The Problem with 2 Peter 1:1

[tigger 2]

.....................................................
You tell us: The Holy Spirit is most often preceded by "the" as in "The Holy Spirit". For example, John 14:26, "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom [neuter: o, ‘which’] the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and will cause you to remember everything I said to you." And is a part of the Trinity: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" Matthew 28:19

The Holy Spirit is not an adjective; it is a proper name [it is a descriptive neuter noun] of one third of the Trinity. "The" is a demonstrative pronoun. [‘The’ is not a pronoun at all, but is a neuter definite article to.]

You have very weird , non-Scriptural theology.
.....................................................................
All those who are in heaven are described as masculine and have the masculine gender in their names and literal descriptions. The HS is described as neuter in gender (not a person).

Your non-scriptural theology is weird.

...............................................

Mt. 28:19 "...in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit."

Trinitarian author Robert Reymond was quoted as saying about this scripture in his book Jesus the Divine Messiah,

“what [Jesus] does say is this ... ‘into the name [singular] of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,’ first asserting the unity of the three by combining them all within the bounds of the single Name, and then throwing into emphasis the distinctness of each by introducing them in turn with the repeated article [the word ‘the’].”

Sure enough, when we read Matt. 28:19, we find,

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name [singular in the Greek] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." - RSV.

(The fact that Matt. 28:19 is considered to be spurious by many scholars - because of both good external and internal evidence - is not the issue here.)

Bible phrases beginning "in the name of..." indicate that the secondary meaning of "authority" or "power" was intended by the Bible writer. - p. 772, W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of the New Testament, 1983. Therefore, Matt. 28:19 actually means: "baptizing them in recognition of the power [or the authority] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy spirit."

That W. E. Vine specifically includes Matt. 28:19 in this category can be further shown by his statement on p. 772 of his reference work. When discussing the secondary meaning of "name" ("authority," "power") he says that it is used

"in recognition of the authority of (sometimes combined with the thought of relying on or resting on), Matt. 18:20; cp. 28:19; Acts 8:16...."

A.T. Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 1, p. 245, makes the same admission when discussing Matt. 28:19.

　The fact that "name" is singular at Matt. 28:19 is only further proof that "authority" or "power" was meant and not a personal name. If more than one person is involved, then the plural "names" would be used (compare Rev. 21:12). Even trinitarians admit that their God is composed of 3 separate persons. And each one of those "persons" has his own personal name (except, as we have seen, the holy spirit really does not)! Therefore, if personal names were intended here for these three different "persons," the plural "names" would have been used in this scripture.

Since it clearly means "in recognition of the power, or authority of," it is perfectly correct to use "name" in the singular. In fact, it must be used that way. We even recognize this in our own language today. We say, for example, "I did it in the name [singular] of love, humanity, and justice."

There is a famous statement in United States history that perfectly illustrates this use of the singular "name" when it is being used to mean "in recognition of power or authority." Ethan Allen, writing about his capture of Fort Ticonderoga in 1775, quoted the words he spoke when the British commander of that fort asked him by what authority Allen had captured it.
Ethan Allen replied:

"In the name [singular] of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress." - p. 100, A Book About American History, Stimpson, Fawcett Publ., 1962 printing. (Also see Rebels and Redcoats, p. 54, Scheer and Rankin, Mentor Books, 1959 printing; and p. 167, Vol. 1, Universal Standard Encyclopedia, the 1955 abridgment of the New Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedia.)

How ludicrous it would be to conclude that Allen really meant that Jehovah and the Continental Congress had the same personal name and were both equally God!
To paraphrase the quote credited to trinitarian writer Reymond at the beginning of this section above:

"What Ethan Allen does say is this ... 'in the name [singular] of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress,' first asserting the unity of the two by combining them within the bounds of the single Name, and then throwing into emphasis the distinctness of each by introducing them in turn with the repeated article ['the']."

According to this desperate attempt by trinitarians to make trinitarian evidence from Matt. 28:19, then, the same kind of statement by Ethan Allen is evidence (because of the singular "Name" and the repeated article) that The Continental Congress is equally God! (We might also consider a British expression: "in the name of God, king and country.")

Also notice how Luke 9:26 (which actually says, "when [Jesus] comes in the glory [singular] of him [Jesus] and of the Father and of the holy angels") is "first asserting the unity of the three by combining them all within the bounds of the single [glory], and then throwing into emphasis the distinctness of each by introducing them in turn with the repeated article." But, here, of course, the angels, too, make up the "trinity." We have, then, God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy angels!

If Jesus were really saying that Jehovah, Jesus, and the holy spirit had personal names and these names must be used during baptism, he would have used the plural word "names" at Matt. 28:19. And we would see the Father's personal name ("Jehovah" - Is. 63:16; 64:8 - Ps. 83:18 and Luke 1:32 - Exodus 3:15 and Acts 3:13) and the Son's personal name ("Jesus" - Luke 1:31, 32) and the holy spirit's personal name ("?") all being used in Christian baptism ceremonies for the past 1900 years.

