My Vow Concerning Doctrines

[wayseer]

History of how Gentile Christians treated Jewish Christians. It says a lot that you do not know a lot about the history of the early churches after the Apostles died. Yet, you can defend these same converted pagans that brought pagan beliefs into Christianity as being the truth. Tertullian was a pagan believer many years before he converted to Christianity. He was also a philosopher of the Greek tradition, specifically Plato. Tell me do you go to Plato, a pagan believer, for insight into Jesus Christ and His teachings? No, you got to Jesus Christ and His Apostles for meaning on what Jesus taught.

Actually, if you are really interested in history, the Roman world of the 1st century was not called the Greco-Roman Empire for nothing. Platonic thought saturated the philosophy of the day and Christianity reflects very much the dualist natural of Hellenistic thought.

But none of this excuses you present Tertullian as advocating for the extermination of the Jews. You have presented no authority on which to draw this thesis other than you own opinion.

That the history of Christianity over the millennia depicts appalling treatment of the Jews is common knowledge - apart from you perhaps. Recents Popes have made a number of apologies in respect of this matter.

 

[dadof10]

No bearing at all? Why does Christ call such people 'false teachers', and that we should beware of them?

15 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:15-16 NIV)

I suggest it's because somewhere along the line their 'doctrine' is leading away from Christ, not to him. You can use his character to know whether that be the case or not.

This verse is used often to bolster your side, and really shouldn't be. The word for "false PROPHET" here is pseudoprophētēs, Which only translates as "false prophet"

From Strong's:

1) one who, acting the part of a divinely inspired prophet, utters falsehoods under the name of divine prophecies
2) a false prophet


http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5578&t=KJV


It has a very narrow definition and has nothing to do with teaching, only prophecy. If Matthew wanted to convey "false teachers", he would have used a different word. Jesus is not talking about evil deeds or sin (or antisemitism) as the "fruits", He is speaking of the fruits of PROPHECY, which either come to pass or not. If the prophet is a true prophet, his prophesies will bear him out, if not, they won't.

So often this verse is used to "prove" that if a pastor, pope, bishop, minister, etc. is a sinner, then, by extension his doctrines are false. This verse simply doesn't mean that.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This verse is used often to bolster your side, and really shouldn't be. The word for "false PROPHET" here is pseudoprophētēs, Which only translates as "false prophet"

From Strong's:

1) one who, acting the part of a divinely inspired prophet, utters falsehoods under the name of divine prophecies
2) a false prophet


http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5578&t=KJV


It has a very narrow definition and has nothing to do with teaching, only prophecy. If Matthew wanted to convey "false teachers", he would have used a different word. Jesus is not talking about evil deeds or sin (or antisemitism) as the "fruits", He is speaking of the fruits of PROPHECY, which either come to pass or not. If the prophet is a true prophet, his prophesies will bear him out, if not, they won't.

So often this verse is used to "prove" that if a pastor, pope, bishop, minister, etc. is a sinner, then, by extension his doctrines are false. This verse simply doesn't mean that.

(Be careful. Strong's is not a dictionary of Bible words. It does provide the usage of Hebrew/ Greek words. Don't confuse that with the definition of a word. I've seen more than one wrong doctrine born out of this misuse/ misunderstanding of Strong's list of 'word usage'.)


It's clear from the passage that the 'bad fruit' these false prophets/ teachers bear is their lawlessness, not their prophecies/ teachings.

You'll have to stop understanding this to mean every single word that comes out of a false teachers mouth is wrong. What it means is a false teacher is not going to lead you to Christ and the grand entry into the kingdom you are expecting. Somewhere along the way his doctrine will lead you away from Christ. He doesn't even follow Christ himself as signified by his lack of the fruit of the Spirit.

