Biblical Doctrine Of The Trinity

[Carl]

This lesson is on the Biblical doctrine of the Holy Trinity and was written
by Benjamin Warfield. It is a detailed article and well worth the time to
read.

May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/

---

The Biblical Doctrine Of The Trinity
by Benjamin B. Warfield

The term 'Trinity' is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical
language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there
is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three
coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in
subsistence. A doctrine so defined can be spoken of as a Biblical doctrine
only on the principle that the sense of Scripture is Scripture. And the
definition of a Biblical doctrine in such unBiblical language can be
justified only on the principle that it is better to preserve the truth of
Scripture than the words of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity lies in
Scripture in solution; when it is crystallized from its solvent it does not
cease to be Scriptural, but only comes into clearer view. Or, to speak
without figure, the doctrine of the Trinity is given to us in Scripture, not
in formulated definition, but in fragmentary allusions; when we assembled
the disjecta membra into their organic unity, we are not passing from
Scripture, but entering more thoroughly into the meaning of Scripture. We
may state the doctrine in technical terms, supplied by philosophical
reflection; but the doctrine stated is a genuinely Scriptural doctrine.

In point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is purely a revealed doctrine.
That is to say, it embodies a truth which has never been discovered, and is
indiscoverable, by natural reason. With all his searching, man has not been
able to find out for himself the deepest things of God. Accordingly, ethnic
thought has never attained a Trinitarian conception of God, nor does any
ethnic religion present in its representations of the Divine Being any
analogy to the doctrine of the Trinity.

Triads of divinities, no doubt, occur in nearly all polytheistic religions,
formed under very various influences. Sometimes as in the Egyptian triad of
Osiris, Isis and Horus, it is the analogy of the human family with its
father, mother and son which lies at their basis. Sometimes they are the
effect of mere syncretism, three deities worshipped in different localities
being brought together in the common worship of all. Sometimes, as in the
Hindu triad of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, they represent the cyclic movement
of a pantheistic evolution, and symbolize the three stages of Being,
Becoming and Dissolution. Sometimes they are the result apparently of
nothing more than an odd human tendency to think in threes, which has given
the number three widespread standing as a sacred number (so H. Usener). It
is no more than was to be anticipated, that one or another of these triads
should now and again be pointed to as the replica (or even the original) of
the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Gladstone found the Trinity in the
Homeric mythology, the trident of Poseidon being its symbol. Hegel very
naturally found it in the Hindu Trimurti, which indeed is very like his
pantheizing notion of what the Trinity is. Others have perceived it in the
Buddhist Triratna (Soderblom); or (despite their crass dualism) in some
speculations of Parseeism; or, more frequently, in the notional triad of
Platonism (e. g., Knapp); while Jules Martin is quite sure that it is
present in Philo's neo-Stoical doctrine of the 'powers,' especially when
applied to the explanation of Abraham's three visitors. Of late years, eyes
have been turned rather to Babylonia; and H. Zimmern finds a possible
forerunner of the Trinity in a Father, Son, and Intercessor, which he
discovers in its mythology. It should be needless to say that none of these
triads has the slightest resemblance to the Christian doctrine of the
Trinity. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity embodies much more than the
notion of 'threeness,' and beyond their 'threeness' these triads have
nothing in common with it.

As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is
incapable of proof from reason. There are no analogies to it in Nature, not
even in the spiritual nature of man, who is made in the image of God. In His
trinitarian mode of being, God is unique; and, as there is nothing in the
universe like Him in this respect, so there is nothing which can help us to
comprehend Him. Many attempts have, nevertheless, been made to construct a
rational proof of the Trinity of the Godhead. Among these there are two
which are particularly attractive, and have therefore been put forward again
and again by speculative thinkers through all the Christian ages. These are
derived from the implications, in the one case, of self-consciousness; in
the other, of love. Both self-consciousness and love, it is said, demand for
their very existence an object over against which the self stands as
subject. If we conceive of God as self-conscious and loving, therefore, we
cannot help conceiving of Him as embracing in His unity some form of
plurality. From this general position both arguments have been elaborated,
however, by various thinkers in very varied forms.

The former of them, for example, is developed by a great seventeenth century
theologian -- Bartholomew Keckermann (1614) -- as follows: God is
self-conscious thought: and God's thought must have a perfect object,
existing eternally before it; this object to be perfect must be itself God;
and as God is one, this object which is God must be the God that is one. It
is essentially the same argument which is popularized in a famous paragraph
(73) of Lessing's 'The Education of the Human Race.' Must not God have an
absolutely perfect representation of Himself - that is, a representation in
which everything that is in Him is found? And would everything that is in
God be found in this representation if His necessary reality were not found
in it? If everything, everything without exception, that is in God is to be
found in this representation, it cannot, therefore, remain a mere empty
image, but must be an actual duplication of God. It is obvious that
arguments like this prove too much. If God's representation of Himself, to
be perfect, must possess the same kind of reality that He Himself possesses,
it does not seem easy to deny that His representations of everything else
must possess objective reality. And this would be as much as to say that the
eternal objective co-existence of all that God can conceive is given in the
very idea of God; and that is open pantheism. The logical flaw lies in
including in the perfection of a representation qualities which are not
proper to representations, however perfect. A perfect representation must,
of course, have all the reality proper to a representation; but objective
reality is so little proper to a representation that a representation
acquiring it would cease to be a representation. This fatal flaw is not
transcended, but only covered up, when the argument is compressed, as it is
in most of its modern presentations, in effect to the mere assertion that
the condition of self-consciousness is a real distinction between the
thinking subject and the thought object, which, in God's case, would be
between the subject ego and the object ego. Why, however, we should deny to
God the power of self-contemplation enjoyed by every finite spirit, save at
the cost of the distinct hypostatizing of the contemplant and the
contemplated self, it is hard to understand. Nor is it always clear that
what we get is a distinct hypostatization rather than a distinct
substantializing of the contemplant and contemplated ego: not two persons in
the Godhead so much as two Gods. The discovery of the third hypostasis - the
Holy Spirit -remains meanwhile, to all these attempts rationally to
construct a Trinity in the Divine Being, a standing puzzle which finds only
a very artificial solution.

The case is much the same with the argument derived from the nature of love.
Our sympathies go out to that old Valentinian writer - possibly it was
Valentinus himself - who reasoned - perhaps he was the first so to reason -
that 'God is all love,' 'but love is not love unless there be an object of
love.' And they go out more richly still to Augustine, when, seeking a
basis, not for a theory of emanations, but for the doctrine of the Trinity,
he analyzes this love which God is into the triple implication of 'the
lover,' 'the loved' and 'the love itself,' and sees in this trinary of love
an analogue of the Triune God. It requires, however, only that the argument
thus broadly suggested should be developed into its details for its
artificiality to become apparent. Richard of St. Victor works it out as
follows: It belongs to the nature of amor that it should turn to another as
caritas. This other, in God's case, cannot be the world; since such love of
the world would be inordinate. It can only be a person; and a person who is
God's equal in eternity, power and wisdom. Since, however, there cannot be
two Divine substances, these two Divine persons must form one and the same
substance. The best love cannot, however, con-fine itself to these two
persons; it must become condilectio by the desire that a third should be
equally loved as they love one another. Thus love, when perfectly conceived,
leads necessarily to the Trinity, and since God is all He can be, this
Trinity must be real. Modern writers (Sartorius, Schoberlein, J. Muller,
Liebner, most lately R. H. Griutzmacher) do not seem to have essentially
improved upon such a statement as this. And after all is said, it does not
appear clear that God's own all-perfect Being could not supply a satisfying
object of His all-perfect love. To say that in its very nature love is
self-communicative, and therefore implies an object other than self, seems
an abuse of figurative language.

Perhaps the ontological proof of the Trinity is nowhere more attractively
put than by Jonathan Edwards. The peculiarity of his presentation of it lies
in an attempt to add plausibility to it by a doctrine of the nature of
spiritual ideas or ideas of spiritual things, such as thought, love, fear,
in general. Ideas of such things, he urges, are just repetitions of them, so
that he who has an idea of any act of love, fear, anger or any other act or
motion of the mind, simply so far repeats the motion in question; and if the
idea be perfect and complete, the original motion of the mind is absolutely
reduplicated. Edwards presses this so far that he is ready to contend that
if a man could have an absolutely perfect idea of all that was in his mind
at any past moment, he would really, to all intents and purposes, be over
again what he was at that moment. And if he could perfectly contemplate all
that is in his mind at any given moment, as it is and at the same time that
it is there in its first and direct existence, he would really be two at
that time, he would be twice at once: 'The idea he has of himself would be
himself again.' This now is the case with the Divine Being. 'God's idea of
Himself is absolutely perfect, and therefore is an express and perfect image
of Him, exactly like Him in every respect. . . . But that which is the
express, perfect image of God and in every respect like Him is God, to all
intents and purposes, because there is nothing wanting: there is nothing in
the Deity that renders it the Deity but what has something exactly answering
to it in this image, which will therefore also render that the Deity.' The
Second Person of the Trinity being thus attained, the argument advances.
'The Godhead being thus begotten of God's loving [having?] an idea of
Himself and showing forth in a distinct Subsistence or Person in that idea,
there proceeds a most pure act, and an infinitely holy and sacred energy
arises between the Father and the Son in mutually loving and delighting in
each other.;. . . The Deity becomes all act, the Divine essence itself flows
out and is as it were breathed forth in love and joy. So that the Godhead
therein stands forth in yet another manner of Subsistence, and there
proceeds the Third Person in the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, viz., the Deity
in act, for there is no other act but the act of the will.' The
inconclusiveness of the reasoning lies on the surface. The mind does not
consist in its states, and the repetition of its states would not,
therefore, duplicate or triplicate it. If it did, we should have a plurality
of Beings, not of Persons in one Being. Neither God's perfect idea of
Himself nor His perfect love of Himself reproduces Himself. He differs from
His idea and His love of Himself precisely by that which distinguishes His
Being from His acts. When it is said, then, that there 15 nothing in the
Deity which renders it the Deity but what has something answering to it in
its image of itself, it is enough to respond - except the Deity itself. What
is wanting to the image to make it a second Deity is just objective reality.

Inconclusive as all such reasoning is, however, considered as rational
demonstration of the reality of the Trinity, it is very far from possessing
no value. It carries home to us in a very suggestive way the superiority of
the Trinitarian conception of God to the conception of Him as an abstract
monad, and thus brings important rational support to the doctrine of the
Trinity, when once that doctrine has been given us by revelation. If it is
not quite possible to say that we cannot conceive of God as eternal
self-consciousness and eternal love, without conceiving Him as a Trinity, it
does seem quite necessary to say that when we conceive Him as a Trinity, new
fullness, richness, force are given to our conception of Him as a
self-conscious, loving Being, and therefore we conceive Him more adequately
than as a monad, and no one who has ever once conceived Him as a Trinity can
ever again satisfy himself with a monadistic conception of God. Reason thus
not only performs the important negative service to faith in the Trinity, of
showing the self-consistency of the doctrine and its consistency with other
known truth, but brings this positive rational support to it of discovering
in it the only adequate conception of God as self-conscious spirit and
living love. Difficult, therefore, as the idea of the Trinity in itself is,
it does not come to us as an added burden upon our intelligence; it brings
us rather the solution of the deepest and most persistent difficulties in
our conception of God as infinite moral Being, and illuminates, enriches and
elevates all our thought of God. It has accordingly become a commonplace to
say that Christian theism is the only stable theism. That is as much as to
say that theism requires the enriching conception of the Trinity to give it
a permanent hold upon the human mind - the mind finds it difficult to rest
in the idea of an abstract unity for its God; and that the human heart cries
out for the living God in whose Being there is that fullness of life for
which the conception of the Trinity alone provides.

So strongly is it felt in wide circles that a Trinitarian conception is
essential to a worthy idea of God, that there is abroad a deep-seated
unwillingness to allow that God could ever have made Himself known otherwise
than as a Trinity. From this point of view it is inconceivable that the Old
Testament revelation should know nothing of the Trinity. Accordingly, I. A.
Dorner, for example, reasons thus: 'If, however - and this is the faith of
universal Christendom - a living idea of God must be thought in some way
after a Trinitarian fashion, it must be antecedently probable that traces of
the Trinity cannot be lacking in the Old Testament, since its idea of God is
a living or historical one.' Whether there really exist traces of the idea
of the Trinity in the Old Testament, however, is a nice question. Certainly
we cannot speak broadly of the revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity in
the Old Testament. It is a plain matter of fact that none who have depended
on the revelation embodied in the Old Testament alone have ever attained to
the doctrine of the Trinity. It is another question, however, whether there
may not exist in the pages of the Old Testament turns of expression or.
records of occurrences in which one already acquainted with the doctrine of
the Trinity may fairly see indications of an underlying implication of it.
The older writers discovered intimations of the Trinity in such phenomena as
the plural form of the Divine name Elohim, the occasional employment with
reference to God of plural pronouns ('Let us make man in our image,' Gen. i.
26; iii. 22; xi. 7; Isa. vi. 8), or of plural verbs (Gen. xx. 13; xxxv. 7),
certain repetitions of the name of God which seem to distinguish between God
and God (Ps. xlv. 6, 7; cx. 1; Hos. i. 7), threefold liturgical formulas
Num. vi. 24, 26; Isa. vi. 3), a certain tendency to hypostatize the
conception of Wisdom (Prov. viii.), and especially the remarkable phenomena
connected with the appearances of the Angel of Jehovah (Gen. xvi. 2-13,
xxii. 11. 16; xxxi. 11,13; xlviii. 15,16; Ex. iii. 2, 4, 5; Jgs. xiii.
20-22). The tendency of more recent authors is to appeal, not so much to
specific texts of the Old Testament, as to the very 'organism of revelation'
in the Old Testament in which there is perceived an underlying suggestion
'that all things owe their existence and persistence to a threefold cause,'
both with reference to the first creation, and, more plainly, with reference
to the second creation. Passages like Ps. xxxiii. 6; Isa. lxi. 1; lxiii.
9-12 Hag. ii. 5, 6, in which God and His Word and His Spirit are brought
together, co-causes of effects, are adduced. A tendency is pointed out to
hypostatize the Word of God on the one hand (e.g., Gen. i. 3; Ps. xxxiii. 6;
cvii. 20; cxlvii. 15-18 Isa. lv. 11); and, especially in Ezek. and the later
Prophets, the Spirit of God, on the other (e. g., Gen. i. 2; Isa. xlviii.
16; lxiii. 10; Ezek. ii. 2; viii. 3; Zec. vii. 12). Suggestions - in Isa.
for instance (vii. 14; ix. 6) - of the Deity of the Messiah are appealed to.
And if the occasional occurrence of plural verbs and pronouns referring to
God, and the plural form of the name Elohim are not insisted upon as in
themselves evidence of a multiplicity in the Godhead, yet a certain weight
is lent them as witnesses that 'the God of revelation is no abstract unity,
but the living, true God who in the fullness of His life embraces the
highest variety' (Bavinek). The upshot of it all is that it is very
generally felt that, somehow, in the Old Testament development of the idea
of God there is a suggestion that the Deity is not a simple monad, and that
thus a preparation is made for the revelation of the Trinity yet to come. It
would seem clear that we must recognize in the Old Testament doctrine of the
relation of God to His revelation by the creative Word and the Spirit, at
least the germ of the distinctions in the Godhead afterward fully made known
in the Christian revelation. And we can scarcely stop there. After all is
said, in the light of the later revelation, the Trinitarian interpretation
remains the most natural one of the phenomena which the older writers
frankly interpreted as intimations of the Trinity; especially of those
connected with the descriptions of the Angel of Jehovah no doubt, but also
even of such a form of expression as meets us in the 'Let us make man in our
image' of Gen. i. 26--- for surely verse 27: 'And God created man in his own
image,' does not encourage us to take the preceding verse as announcing that
man was to be created in the image of the angels. This is not an
illegitimate reading of New Testament ideas back into the text of the Old
Testament; it is only reading the text of the Old Testament under the
illumination of the New Testament revelation. The Old Testament may be
likened to a chamber richly furnished but dimly lighted; the introduction of
light brings into it nothing which was not in it before; but it brings out
into clearer view much of what is in it but was only dimly or even not at
all perceived before. The mystery of the Trinity is not revealed in the Old
Testament; but the mystery of the Trinity underlies the Old Testament
revelation, and here and there almost comes into view. Thus the Old
Testament revelation of God is not corrected by the fuller revelation which
follows it, but only perfected, extended and enlarged.

It is an old saying that what becomes patent in the New Testament was latent
in the Old Testament. And it is important that the continuity of the
revelation of God contained in the two Testaments should not be overlooked
or obscured. If we find some difficulty in perceiving for ourselves, in the
Old Testament, definite points of attachment for the revelation of the
Trinity, we cannot help perceiving with great clearness in the New Testament
abundant evidence that its writers felt no incongruity whatever between
their doctrine of the Trinity and the Old Testament conception of God. The
New Testament writers certainly were not conscious of being 'setters forth
of strange gods.' To their own apprehension they worshipped and proclaimed
just the God of Israel; and they laid no less stress than the Old Testament
itself upon His unity (Jn. xvii. 3; I Cor. viii. 4; I Tim. ii. 5). They do
not, then, place two new gods by the side of Jehovah as alike with Him to be
served and worshipped; they conceive Jehovah as Himself at once Father, Son
and Spirit. In presenting this one Jehovah as Father, Son and Spirit, they
do not even betray any lurking feeling that they are making innovations.
Without apparent misgiving they take over Old Testament passages and apply
them to Father, Son and Spirit indifferently. Obviously they understand
themselves, and wish to be understood, as setting forth in the Father, Son
and Spirit just the one God that the God of the Old Testament revelation is;
and they are as far as possible from recognizing any breach between
themselves and the Fathers in presenting their enlarged conception of the
Divine Being. This may not amount to saying that they saw the doctrine of
the Trinity everywhere taught in the Old Testament. It certainly amounts to
saying that they saw the Triune God whom they worshipped in the God of the
Old Testament revelation, and felt no incongruity in speaking of their
Triune God in the terms of the Old Testament revelation. The God of the Old
Testament was their God, and their God was a Trinity, and their sense of the
identity of the two was so complete that no question as to it was raised in
their minds.

The simplicity and assurance with which the New Testament writers speak of
God as a Trinity have, however, a further implication. If they betray no
sense of novelty in so speaking of Him, this is undoubtedly in part because
it was no longer a novelty so to speak of Him. It is clear, in other words,
that, as we read the New Testament, we are not witnessing the birth of a new
conception of God. What we meet with in its pages is a firmly established
conception of God underlying and giving its tone to the whole fabric. It is
not in a text here and there that the New Testament bears its testimony to
the doctrine of the Trinity. The whole book is Trinitarian to the core; all
its teaching is built on the assumption of the Trinity; and its allusions to
the Trinity are frequent, cursory, easy and confident. It is with a view to
the cursoriness of the allusions to it in the New Testament that it has been
remarked that 'the doctrine of the Trinity is not so much heard as overheard
in the statements of Scripture.' It would be more exact to say that it is
not so much inculcated as presupposed. The doctrine of the Trinity does not
appear in the New Testament in the making, but as already made. It takes its
place in its pages, as Gunkel phrases it, with an air almost of complaint,
already 'in full completeness' (vollig fertig), leaving no trace of its
growth. 'There is nothing more wonderful in the history of human thought,'
says Sanday, with his eye on the appearance of the doctrine of the Trinity
in the New Testament, 'than the silent and imperceptible way in which this
doctrine, to us so difficult, took its place without struggle - and without
controversy - among accepted Christian truths.' The explanation of this
remarkable phenomenon is, however, simple. Our New Testament is not a record
of the development of the doctrine or of its assimilation. It everywhere
presupposes the doctrine as the fixed possession of the Christian community;
and the process by which it became the possession of the Christian community
lies behind the New Testament.

We cannot speak of the doctrine of the Trinity, therefore, if we study
exactness of speech, as revealed in the New Testament, any more than we can
speak of it as revealed in the Old Testament. The Old Testament was written
before its revelation; the New Testament after it. The revelation itself was
made not in word but in deed. It was made in the incarnation of God the Son,
and the outpouring of God the Holy Spirit. The relation of the two
Testaments to this revelation is in the one case that of preparation for it,
and in the other that of product of it. The revelation itself is embodied
just in Christ and the Holy Spirit. This is as much as to say that the
revelation of the Trinity was incidental to, and the inevitable effect of,
the accomplishment of redemption. It was in the coming of the Son of God in
the likeness of sinful flesh to offer Himself a sacrifice for sin; and in
the coming of the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin, of righteousness
and of judgment, that the Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead was
once for all revealed to men. Those who knew God the Father, who loved them
and gave His own Son to die for them; and the Lord Jesus Christ, who loved
them and delivered Himself up an offering and sacrifice for them; and the
Spirit of Grace, who loved them and dwelt within them a power not
themselves, making for righteousness, knew the Triune God and could not
think or speak of God otherwise than as triune. The doctrine of the Trinity,
in other words, is simply the modification wrought in the conception of the
one only God by His complete revelation of Himself in the redemptive
process. It necessarily waited, therefore, upon the completion of the
redemptive process for its revelation, and its revelation, as necessarily,
lay complete in the redemptive process.

