Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

September 4th, 2012, 2:26 am #11

Father, Spirit and son or
Father Mother and mostly infantile little son is in ALL pagan triads.

God speaking through Jesus of Nazareth taught the ANTITHESIS of all pagan triads. A scholar from Lipscomb University wrote a book saying that BECAUSE all pagans believed that god was a family it was important that Christianity have its OWN trinity. Wrong.

Father, Son and Spirit are NEVER names of persons or people.

John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

How many doctorates or certificates do you need to miss that clear statement?

John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father,
and the Father IN me?
the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself:
but the Father that dwelleth IN me, he doeth the works.

John 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me:
or else believe me for the very works sake.

John 14:17 Even the Spirit OF truth;
whom the world cannot receive,
because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him:
but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you
and shall be in you.


This is a SHOUTING PROOF that the always pagan "families of gods" is repudiated and proves that what the doubter who wanted to SEE the father believed that Jesus was going to show him another "person." Jesus was the IMAGE of the ONE GOD who has NOT other persons required to have OTHER talents (JWHicks).

Father and Son would be IN or Abide with believers because Jesus said MY WORDS are Spirit

Jesus was MADE TO BE both Lord and Christ: He was a son (as we are) but Jesus was the Spirit OF truth.

John 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Jesus would return with the promise or COMMISSION to be the living Spirit of the Church of which He is head.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more;
but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
John 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father,
and ye in me, and I in you


Therefore, the ALWAYS pagan trinity of father, spirit (mother) and son were MADE KNOWN in the God "image" of JUST ONE PERSON. This should prove that God the Father in heaven who made Jesus to be both Lord and Christ and to REPUDIATE the actual three PERSONS of the "god" families does not remotely teach a TRINITY OF CENTERS OF CONSCIOUSNESS (JMHICKS ETAL).

Christians can never do anything but create hostility and warfare with both Jews and Muslims who are NOT Polytheists.

Don't let it worry you if you cannot grasp it.
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Ken,

Let's be patient with those who cannot seem to grasp that throughout John's narrative in his book (esp. chapters 14-16) concerning the relationship between the Father and His Son Jesus Christ, the communication is between them:

-- I am in the Father; the Father is in me.
-- I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
-- I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
-- Ye believe in God, believe also in me.
-- etc., etc.


Uh-oh, a "third person" is not in the communication process.

What the Trinitarians consider as the third person in the Trinity Doctrine (source: the Nicene Creed, the Roman Catholic Church and the papacy) is evidently ABSENT in the relationship and communication. Why is that?

Let's be patient with them who cannot grasp that by definition, the word "spirit" is a common noun, not a proper noun. Throughout biblical history, the word "spirit" has been defined as "wind, power, life, breath or mind." It is not a proper name as in "Jehovah" or "Jesus the Christ." But, yes, the Spirit OF the Lord is "holy." The word "holy" is an adjective that modifies the common noun "spirit." When the Spirit OF Christ is identified as being "holy," the holy Spirit of the Lord is still NOT a proper name as in "Jehovah" or "Jesus Christ."

"In the NAME (singular) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit [OF the Lord]" does NOT make the Spirit of God being holy, pure and sinless [more adjectives] into another person that the Trinitarians honestly and sincerely but falsely and erroneously claim.

Can someone, please, consult with any of the famous Trinitarians to explain to you or us the following passage in Job 27:3?[/color]
"All the while my breath is in me,
and the spirit of God is in my nostrils"
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Enough lessons on the parts of speech (noun, pronoun, adjective, etc.) for now.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

September 4th, 2012, 2:39 am #12

Donnie and Ken, I merely posted the words of Christ in a thread named "Who is AntiChrist?". I posted an Image of the Godhead. I said nothing about the mother of God. Why is everyone so upset? Do you not believe in the Godhead? Is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit not in the Bible?
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Racnor,

Believe me: being upset is farthest from my mind.

We're only attempting to simplify matters and make parallel statements to clarify. In my case, you illustrated the Trinity Doctrine. This dogma was initiated by the Roman Catholic Church and the papacy [and unfortunately acquired and inherited by many Protestant Churches].

The parallel is that another doctrine from the same source or inventor of human dogmas, the R.C.C., is this form of Trinity: Father, Mother [the "Perpetual Virgin," though], and Her Son Jesus.

You do an excellent job of illustrating. Can you search online and find us an image that reflects the other Trinity?

I'm serious about this.

Thanks!

Donnie[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

September 4th, 2012, 2:42 am #13

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Ken,

Let's be patient with those who cannot seem to grasp that throughout John's narrative in his book (esp. chapters 14-16) concerning the relationship between the Father and His Son Jesus Christ, the communication is between them:

-- I am in the Father; the Father is in me.
-- I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
-- I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
-- Ye believe in God, believe also in me.
-- etc., etc.


Uh-oh, a "third person" is not in the communication process.

