Can The Holy Trinity Be One God?
-
Beware. Few points to take note.Originally posted by davidche:
1. The author. Do you know his beliefs? Does he, for example, hold the KJV-only view? If so, then he has a clear motive (a bias) underlying his argument.
2. Ok .. so he is lecturer and academic dean. But is this topic part of his expertise? A true scholar (science or arts) feels uncomfortable talking outside his expertise. So beware if Richard Dawkins say there is no God. Or Stephen Hawkings say there is no God. Also beware if a creation scientist shoot down evolution. Check his area of expertise first.
3. The article is not meant to be scholastic. No footnotes. No reference. Totally one sided argument.
If you read his argument more carefully, you realize some of his points are quite crappish and unscholarly. He also never tell you many things. -
rightOriginally posted by Icemoon:well .. the fact is you can't find it in the earliest manuscripts. So unless you have evidence to the contrary, just treat the verse as .. fake.
In fact this is the position taken by most modern bible translations. Look at the NIV and NRSV. They did not include the verse, but put it in a footnote.
Furthermore, the verse does not seem to be quoted by the church fathers. Well, if the verse is real, you can imagine the church fathers will all appeal to this verse to argue for the Trinity .. right?
FYI
The Trinity Illustrated in the Bible
The concept of God being triune can be illustrated in the Bible just as easily as it can be illustrated in nature. John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This shows God to exist in two forms. The word God in this passage refers to ELOHIM, or to God as a whole. The word Word refers to God the Son, who is Jesus Christ. This is shown in verse fourteen, "and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory...as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
Having established that God is a singular being with a plural existence, and understanding that the term "Word" (capitalized to represent deity) in John chapter one refers to God the Son who is the Lord Jesus Christ, let us read I John 5:7, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, The Father, The Word, and The Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
Thus we have proof: His name ELOHIM (meaning three in one) is proof, the design of nature is proof, and in scripture there is proof. God is a triune being compos�ed of God the Father, God the Word or God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost who is often referred to as the Holy Spirit. They are each independently divine, they are each a separate aspect to the overall personality of God, yet they are combined to make one singular being. -
indeed quite crappy, little evidence. The same format as a propoganda. Focuses on usage of rheotorical skills. and very short too. i gave you a second link.Originally posted by Icemoon:Beware. Few points to take note.
1. The author. Do you know his beliefs? Does he, for example, hold the KJV-only view? If so, then he has a clear motive (a bias) underlying his argument.
2. Ok .. so he is lecturer and academic dean. But is this topic part of his expertise? A true scholar (science or arts) feels uncomfortable talking outside his expertise. So beware if Richard Dawkins say there is no God. Or Stephen Hawkings say there is no God. Also beware if a creation scientist shoot down evolution. Check his area of expertise first.
3. The article is not meant to be scholastic. No footnotes. No reference. Totally one sided argument.
If you read his argument more carefully, you realize some of his points are quite crappish and unscholarly. He also never tell you many things. -
The following is amusing. From http://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/johannine.htm
The NIV Study Bible, for instance, says that 1 John 5:7f "is not found in any Greek manuscript or New Testament translation prior to the 16th century." On account of this they argue that 1 John 5:7 is spurious.
I sincerely hope the author quotes the NIV Study Bible correctly. Can some of you double check if you have it?
If the author is right .. then you should dump your NIV Study Bible liao and buy a better one.
-
You mean the "The Trinity Illustrated in the Bible"?Originally posted by davidche:indeed quite crappy, little evidence. The same format as a propoganda. Focuses on usage of rheotorical skills. and very short too. i gave you a second link.
Haha .. if you use corrupted text you can claim anything you want .. as long as the corrupted text supports your conclusion. -
STill amazed how you manage to get yourself out of the situation and article you endorsed.Originally posted by davidche:indeed quite crappy, little evidence. The same format as a propoganda. Focuses on usage of rheotorical skills. and very short too. i gave you a second link. -
look at his original reply:Originally posted by M©+square:STill amazed how you manage to get yourself out of the situation and article you endorsed.YEA, this page , yi zhen jian xie.......
sia lah .. dunno whose blood flowing out hor?
http://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/johannine.htm
so hiliarious .. the way he described it - yi zhen jian xie. -
It meant, that article alone is enough to prove the point.Originally posted by Icemoon:sia lah .. dunno whose blood flowing out hor?
so hiliarious .. the way he described it - yi zhen jian xie.
How he twist himself back to your side is something we have to learn.
Foundation not set right, is easily swayed. -
kaoz, my complete post was:
_________________<- crappy website
__________________ <- good website
edit: wrong link.
=====================================================
I posted the first webbie, then found that it was wrong, so i posted the second one....I did not cover it as the post was already there for some time.... -
hah?
but the two websites have no common basis for comparison!!
the first one is textual criticism. the second one is theology. -
Originally posted by davidche:
what did you find out was wrong about the first website?
I posted the first webbie, then found that it was [b]wrong, so i posted the second one....I did not cover it as the post was already there for some time....
[/b] -
i post according to the TS's demand.Originally posted by Icemoon:hah?
but the two websites have no common basis for comparison!!
the first one is textual criticism. the second one is theology.
Biblical proof for trinity.... -
nothing wrong about the webbie, wrong as in i posted wrongly.Originally posted by Icemoon:what did you find out was wrong about the first website?
If you ask me why i wouldnt want to post it as a explaination for mhcampboy, it would be simply because the content isnt organised, and focuses only on one point. a short passage....
I dont have enough knowledge to compare with other webbies if it was correct. niether do i have the interest. -
This is Disappointing.Originally posted by davidche:1)If you ask me why i wouldnt want to post it as a explaination for mhcampboy, it would be simply because the content isnt organised, and focuses only on one point. a short passage....
2)I dont have enough knowledge to compare with other webbies if it was correct. niether do i have the interest.
Point 1 is a cheap shot. You could have consolidated your thoughts and project it using the articles and sources you've read to substantiate your views.
It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong. Even if you've err, people here would correct and lead you to see what you should look at. At least you're corrected.
Now it further question the integrity of your knowledge and foundation.
Point 2 - Once again, you used the excuse, 'i don't have enough knowledge' like the last time round you mentioned 'you're not sure' etc.
Old tactics doesn't work thrice...
My final advice to you is, just read and don't post.
If you have genuine questions. Yes, we are more than willing to discuss.