- This topic has 18,301 replies, 269 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Mr. Steve @ Dec. 22 2007,07:37) To all; Just as God manifested himself to us through his Son, the Holy Spirit continues to teach us the truths that Christ taught. This is what Jesus said was the role of the Holy Spirit. Of course, there are also many gifts of the Holy Spirit. In every case in Acts when the Holy Spirit was given, it was evidenced by speaking in other tongues.
Jesus even said when you go into all the world to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All three are deity. That does change the gospel it reaffirms everything that Christ taught.
There is also an order in the Godhead wherein the Father is the God of Christ and all things are subject to the Supremacy of God the Father including the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit only speaks what he hears. In that light, the Holy Spirit is like Christ, he only speaks the words the Father wants him to speak.
Steven
Of course the Holy Spirit IS God and is not a separate person!
The Holy Spirit IS of God. He is God's Spirit which is God: a part of God!You and I have a spirit BUT we are not God! We cannot as yet separate or being from our spirit! I'm not sure the “all” of us will be able to do so!
But Who CARES we will all be where we are supposed to be according to the will of God! Is this not so?
We will be “HAPPY” with what we are! No more strife, no more resentment, no more competition! You will “KNOW” what you were created for! And will be “happy” to do that!!!!
No more tears! Amen?
Ken
Have you ever thought of that? I have met people who wish to teach, this IS their passion BUT because on MONEY they cannot!
In the new kingdom everyone will do what their heart tells them they SHOULD do! If your heart is happy you will be happy, Amen?
Quote (Mr. Steve @ Dec. 22 2007,07:37) To all; Just as God manifested himself to us through his Son, the Holy Spirit continues to teach us the truths that Christ taught. This is what Jesus said was the role of the Holy Spirit. Of course, there are also many gifts of the Holy Spirit. In every case in Acts when the Holy Spirit was given, it was evidenced by speaking in other tongues.
Jesus even said when you go into all the world to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All three are deity. That does change the gospel it reaffirms everything that Christ taught.
There is also an order in the Godhead wherein the Father is the God of Christ and all things are subject to the Supremacy of God the Father including the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit only speaks what he hears. In that light, the Holy Spirit is like Christ, he only speaks the words the Father wants him to speak.
Steven
Hi Mr Steve,
Where does scripture say three are gods?
God is One.
Jesus said so and he should know if he is one of your deities.Quote (IM4Truth @ Dec. 22 2007,07:17) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 22 2007,07:08) Quote (martian @ Dec. 22 2007,06:39) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 22 2007,06:14) Quote (kenrch @ Dec. 22 2007,05:52) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 22 2007,05:48) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 22 2007,05:35) Hi WJ,
Find your answers in the scriptures.
Don't spread you confusion among believers.
It makes their path more difficult by placing snares.
NHI am not confused, but it appears you are!
No WJ you are confused that the Holy Spirit is God and NOT a third person.Did Paul represent the Holy Spirit as a third separate person?
kenrchJn 16:13
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.Cant be the Father…
- for he shall not speak of himself
- but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak:
- that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
Cant be Yeshua…
- He shall glorify me:
- for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
- that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
Who is he kenrch? Do you see him?
Maybe you can enlighten me what Jesus meant in these passages?
13″But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
14″He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.
15″All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.The context itself explains it.
Verse 15 Jesus explains who it is who takes from Him. It is the Father!
Verse 15 could have been written – Because the Father has given everything to me and all that the Father has is mine, the Father takes from me to speak to you. All authority in heaven and Earth has been given to me. Not even my Father usurps those whom He has appointed over His creation. I am the mediator between God and man. I am the king of heaven and Earth.
but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.So the Father has to hear what he speaks? Or he only speaks what Yeshua says to speak?
Jn 14:16
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you “another” Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;Another Greek 'allos', which means “another”.
So the Father will send himself?
Jn 15:26
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:So Jesus sends the Father? The Father proceeds from himself?
But of course it has to be that way for those who deny the Trinitarian faith!
Get your white out and blot them out with the many others!
W.J. So the Holy Spirit is the Father of Jesus?Peace and Love Mrs.
MrsNo. If he was then he would be the Father wouldnt he?
Actually the Trinitarian doctrine makes Jesus a bastard child.
