Posted on 01/12/2014 7:49:32 PM PST by restornu
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
I did not delete post 13. Post 13 was an accurate representation of your discussion methods. You would rather sling metaphorical "poo" then discuss. That's a tactic that's pretty clear to anyone who has followed your posts...
I employ sarcasm where it's needed. When people state or imply that not believing in a creed that was developed over 300 years ago disqualifies them as "Christians" then it's appropriate to sarcastically point out that this would disqualify every single person in the bible. Sarcasm points out the vapidity and non-logical premise of the "you're not a Christian unless you believe in the creed I believe that was developed centuries after the Lord died" attitude.
So do you believe there are errors in scripture? Was God not able to preserve His word for us today as we have them a available in the Hebrew and Greek texts?
I believe there are errors and bias in the translation of scriptures. I believe that things were added to the original inspired scriptures. And I think it's been going on for a long time.
2Pe 3:16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
Matthew 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Matthew 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
Matthew 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Matthew 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
***
May the Savior, Jesus Christ heal you...
Then you have nothing to base your beliefs on that is stable. The minute you declared that the Greek and Hebrew texts we have today are not trustworthy you have destroyed any and all foundation for your beliefs. If you can’t back up your beliefs with scripture you have nothing.
On the other hand I have complete faith that God preserved intact he portions of HIS word He wanted us to have. And in that word is this.
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
So once again I post from scripture and you say it is I that needs to be healed? Did you know that Satan also hates when scripture is quoted?
Well, you've got part of this down... (Now all you have to do is come to the conclusion that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is more united than, say, a man and wife...and you can make some great progress!)
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.
(See John 14:16-17, 26 and John 16:13-15 at post #363 and let Jesus speak for Himself)
Paul sends greeting from God. He does not include a person called the "holy spirit". There is no way Paul was a trinitarian.
(I've already cited Paul's trinitarian blessing in 2 Cor. 13:14; and I already mentioned in post #238 that just because only the Father and Holy Spirit are mentioned in passages like 1 Cor. 3:16 and Acts 20:27-28...and others...it doesn't mean that God has to follow a neat formula every time He's mentioned!...that would be legalism...and let's see...you are UCG...which practices legalism...so I guess that all goes hand-in-hand!)
You cited 1 Thess. 1:1...just keep going:
1 Thess. 1:5: ...because our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for your sake. [My note: if the Holy Spirit was merely impersonal "divine power," then it would have been quite redundant for Paul to have written, "with power, with the Holy Spirit"]
1 Thessalonians 1:6 You became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you welcomed the message in the midst of severe suffering with the joy given by the Holy Spirit.
It looks plainly like the Holy Spirit and the Lord Jesus is mentioned in v. 6; but no Father...oops! There goes your anti-Holy Spirit "formula"
You reference Romans 1:7, yet you skipped over Romans 1:4: and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.
You cited Col. 1:2, keep going to Col. 1:9: For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you. We continually ask God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit gives
(Sorry, but impersonal forces aren't omniscient with wisdom and understanding...)
You cited Eph. 1:2, keep going to verses 13-17: And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit...I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. (vv. 13,17)
There ya go, another Trinity reference in v. 17...and like Col. 1:9, an impersonal force is not wise.
You mention Gal. 1; The Holy Spirit is referenced 14 times in Gal. 3, 4, 5, and 6!
You mentioned 2 Cor. 1:2, keep going to v. 22: set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
You mentioned 1 Cor. 1, by 1 Cor. 3:16, the Holy Spirit has been referenced eight times!
You cited 2 Tim 1...jump down to v. 14:
Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us. [If the Holy Spirit was some impersonal force, the proper word would be "which" -- not a "WHO"]
You cited 1 Tim. 1...If some neat "formula" was to be followed, then why is only Jesus & the Holy Spirit mentioned in 1 Tim. 3:16? Where's the Father?
You cited 2 Thess 1, and if the "Lord" spoken of in 2 Thess. 2:13 is Jesus, then all three are mentioned in this verse.
*************************************
Bottom line: ALL...The accusations DouglasKC is making versus the Holy Spirit are exactly the types of accusations people can make against the Son of God for not being more clearly elucidated in the Old Testament.
The facts are that just as the Messiah was clearly demonstrated in the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit is clearly demonstrated in the New Testament...and in fact, even more so because whereas ALL of the Old Testament references to the Messiah were of a future incarnation, MOST of the New Testament passages came post-incarnation of the Holy Spirit!
In both cases, this Divine One is a Sent One! (Jesus elaborates on the Holy Spirit as the "Sent One" in John 14:26; 15:26; and Scriptures exist about the Father sending the Messiah)
In both cases, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit come in humble servant form. "Ministry" literally means "service" -- and the Holy Spirit is identified as having a "ministry" (2 Cor. 3:8), much like the Messiah came in servant form (Isaiah 53).