From this central fact we may understand more fully several circumstances
connected with the revelation of the Trinity to which allusion has been
made. We may from it understand, for example, why the Trinity was not
revealed in the Old Testament. It may carry us a little way to remark, as it
has been customary to remark since the time of Gregory of Nazianzus, that it
was the task of the Old Testament revelation to fix firmly in the minds and
hearts of the people of God the great fundamental truth of the unity of the
Godhead; and it would have been dangerous to speak to them of the plurality
within this unity until this task had been fully accomplished. The real
reason for the delay in the revelation of the Trinity, however, is grounded
in the secular development of the redemptive purpose of God: the times were
not ripe for the revelation of the Trinity in the unity of the Godhead until
the fullness of the time had come for God to send forth His Son unto
redemption, and His Spirit unto sanctification. The revelation in word must
needs wait upon the revelation in fact, to which it brings its necessary
explanation, no doubt, but from which also it derives its own entire
significance and value. The revelation of a Trinity in the Divine unity as a
mere abstract truth without relation to manifested fact, and without
significance to the development of the kingdom of God, would have been
foreign to the whole method of the Divine procedure as it lies exposed to us
in the pages of Scripture. Here the working-out of the Divine purpose
supplies the fundamental principle to which all else, even the progressive
stages of revelation itself, is subsidiary; and advances in revelation are
ever closely connected with the advancing accomplishment of the redemptive
purpose. We may understand also, however, from the same central fact, why it
is that the doctrine of the Trinity lies in the New Testament rather in the
form of allusions than in express teaching, why it is rather everywhere
presupposed, coming only here and there into incidental expression, than
formally inculcated. It is because the revelation, having been made in the
actual occurrences of redemption, was already the common property of all
Christian hearts. In speaking and writing to one another, Christians,
therefore, rather spoke out of their common Trinitarian consciousness, and
reminded one another of their common fund of belief, than instructed one
another in what was already the common property of all. We are to look for,
and we shall find, in the New Testament allusions to the Trinity, rather
evidence of how the Trinity, believed in by all, was conceived by the
authoritative teachers of the church, than formal attempts, on their part,
by authoritative declarations, to bring the church into the understanding
that God is a Trinity.

The fundamental proof that God is a Trinity is supplied thus by the
fundamental revelation of the Trinity in fact: that is to say, in the
incarnation of God the Son and the outpouring of God the Holy Spirit. In a
word, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are the fundamental proof of the
doctrine of the Trinity. This is as much as to say that all the evidence of
whatever kind, and from whatever source derived, that Jesus Christ is God
manifested in the flesh, and that the Holy Spirit is a Divine Person, is
just so much evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity; and that when we go
to the New Testament for evidence of the Trinity we are to seek it; not
merely in the scattered allusions to the Trinity as such, numerous and
instructive as they are, but primarily in the whole mass of evidence which
the New Testament provides of the Deity of Christ and the Divine personality
of the Holy Spirit. When we have said this, we have said in effect that the
whole mass of the New Testament is evidence for the Trinity. For the New
Testament is saturated with evidence of the Deity of Christ and the Divine
personality of the Holy Spirit. Precisely what the New Testament is, is the
documentation of the religion of the incarnate Son and of the outpourcd
Spirit, that is to say, of the religion of the Trinity, and what we mean by
the doctrine of the Trinity is nothing but the formulation in exact language
of the conception of God presupposed in the religion of the incarnate Son
and outpoured Spirit. We may analyze this conception and adduce proof for
every constituent element of it from the New Testament declarations. We may
show that the New Testament everywhere insists on the unity of the Godhead;
that it constantly recognizes the Father as God, the Son as God and the
Spirit as God; and that it cursorily presents these three to us as distinct
Persons. It is not necessary, however, to enlarge here on facts so obvious.
We may content ourselves with simply observing that to the New Testament
there is but one only living and true God; but that to it Jesus Christ and
the Holy Spirit are each God in the fullest sense of the term; and yet
Father, Son and Spirit stand over against each other as I, and Thou, and He.
In this composite fact the New Testament gives us the doctrine of the
Trinity. For the doctrine of the Trinity is but the statement in well
guarded language of this composite fact. Throughout the whole course of the
many efforts to formulate the doctrine exactly, which have followed one
another during the entire history of the church, indeed, the principle which
has ever determined the result has always been determination to do justice
in conceiving the relations of God the Father, God the Son and God the
Spirit, on the one hand to the unity of God, and, on the other, to the true
Deity of the Son and Spirit and their distinct personalities. When we have
said these three things, then - that there is but one God, that the Father
and the Son and the Spirit is each God, that the Father and the Son and the
Spirit is each a distinct person - we have enunciated the doctrine of the
Trinity in its completeness.

That this doctrine underlies the whole New Testament as its constant
presupposition and determines everywhere its forms of expression is the
primary fact to be noted. We must not omit explicitly to note, however, that
it now and again also, as occasion arises for its incidental enunciation,
comes itself to expression in more or less completeness of statement. The
passages in which the three Persons of the Trinity are brought together are
much more numerous than, perhaps, is generally supposed; but it should be
recognized that the for- mal collocation of the elements of the doctrine
naturally is relatively rare in writings which are occasional in their
origin and practical rather than doctrinal in their immediate purpose. The
three Persons already come into view as Divine Persons in the annunciation
of the birth of Our Lord: 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,' said the
angel to Mary, 'and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee:
wherefore also the holy thing which is to be born shall be called the Son of
God; (Lk. i. 35 m; cf. Mt. i. 18 ff.). Here the Holy Ghost is the active
agent in the production of an effect which is also ascribed to the power of
the Most High, and the child thus brought into the world is given the great
designation of 'Son of God.' The three Persons are just as clearly brought
before us in the account of Mt. (i. 18 ff.), though the allusions to them
are dispersed through a longer stretch of narrative, in the course of which
the Deity of the child is twice intimated (ver. 21: 'It is He that shall
save His people from their sins'; ver. 23: 'They shall call His name
Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God-with-us'). In the baptismal scene
which finds record by all the evangelists at the opening of Jesus' ministry
(Mt. iii. 16, 17; Mk. i. 10, 11; Lk. iii. 21, 22; Jn. i. 32-34), the three
Persons are thrown up to sight in a dramatic picture in which the Deity of
each is strongly emphasized. From the open heavens the Spirit descends in
visible form, and 'a voice came out of the heavens, Thou art my Son, the
Beloved, in whom I am well pleased.' Thus care seems to have been taken to
make the advent of the Son of God into the world the revelation also of the
Triune God, that the minds of men might as smoothly as possible adjust
themselves to the preconditions of the Divine redemption which was in
process of being wrought out.

With this as a starting-point, the teaching of Jesus is Trinitarianly
conditioned throughout. He has much to say of God His Father, from whom as
His Son He is in some true sense distinct, and with whom He is in some
equally true sense one. And He has much to say of the Spirit, who represents
Him as He represents the Father, and by whom He works as the Father works by
Him. It is not merely in the Gospel of John that such representations occur
in the teaching of Jesus. In the Synoptics, too, Jesus claims a Sonship to
God which is unique (Mt. xi. 27; xxiv. 36; Mk. xiii. 32; Lk. x. 22; in the
following passages the title of 'Son of God' is attributed to Him and
accepted by Him: Mt. iv. 6; viii. 29; xiv. 33; xxvii. 40, 43, 54; Mk. iii.
11; xv. 39; Lk. iv. 41; xxii. 70; cf. Jn. i. 34, 49; ix. 35; xi. 27), and
which involves an absolute community between the two in knowledge, say, and
power: both Mt. (xi. 27) and Lk. (x. 22) record His great declaration that
He knows the Father and the Father knows Him with perfect mutual knowledge:
'No one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father,
save the Son.' In the Synoptics, too, Jesus speaks of employing the Spirit
of God Himself for the performance of His works, as if the activities of God
were at His disposal: 'I by the Spirit of God' --- or as Luke has it, 'by
the finger of God' - 'cast out demons' (Mt. xii. 28; Lk. xi. 20; cf. the
promise of the Spirit in Mk. xiii. 11; Lk. xii. 12).

It is in the discourses recorded in John, however, that Jesus most copiously
refers to the unity of Himself, as the Son, with the Father, and to the
mission of the Spirit from Himself as the dispenser of the Divine
activities. Here He not only with great directness declares that He and the
Father are one (x. 30; cf. xvii. 11, 21, 22, 25) with a unity of
interpenetration ('The Father is in me, and I in the Father,' x. 38; cf.
xvi. 10, 11), so that to have seen Him was to have seen the Father (xiv. 9;
cf. xv. 21); but He removes all doubt as to the essential nature of His
oneness with the Father by explicitly asserting His eternity ('Before
Abraham was born, I am,' Jn. viii. 58), His co-eternity with God ('had with
thee before the world was,' xvii. 5; cf. xvii. 18; vi. 62), His eternal
participation in the Divine glory itself ('the glory which I had with thee,'
in fellowship, community with Thee 'before the world was,' xvii. 5). So
clear is it that in speaking currently of Himself as God's Son (v.25; ix.
35; xi. 4; cf. x. 36), He meant, in accordance with the underlying
significance of the idea of sonship in Semitic speech (founded on the
natural implication that whatever the father is that the son is also; cf.
xvi. 15; xvii. 10), to make Himself, as the Jews with exact appreciation of
His meaning perceived, 'equal with God' (v.18), or, to put it brusquely,
just 'God' (x. 33). How He, being thus equal or rather identical with God,
was in the world, He explains as involving a coming forth on His part, not
merely from the presence of God (xvi. 30; cf. xiii. 3) or from fellowship
with God (xvi. 27; xvii. 8), but from out of God Himself (viii. 42; xvi.
28). And in the very act of thus asserting that His eternal home is in the
depths of the Divine Being, He throws up, into as strong an emphasis as
stressed pronouns can convey, His personal distinctness from the Father. 'If
God were your Father,' says He (viii. 42), 'ye would love me: for I came
forth and am come out of God; for neither have I come of myself, but it was
He that sent me.' Again, He says (xvi. 26, 27):' In that day ye shall ask in
my name: and I say not unto you that I will make request of the Father for
you; for the Father Himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have
believed that it was from fellowship with the Father that I came forth; I
came from out of the Father, and have come into the world.' Less pointedly,
but still distinctly, He says again (xvii. 8): ' They know of a truth that
it was from fellowship with Thee that I came forth, and they believed that
it was Thou that didst send me.' It is not necessary to illustrate more at
large a form of expression so characteristic of the discourses of Our Lord
recorded by John that it meets us on every page: a form of expression which
combines a clear implication of a unity of Father and Son which is identity
of Being, and an equally clear implication of a distinction of Person
between them such as allows not merely for the play of emotions between
them, as, for instance, of love (xvii. 24; cf. xv. 9 [iii. 35]; xiv. 31),
but also of an action and reaction upon one another which argues a high
measure, if not of exteriority, yet certainly of exteriorization. Thus, to
instance only one of the most outstanding facts of Our Lord's discourses
(not indeed confined to those in John's Gospel, but found also in His
sayings recorded in the Synoptists, as e.g., Lk. iv. 43 [cf. j Mk. i. 38];
ix. 48; x. 16; iv. 34; v.32; vii. 19; xix. 10), He continually represents
Himself as on the one hand sent by God, and as, on the other, having come
forth from the Father (e. g., Jn. viii. 42; x. 36; xvii. 3; v.23).

It is more important to point out that these phenomena of interrelationship
are not confined to the Father and Son, but are extended also to the Spirit.
Thus, for example, in a context in which Our Lord had emphasized in the
strongest manner His own essential unity and continued interpenetration with
the Father ('If ye had known me, ye would have known my Father also'; 'He
that hath seen me hath seen the Father'; . ,, 'I am in the Father, and the
Father in me ; 'The Father abiding in me doeth his works,' Jn. xiv. 7, 9,
10), we read as follows (Jn. xiv. 16-26): 'And I will make request of the
Father, and He shall give you another [thus sharply distinguished from Our
Lord as a distinct Person] Advocate, that He may be with you forever, the
Spirit of Truth . . . He abideth with you and shall be in you. I will not
leave you orphans; I come unto you. . . In that day ye shall know that I am
in the Father. . . . If a man love me, he will keep my word; and my Father
will love him and we [that is, both Father and Son] will come unto him and
make our abode with him. . . . These things have I spoken unto you while
abiding with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will
send in my name, He shall teach you all things, and bring to your
remembrance all that I said unto you.' It would be impossible to speak more
distinctly of three who were yet one. The Father, Son and Spirit are
constantly distinguished from one another --- the Son makes request of the
Father, and the Father in response to this request gives an Advocate,
'another' than the Son, who is sent in the Son's name. And yet the oneness
of these three is so kept in sight that the coming of this 'another
Advocate' is spoken of without embarrassment as the coming of the Son
Himself (vs. 18, 19, 20, 21), and indeed as the coming of the Father and the
Son (ver. 23). There is a sense, then, in which, when Christ goes away, the
Spirit comes in His stead; there is also a sense in which, when the Spirit
comes, Christ comes in Him; and with Christ's coming the Father comes too.
There is a distinction between the Persons brought into view; and with it an
identity among them; for both of which allowance must be made. The same
phenomena meet us in other passages. Thus, we read again (xv. 26):' But when
there is come the Advocate whom I will send unto you from [fellowship with]
the Father, the Spirit of Truth, which goeth forth from [fellowship with]
the Father, He shall bear witness of me.' In the compass of this single
verse, it is intimated that the Spirit is personally distinct from the Son,
and yet, like Him, has His eternal home (in fellowship) with the Father,
from whom He, like the Son, comes forth for His saving work, being sent
thereunto, however, not in this instance by the Father, but by the Son.

This last feature is even more strongly emphasized in yet another passage in
which the work of the Spirit in relation to the Son is presented as closely
parallel with the work of the Son in relation to the Father (xvi. 5 ff.) .
'But now I go unto Him that sent me. . . . Nevertheless I tell you the
truth: it is expedient for you that I go away; for, if I go not away the
Advocate will not come unto you; but if I go I will send Him unto you. And
He, after He is come, will convict the world . . . of righteousness because
I go to the Father and ye behold me no more. . . . I have yet many things to
say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of
truth is come, He shall guide you into all the truth; for He shall not speak
from Himself; but what things soever He shall hear, He shall speak, and He
shall declare unto you the things that are to come. He shall glorify me: for
He shall take of mine and shall show it unto you. All things whatsoever the
Father hath are mine: therefore said I that He taketh of mine, and shall
declare it unto you.' Here the Spirit is sent by the Son, and comes in order
to complete and apply the Son's work, receiving His whole commission from
the Son - not, however, in derogation of the Father, because when we speak
of the things of the Son, that is to speak of the things of the Father.

It is not to be said, of course, that the doctrine of the Trinity is
formulated in passages like these, with which the whole mass of Our Lord's
discourses in John are strewn; but it certainly is presupposed in them, and
that is, considered from the point of view of their probative force, even
better. As we read we are kept in continual contact with three Persons who
act, each as a distinct person, and yet who are in a deep, under lying
sense, one. There is but one God - there is never any question of that - and
yet this Son who has been sent into the world by God not only represents God
but is God, and this Spirit whom the Son has in turn sent unto the world is
also Himself God. Nothing could be clearer than that the Son and Spirit are
distinct Persons, unless indeed it be that the Son of God is just God the
Son and the Spirit of God just God the Spirit.

Meanwhile, the nearest approach to a formal announcement of the doctrine of
the Trinity which is recorded from Our Lord's lips, or, perhaps we may say,
which is to be found in the whole compass of the New Testament, has been
preserved for us, not by John, but by one of the synoptists. It too,
however, is only incidentally introduced, and has for its main object
something very different from formulating the doctrine of the Trinity. It is
embodied in the great commission which the resurrected Lord gave His
disciples to be their 'marching orders' 'even unto the end of the world':
'Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into
the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' (Mt. xxviii.
19). In seeking to estimate the significance of this great declaration, we
must bear in mind the high solemnity of the utterance, by which we are
required to give its full value to every word of it. Its phrasing is in any
event, however, remarkable. It does not say, 'In the names [plural] of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost'; nor yet (what might be taken
to be equivalent to that),'In the name of the Father, and in the name of the
Son, and in the name of the Holy Ghost,' as if we had to deal with three
separate Beings. Nor, on the other hand, does it say, 'In the name of the
Father, Son and Holy Ghost,' as if 'the Father, Son and Holy Ghost' might be
taken as merely three designations of a single person. With stately
impressiveness it asserts the unity of the three by combining them all
within the bounds of the single Name; and then throws up into emphasis the
distinctness of each by introducing them in turn with the repeated article:
'In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost
'(Authorized Version). These three, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy
Ghost, each stand in some clear sense over against the others in distinct
personality: these three, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, all
unite in some profound sense in the common participation of the one Name.
Fully to comprehend the implication of this mode of statement, we must bear
in mind, further, the significance of the term, 'the name,' and the
associations laden with which it came to the recipients of this commission.
For the Hebrew did not think of the name, as we are accustomed to do, as a
mere external symbol; but rather as the adequate expression of the innermost
being of its bearer. In His name the Being of God finds expression; and the
Name of God - 'this glorious and fearful name, Jehovah thy God' (Deut.
xxviii. 58) - was accordingly a most sacred thing, being indeed virtually
equivalent to God Himself. It is no solecism, therefore, when we read (Isa.
xxx. 27), 'Behold, the name of Jehovah cometh'; and the parallelisms are
most instructive when we read (Isa. lix. 19):' So shall they fear the Name
of Jehovah from the west, and His glory from the rising of the sun; for He
shall come as a stream pent in which the Spirit of Jehovah driveth.' So
pregnant was the implication of the Name, that it was possible for the term
to stand absolutely, without adjunction of the name itself, as the
sufficient representative of the majesty of Jehovah: it was a terrible thing
to 'blaspheme the Name' (Lev. xxiv. 11). All those over whom Jehovah's Name
was called were His, His possession to whom He owed protection. It is for
His Name's sake, therefore, that afflicted Judah cries to the Hope of
Israel, the Saviour thereof in time of trouble: '0 Jehovah, Thou art in the
midst of us, and Thy Name is called upon us; leave us not' (Jer. xiv. 9);
and His people find the appropriate expression of their deepest shame in the
lament, 'We have become as they over whom Thou never barest rule; as they
upon whom Thy Name was not called' (Isa. lxiii. 19); while the height of joy
is attained in the cry, 'Thy Name, Jehovah, G6d of Hosts, is called upon me'
(Jer. xv. 16; cf. II Chron. vii. 14; Dan. ix. 18, 19). When, therefore, Our
Lord commanded His disciples to baptize those whom they brought to His
obedience 'into the name of . . . ,' He was using language charged to them
with high meaning. He could not have been understood otherwise than as
substituting for the Name of Jehovah this other Name 'of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost'; and this could not possibly have meant to
His disciples anything else than that Jehovah was now to be known to them by
the new Name, of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The only
alternative would have been that, for the community which He was founding,
Jesus was supplanting Jehovah by a new God; and this alternative is no less
than monstrous. There is no alternative, therefore, to understanding Jesus
here to be giving for His community a new Name to Jehovah and that new Name
to be the threefold Name of 'the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.'
Nor is there room for doubt that by 'the Son 'in this threefold Name, He
meant just Himself with all the implications of distinct personality which
this carries with it; and, of course, that further carries with it the
equally distinct personality of 'the Father' and 'the Holy Ghost,' with whom
'the Son' is here associated, and from whom alike 'the Son' is here
distinguished. This is a direct ascription to Jehovah the God of Israel, of
a threefold personality, and is therewith the direct enunciation of the
doctrine of the Trinity. We are not witnessing here the birth of the
doctrine of the Trinity; that is presupposed. What we are witnessing is the
authoritative announcement of the Trinity as the God of Christianity by its
Founder, in one of the most solemn of His recorded declarations. Israel had
worshipped the one only true God under the Name of Jehovah; Christians are
to worship the same one only and true God under the Name of 'the Father, and
the Son, and the Holy Ghost.' This is the distinguishing characteristic of
Christians; and that is as much as to say that the doctrine of the Trinity
is, according to Our Lord's own apprehension of it, the distinctive mark of
the religion which He founded.

A passage of such range of implication has, of course, not escaped criticism
and challenge. An attempt which cannot be characterized as other than
frivolous has even been made to dismiss it from the text of Matthew's
Gospel. Against this, the whole body of external evidence cries out; and the
internal evidence is of itself not less decisive to the same effect. When
the 'universalism,' 'ecclesiasticism,' and 'high theology' of the passage
are pleaded against its genuineness, it is forgotten that to the Jesus of
Matthew there are attributed not only such parables as those of the Leaven
and the Mustard Seed, but such declarations as those contained in viii.
11,12; xxi. 43; xxiv. 14; that in this Gospel alone is Jesus recorded as
speaking familiarly about His church (xvi. 18; xviii. 17); and that, after
the great declaration of xi. 27 ff., nothing remained in lofty attribution
to be assigned to Him. When these same objections are urged against
recognizing the passage as an authentic saying of Jesus' own, it is quite
obvious that the Jesus of the evangelists cannot be in mind. The declaration
here recorded is quite in character with the Jesus of Matthew's Gospel, as
has just been intimated; and no less with the Jesus of the whole New
Testament transmission. It will scarcely do, first to construct a priori a
Jesus to our own liking, and then to discard as 'unhistorical' all in the
New Testament transmission which would be unnatural to such a Jesus. It is
not these discarded passages but our a priori Jesus which is unhistorical.
In the present instance, moreover, the historicity of the assailed saying is
protected by an important historical relation in which it stands. It is not
merely Jesus who speaks out of a Trinitarian consciousness, but all the New
Testament writers as well. The universal possession by His followers of so
firm a hold on such a doctrine requires the assumption that some such
teaching as is here attributed to Him was actually contained in Jesus'
instructions to His followers. Even had it not been attributed to Him in so
many words by the record, we should have had to assume that some such
declaration had been, made by Him. In these circumstances, there can be no
good reason to doubt that it was made by Him, when it is expressly
attributed to Him by the record.

