The trinity of three scriptures destroys the myth of the Trinity:

[Scuba Pete]

I wonder if he is saying the Word came before God? No telling.

Sufficient to say the ancient Greek language had a certain amount of ambiguity as does modern English.

You say this and then in Phaiseeical fashion tell us why YOU have the only correct view. Spiritual myopia is obvious to all but the possessor.

 

[LittleNipper]

And you assume otherwise because..?

I do not assume. I study the entire Bible and the Holy Spirit enlightens me.

 

[iris89]

Hi NetDoc



I see you are long on throwing out opinions, and extremely short on dealing with facts.



You are great at throwing out questions, but when it comes your turn to answer specific questions you fail utterly to do so.



FIRST, your statement,

I am just inspecting your fruit. But please, call me a liar all you

want. That's what the Pharisees did:[/size]

[/font]

Must be the fact I found you making false accusations and brought it to your attention. By definition false accusations are lies and also called slander.



SECOND, You mention John 9:34,

John 9:34 To this they replied, "You were steeped in sin at birth;

how dare you lecture us!" And they threw him out.

Now, let's look at this scripture in context and learn a little about it.



John 924-38 , " So they called a second time the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give glory to God: we know that this man is a sinner. 25 He therefore answered, Whether he is a sinner, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see. 26 They said therefore unto him, What did he to thee? How opened he thine eyes? 27 He answered them, I told you even now, and ye did not hear; wherefore would ye hear it again? would ye also become his disciples? 28 And they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are disciples of Moses. 29 We know that God hath spoken unto Moses: but as for this man, we know not whence he is. 30 The man answered and said unto them, Why, herein is the marvel, that ye know not whence he is, and [yet] he opened mine eyes. 31 We know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and do his will, him he heareth. 32 Since the world began it was never heard that any one opened the eyes of a man born blind. 33 If this man were not from God, he could do nothing. 34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out. 35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and finding him, he said, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? 36 He answered and said, And who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and he it is that speaketh with thee. 38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him." (American Standard Version; ASV).



One Bible scholar said on this scripture,

Born in sin - And therefore, they supposed, born blind. They cast him out - Of the synagogue; excommunicated him[source -, John. Wesley, ""John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible. 1765.].

And another said,

They answered and said unto him...

Being nettled, and stung at what he said, and not able to confute his reasoning; and it is amazing that a man that could never read the Scriptures, who had had no education, was not only blind, but a beggar from his youth, should be able to reason in so strong and nervous a manner, and should have that boldness and presence of mind, and freedom of speech before the whole sanhedrim. Certainly it was God that gave him a mouth and wisdom which these learned doctors could not resist, and therefore they reply in the following manner, [source - John Gill's Exposition of the Bible]

Now maybe you have a better understanding of this scripture.



THIRD, You make the opinionated statement without backup,

Belief or non-belief in the doctrine of "trinity" is not essential

for salvation. That's my point!

[/font]

Then why does the Bible say at Titus 2:1, "But speak thou the things which befit the sound doctrine:" (ASV)? Do you presume to know more than the Apostle Paul?



FOURTH, Another opinionated statement without backup.

Who cares? If they specifically didn't prohibit the belief then

it's JUST your opinion. No more and no less. Passing it off as

anathema is anathema in and of itself.

[/font][/font]

My, My here you are again making false accusations and apparently once more presuming to know more than the Apostle Paul? And are you being so presumptuous as to pretend to know more than the scribe God (YHWH) used to write Proverbs who said at Proverbs 4:1-2, " Hear, [my] sons, the instruction of a father, And attend to know understanding: 2 For I give you good doctrine; Forsake ye not my law.' (ASV)? And you are so presumptuous as to infer you know more than the Apostle Paul when he wrote Ephesians 4:14, "that we may be no longer children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of error;" (ASV)? And do you claim to once more know more than the Apostle Paul when he wrote 1 Timothy 6:3, "If any man teacheth a different doctrine, and consenteth not to sound words, [even] the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;" (ASV)? Or when he wrote 2 Timothy 4:3, "For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts;" (ASV)?



FIFTH, Your statement makes a false claim in the form of a question,

Why would Jesus contradict the Old Testament? The mystery of the

Trinity is that they are still "ONE".

[/font][/font]

Jesus (Yeshua) never contradicted the Old Testament, the Trinity is NOT found in the old testament. For more information, go to:



DISCOURSE ON THE MISCONCEPTION WITH RESPECT 'I AM'

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=185



And,



Discourse on Jeremiah 23:5-6 and the Confusion on YHWH Tsidqenu and Its Equivalents:

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=127



And,



DISCOURSE ON ISAIAH 44:6:

http://p197.ezboard.com/fabnafrm10.showMessage?topicID=63.topic



So STOP MAKING FALSE CLAIMS.



SIXTH, Are you talking of the great commission found at Matthew 24:14 to let all know about God (YHWH), his Son, Jesus (Yeshua), etc., "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony unto all the nations; and then shall the end come." (ASV) of which I take a very active part in fulfilling?



Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[t3gah]

So STOP MAKING FALSE CLAIMS.

If the information one stores in one's brain comes from a source on print or learned verbally and they, the person discussing whatever topic, brings them up, are the said topics for discussion and information known false in any way or is it possible that perhaps the information being supplied is to the best of their ability or last know recollection of such?

Debates are venues that discover who knows what. Since both sides think or feel that their information is correct and not false, a statement such as the one quoted is highly illogical.

(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=debate)

I find your statement extremely perplexing to say the least.

 

[Gilbert1908]

May I assume that the "cult" you refer to would be Catholics???

That would be the "cult" which began with Jesus, Peter and his 11 friends??

