Featured The Trinity

Which science(s)? Isn't history itself in a way also a science?

 

Did you not look at the Theopedia link? The Johannine Comma


Here is a quote from their research. I have left the active link in the quote to help with documentation sources they refer. (note: two of the three active links I replaced because they were no long active, and actually refer back to the first linked source)

Pre-16th century Greek manuscripts and translations

"These extra words are generally absent from the Greek manuscripts. In fact, they only appear in the text of four late medieval manuscripts. They seem to have originated as a marginal note added to certain Latin manuscripts during the middle ages, which was eventually incorporated into the text of most of the later Vulgate manuscripts." ^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." ^1
Greek fathers

"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." ^1

The document goes on to show the implication of Erasmus in the insertion.

 

And all this time, I have been so completely dependent upon these punctuation marks (sigh)

what are the implications? Are their others that have crept in?

 

I used the term in a broad way. For instance,theology has been known as the queen of sciences.

 

The inability to understand how God can exist in three persons is not a justification to refuse to affirm the Trinity, nor to entertain the possibility of the doctrine to be an error. It is a clear teaching of Christ and the Apostles. To deny the doctrine is at the very least a grievous error or extreme ignorance, if not heretical.

But it is heretical.

 

Just in the Gospel of Matthew alone 3 verses have been added by the MT (from their perspective they are missing) :17:21,18:11 and 23:14. The texual variants are also the following in that Gospel:5:44;6:13;20:16,22,23 and 24:36.

 

The NASB places any "added" in brackets so that the reader may know that some manuscript(s) do not include those words or statements.

see here: Matthew 17 and look for verse 21 for an example.

However, they do not bracket the Matthew 5:44; 6:13; 20:16,22,23 and 24:36 verses.

Not sure why or why not.

 

Well said. I have stated I don't understand the HOW of the Triune Godhead. I don't understand the HOW of the Incarnate God, Jesus Christ. But both are clearly taught in Scripture and rejection of either is heretical.

 

Totally agree!

:thumbs::thumbs:

 

Even though the NASBU is in the Critical Text camp, the translators did use a lot of TR/BT --they just let a number of those renderings remain. The HCSB is #2 in that regard. That moves my apprecition for the HCSB to my #3 spot of favorite Bible translations. The NLTse is my #2.

 

Some sensitive types throw hissy-fits whenever any form of the word heresy is used on the BB. But obviously heretical applies to one who would dare to mess with the Trinity.

 

typo

However, there is an element of ambiguity in the formulation. Five people might agree with the surface statement - One God in Three Persons

But when you get down to the nuts and bolts, there is not universal agreement. I have asked, in this thread, if someone would care to define "Person"

I have scoured this thread at least a half dozen times, and have not seen anyone attempt it. Maybe I've missed it, as I am subject to mistakes and oversights. But I have not seen it

Maybe people don't want to try to define it, out of fear that they might possibly hold a view that is considered heretical. That is a real and active fear among some, and probably even some here.

So, is a "Person" a being, a personality, a manifestation, a mode, a will, or something else? As I noted, one human person (not on this board) said that "Person" is a technical theological term, and then refused to elaborate.

That told me that he simply didn't know; that he had accepted a creedal formula without any attempt at trying to nail down exactly what it means. But then had the audacity to throw around anathemas because someone would not affirm something that is ambiguous.


Theophlius of Antioch appears to be the first to use the word "Trinity" when he wrote:
In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.

But he did not use the word "Person"

And I have expressed much the same wording - God, His Word, His Breath (or Spirit)

But, I have a problem with the word "Person" unless someone comes with a definition of it that does not reek of polytheism, with three separate beings

And I have a problem with Modalism, seeing that the three were together attested to at the baptism of Jesus.

And I have a problem with any notion that the Word was somehow created, seeing from John 1, Colossians 1, and Philippians 2 that He is before all things, that all things were made by Him, for Him and through Him, that the Word was with God and the Word was God, and was in the beginning with God

And I have a problem with any notion that the Breath of God is simply an impersonal "life force" or an "it" considering that He might be grieved, that He teaches us and comforts us.

So, again, does anyone care to offer a definition of "Person", and possibly subject themselves to criticism?

I care not to define "Persons" because scripture never uses the word to define God. Scripture affirms that there is God, His Word, and His Spirit, and that the three are One. Each is portrayed in scripture as having all the attributes of deity. Each is portrayed as having personal interaction with mankind and each other.

But nowhere are they said to be "Persons". That is a contrivance of man. And as such, it ought to be clearly defined before men might press onto other men a mandate to subscribe to it

 

I found this to be an interesting and challenging read. Hope there is something in it for you as well.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/04/19/theology-the-queen-of-the-sciences-rjs/

 

Are you saying Wycliffe had access to Erasmus' meddling work, 200 years before he was born?

 

Theologians cowering behind Mama Rome's skirts, only peeking out to call "heretic", flit in and out of original languages they couldn't order a gyro sandwich in.
"Peek aboo, here I am, no, here".

How shall we liken this generation?
They are children, sitting in the marketplace, wanting everyone else
to dance to their Papal tunes.
Surely the Great Whore will gather her daughters, in time to pimp them to the Man of Sin.

 

Each is

How can you talk about person-al relations unless you have some understanding of the meaning of person. I will give you my understanding of "person".

We are told in Scripture: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

Then since man is made in the likeness of God we must believe that some attributes of man come from God. We recognize those attributes in ourself so we must also believe these attributes belong to God. If man understands something called personhood then we must see God as having personhood, always, always understanding that God is self-existent while man is created.

Perhaps Scripture does not give a nice, neat definition of person but we can understand what "person" is from the many ways it is used in Scripture. Similarly Scripture may not give you a nice, neat definition of the Triune Nature of God but we can recognize that truth about God from what Scripture tells us.

It seems to me that you are "nit picking" at the words "Trinity" and "person". I have no idea why!

I have stated that I don't understand the HOW of the Triune Godhead. I don't understand the HOW of the Incarnate God, Jesus Christ. But both are clearly taught in Scripture and rejection of either is heretical. I will always believe that.

 

Interesting.

I at one time was KJV preferred, but have moved in my late years to the NASB as being the most close as possible (in this time) to what the original writing intended word for word. 60 some years ago, I didn't think the ASV was good enough.

I really don't have a third level.

 

From you history of posts, I would say you are quite the expert at the broad way.

 

Nope.

What Wycliffe used or didn't use doesn't discredit the link I posted.

 

If someone is alledging that Erasmus inserted a reading somewhere, then it stands to reason, if we moved the line back 200 years, that we need a new fall guy, doesn't it?