For example, I should have no expectation to learn anything about the character of Christ, the thing that counts, from a pastor or church leader who is given over to fits of rage, who is not gentle, or who is controlled by pride. I have no obligation to respect his authority and his teaching, and in fact, Christ wants me to stay away from such a person and what he teaches. Fruit is not what you're going to get from such a person. That doesn't mean that, categorically, everything he says is false. It means I'm not going to find wisdom to learn and grow by on their lips and will likely be influenced by misguided doctrines, much like what happened in the early church.

 

[CalledToServe]

i wonder.. how much you do know of judaism and the torah and also the sages. i as a jew have embraced all that im in christ. but I KNOW that the jews ie the consertive and orthodox are off and will not follow them.

surely you know that im wondering as well since the kaballah was around then in infancy what then of the jerusalem talmud?

I know quite a lot about Judaism and the Torah since as a Christian I read the Torah. Does it mean that I follow what it says for Jews to do in the Torah or Rabbis? No, it just educates me on the parts of Mosaic Law that Jesus Christ fulfilled. From my understanding of Mosaic Law is that it is divided into two major sections; ceremonial law and moral law. Christ fulfilled ceremonial law since He is the final atoning sacrifice. He did not fulfill moral law which is why stealing, killing, etc.. are illegal in other countries outside of Israel.

The Talmud is an interesting read, but I place it much like I place the apocrypha, which is it's not divinely inspired Word of God. It does provide insights into what the rabbis have thought or recorded as happening in the temple period. For example, the Talmud records that after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ and up until the temple was destroyed that the crimson cord on the door of the temple stayed red. It didn't turn white like it had done previously. The doors to the temple would open up by themselves and the lot always came up in the right hand. The westernmost menorah refused to stay lit. All of these show that Christ fulfilled the atoning sacrifice as required under Mosaic sacrificial law.

Actually, if you are really interested in history, the Roman world of the 1st century was not called the Greco-Roman Empire for nothing. Platonic thought saturated the philosophy of the day and Christianity reflects very much the dualist natural of Hellenistic thought.

But none of this excuses you present Tertullian as advocating for the extermination of the Jews. You have presented no authority on which to draw this thesis other than you own opinion.

That the history of Christianity over the millennia depicts appalling treatment of the Jews is common knowledge - apart from you perhaps. Recents Popes have made a number of apologies in respect of this matter.

Just because you feel the need to follow heretics, used as their fellow Christians called them, like Tertullian and Origen doesn't mean I have to. The Lord convicted me to not follow their doctrines nor any other man's doctrines that followed after them. By your own statement, the pagans warped Christianity away from it being a Jewish Sect of Judaism. A good example of the warping of Christianity away from Judaism, are the holidays. The churches built by the Apostles followed the Jewish holidays.

The churches that Paul and the twelve other Apostles built had their worship centered around the Jewish synagogue. A synagogue in those times was like a community center where Jews and Gentiles mingled together to partake in activities from steam baths to worship. Later on, those churches that met in the synagogue moved into someone's home because Jewish rabbis forced them to move.

As I stated previously, if a Gentile Christian didn't go by what the Roman government said in regards to the Jews then they were persecuted. This is what happened during the first schism when Simon bar Kahhba and the Jews revolted against Rome in 125 AD.

EDIT: If you think that my rejection of heretical men is hubris then you would be mistaken. I reject them because the Lord convicted me to not follow them and I serve Him out of humility and willingness to please Him.

 

[jasoncran]

i have another problem to show, if the rcc whom way after was that apostate. How then do you know what is the in the bible?

the bible even in luthers day had the apochryphra in it and luther also wanted to remove james and revalation.

 

[CalledToServe]

i have another problem to show, if the rcc whom way after was that apostate. How then do you know what is the in the bible?

the bible even in luthers day had the apochryphra in it and luther also wanted to remove james and revalation.

I know what is in the Bible from the historical record, lexicons, etc... It's a lot of work in researching this, but I am prompted by the Holy Spirit to do it. Are you implying that I'm not following the Will of the Lord for my life with my vow? You do realize that my vow is similar to a Nazirite Vow. Are you stating that I can't take a Nazirite vow?