Just as the Son of God came for many reasons, so does the Holy Spirit. One of those reasons the Son of God came was to reveal the Father; likewise, critiquing the Holy Spirit -- as DouglasKC does -- for not shining a spotlight on Himself would be like critiquing Jesus for not shining a spotlight on Himself.
Many times Jesus defers to NOT taking His own initiative, or focusing on His own glory:
Examples:
John 8:28: ...I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.
John 8:54: Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.
John 5:19, 30: Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does...By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.
{See also Jesus' references on the cross where He says, "if it be you will, let this cup pass from me...not my will, but thy will be done" (Matthew 26:36–46; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–46)}
The Son of God's focus was to reveal the Unified God:
* Believing Jesus is believing God (see John 12:44; John 14:1)
* Receiving Jesus is receiving God (see Mark 9:33)
* Seeing Jesus is seeing God (see John 12:45; John 14:9)
* Knowing Jesus was knowing God (see John 8:19, 24; John 14:7)
* Honoring Jesus is honoring God (see John 5:23)
* Hating Jesus is hating God (see John 15:23)
* He who denies the Son, will be denied before the Father (see Matthew 10:33)
* He who confesses the Son, is confessed before the Father (see Matthew 10:32)
* To have God is to have the doctrine of Christ (2 John v. 9)
* 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. (Hebrews 1:3)
The Son of God clearly said He was giving direct (enfleshed) testimony of the Father:
John 5:31, 36: If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true...“I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to finish—the very works that I am doing—testify that the Father has sent me.
So, just as the Son of God was an enfleshed Living Testimony of the Father, so, too, the Holy Spirit is an enfleshed (within the body of believers) Living Testimony of the Son (& Father).
John 15:26: “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.
(See also 1 John 5:7-8)
The Holy Spirit will indeed at times testify about Himself -- just like at times the Son of God testified about Himself (see John 8:14; 10:25); but that's not His primary focus. His primary focus is to testify about the Son of God!
And anybody blaming the Holy Spirit for not shining a brighter spotlight upon Himself -- and keeping the focus on Jesus (& the Father) is playing the same games people play re: God not spelling out every little detail in the Old Testament re: the Messiah.
There's quite a bit in the Old Testament about the Messiah -- if people had their spiritual eyes opened; likewise, if people realize that there's in reality a "second incarnation" -- only this one involving the Holy Spirit indwelling the Body of Christ around the world, then they quickly lose their "formula" approach to interpreting both Testaments!!!
(I didn't see this post of yours before posting #430...I also cited 1 John 5:7-8 in conjunction with John 15:26 toward the end of that post...)
No need to reduce mathematics to somehow only being about addition...('cause it's not)
Here you seemingly are...attempting to calculate the very "volume" of God, if you will...
Apparently, you and others would formulize God as 1+1+1...
Yet if you tried to get "volume" of an object by mere addition, you would flunk the question.
Volume is measured by multiplying the 3s (height, width, length)...
So you mention the number "one"...well, of course!
1
x 1
x 1
= (drum roll, please!)
1!
Hence, the spiritual FULLNESS of God: 9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form," (Col. 2:9)
ALL: Here's a direct accusation (yet another) by DouglasKC...this time accusing some of the Biblical transmitters/translators (or both) of being "untaught and unstable" Scripture-twisters.
(This is kind of like the Mormon accusation that the Bible is a-OK "insofar as correctly translated"...yet we don't usually hear too much either from Mormons -- or Douglas -- which specific verses match their accusations...)
When people accuse the Scriptures of being twisted, they wind up asserting themselves as the authority of what it's "supposed to say."
Yet they have no direct evidence of what it's "supposed to say"...which usually means for those who make this type of accusation...is that the Bible simply doesn't agree with their theology...and it's easier to accuse the Bible of being wrong...versus themselves.
Well, I never said you didn’t qualify. So please leave me out of it.
GMTA! You just did a more thorough job than I did.
Did you know that Satan also hates when scripture is quoted?
***
Yep that is evident when many of my replies with so many of the verse that were from the Bible, which many were ignored by those here who claimed they love the Bible!:)
Strange isn't!
If it's good enough for King James it's good enough for Jesus!
For those interested you might want to study Comma Johanneum
1 John 5:7 was added to scripture. The fact that it was added to scripture is verified universally by every biblical scholar, protestant or Catholic.
It was added for the precise reason that scripture does NOT have a clear scriptural basis.
About the only ones who seriously believe it wasn't are a small group of people who consider the King James translation of the bible the ONLY inspired scriptures.
Let it be know by all that anyone who casts doubt on the infallibility of scripture as it has been handed down to us today in the original Hebrew and Greek language will by me be considered to be from Satan and not from God.
The only problem with you posting scripture is that all here understand that you believe in a different Jesus and when you say faith in Jesus it isn’t the Jesus of scripture. You can quote from scripture all you want but it means nothing when you inject a different meaning into the words.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.