Mary with child of the Holy Spirit person (3rd person of the Trinity) and yet Jesus calls the Father person (1st person of the Trinity) his father. .Quote (martian @ Dec. 22 2007,13:35) Actually the Trinitarian doctrine makes Jesus a bastard child.
Mary with child of the Holy Spirit person (3rd person of the Trinity) and yet Jesus calls the Father person (1st person of the Trinity) his father. .
martianActually it is you that makes Yeshua a bastard child.
If he was concieved by an “it” then the Father was not his Father at all. The it is.
Jesus is the Son of a power or a force.
But if he the Holy Spirit is the Father, then you have to admit the Spirit is a person and is God!
Unless you believe God is not a person.
Either way your doctrine dosnt fit.
Hi WJ,
Is the Spirit just a power or a force?
Are you denying scripture again?
Matt1.
20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[c] because he will save his people from their sins.”W.J. There is so much confusion about the holy Spirit when it is really easy to understand if you just think a litle. What is God? God is Spirit only has been always and will always. Ephesians 4:4-6 tells us that there is only one Spirit. So if the Father is a Spirit then we are talking about that Spirit, the Fathers Spirit. If you believe that the Spirit is a Person then He is the Father of Jesus and not the Father, and we know that is not true. We have received also the Spirit of God so that God can be all in all.
Peace and Love Mrs.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 22 2007,17:12) Jesus is the Son of a power or a force. But if he the Holy Spirit is the Father, then you have to admit the Spirit is a person and is God!
Unless you believe God is not a person.
Either way your doctrine dosnt fit.
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God.There is the answer right there.
The Spirit of God.
What about the spirit of a man, is that somebody else?
Hi, everyone.
It's great to be here.
I found this information pertaining to John 1:3-4 that may help us in our quest for truth.The Historic Translation of John 1:3-4
From The Everlasting Good News of Yahweh website
Our English Bible gradually developed over the last six hundred years. John Wycliffe is credited with the first English translation of the New Testament which was completed about 1380 C.E. Until that time the Word of Yahweh was locked up in the Latin tongue which was unknown to the common people. The Latin Vulgate translated by Jerome about 400 C.E. was the standard Bible used in the Catholic Church.
Wycliffe's translation is based upon the Latin Vulgate, not the Greek. It is therefore a “version of a version.” In Wycliffe's version, John 1:3-4 use the word “him” in reference to the “Word” of verse 1 and is a translation of the Latin “ipsum” and “ipso” (he, she, or it).
The next great English translator was William Tyndale. He was an excellent Greek scholar who had access to the Greek text of Erasmus which Wycliffe did not have. The hand of the Almighty was upon Tyndale as He used him to give us our first English translation based upon the Hebrew and Greek. His New Testament was published in 1526 and revised to its final state in 1534.
Tyndale's translation of John 1:3-4 reads,
John 1:3,4 – All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men.
As you can see, Tyndale used “it” instead of “him.” “It” is a translation of the Greek “autou” meaning he, she, or it. What this tells us is that Tyndale did not read Messiah into the “logos” or “word” of verse 1 and he was not influenced by the Latin Vulgate or Wycliffe.
Miles Coverdale, a friend of Tyndale, gave us the first complete Bible printed in English in 1535. It was not a firsthand translation from the Hebrew and Greek, but was based on the Latin Vulgate and Tyndale's translation. Coverdale used “him” in John 1:3-4.
In 1537, John Rogers, using the pseudonym “Thomas Matthew,” published a translation based largely on Tyndale and Coverdale which became known as Matthew's Bible. He uses “it” in John 1:3-4.
The Great Bible followed in 1539 and was a revision of Matthew's Bible. The first edition was prepared by Miles Coverdale. For some reason Coverdale decided “it” was more correct than “him” which appeared in his 1535 version based on the Latin Vulgate and left John 1:3-4 as it was in Matthew's translation, “it” instead of “him.” The Great Bible was the first authorized English version and was ordered to be placed in every church.
Under Queen Mary the printing of the English Bible ended and its use in the churches was forbidden. This gave rise to a version completed in Geneva. The Geneva Bible of 1560 was the first Bible to have numbered verses, each set off as a separate paragraph. This Bible became the “household Bible of the English-speaking nations.” It held that position for about 75 years. It was Shakespeare's Bible and that of the Puritans who settled New England. Once again, the translation of John 1:3-4 follows Tyndale's example, “it” instead of “him.”
