Yahwah is a Holy Spirit

  • CFN has a new look, using the Eagle as our theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • CFN welcomes a new contributing member!

    Please welcome Beetow to our Christian community.

    Blessings in Christ, and we pray you enjoy being a member here

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

OK, so you don't believe scripture has any value because you have no idea if any of it is true.

Christianity could just be another myth.
That isn't what I said sir. I tried to plainly state that faith/ belief in GOD, is not dependent upon scripture. And one can surely know what is true by what I leads to.
 
And yet, the Didache was written much earlier than that, as early as AD 50, and while it says nothing of Matt 28:19, it does say to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Justin Martyr (c. 100 - c. 165), in First Apology, chapter 61, says, "For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water." While he isn't quoting Matt 28:19, it is in full agreement. You'll also notice how early the doctrine of the Trinity was being believed and written about.

Iranaeus says in Against Heresies (c. 180), book 3, chapter 17, section 1: 'And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them,” Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”'

Tertullian also mentions the triadic formula in On Baptism (AD 200-206), chapter XIII: ' For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: “Go,” He saith, “teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”' In Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 20, he says, 'He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to “go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost.”'

There is plenty of early evidence that the church was using the triadic formula and were commanded to do so, whether from Matt 28:19 or otherwise. That Matt 28:19 was changed is questionable.

Regardless, it’s just one verse out of many, and it isn’t needed to support the doctrine of the Trinity.
Can't you see how unbalanced the weights are in this regard? Basically all opposing reference material was literally destroyed. I wonder why there are more records of mention of three eventually....hmmm. ...let me think....
 
Can't you see how unbalanced the weights are in this regard? Basically all opposing reference material was literally destroyed. I wonder why there are more records of mention of three eventually....hmmm. ...let me think....
That's quite the unwarranted assumption.
 
That's quite the unwarranted assumption.
No sir; it's called history. The opposition to the trinity were literally tried as criminals, one of their main priests poisoned, and all related documents from their sympathizers, destroyed.

Unwarranted is not seeing it for what it is presumably due to preconceived bias.
 
No sir; it's called history. The opposition to the trinity were literally tried as criminals, one of their main priests poisoned, and all related documents from their sympathizers, destroyed.

Unwarranted is not seeing it for what it is presumably due to preconceived bias.
Or, things were just lost, just as the autographs were. I really don't see anyone burning scripture.
 
No sir; it's called history. The opposition to the trinity were literally tried as criminals, one of their main priests poisoned, and all related documents from their sympathizers, destroyed.

Unwarranted is not seeing it for what it is presumably due to preconceived bias.
We are lucky to forefathers like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin who were unitarian deists.
 
There is so much wrong with this.

Just to take 3 points:

1. It quotes from Alexander Hislop's book The Two Babylons as evidence.
Alexander Hislop was a complete charlatan. His claims were thoroughly debunked by Ralph Woodrow, in his book The Babylon Connection?

The reviewer of Woodrow's The Babylon Connection? says:
The Babylon Connection? is a devastating critique of Hislop and his many imitators. Almost from the first page, the shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty, and personal prejudices of Alexander Hislop are quite evident. By the end of the first chapter, none except those suffering from “black helicopters over America” paranoia could possibly view Hislop as anything but a crackpot and a fraud. Woodrow presses on, however, and in painstaking detail demonstrates Hislop’s lack of scholarly integrity. As one who was formerly believed Hislop to be a credible source, Woodrow understands the mindset of those fooled by this belief system and he leaves their delusions in tatters. When it is over, nothing of Hislop’s rhetorical edifice is left standing.
(http://labarum.net/)

Firstly his claims turned out to be bogus. He simply invented information about Babylonia which doesn’t exist. Likewise his diagrams and sketches were just a product of his imagination,
Secondly he made links without any causal evidence, avoiding more realistic causal links. For example he claimed that the Babylonians offered round wafers to their God, the same a Catholic hosts at the Catholic Mass. His Babylonian claim was false, he showed no link as to how the Catholic Church took this from Babylon, and ignored the obvious point that the Matzo bread which Jesus broke at the last supper was flat round unleavened bread. Also manna is described as round (Ex 16:14) and like wafers (Ex16:31)

As Wikipedia says: "tribute to historical inaccuracy and know-nothing religious bigotry" with "shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty" and a "nonsensical thesis".[3][4]

2. Semiramis was not married to Nimrod. That is utter historical nonsense.
In his book Woodrow says he referenced many recognised reference works including:
The Encyclopaedia Americana
The Encyclopaedia Britannica
The Encyclopaedia Judaica
The Encyclopaedia of Religion
The New Catholic Encyclopaedia
The World Book Encyclopedia.
None of the works he consulted make any mention of Nimrod and Semiramis being husband and wife.