 

[kassi]

Hi Kassi



You are throwing up many scriptures and it is clear from the ones you are throwing up that you definitely do NOT have an understanding of any of them since you put up John 6:32 -----My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. Also, you failed to mention from which translation you pulled it. However, I notice that most of the scriptures you mention are from the book of John. I have written a documentary on this book that covers all of these scriptures which is almost exhaustive, to learn the facts, go to:



Documentary on the Book of John Being Anti-Trinitarian-In Multiple Parts:

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=97



Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Im not sure what it is you dont think I understand, but thats o.k.
If you'll look in the top left corner you'll see NKJV, this stands for " New King James Version".And yes, I used alot of scripture from John, Does this offend you? Would you like me to go into more detail, from other books?
By the way you didnt answer the Questions, that I asked. Is there a reason why?
The last statement in my last post, was it true or false?

 

[Scuba Pete]

I see you are long on throwing out opinions, and extremely short on dealing with facts.

Well, if you count throwing out YOUR opinions, then yes. It seems you have short changed the truth, but not me.

By definition false accusations are lies and also called slander.

Actually FALSE claims that are written are called LIBEL. Slander is spoken. Not that you care for the truth.

My, My here you are again making false accusations and apparently once more presuming to know more than the Apostle Paul?

You flatter yourself. I would like you to show me where the Apostle Paul thou shalt not believe in the trinity or where he makes it a requirement for salvation. If you can't find it then start writing "I will not be a Pharisee any longer" a hundred times.

of which I take a very active part in fulfilling?

Re-read your post (yeah, I know it's kinda tiresome and hard to read) and see where you said to not go the pagans.

The thing that amazes me is how I, as a simple man can understand that serving God is far more than how one translates the scriptures and that you, as a supposed learned man, can't. You can take the position of the Sanhedrin and tell the world what an ignoramus I am. But I speak the truth, and in love to boot. GOD IS LOVE!

BTW, FTR, FWIW, YOU are the one making all sorts of FALSE allegations and in the name of God at that. Shame, shame!

 

[Scott1]

Jesus (Yeshua) never contradicted the Old Testament, the Trinity is NOT found in the old testament.

It's funny how, when read with an open mind, the Old Testament seems to explain the Divinity of Christ.

A few examples:


Deut. 4:2; 12:32 - the Lord God commands that we not add or take away from His word - Rev. 22:18-19 - Jesus so commands us not to add or take away from His word.

Deut. 32:39 - neither is there any that can deliver out of God's hand - John 10:28 - nor shall any pluck out of Jesus' hand.

Deut. 32:43 - rejoice, ye heavens, with Him, and let all the angels of God worship Him - Heb. 1:6 - the "Him" is Jesus the Son.

2 Sam. 22:3 - God is the horn of salvation - Luke 1:68-69 - Jesus is the horn of salvation.

Psalm 19:7 - the law of the Lord is perfect - Gal. 6:2 - fulfill the law of Christ.

Psalm 24:10 - the Lord is the King of glory - 1 Cor. 2:8 - Jesus is the Lord of glory.

Psalm 45:7 - Therefore God, your God, has anointed you. God calls someone else God. This someone else is His eternally begotten Son - Heb. 1:9 - Therefore God, your God, has anointed you. cf. Heb. 1:8, 10.

Psalm 62:12 - the Lord God renders to each according to his work - Matt. 16:27; Rev. 22:12 - Jesus so renders to each according to his work.

Psalm 71:5 - the Lord God is our hope - 1 Tim. 1:1 - the Lord Jesus Christ who is our hope.

Psalm 89:27 – I will make him the first-born, the highest (“elyon” which refers to God) of the kings of the earth - John 18:36-27 – Jesus is this first-born king.

Psalm 97:9 - the Lord God is above all - John 3:31 - Jesus is above all.

Psalms 110:1 - the Lord (Yahweh) said to my Lord - Jesus = Yhwh - Acts 2:34-36 - God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ.

Psalm 148:1-2 - the angels worship the Lord God - Heb. 1:6 - the angels worship Jesus. Only God is worshiped.

Prov. 3:12 - who the Lord loves He corrects - Rev. 3:19 - who Jesus loves He corrects.

Isaiah 7:14 - a virgin will bear a Son named Emmanuel which means "God is with us" - Matt. 1:23 - this Son is Jesus Christ, God in the flesh.

Isaiah 25:8 - God swallows up death in victory - 2 Tim. 1:10 - Jesus abolishes death and brings life and immortality.

Isaiah 40:8 - the Word of God shall stand forever - Matt. 24:35 - the Words of Jesus shall not pass away.

Isaiah 42:8 - God gives His glory to no other - John 17:5; Heb. 1:3 - yet Jesus has the same glory as the Father.

Isaiah 43:14 - the Lord God is redeemer - Titus 2:14 - Jesus is the redeemer.

Isaiah 44:6 - the Lord God is the first and the last - Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13 - Jesus is the first and the last.

Isaiah 45:19 - I, the Lord God, did not speak in secret - John 18:20 - Jesus said "I have said nothing secretly."

Isaiah 45:23 - to God, every knee shall bow and every tongue swear. Phil. 2:10-11 - at Jesus' name every knee should bow and tongue confess.

Isaiah 48:17 - God is the Holy One - Acts 3:14 - Jesus is the Holy One.

Isaiah 60:19 - God is everlasting light - Revelation 21:23 - Jesus the Lamb is eternal light.

Jer. 17:10 - the Lord searches the hearts and repays us according to our deeds - Rev. 2:23 - Jesus searches the hearts and repays us according to our deeds.

Ezek. 1:26-28; Daniel 7:9 - God's glorious appearance - Rev. 1:13-16 - Jesus' glorious appearance.

Ezek. 34:11-31 - God the Father is the shepherd of the flock - John 10:7-29 - Jesus is the shepherd of the flock.

Ezek. 34:16 - God seeks to save that which was lost - Luke 19:10 - Jesus seeks to save that which was lost.

Ezek. 34:17 - God judges between cattle, rams and goats - Matt. 25:32 - Jesus judges and separates the goats from the sheep.

Ezek. 43:2 - God's voice was like a noise of many waters - Rev. 1:15 - Jesus' voice was like the sound of many waters. Dan. 2:47 - the Lord is the God of gods and the Lord of Lords - Rev. 17:14 - Jesus the Lamb is the Lord of Lords.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Whoa Scott. WAY impressive.

