The Holy Trinity: Sound Doctrine or a Man-Made Tradition?

ArticleSeen.com ^ | Aug-28-2011 | Steve-O

[restornu]

The Holy Trinity: Sound Doctrine or a Man-Made Tradition?

Author: Steve-0

The Apostle Paul admonished young Timothy, "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;" (1 Timothy 4:1)

The Greek word that was translated into English as "depart from" is aphistemi (Strong's G868) pronounced ä-fe'-sta-me meaning ...

1) to make stand off, cause to withdraw, to remove a) to excite to revolt 2) to stand off, to stand aloof a) to go away, to depart from anyone b) to desert, withdraw from one c) to fall away, become faithless d) to shun, flee from e) to cease to vex one f) to withdraw one's self from, to fall away g) to keep one's self from, absent one's self from

Some use this portion of Scripture to accuse those of us who embrace the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine, as opposed to the Holy Trinity, as being the ones who are being described above. However, what should be determined is who said and did what ... and when did they say and do it. First off, we know the "foot print followers" of our Lord Jesus Christ had it right! If anybody has ever had it right, they had it right. And, no where do we find where they were authorized to come up with anything other than what Jesus gave them. By the way, Jesus did NOT leave them with a bunch of pages with a lot of blanks on them, which would have to be filled out a couple centuries later, either. Therefore, what they embraced and taught was "first". Any thing other than that came along later, period!

Brother Paul being as bold and blunt as he was, put it this way ... But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)

Again, the Apostle Paul admonished Timothy, "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Timothy 4:2-4 The Greek word that was translated into English as "endure" is anecho (Strong's G430) pronounced ä-ne'-kho meaning ...

1) to hold up 2) to hold one's self erect and firm 3) to sustain, to bear, to endure

Many are taught, firmly believe and will adamantly defend a position, that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity comes straight from the pages of the Bible, itself. When, in fact, the word "Holy" is the only part that can be found in the Bible. The word "Trinity" can't be found in a single solitary Scripture in the entire King James Version of the Holy Bible. Neither did anyone in the entire King James Version of the Holy Bible ever refer to God or the Godhead with these words, "One God in three persons", as multitudes do today.

With such a widely accepted belief, and millions just going with the flow, the crowd has to be right, right? Well, let's see what Jesus had to say in Matthew 7:13-14 ... "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

Folks, it's time for a "gut level" reality check. According to the greatest Teacher ever to walk upon Planet Earth, when it comes to spiritual matters ... THE CROWD IS WRONG!

Not one single solitary person in the entire Bible ever used the following terms ...

"One God in three persons", "God the Son", "God the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit) "The Holy Trinity"

So, how and when did the doctrine of the Holy Trinity come into existence? And, why is it so widely accepted, today? Those two questions are certainly valid ones, and deserve serious examination and consideration.

Encyclopedia International, 1975 Edition, Vol.18, p.226 - The doctrine of the "Trinity" did not form part of the apostles' preaching, as this is reported in the New Testament.

New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967 Edition, Vol.13, p.1021 - The first use of the Latin word "trinitas" (trinity) with reference to God, is found in Tertullian's writings (about 213 A.D.) He was the first to use the term "persons" (plural) in a Trinitarian context.

Encyclopedia Americana, 1957 Edition, Vol.27, p.69 - The word "Trinity" is not in Scripture. The term "persons" (plural) is not applied in Scripture to the Trinity.

World Book Encyclopedia, 1975 Edition, Vol. T, p.363 - Belief in Father, Son and Holy Ghost was first defined by the earliest general council of churches. This was the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.

New International Encyclopedia, Vol.22, p.476 - The Catholic faith is this: We worship one God in Trinity, but there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost. The Glory equal - the Majesty co-eternal. The doctrine is not found in its fully developed form in the Scriptures. Modern theology does not seek to find it in the Old Testament. At the time of the Reformation the Protestant Church took aver the doctrine of the Trinity without serious examination.

