Jesus adherents only: How is a ''separate' trinity concept, not polytheism?

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks...

Just because there were deities similar to Yahweh that predated Judaism, are we therefore going to assume that Jews stole Yahweh from the Egyptians, Persians and Hindus? By no means. By the same token, we should not assume that Christians stole the Trinity from other religions, just because they thought of it before our religion was founded.

But this is actually PRECISELY what DID happen..... The Hebrews DID - in affect - "steal" their god form others who pre date them by thousands of years !!

As said and laid out in great detail elsewhere - literally ALL of the Hebrew foundational narrative, is found recorded FIRST in the lands of ancient Sumer - like literally THOUSANDS of years BEFORE any Hebrew nation ever existed...the whole Hebrew religion is plaigerised FROM those MUCH earlier Sumerian accounts - but as said before - when this is ORIGINALLY recorded there - these "gods" are not even SPIRITUAL entities at all - they are FLESH AND BLOOD CREATURES - just like You and I....Indeed - they themselves have no accepted truth of spirit - they speak of a spiritual SOURCE and CAUSE for Creation - but dont actually claim to BE that source or cause (not at first but later they use this tactic to dominate mankind and all this agenda is admitted there too and it continues even today as we see)..

In other words - these so called "gods" - have a GOD OF THEIR OWN - but they dont speak of it much as they fully admit they dont understand THAT aspect of their reality - for as said they are indeed flesh and blood creatures and not Divine gods at all - and when the Divine do finally take a hand here, it totally baffles and confuses these so called "gods" here - and look, all this IS recorded and fully admitted - as said before go check out Enki and Enlil - google is your friend - you will find EVERY HEBREW STORY that is foundation of the religion, is ACTUALLY connected to these two characters FIRST and and as said this is literally thousands of years BEFORE the Hebrew timeline even begins...!!!

EVERY NARRATIVE - creation - Eden - flood - Egypt and how and why the Hebrews left there - in fact EVERYTHING - every WORLD RELIGION - fully explained FIRST within THOSE Sumerian texts...

Fully admitted by them in their own records - and yes indeed this original account is the foundation of the entire Hebrew narrative....So for sure - if we want to look at it that way - the Hebrews "stole" their religion from a whole saga of history that predates the bible by literally thousands of years...ALL of those religions mentioned above can be traced directly back to ancient Sumer.... And again the narratives are ALWAYS about FLESH and BLOOD CREATURES exactly like You and I and not "gods" at all - that spiritual aspect is likewise fully explained - read the earlier posts again or as said check out Enki and Enlil for confirmation....

Indeed - as said - if we want SPIRITUAL truth rather than "historic and PHYSICAL events" - then the only source to trust is CHRIST - as He alone speaks and teaches of the SOURCE of Creation itself - He alone claims to BE that Source in a LEGITIMATE manner - and He alone proved it of course with those undeniable MIRACLES that remember Folks - no priest of "Yahweh" could even come close to matching...That is because HE ALONE is from the legitimate Spiritual Father - and NONE of these others know Divinity at all - admitted right at the start of it all in ancient Sumer they knwo NOTHING of the spirit and admit this openly - and this is confirmed by Christ who tells us EXPLICITLY that NO SOUL HERE had EVER encountered HIS truth before...

You can NOT find SPIRITUAL truth among the words of men - it can only be DIRECTLY EXPERIENCED....All these religions are dealing with PHYSICAL flesh and blood entities - in the beginning THIS IS DEFINALTELY SO openly spoken of - all these "gods" walk and talk - live side by side - MARRY AND HAVE CHILDREN WITH MOPRTAL:S !!!! The WHOLE history and complete narrative start to finish is found FIRST in Sumer and is not "Jewish" at all....The religions ALL spring from this first narrative laid out step by step telling us of MANY GODS and how they went around starting "patron nations" and then confrontation starts among them all as they compete for overall domination....All fully recorded - the Hebrew narrative - as does all religious narrative - takes its origins HERE in Sumer....

Not spiritual - PHYSICAL - fully explained by them in their own accounts !!!

SPIRITUAL aspects BAFFLE and CONFUSE these so called gods - fully admitted by them - they pass the confusion on to mankind and use it as a tool to keep us subserviant and we dont really get ANY good idea about legitimate spirit at all until CHRIST comes and lays it all out side by side - PHYSICAL truths of mankind and how we came to be here explained alongside SPIRITUAL truth of ALL CREATION and my Father Source of All -That-Is... The religion does NOT contain that spiritual truth - has actually purposefully HIDDEN this truth from you (all) and again, He made that very VERY plain and siad it DIRECTLY didnt He..?? The Pharisees He warned have TAKEN the keys to knowledge and have FORBIDDEN you (all) to have truth He warned !!

Christ was opposed and confrontational ALWAYS to the religion and its "god" and it is He alone that teaches of this legitimate Spiritual Father....As said for THIS truth the Jews murder Him - they are ENEMIES Folks - the religion does not have His truth and He warned us all this would happen - didnt He..??. Yes - for those with ears to hear....

 

[Kenny]

"Old King Cole was a merry old soul".....are we talking about something inside "old King Cole" here or are we speaking about the personality of the man himself?

I was using your standard... and now you don't like it?

If I speak about a "poor old soul" who was walking down the street homeless, who am I speaking about?
The soul is the person.

Yes, it can refer to the person as it represents his mind, will and emotions. Animals have souls too.

You do realize that Paul was not speaking about individuals in this verse but about the whole congregation of Christ's disciples. The "spirit" that they showed, the "soul" or life of the Congregation and them as a "body" of believers.

Do you realize that whether it is whole or singular, they are both applicable? Especially since the plurality of the body doesn't have a singular soul?

quote: whole--A different Greek word from "wholly." Translate, "entire"; with none of the integral parts wanting [TITTMANN]. It refers to man in his normal integrity, as originally designed; an ideal which shall be attained by the glorified believer. All three, spirit, soul, and body, each in its due place, constitute man "entire." The "spirit" links man with the higher intelligences of heaven, and is that highest part of man which is receptive of the quickening Holy Spirit ( 1 Corinthians 15:47 ). In the unspiritual, the spirit is so sunk under the lower animal soul (which it ought to keep under) that such are termed "animal" (English Version. "sensual," having merely the body of organized matter, and the soul the immaterial animating essence), having not the Spirit (compare 1 Corinthians 2:14 ; John 3:6 ). The unbeliever shall rise with an animal (soul-animated) body, but not like the believer with a spiritual (spirit-endued) body like Christ's ( Romans 8:11 ).
blameless unto--rather as Greek, "blamelessly (so as to be in a blameless state) at the coming of Christ." In Hebrew,"peace" and "wholly" (perfect in every respect) are kindred terms; so that the prayer shows what the title "God of peace" implies. BENGEL takes "wholly" as collectively, all the Thessalonians without exception, so that no one should fail. And "whole (entire)," individually, each one of them entire, with "spirit, soul, and body." The mention of the preservation of the body accords with the subject ( 1 Thessalonians 4:16 ). TRENCH better regards "wholly" as meaning, "having perfectly attained the moral end," namely, to be a full-grown man in Christ. "Whole," complete, with no grace which ought to be wanting in a Christian.

