Sie sind auf Seite 1von 17

Is the Trinity Logically Coherent In Light of Biblical Teachings?

By Bassam Zawadi

Christian philosophers and apologists have spent a great deal of time trying to make sense out of the Trinity. Below are some of the several attempts that Christians have taken while tackling the issue of the Trinity's logical incoherence: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5909 http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/trinity_brief.htm http://www.dtl.org/trinity/article/contradiction.htm http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-false-dilemmas.htm http://www.carm.org/islam/obj_trinity.htm However, after reading all of the above mentioned articles you would realize that what these Christians are doing is redefining or putting forth the notion of Trinity in a way that could be possible for it to be logically comprehended. They don't come up with the concept of the Trinity in light of the Bible and then see if it is logically coherent. Rather, they do the exact opposite. They try to formulate the Trinity in a way that it is logical and then say that this is what the Bible teaches. However, what we should be interested in knowing is whether the concept of Trinity is logically coherent in light of what the Bible teaches. What do Christians mean when they say that they believe in one God? They will say that they believe that God is one being (not one person) and this one being is manifested in three different persons. They will say that God is one being with three centers of consciousness, souls, personhoods, etc. So it can be understood as follows:

God is one being. This one being is manifested in three different persons.

So when we Christians say that God is one, we are not emphasizing his oneness of personhood, rather we are emphasizing his oneness of being. Furthermore they will say:

God.

The Father is truly God. The Son is truly God. The Holy Spirit is truly God. These are not three Gods, but three different persons who share the essence of that one being who is

Do the above statements make any sense? What do they mean when they say that there is one being who is God, but three different persons who share that one being's essence?

That is as illogical as me saying:

human.

Ahmed is a human being. Khalid is a human being. Ayman is a human being. These are not three human beings, but three different persons who share ONE essence, which is

Obviously no one says that one essence "human" is being shared by seven billion people on Earth today. Rather, we say that there are seven billion human beings on Earth today.

Similarly, we can't say that there are three different persons sharing the one essence of God, but that there are three different Gods in light of what the Trinity teaches.

Now this argument probably won't convince Christians, since they would probably go on and reply back saying "Our logic is too limited to grasp the paradox of the Trinity".

Well, if philosophical objections won't work then let us try to pose a theological objection to the concept of Trinity by taking a look at what the Bible says.

According to Christians:

The Father is truly God. The Son is truly God. The Holy Spirit is truly God.

There is nothing irrational about the above statement (if we were to assume that it teaches three different Gods). Similarly, the following statement is also logical:

Ahmed is a human being. Khalid is a human being. Ayman is a human being.

However, an irrational statement would be:

Ahmed is the only human being. Khalid is the only human being. Ayman is the only human being.

Now this is definitely irrational. How is it possible for Ahmed and Khalid at the same time to be the only human being? Anyone could clearly see that these two beliefs are mutually exclusive and it cannot logically be possible for both of them to be true at the same time.

What does the Bible say about God the Father (first person in the Trinitarian God head)?

It says this:

John 17:3

Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Notice how the Father is being referred to as THE ONLY TRUE GOD. Thus, we are required to restate the formulation of the Trinity as follows:

The Father is the only true God. The Son is truly God. The Holy Spirit is truly God.

But just as we saw with the previous example, this is logically impossible. How is it possible for the Father to be the ONLY true God, while at the same time the Son and Holy Spirit are God as well? If the Son and Holy Spirit are God as well, then it is false to say that the Father is the ONLY true God. Similarly, if we say that the Father is the ONLY true God(how clearer can it get for someone to express Unitarianism?) then we can't say that anyone else (i.e. Son and Holy Spirit) is God as well.

It would also be ludicrous for someone to reformulate the Trinity as follows:

The Father is the only true God. The Son is the only true God. The Holy Spirit is the only true God.

Since it would be necessary for atleast two of the above three statements to be false. It is not possible for any one of the persons (Father, Son or Holy Spirit) to be the ONLY true God at the same time when the other two are God as well.

Thus, in light of John 17:3 we see that the concept of Trinity is logically incoherent.

Sure, Christians can redefine the Trinity in a way that it could be make sense, but the problem with this would be that their understanding of the Trinity is not scripturally based. It would only be the product of their human thoughts. However, in light of the Bible (with it being authoritative to most Christians) we can safely say that the Trinity is logically incoherent. It is not simply a matter of it being beyond our logic, but AGAINST our logic. If it is AGAINST our logic then that means that it is a false belief.

