It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Three Jahovah's of the Bible

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
This is my third post. The other two were big flops. Hopefully this will do a little better.

This thread is in response to some of the posts people have made regarding Jahovah, Or if you prefer Yahweh, Lord, God the Father or just plain God.

His name appears many times in the Bible. Here are two examples and what is said about him.
.
In Isaiah 44:6 it says that Jehovah is the first and the last.
In Deuteronomy 6:4 it says that the lord our God is one Lord.

This confirms that he is a deity.

However there's another that has the same characteristics that only Jahovah,Yahweh,Lord, or God has.His name is Jesus. His name also appears many times. here are two examples of what is said about him.

In John 20:28 The apostle Thomas called Jesus his Lord and his God.
In Rev 22:12-13 it says that jesus is the first and last.

This confirms that Jesus is a deity

The third Jahovah, or God would be the Holy Spirit.
Some think of the holy spirit to be a force like that in Star Wars but as you can see this is not so.

Acts 5:3-4 Peter said to Ananias, Why has Satin filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?
You have not lied to men but to God.

Peter would not have lied. He believed in one true God.

This confirms that the Holy Spirit is a deity.

As you can see, Three separate Deities all claiming to be God.

Some would say since there can be only one true God ,All of these Gods would have to be the same. I agree. What do you think?




posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
This is my third post. The other two were big flops. Hopefully this will do a little better.

This thread is in response to some of the posts people have made regarding Jahovah, Or if you prefer Yahweh, Lord, God the Father or just plain God.

His name appears many times in the Bible. Here are two examples and what is said about him.
.
In Isaiah 44:6 it says that Jehovah is the first and the last.
In Deuteronomy 6:4 it says that the lord our God is one Lord.

This confirms that he is a deity.

However there's another that has the same characteristics that only Jahovah,Yahweh,Lord, or God has.His name is Jesus. His name also appears many times. here are two examples of what is said about him.

In John 20:28 The apostle Thomas called Jesus his Lord and his God.
In Rev 22:12-13 it says that jesus is the first and last.

This confirms that Jesus is a deity

The third Jahovah, or God would be the Holy Spirit.
Some think of the holy spirit to be a force like that in Star Wars but as you can see this is not so.

Acts 5:3-4 Peter said to Ananias, Why has Satin filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?
You have not lied to men but to God.

Peter would not have lied. He believed in one true God.

This confirms that the Holy Spirit is a deity.

As you can see, Three separate Deities all claiming to be God.

Some would say since there can be only one true God ,All of these Gods would have to be the same. I agree. What do you think?


"confirms he is A deity"? Would not God be "THE" deity?

Jehovah is a translation. It's not in the Hebrew.

We have one God who has revealed Himself to us in 3 Persons. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. The use of the word "Persons" does not mean individual persons like a brother, a sister and a mother but rather goes to speak about the WHO of God.

To use an analogy, I am not only a husband but a father and also a son and to each, my wife, my child and my mother I reveal myself to them differently yet I am the same one person. Now every analogy fails when pressed too far but it gives an idea of what the Trinity is.

It's not 3 separate gods but rather 1 God who reveals Himself in 3.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by oliveoil
 


This is a rediculous thread. It's as if you're mocking me and my "two Jehovahs" thread. Get real.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 



Calm down. I am not mocking you.There are three Jahovahs. Count them. In your thread I was simply trying to prove this.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by oliveoil]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by TangoVooDoo
 

Someone who gets it !!

It really concerns me how so many so called Christians on this site are not aware of this.

They either believe that Jesus is inferior to God or that Jesus is God but not the same God as in the OT.

Some even believe that Jesus is the Arch angle ( how odd is that ? )

They believe in a monotheistic religion but they cant make up their mind as to what God is the true God and what his true name is.

Do these people comprehend what they read or do they just follow what they were taught to believe.?

