In article <83ADE28A-BB64-F89D-04F1-CF0230695495@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Menno
van Barneveld says...
>"Matthew Johnson" <matthew_member@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in item
>news:78BD35DC-F79C-12E2-AE8F-F69B916D06DF@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> In article <50F2CEBF-3F27-4370-341A-55D37EA71B7B@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Menno
>> van Barneveld says...
>>>"Matthew Johnson" <matthew_member@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> schreef in bericht
>>>news:B10A6647-69E7-EE7E-4EA2-925635E1CDD2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> In article <45A488E6-61EC-A50A-1221-1675FD20DE5B@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Menno
>>> >van
>>>> Barneveld says...
>>>> [snip]
>>>>>The used arguments are not always clear to me in respect to the
>>>>>subject. This is the reason of posting this item, how to teach
>>>>>the gospel.
>>>> So you say here, but how can anyone "teach the gospel" when
>>>> spreading such slanderous misinformation as you just did?
>>>This is not what I say.
>> Yes, it is. Give up the dishonest dodges.
>I clearly said that the arguments are not always clear to me and not
>that it is slanderous misinformation.
First of all, no, you did not _clearly_ say "that the arguments are
not always clear to me": on the contrary: even which arguments you are
referring to is not clear in your statement.
Secondly, you can _say_ it is not slanderous until the cows come home,
but that does not make it true. You accused the Fathers of deliberate
tampering with the text to sup****t the Trinity. You have no excuse for
not knowing that this accusation is false. Especially now that their
falsity has been explained to you.
That makes your words slander. That you persist in slander so
stubbornly marks you out as the "ignorant and unstable" Peter mentions
in 2 Pt 3:16:
speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things
in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to
their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. (2Pe 3:16
RSVA)
When you deny the Trinity, when you slander the Fathers in this
denial, you _do_ "twist the scriptures to your own destruction".
>That are your words.
And unlike your words, mine are accurate.
[snip]
>>>Jesus never taught the Trinity.
>> Yes, He did. Don't you know your Bible? What did you _think_ He
>> referred to as "Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Or have you forgotten Mat
>> 28:19?
>Here Jesus did not say that 'the Father and the son and the holy
>spirit' are one.
Actually, if you pay close attention to the Greek grammar, you will
find that He did. See below.
>That is what you are projecting in these words.
No, I am not 'projecting'. Rather, I am recognizing a _reference_ to
the Trinity. I never claimed that the _entire_ teaching is in that one
verse. But see below for the explanation of the grammar.
>> Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in
>> the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Mat
>> 28:19 RSVA)
>> What did you _think_ "of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
>> Spirit" refers to?
>To three identities, number one the Father, number two the son,
>number three the holy spirit.
Nice try, but no: as St. Basil the Great pointed out _so_ long ago,
the reference to the _name_ is in the _singular_. That is, there is
ONE name, that of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So oblique though it
is, this _is_ a reference to the oneness of the Persons of the
Trinity.
> What more is said in this verse?
I just answered that above.
>>>How then could the thief on the cross instandly understand and
>>>believe this church dogma that bishops quarreled about for
>>>centuries?
>> Easily. Read what I already said.
>>>This is a very unclear argumentation, if not impossible.
>> Evidently it was clear to him. It would be clear to you too, if you
>> would actually read what was written.
>Luke 23:40-42, But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear
>God, since you are under the same sentence of condamnation? And we
>indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds, but
>this man has done nothing wrong." And he said, "Jesus, remember me
>when you come in your kingly power."
And who has done nothing wrong, except God?
>Nothing about trinity!
You are far too confident of your answer. Again: who has done nothing
wrong, except God?
>There was no reason to.
How can you be so sure of this?
>How can you think it was clear to him?!
I already answered this; it was a miracle.
>You insert you own idees in it where they do not belong.
No, it is not _my_ ideas. Nor am I 'inserting' them.
>And then you say it is in the scripture.
And it is.
>You better read Matthew again:
>23:8 umeis de mh klhqhte rabbi eis gar estin umwn o patros
>pantes de umeis adelfoi este
>23:9 kai patera mh kaleshte umwn epi ths ghs
>eis gar estin umwn o pathr o ouranios
>(use the font symbol to read this in Greek)
I don't need to; I know the verses well enough. In fact, I know them
well enough to know that yet again, you are quoting them out of
context.