Muslims, thank Allah Almighty that you are blessed to be following a rational religion.

Sam Shamoun responded

to this article and I replied back here.

Return to General Articles Refuting Trinity Logical Fallacies Employed in Trinitarian Theology

By

Biblical Unitarian

"Logic," from the Greek word logos, is the science of correct reasoning, and provides tools for analyzing the form and content of arguments. Logic addresses the relationship of premises (or evidence) to conclusions, and helps us determine whether our reasoning is straight or crooked. That is, does our conclusion necessarily follow from the premises, or have we "jumped" to conclusions. The disciplines of logical reasoning are fast becoming a thing of the past, an artifact of a classical education. Feelings, emotions and rhetoric (persuasive speech) are most often the basis of what passes for "reasoning" today. But, if we are ever to "correctly handle the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15), we are going to have to learn to think correctly. One of the best ways to understand and apply the basics of logic is by becoming familiar with logical fallacies, that is, examples of faulty reasoning. What follows are the main types of fallacious reasoning that we have encountered in the course of researching our book, One God & One Lord. Though the systems of classifying fallacies vary from author to author, we find that there is general agreement among teachers of logic that fallacies come in two general forms: formal and informal. The "formal" fallacies revolve around the syllogism form, which involves a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion. "Formally" fallacious logic involves some transgression of the proper form of syllogistic reasoning. "Informal" fallacies are those employed in everyday speech, and for the most part involve different ways of slanting or avoiding evidence en route to a conclusion. Accent

The fallacy of accent is employed whenever an emphasis is placed on a written or spoken communication in a way that materially alters its original or intended meaning. To interpret any piece of literature logically, one must be sensitive to the context and original meaning intended by the author and not alter that meaning by misplaced emphasis. This misplaced emphasis can occur quite subtly. Without changing a word, a piece of written material can be made to say something entirely different from what was intended by the author. A common form of this fallacy is the altering of punctuation, which is particularly significant for biblical research because the original text of Scripture contained no punctuation marks. For instance, the addition of a comma can dramatically alter the simple sentence, "God made man," (as in God created man) to "God, made man" (as in God became man). What a big difference! Likewise, "Woman without her man would be lost" is a seemingly straightforward sentence, but watch how the meaning can be dramatically changed by the addition of a period and a comma: "Woman. Without her, man would be lost." Luke 23:43 (NASB) says, "And he said to him, 'Truly I say to you, today you shall be with me in Paradise,'" indicating that Jesus will be with the malefactor in Paradise later that same day. But if the comma is moved to the other side of "today," an entirely different emphasis results: "Truly I say to you today, you shall (in the future) be with me in

Paradise." This is, in fact the correct rendering. [For further study read What was Jesus really saying to the malefactor in Luke 23:43?] "Proof texting" is a common way that the fallacy of accent is employed. By isolating verses that appear to support a particular theological or doctrinal position, but by weighting them too heavily, contradictions are created with other verses on the same subject. For instance, with the exception of a few "proof texts," the idea that "Jesus is God" is not consistent with the New Testament when considered as a whole. Not a Christian theologian, but a professor of logic, made the following astute statement regarding what is required for the logical interpretation of the Bible: Selecting texts to give a one-sided presentation of the truth is a widespread method of propagating erroneous views. Out of the Bible can be drawn phrases or verses that justify everything under the sun, including contradictories. Read in context, the Bible may be a liberal document, but it is not that liberal. What we need to know is if the Bible as a whole [emphasis ours] supports a given position. [1] It is a well-established hermeneutical principle among biblical interpreters that the difficult verse or passage must be interpreted in light of the clear and simple parallel verses or passages. The difficult or unusual must not be elevated and established as an altogether higher and better view than the rest of Scripture, as has been done with the Gospel of John, for example. Because it apparently presents a Jesus most compatible with Trinitarian orthodoxy, the Gospel of John is the one that is translated and distributed to potential converts more than any other. But has this been done honestly and logically, or by employing the fallacy of accent?

