-----------------------------------------------------
 
HomeGalleryFAQRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 The Holy Trinity

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
AuthorMessage
Death over Life

avatar

Number of posts : 632
Age : 28
Location : The Inner Sanctum known as my Insanity and Damnation
Registration date : 2008-11-02
Points : 4172

PostSubject: The Holy Trinity   Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:20 am

Since I have one more work day and will start for sure my research, I have decided I should also speak of what really caused my uproars. I may or may not do an entire series of discussions on various aspects of God because I wish to know what I am bashing and what I am supposed to be worshipping.

So, with my soul-searching, I feel it is best to start with this. The Holy Trinity. I used to believe the Trinity, but recently, after doing some research and seeing some startling information from the Bible, I don't believe it anymore. My current view is Biniterian, yet I see the extreme majority of Christianity is Triniterian, which I disagree with.

So, in all honesty, I wish to see from other's perspectives on the Holy Trinity Doctrine and their views of agreeing or disagreeing with the view and what Scriptures they saw that proved or disproved this Doctrine if they can, or sermon etc.

I feel if we are all followers of God, this should be discussed and hopefully, show what kind of God we are or are not worshipping. What is the Truth about God? That is the message and hope of what I hope this thread answers, for this specific question and a start on researching in addition to the many more questions I may have. I shall go far more in-depth in my views after the thread starts getting a few replies.
Back to top Go down
Shamax

avatar

Number of posts : 701
Age : 40
Location : Charleston, WV
Registration date : 2008-11-09
Points : 4250

PostSubject: Re: The Holy Trinity   Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:13 am

Just for clarification, I assume by Binitarian you mean that you believe that there is one God (one essence/one "what") eternally pre-existant in two persons (two "whos"), and that those two persons are identified in scripture as the Father and the Son?
Back to top Go down
http://www.myspace.com/Shamax
lord voldemort

avatar

Number of posts : 550
Age : 39
Location : Toccoa, GA
Registration date : 2009-11-07
Points : 3803

PostSubject: Re: The Holy Trinity   Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:13 am

Shamax wrote:
Just for clarification, I assume by Binitarian you mean that you believe that there is one God (one essence/one "what") eternally pre-existant in two persons (two "whos"), and that those two persons are identified in scripture as the Father and the Son?

I have been looking into the "trinity" and I have concluded, this is where DOL gets it from, that the HS in many cases is attributed to Christ or to the Father.

Paul does not equate the HS as distinct from either of them, he never mentions a "trinitarian" greeting, it is always binitarian greeting of Father and Son.

When he does mention the HS, it is almost always in reference to Christ or to the Father.

So that is where he gets it from.

As the Spirit of Christ. Christ spirit, etc. are some of the phrases Paul used for the HS.
Back to top Go down
olias

avatar

Number of posts : 2399
Age : 27
Location : USA
Registration date : 2009-07-10
Points : 5999

PostSubject: Re: The Holy Trinity   Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:49 pm

Remember, critical thinking is key. Do not simply accept an idea without finding a devil's advocate, DOL. Just some advice.
Back to top Go down
Death over Life

avatar

Number of posts : 632
Age : 28
Location : The Inner Sanctum known as my Insanity and Damnation
Registration date : 2008-11-02
Points : 4172

PostSubject: Re: The Holy Trinity   Fri Mar 19, 2010 4:01 pm

Shamax wrote:
Just for clarification, I assume by Binitarian you mean that you believe that there is one God (one essence/one "what") eternally pre-existant in two persons (two "whos"), and that those two persons are identified in scripture as the Father and the Son?

For clarification purposes, you are absolutely correct. The Binitarian view (thank you for correcting my grammar!) is in essence the Trinitarian view, but it is 2 parts to a God head instead of 3 as Trinity implies.

lord voldemort wrote:
Shamax wrote:
Just for clarification, I assume by Binitarian you mean that you believe that there is one God (one essence/one "what") eternally pre-existant in two persons (two "whos"), and that those two persons are identified in scripture as the Father and the Son?

I have been looking into the "trinity" and I have concluded, this is where DOL gets it from, that the HS in many cases is attributed to Christ or to the Father.

Paul does not equate the HS as distinct from either of them, he never mentions a "trinitarian" greeting, it is always binitarian greeting of Father and Son.

When he does mention the HS, it is almost always in reference to Christ or to the Father.

So that is where he gets it from.

As the Spirit of Christ. Christ spirit, etc. are some of the phrases Paul used for the HS.

To add on where Voldemort is coming from, in addition to that, I have also seen some startling info on the Scriptures that do support the view, and I was interested in discussing and sharing the validity of it. In addition to that, on some of the sites I’ve been viewing for researching, in the article (yes I can say this is the view of another), this person made the claim that the Holy Spirit is an “it”, not a “he” as the HS is not a person. The Holy Spirit is the mind of Christ/God, not it’s own individual soul that does whatever, as God/Christ is. So, I wished to verify and discuss on this point of view. In essence, I think that is exactly what Voldemort was speaking about.

The other portion of how I question the Trinity so much is I constantly choke on the Scriptures that claim: Sin against God/Christ is forgiven, but sin against the Holy Spirit seals your fate in essence. Why I say this is because if the Trinitarian view is correct, then when you sin against God/Christ, you are still sinning against the HS. Yet, if the Binitarian view is correct from what I’ve seen, the Scriptures all line up. So, this was a nutshell. Really wanted to go much further in detail with this for discussion.

olias wrote:
Remember, critical thinking is key. Do not simply accept an idea without finding a devil's advocate, DOL. Just some advice.

Thank you for the advice! I know 1st hand what you are speaking of because that was how I was. This is why I sometimes question my apostasy if I really left or not, because all Christians go through this phase and causes them to research. It is just I am at this phase and I assume it was apostasy. That is what I’m seeing, but also, I should ask for forgiveness for my willful blasphemies against God as well though. With that being said, it is a reason why I made this thread. To learn more about God and the differing perspectives of God and to come to the Truth and pray to that God for the forgiveness of sins. I’m not sure if I’ve been worshipping a lie this whole time, or if I’ve been worshipping a false view of God, or if I’ve always worshipped God, just now I question because I’ve been a part for so long. So, here I am.

