1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Apologetics - Defending our Faith

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Tsaphah, Jul 18, 2016.

  1. 3,341
    564
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,341
    Likes Received:
    564
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    (SOURCE)

    "The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ use their own New World Translation of the Bible. The NWT reads, “And to the angel of the congregation in Laodicea write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God . . .” Jehovah’s Witnesses will interpret this statement to mean that Jesus was the first thing that ADONAI created. This is a clear example of the Jehovah's Witnesses' misunderstanding the meaning of Biblical words. They look at the word beginning in that verse, and assume that it means the first part of something, or the start of something. For example, if I say to you, “I am going to New York at the beginning of the week,” you will automatically assume that I am going at the first part of the week. But the word beginning has another meaning as well. The Greek word arche, or beginning, does not mean that Messiah was the first person ADONAI created, but rather that Christ Himself is the source, or origin, of God’s creation. Through His power everything was created (John 1:3 and Hebrews 1:2). So here, in Revelation 3:14, we learn that Yeshua is the source of God’s creation."

    This guy above has got it all figured out, and I've included a picture representative of his Biblical architecture...

    [​IMG]
     
  2. 2,055
    587
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,055
    Likes Received:
    587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah Yes! The Escher/Penrose stairs, with no beginning or end. Up is up and Down is down. Similar to the Gordian Loop. They can’t be untangled because they aren't tangled, and they have no beginning. :p
    upload_2017-10-20_14-50-5.png
     
  3. 3,341
    564
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,341
    Likes Received:
    564
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    lol... That was actually my first thought of images, I was going to describe his thinking using the Gordian knot, until deciding on the stairs because we see that knot as a representation of the trinity all the time...

    But yea, it's just another example of someone attempting to prove a theory, instead of allowing the text to explain the subject. We all say we do, but within each individual subject, few actually accomplish it, unfortunately...
     
    Tsaphah likes this.
  4. 2,055
    587
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,055
    Likes Received:
    587
    Trophy Points:
    113

    For the believers of the trinity; If Jesus is God, why would God have to give Him(Jesus) the Revelation? (Rev 1:1) Jesus also, speaking to the church in Laodicea, says: “The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:” (Rev 3:14 NASB ) “And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;” ( Rev 3:14 KJV ) “And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These things says the Amen, the witness that is faithful and true, the beginning of the creation of God;” Codex Sinaiticus. Oops, I thought only “The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ use their own New World Translation of the Bible.” And they use their own translation! Hmmm. They all have that same statement as translated from Greek.

    If God had no beginning how can HE say this? The person using ADONAI (LORD) is likely an evangelical leaning individual. However, I would tend to classify them as an Israeli, due to the use of Yeshua. Whether it is Hebrew (re'shiyth); first, beginning, best, chief, or Greek (arche); first, chief, head, the words mean the same thing. OH! Wait. The guy on the stairs is Yeshua, right? :eek: The only mystery is; who is the dog?
     
  5. 2,055
    587
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,055
    Likes Received:
    587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And Enoch walked with God; then he was not; for God took him.” (Gen 5:24 LITV) Adam Clarke’s commentary says: “we find not only his soul but his body purified, so that, without being obliged to visit the empire of death, he was capable of immediate translation to the paradise of God.”
    Matthew Henry, another bible scholar said; “God hid Enoch from them, not under heaven, but in heaven. God took him body and soul to himself in the heavenly paradise, by the ministry of angels, as afterwards he took Elijah. He was changed, as those saints will be that shall be found alive at Christ’s second coming.” Claiming to be a scholar of the Bible, Adam Clarke should know the difference between “took” and “translate”. The Hebrew word used here is laqach (law-kakh’) meaning “to take, to take away, to take out of”, etc. The only word meaning “translate” is an Aramaic word, which was not spoken at that time Enoch lived.

    And it happened, as they were going on and speaking, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire came. And they separated between them both, and Elijah went up in a tempest to Heaven.” (2 Ki 2:11 LITV) “Elijah is carried to heaven in a fiery chariot. Many questions might be asked about this, which could not be answered.” “By the manner in which Elijah and Enoch were taken from this world, God gave a glimpse of the eternal life brought to light by the gospel, of the glory reserved for the bodies of the saints, and of the opening of the kingdom of heaven to all believers. It was also a figure of Christ's ascension. Though Elijah was gone triumphantly to heaven, yet this world could ill spare him.” (Matthew Henry)

    Jesus said: “No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.” ( John 3:13 NASB )

    How do we explain these seeming contradictions?
     