However, reading with an open mind is the fly in the ointment here.

 

[No*s]

1. The doctrine of the Deity of Christ is ubiquitous at the very beginning of the second century.
2. The doctrine is implicitly assumed in the Synoptics for some of Christ's teachings and for the liturgical references.
3. It is assumed implicitly in our earliest texts.

There is no evidence of this.

OK. I supplied evidence, so you may show my errors at your leisure. Here it is again.

1. I pointed out that Ignatius was able to assume the doctrine in his letters from Antioch to Rome. He didn't exactly exert himself in order to prove it. If I'm going to use something as a fundamental assumption when I write letters, and I know someone is going to dispute it, I'd be pretty sure to make a point to prove it. He seemed to use it pretty casually, and those letters could get pretty argumenative.

Secondly, I could always skip to the mid-second century and use Irenaeus. He spent a good deal of time supporting the humanity of Christ, and asserted his deity. He didn't exactly spend much time refuting belief that Jesus wasn't divine. Rather, his opponents seemed to assume that Jesus was a god who appeared in human form. Why, if there was considerable dispute, did he make such a drastic omission? He was being rather exhaustive and he wasn't pulling any punches.

Now, can you cite for me any documents in the second century to contradict my claim? I'd love to look at them.

2. The doctrine is implicitly assumed in the Synoptics. Jesus takes it as His authority in order to change the Law of God. "You have heard it said of old...but I say to you." He prescribes a trinitarian baptism in them, and we know from other documents, that the believer was baptised thrice, once in the name of each, and this is still done in the Church. Jesus' promise in them that we may become "sons of God" smacks of the doctrine of theosis, which we find expounded quite well in John. None of them give any sense that this is some simple and legal adoption, and the terminology was used pretty commonly for the doctrine, and still is. Lastly, the Synoptics also contain the Lord's Supper, which consequently, is inseparable from the whole idea of theosis: we ingest God and God abides in us. There is no other reason for the rather blatant "this is My flesh" and "this is My blood."

Each of those portions of the Synoptics assume the Deity of Christ. If I'm wrong, you may always correct me, and I would ask you to use primary sources to show your interpretation was present. They all seem to rather blatantly assume it.

3. Unless you have something earlier than Paul, I don't think I need to prove that Paul assumes it. He spends a lot of time rebuking "legalism" and defending his view of grace, but he spends very little time defending the Deity of Christ. Colossians is the only book where we find him exerting much effort in the matter. Even there, he isn't addressing another teaching the way he does with legalism, rather he simply seems to go off on the subject for about a dozen verses as an introduction. I don't see it as an argumentative segment.

From your quote below, we both agree Paul taught it. However, you must think he argued it somewhere against another idea, because if not, that pretty much concedes he assumed it. With Paul, we have the earliest documents assuming it. The other early portions of the New Testament (e.g. James) don't speak on the subject. So, I would like to hear your contradictory evidence.

No, actually, I don't think it would be more reasonable.

We know that in the second century (about 107, but scholars are now moving the date to 117 in place of the traditional dating), Ignatius of Antioch could feel confident writing letters peppered with thought that required the Deity of Christ from Antioch all the way over to Rome. So, somehow the accretion has taken full hold prior to that date.

But this is simple story-telling. The singular difference between 30-85 and 107-177 is the isolatioin and defeat of the Jerusalem sect, the victory of the pervasively Gentile mission(s), and the corresponding victory of the replacement theology and its campaign against 'Judaization'. Whatever roots might have existed in Eretz Israel, they had long since whithered and died, leaving the Ebionites and others bitter and able to do little other than complain about Paul's apostasy.

So, the authors I cite are simply telling stories...but the one you tell and didn't substantiate is better how? It's hard to debate with declarations. You could always use the source material to support the claim.

As it stands, I maintain that the early documents assume it when it is relevant, and the later documents argued for it. Now, that seems to contradict your statements. So, I should abandon my view that the Jewish converts had a hard time adjusting to their new lifestyles and carried over their old habits, and thus, caused some conflict, and that later, another sect arose that denied the Deity of Christ (these would be the aforesaid Ebionites) and upped the ante, and that they were a local phenomonea and not a church-wide one. Naturally, this view also takes into account the uniformity of the faith that both Irenaeus and Ignatius viewed.

And after I abandon it, I should opt for a view that makes the conflict over the Deity of Christ take place when the documents assume it where relevant and that the conflict was largely over when we see the arguments. I am, further, to assume that the same side won the argument almost everywhere, if not everywhere, despite the Early Church's decentralization, and I am to accept it though you didn't give any documentation from the early texts. This seems to be stretching things a tad a tad.

To make a quick note on the sect of James and sect of Paul stuff, which is the theory I think you're drawing on, I'll also note that in Luke-Acts we do have James presiding over the Jerusalem Council. What we don't find is any discussion in there on the Deity of Christ (despite Luke-Acts clearly assumes the Deity of Christ), and it treats it as authoritative. I can assume that L-A was written by a man totally ignorant of the events, that they happened in some fashion like that, or that he made them up entirely. I kind of doubt that the kind of systematic conflict your model requires would escape the attention of even the most ignorant of authors, so I can safely discard the first event, and thus, leave out any attempt at reconciling their contrary position. The second possibility, that Luke actively made it up, also falls flat on its face for the same reasons as the first. If he was trying to gloss over the conflict, then the central themes of the conflict, the Deity of Christ and Eucharist, would've been ascribed to James. That, at least, seems reasonable to me. The last doesn't require absolute historical accuracy, but it omits the conflict between the two sects altogether...that it never happened. This theory, also, isn't exactly universally held in scholarship, so I'm not barking up a tree against all scholarship.

 

[No*s]

Hi No*

Clearly you do not grasp and/or understand John 1:1. So let me help you get a grasp on it from a writing of my PhD. Theologian husband as follows:

Iris, pushing your Greek knowledge off to your husband doesn't change much for me. We've already gone round about this, and I don't see why I should listen now that you're passing it off onto somebody else. It took me long enough, and with enough loss of hairs, to get you to concede to the facts that proved you didn't know what you're talking about. After that experience, I frankly don't trust you.