Life Magazine, October 30, 1950, Vol.29, No.18, p.51 - The Catholics made this statement concerning their doctrine of the Trinity, to defend the dogma of the assumption of Mary, in an article written by Graham Greene: "Our opponents sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in Scripture... But the PROTESTANT CHURCHES have themselves accepted such dogmas as THE TRINITY, for which there is NO SUCH PRECISE AUTHORITY in the Gospels"

Many use the human reasoning and logic that the non-Biblical words "trinity", "triune" or "persons" (pertaining to God and/or the Godhead) should be accepted just as the word "rapture" is .... or even the word "sandwich" (for that matter). And, even though "sandwich" is not a Biblical word, I know they're real 'cause I ate one yesterday. So, my point ... or my question ... is, what Biblical words could be used in the place of the words "trinity", "triune" OR "persons" pertaining to God and/or the Godhead? I wouldn't have any trouble at all finding Biblical words to use in the place of "sandwich", "rapture" and "Bible". They are: "bread" and "meat", "caught up" "Word of God" and "book".

Now, if those who embrace the man-made theory of the Trinity can find any words that will do for "truine", "persons" or "trinity" what the words "bread" and "meat", "caught up" "Word of God" and "book" will do for "sandwich" and "rapture", I would love to see them. Unless or until they can, I suggest that they stop adding to or taking from (depending on how you look at it) the Word of God by embracing, as dogmatically held doctrine, theories which aren't specifically mentioned in the Bible ... and without any Biblical words which could serve as a substitute for such.

While the Bible does NOT authorize a belief in three "persons" who jointly form One God. However, the Bible does accurately describes God as the Father in Creation, the Son in Redemption and the Holy Spirit living in the hearts of believers throughout the New Testament Church Age. But, that is three "forms" of God ... three "manifestations" of God ... three "titles" of God ... three "offices/positions" which God holds and ... three "roles" in which God functions ... BUT NOT THREE PERSONS. NOWHERE can it be found in the Bible which says that is that there is one God "in three persons". That's an "add on" that people would do well to just leave off.

I can very accurately be described as a father, son and husband ... or a teacher, student and minister. While I function in more than one capacity and occupy more than one office, and wear a number of different hats, I am still just ONE person. As a matter of fact, I can be in the same room with, and in the presence of, my mother, my wife and my daughters, and I can speak, act and function as a father, son and husband without anybody getting confused as to how many persons I am or who is talking.

English was my worst subject in school, but I do remember a few things. For illustration purposes only, it is not proper to link the singular pronoun "He", which refers to one "person", to verbs like: "see", "hear" and "warn" ... which would look like this ... "He see", "He hear" and "He warn". When using the singular pronoun "He", it is necessary to use the verbs "sees", "hears" and "warns" ... "He SEES", "He HEARS" and "He WARNS". In order to use the verbs "see", "hear" and "warn", you must use a noun or pronoun which is "plural" and identifies "more" than one person like, "People" ... "People see", "People hear" and "People warn". Yet, intelligent people who know this rule, but who have been indoctrinated to believe that there are three "persons" of God, ignore this rule when it comes to the word "GOD" (the Hebrew word Elohim).

**IF** the word "GOD" (Elohim) identifies more than one "person", as the trinitarians insist, the Bible should read like this, "God SEE", "God HEAR" and "God WARN" ... AND IT DOESN'T! The word "GOD" is never linked to a verb like that. Instead, the word "GOD" is ALWAYS linked to verbs just as the word "He" (a singular person) is ... like this, "God SEES", "God HEARS" and "God WARNS". Again, I use these particular words for illustration purposes only, but I hope I have made my point ... and that it's CLEAR.

Men started "reading" things into the Scriptures a couple centuries or so AFTER Jesus ascended back up into Heaven, and after the "foot print followers" of our Lord had passed on. As a result, there has evolved all sorts of religious beliefs and denominations. However, in order to get people to stop and think about a few things, I use the Clark Kent/Superman analogy quite a bit. Jesus said and did some of the things He said and did to set an example for those who witnessed it to follow, as well as for those of us who would read about it 2,000 years later. At any rate, the reason I use Clark Kent/Superman is because people are familiar with the scenario. And, although Clark Kent/Superman is a fictitious character, I contend that the Incarnate Christ was, indeed, the REAL Superman. And, as a result, Jesus often spoke of the Father as if the Father where someone other than Himself who was way off in another galaxy or solar system.