When we turn from the discourses of Jesus to the writings of His followers
with a view to observing how the assumption of the doctrine of the Trinity
underlies their whole fabric also, we naturally go first of all to the
letters of Paul. Their very mass is impressive; and the definiteness with
which their composition within a generation of the death of Jesus may be
fixed adds importance to them as historical witnesses. Certainly they leave
nothing to be desired in the richness of their testimony to the Trinitarian
conception of God which underlies them. Throughout the whole series, from I
Thess., which comes from about 52 A.D., to II Tim., which was written about
68 A.D., the redemption, which it is their one business to proclaim and
commend, and all the blessings which enter into it or accompany it are
referred consistently to a threefold Divine causation. Everywhere,
throughout their pages, God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy
Spirit appear as the joint objects of all religious adoration, and the
conjunct source of all Divine operations. In the freedom of the allusions
which are made to them, now and again one alone of the three is thrown up
into prominent view; but more often two of them are conjoined in
thanksgiving or prayer; and not infrequently all three are brought together
as the apostle strives to give some adequate expression to his sense of
indebtedness to the Divine source of all good for blessings received, or to
his longing on behalf of himself or of his readers for further communion
with the God of grace. It is regular for him to begin his Epistles with a
prayer for 'grace and peace' for his readers, 'from God our Father, and the
Lord Jesus Christ,' as the joint source of these Divine blessings by way of
eminence (Rom. i. 7; I Cor. i. 3; II Cor. i. 2; Gal. i. 3; Eph. i. 2; Phil.
i. 2;II Thess. i. 2;I Tim. i. 2;II Tim. i. 2; Philem. ver. 3; cf. I Thess.
i. 1). It is obviously no departure from this habit in the essence of the
matter, but only in relative fullness of expression, when in the opening
words of the Epistle to the Colossians the clause 'and the Lord Jesus
Christ' is omitted, and we read merely: 'Grace to you and peace from God our
Father.' So also it would have been no departure from it in the essence of
the matter, but only in relative fullness of expression, if in any instance
the name of the Holy Spirit had chanced to be adjoined to the other two, as
in the single instance of II Cor. xiii. 14 it is adjoined to them in the
closing prayer for grace with which Paul ends his letters, and which
ordinarily takes the simple form of, 'the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be
with you' (Rom. xvi. 20; I Cor. xvi. 23; Gal. vi. 18; Phil. iv, 23; I Thess.
v.28; II Thess. iii. 18; Philem. ver. 25; more expanded form, Eph. vi. 23,
24; more compressed, Col. iv. 18; I Tim. vi. 21; II Tim. iv. 22; Tit. iii.
15). Between these opening and closing passages the allusions to God the
Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are constant and most
intricately interlaced. Paul's monotheism is intense: the first premise of
all his thought on Divine things is the unity of God (Rom. iii. 30; I Cor.
viii. 4; Gal iii. 20; Eph. iv. 6;I Tim. ii. 5; cf. Rom. xvi. 22; I Tim. i.
17). Yet to him God the Father is no more God than the Lord Jesus Christ is
God, or the Holy Spirit is God. The Spirit of God is to him related to God
as the spirit of man is to man (I Cor. ii. 11), and therefore if the Spirit
of God dwells in us, that is God dwelling in us (Rom. viii. 10 ff.), and we
are by that fact constituted temples of God (I Cor. iii. 16). And no
expression is too strong for him to use in order to assert the Godhead of
Christ: He is 'our great God' (Tit. ii. 13); He is 'God over all' (Rom. ix.
5); and indeed it is expressly declared of Him that the 'fullness of the
Godhead,' that is, everything that enters into Godhead and constitutes it
Godhead, dwells in Him. In the very act of asserting his monotheism Paul
takes Our Lord up into this unique Godhead. 'There is no God but one,' he
roundly asserts, and then illustrates and proves this assertion by remarking
that the heathen may have 'gods many, and lords many,' but 'to us there is
one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord,
Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him' (I Cor. viii.
6). Obviously, this 'one God, the Father,' and 'one Lord, Jesus Christ,' are
embraced together in the one God who alone is. Paul's conception of the one
God, whom alone he worships, includes, in other words, a recognition that
within the unity of His Being, there exists such a distinction of Persons as
is given us in the 'one God, the Father' and the 'one Lord, Jesus Christ.'

In numerous passages scattered through Paul's Epistles, from the earliest of
them (I Thess. i. 2-5; II Thess. ii. 13, 14) to the latest (Tit. iii. 4-6;
II Tim. i. 3, 13,14), all three Persons, God the Father, the Lord Jesus
Christ and the Holy Spirit, are brought together, in the most incidental
manner, as co-sources of all the saving blessings which come to believers in
Christ. A typical series of such passages may be found in Eph. ii. 18; iii.
2-5,14, 17; iv. 4-6; v.18-20. But the most interesting instances are offered
to us perhaps by the Epistles to the Corinthians. In I Cor. xii. 4-6 Paul
presents the abounding spiritual gifts with which the church was blessed in
a threefold aspect, and connects these aspects with the three Divine
Persons. 'Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there
are diversities of ministrations, and the same Lord. And there are
diversities of workings, but the same God, who worketh all things in all.'
It may be thought that there is a measure of what might almost be called
artificiality in assigning the endowments of the church, as they are graces
to the Spirit, as they are services to Christ, and as they are energizings
to God. But thus there is only the more strikingly revealed the underlying
Trinitarian conception as dominating the structure of the clauses: Paul
clearly so writes, not because 'gifts,' 'workings,' 'operations' stand out
in his thought as greatly diverse things, but because God, the Lord, and the
Spirit lie in the back of his mind constantly suggesting a threefold
causality behind every manifestation of grace. The Trinity is alluded to
rather than asserted; but it is so alluded to as to show that it constitutes
the determining basis of all Paul's thought of the God of redemption. Even
more instructive is II Cor. xiii. 14, which has passed into general
liturgical use in the churches as a benediction: 'The grace of the Lord
Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be
with you all.' Here the three highest redemptive blessings are brought
together, and attached distributively to the three Persons of the Triune
God. There is again no formal teaching of the doctrine of the Trinity; there
is only another instance of natural speaking out of a Trinitarian
consciousness. Paul is simply thinking of the Divine source of these great
blessings; but he habitually thinks of this Divine source of redemptive
blessings after a trinal fashion. He therefore does not say, as he might
just as well have said, 'The grace and love and communion of God be with you
all,' but 'The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the
communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.' Thus he bears, almost
unconsciously but most richly, witness to the trinal composition of the
Godhead as conceived by Him.

The phenomena of Paul's Epistles are repeated in the other writings of the
New Testament. In these other writings also it is everywhere assumed that
the redemptive activities of God rest on a threefold source in God the
Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit; and these three Persons
repeatedly come forward together in the expressions of Christian hope or the
aspirations of Christian devotion (e. g., Heb. ii. 3, 4; vi. 4-6; x. 29-31;
1 Pet. i. 2;ii. 3-12; iv. 13-19; I Jn. v.4-8; Jude vs. 20, 21; Rev. i. 4-6).
Perhaps as typical instances as any are supplied by the two following:
'According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the
Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ' (I Pet.
i. 2); 'Praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God,
looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life' (Jude vs.
20, 21). To these may be added the highly symbolical instance from the
Apocalypse: 'Grace to you and peace from Him which is and was and which is
to come; and from the Seven Spirits which are before His throne; and from
Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and
the ruler of the kings of the earth' (Rev. i. 4, 5). Clearly these writers,
too, write out of a fixed Trinitarian consciousness and bear their testimony
to the universal understanding current in apostolical circles. Everywhere
and by all it was fully understood that the one God whom Christians
worshipped and from whom alone they expected redemption and all that
redemption brought with it, included within His undiminished unity the
three: God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, whose
activities relatively to one another are conceived as distinctly personal.
This is the uniform and pervasive testimony of the New Testament, and it is
the more impressive that it is given with such unstudied naturalness and
simplicity, with no effort to distinguish between what have come to be
called the ontological and the economical aspects of the Trinitarian
distinctions, and indeed without apparent consciousness of the existence of
such a distinction of aspects. Whether God is thought of in Himself or in
His operations, the underlying conception runs unaffectedly into trinal
forms.

It will not have escaped observation that the Trinitarian terminology of
Paul and the other writers of the New Testament is not precisely identical
with that of Our Lord as recorded for us in His discourses. Paul, for
example - and the same is true of the other New Testament writers (except
John) - does not speak, as Our Lord is recorded as speaking, of the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit, so much as of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and
the Holy Spirit. This difference of terminology finds its account in large
measure in the different relations in which the speakers stand to the
Trinity. Our Lord could not naturally speak of Himself, as one of the
Trinitarian Persons, by the designation of 'the Lord,' while the designation
of 'the Son,' expressing as it does His consciousness of close relation, and
indeed of exact similarity, to God, came naturally to His lips. But He was
Paul's Lord; and Paul naturally thought and spoke of Him as such. In point
of fact, 'Lord' is one of Paul's favorite designations of Christ, and indeed
has become with him practically a proper name for Christ, and in point of
fact, his Divine Name for Christ. It is naturally, therefore, his
Trinitarian name for Christ. Because when he thinks of Christ as Divine he
calls Him 'Lord,' he naturally, when he thinks of the three Persons together
as the Triune God, sets Him as 'Lord' by the side of God - Paul's constant
name for 'the Father' - and the Holy Spirit. Question may no doubt be raised
whether it would have been possible for Paul to have done this, especially
with the constancy with which he has done it, if, in his conception of it,
the very essence of the Trinity were enshrined in the terms 'Father' and
'Son.' Paul is thinking of the Trinity, to be sure, from the point of view
of a worshipper, rather than from that of a systematizer. He designates the
Persons of the Trinity therefore rather from his relations to them than from
their relations to one another. He sees in the Trinity his God, his Lord,
and the Holy Spirit who dwells in him; and naturally he so speaks currently
of the three Persons. It remains remarkable, nevertheless, if the very
essence of the Trinity were thought of by him as resident in the terms
'Father,' 'Son,' that in his numerous allusions to the Trinity in the
Godhead, he never betrays any sense of this. It is noticeable also that in
their allusions to the Trinity, there is preserved, neither in Paul nor in
the other writers of the New Testament, the order of the names as they stand
in Our Lord's great declaration (Mt. xxviii. 19). The reverse order occurs,
indeed, occasionally, as, for example, in I Cor. xii. 4-6 (cf. Eph. iv.
4-6); and this may be understood as a climactic arrangement and so far a
testimony to the order of Mt. xxviii. 19. But the order is very variable;
and in the most formal enumeration of the three Persons, that of II Cor.
xiii. 14, it stands thus: Lord, God, Spirit. The question naturally suggests
itself whether the order Father, Son, Spirit was especially significant to
Paul and his fellow-writers of the New Testament. If in their conviction the
very essence of the doctrine of the Trinity was embodied in this order,
should we not anticipate that there should appear in their numerous
allusions to the Trinity some suggestion of this conviction?

Such facts as these have a bearing upon the testimony of the New Testament
to the interrelations of the Persons of the Trinity. To the fact of the
Trinity - to the fact, that is, that in the unity of the Godhead there
subsist three Persons, each of whom has his particular part in the working
out of salvation - the New Testament testimony is clear, consistent,
pervasive and conclusive. There is included in this testimony constant and
decisive witness to the complete and undiminished Deity of each of these
Persons; no language is too exalted to apply to each of them in turn in the
effort to give expression to the writer's sense of His Deity: the name that
is given to each is fully understood to be 'the name that is above every
name.' When we attempt to press the inquiry behind the broad fact, however,
with a view to ascertaining exactly how the New Testament writers conceive
the three Persons to be related, the one to the other, we meet with great
difficulties. Nothing could seem more natural, for example, than to assume
that the mutual relations of the Persons of the Trinity are revealed in the
designations, 'the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,' which are given
them by Our Lord in the solemn formula of Mt. xxviii. 19. Our confidence in
this assumption is somewhat shaken, however, when we observe, as we have
just observed, that these designations are not carefully preserved in their
allusions to the Trinity by the writers of the New Testament at large, but
are characteristic only of Our Lord's allusions and those of John, whose
modes of speech in general very closely resemble those of Our Lord. Our
confidence is still further shaken when we observe that the implications
with respect to the mutual relations of the Trinitarian Persons, which are
ordinarily derived from these designations, do not so certainly lie in them
as is commonly supposed.

It may be very natural to see in the designation 'Son' an intimation of
subordination and derivation of Being, and it may not be difficult to
ascribe a similar connotation to the term 'Spirit.' But it is quite certain
that this was not the denotation of either term in the Semitic
consciousness, which underlies the phraseology of Scripture; and it may even
be thought doubtful whether it was included even in their remoter
suggestions. What underlies the conception of sonship in Scriptural speech
is just 'likeness'; whatever the father is that the son is also. The
emphatic application of the term 'Son' to one of the Trinitarian Persons,
accordingly, asserts rather His equality with the Father than His
subordination to the Father; and if there is any implication of derivation
in it, it would appear to be very distant. The adjunction of the adjective
'only begotten' (Jn. i. 14; iii. 16-18; I Jn. iv. 9) need add only the idea
of uniqueness, not of derivation (Ps. xxii. 20; xxv. 16; xxxv. 17; Wisd.
vii. 22 m.); and even such a phrase as 'God only begotten' (Jn. i. 18 m.)
may contain no implication of derivation, but only of absolutely unique
consubstantiality; as also such a phrase as 'the first-begotten of all
creation' (Col. i. 15) may convey no intimation of coming into being, but
merely assert priority of existence. In like manner, the designation 'Spirit
of God' or 'Spirit of Jehovah,' which meets us frequently in the Old
Testament, certainly does not convey the idea there either of derivation or
of subordination, but is just the executive name of God --- the designation
of God from the point of view of His activity - and imports accordingly
identity with God; and there is no reason to suppose that, in passing from
the Old Testament to the New Testament, the term has taken on an essentially
different meaning. It happens, oddly enough, moreover, that we have in the
New Testament itself what amounts almost to formal definitions of the two
terms 'Son' and 'Spirit,' and in both cases the stress is laid on the notion
of equality or sameness. In Jn. v.18 we read: 'On this account, therefore,
the Jews sought the more to kill him, because, not only did he break the
Sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal to God.'
The point lies, of course, in the adjective 'own.' Jesus was, rightly,
understood to call God 'his own Father,' that is, to use the terms 'Father'
and 'Son' not in a merely figurative sense, as when Israel was called God's
son, but in the real sense. And this was understood to be claiming to be all
that God is. To be the Son of God in any sense was to be like God in that
sense; to be God's own Son was to be exactly like God, to be 'equal with
God.' Similarly, we read in I Cor. ii. 10,11:' For the Spirit searcheth all
things, yea, the deep things of God. For who of men knoweth the things of a
man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God none
knoweth, save the Spirit of God.' Here the Spirit appears as the substrate
of the Divine self-consciousness, the principle of God's knowledge of
Himself: He is, in a word, just God Himself in the innermost essence of His
Being. As the spirit of man is the seat of human life, the very life of man
itself, so the Spirit of God is His very life-element. How can He be
supposed, then, to be subordinate to God, or to derive His Being from God?
If, however, the subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father in modes
of subsistence and their derivation from the Father are not implicates of
tbeir designation as Son and Spirit, it will be hard to find in the New
Testament compelling evidence of their subordination and derivation.

There is, of course, no question that in 'modes of operation,' as it is
technically called - that is to say, in the functions ascribed to the
several Persons of the Trinity in the redemptive process, and, more broadly,
in the entire dealing of God with the world - the principle of subordination
is clearly expressed. The Father is first, the Son is second, and the Spirit
is third, in the operations of God as revealed to us in general, and very
especially in those operations by which redemption is accomplished. Whatever
the Father does, He does through the Son (Rom. ii. 16; iii. 22;v. 1,11, 17,
21; Eph. i.5; I Thess. v.9; Tit. iii. v) by the Spirit. The Son is sent by
the Father and does His Father's will (Jn. vi. 38); the Spirit is sent by
the Son and does not speak from Himself, but only takes of Christ's and
shows it unto His people (Jn. xvii. 7 ff.); and we have Our Lord's own word
for it that 'one that is sent is not greater than he that sent him' (Jn.
xiii. 16). In crisp decisiveness, Our Lord even declares, indeed: 'My Father
is greater than I' (Jn. xiv. 28); and Paul tells us that Christ is God's,
even as we are Christ's (I Cor. iii. 23), and that as Christ is 'the head of
every man,' so God is 'the head of Christ' (I Cor. xi. 3). But it is not so
clear that the principle of subordination rules also in 'modes of
subsistence,' as it is technically phrased; that is to say, in the necessary
relation of the Persons of the Trinity to one another. The very richness and
variety of the expression of their subordination, the one to the other, in
modes of operation, create a difficulty in attaining certainty whether they
are represented as also subordinate the one to the other in modes of
subsistence. Question is raised in each ease of apparent intimation of
subordination in modes of subsistence, whether it may not, after all, be
explicable as only another expression of subordination in modes of
operation. It may be natural to assume that a subordination in modes of
operation rests on a subordination in modes of subsistence; that the reason
why it is the Father that sends the Son and the Son that sends the Spirit is
that the Son is subordinate to the Father, and the Spirit to the Son. But we
are bound to bear in mind that these relations of subordination in modes of
operation may just as well be due to a convention, an agreement, between the
Persons of the Trinity - a 'Covenant' as it is technically called - by
virtue of which a distinct function in the work of redemption is voluntarily
assumed by each. It is eminently desirable, therefore, at the least, that
some definite evidence of subordination in modes of subsistence should be
discoverable before it is assumed. In the case of the relation of the Son to
the Father, there is the added difficulty of the incarnation, in which the
Son, by the assumption of a creaturely nature into union with Himself,
enters into new relations with the Father of a definitely subordinate
character. Question has even been raised whether the very designations of
Father and Son may not be expressive of these new relations, and therefore
without significance with respect to the eternal relations of the Persons so
designated. This question must certainly be answered in the negative.
Although, no doubt, in many of the instances in which the terms 'Father' and
'Son' occur, it would be possible to take them of merely economical
relations, there ever remain some which are intractable to this treatment,
and we may be sure that 'Father' and 'Son' are applied to their eternal and
necessary relations. But these terms, as we have seen, do not appear to
imply relations of first and second, superiority and subordination, in modes
of subsistence; and the fact of the humiliation of the Son of God for His
earthly work does introduce a factor into the interpretation of the passages
which import His subordination to the Father, which throws doubt upon the
inference from them of an eternal relation of subordination in the Trinity
itself. It must at least be said that in the presence of the great New
Testament doctrines of the Covenant of Redemption on the one hand, and of
the Humiliation of the Son of God for His work's sake and of the Two Natures
in the constitution of His Person as incarnated, on the other, the
difficulty of interpreting subordinationist passages of eternal relations
between the Father and Son becomes extreme. The question continually
obtrudes itself, whether they do not rather find their full explanation in
the facts embodied in the doctrines of the Covenant, the Humiliation of
Christ, and the Two Natures of His incarnated Person. Certainly in such
circumstances it were thoroughly illegitimate to press such passages to
suggest any subordination for the Son or the Spirit which would in any
manner impair that complete identity with the Father in Being and that
complete equality with the Father in powers which are constantly
presupposed, and frequently emphatically, though only incidentally, asserted
for them throughout the whole fabric of the New Testament.

The Trinity of the Persons of the Godhead, shown in the incarnation and the
redemptive work of God the Son, and the descent and saving work of God the
Spirit, is thus everywhere assumed in the New Testament, and comes to
repeated fragmentary but none the less emphatic and illuminating expression
in its pages. As the roots of its revelation are set in the threefold Divine
causality of the saving process, it naturally finds an echo also in the
consciousness of everyone who has experienced this salvation. Every redeemed
soul, knowing himself reconciled with God through His Son, and quickened
into newness of life by His Spirit, turns alike to Father, Son and Spirit
with the exclamation of reverent gratitude upon his lips, 'My Lord and my
God!' If he could not construct the doctrine of the Trinity out of his
consciousness of salvation, yet the elements of his consciousness of
salvation are interpreted to him and reduced to order only by the doctrine
of the Trinity which he finds underlying and giving their significance and
consistency to the teaching of the Scriptures as to the processes of
salvation. By means of this doctrine he is able to think clearly and
consequently of his threefold relation to the saving God, experienced by Him
as Fatherly love sending a Redeemer, as redeeming love executing redemption,
as saving love applying redemption: all manifestations in distinct methods
and by distinct agencies of the one seeking and saving love of God. Without
the doctrine of the Trinity, his conscious Christian life would be thrown
into confusion and left in disorganization if not, indeed, given an air of
unreality; with the doctrine of the Trinity, order, significance and reality
are brought to every element of it. Accordingly, the doctrine of the Trinity
and the doctrine of redemption, historically, stand or fall together. A
Unitarian theology is commonly associated with a Pelagian anthropology and a
Socinian soteriology. It is a striking testimony which is borne by F. E.
Koenig ('Offenbarungsbegriff des AT,' 1882, 1,125):: J have learned that
many cast off the whole history of redemption for no other reason than
because they have not attained to a conception of the Triune God.' It is in
this intimacy of relation between the doctrines of the Trinity and
redemption that the ultimate reason lies why the Christian church could not
rest until it had attained a definite and well-compacted doctrine of the
Trinity. Nothing else could be accepted as an adequate foundation for the
experience of the Christian salvation. Neither the Sabellian nor the Arian
construction could meet and satisfy the data of the consciousness of
salvation, any more than either could meet and satisfy the data of the
Scriptural revelation. The data of the Scriptural revelation might, to be
sure, have been left unsatisfied: men might have found a modus vivendi with
neglected, or even with perverted Scriptural teaching. But perverted or
neglected elements of Christian experience are more clamant in their demands
for attention and correction. The dissatisfied Christian consciousness
necessarily searched the Scriptures, on the emergence of every new attempt
to state the doctrine of the nature and relations of God, to see whether
these things were true, and never reached contentment until the Scriptural
data were given their consistent formulation in a valid doctrine of the
Trinity. Here too the heart of man was restless until it found its rest in
the Triune God, the author, procurer and applier of salvation.

The determining impulse to the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity in
the church was the church's profound conviction of the absolute Deity of
Christ, on which as on a pivot the whole Christian conception of God from
the first origins of Christianity turned. The guiding principle in the
formulation of the doctrine was supplied by the Baptismal Formula announced
by Jesus (Mt. xxviii. 19), from which was derived the ground-plan of the
baptismal confessions and 'rules of faith' which very soon began to be
framed all over the church. It was by these two fundamental principia ---
the true Deity of Christ and the Baptismal Formula --- that all attempts to
formulate the Christian doctrine of God were tested, and by their molding
power that the church at length found itself in possession of a form of
statement which did full justice to the data of the redemptive revelation as
reflected in the New Testament and the demands of the Christian heart under
the experience of salvation.

