from new beginning thread in announcements- theological/scripture discussion posts

[Time2BCounted]

Hard to say. Ecclesiology and form criticism are near the top, though.

Does that have something to do with religion?

LOL I shouldnt laugh at my own jokes sorry.

What woulod you say if i set forth a premice that Origen and Clement were responsible for rewriting scriptural texts in order to fit their universalist philosophy, and are in fact responsible for the differances we find in the 45 alexandrian manuscripts?

 

[CaDan]

What woulod you say if i set forth a premice that Origen and Clement were responsible for rewriting scriptural texts in order to fit their universalist philosophy, and are in fact responsible for the differances we find in the 45 alexandrian manuscripts?

I'd say it's an interesting theory. However, to decide that the Alexandrian text-type is incorrect, one must look to things outside the texts themselves. That is, one must pre-determine that Origen was incorrect in, say, "First Principles," and that under his influence the texts were changed.

And there is the pesky problem that the Byzantine text-type does not appear in the papyri.

My personal theory is that there is too little evidence in the actual manuscripts to make a clear call one way or the other. We are left with ambiguity and must do the best we can with what we have.

 

[Time2BCounted]

I'd say it's an interesting theory. However, to decide that the Alexandrian text-type is incorrect, one must look to things outside the texts themselves. That is, one must pre-determine that Origen was incorrect in, say, "First Principles," and that under his influence the texts were changed.

And there is the pesky problem that the Byzantine text-type does not appear in the papyri.

My personal theory is that there is too little evidence in the actual manuscripts to make a clear call one way or the other. We are left with ambiguity and must do the best we can with what we have.

Heres what i find interesting. Neither Westcott nor Hort believed in the infallibility of scripture, and it was the aleaxandrian tyexts they chose to use in specific areas, which make the universalist arguements so slippery to contend with. 1 Jn 5:7 for instance. The newer english translations all claim that the alexandrian texts are the oldest and most reliable, when in fact the western texts are older and they agree with the textus receptus. In fact oiut of over 600 manuscripts containing 1 john only 2 alexandrian texts eliminate them. Older and most reliable is more than quesitonable phraseology to me under these circumstances and the western texts lead me to bneleive these WERE changed by clement and origen

 

[kiwimac]

Heres what i find interesting. Neither Westcott nor Hort believed in the infallibility of scripture, and it was the aleaxandrian tyexts they chose to use in specific areas, which make the universalist arguements so slippery to contend with. 1 Jn 5:7 for instance. The newer english translations all claim that the alexandrian texts are the oldest and most reliable, when in fact the western texts are older and they agree with the textus receptus. In fact oiut of over 600 manuscripts containing 1 john only 2 alexandrian texts eliminate them. Older and most reliable is more than quesitonable phraseology to me under these circumstances and the western texts lead me to bneleive these WERE changed by clement and origen

What on earth makes you say that Westcott or Hort did not believe in the infallibility of the scriptures?

 

[CaDan]

Heres what i find interesting. Neither Westcott nor Hort believed in the infallibility of scripture,

Irrelevant if we are discussing the manuscript evidence. As T'Pau says, "The air is the air."

and it was the aleaxandrian tyexts they chose to use in specific areas, which make the universalist arguements so slippery to contend with. 1 Jn 5:7 for instance. The newer english translations all claim that the alexandrian texts are the oldest and most reliable, when in fact the western texts are older and they agree with the textus receptus. In fact oiut of over 600 manuscripts containing 1 john only 2 alexandrian texts eliminate them. Older and most reliable is more than quesitonable phraseology to me under these circumstances and the western texts lead me to bneleive these WERE changed by clement and origen

I am far from an expert in the manuscript evidence. As I stated previously, my greatest interest is in form criticism. I am aware of some of the arguments regarding text-types, but have not really researched it enough to have a strong opinion one way or the other.

 

[Time2BCounted]

What on earth makes you say that Westcott or Hort did not believe in the infallibility of the scriptures?

The letters they wrote.

