I John 5:7

[Peggy]

I greatly fear that the spirit of anti-christ has found it’s way into your writings. I pray this is not so but any spirit that denies the diety of Jesus Christ is anti-christ. You are damning yourself with this erroneous doctrine. Do not be deceived. You cannot be saved if you deny the diety of Jesus the Messiah because his is the only name by which we can be saved. He and the Father are One…you can’t have one without the other. If you deny Jesus, the Father will deny you.

I have some verses in response to your position on Jesus’ Christ not being God:

1) John 1:1-2 (1)"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God. (3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (4) In him was life; and the life was the light of men. (10) He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. (14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

2) I John 5: 7 (7) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, The Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

In His Service,

[Proclaimer]

Hi Peggy,

Thank you for your post.

John 1:1 is probably the major verse used to support the Trinity, yet even Trinitarian scholars admit that it doesn't say that the Word is God the person. The reason is that the last word 'God' has no article and articles are used in Greek to define people. E.g. 'The Jesus' when we would just say
Jesus.

This is how John 1:1 reads with the articles. (we remove them to render them intelligable in English).

In the beginning was THE Word, THE Word was with THE God and THE Word was god.

The last word god is not talking about God the person, rather God in nature. If the last part said  “THE Word was with THE God” this would actually disqualify the Father as God because it would mean that the Word was exclusively God.

If you do not believe what I am saying, then I ask you to read the proof recorded at this link. These are from quotes from scholars some Trinitarian and others not, but they all say the same thing.

https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity-5.htm

In fact John himself gives the reason why he wrote his Gospel, and that reason was certainly not to prove that Jesus is God. No his reason is as follows:

John 20:30-31.
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples,
which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. “

The point is that no one person has ever pointed out to me a verse that is talking about the Most High God and then identifies that God as Jesus.

Please give me one verse. God in identity is always the Father and in nature or authority it can refer to men, angels and the sons of god and the Son of God.

Now you say that the Spirit of AnitChrist is manifest in a person who denies that Jesus is God. This is not true. The AntiChrist spirit is determined by those who do not acknowledge that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. In fact to say that God came in the flesh is actually the anitChrist spirit itself. God never came in the flesh and God never died (and God doesn't have a mother), that is impossible. It was the Word/Logos who became flesh and died for our sins so he could redeem us back to God. God's Holy Spirit will always testify that Jesus is the Son of God.

This truth is the foundation of the Church itself and is this is the reason why Satan attacks that truth with formulas and theology that came hundreds of years after the last book in the bible was written.

Your last point about I John 5: 7 proving the Trinity is unfortunately a lie, although I acknowledge your ignorance to this reason. This verse is not found in other Bibles (except the KJV) because it is not mentioned in the older and more reliable scripts. In fact in the Textus Receptus from whence the KJV was translated, this verse is actully a footnote that is not included in the scripture itself. It was added in by the KJV scholars probably due to trinitarian bias.

Peggy I do not wish to decieve you in any way and you have challenged me with questions and forced an answer from me. So you must be thinking that
how can all those Christians be wrong and I be right.

Well I first of all would like to say that I am not right. God is right and he reveals his righteousness through Christ, his Spirit, the scriptures and the Church.

Romans 3:4
Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: “So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.”

If we look at the scriptures we can see that there is One God and One Lord. One is the Father and the other is the Son. We are also warned by Jesus and Paul of a great falling away and the flood of deceivers and wolves amongst the flock.

In the end if you really wish to be set free into the truth, you must come out of Babylon. Babylon is the Mother of all false religion and the Trinity actually originated in Babylon and it spread to Egypt which is where it was established as a so-called Christian doctrine.

It may be shocking to realise that the Christian System is itself Babylon. Jesus Church is made up of all true believers who acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord and Christ and who are in right standing with their creator.

I challenge you to search the truth with all your heart. You cannot go wrong if you pray always in God's will in the name of Jesus and if you genuinely seek truth and the way.

If you have any questions then I will be there to help, but I do encourage you to fully read the Trinity writing as it answers all the questions you will most likely have and thereafter your questions will be more valid.

My God bless you as you seek him.

[Proclaimer]

Hi Peggy,

Sorry I made a mistake when I quoted the following paragraph.