Indeed: as the Blessed Theophylact explains, commenting on these very
verses:
Christ does not forbid using the title 'teacher', but rather, he
forbids passionately desiring this title, trying by all means to
obtain it. For the teaching office, in its most proper sense belongs
to God alone. Likewise, with the words, "do not call father...", He is
not condemning honoring parents; for He wishes that we honor our
fathers, especially our spiritual fathers, but with these words
raises us up to the understanding of the true Father, God, inasmuch as
God is our Father in the truest sense, and carnal fathers are not the
causes of our being, but are only servants of God who cooperate with
Him. Showing us the benefit of humility, the Lord says that the
greatest among us must become servants, and least among us, for
whoever exalts himself, considering himself someone of im****tance,
will be abandoned by God and humbled.
[from http://pagez.ru/lsn/0113.php#23]
[snip]
>> To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become
>> all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. (1Co
>> 9:22 RSVA)
>Sorry, I did not expect that you ment chapter 9 instead of chapter
>19. But do you realy mean that they righteously made the construct
>of the Trinity to save some people? I am amazed.
But you should not be amazed. You really know nothing about the
doctrine you so heartlessly criticize if you did not know that the
doctrine is for our salvation.
>> But you do not do this, especially not when you claim direct
>> revelation from Christ, even as you contradict His words in
>> Scripture.
>>>But Jesus told us that we are in this world but not from this
>>>world. This was for Paul also. He stated that he kept to the
>>>gospel and that he did not change it in his teachings.
>> And Paul taught Trinity, too.
>Please show me where he did.
If you can't see it in John 1:1-18, how will you see it in Paul, when
even Peter admitted Paul's letters are difficult to understand (2 Pt
3:16)? But it is there, especially in, e.g., Titus 2:13, whose _only_
correct translation is as follows:
waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our
great God and Savior Jesus Christ (Tit 2:13)
Surely even you will not claim that the text has been altered in this
verse.
>>>So changing the writings of the apostles revealed from the holy
>>>spirit was not conform Paul.
>>>Never the less, the Johannine Comma was inserted on purpose.
>> NO. This is where you depart from mere error and dive into slander. It
>> was a GLOSS that worked its way into the text.
>Then the gloss was an addition of the trinity on purpose. You can
>not do that by accident.
Not true. Don't you know what 'gloss' means? In the old days, people
often added glosses to their biblical texts, notes they thought were
helpful explanatory notes. This is not so different from the modern
Protestant practice of highlighting and adding explanatory marginal
notes to printed bibles. What _is_ different is that people would then
copy the manuscript, sometimes confusing gloss for text.
In this case, somebody thought 1 John 5:7 was the correct explanation
of 1 John 5:8, wrote the gloss on his copy, then someone else copied
it and didn't notice it was a gloss. Remember they had no punctuation,
certainly no verse numbers.
Notice also that this happened only in the _Latin_ manuscripts; see
http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html
for details.
>>>The same holds for Matthew the verses 5:20,30,47, 9:34, 12:47,
>>>17:21, 18: 11, Mark 1:2-3 and 16:8 behind 'efobounto gar' and
>>>16:9-20. Or do you think these were all copiing mistakes?
>>>Impossible.
>> Now you have wandered back into error. These verses are not
>> insertions. Have you _ever_ read a good text on New Testament Textual
>> Criticism? Such as Metzger, Aland or Vaganay?
>I have done that, yes.
I don't believe you. Your errors are too elementary, you cannot
possibly have really paid attention to any of these classic textbooks.
>I have the complete heavenly text of Matthew published on the internet,
>revealed by Jesus Christ our lord, with his remarks in an
>accompanying reference.
No, you do not.
>I am very sorry that the server is down now.
I am not.
>But when it is up again you can see it at
>www.heavenonearth.nu/matthewframe.htm if you please.
No, I don't think I will. Your claim is too presumptuous and
preposterous.
>>>The dogma of the trinity was not in the apostolic confession.
>> Yes, it was and is.
>>>Would it not have been a big mistake to leave it out if the trinity
>>>already existed at that time?
>> It was not "left out". It is mentioned in Mat 28:19.
>We have discussed this extensively.
Your discussion to date is nowhere _near_ 'extensive'.
>I cannot agree with you.
That is your problem. It is symptomatic of your stubborn insistence on
twisting the Scriptures to your own destruction.
>You read things that are not there.
No, I do no such thing. Rather, you lack the patience and good-will to
put the effort into understanding my explanations of how they are
there.
[snip]
>> That was not Origen's invention. It is clearly implied by Saint
>> John's own Gospel, where he says:
>> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
>> was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made
>> through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.
