Posted on 01/12/2014 7:49:32 PM PST by restornu
The Apostle Paul admonished young Timothy, "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;" (1 Timothy 4:1)
The Greek word that was translated into English as "depart from" is aphistemi (Strong's G868) pronounced ä-fe'-sta-me meaning ...
1) to make stand off, cause to withdraw, to remove a) to excite to revolt 2) to stand off, to stand aloof a) to go away, to depart from anyone b) to desert, withdraw from one c) to fall away, become faithless d) to shun, flee from e) to cease to vex one f) to withdraw one's self from, to fall away g) to keep one's self from, absent one's self from
Some use this portion of Scripture to accuse those of us who embrace the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine, as opposed to the Holy Trinity, as being the ones who are being described above. However, what should be determined is who said and did what ... and when did they say and do it. First off, we know the "foot print followers" of our Lord Jesus Christ had it right! If anybody has ever had it right, they had it right. And, no where do we find where they were authorized to come up with anything other than what Jesus gave them. By the way, Jesus did NOT leave them with a bunch of pages with a lot of blanks on them, which would have to be filled out a couple centuries later, either. Therefore, what they embraced and taught was "first". Any thing other than that came along later, period!
Brother Paul being as bold and blunt as he was, put it this way ... 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 1:8-9)
Again, the Apostle Paul admonished Timothy, "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Timothy 4:2-4 The Greek word that was translated into English as "endure" is anecho (Strong's G430) pronounced ä-ne'-kho meaning ...
1) to hold up 2) to hold one's self erect and firm 3) to sustain, to bear, to endure
Many are taught, firmly believe and will adamantly defend a position, that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity comes straight from the pages of the Bible, itself. When, in fact, the word "Holy" is the only part that can be found in the Bible. The word "Trinity" can't be found in a single solitary Scripture in the entire King James Version of the Holy Bible. Neither did anyone in the entire King James Version of the Holy Bible ever refer to God or the Godhead with these words, "One God in three persons", as multitudes do today.
With such a widely accepted belief, and millions just going with the flow, the crowd has to be right, right? Well, let's see what Jesus had to say in Matthew 7:13-14 ... "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
Folks, it's time for a "gut level" reality check. According to the greatest Teacher ever to walk upon Planet Earth, when it comes to spiritual matters ... THE CROWD IS WRONG!
Not one single solitary person in the entire Bible ever used the following terms ...
"One God in three persons", "God the Son", "God the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit) "The Holy Trinity"
So, how and when did the doctrine of the Holy Trinity come into existence? And, why is it so widely accepted, today? Those two questions are certainly valid ones, and deserve serious examination and consideration.
Encyclopedia International, 1975 Edition, Vol.18, p.226 - The doctrine of the "Trinity" did not form part of the apostles' preaching, as this is reported in the New Testament.
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967 Edition, Vol.13, p.1021 - The first use of the Latin word "trinitas" (trinity) with reference to God, is found in Tertullian's writings (about 213 A.D.) He was the first to use the term "persons" (plural) in a Trinitarian context.
Encyclopedia Americana, 1957 Edition, Vol.27, p.69 - The word "Trinity" is not in Scripture. The term "persons" (plural) is not applied in Scripture to the Trinity.
World Book Encyclopedia, 1975 Edition, Vol. T, p.363 - Belief in Father, Son and Holy Ghost was first defined by the earliest general council of churches. This was the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.
New International Encyclopedia, Vol.22, p.476 - The Catholic faith is this: We worship one God in Trinity, but there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost. The Glory equal - the Majesty co-eternal. The doctrine is not found in its fully developed form in the Scriptures. Modern theology does not seek to find it in the Old Testament. At the time of the Reformation the Protestant Church took aver the doctrine of the Trinity without serious examination.