 

[wayseer]

Just because you feel the need to follow heretics, used as their fellow Christians called them, like Tertullian and Origen doesn't mean I have to.

I don't follow Tertullian or Origen. I am merely pointing out to you that cannot prove than any patristic Father called for the extermination of the Jews.

A synagogue in those times was like a community center where Jews and Gentiles mingled together to partake in activities from steam baths to worship.

I know of no synagogue with steam baths. Nor were synagogues places where Jews and Gentiles 'mingled'. The laws pertaining to pollution would not allow any Jew to so mingle with the unclean.

I would add, with caution, that if you claim that you are being led by the Holy Spirit that you speak with a recognized pastor or priest as a matter of urgency. From what you write it would seem you are in complete contradiction with the Holy Spirit on any number of issues.

 

[CalledToServe]

I don't follow Tertullian or Origen. I am merely pointing out to you that cannot prove than any patristic Father called for the extermination of the Jews.

I already did with the historical record. They had to adhere to what Rome wanted or face death. It was that simple since during the time frame we're talking about Jews suffered severe persecution from Rome.

I know of no synagogue with steam baths. Nor were synagogues places where Jews and Gentiles 'mingled'. The laws pertaining to pollution would not allow any Jew to so mingle with the unclean.

That's what the archelogical evidence shows that is how first century synagogues were. Syangogues in the Asia Minor cities were meeting places and community centers for Jews and Gentiles in the faith. Gentiles did meet there if they were proselytes ie converts to Judaism. Paul extensively writes about how he would go to the synagogues first to preach the gospel whenever he went to a new city. Are you contradicting what Paul wrote?

I would add, with caution, that if you claim that you are being led by the Holy Spirit that you speak with a recognized pastor or priest as a matter of urgency. From what you write it would seem you are in complete contradiction with the Holy Spirit on any number of issues.

What issues are those that are in complete contradiction with the Holy Spirit? Trinitarianism? Rejection of false doctrines by heretics?

 

[ivdavid]

The messenger's character has everything to do with determining the truth concerning the doctrines of Jesus Christ.

How do you understand Philippians 1:15-18 ?
Php 1:15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:
Php 1:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.


Now it is given that the message of these preachers was not given out of love as commanded by God - and yet Paul rejoices that Christ, the truth, is preached. I cannot see how this does not conclude that truth is independent of people's inner disposition.

And I definitely believe Paul is not intently advocating people to flock to such preachers - it's just that truth is absolute, independent of any variance in man.

 

[CalledToServe]

How do you understand Philippians 1:15-18 ?
Php 1:15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:
Php 1:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.


Now it is given that the message of these preachers was not given out of love as commanded by God - and yet Paul rejoices that Christ, the truth, is preached. I cannot see how this does not conclude that truth is independent of people's inner disposition.

And I definitely believe Paul is not intently advocating people to flock to such preachers - it's just that truth is absolute, independent of any variance in man.

As I've said before this vow is for me alone. I did it at the prompting of the Lord and to keep His commandments, specifically the three greatest ones. I shared this out of love not for my benefit nor for my own ego. It was posted out of love so that someone would look at it and give glory to God for working on my life.

 

[CalledToServe]

This scripture came to me today as I reflected over this conversation. It's 2 Timothy 4:3-4, "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."

Something to consider when you attempt to defend early church fathers that used unscriptural sources to define their doctrines.

 

[wayseer]

I already did with the historical record. They had to adhere to what Rome wanted or face death. It was that simple since during the time frame we're talking about Jews suffered severe persecution from Rome.

There was no 'Rome' calling the shots at the time of the patristic Fathers.

That's what the archelogical evidence shows that is how first century synagogues were. Syangogues in the Asia Minor cities were meeting places and community centers for Jews and Gentiles in the faith. Gentiles did meet there if they were proselytes ie converts to Judaism. Paul extensively writes about how he would go to the synagogues first to preach the gospel whenever he went to a new city. Are you contradicting what Paul wrote?

