Let's Talk About Hell (4)

[Fulltruthministry]

Are you prepared to eat your words and dine with Christ?

Revelation 3:18-20 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. (19) As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent. (20) Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.

Im always prepared to grow in Christ; and to humble myself if I am wrong; or if i misunderstand something due to a lack of knowledge; rather I misunderstand Gods Children or Gods Word; i trust the Lord to make all things work out for the good:
And yes; thats a blessed passage of Scripture: Blessings

 

[Fulltruthministry]

The holy spirit is God,

The fact that the Holy Spirit is God is clearly seen in many Scriptures, including Acts 5:3-4. In this verse Peter confronts Ananias as to why he lied to the Holy Spirit and tells him that he had “not lied to men but to God.” It is a clear declaration that lying to the Holy Spirit is lying to God.

Besides the Holy spirit creates: (Gen. 1:2; Job 33:4; Ps. 104:30) and expelling demons (Matt. 12:28).

Life: The Holy Spirit "lives" (Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 3:16).

Intelligence: The Spirit "knows" (1 Cor. 2:11). Rom. 8:27 refers to "the mind of the Spirit." This mind is able to make judgments — a decision "seemed good" to the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28). These verses imply a distinct intelligence.

Will: 1 Cor. 12:11 says that the Spirit "determines" decisions, showing that the Spirit has a will. The Greek word means "he or it determines." Although the Greek word does not specify the subject of the verb, the most likely subject in the context is the Spirit. To find a different subject, one would have to backtrack through five verses and six mentions of the Spirit. But this grammatical leapfrogging is not necessary. Since we know from other verses that the Spirit has mind and knowledge and judgment, there is no reason to reject the conclusion in 1 Cor. 12:11 that the Spirit also has will.

I AGREE BROTHER:
The HOlY SPIRIT is GOD:
Being that the FATHER ROSE THE SON WITH HIS OWN SPIRIT OF POWER:
AND I thought about your post: I FULLY AGREE:
I think God may have even given you revelation the way you posted the passage about JESUS saying that I will raise this temple:
I DID say could that be the FATHER speaking through the SON: Yet and still JESUS SAID it so HIM and the FATHER ARE ONE: I LOVE IT

And since its the Holy Spirit that rose Jesus to life; and since that Spirit came from the FATHER: THEN Jesus was rose with HIMSELF AND THE FATHER: ONE SPIRIT

THE HOLY SPIRIT
You are right in my Spirit; and you helped me to be more sensitive with this: My post didnt make any since to me; I should have been giving God glory with you: BUT HEY
ONLY HUMAN
BUT
We dont have to be; we can live in the divine light of JESUS Christ through the POWER of the HOLY SPIRIT: AMEN

I only wanted to say that WHAT ABOUT US
I dont think God can be labeled as a trinity when it comes to the HOLY SPIRIT because who can count those that live in the HOLY SPIRIT:
WE are made children in that power:
And what JESUS did on the cross has always been made manifest in GOD: THUS SO HAVE WE:
SO WE are in the HOLY SPIRIT:
Through the power of the righteous JESUS that puts us in HIS NAME:
IN THE NAME
of JESUS
Thus the HOLY SPIRIT IS THE POWER THAT PUTS US IN THAT NAME:

Thus we pray in the NAME of the FATHER SON AND HOLY SPIRIT
ONE GOD: And yet we come to HIM THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT:
SO ITS ALL OF US
NOT THREE
EVERYONE
Jesus said let them know that YOU love them as YOU have loved ME:
SO I think things thats NOT in Gods WORD; yet still being used to support Gods Word; can be twisted and used for evil teachings: AND it excludes US:
BUT I Know you are not being evil:
You are speaking power and showing that you are a TRUE Christian: I give God Glory for that:
AND YES:
Jesus was God before HE rose to life:
GOD IN THE FLESH
THE FATHER AND THE SON
And the Father pulled back when Jesus died:
YET THE FATHER ROSE THE SON
So the HOLY SPIRIT IS ALSO THE FATHER AND THE SON
ONE
GODS POWER is beautiful:
A True lover of Christ can feel the unity of God more then we can explain it:
Its like the Father exults the SON: Yet the SON still gives all glory to the FATHER WILL
That was most important to JESUS
LET NOT MY WILL BE DONE
Because JESUS was never created:
IF HE WAS THEN GOD WAS CREATED
BUT GOD WASNT
NOR WAS JESUS
JESUS IS GODS WILL

NOW SAY A WORD EVERYONE
AND ASK WHERE DID THE PASSION TO SPEAK COME FROM
Was your will created at the moment of speech:
NOR WAS the eternal GOD
JESUS WAS JUST WAITING IN THE FATHER
Waiting for GOD TO SPEAK AND CREATE THROUGH HIM

SO lovely

What Jesus did on the cross has already been done in GOD ETERNALLY
The Father took the SON in HIMSELF even before the WORD was risen the FIRST SON THROUH the suffering of HIS FLESH
MAKING US SONS

IN THE HOLY SPIRIT

SO SIMPLE AND YET SO POWERFUL
GLORY TO GOD
CHILDREN OF THE KING
SONS OF GOD THROUGH JESUS CHRIST MY LORD AND SAVIOR
I LOVE YOU GOD
BIG SMILE

 

[Fulltruthministry]

I AGREE BROTHER:
The HOlY SPIRIT is GOD:
Being that the FATHER ROSE THE SON WITH HIS OWN SPIRIT OF POWER:
AND I thought about your post: I FULLY AGREE:
I think God may have even given you revelation the way you posted the passage about JESUS saying that I will raise this temple:
I DID say could that be the FATHER speaking through the SON: Yet and still JESUS SAID it so HIM and the FATHER ARE ONE: I LOVE IT

And since its the Holy Spirit that rose Jesus to life; and since that Spirit came from the FATHER: THEN Jesus was rose with HIMSELF AND THE FATHER: ONE SPIRIT

THE HOLY SPIRIT
You are right in my Spirit; and you helped me to be more sensitive with this: My post didnt make any since to me; I should have been giving God glory with you: BUT HEY
ONLY HUMAN
BUT
We dont have to be; we can live in the divine light of JESUS Christ through the POWER of the HOLY SPIRIT: AMEN

I only wanted to say that WHAT ABOUT US
I dont think God can be labeled as a trinity when it comes to the HOLY SPIRIT because who can count those that live in the HOLY SPIRIT:
WE are made children in that power:
And what JESUS did on the cross has always been made manifest in GOD: THUS SO HAVE WE:
SO WE are in the HOLY SPIRIT:
Through the power of the righteous JESUS that puts us in HIS NAME:
IN THE NAME
of JESUS
Thus the HOLY SPIRIT IS THE POWER THAT PUTS US IN THAT NAME:

Thus we pray in the NAME of the FATHER SON AND HOLY SPIRIT
ONE GOD: And yet we come to HIM THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT:
SO ITS ALL OF US
NOT THREE
EVERYONE
Jesus said let them know that YOU love them as YOU have loved ME:
SO I think things thats NOT in Gods WORD; yet still being used to support Gods Word; can be twisted and used for evil teachings: AND it excludes US:
BUT I Know you are not being evil:
You are speaking power and showing that you are a TRUE Christian: I give God Glory for that:
AND YES:
Jesus was God before HE rose to life:
GOD IN THE FLESH
THE FATHER AND THE SON
And the Father pulled back when Jesus died:
YET THE FATHER ROSE THE SON
So the HOLY SPIRIT IS ALSO THE FATHER AND THE SON
ONE
GODS POWER is beautiful:
A True lover of Christ can feel the unity of God more then we can explain it:
Its like the Father exults the SON: Yet the SON still gives all glory to the FATHER WILL
That was most important to JESUS
LET NOT MY WILL BE DONE
Because JESUS was never created:
IF HE WAS THEN GOD WAS CREATED
BUT GOD WASNT
NOR WAS JESUS
JESUS IS GODS WILL

