Comma Johanneum/Changing of the Bible.

[Qoheleth]

The Son was only revealed in the NT and the Holy Spirit was only poured out on believers in the NT.

Thus the NT is the best place to unveil salient truths about the Trinity, although they are not entirely absent in the OT either.

Firstly, if you don't mind me saying, there is a danger in this mode of thinking. If something has been totally absent-or even frowned upon- in say, a book of British History, and then years later a book is released detailing said absent event that radically conflicts with what was taught before; does that not seem a bit odd? Even doctored?

Secondly, any scriptures to back your last statement up?

 

[Free]

Well we know that the Old Testament was the word of the Most High and he revealed secrets unto his prophets. If they never mentioned anything of it there is a danger in believing it.

There is certainly a danger in believing it if one doesn't accept the NT as the Word of God, as authoritative as the OT for the life of the Christian.

YHWH wouldn't have kept a secret this huge especially considering the amount of time he spent speaking of how he stands alone and he is the only saviour.

He wouldn't have? How do you know? And, yes, it is very telling how often the OT speaks of YHWH being the only saviour. Yet, when we we look at the NT, it is Christ who so completely fulfills this role as saviour.

 

[Qoheleth]

Q:

Unsound assumption. There is more textual evidence for the New Testament than for so many other ancient doctrines. The truth of God in three Persons doesn't rest on one verse. As you know.

No but it all the verses it rests in are in the NT which is under question in this thread and scripture in the OT teach us that YHWH is one and stands alone. So you can see the conflict here. Also what textual evidence do you speak of?

 

[Tina]

But then wouldn't that then falsify the rest of the New Testament teachings and bring the entire work into question.

This addition is not a hidden secret that Christians should be fooled and led astray. The addition is clearly marked as footnotes in our bibles and is entirely supported by other NT scriptures that do not have similar footnotes, so we have no problem accepting this addition as it does not contradict other parts of the Bible.

Also wouldn't this doctrine then cause you to be worshipping more than one God and putting other Gods on level with or above the Most High?

Yes, but only if it contradicts other parts of the Bible. We read the Bible in its entirety as it's a historical book that runs in chronological order. When we already know that a word or line has been added, we cross-reference and compare and research with other scriptures to ensure we are not believing controversies. We don't just take one verse out of context and assume it is about more than one God.

 

[Qoheleth]

This addition is not a hidden secret that Christians should be fooled and led astray. The addition is clearly marked as footnotes in our bibles and is entirely supported by other NT scriptures that do not have similar footnotes, so we have no problem accepting this addition as it does not contradict other parts of the Bible.

Yes, but only if it contradicts other parts of the Bible. We read the Bible in its entirety as it's a historical book that runs in chronological order. When we already know that a word or line has been added, we cross-reference and compare and research with other scriptures to ensure we are not believing controversies. We don't just take one verse out of context and assume it is about more than one God.

It does, however, contradict with the OT, which is what it is supposedly based on.

 

[Tina]

Secondly, any scriptures to back your last statement up?

Yes there certainly are OT scriptures that points to Trinity, but it's past midnight for me and I'm too sleepy to carry on .....





:biglol

 

[Qoheleth]

Yes there certainly are OT scriptures that points to Trinity, but it's past midnight for me and I'm too sleepy to carry on .....





:biglol

Can't take your word for it
I certainly haven't found any.

 

[farouk]

Can't take your word for it
I certainly haven't found any.

Q:

What about Psalm 2, which speaks of the Son? What about Psalm 139, which speaks of the Holy Spirit? In fact, the New Testament develops the Old Testament revelation.

 

[Qoheleth]

Q:

What about Psalm 2, which speaks of the Son? What about Psalm 139, which speaks of the Holy Spirit? In fact, the New Testament develops the Old Testament revelation.

Haven't we gone over this :eeeekkk ?

Psalme 2 was speaking of Israel and psalm 139 was speaking of the spirit of God which is different to the "Holy Spirit".

 

[farouk]

Haven't we gone over this :eeeekkk ?

Psalme 2 was speaking of Israel and psalm 139 was speaking of the spirit of God which is different to the "Holy Spirit".

Q:

This may be your own interpretation, but it would be hard to infer that Christians have no Old Testament as well as New Testament evidence for God in three Persons.

NB: Acts 13 and Hebrews 1 have wording that is close to Psalm 2, developing the truth of the eternality of the Son.

 

[Qoheleth]

Q:

This may be your own interpretation, but it would be hard to infer that Christians have no Old Testament as well as New Testament evidence for God in three Persons.

NB: Acts 13 and Hebrews 1 have wording that is close to Psalm 2, developing the truth of the eternality of the Son.

It's not just an interpretation. If you read the psalms in context then it becomes obvious. APart from those two psalms whic hare highly debateable as we have experienced, no one has provided any OT scriptures to back the claims.

