[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Yes, three persons. That’s what we believe-three persons in unity-one God. You are starting to understand.[/quote]
Mert you are so much more intelligent than this. I can’t believe this was your response to my post.
On this point, we are reading english. The original language has been translated to how it would be said and understood in english. In english ‘we’ and ‘us’ ALWAYS refers to more than one COMPLETELY SEPARATE beings. Again, to just read this scripture you get no impression that there is a trinity link between the parties. Your point makes my point again. The royal ‘WE’ referred to the belief that the royals were put in place by God and spoke on his behalf and acted with his authority. We referred to the speaker and God - still two different beings.[quote]
(Actually, I’m not sure this verse proves anything because We or Us is a pronoun often used by people in extreme authority such as a monarch.)
Genesis 18:1-5
"[i]And the Lord appeared unto him (Abraham) in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant.
Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree: And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.[/i]"
Don’t stop reading so soon, let’s continue on to verse 22 of the same chapter quoted from the KJ: "And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.’ What! Two of them left for Sodom and one remained and that one is now only referred to as ‘the LORD’. (This remaining angel is still not ‘the LORD’ himself but is referred to that way being, as he is, a representative of God. If you’d like further scriptures where angelic messengers are talked to like they’re God himself, just let me know.) Kinda punches a big 'ol hole in this attempted distortion of scripture also, now don’t it?
As usual: non-sequitor! What does it matter that two of them went to Sodom and one stayed behind who then was called the Lord? The point is the symbolism of three Angels which has nothing to do with your statements.[/quote]
Give me a break! What does it matter? This was your whole point. That there were three. Now the three are no longer and it’s non-sequitor? I guess that makes your whole point non-sequitor then.[quote]
1 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.”
How interesting that, again, an admittely spurious addition to scripture is used by proponents of the trinity doctrine. The second half of this verse beginning at ‘in heaven’ is completely discredited as authentic scripture and is recognized as an addition by a copyist seeking support for the trinity. Take note how the most recent Roman Catholic bible, The New American Bible has removed that text despite the Catholic belief in the trinity. 1 John 5:7: “So there are three that testify.” That’s it. They know the rest was false.
Point taken about the translation. I don’t see why it matters if the word “in heaven” is there or not. “There are three that bear record Father Son and Holy Ghost, and these three are one.”
Don’t you believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are “in heaven” anyway? I don’t think you deny that-you only contend what they are and what is their relationship not where they are if I am evaluating your arguments thusfar correctly.
Why did John include this verse at all?
[/quote]
It matters because it wasn’t there in the original text. What if all translators said, ‘oh I know this wasn’t in the original text but we still agree with it right so let’s just let me add it?’
They must be removed because John did not write them and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were not being referred to. ‘And there are three that bear witness in earth’ is also spurious from vs. 8. The entire reading is the three witness bearers are the spirit, water and the blood. I’d like to hear what you now think those three things refer to.
Answer me this: If the trinity doctrine is in the bible, why did many need to forge scripture to try and prove it?[quote]
Matthew 28:19
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
You’re not saying anything here. To see the trinity in this verse you have to believe in it first then super-impose it on what the verse says. An easy test is to replace ‘Father’ ‘Son’ and ‘Holy Ghost’ with Tom, Dick and Harry and see if you still believe Tom, Dick and Harry to be all the same person. Change who you’re talking about and suddenly it doesn’t seem to be calling those three guys the same guy. Funny isn’t it?
OK were making progress. We don’t hold that they are the same person.
Maybe this all boils down to a semantic issue. Three persons=One God. Although if I can’t describe what I mean by the trinity how can I expect you to agree. Hopefully Stella can find a good, Orthodox explanation of the trinity to the best of our ability to comprehend the mystery.[/quote]
Therein lies the problem. You can’t even explain what God is according to the trinity, a pagan idea adopted from the Egyptians and Babylonians. [quote]
John 1:1-3
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
Been dealt with before. You can’t be with someone and also be them.