I am challenging what you assert.

Where is this 'evidence' that synagogues were places where Jews and Gentiles 'mingled'? As I said, there is any amount of evidence from the Jewish Torah that Jews were not allowed to 'mingle' with anyone on grounds that they would become polluted. This was the challenge that Jesus issued almost on every page of the gospels. You cannot seriously argue that Jews and Gentiles 'mingled'. Separation and exclusion was the nature of being Jewish - and still is today.

To convert Gentiles to Judaism did involved ritual cleansing along with circumcision - a point of heated contention between Paul and Peter/James - and a point which eventually lead to the split with Judaism.

What issues are those that are in complete contradiction with the Holy Spirit? Trinitarianism? Rejection of false doctrines by heretics?

It seems to me that your claims are historically unsupported and therefore your theology is likewise unsupported. As a result, your claims that you are lead by Holy Spirit also seems dubious. As far as I am aware the Holy Spirit does not contradict history.

Something to consider when you attempt to defend early church fathers that used unscriptural sources to define their doctrines.

It was those same Fathers that gave us the Nicene Creed which still stands central to what it means to be a Christians despite your post-modernist ideology.

 

[dadof10]

(Be careful. Strong's is not a dictionary of Bible words. It does provide the usage of Hebrew/ Greek words.

That's actually exactly what it is. It gives Greek and Hebrew words and their exact usage verse for verse. Please take a look at BLB.com, type in a verse, click on the "c" on the left, which brings up the lexicon for that word. Page down to "Thayer's Lexicon (Help)". There you will find each definition and which verses apply to which exact definition, if there are more than one. There are NOT more than one in this case, however, because the word used by Matthew can ONLY be translated as "false PROPHET".

Don't confuse that with the definition of a word. I've seen more than one wrong doctrine born out of this misuse/ misunderstanding of Strong's list of 'word usage'.)

LOL...Really? Give me an example, please.

It's clear from the passage that the 'bad fruit' these false prophets/ teachers bear is their lawlessness, not their prophecies/ teachings.

How so? Because of the word "evil"? False PROPHETS prophecies can be evil too.

You'll have to stop understanding this to mean every single word that comes out of a false teachers mouth is wrong.

I never said I "understand" this silliness. Straw man.

What it means is a false teacher is not going to lead you to Christ and the grand entry into the kingdom you are expecting. Somewhere along the way his doctrine will lead you away from Christ. He doesn't even follow Christ himself as signified by his lack of the fruit of the Spirit.

Not this verse. This verses only deals with false prophets, not "false teachers", and that's according to the standard in Greek scholarship, not just my personal interpretation.

For example, I should have no expectation to learn anything about the character of Christ, the thing that counts, from a pastor or church leader who is given over to fits of rage, who is not gentle, or who is controlled by pride.

This is subjective and personal. Suppose this "pastor or church leader" just doesn't like you (or me). How many times have you met a teacher, pastor, boss, or anyone else in authority, who is loved by certain people and despised by others? What this hypothetical person teaches doesn't change from person to person, yet some like him, some don't. You seem to agree that you will rarely find a random person, let alone a pastor or priest, who is TOTALLY prideful, is TOTALLY consumed by rage, or TOTALLY evil. It's a matter of degrees and opinion, in most cases. This should have nothing to do with whether what he teaches is True or not. I'm pretty sure Jesus bothered some first century Jews. It's obvious not everyone loved Him, yet what he taught was still the Truth. Same with Paul.

I have no obligation to respect his authority and his teaching, and in fact, Christ wants me to stay away from such a person and what he teaches.
Fruit is not what you're going to get from such a person.

Do you have any other verses besides Matt. 7 to back this up?

That doesn't mean that, categorically, everything he says is false. It means I'm not going to find wisdom to learn and grow by on their lips and will likely be influenced by misguided doctrines, much like what happened in the early church.