As a former trinitarian, myself, I understand why those who have been indoctrinated to believe there's two or three of 'em up there believe such, as well as those who interpret ... and try to understand ... the Bible "literally". However, spiritual things are NOT understood with human reasoning and logic. And, Jesus was unlike any one else who has ever walked upon planet Earth. While He possessed the Glory and Power of Deity, He went about as a lowly servant. He had a "human" nature as a result of actually being born of a woman. And, He had a "Divine" nature as a result of Him being God manifested in the flesh. Also, Jesus served as the example ... or the template (so to speak) ... for all Christians to pattern themselves after. And, as a result, He said and did many things for our benefit ... AND to set an example for us to follow. By the way, I am NOT saying Jesus was deceitful, nor that He lied ... far from it. It's just that He could (and did) speak, act and function as any "ordinary" man, at times. And, He also could (and did) speak, act and function as Almighty God, at other times, while here on Earth. Those who have ears to hear, hears what the Spirit saith, and aren't trying to fuel a flawed, man-made, pre-conceived and indoctrinated agenda, will, I believe, come to the understanding as to who Jesus "really" is **IF** they truly hunger and thirst for righteousness. Then, it will be up to them what they do from that point. They can continue on in their traditions and doctrines of men OR they can come out from among them and be ye separate.

Since Isaiah was a MAJOR Messianic Prophet in the Old Testament, my challenge for every "natural" Jew and every professing Christian who believes the man-made theory of the Holy Trinity OR those who believe Jesus was Michael the Archangel or some other inferior subordinate is very simple. I challenge all "natural Jews", all professing Christians who believes the man-made theory of the Holy Trinity, the entire Watchtower Society constituency, the Vatican, and the entire Roman Catholic Church constituency, as well as any and all members and/or associates, past and present, of the various and sundry Protestant denominations, any and all independent Bible students and scholars including the entire constituency of the anything connected to or remotely resembling the Mormon Church ... or anyone else (**IF** I missed anybody) ... to read 11 Chapters in the Book of Isaiah (Chapters 41, 43, 44, 47, 48, 49, 53, 54, 59, 60, and 63) and then provide me with the Scripture(s) they believe supports the belief that the coming (prophesied and promised) MESSIAH would be someone BESIDES Jehovah/God, Himself.

Those of us who embrace the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine understand something very important: The Incarnate Christ was the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last ... God manifest in the flesh. And, these are just a few of the documenting Scriptures I use ... Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 44:6; Isaiah 48:12; Micah 1:2-3; John 1:1-14; John 10:30-33; John 14:6-11; Colossians 2:8-10; 1 Timothy 3:16; Rev. 2:8; Rev. 21:6; and Rev. 22:13.

Yes, the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is a flawed man-made theory, and is NOT "sound doctrine" at all. Therefore, upon learn this, a person should ask themselves this question, "Do I want Truth in its entirety, or do I want man's flawed theories and traditions?" Whatever you decide, it is entirely up to you. In the final analysis of things, you and I will be justified or condemned not by just our faith and beliefs alone, but also by the words we speak AND our deeds. Silence can be interpreted as consent. There are sins of omissions and sins of commission. And, there will be lots of "good" people in hell. Being "good" is NOT good enough. If you doubt or dispute that, read Acts Chapter 10.

A very closely related subject to this is the words that are invoked at baptismal services. The name that was alluded to in Matthew 28:19 is the precious name of Jesus. Quoting Matthew 28:19 does NOT fulfill the Great Commission. Those who knew how it was to be done, invoked the precious name of Jesus in Acts 2:37-41; Acts 8:14-17; Acts 10:44-48; and Acts 19:1-6. Jesus was NOT telling His disciples what to "say" in Matthew 28:19, He was telling them what to "do". And, besides, nobody was baptized in Matthew 28:19. Nobody in the entire Bible was baptized in the "titles" of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. We are admonished in Colossians 3:17 to do whatever we do in "word AND deed", to do it all of it in the "NAME of Jesus". And, besides baptism, here are a couple other places, and direct "quotes", where the "name of Jesus" was invoked in word and deed instead of the "titles" of Father, Son and Holy Ghost ....

Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

Acts 16:18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.

Not only does the Bible reveal baptism in the name of Jesus, but so does history ...

Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951). II, 384, 389: "The formula used was "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the trine name… The earliest form, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion… in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands. To these were added, at various times and places which cannot be safely identified, (a) the trine name (Justin)…"

Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351: "The evidence… suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'"

Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53: "At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898). I, 241: "[One explanation is that] the original form of words was "into the name of Jesus Christ" or 'the Lord Jesus,' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development."

Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947), page 58: "The trinitarian baptismal formula,,, was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ."

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435: "The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus… which still occurs even in the second and third centuries."

Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), page 53: "Persons were baptized at first 'in the name of Jesus Christ' … or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus'… Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.'"

Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473: "It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single-not triple, as was the later creed."

Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365: "The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning… Bapti[sm] into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid."

My advice to you is, if you aren't affiliated with one now, that you find yourself a church which embraces, teaches and preaches the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine and baptizes in the precious name of Jesus ... the name that was alluded to in Matthew 28:19 ... and go there, and see (and feel) the difference for yourself.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. About the Author:
Encyclopedia Internationa

New Catholic Encyclopedia

The King James Bible

Article Source: http://www.articleseen.com/Article_ The Holy Trinity: Sound Doctrine or a Man-Made Tradition?_77437.aspx

[restornu]

Come to think of it the Tanners light house did this kind of chicanery all the time.

[Tennessee Nana]

the LDS or Mormon scriptures written by Joey Smith and others are dark and lead to death and are different than the Bible which is Light and leads to Life Everlasting and I know that it is so...

The LORD Jesus Christ says to every lost Mormon, “I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man or woman comes to the Father except by Me.” John 14:6

[restornu]

I agree with you I have no trouble with the word Trinity where it differs is in terminology.

Because they are 3 distinct personages
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/pings?more=357415249

Again I remind you of the Godhead

1- Eternal Father

2- Only begotten Son has an Eternal Body of Flesh and Bone this mean for ever and ever.

3- the Holy Ghost which is a disembodied soul

So I asked who is that in the Trinity that was taught by the Tradition of men 3 in one substance?

Many believe that God is spirit therefore Jesus is Spirit to many, yet Jesus has an Eternal Body the 3 members of the Godhead are very distinct.

[redleghunter]

This should explain it:

A short history of Joseph Smith:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=06jF1EG8o-Q&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D06jF1EG8o-Q

[ican'tbelieveit]

I would make one minor correction to what you said. The Holy Ghost is a spirit, not a soul. You and I have souls, but it is a spirit with the Holy Ghost/Spirit.

Next, the verses state that Jesus not only is the flesh, blood, bone, of God, but He is the word, and He, as the word, existed from the beginning.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The Bible, given to me for edification, states that God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, are one.

I don’t have an overwhelming desire to contradict this. Faith calls me to accept His word.

[Tennessee Nana]

From what you have posted you KNOW the LDS follow Joseph Smith who is a false prophet and none of the Mormon doctrines are about God the Father and His Only Begotten not made Son, the LORD Jesus Christ.

The book of Mormon is part figment of Joey Smith’s imagination, part plagiarism, and thoroughly according to Mark Twain ‘chloroform in print’

“All men have heard of the Mormon Bible, but few except the “elect” have seen it, or, at least, taken the trouble to read it. I brought away a copy from Salt Lake. The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so “slow,” so sleepy; such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print. If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle — keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate.” (Twain, Mark, Roughing it, 1872)

The so called “word of wisdom” includes such unBiblical items as not eating meat because Joey Smith believed that like man, animals had souls..