Honestly now, how many religions actually use the personal names "Jehovah," "Jesus," and "(??)" when baptizing? - ("We baptize you in the names of 'Jehovah,' 'Jesus,' and '???'.") Or, since a few anti-Watchtower trinitarians even claim that the singular "name" at Matt. 28:19 is really "Jehovah," how many religions really use the personal name "Jehovah" (or "Yahweh") when baptizing? ("We baptize you in Jehovah's name.") Any church that does not do so, must be admitting, in effect, that "name" in this scripture does not mean personal name!

In spite of the extreme weakness of the trinitarian "evidence" for Matt. 28:19, it is nearly always cited by trinitarians because, incredibly poor as it is, it is one of their very best trinitarian "proofs"! And it is generally hailed by trinitarians as the best evidence for the deity of the holy spirit! This certainly shows how extremely weak the scriptural evidence is for a trinity!

 

[Aunty Jane]

In general you are right that in the OT the Spirit was not "seen as a person or a deity". They saw the Spirit as a quality belonging to God or one of his attributes.

• Genesis 1:2 "a wind from God sweeping over the water" [7]
• 1 Samuel 16:13 "and the spirit of the LORD gripped David from that day on."
• Psalm 143:10 "Let Your gracious spirit lead me on level ground."
• Isaiah 42:1 "Behold My servant, I will support him, My chosen one, whom My soul desires; I have placed My spirit upon him, he shall promulgate justice to the nations."
• Isaiah 44:3 "So will I pour My spirit on your offspring, My blessing upon your posterity."
• Joel 2:28 "I will pour out My spirit on all flesh; Your sons and daughters shall prophesy."

Correct....so why would God’s worshippers need to change their interpretation of the holy spirit when Jesus came? He taught his followers from those same scriptures, “inspired of God”. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

However, the Holy Spirit is referred to in personal terms by our Lord throughout the New Testament: And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, who the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.....But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father.....Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convince the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment; of sin"

Furthermore St. Paul tells us “no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God”!

Hebrews 3:7 has the Holy Spirit SAYING something: Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says,

Notice in Hebrews 10:15 the Holy Spirit is synonymous with God himself: And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us, for after saying,

So clearly The Holy Spirit is personal. He convinces of sin, teaches the truth, speaks, declares things that are to come, and comprehends the thoughts of God. Those texts leave no doubt as to the personhood of the Holy Spirit.

OK, now we have an indication of what changed......language. From OT Hebrew to NT Greek.
Researching the original language words we see the difference between the language God gave his own people, and the language of those who were alive in the days when Jesus walked the earth.
What can we learn from those differences?

The first thing we have to note is the absence of the divine name and the substitute of a title (Lord or God) when Yahweh is mentioned. For the Greeks this posed a problem, since all their many gods had names to identify them. The God one of the Jews was nameless, so the only way to identify him was by means of the definite article “ho” (the).....so when Yahweh was being spoken about, especially when his son was mentioned in the same passage, to differentiate them (since both qualified under the Greek word “theos” as “divine or divinely authorised mighty ones”) the definite article was the only means they had to differentiate between them. We use it too when describing persons who might share the same name.....e.g. if Bred Pitt was invited to a function you were attending, your first question would be “THE Brad Pitt?” So the one who was most recognized under that word “theos” was preceded by the definite article. Interestingly, there is no indefinite article in Greek. (No “a” or “an”) they have to be added by translators to make English more understandable. So right away we see problems with translation, rather than the written word itself.

If you read John 1:1 in a Greek Interlinear you will see that little word “ho” used for the mention of the one that the Word was “with” but it is missing from the second mention.
e.g. John 1:1 the Interlinear says...
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with THE God, (ho theos) and the Word was god (theos)”. Without the definite article, the Word (ho Logos) is “a god” or one with divine authority. He is not “ho theos”. (THE God)

So, back to the holy spirit......how are we to understand the references to the holy spirit as the “Paraclete” or “Comforter”...is it a personage? And why does the Bible use such personal pronouns as “he” and “himself” with reference to the “Spirit of truth”? (John 14:16, 26; John 15:26; John 16:7, 13 AV Dy)

What Jesus promised was another “pa·raʹkle·tos”. In extra-Biblical Greek literature that term was applied to a person who served as “a legal adviser or helper or advocate in the relevant court.” But in the Bible the word is used more in the broad and general sense of “helper.”
So, while some Bible versions translate the word as “Comforter,” “Advocate” or “Counselor,” many modern Bible translations render pa·raʹkle·tos as “helper.”

Even though pa·raʹkle·tos was a word applied to a person who performed a certain function, this does not necessarily establish that the holy spirit is also a person. Its use in the book of John may be viewed simply as a personification. At Matthew 11:19 Jesus personified “wisdom” and depicted it as having “works” or “children.” Yet “wisdom” is not a person with an individual existence. Also, Romans 5:14, 21 personalizes “death” and “sin” as ‘reigning kings’. But they are not living personages. In my understanding, Jesus did the same in regard to the spirit; he personalized something that was actually not a person and was never seen as such among the Jewish nation.

