Yes .. the Holy Spirit of the 'Trinity' is in Christian Scripture

Akragon
reply to post by DISRAELI

 

I agree we are drifting a bit...

Though if that is the case would it not mean the "Holy spirit" is with us Always from that point on?

Under the assumption that the holy spirit is the 7 fold spirit and chakra operating on higher level getting both chi thru the crown and information thru the third eye.

Do Jesus not lose the holy spirit if he has to fall again and be reborn for a mission? From my point of view god seem to have made the rule that any soul who falls even if he/she is meant to fall have to prove himself/herself again. Either thru a amagydala fear overload or intense meditation to get the crown and third eye working.

LittleByLittle

Akragon
reply to post by DISRAELI

 

I agree we are drifting a bit...

Though if that is the case would it not mean the "Holy spirit" is with us Always from that point on?

Do that not depend on if he has to fall again and be reborn for a mission? God seem to have made the rule that any soul who falls even if he/she is meant to fall have to prove himself/herself again.

I don't personally agree with the whole concept of "the fall"... This OT theme which tells the reader he/she is a pathetic piece of trash not worthy of their own life..

We are not "fallen"... We are born into this world... given the body we deserve... which is a vessel of the spirit

And of one reads Paul's work... nothing we can do can be deemed worthy in Gods eyes...

Fortunately Jesus said all men are judged on what they do in life...

but we should try to stay on topic here... I've already caused this thread to stray into trinity doctrine

Akragon

LittleByLittle

Akragon
reply to post by DISRAELI

 

I agree we are drifting a bit...

Though if that is the case would it not mean the "Holy spirit" is with us Always from that point on?

Do that not depend on if he has to fall again and be reborn for a mission? God seem to have made the rule that any soul who falls even if he/she is meant to fall have to prove himself/herself again.

I don't personally agree with the whole concept of "the fall"... This OT theme which tells the reader he/she is a pathetic piece of trash not worthy of their own life..

We are not "fallen"... We are born into this world... given the body we deserve... which is a vessel of the spirit

And of one reads Paul's work... nothing we can do can be deemed worthy in Gods eyes...

Fortunately Jesus said all men are judged on what they do in life...

From my point of view. Some are fallen and are learning not to be, Some are on a mission (and do not even know it themselves), Some just wanted to have fun. . Can you check my revious post again because I edited it a bit.

LittleByLittle

Akragon

LittleByLittle

Akragon
reply to post by DISRAELI

 

I agree we are drifting a bit...

Though if that is the case would it not mean the "Holy spirit" is with us Always from that point on?

Do that not depend on if he has to fall again and be reborn for a mission? God seem to have made the rule that any soul who falls even if he/she is meant to fall have to prove himself/herself again.

I don't personally agree with the whole concept of "the fall"... This OT theme which tells the reader he/she is a pathetic piece of trash not worthy of their own life..

We are not "fallen"... We are born into this world... given the body we deserve... which is a vessel of the spirit

And of one reads Paul's work... nothing we can do can be deemed worthy in Gods eyes...

Fortunately Jesus said all men are judged on what they do in life...

From my point of view. Some are fallen and are learning not to be, Some are on a mission (and do not even know it themselves), Some just wanted to have fun.

. Can you check my revious post again because I edited it a bit.

edit on 29-11-2013 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)

I did actually

This I agree with... More of the idea that there are many souls all of different levels of learning in our world...

There are some that come to help... some that are here to still learn the basics... which are the same as those who refuse to learn and continuously create disturbances in the world...

We all walk our own path though... Theres many paths up the mountain... some choose the easy path, others prefer the harder one... and then there are those that carve their own... but all will get to the top eventually

reply to post by FlyersFan

Take special note of 1 John that is in bold letters.
One God. Three Aspects ... Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

I assume you know that the contrary view is held by many.

The Encyclopædia Britannica observes: Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies.

Isaac Newton in his study of the trinity doctrine argues that the 1 John passage you refer to is a corruption (An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture).

reply to post by Akragon

Even if that is the case he still lived over 100 years after the fact…

Yes, but he lived prior to the production of any of the earliest copies of the New Testament that still exist. There is a belief on some scholar's parts that the passage in 1 John may have been taken out at some point, and later restored.

Here is a long and technical defense of the Johannine Comma. If you haven't spent much time studying textual criticism, it's probably not much help, but the guy does present a fairly credible case.

reply to post by adjensen


Actually I've read that exact page a few times... Seems to me that the writer of that "defence" does little more then attack the credibility of Scholars who were against the comma being an original part of the NT

And even still he can only date the earliest "possibility" that it was used to within 100 years as I've already stated

Eventually in the later part of the article he goes so far as to state that the comma wasn't used as a defence in the controversies because it would have give the opposite side more weight to their arguments... which is just nonsense

IF the comma existed at the time it would have been used in the controversies... and it was not apparently

As such, the Johannine Comma would not have been useful in dealing with these heretics. Indeed, saying that "these three are one", is something to which the Sabellians would have agreed, though for a different reason than orthodox Trinitarians. Sabellians would just as willingly have cited the Comma to prove their position that the three were one in person, not in essence. As such, there is no reason why any early patristic writer would have been inclined to find the Comma particularly useful against this particular heresy.

reply to post by Akragon


You read it and you missed stuff like this?

