Since ancient scribes were so totally accurate ... mistakes ...? (Ecumenical)

Looks like you landed another one of them there Polytheist cult types.

Zeus will not be pleased...

So you are saying that you sat down at a Bible one day, tabula rasa, and discovered what you believe today? No one taught you to believe in the Trinity? You just found that for yourself? When you say "we" who do you mean, yourself in the royal sense or a group that influenced you? I mean your belief is your business, but one shouldn't pretend that the doctrine came first, then is "found" in the Bible.

What irony! You use the phrase, "royal sense" yet seem to neglect that Scripture uses the term "nobility" (a royal term) to describe a process which you seem to raise as somehow "suspect!"

Do you know how the Bible defines "nobility?" In fact, it's linked to a very specific people group (the Bereans) -- and was contrasted with another very specific people group (the Thessalonians):

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians... (Acts 17:11)

Now why were they deemed "more noble?"
(1) for they received the message with great eagerness
AND (2) and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

No one taught you to believe in the Trinity? You just found that for yourself?...I mean your belief is your business, but one shouldn't pretend that the doctrine came first, then is "found" in the Bible.

Admit it. You don't have a "clue" about the above-mentioned Berean confirmation process, now do you? When you reduce the clear teaching of the Bible and the apostles and the prophets to simply some post-Bible teachers who are you intending to exclude as our teachers? The Holy Spirit? Biblical writers? Their spiritual descendents who act as teachers generations later? Aren't they all Biblically noble in, as you say, "the royal sense?" And if you exclude them, why? (Has some cultic group influenced you?)

But, of course, the main consideration of nobility is not simply receptivity to God's revealed truth, but the ability to confirm a recent teaching with foundational truth -- to discern if the latter revelation matches the consistency of the former.

Bottom-line: The Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets; the Son of God testified of Himself: 16We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." 18We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. 19And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:16-21)

The Holy Spirit has spoken indirectly thru men; and simultaneously, He has not yielded His role as direct Teacher to some:

20But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. 21I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. 22Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son. 23No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also...27As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him. (1 John 2:20-23, 27)

A good teacher will use curricula produced under a publishing house (like the Holy Spirit uses the Bible) and will also teach directly (as the Holy Spirit does by anointing people).

This is in contrast to apparent counterfeiters like yourself, who try to vie for some apparent "conflict" by pitting godly teachers and apostles of God "vs." the Bible.

A universal truth with most things!

I am living the Berean confirmation process. Let’s take a look at what it really says:

Acts 17:11 (Young's Literal Translation) 11and these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, they received the word with all readiness of mind, every day examining the Writings whether those things were so;

“Readiness of mind”, got it; “Examing the Writings”, got it; Confirming “whether those things were so", doing it. When you reduce the clear teaching of the Bible to the philosophical/political compromise that produced your modern theology you end up spiritually dead and you don’t even realize it.

Here’s the method you and your cohorts are espousing:

1. Reject doctrines we don’t find in the Bible (foundational precept of Protestantism or Reformers & so far so good). 2. Accept some doctrines not found in the Bible, but that are Catholic tradition 3. Support precept 2. by mental contortion and philosophical double-talk and terrorize anyone who doubts what we say.

So now you present me with the Berean method, but I’ve come to a different conclusion than the current dominant Christian doctrine by way of the Holy Ghost. This is where the philosophy you espouse really gets totalitarian, I mean right out of Animal Farm:

(Has some cultic group influenced you?)LOL, your attack starts here and this is SOP since the days of the Apostles – anything outside the dominant orthodoxy is heretical and must first be smeared, despite its truthfulness (just like liberals do or Saul was doing until he got straightened out). Luckily, you cannot burn me at the stake or assassinate me by electrons, so I am safe for now, but you go on with your circular philosophy:

…the main consideration…is not simply receptivity to God's revealed truth, but the ability to confirm a recent teaching with foundational truth -- to discern if the latter revelation matches the consistency of the former.

So you’ve established a house of cards that is founded on what you want to believe which you call “foundational” truth. You’ve proved nothing except that ignorance is bliss. I understand that it is easier to simply go along with the majority rather than use your God-given reason and be guided by the Spirit. A hard-heart cannot let Jesus Christ in, only an open heart. So, open your heart and be ready to receive the truth, no matter where it takes you.

Your stories are cleverly invented by some power other than God. Look at the passage you reference:

2 Peter 1 (Young's Literal Translation) 2 Peter 1 1Simeon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who did obtain a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God [the Father] and Saviour Jesus Christ: 2Grace to you, and peace be multiplied in the acknowledgement of God [the Father] and of Jesus our Lord!

Can the delineation be any clearer between God and Jesus. Parse and analyze the sentence grammatically and it will be obvious to you that God the Father is not Jesus our Lord. If you have eyes then see or ears hear. I’ve even noted it for you in the passage above. Let’s continue and see what the Scriptures have to say:

3As all things to us His [God the Father] divine power (the things pertaining unto life and piety) hath given, through the acknowledgement of him [Jesus Christ] who did call us through glory and worthiness, 4through which to us the most great and precious promises have been given, that through these ye may become partakers of a divine nature, having escaped from the corruption in the world in desires.

