The Trinity

[Kolibri]

What man are you believing about these dates? You refused to be reasoned with about this. The scriptures were not written by men that long after Jesus died and rose.

Subscriptions, appearing at the end of Matthew's Gospel in numerous manuscripts (all being later than the 10th century C.E.), say that the account was written about the 8th year after Christ's ascension. (circa 41 C.E.). While not conclusive in itself, it does not counter Mt 27:8 and 28:15 that, by the expression "to this very day" suggests that there was a lapse of time between the events described and the writing. If this date is accurate, this would be the first book of the Christian Greek Scriptures written. The next would be 1 & 2 Thessalonians or Galatians (circa 50-52 C.E.)

Indeed, Revelation, 1st ,2nd, and 3rd John, and the gospel John were the last, likely written about 96-98 C.E. But this late date would by no means make John's gospel any less reliable, due to time lapsed, or due to his advanced age. As Jesus said, the holy spirit would "bring back to mind all the the things I told you." (John 14:26) And just like when they would go before courts, when writing, it would be "the spirit of your Father that speaks by you." (Mt 10:18-20; 1 Tim 3:16,17)

 

[Yes]

No scripture speaks of a Double or Dual Anointing but if according to your statement, "Jesus was the holy spirit before he was born", then you are making the holy spirit-Mashach to be Jesus before he was born as Jesus the seed-sperma of his father King David.

The scriptures tell us that Jesus had an earthly side, and another side.

The holy spirit-Mashach has no age whereas Jesus has a know age verified in scripture from his birth to his anointing at about 30 years of age unto his death and resurrection at age 33 AD. Jesus in heaven has an age of 33 since he said from heaven in the Hebrew tongue " I am Jesus of Nazareth".

Jesus is God come as a Man. Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power at his baptism, before he started his ministry.
The Apostles also had the Holy Spirit before Pentecost, and at Pentecost they were baptized with the Holy Spirit and with power for their ministry.

(Acts 22:8 KJV) And I answered, Who art thou,Master? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.

YHWH-YaH God a Spirit has no age He is immortal and cannot age, He is invisible and cannot be seen,He is the only wise God and He is the King of Saints.

Jesus is God made visible.


Colossians 1:15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.


John 14:9

Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?



2 Corinthians 4:4

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.


1 Timothy 1:17

Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.



Hebrews 11:27

By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king's anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible.

(Rev 15:3 KJV) And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, YHWH-YaH God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.

Their works are NOT different.


John 5:17 In his defense Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working."


John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.


John 4:34

"My food," said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.


John 10:37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father.

If Jesus was the holy spirit as Mashach the one who anoints and this before he was born, then your saying that Jesus the holy spirit at about age 30, in Luke 3:22-23, anointed himself;

Why would Jesus the holy spirit Mashach the anointer before he was born be anointing Jesus with the holy spirit Mashach anointing after he was born?

JESUS RECEIVES THE THRONE OF HIS FATHER DAVID. REMEMBER THE PROPHET SAMUEL ANOINTED DAVID WHO IS THE FATHER SEED-SPERMA OF JESUS.
YHWH-YAh SAID OF JESUS (Luke 1:32 KJV) He ( Jesus ) shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and YHWH-YaH God shall give unto him (Jesus) the throne of his father David:

If Jesus was the holy spirit (Mashach) before he was born was he not already the great Son of the Highest? (Gal 4:6 KJV) And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

Did you read that scripture?
There is only one Spirit. We are given only one Spirit when we are saved. How is it then that Jesus says that he himself will live in us? How is it that the scriptures say we will have the Spirit of his Son, if Jesus is not the Holy Spirit ?

But Jesus is not yet called the Son of the Highest in scripture because YHWH-YaH said " he shall be called the Son of the Highest " this calling Jesus the Son of the Highest has yet to occur but it will.

I do not understand what you are saying.

JESUS THE SEED-SPERMA OF HIS FATHER DAVID WAS ALSO THAT SEED OF EVE (Gen 3:15).
(2 Tim 2:8 KJV) Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

SEED=G4690=sperma
sper'-mah
From G4687; somethng sown, that is, seed (including the male “sperm”); by implication offspring; specifically a remnant (figuratively as if kept over for planting): - issue, seed.

JESUS THE SEED OF EVE
(Gen 3:15 KJV) And I will put enmity between thee( the serpent) and the woman ( Eve) , and between thy ( the serpents) seed and her-(Eve's) seed; it-(Eve's seed) shall bruise thy-(the serpents) head, and thou-(the serpent) shalt bruise his heel.

Again, that is according to his earthly side.

