• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why do Jehovah's Witnesses falsify the Bible?

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I'm sorry, but there's no point disuss with you. You pick out some biblical passages without looking at the whole context and that is wrong.
So point me to the earliest statement of the Trinity doctrine in its present form ─ not those earlier rejected versions where God can appear in any of three forms, or consists of fractions shared between the three persons, &c.
And to claim that Jesus never said he was God is also wrong. See Revelation 1:8, and no, it is not the Father who speaks, please read the whole context. It is clear that it is Jesus who speaks.
I don't know what your version of Revelation 1 says, but mine talks about Jesus up to verse 7, ends that discussion with an 'amen' and goes on to say '"I am the Alpha and the Omega" says the Lord God'. That seems pretty plainly not to be about Jesus, to me.

And even if it had instead read, '"I am the Alpha and the Omega", says Jesus', you'd know it couldn't be a claim to be God, since as you saw from those quotes, Jesus worships the Father as his, Jesus', god, declares the Father to be 'the only true god', came down from heaven not because he wanted to but because the Father told him to, and so on.

And as Paul put it, Jesus is Lord, and the Father is God. Pretty clearly distinct ideas.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
you connect things that have nothing to do with each other.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it. Do you know what the Abomination of Desolation was? Do you know that Israel was under siege by Rome and surrounding nations and why?

Do you know why the tribulation was local and what Jesus told them to do?

Do you know what sort of weapons produced giant stones from the air?

Do you know that five Jewish factions were fighting each other and accusing each other of apostacy?

Do you know Titus was having a love affair with Queen Berniece and what Revelation has to say about that?
 

calm

Active Member
@blü 2
The problem is that you do not understand the Trinity if you understand it then you would also understand what is meant by the biblical passages.
I'll explain it to you.

We people are a trinity too. We people consist of a body, a soul and a spirit. And yet we are not each 3 people but only one human. It is the same with God, he consists of a body, a soul and a spirit. And yet it is not three God but only one God. The body of God is Jesus, the soul of God is the Father and the Spirit of God is the Holy Spirit. Now you ask yourself what Jesus was before he became human (body). The answer is, he did not exist and did exist anyway. Jesus as a person did not exist but his nature(God) was always there. It's like people. If somebody asks a human, how long do you exist? Then you have 2 answer possibilities. The first one is: since my birth. The second is: Since Adam and Eve. The first answer is related to the person himself, the second is related to the nature. All people are one nature, namely: human. So it is with God the Father, God the Son and God the spirit, they are one nature, namely: God. So, if you ask Jesus, how long do you exist? then he also has several answer possibilities, but there are 2 differences with Jesus, the first is, he has 3 answer possibilities, the second is, he consists of 2 beings, he is the son of a human and the son of God, he is 100% human and 100% God at the same time. So, if you ask him: How long do you exist? Then he have 3 possible answers, the first one is: Since my birth (as the person himself) the second is: Since Adam and Eve (as human), the third is: I have no beginning (as God).

The body does what the soul wants. Just as the soul of a human is the master of his body. The body does not do what he wants but what the soul wants. Jesus does what the Father wants because the father is his soul.


Are there a soul and a spirit?
Yes he has.
The Bible mentions and differentiates spirit, soul and body.
1 Thessalonians 5:23
Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Matthew 10:28
And do not fear those who kill the body but can not kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

What is the difference between body, soul and spirit?
The body is the physical part, you can touch it and see it. If someone hits you in the stomach then you feel pain. The soul is your personality (will, conscience, mind, thoughts ...) you can not touch or see the soul and yet it feels pains like the body. The difference to the body is that one can not hurt the soul with blows but with insulting words. With the spirit, you can communicate with God.

Is the Holy spirit a person?
Yes it is a person.
The Bible shows in many places that the Holy Spirit is acting, and that can only be said by one person.
The Holy Spirit ...
• teaches the disciples (Luke 12:12, John 14:26, 1 Corinthians 2:13)
• leads the sons(Romans 8:14, Galatians 5:18)
• witnesses the forgiveness of sins to Christians (Hebrews 10:15)
• convict the world of sin, justice and judgment (John 16:8-11)
• leads believers into the whole truth (John 16:13)


The Scriptures not only show that the Spirit of God is acting, but are also presented as someone with whom something happens.
The Holy Spirit can ...
• to be blasphemed (Mark 3:29, 30)
• be lied to (Acts 5: 3)
• be tried, that is, put to the test (Acts 5: 9)
• to be fought (Acts 7:51)
• be saddened (Eph 4,30)

