Trinitarians: Which part of the Trinity is Jehovah?

[DrBubbaLove]

Either way, it is the prayer OF the saints, not the prayer TO the saints. Remember the Saints under the Alter we're crying for vengence. God is now answering that prayer. Nowhere does it say that anyone prayed to these saints.

Actually we are all saints. So the "elders" shown in Rev 5 and then again in Rev 8 had containers of prayers of saints. No matter how one looks at the whole timeline of the story, one cannot conclude from that depiction of the "elders" offering up those prayers that those prayers belonged to them - IOW were the elder's prayers. No, the only possible rendering that makes sense are these "elders" are offering up prayers to God on behalf of someone else. Which is exactly what we do when we pray for someone else, which clearly the Bible tells us do. And when we ask someone else to pray for us, it is assumed by most reasonable folks that we mean pray to God on our behalf. No one looks at asking someone to pray for us as "praying to that person" though technically speaking a prayer is a request. And yes everyone can and does pray directly to God, even Catholics.

So, if I ask Saint Anthony to pray for me to get through something - I understand that I am asking him to pray for me (to God). It is the same way a prayer chain works with living folks, and no one is crazy enough to think people in asking a prayer circle for their help that people are "praying to people". So the objection can only stand, not on the idea that that it is wrong to ask people to pray for us, but that it is wrong to ask dead people to pray for us. And then it only stands if it can be shown to violate scripture to do so - which IMO fails. A proper prayer request cannot be equated with someone attempting summoning or witch craft.

Show me one place in the scriptures where ANYONE prayed to another man. Prayer is left to God alone.

No, we are clearly told to pray for one another (not to one another). As many of the Saints spent much of their lives here doing that for others and it gave them great joy to do so, I see no reason why we need to restrict their activity from that joy now, in fact it would make sense that the joy they receive in doing so on our behalf would be greater.
It is not required and sometimes we make general prayers for others without them knowing we are doing it or even without knowing specifically who they are and/or what they need. But surely there is nothing wrong with someone asking someone else to pray for them. So if we are to question the practice, the question should focus on not whether it is wrong to ask, but if we are only allowed to ask the living.

Given the depictions of heavenly hosts, things like believers being surrounded by a cloud of witnesses, elders offering up prayers of others to God...etc., it is a little hard (a bit naïve too IMO) to think the folks that are with Him now cannot participate in a kind of special (and powerful given where they are) group of pray warriors for us. And I fail to see the "evil" in such participation or making prayer requests to them.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

dupe

 

[donfish06]

And I fail to see the "evil" in such participation or making prayer requests to them.

There is no precedent in it for the Bible! NEVER did ANYONE ever pray to anyone but God. Paul said though an angel from heaven tell you something other than what I have taught you, let him be accursed. Paul never taught praying to Saints.

The Bible says not to add one word to or take one word from, or your name will be taken from the book... There is not one word saying to pray to Saints, therefore your church has added it. I'll stick with the scriptures on this.

 

[FanthatSpark]

This one hears both points . What is left out is the human and process. In the 1 or 3 process lets flip the script to add us. One comes in knowledge acquisition that requires the duality of the human. Judgment is the default setting as one reads the word thus we have prov:1:7. We all differ in what life brings us. For some, they are content in Trinitarian others 1 God and still others that see the two as the same . The hows "are" the confusion as one sees Spirit in both points of the how one believes and forgets duality of the human. None are righteous no not one can mean two very separate things in our duality. 1. Righteousness as an act. 2. Righteousness as being born in the light as Adam was/is/shall be in the command of God let there be light and or Alpha & Omega. One "could" further translate that to Word made flesh. One word...Light.

For those that hear we see the bible in beginning and end where above paragraph relates to scripture in line upon line format in first book to last book. Bible is a means to state of being in light. A persons "how" they come to understand means nothing to a living God for he teaches in confusion for us to overcome correct? Example: The bible uses confusing terminology in Luke 14:26. Hate is strong descriptor eh? How about hierarchy change of first love instead as in Rev.2:4 & Matt 22:37 ? We being saints are we not churches unto ourselves? What are gates of hell in Matt:16:18? We have a time line to function in the moment (process) . That moment being let there be light . In parting this speaks volumes to one that hears weather it be in 1, 3, the same...

Luke 9:54-56. What is son of man? What is son of God Gen:1:3. Light, correct? As it is written we are confused to what Spirit we are of correct? When one lives in the moment , our how means nothing as long as we are there good Saints .

Joab...James 1:27. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

In hopeth all things.

 

[Meowzltov]

I told you, when Saul spoke with Samuel. He lost his life for it.

The scripture never forbids us to marry a horse, so I guess it must be okay!

1. Saul lost his life for disobey God and not killing all the Amelakites and their beasts.
2. Saul asked Samuel for esoteric advice, which qualifies the exchange as diviniation, making it a commandment violation. Not so with asking the saints for their prayers -- there is no asking of advice.
3. Marrying a horse is beastiality, specifically commanded against.

 

[Meowzltov]

There is no precedent in it for the Bible! NEVER did ANYONE ever pray to anyone but God.

Jesus asked for support during the transfiguration.

 

[Meowzltov]

Either way, it is the prayer OF the saints, not the prayer TO the saints. Remember the Saints under the Alter we're crying for vengence. God is now answering that prayer. Nowhere does it say that anyone prayed to these saints.

Jesus asked the support of Moses and Elijah.

 

[LoveofTruth]

The Holy spirit is Jehovah?

Col 1:16 For by him (Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: ​

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens​

Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
Joh 4:42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. ​

Rev 1:8 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 (Jesus said this)

Zec 14:5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
1Th 3:13 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.

Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
Isa 33:22 For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.
Joh 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

Isa 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
Col 1:16 For by him (Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:


There is no "3 in one." The Son is the simply the Father being manifested. The Holy Spirit cannot be separated from the Father. There cannot be 2 eternal spirits. The Holy Spirit is God in Us.

Father= Eternal, self-existent God who dwells outside of his creation.
Son= the Father WITH us, expressed
Holy Spirit = God IN us.

Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all(Father), and through all(Son), and in you all(Holy Spirit).​

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one"(1 John 5:7 KJV)

And

15 I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous.
16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God ..."(Isaiah 48:15-17KJV)

Two of the strongest verses showing the Tri Unity of the Godhead

and yes 1
John 5:7 should be like that

And there is evidence for that verse

Cyprian 200 - 258 AD.
Cyprian quotes I John 5:7 from his Bible in 200• 258 AD,
Cyprian lived only 100 years after John wrote the book of I John
• Priscillian 350 AD,
• Idacius Clarus 360 AD,
• Varimadum 380 AD.
• Cassiodorus 485 AD.
• Cassian 435 AD.
• Victor Vita 489 AD.
• Jerome 450 AD.
• Fulgentius 533 AD.
• Ps. Vigilius 484 AD.
• Ansbert 660 AD.


Old Syriac 170 AD.
Old Latin 200 AD
Italic 4th and 5th century. – Italic • Monacensis 7th century.
Italic • Speculum 9th century.
Latin Vulgate 4th, 5th century.

• 221 in the 10th century.(variant).
• 88 in the 12th century.(margin).
• 629 in the 14th century.(Ottobanianus)
• 429 in the 14th century (margin).
• 636 in the 15th century. (margin).
• 61 in the 16th century.(Codex Montfortianus)
• 918 in the 16th century. (an Escorial ms).
• 2318 (a Bucharest manuscript)
Liber Apologeticus 350 AD. Council of Carthage 415 AD.


Etc

 

[donfish06]

Jesus asked for support during the transfiguration.

You completely added that, that is not in the scriptures that he asked them for support.

 

[donfish06]

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one"(1 John 5:7 KJV)

And

15 I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous.
16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God ..."(Isaiah 48:15-17KJV)

Two of the strongest verses showing the Tri Unity of the Godhead

and yes 1
John 5:7 should be like that

And there is evidence for that verse

Cyprian 200 - 258 AD.
Cyprian quotes I John 5:7 from his Bible in 200• 258 AD,
Cyprian lived only 100 years after John wrote the book of I John
• Priscillian 350 AD,
• Idacius Clarus 360 AD,
• Varimadum 380 AD.
• Cassiodorus 485 AD.
• Cassian 435 AD.
• Victor Vita 489 AD.
• Jerome 450 AD.
• Fulgentius 533 AD.
• Ps. Vigilius 484 AD.
• Ansbert 660 AD.


Old Syriac 170 AD.
Old Latin 200 AD
Italic 4th and 5th century. – Italic • Monacensis 7th century.
Italic • Speculum 9th century.
Latin Vulgate 4th, 5th century.

• 221 in the 10th century.(variant).
• 88 in the 12th century.(margin).
• 629 in the 14th century.(Ottobanianus)
• 429 in the 14th century (margin).
• 636 in the 15th century. (margin).
• 61 in the 16th century.(Codex Montfortianus)
• 918 in the 16th century. (an Escorial ms).
• 2318 (a Bucharest manuscript)
Liber Apologeticus 350 AD. Council of Carthage 415 AD.


Etc

Right, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost bare record of God. ONE God, three administration's as Paul told us. Not three person s

 

[LoveofTruth]

Right, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost bare record of God. ONE God, three administration's as Paul told us. Not three person s

We see the Spirit of the Father in the disciples and he would SPEAK in them. This is personal, We see the Spirit of the Son sent forth from the father and the Son speaks and teaches believers. This is personal. We see the Son of God speaking often in the bible, and this SPEAKING is personal. We see the Holy Ghost speaking in Acts 13 etc, and this is personal.

We even read of the "person of Christ".

Most cults deny the eternal existance of the Son of God before he came to the earth. This is a majour error for them. The scriptures teach clearly that the Son of God was in the past as distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit.

One God in being and three distinct though not separate persons in the Godhead.

Read isaiah 48:12-17 again and again

 

[Meowzltov]

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one"(1 John 5:7 KJV)

This verse is not in the oldest manuscripts; it is not part of the original Bible, but a latin corruption that got edited in at a later time in history, possibly a scribal error. 1 John 5:7 is simply, "For there are three that testify:" verse 8 says, "the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

 

[Meowzltov]

You completely added that, that is not in the scriptures that he asked them for support.

Really? Why did he talk to them, then? Just to shoot the breeze?

 

[LoveofTruth]

This verse is not in the oldest manuscripts; it is not part of the original Bible, but a latin corruption that got edited in at a later time in history, possibly a scribal error. 1 John 5:7 is simply, "For there are three that testify:" verse 8 says, "the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

wrong

it is in there and should be, and when you say "oldest manuscripts" thats the error right there. The different lines of text that went from Alexandria were the corrupted text. The so called older ones all disagree with eachother in a massive amount of places. The Textus Receptus is the right text, and these all generally agree

again a 45 hour talk or more

 

[Meowzltov]

wrong

it is in there and should be, and when you say "oldest manuscripts" thats the error right there. The different lines of text that went from Alexandria were the corrupted text. The so called older ones all disagree with eachother in a massive amount of places. The Textus Receptus is the right text, and these all generally agree

again a 45 hour talk or more

The Textus Receptus was a printed Greek Bible from 1522, not an ancient Greek manuscript. It is a LATIN CORRUPTION (meaning it was added when the scriptures were translated from Greek to Latin).

 

[LoveofTruth]

The Textus Receptus was a printed Greek Bible from 1522, not an ancient Greek manuscript. It is a LATIN CORRUPTION (meaning it was added when the scriptures were translated from Greek to Latin).

"Textus Receptus type manuscripts and versions have existed as the majority of texts for almost 2000 years. Frederick von Nolanspent 28 years tracing the Textus Receptus to apostolic origins. John William Burgon supported his arguments with the opinion that the Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi, were older than the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus; and also that the Peshitta translation into Syriac (which supports the Byzantine Text), originated in the 2nd century around 150 A.D.. Papyrus 66 used the Textus Receptus. The 157 A.D. Italic Church in the Northern Italy used the Textus Receptus. The 177 A.D. Gallic Church of Southern France used the Textus Receptus. The Celtic Church used the Textus Receptus. The Waldensians used the Textus Receptus. The Gothic Version of the 4th or 5th century used the Textus Receptus. The Curetonian Syriac is basically the Textus Receptus. Vetus Itala is from Textus Receptus. Codex Washingtonianus of Matthew used the Textus Receptus. Codex Alexandrinus in the Gospels used the Textus Receptus. 99% of extant New Testament manuscripts all used the Textus Receptus. The Greek Orthodox Churchused the Textus Receptus."