In the 12th volume of the so called “journal of discourses” are words from Brigham Young which supports the notion that the fore mentioned “word of wisdom” is a commandment from the Mormon gods..In 1898 Lorenzo Snow said he believed it was and that it should be carrying out to the letter..He said in doing so members should be taught to refrain from eating meat except in dire necessity because Smith had taught animals have spirits

the so called “journal of discourses” are often denounced by the Mormons themselves in these threads as in error..(kinda like they speak of the Christian Bible but different. The Bible is Truth))

Then theres the so called “doctrines and covenants” of which #132 is still prevalent as the “first principle” and the “everlasting covenant” namely the tenet on polygamy written by Joey Smith as a cover to cheat on his wife Emma Hale..but never amended or deleted..and a few “prophecies” to Smith’s cronies that never did come about..

[boatbums]

I am glad you wrote this I have read this many times and I am very puzzle who is teaching this method. They are many believers who adhere to this style. So could you please when did this type of believing began? Thank you It would be nice to have a discussion without trying to weed through all the spam Now I don’t’ want to mislead you I find you approach very unorthodox

You think I'm preaching some kind of unorthodox teaching "method"? How about you just answer the question instead of trying to divert? You claimed, and implied, that Cynical Bear and I must not have "received a witness" through the Holy Scriptures or experienced their "sweet taste" because we don't agree with your religion and how it teaches the truths of God. There is no real mystery here about when this "type of believing" began, because they are just plain-old-always-have-been believed doctrines that Jesus gave us through His word.

I have received the witness of the Holy Spirit and He affirms all that Scripture teaches. You want to imply that we can't possibly be telling the truth since we don't believe what your religion teaches. We should have a more firm foundation for our faith than just "feelings". Our faith in built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness. We dare not trust the sweetest frame but wholly lean on Jesus' name. On Christ the solid rock we stand, all other ground is sinking sand. Don't trust the sand!

[restornu]

I would make one minor correction to what you said. The Holy Ghost is a spirit, not a soul. You and I have souls, but it is a spirit with the Holy Ghost/Spirit.

***

Well I did check it in the dictionary before I posted it

noun 1. the soul of a dead person, a disembodied spirit imagined, usually as a vague, shadowy or evanescent form, as wandering among or haunting living persons.
2. a mere shadow or semblance; a trace: He’s a ghost of his former self.
3. a remote possibility: He hasn’t a ghost of a chance.
4. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a spiritual being.
5. the principle of life; soul; spirit.
_______

John 14

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Luke 24 Jesus said in verse 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Why do you want to change not only what the scriptures say but what Jesus said?
Jesus has an Eternal Bony of Flesh and Bone

36 ¶And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?

42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.

43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

48 And ye are witnesses of these things.

When Jesus ascended to Heaven he left with His Eternal Body intact and when he comes again it will be with the Eternal Body.

[ican'tbelieveit]

I don’t know if you are spoiling for a fight, but nothing you posted casts any doubt. You asked where did the bible talk about the trinity. I posted references. If anything, you are trying to put a stumbling block before your brethren. Maybe you should go pray on that.

[boatbums]

Again I remind you of the Godhead 1- Eternal Father 2- Only begotten Son has an Eternal Body of Flesh and Bone this mean for ever and ever. 3- the Holy Ghost which is a disembodied soul So I asked who is that in the Trinity that was taught by the Tradition of men 3 in one substance? Many believe that God is spirit therefore Jesus is Spirit to many, yet Jesus has an Eternal Body the 3 members of the Godhead are very distinct.

Let me simplify it for you. Scripture repeatedly states that there is ONLY ONE God. That He is the "self-existent One (the I AM). That there are NO OTHER gods besides Him. That HE alone is the Savior. He created all that exists and before He did that nothing existed that exists. Therefore, when Scripture says that the Father is God, Jesus is Almighty God incarnate, when Scripture says that the Holy Spirit is God, we either toss out the Bible or we believe that the Father AND Jesus AND the Holy Spirit are all that ONE GOD. It's called a mystery. Some things we just have to accept because God said it, we believe it by faith. Some things we need to submit in humility before God and say to Him, "Yes, Lord, you said it, I believe it.".

[BlueMoose]

Do you have source ?