NOW SAY A WORD EVERYONE
AND ASK WHERE DID THE PASSION TO SPEAK COME FROM
Was your will created at the moment of speech:
NOR WAS the eternal GOD
JESUS WAS JUST WAITING IN THE FATHER
Waiting for GOD TO SPEAK AND CREATE THROUGH HIM

SO lovely

What Jesus did on the cross has already been done in GOD ETERNALLY
The Father took the SON in HIMSELF even before the WORD was risen the FIRST SON THROUH the suffering of HIS FLESH
MAKING US SONS

IN THE HOLY SPIRIT

SO SIMPLE AND YET SO POWERFUL
GLORY TO GOD
CHILDREN OF THE KING
SONS OF GOD THROUGH JESUS CHRIST MY LORD AND SAVIOR
I LOVE YOU GOD
BIG SMILE

I challenge anyone to say a word...............WITHOUT BREATHING

Jesus embodies the image of Gods Word in how we EVEN SPEAK
Being that the breath of God is the righteousness within THAT WORD
Let there be light: AND SO IT WAS SO:
OBEDIENCE in the WORD
BLEW into adam
HE FELL AWAY
God sent that WORD BACK TO RESTORE THE LIGHT OF MAN

In Him was life; and that life WAS the LIGHT OF MEN: RESTORATION
THE SAME WORD
SAME JESUS
IN THE BEGINING:
JESUS SAID
Father return me to the glory i had in thee before the WORLD WAS

IM going to do a special post about JESUS and us being in the IMAGE OF GOD and HIS WORD:
It will be an account on creation; Glory to God
I will make a new thread;
bless you all; and bless you brother grady11 Your love for JESUS is an amazing blessing: Glory to God


GLORY

 

[he-man]

I AGREE BROTHER:
The HOlY SPIRIT is GOD:still JESUS SAID it so HIM and the FATHER ARE ONE: I LOVE IT And since its the Holy Spirit that rose Jesus to life; and since that Spirit came from the FATHER: THEN Jesus was rose with HIMSELF AND THE FATHER: ONE SPIRIT

ONLY Because God gave him that ability!
Joh 5:26For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath He given to the Son to have life in himself;

AND YES:

Jesus was God before HE rose to life:
GOD IN THE FLESH

De 4:35 Unto you it was revealed, that you might understand since Jehovah, He is God; there is none else besides Him.

Is 43:10 You are My witness, said GOD, and servant who I have chosen: so that you may know and believe Me, to understand that I am He: before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there exist1 after Me.

11 I am GOD; and without2 me there is no saviour.

12 I have informed, and have saved, and I have delivered, when there is no stranger among you: therefore you are my witness, I am Jehovah GOD.

13 Yea, before the day was I am He; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?

14 Thus said Jehovah, your saviour, the Holy One of Israel; For your sake I have sent and worn out, and have brought down all their nobles, to be ashamed and the Chaldeans, whose song of prayer is in the ships.

15 I am GOD, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King.

Is 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God besides me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

1* Hebrew יהיה to be, exist, be present; happen, occur, take place: become, turn into

2* Hebrew מבלעדי without

1Jn 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Joh 15:1I am the true vine, and my Father is the farmer.

 

[Fulltruthministry]

ONLY Because God gave him that ability!
Joh 5:26For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath He given to the Son to have life in himself;

De 4:35 Unto you it was revealed, that you might understand since Jehovah, He is God; there is none else besides Him.

Is 43:10 You are My witness, said GOD, and servant who I have chosen: so that you may know and believe Me, to understand that I am He: before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there exist1 after Me.

11 I am GOD; and without2 me there is no saviour.

12 I have informed, and have saved, and I have delivered, when there is no stranger among you: therefore you are my witness, I am Jehovah GOD.

13 Yea, before the day was I am He; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?

14 Thus said Jehovah, your saviour, the Holy One of Israel; For your sake I have sent and worn out, and have brought down all their nobles, to be ashamed and the Chaldeans, whose song of prayer is in the ships.

15 I am GOD, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King.

Is 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God besides me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

1* Hebrew יהיה to be, exist, be present; happen, occur, take place: become, turn into

2* Hebrew מבלעדי without

1Jn 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Joh 15:1I am the true vine, and my Father is the farmer.

That passage you quoted:
God gave JESUS LIFE
TRUE'
Yet if the Son was given something; then are we saying that the Son was created in what was given; or is God saying that He gives the SON the AUTHORITY on earth to give life:
WHY
Because the devils kingdom is destroyed in the Son:
Before this is said; Jesus says the Father gives life to the dead;
So are we going to say that Jesus was dead before He was given that life; thus you are saying that He came dead: Thats how the enemy works; thought you should see what you are really saying
back to message:
With respect; I think you show EVEN MORE that the SON ALWAYS WAS:
Because if God gives the Son life: Then the SON ALWAYS WAS
REALLY
If the Father is the Head; then YES: Reason would show that the Son comes from the Father;
Doesnt mean that He was created:
doesnt mean that what God gave JESUS ISNT ETERNAL:


I see the division we have;
You are saying that Jesus wasnt risen to the highest place UNTIL He rose to life: I AGREE for the most part:
He was risen to the highest place when He rose to life;
AND YES GOD DID GIVE HIM LIFE IN THAT MOMENT:
BUT
What you are not considering is that the SON CAME WITH LIFE
What was given ALWAYS WAS
Does not the Word say; that the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world:
So what Jesus did was so great; and so pressed to come to pass: That it reveals who God is; ITS THE BEST LOVE THE HIGHEST LOVE
IT shows that God isnt bound by ANYTHING
HE PROVES THE SON TO BE ETERNAL according to what we see to be a MOST HIGH WILL
To take that which is to come and make it always:
THATS JESUS

SO we are apart on this issue:
I dont think you are recieving a truth that says what happened on the cross has been established with no begining: JUST IN THE FATHER
In the beging was the word and the word was with GOD:
THAT WORD IS THE SON
Thus
NOT ONLY DID JESUS RISE TO BE THE FIRST AND ONLY BEGOTTEN
HE ALSO CAME AS THE SON
HE IS THE ONLY THING THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN OUT AND SEALED IN SOMETHING THAT IS NOT BOUND THE RULES OF CREATION:
Let me ask you:
If JESUS IS THE AUTHOR and finisher of our faith:
Is He not also the author of creation:
And if this is so; then how can that which authors creation; standing as its head; ever be considered to be created:
JESUS IS ALFA AND OMEGA: ONE WITH THE FATHER
Are we saying that the begining of creation was created:
Or did God do something great that the world cant see unless they realize how much the FATHER loves the SON:
SMILE: BLESSINGS
GOD DID IT

 

[createdtoworship]

Is 43:11 I am GOD; and without1 me there is no saviour.
1* Hebrew מבלעדי without

Is 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God besides me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

The passage [1John 5:7, 8] is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript.

The eight manuscripts are as follows:
* 61: codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.
* 88: a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
* 221: a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
* 429: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.
* 629: a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican.
* 636: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.
* 918: a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
* 2318: an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.

Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.

(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).

The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius.

For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1 John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.)
see any critical commentary on 1 John, or Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 101 f.; cf. also Ezra Abbot, "I. John v. 7 and Luther's German Bible," in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays (Boston, 1888), pp. 458-463.

Rudolf Bultmann German theologian of Lutheran background The same year his lecture New Testament and Mythology: The Problem of Demythologizing the New Testament Message called on interpreters to replace traditional supernaturalism with the temporal and existential categories of Bultmann's colleague, Martin Heidegger, rejecting doctrines such as the pre-existence of Christ
Rudolf Bultmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The KJV is Based on the Biased and faulty "Received Text" Textus Receptus
The "Received Text" is also not a single text. It is a tradition of printed texts published during the time of the Protestant Reformation, that is, the 1500's and early 1600's. It includes the editions of Erasmus, Estienne (Stephens), Beza, and Elzevir. These texts are closely allied, and are all mostly derived from Erasmus 1516. They are based upon a small number of late [16th Century] medieval manuscripts. The King James Version is based upon the Received Text.