Equivocation This fallacy is employed when terms crucial to an argument are not used in the same sense throughout the argument. It could also be called "changing the rules in the middle of the game." Equivocation can be clearly seen in the following argument: Major premise: Every square is four-sided. Minor premise: Your jaw is square. Conclusion: Your jaw is four-sided. [2] The reason the conclusion is invalid is that in the argument, the word "square" is used in two different ways. In geometry, a square is a four-sided polygon with equal sides and four 90 angles. In popular usage, a "square" jaw means something closer to "angular." In the reasoning process, it is crucial that words be used precisely in the same sense when reasoning from one premise to another to a conclusion. One person cannot be "God" and "the Son of God" without equivocating the term "God." Trinitarians use the term "God" in the sense of "the Father" as distinct from "the Son" and "the Holy Spirit." But, in calling Christ "God," they use the term "God" in the sense of "the second person of the Trinity." Thus, although the word "God" is the same, it is given two different meanings. Often, Trinitarians equivocate the term "God" to mean a "triune God" composed of three persons. The editors of the NIV Study Bible equivocate the term "God" in this fashion when they handle 1 Corinthians 15:24-28. The passage clearly separates "God" from "Christ," and asserts that Christ will submit to God for eternity "so that God may be all in all." But, because of their doctrinal position that the Father and the Son are equal, neither can be "over" the other. Therefore, they minimize the Son's submission to a matter of "administrative function," and say that "The triune God will be shown to be supreme and sovereign in all things." To see the equivocation in the Chalcedonian formula of one person and two natures, look at the following argument:

Major premise: Jesus Christ is God (divine, deity, etc.). Minor premise: God cannot be tempted (James 1:13). Conclusion: Jesus Christ was tempted in all points (Hebrews 4:15). It should be clear that there is something wrong with the argument, because the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The logical conclusion that should be drawn from the premises is that Jesus Christ cannot be tempted. Let us restate the argument in proper syllogistic form. Major premise: Jesus Christ is God. Minor premise: God cannot be tempted (James 1:13). Conclusion: Jesus Christ cannot be tempted. But now the logical conclusion of these premises creates a dilemma, because it contradicts Hebrews 4:15, which says that Jesus Christ was tempted in all points. One possible solution is that the term "tempted" is being used in an equivocal sense. We must therefore look at the definition of the word "tempted" and see if it is being distributed throughout the argument in the same sense. We find that the word "tempt" in the minor premise and the conclusion is the same concept, based on the Greek word, peirazo (to pierce or cut). The only other possibility is that the term "God" is being equivocated, as follows: Major premise: Jesus Christ is God [the Son who became a human being while retaining his divine nature]. Minor premise: God (the Father) cannot be tempted (James 1:13). Conclusion: Jesus Christ was not tempted in his divine nature, but he was tempted in his human nature because he became a man. In the major premise, "God" is used in the sense of divine, deity, sharing the attributes of God, etc. In the minor premise, "God" refers to the Creator and the Father of Jesus Christ. This is a clear example of equivocating the term "God." This standard orthodox argument also equivocates the term "man." Jesus Christ is not an authentic man in this argument, because a "man" by definition does not have a "divine" nature. To clarify orthodoxy's equivocation of "man," consider the following argument: Major premise: Jesus Christ is a man (1 Tim. 2:5; Acts 2:22). Minor premise: God is not a man (Num. 23:19). Conclusion: Jesus Christ is God. The word "man" does not have the same meaning in the above premises. In the first case, "man" is descriptive only of the part of his being that was human, because Trinitarians argue that Jesus was both a man and God at the same time: a God-man. So, anything that is asserted about him being a "man" is qualified by saying that he was also God. In equivocating the terms "man" and "God," Trinitarians create a separate category of being for Jesus Christ and remove him from the normal and customary meaning of both terms as understood biblically and experientially. What is asserted about Jesus Christ could not be asserted about Adam, who was truly the archetypal "man." Unless Jesus' nature is completely comparable to Adam's, he cannot properly and without equivocation be categorized as "man." "100 percent God and 100 percent man" is 200 percent logical equivocation. [For further study read Christianity 101: Two Adams.]

Law of Non-Contradiction

This law is completely fundamental to logical and rational thinking, as every student of philosophy knows. It states that "A" and "not A" cannot both be true at the same time and in the same relation. For instance, biologically speaking, Mark can be a father to his son and a son to his father, but he cannot be both a son and a father to the same person at the same time. So, regarding his relationship to his son, he cannot be both his son's (biological) father and not his son's father at the same time. He must be one or the other. This law of non-contradiction is often jettisoned in theological discussions involving the Trinity or the natures of God and Christ. For instance, Jesus cannot be both a man and not-man at the same time and in the same relationship to what defines a man. If we define "man" in a way that makes "man" distinguishable from "God," as a member of the species homo-sapiens with various physical and mental limitations, Jesus Christ cannot be a man and not-man at the same time. If he is "man" and "God" at the same time, and if we preserve the integrity of the definitions of these terms, Jesus is a logical contradiction. The only way out of this dilemma is to propose a third category of being called "God-man," which of necessity renders him incapable of being included in either the category of "man" or "God." Though some may find this theologically and mystically compelling, it is logically contradictory if the integrity of biblical language is upheld (as in, "God is not a man"?Num. 23:19).

