[Yosemitest]

What does the Bible tell you in I Thes. 5:21 and in 1 Peter 3:15 ?
Do you know the origins of the FALSE "Trinity Doctrine" ?

Let's review.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia begins:

"It is difficult, in the second half of the 20th century, to offer a clear, objective, and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution,
and the theological elaboration of the mystery of the Trinity.
Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette" (Vol. XIV, p. 295).

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, article "Trinity," p. 3012 states:

'The term 'Trinity' is not a Biblical term,
and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine."

Catholic theologian Karl Rahner recognizes that theologians in the past have been:

". . . embarrassed by the simple fact that in reality the Scriptures do not explicitly present a doctrine of the 'imminent' Trinity (even John's prologue is no such doctrine)"
(The Trinity, p. 22). (Author's emphasis.)

Probably the most notorious scripture used in times past as "proof" of a Trinity is 1 John 5:7.
However, many theologians recognize that this scripture was added to the New Testament manuscripts probably as late as the eighth century A.D.
Notice what Jamieson, Fausset and Brown wrote in their commentary:

"The only Greek MSS. [manuscripts], in any form which support the words,
'in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth . . .'
are the Montfortianus of Dublin, copied evidently from the modern Latin Vulgate;
the Rauianus copied from the Complutensian Polyglot;
a MS. [manuscript] at Naples, with the words added in the margin by a recent hand;
Ottobonianus, 298, of the fifteenth century, the Greek of which is a mere translation of the accompanying Latin.
All old versions omit the words."

Hasting's Bible Dictionary, Vol. 12, p. 458 says:

"Although the notion of a Triad or Trinity is characteristic of the Christian religion, it is by no means peculiar to it.
In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the Trinitarian group of Brahma, Siva, and Visnu;
and the Egyptian religion with the Trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, constituting a divine family,
like the Father, Mother and Son in medieval Christian pictures.
Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity.
One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality, which was suggested by Plato..."

Egyptian Belief and Modern Thought, by James Bonwick, F.R.G.S., p. 396 also say:

"Though it is usual to speak of the Semitic tribes as monotheistic;
yet it is an undoubted fact that more or less all over the world the deities are in triads.
This rule applies to eastern and western hemispheres, to north and south.
Further, it is observed that, in some mystical way, the triad of three persons is one....
The definition of Athanasius [a fourth-century Christian] who lived in Egypt, applied to the trinities of all heathen religions"

And from this source:

It was Athanasius' formulation for the Trinity which was adopted by the Catholic Church at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325.
Athanasius was an Egyptian from Alexandria and his philosophy was also deeply rooted in Platonism.

"The Alexandrian catechetical school, which revered Clement of Alexandria and Origen, the greatest theologians of the Greek Church, as its heads, applied the allegorical method to the explanation of Scripture.
Its thought was influenced by Plato:
its strong point was theological speculation.
Athanasius and the three Cappadocians had been included among its members . . ."
( Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church, by Hubert Jedin, p. 29).

In order to explain the relationship of Christ to God the Father, the church fathers felt that it was necessary to use the philosophy of the day.
They obviously thought that their religion would be more palatable if they made it sound like the pagan philosophy that was extant at the time.
These men were versed in philosophy, and that philosophy colored their understanding of the Bible.

It was the doctrine of the Trinity -- colored by the philosophy of the time—that was accepted by the Church in the early part of the fourth century — over three hundred years after Christ's death.

Even theologians recognize that the Trinity is a creation of the fourth century, not the first!

" 'There is recognition on the part of exegetist and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics,
that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification.
There is also the closely parallel recognition —
that when one does speak of unqualified Trinitarianism,
one has moved from the period of Christian origins to say, the last quadrant of the 4th century.
It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma 'one God in three persons' became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought"
(New Catholic Encyclopedia, article "Trinity," Vol. 14, p. 295).

The Council of Nicaea

It was at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 that two members of the Alexandrian congregation, Arius, a priest,
who believed that Christ was not a God, but a created being;
and Athanasius, a deacon
who believed that the Father, Son and Spirit are the same being living in a threefold form
(or in three relationships, as a man may be at the same time a father, a son and a brother),
presented their cases.

The Council of Nicaea was not called by the church leaders, as one might suppose.
It was called by the Emperor Constantine.
And he had a far from spiritual reason for wanting to solve the dispute that had arisen.

"In 325 the Emperor Constantine called an ecclesiastical council to meet at Nicaea in Bithynia.
In the hope of securing for his throne the support of the growing body of Christians he had shown them considerable favor and it was to his interest to have the church vigorous and united.
The Arian controversy was threatening its unity and menacing its strength.
He therefore undertook to put an end to the trouble.
It was suggested to him, perhaps by the Spanish bishop Hosius who was influential at court, that if a synod were to meet representing the whole church both east and west, it might be possible to restore harmony.
Constantine himself of course neither knew or cared anything about the matter in dispute but he was eager to bring the controversy to a close, and Hosius' advice appealed to him as sound"
(A History of Christian Thought, Vol. I, p. 258).