Queen Elizabeth eventually reinstated the order that a copy of the Bible be placed in every church and she encouraged its reading. Since there were not enough copies of the Great Bible, the bishops themselves made a new revision known as the Bishop's Bible. It was published in 1568. It was used mostly by the clergy, not being very popular with the common people. It, too, renders John 1:3-4 using “it,” not “him.”
In 1582, the Roman Catholic version of the New Testament was completed and known as the Rheims New Testament. It was the result of a battle between Papists and Protestants, the former believing the Latin Vulgate to be the standard upon which all translations should be made. It was the work of Roman Catholic scholars based on the Latin. They chose to render John 1:3-4 using “him” as did the previous versions based on the Vulgate.
From that point on, all future versions, beginning with the King James version of 1611, used “him” instead of “it” in their translation of John 1:3-4. As you can see, the following translation of John 1:3-4 is not without historic and linguistic foundation;
“All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men.”
The “logos” (Word) of John 1:1 means “the spoken word” or “something said (including the thought).” In that sense the word is an “it,” not a person but a thing. In other words, Yahweh spoke creation into existence. This understanding agrees perfectly with passages such as Gen.1:3,6,9,11,14,20, and 24, all of which begin, “And Elohim said.” Yahweh spoke and it was done.
Ps.33:6,9 – By the word of Yahweh were the heavens made; and all the host by the breath of his mouth. . . For He spoke and it was; He commanded, and it stood fast.
Not only did Yahweh speak creation into existence, but He also spoke His Son Yahshua into existence; “And the word (Yahweh's spoken word) was made flesh” (Jn.1:14). Yahshua did not become the “Word of Yahweh” until his birth as a flesh and blood male child.
To say the “logos” of John 1:1 is a reference to Messiah is to read him into the text. Roman Catholic scholars had to do this in order to support their unscriptural trinity doctrine. If Messiah did not pre-exist, the trinity doctrine would collapse, it being based upon the belief that all three members of the “godhead” were co-eternal. Since Messiah only pre-existed in Yahweh's plan of salvation and not literally, the trinity doctrine is without foundation.http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/jerome-latinvulgate.html
Jerome and the Latin vulgate:
Jerome: (Sophronius: Eusebius Hieronymus) (340-420) was called upon by his friend Damasus:, the Bishop of Rome (who was already exalting himself above his fellows and calling himself the pope), to produce a standard Latin Bible. This was completed between A.D. 383 and 405. JEROME “WAS BROUGHT UP WITH A DISLIKE FOR THE VULGAR [COMMON] EDITION OF THE GREEK, AND WITH A PREDILECTION FOR THE CORRECTED TEXT OF EUSEBIUS; having imbibed an early partiality for this edition, through Gregory of Nazianzum” (Nolan, p. 151). Jerome rejected old Latin: texts which differed from Eusebius and thus perpetuated certain textual corruptions in his version. His completed translation included nine spurious apocryphal books. Modern textual critic Bruce Metzger admits that the Greek manuscripts used by Jerome “APPARENTLY BELONGED TO THE ALEXANDRIAN TYPE OF TEXT” (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 76). THIS MEANS THEY WERE IN THE SAME FAMILY AS THOSE UNDERLYING THE MODERN VERSIONS.