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

You, however, can believe differently if you want.

Do you remember the old "SOS" in Morse Code? What did it stand for? "Save Our Souls".....it meant "Save Our Lives" James 1 :21 quoted above means the same thing.

I can't fault you on creativity.

However, it didn't use the word for "lives"--it used the word for souls.

Please continue to be creative as your position will have to continue the creativity line... "
Hey 4:12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

Could you creatively apply dividing "life and spirit"?

Or if you read that verse in other translations you will see that the meaning can be skewed very easily. Whatever translation you are using, it is not very accurate. It is biased in its translation and leading you to wrong conclusions.

"Have this mind among yourselves, which was in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." (RSVCE)

"Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men" (ASV)

"Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus, Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.
7 Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance" (NASB)

These translations capture the true essence of what Paul said.

As "the Word" Jesus was existing in God's "form" in heaven. What "form" was that? In heaven there are only spirit beings who all have the same "form".
The Bible clearly says "God is a spirit", (John 4:24) so he too has spirit "form". Jesus and all the angels are spirits so all exist in spirit "form".

"Equality with God was NOT something to be grasped". You see, Jesus rejected the concept of being an equal with his Father.

You are loosing ground here for NOT something to be grasped meant that he COULD grasp it. Again, NASB, "he was in the form of God" represents that he WAS God.

• and so mean, will not appear: but this phrase, "the form of God", is to be understood of the nature and essence of God, and describes Christ as he was from all eternity; John Gill Exposition of the Bible
• His being on an equality with God no (act of) robbery" or self-arrogation; claiming to one's self what does not belong to him. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
• Christ, on the contrary, when He was in the form of God, emptied Himself, through love, of all His outward glory, of the form of God, and took the form of a man; and, even when He was in the form of a man, still humbled Himself It was a second thing which He did in humbling Himself As God, He emptied Himself; John Darby
• Such as God himself is, and therefore God, for there is no one in all parts equal to God but God himself. Geneva Study Bible
• . (1.) Here is his divine nature: Who being in the form of God (v. 6), partaking of the divine nature, Matthew Henry Commentary

So... no matter where I go, you are the one that differs in position.

I don't have to do any pushups to make it fit. John 1:1 is as clear as you would like to read it.

 

[Kenny]

Hi Folks...

But this is actually PRECISELY what DID happen..... The Hebrews DID - in affect - "steal" their god form others who pre date them by thousands of years !!

This is PRECISELY why you are WRONG! For YHWY was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Abraham forsook the gods of his fathers.

 

[Kenny]

You also have to account for the fact that the ancient Israelites didn't believe in any kind of resurrection of the dead. .

DEFINITELY not.

1. "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead" (Isaiah 26:19).
2. "Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt" (Daniel 12:2)
3. "I know that my redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And . . . in my flesh shall I see God" (Job 19:25-26).
4. Matt 22:32 'I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB '? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."
5. II Samuel 12:22 He said, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.' 23 "But now he has died; whyshould I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me." David knew he would see his child again.

So I would not agree with you.

 

[Shiranui117]

DEFINITELY not.
"Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead" (Isaiah 26:19).

This may be a reference to a belief in the resurrection of the dead. It could also be a metaphor for the restoration of the people of Israel, such as in Ezekiel 37: 1-14.

"Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt" (Daniel 12:2)

This book was composed and finalized around the 200's or 100's BC, long after the Babylonian Exile and contact with the Persians. By this point, the Jewish religion had come into direct contact with the Zoroastrian concepts of the resurrection of the dead and the Last Judgement. This book can be noticeably contrasted with the literature from the eras of David's and Solomon's kingship, and the time period prior to the Babylonian exile. You yourself give a great example of this later on in this post.

"I know that my redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And . . . in my flesh shall I see God" (Job 19:25-26).

Ahh, but see, you leave out a very important part of verse 26:
“As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives,
And at the last He will take His stand on the earth.
26 “Even after my skin is destroyed,
Yet from my flesh I shall see God;

Here we see Job saying that his skin will be destroyed, but he will see God in the flesh. What does it mean for Job's skin to be destroyed? If we look back to chapter 2:

7 Then Satan went out from the presence of the Lord and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head. 8 And he took a potsherd to scrape himself while he was sitting among the ashes.

Job had sores and boils all over his entire body, which were tearing his skin apart. He was probably peeling massively, leaving raw, exposed flesh. Job isn't saying that he's going to die and rise from the dead, he says that even though his infection will eat every bit of skin from his body, he will still be alive to see God render judgement against those who persecuted him.

Matt 22:32 'I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB '? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

Again, by Jesus' time, the Jewish religion had adopted the idea of the resurrection of the dead. However, we have no evidence that this was the case during David's era.

II Samuel 12:22 He said, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.' 23 "But now he has died; whyshould I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me." David knew he would see his child again.

This verse is exactly what I'm talking about. Take another look. David says that now that his child is dead, there is no hope that he will come back to life. When David says "I will go to him, but he will not return to me", he means that he will go to Sheol when he dies and be reunited with his son, but his son will never come back to life. The thought of there being a resurrection of the dead did not even exist in the Israelite worldview at this point in history.

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks..

Ken;

For YHWY was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Abraham forsook the gods of his fathers.

..............................blah blah blah....yes - so the old story goes - except it went around FIRST time in Sumer as said thousands of years BEFORE any Jewish religion at all.... The entire Jewish narrative IS found in thsoe much earlier texts in its entirety - despite blindly clinging to the religion you cant alter that fact and truth - and all those "gods of the fathers" plus the countless OTHER GODS of the other tribes old Yahweh set about conquering - again - ALL FULLY REVEALED IN SUMER FIRST !!! The whole pantheon of so called "gods2 fully revealed as flesha nd blood beings that live side by side with mankind... You know - exodus - the god tells them go to this place here kill these natives steal their land - then go off here new place new nation, kill them also steal their land - then off again new nation - GIANTS and all that - Im sure you know it - nation after nation that worship OTHER GODS all at war wth each other - all fully explained once again in Sumer FIRST.... It was literally an individual "god man" sets up and so rules a "patron nation" or tribe (sometimes many such tribes) - then sets those nations he controls against OTHER "godmen" and THEIR nations and tribes...