I understand that everyone has freedom when it comes to religious beliefs, but when people contort the bible to fit there view, It actually makes me sick.




posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
As you can see, Three separate Deities all claiming to be God.


Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus, the Holy Spirt and God are separate?

The Bible I read declares Jesus says this instead:

"I and the Father are one." - John 10:30

Singular.

"Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert..." - Luke 4:1

Together.

"And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us." - Romans 5:5

From God.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by saint4God
 


The bible also says that husband and wife should be "one" as well, in singular form yet we both know that we don't become a single physical body. We are one in the fact that we have a common goal that we work together to achieve. That's the same with the Father and Son. How can the Father and Son be the same exact person? How can Jesus pray to Himself? How can a dead Jesus resurrect Himself from the grave?



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by TangoVooDoo
 



They believe in a monotheistic religion but they cant make up their mind as to what God is the true God and what his true name is.

Do these people comprehend what they read or do they just follow what they were taught to believe.?

I understand that everyone has freedom when it comes to religious beliefs, but when people contort the bible to fit there view, It actually makes me sick.




Isn't contorting to the bible to fit your view what you're doing? I wasn't raised believing what I do. I was raised a baptist and converted to the "Judeo-Christian Churches of God" which were re-emerged in the 30's by Herbert W. Armstrong. It was 2 years ago I learned of the things I now believe in and it was 1 year ago that I went into full practice of these beliefs, so NO, I was not raised believing what I do. However, I do sense that from you as you're touting the typical protestant agenda on here. The big difference I see from you is that you honor the Sabbath... and props to you for that. Are you 7th Day Baptist or something?

Also, the thing about "monotheism" is a man-made word with a man-made belief. It's true that jews were monotheists because Jehovah was the only God they worshipped. In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus was this "Jehovah" of the OT who came to reveal a new diety known throughout the NT as the "Father". The Jews didn't know the Father... only Jehovah. The Holy Spirit, which is not a separate God, but is the Spirit OF God is what links the Father and Son. It is also what links humans to the Father and Son. So, if what you're saying is right, then there's more than a trinity since humans can recieve the Holy Spirit. There is more than a quadrility or sentilogy because if we have the Holy Spirit, we are part of God too, right? I explained on other threads how the FAMILY of God is more of an acceptable explanation than a three part God.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
the holyspirit is female
god is male
and the "son" is the outcome of "eating" from the tree of "knowlege"

cant be that hard to figure out. if it is you should probobly stop reading the bible....



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Locoman8
 

reply to post by Locoman8
 



Isn't contorting to the bible to fit your view what you're doing?

The only view I have is what the Bible actually says.

In Isaiah 44:6 it says that Jehovah is the first and the last.There can only be one God, wouldn't that make him he?.

In Deuteronomy 6:4 it says that the lord our God is one Lord.( speaking of Jehovah)

Then In John 20:28 The apostle Thomas called Jesus his Lord and his God.
If Jesus is God, than who is Jahovah ?

In Rev 22:12-13 it says that Jesus is the first and last. I thought Jahovah was the first and last. How many firsts and lasts are there?

Acts 5:3-4 Peter said to Ananias, Why has Satin filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?
You have not lied to men but to God.Since Jesus is God and Jehovah is God , Who is the holy spirit Jesus or Jehovah?


Are you 7th Day Baptist or something?


No I am not. I do not follow any religious organization



Also, the thing about "monotheism" is a man-made word with a man-made belief.


You either believe in one God, Like the Bible teaches (mono) or you believe in many Gods which the Bible condemns.(poly) You can't have it both ways. The Bible is very clear on this.



. The Holy Spirit, which is not a separate God, but is the Spirit OF God is what links the Father and Son.


The Holy Ghost speaks (Acts13:2), He can be grieved (Eph 4:30), and he can be lied to(Acts 5:3-4). He is not portrayed in the bible as a impersonal force. He is called God therefore he is God.


I explained on other threads how the FAMILY of God is more of an acceptable explanation than a three part God.