In the nature of the case the formulated doctrine was of slow attainment.
The influence of inherited conceptions and of current philosophies
inevitably showed itself in the efforts to construe to the intellect the
immanent faith of Christians. In the second century the dominant neo-Stoic
and neo-Platonic ideas deflected Christian thought into subordinationist
channels, and produced what is known as the Logos-Christology, which looks
upon the Son as a prolation of Deity reduced to such dimensions as comported
with relations with a world of time and space; meanwhile, to a great extent,
the Spirit was neglected altogether. A reaction which, under the name of
Monarchianism, identified the Father, Son, and Spirit so completely that
they were thought of only as different aspects or different moments in the
life of the one Divine Person, called now Father, now Son, now Spirit, as
His several activities came successively into view, almost succeeded in
establishing itself in the third century as the doctrine of the church at
large. In the conflict between these two opposite tendencies the church
gradually found its way, under the guidance of the Baptismal Formula
elaborated into a 'Rule of Faith,' to a better and more well-balanced
conception, until a real doctrine of the Trinity at length came to
expression, particularly in the West, through the brilliant dialectic of
Tertullian. It was thus ready at hand, when, in the early years of the
fourth century, the Logos-Christology, in opposition to dominant Sabellian
tendencies, ran to seed in what is known as Arianism, to which the Son was a
creature, though exalted above all other creatures as their Creator and
Lord; and the church was thus prepared to assert its settled faith in a
Triune God, one in being, but in whose unity there subsisted three
consubstantial Persons. Under the leadership of Athanasius this doctrine was
proclaimed as the faith of the church at the Council of Nice in 325 A.D.,
and by his strenuous labors and those of 'the three great Cappadocians,' the
two Gregories and Basil, it gradually won its way to the actual acceptance
of the entire church. It was at the hands of Augustine, however, a century
later, that the doctrine thus become the church doctrine in fact as well as
in theory, received its most complete elaboration and most carefully
grounded statement. In the form which he gave it, and which is embodied in
that 'battle-hymn of the early church,' the so-called Athanasian Creed, it
has retained its place as the fit expression of the faith of the church as
to the nature of its God until today. The language in which it is couched,
even in this final declaration, still retains elements of speech which owe
their origin to the modes of thought characteristic of the Logos Christology
of the second century, fixed in the nomenclature of the church by the Nicene
Creed of 325 A.D., though carefully guarded there against the
subordinationism inherent in the Logos-Christology, and made the vehicle
rather of the Nicene doctrines of the eternal generation of the Son and
procession of the Spirit, with the consequent subordination of the Son and
Spirit to the Father in modes of subsistence as well as of operation. In the
Athanasian Creed, however, the principle of the equalization of the three
Persons, which was already the dominant motive of the Nicene Creed - the
homoousia - is so strongly emphasized as practically to push out of sight,
if not quite out of existence, these remanent suggestions of derivation and
subordination. It has been found necessary, nevertheless, from time to time,
vigorously to reassert the principle of equalization, over against a
tendency unduly to emphasize the elements of subordinationism which still
hold a place thus in the traditional language in which the church states its
doctrine of the Trinity. In particular, it fell to Calvin, in the interests
of the true Deity of Christ - the constant motive of the whole body of
Trinitarian thought - to reassert and make good the attribute of
self-existence (autotheotos) for the Son. Thus Calvin takes his place,
alongside of Tertullian, Athanasius and Augustine, as one of the chief
contributors to the exact and vital statement of the Christian doctrine of
the Triune God.

[Terry Cross]

On Jul 15, 10:04 am, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
> This lesson is on the Biblical doctrine of the Holy Trinity and was written
> by Benjamin Warfield. It is a detailed article and well worth the time to
> read.
>
> May God bless,
> Carl
> my website --http://www.nettally.com/saints/

> my blog --http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/

>
> ---
>
> The Biblical Doctrine Of The Trinity
> by Benjamin B. Warfield
>
> The term 'Trinity' is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical
> language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there
> is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three
> coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in
> subsistence. A doctrine so defined can be spoken of as a Biblical doctrine
> only on the principle that the sense of Scripture is Scripture. And the
> definition of a Biblical doctrine in such unBiblical language can be
> justified only on the principle that it is better to preserve the truth of
> Scripture than the words of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity lies in
> Scripture in solution; when it is crystallized from its solvent it does not
> cease to be Scriptural, but only comes into clearer view. Or, to speak
> without figure, the doctrine of the Trinity is given to us in Scripture, not
> in formulated definition, but in fragmentary allusions; when we assembled
> the disjecta membra into their organic unity, we are not passing from
> Scripture, but entering more thoroughly into the meaning of Scripture. We
> may state the doctrine in technical terms, supplied by philosophical
> reflection; but the doctrine stated is a genuinely Scriptural doctrine.

If Jesus thought this were important, he would have preached about
it. But he did not.

If Jesus thought it was not important, why do you?

TCross

[::: good news runner :::]

In
news:0d65dc70-35b1-4353...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com,
Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com> typed:

On the other hand - why don't you?

> TCross

::: vera :::
--
___________________________________________________
::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de :::::::
::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de/Israel.htm :::::::
::::::: http://www.e-sword.net :::::::
::::::: http://alpha.org/default.asp :::::::

[Dr. House]

On Jul 16, 6:48 am, " ::: good news runner :::" <veral...@lycos.com>
wrote:
> Innews:0d65dc70-35b1-4353...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com,
> Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> typed:

In my case that would be because Jesus didn't preach about it.

Now it's your turn. If Jesus didn't preach about it then why do you
think it is important?

House

[Mistylein]

"Dr. House" <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ac880ab0-1b45-4a6a...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

On Jul 16, 6:48 am, " ::: good news runner :::" <veral...@lycos.com>
wrote:
> Innews:0d65dc70-35b1-4353...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com,
> Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> typed:
>
>

>

> > If Jesus thought this were important, he would have preached about
> > it. But he did not.
>
> > If Jesus thought it was not important, why do you?
>
> On the other hand - why don't you?

In my case that would be because Jesus didn't preach about it.

Now it's your turn. If Jesus didn't preach about it then why do you
think it is important?

Matthew 28: (NIV)
19 Go therefore[c] and make disciples of all the nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded
you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.[d]

Is this what you mean by preaching it?
Jesus seemed to thing it was very important.

M,

House

[Dr. House]

On Jul 17, 12:39 am, "Mistylein" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:
> "Dr. House" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

To answer your question no that is not what I mean by preaching
Trinity. I see nothing in those verses that says those three names
are three separate persons and those three persons are one God. The
connection is not provided. We are left wondering about it. Trinity
is a possible answer to the puzzle. But the answer was not provided.
That is what I mean by Jesus didn't preach it. If it's so important
that we believe Trinity rather than some alternative answer to the
puzzle then why didn't Jesus say it? IMO he gave us the answer when
he told us we must have a child like faith. The nature of God may be
beyond the ability of a human mind to understand so we need to trust
that it will all work out and not mistreat each other over abstract
and subjective doctrine.

House

[roy...@gmail.com]

On Jul 17, 5:39 pm, "Mistylein" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:
> "Dr. House" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

Perhaps the largest piece of preaching He gave was the Sermon on the
Mount which I don't think says anything about the Godhead.

When He began His ministry about the Kingdom (e.g. Mat 4:17) do we
know if He included the Trinity in His teaching?

Cheers.

>
> M,
>
> House

[Mistylein]

"Dr. House" <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:6728eec5-8bcb-4812...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...

On Jul 17, 12:39 am, "Mistylein" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:
> "Dr. House" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ac880ab0-1b45-4a6a...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 16, 6:48 am, " ::: good news runner :::" <veral...@lycos.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > On the other hand - why don't you?
>
> In my case that would be because Jesus didn't preach about it.
>
> Now it's your turn. If Jesus didn't preach about it then why do you
> think it is important?
>
> Matthew 28: (NIV)
> 19 Go therefore[c] and make disciples of all the nations,
> baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the
> Son and of the Holy Spirit,
> 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded
> you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.[d]
>
> Is this what you mean by preaching it?

> Jesus seemed to think it was very important.

To answer your question no that is not what I mean by preaching
Trinity. I see nothing in those verses that says those three names
are three separate persons and those three persons are one God. The

~~~~~~~~~~~
This is what separates the Believers from the unbleievers.

WE do not need it preached to us that we could grasp it
we just read it as it is the whole idea all through the Bible
even from Genesis and the gosples all 3 are there in one time.
************

connection is not provided. We are left wondering about it. Trinity
is a possible answer to the puzzle. But the answer was not provided.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark 1: (NIV)
9At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was
baptized by John in the Jordan. 10As Jesus was coming up
out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the
Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11And a voice came
from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I
am well pleased."

Here we have all 3 in one place so Jesus does not even
have to preach about it many witnessed it and they can
testify about it so Jesus does not have to.
**********

That is what I mean by Jesus didn't preach it. If it's so important
that we believe Trinity rather than some alternative answer to the
puzzle then why didn't Jesus say it? IMO he gave us the answer when
he told us we must have a child like faith. The nature of God may be
beyond the ability of a human mind to understand so we need to trust
that it will all work out and not mistreat each other over abstract
and subjective doctrine.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So then do you except that there is a "TRINITY"?

M,
* * * * * *

House

[Mistylein]

<roy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:40a24bda-8518-47b3...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

> On Jul 17, 5:39 pm, "Mistylein" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:

>>
>> In my case that would be because Jesus didn't preach about it.
>>
>> Now it's your turn. If Jesus didn't preach about it then why do you
>> think it is important?
>>
>> Matthew 28: (NIV)
>> 19 Go therefore[c] and make disciples of all the nations,
>> baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the
>> Son and of the Holy Spirit,
>> 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded
>> you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.[d]
>>
>> Is this what you mean by preaching it?
>> Jesus seemed to thing it was very important.
>
> Perhaps the largest piece of preaching He gave was the Sermon on the
> Mount which I don't think says anything about the Godhead.

It does not so you are right.

>
> When He began His ministry about the Kingdom (e.g. Mat 4:17) do we
> know if He included the Trinity in His teaching?

Mark 1: shows the God head and it is excepted right then
and there so Jeus showed it and he did not have to preach it did he?

9At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was
baptized by John in the Jordan. 10As Jesus was coming up
out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit
descending on him like a dove. 11And a voice came from
heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well

pleased." (NIV)

M,
>
> Cheers.
>

>>
>> M,
>>
>> House
>

[Dr. House]

On Jul 17, 2:34 am, "Mistylein" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:

[...]

> > Matthew 28: (NIV)
> > 19 Go therefore[c] and make disciples of all the nations,
> > baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the
> > Son and of the Holy Spirit,
> > 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded
> > you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.[d]
>
> > Is this what you mean by preaching it?
> > Jesus seemed to think it was very important.
>
> To answer your question no that is not what I mean by preaching
> Trinity.  I see nothing in those verses that says those three names
> are three separate persons and those three persons are one God.  The
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> This is what separates the Believers from the unbleievers.

So all the faith I have in Jesus is wasted?

> WE do not need it preached to us that we could grasp it

I think you greatly underestimate the amount of Trinitarian preaching
that you have received from Trinitarians. I would never have
understood Trinity were it not for the patience of all those sunday
school teachers hammering it into my skull for all those years.
(Please don't take my cavalier statement as evidence that I am
ungrateful - in fact I am quite grateful for their efforts and the
result)

> we just read it as it is the whole idea all through the Bible
> even from Genesis  and the gosples all 3 are there in one time.
> ************
>
> connection is not provided.  We are left wondering about it.  Trinity
> is a possible answer to the puzzle.  But the answer was not provided.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Mark 1:            (NIV)
> 9At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was
> baptized by John in the Jordan. 10As Jesus was coming up
> out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the
> Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11And a voice came
> from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I
> am well pleased."
>
> Here we have all 3 in one place so Jesus does not even
> have to preach about  it many witnessed it and they can
> testify about it so Jesus does not have to.
> **********

Yet Mark 1:9-11 does not say that these are three persons and these
three persons make up one God. It is a powerful demonstration to be
sure. Yet the Mount of Transfiguration had Jesus, Moses and Elijah
and we don't find that as evidence of Trinity. Jesus, Moses and
Elijah are three persons and they were in one place. How do we know
the vision of the Dove was representing the nuts and bolts of
Trinity? I think the conclusion you draw in Mark 1 is a leap of
faith. You might be right but I don't see how this can be as
important as what the gospels come right out and state openly and
repeatedly. Repentance is important. Salvation is important. Being
born again is important. Faith is important. Guessing right about
something that is hinted at - that's problematic.

> That is what I mean by Jesus didn't preach it.  If it's so important
> that we believe Trinity rather than some alternative answer to the
> puzzle then why didn't Jesus say it?  IMO he gave us the answer when
> he told us we must have a child like faith.  The nature of God may be
> beyond the ability of a human mind to understand so we need to trust
> that it will all work out and not mistreat each other over abstract
> and subjective doctrine.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> So then do you except that there is a "TRINITY"?

What did I spell it wrong? Sorry, no offense meant.

House

[rogue]

On Jul 16, 5:48 pm, " ::: good news runner :::" <veral...@lycos.com>
wrote:
> Innews:0d65dc70-35b1-4353...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com,
> Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> typed:

JERRY
Because it's not required for salvation, Vera. Therefore, any
discussion of the Trinity falls into that nice but unimportant realm
of questions such as "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"
category. (BTW, the answer is 42)

And if you think it IS required for salvation, please show me the
verses in the NT where Jesus says that it's a requirement to believe
in a triune deity in order to be saved.

[roy...@gmail.com]

On Jul 17, 7:40 pm, "Mistylein" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:
> <roym...@gmail.com> wrote in message

The account comes across as describing unfolding events as they
occur.

Are you saying that the writer intended to convey some teaching about
the holy Trinity?

It looks like Warfield's piece is wanting to say that one cannot be
saved unless he takes on the holy Trinity. Would you say that the
holy Trinity is central to the gospel?

Cheers.

>
> M,
>
>
>
> > Cheers.
>
> >> M,
>
> >> House

[Pastor Dave]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:48:51 -0700 (PDT), roy...@gmail.com
spake thusly:

>> Matthew 28: (NIV)
>> 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations,

>> baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the
>> Son and of the Holy Spirit,
>> 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have
>> commanded you; and lo, I am with you always,
>> even to the end of the age." Amen.
>>

>> Is this what you mean by preaching it?
>> Jesus seemed to thing it was very important.
>
>Perhaps the largest piece of preaching He gave was
>the Sermon on the Mount which I don't think says
>anything about the Godhead.

The problem with folks not being able to understand
the New Testament, is that they read it as if it were
written just yesterday and just for them. That is not
the case. For example, "the age" ended in 70 AD
and does not apply to us today.

--

Preach the gospel at all times. Use words if necessary.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Mistylein]

"Dr. House" <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:c59d0a6d-aa8e-4766...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

On Jul 17, 2:34 am, "Mistylein" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:

[...]
> > Matthew 28: (NIV)
> > 19 Go therefore[c] and make disciples of all the nations,
> > baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the
> > Son and of the Holy Spirit,
> > 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded
> > you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.[d]
>
> > Is this what you mean by preaching it?
> > Jesus seemed to think it was very important.
>
> To answer your question no that is not what I mean by preaching
> Trinity. I see nothing in those verses that says those three names
> are three separate persons and those three persons are one God. The
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> This is what separates the Believers from the unbleievers.

So all the faith I have in Jesus is wasted?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Why would that make you say such a thing?
You can deny the Father. that is forgivable.
You can deny the Son. that too is forgiveable.
But you can not deny the Holy Spirt and still be
forgiven. For it is through the Holy Spirit that you
are even able to know and recognize the Father and
The Son.

> WE do not need it preached to us that we could grasp it

I think you greatly underestimate the amount of Trinitarian preaching
that you have received from Trinitarians. I would never have
understood Trinity were it not for the patience of all those sunday
school teachers hammering it into my skull for all those years.
(Please don't take my cavalier statement as evidence that I am
ungrateful - in fact I am quite grateful for their efforts and the
result)

~~~~~~~~~~~`
I am not sure what you have been indoctrinated to believe the
Trinity may be, but as for me it is "all three in one the Godhead"
of all creation, His Creation.

Man has rejected God; God has not rejected Man!
* * *****

> `````````
> we just read it, as it is the whole idea all through the Bible

> even from Genesis and the gosples all 3 are there in one time.
> ************
>
> connection is not provided. We are left wondering about it. Trinity
> is a possible answer to the puzzle. But the answer was not provided.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Mark 1: (NIV)
> 9At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was
> baptized by John in the Jordan. 10As Jesus was coming up

> out of the water, He saw heaven being torn open and the

> Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11And a voice came
> from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I
> am well pleased."
>
> Here we have all 3 in one place so Jesus does not even

> have to preach about it. Many witnessed it and they can

> testify about it so Jesus does not have to.
> **********

Yet Mark 1:9-11 does not say that these are three persons and these
three persons make up one God. It is a powerful demonstration to be
sure. Yet the Mount of Transfiguration had Jesus, Moses and Elijah
and we don't find that as evidence of Trinity. Jesus, Moses and
Elijah are three persons and they were in one place. How do we know
the vision of the Dove was representing the nuts and bolts of
Trinity? I think the conclusion you draw in Mark 1 is a leap of
faith. You might be right but I don't see how this can be as
important as what the gospels come right out and state openly and
repeatedly. Repentance is important. Salvation is important. Being
born again is important. Faith is important. Guessing right about
something that is hinted at - that's problematic.

~~~~~~~~~~
No it is a big mistake to even think "3 people" make up the
God head.
God the Father is God in heaven. Not man in heaven.

Jesus is both Man and God and indeed was a man in the flesh.
But He is also God just as much as God the Father.

The Holy Spirit is neither a man nor a God. However it is
Through this attribute that God is able to comunicate His
messages to us by Faith in all three.
Jesus is the "Living Word of God"
The Bible is the Written Word of God.
If we can not read Jesus then we have to read the Bible.
But it is through the Spirit of Truth that we are able to receive
the language that God is trying to communicate to us.

> That is what I mean by Jesus didn't preach it. If it's so important
> that we believe Trinity rather than some alternative answer to the
> puzzle then why didn't Jesus say it? IMO he gave us the answer when
> he told us we must have a child like faith. The nature of God may be
> beyond the ability of a human mind to understand so we need to trust
> that it will all work out and not mistreat each other over abstract
> and subjective doctrine.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

YEs it is very important that we open our minds and eye of understanding
just as a child does all the time.
We must let all that the world has taught us move out of the way to
let in the Real Truth that comes from Faith in the Godhead that is
always drying to communicate His will upon us.
For His will is much better then our own natural man thinking.
We must let the Sprit of Truth show us the real path that
we should be taking.
* ** * **

>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> So then do you except that there is a "TRINITY"?

What did I spell it wrong? Sorry, no offense meant.

~~~~~~~~~~~
No your spelling is good enough it is your Belief that I am asking
about. Is there some reason you can not say (yes) or (no) to
that Question?

That kind of answer comes from 1 sarcasim 4:101

[Mistylein]

<roy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dadbe742-3ace-4648...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

> On Jul 17, 7:40 pm, "Mistylein" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:
>> <roym...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:40a24bda-8518-47b3...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>

>>

>> Mark 1: shows the God head and it is excepted right then
>> and there so Jeus showed it and he did not have to preach it did he?
>>
>> 9At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was
>> baptized by John in the Jordan. 10As Jesus was coming up
>> out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit
>> descending on him like a dove. 11And a voice came from
>> heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well
>> pleased." (NIV)
>
> The account comes across as describing unfolding events as they
> occur.
>
> Are you saying that the writer intended to convey some teaching about
> the holy Trinity?

It sure looks like it now doesn't it?
It is also there in Genesis 1: (NIV)

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep,
and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was
good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and
the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first
day.

You can get more insight into this if you read John 1: (NIV)

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was
with God in the beginning.

3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In
him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but
the darkness has not understood[a] it.

>
> It looks like Warfield's piece is wanting to say that one cannot be
> saved unless he takes on the holy Trinity. Would you say that the
> holy Trinity is central to the gospel?

Yes for the most part. I think it is the Trinity that separates the

Christian from all "religions of the World"

In fact Christians do not have what you would really call religion

They have faith. Faith in the God Head.

That is not saying it is a "man head" That makes God.

M,
>
> Cheers.
>
>>
>> M,

>

[roy...@gmail.com]

On Jul 18, 5:39 pm, "Mistylein" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:
> <roym...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:dadbe742-3ace-4648...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jul 17, 7:40 pm, "Mistylein" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> <roym...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:40a24bda-8518-47b3...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Mark 1: shows the God head and it is excepted right then
> >> and there so Jeus showed it and he did not have to preach it did he?
>
> >> 9At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was
> >> baptized by John in the Jordan. 10As Jesus was coming up
> >> out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit
> >> descending on him like a dove. 11And a voice came from
> >> heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well
> >> pleased." (NIV)
>
> > The account comes across as describing unfolding events as they
> > occur.
>
> > Are you saying that the writer intended to convey some teaching about
> > the holy Trinity?
>
> It sure looks like it now doesn't it?

No. It doesn't

If anyone wanted to ensure that teaching came across, one would be up-
front about it - a clear statement or commentary as he did in Mat
1:23 "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they
shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us). " or what
Mark does regards the passion Mar 15:34 "And at the ninth hour Jesus
cried with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means,
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

> It is also there in Genesis 1: (NIV)

You don't need to demonstrate the Trinity as it is not in question.
Do you see the holy Trinity as central to the gospel message?

Cheers.

[Pastor Dave]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:58:31 -0700 (PDT), roy...@gmail.com
spake thusly:

>Do you see the holy Trinity as central to the gospel message?

Well, it does make a difference now, doesn't it? :)

--

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific
work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to
the gates of the temple of science are written the
words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the
scientist cannot dispense with." - Max Planck

[OB...@aol.com]

On Jul 15, 1:04�pm, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com>
----
What you need to Carl is to get in touch with the author of the
publication on this topic of the Trinity and invite him to read my
posts . I wrote about that there is only one true God and He is the
Father of Jesus Christ- His adopted Son .
To have the Triune God we would have to see in the Bible these :
1/3 of God - the Father , 1/3 of God-the Son , and 1/3 of God -
the Holy Spirit
.