Logical Identity Logical "identity" is established by the following principle: whatever is true of A must also be true of B, and whatever is true of B must also be true of A. One point of dissimilarity disproves identity. The stakes get higher when this principle is violated in connection with the identity of God. Scripture identifies the term "God" with the term "Father." God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. That means that whatever is true of God must also be true of the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. And whatever is true of the Father of Jesus Christ must be true of God also. Logically speaking, "God" cannot be both the Father of Jesus and Jesus himself, if language is to retain any meaning.

Straw Man Attacking a straw man occurs when an opponent's position is misrepresented in order to make it more easily refuted. This is very hard to avoid, and points up the need for dialogue with those with whom we disagree. Even if we cannot agree, we can at least represent each other's position fairly and rebut it honestly. We have endeavored to do this throughout our book, One God & One Lord, and we invite those who disagree with us to let us know if we have misrepresented "orthodox" teaching. Often, when Trinitarians hear our argument that Jesus is not God, they immediately respond by assuming that we are saying that Jesus is a "mere man." This is a straw man argument because it is easy to refute the claim that Jesus was merely a man like the rest of us. On the contrary, the Gospels are full of evidence of his uniqueness as the monogenes ("one of a kind," traditionally translated "only-begotten"). It is not demeaning to be made a man in the same way that Adam was made a man in the original Creation. He was the crowning achievement of that Creation. The issue is whether Jesus is to be compared to a fallen man, with the implication that he is then a partaker of man's sinful nature. He had a fully human nature because God originally made man in His image. Man was made to reflect God's life and goodness, and share in His attributes. So for Jesus to be "the image of God" is to say that he is completing the destiny originally designed for Adam in the original Creation, which Adam forfeited. There is nothing "mere" about that!

Undistributed Middle This is a "formal" fallacy that relates to the proper form of syllogistic reasoning, which we must examine before

discussing the undistributed middle. An argument can be logical in its form and yet lead to a false conclusion if one or both of the premises are false. The classic Roman Catholic argument for their veneration of the Virgin Mary is a good example: Major premise: Mary is the mother of Jesus. Minor premise: Jesus is God. Conclusion: Therefore, Mary is the mother of God. Protestants accept the premises but deny the conclusion. Such reasoning is illogical. We also deny the conclusion, but we do so because the argument is based on a false premise, not because the argument itself is invalid. At least Roman Catholics are consistent and logical in asserting their conclusion. Seeing the proper form of syllogistic logic in symbols will help us understand the fallacy of the undistributed middle. The undistributed middle is an illogical argument because the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. It is like arguing: everything worthwhile is difficult to achieve; digging a giant hole from Maine to China is difficult to achieve; therefore digging such a hole is worthwhile. This is essentially the same reasoning as is sometimes employed by Trinitarians who argue in this fashion: Major premise: God is the Savior. Minor premise: Jesus is the Savior. Conclusion: Jesus Christ is God. The reason this argument is fallacious is that just because Jesus and God share a common title, name or attribute (Savior, Lord, etc.) does not make them identical. For example, consider this argument based upon the same major premise: Major premise: God was the Savior of Israel. Minor premise: Men who delivered Israel from enemies were saviors. Conclusion: Men who delivered Israel from enemies were God.

Conclusion

Jesus Christ said that the Word of God is truth. God specifically says in Scripture that He wants men to come to a knowledge of this truth. If Christians are going to do so, then there must be an appreciation of what is logical and what is not. Otherwise, nonsense masquerading as spiritual truth will go undetected and the quality of people's lives will suffer as a result of believing it.

