Posted on 05/09/2008 11:37:51 PM PDT by P-Marlowe
No, but this thread isn't about self-righteous pagans claiming to be "Christians," now is it? (So your example is a non-sequitor)
Let's cut to the chase...Would they do this about Jewish belief? Of course not. Because anyone that saw them doing this would rightly conclude that they were acting like petty, carnal minded hypocrites. Their witness for truth would be ineffective. It would be a joke. If they don't listen to their own God why would anyone else?
Let's cut to the chase. If some guy went to a "Douglas Workshop for Witnessing to Jews in KC," and then he went out & posted the following about them...I think you'd be at least downright embarrassed to be associated with him (& perhaps even an outright despiser). Based on your responses in this thread, wouldn't the temptation to make all sorts of judgmental accusations about the "poster" below similar to some of your comments on this thread exist? What would be your reaction to a post like the following?
You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him—you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it."
(For those of who who don't recognize the above, it was the Christian martyr Stephen speaking out to Jews in Acts 7:51-53. Stephen would have received a "flunking grade" from DougKC had he taken a witnessing class and then posted in a matter that would appear to be quite potentially objectionable to him.)
Now did the Jews "jumped up and down" with joy over this "post?" (Would DouglasKC have "jumped up & down with joy" over a post like the above? Or would you have at least "understood" why the Jews were "less than thrilled?")
When they heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. "Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. (Acts 7:54-58)
You see the reason we didn't get a better moon landing photo of him is that our handful of astronauts didn't see any inhabitants in the tiny area they viewed when they landed on the moon decades ago...so we certainly have no definitive information, any more than visitors to earth who might land in barren Death Valley would have any idea of the billions of inhabitants elsewhere.
(I just thought of all that right off the top of my head)
I love this thread.
Again you're comparing apples to oranges. Stephan was dragged before the council, perhaps our modern day equivalent of a court, on false charges. He then mounted his defense which included the verses you posted. Now if you're dragged into a court run by LDS on false charges and are facing death AND are defending yourself against these false charges than perhaps you would use a similar type of language as Stephen used, provided it was the truth as it was in his case.
But what's occurred in this thread is something else entirely. It's a post of a hundred year old article that's used as a springboard to mock, ridicule and demean others in the name of Christianity. It's apparently not done to spread the gospel as there's not a whiff of this being done. And worst of all, it's apparently done for nothing more than entertainment. As a Christian I'm appalled by this and as a Christian instead of defending it you too should be appalled.
Doug, If you want the whole world to think that you are holier than me then fine. You are. You are clearly holier than me. I'm obviously not even in the same league with you among Holy people.
I am a miserable wretched sinner saved solely by the grace of God and I am sure you are a much better person then I will ever hope to be.
So you've made your point about what a wretched unChristianlike sinner I am and how I have an UnChristian attitude and how you would never post a thread that mocked anyone else's beliefs and you would never do the things I do, because you are so much more holier than I am.
I admit it.
You ARE Holier than me.
I suspect that you are holier than most, if not all, of the posters on this thread.
I do hope that makes you feel better. You deserve to feel better. You've worked hard and earned it.
Thank you for your continued participation in our thread.
Marlowe CASOTT (Chief Among Sinners On This Thread).
And if anyone here thinks they are a worse sinner than I am, I dare you to prove it!
Go Ahead! Post something even I wouldn't post!
And noodlier too.
WWFSMD?
You're just not going to admit that you see anything wrong with what was going on are you?
How could I possibly disagree with anyone who is as Holy as you.
Marlowe CASOTT (Chief Among Sinners On This Thread).
And if anyone here thinks they are a worse sinner than I am, I dare you to prove it!
Go Ahead! Post something even I wouldn’t post!
_________________________________________________
Sorry...my FReeper FRiend, PaulfromTarsus, claims that award...
1 Timothy 1:15
New American Standard Bible
It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.
King James Bible
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
American King James Version
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
American Standard Version
Faithful is the saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief:
Bible in Basic English
It is a true saying, in which all may put their faith, that Christ Jesus came into the world to give salvation to sinners, of whom I am the chief:
Douay-Rheims Bible
A faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief.
Darby Bible Translation
Faithful is the word, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first.
English Revised Version
Faithful is the saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief:
GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
This is a statement that can be trusted and deserves complete acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, and I am the foremost sinner.
Weymouth New Testament
Faithful is the saying, and deserving of universal acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; among whom I stand foremost.