[Syncro]

Here I thought you were sincere you only want to be like some others. Using LDS for sport [For sport? It is not sport to attempt to lead those that are lost in false belief systems into all of God's truth]

That's your response to post 247?? A personal attack? 247 was a sincere honest true response to your beliefs. You should read it again and absorb it instead of brushing it off.

BTW my religion did not add words...

The LDS does and did many times, and many words.

We could start with the BOM which is the elephant in the room. If you don't think it is more important and correct than the Bible you will not be in the good graces of the overlords of the LDS. And it is all "added" false revelations from a false prophet.

If you would like to discuss this fine, if you just want to snark that's ok with me.

[CynicalBear]

>>John the Baptist wore primitive clothing of camel’s hair with a leather belt. He lived in the wilderness and ate grasshoppers and wild honey<<

So you’re a bigot as well? The Holy Spirit said John the Baptist was “a man of God”. You only have Joey Smith’s word that he was. Joseph Smith was a charlatan, a deceitful adulterer, a murdering criminal, a liar, and a man from Satan.

[CynicalBear]

>>Well keep telling yourself that the LDS scriptures are different then the Bible when I know that is not so..<<

You have been shown over and over how the LDS teachings are contrary to what scripture teaches. What the LDS teaches is a lie straight from Satan.

[CynicalBear]

>>From what you have posted me you are assuming the LDS follow Joseph Smith which is a falsehood in all our doctrines it is about knowing Heavenly Father and His Only begotten Son Jesus Christ.<<

Well then I’ll answer the whole thing. What the LDS believes to be the “heavenly father” is a construct from Satan to deceive what is real and their concept and teaching of who Jesus is lies about what scripture says. Those who follow the teaching of the LDS have been deceived by Satan and his buddy Joseph Smith.

[DouglasKC]

Ruy Dias de Bivar mentions me in post #41...pings me...[deleted because he repeated your post #13 slur, eh, Douglas?] And then you add here -- in reference to me: " He's got something... :-)"
Is this your typical "digital ethics" on display? Talking about a poster -- without pinging him/her???
Is this "gossip" practice an ongoing part of your life?

The irony of you lecturing me about "digital ethics" is like a wolf lecturing a lamb about being too vicious...:-)

[DouglasKC]

Clear Trinitarian passages from Jesus, John, Matthew, Luke, Mark, Peter, Paul, and the writer of Hebrews:

None of those are "clear" trinitarian passages. The fact that passages mention the father, the son and the holy spirit only proves that there is a father, son and holy spirit.

That doesn't make the bible fit into a creed that was created, defined and developed over 300 years after the death of Christ.

No matter how you slice it and dice it NOBODY in the bible, including Jesus Christ, beleived the holy spirit was a separate "person" that stood along the father and the son. The actual descriptions of the Godhead in heaven CLEARLY show that. Scripture after scripture shows this picture.

Here's some more:

Rom 1:7 To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul sends greeting from God. He does not include a person called the "holy spirit". There is no way Paul was a trinitarian.

1Co 1:3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Again, it's inconceivable that if Paul were a "trinitarian" that he wouldn't include the holy spirit as part of his standard greeting.

2Co 1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Well of course Paul wasn't a trinitarian...it was IMPOSSIBLE since the creed wasn't developed until long after he was dead.

Gal 1:3 Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ,

Do you understand what this means? Paul was not and could NOT have been a trinitarian.

Paul, personally taught, by Christ, didn't believe what you believe. Who is right? You or Paul?

Eph 1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

To be honest you MUST know and recognize that Paul was not a trinitarian. Your beliefs ARE in conflict with Paul's. Who is right?

Php 1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Book after book Paul never elevates the holy spirit to a place in the Godhead. He didn't believe it was a different, separate person.

Col 1:2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colosse: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Poor, ignorant blasphemous Paul... :-)

1Th 1:1 Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Poor spiritually dead Paul. Do you think God ever forgave him for not understanding the trinity?

2Th 1:1 Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
2Th 1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

I mean clearly Paul doesn't "get it". He's so disrespectful the 3rd person in the trinity. He never puts this "holy spirit" at the same level as the father and the son.

