Rescuing The Bible From Fundmentalism

[Coolhand]

I think that along with the other references to the trinity which were dispersed throughout the entire text, it allows for a misunderstanding... due to the wording of the verse...

The only verse in the whole Bible that explicitly ties God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in one "Triune"

Word (wɜːd)

— n

1. Christianity the 2nd person of the Trinity

[translation of Greek logos, as in John 1:1]

that SHOULD show you that the trinity was NEVER in 5:1-11

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........

[Pete]

My desire is that a Jew reading my sermons would say that aleast I have the proper perspective in handling the Tanakh, and that I do not "Christianize" Jewish ideas. Most Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah, so they would disagree with me there.

I would argue that corruption is a better word than an evolution. People do not want to acknowledge that there is a God, and that by lying, blaspheming this God, and stealing they have broken this God's laws and stand guilty before God; condemned for their willful and volitional actions. That is the crux of this alleged "evolution." It is insulting to people to acknowledge their faults. Until a person can, people like Spong will continue to gain followers, because he tells people what they want to hear. They want to hear God made me this way, it is not my fault, it is someone else's fault, and that this is all just fairy tale.

If a person can read the Bible, compare what the Bible says to what Spong says and find agreement, then there is no reason to further discuss it because then you have to put reason aside. Or, have a discussion that violates the Law of Non-Contradiction ("A" cannot be "A" and not "A"), which then means you have suspended the Law of Identity and the Law of the Excluded Middle. It would be irrational.

I really do not like talking about these things with you Cool. I remember the distress last time.

May I suggest we take a deep breath and start form a differ position.

There are many tradition in Christianity (IMO). There are church based ones like the Roman Catholics. Bible based ones like the evangelicals, Spirit based ones like the Quakers and Unitarians, Gnostic and many other traditions.

I come from a body who worship in silence, pray and await the spirit to speak to us or through someone else. Its witness to the world is in social works and caring for others and sharing that love that Jesus I believe taught (IMO). It has a belief that there is that of God in all. It is a far cry from the noisy and expressive evangelical meetings. I believe in a God bigger than my understanding and do not accept the view of the bible debaters nor the basis that I believe it is based on. You do and I recognise that. I personal do not agree with you and I believe you do not agree with me but that is not the issue for me. I see much debate going on by bible based Christianities that argue that other forms of Christianity do not exist, are corrupt or are false and the bible determines that it is the only authority. I see local Christian book shops littered with books that argue that they have the only truth and no one has a right to a differing view. Now we have one guy here (Spong) who reviews some those debates and like me finds them lacking and unsupportable. I know you disagree but it does not change it for me that you do. I treasure my belief in Jesus and what Jesus means to me. I recognise that could be different in areas to you. Fair enough. I do not say you are not Christian or that God does not speak to you but I do feel under attack by some who would argue that I and people like Spong do not have right call themselves Christian. Hence there is a continuing debate to challenge that which is being thrown towards us on the more liberal side of things. I could not stop that debate anymore than those who challenge me and others will. Sure it would be good if we could all get along and accept each other but that is not what is happening and its a two sided debate. I do not enjoy being at odds with you but we are from different traditions of the same faith (IMO) and there are likely to be differences. Now if I use what I believe is of the Spirit and you believe what you believe is the word of God (the bible) then we will come to differing opinions in my experience. I cannot change that. I believe faith is what comes from God and religion is just what we make of that experience. The bible for me is just writings of what others feel the experience meant to them and fair enough but that does not mean they are always right and and had the only understanding available or that is correct (IMO). As Fawzo suggested that Christianity is evolving as most faiths have. Fundamentalism and Liberalism are just some of those evolutions in my belief. I would love it if we could get along but I cannot see a time at present in which we will not debate our differing perspectives. Until that happens, how can I just put it aside, anymore than I expect you too? I just hope we are big enough to remember the critical thing of love for each other.

Edited November 1, 2010 by Pete

[Fawzo]

I just hope we are big enough to remember the critical thing of love for each other.

Nice post Pete!

Yep I think if a writing comes from the Spirit of God, then it should be only about love and compassion for God and our fellow man. Maybe we should judge whether all scripture is of God or man by that criteria.

If a scripture instills love and compassion within our hearts than it meets the Golden Standard for being God Inspired. If It instills judgment, condemnation and fear than we can be sure it must come from the egoic projections of anthropomorphism of man.

We only need two or three to agree on this for it to be so, can I get an AMEN?

[Coolhand]

I really do not like talking about these things with you Cool. I remember the distress last time.

May I suggest we take a deep breath and start form a differ position.

There are many tradition in Christianity (IMO). There are church based ones like the Roman Catholics. Bible based ones like the evangelicals, Spirit based ones like the Quakers and Unitarians, Gnostic and many other traditions.

I come from a body who worship in silence, pray and await the spirit to speak to us or through someone else. Its witness to the world is in social works and caring for others and sharing that love that Jesus I believe taught (IMO). It has a belief that there is that of God in all. It is a far cry from the noisy and expressive evangelical meetings. I believe in a God bigger than my understanding and do not accept the view of the bible debaters nor the basis that I believe it is based on. You do and I recognise that. I personal do not agree with you and I believe you do not agree with me but that is not the issue for me. I see much debate going on by bible based Christianities that argue that other forms of Christianity do not exist, are corrupt or are false and the bible determines that it is the only authority. I see local Christian book shops littered with books that argue that they have the only truth and no one has a right to a differing view. Now we have one guy here (Spong) who reviews some those debates and like me finds them lacking and unsupportable. I know you disagree but it does not change it for me that you do. I treasure my belief in Jesus and what Jesus means to me. I recognise that could be different in areas to you. Fair enough. I do not say you are not Christian or that God does not speak to you but I do feel under attack by some who would argue that I and people like Spong do not have right call themselves Christian. Hence there is a continuing debate to challenge that which is being thrown towards us on the more liberal side of things. I could not stop that debate anymore than those who challenge me and others will. Sure it would be good if we could all get along and accept each other but that is not what is happening and its a two sided debate. I do not enjoy being at odds with you but we are from different traditions of the same faith (IMO) and there are likely to be differences. Now if I use what I believe is of the Spirit and you believe what you believe is the word of God (the bible) then we will come to differing opinions in my experience. I cannot change that. I believe faith is what comes from God and religion is just what we make of that experience. The bible for me is just writings of what others feel the experience meant to them and fair enough but that does not mean they are always right and and had the only understanding available or that is correct (IMO). As Fawzo suggested that Christianity is evolving as most faiths have. Fundamentalism and Liberalism are just some of those evolutions in my belief. I would love it if we could get along but I cannot see a time at present in which we will not debate our differing perspectives. Until that happens, how can I just put it aside, anymore than I expect you too? I just hope we are big enough to remember the critical thing of love for each other.