Webster’s Bible Translation
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
World English Bible
The saying is faithful and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
Young’s Literal Translation
stedfast is the word, and of all acceptation worthy, that Christ Jesus came to the world to save sinners — first of whom I am;
You know, I'm going to bow out now.
Maybe, but he's not on this thread.
Oh Wait, I can remedy that:
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-9 KJV) Paul
Ahem, I’M holier than thou and don’t you forget it (LOL).
In addition to the fundamentals of the doctrine of the Trinity present in the bible (first century) reflecting the teaching of the apostles, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, Theophilus of Antioch (first use of the term Trinity in association with God - 180 AD), Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus of Rome, Novatian (wrote "Treatise on the Trinity" [A.D. 235]), Pope Dionysius, and Gregory the Wonderworker all taught and wrote about the Trinity covering the period first century up to Nicea. The it is not supported to say that the doctrine of the Trinity didn't show up on the screen at Nicea, but existed long before.
Beware the ‘tarbaby’ ploy ... endless wrangling to divert attention from the heretical nature of mormonism and the fraudulent work of one Joe Smith, peepstone divination prophet ... or so he woul dhave people believe. Personally, I think he made it all up after eating some bad mushrooms or fainting from carbon monoxide while digging a ‘treasure hole’.
Sorry....I missed those. Could you point them out for me?
Paul....in his letters does not salute the Trinity. He only mentions The Father and The Son. James says: "A servant of God and of The Lord Jesus Christ." Peter, in his epistles mentions not a third member of any Godhead in his salutations. John, likewise....talks about God and Our Saviour. Jude salutes God...The Father and Jesus Christ. And.....in The Revelation...John fails to mention this third person who has been left out by the others. I mentioned all this in post #218. Don't you think this is odd that the third person of your Trinity is not saluted in these epistles?
"The OT (Old Testament) clearly does not envisage God's spirit as a person, neither in the strictly philosophical sense, nor in the Semitic sense. 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 (Isa. 48:16; 63:11; 32:15).......Very rarely do the OT writers attribute to God's spirit emotions or intellectual activity (Isa. 63:10; Wis.1:3-7). When such expressions are used, THEY ARE MERE FIGURES OF SPEECH that are explained by the fact that the RUAH was regarded also as the seat of intellectual acts and feeling (Gen. 41:8). Neither is there found in the OT or in rabbinical literature the notion that God's spirit is an intermediary being between God and the world. This activity is proper to the angels, although to them is ascribed some of the activity that elsewhere is ascribed to the spirit of God" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13, p. 574, emphasis theirs)
Strange admission from the very organization that declares the "Trinity" doctrine to be such a solid foundational base...huh?
The it is not supported to say that the doctrine of the Trinity didn't show up on the screen at Nicea, but existed long before.
Not quite sure of your meaning here.....but I never said it did not appear (the idea of a Trinity) until Nicaea. I said it was made official doctrine (Dogma) of the Roman Church at Nicaea. I believe my exact words were "Finding it's entrance into Mainstream Christianity".....and "First established at the Council of Nicaea".
Many false doctrines immediately began creeping into the church of the first century [Acts 20:29-30][2 Thessalonians 2:7][2 Peter 3:17][1 John 2:18][2 John 7][3 John 9-10][Jude 4]. Luke, Paul, Peter, John and Jude all indicate that by the end of the first century many heresies had already attempted entry into the church. The doctrine of the Trinity was among them.
This idea was not new. All ancient civilizations had their triune gods. Babylon had "Nimrod the father, Tammuz the son and Semiramus the mother". Egypt had "Osiris the father, Horus the son and Isis the mother". The Greeks had their Zeus, Apollo and Athena....the Romans Jupiter, Mars and Venus. The early church was surrounded by "trinities" and it was natural as time went on for some to want to bring this concept to Christianity.....in order to attract the masses.
As posted earlier the scripture many folks rely on to prove up this pagan doctrine is spurious. [1 John 5:7-8] reads now in most modern translations: For there are three that testify....the Spirit and the water and the blood...and these three are in agreement. The longer reading found in the KJV is only found in later manuscripts, four of which have the words in the margin.....obviously written by some zealous monk copyist.
That's a very mean thing to say. You've hurt my feelings.
I will economize for space considerations, but rest assured there are multiple sources beyond what I list below
There is one God: Isaiah 43:10,11. Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD [Jehovah] and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God [Elohim] formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD [Jehovah]; and beside me there is no savior.