As a matter of fact they were also spiritualists. They made many statements not only declaring they dont believe in the inflallibility of scripture, but also statements that make one wonder whos side they were on, God's or Satan's

Arthur Hort, son of Fenton John Anthony Hort, wrote "The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort". Did the esteemed team of westcott and hort have an underlying hidden agenda for abandoning the great majority of accepted texts at critical points, to replace it with minority texts that were considered by most scholars to be flawed? These quotes From Arthur Hort's book can be very eye opening...


"In June (F.J.A. Hort) joined the mysterious Company of the Apostles . . . He was mainly responsible for the wording of an oath which binds members to a conspiracy of silence . . . Two other societies. . . were started . . . in both of which Hort seems to have been the moving spirit . . . the other called by its members ‘The Ghostly Guild.' The object was to collect and classify authenticated instances of what are now called ‘psychical phenomena’ . . . the 'Bogie Club' as scoffers called it, aroused a certain amount of derision, and even some alarm; it was apparently born too soon."



"Further I agree with them [authors of Essays and Reviews] in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology. . . The positive doctrines even of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority and especially the authority of the Bible . . . If this primary objection were removed, and I could feel our differences to be only of degree, I should still hesitate to take part in the proposed scheme. It is surely likely to bring on a crisis; and that I cannot think desirable on any account. The errors and prejudices, which we agree in wishing to remove, can surely be more wholesomely and also more effectually reached by individual efforts of an indirect kind than by combined open assault. At present very many orthodox but rational men are being unawares acted upon by influences which will assuredly bear good fruit in due time if is allowed to go on quietly; but I fear that a premature crisis would frighten back many into the merest traditionalism."


"But I am not able to go as far as you in asserting the infallibility of a canonical writing. I may see a certain fitness and probability in such a view, but I cannot set up an a priori assumption against the (supposed) results of criticism."



"I entirely agree--correcting one word--with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that 'the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself' is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit. But I doubt whether that answers the question as to the nature of the satisfaction. Certainly nothing can be more un*****ural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy."


April 12, 1861 -- to B.F. Westcott --

"Also -- but this may be cowardice -- I have sort of a craving our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean a text issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise reach, and whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms."



April 28, 1865 -- to B.F. Westcott

"I dare not prophesy about America, but cannot see that I see much as yet to soften my deep hatred of democracy in all its forms."


October 11 and 12, 1865 -- to B.F. Westcott --

"I am very far from pretending to understand completely the ever renewed vitality of Mariolotry. But is not much accounted for, on the evil side, by the natural reverence of the religious instinct to idolatry and creature worship and aversion to the Most High; and on the good side, by a right reaction from the inhuman and semi-diabolical character with which God in invested in all modern orthodoxies -- Zeus and Prometheus over again? In Protestant countries the fearful notion 'Christ the believer's God' is the result."


October 17, 1865 - to B.F. Westcott --

"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’-worship have very much in common in their causes and results…we condemn all secondary human mediators as injurious to the One, and shut our eyes to the indestructible fact of existing human mediation which is to be found everywhere. But this last error can hardly be expelled till Protestants unlearn the crazy horror of the idea of priesthood."



"No rational being doubts the need of a revised Bible; and the popular practical objections are worthless. Yet I have an increasing feeling in favor of delay. Of course, no revision can be final, and it would be absurd to wait for perfection. But the criticism of both Testaments in text and interpretation alike, appears to me to be just now in that chaotic state (in Germany hardly if at all less than in England), that the results of immediate revision would be peculiarly unsatisfactory… I John 5:7 might be got rid of in a month; and if that were done, I should prefer to wait a few years."


"It is quite impossible to judge the value of what appear to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of at first . . . The difference between a picture say of Raffaelle and a feeble copy of it is made up of a number of trivial differences . . . We have successfully resisted being warned off dangerous ground, where the needs of revision required that it should not be shirked . . . It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history. So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment."


Theres more for Hort but now lets look at Wescott

The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott



May 5, 1860 -- To F.J.A. Hort --

"For I too 'must disclaim settling for infallibility.' In the front of my convictions all I hold is the more I learn, the more I am convinced that fresh doubts come from my own ignorance, and that at present I find the presumption in favor of the absolute truth -- I reject the word infallibility -- of Holy scripture overwhelming."