I'm not getting the reference to the "early church". Could you elaborate?

 

[dadof10]

Wayseer said: "I don't follow Tertullian or Origen. I am merely pointing out to you that cannot prove than any patristic Father called for the extermination of the Jews."

I already did with the historical record. They had to adhere to what Rome wanted or face death. It was that simple since during the time frame we're talking about Jews suffered severe persecution from Rome.

"Rome" didn't call for the extermination of the Jews due to the fact they didn't accept Christ or that the Christian Church Fathers wrote they should be killed. The time frame you are talking about (except Augustine) was the time before Christianity was legalized, and these same Christians were being persecuted by the same Roman state.

 

[CalledToServe]

There was no 'Rome' calling the shots at the time of the patristic Fathers.

Funny but history says otherwise. The Roman Empire lasted from 509 BC to 476 AD. Yes, I am including the Roman Republic in this dating. Rome most certainly called the shots in the western, African, Middle Eastern, and Asia Minor world. You are forgetting that the patristic fathers after the Apostles were Roman citizens.

I am challenging what you assert.

Please lets not get snippy, reba

Where is this 'evidence' that synagogues were places where Jews and Gentiles 'mingled'? As I said, there is any amount of evidence from the Jewish Torah that Jews were not allowed to 'mingle' with anyone on grounds that they would become polluted. This was the challenge that Jesus issued almost on every page of the gospels. You cannot seriously argue that Jews and Gentiles 'mingled'. Separation and exclusion was the nature of being Jewish - and still is today.

Denying that there were proselytes of Judaism isn't helping your case. Jews and Gentiles that were proselytes most certainly can mingle together. Proselytes are in the process of being converted.

To convert Gentiles to Judaism did involved ritual cleansing along with circumcision - a point of heated contention between Paul and Peter/James - and a point which eventually lead to the split with Judaism.

You're quite mistaken that this was the split with Judaism. The split didn't occur until Simon bar Kakhba when the Jews were expecting the Christians to support the Israeli revolt against Rome. The Christians refused to join in the revolt since Jesus is the messiah.

It seems to me that your claims are historically unsupported and therefore your theology is likewise unsupported. As a result, your claims that you are lead by Holy Spirit also seems dubious. As far as I am aware the Holy Spirit does not contradict history.

My claims are historically supported and well documented. The Holy Spirit is guiding me to follow the Truth not some Greek philosophers that were the early church fathers.

It was those same Fathers that gave us the Nicene Creed which still stands central to what it means to be a Christians despite your post-modernist ideology.

The Nicene Creed utilized quite a few pagan philosophies that runs counter to what Jesus preached like the trinity. It formalized the Hellenization of Christianity which Paul and the Apostles are recorded in scripture to fighting against in their lifetimes.

Wayseer said: "I don't follow Tertullian or Origen. I am merely pointing out to you that cannot prove than any patristic Father called for the extermination of the Jews."

History disagrees with you since the patristic fathers were by and large Roman citizens. In order to keep with the state's position in regards to Jews they had to side with them.

"Rome" didn't call for the extermination of the Jews due to the fact they didn't accept Christ or that the Christian Church Fathers wrote they should be killed. The time frame you are talking about (except Augustine) was the time before Christianity was legalized, and these same Christians were being persecuted by the same Roman state.

Funny, but according to history the Roman Empire did call for the extermination of the Jews. This is why the final diaspora occurred. You cannot ignore what you do not like.

 

[theLords]

The Nicene Creed utilized quite a few pagan philosophies that runs counter to what Jesus preached like the trinity. It formalized the Hellenization of Christianity which Paul and the Apostles are recorded in scripture to fighting against in their lifetimes.

Who is Jesus Christ according to your Holy Spirit? Is He the Son of God? Is He God? What does your Holy Spirit claim about Jesus Christ?