 

[michel]

Hi Iris,

I have just two comments to make re your post
1) Have you thought how didtorted the modern English, US bible has become ?
The Bible is full of scriptures handed down, through the ages, by mouth fro one to another, until it could be written
2) And once it was written, it had to be later translated - each translator doing his best to retain the original meaning; but hey, who is perfect?

:162:

 

[iris89]

Hi Kassi



The book of John is actually one of my favorites. I have written an entire documentary on it as follows:



Documentary on the Book of John Being Anti-Trinitarian-In Multiple Parts:

JOHN 1:1-2 - LEARN THE FACTS:

Many emotionally diehard Trinitarians point to how John 1:1 is erroneously worded in many Bibles as, "In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God." (American Standard Version; ASV), and neglect to look at John 1:2 in those same Bibles which says, "The same was in the beginning with God." (ASV); Clearly showing two distinct individuals. Moreover the overlook John 1:14 in those same Bibles which says, "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth." (ASV) which clearly shows his as the only begotten of his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) in harmony with 1 John 4:9, "Herein was the love of God manifested in us, that God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him." (ASV) once more clearly showing them as two distinct individuals, one superior to the other and sending the subordinate, his Son, to be among mankind.

The next problem for Trinitarians is the salient fact that no matter how you analyze or translate John 1:1 you only get two individuals or as they falsely claim manifestations of one individual, which makes NO Trinity or group of three, neither of individuals and/or manifestations; my, my, so much for John 1:1 proving a trinity. It does not do this even with the biased translations of Trinitarians; moreover, there are more accurate ways of translating John 1:1 such as the way the New English Bible whose translators had access to older manuscripts that did the translators of the King James Bible, the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, and the American Standard Bible. In the New English Bible, John 1:1 reads, "When all things began, the Word already was. The word dwelt with God, and what God was, the Word was." (The New English Bible; NEB). In fact, the NEB renders John 1:2, "The Word, then, was with God at the beginning, and through him all things came to be;" (NEB), and the fact that his Father (YHWH) after creating him used Jesus (Yeshua) as his master worker is revealed at Proverbs 8:22-30 about Jesus (Yeshua) being brought forth and being his Father's (YHWH's) master workman, "Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way, Before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, Before the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth, When there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills was I brought forth; 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, Nor the beginning of the dust of the world. 27 When he established the heavens, I was there: When he set a circle upon the face of the deep, 28 When he made firm the skies above, When the fountains of the deep became strong, 29 When he gave to the sea its bounds, That the waters should not transgress his commandments, When he marked out the foundations of the earth; 30 Then I was by him, as a master workman; And I was daily his delight, Rejoicing always before him." (ASV); And Jesus' (Yeshua's)existence before the earth was is affirmed at John 8:58, "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am." (ASV); Thus as Colossians 1:17 says, ""and he is before all things, and in him all things consist." (ASV); And at Revelation 3:14, "And to the angel of the church is Laodicea write: 'These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God:" (ASV), Jesus (Yeshua) is once more shown as the first of creation. Clearly, then, he, Jesus (Yeshua) is neither the same individual and/or manifestation of the same individual; Nor co-eternal, nor co-equal with his Father (YHWH).

All this in strict compliance with the Jewish Law of Agencies which is basically as follows, "Jesus (Yeshua) was God's (YHWH's) appointed agent in accordance with the 'Biblical law of agency' described as, "Scripture mentions something being done by Person A, whilst another mentions it being done by Person B. This is best understood when we grasp the Schaliach Principle, or the Jewish Law of Agency, which is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself." Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle." (The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder). And 1 Timothy 2:5 says, "For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, [himself] man, Christ Jesus," (ASV). This is why Jesus (Yeshua) could say, John 16:23, "And in that day ye shall ask me no question. Verily, verily, I say unto you, if ye shall ask anything of the Father, he will give it you in my name."(ASV).


This fact is further affirmed at Ephesians 1:20-23 which shows that his Father (YHWH) raised him from the dead and put him at his right hand to administer all for him, "Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; 22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 23 Which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all." (ASV); This fact, that his Father (YHWH) placed him over all things except himself, a superior one, is highlighted at 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, "But now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of them that are asleep. 21 For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christ's, at his coming. 24 Then [cometh] the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. 27 For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him. 28 And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all." (ASV). This will bring the fulfillment foretold at Isaiah 45:23, "By myself have I sworn, the word is gone forth from my mouth [in] righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear." (ASV). This scripture shows that God (YHWH) will bring the earth back to perfection, i.e., a place where everyone will love their creator, Almighty God (YHWH), and his chief agent or mediator of life, Jesus (Yeshua) Christ, and their neighbor, and he, God (YHWH) will once more be using his Son, the Son of God, Jesus (Yeshua) as his master worker to accomplish this as shown by 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, previously quoted.



For the remainder since this BB will not support very long articles, go to:





Documentary on the Book of John Being Anti-Trinitarian-In Multiple Parts:

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=97



Also, I thought I answered all of your questions in great detail so I have no idea what you are referring to when you say:

By the way you didnt answer the Questions, that I asked. Is there a reason why?
The last statement in my last post, was it true or false?

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[iris89]

Hi No*



FIRST, It appears you do NOT know about intellectual honesty. Specifically you do NOT take credit for yourself for the works (writings) of another. So your statement,

Iris, pushing your Greek knowledge off to your husband doesn't change much for me. We've already gone round about this, and I don't see why I should listen now that you're passing it off onto somebody else. It took me long enough, and with enough loss of hairs, to get you to concede to the facts that proved you didn't know what you're talking about. After that experience, I frankly don't trust you.

Is totally out of place.