1Ti 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the commandment of God our Savior and the Lord Jesus Christ, our hope,
1Ti 1:2 To Timothy, a true son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

Amazingly enough that heretic Paul also teaches Timothy the same thing! Heretic!

2Ti 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,
2Ti 1:2 To Timothy, a beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

Paul, the heretic, still keeps describing the Godhead and STILL purposely and deliberately omits the 3rd person in the Godhead. What is wrong with this idiot?

Tit 1:4 To Titus, a true son in our common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior.

Blasphemy!

Phm 1:3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

It's abundantly clear that Paul did NOT elevate a person called the "holy spirit" to the level of the father and the son. In writing after writing he acknowledges the father and the son as being divine PEOPLE in which he sends greetings from. But he does NOT recognize the holy spirit as being as different person and so does NOT send greetings. And of course not....this belief did NOT formally exist until over 300 years after this.

You MUST believe that God did not "reveal" this to Paul or to anyone else in the bible. You MUST believe that they were not as spiritually "blessed" as the ones who made up this belief. You must belief your understanding is greater than Peter, Paul, Matthew, Luke and John.

Good luck with that.

[restornu]

I am going to rise about and not take anything any of you said personally, for many are really unable to read the words I wrote them mainly from the Bible, can’t even drink from the Bible which so many here claim to love so much.

I have been called so many names it hard to keep tack, my words have been twisted.

I pray you learn someday that the Qualities of Jesus and those who truly follow him would never put on such a display.

There is no darkness in Jesus nor could he behave as some have behaved here.

The first time Jesus came many thought he was going to be their warrior and were so disappointed that that was not his mission.

Sadly for some are unable to receive the Kind loving Jesus.

John 14
30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

Jesus said he hath nothing in me

The prince of this world has no light in him or as stated in the things that the children of Jesus allow him to edify them Gal. 5:22; or even 1 Cor. 13

I’m trying to be like Jesus;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L2f07XlidALyrics:

1. I’m trying to be like Jesus;
I’m following in his ways.
I’m trying to love as he did, in all that I do and say.
At times I am tempted to make a wrong choice,
But I try to listen as the still small voice whispers,

Chorus
“Love one another as Jesus loves you.
Try to show kindness in all that you do.
Be gentle and loving in deed and in thought,
For these are the things Jesus taught.”

2. I’m trying to love my neighbor;
I’m learning to serve my friends.
I watch for the day of gladness when Jesus will come again.
I try to remember the lessons he taught.
Then the Holy Spirit enters into my thoughts, saying:

1 John 4:12

12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

[DouglasKC]

And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth"> (1 John 5:6) Here, the Holy Spirit is glorified as "The Truth" -- the same exact glorifying comment Jesus gives Himself in John 14:6: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life..." But to show how DouglasKC has apparently flunked Biblical studies of the Holy Spirit, let's keep reading...Peter, Isaiah, Paul: "If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit OF GLORY and of God rests on you. (1 Peter 4:14)

The question is whether or not the holy spirit is a separate "person" or even a "person" at all.

For example:

Act 8:19 saying, "Give me this power also, that anyone on whom I lay hands may receive the Holy Spirit."
Act 8:20 But Peter said to him, "Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money!

1Ti_4:14 Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership.

The apostles considered the holy spirit a "gift" of God. Strange language to use about a "person".

1Th 5:19 Do not quench the Spirit

Can a "person" be quenched? Can we "quench" the father? Can we "quench" the son?

Act 10:45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

Does scripture ever talk about "pouring" out the father or the son? Can a person be "poured" out?

2Ti 1:6 Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.

The holy spirit is something we can "stir".

There are many, many more scriptural references that prove that the holy spirit is NOT a "person" in a trinity. And of course...because this belief did not formally exist until over 300 years AFTER the scriptures were written.

For a vast amount of scripture confirming this see: Is the Holy Spirit a Person?

[BuckeyeTexan]

Do you find sarcasm an effective tool for saving souls? If I were an unbeliever and read your posts on this thread, I would be turned off Jesus.

Please don’t include me in your replies. I am not interested in an adversarial discussion of the Trinity. That’s not intended to be hateful and doesn’t apply to other discussions on FR.