Footnotes

1. A.J. Moulds, Thinking Straighter (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1975), p. 46.

2. Robert J. Kreyche, Logic for Undergraduates (Holt, Rinehart, Winston, N.Y., 1961), p. 192.

Source: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/html/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=56 Textual Corruptions Favoring the Trinitarian Position

By

Biblical Unitarian

Through the centuries, changes were made to the Greek text that skewed it in favor of the Trinitarian position. Today, Trinitarian scholars recognize these changes, and therefore they are not included in the modern Greek texts produced by the United Bible Society and the Institute for New Testament Research in Germany, which produces the Nestle-Aland text. It is important for Christians to know something about the history of the modern New Testament. None of the original documents written by the apostles exist, and scholars do not believe that any first copies of the originals exist. What do exist are more than 5000 handwritten manuscripts of the Greek New Testament from the 2nd century onward. Some of these are as small as a piece of a verse, while others are almost the complete New Testament. The modern New Testament is translated from a text that was pieced together from more than 5000 Greek manuscripts that have come down to us, as well as manuscripts in other languages such as Latin. When the Lord gave the revelation of the New Testament to the various writers 'Paul, Peter, Matthew, etc., they either wrote, or dictated to a scribe who wrote, what we would consider "the original text." This original was copied and sent to churches around the world. It was also translated into the various languages spoken by Christians, primarily Latin, Greek and Aramaic. Until the invention of movable type and the printing press (around 1450 AD), all copies of the Bible were made by hand. A copy of the entire Bible could take a year to write, paper was expensive, and many people could not read or write, so most copies were made by professional scribes. They usually wrote as someone else dictated, and often to a group of scribes. It is easy to see how errors could arise. The speaker could misread a sentence or the scribe could hear incorrectly. Sometimes the scribes did not take their work seriously enough, and that caused many errors in copying. One of the most notable examples of this was in Miniscule Codex 109. The scribe was copying the genealogy in Luke, and instead of copying the columns of names from top to bottom, he copied them across. Thus, in his copy of the Bible, almost everyone has the wrong father, the start of the human race is not God but Phares, and God ends up as the son of Aram! Honest mistakes can almost always be easily detected. They are usually in the category of spelling or grammatical

errors, or they fit some kind of standard mistake pattern such as skipping a line or copying a line twice, or they are obvious in other ways such as in the above example about the genealogy in Luke. A much more serious problem occurred when scribes deliberately changed the text to make it agree with their theology. Although this is very serious, most Christians are unaware that these changes were made. Most ministers do not mention the subject. They have trouble getting people to believe the Bible at all, and usually do not want to introduce any idea that might cause people to doubt the Scriptures. Another reason for their silence is that few ministers, and even fewer churchgoers, are prepared to do textual research, which requires sifting through the manuscripts and arguments to be able to discern genuine Scripture from errors and forgeries. Christians need to be aware that of the more than 5000 handwritten Greek manuscripts, no two of them are exactly the same. However, most of the differences are very minor, like spelling and/or punctuation. Other differences, however, are not minor, cannot be easily resolved, and have caused arguments among Christians as to that which is actually Scripture. This is one of the major reasons there are differences between versions such as the New International Version and King James Version. Scholars today have computers that they use to compare the various texts. Compared to even a hundred years ago, it is now much easier to sort the manuscripts, determine the dates they were produced, and discover where, when and how changes and errors were introduced. As scholars have compared the texts in their efforts to reconstruct the original, a startling pattern has emerged. It is apparent that Trinitarian scribes consistently changed the text to make it more Trinitarian. [1] The evidence shows that these changes were not accidental, but done purposely. This appendix (This article was taken from our book One God & One Lord.) is a sampling of some of the clearer changes that have been made to Greek manuscripts to support the Trinitarian position. Most Trinitarian scholars today have recognized all of the examples given below as errors produced by prejudiced scribes. For that reason, they do not appear in either the Greek text produced by the United Bible Society or the one produced by the Institute for New Testament Research in Germany. Nevertheless, the extent of this list shows very clearly that as the New Testament was transmitted, scribes would change the text to support their theological position. The impact of these changes cannot be overestimated. Scholars today, doing computer analysis of the more than 5000 Greek texts available to them, recognize these changes to the text. In the earlier centuries of Christianity, however, a variant manuscript could have "won the day" in a debate and further established Trinitarian doctrine, resulting in excommunication, banishment or death for the "heretic" who lost the debate. The changes also illustrate an attitude toward the text that would astound most Christians today. The idea of changing the Word of God to make it say what one wants it to say is appalling to most Christians. Misreading it or misunderstanding it is one thing, but few Christians would actually take a pen and change the text so that it agreed with their teaching. Yet that is what history shows us Trinitarian scribes did. The best way to use this appendix is in conjunction with different Bible versions. For even further study, most of the examples below can be found in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, by Bart Ehrman (New York, Oxford University Press, 1993). Also, they can in large part be verified in the critical apparatus of the United Bible Societies Greek Text UBS 4, or the Nestle-Aland Greek NT. [For further study please see our book "The Bible: You Can Believe It."] Matthew 1:18 Matthew records the "beginning" of Jesus Christ. Trinitarians who were uncomfortable with "genesis" (beginning, origin, birth) changed it to "gennesis" ("birth"). Matthew 24:36 Scribes were uncomfortable with the fact that the text said that Jesus did not know the future, so the phrase "nor the Son" was omitted from "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." That omission is reflected in the KJV, but scholars now recognize it belongs in the text, and the modern Greek text includes it, as do most modern versions.