Romans 1:3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David,

 

[Yes]

Subscriptions, appearing at the end of Matthew's Gospel in numerous manuscripts (all being later than the 10th century C.E.), say that the account was written about the 8th year after Christ's ascension. (circa 41 C.E.). While not conclusive in itself, it does not counter Mt 27:8 and 28:15 that, by the expression "to this very day" suggests that there was a lapse of time between the events described and the writing. If this date is accurate, this would be the first book of the Christian Greek Scriptures written. The next would be 1 & 2 Thessalonians or Galatians (circa 50-52 C.E.)

Indeed, Revelation, 1st ,2nd, and 3rd John, and the gospel John were the last, likely written about 96-98 C.E. But this late date would by no means make John's gospel any less reliable, due to time lapsed, or due to his advanced age. As Jesus said, the holy spirit would "bring back to mind all the the things I told you." (John 14:26) And just like when they would go before courts, when writing, it would be "the spirit of your Father that speaks by you." (Mt 10:18-20; 1 Tim 3:16,17)

We do not know for sure exactly when the scriptures were written. However, I do not agree with those who say the scriptures were written in 40 AD. That would make those writing the scriptures old men. However, we can see that these scriptures were written to the first Christians and the first Christians read and shared these letters with other first Christians in other cities.

I do not believe that John wrote his scriptures when you say he did, for that would make John well over a hundred years old.

 

[Kolibri]

We do not know for sure exactly when the scriptures were written. However, I do not agree with those who say the scriptures were written in 40 AD. That would make those writing the scriptures old men. However, we can see that these scriptures were written to the first Christians and the first Christians read and shared these letters with other first Christians in other cities.

Since Jesus died in 33 C.E., it would be only 8 years that would have passed before Matthew was written, if the subscription is to be trusted. That is not long enough for one to get old.
Placing Luke's writing of his gospel around 56-58 C.E. would not make him necessarily too old either, since he was not an eyewitness himself but possibly a Greek that compiled other people's eyewitness accounts.
If Mark was the young man of Mark 14:51,52, then his writing his gospel somewhere around 60-65 C.E. would not make him too old.
The only one advanced in age would have been John. The last books written prior to Revelation was the gospel Mark, the letter of Jude, and 2 Timothy. All circa 65 C.E....then a 33 year gap before the Apostle John's writings.

 

[Yes]

Since Jesus died in 33 C.E., it would be only 8 years that would have passed before Matthew was written, if the subscription is to be trusted. That is not long enough for one to get old.
Placing Luke's writing of his gospel around 56-58 C.E. would not make him necessarily too old either, since he was not an eyewitness himself but possibly a Greek that compiled other people's eyewitness accounts.
If Mark was the young man of Mark 14:51,52, then his writing his gospel somewhere around 60-65 C.E. would not make him too old.
The only one advanced in age would have been John. The last books written prior to Revelation was the gospel Mark, the letter of Jude, and 2 Timothy. All circa 65 C.E....then a 33 year gap before the Apostle John's writings.

Fair enough; however, someone was going against me about this and I believe that they were using AD as After Death, as many Christians do.

 

[Kolibri]

Fair enough; however, someone was going against me about this and I believe that they were using AD as After Death, as many Christians do.

understood. C.E. and A.D. are interchangeable calendars. I was not aware of AD being different then A.D.
maybe that would be my misunderstanding.

B.C.E. - Before our Common Era
C.E. - Common Era
B.C. - Before Christ
A.D. - Latin phrase anno domini, which means “in the year of our Lord.”

Considering that Jesus was likely born around October 2 B.C.E and was not the Christ until about the same time of year in 29 C.E., (at his baptism and anointing by holy spirit.) Anno Domini seems to be an inaccurate depiction of 1 C.E. It is still in wide use however.

If I got two A.D.s confused, I am sorry.

 

[Yes]

understood. C.E. and A.D. are interchangeable calendars. I was not aware of AD being different then A.D.
maybe that would be my misunderstanding.

B.C.E. - Before our Common Era
C.E. - Common Era
B.C. - Before Christ
A.D. - Latin phrase anno domini, which means “in the year of our Lord.”

Considering that Jesus was likely born around October 2 B.C.E and was not the Christ until about the same time of year in 29 C.E., (at his baptism and anointing by holy spirit.) Anno Domini seems to be an inaccurate depiction of 1 C.E. It is still in wide use however.

If I got two A.D.s confused, I am sorry.

A poster went against me for saying the first Christians received the scriptures as letters from the Apostles. The poster argued that the 2nd generation Christians got these letters and not the first generation. The poster went on to say that the earliest scriptures were written in 40 A.D. I then understood that the poster is taking 40 AD to mean forty years after the death of Christ.

