I Notice that A LOT of New Bibles Have Removed The Words only begotten in all verses that original had it.?
First-What does the word only-begotten mean? Lorenzo Answers: The QUESTION The QUESTION IS--Why have they done this? The Simple Answer to support the Nicene Creeds. Answer: only begotten means Jesus’ God Created Him The First Creation of God Rev 3:12-to 14 Prov 8:22 to 31 and More, The Nicene Creeds Deny That Jesus has a God and Father So here we are again with Trinitarians changing things— To fit the Nicene Creeds. Wikipedia informs us of This Original Nicene Creeds Comparison 325 to 381 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#Comparison_between_Creed_of_325_and_Creed_of_381%23Comparison_between_Creed_of_325_and_Creed_of_381 325 C.E, Reads And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten (0)(p) of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; 381 C.E, Reads And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten (0) p)Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; Begotten, Not Made – This is not Consistent with what the word only-begotten MEANS. This is Homoousion /Theology= Mythology an Imaginary-Concept of God New Bibles Say the only son—That is and out right LIE. God has many Sons – Details are in http://simplebibletruths.net/JOHN-3-16.htm Churches that Teach the Trinity as Holy Can Not be TRUSTED. There is NOTING HOLY About the Trinity. Clearly Homoousion /Theology=That did not come from God. But from the god of this WORLD Satan—The Dung-god— http://simplebibletruths.net/GODorgod.htm Did Jesus Create Himself? Open http://simplebibletruths.net/FirstBorn.htm Jesus -begotten-or make my GOD http://simplebibletruths.net/45.htm The word that made Jesus God-Open Homoousion This Is Intentional Fallacy http://simplebibletruths.net/IntentionalFallacy.htm Open http://simplebibletruths.net/Homoousion.htm Everyone must ask them self this If the Nicene Creeds came from God THEY WOULD NOT Change But they have changed many times Details in http://simplebibletruths.net/TrinityRevisionalUpdate1.htm
Is there biblical or historical evidence for the idea that Jesus claimed to be God?
I expected the usual barrage of answers stating that when Jesus said “Before Abraham was, I am,” he was claiming to be God. He wasn’t. “I am” is the most common phrase in any language and Jesus used it as anyone else would.The “I am” fallacy has to be one of the most universally accepted exposition based myths. God said to Moses, “Ehyeh asher ehyeh” (Ex 3:14) which is properly translated “I will be whom I will be.” Our English versions translate it as “I am” which is why people so readily accept that Jesus quoted it.At some point a commentator has seen an opportunity to connect Jesus’ statement with Exodus 3 where God presents his enigmatic name as a statement of intent to Moses. If Jesus had meant to quote it he would have spoken Hebrew and the gospel writer would have faithfully recorded the fact as when Jesus quoted Psalm 22 on the cross.As it stands, the Greek “Ego eimei” does not represent the name of God given in Exodus 3.The next deduction is usually drawn from the Pharisees’ action in picking up stones in a very public display of offence. However (if one cares to check) Jesus’ statement claimed pre-eminence over Abraham making a clear reference to Messiah and that, in the Pharisee’s book, was as offensive as a carpenter from Nazareth could get.
Which Bible translations of John 1:1 more ACCURATELY depict what John was conveying concerning 'The Word'?
A.) The King James Version Bible: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1 ** The Revised Standard Version, The Catholic Challoner-Douay Version, The Jerusalem Bible and The New American Bible use similar wording ** B.) The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures: "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." ~ John 1:1 ** The Emphatic Diaglott (interlinear reading), The New Testament (by James L. Tomanek), Das Evangelium nach Johannes (by Siegfried Schulz) and The New Testament in an Improved Version (Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text) use similar wording ** C.) A New Translation of the Bible (by James Moffatt): "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was divine" ~ John 1:1 ** The New English Bible, The Bible—An American Translation (by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed), Das Neue Testament (by Ludwig Thimme), Das Evangelium nach Johannes (by Johannes Schneider) and La Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean (by Maurice Goguel) use similar wording ** ♥♥♥ SPECIAL NOTE ♥♥♥: Before making your selection, be sure to CAREFULLY compare choices A, B and C with the following Bible translation STILL IN EXISTENCE TODAY which uses a language that was spoken in the earliest centuries of our common era immediately following Jesus' earthly Ministry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdMV3PIEU... {3 minute 17 second VIDEO} Ciao
Do good Muslims read the Bible as well as well as the Koran?