Now look - there are actually HUNDREDS of these so called gods who are ACTUALLY men - these are your Elohim - all fighting each other in the end for supremacy...It comes down to essentially TWO clans opposing each other - two ROYAL PRINCES actually who head these clans have NO QUARREL and share power amicably - but their offspring begin to feel unjustly treated and so division begins... Actual real world events that are the foundation of the Hebrew religion itself can EASILY be identified from the Sumer narrative as pertaining to acts, orders and decrees from these TWO Princes - Enki and Enlil - and together their exploits have been twisted as one confused story - misrepresented in the religion as "one god Yahweh" when actually it is these two MEN - sometimes working in complete agreement and sometimes arguing and contrary - such is indeed "yahwehs" character - isnt it..?..

In fact the Hebrew narrative is a mixing together of ALL THOSE ELOHIM - hundreds of them - their offspring and their semi human hybrid offspring too - ancient men of renown and legend - "gods and demigods" - there are indeed HUNDREDS of them but therie no such individual as "yahweh" for that one is a religious confuson and misrepresentation of all that came before as foundational and original truth...Blindly clinging to the religion and replying with more bible speel cannot alter these original truths and facts and repeating the bible speel over and over can not ever make it become actual legitimate truth - can it..?..

 

[Kenny]

This may be a reference to a belief in the resurrection of the dead. It could also be a metaphor for the restoration of the people of Israel, such as in Ezekiel 37: 1-14.

It could be, but it isn't in as much as the whole of the sentence doesn't fit "Israel" as the answer

This book was composed and finalized around the 200's or 100's BC, long after the Babylonian Exile and contact with the Persians. By this point, the Jewish religion had come into direct contact with the Zoroastrian concepts of the resurrection of the dead and the Last Judgement. This book can be noticeably contrasted with the literature from the eras of David's and Solomon's kingship, and the time period prior to the Babylonian exile. You yourself give a great example of this later on in this post.

This was written during the life of Daniel, way before your dates. Yes "some" believe that it was comprised in the dates you suggested but it remains their opinion. Daniel, and his three friends, made sure they kept themselves separated from the gods' of Babylon.

Certainly you have no empirical and verifiable evidence that contradict my position. However, the details within the book do match up with historical events.

Ahh, but see, you leave out a very important part of verse 26:
“As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives,
And at the last He will take His stand on the earth.
26 “Even after my skin is destroyed,
Yet from my flesh I shall see God;

Ahhh... but you have to take the whole of the context. The Redeemer lives... declares that he is not dead. "Even After" my skin is destroyed - he shall see God.

Here we see Job saying that his skin will be destroyed, but he will see God in the flesh. What does it mean for Job's skin to be destroyed? If we look back to chapter 2:

7 Then Satan went out from the presence of the Lord and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head. 8 And he took a potsherd to scrape himself while he was sitting among the ashes.

Job had sores and boils all over his entire body, which were tearing his skin apart. He was probably peeling massively, leaving raw, exposed flesh. Job isn't saying that he's going to die and rise from the dead, he says that even though his infection will eat every bit of skin from his body, he will still be alive to see God render judgement against those who persecuted him.

Creative but, no. He had boils but his skin was not destroyed. And there are many more from Job that gives light to resurrection.

Again, by Jesus' time, the Jewish religion had adopted the idea of the resurrection of the dead. However, we have no evidence that this was the case during David's era.

No, they simply continued what had been taught for centuries and is consistent throughout the scriptures. And his point was quite valid as they didn't have a response to his position. As a matter of fact, those he was speaking to were the small minority who didn't believe in the resurrection. There inability to respond shows that Jesus interpreted it correctly.

This verse is exactly what I'm talking about. Take another look. David says that now that his child is dead, there is no hope that he will come back to life. When David says "I will go to him, but he will not return to me", he means that he will go to Sheol when he dies and be reunited with his son, but his son will never come back to life. The thought of there being a resurrection of the dead did not even exist in the Israelite worldview at this point in history.

Disagree. If they are "gone", then they stay in the grave and don't even go into Sheol. In that it says they go to Sheol, dictates that there is an afterlife. In that Abraham say the day of resurrection, in that he even knew Isaac would be resurrection dictates that there is a resurrection.

Additionally, David addressed this situation in Psalms 16:8 I have set the LORD continually before me; Because He is at my right hand, I will not be shaken.
9 Therefore my heart is glad and my glory rejoices; My flesh also will dwellsecurely.
10 For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; Nor will You allow Your HolyOne to undergo decay.
11 You will make known to me the path of life; In Your presences fullness of joy; In Your right hand there are pleasures forever.

The list goes on and on.

 

[Deeje]

I was using your standard... and now you don't like it?

Really? This is a response? You know, reading through what you have written, it's what you ignore that tells the story.

Yes, it can refer to the person as it represents his mind, will and emotions. Animals have souls too.

Like man, animals are living, breathing creatures who "are" souls....they don't live on after death either. (Ecclesiastes 3:19-20)

Do you realize that whether it is whole or singular, they are both applicable? Especially since the plurality of the body doesn't have a singular soul?

quote: whole--A different Greek word from "wholly." Translate, "entire"; with none of the integral parts wanting [TITTMANN]. It refers to man in his normal integrity, as originally designed; an ideal which shall be attained by the glorified believer. All three, spirit, soul, and body, each in its due place, constitute man "entire." The "spirit" links man with the higher intelligences of heaven, and is that highest part of man which is receptive of the quickening Holy Spirit ( 1 Corinthians 15:47 ). In the unspiritual, the spirit is so sunk under the lower animal soul (which it ought to keep under) that such are termed "animal" (English Version. "sensual," having merely the body of organized matter, and the soul the immaterial animating essence), having not the Spirit (compare 1 Corinthians 2:14 ; John 3:6 ). The unbeliever shall rise with an animal (soul-animated) body, but not like the believer with a spiritual (spirit-endued) body like Christ's ( Romans 8:11 ).
blameless unto--rather as Greek, "blamelessly (so as to be in a blameless state) at the coming of Christ." In Hebrew,"peace" and "wholly" (perfect in every respect) are kindred terms; so that the prayer shows what the title "God of peace" implies. BENGEL takes "wholly" as collectively, all the Thessalonians without exception, so that no one should fail. And "whole (entire)," individually, each one of them entire, with "spirit, soul, and body." The mention of the preservation of the body accords with the subject ( 1 Thessalonians 4:16 ). TRENCH better regards "wholly" as meaning, "having perfectly attained the moral end," namely, to be a full-grown man in Christ. "Whole," complete, with no grace which ought to be wanting in a Christian.

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

This was written by someone who believes the lie that the devil told in Eden...."you surely will not die". God told Adam that he would simply "return to the dust"....NOT that he would go to "hell". Being guilty of murdering the whole human race is a pretty serious breach of God's law, wouldn't you say? If Adam was not warned of the possibility of going to a place of fiery torment for the rest of eternity, then God was remiss for not telling him about the possibility, wasn't he? Jesus warned the Pharisees about "gehenna"...so what is the deal here?

You, however, can believe differently if you want.