[Dr. House]

On Jul 17, 10:24 pm, "Mistylein" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:

[...]

> > To answer your question no that is not what I mean by preaching
> > Trinity. I see nothing in those verses that says those three names
> > are three separate persons and those three persons are one God. The
>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~
> > This is what separates the Believers from the unbleievers.
>
> So all the faith I have in Jesus is wasted?
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
> Why would that make you say such a thing?

I took "what separates the Believers from the unblievers" to also be
what separates you from me. Perhaps you did not mean it that way.

> You can deny the Father.   that is forgivable.
> You can deny the Son.   that too is forgiveable.
> But you can not deny the Holy Spirt and still be
> forgiven.

I don't deny any of them. I'm just not sure that a gathering of
primitive scholars correctly understood the nature of God.

> For it is through the Holy Spirit that you
> are even able to know and recognize the Father and
> The Son.
>
> > WE do not need it preached to us that we could grasp it
>
> I think you greatly underestimate the amount of Trinitarian preaching
> that you have received from Trinitarians.  I would never have
> understood Trinity were it not for the patience of all those sunday
> school teachers hammering it into my skull for all those years.
> (Please don't take my cavalier statement as evidence that I am
> ungrateful - in fact I am quite grateful for their efforts and the
> result)
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~`
> I am not sure what you have been indoctrinated to believe the
> Trinity may be,

As a child I went through about 6 years of the typical Baptist Sunday
school followed by about the same amount of the typical Evangelical
Sunday school. After that I got to choose my own Bible study.

> . . . but as for me it is "all three in one the Godhead"

> of all creation,  His Creation.
>
> Man has rejected God;  God has not rejected Man!

True.

[...]

> No it is a big mistake to even think "3 people"  make up the
> God head.

I agree with you but I believe Trinity docterine is very specific
about describing the Three as 'persons'. If fact that is one critique
I have of Trinity. If it used a different word, one that could not
refer to a human or a separate, individual creature that might be
enough for me.

> God the Father is God in heaven.  Not man in heaven.
>
> Jesus is both Man and God and indeed was a man in the flesh.
> But He is also God just as much as God the Father.

I agree with all of that even though my reasoning is different.

> The Holy Spirit is neither a man nor a God.

Now that was something I wasn't expecting you to write. Would you
mind expanding on this? Most Trinitarians think of the Third as God
the Holy Spirit.

> However it is
> Through this attribute that God is able to comunicate His
> messages to us by Faith in all three.
> Jesus is the "Living Word of God"
> The Bible is the Written Word of God.

The Bible as written - what we have today is very close but otherwise
I'm on the same page as you for these points.

I do use sarcasim from time to time but there wasn't any in my query
on spelling.

The fact is that I let a blunder get past the spell checker far too
often. I didn't understand your question so I assumed that I spelled
something wrong.

But now that I do understand it:

When I get to the nest life I wouldn't be surprised if my ideas about
God's nature turn out to be wrong. I think we are taking a shot in
the dark. However it was trying to imagine how Trinity would work in
heaven that first led me to look for alternatives.

House

[roy...@gmail.com]

On Jul 18, 3:24 pm, "Mistylein" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:
> "Dr. House" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

Well; yes, and no.

What would be the place of "God gave them up" statements (e.g. Rom
1:22-26)?

Where's the risen Christ, then? In heaven as well?

> Jesus is both Man and God and indeed was a man in the flesh.
> But He is also God just as much as God the Father.
>

> The Holy Spirit is neither a man nor a God. ...

Can you expand that last bit a little?

> ... However it is
> Through this attribute that God ...

I wouldn't call the Holy Spirit an "attribute" as it may tend toward
Modalism: and certainly not an "it" as though He is an inanimate
thing.

If we understand the holy Trinity as co-equal, there is no reason to
describe the Godhead as "attributes".

> ... is able to comunicate His

> messages to us by Faith in all three.
> Jesus is the "Living Word of God"
> The Bible is the Written Word of God.
> If we can not read Jesus then we have to read the Bible

[roy...@gmail.com]

On Jul 18, 9:59 pm, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:58:31 -0700 (PDT), roym...@gmail.com

> spake thusly:
>
> >Do you see the holy Trinity as central to the gospel message?
>
> Well, it does make a difference now, doesn't it? :)

I'm thinking that the gospel capsules (e.g. Joh3:16, 1Cor15:1-8,
Col2:12-13, 1Tim 3:16 and "faithful sayings" in the Pastoral Letters,
etc), don't mention the holy Trinity, neither do they discount it.
But a no-frills or basic gospel (like those above) would probably not
include the holy Trinity in the presentation.

So: if we consider a gospel capsule like Col 1:27ff, salvation is
likely not predicated on understanding the holy Trinity. "... to whom
God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery
among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we
preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that
we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus" .

Cheers.

[Mark T]

"Mistylein" <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:

> Matthew 28: (NIV)
....

> Is this what you mean by preaching it?

> Jesus seemed to thing (sic) it was very important.

Jesus didn't "thing" anything!

"I [Jesus] am ascending to MY FATHER AND YOUR FATHER, MY GOD AND YOUR GOD" -
John 20:17 Does God have a God?

" Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that GOD [YAHWEH]
has MADE him both Lord (BOSS) and Christ, this JESUS whom you crucified."
(Act 2:36)

"God was IN Christ" (2 Cor. 5:19-21) NOT "God WAS Christ"

LITERACY LESSONS FOR ILLITERATE CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS

See
http://fundamentalistfunhouse.blogspot.com/2008/01/literacy-for-illiterate-fundamentalists.html

--
MY BLOG - MARK T - my thoughts on Christianity & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/

MY SOUNDCLICK PAGE- download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall

FUNDY FUNHOUSE -
http://fundamentalistfunhouse.blogspot.com/
- a resource on the current Fundamentalist Dark Age and Christian
fundamentalism.

PASTOR DALE K WHANGKE
http://dalekwhangke.blogspot.com/
Wyrst Pentacostal Church

[Mark T]

"Mistylein" <yardh...@charter.net> - a male! - wrote:

> even from Genesis and the gosples ( sic) all 3 are there in one time.
....
> So then do you except (sic) that there is a "TRINITY"?

COMPARISON BETWEEN GOD AND JESUS OF NAZARETH

God is:
- everywhere (omnipresent):
- all knowing (omniscient)
- all powerful (omnipotent)
- Spirit
- eternal, self-existent
- invisible
- immutable (unchangeable)
- does not urinate, deficate or pass wind.
- does not get tired or sleep.
- does not die.

BUT

The human Jesus of Nazareth is:
- confined / restricted to his human body
- doesn't know when the end will come
- heals a man in stages with spittle and dust
- cannot do miracles because of people's unbelief.
- human flesh with a spirit.
- began as a fetus inside Mary
- totally visible from his birth till his death.
- changed in the normal physical and psychological stages of all humans /
aged.
- urinated, deficated and passed wind.
- got tired and slept
- died by Roman execution.

Which seems to be the better God to worship?

--
'Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord' [Deut. 6:4]
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O
Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord.-Mark 12:29
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.-Exodus 20:3

[Mark T]

<roy...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> God the Father is God in heaven. Not man in heaven.
>
> Where's the risen Christ, then? In heaven as well?

If Jesus "ascended into heaven" in a physical form is he still flying
through the heavens and able to be tracked by radar?

--
Faster than a speeding bullet. More powerful than a locomotive. Able to leap
tall buildings in a single bound. Look! Up in the sky. It's a bird. It's a
plane. It's Christ, Son of God! Yes, it's Christ, Son of God - strange
visitor from heaven who came to Earth with powers and abilities far beyond
those of mortal men. Christ, Son of God - who can change the course of
mighty rivers, bend steel with his bare hands, and who disguised as the
human Jesus of Nazareth, mild-mannered carpenter in Nazareth town, fights a
neverending battle for Trooth, "Just us", and the Trew Kristyun
Fundamentalist way.

>> Jesus is both Man and God and indeed was a man in the flesh.
>> But He is also God just as much as God the Father.
>> The Holy Spirit is neither a man nor a God. ...
>
> Can you expand that last bit a little?

God is finite.

Man is finite.

If Jesus is God then you reduce the in finite to a finite thing thus making
God a zero. (Divide any finite number by infinity and the answer is 0)

Jesus as God goes against the greatest commandment:

When the human JEWISH Jesus of Nazareth and his JEWISH disciples went to the
JEWISH Temple at Jerusalem they DIDN'T worship Jesus as the One God there!

--
Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God {YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN MESSIAH]
with all your heart and with all
your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest
commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew
22:37-40

--
Then God spoke all these words. He said: 'I am Yahweh your God who brought
you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have NO
GODS (INCLUDING JESUS) EXCEPT ME.' - Exodus 20: 1-2

--

" Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that GOD [YAHWEH]
has MADE him both Lord (BOSS) and Christ, this JESUS whom you crucified."
(Act 2:36)

--

"I [Jesus] am ascending to MY FATHER AND YOUR FATHER, MY GOD AND YOUR GOD" -
John 20:17

Does God have a God?????

> I wouldn't call the Holy Spirit an "attribute"

The Holy Spirit is the Shekinah Glory OF God not the totality of God
Himself.

> If we understand the holy Trinity as co-equal, there is no reason to
> describe the Godhead as "attributes".

If the "trinity" are co-equal then you have each part of the trinity as a
third of your god or you have three gods.

Deuteronomy 6:4 - "Hear, Oh Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone."
(JPS Tanakh)

Jesus of Nazareth is never mentioned in the Tanakh / Old Testament.

--
MY BLOG - MARK T - my thoughts on Christianity & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/

MY SOUNDCLICK PAGE- download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall

FUNDY FUNHOUSE -
http://fundamentalistfunhouse.blogspot.com/
- a resource on the current Fundamentalist Dark Age and Christian
fundamentalism.

PASTOR DALE K WHANGKE

[Mark T]

<roy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> When He began His ministry about the Kingdom (e.g. Mat 4:17) do we
> know if He included the Trinity in His teaching?

Jesus of Nazareth was Jewish and never taught a trinity of God.

When the human JEWISH Jesus of Nazareth and his JEWISH disciples went to the
JEWISH Temple at Jerusalem they DIDN'T worship Jesus as the One God there!

--

[Mark T]

"Mistylein" <yardh...@charter.net> - an illiterate fundamentalist male -
wrote:

> It is also there in Genesis 1: (NIV)

Bullshit! Genesis never demonstrates a trinity of the ONE God.

> 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
> 2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface
> of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
> 3 And God said, "Let there be light,"

From the Tanakh (JPS: 1985)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When God began to create heaven and earth - the earrth being unformed and
void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God
sweeping over the water - God said, "Let there be light",
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> You can get more insight into this if you read John 1: (NIV)
>
> 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
> was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
>
> 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has
> been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The
> light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.

From "The Five Gospels" (MacMillan: 1993) p. 401

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the beginning there was the divine word and wisdom.

The divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was.
It was there with God from the begi9nning.
Everything came to be by means of it;
nothing that exists came to be without its agency.
In it was life,
and this life was the light of humanity.
Light was shining in the darkness,
and darkness did not master it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

John's gospel was written 90 -120 when the apostle John was dead.
- Written in Ephesus
- Centred in Judea / Jerusalem not synoptic Gallilee
- Actions over 3-4 years instead of synoptics 1 year
- Symbolic narrative
- Focus on Wisdom and Word
- Focus on self rather than kingdom of God
- No Ascension or Pentecost

In neither passage is Jesus of Nazareth mentioned.

> I think it is the Trinity that separates the
> Christian from all "religions of the World"

Whereas it should be God's human Christ / Messiah.

Who is greater the ANOINTER or the ANOINTED?
The ANOINTER (the One God / Yahweh)
is far greater than the ANOINTED:
1. CYRUS (Isaiah 45:1)
2. THE PATRIACHS (Psalm 105:15)
3. ISRAEL (Habakkuk 3:13, Psalm 28: 8; 84:10)
4. JESUS OF NAZARETH (Act 2:36)

IF "Messiah" means "God" then why aren't Cyrus, the Patriachs and Israel
considered to be the One God (Yahweh) alongside Jesus of Nazareth?

> In fact Christians do not have what you would really call religion
> They have faith. Faith in the God Head.

They should have faith in the ONE God, Yahweh - as Jesus said .....

Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God {YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN MESSIAH]
with all your heart and with all
your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest
commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew
22:37-40

[Mark T]

<roy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mat
> 1:23 "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they
> shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us). "

1. Jesus WASN'T called Immanuel but Yeshua / Jesus / Joshua.

2. A name meaning does not indicate FACT. My name - "Mark" means (amongst
other things) a hammer but I am NOT a literal hammer. My friend's son's
name is Joshua (which means the same as Jesus / Yeshua) but he is not the
ONE God.

> Mar 15:34 "And at the ninth hour Jesus
> cried with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means,
> "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Note that Jesus of Nazareth did NOT say ....

"Myself, myself, why have I forsaken myself?"

Instead Jesus addresses a God DIFFERENT FROM HIMSELF.

> Do you see the holy Trinity as central to the gospel message?

Nope.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GOOD NEWS - GOSPEL

MARK'S GOSPEL (ending at Mark 16:8)

1:15; 4:11; 4:14; 6:12; 9:1;13:9-10 all describe the gospel / good news as
announcing that the kingdom [realm] of God is here so one must turn away
from one's sins. Nothing more! Count how many times Jesus says the "the
kingdom of God is like" in Mark's gospel!

MATTHEW'S GOSPEL

4:17; 4:23; 5:19; 6:33; 7:21; 9:35; 10:7; 11:12; 12:28; 13:11; 13:19; 13:38;
13;52; 18:2; 19:23; 21:31 21:43; 23:13; 24:34; 25:34 ff; 26:13; describe the
gospel / good news as announcing that the kingdom [realm] of heaven is here
so one must turn away from one's sins. Nothing more! (Matthew prefers
'kingdom of heaven" to "kingdom of God") Count how many times Jesus says
the "the kingdom of heaven is like" in Matthew's gospel!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Mark T]

"rogue" <rogu...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Trinity
....

> And if you think it IS required for salvation, please show me the
> verses in the NT where Jesus says that it's a requirement to believe
> in a triune deity in order to be saved.

No such passage exists.

[Mark T]

<roy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm thinking that the gospel capsules (e.g. Joh3:16

Written 90 -120 CE when the apsotl;e John was dead

> 1Tim 3:16

Wriotten 100 -150 CE when Paul was dead.

> and "faithful sayings" in the Pastoral Letters

50 - 60 CE
- 1 Thessalonians (Paul)
- Philippians (Paul)
- Galatians (Paul)
- 1 Corinthians (Paul)
- 2 Corinthians (Paul)
- Romans (Paul)
- Philemon (Paul)

50 - 80 CE
- Colossians (May not be Paul)

50 - 95 CE
- Hebrews (Not Paul)

65 - 80 CE
- Mark's gospel
- Source may be Peter
- Messianic secret
- Based on Deuteronomy / liturgy
- All actions could be done in one week

70 - 100 CE
- James

80 -100 CE
- 2 Thessalonians (May not be Paul)
- Ephesians (May not be Paul)

- Matthew's gospel
- Addressed to Diaspora
- Written in Antioch
- Conservative
- 90% of the references to Hell
- Based on Moses' life / Exodus
- Portrays division between Jews and Christians

80 -110 CE
- 1 Peter

80 CE - 130 CE
- Luke's gospel, Acts (both written in Caesarea)
- Roman recognition sought
- Gentile interested in universalism
- Focuses on spirit
- Based on II Isaiah
- Jesus portrayed as greater than Elijah

90 - 95 CE
- Revelation of John (Not the apostle John)
- Apocalyptic genre

90 -120 CE.
- I John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude

- John's Gospel
- Not the apostle

- Written in Ephesus
- Centred in Judea / Jerusalem not synoptic Gallilee
- Actions over 3-4 years instead of synoptics 1 year
- Symbolic narrative
- Focus on Wisdom and Word
- Focus on self rather than kingdom of God
- No Ascension or Pentecost

100 -150 CE
-1 Timothy (Not Paul)
- 2 Timothy (Not Paul)
- Titus (Not Paul)

100 -160 CE
- 2 Peter (Not Peter)

Refer to http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

[rogue]

On Jul 19, 3:54 am, "Mark T" <snailmail@letterbox0000112> wrote:

> "rogue" <rogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Trinity
> ....
> > And if you think it IS required for salvation, please show me the
> > verses in the NT where Jesus says that it's a requirement to believe
> > in a triune deity in order to be saved.
>
> No such passage exists.
>
> --

JERRY
Uh, that was my point. ;-)

[Mistylein]

"Dr. House" <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:5b633e71-90d3-4779...@b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Jul 17, 10:24 pm, "Mistylein" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:

> > To answer your question no that is not what I mean by preaching
> > Trinity. I see nothing in those verses that says those three names
> > are three separate persons and those three persons are one God. The
>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~
> > This is what separates the Believers from the unbleievers.
>
> So all the faith I have in Jesus is wasted?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
> Why would that make you say such a thing?

I took "what separates the Believers from the unblievers" to also be
what separates you from me. Perhaps you did not mean it that way.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No That is not what I meant.
What I meant is Those that except a 3 in one Godhead is
what Christians believe.
And it is this belief that separates the Faithfull believeing Chistian
from a whole world of Unbelievers or unexcepters of the
Creator Lord God.
Unbelievers have no way to receive that type of belief as God
is in 3 parts so to speak.
******

> You can deny the Father. that is forgivable.
> You can deny the Son. that too is forgiveable.
> But you can not deny the Holy Spirt and still be
> forgiven.

I don't deny any of them. I'm just not sure that a gathering of
primitive scholars correctly understood the nature of God.

~~~~~~~~~~~
I am not sure I am even able to discribe God Correctly;
I can only have faith in God through His Son by the
Holy Spirit.

I do not expect I need to qualify God to any one other then
to my self.
I do not see why it is up to you to have need of that qualification.
Belief in God is between one person and God, and it does not
have to go through being qualified though some other person.
*******

> For it is through the Holy Spirit that you
> are even able to know and recognize the Father and
> The Son.
>
> > WE do not need it preached to us that we could grasp it
>
> I think you greatly underestimate the amount of Trinitarian preaching
> that you have received from Trinitarians. I would never have
> understood Trinity were it not for the patience of all those sunday
> school teachers hammering it into my skull for all those years.
> (Please don't take my cavalier statement as evidence that I am
> ungrateful - in fact I am quite grateful for their efforts and the
> result)
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~`
> I am not sure what you have been indoctrinated to believe the
> Trinity may be,

As a child I went through about 6 years of the typical Baptist Sunday
school followed by about the same amount of the typical Evangelical
Sunday school. After that I got to choose my own Bible study.

Cool did any of them talk to you and ask you to ask Jesus
to come into your heart and be your saviour?
This is what I am asking of you right now.

> . . . but as for me it is "all three in one the Godhead"
> of all creation, His Creation.
>
> Man has rejected God; God has not rejected Man!

True.

[...]
> No it is a big mistake to even think "3 people" make up the
> God head.

I agree with you but I believe Trinity docterine is very specific
about describing the Three as 'persons'. If fact that is one critique
I have of Trinity. If it used a different word, one that could not
refer to a human or a separate, individual creature that might be
enough for me.

~~~~~~
God is the potter and we are the clay.
But God is not man. God is God and we in our most inteligent
knowledge can not come close to Gods Foolish thoughs.
*********

> God the Father is God in heaven. Not man in heaven.
>
> Jesus is both Man and God and indeed was a man in the flesh.
> But He is also God just as much as God the Father.

I agree with all of that even though my reasoning is different.

~~~~~~~~`
That is what separates one Soul from the other.
******

> The Holy Spirit is neither a man nor a God.

Now that was something I wasn't expecting you to write. Would you
mind expanding on this? Most Trinitarians think of the Third as God
the Holy Spirit.

~~~~~~~~~~~
The Holy Spirit is "an Atribute". not a spook.
It is what gives us the ability to even know there is a God
The Father and a Son as the go between of us and God the
father.
It is an atribute much like the spirit of happy or sad or even
wickedness.
Jesus said it was the Comforter.
It is more like When we taste something for the first time.
"oh that is what that tastes like"!
The Holy Spirit is our eyes being opened to understand that
what was hidden from us all along.
*********

> However it is
> Through this attribute that God is able to comunicate His
> messages to us by Faith in all three.
> Jesus is the "Living Word of God"
> The Bible is the Written Word of God.