Since there cant be three gods, this three part God is one God acting in three persons.
Sorry but your theory does not support what the Bible is actually saying.



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Locoman8
The bible also says that husband and wife should be "one" as well, in singular form yet we both know that we don't become a single physical body. We are one in the fact that we have a common goal that we work together to achieve. That's the same with the Father and Son. How can the Father and Son be the same exact person? How can Jesus pray to Himself? How can a dead Jesus resurrect Himself from the grave?


GREAT point! I think you his the nail on the head here. Let's mull this one over for a time. We can take our 'not so perfect' human unity and apply that to perfect unity and bingo, we've achieved our answer.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by zerbot565
the holyspirit is female


Where is this written?


Originally posted by zerbot565
god is male


Where is this written?


Originally posted by zerbot565
and the "son" is the outcome of "eating" from the tree of "knowlege"


Where is...well, you get the point.


Originally posted by zerbot565
cant be that hard to figure out. if it is you should probobly stop reading the bible....


If this were true, there'd be no need/use for Mary. Besides, if the Holy Spirit were female, it would not be possible for her to conceive by the Holy Spirit.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by saint4God



GREAT point! I think you his the nail on the head here. Let's mull this one over for a time. We can take our 'not so perfect' human unity and apply that to perfect unity and bingo, we've achieved our answer.



Hi Saint. That's beautiful !!! S&F for you. Nice !!!


[edit on 7-11-2009 by oliveoil]



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Locoman8
reply to post by saint4God
 


The bible also says that husband and wife should be "one" as well, in singular form yet we both know that we don't become a single physical body. We are one in the fact that we have a common goal that we work together to achieve. That's the same with the Father and Son. How can the Father and Son be the same exact person? How can Jesus pray to Himself? How can a dead Jesus resurrect Himself from the grave?


My thoughts exactly, and I counted a few more Gods in the Bible too, such as Sin, a Babylonian Moon God whom Jehovah surely hated. Look here:How many gods are there?
And, the Jesus Christ of the gospels is a patently artificial construct. This Prince of Peace also preaches discord and strife:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." – Matthew 10.34.

A famous saying of the Teacher is this one: "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will have no life in yourselves."
Shall we cannibalize our God? Seems like this is what Christians do, isn't it?
It always amuses me when I see that religions go directly against their own teachings, and not one is completely innocent here. The Christians not only eat their saviour in a cannibalistic ritual, they also raise a false Idol to their Godman, and shun everyone not of them, or their beliefs as "sinners." hen they go about and attempt to "save" everyone, and bring everyone to their version of Heaven, and keep everyone from the clutches of their Satan, Devil, another made up God.

The Genesis story is most certainly taken from the Sumerian texts, and tells of the Annunaki Gods, of the house of El. Whether one wishes to believe it or not, these are the Gods that led Moses and Abraham in their travels, and these are the ones who controlled Earth in those days, and some believe they still do....
SUMERIAN GODS

Related:

The Gods Of The Bible

From The Alpha and the Omega



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 

Originally posted by Locoman8
reply to post by saint4God




My thoughts exactly, and I counted a few more Gods in the Bible too, such as Sin, a Babylonian Moon God whom Jehovah surely hated. Look here:How many gods are there?


Sure there's many gods that people can worship.But there is only one true God according to the Bible



And, the Jesus Christ of the gospels is a patently artificial construct. This Prince of Peace also preaches discord and strife:"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." – Matthew 10.34.

Jesus Christ preaches discord and strife to those who are against him.If you happened to look at the verse right before this one, you would have noticed that.(Matthew 10:33)



A famous saying of the Teacher is this one: "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will have no life in yourselves."Shall we cannibalize our God? Seems like this is what Christians do, isn't it?


If you happen to read the Bible instead of putting your own little twist on it you would know that this was purely symbolic. It was most likely wine. He did this in remembrance of him. How ironic is it that we are all here today talking about it?


It always amuses me when I see that religions go directly against their own teachings, and not one is completely innocent here

Sure all religions organizations and their beliefs differ. No one is perfect.

.

The Christians not only eat their saviour in a cannibalistic ritual, they also raise a false Idol to their Godman, and shun everyone not of them, or their beliefs as "sinners.
"

This is just funny. Obviously you know nothing about Christian values and beliefs.


hen they go about and attempt to "save" everyone, and bring everyone to their version of Heaven, and keep everyone from the clutches of their Satan, Devil, another made up God.


You are absolutely correct ! I'm not speaking for everyone but I just want this world to be a better place for me and my family. Not filled with murder, violence,corruption,hate, greed, lust,ect. as the Bible condemns.And if everyone jumps on the bandwagon maybe this could happen. Whats wrong with that?



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by oliveoil
 




Originally posted by oliveoil in the (Your date with destiny: Meeting the real Jesus) thread
It is the Comma Johanneum which is at the center of debate. With out it, the Trinity does and has always existed. The Trinity doctrine was and is the conclusion.






Originally posted by joecroft in the (Your date with destiny: Meeting the real Jesus) thread
The Codex Sinaiticus includes the oldest copy of the New Testament, which is written in Greek and there is no “Comma Johanneum” contained within it.

Trinity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
However, this Comma Johanneum is not considered to be part of the genuine text.[37] It is commonly found in Latin manuscripts, but is absent from the Greek manuscripts, except for a few late examples, where the passage appears to have been back-translated from the Latin.
Wikipedia link
…………..





Originally posted by oliveoil in the (Your date with destiny: Meeting the real Jesus) thread
In reference to the extract from wiki, Older is not always better, and Wiki is not always the best source for information regarding religion.( I learned that the hard way) However, If you would like to discuss this I would be more than happy to.This is my topic of interest.



Shouldn’t we go with the oldest/original version, as being the most accurate?

The historical evidence, seems pretty clear cut, in that later versions had changes made to them, regarding the “Comma Johanneum”



- JC



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


Shouldn’t we go with the oldest/original version, as being the most accurate?


First lets clear this up a little. You said,

The Codex Sinaiticus includes the oldest copy of the New Testament, which is written in Greek and there is no “Comma Johanneum” contained within it.

The Codex Sinaiticus May contain the oldest COMPLETE New Testament,However it is not the oldest we have, And definitely does not contain the oldest and full text of the Old Testaments as it is dated around 350 A.D.obviously.

Wiki is correct to tell you that it is the oldest complete. However, not 100%. It is missing these verses,

Matthew 12:47, 16:2b-3, 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, 24:35
Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28, 16:9-20
Luke 17:36
John 5:4,7:53-8:11,16:15, 20:5b-6, 21:25
Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29;[16]
Romans 16:24 And many, many phrases
.
Now,
There are over 5300 early Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament in existence.Which means that these were the original copies of copies onto them selfs or from the original Autographs, That were either written by the author themselves like St Paul or from first hand eyewitnesses such as a scribe.

The oldest New Testament manuscript we have is "p 52" (p stands for papyrus) it was copied around 125 A.D. it contains a portion of John 18

Bodmer p66 contained a large portion of John. copied around 200 A.D.

Chest Beatty p46 Pauline Epistles and Hebrews. 100 and 50 years before the Codex Sinaiticus.

Bodmer p75 contains Luke and John 125 years before Codex Sinaiticus

250-300 A.D. Chester Beatty p45 contains the four Gospels and Acts

Although these too are not Complete copies, they do contain portions of most of all of the New Testament and are older that the Codex Sinaiticus respectfully.
.
Around the same time as the Codex Sinaiticus (a little newer) in 350 A.D. we have the Codex Vaticanus

It has all the books except 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon and Revelation.
The Old Testament portion contains all except 1-4 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasseh.

