- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Matthew 28:19 is also not “original” Scripture. (In particular pay attention to what former Cardinal Ratzinger – now the POPE – has to say, and what the Catholic Encyclopedia also admits.)
See: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htmIn fact, of the three primary passages cited by “trinitarians,” NOT A SINGLE ONE is “original Scripture.” They were ALL modifications inserted into the text loooonnngggg after the original Scriptures were finalized in the first century.
Bottom line: Even the Roman Church itself ADMITS the “trinity” is not a BIBLICAL doctrine/dogma, but was the product of later Roman Church theological development. Those who attempt to defend the trinity are all doing so “after the fact of its fabrication by the Roman Church,” – – – BEFORE this fabrication was promulgated by the Roman Church, early Christianity DID NOT believe in the “trinity,” and certaily the Hebrews for thousands of years understood perfectly well the “Spirit” was NOT a “person,” but was rather the “active force/will” of God, used to accomplish His purposes.
The true relationship is: God (Yahweh) the Father, Jesus (Yashuah) the Son, and the (Holy) Spirit being the active force employed by God (and through Him, Christ as well) to accomplish His purposes…….and they are certainly NOT “equal.”
Those who attempt to defend the trinity are doing so “retrospectively,” and most are not even aware they are trying to “defend” something that its originators (the Roman Church) have ALREADY ADMITTED is a pure theological fabrication instituted in the late 3rd/early 4th century by the Roman Church.
If you are one of those “defending” the trinity, you might want to ask yourself, “WHY am I defending a theological concept that is ADMITTEDLY a fabricated product of the 3rd/4th century ROMAN CHURCH, and DID NOT EVEN EXIST before they “invented it?”
Then again, most “Christians” of today are so lackadaisical they haven't even figured out that Scripture shows Wednesday to be the correct day for the crucifixion, not Friday…….why on earth should we expect them to accurately research the “trinity?”
what do you mean by all three. I know of 1 john 5 and mt 28.
Mt 28:19-20 is quoted in didache,ignatious,justin and so many other early christian writings and the evidence against it is sosmall. 1 john 5:7 though lake of manuscript evidence belongs to. it is qouted by cyprian and tertullian and gregory says without it there is a grammatcial error in the greek. Plus even if you take all of those verses out you still have the trinity.Do the Catholics believe in the trinity? YES.
Yet, what do they admit?
The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.
So, it took a couple hundred of years for the trinity doctrine to be solidly established. Quite coincidental that this was happening in what seems to be a period when the apostasy that Jesus and the apostles fortold was taking hold. Maybe it was all just a coincidence. Maybe it was a coincidence that the pagans worshipped trinities and Constantine wanted unity in his empire among Christians and pagans.
In 325 C.E. the Council of Nicaea introduced the doctrine of the Incarnate Christ, or God-man. This denial that Jesus was in fact a man became one of the most misleading doctrines of Christendom.
2 JOHN 7
“For many deceivers have gone forth into the world, persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.”
What role did the unbaptized Emperor Constantine play at the Council of Nicaea?
The Encyclopædia Britannica states: “Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, ‘of one substance [ho·mo·ou´si·os] with the Father.’ . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.” (1971, Volume 6, page 386.)
After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? “Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology,” says A Short History of Christian Doctrine. What he did understand was that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he was determined to solidify his empire.Regarding the final document that was drafted in Nicaea under Constantine’s auspices, Istoria tou Ellinikou Ethnous (History of the Greek Nation) observes: “It shows [Constantine’s] indifference to doctrinal matters, . . . his stubborn insistence in trying to restore unity within the church at any cost, and finally his conviction that as ‘bishop of those outside the church’ he had the final say about any religious matter.” Could God’s spirit possibly have been behind the decisions made at that council?—Compare Acts 15:28, 29.
Anyway, so truebelief4u, I too am wondering what the third scripture is that is spurious.
david
No. He doesn't “belong” to the Watchtower, whatever that means.
And nor is he a Witness of Jehovah.david.
The third is John 1:1, et seq.
No, I am not a proponent of the Watchtower.
The comments above indicate clearly that those who are commenting are more “believing” of the “church” than the original (or more accurately, the “oldest”) Scriptures. I would say that when the Roman Church itself admits these are later additions, and unknown to the early Christians, that's a pretty good indication they are theological developments of the Roman Church, not original Bible doctrine/dogma. What “man” promulgates rarely has much to do with what God set forth originally.
While I am not a strict proponent of “sola scriptura,” I would also have to say that if some doctrine/dogma disagrees with original (or oldest) Scripture, it is most likely incorrect and a result of “man's” interpretation, rather than being what God set forth.