The Father is God: Phillipians 1: 2 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Jesus is God: John 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The Holy Spirit is God: Act 5: 3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
If there is only one God, then the Father, Son and Spirit cannot be separate individual gods, but a tri-unity.
Now, if I misunderstood what you meant by missing those ie you want the anti-Nicean quotes, pls let me know because to insert here will make a long post even longer.<> Paul....in his letters does not salute the Trinity. He only mentions The Father and The Son.
Salutations……right…. Rom 1:1 handles that. However it is not proper to structure doctrine from just salutations but from the context of the whole of the bible. The following passages are those in which ALL THREE agents within the Godhead appear.
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God -- 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. (Rom 1.1)
2 Cor 13.14: May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. 3 Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4 perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5 And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us. (Rom 5.1-5)
I urge you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in my struggle by praying to God for me. (Rom 15.30)
There are many more verses where Paul salutes and includes the Spirit within the common context
James says: "A servant of God and of The Lord Jesus Christ."
Your are correct, the Spirit is not mentioned in James
Peter, in his epistles mentions not a third member of any Godhead in his salutations.
Technically correct, but that does not mean that Peter is silent in either of his epistles in regards to the Holy Spirit and the Trinity:
who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: (I Pet 1.2)
For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, (I Pet 3.18)
14 If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. (I Pet 4.14)
John, likewise....talks about God and Our Saviour.
1Jo 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
1Jo 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
Jude salutes God...The Father and Jesus Christ.
Jude 19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
Jude 20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
And.....in The Revelation...John fails to mention this third person who has been left out by the others. I mentioned all this in post #218. Don't you think this is odd that the third person of your Trinity is not saluted in these epistles?
From your dots, it is apparent that you are copying some other source. No matter, John in Revelation does not ignore the Holy Spirit specifically referencing Him 11 times. One location where the Trinity are mentioned together is :
Rev 2: 25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.
26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.
28 And I will give him the morning star.
29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
So because you narrowed your criteria, you purposefully ignored these (and many other) citations where the three Persons of the Trinity are presented. By doing such you did not disprove scriptural support from the NT.
"The OT (Old Testament) clearly does not envisage God's spirit as a person, neither in the strictly philosophical sense, nor in the Semitic sense. God's spirit is simply God's Power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is Very rarely do the OT writers attribute to God's spirit emotions or intellectual activity (Isa. 63:10; Wis.1:3-7). When such expressions are used, THEY ARE MERE FIGURES OF SPEECH that are explained by the fact that the RUAH was regarded also as the seat of intellectual acts and feeling (Gen. 41:8). Neither is there found in the OT or in rabbinical literature the notion that God's spirit is an intermediary being between God and the world. This activity is proper to the angels, although to them is ascribed some of the activity that elsewhere is ascribed to the spirit of God" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13, p. 574, emphasis theirs)
Strange admission from the very organization that declares the "Trinity" doctrine to be such a solid foundational base...huh?
My electronic copy of the above reference does not have any emphasis – what is your intermediate source since I don’t think too many people have the 1965 Catholic encyclopedia lying around. Had you bothered to look up the article in question you would have found this as well:
“As a result of the teaching of Christ, the definite personality of the Third Person of the Trinity is clear. However, in most cases, the phrase "spirit of God" reflects the OT notion of "the power of God."
"Although the NT concepts of the spirit of God are largely a continuation of those of the OT, in the NT there is a gradual revelation that the Spirit of God’s a Person."
Secondly, the immediate context is what the JEWS thought about the Holy Spirit as reveled in the OT. So your strange admission really turns out to be failure to cite the passage in its full and proper context, since they address the issue in following sections. Please take the time to understand the full context of such citations. Interesting that your little excerpt is almost identical to one from a JW booklet entitled "Should your believe in the Trinity?" You did say you were not a JW, correct?
Not quite sure of your meaning here.....but I never said it did not appear (the idea of a Trinity) until Nicaea. I said it was made official doctrine (Dogma) of the Roman Church at Nicaea. I believe my exact words were "Finding it's entrance into Mainstream Christianity".....and "First established at the Council of Nicaea".
Again you are using dots……. suggests that you are citing another source. w/e. To begin with, the list of anti-Nicean writers indicate that the doctrine of the Trinity was taught from the first century on. You don’t teach something unless it is part of the mainstream belief. Using your words it found its entrance into mainstream Christianity from the very beginning. You will find its foundation in the responses to heretical challenges ranging from Gnosticism to modalism to arianism. If they are going to argue against something, there must be a basis against which (a standard – a doctrine) the heresy is compared to. Now, regarding your assertion of the dogma of the Trinity being made official at Nicaea, you are a bit off. Nicea (325 AD) settled the Arian challenge that placed Jesus as a second(ary) god not sharing the common substance of God – leading to a pagan tri-theistic doctrine. If you bother to read the writings you will see that the creed was formalized later.