1 John 5:7. Omit "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" at end of verse. Eró1516ò Eró1519ò G L T Tr A W WH N NA HF.
1 John 5:8. Omit "And there are three that bear witness in earth" at beginning of verse. Eró1516ò Eró1519ò G L T Tr A W WH N NA HF.

Erasmus's third edition of 1522 contained one truly unfortunate innovation: The "Three Heavenly Witnesses" in 1 John 5:7-8. These were derived from the recently-written Codex 61, and (as the famous story goes) included by Erasmus "for the sake of his oath." Sadly, they have been found in almost every TR edition since.
http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/TR.html

you have not answered my question in post 120
and you refuse to comment on the majority of quotes of the fathers who had access to manuscripts that had the comma in it in post 139
thirdly, you have plagiarized most of your paragraphs from different sources on the internet without mentioning their source

but I did have one thing to say about latin manuscripts verses greek manuscript evidence.

the below is from this link http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57

Latin manuscripts with John's comma in it.

Palimpset of Leon Cathedral (7th century)
Fragment of Freising (7th century)
Codex Cavensis (9th century)
Codex Complutensis (10th century)
Codex Toletanus (10th century)
Codex Theodulphianus (8th or 9th century)
Some Sangallense MSS (8th or 9th century)

The Palimpset of Leon Cathedral and the Fragment of Freising are older than all but five (01, A, B, 048 and 0296) extant Greek manuscripts which contain 1 John 5.

It is not wrong for the Textus Receptus to include a verse from the Vulgate against the majority of Greek manuscripts. Modern textual scholars follow the same practice with respect to the Hebrew manuscripts. The NIV and the ESV include a sentence in Psalm 145:13 that does not appear in the majority of Hebrew manuscripts. The extra sentence is included simply because it is deemed to fit well structurally and it has the support of one Masoretic manuscript, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate. Furthermore, the NIV in Genesis 4:8 has Cain saying to Abel, "Let's go out to the field" based on the Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint, Vulgate, and Syriac. No Hebrew manuscript (not even the Dead Sea Scrolls) has this reading in Genesis 4:8. The NIV, ESV and NASB in 1 Chronicles 4:13 add "and Meonothai" from the Vulgate despite its nonexistence in the Hebrew. The NIV, ESV and NASB in 2 Chronicles 15:8 add "Azariah the son of" from the Vulgate despite its nonexistence in the Hebrew. It is common practice in textual criticism to rescue authentic readings from translations.

The Comma was known in Italy by 546 AD at the latest
Codex Fuldensis, considered the second most important witness to the Vulgate text, was completed by 546 AD in Italy. The Codex contains several prologues written by Jerome. It contains the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, which mentions the Trinitarian Comma in John's first epistle:


"Quae si ut ab eis digestae sunt ita quoque ab interpraetibus fideliter in latinum eloquium verterentur nec ambiguitatem legentibus facerent nec sermonum se varietas inpugnaret illo praecipue loco ubi de unitate trinitatis in prima iohannis epistula (the place where it concerns the Trinity in the first epistle of John) positum legimus in qua est ab infidelibus translatoribus multum erratum esse fidei veritate conperimus trium tantummodo vocabula hoc est aquae sanguinis et spiritus in ipsa sua editione potentes et patri verbique ac spiritus (Father, the Word, and Spirit) testimonium omittentes."


However, the actual text of 1 John 5:7 in Fuldensis does not have the Comma so critics quickly dismiss the testimony of the Prologue as a spurious work. But whether the Prologue was written by Jerome or not, and whether the actual text of 1 John 5:7 contained the Comma, the Comma was certainly known to an Italian scribe who wrote the Prologue as early as in 546 AD. Since the earliest witness against the Comma is Sinaiticus from 350 AD, this 546 AD mainstream Italian witness for the Comma appears only 200 years later. The majority of later Vulgate manuscripts contain the Comma in the text of 1 John 5:7.

 

[createdtoworship]

I AGREE BROTHER:
The HOlY SPIRIT is GOD:
Being that the FATHER ROSE THE SON WITH HIS OWN SPIRIT OF POWER:
AND I thought about your post: I FULLY AGREE:
I think God may have even given you revelation the way you posted the passage about JESUS saying that I will raise this temple:
I DID say could that be the FATHER speaking through the SON: Yet and still JESUS SAID it so HIM and the FATHER ARE ONE: I LOVE IT

And since its the Holy Spirit that rose Jesus to life; and since that Spirit came from the FATHER: THEN Jesus was rose with HIMSELF AND THE FATHER: ONE SPIRIT

THE HOLY SPIRIT
You are right in my Spirit; and you helped me to be more sensitive with this: My post didnt make any since to me; I should have been giving God glory with you: BUT HEY
ONLY HUMAN
BUT
We dont have to be; we can live in the divine light of JESUS Christ through the POWER of the HOLY SPIRIT: AMEN

I only wanted to say that WHAT ABOUT US
I dont think God can be labeled as a trinity when it comes to the HOLY SPIRIT because who can count those that live in the HOLY SPIRIT:
WE are made children in that power:
And what JESUS did on the cross has always been made manifest in GOD: THUS SO HAVE WE:
SO WE are in the HOLY SPIRIT:
Through the power of the righteous JESUS that puts us in HIS NAME:
IN THE NAME
of JESUS
Thus the HOLY SPIRIT IS THE POWER THAT PUTS US IN THAT NAME:

Thus we pray in the NAME of the FATHER SON AND HOLY SPIRIT
ONE GOD: And yet we come to HIM THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT:
SO ITS ALL OF US
NOT THREE
EVERYONE
Jesus said let them know that YOU love them as YOU have loved ME:
SO I think things thats NOT in Gods WORD; yet still being used to support Gods Word; can be twisted and used for evil teachings: AND it excludes US:
BUT I Know you are not being evil:
You are speaking power and showing that you are a TRUE Christian: I give God Glory for that:
AND YES:
Jesus was God before HE rose to life:
GOD IN THE FLESH
THE FATHER AND THE SON
And the Father pulled back when Jesus died:
YET THE FATHER ROSE THE SON
So the HOLY SPIRIT IS ALSO THE FATHER AND THE SON
ONE
GODS POWER is beautiful:
A True lover of Christ can feel the unity of God more then we can explain it:
Its like the Father exults the SON: Yet the SON still gives all glory to the FATHER WILL
That was most important to JESUS
LET NOT MY WILL BE DONE
Because JESUS was never created:
IF HE WAS THEN GOD WAS CREATED
BUT GOD WASNT
NOR WAS JESUS
JESUS IS GODS WILL

NOW SAY A WORD EVERYONE
AND ASK WHERE DID THE PASSION TO SPEAK COME FROM
Was your will created at the moment of speech:
NOR WAS the eternal GOD
JESUS WAS JUST WAITING IN THE FATHER
Waiting for GOD TO SPEAK AND CREATE THROUGH HIM

SO lovely

What Jesus did on the cross has already been done in GOD ETERNALLY
The Father took the SON in HIMSELF even before the WORD was risen the FIRST SON THROUH the suffering of HIS FLESH
MAKING US SONS

IN THE HOLY SPIRIT

SO SIMPLE AND YET SO POWERFUL
GLORY TO GOD
CHILDREN OF THE KING
SONS OF GOD THROUGH JESUS CHRIST MY LORD AND SAVIOR
I LOVE YOU GOD
BIG SMILE

And yet we come to HIM THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT:
SO ITS ALL OF US
NOT THREE
EVERYONE
Jesus said let them know that YOU love them as YOU have loved ME:
SO I think things thats NOT in Gods WORD; yet still being used to support Gods Word; can be twisted and used for evil teachings: AND it excludes US:

I believe that we can be IN the spirit and the spirit can still be God or a person of God's triunity at the same time.

