nnalyd@yahoo.com wrote:


> 2. In translations, the important thing is consistancy. In
> the NWT, most of the time the phrase here is translated "God".
> EXCEPT in this verse, where it would quite inconvenient for
> the JW's.
>
> see Acts 28:6 how does the Bible on your desk render this verse?

6 Sie aber warteten, wenn er schwellen würde oder tot
niederfallen. Da sie aber lange warteten und sahen, daß ihm
nichts Ungeheures widerfuhr, wurden sie anderes Sinnes und
sprachen, er wäre ein Gott.


Do you have some point? Rather than answer the question
of how you justify your inconsistancy, you try to derail
the thread (again) to an irrelevant tangent. Not that I'm
surprised. You have yet to give a plain answer to any
challenge.

Bart

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

In article <097.51.10.05.931446000@srcbs.org>, basicallyblues says...
>
>I wrote:
>
>>This CLEARLY contradicts the Nicene Trinity.
>
>Matthew wrote:
>
>>It _also_ clearly contradicts what Origen himself says
>> about the Trinity elsewhere, even in the SAME BOOK!
>> So you have proved nothing at all.
>
>I write:
>
>Sure I did. You extract portions of Origen's writings you believe speak
>of the trinity (as you today believe it).

Just as you extracted portions of his writings which _you_ believe speak against
it. You are practicing a childish double-standard: when YOU do it, you proclaim
it as 'proof', but when I do it, it is not. Who do you think you can fool with
such a blatant and offensive double-standard?

Why, I didn't even _claim_ to have proven that Origen taught Trinity. I only
claimed that this quote shows you have not proven your claim either.

> I have provided Origen quotes
>that show your opinion is unteneble in the full picture.

But they do not. The presence of my quote is the proof.

>Matthew wrote: (quoting Origen)
>
>>We adore the Father of the Truth and the Son the Truth, being
>> two things with respect to hyposatasies, but one in same-mindedness
>>and
> > identity of counsel (will), so that he who sees the Son, who is
> > " the radiance of His glory and the exact image of his substance",
> > in Him who is the image of God, sees God.
>
>If this is a correct translation (please provide where you got this) it
>STILL does not prove the trinity!

I gave the original too. If you dispute the translation, show me an alternative
and explain why it should be preferred. Then I will explain how you are wrong.

>Yes, Jesus was the "exact image of
>his substance" and they are of the same mind, will and purpose. So
>what?