Yes indeed, we all stand or fall in accord with the choices we make.

I can't fault you on creativity.

Ah, the creativity was around long before you or I took a breath, the weeds were not planted recently.

However, it didn't use the word for "lives"--it used the word for souls.

"Soul" is synonymous with "life". Read Genesis 2:7 and see....God did not "give" Adam a "soul".....Adam "became a living soul" only when God implanted the "spirit" (breath)
As long as a soul has breath, it lives. When the "spirit" departs, as we breathe our last breath, all conscious activity ceases. (Psalm 146:4)

Please continue to be creative as your position will have to continue the creativity line... "
Hey 4:12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

Could you creatively apply dividing "life and spirit"?

When you understand the meanings of the original words and what Jews believed, it is not difficult to explain. The tap dancing begins when you try to support a lie with scripture.Then it gets really sticky.

When we die, there is a dividing of life (soul) and spirit. The spirit keep the soul alive.....this is the difference between life and death. The spirit of God's word has the same effect. A person's thoughts and motivations are determined when God's word is read......beliefs are challenged and decisions are made. Life and death are in those decisions.

Imagine the decisions that Jesus' first century disciples had to make when challenged by the religious views of the Pharisees (their own religious system).....there is a reason why only a relative "few" responded to Jesus as Messiah. The majority stubbornly stuck to a corrupt religious system that Jesus came to expose. He told the truth, but the people preferred the lies....remaining in their 'comfort zone'. The "cramped and narrow road" is not "comfortable". (Matthew 7:13-14)

You are loosing ground here for NOT something to be grasped meant that he COULD grasp it. Again, NASB, "he was in the form of God" represents that he WAS God.

You speak like a politician. Being in God's "form" only meant that he was formerly a spirit, like all who dwell in heaven.

As a free willed, 100% human, Jesus could indeed have taken advantage of his position and his power, otherwise, what was the point of the devil's temptations?
By proving faithful despite all temptation, Jesus proved that the first rebels could have done that too.
In the climate of the day, many in the Roman Empire were worshippers of false deities. When the gentiles were included in the invitation to become Christ's followers, some saw the miracles and called the apostles "gods". Could they have been tempted away from their mission? Of course, but they remained loyal to the truth, not to a corrupted religious system.

• and so mean, will not appear: but this phrase, "the form of God", is to be understood of the nature and essence of God, and describes Christ as he was from all eternity; John Gill Exposition of the Bible
• His being on an equality with God no (act of) robbery" or self-arrogation; claiming to one's self what does not belong to him. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
• Christ, on the contrary, when He was in the form of God, emptied Himself, through love, of all His outward glory, of the form of God, and took the form of a man; and, even when He was in the form of a man, still humbled Himself It was a second thing which He did in humbling Himself As God, He emptied Himself; John Darby
• Such as God himself is, and therefore God, for there is no one in all parts equal to God but God himself. Geneva Study Bible
• . (1.) Here is his divine nature: Who being in the form of God (v. 6), partaking of the divine nature, Matthew Henry Commentary

So... no matter where I go, you are the one that differs in position.

This is Christendom's trinitarian position.....but it isn't what the Bible teaches. If you want to accept that position, that is entirely up to you, but you received it from an equally corrupt religious system that is disunited and hopelessly fragmented. This is not what Christianity should be. (1 Corinthians 1:10)Its fruitage is rotten.

I don't have to do any pushups to make it fit.

The push-ups were all done long before you were even thought about.

John 1:1 is as clear as you would like to read it.

John 1:1 is no more proof for the trinity than any other scripture you would like to cite. John 1:18 completely undoes the argument.

"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (NASB)

The word "theos" is used extensively in the book of John, but the meaning of this word in Greek merely singles out a "mighty one"...someone with divinely authorized power.

The Greeks worshipped many gods, so when the writing called for a distinguishing between "a god" and "the God" (YHWH) the definite article was used. If you read John 1:1 in an Interlinear, you will see that there is mention of "the God" (ho theos) and "a god" (just theos without the definite article) Jesus was with "the God" but he wasn't "the God".
John 1:18 is true. No one has ever seen God, yet thousands saw Jesus.....so Jesus isn't "the God", he is a divine mighty one, who is like his Father. (Colossians 1:15)

The trinity is a false doctrine leading many into breaking the first Commandment....putting another god in place of the Father. (Exodus 20:3)
This is why Jesus calls the false Christians "workers of lawlessness"....those he has "never" known. (Matthew 7:21-23)[/quote]

 

[Kenny]

Hi Folks..

Ken;

..............................blah blah blah....yes - so the old story goes - except it went around FIRST time in Sumer as said thousands of years BEFORE any Jewish religion at all...

Ummm... no.

It began with Adam way before Sumer.

 

[Kenny]

Really? This is a response? You know, reading through what you have written, it's what you ignore that tells the story.

It never ceases to amaze me how people have different weights. A lighter one for themselves and a more stringent one for the counter position.

Like man, animals are living, breathing creatures who "are" souls....they don't live on after death either. (Ecclesiastes 3:19-20)

Ahhhhh... EXACTLY! That is why the spirit of man is separate from the soul. It is what makes us "in His image" and not the common animals.

This was written by someone who believes the lie that the devil told in Eden...."you surely will not die". God told Adam that he would simply "return to the dust"....NOT that he would go to "hell". Being guilty of murdering the whole human race is a pretty serious breach of God's law, wouldn't you say? If Adam was not warned of the possibility of going to a place of fiery torment for the rest of eternity, then God was remiss for not telling him about the possibility, wasn't he? Jesus warned the Pharisees about "gehenna"...so what is the deal here?

My, how we hyper jump into different subjects.

Adam was covered by a sacrifice of animal skin (a type and shadow of the work of Jesus Christ). Why do you think Adam didn't believe the promise of Gen 3?

Yes indeed, we all stand or fall in accord with the choices we make.

We agree on something! Although I think the grace of God is bigger than what people think.

Ah, the creativity was around long before you or I took a breath, the weeds were not planted recently.

LOL!!!

"Soul" is synonymous with "life". Read Genesis 2:7 and see....God did not "give" Adam a "soul".....Adam "became a living soul" only when God implanted the "spirit" (breath)
As long as a soul has breath, it lives. When the "spirit" departs, as we breathe our last breath, all conscious activity ceases. (Psalm 146:4)

I BIG statement of conclusion on just one scripture. So... when Jesus spoke to Elijah and Moses, he was speaking to a non-active conscious? I don't think so.

When you understand the meanings of the original words and what Jews believed, it is not difficult to explain. The tap dancing begins when you try to support a lie with scripture.Then it gets really sticky.

You assume I haven't studied.
You assume that it is a lie.
You assume that scripture doesn't expose the lie.

You know what they say about "assume" -- right?