  6. 2,055
    587
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,055
    Likes Received:
    587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What are these words, and what do they mean? (synonym / idiom / metaphor.)

    synonym (n.)
    “word having the same sense as another,” early 15c. (but usually in plural form before 18c., or, if singular, as synonyma), from Old French synonyme (12c.) and directly from Late Latin synonymum, from Greek synonymon “word having the same sense as another,” noun use of neuter of synonymos “having the same name as, synonymous,” from syn- “together, same” (see syn-) + onyma, Aeolic dialectal form of onoma “name” (see name (n.)).

    “Most importantly, foreign policy should not be reduced to a synonym for military action and covert operations.”

    My students seem to really want to use “however” as a conjunction—more or less a synonym for “but.”

    idiom (n.)
    1580s, “form of speech peculiar to a people or place;” meaning “phrase or expression peculiar to a language” is from 1620s; from Middle French idiome (16c.) and directly from Late Latin idioma “a peculiarity in language,” from Greek idioma “peculiarity, peculiar phraseology” (Fowler writes that “A manifestation of the peculiar” is “the closest possible translation of the Greek word”), from idioumai “to appropriate to oneself,” from idios “personal, private,” properly “particular to oneself.”

    This is from PIE *swed-yo-, suffixed form of root *s(w)e-, pronoun of the third person and reflexive (referring back to the subject of a sentence), also used in forms denoting the speaker’s social group, “(we our-)selves” (source also of Sanskrit svah, Avestan hva-, Old Persian huva “one’s own,” khva-data “lord,” literally “created from oneself;” Greek hos “he, she, it;” Latin suescere “to accustom, get accustomed,” sodalis “companion;” Old Church Slavonic svoji “his, her, its,” svojaku “relative, kinsman;” Gothic swes “one’s own;” Old Norse sik “oneself;” German Sein; Old Irish fein “self, himself”).

    [G]rammar & idiom are independent categories; being applicable to the same material, they sometimes agree & sometimes disagree about particular specimens of it; the most can be said is that what is idiomatic is far more often grammatical than ungrammatical, but that is worth saying, because grammar & idiom are sometimes treated as incompatibles .... [Fowler]
    (Online Etymology)

    It’s raining cats and dogs! Hey, give me a break! (These are idioms)

    metaphor (n.) (A metaphor can be confused with simile.)
    1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance.

    2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.

    “he is a lion in battle.”, “he can be a real bear.” (Metaphors)
    Who has believed our report? And to whom is the arm of Jehovah revealed? For He comes up before Him as a tender plant, and as a root out of dry ground. He has no form nor magnificence that we should see Him; nor form that we should desire Him.”
    (Ps 18:2 LITV - Metaphors)
     
  7. 2,055
    587
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,055
    Likes Received:
    587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, are six churches (congregations) which have epistles (letters) written to them, however, are not mentioned as being among the churches mentioned in Revelation. Only the church in Ephesus is mentioned among the seven churches. Why?

     
  8. 2,055
    587
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,055
    Likes Received:
    587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bizarro.jpg
    Oh No! Stuck on the stairway to Heaven.
     
  9. 2,055
    587
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,055
    Likes Received:
    587
    Trophy Points:
    113

    The Rapture

    Those who believe in the rapture use several scriptures to show it to be true. But the word rapture is not found in the Bible. The actual Greek word is: harpazo (har-padzo) = taken and carried away by force. (1 Th 4:17) In English we have the word, rape = harpazo = taken and carried away by force. Unfortunately, the meaning today = sexual assault by force.

    One of the first scriptures used is Mt 24:40-41, the word here is not harpazo, but is paralambano (par-al-am-ban’-o) = to take to, to take with one’s self, to join to one’s self, to take with the hand, lay hold of, any person or thing in order to use it. Then, there is 2 Th 2:1 which uses the term gathering together: episunagoge ( ep-ee-soon-ag-o-gay’ ). Say that three times, fast. It has the meaning of a gathering together in one place, assembling together.

