The Trinity And The Torah: According To The Refiners Fire Website

The Trinity And The Torah: According To The Refiners Fire Website.

Of Which 'Rabbi' Shali Is A Part.

My Refutations Are In Green.

"This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you." (Galatians 2)

If You Have A Short Attention Span Just Read What Is In Green.

Article:

Author Andrew Gabriel Roth discusses the "trinity" and whether Gentiles should be Torah observant

QUESTION: I John 5 in the KJV says: 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.

This is one of the verses that Christians use to use to prove the Trinity, because it seems as though John was defining the Father, Son and Spirit as three separate beings in one. But a more careful look reveals something strange. All the other versions completely omit everything after the word "heaven" in verse 7. For instance check out the NIV: 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. This is TOTALLY different than the KJV. Did KJ add the rest of verse 7? The NIV brings a totally different interpretation that is not Trinity based like the KJV.

ANSWER: King James DID add the line. And 1 John 5:7-8 according to NIV says in the footnote:

"Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven, the Father, the Word and Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify in earth--not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century."

This shows that BOTH verses are late additions. Obviously, 5:7 is an addition post-397 CE, after the Council of Carthage and 5:8 is so late as to be meaningless. This is true because trinity was never, and is not, an original Biblical doctrine. It was a formulation of Constantine, Eusebius and others. Dr. George M. Lamsa deals with it from the Aramaic side, as do I. The 1998 re-issue of his NT (not the 1940 one that Harper still sells) restored his original notes and he says in these places "Carried over from the King James Version."

Bj:

George M. Lamsa, Used To Teach Classes At The Way International.

This Group Denied That Jesus Is God.

Don't Know What Classes He Taught There, But I Would Be Suspicious About One that Taught Classes To A Cult.

I Find It Interesting That This Author (Andrew Gabriel Roth ) Chooses To Refer To Verses He Can Refute Based On Manuscript Evidence When There Are Multitudes Of Verses That Support The Teaching Of The Triunity.

MaxwellsHouse:

Arguments Against The Trinity Trounced:

http://maxwellshouse1.tripod.com/id40.html

All One Needs To Do To Prove The Triunity Of God Is To Show There Are Three Persons That Are God, While Showing That The Bible Teaches Only One God.

Article:

The bottom line is: Trinity is wrong on many levels; however, Y'shua had divine and human natures separately but side-by-side. Suffice to say for the moment:

There are several NT verses that Christians think are original but are actually later developments. They drop older readings in favor of newer ones or change the meaning of existing ones. There are too many of these instances to list here, but I will say that the Christian authorities admit they did it! Any scholarly Bible even from the Greek (Thompson Chain, Nestle-Aland, NASB, NIV Study Ed, etc.) will show these variances honestly. Some try to sugar-coat the differences and say they are just synonymous thoughts, but this is a lie. You can't reconcile Acts 20:28, Hebrews 2:9, Revelation 1:10 and 22:14's old readings with their replacements. There is also no way getting around the Pericopa Adultera (John 7:53-8:11), that is lacking not only in all the Eastern Peshitta manuscripts but also the four most ancient Greek ones! Other problematic verses though on the Greek side - like different endings in Mark and particular 16:9-20, are affirmed as correct in the Aramaic. Whole verses then drop out of Luke and 1 Corinthians and end up elsewhere, and on it goes. And the most unreliable and corrupted version of them all is the KJV and its descendants RSV and NKJV. These editions are 400 years behind the times; they ignore Dead Sea Scrolls and other crititical texts that have been found since the 17th century, etc.

Bj:

Again A Straw Man/KJV Argument.

The Scholars He Chooses To Listen To Might Admit To This.

This Author Doesn't Even Go To The Trouble Of Presenting The Actual Alleged Irreconcilable Variations Of Texts He Is Arguing Against.

Not Very Scholarly To Say The Least.

To Say You Will Have To Take My Word For It, Doesn't Work For Any Reasonable Person.

This Is Akin To Saying That Since Scientists Are Experts They Must Be Right About Evolution.

Jesus Hasn't Given The Truth To Those That 'Profess Themselves Wise' (Romans 1; 1 Corinthians 2)

One Can Go To The Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint And Yes Even The Modern Translations And See The Triunity Of God.

Here:

http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qumdir.htm

AND

Here:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/brenton/lxx/Page_Index.html

However, To Go To An Aramaic New Testament Text As This Author Claims Is To Go To An Imaginary Text, Something That Has Been Recently Created Or To A Text That Is Younger Than The Greek Manuscript Copies We Have.

The Triunity:

John 1:18; NIV

Hebrews 1:

Colossians 1:

John 1:

Interesting That These Biblical Books Begin With Who Christ Is And Work From There.