 

[CalledToServe]

Who is Jesus Christ according to your Holy Spirit? Is He the Son of God? Is He God? What does your Holy Spirit claim about Jesus Christ?

From my ordination dissertation:

I do not believe in the doctrine of Trinity since it was a doctrine first recorded by Tertullian in the 2nd Century AD and confirmed by the Roman Catholic Church's Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. (Macquarrie, 2005) (Volume XIV page 299, 1967) The entirety of the doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies [...] by the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus, the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since. (Trinity, 2008) One does not find in the NT the trinitarian paradox of the coexistence of the Father, Son, and Spirit within a divine unity. (Bassler, 1992)However, here are the scriptures that support my position regarding that God is one and it is God's way of showing Himself to mankind by assuming three manifestations of interaction with them within the New Testament.

God the Father is the same God as the Old Testament and the One who made the original covenant with Abraham. Jesus is the Son of God because He is God manifested in the flesh and was the only person to be born without sin. By being without sin, Jesus could be the only suitable sacrifice for the sins of mankind that would be pleasing to God the Father. God is perfect and without flaw, so when He created Jesus He created a perfect man to fulfill the blood sacrifice requirement of the original covenant between God and Abraham. Thus, Jesus is God manifested in the flesh. After the ascension of Jesus, God sent forth the Holy Spirit to take the place of Jesus and to allow His people to become closer to Him through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

All of the above instances are the specific manifestations of God and does not indicate that they are separate persons. The doctrine of the Trinity fails to mention prior manifestations of God in the Old Testament such as the burning bush, the Pillar of Cloud by day and Fire by night, thunder and lightning that accompanying a fiery flame on Mount Sinai, earthquakes and clouds in Judges, a likeness of man with a body from the loins upwards that is shining and downwards it is fire in Ezekiel. These are specific manifestations of God and do not indicate that these appearances are different persons. Under Judaism, to speak of more than one God/persons of God is considered heretical and punishable by death under the law. Christ spoke of One God because He came to fulfill the law and could not be a heretic under the law when it came to fulfillment. Christ and the Holy Spirit are a very specific manifestations of God within the context of the new covenant in the New Testament just like they are in the Old Testament under the old covenant as specific manifestations of God.

One God​

• "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:" (Mark 12:29)
• "Jesus said to him, 'Away from me, Satan! For it is written: "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only."'" (Matthew 4:10)
• "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." (John 17:3)
• "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5)
• "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." (James 2:19)
• “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)
Son and Father
• "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Mark 13:32)
• "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (John 1:18)
• "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)
• "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." (John 17:20-23)
• "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" (John 20:17)
• "He who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall never go out of it: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God: and I will also write upon him my new name." (Revelation 3:12)
• "But he (Stephen), being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God." (Acts 7:55-56)
• "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." (Colossians 1:15)
• "Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." (1 Cor. 15:24-28)
• "And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write, 'These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God:" (Revelation 3:14)

Holy Spirit​

• "(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)" (John 7:39)
• "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; " (John 14:16)
• "But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26)
• "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:" (John 15:26)
• "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." (John 16:7)
• "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: " (Acts 2:17-18)
• "Then 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 2:38)
• "And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 10:45)
• "For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." (Romans 8:15)
• "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God." (1 Corinthians 2:12)
• "This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (Galatians 3:2)
• "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." (Galatians 3:14)
• "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." (Galatians 4:6)
• "In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise," (Ephesians 1:13)
• "And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us." (1 John 3:24)
• "Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit." (1 John 4:13)
• "He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit." (1 Thessalonians 4:8)

