God's Truth
New member
No, BR, they are not three different persons sharing one Spirit.
They are all SPIRIT and the SAME SPIRIT.
The Trinity
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
No, BR, they are not three different persons sharing one Spirit.
They are all SPIRIT and the SAME SPIRIT.
Then you tell me why there is such differentiation between the three in scripture? Why the need to differentiate at all.
Rosenritter
New member
GT I was asking Bright Raven what he believed, and for his comment on James White. It's only fair to let Bright Raven answer for himself, no?
Here is the reference I posted over a year ago asking for clarification. James White, on "A Brief Definition of the Trinity"
http://vintage.aomin.org/trinitydef.html
What I am looking for is whether this does represent Bright Raven, and whether or not he agrees with this definition. It's his board, his subject, and as such I want the definition of this board defined.
Here is the reference I posted over a year ago asking for clarification. James White, on "A Brief Definition of the Trinity"
http://vintage.aomin.org/trinitydef.html
What I am looking for is whether this does represent Bright Raven, and whether or not he agrees with this definition. It's his board, his subject, and as such I want the definition of this board defined.
I wouldn't bust your chops if I didn't like you. So... keep that upper lip stiff and carry on soldier!
- EE
God's Truth
New member
Back off, all can post here. I am not stopping you so stop trying to stop me.
God's Truth
New member
Stop patronizing.
I do not particularly agree with any person but on in what the Trinity is prescribed to be;
To see what I believe go to the follow; http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity
Rosenritter
New member
Last edited:
Rosenritter
New member
OK, I tried reading all of that and it seemed to double back on itself a few times. Rather than cross examine little details, I have a different question. Could there any practical difference in behavior that would likely and/or necessarily result someone that believed as described in the DesiringGood.org Trinity definition, compared to someone that might have a different understanding. Say, for example, someone that believed in a Septernity, a "God in Seven Persons" for example?
Please note that this is a hypothetical question. I picked "seven" because I can't think of anyone here that would apply to, so as not to target anyone.
Rosenritter
New member
I can think of reasons just as valid for Seven as those that say Three.
Revelation 3:1 KJV
(1) And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.
Revelation 4:5 KJV
(5) And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.
Revelation 5:6 KJV
(6) And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
God is a Spirit, those that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth, and apparently God has seven spirits. One per person. See?
Revelation 3:1 KJV
(1) And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.
Revelation 4:5 KJV
(5) And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.
Revelation 5:6 KJV
(6) And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
God is a Spirit, those that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth, and apparently God has seven spirits. One per person. See?
Nang
TOL Subscriber
These do not define the Godhead, but are revelations directed to the visible churches in all the earth, that have been given the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is imagery of the Gospel's heavenly authority and power to save.
(Matthew 16:17-19)
Rosenritter
New member
That is an interesting explanation, but does the Bible ever say "God is Three and is Limited to Three?" It doesn't, and that's what I'm getting at. By the same measure as one declares God is Three, there could just as easily be Seven or Twelve.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
One would have to search for more authorities than Christ named for baptizing disciples. Matthew 20:18-20
The only one I have heard speculation about, is Mary . . about whom I strongly disagree with the RCC.
Lon
Well-known member
The only problem is 'how' to take the passages. We know, from scriptures, that the Spirit is called God. The Son is called God, and the Father is called God. From the seven Spirits, we have no personality told. I'm not sure we've translated 'Spirit' [capital "S"] correctly in Revelation. To me, the candles and churches are God's candles and churches, therefore the 'spirits' of those seven churches are God's, not necessarily entities ,of, God, but rather spirits 'owned by Him' if you follow.
NWL
Active member
When I made the statement "so that I could show you how none of the persons in the trinity", I wasn't bringing the trinity argument back into the picture, I was in effect just saying "neither the Father, Son or HS appeared". Since you believe in the trinity, (although you don't believe it is clearly expressed in scripture) I felt comfortable saying it in this manner.
The scripture do not directly say. Many scholars and people believe its in reference to Solomon.
The verse refers to the "daughters of the King", thus I understand that to mean the King had daughters.
Are you sure you're reading everything I'm writing, because you're raising issues that aren't issues since I've already explained how they aren't issues. Paul assigned the verse to Jesus, that goes without saying. But like I explained in my last post to you, there have been many applications made to actual people in the OT that have a secondary application to Jesus, this though does not negate the initial application.
Look at Hebrews 1:5 where it states regarding Jesus "For example, to which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father”? And again: “I will become his father, and he will become my son”". This is a direct quote that was applied to King David and then Kind Solomon after the death of King David. Does the secondary application to Jesus mean that the initial application to David, and then his Son, become void? No!