Is the holy spirit God?
Yes he is God.
Many of the quoted scriptures already make it clear that the mind is not just a person but also God. But because this point is so important, I would like to shed some light on it.
First of all, the Spirit is explicitly called the Spirit of God in Holy Scripture (Gen. 1:2, Mt 3:16).
Acts 5: 3-4 (emphasis added) is very clear: "And Peter said, Ananias, why did Satan fill your heart, that you lied to the Holy Ghost and took away the proceeds of the field? ... You have not lied to humans, but to God. "
more:
• omnipresent (Ps 139,7)
• omniscient (Isa 40,13, 1 Cor 2:11)
• Almighty (Job 26:13)
• sovereign (Jn 3: 8, 1 Cor 12: 4-11)
• eternal (Heb 9.14)
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
@blü 2
The problem is that you do not understand the Trinity if you understand it then you would also understand what is meant by the biblical passages.
I'll explain it to you.
First point me to the earliest statement of the Trinity doctrine in its accepted form. I want you to demonstrate to me that it existed before the 4th century CE ─ not just sentences loosely associating the Father, Son and Ghost, but the doctrine itself, that 'mystery in the strict sense'.

It's my argument that no such doctrine is found in, or implied by, the NT, and that to associate it with the NT is a chunky anachronism.
 

calm

Active Member
First point me to the earliest statement of the Trinity doctrine in its accepted form. I want you to demonstrate to me that it existed before the 4th century CE ─ not just sentences loosely associating the Father, Son and Ghost, but the doctrine itself, that 'mystery in the strict sense'.

It's my argument that no such doctrine is found in, or implied by, the NT, and that to associate it with the NT is a chunky anachronism.
The Trinity existed on the day Jesus was born.
You want proof? Read the Bible.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
Hi @Israel Khan ;

I apologize, I assumed you had a bit of Hebrew since you spoke of Hebrew Elohim being translated as “angels”. I agree with you and others regarding the concept that certain words in original texts are changed for reasons other than that the changes represent good translation.


1) WHAT IS THE MOTIVATION FOR VARIOUS TRANSLATORS OF VARIOUS VERSIONS TO CONSCIOUSLY RENDER THE TEXT INACCURATELY

For example, NIV of Psalms 8:5 reads “You have made them[a] a littler lower than the angels and crowned them[c] with glory and honor.

The footnotes read as follow : [a] Or him, Or than God, [c] Or him.


Now the actual Hebrew word “Elohim” אֱלֹהִ֑ים does NOT mean “men” or “Judges” or “angels”, BUT the words “men” or “judges” or “men” have been inserted in the place of "elohim" or “God”.

Even the parsing is incorrect. The NIV Hebrew for “made them a little lower” corresponds to the Hebrew SINGULAR verb that reads, made HIM (male singular) a little lower…” וַתְּחַסְּרֵ֣הוּ. The NIV Hebrew for “and crowned them” corresponds to a Hebrew SINGULAR verb “have crowned HIM” תְּעַטְּרֵֽהוּ (again, male, SINGULAR).

The point here is that whether one uses “Elohim to mean “God” (singular) or “judges" (plural), the context of what is made lower, and what is crowned refers to a singular object, not plural objects. In this case the footnote is more correct than the text. Doug Moos translating team know this. One then needs to ask what the motivation was to render it incorrectly as they did.


IF Elohim means “God” and not “judges” or “angels”, can you not think of a reason that a translator would be uncomfortable to render the translation as “God” and would RATHER render it as almost ANYTHING else other than "God"?


I would expect the logical reply would have been, “Well, the translator might be uncomfortable” translating the sentence as “You made him a little lower than God (or Gods)” since this would have seemed blasphemous and improper to use the word “God” for “Elohim” in this specific instance (whereas it would be fine in other instances….).

Doug Moo was the head of the team that translated the NIV. I expect that their team had the expertise to know that whatever noun the man was made lower than was a singular, whether the noun was “angel” or “judge” or “man” but used “angels” since it would have been very uncomfortable to their theology to render “elohim” as “God” in this instance.

As another example, John 1:18. In Greek the most correct version we have reads : Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε μονογενὴς Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. This is the version in the Greek Translators 4th version (GN-4).

It means : “No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, who is in the Bosom of the Father, he has made him known” (ἐξηγήσατο actually means “explained” but in this case, “declared him” or “made him known” is a more comfortable English).


However, The NIV reads, “18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.”

While the NIV is very popular (I use it and LIKE it), it is a TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE, “rendering” of the Greek in this instance. Nowhere in the Greek does it say “who is himself God” and “is in closest relationship with the Father”.

These phrases are completely bogus and represent a contamination of the text with the biases and theology of the translating team members.

I think a similar motivation is at work here that was at work at John 1:18. What I think happened is that Doug Moos Group knew the Greek versions that read “monogenes Theos” (only begotten God) in the second phrase was the more correct, but it was an uncomfortable translation to make for their readers (who, in the main, would NOT like the phrase “only begotten God” in the text. Thus I think they tried to create a phrasing that gave some deference to the actual Greek text while trying to keep the translation from any uncomfortable rendering. It is a case of dogma, driving translation due to translator discomfort with accurate translation.


The NWTranslation phrase done by Frederick Franz is actually a correct rendering. “The only begotten God” is the better Greek.

Having said this, I do NOT like Frederick Franzs’ renderings in the main. I think he did a terrible, terrible Job at creating a terrible bible and he corrupted much of the text in his OWN tendency to have his OWN dogma, driving his translation. My point is that he did a good Job on this specific phrase.

In any case, I did not want to encourage you to believe that the NWT is an accurate work, but did not want to engage in the dishonesty of claiming it is ALL a terrible work.

Translators, including some modern versions (NIV in the example I gave) translate incorrectly due to bias.

Luther, for example, left out the second commandment in his earliest version since he didn’t think the second of the ten commandments applied to modern Christians. He was forced by public opinion to add the commandment back into later versions. (This is why the ten commandments were different in protestant and catholic Europe for a time.)

MANY, Translators, including some modern versions (NIV in this case) translate incorrectly due to discomfort with what the original text actually says. This is also why I supported the comments made by @Audie that Evrrybody "falsifies" the bible.” (Audie in post #7) and @shunyadragon s' point that “From this perspective the Bible has been edited, redacted, and added to, and interpreted in many ways to justify an agenda. The JW is just one more in a long history” (post #9)


I hope your journey is good and wonderful in this life


Clear
σeτωτζω

No worries. I know the direct translations of certain Hebrew words based on concordances such as Strongs.

I actually agree with you 100% when you mention bias. Even though I cannot translate the original text, certain inconsistencies gave me clues. Recently I listened to a talk by a Jew and what Christians translate in Genesis as "image of God" he translates as "shape of God". So here I don't know who is being biased and who is not. The first Bible I read from beginning to end is the 1611 King James, and when I read the NIV saying "one and only Son". I became suspicious of translations and the translators motives.

But thanks very much, your post is very informative.

One question though:

Doesn't Elohim translate directly as "Gods"? What is the motivation for people translating the word as "God"?
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
There are people in Idaho and Indiana etc who hate gays so its not a strictly Southern thing. Interesting question.. I just don't have an answer. IMO its more like religious fascism that just cannot leave other people alone.

Definitely religious fascism which is very dangerous and oppressive.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
The word Elohim is the plural of El and is the first name of God given in the Old Testament: “In the beginning, God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth, (Genesis 1:1).

The word is identical to the usual plural of el , meaning gods or magistrates, and is cognate to the ' l-h-m found in Ugaritic , where it is used for the pantheon of Canaanite gods , the children of El, and conventionally vocalized as "Elohim".

In the Ugaritic texts, which is older than the Hebrew Bible, “Elohim” meant “children of El”.

The Ugarit texts describe the ancient Canaanite pantheon of gods, and Elohim was the name of the pantheon. El and his wife Asherah were at the top of the pantheon.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Definitely religious fascism which is very dangerous and oppressive.

You know, I think its just ignorance. When you see it, it always looks to me like a massive inferiority complex. Look how Trump seethes over Obama.

You'll see it break thru like a thunderclap when an unsuccessful white man sees a black man driving a Porsche.. or some other high ticket car.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
I'm aware of the JW's revisionist beliefs. Saying Jesus is a created being when the Bible says Jesus created all things (Colossians 1:16 - including principalities) is another one of their remarkable absurdities. Is there anyone other than God who can create all things? No.