The last word god is not talking about God the person, rather God in nature. If the last part said  “THE Word was with THE God” this would actually disqualify the Father as God because it would mean that the Word was exclusively God.

I meant to say the following:

“THE Word was God”, which in the Greek actually would say THE God was THE Word. Which then excludes the Father from being God. But because the
last word GOD doesn't have the article, it is understood as an adjective/quality rather than a noun. Trinitarian Scholars hard at work with the Trinity Doctrine mislead the average reader by making out that the last word GOD is talking about a person, even though they know full well that the article is not present.

So it reads “The Word was god”.

I use to defend the Trinity like most Christians, but as I grew older and wiser, I simply saw through it, with the assisitance of God's Spirit who leads us into all truth.

I will say that God used me when I believed in the Trinity doctrine and he also uses me now that I do not believe in it. The main thing that we should believe is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. To deny this is to deny the true faith. The true faith is not founded on the Trinity doctrine. That is another foundation.

Matthew 16:16-17
16 Simon Peter answered,  “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied,  “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not
revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Ephesians 4:4-6 (English-NIV)
4 there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope
when you were called
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

1 Corinthians 8:5-6 (English-NIV)
5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as
indeed there are many  “gods” and many  “lords”),
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and
for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all
things came and through whom we live.

May God bless you through Jesus Christ our Lord.

[Peggy]

Thank you for taking time to email me with your position. There are many things to say in response but my time is limited. I’m sure you already know that every version except the AJKV was translated from the Minority Text (Siniaticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B) via Alexandria via Rome and, contrary to what it says in the back of your NIV, they are not older than the earliest versions of the Bible: The /Preshitta, Italic, Waldensian/ and the /Old Latin Vulgate/. These ancient versions are some 200 years older than Aleph and B. They are older than other Greek manuscript copies of the Bible but they are not older than /The Preshitta, Italic, Waldensian/ and the /Old Latin Vulgate/.

All Bibles fall basically into two categories: those based on the Majority Text (Textus Receptus) and those based on the Minority Text (Siniaticus is a manuscript that was found in 1844 in a trash pile in St. Catherine’s Monastery near Mt. Sinai by a man named Tischdorf.

Codex Vaticanus was produced in the 4th century. It was found over a thousand years later in 1481 in the Vatican in Rome, where it is currently held. It is believed to one of 50 Bibles Constantine ordered from Egypt. If you have time, research Hort and Westcott. These two atheist wrote the textbook for Greek translation that is still being used to this day in Bible studies. It is their Greek translation of the Minority Text that you have chosen to believe.

Scripture proof of Jesus is God is at
http://www.seekgod.org/bible/jesusisgod.html

[Proclaimer]

Thx Peggy,

I took for granted that I John 5:7 was a spurious addition to the text and was not penned by any biblical writer and the reason for it was omitted in modern translations. I was even told this by a close friend of mine who is a Trintarian who told me that the verse is actually a footnote in the Textus Receptus. So I guess I better do the right thing and check it out to see if it is so.

I also got this from Encarta and have added it so that we can perhaps gain an understanding of the different texts out there and how they are viewed and grouped and how the different bibles use them when determining what makes it into a translation and why.

Determining what was originally written, whatever its meaning or relevance may be, is the concern of the so-called lower criticism. The textual critic has two means of establishing a text: external and internal criteria. The external criteria comprise the physical properties of the manuscripts themselves—their material, age, and the style of the script—and the history of the manuscripts. (No autograph text of any biblical author has been found and it is unlikely that any will be.) The extant manuscripts of the Old Testament date only from Christian times, hundreds of years after the time of its original composition. Nevertheless, the evidence of the ancient versions (the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate) and the pre-Masoretic fragments (see Masora) that have survived suggests that the standard Hebrew text still extant has been preserved with extraordinary fidelity. The New Testament, on the other hand, is the best-attested text that survives from the Greco-Roman world. Complete and nearly complete New Testament manuscripts date from the 4th century, and numerous existing fragments were probably copied within a century of the original composition of the text. Although literally thousands of variant readings are found among these manuscripts, 90 percent of them involve only incidental matters (such as the substitution of one synonym for another) and present problems that can be solved with relative ease by the textual critic.