SECOND, You may consider plagiarism okay, but I do not. But you are in a crowd of many. The Muslim prophet Muhammed, one of the greatest plagiarist of all times, copied a lot of his work from the Bible without giving credit. His copy job was NOT the best so a lot became distorted. A good example is:

Muslims clearly do not comprehend the Bible and see problems where there are none, and come to completely wrong conclusions. This is strange given the fact that their holy book is actually a plagiarized knockoff from the Bible. Let’s look at a few instances where they utterly fail to comprehend, one of them in fact where their book is actually saying the same thing as the Bible in different words.

LUKE 1:35 VS. SURA 3:47:

Let’s first look at what the Quran (Koran) says at Sura 3:47:

Sura 3:47, “She said, "My Lord, how can I have a son, when no man has touched me?" He said, "GOD thus creates whatever He wills. To have anything done, He simply says to it, `Be,' and it is.”

And, Sura 3:48 says, “"He will teach him the scripture, wisdom, the Torah, and the Gospel." Interestingly here the Quran (Koran) actually speaks of the first five (5) books of the Bible, the Torah; yet today many Muslims rail against the Bible from which their book the Quran (Koran) was plagiarized from.

Now the Bible says at Luke 1:35, “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God.” (American Standard Version; ASV).

Interestingly although both the Quran’s (Koran’s) ‘Be’ and the Bible’s (in some translations only) overshadow both refer to exactly the same thing, but use different words, some Muslims do not comprehend this and think overshadow has bad connotations. Both these passages refer to God’s (YHWH) using his active force or power referred to in the Bible as Spirit or Holy Spirit to implant the life force of his only begotten Son, that we know as Jesus (Yeshua) into the womb of the virgin Mary as recorded in Matthew 1:18-25, “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. 19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But when he thought on these things, behold, an 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 it is he that shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us. 24 And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife; 25 and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS.” (ASV). Now some may not understand just what this force or power of God (YHWH) is so here is a brief explanation.

A brief consideration on and reasoning on Acts 10:19-20; Acts 16:6; Acts 13:2-4; Acts 15:28; Romans 8:14; Romans 8:26; Ephesians 4:30; and 1 Corinthians 2:10-12 will show that the Spirit or Holy Spirit is God's (YHWH's) active force or power and emanates from him and is a force completely controlled by him, and is capable of giving him feedback and gathering for him information.

But first let's see why the Spirit is indeed God's (YHWH's) active force or power from an understanding of the ancient word 'pneu'ma' translated Spirit or Holy Spirit in English. The neuter Koine Greek word for spirit (pneu'ma) is used with the neuter pronoun "it" since it is lacks gender. This fact is conveniently over looked or hidden by most Trinitarian translators of the Bible as admitted in the "New American Bible Catholic Bible," regarding John 14:17: "The Greek word for 'Spirit' is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English ('he,' 'his,' 'him'), most Greek MSS [manuscripts] employ 'it.'" So when the Bible uses masculine personal pronouns in connection with pa·ra'kle·tos at John 16:7, 8, it is conforming to rules of grammar, not expressing a doctrine. And in Ancient Hebrew the word here rendered Holy Ghost, Holy Spirit, or Spirit which is translated from 'ru'ach' meaning "breath; wind; spirit." In Latin, it is spiritus, and in Sanskrit, 'prana' which means both "breath" and "spirit." And the pertinent definition in the Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary (ISBN 0-308-10309-2 and 0-308-10310-6) clearly states, (4) <Often Cap.> In the Bible, the creative, animating power or divine influence of God...[etymology-[<Old French, 'espirit' <Latin, 'spiritus' bredth, spirit <'spirare' to breathe]. So we can see it, the Holy Spirit or Spirit is truly God's (YHWH's) active force or power and not a spirit being as are Almighty God (YHWH) and his Son, Jesus (Yeshua).

Now from the study of science and technology we know that with respect a force there can be four possibilities or possibly five applicable questions, which are as follows:

(1) Is it an uncontrolled force?

(2) Is it a controlled force?

(3) Is it controlled, but without feedback?

(4) Is it controlled, but with feedback?

Is it direct or indirect feedback?

However 1 Corinthians 2:10-12 shows it to be a controlled force with feedback that appears to be direct feedback, "But unto us God revealed [them] through the Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man, which is in him? even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God. 12 But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God." (American Standard Version; ASV), clearly showing that the "spirit which is from God," and God "revealed [them] through the Spirit," and uses it to search all things, thus showing it is a controlled spirit capable of feedback. God (YHWH) has complete control over his power or force and can choose its fields of operations as testified to at Romans 8:14, "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." (ASV) clearly showing he can use to lead individuals and that it belongs to him. And John 16:13 clearly shows it as a force, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come." Since it is quite clear that it is a controlled force, "shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak,"

Clearly it is a controlled force used by God (YHWH) to do many things as testified to at Acts 10:19-20, "While Peter was meditationg on the vision, the Spirit said to him, 'There are two men looking for you. 20 Get up and go down, and without hesitation go on with them, for I have sent them.'" (The New Testament by Charles B. Williams); And the fact that it is a closely controlled force is further affirmed at Acts 16:6, "And the Spirit bade me go with them, making no distinction. And these six brethren also accompanied me; and we entered into the man's house:" (ASV); And at Acts 13:2-4, "And as they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. 3 Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. 4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus." (ASV); And at Acts 15:28, "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:" (ASV) clearly indicating direct feedback to and response by God (YHWH); which is further shown by Ephesians 4:30, "And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, in whom ye were sealed unto the day of redemption" (ASV) which once more indicates that is gives direct feedback and it reacts to the feelings of God (YHWH) from which it emanates thus a tightly controlled force or power.

Thus we can see and have an accurate understanding of what is being spoken of in both the Quran (Koran) and the Bible and see that it is exactly the same event and/or occurrence.[source - Muslims Do Not Comprehend The Bible:, by Iris the Preacher]



Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[iris89]

Hi Michel

Your statement,

I have just two comments to make re your post
1) Have you thought how didtorted the modern English, US bible has become ?
The Bible is full of scriptures handed down, through the ages, by mouth fro one to another, until it could be written
2) And once it was written, it had to be later translated - each translator doing his best to retain the original meaning; but hey, who is perfect?