Muslims believe that their faith is the culmination of the revelations given to the faithful Hebrews and Christians of old. However, their teachings diverge from the Bible on some points, even though they cite both the Hebrew and the Greek Scriptures in the Qur’ān. I am not to keyed up on Islam(Muslim Religion) however referring to the Mankinds Search for God Book, I have extracted the above comment. I think in summary it shows that a devout muslim would study all the Holy writings, including the bible. In much the same way as we would do research before coming up with a good answer to anyone that wants to learn about our beliefs.
If Trinity is for real, why John 5:7 is fabricated?
I'm confused with Christian claims about Trinity, where there is 1 god, but it is 3 but yet 1 god. Pardon me for those who are not happy with my question, it is just an honest question to help me understand the matter. John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." This is the only verse in the Bible that explains trinity. Remember, the central doctrine in Christianity is the Trinity. What stunning me is that I found that this verse is fabricated. It is never exist in earliest Bible, not until 325 AD after Council of Niceae. All major translations since the King James Version have omitted it, including the Revised Standard Version, The Amplified Bible, and the New International Version. Actually it as inserted into BIble and removed again after 50 co-operative denominations of Christian church unanimously agree that this concept is a clear fabrication and a lie. So my question is, why do Christians still believe in Trinity despite no clear evidence to support this even in THE BIBLE ITSELF? It's still acceptable if God forgot to include it in the first place but now all churches DISAGREE to it? Why bet your life on something wrong? My first thought that the Roman church wants people to worship the church as if Jesus were a mere human prophet, he will be forgotten and he would be just like Moses, John the Baptist, Adam etc. To make it spectacular, Jesus have to be the most superior being, thus God incarnation idea comes into place. Please help me to clear this.
Why did Jesus say to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit?
Because He wants us to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.LolYou were probably looking for a deeper explanation though I imagine, right? :)He did so because a trinitarian understanding of God is essential. Without the trinitarian understanding of the Godhead you end up with one of two options: either there’s more than one God, or someone other than God can be sinless and pay for the penalty of the sins of mankind on their behalf. Both are false.Without understanding the Holy Trinity, we are left to all kinds of theories about who Jesus is. And they all diminish Him, fall short of reasonable explanations of what He said and did, and reduce the overall magnitude of the Gospel.God didn’t just send someone else to die. Some angel or some human. That would be a contradiction to so many things in the Bible not to mention ethically problematic. God’s eternal Word became flesh. Only God is sinless and perfect. Only God can forgive sins. Only God can bear the weight of the guilt of all the sins. Only God can triumph over sin, death, Satan and Hell. Only God can raise from the dead. And only God can have all authority in Heaven and on Earth.1 John 4:2–3 said that any spirit that denies that Jesus came in the flesh (that Jesus was God in the flesh) is the spirit of antichrist. And in order for God to become flesh, and for the Son to refer to the other persons of the Father and the Spirit, the Trinity must be true.A non-trinitarian God’s version of Jesus is an antichrist doctrine.
Is John 1:18 translated poorly in the English Standard Bible?
In regards to John 1.18, the root of the issue between the KJV and ESV is not in translation, but rather in the underlying Greek texts used to translate each. Simply put, the KJV is translated from different source material than the ESV. So rather than translation, this becomes a question of which apparatus used to translate each is correct.The ESV uses a text referred to as the Nestle-Aland 27 (or 28th edition, depending on which edition of the ESV you are using), while the KJV uses texts such as the 1550 Stephanus Greek NT.The purpose of critical apparatus' are to help compare the textual variants from the Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine traditions, looking for the readings which have the earliest attestation, and broadest geographic distribution throughout the world. Also, the reading that can best explain the other variants is generally considered to be the original. The problem with the KJV is that the manuscript evidence (as well as the critical apparatus) is outdated. We continue to this very day to unveil new manuscripts that were not known to have existed when the KJV was translated. It wasn't until the 1950's that the Bodmer Papyri, a group of twenty-two papyri, were discovered. Amongst these papyri were manuscripts given the designation p66, and p75. Both of these manuscripts contain the oldest copies of the Gospel of John to date, and subsequently speak of Jesus as θεός (God) in John 1.18. That being said, I don't see the supposed "contradiction" that you propose. Given that John 1.1 attributes the divine title θεός to the Father, and the Son (“and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”), it simply astounds me that you would suggest John 1.18 cannot also attribute the divine title to both without there being a contradiction.