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.

We only need two or three to agree on this for it to be so, can I get an AMEN?

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.

[Pete]

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.

Absolutely. When I was referring to the attacks I was meaning that between the differing branches of the faith and not this forum. As you can note Spong is not even of this forum.  I am also not trying to convert anyone as I believe only God does that. Your love is however, appreciated.  

Fawzo, amen. 

[Brother Michael Sky]

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........

The problem here is not on my end Cool.... I understand perfectly well that you see references to the trinity in that passage.... what I am repeatedly trying to get across to YOU, is that I do not believe they exist..... there is a basic difference between our beliefs.... and it breaks down to Jesus' role in things.... you see him as God incarnate ( am I correct? ) and I see him as a MAN who, through living the correct way, was graced by our Creator's Conscious Personal Presence - from an INDWELLING source.... I believe that Jesus shared with us that ALL are capable of what he accomplished.... and I believe that is what the text tells us....THAT is why references to the doctrine of the Trinity are such a dangerous misdirection....

I even gave you the definition of the WORD, i.e. LOGOS, that is the root of the problem.... you quickly ran past all of my attempts in an effort to WIN the argument... an argument that scripture DOES NOT back up for you - interpretation only gets you so far - you must at some point pay attention to the LANGUAGE USED..... THERE ARE NO REFERENCES TO THE TRINITY that scholars consider legitimate - interpretation alone gets you that reference.... As a self-proclaimed Biblical Scholar, that should be knowledge you already possess... You keep referring to two texts that are well recognized to have , more or less, the very same problems, one is simply a little more contaminated than the other....

Jesus, in my belief, was born of a Human union, between Joseph and Mary, and was a normal human boy, until the point at which he was Baptized by John the Baptist..... at which Point he was Graced by the Conscious Presence of God.... THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE...

You DID tell me you had read what I posted - I do not want to infer that you, in actuality, DID NOT, but if you had - how could you have missed this:

When the text of the Bible reads in the book of Acts regarding the relationship of David to Jesus: "Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne" (Acts 2:30 KJV) -- the words "according to the flesh" are not found in all the manuscripts. The defenders of the Trinity will state that someone must have added these words, but if this is so, then why did Paul write: "regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom 1:3-4 NIV). This would then tell us that Jesus was born of the linage of David, and because of his holiness was declared the Son of God by his resurrection. Further, Mary herself calls Jesus the son of Joseph at Luke 2:48. When it is remembered that the Messianic Jewish Christians who knew Jesus personally, including those who wrote our scriptures, did not believe that Jesus was God, perhaps the Lord is saying to us: The time has come where we should do as the Bible says and "Prove all things" (1 Thes 5:21 KJV) before we blindly believe the doctrines of Constantine.

Every Christian today who desires to know the Mysteries of God should be alarmed by the fact that neither Jesus nor his disciples taught the concepts of the Trinity. From a doctrinal standpoint with regard to the manner we must live in order to approach the alter of the Lord, one's adherence to this doctrine is an obstruction that inhibits the modern church from embracing the spiritual essence of what Jesus actually taught. When one reads the scriptures through the doctrinal filter of the Trinity, the majority of the Bible is negated and rendered useless. Nowhere in the New Testament does the text even hint that Jesus is to be worshiped in any other manner than as a pattern for each of us to imitate.

Unless that is, you simply could not see it in your attempt to WIN an argument that is not supported on your end........

I KNOW you are going to simply repeat that I did not see your point - but before you do - PLEASE GO REFERENCE THE ORIGINAL WORDS IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK..... AND LOOK FOR THE USAGE OF LOGOS...... what is ACTUALLY THERE......

Edited November 2, 2010 by Brother Michael Sky

[Brother Michael Sky]

The word Logos is the term by which Christian theology in the Greek language designates the Word of God, or Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Before St. John had consecrated this term by adopting it, the Greeks and the Jews had used it to express religious conceptions which, under various titles, have exercised a certain influence on Christian theology, and of which it is necessary to say something.

I. THE LOGOS IN HELLENISM

It is in Heraclitus that the theory of the Logos appears for the first time, and it is doubtless for this reason that, first among the Greek philosophers, Heraclitus was regarded by St. Justin (Apol. I, 46) as a Christian before Christ. For him the Logos, which he seems to identify with fire, is that universal principle which animates and rules the world. This conception could only find place in a materialistic monism. The philosophers of the fifth and fourth centuries before Christ were dualists, and conceived of God as transcendent, so that neither in Plato (whatever may have been said on the subject) nor in Aristotle do we find the theory of the Logos.

It reappears in the writings of the Stoics, and it is especially by them that this theory is developed. God, according to them, "did not make the world as an artisan does his work, but it is by wholly penetrating all matter that He is the demiurge of the universe" (Galen, "De qual. incorp." in "Fr. Stoic.", ed. von Arnim, II, 6); He penetrates the world "as honey does the honeycomb" (Tertullian, "Adv. Hermogenem", 44), this God so intimately mingled with the world is fire or ignited air; inasmuch as He is the principle controlling the universe, He is called Logos; and inasmuch as He IS the germ from which all else develops, He is called the seminal Logos (logos spermatikos). This Logos is at the same time a force and a law, an irresistible force which bears along the entire world and all creatures to a common end, an inevitable and holy law from which nothing can withdraw itself, and which every reasonable man should follow willingly (Cleanthus, "Hymn to Zeus" in "Fr. Stoic." I, 527-cf. 537). Conformably to their exegetical habits, the Stoics made of the different gods personifications of the Logos, e.g. of Zeus and above all of Hermes. At Alexandria, Hermes was identified with Thoth, the god of Hermopolis, known later as the great Hermes, "Hermes Trismegistus", and represented as the revealer of all letters and all religion. Simultaneously, the Logos theory conformed to the current Neoplatonistic dualism in Alexandria: the Logos is not conceived of as nature or immanent necessity, but as an intermediary agent by which the transcendent God governs the world. This conception appears in Plutarch, especially in his "Isis and Osiris"; from an early date in the first century of the Christian era, it influenced profoundly the Jewish philosopher Philo.

