fredag 4. mai 2012

Nr. 300: Jesus never called himself the only true God, but he professed, believed and taught all in accordance with the usual Jewish faith, thought and understanding that the Father - not him - was the only true God!

Nr. 300:

Jesus never called himself the only true God, but he professed, believed and taught all in accordance with the usual Jewish faith, thought and understanding that the Father - not him - was the only true God!

Jesus NEVER called himself the only true God, but he professed, believed and taught all in accordance with the usual Jewish faith, thought and understanding that the Father - not him - was the only true God. Jesus prayed and turned a never to 3 personal god. Spirit is no separate person, but God's power and energy! John. e 3 8 The wind blows wherever it wants, and you hear the whistles, but you do not know where it comes from, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

There is a lot to say about this topic. But Jesus is not the only true God, the Son of God, Messiah, Savior, Lord and Redeemer. It is only Father who can claim to be the invisible, eternal God, not Jesus. Jesus has a beginning, it has not the Father. Unfortunately, also false and misleading translations helped to confuse and destroy too many so that they believe and teach wrong about God or the Godhead!

John 1:1 is also a Bible verse that is often brought up and taken as evidence that Jesus announced that God. We must therefore link a few comments also this verse. Initially it may be mentioned that more skilled interpreters believe that there is a lot of uncertainty about the logos really describe a person living in this verse. They can see for themselves that the verse also is a description of God's idea or plan that is first realized in and with Jesus in verse 14 This I will not go any further into. In the subsequent discussion, I will just assume that the word logos in John 1:1 is really a name or some sort of description of Jesus in his preeksistens. John 1:1 begins by saying that the Logos was once with God. Then it is said in 1:1 c: kai theos an ho logos (word for word: and a god was the word). Does this mean that these words that Jesus (the Logos) is one true God on equal terms with the God he once was with? Firstly, such a thought seems confusing and very difficult to reconcile with the clear monotheism that would otherwise be served in this Gospel (5:44, 17:3, 20:17). Secondly, it is not so certain that it is correct to translate this phrase with "and the word was God" (God with a capital letter)! Below I'll list the two tables with alternative ways to translate, and to every table I link a number of comments. I think this will help readers to see that it is very important information in the fact that the word theos here in 1:1 c occurs without the specific article (anarthrous). First, some translations that choose to render theos to "a god": Name translation: Wording: John Crellius, (Latin form of German), 1631 The Word of Speech was a God Jeremiah Felbinger, Das Neue Testament, 1660 und di Rede war a Gott Reijnier Rooleeuw, 1694 and the Word was a good T. Kenrick, An Expositon of the Historical Writings of the New Testament, B.2, 1807 and the Word was [a] good The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcomer's New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London, 1808 and the word was a good Thomas Belsham, The New Testament in an Improved Version, 1808 The Word was a good Abner Knee Land, The New Testament - being the only English of the Greek and English New Testament, 1823 and the Word was a God John Samuel Thompson, The Mono Tess Aaron: Or the Gospel History, According to the Four Evangelists, Baltimore, 1828 and the Logos was a good Herman Heinfeter, A Literal Translation of the Gospel According to St. John Wed Definite Rules of Translation, 1854 for a Good Command was the two Become The emphatic Diaglott, inter-linear reading, by Benjamin Wilson, 1864 and a good was the word Robert Young, Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible, s.54, 1865, and a good (ie a Divine Being) was the Word Leicester Ambrose Sawyer, The Final Theology, b.1, Introduction to the New Testament, Historic, Theo Logic and Critical, pp. 353, 1879 and the Logos was a good Anthony Nicholas Jannaris Ph.D., (Classical Greek), Zietschrift fur die Neuterstamentliche Wissenchaft und die Kirche Kuknde Alteren Volz, p.13-25, 1901 and was a good George William Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, 1911 and (a) God was the word Oskar Holtzmann, Das Neue Testament, 1926 und Gott a war where Gedanke Rittenlmeyer, 1938 selbst a Gott war das Wort James L. Tomanek, The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958 and the Word was a God Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, Gottingen, Germany, 1975 a Gott (oder, Gott von Art) war das Wort Das Evangelium nach Johannes, John Schneider, 1979 und Gott war das a Wort Jurgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes Wirzburg, Germany, 1979 und Gott war das a Logos Othodox Greek / Arabic translation, 1983 and the word was a good The 21st Century Translation and the [Marshal] [Word] was a good Schulz, 1987 a Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort

The Greek language has no indefinite article. Indefinite The heat of a noun is communicated by typing it without the specific article. She means so logos "word", while logos means "word". In Acts 28:6 Paul is said to be "a god". In Greek, it says here only Theon (a form of the word of God without the specific article). In John 6:70 it is said that "one of you is a devil." In Greek, it says here "diabolos" (devil without a word for that particular article). We conclude how often must add the indefinite article in Norwegian in order to render the meaning of a noun without the definite article in Greek. This is the linguistic background of the translators in the table above, find it appropriate to translate "theos an ho logos" with "a god was the word" or "the word was a god." Here are some other interesting comments to this way of putting on: Accordingly, theos an ho logos, from a purely grammatical account, rendered "the Word was a god." (Murray J. Harris, Jesus As Good, 1992, p.60)

The verb that precedes a story loosely predicate, would probably mean that the Logos was "a god" or a divine being of some kind. Logos would belong to the general category of "theos", but is a being separate from "ho theos". (Dr. Phillip B. Harn, Heidelberg College) As commentators have pointed out so often does not share the English word "God" the proper meaning of the Greek word theos. Without the specific article means theos "a god", or used as a predicate, it may simply mean "divine", "more than human" (Jones 1913, Skemp, 1973, Grube 1980: 150-1). (Norman Russell, The Doctrine of deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition, Oxford Early Christian Studies, Oxford University Press, 2004/2005, p.35) Direct from the Greek could be translated as: the Word was God. ("William Barclay-Ever Yours," edited by C.L.Rawlings, Dunbar, 1985, p.205) If the translation was about to translate word for word, would a possible translation of theos an ho logos is "the Word was God." As a word for word translation is here nothing to put my finger on. (CH Dodd, Technical Papers for The Bible Translator, Vol .28, No. 1, 1977) The interpretation of John 1:1 will depend on whether one considers the writer to believe in one God or more than one God. We believe that John has been able to say that the Word was a "god", for the GT is even the angels called this. Yes, as a Jew would have believed in John, "more than one God." He would have believed in superhuman beings, the angels that surround God in the heavenly court (see Psalm 8:5, 82:1, 138:1). But he would only worship the one true God. The word was not the one true God (ho theos), but the word was, as John informs us, "in" this God. The rendering "a god" are both grammatically correct and in accordance with an open-minded reading of the context where the word is seen as separate from God (ho theos). (Rev. JW Wenham, The Elements of New Testament Greek, footnote 2, page 35, Cambridge University Press, 1987 reprint) So far, to translate theos without the article "a god". As we know, this is a completely legitimate and grammatically correct way to put on. As Wenham points out, such a translation also be made good sense for a monotheistic Jew in Jesus' time. In the ancient Israelite culture was in fact possible to call both men and angels for the gods in a relative and subordinate importance, as we have seen above. Such translation and such an understanding of the word "god", thus conveys an understanding of the Logos as a powerful or divine being of some kind, but not as a being on par with the Almighty God! Other translators chose to render the indefinite "theos" with a predicative or adjektivisk description eg. "Divine, the divine species, of the same nature as God" or other related expressions. Such expressions have also a meaning that is close to "a god". If we for example. describes a person as "a devil" or "diabolical", so do these two terms almost the same. Here are some examples of Bibles and translators who have chosen this representation as follows: Name translation: Wording: Harwood, 1768 and was himself a divine person The New Testament, by Curt Stage, 1907. Das Wort war selbst gottlichen Wesens The New Testament, by Rudolf Boehm, 1910. yes selbst goettlichen Wesens Das Neue Testament, Ludwig Thimme, 1919 Gott von Art war das Wort Baumgarten et al., 1920 Gott (von Art) War in which Logos Let the Bible Centenaire, Maurice Goguel, 1928 and the Word was a divine being Robert Harvey, (DD), 1931 and the Logos was divine (a divine being) Ernest Findlay Scott, 1932 and the Word was of divine nature William Temple, Archbishop of York, 1933 and the Word was divine Smith and Goodspeed, 1935 and the Word was divine The Moffatt translation of the Bible, 1935 the Logos was Divine Goodspeed, 1939 the Word was divine Ervin Edward Stringfellow, 1943 and the Word was divine (NT) Sounds Brown, 1945 Word was deity of the species Das Neue Testament, Ludwig Thimme, 1946 and of a divine kind was the Word The New Testament, Friedrich Pfaefflin, 1949 Und war von goettlicher Wucht Albrecht, 1957 gottlichen Wesen hats das Wort Hugh J. Schonfield, 1958 the Word was divine Smit, 1960 the world the word was a divine being John L. McKenzie, 1965 the word was a divine being William Barclay, New Testament, 1969 the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God Moffatt, 1972 the Logos was divine Translator's New Testament, 1973 the Word was with God and shared historical nature Philip B. Harnes, 1973 the Word had the same nature as God MaximillianZervich / Mary Grosvenor, 1974 The Word was divine Barclay, 1976 the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God Fritz Rien Ecker, 1976 the word had the same nature as God John Schneider, Berlin, 1978 and Godlike black was the Logos Haenchen, 1980 Gott (von Art) War in which Logos Schonfield, 1985 the Word was divine Scholar's Version, 1993 The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was Madsen, 