It is important to understand that Jerome: was deeply infected with false teaching. As for his spirit and character, Jerome is described, even by a historian who had high respect for him, with these words: “such irritability and bitterness of temper, such vehemence of uncontrolled passion, such an intolerant and persecuting spirit, and such inconstancy of conduct” (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, III, p. 206). Jerome followed the false teaching of asceticism, believing the state of celibacy to be spiritually superior to that of marriage, and demanding that church leaders be unmarried. James Heron, author of The Evolution of Latin Christianity, observed that “no single individual did so much to make monasticism popular in the higher ranks of society” (The Evolution of Latin Christianity, 1919, p. 58). Jerome He believed in the veneration of “holy relics” and the bones of dead Christians (Heron, The Evolution of Latin: Christianity, 1919, pp. 276,77). He “took a leading and influential part in 'opening the floodgates' for the invocation of saints,” teaching “distinctly and emphatically that the saints in heaven hear the prayers of men on earth, intercede on their behalf and send them help from above (Heron, pp. 287,88). Jerome taught that Mary was the counterpart of Eve, as Christ was the counterpart of Adam, and that through her obedience Mary became instrumental in helping to redeem the human race (Heron, p. 294). He also taught that Mary was a perpetual virgin (Heron, pp. 294,95). He believed in the blessing of water (Heron, p. 306).Jerome: had a particularly hateful attitude toward those who followed the simple apostolic Faith. His writings against these men, whom he falsely labeled “heretics,” were characterized with the most vicious sort of language. He was “engaged in many violent and vitter controversies” (Heron, p. 58). Vigilantius, Jovinian, and Helvidius were some of the men upon whom Jerome railed. These men rejected the false traditions which were being added by the early leaders of the Roman Church, including enforced celibacy, worship of martyrs and relics, and the sinlessness and perpetual virginity of Mary. For such “heresies” Jerome heaped upon these men angry labels, calling them dogs, maniacs, monsters, asses, stupid fools, two-legged ass, gluttons, servants of the devil, madmen, useless vessels which should be shivered by the iron rod of Apostolic authority. He said Helvidius had a “fetid mouth, fraught with a putrid stench, against the relics and ashes of the martyrs.” “The pen of Jerome was rendered very offensive by his grinding tyranny and crabbed temper. No matter how wrong he was, he could not brook contradiction” (Armitage, A History of the Baptists, I, p. 207). It is no wonder that a man with such a vicious tongue justified the death penalty for “heretics” (Heron, The Evolution of Latin: Christianity, p. 323).
We must emphasize that the term “Latin Vulgate:” has been used in a number of different ways. The term “vulgate” itself means “common” or “received.” It originally applied to the old Latin: translation(s) which predated the Jerome: version. In modern times, though, it has most frequently been used to describe the Jerome version and its successors. For our purposes we can summarize these modern usages into two general categories. First, the term “Latin Vulgate” is used to refer to the Jerome Latin translation itself. Beyond generalizations, it is difficult to know the precise form of that version. The oldest copy of a Latin Vulgate fragment (the Gospels) alleged to be of the Jerome type dates to 500 A.D. The oldest complete New Testament of the Jerome type that we have dates to 546 A.D. [the Codex Fuldensis (F), written by Victor of CapuaRobinson, p. 120]. Second, the term “Latin Vulgate” commonly refers to the tradition of the Latin Bible within the Roman Catholic Church. In a general sense the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate dates back to Jerome's version, but it never had a settled form. One of the chief features of Rome's Latin Vulgate, in fact, was that it was constantly changing.
In describing Catholic history in the centuries following the creation of the Jerome: Vulgate:, Albert Gilmore notes, “The languages of the early Bibles, Hebrew and Greek, were no longer of interest. So marked did this lack of interest become that when, after the Renaissance, Cardinal Ximenes published his Polyglot edition with the Latin: Vulgate between the Greek and Hebrew versions of the Old Testament, he stated in his preface that it was 'like Jesus between two thieves'” (Gilmore, The Bible: Beacon Light of History, 1935, p. 170).
It is also important to note that the Latin Vulgate: was not in a settled state until the end of the 16th century, long after Rome had pronounced it authentic, and the text has remained fluid until today. We have mentioned this in passing, but we want to emphasize the point. Bruce Metzger describes the history of the Jerome: Vulgate in this way: “It was inevitable that, in the course of the transmission of the text of Jerome's revision, scribes would corrupt his original work, sometimes by careless transcription and sometimes by deliberate conflation with copies of the Old Latin: version. In order to purify Jerome's text a number of recensions or editions were produced during the Middle Ages; notable among these were the successive efforts of Alcuin, Theodulf, Lanfranc, and Stephen Harding. Unfortunately, however, each of these attempts to restore Jerome's original version resulted eventually in still further textual corruption through mixture of the several types of Vulgate text which had come to be associated with various European centres of