Which Is Important Because One's View Of Christ And His Sacrifice Affects Everything Else...Salvation...Torah Observance

The Late Great Cult Expert, Walter Martin Speaks On This:

"For it is axiomatic that if the doctrine of Christ Himself, i.e., His Person [which includes His being the second person of the Trinity] nature and work are perverted, then the identity of the life-giver is altered, then the life which He came to give is correspondingly negated." (The Kingdom of the Cults , Bethany House Publishers) '

What Makes A Cult A Cult Is Its Distortion Of Who Christ Is. This Then Results In Them Making Torah Observance, Sacraments, Works A Part Of Salvation To Take Up The Slack. This Is The Other Gospel That The Apostle Paul Condemns. (Galatians 1:8,9; 2 Cor. 11)

One Cannot Distort Who Christ Is As Gabriel Roth Has And Not Diminish Or Negate How It Affects Us.

This Is Why At The Same Site Where He Is A Contributing Author They Conclude:

"Yeshua nailed to the cross the requirement to kill an innocent animal to atone for our sins; nothing more, nothing less. Belief in Yeshua means salvation/eternal life. But that in no way negates the need for Torah, God's original teachings."

http://therefinersfire.org/challenging_christianity.htm

Rabbi Shali:

"Fullfilling the law' does NOT mean 'put an end to.' Why would YHWH remove Torah, our ONLY BLUEPRINT FOR MORAL LIVING, just because "Jesus" died on the stake (or cross, or whatever you wish to refer to is as)?"

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChristianityUnderFire/message/4907

Article:

'Other problematic verses though on the Greek side - like different endings in Mark and particular 16:9-20, are affirmed as correct in the Aramaic.'

Bj: Is That So?

Then You Believe We Can Handles Snakes, Should Be Baptized To Be Saved, And That Jesus Came In Another Form As JW's Do. Note I Didn't Say JeWs, I Said JW's (Jehovah's Witnesses).

The Rest Of Scripture Conflicts With Mark 16:9-20: Acts 16:31; Ephesians 2:8-10; Luke 24: ; John 20:27-31

Article:

As a result, my idea of a Critical Text (Textus Receptus or Base Text) is way different from the Christian West. In my translation (Netzari Aramaic English Interlinear, due out in late Spring of 2008) I have laid bare all these fake readings, listing manuscripts and time periods that they appeared in. I have even restored the Aramaic to the original Eastern readings that were tampered with by Western scholars doing their 1905 Edition, giving greater weight to the more ancient versions. I think we finally have an NT that solves as much of these issues as is possible and is faithful to the originals as well.

Bj:

Hmm, This Sounds Similar To 'Dr' James Trimm Asserting A Grossly Flawed Greek NT In Favor Of His Expensive Hebrew Versions Here:

http://cuf5.tripod.com/id46.html

An Aramaic New Testament Is A Fiction Created By Some Jewish Counter Missionaries And Judaizers In An Attempt To Go Back To The Dark Ages To The Shadow, But No Substance Yet. (Colossians 2)

It's Like Saying, 'I Believe Messiah Has Come But He Really Had Nothing New To Say'.

If So Then What Was The Purpose Of His Coming?

If His Sacrifice Isn't 'Eternal And Complete' AND 'For All Time' Then He Didn't Offer Anything New And Christianity Is Simply Warmed Over Judaism.

"Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. 15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: 16 "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds." 17 Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." 18 And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin." (Hebrews 1)

A Good Verse For Judaizers And Their Modern Counterparts The Catholics And Cultists.

The Refiners Fire Is Neither Christian Or Judaism And Bears A Closer Resemblance to Catholicism:

http://maxwellshouse1.tripod.com/id51.html

They Are Some Kind Of Hybrid That Cannot Quite Cut It For Either Side.

I Argue Against An Aramaic Or Hebrew NT Originals Here.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChristianityUnderFire/message/4899

Whenever We Have Clear But Isolated Uses Of Hebrew Or Aramaic By Jesus, The Disciples Or The Apostle Paul... The Hearers Are Confused And Don't Know What Was Being Said.

This Proves That Hebrew And Aramaic Was Not The Norm.

Examples; Matt. 27:45ff ...Eloi, Eloi Lama Sabacthani...Notice The Crowds Reaction.

'Simon The Potter' Rather Than 'Simon The Leper'

http://groups.msn.com/maxwellshouse/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=3

Jesus Speaking To The Apostle Paul, Confusing All The Rest. (Acts 26:14ff; Acts 9:7)

So If Hebrew Or Aramaic Is the Norm Then Why Do Most Get Confused When It Is Used.

More Here:

Let Me Give You A Pearl Of Wisdom.

The Judaizers, Some Oneness Folks Want You To Stick To Hebrew Or Aramaic Because Most Of These Heretics Deny Such Doctrines As The Triunity Of God, Being Immediately With God At Death...Salvation By Grace Through Faith In Christ.

Greek Gives Us Exactness In Our Faith That Hebrew And Aramaic Cannot, Though Like I Said, One Can Even See The Trinity In The Hebrew OT.

Compare And Study Isaiah 48:12-16

Genesis 1:26

Psalm 45:6,7

Psalm 110:

So Don't Let These Scholarly Types Fool You Into Thinking There Are Not Old Or New Testament Defenses Of The Triunity In Our Reliable Texts.

More Refutations Of This Article On Torah Later.

http://therefinersfire.org/trinity.htm

Bj Maxwell

04/18/2008