Even more to the point is the testimony of Jerome on this matter. Jerome was commissioned by Damasus, the bishop of Rome, to prepare a standard Latin translation of the Holy Scriptures to replace the former Latin translations which had grown in multiplicity by the late 4th century. Jerome did this, utilizing the Greek as his source for revision of the Latin New Testament for his Vulgate. At one point in his work, Jerome noted that the trinitarian reading of I John 5:7 was being removed from Greek manuscripts which he had come across, a point which he specifically mentions. Speaking of the testimony of these verses he writes,

"Just as these are properly understood and so translated faithfully by interpreters into Latin without leaving ambiguity for the readers nor [allowing] the variety of genres to conflict, especially in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is placed in the first letter of John, where much error has occurred at the hands of unfaithful translators contrary to the truth of faith, who have kept just the three words water, blood and spirit in this edition omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested."

Thus, we see that Jerome specifically mentioned that this verse was being removed from Greek manuscripts in his day. Logically, we can suppose that for him to recognize the absence of this verse as an omission from the Greek texts, he must have been aware of Greek manuscripts which contained the Comma in the time of his preparation of the Vulgate for the general epistles (395-400 AD), a time much earlier than is suggested by the dating of currently known Comma-containing Greek mss. (Source)

There you have the testimony of St. Jerome that the text was being removed from some translations, written before the earliest surviving copy of the New Testament that is known.

reply to post by adjensen


Of course I didn't miss that... we're still talking about a person from the 4th century...

Perhaps the passage was being removed because it didn't belong there in the first place... he was obviously looking at copies of copy's of the original which was supposedly written somewhere between 90-120AD

That doesn't explain the absence of that passage in the originals... and relies on nothing but speculation from a man 200 years removed from the source...

It seems to me that the Trinitarian side would do anything and or say anything to cover up the fact they fabricated the whole idea... and when it comes down to it, like I said on the first page... None of the apostles knew of a trinity... Jesus didn't know about the trinity... they all supported ONE God

not the three in one, or three equals one triune God which came about much later

reply to post by FlyersFan


Sorry for the confusion brother. That msg wasn't directed at anyone in particular but something I wanted to throw out here just in case there are those reading who still believe that Christianity invented the doctrine.

reply to post by Akragon

That doesn't explain the absence of that passage in the originals... and relies on nothing but speculation from a man 200 years removed from the source…

What "originals"? The earliest known surviving copy of the New Testament is from Jerome's time. We don't have "the originals", and the best testimony as to what those texts actually consisted of are the writings of people who were around at that time.

That's the problem… trying to figure out if something was in the Bible, based on the writings of people who knew if it was or if it wasn't, but obviously didn't know that people 2,000 years later would want to know what the text actually said.

For me, there is Tertullian writing something similar enough to be a quote in the Second Century, combined with St. Jerome saying that it was being removed in the Fourth Century. Not enough to convict someone in court, but it sways me in that direction.

adjensen
reply to post by Akragon

 

That doesn't explain the absence of that passage in the originals... and relies on nothing but speculation from a man 200 years removed from the source…

What "originals"? The earliest known surviving copy of the New Testament is from Jerome's time. We don't have "the originals", and the best testimony as to what those texts actually consisted of are the writings of people who were around at that time.

That's the problem… trying to figure out if something was in the Bible, based on the writings of people who knew if it was or if it wasn't, but obviously didn't know that people 2,000 years later would want to know what the text actually said.

For me, there is Tertullian writing something similar enough to be a quote in the Second Century, combined with St. Jerome saying that it was being removed in the Fourth Century. Not enough to convict someone in court, but it sways me in that direction.

I think its safe to assume in the years following when the "original" texts were written... they likely had whatever was the originals... written in greek then copied over and over...

So when Jerome was doing his translation from greek to latin the trinity was already settled even before he was born... At that time there were likely still a lot of people who disagreed with the trinity... chances are Jerome was actually talking about those people who were trying to remove what had already been added to copies of the originals due to these Trinitarian controversies...

One could say... "well we should just trust the church" but these are the same people who labeled exponents of ONE God as heretics... and banished them or worse (Likely worse in most cases) so can we just blindly trust those that would murder other members of the church just because of opposing beliefs? Not in my opinion... but that's just me

Now as far as trying to figure out what was in the bible or whatever books became the bible at that time... that is pretty easy... as I've been saying this whole time... Jesus said there is ONE God... the apostles didn't teach a triune God... even Paul didn't use the Trinitarian formula "Father, son, and holy spirit"

IF one takes away all the other writing in the new testament and relies only on the gospels... there is no trinity because the trinity and the creed that came from the controversies say specifically "three persons, all equal" which has no support what so ever from Jesus...