I am well aware of some of the biases and distortions in some English Bibles. I my self do a lot of my Bible study in my own language which is not English. However, the best of the English Bibles in my opinion are the New English Bible (NEB), The New World Translation (NWT); and Dr. J. J. Griesenbach’s Interlinear, Greek to English of the new testament.



In fact I have written an entire research product on the subject,

Let's Have Reality in Translation:

INTRODUCTION:

The understanding with respect some scriptures in the Bible is badly clouded by translational errors caused either by the translator's bias, lack of understanding of idiomatic expressions, or lack of understanding of ancient writing styles. Many of these can readily be seen by careful readers as they do NOT jive with the remainder of the Bible and/or do not make any sense upon close examination. Some of these scriptures are those whose meaning is the most questioned and argued by Bible translators and/or scholars. Yet most show flawed meaning when they are closely examined in lack of agreement within themselves and/or with near by scriptures. To better grasp the subject we will examine the case of John 1:1 whose meaning is perhaps the most disputed of any in the entire Bible due to biased translational renderings in most Bibles in common usage.

THE CONSTRUCTS:

Let's first examine the most common constructs used for translating this scripture and then consider the facts and last some advanced translational items dealing with this scripture.

The 10 possible constructs of John 1:1 that do NOT violate any rule of Koine Greek grammar with the exception of the fact is that THE-OS' (-God) is a count noun, not a mass noun or an adjective. As a count noun it MUST BE countable, i.e. either definite or indefinite (i.e. either "a god" or "the God") for two of the constructs:

<1> "and a god was the Logos." [example of Bible using, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Jurgen Becker Harwood, 1979]

<2> "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God" [example of Bible using, Schonfield, 1976]

<3> "The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the word was." [example of Bible using, The New English Bible, NEB, 1961-present standard Bible agreed to by most denominations in the United Kingdom]

<4> "And the word was a god" [example of Bible using, The New Testament in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Achbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text.]

<5> "and the Word was divine" [example of Bible using, The Bible: An American Translation, by J.M.P. Smith and E.J. Goodspeed. }

<6> "and the Word was God" [example of Bible using, American Standard Version, ASV] [note, this construct violates the count noun rule of Koine Greek]

<7> "He was the same as God" example of Bible using, Today's English Version.]

<8> "the Logos was divine" [example of Bible using, The New Testament: A New Translation, by James Moffat]

<9> "r war bei Gott und in allem Gott gleich"[He was with God and in all like God] [example of Bible using, Haenchen (tr. By R. Funk), 1982]

<10> "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] [example of Bible using, Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 198

As we can see, here are ten different constructs possible without violating any rule of Koine Greek grammar except the count Noun rule. So, now, let's look at what follows in context in general format at John 1:2:

"The Word, then, was with God at the beginning," (The New English Bible, NEB)

"The same was in the beginning with God." (American Standard Version, ASB)

"The same was in the beginning with God." (Authorized King James Bible; AV)

"He was in the beginning with God." (Revised Standard Version; RSV)

"He was in the beginning with God." (The Confraternity Edition of the New Testament - Catholic)

As is easily seen, John 1:2 is substantially the same in all translations. However, in context it does not harmonize with some of the constructs used which do not violate any rule of Koine Greek grammar with the exception of the count Noun rule to be explained later.

However clearly some of the ten (10) or more basic constructs agree in context with John 1:2 and some do NOT. Let's look at the point where some do not agree or harmonize with the context of John 1:2:

John 1:2 plainly says that the Word, or Logos, who is Jesus (Yeshua) was with God in the beginning which would be impossible if Jesus (Yeshua) was Almighty God (YHWH) himself. This rules out constructs 6, 7, and 10, represented below, as impossible as they do NOT harmonize with context.

<6> "and the Word was God" [example of Bible using, American Standard Version, ASV] [note, this construct violates the count noun rule of Koine Greek]

<7> "He was the same as God" example of Bible using, Today's English Version.]

<10> "Gott (von Art) war der Logos" [God (of Kind/kind) was the Logos/logos] [example of Bible using, Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch, 198

And two of these constructs do violate the count Noun rule of Koine Greek; to wit, constructs 6 and 7.

Now exactly what is the count Noun rule of Koine Greek? It is as follows:

The fact is that THE-OS' (-God) is a count noun, not a mass noun or an adjective. As a count noun it MUST BE countable, i.e. either definite or indefinite (i.e. either "a god" or "the God"). The trinitarian argument hinges on stripping THE-OS' of its count-ability, so that it is purely qualitative. However, if a noun is PURELY qualitative, it is not a count noun. An adjective or a mass noun may fit their requirement for emphasizing qualitativness only, but a count noun MUST BE countable, for that is what *count* means when describing a count noun. If he accepts this rather elementary rule of English grammar, you can demonstrate that, as a count noun, THE-OS' may be translated either "the Word was God" (-"the Word was The God", which is Sabellianism), or "the Word was a god". Since orthodox trinitarians reject "the Word was The God" (-Sabellianism), they are left with "the Word was a god" -- that is, if they remain true to English syntax (and English syntax is what ENGLISH translations are supposed to follow!). If one argues the point, let them provide an example of a non-countable *count noun* that is not used in a contrary-to-fact situation, such as a metaphor. I have yet to find anyone, trinitarian or otherwise, who is able to meet this challenge. Rolf Furuli, one of the two best living Koine Greek scholars, discusses this in his book, THE ROLE OF THEOLOGY AND BIAS IN BIBLE TRANSLATION, as does Greg Stafford, in his, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES DEFENDED: AN ANSWER TO SCHOLARS AND CRITICS. There are also some very good posts by Wes Williams on greektheology that discuss this issue. I suppose if you search the greektheology archives using the word "count" or the name "Wes" you will find much helpful information. [source - Kats]

"To preserve in English the different nuance of the-os' [god] with and without the article, some (Moffat) would translate 'The Word was divine.'"