 

[he-man]

thirdly, you have plagiarized most of your paragraphs from different sources on the internet without mentioning their source

Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 101 f.; cf.

also Ezra Abbot, "I. John v. 7 and Luther's German Bible," in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays (Boston, 1888), pp. 458-463.

Rudolf Bultmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/TR.html

but I did have one thing to say about latin manuscripts verses greek manuscript evidence.
Latin manuscripts with John's comma in it.

Palimpset of Leon Cathedral (7th century)
Fragment of Freising (7th century)
Codex Cavensis (9th century)
Codex Complutensis (10th century)
Codex Toletanus (10th century)
Codex Theodulphianus (8th or 9th century)
Some Sangallense MSS (8th or 9th century)
The Palimpset of Leon Cathedral and the Fragment of Freising are older than all but five (01, A, B, 048 and 0296) extant Greek manuscripts which contain 1 John 5.The Comma was known in Italy by 546 AD at the latest Codex Fuldensis, considered the second most important witness to the Vulgate text, was completed by 546 AD in Italy. The Codex contains several prologues written by Jerome. It contains the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, which mentions the Trinitarian Comma in John's first epistle:
However, the actual text of 1 John 5:7 in Fuldensis does not have the Comma so critics quickly dismiss the testimony of the Prologue as a spurious work.
whether the Prologue was written by Jerome or not, and whether the actual text of 1 John 5:7 contained the Comma, the Comma was certainly known to an Italian scribe who wrote the Prologue as early as in 546 AD. Since the earliest witness against the Comma is Sinaiticus from 350 AD, this 546 AD mainstream Italian witness for the Comma appears only 200 years later. The majority of later Vulgate manuscripts contain the Comma in the text of 1 John 5:7.

Palimpsest of Leon Cathedral: it became the custom in some monasteries to scratch or wash out the old text in order to replace it with new writing. These erased manuscripts are called palimpsests. Manuscripts

(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the [Late] Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine),

or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541-46]

and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).

The passage [1John 5:7, 8] is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript.

The eight manuscripts are as follows:
* 61: codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century. minuscule 61, Erasmus named it Codex Britannicus, is a Greek minusculemanuscript of the New Testament on paper. It is dated to the early 16th century, though a 15th century date is possible.

* 88: a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
* 221: a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
* 429: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.
* 629: a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican.
* 636: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.
* 918: a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
* 2318: an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.

Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.

The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius.

 

[he-man]

That passage you quoted:
God gave JESUS LIFE

Joh 5:26For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath He given to the Son to have life in himself;
God gave him LIFE after he had died and was able to be resurrected.

Is 43:10 You are My witness, said GOD, and servant who I have chosen: so that you may know and believe Me, to understand that I am He: before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there exist after Me.

Before the foundation of the world? Don't you mean that was when God created His plan to have a Son to rescue us?

And that Son was the first-born FROM the DEAD

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the congregation: who is the beginning of the firstborn from the dead; that in all he might be first.

 

[createdtoworship]

Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 101 f.; cf.

also Ezra Abbot, "I. John v. 7 and Luther's German Bible," in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays (Boston, 1888), pp. 458-463.

Rudolf Bultmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/TR.html

again I don't reply to plagiarized work, you need to cite your sources if you want to be heard. The links you provided were not the sites that I could see your exact wording coming from.

secondly you still haven't answered my question in post 120

thirdly, you haven't replied to my list of quotations that reveal a history of 1 John 5:7 in church fathers. (post 139)

fourthly, the first occasion of the comma missing is in 350 ad and the first occasion of it being quoted is only 200 years later in the fifth century.

from link: Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) - King James Version Today
"Since the earliest witness against the Comma is Sinaiticus from 350 AD, this 546 AD mainstream Italian witness for the Comma appears only 200 years later. The majority of later Vulgate manuscripts contain the Comma in the text of 1 John 5:7."


fifthly,
The Sacred Bible (newest translation of the Catholic Church) includes the verse.
1 John - Latin English Study Bible

sixthly,
It is not wrong for the Textus Receptus to include a verse from the Vulgate against the majority of Greek manuscripts (see post 146)

Seventhly,

here is a link talking about some of the early quotes again
from link: new microsoft html document 5.0

"At this early period the advocates of orthodoxy were beset with dangers unseen on every side: they walked among steel traps and spring guns, where one incautious step might prove fatal; or they resembled men going about having their pockets filled with gunpowder, at a time when the smallest spark of inquiry, the slightest collision with an adversary, might cause an explosion destructive to their system.

Nevertheless Tertullian has done what might be expected: he shows that he was no stranger to the verse, by alluding to it, by garbling and disguising it. He wished indeed openly to lay it down as the chief corner-stone of the orthodox church; but this he dared not do. He therefore breaks it into fragments; and these he throws into the breach which the enemy was making in its walls.

The first paragraph of Tertullian I shall quote from his treatise De Baptismo, c. vi. P. 226, already quoted by Dr. Burgess: "Si in tribus testibus omne stabit verbum, quanto magis, dum habemus per benedictionem eosdem arbitros fidei, quos et sponsores salutis sufficit ad fiduciam spei nostrae etiam numerus nominum divorum." The numerus nominum divorum in the last clause, means ternus numerus, the number three, the three witnesses, or, as Tertullian himself explains it in the next sentence, tres, i.e. Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus. It might be supposed and fairly urged by the adversary, that the writer here alludes to the Father, Son. And Holy spirit mentioned at the close of Matthew. But the specification of three witnesses in the preceding clause demonstrates that the allusion is to the disputed text, where alone the three names, namely, the father, the word, and the Holy Spirit, are represented as bearing testimony. "Si in tribus testibus omne stabit verbum." --- If we receive the witness of man, the witness of God is greater.

Again, in his book against Praxeas, (c.25,) the same author says, "Caeterum de meo sumet, inquit, sicut ipse de Patris. Ita connexus Patris in Filio et Filii in Paracleto tres efficit cohaerentes alterum ex altero. Qui tres unum sunt, --- non unus; quomodo dictum est: Ego et Pater unum sumus, ad substantiae unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem." But the Son says, he will take of mine, as he Himself of the Father's. Thus the connexion of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Comforter, makes three cohering one with another, WHICH THREE ARE ONE, pointing, to unity of substance, non ad numeri singularitem.

The professor comments on these words, and says, "As often as I read this sentence, so often I am astonished that the words Tres unum sunt should ever be urged as a quotation: they are words of Tertullian himself, and expressly distinguished from the words of Scripture." P.240. In this opinion he is joined by the Quarterly Review. With regard to this passage, "We are compelled," says he, "to confess that we participate in the feelings of Professor Porson. Is it probable, that if Tertullian had 1 John, v. 7, in his thoughts, he would have appealed for the true meaning of the expression not to that verse, but to John 10:30? Yes, contends Mr. Nolan: for the reading of John is not Pater, Filius, et Spiritus; but Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus; and therefore contains as just a description of the doctrine of Praxeas as that heretic could have given. If then this passage of Tertullian be a proof of the existence of 1 John v. 7, we suppose that he referred his adversary to the very text which that adversary would urge as most accurately representing his own opinion."