Mark 1:10 That the spirit came "eis" ("fully to" or "into") was changed to "epi" (upon). The difference between "into" and "upon" was clear to some early Christians. The spirit coming "into" Christ made it more likely that Christ was "adopted" as God's Son than if the spirit simply came "upon" him. So the "eis" was changed to "epi." The Trinity is so firmly established today that even though the Greek texts read "into," the NIV reads "on." The Amplified Bible does read "into," and has a note saying that the Greek text reads that way. Mark 3:11 "You are the Son of God" was altered by scribes to read "You are God, the Son of God" to help support the Trinitarian position. Luke 2:26 That Simeon would see "the Lord's Christ" was changed to read "Christ, namely God." Luke 2:33 Copyists changed "Father" to "Joseph" in many manuscripts. They thought this would "clear up" any possible confusion about the father of Jesus. Luke 2:41 "Parents" was changed by scribes to read "Joseph and Mary," lest someone become confused about Jesus' "real" parents. Luke 2:43 "Parents" was changed to "Joseph and his mother," or other similar readings. Also, "the boy Jesus" was changed to "the boy, the Lord Jesus," because if Jesus were God, then he had to be Lord from his birth. Luke 2:48 "Father and I" was altered to either "we," or "Joseph and I," or "your relatives," etc., lest anyone be confused about the real father of Jesus. Luke 3:31 Scribes changed "Jesus," who came to be baptized, to "the Lord," because of the emphasis that the word "Jesus" placed on his humanity. Luke 4:22 "Isn't this Joseph's son?" was omitted entirely, or was changed to "Isn't this a son of Israel." Luke 7:9 Scribes changed "When Jesus heard this" to "When God heard this," to make Jesus into God. Luke 8:28 "Jesus, Son of the Most High God" was changed to "Jesus, the Most High God" so that there would be clear "proof" that Christ was God. Luke 8:40 "Now when Jesus returned" was changed to "when God returned."

Luke 9:20 "You are the Christ of God" was changed to "You are Christ, God." Luke 9:35 Scribes altered the phrase "the one who has been chosen" to "in whom I am well pleased." This is a subtle change, but it takes the emphasis off the fact that Jesus was chosen by God, which some people recognized does not make sense if Jesus is God. John 10:33 Scribes added the definite article to the word theos, "god," in manuscript "p66." Theos without the article means "god" and is translated as such in verses like John 10:34 and 35; Acts 12:22;28:6. Adding the definite article changes "god" to "God." Most modern translators ignore the fact that the Greek text reads "god" and not "God," and thus "God" is what appears in almost every modern version. [For further study read Does the Bible ever refer to Jesus Christ as God?] John 14:9 "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" was modified by scribes to avoid the modalist interpretation that Christ was a form of God and not a member of the "Godhead." They modified the text by adding the word "also" after the word "Father." This is a change that supports what has become the modern Trinitarian position against the position now held by Oneness Pentecostals, but the change in the text is recognized by modern scholars and thus was not included in the modern Greek text. John 19:5 (KJV) "Behold the man" was either omitted entirely or changed to "Behold a man" to avoid the fact that Jesus was known as a man. John 19:40 Scribes changed "Jesus' body" to "God's body." Acts 2:30 "One of his [David's] descendants" was changed to "of the fruit of his heart," i.e., like David, to avoid the idea that Jesus had a human descent. [For further study read The Book of Acts: A Man Accredited by God.] Acts 10:37 "The baptism that John preached" was changed to "after the preaching of John" to disassociate the anointing of Jesus (v. 38) with his baptism. It was at his baptism that the spirit came on Jesus and he was "anointed" (and thus became "Messiah" or "Christ"). Most Trinitarians are uncomfortable with Jesus not becoming the Christ until his baptism, so some scribes simply disassociated the two events by removing the baptism from the verse. Acts 13:33 "By raising up Jesus" was changed to "by raising up Jesus Christ." This change to the text avoided the "problem" that Jesus was not thought by some to be the Christ until his resurrection. Acts 20:28 "Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood." This verse has been represented in many ways in different