Notice a literal translation of John 1:1,2:

"In the beginning was the world and the word was toward the god and god was the word. This (one) was in beginning toward the god."

In these two verses we see six nouns, three referring to the Greek word logos (word, which most recognize to be Jesus) and three referring to the Greek word the-os' (god). We notice each reference to logos (word) is preceded by the definite article "the", while two of the three times the word the-os' (god) occurs, it too is preceded by the definite article "the". For some reason, John does not provide the definite article with the-os' when it is associated with "The Word". We thus see two definite individuals mentioned in this verse. "The Word", Jesus Christ, and "The God", who is Almighty God Jehovah. John does not say "The Word" is "The God". In fact, most Trinitarian scholars would argue that if John had said the word was "ho the-os'" (The God), it would amount to sabellianism (the belief that Jesus is both the Father and the Son). As such, it is commonly agreed upon that John was not identifying Jesus as God but rather, was describing him as deity. But if John did not say "The Word" is "The God", then what did he mean by saying, "the word was god"?
[source - Let's Have Reality in Translation:, by Iris the Preacher].

There is more to it, but due to length it can not be posted in its entirety on this forum, so go to:



Let's Have Reality in Translation:

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=207



Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[iris89]

Hi Everyone:



Some throw out a lot of scriptures from the old testament supposedly supporting the Trinity, but NONE actually do. The old testament as well as the new testament were written by members of the Jewish nation. Even Jesus (Yeshua) was born to the virgin Mary a Jewish girl. The Jews were absolute monotheist and believed in NO Triad or Trinity so let’s get real, and stop pushing falsethings.

Let’s look at what the Jewish Encyclopedia says on the subject,

The controversies between the Christians and the Jews concerning the Trinity centered for the most part about the problem whether the writers of the Old Testament bore witness to it or not, the Jews naturally rejecting every proof brought forward by their opponents. The latter based their arguments on the Trisagion in Isa. vi. 3, a proof which had been frequently offered since Eusebius and Gregory of Nazianzus. The convert Jacob Perez of Valentia (d. 1491) even found an allusion to the Trinity in the word "Elohim," and Luther saw distinct traces of the doctrine in Gen. i. 1, 26; iii. 21; xi. 7, 8, 9; Num. vi. 22; II Sam. xxiii. 2; and Dan. vii. 13. The Jewish polemics against this doctrine date almost from its very conception. Even in the Talmud, R. Simlai (3d cent.) declared, in refutation of the "heretics," "The three words 'El,' 'Elohim,' and 'Yhwh' (Josh. xxii. 22) connote one and the same person, as one might say, 'King, Emperor, Augustus'" (Yer. Ber. ix. 12d), while elsewhere he substitutes the phrase "as if one should say, 'master, builder, and architect'" (ib. 13a). There are, however, no other allusions to the Trinity in Talmudic literature, as has been rightly pointed out by Herford ("Christianity in Talmud and Midrash," p. 395, London, 1903), since the polemics of the rabbis of that periodwere directed chiefly against dualism ( ). Another polemic, which is noteworthy for its antiquity and its protagonists, was the disputation between Pope Sylvester I. (314-335) and the Jew Noah (Migne, "Patrologia Græca," viii. 814).

In the Middle Ages the nature of the Trinity was discussed in every one of the numerous disputations between Christians and Jews, the polemic of Abraham Roman (in his "Sela' ha-Ma&#7717;alo&#7731;et," printed in the "Mil&#7717;emet &#7716;obah," Constantinople, 1710) being especially bitter; while in his well-known disputation Na&#7717;manides wrote as follows:("Mil&#7717;emet &#7716;obah," p. 13a).

"Fra Pablo asked me in Gerona whether I believed in the Trinity [ ]. I said to him, 'What is the Trinity? Do three great human bodies constitute the Divinity?' 'No!' 'Or are there three ethereal bodies, such as the souls, or are there three angels?' 'No!' 'Or is an object composed of three kinds of matter, as bodies are composed of the four elements?' 'No!' 'What then is the Trinity?' He said: 'Wisdom, will, and power' [comp. the definition of Thomas Aquinas cited above]. Then I said: 'I also acknowledge that God is wise and not foolish, that He has a will unchangeable, and that He is mighty and not weak. But the term "Trinity" is decidedly erroneous; for wisdom is not accidental in the Creator, since He and His wisdom are one, He and His will are one, He and His power are one, so that wisdom, will, and power are one. Moreover, even were these things accidental in Him, that which is called God would not be three beings, but one being with these three accidental attributes.' Our lord the king here quoted an analogy which the erring ones had taught him, saying that there are also three things in wine, namely, color, taste, and bouquet, yet it is still one thing. This is a decided error; for the redness, the taste, and the bouquet of the wine are distinct essences, each of them potentially self-existent; for there are red, white, and other colors, and the same statement holds true with regard to taste and bouquet. The redness, the taste, and the bouquet, moreover, are not the wine itself, but the thing which fills the vessel, and which is, therefore, a body with the three accidents. Following this course of argument, there would be four, since the enumeration should include God, His wisdom, His will, and His power, and these are four. You would even have to speak of five things; for He lives, and His life is a part of Him just as much as His wisdom. Thus the definition of God would be 'living, wise, endowed with will, and mighty'; the Divinity would therefore be fivefold in nature. All this, however, is an evident error. Then Fra Pablo arose and said that he believed in the unity, which, none the less, included the Trinity, although this was an exceedingly deep mystery, which even the angels and the princes of heaven could not comprehend. I arose and said: 'It is evident that a person does not believe what he does not know: therefore the angels do not believe in the Trinity.' His colleagues then bade him be silent"