scholarship” (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 76). Metzger assumes that the Jerome Vulgate was a pure text and that it gradually became impure through intermixing with the old Latin translations and other sources. We believe it is more likely that the Jerome edition was impure because it was based upon impure texts similar to the corrupt Vaticanus: and the Sinaiticus: manuscripts.In spite of the pontifications of the Council of Trent, which proclaimed the Vulgate: the sole authentic edition of the Scriptures, it was not until more than forty years later that a settled edition of the Latin: Vulgate appeared. A papal commission worked for more than 40 years after Trent, but failed to produce an authentic edition. Frustrated by the slow progress of this commission, Pope Sixtus V: (1585-1590) took matters into his own: hands and produced his own revision, which appeared in May 1590. This edition of the Latin Vulgate was prefaced by a papal bull which identified the Sixtus edition as “true, legitimate, authentic, and undoubted in all public and private debates, readings, preachings, and explanations; and that anyone who ventured to change it without papal authority would incur the wrath of God Almighty of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul” (Jacobus, p. 12). Sixtus di
ed three months later, and, as we shall see, his successors were not impressed with his papal threats! There was a small problem. The Sixtus Latin Vulgate was full of errors, “some two thousand of them introduced by the pope himself” (Janus, The Pope and the Council, 1870). In September 1590 the College of Cardinals stopped all sales and bought up and destroyed as many copies as possible! [It is interesting to note in passing that the Vaticanus: Greek manuscript from the Vatican library was “fully used by Carafa for Pope Sixtus V's Septuagint in 1587” (Kenyon, The Text of the Greek Bible, p. 87).] The three popes which followed Sixtus did not live long enough to accomplish much. Urban VII: was pope for only two weeks. Gregory XIV: lasted ten months. Innocent IX: died after only two months in office. Clement VIII: (1592-1605) followed, and it was he who issued: a new edition of the Latin Vulgate in 1592. The names of both Sixtus V and Clement VIII appeared on the title page. This is known as the Clementine Bible. It contained “more than 3,000 alterations from the text of Sixtuswhole passages being omitted or introduced, and the verses being divided differently” (Jacobus, p. 13). The Clementine Bible came with its own papal bull “which specified among other things that, as before, no word of the text might be altered, that no various readings might be registered in the margin, and that all copies were to be conformed to it” (Jacobus, Roman Catholic and Protestant Bibles, p. 13). This is exactly what Pope Sixtus had pontificated some two years and three thousand changes earlier! The point is that Rome's Latin Vulgate, that alleged “authentic edition of the Scriptures,” was in a constant state of flux throughout the centuries.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 22 2007,17:12) Quote (martian @ Dec. 22 2007,13:35) Actually the Trinitarian doctrine makes Jesus a bastard child.
Mary with child of the Holy Spirit person (3rd person of the Trinity) and yet Jesus calls the Father person (1st person of the Trinity) his father. .
martianActually it is you that makes Yeshua a bastard child.
If he was concieved by an “it” then the Father was not his Father at all. The it is.
Jesus is the Son of a power or a force.
But if he the Holy Spirit is the Father, then you have to admit the Spirit is a person and is God!
Unless you believe God is not a person.
Either way your doctrine dosnt fit.
Hey WJ, Get a hat on your ignorance is showing.
I never said that The special breath is a force. Not even eluded to it.
I said as has been said many times that The special breath was the braath of God and it was God himself.Months ago I ask you to define Holy Spirit and Logos. You dodged for days because the actual definitions of thse words takes away the personalizing aspects of these terms.You insist on living in ilusion and fantasy.
I finally figured it out. WJ has been hired by the website to keep the argumant going.Must be a lot of money involved to make someone agree to look so silly and dumb.
“… No matter how wrong he was, he could not brook contradiction” (Armitage, A History of the Baptists, I, p. 207).
Is this a fruit of the trinitarian spirit?
Hi martian,
You said
“I said as has been said many times that The special breath was the braath of God and it was God himself.”You say that the breath of God is God Himself with no scriptural backing.
When we breathe do we breathe out ourselves?
Do we lose our human spirit in our expelled breath?We are made in the image of God.
Hi and welcome GT,
We do not need to deny that the monogenes Son was sent into the world;1Jn4] to show the falsehood of trinity.
The fact that it was never found in the mouth of any of God's teachers is enough.Hi Nick, thanks for the welcome.
Is there someone attempting to show the falsehood of the trinity doctrine by denying the only begotten Son was sent into the world?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 23 2007,04:21) Hi martian,
You said
“I said as has been said many times that The special breath was the braath of God and it was God himself.”You say that the breath of God is God Himself with no scriptural backing.
When we breathe do we breathe out ourselves?
Do we lose our human spirit in our expelled breath?We are made in the image of God.
Hey I am just properly translating the words.If you have problem with that argue with God.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