II. THE WORD IN JUDAISM

Quite frequently the Old Testament represents the creative act as the word of God (Genesis 1:3; Psalm 32:9; Sirach 42:15); sometimes it seems to attribute to the word action of itself, although not independent of Jahveh (Isaiah 55:11, Zechariah 5:1-4; Psalm 106:20; 147:15). In all this we can see only bold figures of speech: the word of creation, of salvation, or, in Zacharias, the word of malediction, is personified, but is not conceived of as a distinct Divine hypostasis. In the Book of Wisdom this personification is more directly implied (xviii, 15 sq.), and a parallel is established (ix, 1, 2) between wisdom and the Word.

In Palestinian Rabbinism the Word (Memra) is very often mentioned, at least in the Targums: it is the Memra of Jahveh which lives, speaks, and acts, but, if one endeavour to determine precisely the meaning of the expression, it appears very often to be only a paraphrase substituted by the Targumist for the name of Jahveh. The Memra resembles the Logos of Philo as little as the workings of the rabbinical mind in Palestine resembled the speculations of Alexandria: the rabbis are chiefiy concerned about ritual and observances; from religious scruples they dare not attribute to Jahveh actions such as the Sacred Books attribute to Him; it is enough for them to veil the Divine Majesty under an abstract paraphrase, the Word, the Glory, the Abode, and others. Philo's problem was of the philosophic order; God and man are infinitely distant from each other, and it is necessary to establish between them relations of action and of prayer; the Logos is here the intermediary.

Leaving aside the author of the Book of Wisdom, other Alexandrian Jews before Philo had speculated as to the Logos; but their works are known only through the rare fragments which Christian authors and Philo himself have preserved. Philo alone is fully known to us, his writings are as extensive as those of Plato or Cicero, and throw light on every aspect of his doctrine; from him we can best learn the theory of the Logos, as developed by Alexandrian Judaism. The character of his teaching is as manifold as its sources:

sometimes, influenced by Jewish tradition, Philo represents the Logos as the creative Word of God ("De Sacrific. Ab. et Cain"; cf. "De Somniis", I 182; "De Opif. Mundi", 13);

at other times he describes it as the revealer of God, symbolized in Scripture by the angel of Jahveh ("De Somniis", I, 228-39, "De Cherub.", 3; "De Fuga", 5; "Quis rer. divin. haeres sit", 201-205).

Oftener again he accepts the language of Hellenic speculation; the Logos is then, after a Platonistic concept, the sum total of ideas and the intelligible world ("De Opif. Mundi", 24, 25; "Leg. Alleg.", I, 19; III, 96),

or, agreeably to the Stoic theory, the power that upholds the world, the bond that assures its cohesion, the law that determines its development ("De Fuga", 110; "De Plantat. Noah," 8-10; "Quis rer. divin. haeres sit", 188, 217; "Quod Deus sit immut.", 176; "De Opif. Mundi", 143).

Throughout so many diverse concepts may be recognized a fundamental doctrine: the Logos is an intermediary between God and the world; through it God created the world and governs it; through it also men know God and pray to Him ("De Cherub.", 125; "Quis rerum divin. haeres sit", 205-06.) In three passages the Logos is called God ("Leg. Alleg.", III, 207; "De Somniis", I, 229; "In Gen.", II, 62, cited by Eusebius, "Praep. Ev.", VII, 13); but, as Philo himself explains in one of these texts (De Somniis), it is an improper appellation and wrongly employed, and he uses it only because he is led into it by the Sacred Text which he comments upon. Moreover, Philo does not regard the Logos as a person; it is an idea, a power, and, though occasionally identified with the angels of the Bible, this is by symbolic personification.

III. THE LOGOS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

The term Logos is found only in the Johannine writings: in the Apocalypse (19:13), in the Gospel of St. John (1:1-14), and in his First Epistle (1:1; cf. 1:7 - Vulgate). But already in the Epistles of St. Paul the theology of the Logos had made its influence felt. This is seen in the Epistles to the Corinthians, where Christ is called "the power of God, and the wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24) and "the image of God" (2 Corinthians 4:4); it is more evident in the Epistle to the Colossians (1:15 sqq.); above all in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the theology of the Logos lacks only the term itself, that finally appears in St. John. In this epistle we also notice the pronounced influence of the Book of Wisdom, especially in the description which is given of the relations between the Son and the Father: "the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance" (cf. Wisdom 7:26). This resemblance suggests the way by which the doctrine of the Logos entered into Christian theology; another clue is furnished by the Apocalypse, where the term Logos appears for the first time (19:13), and not apropos of any theological teaching, but in an apocalyptic vision, the content of which has no suggestion of Philo but rather recalls Wisdom 18:15.

In the Gospel of St. John the Logos appears in the very first verse without explanation, as a term familiar to the readers, St. John uses it at the end of the prologue (i, 14), and does not mention it again in the Gospel. From this Harnack concludes that the mention of the Word was only a starting-point for the Evangelist, and that he passed directly from this Hellenic conception of the Logos to the Christian doctrine of the only Son ("Ueber das Verhältniss des Prologs des vierten Evangeliums zum ganzen Werk" in "Zeitschrift fur Theol. und Kirche", II, 1892, 189-231). This hypothesis is proved false by the insistence with which the Evangelist comes back on this idea of the Word, it is, moreover, natural enough that this technical term, employed in the prologue where the Evangelist is interpreting the Divine mystery, should not reappear in the sequel of the narrative, the character of which might thus suffer change.