1994 The Word was a divine being International English Bible, 2001, footnotes FTN.: Or deity or divine, which is a better translation since the Greek definite article is absent before the word The Complete Bible - An American Translation, The Word was divine Here are some interesting comments to this way of putting on: Finally, John says that "the Word was God." There is no doubt that this is a difficult term for us to understand. It is difficult because the Greek language, which John used when he wrote, had another way of saying things than is usual in English (or Norwegian - my coming.). When the Greek language uses a noun, it has almost always that particular article before the noun. The Greek word for God is "theos" and that particular article is "she". When, therefore, talking about God, they say not only God, but "ho theos". When the Greek does not have that particular article before a noun, the noun is more the nature of an adjective: it describes the character, the quality of the person. John did not say that word was "ho theos", it would have been the same as saying that the Word was identical with God. He says that the Word was "theos" - without that particular article - and that means that the Word was, that we can express it, of the same character, quality, service and being as God. When John said that "the Word was God", he said that Jesus was not identical with God. He said that Jesus is so perfect like God in the mind, heart and being that in him we see a perfect way how God is. (W. Barclay, The Icily Study Bible, The Gospel of John, b.1) It's not that he (John) identifies him (Jesus) with the Godhead (ho theos). On the contrary, he clearly distinguishes between the Son and the Father and let him appear to be inferior in dignity (the Father is greater than me). When he says that Christ is "God" (theos), he means the divine kind or nature. (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 1910 ed., Vol.1, p.690) ("God" in John 1:1 c) is not necessarily the specific article (only theos not ho theos) because it describes the nature of the Word, it does not identify his person. It would be pure sabellianisme if you said that "the Word was ho theos." (Trinitarian Bishop Westcott, cited by CFD Moule in: An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge University Press, 1953), p.116) John 1:1 does not describe the identity, but the character of the Logos. (D.A. Fennema, John 1:18: 'God the Only Son' New Testament Studies 31 (1985), p.130) When all is said and done, is thus rendering "the Word was God" exactly what the Greek text says. "The Word was divine" is a possible meaningful representation of this Greek term. "Word was God" is almost certainly ruled out by the way John puts it on. Such a translation does not correspond to "the Word was divine" because it narrows without reason meaning in the original Greek phrase from a quality or category (god / divine) to an individual (God). (Jason BeDuhn, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion, Northern Arizona University, 2/10/2001) As Carl has said, we have discussed this scripture passage before, and my own preferred translation is neither "the Word was divine" or "the word was a god" or "the Word was God." I would suggest "the word was like God" because I think the statement is intended to describe the nature of the personified Logos similar nature to God the Father. You may think otherwise, but we are likely to agree that the statement does not identify ho ho logos as Father, ho theos - so the translation "the Word was God" can lead us to believe. The way I see it, "the Word was God" either linguistic or theological right. (Iver Larsen, Danish language expert and Bible translator, greek B-4 July 2006) Given John's background in the Christian community and this Community roots in Judaism, it is inconceivable that he means to say that there is more than one God. ... A more natural interpretation of this text will be that we have two creatures in God, and another which is theos. But this other is in such a relationship with God that God appears as the absolute as the other is defined up to and in relation to. They are produced not two equal gods. (William Loader, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel - Structures and Issues, Peter Lang Publishing, p.155, under the heading: "The Word was a God") In Greek there is a distinction here between "with God" and "God." In the first case, the specific article used, and then the word a special reporter. In the second case, there is no definite article, and it's hard to believe that this omission is not of importance. Such a design provides a adjektivisk quality at the second instance of "Theos" (God) so that the term can mean "the Word was divine." (Translator's NT, 1973, footnote) It would be impossible to talk about Jesus without going into the words of John's Gospel: "the Word was God." Greek that underlies this expression is: theos an ho logos. This does not: the Word was God. In Greek, the "she" that particular article. If two things constitute one and the same thing, will be in Greek use the definite article in front of both. If the meaning of this phrase had been that the Word was God, then it would have looked like this: ho theos an ho logos. There is nothing strange connected with this. We do the same in English. When a noun does not have the specific article, it acts as an adjective - both in Greek and in English! If I say: John is the man (the man) when I identify John with a special copy of the human race. But if I leave out the specific article, and just say, John is a man (man), when I identify him, I classify him. I say: John is human, he belongs to the human category. So the Greek really means here is that "the Word was God", but "The word belongs to the same category as God, it belongs to the same kind of life and are one with God. (William Barclay, Who is Jesus, Tidings, Nashville, Tennessee, USA, 1975, s.35-36)