Many false doctrines immediately began creeping into the church of the first century [Acts 20:29-30][2 Thessalonians 2:7][2 Peter 3:17][1 John 2:18][2 John 7][3 John 9-10][Jude 4]. Luke, Paul, Peter, John and Jude all indicate that by the end of the first century many heresies had already attempted entry into the church. The doctrine of the Trinity was among them.
Ok, since you cited scriptures for some of the heresies, lets enumerate them.
Acts 20:29-30 – Understood to be a reference to Judaizing teachers, who taught that the Gentile Christians must keep the Jewish law
2 Thessalonians 2:7 – Passage a warning about the spirit of anti-christ.
2 Peter 3:17 – Generic warning about false teachers
1 John 2:18 – Warning about the coming of the anti-christ.
2 Peter 3:17 - That there shall be false teachers; hence beware of them.
2 John 7 – This is a warning about Gnosticism and Gnostics.
3 John 9-10 - There is no heresy in this passage
Jude 4 – Antinomians, asserted that the Spirit was not defiled by the sins of the body, a version of Gnosticism
Now, judging from the gist of you post above, these would have something to do with your allegation that the Trinty was a heresy. If so, there is no evidence in the least. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the entire NT that this was considered a heresy.
This idea was not new. All ancient civilizations had their triune gods. Babylon had "Nimrod the father, Tammuz the son and Semiramus the mother". Egypt had "Osiris the father, Horus the son and Isis the mother". The Greeks had their Zeus, Apollo and Athena....the Romans Jupiter, Mars and Venus. The early church was surrounded by "trinities" and it was natural as time went on for some to want to bring this concept to Christianity.....in order to attract the masses.
First and foremost the early church was (and continues to be) monotheistic and rejected these teachings. Secondly, these were triads, not trinities, triads were polytheistic by definition. This is exemplified by mormons. Many alleged similarities between Christianity and the mysteries are either greatly exaggerated or fabricated. Scholars often describe pagan rituals in language they borrow from Christianity. The careless use of language could lead one to speak of a "Last Supper" in Mithraism or a "baptism" in the cult of Isis. It is inexcusable nonsense to take the word "savior" with all of its New Testament connotations and apply it to Osiris or Attis as though they were savior-gods in any similar sense. Since these triads are relatively similar, lets look at one more closely to see better what I mean above.
The Cult of Isis and Osiris
The cult of Isis originated in Egypt and went through two major stages. In its older Egyptian version, which was not a mystery religion, Isis was regarded as the goddess of heaven, earth, the sea, and the unseen world below. In this earlier stage, Isis had a husband named Osiris. The cult of Isis became a mystery religion only after Ptolemy the First introduced major changes, sometime after 300 B.C. In the later stage, a new god named Serapis became Isis's consort. Ptolemy introduced these changes in order to synthesize Egyptian and Greek concerns in his kingdom, thus hastening the Hellenization of Egypt.
From Egypt, the cult of Isis gradually made its way to Rome. While Rome was at first repelled by the cult, the religion finally entered the city during the reign of Caligula (A.D. 37-41). Its influence spread gradually during the next two centuries, and in some locales it became a major rival of Christianity. The cult's success in the Roman Empire seems to have resulted from its impressive ritual and the hope of immortality offered to its followers.
The basic myth of the Isis cult concerned Osiris, her husband during the earlier Egyptian and nonmystery stage of the religion. According to the most common version of the myth, Osiris was murdered by his brother who then sank the coffin containing Osiris's body into the Nile river. Isis discovered the body and returned it to Egypt. But her brother-in-law once again gained access to the body, this time dismembering it into fourteen pieces which he scattered widely. Following a long search, Isis recovered each part of the body. It is at this point that the language used to describe what followed is crucial. Sometimes those telling the story are satisfied to say that Osiris came back to life, even though such language claims far more than the myth allows. Some writers go even further and refer to the alleged "resurrection" of Osiris. One liberal scholar illustrates how biased some writers are when they describe the pagan myth in Christian language: "The dead body of Osiris floated in the Nile and he returned to life, this being accomplished by a baptism in the waters of the Nile."[3]
This biased and sloppy use of language suggests three misleading analogies between Osiris and Christ: (1) a savior god dies and (2) then experiences a resurrection accompanied by (3) water baptism. But the alleged similarities, as well as the language used to describe them, turn out to be fabrications of the modern scholar and are not part of the original myth. Comparisons between the resurrection of Jesus and the resuscitation of Osiris are greatly exaggerated.[4] Not every version of the myth has Osiris returning to life; in some he simply becomes king of the underworld. Equally far-fetched are attempts to find an analogue of Christian baptism in the Osiris myth.[5] The fate of Osiris's coffin in the Nile is as relevant to baptism as the sinking of Atlantis.