The “holy spirit” is not a person, and for thousands of years the Hebrews (and later the early Christians as well) understood the spitit to be God's “active force” by which He accomplished His purposes. There is no trinity….there IS God the Father, Christ the Son, and the “active force” of the spirit. All who defend the trinity do so retrospectively in light of theological development by man (whether by the Roman Church, or the later Protestant Church)…..it is NOT a Biblical doctrine (a fact which has been admitted by the Roman Church).
YOU may choose to “believe” there is a co-equal “trinity,” but your belief does not agree with Scripture, nor does it agree with the thousands of years of understanding by the Hebrews regarding the “spirit,” nor does it agree with the understanding of the early Christians. You are “defending” a concept that didn't even EXIST until the very late 3rd century. And if you think that “man,” and his man-made church theology, overrides what God has set forth, you are sadly mistaken…..what MAN thinks means very little…..it is what God set forth that means everything. But you are no different than millions of others who choose to “believe what they will,” rather than believe what the Scripture actually said.
I think I'll stick with the oldest, and most accurate Scripture, and the understanding of the Hebrews and early Christians…………..safer that way!
I don't want to have to try to explain to Christ why I “believed” some man-made theological fabrication, when God's written word, and thousands of years understanding clearly indicated something different.I've never heard anyone on here other than me describe God's holy spirit as God's “active force.” Interesting.
Well, that's what thousands of years of Hebrew history show, and that is also what the early Christians believed. The Roman Church came up with a lot of new “theological developments,” later on…..doesn't make them correct.
They can't even get the day of the crucifixion right….check your Scriptures closely and pay attention to detail…..Christ was crucified on WEDNESDAY, not Friday. No one seems to notice John 19:31 which plainly states the day following the crucifixion was a “HIGH/SPECIAL Sabbath,” not the regular weekly Sabbath. It was in fact the same High Sabbath that ALWAYS followed Passover – The first day of the feast of unleavened bread (Leviticus). Jesus entered Jerusalem for the last time on SUNDAY (what we call Palm Sunday), and the Bible says “after two days was the Passover.” Hmmmm….so following Monday & Tuesday (2 days) was the Passover (Wednesday). And the women bought and prepared spices….WHEN? They did that on Friday, the ONLY “regular business day” between Wednesday and Saturday. Not to mention the ONLY way Matthew 12:39-40 and Mark 8:31 can be true is if Christ spent THREE FULL NIGHTS/DAYS in the tomb, and was THEN resurrected following those three days, but BEFORE another full “night” passed by….he was resurrected before sunrise on Sunday. Put ALL the Scriptural facts together in sequence and you have crucifixion and burial WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON just before sunset, THURSDAY, FRIDAY, & SATURDAY spent in the tomb, and resurrection SUNDAY BEFORE SUNRISE……now, how many “churches” do you think are going to admit the error, and start teaching “Good Wednesday,” instead of “Good Friday?” I have spoken to several Pastors regarding this, and ALL OF THEM admitted the Bible takes you to WEDNESDAY……..know how many of those Pastors got up in front of their congregations and corrected the error? ZERO.
Which goes to show me that “facts/evidence & authentic Scripture” mean absolutely ZILCH in today's world…..it's all about what the “church” teaches (whatever “church you happen to attend)…..never mind what the BIBLE says!
Hi truebelief4u,
Will you allow me to test your hypothesis that the Holy Spirit is God's “active force”? Are you interested?Actually, I'm not so interested in you testing that belief. I'm moreso interested in learning how he came to that belief.
Quote (david @ Feb. 10 2006,04:56) I am. Is 1:18, how would you describe God's holy spirit?
Sorry David,
Truebelief4u, not being a Watchtower, is less likely to give me a 'canned' answer. This is what I hope anyway.I believe that the Holy Spirit, like Jesus, is a unique manifestation of the Father which came about at the instant of creation of these two realities. I believe that when God created these realities, these planes of existence were outside of Himself and these new manifestations contained the essence of the Father but are themselves separate beings.
The trouble arises from our trying to interpret the spiritual by our reality. By that I mean we assume that the spiritual reality is the same as ours just in another dimension and with some different rules. I believe that the spiritual reality is beyond our comprehension it is made up, operates and flows in ways we do not even begin to understand (hence the symbological ref. in scripture).
Okay don’t stone me, I’m not teaching this as doctrine but only relaying what I believe is what God has shown me as I’ve strove to understand Him and scriptures. I only throw it out as it fits the discussion.
We have a saying in my line of business “you can’t be afraid to murder your darlings” (I know it sounds bad), what it means is we become attached to ideas and don’t want to let them go but if we what to move on sometimes it’s necessary. I’m open to correction and need it if I’ve perverted scripture in any way.