Im gonna stop here because you most likely see where I am going with this.(and my RA is acting up. lol)

See how newer versions of the New Testament contain books that some older versions do not and vise~versa.This means that there is no complete New Testament which contain all the books before
the the date of the Codex Sinaitics, the date of the Codex Sinaitics, and after the Codex Sinaitics.

Thus making the Comma Johanneum irrelevant as to a date in which it "appeared" sinse all these books are inconsistent with each other
.
Now, out of those 5300 early Greek manuscripts ten of these contain the Comma.

#61, #88m, #221m, #429 , #636 ,#918, #2318 , #634, and omega 110.It also appears in the margin of #6359 oh, and I forgot the Codex Wizanburgensis.
There are many more that are confirmed which appear in the margin ,and there are many more in text but are currently unconfirmed as of today.

It may seem like an overwhelming number but consider this, Out of those 5300 manuscripts, there are only 501 that even contain the book of 1 John ( the same book the Comma is in) that is 4799 original Greek manuscripts that do not contain the book of 1 John. And this is only on the Greek side of the fence

Just because the Comma Johannem doesn't "appear"in original Greek manuscripts until later, does not mean it is not authentic and could have very well been in earlier manuscripts as documented and quoted from the early church fathers. But where these are today who knows, most likely destroyed.

Now on the Latin side of the fence, Around 195 A.D. the Greek New Testament was translated into Latin termed Old Latin. It is documented that the early Church Father Tertullian who wrote treatises on theology and used the Old Latin Bible made all kinds of references about the Comma.This remind you was 155 years before the Codex Sinaiticus. Thus the Comma must have been in earlier versions of the Greek manuscripts.I believe its also in a few Old Latin books too, either as a marginal note or in the text itself, I think its In at least 3 (I don't have my references with me but I can look them up for you).



The historical evidence, seems pretty clear cut, in that later versions had changes made to them, regarding the “Comma Johanneum”


This is where it becomes kinda blurry.(and I could be wrong but I dont think I am)My understanding is that on the Latin side Jerome copied it as a marginal note when he compiled the Vaulgate then later it was added to the text because they thought it belonged only after finding earlier books that contained it.Sort of like If we found a new peace of Luke's Gospel today would we include it?Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls for ex. they contained bits and peaces that the Codex Sinaitics does not. Should we add to it?

Point is that no Bible can be 100% complete because it has not all been discovered yet, as we know.

I hope this can help a little in understanding why old is not always best.


You can now tear this apart if you like and reply back if you want. However, Please research what I said to see If I am correct as I am going off the top of my head.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by oliveoil
 


Firstly, let me just say, that was an excellent reply, considering, it was off the top of your head!. I see you are a theology student, so I may be out of my league lol, on this one…




Originally posted by oliveoil

The Codex Sinaiticus May contain the oldest COMPLETE New Testament,However it is not the oldest we have, And definitely does not contain the oldest and full text of the Old Testaments as it is dated around 350 A.D.obviously.

Wiki is correct to tell you that it is the oldest complete. However, not 100%. It is missing these verses,

Matthew 12:47, 16:2b-3, 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, 24:35
Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28, 16:9-20
Luke 17:36
John 5:4,7:53-8:11,16:15, 20:5b-6, 21:25
Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29;[16]
Romans 16:24 And many, many phrases.


I wasn’t aware of the exact missing verses, though, so thanks for pointing them out.

Yes, I was aware of that, that the “Codex Sinaiticus” is only oldest complete, Testament, but it is not the oldest, in terms of individual manuscripts (that are not complete), that exist outside of it.



Originally posted by oliveoil
See how newer versions of the New Testament contain books that some older versions do not and vise~versa.This means that there is no complete New Testament which contain all the books before
the the date of the Codex Sinaitics, the date of the Codex Sinaitics, and after the Codex Sinaitics.


Yes that is true…but…



Originally posted by oliveoil
Thus making the Comma Johanneum irrelevant as to a date in which it "appeared" sinse all these books are inconsistent with each other



…I can’t find any confirmation of this, but I would assume that the “Codex Sinaitics” (written in Greek) would have been scribed from older manuscripts, possibly, for example, from "p 52" or/and “Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri”, the latter document, being written in Greek!