What is the precise value of this concept in the writings of St. John? The Logos has not for him the Stoic meaning that it so often had for Philo: it is not the impersonal power that sustains the world, nor the law that regulates it; neither do we find in St. John the Platonistic concept of the Logos as the ideal model of the world; the Word is for him the Word of God, and thereby he holds with Jewish tradition, the theology of the Book of Wisdom, of the Psalms, of the Prophetical Books, and of Genesis; he perfects the idea and transforms it by showing that this creative Word which from all eternity was in God and was God, took flesh and dwelt among men.

This difference is not the only one which distinguishes the Johannine theology of the Logos from the concept of Philo, to which not a few have sought to liken it. The Logos of Philo is impersonal, it is an idea, a power, a law; at most it may be likened to those half abstract, half-concrete entities, to which the Stoic mythology had lent a certain personal form. For Philo the incarnation of the Logos must have been absolutely without meaning, quite as much as its identification with the Messias. For St. John, on the contrary, the Logos appears in the full light of a concrete and living personality; it is the Son of God, the Messias, Jesus. Equally great is the difference when we consider the role of the Logos. The Logos of Philo is an intermediary: "The Father who engendered all has given to the Logos the signal privilege of being an intermediary (methorios) between the creature and the creator . . . it is neither without beginning (agenetos) as is God, nor begotten (genetos) as you are [mankind], but intermediate (mesos) between these two extremes "(Quis rer. divin. haeres sit, 205-06). The Word of St. John is not an intermediary, but a Mediator; He is not intermediate between the two natures, Divine and human, but He unites them in His Person; it could not be said of Him, as of the Logos of Philo, that He is neither agenetos nor genetos, for He is at the same time one and the other, not inasmuch as He is the Word, but as the Incarnate Word (St. Ignatius, "Ad Ephes.", vii, 2).

In the subsequent history of Christian theology many conflicts would naturally arise between these rival concepts, and Hellenic speculations constitute a dangerous temptation for Christian writers. They were hardly tempted, of course, to make the Divine Logos an impersonal power (the Incarnation too definitely forbade this), but they were at times moved, more or less consciously, to consider the Word as an intermediary being between God and the world. Hence arose the subordinationist tendencies found in certain Ante-Nicene writers; hence, also, the Arian heresy (see NICAEA, COUNCIL OF).

IV. THE LOGOS IN ANCIENT CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

The Apostolic Fathers do not touch on the theology of the Logos; a short notice occurs in St. Ignatius only (Ad Magn. viii, 2). The Apologists, on the contrary, develop it, partly owing to their philosophic training, but more particularly to their desire to state their faith in a way familiar to their readers (St. Justin, for example, insists strongly on the theology of the Logos in his "Apology" meant for heathens, much less so in his "Dialogue with the Jew Tryphon"). This anxiety to adapt apologetic discussion to the circumstances of their hearers had its dangers, since it was possible that in this way the apologists might land well inside the lines of their adversaries. As to the capital question of the generation of the Word, the orthodoxy of the Apologists is irreproachable: the Word was not created, as the Arians held later, but was born of the very Substance of the Father according to the later definition of Nicaea (Justin, "Dial.",128, Tatian, "Or.", v, Athenagoras, "Legat." x-xviii, Theophilus, "Ad Autolyc.", II, x; Tertullian "Adv. Prax.", vii). Their theology is less satisfactory as regards the eternity of this generation and its necessity; in fact, they represent the Word as uttered by the Father when the Father wished to create and in view of this creation (Justin, "II Apol.", 6; cf. "Dial.",6162; Tatian, "Or.", v, a corrupt and doubtful text; Athenagoras, "Legat.", x; Theophilus, "Ad Autolyc.", II, xxii; Tertullian, "Adv. Prax.", v-vii). When we seek to understand what they meant by this "utterance", it is difficult to give the same answer for all Athenagoras seems to mean the role of the Son in the work of creation, the syncatabasis of the Nicene Fathers (Newman, "Causes of the Rise and Successes of Arianism" in "Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical", London, 1902, 238), others, especially Theophilus and Tertullian (cf. Novatian, "De Trinit.", xxxi), seem quite certainly to understand this "utterance" as properly so called. Mental survivals of Stoic psychology seem to be responsible for this attitude: the philosophers of the Portico distinguished between the innate word (endiathetos) and the uttered word (prophorikos) bearing in mind this distinction the aforesaid apologists conceived a development in the Word of God after the same fashion. After this period, St. Irenæus condemned very severely these attempts at psychological explanation (Adv. Haeres., II, xiii, 3-10, cf. II, xxviii, 4-6), and later Fathers rejected this unfortunate distinction between the Word endiathetos and prophorikos [Athanasius (?), "Expos. Fidei", i, in P. G., XXV, 201-cf. "Orat.", II, 35, in P. G., XXVI, 221; Cyril of Jerusalem "Cat.", IV, 8, in P. G., XXXIII, 465-cf. "Cat.", XI, 10, in P. G., XXXIII, 701-cf. Council of Sirmium, can. viii, in Athan., "De Synod.", 27-P. G., XXVI.

As to the Divine Nature of the Word, all apologists are agreed but to some of them, at least to St. Justin and Tertuilian, there seemed to be in this Divinity a certain subordination (Justin, "I Apol.", 13-cf. "II Apol.", 13; Tertullian, "Adv. Prax.", 9, 14, 26).