A side note, the word 'persons' denotes a plural entity, specifically a human being, while manifestation is defined as 'outward or perceptible indication; materialization' and 'the materialization of a disembodied spirit'. God is not a human being, but divine and invisible. The Holy Spirit is not a human being, but a divine manifestation of God operating under the new covenant as well as being invisible. The only manifestation of God's that is partially human is Jesus since Jesus was both a man and the divine manifestation of God the Father in the flesh. The scripture cited as the source for the trinity doctrine is Mathew 28:19, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," is a misconstruction because the translation of the word 'name' is singular not the plural 'names'. The original Greek for 'name' is onoma (3686) which means, "the name used for everything the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one's rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds, etc." If the trinity doctrine is to be found in Mathew 28:19 the Greek word that would have been used to indicate the plural of name is phrw/numos (English to Ancient Greek Lexicon, 2011). Under the original Greek, it is clear that we see that there is One God, but called by three different names in Mathew 28:19. This is no different than what the Israelites called God in the Old Testament YHWH, Elohim, El, Shaddai, 'Elyon, Adonai, Ba'all, Zeba'ot, and Shalom. (Names of God, 2011) The different names do not represent different persons as espoused by Tertullian and later followers, but different names for the same person that is God.

A note about Matthew 28:19: There has been recent evidence showing that the phrase 'baptize in the name of Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit' is a later addition to the translations. The earliest manuscripts do not contain this, but they state 'baptize in the Name' or 'baptize in the Name of Yeshua'. Eusebius quotes Matthew 19:28 quite frequently in his earlier letters and he always used 'baptize in the Name'. After he was threatened with excommunication from the church and acquiesced to the Nicene Creed did he quote the changed version of Matthew 28:19 in his writings.

In Colossians 2:9, NIV, it states, "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,". In other versions the translation for the word theos is Godhead according to Strong's Concordance. However, in other Greek lexicons the word theos means God in the singular and the original Greek word for Godhead is autotheotes. (Lexicon, 2011) Dr. Strong's Concordance is a mistranslation of the original Greek word, since modern Greek linguists reject his definition. These Greek linguists are independent of the church and have no position regarding Trinitarianism vs. Oneness. Therefore, this independent source takes precedence over the archaic mistranslation of Dr. Strong.


Volume XIV page 299. (1967). New Catholic Encyclopedia.
Trinity. (2008, 3 31). Encyclopedia Britannica 2004 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD.
Council of Trent. (2011, 7 30). Retrieved from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent
English to Ancient Greek Lexicon. (2011, 8 5). Retrieved from Tufts University: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/definitionlookup?page=3&type=begin&q=name&target=greek
Bassler, J. M. (1992). God in the NT. The Anchor Bible Dictionary, p. 2:1055.
Macquarrie, J. (2005). Trinity. Microsoft Encarta Reference Library.
Lexion, G. t. (2011). Kypros Greek to English Lexicon. Retrieved 7 14, 2011, from Kypros Greek to English Lexicon: http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon

 

[jasoncran]

you know i might ask my jewish family as they dont go to churches as no jew would worship with a christian.orthodox jews dont and well oneness! why am i not suprised.

hard to for the Lord to pray to himself on the earth and well hear from himself audibly to the audience at his own baptism.

 

[CalledToServe]

you know i might ask my jewish family as they dont go to churches as no jew would worship with a christian.orthodox jews dont and well oneness! why am i not suprised.

hard to for the Lord to pray to himself on the earth and well hear from himself audibly to the audience at his own baptism.

By thinking such a thing you are denying Jesus's humanity. Jesus is both man and God at the same time. This is why in the Gospels Jesus is referred to as both the Son of God and Son of Man.

 

[jasoncran]

By thinking such a thing you are denying Jesus's humanity. Jesus is both man and God at the same time. This is why in the Gospels Jesus is referred to as both the Son of God and Son of Man.

thus meaning that the trinity is what the church has always said. if God came to the earth and well why would he pray to himself if there was one person? some other power greater then him had to grant him those requests. hmm that would be the father. the hyperstatic union doesnt deny the father and his power. jesus made himself lower then all the angels. i dont fully understand this but it i what is said.

so the idea of genesis and its account should discarded to? or the idea of five hebrew words for soul? both are found in also pagan myths.