Teaching the Trinity from the NIV

[christundivided]

kiddy cub is horribly paranoid. Remind anyone of Avery????

He might be wearing tinfoil and sitting in his own feces munching Cheetos in moms basement....I wouldn't put it past him.

 

[FSSL]

kiddy cub is horribly paranoid. Remind anyone of Avery????

He might be wearing tinfoil and sitting in his own feces munching Cheetos in moms basement....I wouldn't put it past him.

I think he prefers Fruit Loops... yep! Fruit Loops!

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Thank you for your responses.  I don't see how he could be worse at all, let alone "much worse."  He frequently edits posts long after a thread has gone beyond.  btw, did you see what he did to your post # 299 on page 30 of this thread?  You might consider deleting it, altogether.  I never had the chance to read the original, but it must have taken him apart.

FSSL avoided the issue of the post, which was simply to get him to commit on "only begotten God/god" ... but I did put it back tonight, thanks for pointing out the crash-out.

http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/teaching-the-trinity-from-the-niv/msg52270/#msg52270

I will allow that he may have erred.

From my memory, he was in fact worse a couple of years back, even if that seems virtually impossible, and it is true that I was not here on the issues you mention.

Anyone reading these threads can see his various problems, he would have to lock the forum to really cut his losses.

The swine marathon thread is a bit of a classic, so far afaik it has not been tampered or crashed.

===========

When discussing Christology and Bible versions, the issues around the many actual confusions and weaknesses in the modern versions is primary.  e.g. If they can not even tell if they teach a "begotten God" they are clearly worthless. 

That is more primary than issues like "economic trinity" or fabricating a trinitarian apologetic out of 1John 2. Hey FSSL, could you supply the early church writer references that use this as a trinitarian apologetic? (As you indicate.)  I would like to read what is actually written, even if post Nicea.

That is one reason the mv proponents run to creedal formulations or pat unscriptural phrases, they simply do not know what the Bible says about the Lord Jesus Christ.

John 1:18 
No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father,
he hath declared him.

The NAS, the Emphasized and the NWT literally translate the corruption version as "only begotten God/god".  This is an excellent translation of the corruption. 

Is this the belief of FSSL and the other modern versionists here?  Do they believe that there is an "only begotten God"?

If they don't know, will they have the integrity to simply say "dunno"? Better than diversion, and an honest approach can lead to iron sharpeneth studies.

===================

Post #299

========================================

Hi,

The issue is simple the identity of the Bible text, not insisting on working with vague and convoluted doctrinal expressions, which often comes down to:

"Aha, you didn't tell us what you mean when I say trinity and triune."

And my statement on the identity of the Bible text is 100% with conviction, without equivocation:

John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father,
he hath declared him.

is the pure Bible text.  Proper translation, and Son, not God in the text.

And I am simply asking FSSL, and any textual cornfusenik on the forum who mixes and matches from the pure TR and the textus corruptus, to tell us how they see the verse.

Are any of you honest enough to say, eg.

"I believe it is 2/3 likely that God was original, and 1/3 likely that Son was the autographic text".

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[FSSL]

Hey FSSL, could you supply the early church writer references that use this as a trinitarian apologetic? (As you indicate.)  I would like to read what is actually written, even if post Nicea.

One of Irenaeus's arguments that Jesus was actually and truly a human person. Irenaeus notes the three-fold workings of the Godhead quoting directly from Isaiah 61:1 and using the language of 1 John 2:20.

CHAP. XVIII.—CONTINUATION OF THE FOREGOING ARGUMENT. PROOFS FROM THE WRITINGS OF ST. PAUL, AND FROM THE WORDS OF OUR LORD, THAT CHRIST AND JESUS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS DISTINCT BEINGS; NEITHER CAN IT BE ALLEGED THAT THE SON OF GOD BECAME MAN MERELY IN APPEARANCE, BUT THAT HE DID SO TRULY AND ACTUALLY.

“And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died;” indicating that the impassible Christ did not descend upon Jesus, but that He Himself, because He was Jesus Christ, suffered for us; He, who lay in the tomb, and rose again, who descended and ascended,—the Son of God having been made the Son of man, as the very name itself doth declare. For in the name of Christ is implied, He that anoints, He that is anointed, and the unction itself with which He is anointed. And it is the Father who anoints, but the Son who is anointed by the Spirit, who is the unction, as the Word declares by Isaiah, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me,”—pointing out both the anointing Father, the anointed Son, and the unction, which is the Spirit. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus.