Trinitarians: Which part of the Trinity is Jehovah?

[donfish06]

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

He talked to them because the verse prior to that:

Matthew 16:28
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Then SIX DAYS LATER, this is fulfilled:

Matthew 17:1-3
And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, [2] And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. [3] And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

Moses and Elijah are the 2 candlesticks, the two witnesses that bring plagues upon the earth right before Jesus' second coming. Peter, James and John saw Jesus in his Glory that he will have at his return.

 

[LoveofTruth]

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.

wrong

we read clearly

So we read of all three

"sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts," Galatians 4:6

20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." (Matthew 10:20 KJV)

"but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." (Acts 11:16 KJV)

and so

"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)

Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:


God is one being in three persons. The Tri Unity of the Godhead, or as many call it the trinity.

notice these words very clearly

"23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."( John 14:23 KJV)

Notice the "WE" speaking of the Father and the Son. This is definately plural (yet one God). The abode they make is within believers in Spirit.

"He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." (2 John 1:9 KJV)

To deny this is spiritually dangerous. John says

1 John 2:23
"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also."

Take heed. You are in great error here

There is not a spirit of the Father, and of the son

"Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." (Matthew 10:20 KJV)

"Spirit of his Son" (Galatians 4:6 KJV)

 

[LoveofTruth]

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

There are over 5000 surviving Greek manuscripts that make up the Textus Receptus. these are the majority text used by all. These texts were copied down the years and kept among professing Christians. God has watched over His word

 

[LoveofTruth]

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

and wikipedia is your source?

 

[LoveofTruth]

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

Westcot and Hort 1881 were the culprits and who caused alot of the mess many are in today. They went away when they could from the Majority text (Textus Receptus) They used different text the Alexandrian text etc, and this text goes back to to Vaticanus, etc

the proof is in the text themselves, and comparing verses . But this is a massive other forum, it would fill up this forum and go away from the topic. But maybe it is a good forum soon.

 

[LoveofTruth]

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

if we can find in the so called Anti-Nicene Fathers quoting text that the Alexandiran text don't have we can see that the Alexandrian text is wrong. And we can do this. We read many early writers quoting text from the Textus Receptus text and not from the Vaticanus and Alexandrian text, This is strong evidence that such verses existed. These are my sources also

Also in 1 John 5:7 in the so called church fathers we read it was quoted by Cyprian, and he spoke of the father the Son and the Holy Ghost these three are one. He was born around 210 or so and quoted his words in his writings around 250 Ad. He died in 258 AD. He is quoting from the Textus Receptus, and the so called Vaticanus and Alexandrian text which came later and did not have it. No it was there before that text existed.

also around that time ARIANISM was being introduced around AD 323-325 or so. Do any consider that some older manuscripts may have been made around that time and taken out verses about the deity of Christ and the trinity etc. And these manuscripts could be laying around for centuries not read . Then someone find an old book about to be burned and they use them as the authority.

I am searching this also, to find more evidence for this. if this can be proven the whole argument is over. There were many heretics around the time of the early church, and manuscripts written.

But there are many early writers who use the Majority text from them that differs from the new versions Greek text that is so popular today. There are many examples of this. As I said and this is my source in part

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.

what you do is go to the so called church fathers and find verses that are not in the new versions but that are in the KJV and see if you can find them in the Anti-Nicean fathers. If so then the New versions are wrong. Dean Burgeon does this in detail and others

and Codex Alexandrinusc. was in 400 AD

Westcot and Hort are trying to say that from 325 to 1881 the text was hidden from the world and so they had to rediscover the so called older ones for mankind, the Alexandrian text and Vaticanus.

There is no reason to believe that God would inspire the scriptures and then just leave it to men to mess up. No, God watches over His word and he shall preserve it for ever Psalm 12

The majority text were used all that time from the beginning until today
and that is the KJV bible.

 

[DamianWarS]

A trinitarian brother on another thread refused to answer this question.

Can anybody give me an answer?

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,

* יְהֹוָה
yehôvâh
yeh-ho-vaw'
From H1961; (the) self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: - Jehovah, the Lord. Compare H3050, H3069.
​

The word Jehovah is a Latin corruption of how God identified himself to Moses typically translated as "I am". This "name" isn't really a name at all as it is a statement of credentials identifying God as eternal. It is not a name to be pointed at a person within the trinity and if that is what you think it is then you missed the point. God is declaring that he is above names, as names invoke inherent limits, and above all things. He is eternal without beginning or end and the creator of all things finite, he is the I AM. If it points to anything it is the trinity in completeness.

 

[donfish06]

The word Jehovah is a Latin corruption of how God identified himself to Moses typically translated as "I am". This "name" isn't really a name at all as it is a statement of credentials identifying God as eternal. It is not a name to be pointed at a person within the trinity and if that is what you think it is then you missed the point. God is declaring that he is above names, as names invoke inherent limits, and above all things. He is eternal without beginning or end and the creator of all things finite, he is the I AM. If it points to anything it is the trinity in completeness.

You aren't an orthodox Trinitarian...

 

[Meowzltov]

Matthew 16:28
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Moses died. God buried him. Later, Satan and Michael fought over his bones.

 

[Albion]

You aren't an orthodox Trinitarian...

I don't find anything in his post that would justify that conclusion.

 

[Meowzltov]

There are over 5000 surviving Greek manuscripts that make up the Textus Receptus. these are the majority text used by all. These texts were copied down the years and kept among professing Christians. God has watched over His word

The Johannine comma is a Latin corruption. That is what is accepted by scholars.

 

[Meowzltov]

and wikipedia is your source?

Wikipedia is of course not the best source, but it certainly is above average.

 

[Meowzltov]

Also in 1 John 5:7 in the so called church fathers we read it was quoted by Cyprian, and he spoke of the father the Son and the Holy Ghost these three are one. He was born around 210 or so and quoted his words in his writings around 250 Ad. He died in 258 AD. He is quoting from the Textus Receptus, and the so called Vaticanus and Alexandrian text which came later and did not have it. No it was there before that text existed.

The question is whether Cyprian simply invented this on his own or whether he was actually quoting 1 John 5;7. Since no other writer quotes, including those arguing for the trinity, and Cyprian doesn't note who he is quoting, I think we can assume that the similarity is only coincidental. In fact, it is possible that the author of the Johannine comma was thinking of Cyprian's passage when he wrote.

 

[donfish06]

Moses died. God buried him. Later, Satan and Michael fought over his bones.

Take that up with Matthew, because he tells us that Jesus was seen with Moses and Elijah. It won't be the actual Moses and Elijah to the Jews, but the spirit of Moses and Elijah, just like Elisha and John the Baptist had the spirit of Elijah

 

[LoveofTruth]

The question is whether Cyprian simply invented this on his own or whether he was actually quoting 1 John 5;7. Since no other writer quotes, including those arguing for the trinity, and Cyprian doesn't note who he is quoting, I think we can assume that the similarity is only coincidental. In fact, it is possible that the author of the Johannine comma was thinking of Cyprian's passage when he wrote.

No we can use this and other evidence ( there is much more) for proof. Only the biased reader and those who don't claim to be strong in thier faith would doubt the text

The manuscripts used are the problem with the new translations

 

[Meowzltov]

The manuscripts used are the problem with the new translations

They are using older manuscripts. Older = more reliable.

 

[LoveofTruth]

I can make a statement here that if s person denies that the Son of God existed before he came to the earth and that there is a Tri unity of the Godhead, I doubt them and if they are even saved

 

[Meowzltov]

I can make a statement here that if s person denies that the Son of God existed before he came to the earth and that there is a Tri unity of the Godhead, I doubt them and if they are even saved

I'm a strict trinitarian, but the trinity is hard to grasp. I don't think our head knowledge is necessary for salvation.

 

[LoveofTruth]

They are using older manuscripts. Older = more reliable.

No they are not

The majority text that have been used along were on a material that faded away easily and they had to be reccopied. The so called Vaticanus Abd Alexandrian text ( which disagree with each other in thousands of aces) were used by Wescot and Hort and they tried to act as if these were not known from about 325 to 1881 as if the world did not have the scriptures and that they were hidden untill then. I believe one was found in a trash can about to be burned in A monastery and found and purchased .

I can present another idea. What if these text dat there unused and wrapped up for a long time because they were corruptions thAt came out of the heresies of the past Arians etc and they were from that line ? Why would any want to use them even if they were old.

But I think you didn't really read my post carefully I showed that many of the Znti-Nicean fathers and so called church fathers quoted the textus receptors often in their writings way before the so called older manuscripts were found

Proving that the majority text was what they used and it has to be copied and reccopied over the years because the material faded with use

This being the case your entire argument falls to the ground and you should get a good king James Bible and beer use another one

 

[LoveofTruth]

I'm a strict trinitarian, but the trinity is hard to grasp. I don't think our head knowledge is necessary for salvation.

I never said anything about head knowledge

No Man KNOWS the things of God without the Spirit