Feel free to share your’ thoughts and views. I know due to my past posts I rub a lot of people the wrong way, but this time, I’m not here to bash and condemn. I’m here to learn, so I’m going a different route than the childish bash everything to Hell way I was doing. (I apologize for doing that. Nobody likes hearing rants that constantly put them down and insults them to the umpteenth degree.)
Back to top Go down
BryneVampyr

avatar

Number of posts : 250
Age : 51
Location : Utah
Registration date : 2009-07-26
Points : 3529

PostSubject: Re: The Holy Trinity   Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:29 pm

I think the verses that refer to the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Christ or the Spirit of God emphasize the oneness of God...however, the Holy Spirit is also referred to as distinct from the Father and the Son. Jesus says:

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:


John 6:7-8


Jesus is speaking of the Holy Spirit as a person distinct from Himself.

We are instructed to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit...not just the Father and the Son. If the Holy Spirit were just another way of saying Father or Son (as in the spirit of Jesus or the Spirit of the father) then why include him as a separate and distinct part of the baptismal formula?

I do believe that the Spirit is the spirit of Christ, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Father...just as I believe that the Son is the Son of God and the Son of the Father...but the son is still distinct from the Father. And the Father is the Father of the Son...but that doesn't mean He isn't distinct from the Son.

So, being the Spirit of Christ doesn't mean that he can't be distinct from Christ.

Other passages that indicate that the Holy Spirit is a person:


"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." - John 14:26

Jesus is speaking. The Father is sending the Holy Spirit, referred to as the Helper, and the Holy Spirit is being sent in the name of Jesus...all three persons of the Trinity are mentioned as distinct from each other, and as personal beings.

"and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us." - Romans 5:5

The Holy Spirit is referred to as a "who", a person.

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." - 2 Cor 3:14

The fellowship of the Holy Spirit...you fellowship with a personal being...and the Holy Spirit is mentioned distinctly from Jesus...
Back to top Go down
Death over Life

avatar

Number of posts : 632
Age : 28
Location : The Inner Sanctum known as my Insanity and Damnation
Registration date : 2008-11-02
Points : 4172

PostSubject: Re: The Holy Trinity   Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:28 pm

BryneVampyr wrote:
I think the verses that refer to the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Christ or the Spirit of God emphasize the oneness of God...however, the Holy Spirit is also referred to as distinct from the Father and the Son. Jesus says:

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:


John 6:7-8

Jesus is speaking of the Holy Spirit as a person distinct from Himself.

In all a great post you made! Thank you so much for participating! Now, I do not deny you your words or the Scriptures here, but alas, when I was searching, this is what I got for John 6:7-8

7 Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little.
8 One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, saith unto him,

So, I know this is an honest mistake. I need to look at the surrounding Scriptures in addition to what you posted for clarification and context. So, if you don’t mind correcting, that would be appreciated!

BryneVampyr wrote:

We are instructed to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit...not just the Father and the Son. If the Holy Spirit were just another way of saying Father or Son (as in the spirit of Jesus or the Spirit of the father) then why include him as a separate and distinct part of the baptismal formula?

As for that, I have heard and need more research on the authenticity of Matthew 28:19. From what I have atm encountered, that verse has been a forgery. A parallel verse for that is Luke 24:46-49 albeit Luke doesn’t mention Baptism at all while Matthew does. So, what lies here is what is in the original texts, which we don’t have, but I have heard of early texts that say in His name, like in what Luke states. But of another interesting perspective, outside of this 1 verse, the rest of the times Baptism was mentioned, it was always in Jesus’ name ONLY. I would like a clarification on that as well. Why is it that 1 verse claims a Trinity, yet the entire rest of the Bible claims Baptism by Jesus name only, yet it is the 1 questionable verse that is proclaimed the official instruction?

I shall also give examples.

Acts 2:38

38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 19:5

5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Romans 6:3

3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Galatians 3:27

27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.


If you wish, I can get more examples. So, for this, I am at a “?” and I do accept the possibility of your view being correct, and I also accept the view that the verse is a forgery. So, I have the 2 going at it. What I come to for the results I shall post. Just, from the evidence concerning this, I see the Truth is baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ, not Father, Son, Holy Ghost.

BryneVampyr wrote:

I do believe that the Spirit is the spirit of Christ, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Father...just as I believe that the Son is the Son of God and the Son of the Father...but the son is still distinct from the Father. And the Father is the Father of the Son...but that doesn't mean He isn't distinct from the Son.

I agree here. (Unless that final He you used was Spirit and not Father) What my main concern and problem is, is not with Father and Son, but the Holy Spirit being another person of God, where I don’t see it. I do know of your verses below which I will get to.

BryneVampyr wrote:

So, being the Spirit of Christ doesn't mean that he can't be distinct from Christ.

Other passages that indicate that the Holy Spirit is a person:

On Trinity vs. Binity, one of the reasons why I heavily questioned it is because not of similarities, but due to the distinctions. God the Father and Jesus Christ, are indeed distinct, but at the same time, I can’t tell them apart, due to how similar and Oneness they are. Yet, when I see HS added in, I see a completely different Spirit, so much to the point that to say that it is so similar like Christ/God is (as Trinity does) I feel it is blasphemy. I used to believe Trinity, but the more I research, the more I disagree. That doesn’t mean that I looked at it thoroughly (hence for the thread/discussion), but the Spirit acts to different than God and Christ for me to say they are the exact same person.

Then I still have the 1 Scripture that has yet to be answered. He who sins against God/Christ can be forgiven, yet the Sin against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven.

BryneVampyr wrote:

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." - John 14:26

Jesus is speaking. The Father is sending the Holy Spirit, referred to as the Helper, and the Holy Spirit is being sent in the name of Jesus...all three persons of the Trinity are mentioned as distinct from each other, and as personal beings.

Giving this verse a little ponder, let us say my view here is correct. If the HS is the mind of God/Christ, then when it is sent and given to the Christian, then you will be taught everything, because you have been given the knowledge of God/Christ. So, if the HS were the mind/knowledge of Jesus Christ/God, that still wouldn’t contradict this verse. It would still go hand in hand.

This is one of the verses that was claimed as a forgery, and as such it is my responsibility to post the evidence.

he
In reference to the Holy Spirit, the KJV usage of "he" rather than "it" implies the false notion of the trinity. The Holy Spirit is not a separate person, but the mind of God the Father and God the Son. See John 14:16, 17, 26 and 16:7-8, 13-15.

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/king-james-version-bible-translation-errors-2.html

So, another ponder, which I hope greater discussion will answer!

BryneVampyr wrote:

"and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us." - Romans 5:5

The Holy Spirit is referred to as a "who", a person.

If you are to go by that, I shall use my Bible: The KJV.

5And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

I don’t know which translation you are using. The KJV says which, not who, so who has the correct translation?

This would be another issue that goes back to the original Scriptures which we don’t have. But at the moment, the earliest and accurate texts we have to go by that highly influence me and why I’m coming around are the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. I’ll have to research those a bit and see at least what the Sinaiticus says.