As previously noted, during its later mystery stage, the male deity of the Isis cult is no longer the dying Osiris but Serapis. Serapis is often portrayed as a sun god, and it is clear that he was not a dying god. Obviously then, neither could he be a rising god. Thus, it is worth remembering that the post-Ptolemaic mystery version of the Isis cult that was in circulation from about 300 B.C. through the early centuries of the Christian era had absolutely nothing that could resemble a dying and rising savior-god.
Source - Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions? by Ronald Nash, Christian Research Journal, Winter 1994, page 8.
As posted earlier the scripture many folks rely on to prove up this pagan doctrine is spurious. [1 John 5:7-8] reads now in most modern translations: For there are three that testify....the Spirit and the water and the blood...and these three are in agreement. The longer reading found in the KJV is only found in later manuscripts, four of which have the words in the margin.....obviously written by some zealous monk copyist.
I am glad that you qualified your remark, since you see that I cited this minus the addition. The absence of this particular phrase does not weaken the argument for the doctrine of the Trinity in the slightest. I could go to greater lengths (and will if this does not satisfy you) to document the scriptural basis, but this is already turning into a long post. However, you have failed to prove that Trinitarian Doctrine is pagan – your cited scriptures don’t support it, your cited mystery religions (triads) don’t support it and the history of the church doesn’t support it (taught from the first century on).
Second....let's explain "The Dots".
From your dots, it is apparent that you are copying some other source.
I got used to writing this way many years ago and use consecutive period marks to show a pause.....or a slight hesitation in my writing.....simply because I don't like commas. They just don't show enough drama....I guess.
I think we agree that there is one God and you have provided scripture that supports that position. Each side of this debate pretty well agrees that the Father and the Son......as well as The Holy Spirit exist. The problem has always been....is The Holy Spirit an equal to The Father and The Word?
What do the scriptures actually say about this? This can be our only guide.
[Genesis 1:1-2] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. The Spirit of God was moving over the waters. Was this "The Holy Spirit"?
[Genesis 1:26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Was the image man made in....the image of God....or was it made in the image of an invisible spirit?
[John 1:1-3] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. Both The Father and The Son are here referred to as God. The Holy Spirit is not mentioned.
[John 15:10] If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. Here Our Lord is indicating He is not a co-equal with God.....and The Holy Spirit is not mentioned.
[Matthew 10:19-20] But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. .....but The Spirit of your Father....The Holy Spirit.
[Romans 8:9] But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. The Spirit of God and The Spirit of Christ.....The Holy Spirit!
From The Encyclopedia Britannica (1976) Page 241: "Biblical Basis-neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine as such appears at any one place in the Bible. The ecclesiastical dogma (man made law) is an effort to unite in one confession all the several strains of the Biblical description of God". The Trinity must be read into the sacred text and is not substantiated by any scripture. This is one of the reasons we find the "Johannine Comma" in [1 John 5:7-8].....the sequence of extra words in eight later manuscripts (marginal notes in four of these later manuscripts)....attempting to legitimize this concept. The idea of a Trinity is not scriptural but had been made dogma by Nicaea....therefore putting the might of Imperial Rome behind the enforcement of this theology.
[John 14:16-18] And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. So.....Our Lord is telling us He will return....in His spirit form. "I will come to you"!
Have both God and The Word [John 1:1] existed for all time? [Psalm 90:2][Psalm 102:25-27][1 Timothy 1:17] Yes! Did Christ indicate that His image and that of The Lord God are the same? [John 14:9] Yes! Were we created in this image or were we patterned after an invisible spirit? [Genesis 1:26] Does the Spirit of the Lord permeate the entire universe? [Psalm 139:7][Jeremiah 27:5]....almost like a broadcast signal and God is the transmitter of His Spirit.....His Spirit....not a different member of a Triune Godhead. [John 4:24] God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.