Now in opposition to these high authorities I will briefly show that Tertullian not only alludes to the verse, but has embodied the substance of it in his own comment. If tres unum sunt were his own words, in allusion to John 10:30, he would have said duo unum sunt; for there it is virtually said that the Father and the Son are one. The reason of Tertullian's referring to the Gospel at all is an artifice. In the Epistle, John directly meets the impostors, and in opposition to them he again and again asserts the simple humanity of Christ. In his Gospel he advances the same doctrine in reference to the same deceivers indeed, yet without mentioning them by name. His opposition, therefore, to the Divinity of Christ is of course less obvious in the Gospel. The very foundation of the Trinity in unity is the supposed spurious text; and this foundation the builders of the system attempted for obvious reasons to lay deep and out of sight. Hence the silence respecting it, and the caution with which they allude to it, or embody its substance in their own words. Having thus founded the doctrine on a passage which at first glance appears most favourable to it, --- but which in reality was ever liable to be withdrawn, and which when withdrawn left baseless the superstructure of wood, hay and stubble, erected upon it, --- the advocates of the Trinity went to the Gospel for materials to complete and establish it. There Jesus, though in the beginning represented as the Logos, is usually designated "the Son," or, "Son of God." There also the Holy Spirit is called "the Comforter." Hence Tertullian, and others who succeeded him down to the Council of Nice, for the sake of disguise substituted "Son" and "Comforter," which occur in the Gospel, for the "Word" and "Holy Spirit," which are used in the disputed text.

But has Porson done justice to the passage of Tertullian? No; he has omitted the very clause which completely identifies the verse with the quotation. The clause I mean is, "Non ad numeri singularitatem," which, it must be allowed, is obscure and equivocal, and probably so intended. In this treatise Tertullian had in view the Unitarians of his days, who, as appears from his own words, formed the majority of believers; and he levels his language against them, --- for numerus in that age, and afterwards, came to signify exclusively the three Heavenly Witnesses, or the three persons of the Trinity. If we take the clause in the first sense, we have the controverted text complete. Thus, "Which three," (namely, the Father, Son, and Comforter, or the Father, Word, and Holy Spirit,) "are one, pointing to unity of substance, and not to the singular form of the three Witnesses;" or, in other words, to the unity of their testimonies. Tertullian makes the words of the Apostle the foundation of the Trinity, without informing the reader where he had them: he quotes the verse, but quotes it with a comment that perverts its true meaning. The Unitarians of the day doubtless understood the verse in its true sense; as they could not but consider the clause "and these three agree in one," in the eighth verse, as an index of that in the seventh. This interpretation Tertullian meets, and endeavours to set it aside by a gloss of his own: and that this might have some show of probability, he steals away the attention of his readers from the Epistle, where there is a clue to the true sense, and fixes it on a passage in the Gospel, which, without such clue, appears to favour his meaning.

But the clause, "Non ad numeri singularitatem," may mean Not making singular the number three, not reducing to the singular number the plurality of persons. In this sense the words are levelled against Praxeas, who maintained that the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit were one; and that these names expressed not three distinct beings, but three different relations of the same being. Now it is demonstrable that in this sense also Tertullian refers to the disputed verse: first, because Fulgentius, having before him this passage of Tertullian, understood the member in this sense. His words are, "In Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto unitatem substantiae accipimus, personas confundere non audemus." The master says, "The three are one, pointing to unity of substance, not to the unity of the three persons." The pupil says after him, "We acknowledge the unity of substance, but dare not confound the persons;" that is, dare not bring the three persons into one. But this, you will say, is no proof that Tertullian refers to the disputed verse. I answer, it is a proof that Fulgentius, who could not have been mistaken, understood his master as referring to that verse: for he adds, "Beatus enim Johannes Apostolus testatur Tres sunt, qui testimonium perhibent in caelo, Pater, Verbun, et Spiritus Sanctus, et tres unum sunt." Secondly, Tertullian alludes to the disputed verse, because the heresy of Praxeas was founded upon it. The true reading of O Logos was essential to his opinion; and I can say with confidence that that heresy would not have existed, if the verse had not been known to exist: for Praxeas knew that Logos in its strictest sense meant God Himself. In the disputed verse the Logos is applied to Christ, and is said to be one with the Father; nor is there another verse in the New Testament where such unity between the Father and the Logos is asserted. Tertullian could not meet this argument without the subterfuge of substituting Filius for Verbum, the true reading. In the Gospel of John, Jesus is commonly represented as "the Son;" and He proceeds throughout His discourses on the assumption that He is a being different from the Father. Tertullian had recourse to the substitution, because he was by means of it enabled to supplant his antagonist. He wrests the verse from the hands of Praxeas, and he gives it up to the public with a version of his own. "If then," says the Reviewer, "this passage of Tertullian be a proof of the existence of 1 John v. 7, we must suppose that he referred his adversary to the very text which that adversary would urge as most accurately representing his own opinion." Most truly so: Tertullian could not help adverting to the verse as the foundation of Praxeas's theory; and he endeavours to defeat him by garbling it, and by putting upon it his own interpretation.

Porson expresses his astonishment that any should consider the words of Tertullian as a quotation of the Apostle. In truth, the Professor, in this and many other places of his Letters, has recourse to the usual refuge of weak disputants, enlisted by accident or by prejudice on the side of error: he garbles his author, and uses strong assertions where he ought to produce proofs. He proceeds in his argument on mistaken grounds; and the fallacy made him quite blind. He powerfully urges that Tertullian does not allude to the verse, because he does not quote it; while he freely quotes other verses much less to his purpose. This was to him inconceivable. Of the dilemma he adopted the least improbable side; and by his ingenuity and bold assertions he contrived to make his readers (and the Quarterly Reviewer in the number) as blind as himself. Had he been aware of the true state of the case, how different would have been his conclusion! With what promptitude and keenness would he have unraveled Tertullian's quotation, discovered in it the language of John, and disclosed it beyond all dispute tom the views of his readers! But he was engaged in a wrong cause; and his fine powers either drooped, or they displayed their matchless vigour in devious flights of wit and sophistry, far beyond the precincts of truth.

Tertullian was a master in Israel, and his authority prescribed in which way and how far the verse might be quoted with safety to the orthodox faith. Accordingly Phaebadius A.D. 350, and Marcus Celedensis in 373, cite the verse only so far as he has cited it: but Cyprian, though preceding these writers by a century, took greater liberty; and he places the citation in a more clear and unequivocal light. His words are these: "De Pater, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto, scriptum est: et hi tres unum sunt." In this paragraph are implied two things; namely, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one; and that it is so written of them, or that they are said to be one in the Scriptures. This is true; John has thus written of them in the disputed verse, and in no other place. But observe, the clause which says that these three bare witness, and suggests the unity meant to be that of testimony, is artfully omitted; and Cyprian leaves the reader to conclude, as Tertullian asserts, that it is that of being or essence which the Apostle means.

If we turn to the Greek fathers, we shall find them equally well acquainted with the verse, and equally reluctant to quote it. I will notice a few of those who have been brought forward as vouchers for its genuineness."

 

[WillieH]

willieH: Hi gradyll...

You believe in modalism and it's pretty easy to refute...

Yeah right... modal, shmodal...

As many othrodox believers, you attempt erecting STRAWMEN, instead of answering questions, and/or addressing SCRIPTURAL points which are made...

The beliefs I hold were gained of PERSONAL study over a 35 year PERSONAL experience with God, ...not, handed to me by some "church" or "bible college professor"...

So "easy to refute" that you did not even SLIGHTLY attempt it...

Why would Jesus pray to God if He was the same person as God.

It is you which claims them to be GOD in 3 persons not me... JESUS has a GOD as HE stated in -- Mark 15:34 -- Eph 1:3 ...JESUS (a SON -- #G5207 - HUIOS = child, foal, son -- of God) ...prayed to His GOD, which happens to be OUR GOD (as "sons of God", as well... )

Isn't it more accurate to say Jesus and God are the same God but different persons, able to communicate within the Trinity?

