiting the pope’s approval. The opposition to Erasmus was based upon the view, expressed in a letter to him by Martin Dorp, that the Latin Vulgate was the official Bible and could not be in error.

Confident that no Greek manuscript contained the “comma Johanneum,” Erasmus in reply rashly stated that if so much as one Greek manuscript could be found to contain the words he would insert them in his next edition. He was told of the early sixteenth century Codex Britannicus, better known as Codex Montfortianus (No. 61). Keeping his promise, Erasmus inserted the words in his third edition of 1522, though he appended a long note reasoning against the addition.

A closer examination of the Codex Montfortianus reveals some interesting facts. Its collator, O. T. Dobbin, wrote that the interpolation at 1 John 5:7, 8 “not only differs from the usual text, but is written in such Greek as manifestly betrays a translation from the Latin.”4 For instance, because the Latin does not have the article “the” before each of the expressions “Father,” “Son” and “holy spirit” it did not occur to the translator that the Greek would require them. So of how much worth was this codex as a Greek manuscript? The same fault is found in the other authority sometimes referred to, the Codex Ottobonianus 298 (No. 629) in Latin and Greek. In his fourth edition, of 1527, Erasmus inserted the definite articles to make the Greek text more accurate grammatically.

From now on the interpolation appeared in other Greek texts whose authors followed the editions of Erasmus. Then in 1550 further confusion occurred through the edition of Robert Stephens published that year. It contained a critical apparatus giving various readings from fifteen manuscripts and at 1 John 5:7 a semicircle points the reader to the margin, where seven manuscripts are cited as authority for the omission of three words only. Critics have demonstrated that this semicircle was misplaced, as were many other signs throughout this edition, and that it should have included for omission the entire “comma Johanneum.” But worse still, because only seven manuscripts were cited, it was assumed by many ignorant people that all the rest of Stephens’ manuscripts did include the interpolation, for they did not realize that the remaining manuscripts did not contain the epistles of John anyway. So out of a possible 100 percent (seven manuscripts) not one included the disputed words.

It was now only a short step to introduce the text into other language translations. It had already appeared in the version of Wycliffe (1380), for he translated from the Latin, having no knowledge of Greek. But now it appeared in translations made from the Greek, such as those of Tyndale and Cranmer, though it was printed in italics and set in brackets. But by the time of the Geneva version of 1557 even this distinction disappeared and the passage is set in ordinary type without brackets. So the interpolation slipped unobtrusively into the 1611 authorized King James Version.