Greek texts, making it obvious that scribes were changing the text. The challenge to modern scholars is to try to discover the original reading among all the variant readings. The major variant readings are: 1. "The church of God which He purchased with the blood of His own (Son)." 2. "The church of God which He purchased with His own blood." 3. "The church of the Lord which He purchased with His own blood." 4. "The church of the Lord and God which He purchased with His own blood." There is no reference anywhere in the Bible to "the blood of God." This reading, already suspect on textual grounds, thus becomes suspect on logical grounds also. The scholars who author the United Bible Society Greek Text, as well as those who author the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, all agree that "tou haimatos tou idiou" (reading #1 above) is original. As the Trinitarian debate raged, it would have been quite easy for a scribe to change "tou haimatos tou idiou" (the blood of his own) to "tou idiou haimatos" (his own blood, #2 above) by moving a word and omitting the article "tou." However, the textual evidence indicates that once the reading, "His own blood" was created, other scribes were uncomfortable with the idea of God having blood, and thus "God" was changed to "Lord" (# 3 above). This reading makes sense, but the textual evidence is clear that this was a later change and not original. Then, scribes copying the verse had another problem: some of the texts they were to copy from read "God" and some of them read "Lord," so rather than choosing one or the other, "the Lord and God" was created (reading #4) as a conflation of #2 and #3. It is interesting that although the Greek text from which the NIV was translated read as #1 above, the translators nevertheless translated it as if the Greek read as #2, strongly supporting their Trinitarian position. Nevertheless, in the notes at the bottom of the NIV Study Bible, the commentators admit that the phrase refers to the blood of God's Son, and not God Himself. They write, "'his own blood.' Lit. 'the blood of His own [one], a term of endearment (such as 'his own dear one,' referring to His own Son).'" 1 Corinthians 5:7 The original text read "Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed." In some texts, scribes added the words "for us" at the end of the phrase to avoid the implication that Jesus' own sins might be included. 1 Corinthians 15:45 "The first man, Adam" was changed by scribes to read, "the first, Adam" to get rid of the word "man," since by grammatical implication Christ would then have to be a man also. 1 Corinthians 15:47 "The second man from heaven" was changed in various ways: "the second man, the Lord from heaven" or "the second, the Lord from heaven" or "the second man is spiritual," etc. The variety of ways this verse has come down to us today shows that it was not just one or two scribes changing the text but rather a number of unscrupulous scribes who thought their theological position was more important than the authority of the Word of God. Any verse stating that Jesus was a man was "a thorn in the side" of the developing Trinitarian position, and attempts were made to expunge these from the text. Thankfully, through modern scholarship, the original reading is agreed upon by scholars. Galatians 2:20 "By faith in the Son of God" was changed in several ways, such as: "in God, Christ," or "in God, the Son." Ephesians 3:9