Likewise, the application of "God" in reference the King in Psalms 45:6 (not "God" in the almighty sense but rather secondary sense - 1 Cor 8:5) does not get pushed aside because it is applied to Jesus in Hebrews 1:8. As I mentioned in my last post, this would be "putting the cart before the horse".
For the sake of the board I will not cite all the verse to what I just claimed. To see the applications of Hebrews 1:4 applied to King David yourself, compare, Acts 4:24-26 with Davids words at Psalm 2:1-2,7. To see the application made to King Solomon review 2 Samuel 7:12-14; 1Chron 22:10; 28:6.
When I said it I meant it in a general term according to the original languages, not according to the KJV which has been proven to contain spurious verses throughout according to the best available evidence.
You failed with your first sentence "The founding premise is that you wish to say "the bible never calls Jesus God". I've never made such a statement or claim. No JW's or Christian would or should deny that Jesus is referred to as God in scripture, to do so would disregard Isaiah 9:6, Hebrews 1:8, John 20:28, John 1:1b along with a few others. The disagreement I have is the type of God Jesus is, hence out discussion with Hebrews 1:8 regards to Psalms 45:6.
One thing modern scholarly work know without doubt though, is that the evidence suggest the rendering of 1 Tim 3:16 in the KJV compared to the oldest manuscript evidence is plain wrong and spurious.
Invented? Read the book of revelation and you'll see it for yourself. This isn't something I or Jehovah's witnesses just made up buddy. Futhermore to say its an excuse to evade anything is ridiculous, since I made it explicitly clear it only applies when the use of "I [speakers name]" takes place. So I could hardly use to anywhere I wanted.
And this is to your benefit my friend, if it weren't then John in Rev 1:8,9 is the A&O if this rule doesn't exist.
"..I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.." (Rev 1:8,9)
Now you're being plain dishonest Rosenritter. Are you telling me that "the One who is and who was and who is coming" in Rev 1:4 is the SAME person as Jesus christ mentioned in Rev 1:5 even though it CLEARLY differentiates them in the text. Please confirm this is what you're stating so that everyone can see your blatant dismissal of what is clearly stated. The verse again.
(Revelation 1:4, 5) "..John to the seven congregations that are in the province of Asia: May you have undeserved kindness and peace from “the One who is and who was and who is coming,” and from the seven spirits that are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ.."
Once again, please confirm that according to you "Jesus" in v5 (highlighted in the red) is the same person as the “the One who is and who was and who is coming" in v4(highlighted in green) even though they are distinguished from each other.
I already told you that often in the bible that the bible writers often switched from person to person without indication, this is not a made up fact. The book Revelation is not an expectation to this fact. Read Isaiah 10:4-7 and see how the speaker switches between himself and God without warning. Look at Rev 22:11,12 and see how the Angel is speaking in v11 and it switch to the A&O speaking in v12 without warning, this happens throughout the Bible, these were two examples I could think off from the top of my head whilst writing this.
The phrase “is to come” is often taken out of context of what is said in v8 and associated with the word “coming” in v7, thus giving the inference that both are speaking of the same “coming”.
You need to remember throughout the book or revelation Jesus is distinguished from "God". It is “God” who gives the revelation to “Jesus Christ” according to Rev 1:1. “Jesus Christ”, in turn gives the revelation to his servants by means of John, "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John.." (Revelation 1:1)
As already shown, Jesus is further distinguished from "the One who is and who was and who is coming" in v4 and we know the identity of "the One who is and who was and who is coming" is the A&O according to Rev 1:8. Since the "the One who is and who was and who is coming", who is the A&O, is referred to as God in v8, and we know that Jesus, according to Rev 1:1,5 is distinguished from the God mentioned in v1 and the "the One who is and who was and who is coming" in v4,5, then Jesus is NOT the one speaking in Rev 1:8. This is undeniable.
Again, stop ONLY using the KJV. Rev 1:11 is spurious in the KJV. The rendering "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and," is not found in virtually any NT Greek texts. Overwhelming textual evidence shows that John did not originally write the phrase, "saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last". Hence the reason why virtually no Bible other than the KJV has that rendering.
There are only three pre-ninth century Greek MSS which attest to this passage [Rev. 1:11], and all three of them omit the phrase "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last." In addition, many later MSS and versions also omit. Hodges and Farstad's "Majority" text omits, and Robinson and Pierpont's "Byzantine/Majority" text omits. Thus whether one bases one's text largely on pre-ninth century MSS, or whether one bases one's text on the Majority of Greek MSS, either way, this phrase should be omitted.
The number one rule in textual criticism is that the older reading is to be preferred. All manuscripts older than the majority texts have NO mention of the A&O in Rev 1:11. The Majority texts don't even have the rendering on second thought!