Life Magazine, October 30, 1950, Vol.29, No.18, p.51 - The Catholics made this statement concerning their doctrine of the Trinity, to defend the dogma of the assumption of Mary, in an article written by Graham Greene: "Our opponents sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in Scripture... But the PROTESTANT CHURCHES have themselves accepted such dogmas as THE TRINITY, for which there is NO SUCH PRECISE AUTHORITY in the Gospels"
Many use the human reasoning and logic that the non-Biblical words "trinity", "triune" or "persons" (pertaining to God and/or the Godhead) should be accepted just as the word "rapture" is .... or even the word "sandwich" (for that matter). And, even though "sandwich" is not a Biblical word, I know they're real 'cause I ate one yesterday. So, my point ... or my question ... is, what Biblical words could be used in the place of the words "trinity", "triune" OR "persons" pertaining to God and/or the Godhead? I wouldn't have any trouble at all finding Biblical words to use in the place of "sandwich", "rapture" and "Bible". They are: "bread" and "meat", "caught up" "Word of God" and "book".
Now, if those who embrace the man-made theory of the Trinity can find any words that will do for "truine", "persons" or "trinity" what the words "bread" and "meat", "caught up" "Word of God" and "book" will do for "sandwich" and "rapture", I would love to see them. Unless or until they can, I suggest that they stop adding to or taking from (depending on how you look at it) the Word of God by embracing, as dogmatically held doctrine, theories which aren't specifically mentioned in the Bible ... and without any Biblical words which could serve as a substitute for such.
While the Bible does NOT authorize a belief in three "persons" who jointly form One God. However, the Bible does accurately describes God as the Father in Creation, the Son in Redemption and the Holy Spirit living in the hearts of believers throughout the New Testament Church Age. But, that is three "forms" of God ... three "manifestations" of God ... three "titles" of God ... three "offices/positions" which God holds and ... three "roles" in which God functions ... BUT NOT THREE PERSONS. NOWHERE can it be found in the Bible which says that is that there is one God "in three persons". That's an "add on" that people would do well to just leave off.
I can very accurately be described as a father, son and husband ... or a teacher, student and minister. While I function in more than one capacity and occupy more than one office, and wear a number of different hats, I am still just ONE person. As a matter of fact, I can be in the same room with, and in the presence of, my mother, my wife and my daughters, and I can speak, act and function as a father, son and husband without anybody getting confused as to how many persons I am or who is talking.
English was my worst subject in school, but I do remember a few things. For illustration purposes only, it is not proper to link the singular pronoun "He", which refers to one "person", to verbs like: "see", "hear" and "warn" ... which would look like this ... "He see", "He hear" and "He warn". When using the singular pronoun "He", it is necessary to use the verbs "sees", "hears" and "warns" ... "He SEES", "He HEARS" and "He WARNS". In order to use the verbs "see", "hear" and "warn", you must use a noun or pronoun which is "plural" and identifies "more" than one person like, "People" ... "People see", "People hear" and "People warn". Yet, intelligent people who know this rule, but who have been indoctrinated to believe that there are three "persons" of God, ignore this rule when it comes to the word "GOD" (the Hebrew word Elohim).
**IF** the word "GOD" (Elohim) identifies more than one "person", as the trinitarians insist, the Bible should read like this, "God SEE", "God HEAR" and "God WARN" ... AND IT DOESN'T! The word "GOD" is never linked to a verb like that. Instead, the word "GOD" is ALWAYS linked to verbs just as the word "He" (a singular person) is ... like this, "God SEES", "God HEARS" and "God WARNS". Again, I use these particular words for illustration purposes only, but I hope I have made my point ... and that it's CLEAR.
Men started "reading" things into the Scriptures a couple centuries or so AFTER Jesus ascended back up into Heaven, and after the "foot print followers" of our Lord had passed on. As a result, there has evolved all sorts of religious beliefs and denominations. However, in order to get people to stop and think about a few things, I use the Clark Kent/Superman analogy quite a bit. Jesus said and did some of the things He said and did to set an example for those who witnessed it to follow, as well as for those of us who would read about it 2,000 years later. At any rate, the reason I use Clark Kent/Superman is because people are familiar with the scenario. And, although Clark Kent/Superman is a fictitious character, I contend that the Incarnate Christ was, indeed, the REAL Superman. And, as a result, Jesus often spoke of the Father as if the Father where someone other than Himself who was way off in another galaxy or solar system.