In any case, textual critics must depend for their judgments on the internal criteria, which constitute the grounds on which a given manuscript is determined to be authoritative or not. These are simply the commonsense principles by which one variant reading is judged more likely to be original than another. For example, a shorter variant is generally taken to be superior to a longer one, on the assumption that a copyist is more likely to amplify a text (for clarity or other reasons) than to compress it. Similarly, the more difficult of two or more readings is assumed to have the greater probability of originality, because a scribe's tendency would have been to explain away or resolve interpretative problems rather than create them.

Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[Proclaimer]

It seems that there is a great debate raging on both sides as to the authenticity of 1 John 5:7, yet most (including Trinitarians) seem to believe that the verse was not penned by John.

(“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”)

First of all I would like to quote from a Trinitarian who doesn't deny his belief in the Trinity, but denies that 1 John 5:7 is scripture.

Should 1 John 5:7 be used to “prove” the Trinity? By Rev. Sam HarrisQ.

Q I am a firm believer in the Trinity. One verse I looked
upon to prove the Trinity is 1John 5:7. I hear that there is some controversy
over the genuineness of this verse, that it was added in the 1500’s. Can you
help me with this? Was this verse penned by John, or an editor of the sixteenth
century?

A. The verse in question is: “And it is the Spirit who
bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.” (NASB) According to The Interpreter’s
Bible, Vol. 12, page 293, a number of translations will reject this verse as
it appears in no ancient Greek manuscript nor is it cited by any Greek fathers.
Of all the versions, only the Latin contained it, and even this is in none of
the most ancient sources. The earliest manuscripts of the Vulgate do not have
it. It is probably a gloss that has crept into the text. The explanation from
The Interpreter’s Bible is also supported by a number of other commentaries.
This should not in any way negate your and my strong belief in the Trinity.
For an excellent one page article on the Trinity entitled “One and Three: The
Trinity,” look at the New Geneva Study Bible, printed by Nelson, page 102.1
BD Harris 999

Other quotes I found are found below:

The scripture translator Benjamin Wilson gives the following explanation for this action in his “Emphatic Diaglott.” Mr. Wilson says:

“This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained
in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century.
It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin
fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead
them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious.”

The great luminary of Western literature, Mr. Edward
Gibbon, explains the reason for the discardal of this verse from the pages of
the Bible with the following words in the “Decline and fall of the Roman Empire,”
IV, Gibbon, p. 418.

“Of all the manuscripts now extant, above fourscore in number,
some of which are more than 1200 years old, the orthodox copies of the Vatican,
of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are becoming invisible; and the
two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception…In the
eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop
of Canterbury, and by Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of the Roman church,
secundum Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is still
wanting in twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest and fairest; two qualities
seldom united, except in manuscripts….The three witnesses have been established
in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the
Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in
the placing of a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension,
of Theodore Beza.”

Peake's Commentary on the Bible says

“The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not
printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father,
the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies.
No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin
text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus.”

It seems that the horrors of the great inquisitions held back Sir Isaac Newton from openly revealing these facts to all:

“In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about
the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, the text
of the 'three in heaven' was never once thought of. It is now in everybody's mouth
and accounted the main text for the business and would assuredly have been so
too with them, had it been in their books… Let them make good sense of it who
are able. For my part I can make none. If it be said that we are not to determine
what is scripture and what not by our private judgments, I confess it in places
not controverted, but in disputed places I love to take up with what I can best
understand. It is the temper of the hot and superstitious part of mankind in matters
of religion ever to be fond of mysteries, and for that reason to like best what
they understand least. Such men may use the Apostle John as they please, but I
have that honor for him as to believe that he wrote good sense and therefore take
that to be his which is the best”

Apparently 1 John 5:7 was not mentioned at Nicea, but I wasn't there so I cannot
confirm this statement. But if it were not mentioned, then it seems strange
as they were trying to confirm the Trinity doctrine.

I will add more stuff when it comes to my attention.