BryneVampyr wrote:

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." - 2 Cor 3:14

The fellowship of the Holy Spirit...you fellowship with a personal being...and the Holy Spirit is mentioned distinctly from Jesus...

This one I think is another honest mistake. 2 Cor is 2nd Corinthians correct? If so, this is what Ch.3:14 says in my Bible:

14But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

So, I don’t deny the Scriptures being in there, but I can’t give a proper answer unless I see it in the Scripture myself in addition to the surrounding context. If both of your verses are the exact place you claim, then those are 2 entirely different verses and this would come down to a translation problem and a who’s Bible is more accurate, than a perception or view problem.

I look forward to more discussion!

PS: All Bible Scripture quotes I used are courtesy of www.biblegateway.com
Back to top Go down
Shamax

avatar

Number of posts : 701
Age : 40
Location : Charleston, WV
Registration date : 2008-11-09
Points : 4250

PostSubject: Re: The Holy Trinity   Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:58 pm

Death over Life wrote:
As for that, I have heard and need more research on the authenticity of Matthew 28:19. From what I have atm encountered, that verse has been a forgery.

Just a quick note here: I checked my NA27 Greek NT and it's not indicating that there's any textual issue with that verse other than Codex Vaticanus and D showing a different tense on the participle "baptizing". I'd have to look a little harder, but in looking for early manuscripts/codices containing that verse, the earliest one I'm seeing at the moment is Codex Alexandrinus (there may be earlier, but that's what a quick search is showing).

I may contribute a bit more to the thread later, but for now, I'm just going to throw this out there because I see this same assumption being made when the Bible mentions the word "name" by other people often...

The Greek word for "name" (onoma), like in English, doesn't just mean "a person's name". It can also indicate something about a person's authority, reputation, or command (ie "I come in the name of the king!"). I often see people assume that when the Bible says to do something "in Jesus name" that they then translate that into tagging the words "in Jesus' name" onto the end of whatever they're doing, making the assumption that the text is prescribing some kind of semantic formula for doing something. That's not always the case, and I don't think it's the case here with these verses either necessarily.

I guess this needs to be thought about/decided: "Are these verses prescribing the sacramental formula for how a baptism is supposed to occur (ie the words that are to be spoken/proclaimed), or are these verses talking about something that is to be (or has been) done by a particular authority/command?"

..just a little more raw material to chew on. Very Happy
Back to top Go down
http://www.myspace.com/Shamax
Death over Life

avatar

Number of posts : 632
Age : 28
Location : The Inner Sanctum known as my Insanity and Damnation
Registration date : 2008-11-02
Points : 4172

PostSubject: Re: The Holy Trinity   Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:44 pm

Shamax wrote:
Death over Life wrote:
As for that, I have heard and need more research on the authenticity of Matthew 28:19. From what I have atm encountered, that verse has been a forgery.

Just a quick note here: I checked my NA27 Greek NT and it's not indicating that there's any textual issue with that verse other than Codex Vaticanus and D showing a different tense on the participle "baptizing". I'd have to look a little harder, but in looking for early manuscripts/codices containing that verse, the earliest one I'm seeing at the moment is Codex Alexandrinus (there may be earlier, but that's what a quick search is showing).

Thank you for the participation! This really means a lot so thank you! Anyways, yes, still more researching on my part as I myself only discovered the Codex Alexandrinus yesterday, and just a little bit longer the Vaticanus. The only Codex I have known for a while is Sinaiticus, but I never paid much attention to it until recently, in dealing with my recent tragedy and attempting to find the Truth for repentance and True Grace and Salvation. It was the other day in which I found the Bible forgeries link I posted in the last post and a few more I have yet to post.

I do know there are earlier manuscripts that would help clear it all up. I'm just hoping that there are more that survived than we think. I must also see the relations in which is older with the Dead Sea Scrolls as well.

Shamax wrote:

I may contribute a bit more to the thread later, but for now, I'm just going to throw this out there because I see this same assumption being made when the Bible mentions the word "name" by other people often...

The Greek word for "name" (onoma), like in English, doesn't just mean "a person's name". It can also indicate something about a person's authority, reputation, or command (ie "I come in the name of the king!"). I often see people assume that when the Bible says to do something "in Jesus name" that they then translate that into tagging the words "in Jesus' name" onto the end of whatever they're doing, making the assumption that the text is prescribing some kind of semantic formula for doing something. That's not always the case, and I don't think it's the case here with these verses either necessarily.

I guess this needs to be thought about/decided: "Are these verses prescribing the sacramental formula for how a baptism is supposed to occur (ie the words that are to be spoken/proclaimed), or are these verses talking about something that is to be (or has been) done by a particular authority/command?"

..just a little more raw material to chew on. Very Happy

Thank you and definately something to ponder on. If anyone else as well wishes to chime in, feel free. As for the name portion, it is something I agree on, but it is as well something we take for granted at times. We do occasionally lose the meaning of name and just replace it with "what you call said person". On my Baptism portion, even with this stance though, Christ is still the authority over us, because it is Christ who gives us mediation to the Father. When the Baptismal formula and Trinity in Matthew is implied, it is saying that all have authority over us, in which they do, but it kind of cuts away the mediation (which is Christ and His authority) since we can already go to the Father as I'm seeing it.

From what I'm seeing, Christ is our authority, which is why sans the Matthew verse, all the Baptismal verses has Jesus name, (including authority) rather than Father, Son, HS. Then it is the Father who has the Authority over Christ, but it is Christ that gives us access to the Father.

Trinity or not, ordering does play an important part, as even what is just spoken of is in the Matthew verse, which may not imply Trinity. ... in the name of the Father (our 1st authority being over all), Son (who is under the authority of the Father yet over the authority of the HS), and Holy Ghost (which is under the authority of the Father and Son).

This does describe why I see another problem of Trinity and could even go into Binity as well. As I've seen from Trinity, it implies that all 3 are pure equals, which is not so. I just posted above how it is, so to claim pure equality between the 3 makes the Trinity concept to have plot holes I shall say. Now, if the Trinitarians that I haven't met do stress on who has what authority in which position as opposed to saying all are equal in everything, then I think my problem with that particular one may have been solved.
Back to top Go down
Death over Life

avatar

Number of posts : 632
Age : 28
Location : The Inner Sanctum known as my Insanity and Damnation
Registration date : 2008-11-02
Points : 4172

PostSubject: Re: The Holy Trinity   Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:55 pm

Apologize for the double post.

In dealing with Names, would this also imply that instead of calling Jesus Jesus, we should properly call Him Yeshua and God Yahweh or am I missing something in dealing with the original names?

