We're missing the point -- Present Truth III

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

Subject: We're missing the point

Author:
nontrinitarian

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11:48:39 05/28/07 Mon
Author Host/IP: nv-71-49-131-129.dhcp.embarqhsd.net/71.49.131.129
In reply to: Mike 's message, "Re: Trinity proof? oooops" on 14:15:12 08/06/02 Tue

-
Our brother's question is about 1 John 5:7, not Matthew.
-
The simple and provable FACT is that 1 John 5:7 is a counterfit verse. It appears in no existing NT manuscript copy written before the twelfth century.
It began life from the pen of a Spanish theologen who was branded by the Catholic Church itself as a heretic. It appeared in the MARGIN NOTES of some copies of the Septuagent (Latin translation of the NT) in reference to 1 John, and from there it "made its way into" post 12th century copies of the NT - as one historian puts it. What? Was it a brainy worm or something? Did it decide to crawl out of the marginal notes and into the Scripture itself? Hardly.
-
In fact, when the most prominant 12th century English translator of the NT refused to place it in his work without evidence that it had existed in the Greek NT as the trinitarian church insisted he do, a Greek manuscript copy was PRODUCED by them which had only one difference from previous manuscript copys....it included the verse in the Greek. As a result, the English translator was forced to include it in his English version of the NT, and it became established Scripture.
-
Basic research will establish that this is the truth, and it is for this reason that almost all modern revised translations delete this verse from their work.
-
It is universally recognized among Bible scholars, historians and translators to be a spurious and counterfit verse....inserted into the Bible by a trinitarian church with an agenda....and in flagrant defiance of the NT injunction to add no words to the existing text.
-
The reason is obvious. Since there is no statement in the NT declaring the trinitarian "three in one" concept, they simply counterfited one and passed it off to unsuspecting Christians for centuries as legitimate Scripture.
-
Why would the "central doctrine of Christianity" need to be predicated on a blatent lie?

>>I don't believe in the trinity but how does one
>>reconcile the following scripture with the fact that
>>the trinity is a false doctrine?
>
>
>This is what I left out.
>
>For there are three that bear record in heaven, the
>Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three
>are one. (1 JOHN 5:7 KJV)**

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
correction	nontrinitarian	15:12:13 05/28/07 Mon
here's Reslight Discussion Board's URL -- nontrinitarian, 15:14:31 05/28/07 Mon