The Bible as written - what we have today is very close but otherwise
I'm on the same page as you for these points.

~~~~~~~~~~
When one become A Believer in God, God gives us a Gift to
Live out in our Faith.
I really am not very well versed in what or how a person becomes a
believer.
My gift is application of the Keys to decode Prophecy, and to
apply Most prophesies to the Timeline of History.
History is His story.
And it is that world history that we have something to work with
to reprove that God is what He says He is.
I am moved to great "Rapture" when my eye of understnding
was opened and He did come in and give to me that what
I am able to understand and relate to others.
*********

~~~~~~~~~~~
My spell checker does not even work any more and my proof
reader is not all that good either, so my typos will just have to be
excepted and fixed when I do see them.
****

But now that I do understand it:

When I get to the nest life I wouldn't be surprised if my ideas about
God's nature turn out to be wrong. I think we are taking a shot in
the dark. However it was trying to imagine how Trinity would work in
heaven that first led me to look for alternatives.

~~~~~~~~~~~
If and when you do realize you are in Heaven those little things will not
even come to mind. You will be so extatic that you are even there that
non of the worldy things will even come to mind.
I may say also that Heaven is only a prayer away.
IF you need more proof.
See if you can find the "Rapture in Luke 24 and
John 20.
That started on the Day of "resurrection" and goes yet today.
More on that if we get into it.

Be blessed of The Spirit of truth.

M,

House

[Mistylein]

<roy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9d6a0c8a-db95-4233...@h17g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

> On Jul 18, 3:24 pm, "Mistylein" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:
>> "Dr. House" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>

>>

>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
>> Why would that make you say such a thing?
>> You can deny the Father. that is forgivable.
>> You can deny the Son. that too is forgiveable.
>> But you can not deny the Holy Spirt and still be
>> forgiven. For it is through the Holy Spirit that you
>> are even able to know and recognize the Father and
>> The Son.
>>

>>

>> I think you greatly underestimate the amount of Trinitarian preaching
>> that you have received from Trinitarians. I would never have
>> understood Trinity were it not for the patience of all those sunday
>> school teachers hammering it into my skull for all those years.
>> (Please don't take my cavalier statement as evidence that I am
>> ungrateful - in fact I am quite grateful for their efforts and the
>> result)
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~`
>> I am not sure what you have been indoctrinated to believe the
>> Trinity may be, but as for me it is "all three in one the Godhead"
>> of all creation, His Creation.
>>
>> Man has rejected God; God has not rejected Man!
>> * * *****
>
> Well; yes, and no.
>
> What would be the place of "God gave them up" statements (e.g. Rom
> 1:22-26)?

Romans 1: (NIV)
22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images
made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires
of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of
their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth
of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created
things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.
Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

I fail to make any connections here. If you have a question
or a statement, can you make it more understand able?
Please.

>
>>
>>
>> Yet Mark 1:9-11 does not say that these are three persons and these
>> three persons make up one God. It is a powerful demonstration to be
>> sure. Yet the Mount of Transfiguration had Jesus, Moses and Elijah
>> and we don't find that as evidence of Trinity. Jesus, Moses and
>> Elijah are three persons and they were in one place. How do we know
>> the vision of the Dove was representing the nuts and bolts of
>> Trinity? I think the conclusion you draw in Mark 1 is a leap of
>> faith. You might be right but I don't see how this can be as
>> important as what the gospels come right out and state openly and
>> repeatedly. Repentance is important. Salvation is important. Being
>> born again is important. Faith is important. Guessing right about
>> something that is hinted at - that's problematic.
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~
>> No it is a big mistake to even think "3 people" make up the
>> God head.
>> God the Father is God in heaven. Not man in heaven.
>
> Where's the risen Christ, then? In heaven as well?

Oh yes!
How ever He is only hidden by the "Clouds".
Now you will have to find out what "Clouds" means.
I am only part of that mist.

>
>
>> Jesus is both Man and God and indeed was a man in the flesh.
>> But He is also God just as much as God the Father.
>>
>> The Holy Spirit is neither a man nor a God. ...
>
> Can you expand that last bit a little?

Only just a little . The Spirit is an Atribute that
God gives us so we are able to understand that Both the Son
and the Father do Exist.
And that they are the ones that are in the Bible as Charitors of
the plays that the Bible plays out in all it's testamonys.

>
>
>> ... However it is
>> Through this attribute that God ...
>
> I wouldn't call the Holy Spirit an "attribute" as it may tend toward
> Modalism: and certainly not an "it" as though He is an inanimate
> thing.

Well The Holy Spirit is not God nor man.
it is more like a disc Program in the computers of our minds
(With out that program our thinking is faulty)

>
> If we understand the holy Trinity as co-equal, there is no reason to
> describe the Godhead as "attributes".

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh! It is not co-equal it has much more substance and is needed
to even know there is a God head that contains the Father and the
Son so we are able to even address them.
it is the Binder between us and God.
* *** **
M,

>
>
>> ... is able to comunicate His
>> messages to us by Faith in all three.
>> Jesus is the "Living Word of God"
>> The Bible is the Written Word of God.
>> If we can not read Jesus then we have to read the Bible
>> But it is through the Spirit of Truth that we are able to receive
>> the language that God is trying to communicate to us.
>>

>>

[Mistylein]

<roy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2b36e208-dd45-4295...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

> On Jul 18, 5:39 pm, "Mistylein" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:
>> <roym...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:dadbe742-3ace-4648...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>

>>

>> It sure looks like it now doesn't it?
>
> No. It doesn't
>
> If anyone wanted to ensure that teaching came across, one would be up-
> front about it - a clear statement or commentary as he did in Mat
> 1:23 "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they
> shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us). " or what
> Mark does regards the passion Mar 15:34 "And at the ninth hour Jesus
> cried with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means,
> "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

The Word "Rapture" is not in the Bible either but there it is

in Luke 24 and John 20.

At least the very beginning of it.

>
>> It is also there in Genesis 1: (NIV)
>
> You don't need to demonstrate the Trinity as it is not in question.
> Do you see the holy Trinity as central to the gospel message?

I as a Christian Beleive do indeed see the importance of the central
message being The Holy Trinity in the Gospels and the Whole
Bible.
Why do you ask?

M,

>
> Cheers.
>
>
>
>
>
>> 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
>> 2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the
>> deep,
>> and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
>>
>> 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light
>> was
>> good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and
>> the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the
>> first
>> day.
>>
>> You can get more insight into this if you read John 1: (NIV)
>>
>> 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He
>> was
>> with God in the beginning.
>>
>> 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
>> 4In
>> him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness,
>> but
>> the darkness has not understood[a] it.
>>

>>

[Dr. House]

On Jul 19, 2:00 am, "Mistylein" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:

[...]

> I took "what separates the Believers from the unblievers" to also be
> what separates you from me.  Perhaps you did not mean it that way.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> No That is not what I meant.

You know it is refreshing to talk with someone I don't see eye to eye
with and not be called a devil worshiper. You get that part of
Christianity. Jesus hung out with tax collectors and prostitutes and
somehow he got them to change their ways by making them feel
accepted. You get that. We need more Christians like you.

[...]

> I am not sure I am even able to discribe God Correctly;
> I can only have faith in God through His Son by the
> Holy Spirit.

Yet another refreshing attitued. You don't think you own the truth.
You set a good example in that respect.

> I do not expect I need to qualify God to any one other then
> to my self.
> I do not see why it is up to you to have need of that qualification.
> Belief in God is between one person and God, and it does not
> have to go through being qualified though some other person.

I'm going to have to pay closer attention to your posts. I'm not
looking for qualification but rather perspective and yours shows
promise.

[...]

> As a child I went through about 6 years of the typical Baptist Sunday
> school followed by about the same amount of the typical Evangelical
> Sunday school.  After that I got to choose my own Bible study.
>
> Cool did any of them talk to you and ask you to ask Jesus
> to come into your heart and be your saviour?

Yes they did. However someone else beat them to it. I said the
sinner's prayer back when I was 6.

[...]

> > The Holy Spirit is neither a man nor a God.
>
> Now that was something I wasn't expecting you to write.  Would you
> mind expanding on this?  Most Trinitarians think of the Third as God
> the Holy Spirit.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> The Holy Spirit is "an Atribute".  not a spook.
> It is what gives us the ability to even know there is a God
> The Father and a Son as the go between of us and God the
> father.
> It is an atribute much like the spirit of happy or sad or even
> wickedness.
> Jesus said it was the Comforter.
> It is more like When we taste something for the first time.
> "oh that is what that tastes like"!
> The Holy Spirit is our eyes being opened to understand that
> what was hidden from us all along.
> *********

It's hard to classify a being that is so unlike us and unlike anything
we know. Thanks for sharing.

[...]

> My gift is application of the Keys to decode Prophecy, and  to
> apply Most prophesies to the Timeline of History.
> History is His story.

So what have you learned about Prophecy and History?

[...]

> When I get to the nest life I wouldn't be surprised if my ideas about

LOL talk about letting a blunder get past the spell checker. Yeah
after this life is the Nest Life where we all builds nests. Oops, my
bad.

> God's nature turn out to be wrong.  I think we are taking a shot in
> the dark.  However it was trying to imagine how Trinity would work in
> heaven that first led me to look for alternatives.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> If and when you do realize you are in Heaven those little things will not
> even come to mind. You will be so extatic that you are even there that
> non of the worldy things will even come to mind.

Good point!

[...]
> See if you can find the "Rapture in Luke 24 . . .

I'm sorry but I don't see it.

> . . . and John 20.

I'm going to make a total wild guess and say the appearance in the
locked upper room but I have no way to justify that answer.

> That started on the Day of "resurrection" and goes yet today.
> More on  that if we get into it.
>
> Be blessed of The Spirit of truth.

Amen,

House

[Mark T]

"Mistylein" <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:

> Cool did any of them talk to you and ask you to ask Jesus
> to come into your heart and be your saviour?
> This is what I am asking of you right now.

Jesus cannot fit inside anyone's blood pump.

The whole notion is silly.

> The Holy Spirit is "an Atribute". not a spook.

Spirit = mind / thought.

> The Father and a Son as the go between of us and God the
> father.

"In [YAHWEH ... not YAHWEH"S ANOINTED HUMAN MESSIAH] we live and move and
have our being" - Acts 17:28

You don't require a human mediator between yourself and God if you live and
move and have your being in God. Abraham, the father of faith, had no
mediator between himself and God.

>> The Bible is the Written Word of God.
>
> The Bible as written

Quoting the Bible is NOT quoting God.

--
The Bible ...[is] ... a collection of human responses to God (very human,
some of them all too human), which we are at liberty to use in the process
of formulating our own individual, unique response to God. We don't do that
by imitating these responses slavishly. I mean God, if he exists, doesn't
want innumerable clones of the apostle Paul. He wants us to respond to him,
each of us in our own unique way. And we can use the Bible to do that, but
we don't do it by obeying it slavishly and blindly. - Peter Cameron
"Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 195

> My gift is application of the Keys to decode Prophecy, and to
> apply Most prophesies to the Timeline of History.

Bullshit! You have no understanding whatsoever.

--
But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I
have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other
gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall
we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in
the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the
thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it
presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. Deut18:20 - 22:

[Mark T]

"Mistylein" <yardh...@charter.net> wrote:

> Romans 1: (NIV)
> 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
> 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images
> made to look like mortal man

i.e. JESUS

Jesus is not God.

>> Where's the risen Christ, then? In heaven as well?
>
> Oh yes!
> How ever He is only hidden by the "Clouds".

Oh ... so he's floating around in space?

--
Faster than a speeding bullet. More powerful than a locomotive. Able to leap
tall buildings in a single bound. Look! Up in the sky. It's a bird. It's a
plane. It's Christ, Son of God! Yes, it's Christ, Son of God - strange
visitor from heaven who came to Earth with powers and abilities far beyond
those of mortal men. Christ, Son of God - who can change the course of
mighty rivers, bend steel with his bare hands, and who disguised as the
human Jesus of Nazareth, mild-mannered carpenter in Nazareth town, fights a
neverending battle for Trooth, "Just us", and the Trew Kristyun
Fundamentalist way.

> Well The Holy Spirit is not God nor man.
> it is more like a disc Program in the computers of our minds
> (With out that program our thinking is faulty)

Then why can't fundamentalists spell or use logic? Is the Holy Spiriot
retarded????

>> If we understand the holy Trinity as co-equal, there is no reason to
>> describe the Godhead as "attributes".

....

> Oh! It is not co-equal it has much more substance and is needed
> to even know there is a God head that contains the Father and the
> Son so we are able to even address them.
> it is the Binder between us and God.

QUE?

What drugs are you on?????

[Mark T]

"Dr. House" <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> My gift is application of the Keys to decode Prophecy, and to
>> apply Most prophesies to the Timeline of History.
>> History is His story.
>
> So what have you learned about Prophecy and History?

Misty ( a male) has " dun lernt" ratbaggery without any substance.

--
But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I
have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other
gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall
we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in
the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the
thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it
presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. Deut18:20 - 22:

--

[Pastor Dave]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:37:14 -0700 (PDT), roy...@gmail.com
spake thusly:

>On Jul 18, 9:59 pm, Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:58:31 -0700 (PDT),
>> roym...@gmail.com spake thusly:
>>
>>> Do you see the holy Trinity as central to
>>> the gospel message?
>>
>> Well, it does make a difference now, doesn't it? :)
>
>I'm thinking that the gospel capsules (e.g. Joh3:16,
>1Cor15:1-8, Col2:12-13, 1Tim 3:16 and "faithful sayings"
>in the Pastoral Letters, etc), don't mention the holy Trinity,
>neither do they discount it. But a no-frills or basic gospel
>(like those above) would probably not include the holy
>Trinity in the presentation.

You mean what you chose as "the Gospel capsules".
But where does the Bible say, "This is all we're preaching"?

And what is a "faithful saying", does not imply that no
other saying is faithful. It says that this is "A" faith
saying. Not that it is "THE" faithful saying, as if there
is no other to believe.

Titus 3:8 also says that to "maintain good works"
is a "faithful saying". Does that mean that's the
"Gospel capsule"?

It is a distasteful approach to try to put all of the Gospel
into a "capsule" and pretend that's all there is. (:

The fact is, we have all of the Bible for a reason and
exactly who Christ is, is important! The Gospel has
no meaning, if we worship Him as something He is not,
or do not worship Him as who He actually is, don't you
think??? How is it any different than those who claim
to worship God and think Jesus was a nice guy? And
if one claims to worship God and Jesus in indeed God
having walked Earth and one does not worship Him
as such, is that not a false "Gospel capsule"? :)

Furthermore, if Jesus was not "God walking Earth",
then would it not be false worship to worship Him
at all? Worship is preserved for God alone! Thus,
to worship anyone but God, is a false religion!

And yet, they worshipped Him. So tell me, how is
whether or not the Trinity is real (and I mean that
word in its most basic format) not a crucial part of
the Christian faith and whether or not one is part
of the true faith?

--

All we can do every day is the next right thing.

[roy...@gmail.com]

On Jul 19, 7:24 pm, "Mistylein" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:
> <roym...@gmail.com> wrote in message

To the premise "... God has not rejected Man" Romans 1:22 that is
cited above gives an example otherwise.

> >> Yet Mark 1:9-11 does not say that these are three persons and these
> >> three persons make up one God. It is a powerful demonstration to be
> >> sure. Yet the Mount of Transfiguration had Jesus, Moses and Elijah
> >> and we don't find that as evidence of Trinity. Jesus, Moses and
> >> Elijah are three persons and they were in one place. How do we know
> >> the vision of the Dove was representing the nuts and bolts of
> >> Trinity? I think the conclusion you draw in Mark 1 is a leap of
> >> faith. You might be right but I don't see how this can be as
> >> important as what the gospels come right out and state openly and
> >> repeatedly. Repentance is important. Salvation is important. Being
> >> born again is important. Faith is important. Guessing right about
> >> something that is hinted at - that's problematic.
>
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~
> >> No it is a big mistake to even think "3 people" make up the
> >> God head.
> >> God the Father is God in heaven. Not man in heaven.
>
> > Where's the risen Christ, then? In heaven as well?
>
> Oh yes!
> How ever He is only hidden by the "Clouds".
> Now you will have to find out what "Clouds" means.
> I am only part of that mist.

That is a Christ Whi is bound by space and time. It flies in the face
of the doctrine of the holy Trinity. That means He is neither
omnipresent, nor omnipotent, which leads to His not being omniscient.

> >> Jesus is both Man and God and indeed was a man in the flesh.
> >> But He is also God just as much as God the Father.
>
> >> The Holy Spirit is neither a man nor a God. ...
>
> > Can you expand that last bit a little?
>
> Only just a little . The Spirit is an Atribute that
> God gives us so we are able to understand that Both the Son
> and the Father do Exist.
> And that they are the ones that are in the Bible as Charitors of
> the plays that the Bible plays out in all it's testamonys.

That seems to be a picture the Holy Spirit as an inanimate device.
It's contrary to the holy Trinity which is said to be co-equal and co-
eternal.

>
>
>
> >> ... However it is
> >> Through this attribute that God ...
>
> > I wouldn't call the Holy Spirit an "attribute" as it may tend toward
> > Modalism: and certainly not an "it" as though He is an inanimate
> > thing.
>
> Well The Holy Spirit is not God nor man.
> it is more like a disc Program in the computers of our minds
> (With out that program our thinking is faulty)

Well, that confirms that the Holy Spirit is not a Person of the
Godhead. Again; that is contrary to the doctrine of the holy Trinity.

>
>
>
> > If we understand the holy Trinity as co-equal, there is no reason to
> > describe the Godhead as "attributes".
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Oh! It is not co-equal it has much more substance and is needed
> to even know there is a God head that contains the Father and the
> Son so we are able to even address them.
> it is the Binder between us and God.

That means you don't accept the doctrine of the holy Trinity - the God
of the Bible.

[Mark T]

"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:

> Furthermore, if Jesus was not "God walking Earth",
> then would it not be false worship to worship Him
> at all? Worship is preserved for God alone! Thus,
> to worship anyone but God, is a false religion!

BINGO!

--

Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God {YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN MESSIAH]
with all your heart and with all
your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest
commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew
22:37-40

[Mark T]

<roy...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > Where's the risen Christ, then? In heaven as well?
>> Oh yes!
>> How ever He is only hidden by the "Clouds".
>> Now you will have to find out what "Clouds" means.
>> I am only part of that mist.
>
> That is a Christ Whi is bound by space and time.

Jesus of Nazareth WAS bound by time and space.

When Jesus of Nazareth was in Israel he was not also in Australia and the
USA.

> It flies in the face
> of the doctrine of the holy Trinity.

Maybe the man-made doctrine is wrong.

> That means He is neither
> omnipresent, nor omnipotent, which leads to His not being omniscient.

BINGO!

>> Only just a little . The Spirit is an Atribute that
>> God gives us so we are able to understand that Both the Son
>> and the Father do Exist.
>> And that they are the ones that are in the Bible as Charitors of
>> the plays that the Bible plays out in all it's testamonys.
>
> That seems to be a picture the Holy Spirit as an inanimate device.
> It's contrary to the holy Trinity which is said to be co-equal and co-
> eternal.

The holy spirit is God's shekinah glory.

There is no trinity of the ONE God.

--
'Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord' [Deut. 6:4]
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O
Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord.-Mark 12:29
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.-Exodus 20:3

[roy...@gmail.com]

On Jul 19, 9:20 pm, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:37:14 -0700 (PDT), roym...@gmail.com

> spake thusly:
>
>
>
> >On Jul 18, 9:59 pm, Pastor Dave wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:58:31 -0700 (PDT),
> >> roym...@gmail.com spake thusly:
>
> >>> Do you see the holy Trinity as central to
> >>> the gospel message?
>
> >> Well, it does make a difference now, doesn't it? :)
>
> >I'm thinking that the gospel capsules (e.g. Joh3:16,
> >1Cor15:1-8, Col2:12-13, 1Tim 3:16 and "faithful sayings"
> >in the Pastoral Letters, etc), don't mention the holy Trinity,
> >neither do they discount it. But a no-frills or basic gospel
> >(like those above) would probably not include the holy
> >Trinity in the presentation.
>
> You mean what you chose as "the Gospel capsules".

I usually say "Gospel summaries" or "Gospel message" but thought
'capsule' would have been as good.

> But where does the Bible say, "This is all we're preaching"?

At the most simplest level we have statements like "received the word
[rhema] of God" (Act8:14) without expanding what constitutes the rhema
or even the teachings [didache e.g.Tit 1:9]. Certainly "the word
[rhema]" would have the Gospel at it's core. However, some parts of
the NT we have some insight of rhema, and I gave a quick list for
starters.

On "This is all we're preaching?" : I was highlight what I understand
to be the basic gospel - expressed in many ways and at different
levels throughout the NT.

> And what is a "faithful saying", does not imply that no
> other saying is faithful. It says that this is "A" faith
> saying. Not that it is "THE" faithful saying, as if there
> is no other to believe.

I agree these 'faithful sayings' in the Pastorals are not exhaustive
but what is foremost to the writer and his readership.

>
> Titus 3:8 also says that to "maintain good works"
> is a "faithful saying". Does that mean that's the
> "Gospel capsule"?
>
> It is a distasteful approach to try to put all of the Gospel
> into a "capsule" and pretend that's all there is. (:

For me, 1Cor15:1-8ff is the Gospel summary I go for because it
contains some clear basic details like Christ/sin/death/resurrection/
eyewitnesses; the first three verses telling us that it was the
orthodox message given to Paul, that was passed on to the Corinthians,
which saves them provided they continue in it.

> The fact is, we have all of the Bible for a reason and
> exactly who Christ is, is important! The Gospel has
> no meaning, if we worship Him as something He is not,
> or do not worship Him as who He actually is, don't you
> think??? How is it any different than those who claim
> to worship God and think Jesus was a nice guy? And
> if one claims to worship God and Jesus in indeed God
> having walked Earth and one does not worship Him
> as such, is that not a false "Gospel capsule"? :)

I'm not saying that we can reduce the scriptures to such select
texts. But you are right that Christ is central to understanding the
Gospel which I suspect is what the "all the counsel of God" (Act
20:25-27) shared with the Ephesians.

I used to think that "all the counsel of God" = scriptures, but it's
more likely something to do with repentance/God/faith/Christ (v.20).
Now, that's another gospel summary to add to the list.

>
> Furthermore, if Jesus was not "God walking Earth",
> then would it not be false worship to worship Him
> at all? Worship is preserved for God alone! Thus,
> to worship anyone but God, is a false religion!
>
> And yet, they worshipped Him. So tell me, how is
> whether or not the Trinity is real (and I mean that
> word in its most basic format) not a crucial part of
> the Christian faith and whether or not one is part
> of the true faith?

Yea. Verily.

"My Lord, and my God"

Cheers.

[Mark T]

<roy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> For me, 1Cor15:1-8ff is the Gospel summary I go for because it
> contains some clear basic details like Christ/sin/death/resurrection/
> eyewitnesses;

Unfortunately that's not what Jesus meant by "gospel". In Jesus' version of
gospel there is no mention of Jesus, crucifixion or resurrection.

###################################################

GOOD NEWS - GOSPEL

MARK'S GOSPEL (ending at Mark 16:8)

1:15; 4:11; 4:14; 6:12; 9:1;13:9-10 all describe the gospel / good news as
announcing that the kingdom [realm] of God is here so one must turn away
from one's sins. Nothing more! Count how many times Jesus says the "the
kingdom of God is like" in Mark's gospel!

MATTHEW'S GOSPEL

4:17; 4:23; 5:19; 6:33; 7:21; 9:35; 10:7; 11:12; 12:28; 13:11; 13:19; 13:38;
13;52; 18:2; 19:23; 21:31 21:43; 23:13; 24:34; 25:34 ff; 26:13; describe the
gospel / good news as announcing that the kingdom [realm] of heaven is here
so one must turn away from one's sins. Nothing more! (Matthew prefers
'kingdom of heaven" to "kingdom of God") Count how many times Jesus says
the "the kingdom of heaven is like" in Matthew's gospel!

#####################################################

> I'm not saying that we can reduce the scriptures to such select
> texts.

Jesus, like the other Jewish rabbis of his day, reduced the commandmenrts to
2 - and neither mentioned belief in Jesus as God.

--
Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God {YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN MESSIAH]
with all your heart and with all
your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest
commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew
22:37-40

> But you are right that Christ is central to understanding the
> Gospel

Not according to Jesus. See above.

> "My Lord, and my God"

Never stated by Thomas in time / space history. John's gospel was wriotten
90 - 120 CE when the apostle John was dead.

Furthermore the same gospel also has

--
"I [Jesus] am ascending to MY FATHER AND YOUR FATHER, MY GOD AND YOUR GOD" -
John 20:17

Does God have a God?????

--
" Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that GOD [YAHWEH]
has MADE him both Lord (BOSS) and Christ, this JESUS whom you crucified."
(Act 2:36)

--

[Mistylein]

"Dr. House" <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:39df6253-f40e-4bd8...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

On Jul 19, 2:00 am, "Mistylein" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:

[...]
> I took "what separates the Believers from the unblievers" to also be
> what separates you from me. Perhaps you did not mean it that way.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> No That is not what I meant.

You know it is refreshing to talk with someone I don't see eye to eye
with and not be called a devil worshiper. You get that part of
Christianity. Jesus hung out with tax collectors and prostitutes and
somehow he got them to change their ways by making them feel
accepted. You get that. We need more Christians like you.