The Alexandrian theologians, themselves profound students of the Logos doctrine, avoided the above mentioned errors concerning the dual conception of the Word (see, however, a fragment of the "Hypotyposes", of Clement of Alexandria, cited by Photius, in P. G., CIII, 384, and Zahn, "Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutest. Kanons", Erlangen, 1884, xiii 144) and the generation in time; for Clement and for Origen the Word is eternal like the Father (Clement "Strom.", VII, 1, 2, in P. G., IX, 404, 409, and "Adumbrat. in Joan.", i, 1, in P. G., IX, 734; Origen, "De Princip.", I, xxii, 2 sqq., in P. G., XI, 130 sqq.; "In Jer. Hom.", IX, 4, in P. G., XIII, 357, "In Jo. ', ii, 32, in P. G., XIV, 77; cf. Athanasius, "De decret. Nic. syn.", 27, in P. G., XXV, 465). As to the nature of the Word their teaching is less sure: in Clement, it is true, we find only a few traces of subordinationism ("Strom.", IV, 25, in P. G., VIII, 1365; "Strom.", VII, 3, in P. G., IX, 421; cf. "Strom.", VII, 2, in P. G., IX, 408); elsewhere he very explicitly affirms the equality of the Father and the Son and the unity (" Protrept.", 10, in P. G., VIII 228, "Paedag.", I, vi, in P. G., VIII, 280; I, viii, in P. G., VIII, 325 337 cf. I, ix, in P. G., VIII, 353; III, xii, in P. d., V*I, 680). Origen, on the contrary, frequently and formally defended subordinationist ideas (" De Princip.", I, iii, 5, in P. G., XI, 150; IV, xxxv, in P. G., XI, 409, 410; "In Jo." ii, 2, in P. G., XIV, 108, 109; ii, 18, in P. G., XIV, 153, 156; vi, 23, in P. G., XIV, 268; xiii, 25, in P. G., XIV, 44144; xxxii, 18, in P. G., XIV, 817-20; "In Matt.", xv, 10, in P. G., XIII, 1280, 1281; "De Orat.", 15, in P. G., XI,464, "Contra Cels.", V, xi, in P. G., XI,1197); his teaching concerning the Word evidently suffered from Hellenic speculation: in the order of religious knowledge and of prayer, the Word is for him an intermediary between God and the creature.

Amid these speculations of apologists and Alexandrian theologians, elaborated not without danger or without error, the Church maintained her strict dogmatic teaching concerning the Word of God. This is particularly recognizable in the works of those Fathers more devoted to tradition than to philosophy, and especially in St. Irenæus, who condemns every form of the Hellenic and Gnostic theory of intermediary beings (Adv. Haer., II, xxx, 9; II, ii, 4; III, viii, 3; IV, vii, 4, IV, xx, 1), and who affirms in the strongest terms the full comprehension of the Father by the Son and their identity of nature (Adv. Haer., II, xvii, 8; IV, iv, 2, IV, vi, 3, 6). We find it again with still greater authority in the letter of Pope St. Dionysius to his namesake, the Bishop of Alexandria (see Athan., "De decret. Nic. syn.", 26, in P. G., XXV,461-65): "They lie as to the generation of the Lord who dare to say that His Divine and ineffable generation is a creation. We must not divide the admirable and Divine unity into three divinities, we must not lower the dignity and sovereign grandeur of the Lord by the word creation, but we must believe in God the Father omnipotent, in Christ Jesus His Son, and in the Holy Ghost, we must unite the Word to the God of the universe, for He has said: 'I and the Father are one', and again: 'I am in the Father, and the Father in me'. Thus we protect the Divine Trinity, and the holy avowal of the monarchy [unity of God]." The Council of Nicaea (325) had but to lend official consecration to this dogmatic teaching.

[Dan56]

the " common denominator " can only be seen as The Father... unless one is confused by the false teaching of The Doctrine of the Trinity which was inserted...

The Godhead is revealed in 3 distinct ways, which are one. God the Father is the unseen, omnipresent source of all being, revealed in and by the Son, experienced in and by the Holy Spirit. The Son proceeds from the Father, and the Spirit from the Son. The Father is the thought behind it, the Son is the Word calling it forth, and the Spirit is the deed making it a reality. The Father loves us, Jesus calls us, and the Spirit quickens us. The common denominator is this trinity, which act with singularity of purpose.

that cannot be supported, but IMO, it can be supported the other way around... and I think you misunderstand Gnosticism - for Paul was a gnostic as his letters clearly show...

I've read all the Gnostics, and I understand Gnosticism. The definition I included was from the dictionary; "Gnosis is an Intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths, and not a spiritual revelation directly from God." Paul was not Gnostic, he was clearly a proponent of the trinity; "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all." (2 Corinthians 13:14), "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord .And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all." (1 Corinthians 12:4-6).

that, is a ridiculously uneducated opinion..in my opinion.... it comes straight from the issues we are talking about... misunderstandings and misdirection... and possibly a misunderstanding of the usage of paganism...

My understanding of pagan comes from the definition;

1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks.

2. a person who is NOT A CHRISTIAN, Jew, or Muslim.

3. an irreligious or hedonistic person.

If Paul believed in multiple Gods, was not a follower of Christ, and a confessed heathen, then I suppose your correct in defining him as a pagan or Gnostic... The only misdirection is your effort to rewrite the bible to fit a personal philosophy. All your quotes from these so called "scholars" is just biased opinions. The bottom line is that if the Gnostics are right, then the bible is false. And if the bible is right, then all Gnostic writings are heresy. I'm banking on the bible.

at a time when it was illegal to possess the texts? when texts were gathered up and burned in big piles? they were important enough to gather up and hide away for a couple thousand years, were they not? what was left was thoroughly censored by the church.... c'mon, this is BASIC history...and it was slightly different than you suggest..

I don't believe the inspired books were censored, the effort was to preserve them. What was burned was counterfeit gospels written by unknown authors who had no connection to the apostles.

People who don't like the biblical message have always tried to change it, by arguing that others must have altered what it says. Its as true today as when the Gnostics were written, people insist on trying to turn the truth into a lie. What is it about the biblical Jesus that you find so revolting? Its so easy to believe and accept, I just don't understand the resistance? Try accepting it instead of investigating it. Your putting your faith in your own deductive reasoning by doubting God's ability to preserve his own written word. No offense intended, its just puzzling to me. Its never been about educated or uneducated opinions, real wisdom comes from understanding His Word.

[Pete]

"In most pre-modern cultures, there were tworecognised ways of thinking, speaking and acquiring knowledge. The Greekscalled them "mythos" and logos.Both were essential and neither was considered superior to the other; they werenot in conflict but complementary. Each had its own sphere of competence and itwas considered unwise to mix the two. Logos(reason) was the pragmatic mode of thought that had enabled people to functioneffectively in the world. People have always needed logos to make an efficient weapon, organise their societies or planan expedition. Logos was forwardlooking, continually on the lookout for new ways of controlling the environment,improving old insights or inventing something fresh. Logos was essential to survival of our species. But it had itslimitations: it could not assuage human grief or find ultimate meaning inlife's struggles. For that, people turned to mythos or 'myth'.