 

[LoveofTruth]

The Textus Receptus was a printed Greek Bible from 1522, not an ancient Greek manuscript. It is a LATIN CORRUPTION (meaning it was added when the scriptures were translated from Greek to Latin).

"Some of the leading Westcott and Hort followers of today are very bold to say that the Traditional Text, or the Textus Receptus type of readings, did not exist prior to 400 A.D., and certainly not before the 6th Century A.D. Here you have statistical data on 76 Church Fathers who died prior to 400 A.D., showing, not only that the Textus Receptus readingsdid exist prior to 400 A.D., but that they were in the majority."(https://www.house-church.net/bible/receptus.html#superiority)

 

[Meowzltov]

"Textus Receptus type manuscripts and versions have existed as the majority of texts for almost 2000 years. Frederick von Nolanspent 28 years tracing the Textus Receptus to apostolic origins. John William Burgon supported his arguments with the opinion that the Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi, were older than the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus; and also that the Peshitta translation into Syriac (which supports the Byzantine Text), originated in the 2nd century around 150 A.D.. Papyrus 66 used the Textus Receptus. The 157 A.D. Italic Church in the Northern Italy used the Textus Receptus. The 177 A.D. Gallic Church of Southern France used the Textus Receptus. The Celtic Church used the Textus Receptus. The Waldensians used the Textus Receptus. The Gothic Version of the 4th or 5th century used the Textus Receptus. The Curetonian Syriac is basically the Textus Receptus. Vetus Itala is from Textus Receptus. Codex Washingtonianus of Matthew used the Textus Receptus. Codex Alexandrinus in the Gospels used the Textus Receptus. 99% of extant New Testament manuscripts all used the Textus Receptus. The Greek Orthodox Churchused the Textus Receptus."

What is your source?

Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is the name given to the succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for the originalGermanLuther Bible, the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, and most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe. The series originated with the first printed Greek New Testament, published in 1516—a work undertaken in Basel by theDutchCatholic scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus. Although based mainly on late manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type, Erasmus' edition differed markedly from the classic form of that text, and included some missing parts back translated from the Latin Vulgate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

 

[Meowzltov]

"Some of the leading Westcott and Hort followers of today are very bold to say that the Traditional Text, or the Textus Receptus type of readings, did not exist prior to 400 A.D., and certainly not before the 6th Century A.D. Here you have statistical data on 76 Church Fathers who died prior to 400 A.D., showing, not only that the Textus Receptus readingsdid exist prior to 400 A.D., but that they were in the majority."(https://www.house-church.net/bible/receptus.html#superiority)

house-church.net???? that's not much of a reliable source.

 

[donfish06]

We see the Spirit of the Father in the disciples and he would SPEK in them. This is personal, We see the Spirit of the Son sent forth from the father and the Son speaks and teaches believers. This is personal. We see the Son of God speaking often in the bible, and this SPEAKING is personal. We see the Holy Ghost speaking in Acts 13 etc, and this is personal.

We even read of the "person of Christ".

Most cults deny the eternal existance of the Son of God before he came to the earth. This is a majour error for them. The scriptures teach clearly that the Son of God was in the past as distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit.

One God in being and three distinct though not separate persons in the Godhead.

Read isaiah 48:12-17 again and again

There is not a spirit of the Father, and of the son. It is ONE spirit. The spirit of the Father was on the Son, making him His Son. Just like Matt 1:18 says that Mary was conceived of the Holy Ghost. Does that mean Jesus had 2 fathers? No. The Holy Ghost IS the ONE spirit of God. Saying there are multiple spirits is strictly pagan.