[Proclaimer]

The complete absence of I John 5:7 from any of Luther's various editions and revisions of his Bible translation is confirmed by a number of sources.  First, Karl Braune in Lange's commentary, informs us regarding the disputed words:

Luther never translated these words, but commented upon them in his second commentary on this Epistle, although he had pronounced them spurious in his first commentary.  They are omitted in all German Wittenberg Bibles from 1522-1545; they are first inserted in Lehmann's Quarto Wittenberg edition of 1596, although they are still wanting in later editions and in the Quarto edition of 1620.  They appear first in the Zuerich edition of 1529; the next edition of 1531 has this passage in smaller type, the later editions insert it in brackets, which were not abandoned until 1597.  The Basle edition of 1552 gives it already without brackets.  Of the Frankfurt editions, the Quarto of 1582 was the first in which this passage is inserted, although it is omitted in the Octavo edition of the same year.  It was of no avail that Luther considered these words as a clumsy addition directed against the Arians which was wanting in the Greek Bibles….

According to Braune, then, Luther never included the disputed words in any Bible translation made by him, and expressly stated that he considered the words a clumsy insertion fabricated to refute the Arians.

[Proclaimer]

Taken from
http://www.tegart.com This is for reference only, and I am not endorsing the conclusion found at the end of this article.

========

A Simple Outline regarding I John 5:7

by Doug Kutilek

I John 5: 7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, The Word, and the Holy Ghost:  and these three are one.

It is generally agreed that v. 7 has no real authority, and has been inserted.

Two questions: 1. What does this note mean?  and, 2. Is Scofield right?

1. Scofield is stating that this verse was not an original part of I John, that the Apostle did not write these words and the Holy Spirit did not inspire them, but that they were inserted into the text of I John at a later date.  This opinion is the view of the vast majority of experts on the subject of the original text of the New Testament.
2. Is Scofield right?  To answer this, we must ask, what is the evidence?

First, some essential background information

• I John and all of the NT was originally written in the Greek language.
• from the 1st century until the printing of the NT in the early 16th century (more than 1,400 years), all copies of the NT were hand-written manuscripts.

  1. Scribes, subject to human limitations, made various mistakes in producing copies, most being accidental changes, though some were intentional.
  2. While God did not preserve the copists from making any mistakes, He did providentially limit the degree of variation so that the doctrinal content of the NT was not affected by the variations introduced.  The doctrinal teaching of all 1,500 printed editions of the Greek NT is identical.
  3. Most scribal errors are immediately recognizable, and the text of the NT can be established with 99.5% certainty, and the remaining .5% does not affect doctrine.

We have a much higher degree of certainty of the exact original wording of the NT than any other writing from the ancient world.  More than 5,000 Greek manuscripts have been preserved (one less than 50 years later than the original writing of John), plus translations into nearly a dozen ancient languages, plus more than 85,000 quotations in Christian writers from the 1st to the 10th centuries.

The evidence regarding I John 5:7

1. Greek manuscripts-about 300 existing Greek manuscripts contain the book of I John.  Of these manuscripts, only 4 (manuscript numbers 61, 629, 918,
   2318) contain the disputed words of v.7.  All four are very late manuscripts (16th, 14th or 15th, 16th, and 18th centuries A.D. respectively); none gives the Greek text exactly as it appears in printed Greek NTs, and all 4 manuscripts give clear evidence that these words were
   translated into Greek from Latin.
   Four additional manuscripts (88, 12th century; 221, 10th; 429, 16th; 636, 15th) have the disputed words copied in the margin by much later writers.
2. Ancient writers: no Greek-speaking Christian writer before the year 1215 A.D. shows any knowledge of the disputed words.  Not once are these words quoted in the great controversy with the Arians (over the Deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity) in the 3rd and 4th centuries; they certainly would have been quoted if they had existed in any Greek manuscript of that period. The disputed words are quoted as Scripture only by Latin-speaking writers, and only after the middle of the 5th century A.D.
3. Ancient translations: the disputed words are not found in any of the ancient translations of the NT made in the 2nd-10th centuries A.D.–Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavic–except in Latin.
   The words are found in some manuscripts (but not the earliest) of the Old Latin version, and in many manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate (but not the earliest).

Conclusion:

the evidence of every kind is consistent and clear: the disputed words of I John 5:7 have no claim as an original part of John's letter, but were introduced into Greek from Latin in the very late Middle Ages.

How did the disputed words arise in Latin?