So I don’t think, we can say, that it is completely irrelevant.



I had a look in my NIV bible today, at the verse 1 John 5:8 and the footnote to it, reads as follows:


Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Farther, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth:


(and then in brackets it states)


(not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)


I'm still not sure what to make of that…




Originally posted by oliveoil
Now, out of those 5300 early Greek manuscripts ten of these contain the Comma.

#61, #88m, #221m, #429 , #636 ,#918, #2318 , #634, and omega 110.It also appears in the margin of #6359 oh, and I forgot the Codex Wizanburgensis.
There are many more that are confirmed which appear in the margin ,and there are many more in text but are currently unconfirmed as of today.


I found this excellent web page, which explains what you’re talking about, incase anyone reading this wants too check it out…

Johannine Defense



Originally posted by oliveoil
It may seem like an overwhelming number but consider this, Out of those 5300 manuscripts, there are only 501 that even contain the book of 1 John ( the same book the Comma is in) that is 4799 original Greek manuscripts that do not contain the book of 1 John. And this is only on the Greek side of the fence


Yes, the numbers are very deceptive, when talking about 5300 documents.

Although 10 (pending confirmation of the other 10) Greek documents, containing the comma, from 501 verses of 1 John, is still, a pretty bad percentage.

That’s 491 documents, of the passage 1 John, that do not contain the comma! That’s 98%

That’s gota make you wonder…




Originally posted by oliveoil
Just because the Comma Johannem doesn't "appear"in original Greek manuscripts until later, does not mean it is not authentic and could have very well been in earlier manuscripts as documented and quoted from the early church fathers. But where these are today who knows, most likely destroyed.


Hmm

A defence of the Johannine Comma

Hence, we see that the "oldest-is-best" argument, which really does not have the merit which its proponents suggest anywise, is harder to apply here, since we see that both types have the bulk of their witness in the late manuscripts, and each has a much smaller portion of its witness from the early texts, though admittedly, the Comma-deleted tradition has older extant witness by four centuries.


IMO, I have to say, that the last line seems critical to me. Four centuries, is pretty big!



Originally posted by oliveoil
Now on the Latin side of the fence, Around 195 A.D. the Greek New Testament was translated into Latin termed Old Latin. It is documented that the early Church Father Tertullian who wrote treatises on theology and used the Old Latin Bible made all kinds of references about the Comma.This remind you was 155 years before the Codex Sinaiticus. Thus the Comma must have been in earlier versions of the Greek manuscripts.I believe its also in a few Old Latin books too, either as a marginal note or in the text itself, I think its In at least 3 (I don't have my references with me but I can look them up for you).


We know, that at least 10 Greek New Testament documents, contained the comma, in the 1 John verse, so it is most likely that, that is how it filtered through, into the Latin translations.

There is one theory, that suggests, that scribes, may have accidentally added the comma, from the marginal note and into the text itself.

The Johannine Comma Theory


There are of course, many other texts throughout the bible, that can help to shed some light, on the “Trinity”…




- JC



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
(Deuteronomy 6:4)


the word "one" is "echad," Strong's #259.

from Strong's:


H259
אחד
'echâd
ekh-awd'
A numeral from H258; properly united, that is, one; or (as an ordinal) first: - a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any (-thing), apiece, a certain [dai-] ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.


to further clarify, here is the definition of #H258:


H258
אחד
'âchad
aw-khad'
Perhaps a primitive root; to unify, that is, (figuratively) collect (one’s thoughts): - go one way or other.


to unify - to collect (one's thoughts)

reinforcing the statement of Jesus that he and the Father are one.


And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.
(Zechariah 14:9)



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


I hope that can shut up the trinity believers who keep throwing around the "I and the Father are One" argument to prove one God in multiple bodies. Good post. Star for you.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join