 

[theLords]

Haven't we gone over this :eeeekkk ?

Psalme 2 was speaking of Israel and psalm 139 was speaking of the spirit of God which is different to the "Holy Spirit".

If you claim that the Spirit of God differs from the Holy Spirit, than you have absolutely no basic understanding of the Trinity. I suggest you come to an understanding of the trinity doctrine before you try to argue against it.

If you claim you have proper understanding, then you are simply showing your cards as argumentative, and not sincerely seeking understanding, in which case, I suggest you go over our TOS again.

 

[farouk]

If you claim that the Spirit of God differs from the Holy Spirit, than you have absolutely no basic understanding of the Trinity. I suggest you come to an understanding of the trinity doctrine before you try to argue against it.

If you claim you have proper understanding, then you are simply showing your cards as argumentative, and not sincerely seeking understanding, in which case, I suggest you go over our TOS again.

:amen

 

[Qoheleth]

If you claim that the Spirit of God differs from the Holy Spirit, than you have absolutely no basic understanding of the Trinity. I suggest you come to an understanding of the trinity doctrine before you try to argue against it.

If you claim you gave proper understanding, then you are simply showing your cards as argumentative, and not sincerely seeking understanding, in which case, I suggest you go over our TOS again.

Well the Spirit of God in the OT is not part of a Triune Deity. It is his prescence.

Also I don't Claim to have proper understanding, never have. I simply wanted an answer to my question so that I could move forward. I'm basically asking for confirmation in the OT for evidence of a Trinity, and also asking for thoughts on the Revisions and adding of doctrines in the NT. I believe that is a fair request that doesn't infringe any forum that allows free thought and encourages open and honest debates.

 

[theLords]

Well the Spirit of God in the OT is not part of a Triune Deity. It is his prescence.

Also I don't Claim to have proper understanding, never have. I simply wanted an answer to my question so that I could move forward. I'm basically asking for confirmation in the OT for evidence of a Trinity, and also asking for thoughts on the Revisions and adding of doctrines in the NT. I believe that is a fair request that doesn't infringe any forum that allows free thought and encourages open and honest debates.

Open and honest debate is welcome, if it is sincerely open and honest. Many times than not, many claim this attitude but are quickly discovered to have hidden motives. We are willing, however, to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Since you claim ignorance, than I will tell you that trinitarian doctrine, sees the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of God, as one and the same.

 

[Qoheleth]

Open and honest debate is welcome, if it is sincerely open and honest. Many times than not, many claim this attitude but are quickly discover to have hidden motives. We are willing, however, to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Since you claim ignorance, than I will tell you that trinitarian doctrine, sees the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of God, as one and the same.

Okay, and moving on from that it would be great to get some OT scriptures to solidify that notion.

 

[theLords]

Okay, and moving on from that it would be great to get some OT scriptures to solidify that notion.

Okay, go to www.blueletterbible.com

Search for "Spirit" and single out all those that refer to the Spirit of God. You will have ample Scripture to solidify the Holy Spirit's role in the Old Testament.

 

[Qoheleth]

Okay, go to www.blueletterbible.com

Search for "Spirit" and single out all those that refer to the Spirit of God. You will have ample Scripture to solidify the Holy Spirit's role in the Old Testament.

Now we're moving to the crux of the argument as some would argue that the Spirit of God differs in nature Holy Spirit. As the Spirit of God in the OT is not part of a Triune and by all accounts the OT argues against such practice.

You can see why I am hesitant to believe the NT or the Christian doctrine as it endangers the believer to breaking the very first commandment, for what could perhaps be a fabricated clause placed in to fit a wider doctrine.

 

[theLords]

Now we're moving to the crux of the argument as some would argue that the Spirit of God differs in nature Holy Spirit. As the Spirit of God in the OT is not part of a Triune and by all accounts the OT argues against such practice.

You can see why I am hesitant to believe the NT or the Christian doctrine as it endangers the believer to breaking the very first commandment, for what could perhaps be a fabricated clause placed in to fit a wider doctrine.

You are not a Christian. Why would you believe anything the Bible has to say?

If you want to present the argument, that the nature of the Spirit of God in the old testament differs from that in the New, then the burden of proof is on you to show why and how.

 

[farouk]

Firstly, you shouldn't use it because it was edited in by Desiderius Erasmus 5th century. So it immediately falls into question, or it should do if we are to critically think.

Secondly, it is necessary to get "Old Testament" scripture to support the Trinity to provide it a valid foundation in truth and so far no one has been able to provide any

Umm, Desiderius Erasmus died in 1536. It was after the invention of printing. Before this, they had many manuscripts, and, compared with many other ancient texts there is overwhelming manuscript evidence for the New Testament.

Revelation came in stages, first the Old Testament books, then the New, penned by many authors.