Some Latin-speaking scribe or preacher in North Africa in the 3rd or 4th century probably drew an analogy between the three witnesses of I Jn. 5:8 (the Spirit, and the water, and the blood), and the three persons of the Trinity, and wrote out his idea in the margin of his manuscript.  A later scribe inserted the words from the margin into the text, and from there the insertion gradually spread to other manuscripts until they were included in a majority of medieval Latin manuscripts of I John.

How did the disputed words find there way into printed copies of the Greek NT?

The first published Greek NT was edited in 1516 by Catholic priest, scholar, and humanist Erasmus in 1516. This edition did not include the disputed words.  A
revised edition in 1519 also did not include these words. Erasmus was severely criticised by other Catholic priests for not including in Greek these words which were well-known to them from the Latin.  Erasmus said that the words were left out simply because he did not find them in any of the Greek manuscripts he had examined, and promised to insert them if they were found in even one Greek manuscript.

An Irish monk deliberately fabricated such a manuscript to meet Erasmus' requirement.  This manuscript (no. 61) was copied from an early manuscript which did not contain the words.  The page in this manuscript containing the disputed words is on a special paper and has a glossy finish, unlike any other page in the manuscript.  On the basis of this one 16th century deliberately falsified manuscript, Erasmus inserted the disputed words in his 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions of the Greek NT, though he protested that he did not believe the words were genuine.

Nearly all printed Greek NTs from Erasmus until the 19th century were simply reprints of Erasmus' 4th or 5th edition, and so the words continued to be printed in Greek as part of I John even though there is no sufficient evidence for their inclusion.  Recent editions of the Greek NT follow the manuscript evidence and therefore do not insert the words.

How did the disputed words find their way into English Bibles?

1. The earliest English New Testament, the translation of Wycliffe in the 1380s, was made from medieval Latin manuscripts, and so it includes the disputed words, though it reads “son” instead of “word.”
2. Tyndale's translation of 1525 was based on Erasmus' 3rd edition and so it included the words.  In the 2nd and 3rd editions of his translation, Tyndale placed the disputed words in parentheses to show that their genuineness was doubtful.
3. Several editions of the NT edited by Tyndale's assistant Miles Coverdale also placed the disputed words in parentheses or smaller type or both to show that they were disputed.
4. Jugge's 1552 edition of Tyndale's NT omitted the parentheses and printed the words in standard type, a practice followed in later English Bibles, including the KJV (based on Beza's 1598 Greek NT, a virtual reprint of Erasmus' 4th edition).
5. Recent conservative translations of the NT (ASV, NASB, NIV) delete the disputed words entirely or put them in a footnote because the evidence is conclusive that they were not an original part of John's letter.  [Verse numbers were not added until 1551 in a Greek NT based on Erasmus' 4th edition]

Conclusion:

Yes, Scofield is right.

Question: If the words are not genuine, does this affect the doctrine of the Trinity?

Answer: not in the least.  Those Christian writers of the 2nd-4th centuries who compiled from Scripture the true orthodox doctrine of the Trinity (namely, that the one true God exists in three equal persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) did so without any reference to the disputed words.  If their biblical proofs were correct and suf
ficient and based on undisputed passages, and they certainly were, then the doctrine stands unmoved.

========

Note: I am not necessarily endorsing all that is contained in this writing, I offer it as a reference only. In particular I do not agree with the last paragraph.

[thehappyman]

Hi :
John 3:16 says quite alot as to who is who. ( "For God so loved the world , that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him , should not perish, but have everlasting life ). ……..(God sent His Son.) ……..  God bless

[Proclaimer]

Amen.

It is really obvious. God sent his Son. God didn’t send himself.

[NickHassan]

Hi,
The site Peggy referred to in this excellent forum tries to show Jesus is the Father.

It says that Jesus is the 'body of God' and presents Jesus as like a hand puppet doing what ever the Father wanted.

Anyone who knows how Jesus fervently prayed in the Garden in dread of his destiny [mk 14.35f]before he totally accepted the will of his Father will realise that picture is not a true one.

[Proclaimer]

Yes that teaching denies the person of Yeshua. They deny that Yeshua came in the flesh. Instead they say that YWHW came in the flesh. So they are antichrist.