Really? Cause I thought that’s what John just said. I mean I think I read something that John wrote and you say it can’t be true. IN FACT, it WOULD be true only for an Orthodox understanding of the trinity-that’s the ONLY way for someone to be with God and be God at the same time-that’s why you say its impossible. Again, its CLEARLY your starting assumptions that have clouded YOUR interpretation of the bible. So which interpretation should one follow? You’re assumption laden interpretation of the bible, or the assumption laden interpretation of the bible held by the Orthodox church from the Apostles?
Also, John was not calling the Word ‘God’, he was referring to the nature not the identity of the Word. Note how many other translations render this verse:
1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome?s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.
True, a more literal interpretation because the greek word Theon assumes an article. So you are a Polytheist it seems.[/quote]
It’s Theos not Theon, and it doesn’t assume an article for the first reference to God at John 1:1 HAS an article(ho) and ‘god’ refering to the word doesn’t, demonstrating a specificity to THE God in the first instance and a generality in the second, A god. Just like the difference between being THE MAN or A man. Big difference. I guess you wouldn’t agree with 2 Cor. 4:4 where Satan is called a god. Or 1 Cor. 8:5 where it says there are many gods.
You need to come to a comprehension of the difference of being THE God and A god. The bible even calls your belly a god(Phil. 3:9).[quote]
1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.
True, the order of phrases in a Greek sentence do not mean anything. And again, every noun needs an article. Ever study a foreign language? [/quote]
No every noun does not. Ever study a foreign language? When someone talks about you do they have to say ‘the mert’? If you’re wanting to differentiate between you and someone else with the same name then you use articles.[quote]
1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L?Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.
1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible?An American Translation, by J.?M.?P.?Smith and E.?J.?Goodspeed.
1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.
1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L.?Tomanek.
1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.
1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.
Yes, it sounds like several different translators (who all disagree with each other) are trying to pin down the precise non-idiomatic meaning. That was the trend in the 1900’s because protestant scholars did not believe in idiomatic translation.[/quote]
No, they all agree. They are using interchangeable expressions to refer to the NATURE of the Word. You need to stop using semantics as a crutch.[quote]
Also, take note of no reference whatsoever to the Holy Spirit.
Yes because Christ would nextly receive the Holy Spirit in Baptism-and every Christian knew what that meant.[/quote]
So you’re saying at that time, Christ and the Holy Spirit were not one but somehow he and the Father were?[quote]
John 10:30
“I and my Father are one.”
Shouldn’t he say, “I and the Father are two-thirds”? Missing the Holy Spirit once again.
So now you go for an idiomatic interpretation. The Greek does not say the number “one” it says “in union” but we idiomatically know that right?[/quote]
I agree somewhat. It also does say ‘one’. But we know what that means. My statement above was to try and play the ‘literal’ game. Some were trying to use this expression to say they’re literally one being. That wouldn’t be the case as the poor Holy Spirit was left out, without even an honorable mention. [quote]
John 17: 20-23 reads: “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one.” AV
So Jesus’ followers were also all the same person too? Jesus was clearly referring to his unity in thought and purpose with his Father, nothing to do with them being one and the same. BAM!
Because you don’t understant that the church is Christ’s true body! Why? Because we commune of his true body and blood. Again, it is your limitations which you place on the bible which lead you to your interpretation.
You can say-“The church is Christ’s body! That’s absurd so its obviously not true. How can a group of people be the body of God? It doesn’t make any sense therefore I reject it. Besides, it would make all of the Trinity and Eucharist stuff make sense to believe that so it must be absurd!”
[/quote]
So above you said you knew ‘one’ meant unity not literal oneness, but here you say Christ’s body should be taken literally? No, the same idea of oneness in unity was being referred to illustratively again by the expression of Christ’s body.[quote]
What a sad, empty understanding.
[/quote]
I liked this quote from one of your Orthodox websites.
‘Very sadly however, it must be mentioned that the knowledge of the Bible among Orthodox is not very great.’(Fr. John Matusiak)
How true, how true.