The boldness of the Christian exegetes, who converted even the "Shema'," the solemn confession of the Divine Unity, into a proof of the Trinity (Maimonides, in "Te&#7717;iyyat ha-Metim," beginning), furnishes an explanation of the bitterness of the Jewish apologists. Joseph &#7730;im&#7717;i assailed the doctrine of the Trinity first of all ("Mil&#7717;emet &#7716;obah," p. 19a), refuting with weighty arguments the favorite proof based on Gen. xviii. 1-2, where Yhwh is described as first appearing alone to Abraham, who later beholds two persons (comp. Abraham ibn Ezra's commentary, ad loc.). Simeon ben &#7826;ema&#7717; Duran, who also refuted the Trinitarian proofs, added: "The dogma itself is manifestly false, as I have shown by philosophic deduction; and my present statements are made only with reference to their [the Christians'] assertions, while the monk Nestor accepted Judaism for the very reason that he had refuted them" ("Mil&#7717;emet &#7716;obah," p. 48b). Noteworthy among modern polemics against the Trinity is Joshua Segre's critique ("Zeit. für Hebr. Bibl." viii. 22).[source – The Jewish Encyclopedia]

Clearly we see all those contending that the Trinity is supported in the old testament are only doing wishful thinking to support their God (YHWH) dishonoring false doctrine or myth that they borrowed from the pagans, how pathetic.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[iris89]

Hi WebDoc

Here is a question for you which you probably will not answer as you have NOT yet answered any of the questions I previously asked you. You love to throw questions at others, but you sure do not like to answer them, and this especially so with respect answering them from the Bible:

John 5:26, “For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself:” (American Standard Version; ASV)



John 6:57, “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me.



By the words of Jesus, Jesus was not eternal; he was given to have life in himself and lives because of the Father. A eternal being cannot be given to have life in themselves, and they do not depend on others to live.

Now WebDoc what is your answer?

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[Scuba Pete]

John 5: 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.

John 6: 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

I am not sure WHAT question I am supposed to answer, since there is no clear question in your post except for asking what my answer is! I will attempt to answer WHAT I think you are asking and maybe even answer some questions that you did NOT think to ask.

The first concerns life and death.

Life is not merely referring to "existence", it is refferring to a "quality".

John 10:10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

The people Jesus was talking too were already "existing" and yet he brought them "eternal life". Notice that he did NOT define eternal life as merely existing forever... he defined it as HAVING A RELATIONSHIP with God. He did NOT couch this eternal life in terms of believing in the doctrine of trinity or NOT. Just in knowing God and Jesus. IOW, I don't have to wait for Heaven to get eternal life: I HAVE ETERNAL LIFE RIGHT NOW! Yay God!!! Yay Jesus!!! Yay Spirit!!!

John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

WHOA... now Jesus is saying that the SPIRIT GIVES LIFE! What gives? Well, if Jesus, and the Father and the Spirit are all ONE it makes sense. If they are seperate than it sounds way contradictory. Sort of like a Spiritual "Who's on First?".

I certainly believe that the three of them are one and entirely seperate at the same time. I also believe that this is a part of God's omnipresence in the world, but I am not sure since it's just not that important to pursue.There are MANY things about God that we can never understand. We don't need to fully understand them in order to serve him and to love others. I do NOT consider myself a trinitarian... I HATE LABELS. Call me a Christian, if you must call me something. Calling me a Disciple works too. Calling me late for dinner is anathema and you will condemned to the... oops, got sidetracked on that last one.

BTW, diligently studying the scriptures is great IF your motivation is to love God and not to lord it over others.

John 5:39 You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life. 41 "I do not accept praise from men, 42 but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts.

I surely do not want Jesus to say this to me on the last day. It's a matter of loving God. It's a matter of surrender to Jesus as Lord... not whether you have the current doctrine du'jour down pat. When I say "Get a Life!" I mean it with all love and sincerity.

 

[iris89]

Hi WebDoc



You missed the question altogether, I guess I did not make it clear enough for you.



The two scriptures were only part of the question. The real question is the fact that these two scriptures clearly show the Trinity is impossible, but I believe you may not fully understand what the Trinity doctrine actually is so let me state it from an authoritive source:

The Cyclopoedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, New York 1871, by John M'Clintock and James Strong, Vol. II, page 560-561, states, "We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the

persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.....The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal...So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty...So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God...The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding...And in this Trinity none is afore or after other; none is greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal together, and coequal. So that in all things, as is afore said, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity." [this is the Athanasian Creed quoted in the above mentioned Cyclopoedia].

This doctrine clearly states that the three persons are coeternal together, and coequal, but the scriptures in question,



John 5:26, “For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself:” (American Standard Version; ASV)

John 6:57, “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me.



Clearly show this as impossible as Jesus (Yeshua) himself testified that the “Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son” which would be of course impossible if they were as this false doctrine falsely claims that they are coeternal and coequal. Likewise, Jesus (Yeshua) clearly states, “I live because of the Father” which would of course not be the case if they were as this false doctrine falsely claims that they are coeternal and coequal.



As I said in the final part of my original question,

By the words of Jesus, Jesus was not eternal; he was given to have life in himself and lives because of the Father. A eternal being cannot be given to have life in themselves, and they do not depend on others to live.

Clearly if all were coeternal and coequal, none could give life eternal to the other, NOR could any live because of the other. This is a simple and obvious fact that you probably missed as many, like yourself, do NOT fully understand the false God (YHWH) dishonoring false doctrine of the Trinity. Most believe it based on what they have been told without bothering to look into it and check the facts. Of course, not checking the facts is NOT in line with Acts 17:10-11, “But the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea. Who, when they were come thither, went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so.” (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible).



I asked that question in an effort to get you to think on the subject and to investigate.



Some post, not you, aimless scriptures from the old testament in a vain effort to support this false doctrine, but of course none of these actually apply as God’s (YHWH’s) specific instructions to his people the Israelites was to have nothing to do with foreign god’s and doctrines.



Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[Scuba Pete]

The answer to YOUR question was answered. You just chose to not accept it. I disagree with your logic and in trying to force an interpretation by the twisting of words. Etymology was not created so that you could spend hours trying to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Yes, my answer to your question was rather clear, but I will make it more so...

It doesn't matter!!!​

​

You are drawing lines in the sand that were never meant to be drawn. Why??? I surely do not know, but I have my suspicions. Honoring God and Loving your Neighbor are not included in my suspicions.​