If calling Him Jesus and God instead of said Yeshua/Yahweh, with what has been spoken, would this imply we could be indirectly directing our authority to another God?

Curiosity as Shamax made some really great points to think on.
Back to top Go down
BryneVampyr

avatar

Number of posts : 250
Age : 51
Location : Utah
Registration date : 2009-07-26
Points : 3529

PostSubject: Re: The Holy Trinity   Sat Mar 20, 2010 9:13 pm

Corrections:

John 6:7-8 should have read John 16:7-8

2 Cor 3:14 should have read 2 Cor 13:14

also, in regards to Romans 5:5

The word that is translated "who" in the ESV and "which" in the KJV can be translated either way, it seems.

In Matthew 1:16, which reads in part "...Jesus, who is called Christ.", the word is translated as "who" and is obviously referring to a person.

There are other times when it is translated as "which" and is also obviously referring to a person...for example:

"...your Father which is in Heaven..." Matt 5:48


There are also times when it is referring to things that are not personal:

"Do not give that which is holy to dogs" Matt 7:6


I believe that the verse in Romans is speaking of the Holy Spirit in a personal sense...and not as an it or thing.
Back to top Go down
Death over Life

avatar

Number of posts : 632
Age : 28
Location : The Inner Sanctum known as my Insanity and Damnation
Registration date : 2008-11-02
Points : 4172

PostSubject: Re: The Holy Trinity   Sun Mar 21, 2010 6:43 pm

BryneVampyr wrote:
Corrections:

John 6:7-8 should have read John 16:7-8

Now that I have the correct verses, I have looked into them in my KJV and Sinaticus version.

I have seen the Scriptures from both the ESV and KJV which do seem to show support for the view of HS being a person rather than an item, or a collective conscience, so I did look at the Sinaiticus just now and saw this:

7 But I tell you the truth, it is profitable for you that I go away. For if I go not away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.
8 And when he comes, he will convince the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.

So, on the latter 2, the word is Comforter, but in this, the word is Advocate. According to my Bible (has a dictionary in the back) this is what is spoken of for both words:

advocate (lower case): One who speaks in defense of another. Christ is so called (1 Jn 2:1)

Comforter (Upper case): The Holy Ghost; the intercessor promised by Christ to help and guide believers (Jn 14:26; 15:26; 16:7)

So, had it not been for the Upper Case in Advocate, we could have come to the possibility that it wasn’t even the Spirit mentioned at all in the said Scripture. However, correct wording aside, even if it is specific, remember that Christ was one who loves parables and using them. So with this, how do we specifically know that the Spirit is truly person and Jesus isn’t using personification on the Spirit to get the message across more clearly?

Person or no person, Christ can send non living objects, or collective thoughts to people that transforms them. Remember with Joseph for example, God sent a dream/vision to Him for proof on Mary being pregnant with Christ. Because God sent it, does it mean it is it’s own living person? Not so, but that doesn’t mean what was sent was not of God, and I feel it is the same thing here. Just instead of with Joseph, it is with all believers. With all honesty, I’m thinking Christ used personification here to get the message across. The view of HS being collective thoughts doesn’t contradict here either since that is what the Spirit does and there are more examples where the Spirit has done this.

By the end of the night though, since Jesus constantly used parables to speak and get the message across, I see John 16:7-8 as open interpretation that can be swayed either way.

BryneVampyr wrote:

2 Cor 3:14 should have read 2 Cor 13:14

After reading and rereading our discussion on this, we here are discussing the persona or lack thereof concerning the HS rather than this implying a Trinity, so I will speak under those terms. Yes, it does say communion with the Holy Spirit, but it is possible to have communion with non-living objects as well. Examples are as if we were children playing with our dolls and making imaginary friends as example. So, since communion means close relationship and close fellowship, whether it is personal or object doesn’t contradict anything. Remember, the mind within the individual isn’t a living creature of it’s own, but the mind transforms.

From what I’m seeing, you can have a close personal relationship with your’ inner mind and self. Thanks to God sending His mind and inner self (HS) it is possible to have a close relationship with His mind/mindset in terms of garnering more info and keeping the commandments as it is written etc. Literally, not everything you have a relationship with is living albeit you can treat the non-living as living.

As spoken, just because they are mentioned together doesn’t make them 3 people. We all have a Spirit, but is our spirit our own person or is it the collective conscience that we all bear? The way it is with us is the way it is with God. I have so far seen our spiritual conscience lies within our minds, but our minds aren’t our own separate people, but rather it is us. Did I just help prove Trinity with this? The answer would have been yes if Trinity did not imply 3 distinct persons rather than 2 distinct persons with 1 mindset who are both the same.

Now, my personal views aside, this verse doesn’t really do anything since with the rest, it was simply the way of saying Good Bye back then. Get rid of our verses, and notice it wasn’t limited to just those 3. Notice it also included the saints as well. Best way to describe is simply their form of a farewell.

So, I’ll need a reply on here for more of a proper context and understanding, but I’m seeing open interpretation here as well. I just felt that unlike the other claims and discussions, I came across as weak on this one. Once I’ll have the knowledge revealed, I’ll fix this up if it didn’t prove my point.

BryneVampyr wrote:

also, in regards to Romans 5:5

The word that is translated "who" in the ESV and "which" in the KJV can be translated either way, it seems.

In Matthew 1:16, which reads in part "...Jesus, who is called Christ.", the word is translated as "who" and is obviously referring to a person.

There are other times when it is translated as "which" and is also obviously referring to a person...for example:

"...your Father which is in Heaven..." Matt 5:48


There are also times when it is referring to things that are not personal:

"Do not give that which is holy to dogs" Matt 7:6


I believe that the verse in Romans is speaking of the Holy Spirit in a personal sense...and not as an it or thing.

For Romans 5:5, due to what you said being true and both forms are open to interpretation, I have decided to look at the direct-to-English translation of the Sinaiticus according to the website:

www.codexsinaiticus.org

and this is what they have written for Romans 5:5 (in addition to seeing the actual manuscript’s page).

5 and hope makes not ashamed, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit that was given to us.

From my perspective, the Sinaiticus is objectifying the Holy Spirit. The KJV is open to interpretation, and the ESV is personifying the Spirit. No, this isn’t a “my version is better than yours argument”, but rather, a form of how Christianity may have evolved from the old days to the modern day. I’m not here to say the HS being a person is invalid, but I feel if this Sinaiticus translation is accurate, the specific Romans 5:5 verse is either against HS being a person, or for later translations, open to interpretation where it can be swayed either way. Despite the open interpretation on later translations, it for sure doesn’t outright support the claim, but is a mere little hidden hint if it does. So, I feel this verse wouldn’t hold much water without the support of other more essential verses for the Holy Spirit being a distinct person.