Armstrong (2010), The Case forGod (what religion really means), Vintage Books, London, pages 2-3.

"Logos (pronounced /ˈloʊɡɒs/, /ˈlɒgɒs/ (UK), or /ˈloʊgoʊs/(US); Greek λόγος logos) is an important term in philosophy, psychology,rhetoric and religion. Originally a word meaning "word,""speech," "account," or "reason,"[1] it became a technical term in philosophy, beginning with Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BC), whoused the term for the principle of order and knowledge.[2]

Ancient philosophers used the term in different ways however. The sophists used the term to mean discourse, and Aristotle applied the term to "reasoned discourse"[3] in the field of rhetoric. The Stoic philosophers identified the term with the divine animating principle pervading the Universe.

After Judaism came under Hellenistic influence, Philo (ca. 20 BC–AD 40) adopted the term into Jewish philosophy.[4] The Gospel ofJohn identifies the Logos, through which all things are made, as divine(theos),[5] and further identifies Jesus as the incarnation of the Logos.

Although the term "Logos" is widely used in this Christian sense, in academic circles it often refers to the various ancient Greek uses, or to post-Christian uses within contemporary philosophy, Sufism,and the analytical psychology of Carl Jung."

from:- http://en.wikipedia....org/wiki/Logos

It seems to me it is only in some Christian groups that the term"Logos" is referred to as the divine but in Greek terms we have an understanding more like "the reason became flesh" rather than God became flesh or the Word became flesh. As the New testament was originally written in Greek I am more to Brother Sky's viewpoint that in the use of the term "Logos" its original meaning did not refer to Jesus being God or the term "God's word". It appears it had a differing meaning in the original Greek and Greek audiences to that being held by some churches today. This is compounded by the modern translations removing the word "Logos" and placing "Word" its place. Hence changing its meaning.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Re-Pete

[Fawzo]

Your putting your faith in your own deductive reasoning by doubting God's ability to preserve his own written word. No offense intended, its just puzzling to me. Its never been about educated or uneducated opinions, real wisdom comes from understanding His Word.

Dan I do not doubt God's ability to preserve His Word. He need not write it down as it is written in the heart and mind of every sentient being.

What I do doubt is your abilty to objectively decide which one of the tens of thousands of alleged written words of God and their variants that exist on our planet are closest to the one written in the mind of Christ Consciousness. Lets face it the odds are at least 1 in 100,000 that you have selected correctly and the odd thing is everyone is making the same bet with their life. Why is your wager a better bet?

Did God really mean there are storehouses in the sky for the wind. Is the firmamnet a hardened shell with windows for the rain to come through, Did God really mean that it is ok to kill adulterers, disobedient children, people who work the Sabbath. Is it ok to sell your daughter off or to beat a slave to death as long as he lives for two days because he is your property. Is it ok to kill 30 cities full of people because you and your family need a place to stay.

Was the earth created in 6 days. Are bats birds and man only exist here for 6 thousand years. Are women turned to salt and men live inside fish under the sea for 3 days. Didn't rainbows exist before there was an alleged Great Global flood.

Sounds like a lot of superstitious nonsense to a lot of people and yet you and a lot of other people are betting all your chips on it.

[Coolhand]

The problem here is not on my end Cool.... I understand perfectly well that you see references to the trinity in that passage.... what I am repeatedly trying to get across to YOU, is that I do not believe they exist..... there is a basic difference between our beliefs.... and it breaks down to Jesus' role in things.... you see him as God incarnate ( am I correct? ) and I see him as a MAN who, through living the correct way, was graced by our Creator's Conscious Personal Presence - from an INDWELLING source.... I believe that Jesus shared with us that ALL are capable of what he accomplished.... and I believe that is what the text tells us....THAT is why references to the doctrine of the Trinity are such a dangerous misdirection....

I even gave you the definition of the WORD, i.e. LOGOS, that is the root of the problem.... you quickly ran past all of my attempts in an effort to WIN the argument... an argument that scripture DOES NOT back up for you - interpretation only gets you so far - you must at some point pay attention to the LANGUAGE USED..... THERE ARE NO REFERENCES TO THE TRINITY that scholars consider legitimate - interpretation alone gets you that reference.... As a self-proclaimed Biblical Scholar, that should be knowledge you already possess... You keep referring to two texts that are well recognized to have , more or less, the very same problems, one is simply a little more contaminated than the other....

Jesus, in my belief, was born of a Human union, between Joseph and Mary, and was a normal human boy, until the point at which he was Baptized by John the Baptist..... at which Point he was Graced by the Conscious Presence of God.... THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE...

You DID tell me you had read what I posted - I do not want to infer that you, in actuality, DID NOT, but if you had - how could you have missed this:

Unless that is, you simply could not see it in your attempt to WIN an argument that is not supported on your end........

I KNOW you are going to simply repeat that I did not see your point - but before you do - PLEASE GO REFERENCE THE ORIGINAL WORDS IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK..... AND LOOK FOR THE USAGE OF LOGOS...... what is ACTUALLY THERE......

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?

[Brother Michael Sky]

The Godhead is revealed in 3 distinct ways, which are one. God the Father is the unseen, omnipresent source of all being, revealed in and by the Son, experienced in and by the Holy Spirit. The Son proceeds from the Father, and the Spirit from the Son. The Father is the thought behind it, the Son is the Word calling it forth, and the Spirit is the deed making it a reality. The Father loves us, Jesus calls us, and the Spirit quickens us. The common denominator is this trinity, which act with singularity of purpose.

Dan, you have a very typical fundamentalist viewpoint. And by fundamentalist, I am referring to a mindset. As Mr. Cronshaw stated :

When directly confronted with the overwhelming evidence and facts with respect to the wholesale corruption of the scriptures, the fundamentalist defensively responds with the rather absurd assertion that "God wrote the King James Version of the Bible". Thus, no amount of rationale will convince them that because we are the prodigal sons of our Heavenly Father, and the Kingdom is within us (Luke 17:21), that all those who truly live a consecrated life will be shown the undefiled Word of God that can be accessed by journeying along the narrow path that opens the "strait gate" that leads to the indwelling Temple (1 Cor 3:16).