    Then there is 1 Co 15:20-23 which speaks of the order of resurrection. “But now Christ has been raised from the dead; He became the firstfruit of those having fallen asleep. For since death is through man, also through a Man is a resurrection of the dead; for as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ, the firstfruit, afterward those of Christ at His coming.” (LITV) This scripture says nothing about being taken into heaven. It speaks of being raised up from death.

    Another scripture which is used to prove the rapture goes all the way back to Isaiah. “Your dead ones shall live, my dead body, they shall rise up. Awake and sing, dust dwellers; for the dew of lights is your dew; and the earth shall cast out departed spirits. Come, My people, go in your rooms and shut your doors behind you. Hide for a little moment, until the fury passes. For, behold, Jehovah comes out of His place to visit his iniquity on the dweller of the earth. The earth shall also reveal her blood, and shall no more cover over her slain ones.” ( Isa 26:19-21 LITV )

    They claim this is proof of the rapture because it mentions “hiding them” until Jehovah’s fury passes. This equates with the rapture before the tribulation. In all of these scriptures the only thing that makes sense is the resurrection. Everything else is conjecture. It falls into the same category as the Trinity. It is philosophical rhetoric.

    Now, here is a puzzling scripture concerning this idea of the rapture. “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” ( 1 Th 4:16-17 KJV ) This is Paul explaining the order of resurrection. He indicates that there are those who believed/put faith in Christ, and died, will be first to be resurrected. Then, those living, at the time of Christ’s return, will be resurrected. This apparently will be the beginning of the thousand year reign of Christ. (Rev 20:1-6 )
     
  10. 3,341
    564
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,341
    Likes Received:
    564
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Unless this moment of "caught up together" occurs before the start of the 1000 years.

    I have come to understand there is a 75 day period between the end of the 1260 days to the end of the 1335th day when our Lord will be ruling the earth before the start of the 1000 years. This means our Lord starts his rule on earth 75 days before the first day of the New World. The end of the 1260 days would kick off with the Holy Spirit being poured out and those of Christ's brothers remaining alive will be transfigured like Moses, Jesus and Stephen. At this same moment those dead in Christ are resurrected as spirit beings here on earth (Like our Lord experienced), not yet raised to heaven. Then 40 days later those who were resurrected, along with those who were transfigured all together will meet the Lord in the air when he is revealed in the clouds at the day of Jehovah.

    Through my studies this was the only explanation that allowed for no paradoxes, and as well just so happen to match past fulfillment 1:1, as it turns out the previous occurrences act as a ruler to show us what is to come.

    As a side note; Notice the 10 days of Great Tribulation from the disgusting thing standing in a Holy Place to our Lord being revealed in the clouds.

    [​IMG]
     
    Tsaphah likes this.
  11. 2,055
    587
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,055
    Likes Received:
    587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    According to most Baptists the, “caught up together”, is just before the tribulation. So, according to them, it occurs when Jesus returns to earth, whenever that is. According to the WTB&TS it has already occurred in 1914. That’s the problem with trying to figure out the days of the “end time”, “time of the end”, etc. Whatever it is called, it will begin when Jesus returns. Or, maybe not! It could be at the time he receives his kingdom power after sitting alongside his Father. That is why he said: “But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of the heavens, nor the Son, but the Father only.” (Mt 24:36 Codex Sinaititicus)

    Also, what is “the abomination of desolation”? (Mt 24:15), (Dan. 11:31; 12:11) Reading Daniel 12:11 would indicate that this event has already taken place in c. 70 CE with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. “From the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished,” When the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple, There were no means to carry on the sacrifices. It also destroyed the priesthood records. No modern day “Israelite” can verify which tribe they come from. Their ancestral line is cut off. Even if, as some Baptists believe, the temple will be rebuilt, they will have no priestly line to carry out the necessary services. The bigger question that arises is; WHY? Wasn’t Jesus the last sacrifice, with the shedding of HIS BLOOD? Somebody’s got it all wrong! I believe it's the Baptists!