These quotes are brought to you originally by the same 2 who revised the greek text using the minorty 45 texts, ignoring the 5210 majority texts in key areas of doctrine...


How much is cut out of the Alexandrian Texts?

The NIV has over 16,000 LESS words than the KJV

 

[kiwimac]

The final quote comes from Life and Letters of Westcott, Vol. I, p.207, and I quote it here in its entirety

"My dear Hort - I am very glad to have seen both your note and Lightfoot's - glad too that we have had such an opportunity of openly speaking. For I too "must disclaim setting forth infallibility" in the front of my convictions. All I hold is, that the more I learn, the more I am convinced that fresh doubts come from my own ignorance, and that at present I find the presumption in favor of the absolute truth - I reject the word infallibility - of Holy Scripture overwhelming. Of course I feel difficulties which at present I cannot solve, and which I never hope to solve."

This quote is part of a three-way discussion between Westcott, Hort and Lightfoot, when they were initially considering working together to produce a commentary of the entire New Testament. Part of the discussion is lost, but a couple of letters from Hort remain. The quote as originally presented was not the complete sentence, but was prefaced with with an affirmation of "the absolute truth of Holy Scripture". Any "difficulties" and "doubts" he sees in scripture "come from my own ignorance" - i.e. when he sees a problem, he recognizes and admits that the problem is with him, not with Scripture.

Source

"a belief in the authority of the books of the New Testament so widely spread throughout the Christian body, so deeply rooted in the inmost consciousness of the Christian Church, so perfectly accordant with all the facts which we do know, can only be explained by admitteing that they are genuine and Apostolic, a written Rule of Christian Faith and Life." (History of the Canon of the New Testament, Westcott, p.14)

Source

It is important that you quote in context. Many of the so-called Westcott-Hort quotes have been taken out of context or they have been deliberately misquoted.

Moreover many of the differences between the Alexandrian MSS and the TR are purely cosmetic, "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ" as an example.

I also recommend the following paper.

 

[Time2BCounted]

The final quote comes from Life and Letters of Westcott, Vol. I, p.207, and I quote it here in its entirety





Source



Source

It is important that you quote in context. Many of the so-called Westcott-Hort quotes have been taken out of context or they have been deliberately misquoted.

Moreover many of the differences between the Alexandrian MSS and the TR are purely cosmetic, "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ" as an example.

I also recommend the following paper.

Those quotes were from the same book, The source Horts son. I just neglected to put the date of the letter in with it.

They come from the original letters written and sent out by Hort, many of them to Westcott. Its not a misquote

Ive read the book myself years ago from an old library in an old "Friends Quaker" chhurch. Loved that lil library, it had OLD theological books going back to the mid 1800's

Concerning the cosmetics, when you consider a 16,000 word differance cosmetics becomes questionable.

For instance, 1 jn 5:7 is missing from the text 2 existing books of 1 jn written in the alexandrian style. Well over 600 other manuscripts however, which do contain 1 jn DO include the text. 600 to 2
Debate a universalist concerning the diety of Christ and use this passage and they will say it is disputed text... The funny thing is Origen and Clement were universalists, the instructors of the acadamy at Alexandria Egypt, AND the heads of the church in that area of Egypt, Origen studied Hebrew and wrote over 6000 texts some of which are grouped in with the alexandrian style manuscripts when they are studied and compared.

The texts we have from the alexandrian style date from the time of origen. So if universalists today use those texts, and we know from Origens texts that he was a universalist, and we know that they come from the same place origen taught, Alexandria Egypt, From the same time period of Origen, Then we know that the western texts precede them and are more equivellant to the Textus REceptus than the Alexandrian, This tells us that the TExtus receptus is correct since the western texts are older show the same passages pre-existing the Alexandrian.

All this means is that the Alexandrian texts are the minority, 45-5210, they are NOT the earliest and therefore were changed in the area of alexandria around the end of the lifetime of Origen

Origen changed them it seems, to fit his universalist doctrines of universal salvation and his doctrine of the logos.