I've read all the Gnostics, and I understand Gnosticism. The definition I included was from the dictionary; "Gnosis is an Intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths, and not a spiritual revelation directly from God." Paul was not Gnostic, he was clearly a proponent of the trinity; "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all." (2 Corinthians 13:14), "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord .And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all." (1 Corinthians 12:4-6).

why not use the definition I clearly intended to use?

The knowledge of these sectarian groups is contested by orthodox Christian theology as speculative knowledge derived from religio-philosophical (metaphysical) systems rather than knowledge derived from revelation coming from faith.[11] Gnosis itself is and was obtained through understanding at which one can arrive via inner experience or contemplation such as an internal epiphany for example. For the various sectarian gnostics, gnosis was obtained as speculative gnosis, instigated by the contemplation of their religio-philosophical (Cosmological, Metaphysical, salvational and rational) systems. These systems were pagan (folk) in origin and syncretic in nature. The gnostic sectarians vilified the concepts of a subjective creator God (Plato's demiurge) and objective creator God (one that creates ex-nihilo) as in the Judeo-Christian God (creator) and sought to reconcile the individual to their own personal deification (henosis), making each individual God.[9] As such the gnostic sects made a duality out of the difference between the activities of the spirit (nous), called noesis (insight), and those of faith.[12]

During the early formation of Christianity, church authorities (Fathers of the Church) exerted considerable amounts of energy attempting to weed out what were considered to be false doctrines (e.g. Irenaeus' On the Detection and Overthrow of False Gnosis). The gnostics (as one sectarian group) held views which were incompatible with the emerging Ante-Nicene community. Among Christian heresiologists, the concept of false gnosis was used to denote different Pagan, Jewish or Christian belief systems (e.g. the Eleusinian Mysteries or Glycon) and their various teachings of what was deemed[9] religio-philosophical systems of knowledge,[13] as opposed to authentic gnosis (see below, Gnosis among the Greek Fathers). The sectarians used gnosis or secret, hidden knowledge to reject the traditions of the established community or church. The authorities throughout the community criticized this antinomianism as inconsistent with the communities teachings. Hence sectarians and followers of gnosticism were first rejected by the Jewish communities of the Mediterranean (see the Notzrim 139–67 BCE), then by the Christian communities and finally by the late Hellenistic philosophical communities (see Neoplatonism and Gnosticism).

If Paul was indeed a believer in the Doctrine of the Trinity - Why do his letters speak against such a misunderstanding? and speak so clearly...?

The defenders of the Trinity will state that someone must have added these words, but if this is so, then why did Paul write: "regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom 1:3-4 NIV).

"Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honor than the house" (Heb 3:1-3 KJV)

"For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will proclaim Thy name to My brethren, in the midst of the congregation I will sing Thy praise" (Heb 2:11-12 NAS). The Revised Standard Version interprets this passage to say that Jesus and the rest of mankind "…have all one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren".

"And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec" (KJV).

We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner shrine behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest for ever after the order of Melchiz'edek" (Heb 2:10-12 RSV). God, as envisioned in accordance with the doctrine of the Trinity, cannot be called a forerunner, because a forerunner is one who is the same who goes first -- ahead of the rest. Neither could God ever be called a high priest. What the Apostle Paul is speaking of with regard to Jesus, is a perfected man -- because these words are terms that can only be used regarding a created being of the same substance as we are.

very clearly indeed....

My understanding of pagan comes from the definition;

1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks.

2. a person who is NOT A CHRISTIAN, Jew, or Muslim.

3. an irreligious or hedonistic person.

If Paul believed in multiple Gods, was not a follower of Christ, and a confessed heathen, then I suppose your correct in defining him as a pagan or Gnostic... The only misdirection is your effort to rewrite the bible to fit a personal philosophy. All your quotes from these so called "scholars" is just biased opinions. The bottom line is that if the Gnostics are right, then the bible is false. And if the bible is right, then all Gnostic writings are heresy. I'm banking on the bible.

Once again, why not use the definition which fits the context?

However, until the rise of Romanticism and the general acceptance of freedom of religion in Western civilization, "Paganism" was almost always used disparagingly of heterodox beliefs falling outside the established political framework of the Christian Church.

note that there becomes a political connotation.....

and as far as it being an " either - or " situation.... that idea shows a misunderstanding of the Nature of the Message - the VERY REASON Jesus spoke in Parables... a refusal to see the layered meaning to the text... Matthew 13:10-17

I don't believe the inspired books were censored, the effort was to preserve them. What was burned was counterfeit gospels written by unknown authors who had no connection to the apostles.

" I don't care what the facts show - I refuse to believe !" - the rallying cry of the fundamentalist.....

Does this come from some " inner knowing" or " gnosis"? because all historical FACT shows otherwise...

People who don't like the biblical message have always tried to change it, by arguing that others must have altered what it says. Its as true today as when the Gnostics were written, people insist on trying to turn the truth into a lie. What is it about the biblical Jesus that you find so revolting? Its so easy to believe and accept, I just don't understand the resistance? Try accepting it instead of investigating it. Your putting your faith in your own deductive reasoning by doubting God's ability to preserve his own written word. No offense intended, its just puzzling to me. Its never been about educated or uneducated opinions, real wisdom comes from understanding His Word.

The Gnostics were not written, they were ( and ARE ) a very real group of believers...

the "trying to turn the truth into a lie" was done long, long ago.

I find Hope and Joy in the Biblical Jesus, In His ACTUAL message, which even though there has been so much meddling with, and obfuscation of, His Message - it is still there to be understood.

What is easy is to swallow is the misdirection which was purposely put into the texts... But no where does it say in the message that it would be EASY to enter the Kingdom... that should be your first warning that something is fishey......

"Try accepting it instead of investigating it." - No, thank you Dan, for that is directly in opposition to our instruction ... i.e. - "prove all things" (1 Thes 5:21 KJV).

"Your putting your faith in your own deductive reasoning by doubting God's ability to preserve his own written word. No offense intended, its just puzzling to me. Its never been about educated or uneducated opinions, real wisdom comes from understanding His Word."

- Dan, that could be seen as being in direct opposition to our instruction from the text... you are slipping into gnostic thought, without the benefit of an understanding of the written word......

