Coolhand

I hear ya. Ever since I took a class in research and writing, I always have to ask if a person is quoting original sources, for example: reading what was the cited by the original author in the original language it was written and being the interpreter, versus, reading another person’s translation of what the original author said in a different language. Do you see the difference? The reason I ask this because I like to save work that I can use in my academic work, such as an annotated bibliography or a critical review. However, I think my professors will fail to see the value in "The Long Island Mystic" who writes with no academic credential or authority.

Absolutely. Having said that, my argument would be that the continuance of this equality and justice would proceed from the broad guidelines given by the moral and ethical principles of both the Old Testament and the New Testament. For example: if something was condemned in both the Old and the New Testaments it would still be condemned today. But take the Sermon on the Mount for another example and more radically implement the teachings it contains. Radical in the sense of loving our neighbor and loving God, and doing unto others as we would want done to us. You, Pete, Hexalpa, Brother Michael, Rainbow, and others on this forum are excellent examples (at least from what you guys say here) and excellent ambassadors of what this should look like, in my opinion; as well as Spong.

Point the website is trying to make is that the verses quoted are intolerant and barbaric, and therefore by that to show that the Bible is also intolerant and barbaric. The fallacy of that argument is that the website dude (and you apparantly also) are looking from where we are backward, from a paradigm that comes from modern western civilization. When you look from here (in time) backward you see something that is regressive. If you were to live in the time of the writing you would see that there is a redemptive value in the Torah, a progress forward. Modern students of the Bible, in order to understand the Bible in its context, need to realize that the point of the Bible has never been to establish a utopian society with perferct equality and justice for all. The point was to move the society in which it was given towards that goal. A study of the surrounding nations and cultures at that time would show that.

I opened up the link and discovered that the "Retard of the Month" section development appears to be....uh.....well....a bit retarded. The last entry is October 2006. Anyway Pete, you must have an objection to those verses that you can clearly articulate, or I would assume that you would not have posted them. And who are Christians supposed to kill? I must have missed that one in my Bible studies.

That's what we were missing..... Hey Pete, What is your objection to the verses you quoted here?

I'd like to buy a vowel.

Very wise indeed!

Relating to change or transition?

It appears he is a self-ordained minister and a self-proclaimed prophet; Is that the case? Is his work mentioned in any peer reviewed scholarly works, journals, or articles? Does he write for any peer reviewed scholarly publications or journals? I noticed that he quotes the Encyclopedia Britannica three time in the article posted here. Does he use any primary sources or does he rely on translations and secondary sources?

Does anybody know anything about Allan Cronshaw?

I guess I shouldn't be, but I am still amazed at your refusal to accept that a text that mentions God, Jesus, and the Spirit all in the same passage; and that assumes the trinity by its context; means that this is presumed. I'm not talking about the doctrine of anything; I'm just talking about the plain reading of the text without reading anything into it, or out of it. Having an open mind is how I form the positions that I have. You might consider reading a primary source document, called the "Introduction" of The Greek New Testament 4th Edition. There you will discover that: "The whole field of New Testament citations in the Church Fathers has been thoroughly reviewed. For a citation to be included there were two criteria to be met. The citation must be capable of verification, i.e., the New Testament text or manuscript cited by the author must be identifiable. Patristic paraphrases, variations, and allusions have no place in this edition. The citation must relate clearly to a specific passage in the New Testament." In other words, these conspiracy theories that abound that have no verifiable proof are not considered by the scholars who actually compare the texts to revise the New Testament. Of course, feel free take what I said and stretch it to some ridicules extreme as you see fit.

So are you now arguing FOR the trinity? Trinitarians would say that God is three persons, which seems to agree with your post.

Ok...I see where we are. A few questions: How can you ignore that the context of the passage is talking about God, Jesus, and the Spirit REPEATEDLY and say there is no reference to the trinity? How can you assert and defend a different reading than the critical text (which is based on textual evidence) exisits without having a text to argue from? Maybe you should just discuss your feelings about the texts; that seems to be a little more comfortable for you. Where have I dont that?

Yeah....even though God, the Son, and the Spirit are specifically mentioned in the text, right, I get ya. I would argue that you are reading into it instead of letting it speak for itelf.

That is not correct. The UBS 4th edition (called the 'critical text') is claimed by scholars to very close to the original text. To say that we have 'no idea' is just misleading and maybe even wishful thinking for some.

Which has already been dealt with on page three of this discussion:

Also a second time asking this question: How should the passage read Michael?

Michael, with all the reading that you do, have not taken the time to read this passage and discover what it is saying? For the second time in regard to 1 John 5:1-11: I would say that the point of the verse is about showing love to God through obedience to the Son; and the witness that testifies to the fact the Son is sent from God; what would you say? I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this is rather important to the discussion we are having.