Jn 1:1 should strictly be translated "the Word was with God (= the Father), and the Word was a divine being." (John L. McKenzie, SJ, Dictionary of the Bible, p.317) There is only one true God, but those who abuse the language are called gods, are many. For this reason, in this case indicates that the font that is the true God is meant by using the article (ho theos), and when the word is used in an incorrect opinion, it stands without the article. (The famous Jewish philosopher Filon of Alexandria, who lived together with Jesus and the apostles, On Dreams, 1.39) Filon shows that the differentiated use of ho theos and theos in John 1:1 must have been a conscious use of the author's side and was of great importance for the Greek-speaking reader. Yes, not only that, Filon shows that John may have boldly called Logos for "God / god" but this has affected his monotheistic faith. (James Dunn, Christology in the Making, 2.ed., SCM Press Ltd., 1996, p.241) Filon often use the term ho theos of the Bible personal God, theos is with him - as in the Greek writers in general - a predicate with a wide range applications for rest, not a word that is only limited to denote the Supreme God alone. (Norman Russell, The Doctrine of deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition, Oxford Early Christian Studies, Oxford University Press, 2006, p.59) Furthermore, we notice John's use of the specific article in these sentences. His use of the article is not careless or accidental, he is no stranger to the finer details of the Greek language. Sometimes he uses the article, other times he leaves it. He always has the article in front of the Logos, but only occasionally in front of theos. He uses the article as theos refers to him as the uncreated cause of all things, but omits it when the Logos is called theos. .... Many of those who take their religion seriously wonder greatly about this. In his fear of proclaiming two gods, they are driven into false and evil doctrines. ..... To such people we must say that God is on the one hand, autotheos (God himself), that the Saviour himself says in his prayer to the Father: "That they may know you, the one true God", while everyone else outside of this autotheos have been made to theos in a participation in His divinity, and therefore should not be called ho theos, but theos. Thus was creation's firstborn, who was the first to come forward at God's side, part of the Divinity. He was a being of higher rank than the other gods beside him, who all have ho theos as his God, as it is written: "God of gods, Lord, have spoken and called the earth." It was through service to the first-born that they were gods, for he passed from God richly so that they could be theos, he conveyed it to them by their own abundance. The true God is thus ho theos, and those formed later are gods, a kind of images of this prototype. Pictured above all images of God the Logos, who was in the beginning and that was with God. He will forever be theos. This is not something he has from himself, but something that arises from this that he is with the Father. And he will only continue to be theos, if this was something we should consider, through an uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father. (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, 2) One does well to note that even Origen used the absence of the article in John 1:1 as evidence the basis for Christ's subordination to God. (Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, New York: Oxford University Press, 1993, p 179) We see that there are strong constraints in the direction of translation Joh1: 1c either with "the Word was a god" or "the Word was divine" (or something akin to this). Eminent theologians and language experts say that in fact it is directly wrong to translate it with "the Word was God" (God with a capital letter). The word was in fact not the God he was with! In both cases involves the translation described the ways that the word has certain similarities with God, perhaps the same spiritual nature as God, but not that word is identical with theos or she is like God in power and majesty. I think that both Filon and Origen described the significance of theos without the article in a good and proper manner. If we understand John 1:1 so that these two - and many modern theologians with them - John 1:1 does not represent any challenge or difficulty in relation to believing that the Father, and only he is the one true God.