I understand that folks will have a different understanding - But our conversation is about what IS or IS NOT in the text. Our conversation has been about what is Provable or Not... not necessarily about our teanslations of what IS there... it has fallen into interpretation at times, but I will assume we are all adults here, and able to see each others opinions as just that - our opinions...

For ME, there is VERY CLEARLY, a message which lies sleeping within a text which has been badly misused throughout history. This , again for me, is yet another proof that there is TRUTH and VALUE in the message brought to us by God's Wisest Son - that no matter how much meddling there has been - the message can still be found. I mean, sheesh, we are talking about 2000 YEARS of time which has passed, with the message in the hands of those who purposely sought to pervert the Word to their own purposes, and yet I may sit here at my desk, and find the Message brought such a long time ago... THIS is my proof... and it causes me JOY... is it any wonder why I should go through so much trouble to try and share it? But fear not - I do understand that this is my OPINION.... and I am not trying to negate the VALIDITY of other opinions.... I simply don't share them.... I share MY understanding.... thats what we do here....

Edited November 2, 2010 by Brother Michael Sky

[Coolhand]

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.

[Brother Michael Sky]

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.

I would say that you are reading a CORRECTED version of the text... ( and you haven't dropped the reference to the Trinity which was inserted - and removed when corrected )

It is the obedience to the son part which is the misunderstanding, and exactly what that means... It is obedience to GOD as DISPLAYED by the son... and yes, we have no argument that the Son was sent by God... ALL are sent by God - who else is there to send a soul anywhere?

Edited November 2, 2010 by Brother Michael Sky

[Coolhand]

I would say that you are reading a CORRECTED version of the text... ( and you haven't dropped the reference to the Trinity which was inserted - and removed when corrected )

It is the obedience to the son part which is the misunderstanding, and exactly what that means... It is obedience to GOD as DISPLAYED by the son... and yes, we have no argument that the Son was sent by God... ALL are sent by God - who else is there to send a soul anywhere?

Also a second time asking this question:

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?

How should the passage read Michael?

[Pete]

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?

Actually it is thought that the references were added.

"1 John 5

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 In fact, this is love for God: to keep 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 the one 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[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 9 We accept human testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. 10 Whoever believes in the Son of God accepts this testimony. Whoever does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because they have 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.

Footnotes:

1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)"

From :- http://www.biblegate...-11&version=NIV

Edited November 2, 2010 by Pete

[Coolhand]

Actually it is thought that the references were added. 

"1 John 5

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 In fact, this is love for God: to keep 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 the one 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[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 9 We accept human testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. 10 Whoever believes in the Son of God accepts this testimony. Whoever does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because they have 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. 

Footnotes:

1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)"

From :- http://www.biblegate...-11&version=NIV

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

From page 11:

Which is based on the majority text:

οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν

However, this was not continued by the critical text, the UBS text, or by Nestle’s work:

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες,

No modern translations that I am aware retain this tradition except the KJV and the NKJV.

Neither version changes the meaning of what is being said. You could argue that the addition in 5:7 teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, which I agree, but this doctrine is already taught in other places. Look at all the references to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are obviously not talking about the Father only.

If it could be proven that ALL references in the New Testament are supposed to be either the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit you might have something in my opinion; but that is not the case.

Now which is it: a) Was this line added? b) Was it left out?

This is where I think we all need to have humility in approaching this because we do not have the originals. We have copies with many variants.

Any speculation (in my opinion) is just speculation. When people start claiming the copiers of the texts were evil and wicked men they expose a bit about themselves.

As a results we see what the result was from the above comparison of Greek texts in context in our English Bibles:

NASB: 1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him.

2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments.

3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.

5 Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

6 This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.

7 For there are three that testify:

8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son.

10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.

11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.

12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.

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

5 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 thea 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.

My argument on this passage is that:

a) There is an apparent addition or omission but which it is cannot be determined without an original autograph. I agree that one is right and one is wrong, we are aware of it, and we have both, so there is no conspiracy of deception that is going on.

b) The meaning of the text in which this sits in its context is not changed due to the mention of God, the Son of God, and the Spirit with in this portion of Scripture; the trinity is already understood from the context of this passage.

[Pete]

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

It is also a difficulty for me to argue that the context has or has not been changed because we have no idea of the original script, how much had been influenced by the Paulian school, or what was in the mind of the original writer (who ever he was). So I would say asking for a meaning would be asking for pure conjecture and highly influenced by who is reading it (IMO). For me we I would be tempted to go for the Spirit being in agreement with the baptism and blood of Jesus (i.e Jesus' life and death). Yet, I would not go as far as placing enthusiasm  that this view is the correct view and only one, only that it seems to make sense to me. This I believe does change its meaning from Father, Son and Holy Ghost (IMO) and does not endorse the concept of trinity.

I guess one of the differences here is I prefer to keep my options open rather than insisting that some sort of script is ultimately understood and is correct against all argument. 

I know you have argued over the Logos but there are been much debate about the concept of the trinity. As G.H.C Macgregor describes the issue in regard to John 1:1. "John does not say the logos was God; still less he does he imply merely that the logos possessed certain divine qualities. He means that the logos was partaker of the divine essence." Macgregor (1953) The Moffatt NT commentary, Hodder & Stoughton, London, page 4. 

In other words a quality of God which Jesus shared. It is the sense of sharing that has led to much speculation on how much Jesus shared of God and was of God and part of God, from which the trinity has sort to solve (as I understand it).

[Coolhand]

It is also a difficulty for me to argue that the context has or has not been changed because we have no idea of the original script,

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.

[Coolhand]

It is also a difficulty for me to argue that the context has or has not been changed because we have no idea of the original script, how much had been influenced by the Paulian school, or what was in the mind of the original writer (who ever he was). So I would say asking for a meaning would be asking for pure conjecture and highly influenced by who is reading it (IMO). For me we I would be tempted to go for the Spirit being in agreement with the baptism and blood of Jesus (i.e Jesus' life and death). Yet, I would not go as far as placing enthusiasm  that this view is the correct view and only one, only that it seems to make sense to me. This I believe does change its meaning from Father, Son and Holy Ghost (IMO) and does not endorse the concept of trinity.

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.