Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | TRINITY | Bible general Archive 1 | PYLE | 539 | ||
CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN WHERE THE WORD TRINITY IS FOUND IN THE SCRIPTURES? ALSO, CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN THE TRINITY IN SIMPLE TERMS SO THAT IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE TO THE AVERAGE PERSON. | ||||||
2 | TRINITY | Bible general Archive 1 | melchizedekau | 805 | ||
this ones from the Lord TRI--UNITY. THREE IN AGREEMENT. the word trinity is not in the bible but the scripture is 1john5:7 |
||||||
3 | TRINITY | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 4361 | ||
"the word trinity is not in the bible but the scripture is 1john5:7" Correction: No, the Scripture is not. 1 John 5:7-8 NASB For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 1 John 5: 7-8 NET Bible 5:7 For there are three that testify, 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement. Notes from the NET Bible: "("in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth"). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence--both external and internal--is decidedly against its authenticity. . . . "Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in eight late MSS, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these MSS . . . originate from the 16th century; the earliest MS, . . . (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek MS until the 1500's; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus' Greek NT was published in 1517. "Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either MS, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until A.D. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. "The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus' Greek NT because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek MSS that included it. . . . "Modern advocates of the Textus Receptus and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. . . . In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum did not appear until the 16th century in any Greek MSS and yet goes back to the original text? "Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: faith must be rooted in history. . . . But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza's 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598) . . . popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others." |
||||||
4 | TRINITY | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 4628 | ||
You are correct about 1 John 5:7-8. The Scripture that actually teaches the Trinity is the Old Testament and the New Testament. Whether the word is used or not is irrelevant. The question has to do with whether the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all clearly revealed in Scripture as God; and whether the Bible reveals that there is only one God. I hold that both are true. --Joe! |
||||||
5 | TRINITY | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 4632 | ||
Reformer Joe: I agree with you. I wasn't arguing against the truth of the Trinity. I firmly believe in the Trinity. I was merely pointing out that it is not wise to base one's belief on a spurious verse of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity does not stand or fall on the authenticity of one verse. I merely mention that the word Trinity is not in the Bible in order to head off at the pass those who would use that argument, which is invalid, to attempt to disprove the Trinity. Also note, the Oneness people do not deny there is one God. They deny there is one God in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Instead they cling to the belief that there is one God, one Person (Jesus only). |
||||||
6 | TRINITY | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 4635 | ||
I undertand Oneness view of God. Thanks for the clarification on your position! Isn't it exciting being a Trinitarian? You get to defend the Holy Scriptures from both sides, from those who deny that the Son and the Spirit are God, *and* from those who claim that the Father is the Son is the Spirit. This is why it is so crucial for Christians to have a firm understanding of the Trinity as revealed in Scripture to keep themselves from doctrinal error. Christians do not deny the deity of Christ, but I have seen quite a few slip into the heresy of modalism/Oneness due to a poor knowledge of Scripture. One's theology stands or falls on apprehending God correctly. --Joe! |
||||||
7 | TRINITY | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 4641 | ||
Amen and Amen to all that you're saying. Before I joined the Forum, I had NO IDEA that there was so much Biblical illiteracy out there. In general, it seems that the majority of churchgoers and professing Christians is not even familiar with what the Bible SAYS. If you dare present a clear verse of Scripture that refutes what a person has believed all their life, they ignore or explain away the Scripture. I've heard peopole say in reply to what I've read (without comment) from the Bible, "Well, that verse *can't* mean that." "That" being what it says in plain, unambiguous language. I could write a whole essay on this. My roots in the church of which I am a member go back for more than 40 years. I love those people like literal family. But, I hate to say it, most (hopefully not all, but probably over 95 percent) of the people in my church do not know nor do they want to know ANY Bible doctrine about anything. I actually think many average American Christians are afraid of the Bible. And apparently many have no curiosity about the contents of the Bible, though they pay great lip service to how wonderful and how important the Bible is. Slipping into error or outright heresy is easy to do when one has little or no knowledge of Scripture. As they say, if you want to be able to recognize on sight that which is counterfeit, all you need do is become so familiar with the real thing that you're equipped to instantly spot a counterfeit (whether it be a counterfeit teaching, practice or revival). One last thing: I no longer attempt to explain the unexplainable (for example, the Trinity). I merely try to define it, but without explaining it. |
||||||