Jesus has a beginning, it has not the Father. Psalm 90 Psalm 90 2 Before the mountains were born, before the earth and the world was, indeed, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. Proverbs 8 is biledelig speak about Jesus just like Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, it's Satan. Alpha and Omega are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. Jesus was the first Father created and that the last he will give the kingdom to the Father. Obvious. 1. 7 Behold, he cometh in the clouds! Every eye will see Him, even those who pierced him, and all nations on earth will mourn over him. Yea, verily, amen! 8 I am Alpha and Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was and is to come, the Almighty. This is Jesus. He is the Almighty and the sovereign of the Father's behalf. When he has ruled for 1000 years, together with all the saints, he turns the kingdom to the Father again. Jesus has gradually been filled with the Father if he never had a negative thought, sinful act or something that has been in open session and to the chagrin of the Father. Father looks wrong with his holy angels, but never in the Son. Therefore, he is different and complete only the Father is. He is God and yet not the Father. This is the doctrine of the Trinity were totally unknown to the early Christians, they had a monotheistic understanding of God just like the Jews. This heresy of the Trinity came as the apostasy came in and official church evolved. Then one had to have a learning device, not the unity of the Spirit that speaks of font. Eph. 4. 3 careful to preserve the unity of the Spirit, in the peace that binds together. 1. John. b 1 That which was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we saw and our hands touched, if we hold the bid, if the words of life. 2 And the life was revealed, we have seen it and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was revealed to us. 3 What we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, that ye should have fellowship with us, we have fellowship with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. 4 And we are writing this that our joy will be complete. There are so effortlessly over the apostle's teaching in contrast to the Trinity as one can not understand. But one must believe in blind obedience, not to be stamped. How can a purely mathematical achieve that three Gods one one God? Therefore, using a word deity that is a word that one uses for all it's worth, the word God is too difficult.