When we die, there is a dividing of life (soul) and spirit. The spirit keep the soul alive.....this is the difference between life and death. The spirit of God's word has the same effect. A person's thoughts and motivations are determined when God's word is read......beliefs are challenged and decisions are made. Life and death are in those decisions.

Wow!! So, the people who were worshipping God in Revelation, they were really sleeping?

Imagine the decisions that Jesus' first century disciples had to make when challenged by the religious views of the Pharisees (their own religious system).....there is a reason why only a relative "few" responded to Jesus as Messiah. The majority stubbornly stuck to a corrupt religious system that Jesus came to expose. He told the truth, but the people preferred the lies....remaining in their 'comfort zone'. The "cramped and narrow road" is not "comfortable". (Matthew 7:13-14)

Could I then say, you are resisting as did the people in the time of Jesus?

You speak like a politician. Being in God's "form" only meant that he was formerly a spirit, like all who dwell in heaven.

No... I quoted a multitude of people. You, however, have made statements with no supportive documentation.

As a free willed, 100% human, Jesus could indeed have taken advantage of his position and his power, otherwise, what was the point of the devil's temptations?
By proving faithful despite all temptation, Jesus proved that the first rebels could have done that too.
In the climate of the day, many in the Roman Empire were worshippers of false deities. When the gentiles were included in the invitation to become Christ's followers, some saw the miracles and called the apostles "gods". Could they have been tempted away from their mission? Of course, but they remained loyal to the truth, not to a corrupted religious system.

No argument here.

This is Christendom's trinitarian position.....but it isn't what the Bible teaches. If you want to accept that position, that is entirely up to you, but you received it from an equally corrupt religious system that is disunited and hopelessly fragmented. This is not what Christianity should be. (1 Corinthians 1:10)Its fruitage is rotten.

Assumptions and opinions. But I still believe in the blood of Jesus, His atoning power, His resurrection and His soon coming return.

John 1:1 is no more proof for the trinity than any other scripture you would like to cite. John 1:18 completely undoes the argument.

"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (NASB)

The word "these" is used extensively in the book of John, but the meaning of this word in Greek merely singles out a "mighty one"...someone with divinely authorized power.

Yes, you can cherry pick scriptures at the expense of others.

The Greeks worshipped many gods, so when the writing called for a distinguishing between "a god" and "the God" (YHWH) the definite article was used. If you read John 1:1 in an Interlinear, you will see that there is mention of "the God" (ho theos) and "a god" (just theos without the definite article) Jesus was with "the God" but he wasn't "the God".
John 1:18 is true. No one has ever seen God, yet thousands saw Jesus.....so Jesus isn't "the God", he is a divine mighty one, who is like his Father. (Colossians 1:15)

1) Are you a JW?
2) So when he said "If you have seen me you have seen the Father" - doesn't mean what he said?
3) What is the Godhead that Paul spoke about?
4)

1. "In beginning was the word . . . "
   (en arche en ho logos)
   1. A very simple statement that the Word was in the beginning.
2. "and the word was with the God . . . "
   (kai ho logos en pros ton theon)
   1. This same Word was with God.
3. "and God was the word."--Properly translated as "and the Word was God."
   (kai theos en ho logos)
   1. This same Word was God.

not a god. In other places it was translated God and not "a god" even in the JW Bible.

The trinity is a false doctrine leading many into breaking the first Commandment....putting another god in place of the Father. (Exodus 20:3)
This is why Jesus calls the false Christians "workers of lawlessness"....those he has "never" known. (Matthew 7:21-23)

[/QUOTE]
No... I think what you have is a new gospel, perhaps from a false prophet?

 

[Coder]

First, I should tell you that I come from a Catholic background and I do view Scripture as authoritative however it must be understood in terms of its context. This context goes beyond context of the sections and other passages in the Bible but also the context of the early preaching (Church) that included teaching many Greek/Romans/pagans.

I propose that the "terminology" used in Scripture itself is "parabolic" (a parable) using "father gods" and "son gods" (e.g. Saturn, Jupiter, Apollo, Mars, Zeus, Hercules...) terminology (in some places) to relate the reality of the _one_ true God becoming man to pagans who had pervasive concepts of "father gods" and "son gods". In fact, given the environment that the early Church was preaching in, wouldn't one even expect to see language like this? Notice how this language is particularly in John, a later Gospel, perhaps written after some experience had been gained trying to preach to pagans. The Holy Spirit is the term used in Scripture to tie the teaching back to the Jewish roots to indicate that still, we are talking about the one true Judeo-Christian God who does not have parts/persons.

So therefore, I have come to believe in the oneness of God rather than the Trinitarian view. I propose that the Trinitarian doctrine is mainly just terminology left-over from preaching to pagans (no different than many other pagan things that were given new meaning in Christianity). Once the Church had such a doctrine (325AD) it's hard to change it.

By the way, I also don't dispute the divinity of Jesus. A Christian can simply say that God became man, pure and simple.

The revised Creed may be something as follows:

I believe in one God, the almighty.
By His own power and for our sake He was born of the virgin Mary
and became man, Jesus Christ
...
...

I have begun contacting members of the Vatican Theological Commission and proposed this.

Also see this article on the Jewish Roots of the Holy Spirit and notice how it says that the Jewish people never understood the Holy Spirit as a person but we must make a connection to their theology because Christian pneumatology is rooted in Judaism.
http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01021998_p-24_en.html

God Bless

 

[Deeje]

Ahhhhh... EXACTLY! That is why the spirit of man is separate from the soul. It is what makes us "in His image" and not the common animals.

I think Solomon might disagree with you.....
Eccesiastes 3:19-20:
"For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath (ruwach) and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity. 20 All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust." (ESV)

According to Strongs, the word translated "breath" in that verse is "ruwach" which is the same word used in Gen 1:2...."The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit (ruwach) of God was moving over the surface of the waters."

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H7307&t=NASB

That being the case, then selective translation gives us a different view of what the scriptures actually say, They are all "souls" who have the same "spirit". What animates man also animates animals.
"They all have the same "spirit" (ruwach) "

Adam was covered by a sacrifice of animal skin (a type and shadow of the work of Jesus Christ). Why do you think Adam didn't believe the promise of Gen 3?

Gold medal for jumping to conclusions!

There is no mention of a sacrifice of any description offered by, or in behalf of Adam and his wife. The animal skins were to cover their naked bodies (the fig leaves just wouldn't do) and to protect their vulnerable flesh from the harsh environment outside the garden, (now to grow thorns and thistles).
There is nothing said about animals being sacrificed, and God could have made the garments as a direct creative act.

The first mention of a sacrifice is by Abel.

Adam was not created with a sinful nature, he was created in God's image and there was no defect in him. He and his wife disobeyed a direct command that carried the death penalty, without a single excuse or valid reason for doing so. It was abuse of free will, pure and simple. There is no basis upon which to forgive them because there was no fallen nature to attribute this sin to. It was a willful and deliberate act and they suffered the stated penalty.

