It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Did Muhammad ascend to heaven and descend, Messiah Jesus refutes this.

page: 17
13
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 02:59 PM
reply to post by truejew

I already did. He said the Son was "with" the Father, not "was/is" the Father.

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 03:07 PM
reply to post by WarminIndy

If the Godhead is the whole comprising of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, then it easily understood that God is one, God is the whole. The parts are the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

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.

No im not a fan of math actually...

Perhaps you missed that part of my reply... That verse is called The Comma Johanneum... It appears in no original texts... and was clearly added after the fact... So referencing that passage is pointless...

Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily

Paul...

The equality of A (The Father) B (The Son) and C (The Holy Ghost) can only be equal in that equation and can only be one number, not three different numbers.

Please cite a passage that says Jesus was equal to God... John said it... paul said it... Jesus did not...

So therefore, logically, 1 Father + 1 Son + 1 Holy Ghost will always equal 1 Echad.

I get what you're saying... unfortunatly that still equals three Gods acting as one as NuT said...

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 03:09 PM
reply to post by NOTurTypical

I can't show you there are 3 Gods, there are not 3 Gods

At least we agree on something...

Your trinity doesn't agree with that statement though... I love some of the explainations people give, but its simply not logical to say three Gods act as one, and in the same sentence say theres only one God

Remember that wikipedian law of Non-contradiction?

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 03:12 PM
reply to post by Akragon

Where is an "original text"? To my knowledge none have ever been found. The earliest was tested by Carston Thiedie and is just a tiny fragment of the gospel according to Matthew. His testing with the latest electron microscope show it to be a first copy of the original. And the verse exists is Textus Receptus, and books that align with TR are much older than any Alexandrian Codecies that have been found.

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 03:15 PM
reply to post by NOTurTypical

True... there are no original texts...

Perhaps i should have said "the earliest known texts'

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 03:15 PM
reply to post by Akragon

I get what you're saying... unfortunatly that still equals three Gods acting as one as NuT said...

Dont u dare Aaron, I never said that. I've never claimed here are three gods.

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 03:21 PM
reply to post by NOTurTypical

Previous page my friend...

It means "one in unity", not the number before two.

Meaning God, Jesus, and the holy spirit are three entities working in "unity" as one...

Love when you use my name by the way... it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 03:45 PM

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

I already did. He said the Son was "with" the Father, not "was/is" the Father.

It did not mention separate personalities.

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

True... there are no original texts...

Perhaps i should have said "the earliest known texts'

The earliest known texts do have it. You may be thinking of "earliest complete manuscripts"? There are single books and fragments much older than the Alexandrian codecies.

edit on 20-9-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 03:49 PM

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

I already did. He said the Son was "with" the Father, not "was/is" the Father.

It did not mention separate personalities.

How do you interpret the Son co-existing with the Father?

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 03:50 PM

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

Previous page my friend...

It means "one in unity", not the number before two.

Meaning God, Jesus, and the holy spirit are three entities working in "unity" as one...

Love when you use my name by the way... it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling

I call my friends by their name if I know it, you know I do that. And I never said there were "three gods".

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 03:54 PM

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

True... there are no original texts...

Perhaps i should have said "the earliest known texts'

The earliest known texts do have it. You may be thinking of "earliest complete manuscripts"? There are single books and fragments much older than the Alexandrian codecies.

edit on 20-9-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

It seems that people disagree with you...

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. The eight manuscripts are as follows:

•61: codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.
•88: a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
•221: a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
•429: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.
•629: a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican.
•636: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.
•918: a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
•2318: an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.

(2) 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.

(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).

The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4),

IF it was a known passage it would have been used in said Trinitarian controversies... no?

I call my friends by their name if I know it, you know I do that. And I never said there were "three gods".

Fair enough... Its nice to hear

edit on 20-9-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

I can't show you there are 3 Gods, there are not 3 Gods

At least we agree on something...

Your trinity doesn't agree with that statement though... I love some of the explainations people give, but its simply not logical to say three Gods act as one, and in the same sentence say theres only one God

Remember that wikipedian law of Non-contradiction?

Your inability to understand a doctrine doesn't make people say things they didn't say. And it's not "my" anything, it's the nature of God. He is One God who exists as three persons. Did you read the difference between "Yichad" and "Echad" in Hebrew that I linked previously?

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 03:58 PM
reply to post by Akragon

A "manuscript" is a COMPLETE codex. They are playing a semantic slight of hand with you, there are individual letters and fragments of letters that predate the Alexandrian mss.

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 03:59 PM

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

I can't show you there are 3 Gods, there are not 3 Gods

At least we agree on something...

Your trinity doesn't agree with that statement though... I love some of the explainations people give, but its simply not logical to say three Gods act as one, and in the same sentence say theres only one God

Remember that wikipedian law of Non-contradiction?

Your inability to understand a doctrine doesn't make people say things they didn't say. And it's not "my" anything, it's the nature of God. He is One God who exists as three persons. Did you read the difference between "Yichad" and "Echad" in Hebrew that I linked previously?

Perhaps its not my inability to understand, but my inability to accept Christian understanding of scripture...

And yes i read it... Three equals one still means three Gods brother...

I seem to recall Jesus saying none are greater then the Father, including himself... and theres nothing that says the "holy spirit" is God either...

A "manuscript" is a COMPLETE codex. They are playing a semantic slight of hand with you, there are individual letters and fragments of letters that predate the Alexandrian mss.

Im sure there are...

Perhaps you might show an example of one that includes this passage?

edit on 20-9-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 04:07 PM
reply to post by Akragon

And you link is quite off, Gill shows on page 907-8 of his "An exposition of the New Testament", Vol. 2 that Tertullian quotes the verse in 200 AD. The Alexandria codecies were written after this point and they do not include the verse. It was expurgated because the Gnostics rejected the divinity of Christ. Also the last 12 verses of Mark were expurgated because the Gnostics rejected resurrection. All these "suspect" verses were not later additions by a "well intentioned copyist", they were expurgated from the Alexandrian codecies (3rd - 4th century)
edit on 20-9-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 04:11 PM
reply to post by NOTurTypical

Actually it says its not mentioned by Tertullian

and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

Actually it says its not mentioned by Tertullian

and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).

"Augustine". ^ Go back numerous centuries to the 200 AD Tertullian.

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 04:14 PM

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

How do you interpret the Son co-existing with the Father?

That was not in the quote of Polycarp that you posted.

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 04:20 PM
Here bro, chew on this. I'd like to stay but im gonna go hit some golf balls. Hopefully the legalists haven't decided that's a sin yet...

here.

new topics

top topics

13