 

[Kolibri]

yea. I read both accounts and stayed out of the 'fight' till I could find something semi-neutral to interject. Tired of fighting you both over Jesus' designation as his own Father. Decided to take a break, and interject elsewhere where it might be useful.

At least on this point, you and I are in agreement @Yes . It does no good to put our trust in accounts that are obvious forgeries due to the date they were supposedly written.
And these 27 books would all fall within the natural lifespans of the humans used to write them.

 

[Yes]

yea. I read both accounts and stayed out of the 'fight' till I could find something semi-neutral to interject. Tired of fighting you both over Jesus' designation as his own Father. Decided to take a break, and interject elsewhere where it might be useful.

At least on this point, you and I are in agreement @Yes . It does no good to put our trust in accounts that are obvious forgeries due to the date they were supposedly written.
And these 27 books would all fall within the natural lifespans of the humans used to write them.

Instead of arguing about what A.D. meant to the other poster, I tried to show how illogical it is to believe that the Apostles wrote letters to the first Christians but not until they were old, and then gave the letters to the next generation of Christians.

I will not ever tire of speaking about God's Truth and how Jesus is God come in the flesh as a Son.

Would you mind answering some questions so that you can see that Jesus is the same as God the Father?

 

[Kolibri]

Instead of arguing about what A.D. meant to the other poster, I tried to show how illogical it is to believe that the Apostles wrote letters to the first Christians but not until they were old, and then gave the letters to the next generation of Christians.

I will not ever tire of speaking about God's Truth and how Jesus is God come in the flesh as a Son.

Would you mind answering some questions so that you can see that Jesus is the same as God the Father?

If you don't mind waiting a couple days. I need to try to stay focused on a part I have in the school tomorrow night. (One of our weekly meetings includes a 1/2 hour school) It is only a 5 min presentation around the Bible character Ahithophel and how "Jehovah Thwarts the Schemes of Traitors", but it requires the majority of my continued focus for now.

 

[Yes]

If you don't mind waiting a couple days. I need to try to stay focus on a part I have in the school tomorrow night. (One of our weekly meetings includes a 1/2 hour school) It is only a 5 min presentation around the Bible character Ahithophel and how "Jehovah Thwarts the Schemes of Traitors", but it requires the majority of my continued focus for now.

I am glad that you will answer the questions, even if I have to wait a couple of days. You might find them simple enough to answer quickly.


Remember, you said Jesus is not God, so then, you must then teach that God and Jesus are not interchangeable. So then, make sure you only give one person for each answer.



Who will we bow to, God or Jesus?

Who is the light, God or Jesus?


Through who was everything made, through God or Jesus?

Who is the First and the Last, God or Jesus?


Is God our Savior, or is Jesus our Savior?


Who is our Redeemer, God or Jesus?



Who is the Shepherd, God or Jesus?



Who is our Rock, God or Jesus?



Whose commands are they, God's, or Jesus'?


Who sends the Holy Spirit, God, or Jesus?


Who pours out the Holy Spirit, God, or Jesus?

 

[sojourner]

We are to obey the teachings of Jesus. Jesus is in the New Testament.

Then why in the world did you bring up Leviticus???

The New Testament does tell us not to call our brothers in Christ 'father'.

Puh-leeze! Give me a break.
Don't you see the literary hyperbole in that particular statement? Are you that shallow in your reading?

I only go by the Bible.

You only go by what you think the bible says. You're tripping over your own understanding.

It is a denomination, and it is false.

Then so are you, and so is everyone else.

Most the New Testament are letters from the Apostles.

Dear God! Make. It. STOP! Most of the NT is letters, some by Paul, some by anonymous writers. None -- repeat, NONE of it is authored by people who knew Jesus. None. Please! Do everyone a favor and stop dumbing down a beautiful religion.

I believe it was Luke.

Your belief don't make it so.

You want me to believe you over what the Bible says.

In this case, I expect you to believe someone with years of education and study on the subject over your own ignorance. "The bible" doesn't "say" that Luke wrote it. A much later editor added the title "Luke." Probably to give the text some authority.

What man are you believing about these dates?

What man are you believing about these dates? Peer-reviewed scholars? Or some jack-leg who's "gawt the HO-lee Spurrit?"

You refused to be reasoned with about this.

Stop projecting.

The scriptures were not written by men that long after Jesus died and rose.

Yes. They were. That's a product of peer-reviewed scholarship (which I know you dismiss).

I am trying to help you to know God better.

...By doling out misinformation, heresy, and intolerance. There's that pesky log again. You want me to buy into your position better, is what you want.