What does the apostle really? That Jesus was with the Father and was revealed as life, light and Son. Allow yourself the fool anymore, there is only one God, the Father. And the son has gone out from him. John. AD 17 3 And this is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God, whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ. In John 1: 1 is, according to the Norwegian Bible Society translation of 1978/85: "In the beginning was the Word. Word was with God and the Word was God. "Later in the same chapter, the apostle John clearly that" the Word "is Jesus. (John 1: 14) But since the word is spoken of as God, is there anyone who draws the conclusion that the Son and the Father must be part of the same God. We must be aware that this part of the Bible was originally written in Greek. Later, the Greek text translated into other languages. But a series of Bible translators have not translated the last words in John 1: 1 with "the Word was God." Why not? Based on their knowledge of biblical Greek, they concluded that these words be translated in a different way. How have they chosen to translate them? Here are some examples: "the Word was of divine species." (The New Testament in a new translation of the Sounds Brown, Oslo) "The Word was a god." (The New Testament in an Improved Version, London) "The Word was a divine being. "(La Bible you Centenaire, Paris) According to these translations are not the Word of God selv.1 Instead, the word referred to as" a god "because of his high position among the Lord God creatures. The word "god" here means "one who is mighty." And that speaks above all about the quality of the word God here. Jesus is the only one who has the same life, light and features fully as the Father. I've tried to meet all been difficult passages and the sum of God's word is truth. What is the sum of God's word? There are 1,000 passages that speak of one God and 3-4 passages that speak of the Trinity. It's your choice what and who to follow! Consider this example: A school teacher explains a subject for their students. Afterward, the students disagree about how to understand the explanation. How can they figure out the case? They can ask the teacher to get more information. When they get more facts, it is probably easier for them to understand the subject. Similarly, you can understand what it says in John 1: 1, means, go to John's Gospel to get more information about Jesus' position. The fact that you get more facts, will make it easier for you to draw the right conclusion. Think for example of what John writes in chapter 1, verse 18: "Nobody has ever seen [the Almighty] God." But people have seen Jesus, the Son. John says: "the Word [Jesus] became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory." (John 1: 14, NO) How could the Son be a part of Almighty God? John also says that the Word was "with God." But how can a person be with someone and be that person? And in John 17: 3 Jesus clearly distinguishes between himself and his Heavenly Father. He describes his father as "the only true God." At the end of his gospel summarizes John also his account of the signs Jesus did, by saying: "These have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." (John 20: 31) Notice that Jesus referred to as the Son of God, not God. This additional information that John's Gospel comes with showing how John 1: 1 should be understood. Jesus, the Word, is "a god" in the sense that he has a high position, but he is not the same as the Almighty God. Consider again the example of the teacher and students. Imagine that someone is still uncertain after they have listened to the teacher additional explanation has been included. What can they do? They can turn to another teacher to get more information on the same topic. If the other teacher explains and confirms the explanation of the first have come with is probably most students no longer at a loss. If you are not sure what the biblical writer John actually said about the relationship between Jesus and the Almighty God, you can do something similar. You can go to another Bible writer to get more information. Consider for example what Matthew wrote. He quoted Jesus as saying in connection with the end of the current world order, "If the day and hour no one knows, neither the heaven of angels or the Son, but only the Father." (Matthew 24: 36) How do I confirm the words that Jesus is not the Almighty God? Jesus said that the Father knows more than the Son. But if Jesus was a part of Almighty God, he would have known exactly the same as his Father. Son of the Father and therefore can not be equal. But some might say, "Jesus had two natures. Here he talks in his capacity as a human being. "But if that were the case, what about the holy spirit? If it is a part of the same God as Father, why did not Jesus that it knows what the Father knows? When one goes into this subject and compare all passages up against each other as are Trinity supporters in big trouble.

It's really just a scripture that speaks directly about the Trinity and it is not included in the original text because it is a later addition. Now, the false, unbiblical and demonic Trinity stand or fall is the cat with nine lives? Of course not, the word of God and the truth sets free, Jesus says. John. e 8 32 And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. " Here is one scripture that speaks of the Trinity in the clear: Theologians have pointed out several places in the NT to support in their view that God is three, three people. Father, Son and Holy Spirit-who are together in a god. This dogma is not particularly emphasized in the Bible except in some later texts other than in the first Epistle of John chapter 5 verses 7-8 Through the Latin Middle Ages it was believed that the text said: There are three that bear witness in heaven. Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit. Ah here it is, the dogma of the Trinity. But this is found only in the Latin manuscripts. Absolutely not in the Greek manuscripts of the NT. Since the New Testament of the Greek manuscripts were published in 1516, a scribe named Erasmus did not include these verses to the great hubbub of his theological opponents who maintained that he had a mischievous way removed from the Trinity Bible. Erasmus replied that he could not find this part in some of the Greek manuscripts he knew. And here goes the story. He challenged his opponents to produce a Greek manuscript of the Trinity. If they did it, he would include it in the next edition of the NT. In response to his opponents produced a manuscript or at least they got a produced. Some copied John's first letter from the Greek and added these verses, and presented them to Erasmus. As the honorable man he was, he included these verses in the next edition. It was this version that became the basis for the King James version that became important in the historical Bible in English. These verses are still in the King James version but not in newer and more reliable translations. This is why an older generation of readers of the English Bible was assumed that the Bible taught the dogma of the Trinity, even though this is not found in any Greek manuscripts in more than a thousand years.

So what is most reliable? The Greek manuscripts or much later Latin? Now let this be very clear, I stick to the original Greek manuscript. Then one must reject both the Trinity and Jesus alone doctrine and belief in only one God, the Father and that he only has only begotten, Jesus Christ!

God is one and he has a son and there is one Spirit who proceeds from them both! And the Holy Spirit is not a person but God and the Spirit of Christ.

1. Kor.8. 4 What is now relating to eat avgudsofferne, then we know that no idol in the world is, and that there is no God but one. 5 For if there are also so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth - for which there are many gods and many lords - 6 However, it is for us only one God, the Father, by whom all is, and we to him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all is, and we by him.

Related links:

Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar