There Are Many Scriptures That Disprove The Trinity

homwardbound · May 1, 2014

Jesus, I believe to be God, yet Jesus never claimed himself to be, he gives all credit to Father, and Father gives all credit to him. Humility is a key to understand and see and for us as mankind to give up being the center as Christ did and does along with Father doing this very same back, care to join in on praise and worship in Spirit and truth?

homwardbound · May 1, 2014

Bowman said:

Exodus 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

homwardbound · May 1, 2014

Re: There is One God the Father, Jesus is the Son of God

Bowman said:

They give praises to Father and Son, and Father and Son give praises back, worship true in Spirit and truth is not being the center, while yet one might be in the center and that one does not praise self ever

Bowman · May 1, 2014

Re: There is One God the Father, Jesus is the Son of God

TrevorL said:

Malek Yahweh stopped appearing in the NT because He was then known as The Son of God, Jesus Christ.

A little further context would have solved your dilemma, brother.

Don't be afraid to read the context...

Malek Yahweh swears by Himself

Hebrews 6.11 - 14

But we desire each of you to show the same eagerness, to the full assurance of the hope to the end; that you not become dull, but imitators of those who through faith and longsuffering are inheriting the promises. For God having made promise to Abraham, since He had no one greater to swear by, "He swore by Himself," saying, "Surely blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply you." (Gen. 22.16, 17)

From...

Gen 22.15 - 18

And the Malek Yahweh called to Abraham out of the heavens a second time. And He said, I have sworn by Myself, declares Yahweh, that on account of this thing you have done, and have not withheld your son, your only son, that blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is on the shore of the sea. And your Seed shall possess the gate of His enemies. And in your Seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed because you have obeyed My voice.

Malek Yahweh speaks as Yahweh because He IS Yahweh.

You are reading your own Unitarian world-view into the text.

Proper worship is via The Trinity.

Period.

TrevorL · May 2, 2014

Re: There is One God the Father, Jesus is the Son of God

On Page 101 Post #2015 I considered the various “I am” passages of John’s Gospel. The purpose of this was mainly to examine the meaning of the “I AM” passage of John 8:58. Many consider that this passage is quoting and alluding to Exodus 3:14 “I AM THAT I AM”. The following is a consideration of Exodus 3:14, not only to determine the meaning of this passage, but also to check if Exodus 3:14 is linked with John 8:58.

The Name of God was revealed to Moses in the following terms:
Exodus 3:14-15 (KJV): 14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. 15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

Most translations and commentators accept the present tense “I am that I am”, but notice in the margin of the RV (or ASV) and RSV, an alternative is given “I will be that I will be” or “I will be what I will be”, showing that some modern scholars suggest this alternative reading. Although not popular it appears that this future tense is the correct translation. Not only modern scholars, Tyndale also translated this in the future tense.
Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you.

The word “ehyeh” is the same in the earlier statement, and here the translators give the future tense:
Exodus 3:12 (KJV): And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain.
Not only does this fix the tense, it also introduces the concept that the Name of God is also associated with some future activity.

This future tense and future activity was to be God acting to deliver Israel out of Egypt, so that Israel would become a people for His Name. They would be a living witness to the purpose of God, and a witness to the existence of God. The following passage emphasises this future work in delivering Israel with the future aspect of the Name:
Exodus 6:1-8 (KJV): 1 Then the LORD said unto Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh: for with a strong hand shall he let them go, and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land. 2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: 3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH (or Yahweh) was I not known to them. 4 And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers. 5 And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant. 6 Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments: 7 And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. 8 And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the LORD.

When Israel was delivered out of Egypt the Name of God remains the same, but the particular activity has been accomplished:
Exodus 15:1-3 (KJV): 1 Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the LORD, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. 2 The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father’s God, and I will exalt him. 3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
The future tense of God’s Name “He will be or become” has been accomplished, and Yahweh had become Israel’s salvation.

But this was not the ultimate completion of the Yahweh Name. God’s purpose with the earth was not complete with the salvation of Israel out of Egypt. God’s purpose was declared in the following, but sadly this was spoken at a time when the very generation that had been born through God’s deliverance failed.
Numbers 14:21 (KJV): But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD.

The above raises the question of how and when will the earth be filled with the glory of God. One indication is found when the Psalmist uses the same words as Moses’ Song to speak of another deliverance:
Psalm 118:14-25 (KJV): 14 The LORD is my strength and song, and is become my salvation. 15 The voice of rejoicing and salvation is in the tabernacles of the righteous: the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly. 16 The right hand of the LORD is exalted: the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly. 17 I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the LORD. 18 The LORD hath chastened me sore: but he hath not given me over unto death. 19 Open to me the gates of righteousness: I will go into them, and I will praise the LORD: 20 This gate of the LORD, into which the righteous shall enter. 21 I will praise thee: for thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation. 22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. 23 This is the LORD’S doing; it is marvellous in our eyes. 24 This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it. 25 Save now, I beseech thee, O LORD: O LORD, I beseech thee, send now prosperity.

The above is quoted at length to show that there was to be a greater salvation in fulfillment of the Yahweh Name. It is evident from the context that this salvation is by means of the crucifixion, death and resurrection of the man of God’s right hand, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

The greater deliverance is revealed even in the conception and birth of the child:
Matthew 1:20-21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

The meaning of the name Jesus is revealed: “for he shall save his people from their sins”. Was Jesus to be an independent Saviour? No, the name Jesus incorporates the Yahweh Name, Je-sous, Jo-shua, or Yah-oshea. He was to be Yahweh’s Salvation. Here then is the extension or fulfillment of the Yahweh Name, Yahweh was to be, to become. He was to “become salvation” Exodus 15:2, in and through Jesus, the Son of God. Yahweh is the Saviour, Jesus is the Saviour. In other words Yahweh, God the Father is the Saviour through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Yahweh has become salvation.

Salvation is now offered in the Name of Jesus Christ:
Acts 4:10-12 (KJV): 10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Kind regards
Trevor

homwardbound · May 2, 2014

· 2 Corinthians 4:4
in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

· 2 Corinthians 4:6
For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

· 2 Corinthians 4:6
For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
· 2 Corinthians 5:20
Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
John 10:30

I and the Father are one.”
John 17:21 My prayer for all of them is that they will be of one heart and mind, just as you and I are, Father—that just as you are in me and I am in you, so they will be in us, and the world will believe you sent me.

homwardbound · May 2, 2014

Re: There is One God the Father, Jesus is the Son of God

And then guess what one becomes one and one again in Father and Son The Holy Spirit of truth our connector to teach us this truth as another one joins by belief
1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1================ One, even though there are many
praying this helps as when we get married the two shall be one

heavenlyparadise · May 2, 2014

The trinity is merely a theory of God's identity. How much human can know about God's essence.
Why did catholic churches use this theory as a sword to kill those who did not accept?
The only reason was to control believers and put them under their power, under this futile unreasonable stupid theory.
With this theory, they gave authority to go up to the same hight of the salvation doctrine throne and put it on the right side of salvation.
Since then, this man-made theory has been ruled as a king(false king) with name,,,"mystery of God",,
This trinity theory is one of the biggest shameful, darkest ignorant power attributed to the confusion about the TRUE GOD.

heavenlyparadise · May 2, 2014

The catholic authorities in early time, they put the God onto the surgery room and operated the face of God to fix God's identity.
They finally created a new god, who obey the human masters to dominate the whole world.
With this god who had been a facial plastic surgical operation, the catholic authorities empowered with political force ruled whole world. Since then, The name of God in bible has changed from The Jesus's God to the God of trinity.
But, Jesus himself worships his God, the only Father. And Holy spirit is God's nature.

Bowman · May 2, 2014

heavenlyparadise said:

Where....?

mosestz · May 14, 2014

The doctrine of the Trinity was first thoroughly and formally articulated in the fourth century in response to perceived distortions of biblical teaching on the subject, but the fundamental beliefs of the doctrine can be seen from the first century. And while no systematic presentation of the doctrine can be found in [COLOR=#9040AD !important]the New Testament, Christians argue that it can be shown that the Bible teaches that the Father is God, the Son, Jesus Christ, is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, all the while affirming that there is but one God.[/COLOR]
Hints of Trinitarian beliefs can also be seen in the teachings of extra-biblical writers as early as the end of the first century. 2 However, the fullest early expression of the concept came with Tertullian, a Latin theologian who wrote in the early third century. Tertullian coined the words "Trinity" and "person" and explained that the the Bible taught that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were "one in essence - not one in Person."

i this i believe in trinity, i believe in Jesus, i believe in God, holy spirit and i believe in Christianity albeit i don't believe inn most of to days christian doctrines, they are full of contradictions, lies and controversal

TrevorL · May 16, 2014

Greetings mosestz,

mosestz said:

I was interested in your Post concerning the teaching of Tertullian, and the claim that the Trinity was essentially the belief from the 1st Century onwards. My personal belief is that the Trinity is not taught in the Scriptures, but rather the Scriptures teach that there is one God the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

I have never studied what happened in the 1st – 5th Centuries. Part of my interest in books is to collect resources and books relevant to Biblical subjects. As well as Internet resources, I visit 2nd hand bookshops and book sales. One book I picked up years ago deals with the subject of the development of the Trinity, or rather the development of the belief from the early belief that Jesus was a man, the Son of God to the belief that Jesus is God, and also the 2nd Person of the Trinity. The following are a few extracts that I found interesting. I would welcome any comments from those who have studied some of the writings of the 1st - 5th Centuries, and thus able to assess some of what this writer has stated.

History of the Dogma of the Deity of Christ by A Reville 1904 (from translation 1905)
The following quotations are not an endorsement of all that the above author says, but a guide to some of his book, especially in areas I consider interesting or important from my position. It is hoped that as a historian he is to some extent impartial. My sympathies would go possibly to a smaller group mentioned in the following quotations on pages 54 and 96 who could represent the remnant who stood apart from the apostasy that was prophesied Acts 20:28-32. I have underlined some portions.

Page 4: The maxim of Vincent de Leyrins, more boastful than true, ‘the Church, when it employs new terms, never says anything new’, influenced the entire history of Christianity; philosophers and submissive believers were equally satisfied with it.

After a brief summary of the doctrine of the Trinity he says:
Page 9: Such is the doctrine which, having been slowly elaborated, arrived at supremacy in the Christian Church towards the end of the fifth century, and which, after continuing undisputed, excepting in connection with some obscure heresies, for eleven centuries, has been gradually from the sixteenth century losing its prestige, although it is still the professed belief of the majority of Christians.

Page 10: … the religious sentiment … is not in the least alarmed at contradictions; on the contrary, there are times when it might be said that it seeks and delights in them. They seem to strengthen the impression of mystery, an attitude which belongs to every object of adoration.

Speaking of the developments in the second century:
Page 54: … the ‘celestial being’ increasingly supplanted the human being, except among the Jewish-Christians of the primitive type … These firmly maintained the opinion that Jesus was a man, … fully inspired by God … admitted his miraculous conception.

Page 59: The Platonists began to furnish brilliant recruits to the churches of Asia and Greece, and introduced among them their love of system and their idealism. To state the facts in a few words, Hellenism insensibly supplanted Judaism as the form of Christian thought, and to this is mainly owing the orthodox dogma of the deity of Jesus Christ.

Page 60: Hence the rapidity with which a philosphical doctrine of much earlier origin than Christianity, and at first foreign to the Church, was brought into it, and adapted itself so completely to the prevailing Christology as to become identical therewith, and to pass for the belief which had been professed by the disciples from the beginning.

Page 96: There were some Jewish-Christians who admitted without difficulty the miraculous birth of Jesus, but would not hear of his pre-existence.

Page 105: It is curious to read the incredible subtleties by which Athanasius and the orthodox theologians strove to remove the stumbling-block from the history of a dogma which they desired to represent as having been invariable and complete since the earliest days.

Page 108-109: … the minds of men … either inclined to lay great stress upon the subordination of the Son, in order to keep as close as possible to the facts of Gospel history, or they dwelt strongly upon his divinity, in order to satisfy an ardent piety, which felt as if it could not exalt Christ too highly. From this sprang two doctrines, that of Arius and of Athanasius. In reality, though under other forms, it was a renewal of the struggle between rationalism and mysticism.

Page 115: In reality, Arius, whose character and doctrine have been unjustly vilified by orthodox historians, was stating the ecclesiastical doctrine that had been in common acceptance.

Speaking of the Nicene Creed:
Page 121: … the majority of the council would have preferred a middle course, maintaining the traditional idea of the subordination of the Son to the Father, while ascribing to the Son as much divine attributes as they could without openly passing this limit.

Page 124: Arianism, which had been overcome by the imperial will more than by the free judgement of the bishops, retained its power in the churches.

Page 126: People did not believe at that period in the infallibility of councils. The West alone remained firm in adhesion to the faith of Nicea.

Page 136: The Arian party, representing as it did the opposition to ecclesiastical authority and dogmatising mysticism, was the party generally preferred by the freer minds. It was consequently the least united. For the same reason was it the most opposed to the ascetic, monkish, and superstitious customs which more and more pervaded the church.

Kind regards
Trevor

ThomistColin · May 16, 2014

TrevorL said:

Greetings mosestz,
I was interested in your Post concerning the teaching of Tertullian, and the claim that the Trinity was essentially the belief from the 1st Century onwards. My personal belief is that the Trinity is not taught in the Scriptures, but rather the Scriptures teach that there is one God the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

I have never studied what happened in the 1st – 5th Centuries. Part of my interest in books is to collect resources and books relevant to Biblical subjects. As well as Internet resources, I visit 2nd hand bookshops and book sales. One book I picked up years ago deals with the subject of the development of the Trinity, or rather the development of the belief from the early belief that Jesus was a man, the Son of God to the belief that Jesus is God, and also the 2nd Person of the Trinity. The following are a few extracts that I found interesting. I would welcome any comments from those who have studied some of the writings of the 1st - 5th Centuries, and thus able to assess some of what this writer has stated.

History of the Dogma of the Deity of Christ by A Reville 1904 (from translation 1905)
The following quotations are not an endorsement of all that the above author says, but a guide to some of his book, especially in areas I consider interesting or important from my position. It is hoped that as a historian he is to some extent impartial. My sympathies would go possibly to a smaller group mentioned in the following quotations on pages 54 and 96 who could represent the remnant who stood apart from the apostasy that was prophesied Acts 20:28-32. I have underlined some portions.

Page 4: The maxim of Vincent de Leyrins, more boastful than true, ‘the Church, when it employs new terms, never says anything new’, influenced the entire history of Christianity; philosophers and submissive believers were equally satisfied with it.

After a brief summary of the doctrine of the Trinity he says:
Page 9: Such is the doctrine which, having been slowly elaborated, arrived at supremacy in the Christian Church towards the end of the fifth century, and which, after continuing undisputed, excepting in connection with some obscure heresies, for eleven centuries, has been gradually from the sixteenth century losing its prestige, although it is still the professed belief of the majority of Christians.

Page 10: … the religious sentiment … is not in the least alarmed at contradictions; on the contrary, there are times when it might be said that it seeks and delights in them. They seem to strengthen the impression of mystery, an attitude which belongs to every object of adoration.

Speaking of the developments in the second century:
Page 54: … the ‘celestial being’ increasingly supplanted the human being, except among the Jewish-Christians of the primitive type … These firmly maintained the opinion that Jesus was a man, … fully inspired by God … admitted his miraculous conception.

Page 59: The Platonists began to furnish brilliant recruits to the churches of Asia and Greece, and introduced among them their love of system and their idealism. To state the facts in a few words, Hellenism insensibly supplanted Judaism as the form of Christian thought, and to this is mainly owing the orthodox dogma of the deity of Jesus Christ.

Page 60: Hence the rapidity with which a philosphical doctrine of much earlier origin than Christianity, and at first foreign to the Church, was brought into it, and adapted itself so completely to the prevailing Christology as to become identical therewith, and to pass for the belief which had been professed by the disciples from the beginning.

Page 96: There were some Jewish-Christians who admitted without difficulty the miraculous birth of Jesus, but would not hear of his pre-existence.

Page 105: It is curious to read the incredible subtleties by which Athanasius and the orthodox theologians strove to remove the stumbling-block from the history of a dogma which they desired to represent as having been invariable and complete since the earliest days.

Page 108-109: … the minds of men … either inclined to lay great stress upon the subordination of the Son, in order to keep as close as possible to the facts of Gospel history, or they dwelt strongly upon his divinity, in order to satisfy an ardent piety, which felt as if it could not exalt Christ too highly. From this sprang two doctrines, that of Arius and of Athanasius. In reality, though under other forms, it was a renewal of the struggle between rationalism and mysticism.

Page 115: In reality, Arius, whose character and doctrine have been unjustly vilified by orthodox historians, was stating the ecclesiastical doctrine that had been in common acceptance.

Speaking of the Nicene Creed:
Page 121: … the majority of the council would have preferred a middle course, maintaining the traditional idea of the subordination of the Son to the Father, while ascribing to the Son as much divine attributes as they could without openly passing this limit.

Page 124: Arianism, which had been overcome by the imperial will more than by the free judgement of the bishops, retained its power in the churches.

Page 126: People did not believe at that period in the infallibility of councils. The West alone remained firm in adhesion to the faith of Nicea.

Page 136: The Arian party, representing as it did the opposition to ecclesiastical authority and dogmatising mysticism, was the party generally preferred by the freer minds. It was consequently the least united. For the same reason was it the most opposed to the ascetic, monkish, and superstitious customs which more and more pervaded the church.

Kind regards
Trevor

Arianism denies Christ statement of "Before Abraham was, I AM!" The Jews wanted to stone Him there and then. They knew what He was saying. Again, before the Sanhedrin, Christ declared Himself to be God Himself. To even think of denying Christ's divinity, or limit it, is to cast yourself out of Christianity and into the realms of apostasy and Gnosticism.

heavenlyparadise · May 16, 2014

Jesus never said about himself 'I'm the God',,instead,,he always said about his father "my father, my God"...
Jesus was born with father's spirit as we are.
The Father of Jesus is the only God.
Jesus and we worship Him, the Father.

Osiyo · May 16, 2014

People God's Word is true and faithful, If nothing else works ask Google, he knows all things. :O) Here is the verse:

29My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30"I and the Father are one." 31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.…

I rest my case, no matter what one says or does one must always give all the glory and all the honour to Jesus Christ and why not?

jdbear · May 16, 2014

Here is a verse I've been thinking about:

"Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them." Jn.14:23

I think this means that when we get born again, God and Jesus indwell us by the Holy Spirit. Would this be a proof that Father, Son and Spirit are all God?

TrevorL · May 17, 2014

Greetings ThomistColin,

ThomistColin said:

I appreciate your Post, but I do not believe in Arianism. Also on Page 101 Post #2015 I considered the various “I am” passages of John’s Gospel. Also on this page, Page 105 Post #2085 I considered Exodus 3:14 showing that there is not the supposed link between Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58. Jesus was condemned because he claimed to be The son of God, not that “Christ declared Himself to be God Himself” as you claim. I consider that the doctrine of the Trinity arose in part out of the influence of Gnosticism, as my citations from the book in Post #2092 Page 105 indicate.

Kind regards
Trevor

homwardbound · May 17, 2014

Osiyo said:

Yes indeed true, two yet one. The same as my hand is a part of my body, and my ear and mouth, tongue all are parts, yet one body

[h=3]John 16:12-16[/h]Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

[SUP]12 [/SUP]I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. [SUP]13 [/SUP]Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. [SUP]14 [/SUP]He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. [SUP]15 [/SUP]All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. [SUP]16 [/SUP]A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

John 17:21

that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

homwardbound · May 17, 2014

jdbear said:

Only the person themselves will know, in themselves, true here what you said to me.

Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
It is a personal relationship, that collectively has fellowship with others in or out of Salvation. God is the one that knows what each need. So I think it wise to have, want, desire, God to do the living through us, not hidden in us and we go out and speak for God. Rather God speak for us as in the day of Pentecost.
They the Disciples had to wait, and I am positive they knew much more than us, you think? Yet they had to wait for the same Holy Spirit that led Christ.
So do we receive and quit our works, trusting God for God's works through us,thanks to Christ I now do and am in the process of learning this:

Luke 11:33 “No one lights a lamp and hides it! Instead, he puts it on a lampstand to give light to all who enter the room.
[h=3]Luke 11:33[/h]Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

[SUP]33 [/SUP]No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light.

So if Christ is in us and not living through us, I venture to say the true light is hidden within us.

And did Christ do anything or say anything without the lead of his Father? And did not Christ claim it was not him that did the works? It was and is Father?
And so who are we sent to listen to, to do as led?

homwardbound · May 17, 2014

TrevorL said:

Gnosticism: 1 John, is about Gnosticism, is it not?
Starting out verse 1 on, was John's answer to the person that sent him a letter that had confusion in their gathering amongst the people
There were people that saw all flesh is sin, and that no flesh can please God. So they came up with that Chrsit could not have been here in the flesh. That Christ was an apparition, since no flesh could please God

So see verse 1 and on to see what this letter is about, to keep it in context as what Gnosticism is, and where it started at

[h=3]1 John 1[/h]Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; [SUP]2 [/SUP](for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us

[SUP]3 [/SUP]that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. [SUP]4 [/SUP]And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

There Are Many Scriptures That Disprove The Trinity

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

TrevorL

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

mosestz

Guest

TrevorL

Guest

Banned

Banned

Osiyo

Guest

Banned

TrevorL

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member