~~~~~~~~~
Oh Yes! However when some one wants to discuss something with
me and they start that wicked Name calling they soon loose their
ability to even talk to me.
It is as if I locked them up and The Lord also locked them out.
There are many many Chrisitians in the Church, or that make up
the Church, each with his or her special gift that makes them
separate yet one in Spirit with the Whole body of Beleivers.
****

[...]
> I am not sure I am even able to discribe God Correctly;
> I can only have faith in God through His Son by the
> Holy Spirit.

Yet another refreshing attitued. You don't think you own the truth.
You set a good example in that respect.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you, How ever it is not me but the Spirit that is in me
That makes me appear to do just that.
*****

> I do not expect I need to qualify God to any one other then
> to my self.
> I do not see why it is up to you to have need of that qualification.
> Belief in God is between one person and God, and it does not
> have to go through being qualified though some other person.

I'm going to have to pay closer attention to your posts. I'm not
looking for qualification but rather perspective and yours shows
promise.

~~~~~~~~~`
I have excomunicated myself from the sect that is in the world
that tries to get every one to call it "the Church" when it is not
the Church at all but just a Cult that worships the dead.
This gave the Spirit of Truth to work in my members.
I may not always be right but I am always as truthfull as this
human Body and spirit will allow.
******

[...]
> As a child I went through about 6 years of the typical Baptist Sunday
> school followed by about the same amount of the typical Evangelical
> Sunday school. After that I got to choose my own Bible study.
>
> Cool did any of them talk to you and ask you to ask Jesus
> to come into your heart and be your saviour?

Yes they did. However someone else beat them to it. I said the
sinner's prayer back when I was 6.

Cool.
I asked Jesus to dwell in me when I was about 4 or 5
however the Spirit of Rapture did not move in me until I was
about 37.
And That is when the Bible stood up and became something real
and as I have testafied it also became the 2 Witnesses you can
find in Rev 11.

[...]
> > The Holy Spirit is neither a man nor a God.
>
> Now that was something I wasn't expecting you to write. Would you
> mind expanding on this? Most Trinitarians think of the Third as God
> the Holy Spirit.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> The Holy Spirit is "an Atribute". not a spook.
> It is what gives us the ability to even know there is a God
> The Father and a Son as the go between of us and God the

> Father.

> It is an atribute much like the spirit of happy or sad or even
> wickedness.
> Jesus said it was the Comforter.
> It is more like When we taste something for the first time.
> "oh that is what that tastes like"!
> The Holy Spirit is our eyes being opened to understand that
> what was hidden from us all along.
> *********

It's hard to classify a being that is so unlike us and unlike anything
we know. Thanks for sharing.

~~~~~~~
Yes God is God!
Paise the Lord God has had mercy upon us that he sent his
Son (The living Word of God) along with His 2 witnesses
(The Holy Bible The Written word of God) to even get us
to realize indeed He does love us.
*******

[...]
> My gift is application of the Keys to decode Prophecy, and to
> apply Most prophesies to the Timeline of History.
> History is His story.

So what have you learned about Prophecy and History?

~~~~~~~~~
Now that is a long discussion in deed.
But I will say without the Keys the Prophesies mean very little
to any one that tries to understand them.
*******

[...]
> When I get to the nest life I wouldn't be surprised if my ideas about

LOL talk about letting a blunder get past the spell checker. Yeah
after this life is the Nest Life where we all builds nests. Oops, my
bad.

~~~~~~
My eyes saw it as "Next" I do not make fun of Typos. I translate
them. LOL and PTL.
****

> God's nature turn out to be wrong. I think we are taking a shot in
> the dark. However it was trying to imagine how Trinity would work in
> heaven that first led me to look for alternatives.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> If and when you do realize you are in Heaven those little things will not
> even come to mind. You will be so extatic that you are even there that
> non of the worldy things will even come to mind.

Good point!

[...]
> See if you can find the "Rapture in Luke 24 . . .

I'm sorry but I don't see it.

~~~~~~~~
The rapture is when Those peoples eyes of understanding was opened
and they finally recognized the very one that they had been with
for the last 3 and a half years.
When they finally were let into the higher plane of though on God
and Jesus their minds eye was opened and they were taken
to a higher plane of though on what Jesus was all about.
Jesus comes to us on, a one on one, phase not as a whole church or
Group of people.
Even though all of those people knew Him they were not able to
recognize Him until He opened their Minds eye so they
too could finally see him.
It is the same way with each and every Christian Soul for the last
2,000 years. Faith is a one on one principle between God
and the individual.
In my prophecy research this is what I come up with
Jesus said "no man know the hour". . .
Well no no man can know that hour until it become past tense
then no human forgets that hour or moment.
The individual know the day they first Believed just
like every one in Luke and John knew and remembered the
very moment, "in the twinkling of the eye" that they first beleived.
This is what the Rapture is all about.

> . . . and John 20.

I'm going to make a total wild guess and say the appearance in the
locked upper room but I have no way to justify that answer.

~~~~~~~~~ (You can justfy it by giving the BCV.
Book Chapter and Verse.
YEs that and those 2 on the Road to emmaus and to the
first building Block of the New Chruch "Mary" in John 20.
When Jesus said "Mary" her eyes were opened and she
was raptured right then and there in the twinkling of the eye
so she could recognize Her Saviour and that he lives.
She was also the very first Evangelist.
Jesus told her to go tell the rest of his Apostles and she did.
I believe that also was her "reward" for pouring the Nark on
his head and washing his feet and drying them with her hair.
Oh yes she was well loved by Jesus. It seemed she
was more faithfull to Him then any of the rest.
************

M,

[Mistylein]

"Dr. House" <hso...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:39df6253-f40e-4bd8...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

On Jul 19, 2:00 am, "Mistylein" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:

[...]
> I took "what separates the Believers from the unblievers" to also be
> what separates you from me. Perhaps you did not mean it that way.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> No That is not what I meant.

You know it is refreshing to talk with someone I don't see eye to eye
with and not be called a devil worshiper. You get that part of
Christianity. Jesus hung out with tax collectors and prostitutes and
somehow he got them to change their ways by making them feel
accepted. You get that. We need more Christians like you.

~~~~~~~~~

Oh Yes! However when some one wants to discuss something with
me and they start that wicked Name calling they soon loose their
ability to even talk to me.
It is as if I locked them up and The Lord also locked them out.
There are many many Chrisitians in the Church, or that make up
the Church, each with his or her special gift that makes them
separate yet one in Spirit with the Whole body of Beleivers.
****

[...]

> I am not sure I am even able to discribe God Correctly;
> I can only have faith in God through His Son by the
> Holy Spirit.

Yet another refreshing attitued. You don't think you own the truth.
You set a good example in that respect.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thank you, How ever it is not me but the Spirit that is in me
That makes me appear to do just that.
*****

> I do not expect I need to qualify God to any one other then

> to my self.
> I do not see why it is up to you to have need of that qualification.
> Belief in God is between one person and God, and it does not
> have to go through being qualified though some other person.

I'm going to have to pay closer attention to your posts. I'm not
looking for qualification but rather perspective and yours shows
promise.

~~~~~~~~~`

I have excomunicated myself from the sect that is in the world
that tries to get every one to call it "the Church" when it is not
the Church at all but just a Cult that worships the dead.
This gave the Spirit of Truth to work in my members.
I may not always be right but I am always as truthfull as this
human Body and spirit will allow.
******

[...]

> As a child I went through about 6 years of the typical Baptist Sunday
> school followed by about the same amount of the typical Evangelical
> Sunday school. After that I got to choose my own Bible study.
>
> Cool did any of them talk to you and ask you to ask Jesus
> to come into your heart and be your saviour?

Yes they did. However someone else beat them to it. I said the
sinner's prayer back when I was 6.

Cool.

I asked Jesus to dwell in me when I was about 4 or 5
however the Spirit of Rapture did not move in me until I was
about 37.
And That is when the Bible stood up and became something real
and as I have testafied it also became the 2 Witnesses you can
find in Rev 11.

[...]

> > The Holy Spirit is neither a man nor a God.
>
> Now that was something I wasn't expecting you to write. Would you
> mind expanding on this? Most Trinitarians think of the Third as God
> the Holy Spirit.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> The Holy Spirit is "an Atribute". not a spook.
> It is what gives us the ability to even know there is a God
> The Father and a Son as the go between of us and God the

> Father.

> It is an atribute much like the spirit of happy or sad or even
> wickedness.
> Jesus said it was the Comforter.
> It is more like When we taste something for the first time.
> "oh that is what that tastes like"!
> The Holy Spirit is our eyes being opened to understand that
> what was hidden from us all along.
> *********

It's hard to classify a being that is so unlike us and unlike anything
we know. Thanks for sharing.

~~~~~~~

Yes God is God!
Paise the Lord God has had mercy upon us that he sent his
Son (The living Word of God) along with His 2 witnesses
(The Holy Bible The Written word of God) to even get us
to realize indeed He does love us.
*******

[...]

> My gift is application of the Keys to decode Prophecy, and to
> apply Most prophesies to the Timeline of History.
> History is His story.

So what have you learned about Prophecy and History?

~~~~~~~~~

Now that is a long discussion in deed.
But I will say without the Keys the Prophesies mean very little
to any one that tries to understand them.
*******

[...]

> When I get to the nest life I wouldn't be surprised if my ideas about

LOL talk about letting a blunder get past the spell checker. Yeah
after this life is the Nest Life where we all builds nests. Oops, my
bad.

~~~~~~

My eyes saw it as "Next" I do not make fun of Typos. I translate
them. LOL and PTL.
****

> God's nature turn out to be wrong. I think we are taking a shot in

> the dark. However it was trying to imagine how Trinity would work in
> heaven that first led me to look for alternatives.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> If and when you do realize you are in Heaven those little things will not
> even come to mind. You will be so extatic that you are even there that
> non of the worldy things will even come to mind.

Good point!

[...]
> See if you can find the "Rapture in Luke 24 . . .

I'm sorry but I don't see it.

~~~~~~~~

The rapture is when Those peoples eyes of understanding was opened
and they finally recognized the very one that they had been with
for the last 3 and a half years.
When they finally were let into the higher plane of though on God
and Jesus their minds eye was opened and they were taken
to a higher plane of though on what Jesus was all about.
Jesus comes to us on, a one on one, phase not as a whole church or
Group of people.
Even though all of those people knew Him they were not able to
recognize Him until He opened their Minds eye so they
too could finally see him.
It is the same way with each and every Christian Soul for the last
2,000 years. Faith is a one on one principle between God
and the individual.
In my prophecy research this is what I come up with
Jesus said "no man know the hour". . .
Well no no man can know that hour until it become past tense
then no human forgets that hour or moment.
The individual know the day they first Believed just
like every one in Luke and John knew and remembered the
very moment, "in the twinkling of the eye" that they first beleived.
This is what the Rapture is all about.

> . . . and John 20.