As a former trinitarian, myself, I understand why those who have been indoctrinated to believe there's two or three of 'em up there believe such, as well as those who interpret ... and try to understand ... the Bible "literally". However, spiritual things are NOT understood with human reasoning and logic. And, Jesus was unlike any one else who has ever walked upon planet Earth. While He possessed the Glory and Power of Deity, He went about as a lowly servant. He had a "human" nature as a result of actually being born of a woman. And, He had a "Divine" nature as a result of Him being God manifested in the flesh. Also, Jesus served as the example ... or the template (so to speak) ... for all Christians to pattern themselves after. And, as a result, He said and did many things for our benefit ... AND to set an example for us to follow. By the way, I am NOT saying Jesus was deceitful, nor that He lied ... far from it. It's just that He could (and did) speak, act and function as any "ordinary" man, at times. And, He also could (and did) speak, act and function as Almighty God, at other times, while here on Earth. Those who have ears to hear, hears what the Spirit saith, and aren't trying to fuel a flawed, man-made, pre-conceived and indoctrinated agenda, will, I believe, come to the understanding as to who Jesus "really" is **IF** they truly hunger and thirst for righteousness. Then, it will be up to them what they do from that point. They can continue on in their traditions and doctrines of men OR they can come out from among them and be ye separate.
Since Isaiah was a MAJOR Messianic Prophet in the Old Testament, my challenge for every "natural" Jew and every professing Christian who believes the man-made theory of the Holy Trinity OR those who believe Jesus was Michael the Archangel or some other inferior subordinate is very simple. I challenge all "natural Jews", all professing Christians who believes the man-made theory of the Holy Trinity, the entire Watchtower Society constituency, the Vatican, and the entire Roman Catholic Church constituency, as well as any and all members and/or associates, past and present, of the various and sundry Protestant denominations, any and all independent Bible students and scholars including the entire constituency of the anything connected to or remotely resembling the Mormon Church ... or anyone else (**IF** I missed anybody) ... to read 11 Chapters in the Book of Isaiah (Chapters 41, 43, 44, 47, 48, 49, 53, 54, 59, 60, and 63) and then provide me with the Scripture(s) they believe supports the belief that the coming (prophesied and promised) MESSIAH would be someone BESIDES Jehovah/God, Himself.
Those of us who embrace the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine understand something very important: The Incarnate Christ was the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last ... God manifest in the flesh. And, these are just a few of the documenting Scriptures I use ... Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 44:6; Isaiah 48:12; Micah 1:2-3; John 1:1-14; John 10:30-33; John 14:6-11; Colossians 2:8-10; 1 Timothy 3:16; Rev. 2:8; Rev. 21:6; and Rev. 22:13.
Yes, the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is a flawed man-made theory, and is NOT "sound doctrine" at all. Therefore, upon learn this, a person should ask themselves this question, "Do I want Truth in its entirety, or do I want man's flawed theories and traditions?" Whatever you decide, it is entirely up to you. In the final analysis of things, you and I will be justified or condemned not by just our faith and beliefs alone, but also by the words we speak AND our deeds. Silence can be interpreted as consent. There are sins of omissions and sins of commission. And, there will be lots of "good" people in hell. Being "good" is NOT good enough. If you doubt or dispute that, read Acts Chapter 10.
A very closely related subject to this is the words that are invoked at baptismal services. The name that was alluded to in Matthew 28:19 is the precious name of Jesus. Quoting Matthew 28:19 does NOT fulfill the Great Commission. Those who knew how it was to be done, invoked the precious name of Jesus in Acts 2:37-41; Acts 8:14-17; Acts 10:44-48; and Acts 19:1-6. Jesus was NOT telling His disciples what to "say" in Matthew 28:19, He was telling them what to "do". And, besides, nobody was baptized in Matthew 28:19. Nobody in the entire Bible was baptized in the "titles" of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. We are admonished in Colossians 3:17 to do whatever we do in "word AND deed", to do it all of it in the "NAME of Jesus". And, besides baptism, here are a couple other places, and direct "quotes", where the "name of Jesus" was invoked in word and deed instead of the "titles" of Father, Son and Holy Ghost ....
Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.
Acts 16:18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.
Not only does the Bible reveal baptism in the name of Jesus, but so does history ...
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951). II, 384, 389: "The formula used was "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the trine name… The earliest form, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion… in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands. To these were added, at various times and places which cannot be safely identified, (a) the trine name (Justin)…"
Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351: "The evidence… suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'"
Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53: "At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898). I, 241: "[One explanation is that] the original form of words was "into the name of Jesus Christ" or 'the Lord Jesus,' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development."
Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947), page 58: "The trinitarian baptismal formula,,, was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ."
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435: "The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus… which still occurs even in the second and third centuries."
Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), page 53: "Persons were baptized at first 'in the name of Jesus Christ' … or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus'… Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.'"
Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473: "It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single-not triple, as was the later creed."
Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365: "The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning… Bapti[sm] into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid."
My advice to you is, if you aren't affiliated with one now, that you find yourself a church which embraces, teaches and preaches the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine and baptizes in the precious name of Jesus ... the name that was alluded to in Matthew 28:19 ... and go there, and see (and feel) the difference for yourself.
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. About the Author:
Encyclopedia Internationa
New Catholic Encyclopedia
The King James Bible
Article Source: http://www.articleseen.com/Article_ The Holy Trinity: Sound Doctrine or a Man-Made Tradition?_77437.aspx
The Scriptures mention...
...the gift of God (Acts 8:20)
...the gift of Christ (Ephesians 4:7)
...and the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38; 10:45)
(Sounds BOTH Trinitarian and PERSONAL)
The Giver is Personal, -- otherwise the Giver can't give gifts, right?
Yet, the Scriptures say the Holy Spirit is such a Giver!
...to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, (1 Corinthians 12:9)
Reiterated in Hebrews 2:4: God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.
Douglas, the Sender is the "Giver"...and the One Sent IS the Gift!
I will ask the Father, and he will GIVE you another advocate and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept HIM, because it neither sees HIM nor knows HIM. But you know HIM, for HE lives with you and will be in you. (John 14:16-17)
26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will SEND in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. (John 14:26)
God sends gifts of PERSONS all the time...people (example, Malachi 3:1)...angels (numerous verses)...and Himself, starting with His Own Son (John 3:16)
If the giving of the Holy Spirit makes Him impersonal, then John 3:16 reveals an impersonal Son of God, as well!
And then...next you'll be telling us that since the King James Version of Luke 1:35 references Jesus as "holy THING" He, too, is impersonal, eh?
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy THING which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)
Amen!
Count me in on that.
There are no other options.
Satan's very first attack in the temptation of Eve began with *Did God REALLY say....?*
It's been the same story throughout history.
There are three who bear witness. The Father who repeatedly by voice declared Jesus was His beloved Son. Jesus, the Word, declared He and the Father were One, and the Holy Spirit who descended from heaven and rested on Christ at His baptism.
What are the prefect numbers of God? Three, seven, ten and twelve. Two is always an incomplete number.
Three denotes divine perfection; Seven denotes spiritual perfection; Ten denotes ordinal perfection; and Twelve denotes governmental perfection.
The number 3 is mentioned 523 times in the bible and always denotes completeness. Those who would reduce God to the number two are teaching contrary to scripture.
We seem to have an increased presence lately of those who either think scripture is insufficient and needs additions or who think scripture already has too many additions or errors. It should be known by all that those contentions should be red flags of deception coming. If we can’t rely on God preserving His word for us today as HE would have it we have nothing.
Let it be know by all that anyone who casts doubt on the infallibility of scripture as it has been handed down to us today in the original Hebrew and Greek language will by me be considered to be from Satan and not from God.
***
BTW the Bible was put together by MEN not the Holy Ghost for there was much contention among them when deciding among them what to include or NOT we living today really don’t know what went on only hearsay...
We are leaning it took many, many years to do this before all was canonized
How and when was the canon of the Bible put together?
http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html
Now the content of the Books contain the word of God is only as accurate as the scribes translated them, Even Jesus has trouble in his conversations with the scribes and Pharisees and Sadducees.
PHOPHECY OF THE COMING OF THE EVERLASTING GOSPEL..
Rev 14 6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
HOW CAN YOU SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES WHEN SO MANY ARE MISSING?
John 5:39 ¶Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
LOST BOOKS
The so-called lost books of the Bible are those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they were considered authentic and valuable but that are not found in the Bible today. Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following: book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14).
To these rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible may be added another list that has allusions to writings that may or may not be contained within our present text but may perhaps be known by a different title; for example, the book of the covenant (Ex. 24:7), which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus; the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:25); the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26:22).
