How did the Trinity doctrine develop in the early church?

[MonoBiblical]

A virgin?

But according to the Masoretic Text, it is just supernatural as a virgin conception. It makes it easier for Bar Kochbas to claim christship or messiahship. (Whichever term you prefer.)

 

[RLT63]

If you knew who those two were in character and their purpose in undermining protestantism and their love for Mariolatry and Romanism, you would blush with embarrassment. The absolute corrupt nature of the manuscripts they used in the Greek New testament, based solely on their reputation as the oldest, led to later alterations and distortions in numerous Bible "translations" with the intent of not finding truth as a precept, but for the sole purpose of the destroying the power and integrity of the KJV.
It amazes me that a church so attending a opposed to Californian should embrace the corruptions of a number of anti protestant pro Catholic agitators such as Westcott, Hort, Lightfoot, and Newman.

What's missing from your Bible?

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot Note: The following is from a study I did and not taken from the above link. The linked article is very long but very informative. So how did we end up with changes and verses being deleted out of the...

www.christianforums.com

 

[Aunty Jane]

If you knew who those two were in character and their purpose in undermining protestantism and their love for Mariolatry and Romanism, you would blush with embarrassment. The absolute corrupt nature of the manuscripts they used in the Greek New testament, based solely on their reputation as the oldest, led to later alterations and distortions in numerous Bible "translations" with the intent of not finding truth as a precept, but for the sole purpose of the destroying the power and integrity of the KJV.

Ah ha! Just as I thought….any attempt to “destroy the power and integrity of the KJV”, must of necessity be a work of the devil….! Never mind that the KJV is one of the most flawed translations in existence.
Who speaks that language anymore? Who said it had any “power or integrity” to begin with?

Any wonder they wanted a new and more accurate and readable translation.
Opinions on the work of Westcott and Hort are many and varied, but according to Wiki….they are not far off the mark it seems…..pick your scholars…

Westcott and Hort

It amazes me that a church so attending a opposed to Californian should embrace the corruptions of a number of anti protestant pro Catholic agitators such as Westcott, Hort, Lightfoot, and Newman.

I guess that depends upon who you ask…..
What bearing does religious persuasion have on linguists? The languages of the Bible are just that….taken at face value from a purely linguistic perspective, shouldn’t make a scrap of difference to the finished product what religious concepts the translators hold…otherwise even the KJV cannot be considered the word of God either.
So unless you want to explore these two translations word for word to see if there is a difference in the actual truth they arrive at, what is the basis for the criticism?…..is it yours, or are you simply parroting someone else?
I have studied many translations for comparison and the NWT has the least amount of contradictory statements….and is the easiest to read with comprehension, rather than trying to decipher the meaning of a dead language.

 

[Jack]

Never mind that the KJV is one of the most flawed translations in existence.

Who told Aunty she's a Bible language expert? The WatchTower told her that. She doesn't even believe the JW NWT!

 

[Jack]

Paul calls Jesus “the firstborn of all creation” and states that “all things were made through him and for him”....(Col 1:15-17)

Colossians 1:15-16 (NKJV)
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.

 

[HealthyShape]

The LXX did have the Hebrew letters of HIS name before it was replaced with kurios.

An interesting hypothesis. Nothing more, though. Scholarly consensus is that the LXX used the word Kyrios since the earliest times.

 

[HealthyShape]

We actually have many Greek speakers in our ranks, not to mention many congregations in Greece itself....so what is that all about? You think you know because you speak Greek that we cannot match your understanding of it more than a native speaker?
Your opinions are offered in ignorance.

Is this true, or just based on someone’s biased opinion?.....or hearsay?
The NWT is based on the manuscripts of Westcott and Hort.
These are our chosen scholars, but you will have your own, and for your own reasons as well...
Who determines accuracy among scholars.....they do. Pick your scholars. They disagree with each other.

So what are the rules for an accurate translation?

A reliable translation must:​

• Sanctify God’s name by restoring it to its rightful place in the Scriptures.—Matthew 6:9.
• Accurately convey the original message that was inspired by God.—2 Timothy 3:16.
• Translate expressions literally when the wording and structure of the target language allow for such renderings of the original-language text.
• Communicate the correct sense of a word or a phrase when a literal rendering would distort or obscure the meaning.
• Use natural, easy-to-understand language that encourages reading.—Nehemiah 8:8, 12.”

Does this describe the translations that you approve of? I believe ours does....but I seldom use it here for obvious reasons. I use the ESV a lot because it is widely accepted by most....and I refer to Strongs Concordance a lot as well as using other translations to show that we believe your own Bibles tell the truth if people are really searching for it.

You will apparently believe whatever you are told about us....it’s nothing new. Prejudice is ancient, but alive and well and living amongst us to this day. As Christians we expect the kinds of responses that you have delivered here, (John 15:18-21) elevating yourself above something you have no real knowledge about....but think that you do. Ignorance does more damage than knowledge....

Who created the NWT "translation"? Give me names. If you can't, then stop talking.

Yes, you believe the NWT is good, but you do not use it for obvious reasons - nobody else accepts it as a good translation. Yes, you answered yourself right there. Thanks. You did the work.