Try to just dicuss this with out bringing up red herrings. What you beleive and what I believe are equally irrelevant because this discussion is based on textual critcizm; which you claimed you know enough to be able to discuss. First: wrong answer; The word λογος (logos) does not appear in 1 John 5:1-11, see for yourself: 1 πας ο πιστευων οτι ιησους εστιν ο χριστος εκ του θεου γεγεννηται και πας ο αγαπων τον γεννησαντα αγαπα και τον γεγεννημενον εξ αυτου 2 εν τουτω γινωσκομεν οτι αγαπωμεν τα τεκνα του θεου οταν τον θεον αγαπωμεν και τας εντολας αυτου ποιωμεν 3 αυτη γαρ εστιν η αγαπη του θεου ινα τας εντολας αυτου τηρωμεν και αι εντολαι αυτου βαρειαι ουκ εισιν 4 οτι παν το γεγεννημενον εκ του θεου νικα τον κοσμον και αυτη εστιν η νικη η νικησασα τον κοσμον η πιστις ημων 5 τις εστιν ο νικων τον κοσμον ει μη ο πιστευων οτι ιησους εστιν ο υιος του θεου 6 ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δι υδατος και αιματος ιησους χριστος ουκ εν τω υδατι μονον αλλ εν τω υδατι και εν τω αιματι και το πνευμα εστιν το μαρτυρουν οτι το πνευμα εστιν η αληθεια 7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες 8 το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν 9 ει την μαρτυριαν των ανθρωπων λαμβανομεν η μαρτυρια του θεου μειζων εστιν οτι αυτη εστιν η μαρτυρια του θεου οτι μεμαρτυρηκεν περι του υιου αυτου 10 ο πιστευων εις τον υιον του θεου εχει την μαρτυριαν εν αυτω ο μη πιστευων τω θεω ψευστην πεποιηκεν αυτον οτι ου πεπιστευκεν εις την μαρτυριαν ην μεμαρτυρηκεν ο θεος περι του υιου αυτου 11 και αυτη εστιν η μαρτυρια οτι ζωην αιωνιον εδωκεν ημιν ο θεος και αυτη η ζωη εν τω υιω αυτου εστιν Ofcourse the translation is never exact, but I highlighted the words that were highlighted from the NIV: του θεου ; τον θεον ; τω θεω refer to God(as in the Father God). τον υιον του θεου is the son of God. ιησους χριστος is Jesus Christ. το πνευμα is the Spirit. I am familiar with what logos means, but to discuss logos in reference to a passage that doe not have the word in it is a distraction. The references to the trinity (God, his Son, the Spirit) ARE IN the passage reagardles of what I think or what you think, or what you believe. I know you want to discuss four passages at the same time, and what you believe, and what you think I believe, and what the author of your article thinks. When we are finished with 1 John 5 we will move on. This passage is is the first Scripture that your article claims was corrupted. According to this passage Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Do you see that?

I have no problem with you or your beliefs as I have stated over, and over, and over again. Don't plan on me converting to your brand of Christianity however; I'm not there bro. Again, I have no problem with you or your brand of Christianity; if it works for you, praise God! It doesn't work for me at this point in my spiritual walk, but I love you as a brother in Christ all the same. If you feel attacked remind yourself this is a discussion forum; where ideas are expressed; ideas that may differ from yours. Are you aware that the "two or more" Scripture is talking about CHURCH DISCPLINARY ACTIONS? I find that ironic in a post that could be taken to mean everyone is right....lol.

You are going to continue to miss what I am telling you if you cannot stay focused on one thing long enough to get what I am saying. Look at the NIV of 1-11 for a second and I will bold the parts the ASSUME the existance of trinity without arguing for trinity: NIV 1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. 2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3 This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, 4 for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. 5 Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God. 6 This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 9 We accept man’s testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. 10 Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. Are suggesting that these highlighted references to God the father, God the Son, and The Spirit are also the additions of "Correctores?" If so how should that passage read? This is impossible to get around........

So what would you say is the original intent of the entire passage (1 John 5:1-11)? The verse is a part of a larger pericope. If we take just a specific verse and focus on that we will miss the point; you miss the forest because of the trees, so to speak. How is the main point of this verse changed by the two versions of 5:7? The answer is that it isn't. This is how the doctrine inerrency is argued in light of the numberous variant readings. I showed how the "trinity" is all over 5:1-11 by the context, yet proving the trinity is not even the point of that passage. This is where hermeneutics and exegesis come into the picture. This is how a variant reading can have no effect on the context in which is resides. I would say that the point of the verse is about showing love to God through obedience to the Son; and the witness that testifies to the fact the Son is sent from God; what would you say? Look at it again: KJV 1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. 4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? 6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. NIV 1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. 2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3 This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, 4 for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. 5 Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God. 6 This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 9 We accept man’s testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. 10 Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

I agree Dan. The trinity is inherently contexted by the writing itself; regard of whether the "trinity" is specified or not.

Ah,......and this my dear brother is why I have a hard time buying into the argument. In my opinion that would be argumentum ex silentio. When you remove the rabid debate of who the bigger hereatic is, you have little to discuss.

My issues with Spong are probably not going to be resolved through textual criticizm because: 1) according to Epicsopals, the Scriptures are only one of four "pillars" in which their faith stands, and though they say it is authoritative their view of Scripture is different that people of the tradition I follow; and 2) Spong breaks from his own tradition to come up with the doctrines he teaches. I would argue that Spong may get some personal fulfillment and satisfaction from the Bible text, but his view of it is that his reason has much more authority when it comes to his doctrine.