The decision as to which of the two men the church was to follow was a more or less arbitrary one.
Constantine really didn't care which choice was made—all he wanted was a united church.
(Arius was banished, but later recalled by Constantine, examined and found to be without heresy.)

The majority of those present at the council were not ready to take either side in the controversy.

"A clearly defined standpoint with regard to this problem — the relationship of Christ to God—was held only by the attenuated group of Arians and a far from numerous section of delegates, who adhered with unshaken conviction to the Alexandrian [Athanasius'] view.
The bulk of the members occupied a position between these two extremes.
They rejected the formulae of Arius, and declined to accept those of his opponents . . .
the voting was no criterion of the inward conviction of the council"(Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., article "Nicaea, Council of," p. 641).

The council rejected Arius' views, and rightly so, but they had nothing with which to replace it.
Thus the ideas of Athanasius—also a minority view—prevailed.
The rejection of Arianism was not blanket acceptance of Athanasius.
Yet, the church in all the ensuing centuries has been "stuck," so to speak, with the job of upholding— right or wrong—the decision made at Nicaea.

After the council the Trinity became official dogma in the church, but the controversy did not end.
In the next few years more Christians were killed by other Christians over that doctrine than were killed by all the pagan emperors of Rome.
Yet, for all the fighting and killing, neither of the two parties had a biblical leg to stand on.

So ... 1 John should read:

"For there are three that bear record,
the Spirit, and the water and the blood:
and these three AGREE IN ONE."

Three things bear record.
But WHAT do they bear record TO?
A Trinity?
We shall see.

Bear Record to What ?

The Spirit, the water and the blood bear record OF THE FACT THAT Jesus Christ, the Son of God, IS LIVING His life over again IN US.
John clarifies it in verses 11-12:

"And this is the record,
that God hath given to us eternal life,
and this life is in his Son.
He that hath the Son hath life;
and he that hath not the Son of God
hath not life."

But HOW DO these three elements—the Spirit, the water, and the blood—specifically bear witness to this basic biblical truth?

"The Spirit beareth witness
with our spirit,
that we ARE the children of God"(Rom. 8:16).

Water is representative of baptism,
which bears witness of the burial of the old self
and the beginning of a new life (Rom. 6:1-6).

The blood represents Christ's death by crucifixion,
which pays the penalty for our sins,
reconciling us to God (Rom. 5:9, 10).

Now understand WHY Christ commanded the apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19).
First of all, Jesus did not command the apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Spirit as an indication that God is a Trinity.
No such relationship is indicated in the Bible.

WHY, then, were they to baptize using these three names?
The answer is clear.

They were to baptize in the name of the Father because
it is the goodness of God
that brings us to repentance (Rom. 2:4),
and because the Father is the One
"of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named" (Eph. 3:15).
In the name of the Son because
He is the one who died for our sins,
and in the name of the Spirit because
God sends His Spirit,
making us His begotten Sons (Rom. 8:16).

Many theologians have MISUNDERSTOOD THE PART that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit PLAY IN each person's SALVATION.
The doctrine of the Trinity is the result of THAT MISUNDERSTANDING.

The Trinity IS NOT a biblical doctrine.
It has NO BASIS in biblical FACT.

Why the Deception?

Why has Satan palmed off the doctrine of the Trinity on the world?
Because he doesn't want you to rule in his place!
Satan was originally created to carry out God's rule on earth.
But, he refused to serve the Creator and even fomented a rebellion to dislodge God from His position as Ruler over the whole universe (Ezek. 28:l9; Isa. 14:12-14).
A third of the angels united with Lucifer in that rebellion and were cast back down to this earth with him (Rev. 12:3-4)—having forever disqualified themselves and Satan from ruling in the government of God.
However, Satan and his demonic cohorts remain in office UNTIL CHRIST ACTUALLY RETURNS.

Yet being disqualified, they do NOT want anyone else EVER to take THEIR place.
For that reason, during nearly 6000 years of man, they have tried to hide from all the world the breathtaking truth of God.
If they can make you believe in the Trinity, you will be deceived into thinking that the Godhead consists of ONLY three persons.
You would then NEVER in your wildest dreams ever imagine that YOU were created TO BE BORN INTO the God family—
to actually have A PART IN RULING this earth!


Satan wants you to think that God is a LIMITED Trinity—NOT A GROWING FAMILY or Kingdom
INTO WHICH WE MAY, THROUGH THE GRACE of God, ENTER.

There you have it.
That is the truth about the Trinity.
God's family is NOT CLOSED to mankind
as Satan would have you believe.

It's wide open TO YOU, your family and all mankind.
You can be made in the exact likeness of God AT Christ's RETURN !

[Diamond]

Your post is simply unresponsive to the three points I raised to you:

1. John's use of the emphatic demonstrative masculine pronoun ekeinos to refer to the Holy Spirit (in spite of the fact that pneuma is a neuter noun)

2. He is called "another Comforter" by John, and the word 'another' allon - ἄλλον means ANOTHER OF LIKE KIND.

3. And you apparently think, and please correct me if I am wrong on this point, that the Scripture "...who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? " in 1 Corinthians 2:11 is referring to demonic sprits (as you apparently stated in post #95).

If you will address these three points directly I will read and consider what you write.

Cordially,