God mentioned nothing to Adam about ever living again. He was to go back to the ground from which God created him. He will never be seen again.

We agree on something! Although I think the grace of God is bigger than what people think.

Well, I believe that some people give it a scope that Jesus said it doesn't cover. Some see "grace" as a license to sin. Big mistake.

I BIG statement of conclusion on just one scripture. So... when Jesus spoke to Elijah and Moses, he was speaking to a non-active conscious? I don't think so.

The transfiguration was a "vision", (Matthew 17:9) so Moses and Elijah were not really present, but representative of aspects foretelling the coming of the kingdom from the Law and the Prophets.

Jesus had made a promise to his disciples...."Truly I say to you that there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all until first they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom." (Matt 16:28) In fulfillment of that promise, Peter, James and John were granted a vision of Christ in his kingdom glory. He, as the promised King of God's kingdom.....with Moses representing the Law, and Elijah representing the Prophets, all of which pointed forward to Jesus as Messiah. It was highly symbolic.

You assume I haven't studied.
You assume that it is a lie.
You assume that scripture doesn't expose the lie.

You know what they say about "assume" -- right?

I was looking for evidence that you had studied outside of Christendom's teachings......I found none.
I was raised in Christendom, but abandoned that empty place many years ago. I once held the beliefs that you do.....I know why I don't anymore.

Wow!! So, the people who were worshipping God in Revelation, they were really sleeping?

What people worshipping God in Revelation? Please be specific in your references because vague allusions to scripture just won't do in a Bible discussion. Please cite your references.

If you mean the "souls" who were crying out for justice?...yes, when John wrote his Revelation, many of those people were not even born....it was a prophesy about the future.
Just like Moses and Elijah are still sleeping right now.....yet there they were chatting to Jesus. No one went to heaven before Christ (John 3:13) and no one else was to go there until Christ's return, so the ones John saw in his vision were not literally present either. You really need to discern the timeframe of the Bible's events.

Could I then say, you are resisting as did the people in the time of Jesus?

LOL....you could, but in any case, Jesus said that it is the majority who are traveling down the wrong road, not the "few". Its never been about the majority or popular opinion...God doesn't work like that...the devil does.

No... I quoted a multitude of people. You, however, have made statements with no supportive documentation.

I have used scripture as my authority as Jesus did. Not good enough for you?
Did Jesus flash his doctorates and diplomas of higher learning in order to get people's attention? Did the apostles? (Acts 4:13) Did Jesus dazzle them with his educational credentials and impress them with his distinctive garments and pompous demeanor? Or was he just a humble carpenter, born in a stable to parents of little means? Despite all the good he did, the majority were convinced by their religious leaders that he was a menace who deserved to die.

Assumptions and opinions. But I still believe in the blood of Jesus, His atoning power, His resurrection and His soon coming return.

I believe in those things too...but not in the way that you do.
There cannot be many versions of the truth. There is only one, and it is not the popular one.....and the ones holding to Jesus' teachings, he said would be hated and persecuted for doing as he commanded them to do. (John 15:18-21) So Jesus' true disciples are in a hated minority.

Yes, you can cherry pick scriptures at the expense of others.

You didn't cherry pick your responses? Just answer the questions or address the scriptures quoted...they speak for themselves.....yet you don't seem to have any answers.

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks..

Ken; Ah my friend - if it "began with Adam way before Sumer" - then please enlighten us all - explain HOW THEN the "Adam creation" saga is recorded there in Sumer FIRST even before ANY HEBREW NATION EXISTED !!

Come on - deal with the FACTS my friend !! Explain this rather basic inconsistancy if you can...It is UNDENIABLE to any but a closed mind -Sumer contains ALL the Hebrew narrative THOUSANDS OF YEARS before any Hebrew nation ever existed - and that IS A FACT OF HISTORY that is as said totally UNDENIABLE as we have HARD PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that shows this as truth beyond doubt !!

You (the religious mind) are so PREDICTABLE - I tell you already that blindly repeating religious nonesense they taught you does not and can not ever make that nonesense to become actual real world facts and history - and yet, your reply is to simply repeat more of the same unfounded nonesense...Like a little child closes its eyes and repeats over and over "make the bad things go away make the bad things go away"....lol.....cute - but RIDICULOUS - here in the REAL WORLD the truth remains TRUTH despite your denial...!!.

So - I tell you again - to blindly repeat such things without dealing with the points I raise just shows us you ( the religious closed mind) have NO ACTUAL ANSWERS to account for these REAL WORLD FACTS - do you..??.. Yes, we should expect the blind denial of truth as all you CAN do now is blindly repeat that forlorn and useless viewpoint - if its not bible scripture its wrong...lol......My my - they really did do a number on you didnt they..?... Iam trying to wake you up my friend but you obviously prefer your false "security" - much better I shatter that false illusion now though, rather than have you face it alone on the day you die and your so called "god" fails to show up as you expect... Its ok to reject His truth - my job is done already - message delivered as He asks -- now, you DO HAVE truth - what you do with it here in life is your affair of course - but on that day when finally your Soul is free you will see the "wheat" of truth from the "weeds" of deceit they have sowed on purpose to confuse you so...You will indeed remember this conversation in its enitrety and all these truths I have shown you will be fresh once again, available - and indeed it will help you immensely on your spiritual journey - even if you dont yet realise it - it is the Soul that knows spiritual truth not the mortal mind..

Repeat the religious nonesense all you like then - but it will never be legitimate truth - and one day you will realise this is so - heres hoping it doesnt shock you too much that you forget your eternal Self once again and doom the Soul to repeat this bogus illusion you vehemently cling to...HIS truth is the ONLY truth that can set you free - just as He said - for those with ears to hear

 

[Kenny]

I am really cringing now.....first of all, there is no "Holy Ghost" in the Bible. The word "ghost" is of German origin ("geist") and it means "spirit".

You seem to be a learner. The difference between Ghost and Spirit is only in today's perception. The difference in words depended on which college translated it during King James. It means the same.

And FYI 1 John 5:7, 8 is a later addition, not in the original text....the original reads..."For there are three witness bearers: 8 the spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

Depends if you are a JW and it doesn't fit your theology.

200 AD Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25.
250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitateagainst the heresy of Sabellianism
415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 AD Old Latin ms r has it
550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it
800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s AD miniscule 635 has it
1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s AD miniscule 629 has it
157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD ms 61 has the verse
Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.

Yes, accepted by an apostate church that has never taught the truth of God's word from its beginnings. This is not the church that Jesus founded...it is the "weeds" that he warned us about. Calling yourself a Christian, doesn't make you one. Jesus knows who is a true disciple and who has swallowed the lies. "Many" are going to be shocked when they are rejected by their "Lord". (Matthew 7:13-14; Matthew 7: 21-23)

LOL... and you are the only church that isn't apostate?