No, that is a PAGAN approach to a HOLY premise. It is MORE ACCURATE to BELIEVE the WORD of GOD, as is WRITTEN! -- Isaiah 43:11 -- Isaiah 44:8

Biblically, I gave you several instances where YHVH CLEARLY noted there IS no other "god" but Himself... That YOU do not believe SCRIPTURE, and IGNORE what IT SAYS, ...is your own (unfortunate and shameful) affair, bro.

How would Jesus say not my will but yours, if He was the same person?

JESUS the man was NOT the same person... The MAN JESUS did not save anyone... He was the SACRIFICE which did NOT SIN as a MAN, given IN DEATH on behalf of those MEN, which DID SIN as MEN -- 1 Tim 2:6 --

The SAVIOR is the WORD -- Isaiah 43:11 -- the WORD was manifest in the EXPRESSED IMAGE, which did not "EXPRESS" of ITSELF -- John 5:19,30 -- John 12:49 -- and that WORD was NOT... the SOURCE of itself... it was SENT -- 1 John 4:14 -- and SPOKEN by the ONLY GOD (not "gods"), which IS GOD, ...YHVH -- Isaiah 55:11

Just get LOGICAL for a moment, gradyll... and maybe you shall learn something... YOUR WORD is with YOU... It is an OUTWARD EXPRESSION of the "inner" YOU (not a separate "person") which "cooperates" with YOU, or that is of the THREE persons which make up "YOU"... (that is unless you are of those which have mental disorders)...

There is ONE PERSON in YOU... and that is YOU... your "word" is an EXPRESSION of that ONE PERSON ...which IS "gradyll"...

Your theory is relatively easy to refute.

As I have already said... yeah right!

No such "refute" has been provided by you... therefore, to date... there is no "refute" to even consider.

You are the one "theorizing"... I gave much SCRIPTURE in my reply to you in support of what I believe... YOU on the other hand, "refute" me via the support of your own words... which are from a SINFUL source... YOU!

The word trinity is in the latin bible, thats where we get the word trinity.

Really grabbing at straw now, eh bro?

Yeah right... so says you, without any proof whatsoever...

Latin, shmatin...

Prove your contention (if you can), and even then, the "latin bible"... is irrelevant.

The Latin Vulgate bible, when the word TRINITY is set to search, brings NO RESULTS. Please note the, Book, Chapter and Verse where "trinity" is found in the Latin bible.

Latin Vulgate Bible with Douay-Rheims and King James Version Side-by-Side+Complete Sayings of Jesus Christ

Please note what HEBREW or GREEK word is translated TRINITY... For the BIBLE as written in HEBREW and GREEK is the basis of true believers... not the "latin bible"... Please!

Like most Orthodox believers, you firmly stand upon the sand of HEARSAY... not upon the STATED WORD... which actively FORMULATES teachings, rather than finds them stated in the SCRIPTURES... (such as claiming that the word "trinity" is in the "Latin bible" )

Instead of bringing the GOOD NEWS (which is the meaning of the word GOSPEL) to the WORLD that GOD so LOVES, ...taking whatever negativity you might find or formulate, ...promptly if not sooner, excluding yourself from it, ...then employing it against others which GOD so UNCHANGINGLY -- Mal 3:6 -- Heb 13:8 -- James 1:17 -- LOVES...

I cannot roll my eyes enough at such blasphemy...

To which said practices, ...the Apostle James said of such, ...that they -- "OUGHT NOT SO TO BE" -- James 3:6-10


Peace...

...willieH

 

[createdtoworship]

willieH: Hi gradyll...



Yeah right... modal, shmodal...

As many othrodox believers, you attempt erecting STRAWMEN, instead of answering questions, and/or addressing SCRIPTURAL points which are made...

The beliefs I hold were gained of PERSONAL study over a 35 year PERSONAL experience with God, ...not, handed to me by some "church" or "bible college professor"...

So "easy to refute" that you did not even SLIGHTLY attempt it...



It is you which claims them to be GOD in 3 persons not me... JESUS has a GOD as HE stated in -- Mark 15:34 ...JESUS (a SON of God) prayed to His GOD, which happens to be OUR GOD (as "sons of God", as well...



No, that is a PAGAN approach to a HOLY premise. It is MORE ACCURATE to BELIEVE the WORD of GOD, as is WRITTEN! -- Isaiah 43:11 -- Isaiah 44:8

Biblically, I gave you several instances where YHVH CLEARLY noted there IS no other "god" but Himself... That YOU do not believe SCRIPTURE, and IGNORE what IT SAYS, ...is your own (unfortunate and shameful) affair, bro.



JESUS the man was NOT the same person... The SAVIOR is the WORD... the WORD is the EXPRESSED IMAGE, ...and NOT... the SOURCE of itself.



As I have already said... yeah right! No such "refute" has been provided by you... therefore, to date... there is no "refute" to even consider.

You are the one "theorizing"... I gave much SCRIPTURE in my reply to you in support of what I believe... YOU on the other hand, "refute" me via the support of your own words... which are from a SINFUL source... YOU!



Really grabbing at straw now, eh bro?

Yeah right... so says you, without any proof whatsoever...

Latin, shmatin...

Prove your contention (if you can), and even then, the "latin bible"... is irrelevant.

The Latin Vulgate bible, when the word TRINITY is set to search, brings NO RESULTS. Please note the, Book, Chapter and Verse where "trinity" is found in the Latin bible.

Latin Vulgate Bible with Douay-Rheims and King James Version Side-by-Side+Complete Sayings of Jesus Christ

Please note what HEBREW or GREEK word is translated TRINITY... For the BIBLE as written in HEBREW and GREEK is the basis of true believers... not the "latin bible"... Please!

Like most Orthodox believers, you firmly stand upon the sand of HEARSAY... not upon the STATED WORD... which actively FORMULATES teachings, rather than finds them stated in the SCRIPTURES... (such as claiming that the word "trinity" is in the "Latin bible" )

Instead of bringing the GOOD NEWS (which is the meaning of the word GOSPEL) to the WORLD that GOD so LOVES, ...taking whatever negativity you might find or formulate, ...promptly if not sooner, excluding yourself from it, ...then employing it against others which GOD so UNCHANGINGLY -- Mal 3:6 -- Heb 13:8 -- James 1:17 -- LOVES...

I cannot roll my eyes enough at such blasphemy...

To which said practices, ...the Apostle James said of such, ...that they -- "OUGHT NOT SO TO BE" -- James 3:6-10


Peace...

...willieH

How could Jesus be the offspring of God, as you say....and yet not be God himself. Are you saying that God gave birth to a non God?

as far as the trinity in the latin bible, it's not there I forgot. The word has etymology that is later than the early writings of the Bible.

"The English word Trinity is derived from Latin Trinitas, meaning "the number three, a triad".[9] This abstract noun is formed from the adjective trinus (three each, threefold, triple),[10] as the word unitas is the abstract noun formed from unus (one)."- wikipedia

turtullian coined the term trinity after the Bible was already written. "This word is derived from the Greek word trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Latin trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220), to express this doctrine."
from http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/trinity.html

 

[he-man]

again I don't reply to plagiarized work, you need to cite your sources if you want to be heard. The links you provided were not the sites that I could see your exact wording coming from.

Is 43:10 You are My witness, said GOD, and servant who I have chosen: so that you may know and believe Me, to understand that I am He: before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there exist after Me.

For the story of how the spurious words came to be included in the Textus Receptus, see any critical commentary on 1 John, or Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 101 f.; cf. also Ezra Abbot, "I. John v. 7 and Luther's German Bible," in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays (Boston, 1888), pp. 458-463.

Do you even know what the word plagerized means? "used without acknowledgment of its source"

Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 101 f.; cf.

also Ezra Abbot, "I. John v. 7 and Luther's German Bible," in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays (Boston, 1888), pp. 458-463.

Rudolf Bultmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/TR.html

You can also check it out here:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html

1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.

Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text.

In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars. (For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1 John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.)