With all that is being said though, I’m seeing all these verses, with the sole exception of 1 John Ch.5 verse 7 which itself has been debunked, that none of these verses outright say as an absolute a Trinity. The most I’ve seen is subtle hints with certain verses. Then, the rest of the Scriptures imply a Binity at most. I can give direct quotes where Jesus says He is God outright as an absolute. So, if Christ wasn’t God, then that is a lie and means He sinned thus destroying Christianity. So, God the Father and Jesus Christ being 1 through 2 distinctives is an absolute aka Binity. Deny the Binity, and you have denied His divinity. HS however, is more subjective and interpretive.
Back to top Go down
wizardovmetal

avatar

Number of posts : 1056
Age : 26
Location : COLD
Registration date : 2009-08-17
Points : 4513

PostSubject: Re: The Holy Trinity   Sun Mar 21, 2010 7:39 pm

Death over Life wrote:
Since I have one more work day and will start for sure my research, I have decided I should also speak of what really caused my uproars. I may or may not do an entire series of discussions on various aspects of God because I wish to know what I am bashing and what I am supposed to be worshipping.

So, with my soul-searching, I feel it is best to start with this. The Holy Trinity. I used to believe the Trinity, but recently, after doing some research and seeing some startling information from the Bible, I don't believe it anymore. My current view is Biniterian, yet I see the extreme majority of Christianity is Triniterian, which I disagree with.

So, in all honesty, I wish to see from other's perspectives on the Holy Trinity Doctrine and their views of agreeing or disagreeing with the view and what Scriptures they saw that proved or disproved this Doctrine if they can, or sermon etc.

I feel if we are all followers of God, this should be discussed and hopefully, show what kind of God we are or are not worshipping. What is the Truth about God? That is the message and hope of what I hope this thread answers, for this specific question and a start on researching in addition to the many more questions I may have. I shall go far more in-depth in my views after the thread starts getting a few replies.

i beleive the spirit is gods spirit i beleive christ is gods son i do not beleive in the popular trinity idea im actually the kind of person that pays no attention to mainstream christianity, i read the bible and pay attention to that. there are way to many people who beleive things that arent even biblical
Back to top Go down
http://www.myspace.com/jbmetalhed
Death over Life

avatar

Number of posts : 632
Age : 28
Location : The Inner Sanctum known as my Insanity and Damnation
Registration date : 2008-11-02
Points : 4172

PostSubject: Re: The Holy Trinity   Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:16 pm

wizardovmetal wrote:

i beleive the spirit is gods spirit i beleive christ is gods son i do not beleive in the popular trinity idea im actually the kind of person that pays no attention to mainstream christianity, i read the bible and pay attention to that. there are way to many people who beleive things that arent even biblical

Thank you so much for joining in Wizard! I really appreciate you putting in your views and discussing!

With the joining, may I ask how you think the current discussion or debate is going? Anything worth noting on how your views came to be or who's views are making the most sense of this and why?

Your last sentence is why I made the thread, to see if I am believing or used to believe in something unbiblical or if it really does reveal itself and I'm just not grasping it.
Back to top Go down
Shamax

avatar

Number of posts : 701
Age : 40
Location : Charleston, WV
Registration date : 2008-11-09
Points : 4250

PostSubject: Re: The Holy Trinity   Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:36 pm

Death over Life wrote:
So, on the latter 2, the word is Comforter, but in this, the word is Advocate. According to my Bible (has a dictionary in the back) this is what is spoken of for both words:

advocate (lower case): One who speaks in defense of another. Christ is so called (1 Jn 2:1)

Comforter (Upper case): The Holy Ghost; the intercessor promised by Christ to help and guide believers (Jn 14:26; 15:26; 16:7)

So, had it not been for the Upper Case in Advocate, we could have come to the possibility that it wasn’t even the Spirit mentioned at all in the said Scripture. However, correct wording aside, even if it is specific, remember that Christ was one who loves parables and using them. So with this, how do we specifically know that the Spirit is truly person and Jesus isn’t using personification on the Spirit to get the message across more clearly?

Person or no person, Christ can send non living objects, or collective thoughts to people that transforms them. Remember with Joseph for example, God sent a dream/vision to Him for proof on Mary being pregnant with Christ. Because God sent it, does it mean it is it’s own living person? Not so, but that doesn’t mean what was sent was not of God, and I feel it is the same thing here. Just instead of with Joseph, it is with all believers. With all honesty, I’m thinking Christ used personification here to get the message across. The view of HS being collective thoughts doesn’t contradict here either since that is what the Spirit does and there are more examples where the Spirit has done this.

By the end of the night though, since Jesus constantly used parables to speak and get the message across, I see John 16:7-8 as open interpretation that can be swayed either way.

I think you're missing something very important by pitting a couple of bible dictionary translations against one another like this, and hanging a lot on capitalization. The earliest manuscripts of the Bible (including codices like Sinaiticus) were written in all uppercase... with no punctuation marks. Even in later manuscripts where sentences and clauses were punctuated and properly capitalized, not everything that is capitalized today in English translations was capitalized then. For instance, references to "the Father" in English translations are of course capitalized. The word "God" is capitalized as well. In Greek however, both of these appear as lowercase ("pater" and "theos" respectively). So by hanging your hat on the capitalization issue, you'd have to draw into question the personhood of the Father as well.

Also, the word that is translated both "comforter" and "advocate" is the word "parakletos" which is used in 4 places in John in reference to one whom Jesus and the Father will send after the ascension, and is also used once in 1 John of Christ himself. If the text were speaking merely of the Father and Christ sending "comfort" to believers and not "a comforter", the word used would have been "paraklesis" (used in many other places) and not "parakletos".