 

[MonoBiblical]

An interesting hypothesis. Nothing more, though. Scholarly consensus is that the LXX used the word Kyrios since the earliest times.

No, it isn't. The earlier copies are thought to have the Hebrew name of God in them, which in fact have instead of kurios. The consensus is imaginary at the least on your part.

 

[St. SteVen]

Isa 7:14 - Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
If virgin just means young girl, what kind of sign is that? Behold, a young girl shall conceive! I guess God was sending signs every day

Perhaps that she bore a son, and named him Immanuel? (God with us)
Naming sons is the responsibility of the Father? (= no father)

The NT narrative certainly indicates a virgin birth.
Though the "prophecy" may have been acquired rather than intended. ???

 

[Aunty Jane]

Who created the NWT "translation"? Give me names.

Listen to yourself.....”give me names”?....we have demands now?
Do I need to defend the translation I choose as my favourite? Do you? I use a variety of translations...we all should....and compare.

I already told you....it’s taken from Westcott and Hort’s manuscripts....what other names do you need?

If you need to criticise, at least give examples of where it is in error, and we can discuss the reasons why the Bible you use is not the only trustworthy one.

Yes, you believe the NWT is good, but you do not use it for obvious reasons - nobody else accepts it as a good translation.

The obvious reason escapes you apparently....it has way more impact when I use widely accepted translations....mine says that same thing....maybe in a slightly different way, but always in keeping the context, original language definitions, and audience understanding at the time it was said.
Should we not all demand that of a Bible translation?

Yes, you answered yourself right there. Thanks. You did the work.

Yes I did answer the question, but your comprehension skills seem a bit off. I did the work as I always have....I didn’t close my mind or my heart when I was raised in the church system you belong to, and I was rewarded with the truth....you should try it....

 

[Lambano]

No, it isn't. The earlier copies are thought to have the Hebrew name of God in them, which in fact have instead of kurios. The consensus is imaginary at the least on your part.

This website identifies 10 LXX manuscripts or manuscript fragments that use some form of the Tetragrammaton. (Note: This website's author is one of Jehovah's Witnesses.)

Here's a montage put together by the University of Pennsylvania:. The "4QLXX" Manuscript Identifier is from the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, dated 1st Century BC.

Here's a close up of one dated to around the time the NT was written. Second line, paleo-Hebraic script, not the block Hebrew letters we're used to seeing. This is Job 42:11-12.

Papyrus LXX Oxyrhynchus 3522​

That said, the versions of the LXX quoted by the NT authors used "Kurios" rather than The Name.

 

[HealthyShape]

No, it isn't. The earlier copies are thought to have the Hebrew name of God in them, which in fact have instead of kurios. The consensus is imaginary at the least on your part.

No, the consensus is not imaginary. Even the earliest forms of the LXX have "Kyrios". Realize that not every Greek scrap or fragment is the LXX translation. Like not every English scrap or fragment is the KJV translation.

 

[HealthyShape]

Listen to yourself.....”give me names”?....we have demands now?
Do I need to defend the translation I choose as my favourite? Do you? I use a variety of translations...we all should....and compare.

Non-answer. Because the translators committee of the Jehovah Witnesses sectarian "translation" is anonymous. And you have no idea who they were.

I already told you....it’s taken from Westcott and Hort’s manuscripts....what other names do you need?

The names of the so called translators from Greek to English. Don´t you know that W&H is just a critical Greek edition, not a translation? And quite obsolete, it is from the 19th century. Today's standard is Nestlé Aland 28 (or the UBS 5th edition, which is the same text) .

If you need to criticise, at least give examples of where it is in error

I already gave you some links. And you, instead of defending your nonsensical translation, began babbling something about that I picked them to support my view or something. You are talking a lot of such similar nonsense. You have only rhetoric, nothing substantial.

, and we can discuss the reasons why the Bible you use is not the only trustworthy one.

We can't, because you do not understand Greek. Stop overestimating yourself. Remember Dunning-Kruger.

 

[Grailhunter]

No, it isn't. The earlier copies are thought to have the Hebrew name of God in them, which in fact have instead of kurios. The consensus is imaginary at the least on your part.

Paleo-Hebrew----Yahweh----Hebrew letters
Classical-Hebrew----YHWH----Hebrew letters
Septuagint LXX----kurios---Greek
English----Lord

Read right to left no spaces---One continuous word.
Yahweh’s name removed 6,800 times.

 

[St. SteVen]

Yahweh’s name removed 6,800 times.

Is Yahweh not the Lord?
Didn't YHWH represent a name that should not be uttered?

 

[Grailhunter]

Is Yahweh not the Lord?
Didn't YHWH represent a name that should not be uttered?

Long story…
You shall not take the name Yahweh your God in vain, for Yahweh will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.

From this the Israelites/Jews eventually came to believe that Yahweh did not want His name spoken by anyone. So that went to this…

You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain. The Jews even spell the word God….G-d.