 

[sojourner]

A poster went against me for saying the first Christians received the scriptures as letters from the Apostles. The poster argued that the 2nd generation Christians got these letters and not the first generation. The poster went on to say that the earliest scriptures were written in 40 A.D. I then understood that the poster is taking 40 AD to mean forty years after the death of Christ.

If you're talking about me, I never used the term "AD." I used the term "C.E.," which follows the same time-frame as B.C/A.D., but eliminates the reference to Jesus' life, out of respect for non-Christians. Jesus is understood to have died about 33 C.E. 1 Thess. was written about 45 C.E. by Paul. That's about 12 years after Jesus. And that's the earliest NT writing.

 

[sojourner]

yea. I read both accounts and stayed out of the 'fight' till I could find something semi-neutral to interject. Tired of fighting you both over Jesus' designation as his own Father. Decided to take a break, and interject elsewhere where it might be useful.

At least on this point, you and I are in agreement @Yes . It does no good to put our trust in accounts that are obvious forgeries due to the date they were supposedly written.
And these 27 books would all fall within the natural lifespans of the humans used to write them.

Not according to generally-accepted time frames, given to us by peer-reviewed scholars. (I know that means little to nothing to you, but, as in the process of building bridges, I'd rather trust a learned engineer than someone without letters who said, "God told me...")

 

[Kolibri]

Not according to generally-accepted time frames, given to us by peer-reviewed scholars. (I know that means little to nothing to you, but, as in the process of building bridges, I'd rather trust a learned engineer than someone without letters who said, "God told me...")

perhaps you could share the evidence you are referring to here or in another thread. I won't be able to really dig into it till tomorrow though...no doubt.

I was allowing myself a little distraction though over the difference of about 5 years between the date your sources project 1 Thessalonians writing and source material I have readily accessible to me. (which isn't much.)

5 years though isn't worth discussing unless you wanted to. It means nothing in the big picture. Having any of the 27 books written after the natural life-spans of those whom the books are attributed to however is a big deal. It means that they can be considered unworthy of our further examination as canonical.

 

[sojourner]

Having any of the 27 books written after the natural life-spans of those whom the books are attributed to however is a big deal. It means that they can be considered unworthy of our further examination as canonical.

In what way can they be considered "unworthy?" "Canonical" doesn't mean "inspired" or "authoritative." It was intended to be a baseline for "stuff that's OK to read in church.

 

[Kolibri]

In what way can they be considered "unworthy?" "Canonical" doesn't mean "inspired" or "authoritative." It was intended to be a baseline for "stuff that's OK to read in church.

correction then: if they are obvious works of art that only pretend to be by 1st Century writers, then they are not 'God-breathed' and should not be considered a base-line for spiritual truth.

 

[Desert Snake]

In what way can they be considered "unworthy?" "Canonical" doesn't mean "inspired" or "authoritative." It was intended to be a baseline for "stuff that's OK to read in church.

Opinion.

correction then: if they are obvious works of art that only pretend to be by 1st Century writers, then they are not 'God-breathed' and should not be considered a base-line for spiritual truth.

Opinion.

 

[sojourner]

perhaps you could share the evidence you are referring to

Wm. Albright Anchor Bible Commentary, Stephen Harris The New Testament, Helmut Koester Introduction to the New Testament, Luke Timothy Johnson Sacra Pagina. There's more, but my stuff's in storage right now, and that's all I can pull off the top of my head.

correction then: if they are obvious works of art that only pretend to be by 1st Century writers, then they are not 'God-breathed' and should not be considered a base-line for spiritual truth.

That's a false criterion, not shared by the writers or compliers of the texts. They don't "pretend" anything. they simply are what they are. Mark was written ca. 70 C.E. Matt was written ca. 80 C.E. Lk/Acts was written ca. 85 C.E. Jn was written ca. 90-100 C.E. The compendium of Pauline epistles was written ca. 50-60 C.E. The other epistles a little later. These are all first century dates. I don't think they are "God-breathed." I think human beings wrote them, just like human beings wrote the rest of the biblical texts. The baseline wasn't a measure of "spiritual truth." it was a measure of authenticity and authority.

 

[sojourner]

Opinion.

Huh. Most everything concerning the bible is opinion. but there's a HUGE difference between scholarly or considered opinion, and "what I happen to believe." Scholarly opinion, derived from a historical consideration, shows that the canon was a base guideline. It never meant to exclude other writings as not being "inspired" or even "truthful" or "useful." It set a baseline standard for authenticity and authority whose aim was to establish "what could be read in church." Sorry -- that's history.