    Some Baptists also teach that the seventieth year is the great tribulation but, is divided in half. The last 3 and 1/2 years is the “Great Tribulation”. This is where the “born again” Christians will be “caught up together”. I know you are more knowledgeable of these seventy weeks times, which I am not too good at. I haven’t spent the necessary time studying them. Our day (time) reminds me of those living during the time of Jesus. The scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and elders were studying the scriptures to find the Messiah. We are doing the same thing in a different way. :)
     
  12. 3,341
    564
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,341
    Likes Received:
    564
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Greetings brother...

    I have personally come to understand a tribulation as well as a great tribulation.

    [​IMG]
    I have also come to understand that our Lord began ruling the heavenly realm when he sat at his fathers side when returning to heaven 2000 years ago, but has yet to rule this earth, which would still be future.

    It's been my contention that Jesus was talking about the fulfillment of Rosh Hashanah with this statement, and his disciples would have understood that, but the term dropped off over time.

    I completely agree, and I believe this was fulfilled during the Maccabean revolt from 167-160 BCE, as well as 66-70 CE. I have understood these two occurrences as a measuring line to understand the fulfillment of these prophecies in the future. For prophecy tells us of events that will be fulfilled yet future that were not in the previous two.

    Exactly, this is an impassible problem for those who believe there is a modern physical fulfillment in the Jews, or better said, a fulfillment physically of Gods promise to Abraham yet to come, as it pertains to genetic Israelite's living today.

    That way of thinking reminds me of Nazi Germany. What are we to do, measure facial features to determine percentage of blood? Isn't that the "final solution"?

    It has been my contention that Dan 9:27 indicates the fulfillment of Peter's vision of the sheet coming down from heaven.

    Dan 9:27 "And he will keep the covenant in force for the many for one week; and at the half of the week, he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease."

    The term "many" is to denote the Israelite's themselves, and that covenant was for a kingdom and Messiah when our Lord was baptized. That was the moment the covenant was fulfilled to the "many". At the half of that week (or 3.5 years later) the sacrifices at the temple were no longer needed when our Lord gave his perfect life, hence the "sacrifices ceasing" at the temple, they were no longer needed.

    At the end of that week that covenant was no longer just for the "many" but was opened to all mankind once Cornelius was baptized by Peter, when he used the key of heaven and the fulfillment of the sheet with the unclean animals becoming clean. At which point Israel in prophecy became a metaphor world wide, not a genetic people.

    They believe this (in my opinion) because of their misunderstanding of Dan 9:27 and the final week of the 70. I've heard all the explanations over the years, from a 2000 year gap between the 69th and 70th, to the modern establishment of Israel in 1948.

    I however have come to understand an end time (final) fulfillment of the 70 weeks as literal weeks, after the fall of the constant feature and Gods people go into spiritual captivity to Babylon. At which point a call to bring Gods people back to him will be made 69 weeks before the fulfillment of the covenant for the earthly kingdom.

    They debate back and forth a pre-trib or post-trib rapture, and they give each other leeway, playfully stabbing back and forth indicating it's not important, but they like to indicate why they believe the way they do. When in all reality, I believe they are all striving for wind. Their understanding of the 70 weeks invalidates their application to the "caught up together".

    I could go on about how Dan 9:27 tells them the end time is 7 years long, and how there is no reason to apply this scripture in this way, hence why everything after is striving after wind, but needless to say, if you take one wrong turn, all of your applications of prophecy after will be wrong.

    I'm only touching on each subject, if anyone wishes to go into detail on any matter let me know.

    We are hoping to pay attention and be awake when he knocks, are we not brother? :)
     
    Tsaphah likes this.
  13. 2,055
    587
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,055
    Likes Received:
    587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I tell everyone who will listen. “I wish to repeat what John wrote at the end of Revelation.” “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.”
     
  14. 3,341
    564
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,341
    Likes Received:
    564
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Amen brother...
     
  15. 2,055
    587
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,055
    Likes Received:
    587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When defending our faith, I find it necessary to trace historical records and other commentary of historical manuscripts.
    I find the following “Foreword” to “Sir Isaac Newton’s Daniel And The Apocalypse”, should be taken to mind when addressing any subject matter to be discussed, especially theological ideas.