The foregoing items attest to the fact that our present Bible does not contain all of the word of the Lord that He gave to His people in former times and remind us that the Bible, in its present form, is rather incomplete.
Matthew’s reference to a prophecy that Jesus would be a Nazarene (2:23) is interesting when it is considered that our present Old Testament seems to have no statement as such. There is a possibility, however, that Matthew alluded to Isa. 11:1, which prophesies of the Messiah as a Branch from the root of Jesse, the father of David. The Hebrew word for branch in this case is netzer, the source word of Nazarene and Nazareth. Additional references to the Branch as the Savior and Messiah are found in Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Zech. 3:8; 6:12; these use a synonymous Hebrew word for branch, tzemakh.
We live at a time when the Restoration of ALL thing shall be made known in the Earth....
Truth will will out!
This silliness will STOP!
Yes, it does...Psalm 22 is deemed "Messianic" -- and describes the cross of Christ:
"I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; it has melted within me." (Psalm 22:14)
(So now -- by extended implication -- you are going to tell us that Jesus isn't a person?)
In addition to the above, Solomon said: ..."the fruit of my toil into which I have poured my effort..." (Ecc. 2:19)
We say that all the time...like: "He poured himself into it."
(It's just another way of say "expended Himself")
Bottom line...Next you'll be telling us the Holy Spirit is a bird (Matthew 3:16: As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.)
But, probably not. You see, at least a dove isn't an inanimate object...an impersonal force...so if you were to cite Matthew 3:16 to describe the Holy Spirit, that might be too "personal" of ascription to be giving the Holy Spirit!
Tell us, Douglas: Does a dog have more personality than the Holy Spirit? (Yes? No?)
So, what do you do with all these Scriptures...just scissor 'em to death or slander them as being revised 'cause it doesn't comport with your "theology" per the teachers who divide and redivide in your neck of the woods?
The Holy Spirit...
...speaks (John 16:13; Rev. 2:7)
...PERSONALLY commands/calls -- note words "Me" and "I" (Acts 13:2)
...guides (John 16:13)
...counsels (John 14:16-17)
...teaches (John 14:26)
...hears (John 16:13)
...forbids (Acts 16:6)
...determines -- showing WILL/mind (1 Cor. 12:11)
...intercedes (Romans 8:34)...kind of ridiculous to claim, as DouglasKC does, that an impersonal invisible active force of God intercedes on man's behalf before God
The Holy Spirit can be...
...insulted (Hebrews 10:29)
...grieved (Eph. 4:30; Isaiah 63:10)
...may be lied to (Acts 5:3)
The Holy Spirit has a mind, and His own Power (Rev. 2:7; 1 Cor. 12:11; Rom. 8:27; Rom. 15:19)
The Holy Spirit is called God and bears names belonging to God (Acts 5:3-4,9; 2 Cor. 3:17-18, etc.)
The Holy Spirit has divine attributes ascribed to Him (1 Cor. 2:11; 12:11)
Everyone has a version and only the Holy Ghost can edify which is which I gave one in the post but here are a few more they all differ.
Council of Nicea: How To Know Who’s Telling You the Truth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1pvmZqIBMQ#t=15
The Truth about the Council of Nicaea
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSKBGdv07nQ
Even if EVERYthing you claim here is "so," how does that change anything?
(And I respectfully request a direct answer...and not some veer-off in another direction response)
BTW, the Mormon Doctrine & Covenants was put together by ONE MAN...(not the Holy Ghost)
(Yet you still see the D&C as authoritative, eh, Restornu?)
And, as for the Book of Mormon, if it was given by God, then who authorized the Mormon leaders to make over 4,000 changes in the text?
Even in just 7 years from the Book of Mormon being published, Smith removed 47 "it came to pass" phrases from the original 1830 edition. (This was admitted to by BYU in 1994: Original Language of the Book of Mormon: Upstate New York Dialect, King James English, or Hebrew?
See also: WHY HAS BOOK OF MORMON GONE THROUGH SO MANY CHANGES SINCE IT WAS TRANSLATED DIRECTLY FROM TABLETS? from Hebrew-translation.org
I DIDNE EHINKK SO
You're right. The REAL Jesus wouldn't cast aspersions upon the Scriptures like YOU did less than three hours (see post #445) after posting this comment...and like DouglasKC did less than 45 minutes (see post #424) after you posted this comment.