Concerning again where you say that the changes are only cosmetic.
Note the change in the word "Godhead". It is reinterpred from the alexandrian as "diety". Diety is singular, whereas "Godhead" has a strong implication of a plurality, hence the doctrine of the trinity.

Here are some more examples i have in my notes...

Here is an interesting tidbit... The NIV and other newer translations based on the westcott hort greek translation, which is based only on 45 manusscripts, had to by copywrite law use a certain percentage of the textus receptus... or the received text of the KJV... the NIV basicly ONLY parts in points of important doctrine.
Here are just a few examples of this...

Daniel 3:25 KJV= the Son of God, NIV= A son of the Gods
HUGE differance between 'THE SON of God' and 'A son of GODS'
Acts 3:13, 26 KJV= his Son Jesus, NIV= his servant Jesus
Philippians 2:6 KJV= thought it not robbery to be equal with God, NIV = did not consider equality with God something to be grasped
This passage in the KJV says EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what is said in the NIV

Acts 8:37 KJV= If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, NIV= omitted with a footnote
The entire gospel message is removed from Acts chapter 8

John 6:69 KJV= thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, NIV= you are the Holy One of God
Matthew 20:20 KJV= worshipping Him, NIV= kneeling down

John 4:42 KJV = this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world, NIV= this man really is the savior of the world

I John 4:3 KJV= that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, NIV= omitted
Acts 2:30 KJV= according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ, NIV= omitted
Ephesians 5:30 KJV= of his flesh and of his bones, NIV= omitted

Matthew 1:25 KJV= her firstborn son, NIV= birth to a son

Luke 2:33 KJV= Joseph and his mother, NIV =The child’s father and mother
the distinction here is TOO great to ignore... here the KJV doesnt claim Joseph is the father of Christ... indeed it is consistant with the teaching that God is His Father... the NIV however calls a fleshly man the father of Christ and this is opposite of scriptural teaching
Luke 2:43 KJV= Joseph and his mother, NIV= his parents

Colossians 1:14 KJV= through his blood, NIV= omitted
I Corinthians 11:24 KJV= broken for you, NIV= for you
I Cor. 5:7; I Peter 4:1 KJV= for us, NIV= omitted
Ephesians 1:14 KJV= purchased possession, NIV= God's posession
Luke 9:31 KJV= his decease, NIV= his departure
Acts 1:3 KJV= infallible proofs, NIV= convincing proofs
Ephesians 5:30 KJV= of his flesh and of his bones, NIV= omitted
Luke 13:32 KJV= the third day I shall be perfected, NIV= the third day I will reach my goal
John 16:16 KJV= because I go to the Father, NIV= omitted
John 3:13 KJV= which is in heaven, NIV= parenthetical disclaimer
Romans 1:20 KJV= Godhead, NIV= divine nature
Acts 17:29 KJV= Godhead, NIV= divine being
Colossians 2:9 KJV= Godhead, NIV= diety
Romans 11:6 KJV= but if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.. NIV= omitted
Hebrews 3:18 KJV= believed not, NIV=disobedient
Matthew 6:22 KJV= thine eye be single, NIV= your eyes are good
Luke 4:4 KJV= but by every word of God, NIV= omitted
Luke 4:8 KJV= Get thee behind me, Satan, NIV= omitted
Proverbs 21:21 KJV= Righteousness, NIV= prosperity
Mark 10:21 KJV= take up the cross, NIV= omitted
Matthew 20:16 KJV= for many be called, but few chosen, NIV= omitted
Romans 8:1 KJV= who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit., NIV= omitted
Matthew 5:44 KJV= bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, NIV= omitted
II Timothy 2:15 KJV= study, NIV= do your best

Revelation 22:14 KJV= do his commandments, NIV= wash their robes

Luke 11:2 KJV= Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth..
NIV= Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come

Luke 11:4 KJV= And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
NIV= Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation.