    “Among these are certainly some rather dry and unattractive certainly questions, in respect of which we must arm ourselves with patience; but they are all of the greatest practical importance. You meet a thousand times in life with those who, in dealing with any religious question, make at once their appeal to reason, and insist on forthwith rejecting aught that lies beyond its sphere, without however, being able to render any clear account of the nature and proper limits of the knowledge thus derived, or of the relation in which such knowledge stands to the religious needs of man.
    “I would invite you, therefore, to inquire seriously whether such persons are not really bowing down before an idol of the mind, which, while itself of very questionable worth, demands as much implicit faith from its worshippers as divine revelation itself.”

    THEODORE CHRISTLIEB, D.D.

    Go here for PDF:
    http://ia800504.us.archive.org/18/items/danielandtheapoc00newtuoft/danielandtheapoc00newtuoft.pdf

    I will try to find the link to the other book by Newton about the corruption of the Trinity philosophy and it's origin. It is titled: TWO NOTABLE CORRUPTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2017 at 12:34 AM
  16. 2,055
    587
    113
    Tsaphah

    Tsaphah Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2013
    Messages:
    2,055
    Likes Received:
    587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    “What was so important that, by comparison, Newton’s scientific and mathematical work was an irritating distraction? What, in short, was the content of these “other studies”? Most of his colleagues at Trinity College, Cambridge, were aware that he was devoted to his “chyrnical” (i.e., chemical and alchemical) investigations, but they also knew that he was an exceptionally serious student of religion. His outward behaviour indicated that he was an “intire”- that is, a devout-Christian, a fine and upstanding member of the Church of England who worshipped regularly and publicly at the college chapel and at the university church, Great St. Mary’s. However, by the time Hooke’s letter arrived, Newton was harbouring a terrible secret. He believed that the central Christian doctrine of the Trinity was a diabolical fraud, and that all of modern Christianity was tainted by its presence. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was not equal in any sense to God the Father, although he was divine, and was worthy of being worshipped in his own right. Newton did not arrive at these beliefs as a result of pursuing some dilettantish hobby; nor were they the result of studies he pursued at the end of his life. Instead, they lay at the heart of a massive research programme on prophecy and church history that he carried out early in his career. This was at least as strenuous, and, in his eyes, at least as “rational” as his work on physics and mathematics. (2)”
    (Priest Of Nature, The Religious Worlds of Isaac Newton by Rob Iliffe - Introduction pp. 3-4)

    (2) William Stukeley referred to Newton’s “intire” Christianity in his 1752 “Life” of Newton; see Royal Society Ms. 142 fol. 65’. Newton’s posthumous works were The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended (London, 1728) and Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel and St. John (London, 1733). I refer occasionally in this work to “Anglican” as shorthand for the doctrines and practices of the Church of England, though technically the term is anachronistic.
    ____________________________________________

    The most interesting thing that Newton states is the insertion of words that are not a part of the manuscript of 1 Joh 5:7-8. “For there are three that testify:[1] 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are [2] in agreement.” ( NASB ) 1 Joh 5:7-8.

    For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” (1 Joh 5:7 KJV)

    And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” (1 Joh 5:8 KJV)

    [1] A few late mss add ...in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth, the Spirit.

    [2] Lit for the one thing.

    According to Newton, these changes were marginal notes on the original manuscript, placed there by the persons copying the original manuscript. These marginal notes were added, by those making the translations, as if they were in the original manuscript. This was used in the King James translation to prove the Trinity idea. (Sir Isaac Newton: On Two Notable Corruptions Of Scripture, pp. 8-10, 1841)