You see the Jesus of the New Testament cited the Old Testament about 78 times.
He constantly undergirded its authority by saying, "It is written..."
He said:
Luke 24:25: "O fools, and slow of heart to believe ALL that the prophets have spoken."
And not even a fresh vision from God would trump Moses & the prophets: Luke 16:29: [Jesus said] “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them."
Likewise, we cannot discount Jesus' words:
Luke 9:26: Whosoever shall be ashamed of me AND MY WORDS, of him shall the son of man be ashamed."
Acts 20:35: "Remember the words of the Lord Jesus"
Now as to those “books” referenced. Did the apostles or the Jewish leaders consider them scripture and preserve them? NO. Did Jesus ever quote them and say “it is written”? NO. Did God see fit to preserve them for us today? NO.
Please look at my statement again.
“If we can’t rely on God preserving His word for us today as HE would have it we have nothing.”
Now we know that there are many other writings of the time. Josephus obviously comes to mind. Were they considered inspired of God and thus scripture. NO.
Does scripture tell us we have enough? YES.
2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Do we know that the scripture we have today comes from God? YES.
2 Peter 1:21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Were we warned about those who come with something other than is found in scripture? YES.
Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
Was scripture “once and for all” delivered and should we stand by that? YES.
Jude 3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.
Were we told how to deal with those who come with “another gospel”? YES.
Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
Yep!
Been there done that...
You have receive the answers a thousand times to those questions...
BTW they were not lost just stolen.
Anyway if you have no answer about Rev 14:6 or the missing scriptures and how is one to in John 5:39 “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me”,
...when so many books are missing as stated in the Bible?
Could it be in the Lord’s wisdom prepared for his children through the Book of Mormon...
2 Nephi 29:3 And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.
2 Nephi 29:10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written
About 559–545 B.C.
Yes, let's let Jesus speak for himself:
Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever—
Joh 14:17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
That's okay. But you want to leave out other scripture which make it clear:
Joh 14:18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
Who will come? "I", the Christ.
Joh 14:19 "A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also.
Joh 14:20 At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.
Joh 14:21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." Joh 14:22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?" Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.
Praying to his father Christ said:
Joh 17:11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.
Jesus describe himself and the father as one. He doesn't include the holy spirit because it's NOT a separate person. It IS the spirit of God or Christ working on the earth.
Joh 17:21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me
Joh_10:30 I and My Father are one."
The book of John positively abounds with these statements. There is no person named the holy spirit. There is the father and the son. The holy spirit is not a separate person, but it the LOVE of the father and son on earth.
This is the message of scripture. Your theology has forced you take scriptures completely out of context and assign a new "person" to the Godhead where there is no justification or need to insert one.
Which translation of scripture to you hold to be be inerrant and infallible?
You understand this is poetic? Jesus the person wasn't "poured". The verses speaking of the holy spirit being poured out are NOT poetic. They are describing a substance emanating from God, not another person:
Joe_2:28 "And it shall come to pass afterward That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams, Your young men shall see visions.
Zec_12:10 "And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.
Think of the holy spirit as being an overflowing of the love of the father and son. It's not another "person". Because your mind is trained to think of it as a person you've missed the whole point. The love of the father and the son is so great that it has poured out among his people. It's overflowed.
Bottom line...Next you'll be telling us the Holy Spirit is a bird (Matthew 3:16: As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.) But, probably not. You see, at least a dove isn't an inanimate object...an impersonal force...so if you were to cite Matthew 3:16 to describe the Holy Spirit, that might be too "personal" of ascription to be giving the Holy Spirit!
It's "descending like a dove". It's NOT a dove.
So, what do you do with all these Scriptures...just scissor 'em to death or slander them as being revised 'cause it doesn't comport with your "theology" per the teachers who divide and redivide in your neck of the woods?
Nah, but I don't take verses that mention "holy spirit" and conclude that there's a 3rd separate person. That would be unbiblical.
So all translations are inerrant and infallible? Or just certain ones?
No.
Because it contradicts Scripture found in the Bible.
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.