What the Trinitarians consider as the third person in the Trinity Doctrine (source: the Nicene Creed, the Roman Catholic Church and the papacy) is evidently ABSENT in the relationship and communication. Why is that?

Let's be patient with them who cannot grasp that by definition, the word "spirit" is a common noun, not a proper noun. Throughout biblical history, the word "spirit" has been defined as "wind, power, life, breath or mind." It is not a proper name as in "Jehovah" or "Jesus the Christ." But, yes, the Spirit OF the Lord is "holy." The word "holy" is an adjective that modifies the common noun "spirit." When the Spirit OF Christ is identified as being "holy," the holy Spirit of the Lord is still NOT a proper name as in "Jehovah" or "Jesus Christ."

"In the NAME (singular) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit [OF the Lord]" does NOT make the Spirit of God being holy, pure and sinless [more adjectives] into another person that the Trinitarians honestly and sincerely but falsely and erroneously claim.

Can someone, please, consult with any of the famous Trinitarians to explain to you or us the following passage in Job 27:3?[/color]
"All the while my breath is in me,
and the spirit of God is in my nostrils"
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Enough lessons on the parts of speech (noun, pronoun, adjective, etc.) for now.[/color]
The folly of it all is that scholars and preachers always feel the need to take bits and pieces of Scripture and then fabricate a sermon which they believe and have been taught can have power punched into it by making sermons.

Can it really be true that all of the polytheists have almost never been able to read the very simple teachings of Jesus in John: I betcha that right now preachers and scholars are writing Class Books filled with so much of themselves that Jesus is not allowed to speak.

The elders as vocational pastor-teachers assigned by Christ in Spirit (Ephesians 4) are commanded to teach that which has been taught.

Titus 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
Titus 1:8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
Titus 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine
both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
Titus 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
Titus 1:11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucres sake.
Titus 1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
Titus 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Titus 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables,
<font color="#FFFFFF">.....
and commandments of men,
.....that turn from the truth.
Titus 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
Titus 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.


</font>
Quote
Like
Share

Scripture
Scripture

September 4th, 2012, 7:17 am #14

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Racnor,

Believe me: being upset is farthest from my mind.

We're only attempting to simplify matters and make parallel statements to clarify. In my case, you illustrated the Trinity Doctrine. This dogma was initiated by the Roman Catholic Church and the papacy [and unfortunately acquired and inherited by many Protestant Churches].

The parallel is that another doctrine from the same source or inventor of human dogmas, the R.C.C., is this form of Trinity: Father, Mother [the "Perpetual Virgin," though], and Her Son Jesus.

You do an excellent job of illustrating. Can you search online and find us an image that reflects the other Trinity?

I'm serious about this.

Thanks!

Donnie[/color]
Trinitarianism was not fully developed even at the end of the 2nd century AD (100-199 AD), when Irenaeus an early theologian emphasized the monotheistic nature of Christianity, that is, "one God", and that is the Father. But Irenaeus goes on to say "the Father is God, and the Son is God, for whatever is begotten of God is God" (c. 180, Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies), Irenaeus, 47) Although he implies that the Spirit is divine in his eyes, he sees the three not as three equal persons, but as a single person. The Father Who is the Godhead Itself, with His mind, or rationality, and His wisdom. With this monotheism, Irenaeus obscures the position of the Son and the Spirit as "Persons", to use modern terminology.

2nd century theologians represent the three not as coequal persons as did the Nicene Creed of 325 AD but as a single person, "the Father Who is the Godhead Itself, with His mind, or rationality, and His wisdom" (p. 108, Early Christian Doctrines, 1978, JND Kelly). These thinkers were anxious to offer Christianity as monotheism (one God), obscuring the position of the Son and the Spirit as "persons."

The theories of "Popes" Zephyrinus (198-217) and Callistus (217-222) thought that the theories of Hippolytus and Tertullian led to ditheism (I'm not sure if restorationism recognizes them as popes). Others regarded the Son and the Spirit as expansions or projections of the One God the Father.

I could go on and on, but trinitarianism was not full-blown until the Nicene Creed in 325 AD. This brings us to the application of Restorationism. For those wishing to restore primitive Christianity, therefore, the term trinity is generally "invisible", that is never mentioned.

Scriptures Alone suggest that we should speak where the Bible speaks, and remain silent where the Bible is silent. That our people are not aware of these issues today shows the great dearth existing in the pulpit today, with too much emphases on programs and "smooth" Christianity. Polished Christianity can create a bulging crowd, as long as the membership was taught rightly in the past, but with just a few decades of smooth preaching, all doctrinal foundations are erased and the church is just left with the remnants called "ritual." "Ritual" then itself fails when the membership begins to call in question all the basics. Then it is too late. Smooth preaching began in mid-20th century and has continued until the present.
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

September 4th, 2012, 12:56 pm #15

Scripture,
You said "Scriptures Alone suggest that we should speak where the Bible speaks, and remain silent where the Bible is silent."

