Trinity Verse Removed?

[Br. Bear]

and a little more, if i may....

Jesus the Son plus God equals 1 when you replace the plus with the cross. Or if you look the other way around...

God is Love.
God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son....
He gave His Son through or with the Cross (if i may take liberty to say?)
and hence 'proved' His Love to be one, as in true, as in complete, as in whole....
as in one.

please read the following passage from Colossians 1:5-23

For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:

As ye also learned of Epaphras our dear fellowservant, who is for you a faithful minister of Christ; Who also declared unto us your love in the Spirit. For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;

That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness; Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;


Bless you ....><>

tags: darkness;light;fruit;fulness;

 

[BLACKSHEEP]

God is Love.
God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son....
He gave His Son through or with the Cross (if i may take liberty to say?)
and hence 'proved' His Love to be one, as in true, as in complete, as in whole....
as in one.

I agree with that. However, being ONE in every respect has nothing to do with the Trinity which really is a confounding teaching. "Three distinct persons yet all the same person?" Three distinct beings yet all the same being and all three equal in power and authority when Jesus said otherwise?

Being ONE means one in mind, spirit and purpose. It no way proves anything about a co-equal Trinity of sorts.

There was no such thing as a trinity until the Catholic's came up with it. It really is an outlandish doctrine. Especially when Trinitarians tell you that the doctrine of Trinity cannot be fully explained or understood, yet many of them condemn people who don't accept it.

From day one as a Christian I never believed in it, and I kept it under my hat for about 30 years, and because of the continual condemnation I was receiving from my own brothers and sisters, I almost lost my salvation over it.

 

[Br. Bear]

From day one as a Christian I never believed in it, and I kept it under my hat for about 30 years, and because of the continual condemnation I was receiving from my own brothers and sisters, I almost lost my salvation over it.

it is sad that we professing Christians go about biting and devouring one another.

---------------------------------
A candle
a candle is lit. It is burning.
the source of the light is the candle (?? technically probably not but for this purpose...)
The light is emitted and by it we can see and of course the darkness does not comprehend it and flees.
Now, look between the wall which has the light lighting it up and the candle.
What can you see?
Nothing.

The Candle... The Father
The Light.... (Who do you think?)
The unseen....?

all one but all not one. God's maths again.
All must exist or else none would. Inseparable yet separate as shown.

If you crank it up a bit to a bonfire, you get another wonderful aspect added... warmth (or heat.)

Maybe trinitarians are missing something and it should be quadairians? (or the Quadity??)

Mind you , true physicists might add the resonance of wavelength and be able to feel and hear something, too?
And then you might get the back-yarders who would find some handy uses and discover that one could cook eggs despite the darkness and coldness of the day, by utilizing the what they would simply see as one?
Which ever way, the effects would be noticeable for all to see, which is why we are told to not hide our light....
and if our light is that we have love for one another as He has loved us that all men see and glorify God our Father in Heaven, then that is what is most important to me and all who would desire to follow Him Who is that Light, sent by God.
( I did warn you that i might not be the best person to join in!)

I would that everyone could both see and walk in the Light... as one.


Bless you ....><>

 

[amadeus2]

it is sad that we professing Christians go about biting and devouring one another.

---------------------------------
Maybe trinitarians are missing something and it should be quadairians? (or the Quadity??)

I know I said that I would avoid such discussions, but I could not resist since you used the word, "quadarians".

Using the following verses in Jesus' prayer to His Father, why not a multiplicity of God as we each become as Jesus is?

"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." John 17:20-21

I don't believe in a multiplicity or in a trinity, but what was it for which Jesus was praying when He prayed that they all may be one; as thou Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us"

If we can accept a trinity, why not a multicity as each of us is added according to His prayer?

 

[Br. Bear]

I would that everyone could both see and walk in the Light... as one.

but while we (whoever it is, no fingers pointed) argue over what is not (in the Bible or for that matter, what is as well) how will any be drawn to the Light?
The Lord may choose more obliging/obedient servants?

perhaps we go back to seeing through a glass darkly? I know that my eyes see more than one at present and i haven't had a drink for years. (possible due to cataract and other degeneration they tell me) so, because i see three does that make me wrong? Perhaps only one is real and the others are a radiation from and of the one?

then, face to face and eye to eye....

in the meanwhile let us shine the Light that others may see and so we don't end up back in the darkness!!


Bless you all ....><>

 

[amadeus2]

but while we (whoever it is, no fingers pointed) argue over what is not (in the Bible or for that matter, what is as well) how will any be drawn to the Light?
The Lord may choose more obliging/obedient servants?

perhaps we go back to seeing through a glass darkly? I know that my eyes see more than one at present and i haven't had a drink for years. (possible due to cataract and other degeneration they tell me) so, because i see three does that make me wrong? Perhaps only one is real and the others are a radiation from and of the one?

then, face to face and eye to eye....

in the meanwhile let us shine the Light that others may see and so we don't end up back in the darkness!!


Bless you all ....><>

If we are faithful, trusting always in Him, the face to face is most certainly coming, but in God's time rather than ours.

 

[Br. Bear]

If we are faithful, trusting always in Him, the face to face is most certainly coming, but in God's time rather than ours.

and then we might (will) see eye to eye...
is that what face to face might be pointing to?