To get around that they say that Jesus created all OTHER things, which isn't textually correct. The problem with their viewpoint is that the bible says that God should be worshipped for the very fact that he was the creator. Therefore, doesn't that mean we should worship Jesus.
 

tigger2

Active Member
I haven't seen calm's reply to this important information, so I will post it again. Remember, if a person unknowingly repeats false information, he has merely repeated a false statement. If he has been shown the untruth and still lets it stand, he becomes a liar.

Calm post #16 and repeated in #72 written (in blue):

3. In cases where two nouns appear, and both take the same case ending, the author will often add the definite article to the word that is the subject in order to avoid confusion. John put the definite article on logos (“the Word”) instead of on theos. So, logos is the subject, and theos is the predicate nominative. In English, this results in John 1:1 being read as "and the Word was God" (instead of "and God was the word").

T2 response in black and bracketed:

[This is untrue. In Greek, as in English, such constructions frequently have the definite article for the subject and indefinite for the p.n. This is simply because it is normal to go from the definite to the general: the man was a carpenter; the church was a house; etc.

So we see that every construction parallel to John 1:1c (p.n. count noun without article found before the verb) has that p.n. translated with the indefinite article:

H 1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all translations

H,W 2. John 4:19 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all

H,W 3. John 6:70 - indefinite (“a devil”/“a slanderer”) - all

H,W 4. John 8:44(a) - indefinite (“a murderer”/“a manslayer”) - all

H,W 5. John 8:48 - indefinite (“a Samaritan”) - all

H,W 6. John 9:24 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all

H,W 7. John 10:1 - indefinite (“a thief and a plunderer”) - all


H,W 8. John 10:33 - indefinite (“a man”) - all

H,W 9. John 18:35 - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all

H,W 10. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite (“a king”) - all

[H,W 11. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite (“a king”) - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text]

H,W 12. Jn 8:44 (b) - indefinite (“a liar”) - all

H,W 13. Jn 9:8 (a) - indefinite (“a beggar”) - all

H,W 14. Jn 9:17 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all

H,W 15. Jn 9:25 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all

H,W 16. Jn 10:13 - indefinite (“a hireling/hired hand”) - all

H,W 17. Jn 12:6 - indefinite (“a thief”) - all

18. 1 Jn 4:20 - indefinite (“a liar”) - all ]


The most revealing evidence of the Watchtower's bias is their inconsistent translation technique. Throughout the Gospel of John, the Greek word theon occurs without a definite article. The New World Translation renders none of these as “a god.” Even more inconsistent, in John 1:18, the NWT translates the same term as both "God" and "god" in the very same sentence.

[1. We are concerned with John's use of theos here, not theon.

2. There are 13 uses of theon in the Gospel of John. Nine of them clearly use the definite article! (two others are in a series of nouns where the initial article is understood to to apply to the others). Theon in John 10:33 does not have the article and the NWT (and NEB) translate it as "a god."

3. John 1:18 uses both theon and theos - these are not "the same term." An anarthrous accusative count noun (including theon) when used as a direct object and found before its verb is understood to be definite. Therefore the anarthrous theon in 1:18 is properly understood to be 'the god' or God. Theos in 1:18 has no article and is properly rendered "god."]
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
You know, I think its just ignorance. When you see it, it always looks to me like a massive inferiority complex. Look how Trump seethes over Obama.

You'll see it break thru like a thunderclap when an unsuccessful white man sees a black man driving a Porsche.. or some other high ticket car.

I know many religiously fascist groups and one thing they hate is outside information. They vilify alternative viewpoints and discourage members from seeing them. That is why they are ignorant. Information and thought control. That is why they tend to say that evolution is "just a theory" and similar ignorant statements. They fear that they don't have the truth and that their religion could be proven inferior.

Like you, we see the racist aspect of it all the time in South Africa.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
I know many religiously fascist groups and one thing they hate is outside information. They vilify alternative viewpoints and discourage members from seeing them. That is why they are ignorant. Information and thought control. That is why they tend to say that evolution is "just a theory" and similar ignorant statements. They fear that they don't have the truth and that their religion could be proven inferior.

Like you, we see the racist aspect of it all the time in South Africa.

That's what makes it like a cult and why the members have to be isolated from outsiders with better questions and information.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
The word Elohim is the plural of El and is the first name of God given in the Old Testament: “In the beginning, God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth, (Genesis 1:1).

The word is identical to the usual plural of el , meaning gods or magistrates, and is cognate to the ' l-h-m found in Ugaritic , where it is used for the pantheon of Canaanite gods , the children of El, and conventionally vocalized as "Elohim".

