What Others Said about the Trinity

Originally posted by josephw
The ancient Christians? Who are you referring to?

What are you saying here robbie? What fact is it that cannot be avoided?

That there is a distinction between God and the Word? How so?

you must go and read the sahdic coptic text, a Coptic translation, based on earlier Greek manuscripts, which defines the difference between the word and God. check it out!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you must go and read the sahdic coptic text, a Coptic translation, based on earlier Greek manuscripts, which defines the difference between the word and God. check it out!

Must I? What? Isn't the Bible good enough? Is it not the word of God?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes we have been through this Conrau, and i concluded in my own mind, that regardless of any linguistics, exegesis or other grammatical interpretations, the fact of the matter was, the ancient Christians in rendering their translation, consciously and deliberately made a distinction, in their rendering of John 1:1, between God and the Word. This fact cannot be avoided.

And as I said, I don't think they did. Unless you know Coptic sufficiently well, you cannot comment on what the indefinite article means. You are basing your judgment on a linguistic generalisation. You also have to acknowledge that, even if they did not mean to say that the Word was God, the Coptic translators were not infallible and could produce a faulty translation.

Originally posted by josephw
Very interesting vistesd. No, really!

I hope you're not still mad at me.

Anyway. This thing about the Godhead. I don't think we can comprehend God. I think we would have to be God to understand God. I mean, common'. Infinite, eternal, OOO.

But this is where I get hung up. After reading and learning and listening all these years to just about every a ...[text shortened]... scripture as triune.

And besides that, it sure looks that way to me too.

What say you?

Was I mad at you? Must have been pretty trivial (or petty on my part) ‘cause I forget.

Look, I have finally (after all these years? You’ve known me a long time on here, my friend) realized that I have no business arguing Christianity—even exegesis of the NT texts—with Christians. I have no dog in the fight over the Trinity as Christian doctrine. At one time in the long ago past, I thought it was the only way that Christianity made sense. I now think that I was wrong (by which I am not saying that the Trinity can’t make sense, just that I now think non-trinitarian Christians can also make sense).

I was replying—as almost an aside—to a broad statement by Conrau on the Bible. And, I have to admit—and I think I did admit to him in my post—that I understood what he was saying in context; I was just pointing out an alternate context.

I also have no interest in arguing Judaism versus Christianity. What I do have an interest in is pointing out what I sometimes see as (possible!) Christian misconceptions about Judaism—misconceptions that I once held. For example: Judaism has no central doctrine about the nature of messiah at all; Judaism has no central doctrine about “salvation”; rabbinical ways of reading the scriptures are worlds away from how Christians tend to read them. And all this was so at the time of Jesus. Scholar Jacob Neusner has said that it is an error to speak of “Judaism” in the first century, as if it was some univariate religion: he says that it is better to speak of “Judaisms”. That of Jesus’ followers was, at the outset, just one more with a particular messianic message.

So, I no longer have any comment on what most evangelical scholars say. I find the arguments here interesting. If I argue something from a Jewish (and in my case, nondualistic) view, it should be seen as an argument aimed at fleshing out understanding, not one aimed at getting agreement or overcoming what I see as necessary (and valid) inter-religion impasses.

Originally posted by Conrau K
And as I said, I don't think they did. Unless you know Coptic sufficiently well, you cannot comment on what the indefinite article means. You are basing your judgment on a linguistic generalisation. You also have to acknowledge that, even if they did not mean to say that the Word was God, the Coptic translators were not infallible and could produce a faulty translation.

no i am sorry i do not accept these objections, for this was the very reason that even after all the discussion, with linguistics and grammar i was forced to accept the most basic and fundamental fact, a clear and conscious decision had been made to render God as being The God and the word as being a god. Even if i had wanted to, i could not deny this very basic fact, a clear and unambiguous decision had been made. Nor do i have any reason to doubt the integrity of the ancient Alexandrians. What is more, even from the now accepted version, it is quite clear from the immediate context that the word cannot be God, for verse eighteen states that no one has seen God at any time, now even the most ardent trinitarian must admit, that this simply cannot be true in the case of Jesus Christ, who carried out a public ministry! Other Bible scholars have also recognised the distinction, James Moffat springs to mind, and he has rendered the word as being divine.

Originally posted by josephw
Must I? What? Isn't the Bible good enough? Is it not the word of God?

the sahidic coptic text, is the bible or the word of God.

Originally posted by vistesd
Was I mad at you? Must have been pretty trivial (or petty on my part) ‘cause I forget.