So they removed Yahweh’s name and the Tetragrammaton YHWH and replaced it with the words Lord or God or both 6,800 times. And the word they used for Christ’s name Ἰησοῦς---Iesous is not a name, it is a Greek word that means healer. That is why Greeks are not named or nick named Iésous unless they are a doctor. Would His mother Miriam give Him a Greek name? His name is Yeshua.

No J’s in the scriptures…..No one knows were the word Jesus came from. The Geneva Bible and King James Version of the Bible used the word Iesous, but the King James eventually used the word Jesus in later prints. The letter J first appeared in the 15th century and Shakespeare made it popular and the King James adopted the word Jesus and Shakespeare’s poetic style.

So the names of God the Father and God the Son are not in the Bible unless you have a Sacred Names Bible. Making the word God a name instead of a Devine position contributes to false belief of the 3 Gods in one formula that the Roman Catholic Church created. Because they stuff the word God with a combination of 3 Gods. The word God is easier to manipulate then a proper name.

I am Yahweh and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; Isaiah 45:5 There is one God in the Old Testament and He had a Son and then there is the un-named God the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. One God in the Old Testament and three in the New Testament. Yahweh and Yeshua and the Holy Spirit. Christ said the Father is greater than I and the 50 My Father verses and several My Father in Heaven verses and....This is my Son in whom I am well pleased.

Over a hundred verses prove the three in one God formula for the Trinity false and that there are actually three Gods on thrones. Very few beliefs can call on that many verses to prove the Truth

The Johnny Appleseed of Truth.
Be good and do good.

 

[MonoBiblical]

This website identifies 10 LXX manuscripts or manuscript fragments that use some form of the Tetragrammaton. (Note: This website's author is one of Jehovah's Witnesses.)

Here's a montage put together by the University of Pennsylvania:. The "4QLXX" Manuscript Identifier is from the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, dated 1st Century BC.

Here's a close up of one dated to around the time the NT was written. Second line, paleo-Hebraic script, not the block Hebrew letters we're used to seeing. This is Job 42:11-12.

Papyrus LXX Oxyrhynchus 3522​

That said, the versions of the LXX quoted by the NT authors used "Kurios" rather than The Name.

Or perhaps the NT originally had the tetragrammaton rather than kurios.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Quite frankly, the unbelief of a fallen angel, while to my mind inexplicable considering the numerous references to such a being,

Well, you have no instances in the OT to start with and its well documents the lack of support for any eternal arch enemy of God.

is a minor issue compared to the Christedelphian views on the divinity of Christ.

The diversion and the lack of response regarding the true interpretation of Ezekiel 28 are telling as well.

There is much more in that chapter that could reveal the Father’s wisdom, but as with RLT, the resistance makes it difficult.

 

[Aunty Jane]

No, the consensus is not imaginary. Even the earliest forms of the LXX have "Kyrios". Realize that not every Greek scrap or fragment is the LXX translation. Like not every English scrap or fragment is the KJV translation.

What a weak excuse for not recognising the Hebrew characters of the divine name in the Greek text.

Please tell me why the Greek “Kyrios” was ever used in the first place as a substitute for the divine name in God’s own word...? Did he not give Israel his name and tell them that they should mention it often in all their generations? (Exodus 3:15) Do we see the Hebrew writers shying away from the use of Jehovah’s name?

What happened to change that? Why do people today balk at the mention of a name that Jesus said he had come to “make known”?

Non-answer. Because the translators committee of the Jehovah Witnesses sectarian "translation" is anonymous. And you have no idea who they were.

You seem to think that there are no Greek speakers in my brotherhood. I assure you that the NWT is a carefully translated version of God’s word...in both Hebrew and Greek....but have I once mentioned it or urged anyone to use it? Have I said it is the only translation I use in discussions here?
Your arguments are plainly shallow, prejudiced and bogus.

The names of the so called translators from Greek to English. Don´t you know that W&H is just a critical Greek edition, not a translation? And quite obsolete, it is from the 19th century. Today's standard is Nestlé Aland 28 (or the UBS 5th edition, which is the same text) .

And whose opinion are you expressing? Who taught you Greek? Are you a native Greek speaker?

Scholars are hardly a source of accuracy if they hotly disagree with one another, so again your argument is weak and biased. Who said your scholars are better than mine?

I already gave you some links. And you, instead of defending your nonsensical translation, began babbling something about that I picked them to support my view or something. You are talking a lot of such similar nonsense. You have only rhetoric, nothing substantial.

Links from your own biased sources.....what are they worth?

That would be like me quoting Watchtower material to you. It’s only of value to those who believe it...right? That cuts both ways.
You are arguing points that were never important to the discussion.....since you are simply pitting one lot of scholars against another....and one translation against many. I don’t use the NWT in discussions here because of people like you. Your arguments are moot.

I prefer to just allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves...why can’t you? It seems that discussing scripture with you is difficult.....why should it be if you have the truth? Can you not defend it without resorting to a smoke screen?...”you don’t understand Greek”.....I have very close friends who are Greek.

How do we know that your claim to speak Greek is valid? I have seen no evidence to date....

 

[Hiddenthings]

I'm sure everyone is grateful

I understand, it's hard to engage with the true interpretation when you’re committed to a false one. It leaves you like a carpenter without a hammer.