    “Sir,
    Since the discourses of some late writers have raised in you a curiosity of knowing the truth of that text of Scripture concerning the testimony of the Three in Heaven, 1 John v. 7, I have here sent you an account of what the reading has been in all ages, and by what steps it has been changed, so far as I can hitherto determine by records. And I have done it the more freely, because to you, who understand the many abuses which they of the Roman church have put upon the world, it will scarce be ungrateful to be convinced of one more than is commonly believed. For although the more learned and quick-sighted men, as Luther, Erasmus, Bullinger, Grotius, and some others, would not dissemble their knowledge, yet the generality are fond of the place for its making against heresy. But whilst we exclaim against the pious frauds of the Roman church, and make it a part of our religion to detect and renounce all things of that kind, we must acknowledge it a greater crime in us to favour such practices, than in the Papists we so much blame on that account: for they act according to their religion, but we contrary to ours. In the Eastern nations, and for a long time in the Western, the faith subsisted without this text; and it is rather a danger to religion, than an advantage, to make it now lean upon a bruised reed. There cannot be better service done to the truth, than to purge it of things spurious: and therefore knowing your prudence, and calmness of temper, I am confident I shall not offend you by telling you my mind plainly; especially since it is no article of faith, no point of discipline, nothing but a criticism concerning a text of Scripture which I am going to write about.
    (Sir Isaac Newton: On Two Notable Corruptions Of Scripture, pp. 1-2, 1841)

    Part II.
    The history of the corruption, in short, is this. First, some of the Latines interpreted the Spirit, Water, and Blood, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to prove them one. Then Jerome, for the same end, inserted the Trinity in express words into his version. Out of him the Africans began to allege it against the Vandals, about sixty-four years after his death. Afterwards the Latines noted his variations in the margins of their books; and thence it began at length to creep into the text in transcribing, and that chiefly in the twelfth and following centuries, when disputing was revived by the schoolmen. And when printing came up,it crept out of the Latine into the printed Greek, against the authority of all the Greek manuscripts and ancient versions; and from the Venetian presses it went soon after into Greece. Now the truth of this history will appear by considering the arguments on both sides.

    Part III.
    The arguments alleged for the testimony of the Three in Heaven, are the authorities of Cyprian, Athanasius, and Jerome, and of many Greek manuscripts, and almost all the Latine ones.

    Part IV.
    Cyprian’s words[1] run thus— “the Lord saith, ‘I and the Father am one.’ And again of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written, ‘And these Three are One.’ “The Socinians here deal too injuriously with Cyprian, while they would have this place corrupted: for Cyprian in another place repeats almost the same thing[2]. “If,” saith he, [one baptized among heretics] be made the temple of God, tell me, I pray, of what God ? If of the Holy Ghost, since these Three are One, how can the Holy Ghost be reconciled to him who is the enemy of either the Father or the Son?” These places of Cyprian being, in my opinion, genuine, seem so apposite to prove the testimony of the Three in Heaven, that I should never have suspected a mistake in it, could I but have reconciled it with the ignorance I meet with of this reading in the next age, amongst the Latines of both Africa and Europe, as well as among the Greeks. For had it been in Cyprian’s Bible, the Latines of the next age, when all the world was engaged in disputing about the Trinity, and all arguments that could be thought of were diligently sought out, and daily brought upon the stage, could never have been ignorant of a text, which in our age, now the dispute is over, is chiefly insisted upon. In reconciling this difficulty, I consider, therefore, that the only words of the text quoted by Cyprian in both places are, “And these Three are One:” which words may belong to the eighth verse as well as to the seventh.

    [1] “Dicit Dominus, Ego et pater unum sumus; et iterum de patre et filio et spiritu sancto scriptum est, Et tres unum sunt.”

    [2] “Si templum Dei factus est, quteso cujus Dei? Si spiritus sancti, cum tres unum sint, quomodo spiritus sanctus placatus ei esse potest, qui aut patris aut fili inimicus est?

    Part V
    The passage is this:”The connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, makes three coherent ones from one another, which Three are One (one thing, not one person,) as it is said, ‘I and the Father are One;’ denoting the Unity of substance, not the singularity of number.” Here, you see, Tertullian says not, “the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost,” as the text now has it, but “the Father, Son, and Paraclete;” nor cites anything more of the text than these words, “which Three are One.” Though this treatise against St. Praxeas be wholly spent in discoursing about the Trinity, and all texts of Scripture are cited to prove it, and this text of St. John, as we now read it, would have been one of the most obvious and apposite to have been cited at large, yet Tertullian could find no more obvious words in it for his purpose than “these Three are One.” These, therefore, he interprets of the Trinity, and Enforces the interpretation by that other text, " I and the Father are One;" as if the phrase was of the same importance in both places.

    Here is the link to “An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture:”

    https://books.google.com/books?id=c...=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false


     

Share This Page