in prov 3.21 Solomon's 'son' is called on to 'keep sound wisdom and discretion'. In 4.5 he is told to 'get wisdom, and discretion' and in 4.7, 'wisdom is the principal thing, get wisdom. yes with all you have obtained get understanding.' In verse 11 he says, 'I have taught you in the way of wisdom, I have led you in the paths of uprightness'. It is quite clear that he has in mind wisdom as an attribute along with understanding. The whole of 1-9 is about the wisdom and understanding and discretion that Solomon sought to impart.
Can the Trinity be Biblically proven?
- Thread starter bluto
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Hi Bluto,
Quote from Post 1181:
The Lord of Host is Yeshua/Jesus Christ but He is not an angel. The word in Hebrew for angel is "malak." It has two meanings depending on how it is used in context. It can indeed refer to real angels like Michael or Gabriel but it can also mean "messenger." The angel of the Lord who appears only in the Old Testament
Response: --- I thought we established before that the 'WORD' was the LORD of hosts. and the transition was recorded in Malachi 3:1, from the LORD of hosts, to Christ.
We can establish too, that Christ was not the Lord of HOSTS, but they were both there in the wilderness wanderings with Moses. --- This proves also that Christ was from a different order, and had a different 'role' in the OT, before Jesus was born on earth. --- 1 Corinthians 10:
1 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea,
2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
3 all ate the same spiritual food,
4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.
5 But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.
9 nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents;
And this is very interesting:
Quote: The word in Hebrew for angel is "malak." It has two meanings depending on how it is used in context. It can indeed refer to real angels like Michael or Gabriel. --- I may comment on it later.
Quote from Post 1181:
The Lord of Host is Yeshua/Jesus Christ but He is not an angel. The word in Hebrew for angel is "malak." It has two meanings depending on how it is used in context. It can indeed refer to real angels like Michael or Gabriel but it can also mean "messenger." The angel of the Lord who appears only in the Old Testament
Response: --- I thought we established before that the 'WORD' was the LORD of hosts. and the transition was recorded in Malachi 3:1, from the LORD of hosts, to Christ.
We can establish too, that Christ was not the Lord of HOSTS, but they were both there in the wilderness wanderings with Moses. --- This proves also that Christ was from a different order, and had a different 'role' in the OT, before Jesus was born on earth. --- 1 Corinthians 10:
1 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea,
2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
3 all ate the same spiritual food,
4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.
5 But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.
9 nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents;
And this is very interesting:
Quote: The word in Hebrew for angel is "malak." It has two meanings depending on how it is used in context. It can indeed refer to real angels like Michael or Gabriel. --- I may comment on it later.
Hi again,
Quote from Post 1190:
Now getting back to quasar and him quoting Proverbs 8:22 to prove Jesus Christ was created. First of all the subject of Proverbs 8 is wisdon. And wisdom is identified as a "she" in the chapter. Secondly, the very wisdom by which God acts is divne, it's always with Him. In other words, there was never a time when God was without wisdom. When Jesus Christ is called the wisdom of God at 1 Corithians 1:24 it mean in His humanity the human expression of Jesus Christ is Gods wisdom in action. Remember, Jesus Christ is the physical manifestation of God. So where am I going wrong? Anybody?
Response: --- "There was never a time when God was without wisdom." --- However, it says that 'she,' 'wisdom,' came into being, in Proverbs 22:
23 I (wisdom) have been established from everlasting, From the beginning, before there was ever an earth.
24 When there were no depths I was brought forth, When there were no fountains bounding with water.
25 Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills, I was brought forth;
--- So we see this term used twice, --- "I was brought forth."
24 NIV: When there were no watery depths, I was given birth, when there were no springs overflowing with water;
25 before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth,
24 Amplified: "When there were no ocean depths I was born, When there were no fountains and springs overflowing with water.
25 "Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills, I was born;"
--- So the Scripture says that 'wisdom', -identified as the first to be with God, was 'born,' or 'brought into being' by God, to be with Him, before He created anything by WISDOM.
--- So you can forget the idea that anything was there before 'wisdom,' --- therefore, angels, inhabitable worlds, and mankind, including Christ, and Jesus, had to come into being.later, is that not logical?
Also you will notice that it doesn't mention Jesus in 1 Corinthians 1:
21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe.
22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom;
23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness,
24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
--- So it was Christ, who came from heaven who was the 'Power and Wisdom of God,' while on earth, --- even as He was the Spiritual water from the Rock in Exodus 17:1-6; and Numbers 20:1-13.
Quote from Post 1190:
Now getting back to quasar and him quoting Proverbs 8:22 to prove Jesus Christ was created. First of all the subject of Proverbs 8 is wisdon. And wisdom is identified as a "she" in the chapter. Secondly, the very wisdom by which God acts is divne, it's always with Him. In other words, there was never a time when God was without wisdom. When Jesus Christ is called the wisdom of God at 1 Corithians 1:24 it mean in His humanity the human expression of Jesus Christ is Gods wisdom in action. Remember, Jesus Christ is the physical manifestation of God. So where am I going wrong? Anybody?
Response: --- "There was never a time when God was without wisdom." --- However, it says that 'she,' 'wisdom,' came into being, in Proverbs 22:
23 I (wisdom) have been established from everlasting, From the beginning, before there was ever an earth.
24 When there were no depths I was brought forth, When there were no fountains bounding with water.
25 Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills, I was brought forth;
--- So we see this term used twice, --- "I was brought forth."
24 NIV: When there were no watery depths, I was given birth, when there were no springs overflowing with water;
25 before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth,
24 Amplified: "When there were no ocean depths I was born, When there were no fountains and springs overflowing with water.
25 "Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills, I was born;"
--- So the Scripture says that 'wisdom', -identified as the first to be with God, was 'born,' or 'brought into being' by God, to be with Him, before He created anything by WISDOM.
--- So you can forget the idea that anything was there before 'wisdom,' --- therefore, angels, inhabitable worlds, and mankind, including Christ, and Jesus, had to come into being.later, is that not logical?
Also you will notice that it doesn't mention Jesus in 1 Corinthians 1:
21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe.
22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom;
23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness,
24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
--- So it was Christ, who came from heaven who was the 'Power and Wisdom of God,' while on earth, --- even as He was the Spiritual water from the Rock in Exodus 17:1-6; and Numbers 20:1-13.
I can hardly believe that all the pages we've covered have not brought us to some conclusions, --- so I want to ask some questions.
Do you believe that "Jesus was born in Bethlehem in the days of Herod the King," as Matthew records in Matthew 2:1?
Do you believe that the Greek Historian Luke gave an accurate account of the Birth of Jesus in Luke 1?
And it speaks of the birth of Jesus and the reason for His birth in Galatians 4:
4 "But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons."
And it gives the reason why Jesus came in a flesh and blood body in Hebrews 2:
9 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.
14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,
15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. --- (To people.)
17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted."
Some 'trins' have said that Jesus had to be God to save us, --- but that is not what the Scripture says. --- Just the opposite. Jesus had to be human, in a flesh and blood body to be our Savior. --- They do say "Jesus was 100% human."
Do you believe that?
Again in Hebrews 4:
14 "Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.
16 Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need."
And again in Hebrews 8:
1 "Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,
2 a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man."
--- So this says that Jesus, our High Priest, after the order of Malchizedek, --- is seated in the new Sanctuary in heaven.
--- Do you believe what the Scriptures say?
Do you have an explanation for why God said, "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin"?
And "Where did Satan and sin originate"? --- These are pertinent questions concerning 'the beginnings' that are argued about, to establish the faulty doctrine of trinity, are they not?
Do you believe that "Jesus was born in Bethlehem in the days of Herod the King," as Matthew records in Matthew 2:1?
Do you believe that the Greek Historian Luke gave an accurate account of the Birth of Jesus in Luke 1?
And it speaks of the birth of Jesus and the reason for His birth in Galatians 4:
4 "But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons."
And it gives the reason why Jesus came in a flesh and blood body in Hebrews 2:
9 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.
14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,
15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. --- (To people.)
17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted."
Some 'trins' have said that Jesus had to be God to save us, --- but that is not what the Scripture says. --- Just the opposite. Jesus had to be human, in a flesh and blood body to be our Savior. --- They do say "Jesus was 100% human."
Do you believe that?
Again in Hebrews 4:
14 "Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.
16 Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need."
And again in Hebrews 8:
1 "Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,
2 a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man."
--- So this says that Jesus, our High Priest, after the order of Malchizedek, --- is seated in the new Sanctuary in heaven.
--- Do you believe what the Scriptures say?
Do you have an explanation for why God said, "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin"?
And "Where did Satan and sin originate"? --- These are pertinent questions concerning 'the beginnings' that are argued about, to establish the faulty doctrine of trinity, are they not?
If the LORD Jesus Christ had been less than God His death would not have been sufficient to redeem us from sin. Indeed His offering would have been unsatisfactory. He could not have borne the punishment for the sins of the whole world. Why was it right that He die for us, because He made us and therefore could take the responsibility for our sins. Why was his sacrifice sufficient ? Because He was the infinite One dying for the finite.
He was both 100% God and 100% Man
So He had been made man. But he was God made man,
We must ask, do you? In His manhood He sat at the right hand of the Father. In His Godhead He sat in the midst of His throne, both symbolic pictures. (Rev 3.21; 5.6). He was the outshining of His glory, and the stamped out image of His person.
,
Because He was looking forward to the shedding of the blood of His own Son, which alone could be satisfactory for the whole world's sin.
They have nothing to say about the triunity of God. Jesus Christ was delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of the triune God.
But God has not revealed it to you, and you are lost in your sins. At your age I would not be placid if I were you.
He was both 100% God and 100% Man
So He had been made man. But he was God made man,
We must ask, do you? In His manhood He sat at the right hand of the Father. In His Godhead He sat in the midst of His throne, both symbolic pictures. (Rev 3.21; 5.6). He was the outshining of His glory, and the stamped out image of His person.
,
Because He was looking forward to the shedding of the blood of His own Son, which alone could be satisfactory for the whole world's sin.
They have nothing to say about the triunity of God. Jesus Christ was delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of the triune God.
But God has not revealed it to you, and you are lost in your sins. At your age I would not be placid if I were you.
Hi placid! I have not forgotten about the issues we are discussing. I actually took the weekend off from posting to take care of other business. Now, you still have not admitted that Jesus Christ is the Lord God Almighty in our discussions. I tried to tell you that the "Word/Logos" is Jesus Christ who is not only with God but is God according to John 1:1.
You keep speaking all around that fact by contradicting yourself. You just said here in this post the following: "I thought we established before that the 'WORD' was the LORD of hosts. and the transition was recorded in Malachi 3:1, from the LORD of hosts, to Christ." Where did you get the idea of this so-called transition from Malachi 3:1?
Since Jesus Christ is the "Word/Logos" who is God according to John 1:1 and He created all things that have been created according to John 1:3 what need would there be for this transition your talking about? In one breath you say Jesus was created and not God Almighty and then in the next breath you say He is the Lord of Host? This is the dilema you have made for yourself which cannot be reconciled because your giving two opposing propositions. In other words, they both cannot be true, only one of them can be true.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
You keep speaking all around that fact by contradicting yourself. You just said here in this post the following: "I thought we established before that the 'WORD' was the LORD of hosts. and the transition was recorded in Malachi 3:1, from the LORD of hosts, to Christ." Where did you get the idea of this so-called transition from Malachi 3:1?
Since Jesus Christ is the "Word/Logos" who is God according to John 1:1 and He created all things that have been created according to John 1:3 what need would there be for this transition your talking about? In one breath you say Jesus was created and not God Almighty and then in the next breath you say He is the Lord of Host? This is the dilema you have made for yourself which cannot be reconciled because your giving two opposing propositions. In other words, they both cannot be true, only one of them can be true.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Has the Trinity Doctrine been added into scripture?
John 1:18 HCSB: No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son—the One who is at the Father’s side—He has revealed Him.
John 1:18 NIV: 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.
Just a little bit of Trinitarian flavor added to the NIV translation. I’m sure no one’s doctrine could possibly be affected by such a “subtle” change though…
Ephesians 3:9 HCSB: and to shed light for all about the administration of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things
Ephesians 3:9 KJV: And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ
I wonder how the “who created all things by Jesus Christ” magically appeared in scripture?
1 Timothy 3:16 NASB: By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, was vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.
1 Timothy 3:16 KJV: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
The original Greek word “who” was changed to the word “God” to further backup a Trinitarian ideology about Jesus being God. This shows how a preconceived doctrine can affect the outcome of a translation. It’s no wonder why so many believe that “God” was manifest in the flesh…rather than Christ.
1 John 5:7 HCSB: For there are three that testify:
1 John 5:7 KJV: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Why is it, that the “these three are one” entries didn’t start originating until the 16’th century? Why is it, that none of the earlier manuscripts contained this rendering? Why is it, that Erasmus had to be pressured to change his original translation to that of which the Catholic Church desired? What a strange pattern I’m seeing here.
Matthew 24:36 HCSB: Now concerning that day and hour no one knows—neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son—except the Father only.
Matthew 24:36 KJV: But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
Odd how “nor the Son” was removed from this verse. I guess it would somewhat contradict the Trinitarian Doctrine of a Co-Equal Godhead if the Father knows things that the Son does not…best they remove that part.
You see, this type of editing is found throughout many different translations and passages of the Bible, just to push a Trinitarian understanding of scripture. This is also why John 1:1 is worded in a way that makes you think Jesus and God are one and the same.
However, John actually said in John 1:1, Jesus was with “the” God. It’s called the definite article, and it was used only in front of the word Theon. Then, instead of just using the same word for God “Theon”, John purposely uses the word “Theos” to describe what the “Word” was.
Why wouldn’t John just use Theon to describe both the Word and God if indeed he was trying to convey that they are both one and the same? Turns out that Theos can also mean a divine person, a deity, or a god. Don’t just take my word for it though, look it up in an interlinear translation for yourself.
John 1:18 HCSB: No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son—the One who is at the Father’s side—He has revealed Him.
John 1:18 NIV: 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.
Just a little bit of Trinitarian flavor added to the NIV translation. I’m sure no one’s doctrine could possibly be affected by such a “subtle” change though…
Ephesians 3:9 HCSB: and to shed light for all about the administration of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things
Ephesians 3:9 KJV: And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ
I wonder how the “who created all things by Jesus Christ” magically appeared in scripture?
1 Timothy 3:16 NASB: By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, was vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.
1 Timothy 3:16 KJV: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
The original Greek word “who” was changed to the word “God” to further backup a Trinitarian ideology about Jesus being God. This shows how a preconceived doctrine can affect the outcome of a translation. It’s no wonder why so many believe that “God” was manifest in the flesh…rather than Christ.
1 John 5:7 HCSB: For there are three that testify:
1 John 5:7 KJV: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Why is it, that the “these three are one” entries didn’t start originating until the 16’th century? Why is it, that none of the earlier manuscripts contained this rendering? Why is it, that Erasmus had to be pressured to change his original translation to that of which the Catholic Church desired? What a strange pattern I’m seeing here.
Matthew 24:36 HCSB: Now concerning that day and hour no one knows—neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son—except the Father only.
Matthew 24:36 KJV: But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
Odd how “nor the Son” was removed from this verse. I guess it would somewhat contradict the Trinitarian Doctrine of a Co-Equal Godhead if the Father knows things that the Son does not…best they remove that part.
You see, this type of editing is found throughout many different translations and passages of the Bible, just to push a Trinitarian understanding of scripture. This is also why John 1:1 is worded in a way that makes you think Jesus and God are one and the same.
However, John actually said in John 1:1, Jesus was with “the” God. It’s called the definite article, and it was used only in front of the word Theon. Then, instead of just using the same word for God “Theon”, John purposely uses the word “Theos” to describe what the “Word” was.
Why wouldn’t John just use Theon to describe both the Word and God if indeed he was trying to convey that they are both one and the same? Turns out that Theos can also mean a divine person, a deity, or a god. Don’t just take my word for it though, look it up in an interlinear translation for yourself.
The Bible, Jesus and His disciples teach the following, not a bogus Trinity:
Beginning with: God is Spirit according to: Jn.1:18; Rom.1:20; 2 Cor.3:17-18; Col.1:15; 1 Tim.1:17; 1 Tim.6:16 Heb.11.27 and 1 Jn.4:12. That no one has ever seen Him and that He is invisible, are found in Jn.1:18; Rom.1:20; Col.1:15; 1 Tim.1:17; Heb.11:27 [Moses, Abraham and Jacob all saw the pre-incarnate Jesus, not God, the invisible Holy Spirit] and in 1 Jn.4:12.
God is Holy: God, who is Spirit according to the Scriptures, is also Holy, according to Lev.11:44-45; Lev.19:2; Ps.99:3; Ps.99:5 and 1 Pet.1:15-16.
Therefore, according to the Scriptures, there is no option to the fact, God is the Holy Spirit!
There was only one God throughout the entire OT according to Isa.43:10; 44:6 and 45:5. Which rules out Jesus being co-eternal with God, the Holy Spirit. The Scriptural description of his origin is addressed below. It can be described as Jesus auto-biography, written by king Solomon as inspired by the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is also the Father of Jesus according to Mt.1:20, Lk.1:35 and Acts 13:33.
The Holy Spirit, who is our One and Only God [Isa.43:10 and 44:6], not only stated He was the Father of Israel , in Dt.32:6, but also prophecied He was going to be the Father of a Son, in: 2 Sam.7:14; 1 Chr.17:13 and in Ps.2:7. Which was fulfilled in Mt.1:20, Lk.1:35 and Acts 13:33. Therefore, there is no option to the Scriptural fact: God, the Holy Spirit was/is the Father of Jesus Christ. And gave a body to the pre-incarnate spirit of Jesus, by the virgin Mary, Confirming Jn.1:14 and Heb.10:5.
The pre-incarnate spirit of Jesus then became the incarnate Son of God in Lk.1:35, and received His name, Jesus, in Lk.1:31. Literally, God the Son, fulfilling the prophecy of the Holy Spirit, in Ps.45:6-7, 110:1 and Isa.7:14. Empowered to give/baptize with the Holy Spirit, according to Mt.3:11; Mk.1:8; Lk.3:16; Jn.1:33 and Acts 2:1-3. To perform 36 miracles, of raising some from the dead, healing people with leprosy and other terminal illnesses as well as the blind and the deaf. Which no normal human being could ever do.
The title, "Father," given to God, the Holy Spirit, is nothing more than the very same title all men receive who produce children of their own! It does not constitute making God, who is the Holy Spirit, two persons through the use of His title as Father, trinitarians attempt to do! Which is the reason why Mt.28:19 is bogus, because it was obviously altered by unscrupulous scribes obsessed with belief in the doctrine of the Trinity. In addition 1 Jn.5:7 was a late Latin insert on, around the 11th or 12th centuries that never appeared in any of the earlier Greek manuscripts.
The altered Mt.28:19 and 1 Jn.5:7:The Scriptures reveal, God to be the Holy Spirit and the Father [His title] of Jesus Christ. Therefore the use of the term Father wih the Holy Spirit by trinitarians as two persons [together with the Son, as their truine formula] is in error, because the Father is the Holy Spirit, one person, not two! In addition to the fact: A. The Son did not exist in the OT. B. The pre-incarnate spirit who later became Jesus, was created, according to Pr.8:22-36, as documented above, and confirmed in Col.1:15 as the firstborn over all creation.
Quasar92
The oldest papyrus and ms have 'only begotten God' (p66 (200 AD), aleph, B) as have the Syriac peshitta, Irenaus (some), Origen and Hieronymous. That would seem even more to support the triunity of God. The 'subtle change' is based on this,
KJV is based on late ms. But I do not see any difficulty with this, even for you. You are just looking for issues,
It is not a question of translation but of which MS you follow. The corrector of Aleph and A, plus K. L, P, Psai, and 69 have God was manifest. aleph, G and D have Who was manifest,
Most of use agree that this verse should not be in. But it is found quite early in Latin Ms. So there is no pattern just this last one introduced very late.
This would only be supported by the KJVers.
Not through many different translations, just KJV. You exaggerate as usual.
No it is worded IN THE GREEK to bring out that the Word is part of God. ' In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was face to face with God, and what God was the Word was,'
.
LOL you obviously don't know Greek. theos is nominative, theon is accusative. Same word.
Because in the first case it was the subject of the sentence (theos) in the second case the object of the sentence, an accusative (theon).
The only way we can tell it is the accusative is because it was theON. It comes first in the clause. The clause means the Word was of the stuff of Godhead. Any Greek scholar would explain it,
The Greek means the Word was of the stuff of God.
KJV is based on late ms. But I do not see any difficulty with this, even for you. You are just looking for issues,
It is not a question of translation but of which MS you follow. The corrector of Aleph and A, plus K. L, P, Psai, and 69 have God was manifest. aleph, G and D have Who was manifest,
Most of use agree that this verse should not be in. But it is found quite early in Latin Ms. So there is no pattern just this last one introduced very late.
This would only be supported by the KJVers.
Not through many different translations, just KJV. You exaggerate as usual.
No it is worded IN THE GREEK to bring out that the Word is part of God. ' In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was face to face with God, and what God was the Word was,'
.
LOL you obviously don't know Greek. theos is nominative, theon is accusative. Same word.
Because in the first case it was the subject of the sentence (theos) in the second case the object of the sentence, an accusative (theon).
The only way we can tell it is the accusative is because it was theON. It comes first in the clause. The clause means the Word was of the stuff of Godhead. Any Greek scholar would explain it,
The Greek means the Word was of the stuff of God.
Ok jaybird, let's test your statement by me asking you the following question? Where in the entire Bible are "three" and no more than three persons are identified as God? Just give me some verses that explicitly say God the Father is God, the Son of God is God and the Holy Spirit is God and yet there is only one God?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Ok sword, since you beleive the Bible has been corrupted and changed to support the Trinity I have a question for you? I would like you to pick any Bible OF YOUR CHOOSING that is not bias to the Trinity nor teaches that the three persons of the Trinity are not identified as God? :EEK:
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Hi Valiant,
Responding to Post 1205:
Yes, we understand the teaching of the trinity doctrine, --- but in following the Scriptures we find the clear plan of Salvation given in the Gospels. --- And the doctrine of the Apostles in the Book of Acts, that doesn't teach trinity. --- We go on from there to the practical teaching of Peter and Paul, John and James, in the New Testament, where we are instructed in living a Christian life.
Bluto is quite generous in saying that belief in the trinity is not necessary for salvation, --- However, you seem to indicate that my salvation might be in jeopardy because I believe what the Bible teaches.
My question about the reason God requires a 'sacrifice of blood for the remission of sin,' goes back to the animal sacrifices in the OT. --- Animals were regularly offered to God on the altar, on behalf of the people. --- In some cases they were burnt offerings, but in most cases the animal was killed and drained of blood, then offered as a 'bloodless' sacrifice. --- The meat was then roasted and used by the priests and attendants as food, or given to the poor.
--- I was really asking, "Where did it originate?
Responding to Post 1205:
Yes, we understand the teaching of the trinity doctrine, --- but in following the Scriptures we find the clear plan of Salvation given in the Gospels. --- And the doctrine of the Apostles in the Book of Acts, that doesn't teach trinity. --- We go on from there to the practical teaching of Peter and Paul, John and James, in the New Testament, where we are instructed in living a Christian life.
Bluto is quite generous in saying that belief in the trinity is not necessary for salvation, --- However, you seem to indicate that my salvation might be in jeopardy because I believe what the Bible teaches.
My question about the reason God requires a 'sacrifice of blood for the remission of sin,' goes back to the animal sacrifices in the OT. --- Animals were regularly offered to God on the altar, on behalf of the people. --- In some cases they were burnt offerings, but in most cases the animal was killed and drained of blood, then offered as a 'bloodless' sacrifice. --- The meat was then roasted and used by the priests and attendants as food, or given to the poor.
--- I was really asking, "Where did it originate?
Hi Bluto,
Quote from 1206:
Since Jesus Christ is the "Word/Logos" who is God according to John 1:1 and He created all things that have been created according to John 1:3 what need would there be for this transition your talking about? In one breath you say Jesus was created and not God Almighty and then in the next breath you say He is the Lord of Host?
Response: --- It is you who says 'Jesus Christ is the Word,' but the Bible doesn't say that. --- I had shown that the Word, who was God in John 1:1, was the Word in John 1:3 'through whom all things were made.'
Christ was a seprate being in the heavenlies who came to earth on different occasions. --- They speak of the 'pre-incarnate Christ' who appeared different places in history before Malachi 3:1 where:
--- The LORD of hosts said, "I am coming," --- and after explaining the coming of the Messiah, the LORD of hosts said, "He is coming."
In Malachi it identifies the 'LORD' of hosts with capitals to indicate God, --- and the transition was to the 'Lord' Jesus Christ. --- Christ came from heaven, but Jesus was born on earth, according to the Scriptures.
--- Your thought that Jesus is God is all from your teaching of trinity, so go with it if you like. --- But if that is all extra to the Scriptures, then you are on your own, are you not?
--- Do you ever in your deepest prayer to God ask Him to guide you to the truth. --- If the Holy Spirit guides you in believing it as you do, though it adds to Scripture, --- then that is what to believe. --- But if the Holy Spirit guides you to study the 'fundamental' teaching of the Scriptures, then you should examine that, should you not?
--- You, as a trinitarian, can acknowledge that others are Christians, but see what the teaching does to others, who have said, as someone said to me, "If you don't believe Jesus is God you are going to hell."
Quote from 1206:
Since Jesus Christ is the "Word/Logos" who is God according to John 1:1 and He created all things that have been created according to John 1:3 what need would there be for this transition your talking about? In one breath you say Jesus was created and not God Almighty and then in the next breath you say He is the Lord of Host?
Response: --- It is you who says 'Jesus Christ is the Word,' but the Bible doesn't say that. --- I had shown that the Word, who was God in John 1:1, was the Word in John 1:3 'through whom all things were made.'
Christ was a seprate being in the heavenlies who came to earth on different occasions. --- They speak of the 'pre-incarnate Christ' who appeared different places in history before Malachi 3:1 where:
--- The LORD of hosts said, "I am coming," --- and after explaining the coming of the Messiah, the LORD of hosts said, "He is coming."
In Malachi it identifies the 'LORD' of hosts with capitals to indicate God, --- and the transition was to the 'Lord' Jesus Christ. --- Christ came from heaven, but Jesus was born on earth, according to the Scriptures.
--- Your thought that Jesus is God is all from your teaching of trinity, so go with it if you like. --- But if that is all extra to the Scriptures, then you are on your own, are you not?
--- Do you ever in your deepest prayer to God ask Him to guide you to the truth. --- If the Holy Spirit guides you in believing it as you do, though it adds to Scripture, --- then that is what to believe. --- But if the Holy Spirit guides you to study the 'fundamental' teaching of the Scriptures, then you should examine that, should you not?
--- You, as a trinitarian, can acknowledge that others are Christians, but see what the teaching does to others, who have said, as someone said to me, "If you don't believe Jesus is God you are going to hell."
Hi bluto, I don’t believe the bible as a whole has been corrupted or changed, just some key areas that I showed you. In fact, the vast majority of English translations are very accurate. The problems tend to arise with verses dealing with a Triune God. There is no “single” translation that I could say is 100% accurate to the Greek…simply because that would depend of which Greek manuscript you use, as well as which doctrinal body has their fingerprints on the translation. Most translations we use today are heavily influenced by the Trinitarian community…as I just showed.
J
you base this on a passage full of controversy?
it is proven the other Father Son, Spirit passage was an add in, so we have no 2 witnesses to this one.
the 12 never once baptized this way.
early church fathers never quoted this passage in the first trin debates.
and no pre rome text to confirm the passage.
and most important this passage is about teaching others and baptizing. its not a revelation of the different natures of the Most High.
it is proven the other Father Son, Spirit passage was an add in, so we have no 2 witnesses to this one.
the 12 never once baptized this way.
early church fathers never quoted this passage in the first trin debates.
and no pre rome text to confirm the passage.
and most important this passage is about teaching others and baptizing. its not a revelation of the different natures of the Most High.