One final consideration (and a very solid one at that, IMHO) would be John 16:13,

John 16:13 (NKJV) wrote:
However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

Let's focus on part of the first phrase "when He, the Spirit of truth, has come". The word for spirit (used in many places, not just of the Holy Spirit) is "pneuma". It's gender (all nouns in Greek have gender - male, female, or neuter) is neuter. However the word for "He" there is actually a demonstrative pronoun (in English, words like "this one" or "that thing"). If this verse were talking about the "Spirit of truth" as merely a thing, an "it" rather than a "who", the word would be "ekeino" which is neuter in form. But it's not... the word is "ekeinos" which is masculine. And no, there are no textual variants here even in the earliest papyri (P66 and P5) that date to the 2nd and 3rd Century.
Back to top Go down
http://www.myspace.com/Shamax
MetalFRO

avatar

Number of posts : 1993
Age : 41
Location : Nebraska, USA
Registration date : 2008-11-13
Points : 5591

PostSubject: Re: The Holy Trinity   Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:57 pm

I am not as "learned" as all of you - as a "lay person" I sort of trust that the ESV, KJV and NIV Bibles I have were reasonably translated by those far more knowledgeable of the scriptures than I, so I've never dug into the Codices or other original texts from which to make my own interpretations. I'm not a "mainstream Christian" by any means, but my faith is also based partially on God having ordained the various translations we read, even if they are all slightly different because of the differences in language & culture that become stumbling blocks for some when things don't quite translate 100%.

My question is this - I'm w/ Brynne in the fact that the account of the Pentecost is pretty clear, and is that not enough to solidify a belie in the "person" of the Holy Spirit?
Back to top Go down
http://metalfroreview.blogspot.com
Shamax

avatar

Number of posts : 701
Age : 40
Location : Charleston, WV
Registration date : 2008-11-09
Points : 4250

PostSubject: Re: The Holy Trinity   Sun Mar 21, 2010 10:35 pm

MetalFRO wrote:
My question is this - I'm w/ Brynne in the fact that the account of the Pentecost is pretty clear, and is that not enough to solidify a belie in the "person" of the Holy Spirit?

Being of the same mind as yourself and Brynne, I would say absolutely, and that there are other places in the book of Acts that make an even *stronger* case where the Holy Spirit speaks and does specific things that no impersonal force would be capable of. But I can see DoL's desire to not take for granted that things are translated the way they are truthfully rather than out of some desire or idea that is foisted upon the text by the translator.

You definitely don't need to know the original languages. Having almost completed "first-year" Greek, I can say that I have a MUCH greater appreciation now of the work that has been done over the years (and is still done to this day) by scholars to faithfully render Greek into English (and in the largest majority of cases it is *VERY* faithfully rendered). It's a monumental task at times because there truly are things that are "lost in translation" - mostly emphasis that's difficult to render into English. And there are cases where decisions are made to capitalize things or use a specific definition of a word because of doctrinal beliefs. But the important thing is that these beliefs aren't just picked out of thin air. Rather, they are indeed based upon a sound exegesis of the biblical text.

I think those bases are what DoL is trying to find spelled-out.

As such, lengthy tomes have been written on the topic form many perspectives over the years. But one I highly recommend is "The Forgotten Trinity" by Dr. James White. It delves into the passages that form the basis of the doctrine of the Trinity and also addresses many of the objections. It even dives into the Greek language from time to time (though not a necessity), but mostly only in the end-notes and usually in a very "accessible" and easily understood way.
Back to top Go down
http://www.myspace.com/Shamax
vaterflaumig

avatar

Number of posts : 249
Age : 28
Registration date : 2009-08-17
Points : 3574

PostSubject: Re: The Holy Trinity   Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:52 am

I told DOL that I would repost a video I had on a post I deleted from this thread, so here you go. I removed the post originally because I didn't think anyone knew about the Codex Sinaiticus but it turned out that you did.

Apparently, there are things within the Codex Sinaiticus that are supposed to imply that Jesus wasn't the son of God. The second video explains this to an extent. Muslims use the Codex Sinaiticus against Christianity because it implies that about Jesus. I don't know how legit all of this is however so don't point your flamethrowers at me please.



Back to top Go down
wizardovmetal

avatar

Number of posts : 1056
Age : 26
Location : COLD
Registration date : 2009-08-17
Points : 4513

PostSubject: Re: The Holy Trinity   Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:02 am

Death over Life wrote:
wizardovmetal wrote:

i beleive the spirit is gods spirit i beleive christ is gods son i do not beleive in the popular trinity idea im actually the kind of person that pays no attention to mainstream christianity, i read the bible and pay attention to that. there are way to many people who beleive things that arent even biblical

Thank you so much for joining in Wizard! I really appreciate you putting in your views and discussing!

With the joining, may I ask how you think the current discussion or debate is going? Anything worth noting on how your views came to be or who's views are making the most sense of this and why?

Your last sentence is why I made the thread, to see if I am believing or used to believe in something unbiblical or if it really does reveal itself and I'm just not grasping it.

well when reading the NT, one can clearly see how the spirit is the spirit of god NOT a seperate entity the reason we now can have the spirit is because christs blood covers us and makes us pure, without that, the spirit of god would kill us.
Back to top Go down
http://www.myspace.com/jbmetalhed
Shamax

avatar

Number of posts : 701
Age : 40
Location : Charleston, WV
Registration date : 2008-11-09
Points : 4250

PostSubject: Re: The Holy Trinity   Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:35 am

Just finished watching the first video and most of the second one.The first deals specifically with Codex Sinaiticus, and the second dwells a bit on a work known as "The Didache". The first video does a good job (at least in the first half) of speaking about the historical importance of the discovery of Sinaiticus in showing the strength of the reliability of the New Testament. However, it then goes off on a tangent about Napolean's journey to North Africa and a typical "argument" I've heard used by atheists and neopagans which says: "Ancient myths have stories of virgin births and resurrections and people doing miracles, so the Christians *must* have just copied from them". Addressing this argument in a detailed matter would probably take it's own thread, but its essential failure is its assertion that *any* similarities between two stories/account means that the later one has to have been "influenced" by the first - which is flatly untrue.

The second video makes much scandalous "spin" about the fact that the Epistle of James isn't as theological of a book as the Gospel of John. It also makes an extremely false assertion that just because James refers to Jesus as "Lord" and not "Lord God" that James *must* have not believed Jesus was divine. They make the same claim about the Didache as well. In both cases, they're extremely mistaken, because the title of "Lord" ("kurios" in Greek) doesn't necessitate a lack of divinity. On the contrary, it often indicates divinity, because of the higher status it places on the individual bearing the title. True, the title is also used by some people of non-divine persons (slaves using it of their masters, people using it to refer to a ruler), but to make the logical leap that "Lord Jesus" means he wasn't divine is completely misguided and untrue.

Similar argumentation is use by the extreme end of the KJV-only movement where they claim that modern translations are "blotting Jesus out of the Bible" because a particular verse is rendered as "Christ" rather than "Christ Jesus". The assertion in both cases is unfounded.

Long story short though, there's nothing at all in Codex Sinaiticus that indicates Jesus wasn't the Son of God. There are textual variants, of course - differences between Sinaiticus and some other texts due to the scribal transmission process. But these variants are minor, as is usual, and they do not impact the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus as long as a person isn't isolating a single part of a verse and ignoring every single other passage that indicates Christ's divinity.

If there's specific passage or variant in Sinaiticus (or any other text) that's proving to be difficult, I'll gladly do some looking into it and try to offer some more info on the topic (though it might be best suited to another thread - one just for textual issues). But long story short, the importance of Sinaiticus is that it's the oldest "codex" (book-form) that has been discovered of the Bible. There are earlier manuscripts and fragments that have been discovered as well, but Sinaiticus is the earliest compiled copy that has been discovered. Being able to compare a passage as it appears in Sinaticus to a passage as it appears in an earlier or later manuscript helps form a strong picture of just how faithfully the text of Scripture has been transmitted over the centuries, and it has indeed been transmitted VERY faithfully.
Back to top Go down
http://www.myspace.com/Shamax
lord voldemort

avatar

Number of posts : 550
Age : 39
Location : Toccoa, GA
Registration date : 2009-11-07
Points : 3803

PostSubject: Re: The Holy Trinity   Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:03 pm

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

This is one verse I use to show that the HS and Christ are the same person.

The logic for it is this:

If the HS is indeed a third Eternal person, how than can he impregnate a human with another Eternal person? The answer is it can not happen.

That is like, I can have sex with a girl and that girl produce a child that is already a living person that already exist, and that baby be the exact same person. Logically, Therefore, the HS has to be Christ.

The only way for this to happen, is that the HS and Christ have to be the same person, HS is Christ in spirit form, and he entered into Mary and allowed himself to impregnate her, thus producing the child of Jesus.
Back to top Go down
BryneVampyr

avatar

Number of posts : 250
Age : 51
Location : Utah
Registration date : 2009-07-26
Points : 3529

PostSubject: Re: The Holy Trinity   Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:44 pm

Let's look at the following verses:

Matt 1:5

and Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;


Matt 1:18

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.



Now...in the phrases "Booz begat Obed of Ruth" and "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost", the word translated "of" is the same greek word.

Obed is not the same person as Ruth...so why would you conclude that the child (Jesus) must be the same person as the Holy Ghost? It seems much more likely that they are not the same person.


Also...from Matt 1:20 "for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. " It says "of the Holy Ghost", not "is the Holy Ghost." (note...this is the same greek word as in verse 18)
Back to top Go down
Shamax

avatar

Number of posts : 701
Age : 40
Location : Charleston, WV
Registration date : 2008-11-09
Points : 4250

PostSubject: Re: The Holy Trinity   Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:49 pm

I've had to look at your post a few times to see exactly what you're saying Voldy, and I think I've stated to grasp it. At first glance I couldn't make sense of what you were saying in turning to this verse, but I think I see the assumptions you're bringing to the table thanks to the analogy you give (bolding is mine for emphasis):

lord voldemort wrote:
Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

This is one verse I use to show that the HS and Christ are the same person.

The logic for it is this:

If the HS is indeed a third Eternal person, how than can he impregnate a human with another Eternal person? The answer is it can not happen.

That is like, I can have sex with a girl and that girl produce a child that is already a living person that already exist, and that baby be the exact same person. Logically, Therefore, the HS has to be Christ.

The only way for this to happen, is that the HS and Christ have to be the same person, HS is Christ in spirit form, and he entered into Mary and allowed himself to impregnate her, thus producing the child of Jesus.

In the Trinitarian view, all three persons of the Trinity are eternally pre-existant, meaning that from eternity there was the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In the event known as the incarnation however, the Son took on flesh (fully human and fully divine) and walked among us. In this view, the passage makes perfect sense. The Spirit (third person) moves in whatever way upon Mary, and in her womb the Son (second person) enters into the world, taking-on flesh. He is not the offspring of the Holy Spirit in the same way that two humans would re-produce (this wasn't the Mormon version of Elohim having sex with Mary and impregnating her - not that you're insinuating that).

It seems like you're saying that the Holy Spirit entered into Mary and became the Son at that point and thus the Spirit ceased to be (unless I'm missing something). The only thing then that would be needed for this view to completely fall apart would be to show an incident where both the incarnate Christ and and the Holy Spirit are distinguished from one another...

Luke 3:21-22 (NIV) wrote:
When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

Unless this was some form of deception or charlatanry on the part of God (which I've heard people claim) all three persons of the classical Trinitarian view are in sight and distinguished in this verse. The Father speaks from Heaven, the Holy Spirit is descending, and the Son has been baptized and the Holy Spirit rests upon him. If we're doing proper exegesis and interpreting the "unclear" in light of the "clear" either we've got a glaringly huge Biblical contradiction on our hands, or the take you've given on Matthew 1:18 is missing something.
Back to top Go down
http://www.myspace.com/Shamax
FireProphet

avatar

Number of posts : 746
Age : 33
Location : TACOMA
Registration date : 2009-07-27
Points : 4077

PostSubject: Re: The Holy Trinity   Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:09 am

Shamax wrote:
In the event known as the incarnation however, the Son took on flesh (fully human and fully divine) and walked among us.
Hold up. Where does the Bible ever say "the Son took on flesh?"

Shamax wrote:
It seems like you're saying that the Holy Spirit entered into Mary and became the Son at that point and thus the Spirit ceased to be (unless I'm missing something).
You gotta take another look at his main point there. Just don't over complicate it. That's how the trinity rolls.
Back to top Go down
Death over Life

avatar

Number of posts : 632
Age : 28
Location : The Inner Sanctum known as my Insanity and Damnation
Registration date : 2008-11-02
Points : 4172

PostSubject: Re: The Holy Trinity   Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:14 am

Once again, I truly thank you all for discussing this in a Christ-like mature way and with no flaming or mudslinging! You guys have truly been blessed and are helping me throughout all of this. So, I give my gratitudes to you all.

Now, at the moment, I still have to soak in, concern and take in the information before I can continue on. Shamax has given me information that I have stumbled on that I don't grasp properly at the moment. The fault lies not on him, but rather my lack of proper researching. So when I do get knowledge and wisdom in my head, I'll continue on.

With that being said however, there is only 1 thing I can properly reply to. I am doing my best to not be pre-conceived with Voldemort's views, but I will say this in the quote, then I must ask a question I really need answered. I must be unbaised, but I do play devil's advocate against Trinity because when you convince on as a skeptic, the greater and stronger they will become if it is the Truth.

Shamax wrote:
I've had to look at your post a few times to see exactly what you're saying Voldy, and I think I've stated to grasp it. At first glance I couldn't make sense of what you were saying in turning to this verse, but I think I see the assumptions you're bringing to the table thanks to the analogy you give (bolding is mine for emphasis):

lord voldemort wrote:
Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

This is one verse I use to show that the HS and Christ are the same person.

The logic for it is this:

If the HS is indeed a third Eternal person, how than can he impregnate a human with another Eternal person? The answer is it can not happen.

That is like, I can have sex with a girl and that girl produce a child that is already a living person that already exist, and that baby be the exact same person. Logically, Therefore, the HS has to be Christ.

The only way for this to happen, is that the HS and Christ have to be the same person, HS is Christ in spirit form, and he entered into Mary and allowed himself to impregnate her, thus producing the child of Jesus.

In the Trinitarian view, all three persons of the Trinity are eternally pre-existant, meaning that from eternity there was the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In the event known as the incarnation however, the Son took on flesh (fully human and fully divine) and walked among us. In this view, the passage makes perfect sense. The Spirit (third person) moves in whatever way upon Mary, and in her womb the Son (second person) enters into the world, taking-on flesh. He is not the offspring of the Holy Spirit in the same way that two humans would re-produce (this wasn't the Mormon version of Elohim having sex with Mary and impregnating her - not that you're insinuating that).

It seems like you're saying that the Holy Spirit entered into Mary and became the Son at that point and thus the Spirit ceased to be (unless I'm missing something). The only thing then that would be needed for this view to completely fall apart would be to show an incident where both the incarnate Christ and and the Holy Spirit are distinguished from one another...

Luke 3:21-22 (NIV) wrote:
When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

Unless this was some form of deception or charlatanry on the part of God (which I've heard people claim) all three persons of the classical Trinitarian view are in sight and distinguished in this verse. The Father speaks from Heaven, the Holy Spirit is descending, and the Son has been baptized and the Holy Spirit rests upon him. If we're doing proper exegesis and interpreting the "unclear" in light of the "clear" either we've got a glaringly huge Biblical contradiction on our hands, or the take you've given on Matthew 1:18 is missing something.

Now, I do see what you are saying Shamax, but from what I'm seeing, your view on this particular point of interest (not the Entire Doctrine I'm speaking, but merely the point you are making with Voldemort) lies entirely on that particular Scripture Luke 3:21-22.

Now, just now when I read that, I thought there was something familiar about that verse, but couldn't put my finger on it. So, when I did go back and re-read, that very scripture was another claim of forgery.

Now, before I state the case, here is the Sinaiticus version:

21 But it came to pass that while all the people were baptized, Jesus also having been baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,

22 and the Holy Spirit came down, in a bodily form like a dove, upon him, and a voice came from heaven: Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased,

Okay, I do admit that is very eerily similar to the NIV stated, so the Sinaiticus isn't where the forgery claim takes place.

Where the forgery claim takes place lies in the coming website, but it also claims mentions on historical figures like Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Augustine for example. With even a link to where they got the info from.

So, here is the claim by the site(s):

Luke 3:22: This passage describes Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist. According to Justin Martyr, the original version of this verse has God speaking the words: "You are my son, today have I begotten thee." Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, and other ancient Christian authorities also quoted it this way. 1 The implication is that Jesus was first recognized by God as his son at the time of baptism. But a forger* altered the words to read: "You are my son, whom I love." The altered passage conformed more to the evolving Christian belief that Jesus was the son of God at his birth, (as described in Luke and Matthew) or before the beginning of creation (as in John), and not at his baptism.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm

(Their link: Adrian Swindler, "The Flat Earth: Still an Embarrassment to Biblical Inerrantists," at: http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/3flat90.html)

So, this forgery claim would seem to lie strictly in the hands of Adrian Swindler, but if it's correct, then they have other already mentioned Biblical scholars of old who are reliable sources. So, this would lie striclty within the validity of the claims.

Even if the claims were debunked, it does not seem so Trinitarian as it seems. What I see this Scripture does, isn't so much deny the Spirit, but rather deny Christ as a Trinitarian person till AFTER the Baptism, not eternally as everybody describes. That I am going to challenge on another thread, that one dealing with the Virgin Birth.

Now, how I do see the Spirit in this is still not distinctly person (the other valid claims made by Shamax I will get to, so this is without the conclusion of some of the aforementioned) as the emphasis here enlies: in a bodily form like a dove.

So, if the Spirit really were another person, why would it randomly take the form of something it isn't, with allegory used to describe it if I am reading it correctly? Why would it do something at this point in time, but not any other point in time? However, even in this, I still see the Spirit being something Voldemort described early on: A Spirit (that is the Mind/Spirit of God) that is sent by either God or Jesus Christ to transform the individual and cause them to become Holy (just like Christ did on the Cross, so I do see where Voldemort is coming from when He Says JC and HS are the exact same, just Spirit is in Spirit form). With that being spoken, I may have answered my question in that last statement although I may need some validity in what others see. With that, I don't see a contradiction either in this perspective of a Binity. (remember, Shamax, FRO, and Bryne's last posts I will still get to, so the perspective of the Trinity still isn't out of the question. Just because there are some points against it doesn't invalidate it.)

Now this is the 1 question I must seriously have answered and no it isn't the Scriptures dealing with Sin vs. Father/Son and Sin vs. HS albeit I'd love to have that answered some time in this thread.

My question is: If the Holy Trinity is True, True or not, why must there have been so many lies, deception, and forgery created in our very Scriptures to really get the belief going? True or not, why doesn't the words of Paul ring a bell in what they did to add and deter Scripture to help pre-conceive the Scriptures to favor this view, despite the mass condemnation they will have for tampering with Scriptures like desecretion? Even the Trinitarians here (and you've spoken and thank you for keeping the arguement, and having it stay civil!) do agree with me on some of the forgeries. Even then, I'm very glad nobody here used the 1 John forgery to prove the Trinity. Since even you guys see some of the forgeries, all I have to ask, as I'm currently repeating: If Trinity is True, why the adding in and twisting of Scripture?

That is why I'm far more skeptical of the belief than when I used to believe it. Even when I believed it, I did discover a couple of places where I have heard there were forgeries and twisting of Scriptures for the belief to come about. It is just, I had no where near the Biblical knowledge back then that I do now. Even then, I have heard it Truly is a Pagan concept and not a concept from the early church fathers (and certainly not from the Jews either I might add). So, with the accusations at hand, and some for sure proving True, I do hope you do see why I'm so skeptical of this view I once believed.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: The Holy Trinity   

Back to top Go down
 

The Holy Trinity

View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 4Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
BlabberBoard - Archives :: General Discussion :: Christian Discussion :: Theology-
How to make a forum | © phpBB | Free forum support | Contact | Report an abuse | Free forum