Why is it again you see the KJV as the best translation?
As I said, there are only two scriptures in Revelation where it directly has Jesus saying he is the first and the last, namely, Rev 1:17,18 and Rev 2:8. On both of these occasions him being the first and the last is in reference to head death and resurrection, it has nothing to do with the terms "A&O" found in revelation pertaining to God.
I will and already do. In the case with Rev 1:11, the A&O and first and the last in it is spurious, so I can't.
No, but I believe he changed it for good reason, but to suggest that Joshua was the angel simply because Moses changed his name to Joshua(Jesus in the LXX) over the many instances that God referred to angel "going ahead of Israel" and those angels represented actual angels is weak. I simply don't see the name change as viable evidence over all those scriptural occurrences.
When you say Jews I'm assuming you mean the Jews who accepted Jesus as the Son of God? If so you are incorrect, you're incorrect in either aspect. The unbelieving Jews even tried to stone Jesus because he taught he was literally God son and that God was his Father, Jesus himself remember referred to God to the equivalent of "daddy" in English, they very much had a father son relationship, this cannot be denied.
(Mark 14:36) "..And he [Jesus] said: “Abba, Father.>"
(John 10:33-36) "..Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— 36 do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?.."
(John 5:18) "..This is why the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.."
Explain how Jesus is "another" Priest!? What you're saying still makes no sense, If Jesus was simply taking the rains again, becoming Melchizedek, then it makes no sense to say he became "another" priest. You still have not addressed this. if Jesus came back tomorrow I wouldn't say he "became" Jesus again, or became "another" King, since he never stopped being Jesus or a King. Melchizedek, to you, never stopped being a priest. Furthermore, Abraham didn't write Hebrews did Paul did, thus it makes no sense for Paul to write as if he is Abraham for him to state Jesus became "another" priest. You're assuming Paul wrote in a certain way just to fit your belief system, that my friend is twisting scripture, you're in effect saying "even though Paul said A what he really meant was B", where is you're evidence to suggest Paul wrote with this thought in mind.
As already mentioned other translations and scholars understand the language in Hebrews 7 to be conveying the idea that "No one knows anything about Melchizedek's father, mother, or ancestors. No one knows when he was born or when he died." (Hebrews 7:3 GWT).
You told me to take scripture for what it says, right now you're trying to twist an idea int scripture that simply isn't there. Scripture states that Melchizedek was a priest for "forever", according to you that was litreal, scripture states Jesus became "another" priest like Melchizedek. Thus if you take scripture for what it says Jesus is not Melchizedek.
Please answer plainly without an escape clause ("may"), were the angels represented as Jehovah according to the scripture I cited (Genesis 19:24), yay or nay?NWL said:
This is still being established, you yourself just said "They may represent God", or to paraphrase, the angels may be representatives of Jehovah.
You're missing bits out, these are the important bits:
Long ago God spoke to our forefathers by means of the prophets on many occasions and in many ways.
Important words:Long ago, God spoke, forefathers, many occasions in many ways
at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means his Son
Important words:at the end of these days, spoken, by his Son
Remember we're talking about God speaking to the Israelites/Hebrews here, not any other person or nation. It clearly states that God "long ago" spoke to Jewish forefaher, but, at the end of these days, that being in the 1CE, he spoke by means of his Son.
The clause that's most important is "at the end of these days", with the context being that in the 1CE God spoke by means of his Son. Now lets shorten the verse leaving out the parts that don't change the meaning.
"Long ago God spoke to our forefathers by means of the prophets...in these last days has spoken to us by his Son"
It should be clear to anyone, that if God spoke by means of Jesus in the OT that he would be included in "long ago" part of the verse, he's not, because God spoke by means of Jesus in the last days (in other words the 1CE).
Last edited:
Rosenritter
New member
I personally think that those seven spirits are seven specific angels, but how could we know for sure?
My point being that if someone wants to be adamant that "God is only three persons" I would say "How do you know that?" because if one starts defining God thus, scripture doesn't say "God is only three persons" and even if "three persons" was assumed, there isn't an upper limit set for adding on more persons, etc etc etc. Just because you don't know of it now doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
This isn't my difficulty, I am content to say "There is One God, and when he was manifest in the flesh we called him Jesus."
My point being that if someone wants to be adamant that "God is only three persons" I would say "How do you know that?" because if one starts defining God thus, scripture doesn't say "God is only three persons" and even if "three persons" was assumed, there isn't an upper limit set for adding on more persons, etc etc etc. Just because you don't know of it now doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
This isn't my difficulty, I am content to say "There is One God, and when he was manifest in the flesh we called him Jesus."