I'm going to make a total wild guess and say the appearance in the
locked upper room but I have no way to justify that answer.

~~~~~~~~~ (You can justfy it by giving the BCV.

Book Chapter and Verse.
YEs that and those 2 on the Road to emmaus and to the
first building Block of the New Chruch "Mary" in John 20.
When Jesus said "Mary" her eyes were opened and she
was raptured right then and there in the twinkling of the eye
so she could recognize Her Saviour and that he lives.
She was also the very first Evangelist.
Jesus told her to go tell the rest of his Apostles and she did.
I believe that also was her "reward" for pouring the Nark on
his head and washing his feet and drying them with her hair.
Oh yes she was well loved by Jesus. It seemed she
was more faithfull to Him then any of the rest.
************

M,

> That started on the Day of "resurrection" and goes yet today.

[Mistylein]

<roy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ca63ca3d-bac9-46bc...@v28g2000pro.googlegroups.com...

> On Jul 19, 7:24 pm, "Mistylein" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:
>> <roym...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:9d6a0c8a-db95-4233...@h17g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>

>>

>> Romans 1: (NIV)
>> 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
>> 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images
>> made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
>>
>> 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires
>> of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of
>> their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth
>> of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created
>> things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.
>>
>> 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.
>> Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
>>
>> I fail to make any connections here. If you have a question
>> or a statement, can you make it more understand able?
>> Please.
>
> To the premise "... God has not rejected Man" Romans 1:22 that is
> cited above gives an example otherwise.

Yes I agree God let's people do the rejecting and then
He give them a shove to be into themsleves, if that is where
they want to be.
>
>
>
>
>

>>
>> Oh yes!
>> How ever He is only hidden by the "Clouds".
>> Now you will have to find out what "Clouds" means.
>> I am only part of that mist.
>
> That is a Christ Whi is bound by space and time. It flies in the face
> of the doctrine of the holy Trinity. That means He is neither
> omnipresent, nor omnipotent, which leads to His not being omniscient.

Why would that make him bound by space and time?
I am only a witnesse and that does not effect the potency of Christ
one little bit.

>

>>
>> Only just a little . The Spirit is an Atribute that
>> God gives us so we are able to understand that Both the Son
>> and the Father do Exist.
>> And that they are the ones that are in the Bible as Charitors of
>> the plays that the Bible plays out in all it's testamonys.
>
> That seems to be a picture the Holy Spirit as an inanimate device.
> It's contrary to the holy Trinity which is said to be co-equal and co-
> eternal.

It is a potent Atribute of The Living God.
What it may seem to you is up to you to deal with I guess.

>
>
>>
>>

>>
>> Well The Holy Spirit is not God nor man.
>> it is more like a disc Program in the computers of our minds
>> (With out that program our thinking is faulty)
>
> Well, that confirms that the Holy Spirit is not a Person of the
> Godhead. Again; that is contrary to the doctrine of the holy Trinity.

I fail to see it that way.
But you are intitled to you own opinion.
My opinion is not a God bending law at all.

>
>
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Oh! It is not co-equal it has much more substance and is needed
>> to even know there is a God head that contains the Father and the
>> Son so we are able to even address them.
>> it is the Binder between us and God.
>
> That means you don't accept the doctrine of the holy Trinity - the God
> of the Bible.

It does not mean that at all.
What are you trying to say anyway?
It looks like you are just trying to put me in a pigion hole.

>
>> * *** **
>> M,
>>

[roy...@gmail.com]

> > That is a Christ Who is bound by space and time. It flies in the face

> > of the doctrine of the holy Trinity. That means He is neither
> > omnipresent, nor omnipotent, which leads to His not being omniscient.
>
> Why would that make him bound by space and time?

To say that He is one place at a time (e.g. in the mist) is to put Him
in space and time.

> I am only a witnesse and that does not effect the potency of Christ
> one little bit.
>
>
>
> >> Only just a little . The Spirit is an Atribute that
> >> God gives us so we are able to understand that Both the Son
> >> and the Father do Exist.
> >> And that they are the ones that are in the Bible as Charitors of
> >> the plays that the Bible plays out in all it's testamonys.
>
> > That seems to be a picture the Holy Spirit as an inanimate device.
> > It's contrary to the holy Trinity which is said to be co-equal and co-
> > eternal.
>
> It is a potent Atribute of The Living God.
> What it may seem to you is up to you to deal with I guess.

I'm using the terms from Athanasius.

If the Holy Spirit is co-equal co-eternal in the Godhead, He cannot be
an attribute.

> >> Well The Holy Spirit is not God nor man.
> >> it is more like a disc Program in the computers of our minds
> >> (With out that program our thinking is faulty)
>
> > Well, that confirms that the Holy Spirit is not a Person of the
> > Godhead. Again; that is contrary to the doctrine of the holy Trinity.
>
> I fail to see it that way.
> But you are intitled to you own opinion.
> My opinion is not a God bending law at all.

To say that " ... The Holy Spirit is not God nor man. it is more like
a disc Program" is to make Him less than a Person.

It's contrary to " ... So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the
Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God ...
the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal ..."
Athanasius.

>
>
>
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> Oh! It is not co-equal it has much more substance and is needed
> >> to even know there is a God head that contains the Father and the
> >> Son so we are able to even address them.
> >> it is the Binder between us and God.
>
> > That means you don't accept the doctrine of the holy Trinity - the God
> > of the Bible.
>
> It does not mean that at all.
> What are you trying to say anyway?
> It looks like you are just trying to put me in a pigion hole.

I'm saying that the description of the Holy Spirit as not God but like
a computer program does not accord with the Athanasius statement on
the holy Trinity.

Cheers.

>
>
>
> >> * *** **
> >> M,

[Mistylein]

<roy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e02864b5-1024-4190...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...

> On Jul 22, 6:05 pm, "Mistylein" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:
>> <roym...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ca63ca3d-bac9-46bc...@v28g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>>

>>

>> Why would that make him bound by space and time?
>
> To say that He is one place at a time (e.g. in the mist) is to put Him
> in space and time.

Oh I see what you are getting at.\
Well I am only one particle of that Mist.
That mist fills the universe so as long as he is hidden by that mist
He is in the whole universe.

>
>> I am only a witnesse and that does not effect the potency of Christ
>> one little bit.
>>
>>
>>

>>

>> It is a potent Atribute of The Living God.
>> What it may seem to you is up to you to deal with I guess.
>
> I'm using the terms from Athanasius.
>
> If the Holy Spirit is co-equal co-eternal in the Godhead, He cannot be
> an attribute.

Well when it is given to individuals it is an atribute to that individual
Soul.
It is more like a comforter to usward that believe.

>

>>
>> I fail to see it that way.
>> But you are intitled to you own opinion.
>> My opinion is not a God bending law at all.
>
> To say that " ... The Holy Spirit is not God nor man. it is more like
> a disc Program" is to make Him less than a Person.

Make that More then a person it is the flux between God and us
to help us in our daily walk in Faith.

>
> It's contrary to " ... So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the
> Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God ...
> the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal ..."
> Athanasius.

It is only with the Brits that it may be a ghost in the first place.
It is not a ghost as you claim Holy Ghost.
It is a whole lost mor like a Spirit, such as The Spirit of Prophecy
or the Spirit of truth.

>
>>
>>
>> It does not mean that at all.
>> What are you trying to say anyway?
>> It looks like you are just trying to put me in a pigion hole.
>
> I'm saying that the description of the Holy Spirit as not God but like
> a computer program does not accord with the Athanasius statement on
> the holy Trinity.

Well I have no idea what you mean by "Athanasius".
Is that some kind of candy or what?

M,

[Pastor Dave]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:30:46 -0700 (PDT), roy...@gmail.com
spake thusly:

>On Jul 19, 9:20 pm, Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:37:14 -0700 (PDT),
>> roym...@gmail.com spake thusly:
>>
>> >On Jul 18, 9:59 pm, Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>> >> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:58:31 -0700 (PDT),
>> >> roym...@gmail.com spake thusly:
>>
>> >>> Do you see the holy Trinity as central to
>> >>> the gospel message?
>>
>> >> Well, it does make a difference now, doesn't it? :)
>>
>> >I'm thinking that the gospel capsules (e.g. Joh3:16,
>> >1Cor15:1-8, Col2:12-13, 1Tim 3:16 and "faithful sayings"
>> >in the Pastoral Letters, etc), don't mention the holy Trinity,
>> >neither do they discount it. But a no-frills or basic gospel
>> >(like those above) would probably not include the holy
>> >Trinity in the presentation.
>>
>> You mean what you chose as "the Gospel capsules".
>
>I usually say "Gospel summaries" or "Gospel message"
>but thought 'capsule' would have been as good.

But it is _your_ summary, Roy.

>> And what is a "faithful saying", does not imply
>> that no other saying is faithful. It says that
>> this is "A" faith saying. Not that it is "THE"
>> faithful saying, as if there is no other to believe.
>
>I agree these 'faithful sayings' in the Pastorals
>are not exhaustive but what is foremost to the
>writer and his readership.

And therefore no one of them should be stated
as the summary of the Gospel message and that
is what I'm saying, Roy. You picked one and
decided to call it that. That does not make it
what you called it. Rather, it is simply one
statement that is "what is foremost to the writer
and his readership", given the subject at hand,
for that person or group of people that he was
writing to, about that subject, at that time.

How does this equate to, "This is the Gospel
message summarized and is all we need to
believe to be in Christ." ???

>> Titus 3:8 also says that to "maintain good works"
>> is a "faithful saying". Does that mean that's the
>> "Gospel capsule"?
>>
>> It is a distasteful approach to try to put all of the Gospel
>> into a "capsule" and pretend that's all there is. (:
>
>For me, 1Cor15:1-8ff is the Gospel summary

Look at what you just said. "FOR ME". Thus,
by your own words, it is your personal choice
to believe that to be the "Gospel capsule" and
therefore, it is disingenuous (unintentionally so,
I'm sure) to claim it to be "the Gospel capsule".

>> The fact is, we have all of the Bible for a reason and
>> exactly who Christ is, is important! The Gospel has
>> no meaning, if we worship Him as something He is not,
>> or do not worship Him as who He actually is, don't you
>> think??? How is it any different than those who claim
>> to worship God and think Jesus was a nice guy? And
>> if one claims to worship God and Jesus in indeed God
>> having walked Earth and one does not worship Him
>> as such, is that not a false "Gospel capsule"? :)
>
>I'm not saying that we can reduce the scriptures
>to such select texts.

I'm saying that you are saying exactly that when
you said what you said.

You see Roy, when you claim that the issue of
the Trinity isn't really that important in the scheme
of things (re: What is a Christian?), then you are
saying that the portions of Scripture that deal with
that should not be called into such a discussion
and so, they become of less importance and so yes,
you are reducing Scripture at that point, since if all
we need is this one saying, then what else do we
need to learn what a Christian must believe, Roy?

>But you are right that Christ is central to
>understanding the Gospel which I suspect is
>what the "all the counsel of God" (Act 20:25-27)
>shared with the Ephesians.

Amen! And thus, we cannot "reduce" Scripture
down to a simple sentence of preaching!

>I used to think that "all the counsel of God"
>= scriptures, but it's more likely something
>to do with repentance/God/faith/Christ (v.20).
>Now, that's another gospel summary to add
>to the list.

But it is the Scriptures. Look at what Jesus did,
when He walked with them after His resurrection.
It says that He expounded unto them all of the
Scriptures concerning Him, beginning at Moses.
Not just in the writings of Moses, Roy. But
beginning at Moses, which shows there was
a whole lot more! And in fact, there are many
things that may not be apparent to you personally,
but do become apparent as we study more of the
Scriptures, even in writings about genealogies,
which I'll admit, can become tedious, but do
show His royal line, for example, demonstrating
that He had a legitimate right to the throne.

Imagine Roy, if it could not be proved that He
had a legitimate right to the throne?! How could
Paul have "for three sabbaths, reasoned with them
from the Scriptures", which was the Old Testament
(remember, that's what they had at the time), if it
was not important?!

Acts 17:1-3

1) Now when they had passed through Amphipolis
and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where
was a synagogue of the Jews:
2) And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them,
and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of
the Scriptures,
3) Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have
suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this
Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

Now notice that Paul had to convince them from many
Scriptures within the Old Testament, that:

1) Christ had to suffer. If this was not proved,
then to these Jews, Jesus could not have
been the Messiah.

2) Christ had to rise from the dead. If He had
not risen, then nothing else would make Him
the Messiah.

And not only these things Roy, but also that:

3) Jesus is the Christ.

Now how could this have been done, if, for example,
Paul could not prove His royal line? The Messiah had
to be of royal blood. So Paul would have probably
had to have shown them this from the Old Testament,
along with what was known to be Jesus' family line.

And let us rest assured that there would have been
more to it even than what is listed here.

So you see Roy, there is a whole lot more to it than
just what you proposed, with what _you chose_
to represent as "the Gospel capsule", as if it is all
that is needed. The fact is, that if you did not
know a whole lot more from the Scriptures, then
someone just walking up to you today and saying
that some guy named Jesus died and rose, etc.
and that's all you need to know, would not have
worked, amen? No, rather, they would have to
show you a whole lot more than that, like that
He even existed! :) And what His family line was.
After all, if you claim that He was of royal descent,
anyone in their right mind would ask for proof.

>> Furthermore, if Jesus was not "God walking Earth",
>> then would it not be false worship to worship Him
>> at all? Worship is preserved for God alone! Thus,
>> to worship anyone but God, is a false religion!
>>
>> And yet, they worshipped Him. So tell me, how is
>> whether or not the Trinity is real (and I mean that
>> word in its most basic format) not a crucial part of
>> the Christian faith and whether or not one is part
>> of the true faith?
>
>Yea. Verily.
>
>"My Lord, and my God"
>
>Cheers.

This is what I'm saying, Roy. :)

--

"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die
so that you may live as you wish." - Mother Teresa

[Mark T]

"Pastaq Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:

> Amen! And thus, we cannot "reduce" Scripture
> down to a simple sentence of preaching!

So fundamentalists are wrong in trying to reduce everything to John 3:16

> 3) Jesus is the Christ.

... and not God.

Who is greater the ANOINTER or the ANOINTED?

Who has been called "Anointed" in the Old Testament?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. CYRUS

In Isaiah 45:1 Cyrus is called "God's anointed one," because God has called
him and given him victory after victory for the distinct purpose of putting
an end to the Babylonian kingdom and the worship of idols, of setting free
exiled Israel, and thus introducing the new era of God's universal dominion.

Isaiah 45:1

1. Thus saith HaShem to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have
holden, to subdue nations before him, and to loose the loins of kings; to
open the doors before him, and that the gates may not be shut:
2
I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight; I will break in
pieces the doors of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron;
3
And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret
places, that thou mayest know that I am HaShem, who call thee by thy name,
even the G-d of Israel.
4
For the sake of Jacob My servant, and Israel Mine elect, I have called thee
by thy name, I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known Me.

5
I am HaShem, and there is none else, beside Me there is no G-d; I have
girded thee, though thou hast not known Me;
6
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there
is none beside Me; I am HaShem; and there is none else;

http://www.breslov.com/bible/Isaiah45.htm#1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2. THE PATRIACHS

In Psalm 105:15 the Patriarchs are called "God's anointed ones" because they
are under the special protection of God and therefore inviolable.

Psalm 105:15

'Touch not Mine anointed ones, and do My prophets no harm.'
http://www.breslov.com/bible/Psalms105.htm#1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3. ISRAEL

In Habakkuk 3:13, Psalm 28: 8; 84:10 the title is applied to Israel, God's
chosen people.

Habakkuk 3:13

13 Thou art come forth for the deliverance of Thy people, for the
deliverance of Thine anointed; Thou woundest the head out of the house of
the wicked, uncovering the foundation even unto the neck. Selah.

http://www.breslov.com/bible/Habakkuk3.htm#1

Psalm 28: 8

8. HaShem is a strength unto them; and He is a stronghold of salvation to
His anointed.

9 Save Thy people, and bless Thine inheritance; and tend them, and carry
them for ever.

http://www.breslov.com/bible/Psalms28.htm#1

Psalm 84:10

10. Behold, O G-d our shield, and look upon the face of Thine anointed.
http://www.breslov.com/bible/Psalms84.htm#1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jesus of Nazareth is never named in the Old Testament.

Jesus is named as "lord and christ" in the New Testament. (Act 2:36) Is
that the same as naming him God (Yahweh)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OLD TESTAMENT

HEBREW

'adown = lord

1) firm, strong, lord, master

a) lord, master

1) reference to men

a) superintendent of household,of affairs

b) master

c) king

2) reference to God

a) the Lord God

b) Lord of the whole earth

b) lords, kings

1) reference to men

a) proprietor of hill of Samaria

b) master

c) husband

d) prophet

e) governor

f) prince

g) king

2) reference to God

a) Lord of lords (probably = "thy husband, Yahweh")

c) my lord, my master

1) reference to men

a) master

b) husband

c) prophet

d) prince

e) king

f) father

g) Moses

h) priest

i) theophanic angel

j) captain

k) general recognition of superiority

2) reference to God

a) my Lord,my Lord and my God

b) Adonai (parallel with Yahweh)

from http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=0113

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NEW TESTAMENT

GREEK

kyrios = lord [relates only to a slave and denotes absolute ownership and
uncontrolled power]

1) he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of
deciding; master, lord

a) the possessor and disposer of a thing

1) the owner; one who has control of the person, the master

2) in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor

b) is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which
servants greet their master

c) this title is given to: God, the Messiah

Translation count:

AV - Lord 667, lord 54, master 11, sir 6, Sir 6, misc 4

AND .....................

despotes = lord [has a wider meaning, applicable to the various ranks and
relations of life and not suggestive of either property or of absolutism]

1) a master, Lord

Translation count:

AV - Lord 5, master 5

from http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G1203

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Matthew 7:21-23 states "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will
enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father
[YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN MESSIAH] who is in heaven. Many will say to me on
that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name
drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly,
`I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

--
" Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that GOD [YAHWEH]
has MADE him both Lord (BOSS) and Christ, this JESUS whom you crucified."
(Act 2:36)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Naming Jesus as a "lord" does not automatically mean that Jesus is the One
God.

God can NEVER be a finite THING. That reduces God to the status of a
creation rather than honouring him as the Creator. It reduces God to an
idol / thing / creation.

How can a CREATURE (the human Jesus of Nazareth) be the Creator of ALL
HUMANS??????

There is only One God and he is not the human Jesus whom God anointed.

--
'Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord' [Deut. 6:4]
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O
Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord.-Mark 12:29
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.-Exodus 20:3

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Who is greater the ANOINTER or the ANOINTED?

The ANOINTER (the One God / Yahweh)

is far greater than the ANOINTED:

1. CYRUS (Isaiah 45:1)

2. THE PATRIACHS (Psalm 105:15)

3. ISRAEL (Habakkuk 3:13, Psalm 28: 8; 84:10)

4. JESUS OF NAZARETH (Act 2:36)

IF "Messiah" means "God" then why aren't Cyrus, the Patriachs and Israel

considered to be the One God (Yahweh) alongside Jesus of Nazareth???????

[colp]

On Jul 17, 7:39 pm, "Mistylein" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:
> "Dr. House" <hsot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>

> news:ac880ab0-1b45-4a6a...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 16, 6:48 am, " ::: good news runner :::" <veral...@lycos.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Innews:0d65dc70-35b1-4353...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com,
> > Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> typed:
>
> > > If Jesus thought this were important, he would have preached about
> > > it. But he did not.
>
> > > If Jesus thought it was not important, why do you?
>
> > On the other hand - why don't you?
>
> In my case that would be because Jesus didn't preach about it.
>
> Now it's your turn. If Jesus didn't preach about it then why do you
> think it is important?
>
> Matthew 28: (NIV)
> 19 Go therefore[c] and make disciples of all the nations,
> baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the
> Son and of the Holy Spirit,
> 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded
> you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.[d]
>
> Is this what you mean by preaching it?
> Jesus seemed to thing it was very important.

If he actually said that. Some of the early texts don't mention the
tripartite baptismal formula.

In Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew, the "Great Commission" becomes: "Go and
teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you
forever."

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol03/Petersen1998a.html

[Mistylein]

"colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
news:cf9ada8d-f505-434a...@j7g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

We usually will find more infor mation when we use more Bible
Version.

M,

[Mistylein]

"colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
news:cf9ada8d-f505-434a...@j7g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We can always pick up more infomation when we use more and different
Versions of the Bible. Tis true, tis true

M,

[Mark T]

"colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote:

>> Matthew 28: (NIV)
>> 19 Go therefore[c] and make disciples of all the nations,
>> baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the
>> Son and of the Holy Spirit,

...

> If he actually said that.

According to the Jesus Seminar's "The Five Gospels" Jesus of Nazareth never
stated those words.

[guardian Snow]

On Jul 18, 3:24 pm, "Mistylein" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:

> Why would that make you say such a thing?
> You can deny the Father. that is forgivable.
> You can deny the Son. that too is forgiveable.
> But you can not deny the Holy Spirt and still be
> forgiven. For it is through the Holy Spirit that you
> are even able to know and recognize the Father and
> The Son.

Joh 4:24 “Elohim is Spirit, and those who worship Him need to worship
in spirit and truth.”

Gen 1:2 ,,,And the Spirit of Elohim was moving on the face of the
waters.

Trinitarian doctrine is blown out of the water by Isaiah which speak
to one El and his Son the Messiah. Even John speaks to the fact that
Elohim is Spirit. If you reject the Father, you reject the Spirit
that is El.

Isa 45:18 For thus said יהוה, Creator of the heavens, He is Elohim,
Former of earth and its Maker, He established it, He did not create it
to be empty, He formed it to be inhabited: “I am יהוה, and there is
none else.
Isa 45:19 “I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth.
I have not said to the seed of Yaʽaqoḇ, ‘Seek Me in vain.’ I am יהוה,
speaking righteousness, declaring matters that are straight.
Isa 45:20 “Gather yourselves and come; draw near together, you who
have escaped from the gentiles. No knowledge have they who are lifting
up the wood of their carved image, and pray to a mighty one that does
not save.
Isa 45:21 “Declare and bring near, let them even take counsel
together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has declared it from
that time? Is it not I, יהוה? And there is no mighty one besides Me, a
righteous Ěl and a Saviour, there is none besides Me.
Isa 45:22 “Turn to Me and be saved, all you ends of the earth! For I
am Ěl, and there is none else.

Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)

But what is Hope? Nothing but the paint on the face of Existence; the
least touch of truth rubs it off, and then we see what a hollow-
cheeked harlot we have got hold of.
Lord Byron

Portions of this post have been reprinted from (Scriptures +1998)
version which you can download for free at
http://www.isr-messianic.org/

[Mistylein]

"guardian Snow" <snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote in message
news:dc72859e-eb76-48de...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

On Jul 18, 3:24 pm, "Mistylein" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:

> Why would that make you say such a thing?
> You can deny the Father. that is forgivable.
> You can deny the Son. that too is forgiveable.
> But you can not deny the Holy Spirt and still be
> forgiven. For it is through the Holy Spirit that you
> are even able to know and recognize the Father and
> The Son.

Joh 4:24 "Elohim is Spirit, and those who worship Him need to worship
in spirit and truth."

Gen 1:2 ,,,And the Spirit of Elohim was moving on the face of the
waters.

Trinitarian doctrine is blown out of the water by Isaiah which speak
to one El and his Son the Messiah. Even John speaks to the fact that
Elohim is Spirit. If you reject the Father, you reject the Spirit
that is El.

Isa 45:18 For thus said ????, Creator of the heavens, He is Elohim,

Former of earth and its Maker, He established it, He did not create it

to be empty, He formed it to be inhabited: "I am ????, and there is

none else.
Isa 45:19 "I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth.

I have not said to the seed of Ya?aqob_, 'Seek Me in vain.' I am ????,

speaking righteousness, declaring matters that are straight.
Isa 45:20 "Gather yourselves and come; draw near together, you who
have escaped from the gentiles. No knowledge have they who are lifting
up the wood of their carved image, and pray to a mighty one that does
not save.
Isa 45:21 "Declare and bring near, let them even take counsel
together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has declared it from

that time? Is it not I, ????? And there is no mighty one besides Me, a
righteous El and a Saviour, there is none besides Me.

Isa 45:22 "Turn to Me and be saved, all you ends of the earth! For I

am El, and there is none else.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you think we all have need of knowing some origional langueage

Be informed it takes away from the discussion.
and is of now velue to learn from each other the truths behind
the Scripture we are discussing.

M,
*************

Shalom,

[guardian Snow]

On Jul 26, 6:59 am, "Mistylein" <yardhol...@charter.net> wrote:

Isa 45:21 “Declare and bring near, let them even take counsel
together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has declared it from

that time? Is it not I, יהוה? And there is no mighty one besides Me, a
righteous Ěl and a Saviour, there is none besides Me.

Isa 45:22 “Turn to Me and be saved, all you ends of the earth! For I

am Ěl, and there is none else.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> If you think we all have need of knowing some origional langueage
>
> Be informed it takes away from the discussion.
> and is of now velue to learn from each other the truths behind
> the Scripture we are discussing.

Your assurance and your fate are in your own hands. I'm not your
judge. This version happens to clarify things for me and I like
that. I still use the KJV to find the verses because thats the
version I was indoctrinated with.

Deu 30:15 “See, I have set before you today life and good, and death
and evil,

1Jn 3:19 And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall set
our hearts at rest before Him,
1Jn 3:20 that if our heart condemns us, Elohim is greater than our
heart, and knows all.

Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)

But what is Hope? Nothing but the paint on the face of Existence; the

[Al Smith]

> Your assurance and your fate are in your own hands. I'm not your
> judge. This version happens to clarify things for me and I like
> that. I still use the KJV to find the verses because thats the
> version I was indoctrinated with.

The King James Bible is a beautiful work of prose. Music. It's a
product of Shakespeare's generation. I've read that some people
believe it to be the inspired word of God, and thus superior to all
other English translations.

-Al-

[Mark T]

"guardian Snow" <snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote:

> Gen 1:2 ,,,And the Spirit of Elohim was moving on the face of the
> waters.

From the JPS Tanakh ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When God began to create heaven and earth - the earth being unformed and
void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God
sweeping over the water - God said, "Let there be light",
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wind is not a spirit.

[Mistylein]

"Al Smith" <inv...@address.com> wrote in message news:V9mik.1609$%b7.381@edtnps82...

But you still have to remember it is only a "VERSION" and subject
to Versionic errors just like any other Version.

This is why we need more then one so we do not get pigion holed into one
doctrinal mistakes.

M,

[colp]

On Jul 26, 10:53 am, "Mark T" <snailmail@letterbox0000114> wrote:

> "guardian Snow" <snowpheo...@eck.net.au> wrote:
> > Gen 1:2 ,,,And the Spirit of Elohim was moving on the face of the
> > waters.
>
> From the JPS Tanakh ...
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> When God began to create heaven and earth - the earth being unformed and
> void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God
> sweeping over the water - God said, "Let there be light",
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Wind is not a spirit.

The Hebrew word for spirit and wind is ruach. Spirit may manifest as a
wind (Acts 2).
The Greek word for sprit, pneuma, is relaed to air (eg pneumatic).

[Al Smith]

It's so much more musical than many of the modern translations,
which sound very flat. And if it is assumed that the Bible is the
word of God, why is it such a stretch to suppose that God might take
more of a personal interest in one translation over another? The men
who translated the King James version were all very devout men. I
doubt that can be said of all the modern translators. I bet the
translators of the King James Bible prayed for guidance when they
came upon difficult verses. Maybe that guidance was given to them.
The translators of the New Modern Standard version (or whatever)
were probably atheists.

-Al-

[Al Smith]

>> Wind is not a spirit.
>
> The Hebrew word for spirit and wind is ruach. Spirit may manifest as a
> wind (Acts 2).
> The Greek word for sprit, pneuma, is relaed to air (eg pneumatic).

So is the Latin word for spirit, come to that. Spirit (spiritus) is
breath. That's how the spirit of God can move on the face of the
waters. But did you know that spirit is also in the blood? Blood is
concentrated spirit. Blood is the life, which is why God reserves it
to himself.

-Al-

[Mark T]

"colp" <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote:

>> From the JPS Tanakh ...
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> When God began to create heaven and earth - the earth being unformed and
>> void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God
>> sweeping over the water - God said, "Let there be light",
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Wind is not a spirit.
>
> The Hebrew word for spirit and wind is ruach. Spirit may manifest as a
> wind (Acts 2).
> The Greek word for sprit, pneuma, is relaed to air (eg pneumatic).

Correct YET the JEWS from the Jewish Publication Society choose "wind" and
NOT "spirit" for their translation into English from the HEBREW.

There is no trinity of the One God.

--
'Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord' [Deut. 6:4]
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O
Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord.-Mark 12:29
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.-Exodus 20:3

[Mistylein]

"Al Smith" <inv...@address.com> wrote in message news:dqGik.1773$nu6.1097@edtnps83...

>> "Al Smith" <inv...@address.com> wrote in message news:V9mik.1609$%b7.381@edtnps82...

>>

>> But you still have to remember it is only a "VERSION" and subject
>> to Versionic errors just like any other Version.
>>
>> This is why we need more then one so we do not get pigion holed into one
>> doctrinal mistakes.
>>
>> M,
>
> It's so much more musical than many of the modern translations, which sound very flat.
> And if it is assumed that the Bible is the word of God, why is it such a stretch to
> suppose that God might take more of a personal interest in one translation over
> another? The men who translated the King James version were all very devout men. I
> doubt that can be said of all the modern translators. I bet the translators of the
> King James Bible prayed for guidance when they came upon difficult verses. Maybe that
> guidance was given to them. The translators of the New Modern Standard version (or
> whatever) were probably atheists.

WEll if they did pray they did not listen to what God told them to
write, unless God told them to include glitches.

The one big one is in Daniel 8;14.
It says something that none of the other versions says and it has
cause a lot of trouble for those that got pigion holed by that one verse.

It should have said "EVENINGS AND MORNINGS" when it says
"days".

M,
>
> -Al-

[Linda Lee]

A day is equal to one morning and evening, so why is this such a big
deal to you?

[Mistylein]

"Linda Lee" <lindag...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:718b6d86-0c28-4e70...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

>
>
> Mistylein wrote:
>> "Al Smith" <inv...@address.com> wrote in message
>> news:dqGik.1773$nu6.1097@edtnps83...
>> >> "Al Smith" <inv...@address.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:V9mik.1609$%b7.381@edtnps82...
>>

>>

>> WEll if they did pray they did not listen to what God told them to
>> write, unless God told them to include glitches.
>>
>> The one big one is in Daniel 8;14.
>> It says something that none of the other versions says and it has
>> cause a lot of trouble for those that got pigion holed by that one verse.
>>
>> It should have said "EVENINGS AND MORNINGS" when it says
>> "days".
>
>
> A day is equal to one morning and evening, so why is this such a big
> deal to you?

In prophecy they both have their own meaning.

Days is one prophetic length of time

While "evenings and mornigs" is a different lenght of prophetic time.

So when they translate it before it is time it changes the meanting
of the Prophecy.

And this is what has cause so much contorversy when trying to
read and understand Bible Prophecy correctly.

A day in Prophecy Means one thing as Year.

Evenings and mornings in Prophecy means different to the
Prophecy reader. it means on days length of time muliplied by the
number that is stated with it.

That is what the big deal is all about.

2.300 days is equal to 2,300 literal years in prophecy.

2,300 evenings and mornings is equal to 2,300 literal days.

So I hope you can understand how this effects the prophecy
and now to read it.

M

Have a good day.