"God who created all things" was changed to "God who created all things through Jesus Christ." Colossians 2:2 This verse, although not usually considered a Trinitarian verse, is occasionally used to show that the mystery of God is Christ (i.e., that Christ is God and Man, thus a mystery). Colossians 2:2 (KJV) That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ. Colossians 2:2 (NIV) My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ. This verse was a subject of hot debate, and there is ample evidence that scribes changed the text to fit their theology. The Greek texts reflect some fourteen variations, which are listed in The Text of the New Testament, by Bruce Metzger. It is interesting, however, that in almost all of them the possibility that Christ could be God is eliminated. The KJV represents a good example of that. It is now widely conceded that the original was probably "tou musteriou tou theou Christou," but how to translate that phrase is debated. It can be translated the way the NIV is. It can also be translated "the mystery of the Christ of God," and this is the most probable translation. It is difficult to make "Christ" into the mystery of God. Remember that, in Greek, the word "musterion" does not mean "mystery" in the sense of something that cannot be fully understood. The meaning of "musterion" is actually "secret." Thus, although Trinitarian theology speaks of the "mystery" of Christ in the sense that how the Godhead exists or how the two natures co-exist in Christ is a mystery, that is not at all what this verse is saying. Furthermore, "Christ" cannot be considered a "secret," because he is the great subject of the Word of God from Genesis to Revelation. A quick study of the other uses of "musterion" in the Bible will show that once a "secret" is revealed, it can be understood. But the "Trinity" and the "two natures" cannot be understood at all. The question that will help solve the translation problem is: "Is there a 'secret' in the New Testament that could be considered the 'secret of the Christ of God?'" The answer to that question is a definite "Yes." The word "musterion" is used to refer to the Age of Grace in which we live. Ephesians 3:2 and 3 reads, "Surely you have heard about the administration of God's grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery [musterion, "secret"] made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly." Thus when Colossians mentions "the secret of the Christ of God," it makes perfect sense to see this as a reference to the Grace Administration, which was a secret hidden before the foundation of the world but revealed to Paul by Christ. For scriptural documentation on this point, see Ephesians 3:2-9; Colossians 1:27; Galatians 1:11 and 12. 1 Timothy 3:16 (NASB) "Who" was changed to "God." This change was very obvious in the texts and is openly admitted by Trinitarian scholars. The change produced a very powerful Trinitarian argument, because the altered text reads, "God was manifested in the flesh," instead of "[Jesus] who was manifested in the flesh," which is the correct and recognized reading. Titus 3:6 "Jesus Christ our Savior" was changed to "Jesus Christ our God." Hebrews 1:3 Scribes altered the phrase "purification for sins" to "purification for our sins" to avoid the parallel between Christ

and the Levitical priests who provided purification for their own sins as well as those of the people. Hebrews 2:18 Although the verse reads, "Because he himself suffered when he was tempted," the words "when he was tempted" were omitted by some scribes. As the theology that Jesus was God developed, so did the doctrine that Jesus was not able to sin. Thus a reference to him being tempted became a problem, and omitting the phrase in the text was a simple solution. Hebrews 13:20 "Our Lord Jesus" was changed to "Our God Jesus." 1 Peter 4:1 "Christ suffered" was changed to "Christ suffered for us." As the doctrine of the Trinity developed, it became more and more important for Trinitarians to show his perfection and godhood in life. Thus the words "for us" were added by scribes, lest someone think that somehow his suffering might have benefited him in some way. 1 John 3:23 The text reads "that we should believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another." In some texts, the scribes omitted "Son" so that the text would read "believe in his [i.e., God's] name, Jesus Christ," thus equating Jesus with God. 1 John 5:7 and 8 This text was markedly changed to reflect the Trinitarian position. Reading the KJV and the NIV shows the differences: 1 John 5:7 and 8 (KJV) (7) "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (8) And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." 1 John 5:7 and 8 (NIV) (7) "For there are three that testify: (8) the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." The phrase, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," was added by Trinitarians. The NIV, a very Trinitarian Bible, omits the phrase, and the NIV Study Bible has this note about the verse: "The addition is not found in any Greek manuscript or NT translation prior to the 16th century."

Anyone who studies the Reformation carefully knows that in the 1500's there was a tremendous unitarian revival, and the Trinitarian position was being challenged. A response to that challenge was to add a Trinitarian phrase in 1 John. Thankfully, modern Trinitarian scholars recognize that addition, and newer versions omit the phrase. Nevertheless, the fact that Trinitarian scholars were so willing to add to the Word of God to win their debate should cause us to examine other "clearly" Trinitarian verses very carefully. Jude 5

"The Lord delivered his people out of Egypt" was changed to "Jesus delivered" in a few manuscripts to make Jesus exist in the Old Testament

Conclusion It is important to repeat again that all the above changes have been discovered and excluded from the newest versions of the Greek New Testament and from almost all modern versions. Christians owe a debt of gratitude to the men and women who work to computerize the texts to make them easy to work with and compare. Gratitude is also owed to the honest scholars who work the texts and draw their conclusions from the textual evidence rather than from tradition. These men and women could "fudge" their data to cloak the Trinitarian changes to the text and thus, in some cases, further their own theology. But the modern versions of the Greek New Testament attest to their honesty in trying to restore the original text. We have cited them throughout this book (NIV, NASB, NRSV, etc.).

Footnotes 1) We recognize that in the early centuries there were many competing belief systems, and scribes from most of them seem to have altered texts in favor of their own beliefs. However, this appendix is focusing on Trinitarian issues, so that is what is emphasized. Source: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=227 http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_trinity_in_the_new_testament { all the essays are taaken from site what is mentioned above } shykh khateeb ul islam qadri servent of islam slave of muhammad( peace be upon him)

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen