Many souls released from Purgatory on Christmas, pray AND on a commercial flight, Mother Teresa spea

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew

 

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7 KJV)

1John 5:7 is a questionable verse. Even if it was not, there is no mention of God being separate gods/persons.

Bravo Adjensen!

Here, the verse in the English translation of the Vulgate, the first Bible. From the Douay-Rheims:

1 John 5:7-8 And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. [8] And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.

There is the Trinity in those two verses. 1, 2, 3, God says it naming the three divine persons. To follow, the mystery, stating three divine persons in "one" God.

www.drbo.org...

Originally posted by adjensen

How convenient... "questionable" by whom?

You could start with those who translated the NIV.

Here it is in the NIV.

7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

For further reading...

Comma Johanneum

The New American Bible, a version used by Catholics has the following:

7 So there are three that testify, 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.

New American Bible


Even Catholics agree that the KJV version of 1John 5:7 is questionable.

It is kind of hard for you to keep attacking us for trying to "change Scripture to fit our beliefs" when your own church agrees with us.

Originally posted by truejew
The New American Bible, a version used by Catholics has the following:

7 So there are three that testify, 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.

New American Bible


Even Catholics agree that the KJV version of 1John 5:7 is questionable.

A different translation does not make the passage "questionable", because the intent is clear -- John is saying that, under Jewish Law, the testimony of two witnesses was required, and in this case there is the testimony of three. His argument is invalid if it's the testimony of one God and three "offices", but extremely pointed if it's the testimony of one God and three persons.

FWIW, my copy of the New American Bible has this as a footnote:

The testimony to Christ as the Son of God is confirmed by divine witness is greater by far than the two legally required human witnesses (Dt. 17:6)

So, different wording, but the same concept.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
The New American Bible, a version used by Catholics has the following:

7 So there are three that testify, 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.

New American Bible


Even Catholics agree that the KJV version of 1John 5:7 is questionable.

A different translation does not make the passage "questionable", because the intent is clear -- John is saying that, under Jewish Law, the testimony of two witnesses was required, and in this case there is the testimony of three. His argument is invalid if it's the testimony of one God and three "offices", but extremely pointed if it's the testimony of one God and three persons.

FWIW, my copy of the New American Bible has this as a footnote:

The testimony to Christ as the Son of God is confirmed by divine witness is greater by far than the two legally required human witnesses (Dt. 17:6)

So, different wording, but the same concept.

edit on 10-5-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)

Unless you are teaching water and blood are two of your gods, 1 John 5:7 does not teach a trinity god.

reply to post by truejew


There is only one God.

reply to post by adjensen


Then why do you argue when I teach one God?

Why do you claim Genesis 1:26 is proof of more than one creator, if there is only one creator?

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Then why do you argue when I teach one God?

Because your modality theology is illogical.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Then why do you argue when I teach one God?

Because your modality theology is illogical.

When did teaching what the Bible says become "illogical"?

God is called the Holy One as I teach, but never is He called the holy trinity as you teach. Why doesn't that bother you?

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Then why do you argue when I teach one God?

Because your modality theology is illogical.

When did teaching what the Bible says become "illogical"?

The Bible doesn't say that God has modes or offices.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Then why do you argue when I teach one God?

Because your modality theology is illogical.

When did teaching what the Bible says become "illogical"?

The Bible doesn't say that God has modes or offices.

It says that God is one.

It is not man's place to add to that.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Then why do you argue when I teach one God?

Because your modality theology is illogical.

When did teaching what the Bible says become "illogical"?

The Bible doesn't say that God has modes or offices.

It says that God is one.

It is not man's place to add to that.

Then you shouldn't speculate on modality or offices.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Then why do you argue when I teach one God?

Because your modality theology is illogical.

When did teaching what the Bible says become "illogical"?

The Bible doesn't say that God has modes or offices.

It says that God is one.

It is not man's place to add to that.

Then you shouldn't speculate on modality or offices.

I do not speculate. I teach one God and that the one God was manifest in the flesh as the Son of God. That is what Scripture says.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Then why do you argue when I teach one God?

Because your modality theology is illogical.

When did teaching what the Bible says become "illogical"?

The Bible doesn't say that God has modes or offices.

It says that God is one.

It is not man's place to add to that.

Then you shouldn't speculate on modality or offices.

I do not speculate. I teach one God and that the one God was manifest in the flesh as the Son of God. That is what Scripture says.

Nothing non-Trinitarian about that.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. (John 1:1-2 NIV)

Who or what is "the Word" in that passage?

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. (John 1:1-2 NIV)

Who or what is "the Word" in that passage?

The answer is in the Scripture. The Word was God.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. (John 1:1-2 NIV)

Who or what is "the Word" in that passage?

The answer is in the Scripture. The Word was God.

So God was with God? What does that mean?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. (John 1:1-2 NIV)

Who or what is "the Word" in that passage?

The answer is in the Scripture. The Word was God.

So God was with God? What does that mean?

It is just as the Scripture says...

In the beginning was God's Word, and God's Word was with God, and God's Word was God.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. (John 1:1-2 NIV)

Who or what is "the Word" in that passage?

The answer is in the Scripture. The Word was God.

So God was with God? What does that mean?

It is just as the Scripture says...

In the beginning was God's Word, and God's Word was with God, and God's Word was God.

Except that you said the Word was God, so your sentence is:

In the beginning was God's God, and God's God was with God, and God's God was God.

That makes zero sense.

Let's try it again...

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. (John 1:1-2 NIV)

Who or what is "the Word" in that passage?

reply to post by adjensen


Yes, God's Word was God as the Scripture says.

There is no teaching in Scripture of God's Word being a separate person or god. That view comes from philosophy, not Scripture.