Hey Riven, May I ask?

[shepherdsword]

The livestream just ended...it was really beautiful, Bible readings for Good Friday, tranquil Christian songs and a spirit of prayer.

I am listening to the recording....it's awesome.

 

[shepherdsword]

I suggest everyone listen to the part where they put Isaiah 53 to music...it's anointed. It starts here:

 

[Debp]

I am listening to the recording....it's awesome.

Yes it really was...I sensed the Holy Spirit's presence.

About the tranquil songs, Richard Inman who leads the fellowship and chat does the songs by using AI. He uses a lot of Scripture and some of the Creeds.

 

[Riven]

Yes it really was...I sensed the Holy Spirit's presence.

About the tranquil songs, Richard Inman who leads the fellowship and chat does the songs by using AI. He uses a lot of Scripture and some of the Creeds.

Whatever AI he's using, he should put it on payroll.

 

[Riven]

Thanks. So you see two persons, not three persons, in the prologue. Who are the two persons? Why don’t you see three persons?

Because a third person is never implied or explicitly stated.

If you would, take a look now at the Geneva Bible I quoted (in post #105). Do you still see two persons?

No. I see one.

 

[Lambano]

Y'know, Riven, I was hoping you wouldn't get dragged into a theological controversy about the nature of Jesus Christ so soon, but you're a grown-up and you don't need to be mollycoddled.

 

[Lambano]

No. I see one.

Yes, I was noting in Geneva that the pronoun used was "it" instead of "he". Both are supported by the rules of Greek grammar. The choice of pronouns reflects the theology of the translator.

 

[Matthias]

@Matthias Since @Riven had obviously read the wrong passage, I simply posted the correct passage ….

That was a kind and commendable thing for you to do.

…. and briefly commented.

That is where you went beyond letting him read and think it through for himself.

Since Riven is now trusting Christ as his Savior, we should be glad of that. Matthias you don't believe in the Trinity but we Christians do.

You’re overlooking an import fact: I’m a primitive Christian. Primitive Christians aren’t Nicene Christians (i.e. trinitarians). As church history documents, primitive Christianity existed several centuries before Nicene Christianity.

As is my custom when speaking with Nicene Christians, I’ve used the concessions of trinitarian scholars to make these points in other threads. I’m not interested in repeating that exercise in this thread.

 

[Lambano]

Y'know, Riven, I was hoping you wouldn't get dragged into a theological controversy about the nature of Jesus Christ so soon, but you're a grown-up and you don't need to be mollycoddled.

My advice: Leave room for awe and wonder, and it's okay to say "I don't know".

 

[Matthias]

Because a third person is never implied or explicitly stated.

That’s an important point which you arrived at on your own.

No. I see one.

That’s another important point which you arrived at entirely on your own.

How are you going to reconcile the differences in the two translations? Both were done by reputable trinitarian scholars. One group saw something in the prologue of John’s Gospel which the other group didn’t.

 

[Matthias]

Yes, I was noting in Geneva that the pronoun used was "it" instead of "he". Both are supported by the rules of Greek grammar.

That’s right. “It” fits perfectly with the Jewish / Hebrew Bible background of John. John is intentionally taking his readers back to Genesis 1.

The choice of pronouns reflects the theology of the translator.

An interesting point is that the theology of the translators - all of them, no matter which choice of pronouns they made - was trinitarian.

Trinitarian group A (Geneva Bible) decided on “it”. Trinitarian group B (New International Version) decided on “he”.

The next thing to consider is why the trinitarian translators divided on the issue.

 

[shepherdsword]

Yes, I was noting in Geneva that the pronoun used was "it" instead of "he". Both are supported by the rules of Greek grammar. The choice of pronouns reflects the theology of the translator.

"It" just doesn't fit in with the context too well. "αὐτοῦ" can be translated as "it" or "him" or as "one" or "other" for that matter. In my opinion the context demands "him". However, the KJV does a similar thing when it translates "that holy thing that shall be born of thee" in reference to Jesus in Lk 1:35

 

[shepherdsword]

That was a kind and commendable thing for you to do.



That is where you went beyond letting him read and think it through for himself.



You’re overlooking an import fact: I’m a primitive Christian. Primitive Christians aren’t Nicene Christians (i.e. trinitarians). As church history documents, primitive Christianity existed several centuries before Nicene Christianity.

As is my custom when speaking with Nicene Christians, I’ve used the concessions of trinitarian scholars to make these points in other threads. I’m not interested in repeating that exercise in this thread.

There is a big difference between laying down your opinion and declaring victory and actually proving your point. I have posted this to you once and I do it again. The Shema that monotheists use to prove their point actually proves the Trinity

Our God (plural) is. One (Echad) Echad being a unity out of plurality. A notable example is " A man shall cleave to his wife and they shall be one(echad) flesh

 

[Matthias]

There is a big difference between laying down your opinion and declaring victory and actually proving your point. I have posted this to you once and I do it again. The Shema that monotheists use to prove their point actually proves the Trinity

Our God (plural) is. One (Echad) Echad being a unity out of plurality. A notable example is " A man shall cleave to his wife and they shall be one(echad) flesh

View attachment 82546

Thank you. I’ve addressed it so many times and in so many threads that I see no need to address it again in this thread. However, if @Riven asks me to I will.

 

[Matthias]

No. I see one.

The Apostles’ Creed is a popular post-biblical creed. What do you think about it?

Apostles' Creed

www.crcna.org

 

[Riven]

How are you going to reconcile the differences in the two translations? Both were done by reputable trinitarian scholars. One group saw something in the prologue of John’s Gospel which the other group didn’t.

By recognizing that there's differences in translations. Or... I could flip a coin.

 

[Debp]

That’s right. “It” fits perfectly with the Jewish / Hebrew Bible background of John. John is intentionally taking his readers back to Genesis 1.

Genesis 1:26-27 NKJV "Let us" shows the plurality of God.

26Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over [g]all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

 

[Riven]

Not bad for AI. Soon it'll put musicians out of buisness though.

 

[Taken]

@Taken Riven is now a Christian...see his status has now been changed to Christian. Isn't that wonderful?

YES!

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

Because a third person is never implied or explicitly stated.


No. I see one.

ManKIND…
The “PERSON…”
IS… a living…BODY, with a SOUL, SPIRIT.

God…
The “CREATOR and MAKER”.
IS…a living…SPIRIT, with a SOUL, BODY, and 7 SPIRITS.

Gods SPIRIT….Is His “ALMIGHTY” Power and Glory….HE Gives to No one.

Gods “7 Spirits”…are what God “Gives” to Faithful men…
All faithful men “Do not all Receive all the Same of Gods 7 Spirits”…

So among Gods “faithful”… you should see, notice there are Differences, in how such men Serve the Lord God.

(In brief…Every faithful man, is Not the Prophet, the Teacher, the Preacher, the Politician, the Scientist, the Inventor, the Singer, the Mommy, the Daddy, the High IQ, the blah, blah, blah…
They “ARE” according to the SPIRIT of God, He gives to Them.)

May abundant Blessings be upon you.

Glory to God,
Taken