In the Ugaritic texts, which is older than the Hebrew Bible, “Elohim” meant “children of El”.

The Ugarit texts describe the ancient Canaanite pantheon of gods, and Elohim was the name of the pantheon. El and his wife Asherah were at the top of the pantheon.

So then would that mean that the Bible is describing the one God as a pantheon or that he is a child of another God in its first use of the term?
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
That's what makes it like a cult and why the members have to be isolated from outsiders with better questions and information.

Yep, very much a cult. As soon as a group says you can't ask questions, research opposing information and engage with opposers then you know that their viewpoints cannot survive being held under scrutiny. They have a problem. If only I knew that years ago!
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Doesn't Elohim translate directly as "Gods"? What is the motivation for people translating the word as "God"?

@Israel Khan said : "Doesn't Elohim translate directly as "Gods"? What is the motivation for people translating the word as "God"? (#106)


Yes, it actually is a word that is in the plural form (“Gods”) .

I’ve heard different theories as to why this plural form is “understood” to be a singular. One hears that is it a “majestic plural” and I’ve heard it was a loaner word borrowed from the early Canaanite origins (i.e. the Hebrews borrowed the term from the Canaanite Gods and used it much like the name Baal was used for the Israelite God at an early stage. Once the name “Baal” became associated with the worship of a Pagan God, then Baal was prohibited to use for Jehovah (Hosea 2:16 (KJV) And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali.) the “I” at the end of Baal, simply makes it possessive (i.e. MY Baal or “my Lord”, etc).

I think that, as Israel moved from Henotheism in their early history to strict monotheism, the tendency to move away from any recognition of any other God grew very strong and thus the motive to move toward seeing the word as a singular. I think this is my favorite theory for now.

There are some words in Hebrew such as “heaven” (“Shawmyim”) which are inherently plural and have no singular form. That is there is no singular form for this word for heaven and it is a dual form (like the word “both” – it indicates two of something). Still, though there is no singular for this word. Heavens (plural) are frequently translated as “heaven” (singular) in the biblical text (The greek texts also often reads "heavens" in the plural despite being rendered in the english as "heaven" -a singular.).


Clear
νεακτζω
 
Last edited:

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The Trinity existed on the day Jesus was born.
You want proof? Read the Bible.
Unfortunately, arguments in that form are wholly insufficient. You're saying, in effect, 'I'm right. Read the Library of Congress and you'll see'; and from that the hearer is bound to conclude that you can't demonstrate your claim, merely assert it.

Once you look at history ─ and I don't understand why you haven't ─ you'll find that the Trinity doctrine didn't exist before the 4th century. It's true that the political desire of the early Christians to elevate Jesus to god status is evident by the third century CE or even earlier, but it didn't find any agreed form until the fourth.

Not only that, but you need to consider the significance of the Trinity doctrine being 'a mystery in the strict sense' ─ the definition of which I gave you, and which can only mean that it's incoherent, a nonsense.

And once you read the NT without assuming it must contain the Trinity, you'll note the significance of the fact that not only does Jesus never once claim to be God, but that through Paul and in all four gospels, he says that there's only one God and that's the God of the Tanakh, whom he calls the Father, and he Jesus is the Father's envoy, and isn't God. I've already given you some of the quotes.
 
Last edited:

calm

Active Member
@blü 2
Many biblical passages prove that Jesus is God.
  1. Jesus is omnipotent (Revelation 1: 8) (Matthew 28:18)
  2. Jesus is called God (John 20:28-29) (Romans 9:5) (1 John 5:20)(Hebrews 1:8)(Isaiah 9:6)
  3. Jesus is the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15)
  4. God became flesh (human) and Jesus is this flesh (John 1: 1 + 14) (1 Timothy 3:16)
  5. Jesus is worshiped (Acts 7:59-60)
  6. Jesus accepts prayers (John 14:13-14)
  7. Jesus and the father are one (John 10:30)
  8. God is the only Redeemer (Isaiah 43:11) = Jesus is the Redeemer (Luke 2:11)
  9. God will judge the world (Psalm 98: 9) = Jesus is the judge (Matthew 25:31-46)
  10. God is the rock (1 Samuel 2:2) = Jesus is the rock (1 Corinthians 10:4)
  11. God is the Lord of Lords (Deuteronomy 10:17) = Jesus is the Lord of Lords (Revelation 19:16)
  12. God is the first and the last (Isaiah 44: 6) = Jesus is the first and the last (Revelation 1:17)
  13. Jesus forgives sins (Mark 2:5)
  14. Jesus demands that one should honor him as one does the father honor (John 5:23)
  15. Jesus is the Creator (Romans 11:36) (Col. 1: 16-17)
  16. Who has seen Jesus, has seen God (John 14:9)
  17. Whoever believes in Jesus believes in God (John 12:44)
Many passages in the Bible prove that the Holy Spirit is a person.
The Bible shows in many places that the Holy Spirit is acting, and that can only be said by one person.
The Holy Spirit ...
• teaches the disciples (Luke 12:12, John 14:26, 1 Cor 2:13)
• recalls the words of the Lord (John 14:26)
• bears witness to God (John 15:26)
• convict the world of sin, justice and judgment (Jn. 16:8-11)
• leads believers into the whole truth (Jn 16:13)
• announce the coming to the disciples (Jn 16:13)
• talks about the things of the God (Jn 16:13)
• glorify Jesus (Jn 16:14).
• speaks to believers (Acts 8:29; 10:19; 11:12; 13:2; 20:23; 21:11; 28:25)
• encourages saints (Acts 9:31)
• prevents disciples from doing anything (Acts 16.6)
• forbids disciples to do anything (Acts 16:7)
• leads the sons(Romans 8:14, Gal 5:18)
• affirm with our spirit that we are children of God (Ro 8:16)
• helps believers in their weakness (Romans 8:26)
• uses God for believers according to (Romans 8:27)
• explore the depths of God (1 Cor 2:10)
• distributes gifts according to His will (1 Cor 12:11)
• writes on flesh-tablets of the heart (2 Cor 3:3)
• foretells the future (1 Tim 4:1)
• witnesses the forgiveness of sins to Christians (Heb. 10:15)
• resting on self-proclaiming Christians (1 Pet 4:14)
• speaks to meetings (Rev 2:7,11,17,29; 3:6,13,22)
• explains the words of God (Rev 14,13)
• call to Jesus(Rev 22,17)

The Scriptures not only show that the Spirit of God is acting, but are also presented as someone with whom something happens.
The Holy Spirit can ...
• to be blasphemed (Mark 3:29, 30)
• be lied to (Acts 5: 3)
• be tried, that is, put to the test (Acts 5: 9)
• to be fought (Acts 7:51)
• be saddened (Eph 4,30)
• reviled (Heb 10:29)

Many passages in the Bible prove that the Holy Spirit is also God.
Many of the quoted scriptures already make it clear that the mind is not just a person but also God. But because this point is so important, I would like to shed some light on it.
First of all, the Spirit is explicitly called the Spirit of God in Holy Scripture (Gen. 1: 2, Mt 3:16).
Acts 5: 3-4 (emphasis added) is very clear: "And Peter said, Ananias, why did Satan fill your heart, that you lied to the Holy Spirit and took away the proceeds of the field? ... You have not lied to humans, but to God. "
more:
• omnipresent (Ps 139,7)
• omniscient (Isa 40,13, 1 Cor 2:11)
• Almighty (Job 26:13)
• sovereign (Jn 3: 8, 1 Cor 12: 4-11)
• eternal (Heb 9.14)


As I said, you pick out biblical passages without considering the whole context, and that's wrong. Anyone can take a passage out of the Bible and interpret anything they want into it.
You ask me to prove. I can't give you any proof except the Bible. The Bible is my only proof.
Whoever looks at the Bible in its entire context will also realize that the Trinity is true.
Read the old testament and the new one. You will find, for example, parallel places. God calls himself the only Savior (Isaiah 43:11) in the Old Testament, In the New Testament we find out that Jesus is the Redeemer (Luke 2:11) . In the Old Testament we find out that it is God who will judge the world (Psalm 98:9) , in the New Testament we see that Jesus is the judge (Matthew 25:31-46) . In the Old Testament we read out that God is the rock (1 Samuel 2:2) , in the New Testament we find out that Jesus is the rock (1 Corinthians 10:4) .
God calls Himself Lord of Lords (Deuteronomy 10:17) in the Old Testament and Jesus gives Himself the same title in the New (Revelation 19:16) . We also read in the Old Testament that God (Isaiah 44:6) is the first and the last, and Jesus later also gives himself this title (Revelation 1:17) . Can there be the two "Lord of Lords" or two "first and last"? No. But why does Jesus give himself titles that belong only to God? Because he is God.
 
Last edited:
Top