>> (Joh 1:1-3 RSVA)
>> How could you miss this?
>Read. No Christ in there!
Not true, as I already explained. Every use of the word 'Word' _is_ a
reference to Christ.
>>> Otherwise he could not have been the logos of all creation.
>> Do you even know what 'logos' means?
>Tell me.
I take it the answer to my question is, "no, Menno does not know what
'logos' means". You are "****fting the burden" by asking me, since if
you actually _looked_ in a Greek-English lexicon, you would see that
there are many paragraphs of definition for this one word.
[snip]
>> It does not _have_ to say it. I called it a _reference_ to the
>> Trinity, not an _exposition_ of it.
>There is no reverence to the trinity in it if there is no trinity.
This is a valueless statement, since it is a tautology based on a
false premise.
>So the reverence is an assumption of yours that has no proof.
Not at all. That does not follow in the least.
>>>>>Jesus taught me that he was born as a man, a human
>>>>>being, from the virgin Mary, due to the action of the holy spirit.
>>>> And what do you suppose this 'action' _is_?
>>>The holy spirit created the very first fruit from which Jesus grew up
>>>out of cells of Mary.
>> That is not what Scripture says.
>> [snip]
>>>> Newsflash: the Spirit did this long before Mat 3:16-17.
>>>Proof?
>> Why are you demanding proof, when you posted so much without proof?
>> But the proof is not so hard here: it is already in Luk 1:35:
>> And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and
>> the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to
>> be born will be called holy, the Son of God. (Luk 1:35 RSVA)
>Yes, but what the holy spirit and the power of the Most High did will
>remain unknown.
You are overconfident of your conclusion -- again.
>For me it is a wonder. And that the child will be called holy, the
>Son of God, is after it is born. It is not said that it was before
>Mary became pregnant also.
Actually, it _does_ say that. You have to pay careful attention to the
sequence of moods and tenses of the verbs in Greek.
>>>>> So before Mary became pregnant
>>>>>from Jesus he did not exist.
>>>> That does not follow. What is worse, it _clearly_ contradicts
>>>> John 1:1-3, which prove Him to be co-eternal with the Father.
>>>John 1:1-4
>>>1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word
>>>was God.
>>>2 He was in the beginning with God;
>>>3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything
made
>>>that was made.
>>>4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
>>>You see, not a word about Jesus, the Christ or the Son of Man.
>> What are you talking about? Of _course_ there are many words about
>> Jesus. In fact, most of 1, all of 2, and all of 3 are about Jesus
>> Christ, before He was incarnate. Who did you _think_ the Word refers
>> to in these verses?
>To the word of God and the holy spirit.
Again, this shows that you neither pay attention to the whole passage,
nor understand what the word 'word' means here. How could you miss,
"and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (Jn 1:14)"?
>>>And Jesus said that he spoke the words of the Father. So the word was
>>>with the Father and was the Father.
>> No. 'Words' and 'Word' refer to two different things.
>>>Also behind verse 4 nothing is stated that Jesus Christ already existed
>>>before Mary became pregnant of him.
>> Yes, it does. Follow the pronoun reference through to verse
>> 1:18. That leaves no room for doubt: the same person is referred to
>> as 'Word' in 1:1-4 as is referred to as "the only Son of the
>> Father" in 1:14.
>In verse 1:9 Jesus came into the world.
Why are you so sure of this? What happened to "enlightens _every_ man"
in your interpretation of 1:9? You seem to have forgotten about it
completely.
If Jesus only came into the world in 1:9, then how could Jesus be the
"light that enlightens _every_ man"? Men have been around for a long
time before Jesus was born.
>He made the world by bringing his gospel of the kingdom into the
>world.
No. The world was made long before that. And the Word, the same Word
made flesh and then called 'Jesus', was with God when the world was
made (Jn 1:1-3).
>So verse 14 does not refere to the time before Jesus was born.
I never said it did. You are not doing very well at following the
argument: I said that it refers to the same _person_, the Word.
>At that time the Father was in the son and the son in the Father.
A perfectly Trinitarian statement: for outside of the Trinity, when
have we ever had A in B and B in A, when A and B are different things?
Never.
>Of course the Word dwelled among us then, after it became flesh.
And before the Word became flesh, the Word was?
[snip]
>> As for the reference to Mat 7:18, you are clearly quoting out of
>> context.
>Then this will be my last reaction.
Consider yourself bound by your word.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a
moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org
for details about this group BEFORE you post.
)))
|