Maybe you will be shocked when you are rejected.

You have swallowed the lie. You need to check your facts. The son is NOT worshipped in the scriptures at all.
And if you do a study on the word " pro·sky·neʹo" you will see that it doesn't always mean "worship" as we would give it to God. It also means "the act of bowing, kneeling, prostrating the body, or making some other gesture to betoken submission; or simply the paying of respect." It adequately translates the Hebrew hish·ta·chawahʹ and the Greek pro·sky·neʹo in many cases. Jesus said we must worship God "alone" (Luke 4:8) so "obeisance" is the act of bowing in respect to someone of high station. It is what the magi gave to Jesus. They did not worship him as a god but rendered respect to him as a child of royalty....a future "King of the Jews." (Matthew 2:2)

You were trained good. BUTTTTTTT!

You really don't question what they teach you... you just take it as fact... please read....

Rev 22:8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
9 Thensaith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

Both words "worship" is prokyneo. In other words, you don't bow down, kneel, prostrate your body, or pay respect to an angel... only to God. Therefore, every time it said "prokyneo" God the Father--it is the same word for proskyneo Jesus". And when Jesus permitted people to proskyneo him, He did so because of who He is... Emmanuel, God with us.

 

[Kenny]

.

"While many commentators apply this title both to God and to Christ, a more careful examination of its use restricts its application to Jehovah God. The first verse of Revelation shows that the revelation was given originally by God and through Jesus Christ, hence the one speaking (through an angelic representative) at times is God himself, and at other times it is Christ Jesus. (Re 22:8) Thus Revelation 1:8 (RS) says: “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God [“Jehovah God,” NW], who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” Although the preceding verse speaks of Christ Jesus, it is clear that in verse 8 the application of the title is to “the Almighty” God. In this regard Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament (1974) observes: “It cannot be absolutely certain that the writer meant to refer to the Lord Jesus specifically here . . . There is no real incongruity in supposing, also, that the writer here meant to refer to God as such.”
The title occurs again at Revelation 21:6, and the following verse identifies the speaker by saying: “Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I shall be his God and he will be my son.” Inasmuch as Jesus referred to those who are joint heirs with him in his Kingdom as “brothers,” not “sons,” the speaker must be Jesus’ heavenly Father, Jehovah God.—Mt 25:40; compare Heb 2:10-12." (Insight Volume 2)

NOPE!!


17 And when I saw him, I fell at hisfeet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me,Fear not; I am the firstand the last:
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive forevermore*, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

The first and the last... a designation for only God is DIRECTLY referring to Jesus Christ because it SPECIFICALLY says "I was dead and behold I am alive forevermore"

Was God "with" Israel? Did he need a mediator? Yes....Moses. Did Moses need to be God to fill that role?

Is God "with" Christians? Does he need a mediator? Yes...Jesus. Does Jesus need to be God to fill that role?
Same answer to both questions.

Absolutely not and not comparable.

Moses died and did not resurrect.
Jesus died and did resurrect.
Moses was the mediator of the Jews
Jesus is the mediator for the world for all time, before and after.
The Word DID need to fill that role.

To a Jew, no explanation is necessary...to those who have been conditioned by Christendom to believe in a triune god, there is much explaining to do.

Didn't seem like a problem at the beginning of the Church age.

I keep hearing this, but do the math.....1+1+1 doesn't = 1. This is a god who talks to himself.

1 (spirit) + 1(soul) +1 (body) = 1 human and yes, I do talk to myself

Trinity? Where?

righe here.
And now the Lord God (1) has sent Me (+1 - The Word/Jesus/Emmanuel-God with us), )+1).” = God

He was the one Jehovah sent along with the power of his spirit to deliver his message to Israel.

For the Holy Spirit to be just a power and yet can teach, lead, guide, speak -- quite a dichotomy of positions.

Its all about knowing what the whole Bible teaches, not just selected verses that appear to say what we want to believe.

EXACTLY! I hope you get there one day. The end time false prophets, like unto Russel, who didn't know Greek or Hebrew, is just what people were warned about.

 

[Coder]

For the Holy Spirit to be just a power and yet can teach, lead, guide, speak -- quite a dichotomy of positions.

I propose that the term "Holy Spirit" is mainly terminology, i.e. a way of speaking about God. Remember the Hebrew Scriptures were teaching thousands of years ago at the 101 level to people who often were not even monotheists yet. This was probably used to explain how God could create something outside of Himself. Also the term "spirit" simply can often describe an ability/power/gift given by God to someone. That is all. Simply terminology to help describe how the one personal Being, God works in the world. For example, if you tell a pagan that God taught Moses, the pagan might ask, "Oh, did God speak to Moses in person?". There are stories when God did speak in "person" e.g. Burning Bush. However, to clarify those times when God did not appear in some form (which is most of the events in Hebrew Scriptures) the term Holy Spirit or spirit could be used simply to indicate _how_ God worked as opposed to being present in some form.

I think one of the best things people can do to understand both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, is to take off the "hat" of 2016, and picture the world that these Scriptures were trying to teach people in. Even the Jews at the time of Moses were still worshipping idols etc. This is not to mention all the pagans (polytheists etc.) before that. It was a whole different world then and that is the context of the Scriptures as well as a message for us today. You see, the Scriptures are not only a record of what God did but they are also a record of how the (inspired) authors sought to teach about God to the people at that time.

 

[Kenny]

Hi Folks..

Ken; Ah my friend - if it "began with Adam way before Sumer" - then please enlighten us all - explain HOW THEN the "Adam creation" saga is recorded there in Sumer FIRST even before ANY HEBREW NATION EXISTED !!

Because God existed before He decided to use Abraham. God selected Noah to be the carrier of the Gospel declared in Gen 3. At a given time, God decided to use the Hebrew people to be the carriers of the Gospel. Before Noah, there was Enoch.

 

[Deeje]

You seem to be a learner.

I am a student of the Bible, and have been for over 40 years, which to me is a perpetual position. I will never know it all, but I am in a continual state of learning. Aren't you?

The difference between Ghost and Spirit is only in today's perception. The difference in words depended on which college translated it during King James. It means the same.

The KJV is one of the most biased translations towards the trinity in existence. If you consult a variety of translations you get a more rounded out view of what the scriptures are saying. Back that up with Strongs Concordance and it's easy to get to the real meaning of the original words. I recommend this to all serious students of the Bible.

The word "ghost" conveys a completely different connotation in the minds of a conditioned population, than "spirit".
The use of the word "ghost" in a scriptural context is designed to make the "Holy Ghost" into an entity, rather than the means by which God disseminates his power. To personify the holy spirit is to promote a trinity, not to tell the truth about how the word is used elsewhere in the Bible.

Depends if you are a JW and it doesn't fit your theology.