Matthew 6:13b KJV= For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.,
NIV= omitted

Mark 13:33 KJV= watch and pray, NIV= be on guard, be alert
Luke 21:36 KJV= pray always, NIV= pray
James 5:16 KJV= effectual fervent prayer, NIV= prayer
Mark 9:29 KJV= prayer and fasting, NIV= prayer
Matthew 25:13 KJV= the Son of man cometh, NIV= omitted
Mark 10:24 KJV= them that trust in riches, NIV omitted
Mark 11:26 KJV= But if ye do not forgive, neither will your father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses., NIV= omitted
Revelation 2:15 KJV= which thing I hate, NIV= omitted

II Timothy 3:3 KJV= trucebreakers false accusers... despisers of those who are good
NIV= unforgiving slanderous not lovers of the good

Matthew 23:14 KJV= ye devour widows houses and for a pretense make long prayers, NIV= omitted

Mark 6:11 KJV= the day of judgment, NIV= omitted
Luke 17:36 KJV= Two shall be in the field, the one shall be taken and the other left., NIV= omitted
Revelation 22:19 KJV=God shall take away his part out of the book of life
NIV= God will take away from him his share in the tree of life.
Mark 9:44, 46 KJV= Where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.
NIV= omitted
Matthew 18:11 KJV= For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost., NIV= omitted
Mark 15:28 KJV= And he was numbered with the transgressors, NIV= omitted
I John 5:13 KJV= that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God, NIV= omitted

Note how many of the changes in these passages are passages which change the meaning to the point that a Universalist can better defend his heresies.
A good example of this is that a universalist believes there is no eternal damnation.
Note what is removed from the Alexandrian texts...

Mark 9:44, 46 KJV= Where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.

NIV= omitted

When you debate a universalist they will tell you this therefore is disputed text. What they ARENT telling you is that there are only 45, alexandrian texts and there are 5210 texts, which make up the textus receptus of the king james version, that disagree with them.



A universalist rejects that Jesus is God, most reject the trinity all together. I provided the example above showing the changes made which turn a plurality or Godhead, into a singular diety. These are somewhat subtle changes but they bring entirely new meaning to the passages.

Also it is convenient that 1 jn 5:7 is removed from the alexandrian, which makes the clarifying statement of the trinity, "There are 3 that bear record in heaven. The Father the word and the Holy Spirit, and these 3 are one."

There is just too much evidence showing that in fact clement and origen were responsible for the major revisions from the texts before them, and then the texts coming after them. They rewrote parts to fit their theology. Origen, by the way was also later declared a heretic and his doctrine heretical by the church. Of course to believe a man can reject Christ all his life and still make it to heaven is heretical, and these alexandrian texts leave open the doors for these heretical doctrines.

 

[invisible trousers]

How does disagreeing with trinitarianism negatively affect my relationship with God?

 

[Time2BCounted]

How does disagreeing with trinitarianism negatively affect my relationship with God?

Thats a matter of perspective, and i believe becomes a matter of responsibility and rejection.

First of all when many people come to God they certainly dont come into it as blblical scholars. If they hear the gospel, receive and believe we are saved.

However we grow and as we go to church or bible study with friends etc, we become exposed to more and more scripture.

God is just so He doesnt hold a new convert to knowing every faqvit of every doctrine to be saved BUT he DOES have the responsibility to believe clearly worded passages dictating just what it is we ARE to believe. So while we may not be held accountable for certain ignorances, once we are exposed to it we ARE accountable for it.

We are to believe that the bible is the inspired word of God and that is it profitable for doctrine.

We are to believe that Jesus is the only Door to the sheepfold and that no man can be saved but throught Him, and that if a man tries to get in any other way, he is a thief and a robber, once we are exposed to it, it is declared by the Chrsit Himself.

1st jn 5:7 makes the claim that there are 3 that bear record in heaven, the father the word and the Holy Spirit and that these 3 are one. Since we are to believe that Christ is who it is claimed He is, we are responsible to believe this passage after being exposed to it.