Can you present those Scriptures that support that?

Thank you!
Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

September 4th, 2012, 3:11 pm #16

We all butt in around here. That is the UNIVERSAL claim of those who WILL NOT speak where the Bible Speaks but insist that you listen to them fill in the blanks. Isaiah 8 which was breathed on or inspired by the Spirit of Christ and taught by most historical scholarship. Remember that the Monarchy as the progressives PATTERNISM was "A covenant with DEATH and with HELL." God had "turned them over to worship the starry host" at Mount Sinai because they REJOICED (that music thing) in the works of their own hands. All religious performance music was defined by words like enchantment, soothsaying (the Levites), Sorcery or witchcraft. The command in the singing passages is to TEACH and ADMONISH without enhancment by humans.

Quote
Like
Share

Scripture
Scripture

September 4th, 2012, 3:21 pm #17

Scripture,
You said "Scriptures Alone suggest that we should speak where the Bible speaks, and remain silent where the Bible is silent."

Can you present those Scriptures that support that?

Thank you!
This is an attempt to focus more on the written word than on our traditions and hand-downs. You may be reacting to those who would like to "beat you over the head" but this is not the intention. The exact wording I believe may come from the 19th century, from the Stone-Campbell movement.

In particular, reference to the "trinity" is an example of using a term, that, although some may see warrant for using it, it is better to use Biblical terms for these matters. If one likes to be under creeds and religious authoritarianism, then he or she can just adopt the creeds of man.

Revelation 22:18-19 gives a warning that is intended to protect the written word from additions and from subtractions. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 refers to the written word being complete--although this was apparently written before our New Testament was collected as a "canon." 2 Pet. 1:21 refers to writers of scripture were moved by God, and not by their own will or desires.

Additionally, creeds can be viewed as speaking where the Bible may not speak (adding to), and not giving all information that the Bible gives (subtracting from).

I know that this is a tall charge to know when to speak and not to speak. Scriptures Alone is in keeping with the Reformation and Restoration movements. I'm not saying that this can ever be completely accomplished.
Quote
Share

Scripture
Scripture

September 4th, 2012, 3:42 pm #18

Scripture,
You said "Scriptures Alone suggest that we should speak where the Bible speaks, and remain silent where the Bible is silent."

Can you present those Scriptures that support that?

Thank you!
Also, this is the first great rock on which the Protestant Reformation is founded.

1. "SCRIPTURES ALONE" or "Sola Scriptura".

The alternative was Church Tradition, the creeds, the councils, the encylicals, and the hierarchy of authority that divested every individual Christian from his or her right to read, understand, and apply the Word of God according to their ability and understanding.

Other rocks were 2. Christ, 3. Grace, 4. Faith, and 5. Glory to God.

This is not to enthrone these five or make them a creed!
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

September 4th, 2012, 7:13 pm #19

"We all BUTT in around here."

For once, Ken, you got it right! That isn't what is bothering.....you butt in and 9 out 10 times don't even have the subject in mind. You just have your own agenda in your own mind. Someone can be talking about a yellow school bus and you can still bring it back to the Babylonian harlot and starry host. Even more so.....you can carry on a nice conversation with your own-self. Post after post shows that you don't need someone to post after.
Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

September 4th, 2012, 11:26 pm #20

Religious Performance was ALWAYS marked as a Fairy Tail: Jesus intimated that the clergy wanted to initiate Him: the MEN were like CHILDREN or ABUSED BOYS piping as they forced the candidate into singing/lamenting and dancing. Jesus consigned them to the MARKET place where the Romans had outlawed it by the time Paul wrote Romans 14.

Music derived from mystery (that gender thingy) intends to make the lambs dumb before the slaughter: to silence the voice of the VICTIM: always meant Sacred Violence. Because people are neutered by praizy-crazy-singy-clappy boys, they have no interest or AVENUE to understanding men like John. We have noted that Christ in Isaiah does not ask that the people CEASE their musical witchcraft and teach the Word of God (only): he says that their witchery is BECAUSE there is no light in them. Jesus even refused to speak to them except in parables to PREVENT them from hearing the mysteries of God as the ANTITHESIS of the mysteries which drove males into self emasculation so they could serve the Mother Goddes.

-Gallus A. Galli , rum, m., the priests of Cybele, so called because of their raving, In sing.: Gallus , i, m., a priest of Cybele, resupinati cessantia tympana Galli,satirically (on account of their emasculated condition), in the fem.: Gallae , rum, Cat. 63, 12, and 34.
2. (Acc. to II. A., of or belonging to the priests of Cybele; hence, transf.) Of or belonging to the priests of Isis (Mt Sinai), Gallic: turma, the troop of the priests of Isis, Ov. Am. 2, 13, 18.


http://www.piney.com/Galatians.5.Music.Witchcraft.html

Last edited by Ken.Sublett on September 4th, 2012, 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share