What you are reading is the pure and perfect word of God. Read it with a ready heart and let the Holy Spirit guide you despite your fears, only by the Spirit can you deprogram yourself. What is meant by “become partakers of a divine nature”? There’s something more here than you’ve been groomed to believe - theosis, a concept of Eastern Orthodoxy. It is really fascinating and completely consistent with Scripture.

Now, let’s continue to the coup de grace using your own posted choice of Scripture:

. 17For he [Jesus Christ] received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him [Jesus Christ] from the Majestic Glory [God the Father], saying, "This is my [God the Father’s] Son [Jesus Christ], whom I [God the Father] love; with him I [God the Father] am well pleased." 18We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. 19And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:16-21)

Excellent and simply perfect, here’s my point proved by your post from God’s pure and perfect word and I can only believe it is the Holy Spirit guiding you in posting this.

Starting with Verse 17 I’ve added clarifications in brackets to make plain to you what is being said and “you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.”

Right now you are in a dark place. It seems true because a majority believe it and you are scared, but we’re conservatives and the truth matters to us, not majority opinion. We’d rather stand with the minority in truth and righteousness, than with the majority in darkness and lies.

You can see clearly now that I’ve clarified what the verses say, no? In verse 17 you have Jesus Christ subordinate to God the Father, who is described as “the Majestic Glory”. Let’s read it again the way you’ve been taught to believe removing other references:

17For (God) received honor and glory from (God) when the voice came to (God) from (God) , saying, "This is (God’s) (God), whom (God) love(s); with (God) (God) is well pleased."

Doesn’t reading it this way prove the absurdity of your premise – your “Essential/Foundational Christian Doctrine”?

Now something essential is that without which it is not. A foundation built on sand is worthless.

I’ve shown you as clearly as anyone can that your premise is absurd on its face using the verses you chose to champion your cause. Now you have a choice – traditions, philosophies, and will of men or the liberty and truth contained in God’s Holy Word. Which do you choose?

Exactly. Read anyone’s post about being trained to be a liberal by the media, school, etc. and then they suddenly see the light, as though scales are removed from their eyes - they are now conservatives and could never go back to the lie.

Sounds like one of the Christadelphians...

At least one of the anti-trinitarian cults.

Birds of a feather...

Thanks, Good synopsis.

Can the delineation be any clearer between God and Jesus...

Trinitarian doctrine most definitely does delineate between the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit as three revealed separate "Realities" of one God.

I think the conceptual difficulty with this is that in the West the divine Realities (Hypostases) are called "Persons," and because they are also given (somewhat "paganistic") anthropomorphic names such as Father and Son.

So when you object to the verse by writing 17For (God) received honor and glory from (God) when the voice came to (God) from (God) , saying, "This is (God’s) (God), whom (God) love(s); with (God) (God) is well pleased" and add Doesn’t reading it this way prove the absurdity of your premise – your “Essential/Foundational Christian Doctrine”?

the answer is: the "absurdity" is there but that is because you made it absurd.

You are confusing (and conflating) the "person" with "nature." This is like saying that the mind and the words (and what impact they carry, i.e. the "spirit") that come out of you are not distinct entities of one being but three separate "beings."

You are essentially saying that "the (human) mind is sending the (human) words" and then ask how can 'human' send 'human?' You take God to be the name of a person rather than the name of the Divine Nature.

God simply means divinity. It is a nature, an essence of one being. That being reveals itself (to the Christians) in three recognizable realities which the Christians (unfortunately) call Father Son and Holy Spirit, which leads some to conclude that there are "three gods."

But if you think of it as mind, words and meaning/impact, then you realize that they are not three separate "beings" but three interrelated realities of one being and one nature.

The problem with biblical trinity is that it is subordnationist, which is in part complicated by the dualistic idea of Christ being fully divine and fully human in one and the same being, which also means that divinity and humanity subsist, and that makes it a different conceptual problem.

“The Geniza is a storeroom in which discarded writings considered to be holy or that contained the name of God were placed [when they were worn out].”

This is deceptively written. The most eminent scholars in the world believe, as, I'm sure, this one does, that, based upon the compiled research and investigation of Biblical texts by them all, collectively, that there is an astoundingly small [insignificant] variation in written text from times of antiquity, until now.

I've not delved into the minutia of the article, but I'm guessing that the ‘trove’ of ‘worn out’ scrolls, etc, cited were, in fact, a storehouse of scribes-in-traning's practice work....and collected either to be sacrificially burned or left unsullied for containing the name of God.

The claims of the scholar in the article, if conveyed accurately by the journalist, are significantly at odds with the general consensus among his peers, which I've read and heard throughout the years. A caveat....

“No reply”?

I replied. It seems the rest just lost interest.

Actually it was such a fine answer it stands on its own.

Thank you.