They also demote God by saying that he can transform himself into a created being. But God dwells in creation. He is not creation itself.

https://heavennet.net/answers/answer09.htm

[NickHassan]

Hi,
Acts 17.24
” The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;neither is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things; and He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation, that they should seek God, and find Him, though He is not far from any one of us;for in Him we live and move and exist”

How big is your God folks? This big?

[Human]

Just wanted to add a quick post regarding 1 John 5:7.

If you look at the context and verses around it, it is clear that those three bearing witness are the SPIRIT, the WATER, and the BLOOD (not what trinitarians claim this verse says).

To t8,

I really liked some of the reasoning you provided in this topic. It fully corresponds to what I believe.

Just wanted to ask one additional thing (sorry if this is not the right place for it!):

Do you believe that the paradise will be here on earth and that there will be “a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust” in flesh on paradise earth?

[Proclaimer]

To Human,

thx for the encouragement.

Yes I believe in a resurrection for the just and the unjust. The latter group will be raised for the purpose of judgment and thrown into the Lake of Fire for the Second Death.

I believe that God will create a new earth. I am not sure if that is a renovated old one or a completely new one. But I believe that the universe and earth will melt with intense heat and fire. I also think that the fire is the same fire that detroys the ungodly. Paradise appears to be not one place physically, but a state. Eden, Abrahams Bosom, a part of Heaven all appear/ed to be Paradise.

I am still searching so I do not say that I have all the answers here. In the 'Hell' discussion there is mention of these things:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….=1;t=43

Maybe a new discussion could start called “The New Heavens & Earth”.

[Human]

t8,

I think it is very important to understand what was God's initial plan towards the earth and mankind.

Genesis 1:28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

God did not change his plan after the flood:

Genesis 9:1 So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.

Psalms 115:16 The heavens are the heavens of the LORD, But the earth He has given to the sons of men.

So God's plan was to fill the earth, not heaven and God does not cancel his plans – Isaiah 55:10,11.

If Adam and Eve did not sin, they would still be on earth not in heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven is a solution (to Satan's damage) not a destination.

Of course there are certain people going to heaven. The Bible is clear about that. But does not Daniel's book give more light on this?

Daniel 7:27 Then the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High.

Also Revelation:
Revelation 5:10 And have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth. [NASB “upon the earth”]”

I think that those going to heaven are the kings and priests, co-rulers of Jesus Christ – the holy nation. In fact, the Israelites were those who first had the chance to become a holy nation of kings and priests – Exodus 19:6. But they did not accept Jesus so God took their right away from them. However, as I said before, God does not change or cancel his plan – and he will accomplish his plan and will gather a holy nation through which all other nations will be sanctified – Genesis 18:18.

This also very well fits with what Jesus said:

Luke 22:30 that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Luke 12:32 “Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom.

Jesus also spoke of those who would be on earth:
Matthew 5:5 “Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.

Does it make sense?

[trettep]

There is only two real verses that I can see being used to support the Trinity doctrine and that is the subject verse above and also Matt 28:19. The subject verse according to JFB commentary shows that it was omitted in the early manuscripts. Also, Matt 28:19 is contrary to every other verse on the subject of baptism proving it must be either be wrong or the all the others are wrong where it says that baptism must be in the Name of Jesus Christ.

Paul

[NickHassan]

Welcome tt,
You are right.The deception goes way back to before 200ad.

Human,where does it say that Adam and Eve went to heaven? I am sure it only says that about Elijah and Enoch. Or any priests and kings going to heaven? You say they[we] rule on earth and I agree.

The kingdom OF heaven is not just IN heaven but ON earth too. Yeshua told a man he was not far from the kingdom of heaven but he was not saying he was not far from heaven was he? God rules His kingdom through Yeshua who rules it through us too.

[Proclaimer]

I would like to add:

Kingdom of Heaven.
Heaven the place has a Kingdom.
This Kingdom itself is not restricted to this place, but comes from here
It extends to encompass all creation in the end.
So earth isn't Heaven, but will be ruled by the Kingdom from there.

Likewise Great Britain was/is a place.
It was a great kingdom. (The British Empire.)
It extended itself to encompass countries from every continent.
As they use to say, “the sun never sets in the empire”. (Something like that.)
So India is not England, but was ruled by the kingdom from Britain.

[NickHassan]

Quite so. thank you.

[Author]

Posts