Thank you
Rough night……
OK……Is 1:18; What “hypothesis?” That the “spirit” is a thing rather than a person is not a hypothesis…..that is precisely what the Hebrews and early Christians believed. [How many “people” do you know that don't even have a “name?” The “spirit” has no name, it is not a person, it is God's “active force,” by which He accomplishes His purposes.] Whew, there are so many illustrations of this I don't even know where to begin! Here are a few quick links…..if you need more, just holler…..
http://www.geocities.com/b_r_a_d_99/trinity.htm
http://jehovah.to/exe/general/holyspirit.htm (This one is from the Jehovah's Witnesses and illustrates why I say some of their resarch is excellent…..I won't say ALL of their research is good, but I do not reject authentic facts/evidence from ANY source, JW or otherwise.)
From Wikipedia……(Note what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say as well.)
Non-Trinitarian Christian views
In the belief of many nontrinitarian religions — Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance — the Holy Spirit is God's spirit or God's active force, and not an actual person. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the Holy Spirit is considered a third and individual member of the Godhead, a different being from the Father and the Son, having a body of spirit (whereas the Father and the Son are believed to be resurrected individuals having immortalized bodies of flesh and bone).
Jehovah's Witnesses point out [3] that personification in the Bible occurs often, including terms such as wisdom, sin and death, water and blood, and does not indicate that the subject is a person. The fact that the Holy Spirit is referred to impersonally several times is used to assert that references of this manner would not occur in such frequency if this was a divine member of God, just as it does not occur with the Father or the Son. Additionally, at Jesus' baptism in Matthew 3:16, Jesus received God's spirit at that time, which Witnesses say conflicts with the idea that the Son was always one with the Holy Spirit. Jesus relates in Mark 13:32 “But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” The Witnesses note that the Holy Spirit is conspicuously missing from this statement, just as it is missing from Stephen's vision in Acts 7:55, 56 where he sees only the Son and God in heaven.
Also noted, in regards to the mentions of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit together (as in 2 Cor 13:14; 1 Cor 12:4-6; Matt 28:19), nontrinitarians bring out that none of these verses offer any evidence of the equality of nature or authority among them, just as the numerous simultaneous references to “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” or “Peter, James and John”, or “Tom, Dick and Harry” do not infer an equality in any manner. Alvan Lamson says in The Church of the First Three Centuries: “The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity . . . derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and . . . holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact.”
There are many Roman Catholic writings that support the idea of the Holy Spirit not being an actual person. One, the New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The O[ld] T[estament] clearly does not envisage God's spirit as a person . . . God's spirit is simply God's power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly. … The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, pp. 574, 575)
According to those who hold the minority view of Binitarianism, the Holy Spirit is not a separate being, but the Father and the Son are. One such group, the Living Church of God teaches this about the Holy Spirit, “The Holy Spirit is the very essence, the mind, life and power of God. It is not a Being. The Spirit is inherent in the Father and the Son, and emanates from Them throughout the entire universe (1 Kings 8:27; Psalm 139:7; Jeremiah 23:24). It was through the Spirit that God created all things (Genesis 1:1-2; Revelation 4:11). It is the power by which Christ maintains the universe (Hebrews 1:2-3). It is given to all who repent of their sins and are baptized (Acts 2:38-39) and is the power (Acts 1:8; 2 Timothy 1:6-7) by which all believers may be “overcomers” (Romans 8:37, KJV; Revelation 2:26-27) and will be led to eternal life” (Official Statement of Fundamental Beliefs)[END OF QUOTE FROM WIKIPEDIA}
MOST of Christianity believes, and follows the “traditional doctrine” of the trinity. The problem is, MOST Christians never ask themselves WHERE did this doctrine ORIGINATE. They never ask WHO started it, and HOW did it come about.
ALL arguments “defending” the trinity are RETROSPECTIVE, attempting to justify it SOMEHOW, because it is such an ingrained part of Christianity now, that to admit it is incorrect would endanger the church's credibility.
Point: BEFORE the late 3rd century, there WAS NO “trinity doctrine,” and to go back BEYOND that point and try to justify it is ludicrous. For THOUSANDS OF YEARS, the “spirit” was understood to be God's “active force/will.”
Point: It was the ROMAN CHURCH of the late 3rd/early 4th century that ORIGINATED this doctrine, following the Anasthasian/Arian controversy, and the Roman Church itself did not even OFFICIALLY declare it “dogma” until the 16th century, at the Council of Trent. Some of the various factions WITHIN the “Roman Church” didn't even agree it was correct!
Point: PEOPLE have NAMES. God has a NAME, though hardly anyone uses it anymore…YAHWEH. CHRIST has a NAME, although it has been corrupted….YASHUAH. The “holy spirit” is NEVER called by any “name.” [It's attributes are described, but it has NO NAME.]