These are the very most basic foundational creeds and they come straight form the bible in very clearly worded passages, and despite the sidenotes in the NIV, since there are only 2 alexandrian texts which leave out this passage, and over 600 before it AND after it, and since it was quoted by early church Fathers predating the alexandrian texts, it seems to be to be fairly obvious who made these revisions. They were found in the areas of Origens influance, they come from the same time period of Origen, they reflect his personal doctrine, which were renounced by the chuurch as heresies, And there are texts predating the alexandrian which DO reflect the passaged contained in the textus receptus, but abcent from the Alexandrian

 

[invisible trousers]

No I mean like right now what is the harm it's causing. You and others always talk about how bad things will happen if people disagree with your interpretations, so I'd like to be informed of the bad things that are happening to me right now

 

[jameseb]

You and others always talk about how bad things will happen if people disagree with your interpretations, so I'd like to be informed of the bad things that are happening to me right now

You did have to go to the dentist, didn't you?

 

[invisible trousers]

I don't think it's too much to ask someone to provide evidence for their claims. I want to know about the bad things that are supposed to be happening to people who disagree with his biblical standard.

 

[Nadiine]

How does disagreeing with trinitarianism negatively affect my relationship with God?

Just the fact that you had to ask that, tells me all I need to know.

HINT: WHICH gOD DO YOU BELIEVE IN?

If (and He does) God defines Himself as someone/something, do you not care to accept who He says He is?
If you don't care to know who He is and accept the details given

Lastly, the key element is this - A TRUE BELIEVER WILL BELIEVE AND ACCEPT THOSE TRUTHS TAUGHT BY GOD.
Someone who doesn't quite understand God being 3 yet ONE God[head] is one thing.
DENYING GOD IS A TRINITY is quite another.

 

[jameseb]

I don't think it's too much to ask someone to provide evidence for their claims. I want to know about the bad things that are supposed to be happening to people who disagree with his biblical standard.

Seriously, going to the dentist is a "bad thing" to me... unless of course I get the gas, then I kinda like going.

 

[The Bellman]

Just the fact that you had to ask that, tells me all I need to know.

HINT: WHICH gOD DO YOU BELIEVE IN?

If (and He does) God defines Himself as someone/something, do you not care to accept who He says He is?
If you don't care to know who He is and accept the details given

Lastly, the key element is this - A TRUE BELIEVER WILL BELIEVE AND ACCEPT THOSE TRUTHS TAUGHT BY GOD.
Someone who doesn't quite understand God being 3 yet ONE God[head] is one thing.
DENYING GOD IS A TRINITY is quite another.

Denying God is a trinity is disagreeing not with God, but with men - men who stated that God was a trinity. Once again we come back to the fact that everyone's interpretation is just that - their interpretation. And it's fallible and error prone.

A person can deny that God is a trinity and not be denying God.

 

[CaDan]

1st jn 5:7 makes the claim that there are 3 that bear record in heaven, the father the word and the Holy Spirit and that these 3 are one. Since we are to believe that Christ is who it is claimed He is, we are responsible to believe this passage after being exposed to it.

These are the very most basic foundational creeds and they come straight form the bible in very clearly worded passages, and despite the sidenotes in the NIV, since there are only 2 alexandrian texts which leave out this passage, and over 600 before it AND after it, and since it was quoted by early church Fathers predating the alexandrian texts, it seems to be to be fairly obvious who made these revisions. They were found in the areas of Origens influance, they come from the same time period of Origen, they reflect his personal doctrine, which were renounced by the chuurch as heresies, And there are texts predating the alexandrian which DO reflect the passaged contained in the textus receptus, but abcent from the Alexandrian

In which manuscripts does the Comma Johanneum appear and in which manuscripts does it not appear?

 

[Nadiine]

Denying God is a trinity is disagreeing not with God, but with men - men who stated that God was a trinity. Once again we come back to the fact that everyone's interpretation is just that - their interpretation. And it's fallible and error prone.

A person can deny that God is a trinity and not be denying God.

Wow, imagine that, an Atheist explaining the doctrinal truths about God.
I learn SOOO much around here

 

[Joykins]

No I mean like right now what is the harm it's causing. You and others always talk about how bad things will happen if people disagree with your interpretations, so I'd like to be informed of the bad things that are happening to me right now

If Christianity has something to do with a personal relationship to God, how does it affect a relationship when you misunderstand really core things about the other Person in it?

 

[CaDan]

Wouldn't this conversation be better placed someplace else? It's a big foru.ms.