200 AD Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25.
250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitateagainst the heresy of Sabellianism
415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 AD Old Latin ms r has it
550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it
800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s AD miniscule 635 has it
1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s AD miniscule 629 has it
157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD ms 61 has the verse
Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.

Thank you.....you just proved how early the "weeds" were planted and grew. (Matthew 13:24-30; 36-40) Apostates were snapping at the heels of the apostles whilst they were still alive, so when their restraining influence was gone, the weeds took over. (2 Thess 2:7; Acts 20:29-30)

There is a reason why the Bible canon ends with John's Revelation. Nothing written after then can be counted on as absolute truth. Remember that Jesus said that the weeds started out looking just like the wheat.....but at the harvest time, they would not resemble one another at all.

Jesus never once said he was God.......his Father never once said to worship the son. The son said we must "worship" the Father "alone". (Luke 4:8) Jesus called his Father "the only true God" and did not include himself in that description. (John 17:3) Nowhere are we told to worship the holy spirit. Not a very solid foundation, is it? If there is not one single statement from either God or his Christ directly making the claim that they are equal parts of a godhead, then you can't present a trinity without a lot of tap-dancing and forcing scripture to say what it never did.

LOL... and you are the only church that isn't apostate?

Apostasy is a falling away from the truth. Christendom does not teach the truth. One only needs to study the Bible and see what it really teaches to understand how far the deviation has gone over many centuries. What we see today does not resemble the church that Jesus founded in the first century. Christendom is a fusion re
If ion with its foundation doctrines all adopted from Babylon, not the Bibel.

Maybe you will be shocked when you are rejected.

We will let Jesus be the judge....shall we?

You were trained good. BUTTTTTTT!

You really don't question what they teach you... you just take it as fact... please read....

Rev 22:8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
9 Thensaith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

I don't know what you see in those words, BUTTTTTTTT.......all I see is a humble angel who rejected an act of worship improperly given to him by John. The angel said he was just fellow servant like the prophets, so he told John to "worship God", not Jesus.

Both words "worship" is prokyneo. In other words, you don't bow down, kneel, prostrate your body, or pay respect to an angel... only to God. Therefore, every time it said "prokyneo" God the Father--it is the same word for proskyneo Jesus". And when Jesus permitted people to proskyneo him, He did so because of who He is... Emmanuel, God with us.

Sorry, but the scriptures disagree. God was "with" Israel by means of his appointed mediator, Moses.

The magi did not come to "worship" the child Jesus. The same word is used in this instance but these pagan astrologers came to pay their respects to a future "King of the Jews", not to a god. (Matthew 2:1-3, 11)

Jesus said that his Father called human judges "gods" to whom proper respect was given. He did not reject "obeisance" because he readily acknowledged that he was "the son of God".....a position of respect and honor.....but not "worship" in the same sense as one would offer to his Father. (John 10:31-37) Even in heaven, the Father is still the God of Jesus. (Revelation 3:12)

In the British justice system, a judge is called "Your Worship".......in America, a judge is called "Your Honor"....it's the same principle. The word is translated according to context. And there is no worship to be given to anyone but the Father as Jesus said.

 

[Deeje]

17 And when I saw him, I fell at hisfeet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me,Fear not; I am the firstand the last:
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive forevermore*, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

The first and the last... a designation for only God is DIRECTLY referring to Jesus Christ because it SPECIFICALLY says "I was dead and behold I am alive forevermore"

Since this is not a direct statement about the trinity but one where trinitarians seize upon its inference as proof of their doctrine, here is another explanation......

"Revelation 1:8, 17—To whom do the titles “the Alpha and the Omega” and “the First and the Last” refer? The title “the Alpha and the Omega” applies to Jehovah, stressing that there was no almighty God before him and that there will be none after him. He is “the beginning and the end.” (Rev. 21:6; 22:13) Although Jehovah is referred to as “the first and the last” at Revelation 22:13, in that there is none before or after him, the context in the first chapter of Revelation shows that the title “the First and the Last” there applies to Jesus Christ. He was the first human to be resurrected to immortal spirit life and the last one to be so resurrected by Jehovah personally.—Col. 1:18."

What makes your explanation more valid than mine?

Absolutely not and not comparable.

Moses died and did not resurrect.
Jesus died and did resurrect.
Moses was the mediator of the Jews
Jesus is the mediator for the world for all time, before and after.
The Word DID need to fill that role.

You obviously don't believe that Jesus was the foretold "prophet like Moses"?

"Shortly after Pentecost 33 C.E., the apostle Peter quoted a prophecy by Moses that was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Peter was standing before a crowd of worshippers in the temple. The people were “surprised out of their wits” when Peter and John healed a beggar who was lame from birth, and they all ran to investigate. Peter explained that this astonishing act was a result of Jehovah’s holy spirit operating through Jesus Christ. Then, quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures, he said: “In fact, Moses said, ‘Jehovah God will raise up for you from among your brothers a prophet like me. You must listen to him according to all the things he speaks to you.’”—Acts 3:11, 22, 23; read Deuteronomy 18:15, 18, 19

Those words of Moses were likely familiar to Peter’s audience. As Jews, they had a high regard for Moses. (Deut. 34:10) With keen anticipation, they looked forward to the coming of a prophet greater than Moses. That prophet would prove to be not just a messiah, an anointed one of God like Moses, but the Messiah, “the Christ of God, the Chosen One” of Jehovah.—Luke 23:35; Heb. 11:26." (2009 WT)

Didn't seem like a problem at the beginning of the Church age.

"At the beginning of the church age"?....or the beginning of the apostasy?

1 (spirit) + 1(soul) +1 (body) = 1 human and yes, I do talk to myself

Yes, but if you answer yourself, then the men in the white coats will come and take you away......

And now the Lord God (1) has sent Me (+1 - The Word/Jesus/Emmanuel-God with us), )+1).” = God

"The Lord God" in the Hebrew Scriptures is YHWH. The Father did indeed send his son (John 17:3) but the son is not "the Lord God".......he is the "Lord Jesus Christ". (1Corinthians 8:5-6) The title "Lord" is not exclusive to the Father or the son. Even humans in positions of authority are addressed as "Lord".

For the Holy Spirit to be just a power and yet can teach, lead, guide, speak -- quite a dichotomy of positions.

Are you placing limitations on the way God uses his power?

EXACTLY! I hope you get there one day. The end time false prophets, like unto Russel, who didn't know Greek or Hebrew, is just what people were warned about.

Funny, but the ones who wrote scripture were not linguists or scholars either. Shooting the messenger does not devalue the message. It is holy spirit that determines who understands the scriptures, not the interpretation of the learned ones. Didn't the Pharisees fall for that one? (Acts 4:13)

 

[Coder]

...It is Holy Spirit that determines who understands the scriptures...

With God (Holy Spirit) teaching us, why do we need Scriptures at all?