I came to the “belief” the spirit is the “active force” used by God, and conveyed to Christ to use as well, because that is what thousands of years of history & Hebrew understanding show; because the early Christians understood it that way as well; because it is ADMITTEDLY a late 3rd/early 4th century fabrication of the Roman Church; because the Roman Church ITSELF states the doctrine is “not Biblical,” but is a product of the CHURCH'S later theological development; and finally because ALL the reputable research & evidence from Bible scholars themselves shows the Roman Church THEN busily set out to DELIBERATELY ALTER the Scripture and other early church writings in order to INSERT textual material that supported their “new developing doctrine of the trinity.”
See also:
http://www.angelfire.com/journal….ne.html
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm
Addendum……………from mostly Catholic sources.
Various sources acknowledge that the Bible does not support the idea that the holy spirit is the third person of a Trinity: Please note the following:
The Catholic Encyclopedia: “Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person.”
Catholic theologian Fortman: “The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament writer held this view. …The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics [Gospels] and in Acts as a divine force or power.”
The New Catholic Encyclopedia: “The O.T. clearly does not envisage God’s spirit as a person …God’s spirit is simply God’s power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly.” This reference book also states: “The majority of NT texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God.”
A Catholic Dictionary: “On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the spirit as a divine energy or power.” These quotes are quite surprising, even amazing, coming from Roman Catholic sources, especially since the Trinity Doctrine itself comes from Roman Catholic Theology.
The New English Bible, (Catholic edition called the Oxford Study Edition), has this footnote at Joel:2:32: “The Lord’s spirit—the animating force behind the prophets”.
The Companion Bible (KJV), appendix No. 9, “The Usage of Ruach—Spirit”: “The one root idea running through all the (224) passages is invisible force…Invisible Divine power manifesting itself.”
Neither the Jews, nor the early Christians thought of the holy spirit as part of a Trinity. That teaching came centuries later. As A Catholic Dictionary notes: “The third person was asserted at a Council of Alexandria in 362 [C.E.]…and finally by the Council of Constantinople of 381 [C.E.] This was some 3 1/2 centuries after the disciples were filled with holy spirit at Pentecost!
Oh yeah, by the way…….I'm not real sure what ya meant by “less likely to give me a canned answer,” but I will say this…I draw on research from ALL THE SOURCES I CAN FIND, then weed out the “wheat from the chaff,” and see what the “wheat” shows. I'm interested in the wheat….no matter WHAT it shows to be true. I want to know the “truth,” and I could care less about self-serving “church doctrines,” or man-made “traditions.”
In this day and age, I seriously doubt there is any single man-made “church” that is “correct” all across the board…but if you look at ALL the material/research, generally you can figure out what is, or isn't correct.Or, like grandpappy used to say, “Boy, if ya ain't LOOKIN, ya ain't gonna SEE nothin!”
And how the heck do ya change the clock on this infernal machine anyway……it's the 10th, not the 11th!!!!!!!!!! Arrrgggghhhhhh.
I see it as follows:
Elohim = YHWH = Holy Spirit = Word
There is only one Elohim – Almighty YHWH
Deut 6:4 Hear, O Israel: YHWH our Elohim is one YHWH
YAHSHUA = Man = Messiah
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus
Yahshua is given the title 'Word of Elohim' as he was YHWH's representative on earth and spoke YHWH's words as he was instructed (in the same way that the Angel of YHWH spoke on YHWH's behalf in the OT). YHWH is the word.
Quote (Ramblinrose @ Feb. 11 2006,08:24) I see it as follows: Elohim = YHWH = Holy Spirit = Word
There is only one Elohim – Almighty YHWH
Deut 6:4 Hear, O Israel: YHWH our Elohim is one YHWH
YAHSHUA = Man = Messiah
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus
Yahshua is given the title 'Word of Elohim' as he was YHWH's representative on earth and spoke YHWH's words as he was instructed (in the same way that the Angel of YHWH spoke on YHWH's behalf in the OT). YHWH is the word.
Well…..that's 2/3…….Now Ramblinrose, what about the “spirit?”
truebelief4u
I thought Elohim = Holy Spirit already covered that.
Elohim = YHWH = Holy Spirit = Father = Word
The above are all one Almighty YHWH.
I think you are asking what I believe the Holy Spirit to be. The following articles are probably a good indication of how I understand the Holy Spirit of YHWH. (Please note that I do not necessarily hold to all that is written in these articles, as you have said, we must sift the wheat from the chaff).
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5257/spiritof.htm
Ramblinrose: OK…..actually we are basically in agreement, because the “spirit” could just as well be described as being the “mind of God,” as being His “active force/will.” Got no problem with that at all!
Everyone…….this is a bit off-topic, but what do you all think of the concept that Jesus had no “special powers” until AFTER he was baptized by John, and the “spirit” was conferred upon him, and he THEN began his “ministry?” Someone pointed this out to me and it does seem to make sense….there is nothing I can find in Scripture to indicate he was anything other than a pretty normal child/adult UNTIL he was baptized and received the spirit. Comments?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