 

[createdtoworship]

Is 43:10 You are My witness, said GOD, and servant who I have chosen: so that you may know and believe Me, to understand that I am He: before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there exist after Me.

For the story of how the spurious words came to be included in the Textus Receptus, see any critical commentary on 1 John, or Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 101 f.; cf. also Ezra Abbot, "I. John v. 7 and Luther's German Bible," in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays (Boston, 1888), pp. 458-463.

Do you even know what the word plagerized means? "used without acknowledgment of its source"

Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 101 f.; cf.

also Ezra Abbot, "I. John v. 7 and Luther's German Bible," in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays (Boston, 1888), pp. 458-463.

Rudolf Bultmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/TR.html

You can also check it out here:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html

1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.

well why can't you site your sources when you post them then, it's not hard. I think you post the same posts over and over again and carry forward your plagiarisms from the past. Sorry, you can't do that.

Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text.

that is what all of this is, just a guess. No proof. All we know is that early Christians quote the verse and say "it was written" (post 139)
which proves it was most likely in the early vulgate versions that don't exist. Later was subsequently erased by arians or those who didn't believe in the trinity.


In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars. (For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1 John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.)

from this link http://www.1john57.com/threeletters3.htm


About the latter end of the fourth century, Jerome, at the request of Pope Damasus, undertook a revision of the Vulgate, correcting first the Gospels, then the Epistles, by comparing them with Greek MSS. To the last seven Canonical Epistles he wrote a Prologue, in which he complains of the unfaithfulness of certain interpreters, and exemplifies this complaint by their omission of the three Heavenly Witnesses in their editions. I will first give a version of this Prologue, and then subjoin Mr. Porson's comment. "The order of these seven Epistles (meaning the Epistles of Peter, James, John, and Jude), in those Greek copyists who think soundly and follow the right faith, is not the same as it is found in the Latin Copies; where, as Peter is first, so his Epistles are placed in order before the rest. But as I have long since corrected the Evangelists (or preachers of the Gospel, meaning the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of Paul, as well as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), according to the rule of truth, so these Epistles I have restored to their proper order; which, if arranged agreeably to the original text, and faithfully interpreted in Latin diction, would neither cause perplexity to the readers, nor would the various readings contradict themselves, especially in that place where we read the unity of the Trinity laid down in the Epistle of John. In this I found translators (or copyists) widely deviating from the truth; who set down in their own edition the names only of the three witnesses, that is, the Water, Blood, and Spirit; but omit the testimony of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; by which, above all places, the Divinity of the father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is proved to be one. How far my edition differs from those of others, I leave to the discernment of the reader. But whilst thou, O virgin of Christ, demandest of me the truth of Scripture, thou in a manner exposest my old age to the rancorous teeth of those malicious men who hold me forth as faithless and a corrupter of the Sacred Writings. But in such an undertaking, I neither dread the malice of rivals, nor shall I withhold the truth of the Holy scriptures from those who demand it."

On this Prologue, the Professor, in his Letters, p. 289, thus comments: "At the request or command of Pope Damasus, Jerome revised the Latin translation, and corrected it upon the faith of the Greek MSS. Did he therefore replace the three Heavenly Witnesses at this revision, or not? If he did, why did he not then write his preface to inform the world of his recovered reading? But after Damasus was dead, Eustochium it seems, a young lady at once devout, handsome and learned, requests him once more to revise the Catholic Epistles and correct them from the Greek. Jerome undertakes the task; and having completed it, advertises her in this Prologue, that other inaccurate translators had omitted the testimony of the three Heavenly Witnesses, the strongest proof of the Catholic faith. Such a story carries its own condemnation upon its forehead." He then adds, "It has therefore been given up by most defenders of the verse; by Mill, by Abbe Roger, by Maffei, Valarsius, Twells, Bengelius."

It is remarkable that friends and foes should thus concur in fixing the stigma of imposture on a document which carries in itself the mark of authenticity beyond any to be found in ancient records. In truth, this fine writer and great critic was not himself on the question before us. The prejudices of education made him the easy dupe of ancient fraud; and with all his learning, with all his brilliant parts, he failed to master the controversy. On other subjects of criticism, Porson was the huge leviathan, which, like another Britannia, ruled the wide domain of Grecian literature; --- on this, he is the same monster of the deep, floundering and struggling for life in shallow waters.

The true state of the case is probably the following. The verse, as I have observed, descended in the Old Italic Version from the days of the Apostles to the age of Jerome. But the Copies which contained it were confined to confidential friends, or to the more trusty fathers of the Church, while it was carefully excluded from those which were designed for general use. This precaution was naturally suggested by the dangers which on all sides had hitherto encompassed the text. But these dangers were in a great degree surmounted by the recent triumphs of orthodoxy, by the extinction of Unitarianism, and by the shades of ignorance which gathered deeper and yet deeper over the horizon of the Christian Church. At length Pope Damasus thought it safe to restore the verse in the public version; and engaged Jerome to revise it, partly with a view to that purpose. The design was hazardous; and as it might be unpopular among the learned, it could not fail to call forth the fears of the timid and the jealousy of rivals. Before the end was accomplished, Damasus died, and Jerome found protection in Eustochium, a lady of learning, influence, and reputation, who had earnestly solicited him to restore the genuine text.

With regard to the Prologue itself, a variety of circumstances beyond the reach of forgery in a future age, and appropriate to the situation of the author, concur in establishing its genuineness. Damasus engaged him to revise the Latin Version; and the writer of the Prologue alludes to his revision, as in part already accomplished. He tells his fair patroness, that at all hazard he would restore the genuine text; and we find it in the very translation which came through his hands. The Prologue is ascribed to Jerome; and it came down to posterity among his works. Walafrid Strabo in the ninth century commented upon it, as the production of Jerome; and neither he nor any other of that age appears to have entertained any suspicion of forgery. About the days of Jerome, the African fathers, omitting the seventh verse, supplied its place by a mystical interpretation of the eighth; and it is in reference to this notable piece of mysticism, which I shall presently notice, that Jerome calls the restored injured verse veritatem Scripturae. Besides, the verse and the context were not only disguised, but torn to pieces, and cited by different authors in various contradictory ways, which caused doubt and perplexity to the readers. "Sermonum ses varietates impugnabant, et ambiguitatem legentibus faciebant." Jerome removed the evil, by restoring "the truth of the Holy Scriptures" to Eustochium, and others who demanded it. The attempt, as it might be expected, in such circumstances, met with opposition, and brought upon the author the very charge which he urged against those who faithlessly suppressed the text. But Jerome had sense and magnanimity to defy clamour, as he was fast sinking under the weight of years to that rest where the sting of envy is no longer felt, and the voice of slander silent for ever.

The restoration of the verse by Jerome was followed by consequences that might be expected. All efforts after this entirely to suppress it were fruitless: and we find the passage formally quoted by Eucherius bishop of Lyons, and Vigilius Tapensis, both of the fifth century, and in the sixth by Fulgentius; though these writers felt it requisite still to mutilate the context, or give it a new arrangement. I will produce their quotations at once, to show their management, and at the same time with what little ceremony the adversaries of the verse advanced the most unfounded positions. I quote Eucherius from Griesbach, ad locum, p. 700, "III. (h.e. numerus ternarius) ad Trinitatem (refertur) in Joannis Epistola: Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo; Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra; spiritus, aqua, et sanguis." Here the unity being fist assumed as that of the Trinity, the clauses asserting it in the seventh and eighth verses are both amputated. The amputation undoubtedly was designed to prevent the reader from discovering the true of that unity which the Apostle inculcates. Of this object Griesbach was not aware, and he scruples not to deny the passage to be a quotation of John.