Even in a court case... they would rely on the closest witnesses which were the writers of the gospels who do not support a triune three equal part God

in any case... none of this makes a lick of difference to me... perhaps if I were Christian it would, but I only rely on the gospels and 1 john isn't included in that list

reply to post by Akragon

Jesus said there is ONE God

As an orthodox Christian, I agree with that -- there is ONE God.

The Trinity has nothing to do with how many gods there are. It is about explaining why the earliest Christians worshiped Jesus as God, even though he was clearly a different entity from the one he referred to as his Father, and the one referred to as the Spirit.

Again, anyone who reads Matthew's description of the baptism of Jesus who doesn't see that there are three separate persons of God is either brainwashed or an idiot.

And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:16-17 NRSV)

You've got Jesus, obviously; you've got a "voice from Heaven", who refers to Jesus as his Son; and you've got "the Sprit of God".

As I suggested to another member, if you try to make this "Oneness", it becomes:

And when Jesus had been baptized, just as Jesus came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to Jesus and Jesus saw Jesus descending like a dove and alighting on Jesus. And a Jesus said, “This is my Son, Jesus, with whom I, Jesus, am well pleased.”

reply to post by adjensen


LOL... I see your point. Good old trueJew.... love your debates with him, they're always good for a laugh!

Though this is rather off topic, and tends to lead down the road of "Jesus was/wasn't God" debate

Perhaps if that bloody creed wasn't in the way I would be more inclined to believe in a trinity... IF it said something like the Father is the greatest of the Godhead and secondly comes the other two... but it specifically says they're "equal" which is a direct contradiction to what Jesus said

The problem lies in where the anti-Trinitarians stood on the subject... In that Jesus was a creation of the Father, and not co eternal with him... which I personally agree with...

Though on the other hand there is also the issue with Jesus saying he was the son of God, which is blasphemy to the Judaic faith... so the Trinitarians were faced with a problem... That being, calling their messiah a blasphemer

Personally I think that is why they considered him God along with the miracles of course... They couldn't come to terms with their saviour being called a blasphemer... so they called him God to avoid that issue...

just my opinion of course

reply to post by Akragon


The conflict comes from Salvation Theology. Dig a little in there, specifically St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, and I think you'll see it.

If nothing else, your survey of the early church will help you to foment arguments against the "Johnnie Come Lately" theology of your girlfriend's Calvinism, though they will be arguments that she may appreciate in the long run

Nobody denies that the Holy Spirit is in the scripture. The controversy is that the idea of a triune God comprising of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. There is not a single verse that unambiguosly teaches that God is a trinity. God never said it, none of the prophets said it and Jesus never said it. Instead it is repeatedly taught that God is One.

leostokes
The Encyclopædia Britannica observes:

That's funny. Going to the encyclopaedia for theology lessons.
The quotes direct from scripture say very differently. The Holy Trinity is there.

The Trinity is ONE GOD ... three aspects of the ONE GOD.
So anyone who says the Trinity is polytheism is just wrong.

The apostles who learned straight from Jesus Himself said there is a Holy Trinity.
One God ... three aspects. Jesus is Mercy Incarnate. The Holy Spirit is the sanctifier.
Jesus and the Holy Spirit are part of the ONE GOD.

Scripture tells us that Jesus taught more than what is quoted in scripture.
The Apostles learned straight from Jesus.
Therefore, if in their gospels they teach that there is a Trinity ... then they got that from Jesus.

It is the Spirit which testifieth that Christ is the truth. For there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the WOrd, and the Holy Spirit. And these three are one. 1 John 5:7

I listed many of the quotes from the New Testament showing that the apostles did indeed
believe in One God who manifests as a Holy Trinity. They had to get that teaching from Jesus.

FlyersFan
The Trinity is ONE GOD ... three aspects of the ONE GOD.
So anyone who says the Trinity is polytheism is just wrong.

The apostles who learned straight from Jesus Himself said there is a Holy Trinity.
One God ... three aspects. Jesus is Mercy Incarnate. The Holy Spirit is the sanctifier.
Jesus and the Holy Spirit are part of the ONE GOD.

Scripture tells us that Jesus taught more than what is quoted in scripture.
The Apostles learned straight from Jesus.
Therefore, if in their gospels they teach that there is a Trinity ... then they got that from Jesus.

It is the Spirit which testifieth that Christ is the truth. For there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the WOrd, and the Holy Spirit. And these three are one. 1 John 5:7

I listed many of the quotes from the New Testament showing that the apostles did indeed
believe in One God who manifests as a Holy Trinity. They had to get that teaching from Jesus.

From my way of thinking you are personifying processes of god if we are talking about the holy spirit/christ consciousness/spiritual energy flow thru the body. It is a tool god use to make a connection between god and the person who needs support. It really depends on how you view the boundaries of the self. Is the telephone I use to contact my friends part of me or do I see it as an external object.

John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Why do I get the feeling that there is meaning/translations errors here that make us miss the point totally of the meaning. Like that Jehovah really means "the existing one".

Would be nice to be seeing the recording of what really happened and what he really said. Whatever I will look at it when I leave this body. On this side we are supposed to not be 100% sure of what we know.

I recommen you watch this video about the trinity, as it is very confusing and can easily be refuted in the bible.