Bless you ....><>

 

[amadeus2]

and then we might (will) see eye to eye...
is that what face to face might be pointing to?


Bless you ....><>

Man who was born dead to God and blind to the things of God has always needed "eyes to see".

"When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek." Psalm 27:8

"Where there is no vision, the people perish: ..." Prov 29:18

"I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see." Rev 3:18

Way back in the Garden of Eden when man thought he had gained vision becoming aware of his nakedness, he actually had become blind to the things of God. Consider how many blind men Jesus healed giving them vision. Yes, that was natural vision as we read it, but if we are really hearing from God it was so much more than that:

"I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see." Rev 3:18

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." I Cor 13:12

 

[Br. Bear]

Man who was born dead to God and blind to the things of God has always needed "eyes to see".

"When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek." Psalm 27:8

"Where there is no vision, the people perish: ..." Prov 29:18

"I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see." Rev 3:18

Way back in the Garden of Eden when man thought he had gained vision becoming aware of his nakedness, he actually had become blind to the things of God. Consider how many blind men Jesus healed giving them vision. Yes, that was natural vision as we read it, but if we are really hearing from God it was so much more than that:

"I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see." Rev 3:18

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." I Cor 13:12

thank you ....><>

 

[Ivar]

Hi Everyone,

While reading John chapters I came across 1 John 5:7.
i realised its not in RSV!
Why is that so?

@OneGodBeliever
Went thru this thread and though I saw some peculiar answers but it did not seem to be answered.

When it comes to the New Testament there are two bible. One that uses the Alexandrian Manuscripts or Text and the other that uses the Antioch Text or Maunscript. The KJV is one of the only few modern day English bible that uses the the Antioch text. Another name for the Antioch text is Textus Receptus.

 

[povawiqe]

Hi Everyone,

While reading John chapters I came across 1 John 5:7.
i realised its not in RSV!
Why is that so?

Because the trinitarian version of that verse was forged unto that verse, existing in manuscripts around the 14th century and onwards, which is why several mainstream English translations of the scriptures do not render that verse in the trinitarian version. The same can be said of the trinitarian verse in the Gospel of Matthew, and although it is very difficult to find manuscripts that do not have the trinitarian version of the verse, possibly because of all the books the Roman Catholic Church burned, the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew does not have the trinitarian version of the verse, and other authors in the early centuries, like Eusebius, quoted that verse in its original way, "in my name", which corresponds with the many scriptures in the New Testament to do things in the name of Yeshuah only, not in the name of a trinity. As such, the reason these verses were forged with trinitarian versions of the verses is because they serve a greater lie that men have tried to push onto the scriptures, the lie of the trinity.

 

[Bendito]

Because the trinitarian version of that verse was forged unto that verse, existing in manuscripts around the 14th century and onwards, which is why several mainstream English translations of the scriptures do not render that verse in the trinitarian version. The same can be said of the trinitarian verse in the Gospel of Matthew, and although it is very difficult to find manuscripts that do not have the trinitarian version of the verse, possibly because of all the books the Roman Catholic Church burned, the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew does not have the trinitarian version of the verse, and other authors in the early centuries, like Eusebius, quoted that verse in its original way, "in my name", which corresponds with the many scriptures in the New Testament to do things in the name of Yeshuah only, not in the name of a trinity. As such, the reason these verses were forged with trinitarian versions of the verses is because they serve a greater lie that men have tried to push onto the scriptures, the lie of the trinity.

Have you looked at vs 8 in the RSV? It says what vs 7 says in the KJV

 

[Bendito]

Have you looked at vs 8 in the RSV? It says what vs 7 says in the KJV Looks trinitarian to me

 

[povawiqe]

Have you looked at vs 8 in the RSV? It says what vs 7 says in the KJV

Of course. I've studied these texts thoroughly.

 

[Bendito]

Of course. I've studied these texts thoroughly.

Then why would you explain the reason why it's not there, when it obviously is there in the RSV?

 

[povawiqe]

Then why would you explain the reason why it's not there, when it obviously is there in the RSV?

Take a look at how a bunch of English translations render that verse, 1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify: . Its obvious that the verse in its trinitarian form is a forgery, which is why all those translations do not render it in the trinitarian version.

 

[Bendito]

Take a look at how a bunch of English translations render that verse, 1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify: . Its obvious that the verse in its trinitarian form is a forgery, which is why all those translations do not render it in the trinitarian version.

Look at vs 8

 

[povawiqe]

Look at vs 8

What about it? Verses 7 and 8 are tampered to both reflect the trinitarian forgery.

 

[Bendito]

What about it? Verses 7 and 8 are tampered to both reflect the trinitarian forgery.

Uh....Ok If you say so, but the bible says the Father, Son, and whom you call the wind of the sky, or something like that, are all one. Should I believe you over the bible?

 

[povawiqe]

Uh....Ok If you say so, but the bible says the Father, Son, and whom you call the wind of the sky, or something like that, are all one. Should I believe you over the bible?

Which is a lie. There is no "trinity". There is no third person called "holy spirit". There is the Father and his sons. His firstborn son is Yeshuah, Then angels are also sons of God, who are also airflows of God. And then man, who are adopted as sons of God.