Look, I have finally (after all these years? You’ve known me a long time on here, my friend) realized that I have no business arguing Christianity—even exegesis of the NT texts—with Christians. I have no dog in the fight over the Trinity as Christian doctrine. At on ...[text shortened]... at getting agreement or overcoming what I see as necessary (and valid) inter-religion impasses.

I understand.


It was me then. A while ago I posted a series of threads that can only be labeled as morose. That's how wringett put it. He was right. I hadn't intended for it to go that way, but... anyway, you made a reply to one of them and I felt I had offended you.

In my opinion some people need to be offended, but you're not one of them.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the sahidic coptic text, is the bible or the word of God.

I looked it up on line. You've been duped!

Tell me. How long did these manuscripts remain unearthed? When were they discovered?

Originally posted by josephw
I looked it up on line. You've been duped!

Tell me. How long did these manuscripts remain unearthed? When were they discovered?

if you have looked it up, you should know!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
if you have looked it up, you should know!

I briefly read some of what I found. I didn't see anything about its' origin.

Do you know or not?

Originally posted by josephw
I briefly read some of what I found. I didn't see anything about its' origin.

Do you know or not?

http://sahidica.warpco.com/SahidicaIntro.htm

knock yourself out!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
http://sahidica.warpco.com/SahidicaIntro.htm

knock yourself out!

Out cold!

All I wanna do is play chess.

Originally posted by josephw
I understand.


It was me then. A while ago I posted a series of threads that can only be labeled as morose. That's how wringett put it. He was right. I hadn't intended for it to go that way, but... anyway, you made a reply to one of them and I felt I had offended you.

In my opinion some people need to be offended, but you're not one of them.

Well if I said anything offensive to you, I’m glad I don’t remember it! 🙂

I just commented to Robbie that I regret most of my posts over the last year till just very recently. Even the ones that were cordial, even the ones where I think I was right (on the topics, not in the way that I may have argued them)—though, to tell you the truth, I don’t remember much of that either. I said some pretty ugly things to my old friend KellyJay, and then decided to “ban” myself from here till I could get grounded again. I’m still a bit wobbly, and I do not intend to post as frequently as I used to, but I’m “workin’ my way back” (after apologizing to KJ, who was—as always—gracious).

Morose? Well, I’ve been that, too…

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no i am sorry i do not accept these objections, for this was the very reason that even after all the discussion, with linguistics and grammar i was forced to accept the most basic and fundamental fact, a clear and conscious decision had been made to render God as being The God and the word as being a god. Even if i had wanted to, i could not deny t ...[text shortened]... sed the distinction, James Moffat springs to mind, and he has rendered the word as being divine.

no i am sorry i do not accept these objections, for this was the very reason that even after all the discussion, with linguistics and grammar i was forced to accept the most basic and fundamental fact, a clear and conscious decision had been made to render God as being The God and the word as being a god. Even if i had wanted to, i could not deny this very basic fact, a clear and unambiguous decision had been made.

But again, this is based on a faulty linguistic generalisation. Your reasoning is 'The Coptic text uses the indefinite article; the English indefinite article means this; therefore the Coptic means this.' That is an unjustifiable generalisation. For all you know, Coptic might use the indefinite article, just like Greek, to indicate the complement of 'was'. Of course, a clear and unambiguous decision has been made; it just may not mean what you think it does. The reasons for the indefinite article may be due not to a particular understanding of the Greek, but due to a grammatical requirement of the language.

What is more, even from the now accepted version, it is quite clear from the immediate context that the word cannot be God, for verse eighteen states that no one has seen God at any time, now even the most ardent trinitarian must admit, that this simply cannot be true in the case of Jesus Christ, who carried out a public ministry!

Because Jesus Christ is God: John 1:18 'No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father's side, has revealed him.' I think it very bold to use John 1:18 as evidence that Jesus has not seen God, when John explicitly addresses this:

John 6:46: 'Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.'

Originally posted by vistesd
Well if I said anything offensive to you, I’m glad I don’t remember it! 🙂

I just commented to Robbie that I regret most of my posts over the last year till just very recently. Even the ones that were cordial, even the ones where I think I was right (on the topics, not in the way that I may have argued them)—though, to tell you the truth, I don’t ...[text shortened]... k” (after apologizing to KJ, who was—as always—gracious).

Morose? Well, I’ve been that, too…

We're all in this together till the end. I just wish we saw the same end.

We see different ends. To me it seems so contrary to reason.

Here I go off on a tangent.