Not only that but the information given rules it out.
The Encyclopaedia Americana and The Encyclopaedia Britannica say Semiramis (or Sammu-ramat), as she was called by the Assyrians was the wife of Shamshi-Adad V who reigned 823-811 BC. (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/520556/Sammu-ramat)

Nimrod on the other hand is identified by some scholars as Sargon the Great (who lived about 2600 BC), others with Gilgamesh (who lived about 2200 BC), other with the Egyptian monarch Amenophis III (about 1411 BC), others with the Assyrianor Tukulti-Ninurti I (about 1246 BC).

So Semiramis and Nimrod lived several centuries apart.

3. The examples given of a "trinity" - in Babylon, Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz, in Egypt, their trinity became Osiris, Horus and Isis (top left). In Greece it was Zeus, Apollo and Athena (top right). And in India there was Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.
These are not trinities but triads.- 3 beings whereas the Trinity is one being.

Triad
tri·ad
NOUN
A group or set of three connected people or things.


Trinity
trin·i·ty
NOUN
The Christian one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
 
Last edited:
Or, things were just lost, just as the autographs were. I really don't see anyone burning scripture.
Bibles Burned.

The Council of Tarragona of 1234,
in its second canon, ruled that:

“No one may possess the books of the Old
and New Testaments,
and if anyone possesses
them he must turn them over to the local bishop
within eight days, so that they may be burned…”
– The Church Council of Tarragona 1234 AD;
2nd Cannon – Source : D. Lortsch,
Historie de la Bible en France, 1910, p.14.
 
God is not a man: In Numbers 23:19; "God is not a man..." defies the possibility that Yahshua The Messiah is God. The text states that: Yahwah is not an ("iys/man) that He should lie, nor the son of (Adam/Man")...

Numbers 23:19
God
is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent:

Also Here:

Hosea 11:9
I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I devastate Ephraim again. For I am God, and not a man— the Holy One among you.


Psalm 80:17
Let your hand rest on the man at your right hand, the son of man you have raised up for yourself.


Matthew 22:44
" 'The Lord said (Yahwah) said to my lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." '


Matthew 26:64
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
 
God is not a man: In Numbers 23:19; "God is not a man..." defies the possibility that Yahshua The Messiah is God. The text states that: Yahwah is not an ("iys/man) that He should lie, nor the son of (Adam/Man")...

Numbers 23:19
God
is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent:

Also Here:

Hosea 11:9

I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I devastate Ephraim again. For I am God, and not a man— the Holy One among you.


Psalm 80:17
Let your hand rest on the man at your right hand, the son of man you have raised up for yourself.


Matthew 22:44
" 'The Lord said (Yahwah) said to my lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." '


Matthew 26:64
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
GOD is surely not a man, but we do see a parallel between the Christ and the Spirit of GOD.

It seems that the key distinction would be between spirit and flesh. And even then; o how we must test the spirits.


How's your racism thing going?
 
No one said anyone burned scripture. You seem to be being intentionally overly obtuse.
It’s not I. I was discussing Matt 28:19 with someone else and gave evidence that suggests the ending of that verse was quite possibly how it currently is. You replied to that with: “Can't you see how unbalanced the weights are in this regard? Basically all opposing reference material was literally destroyed.”

So, since I was discussing a particular verse and which ending it has, any opposing reference material would be manuscripts or writings that contained the verse with a different ending than what we currently have. If those were destroyed, then they would be destroying scripture, would they not?
 
Yahwah is a single being whom is a Holy Spirit. Yahwah states that He is the only God and that there is no other.
Yes, God is a single being and he is the only God. Those are both statements of monotheism that no Trinitarian disagrees with.

The more I debate non-Trinitarians, the more it becomes clear that they haven’t either actually studied the doctrine or haven’t tried to understand it. It makes me wonder then why they don’t believe it.

If God was a multiple person, then that would have been stated.
It is stated. One has to first look at all the verses in the Bible that God reveals about himself and make sense of it. The Trinity is what emerges.

Holy Spirit is one of God's many titles.
He is a distinct person from the Father and the Son. That much is clear.
 
Yes, God is a single being and he is the only God. Those are both statements of monotheism that no Trinitarian disagrees with.

The more I debate non-Trinitarians, the more it becomes clear that they haven’t either actually studied the doctrine or haven’t tried to understand it. It makes me wonder then why they don’t believe it.


It is stated. One has to first look at all the verses in the Bible that God reveals about himself and make sense of it. The Trinity is what emerges.


He is a distinct person from the Father and the Son. That much is clear.
The word Trinity is not in the bible. God states that there is no other person whom is God. Single person who is a single God and not a multiple.

John1:1.
In English we have:
In the beginning was The Word, and The Word was with (the only) Divine Eternal, and divine was The Word.

Why do translators drop off the definite article TON (the only) before Divine Eternal?
 
Trinity fact.
When a council of bishops convened by the Emperor Constantine in (280–337 AD) he decreed that the Father and Son were homoousios (same substance or essence.)

Christian trinity theology of that creed is rooted in the terminology of Augustine's, "On the Trinity." (published about 415 AD) It was about this time when it was determined that the Holy Spirit is a third person.