The citation of Vigilius, at the close of the fifth century, as given by Griesbach, is the following:--- "Joannes Evangelista ad Parthos. Tres sunt, inquit, qui testimonium perhibent in terra; aqua, sanguis, et caro; et tres in nobis sunt: et tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in caelo; Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus; et hi tres unum sunt." P. 702. Here we may detect several artifices calculated to disguise the real meaning of the Apostle. Some words foreign to the original are introduced; and the clause in the eighth expressing the unity of testimony, which is the only true key to the sense of the passage, is excluded. The seventh and eighth are transposed. The transposition is most artful; for by the help of the new reading it suggests a tacit illustration of the Trinity in unity. That, as water, blood, and flesh, form one body in us, or in man; so the three which give testimony in heaven, the father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, are one substance or being. --- I have already noticed the testimony of Fulgentius, but it is necessary again to quote it. It is as Follows: "In Patre ergo et Filio et Spiritu Sancto unitatem substantiae accipimus, personas confundere non audemus. Beatus enim Joannes Apostolus testatur: Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in caelo; Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus; et tres unum sunt. Quod etiam beatissimus Martyr Cyprianus confitetur," &c. Then he presently cites the words of cyprian already considered. The citation of this father is equally artful with that of Vigilius. He abruptly breaks off at the end of the seventh, et tres unum sunt, --- thus endeavouring to prevent his readers from learning what that unity was; and lest they should not be drawn to his own notion, he premises, "In Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto, unitatem substantiae accipimus."

 

[Fulltruthministry]

I believe that we can be IN the spirit and the spirit can still be God or a person of God's triunity at the same time.

SO DO I

BIG SMILE

 

[Fulltruthministry]

But dont bend for them; You said the Spirit can still be GOD:
AND IT CAN; Because HE IS:

I guess we cant be moved: No matter what men say; the truth lives in the heart; and through growth in the word we get stronger in explaining the unity of God:\

The men you speak with have arrogant minds; God bless them:
They really dont see what they are doing:
They are indirectly denying the unity of the Son and the Father by saying the Son is an offspring:
Or implying that the Son was created:
When truth says that He is the author of creation:
The begining of Creation:
doenst say JESUS Was created:
He has always been one with the Father:
I guess know we see in part; and WE TRUST:
Praying to see more full:
According to Gods Will
Bless you brother:

I guess some men are trying to complicate things so that they wont have to consider the truth: Being overbearing with imformation thats not of themselves; throwing words that in hopes to dig something so deep that others cant see their own lights; being that they want to put us in their hole of thought:
I think you have explained the truth of God well: I would just leave them to their own devices: But maybe you have the time to speak; As God leads: But I hear the truth in what you are saying: Gods sheep hear His voice: Blessings

 

[Fulltruthministry]

NO, not correct. Worship is the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity © Oxford University Press, 2004

Christ was not deserving until after the ascention and is waiting for the septre, on the right hand of God.

Rev 22:8 And I John saw these things, and heard. And when I had heard and seen, fell bending the knee before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.

9 Then saith he unto me, See not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

Rev 22:8 καγω ιωαννης ο ακουων και λεπων ταυτα και οτε ηκουσα και εβλεψα επεσα προσκυνησαι εμπροσθεν των ποδων του αγγελου του δεικνυοντος μοι ταυτα

9 και λεγει μοι ορα μη συνδουλος σου ειμι και των αδελφων σου των προφητων και των τηρουντων τους λογους του βιβλιου τουτου τω θεω προσκυνησον
Lol I answered that and you messed up the response by putting it under your quote!

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]genuflection: is a courtesy and was treated the same as a salutation or as most often expressed as a "Kiss", which was very common in those days. See G[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]5462, 1120[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]χαιρετω salute salutation, kiss, or to bend the knee[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]γονυπετησας γονυπετιεω genuflect [/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]Mat 4:10 is προσκυνησεις, meaning [FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]genuflect earlier (Μ&#917 as genuflection: from eccles. L. genuflectere, from L. genu ‘knee’ plus flectere ‘to bend’.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]G4352 προσκύνεω genuflection, obeisance, homage, bow; courtesy[/FONT][/FONT]

1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

Ac 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Now, answer these:

For example, did the centurion send his Jewish friends to ask Jesus to heal his servant (so Lk. 7:1-10), or did he come himself (so Mt. 8:5-13)?

What was the point, for instance, of Matthew's passage about the coin in the fish's mouth (17:24-27)?

Let me take some time to touch on some of these misunderstandings you gentlemen seem to be bound by. You have reach such a hight of wisdom you THINK and perceive in your own self; but you are far from truth; wasting a lot of time in your train of though; in regards to getting to know God; and explaining the things of God. FAR OFF

I really feel bad to see you say a lot of nothing: Talking in circles;





YOUR QOUTE

Christ was not deserving until after the ascention and is waiting for the septre, on the right hand of God.

END QOUTE

Nothing you’ve said in your post shows that Jesus wasn’t worthy until after the ascention:

Did not the Father say:
This is my Son in whome I am well pleased:
LISTEN TO HIM

Does not the Bible say:

Revelation 13:8

King James Version (KJV)
8And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.



So the power and authority Jesus received through the acention; was always bestowed upon Him;

Did not JESUS SAY

John 17:5

King James Version (KJV)
5And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.


I WOULD RATHER LISTEN TO HIM; over men with the worlds wisdom:
Lets RELATE JESUS TO AN ETERNAL PURPOSE:
Since your having a hard time seeing His presence to be eternal:

Ephesians 3:10-11

King James Version (KJV)
10To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
11According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:



ETERNAL PURPOSE
Know lets put the worldly books down and hear:

If its an eternal purpose:
And if JESUS is shown to be worthy of praise after the resurrection or ascention: Then is it clear to see that Jesus was always at the right hand; But know the angels are able to see that He is worthy to be who He has always been:
As it is written:

John 17:5

King James Version (KJV)
5And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Don’t care how many words we try to break down with our human minds; TRUE power comes through loving God; Those that hear are those that seek that love; not the pride of their own findings: Thinking they are wiser then God; as if they determine what’s holy and what’s unfit: No disrespect:
But your explanations of what you are saying are not actually supporting what you are saying: Strange movement; People see that;
God bless

 

[he-man]

Did not the Father say:
This is my Son in whome I am well pleased:
LISTEN TO HIM Does not the Bible say: Revelation 13:8(KJV)
8And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Do you know what FUTURE tense means?

Rev 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

Did not JESUS SAY John 17:5 (KJV) 5And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Do you know what FUTURE tense means?
Joh 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

I WOULD RATHER LISTEN TO HIM; over men with the worlds wisdom:
Lets RELATE JESUS TO AN ETERNAL PURPOSE:
Since your having a hard time seeing His presence to be eternal:Ephesians 3:10-11
(KJV)10To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
11According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

Eph 3:11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:
19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

ETERNAL PURPOSE
Know lets put the worldly books down and hear:If its an eternal purpose:
And if JESUS is shown to be worthy of praise after the resurrection or ascention: Then is it clear to see that Jesus was always at the right hand;

You must mean the eternal purpose was from the foundation of the world to raise Christ from the dead.

As it is written: John 17:5 (KJV)
5And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

So you think we also existed before the world began?
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Before the world began - Προ χρονων αιωνιων. Before the Mosaic dispensation took place, God purposed the salvation of the Gentiles by Christ Jesus; and the Mosaic dispensation was intended only as the introducer of the Gospel. [CLARKE]

Don’t care how many words we try to break down with our human minds; TRUE power comes through loving God; Those that hear are those that seek that love; not the pride of their own findings:

Zec 13:9 And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God.

 

[Timothew]

I wonder if I can jump back into this discussion. I've been lurking for a while.

I just read this passage: Deuteronomy 30:11-19.
It seems so clear to me, that I have to ask; What is the traditional (hell-fire) interpretation of this passage?

Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.
See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.
But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.
This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
​

Clearly, there is a choice to be made, and it is between life and death; NOT a choice between life in heavenly bliss and life in fiery hell.

 

[Timothew]