Understanding Greek grammar, “Pa·raʹkle·tos” is Scripturally treated as the masculine form of the word. A feminine form is pa·raʹkle·tri·a. In speaking or writing Greek, if one uses either of these words, the pronouns applied to it must match in gender—“he” and “him” with pa·raʹkle·tos and “she” and “her” with a feminine form. So referring to the holy spirit in these terms does not make it a person.

With that said you quoted passages that DO NOT point to the personhood of The Spirit and that fit what you believe. But you left out passages that DO point to the personhood of The Spirit. I choose to read the entire Bible in CONTEXT.....that is how the Bible instructs me.

Bible study requires time and patience to take all things into consideration. I have been a student and avid researcher of the Bible for going on 50 years so I take nothing at face value.

Firstly consider that the role of God’s spirit did not change from OT to NT because it never was a person. What changed was the language and required language study to discern. Christendom has woven a web of lies into the Bible’s translations by stealth. Misinterpreting scripture to imply some thing that is never directly stated by either God or his son. There is a scriptural reason as to why that took place, mentioned below....

Which leads me to the most important question: Why do you accept the Jewish interpretation of who or what the Holy Spirit is and reject the Christian interpretation?

I hope I have given you sound reasons for believing that there was no change in interpretation as to the role of the holy spirit, for the simple reason that Jesus was Jewish and he used Jewish scripture to instruct his disciples....there was no other scripture. And the OT never taught that the spirit of God was anything but the administration of his power directed to whomever or whatever was necessary in order to accomplish his will and purpose.

The “Christian interpretation” is riddled with errors, passed off as gospel truth. Jesus himself warned that Christianity would be corrupted by men who took over church and who were influenced by the one who sowed the “weeds” (satan the devil, Master of deception) planting a counterfeit form of the real thing....not really discernible in the beginning, but gradually as the weeds grew, they did what weeds do best....they all but choked out the “wheat”.

The divided mess that Christendom is in these days should prove to all discerning Christians that something is horribly wrong with the way they interpret the Bible because there is no unity or full obedience to the teachings of the Christ. Nowhere is that more clearly evident than in those world leaders who claim to be under Christ but who’s hands are dripping in innocent blood. (Isaiah 1:15)

Jesus said that “few” are on the road to life, because the road is cramped and difficult, whereas the road to destruction is broad and spacious, (Matthew 7:13-14).....a way to fool themselves into believing that they are headed for glory, when it is just the opposite......

Which road are we travelling? Do we have lots of company? We should be in a minority.

Peace and truth to you.....

 

[Marymog]

Correct....so why would God’s worshippers need to change their interpretation of the holy spirit when Jesus came? He taught his followers from those same scriptures, “inspired of God”. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)


OK, now we have an indication of what changed......language. From OT Hebrew to NT Greek.
Researching the original language words we see the difference between the language God gave his own people, and the language of those who were alive in the days when Jesus walked the earth.
What can we learn from those differences?

The first thing we have to note is the absence of the divine name and the substitute of a title (Lord or God) when Yahweh is mentioned. For the Greeks this posed a problem, since all their many gods had names to identify them. The God one of the Jews was nameless, so the only way to identify him was by means of the definite article “ho” (the).....so when Yahweh was being spoken about, especially when his son was mentioned in the same passage, to differentiate them (since both qualified under the Greek word “theos” as “divine or divinely authorised mighty ones”) the definite article was the only means they had to differentiate between them. We use it too when describing persons who might share the same name.....e.g. if Bred Pitt was invited to a function you were attending, your first question would be “THE Brad Pitt?” So the one who was most recognized under that word “theos” was preceded by the definite article. Interestingly, there is no indefinite article in Greek. (No “a” or “an”) they have to be added by translators to make English more understandable. So right away we see problems with translation, rather than the written word itself.

If you read John 1:1 in a Greek Interlinear you will see that little word “ho” used for the mention of the one that the Word was “with” but it is missing from the second mention.
e.g. John 1:1 the Interlinear says...
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with THE God, (ho theos) and the Word was god (theos)”. Without the definite article, the Word (ho Logos) is “a god” or one with divine authority. He is not “ho theos”. (THE God)

So, back to the holy spirit......how are we to understand the references to the holy spirit as the “Paraclete” or “Comforter”...is it a personage? And why does the Bible use such personal pronouns as “he” and “himself” with reference to the “Spirit of truth”? (John 14:16, 26; John 15:26; John 16:7, 13 AV Dy)

What Jesus promised was another “pa·raʹkle·tos”. In extra-Biblical Greek literature that term was applied to a person who served as “a legal adviser or helper or advocate in the relevant court.” But in the Bible the word is used more in the broad and general sense of “helper.”
So, while some Bible versions translate the word as “Comforter,” “Advocate” or “Counselor,” many modern Bible translations render pa·raʹkle·tos as “helper.”

Even though pa·raʹkle·tos was a word applied to a person who performed a certain function, this does not necessarily establish that the holy spirit is also a person. Its use in the book of John may be viewed simply as a personification. At Matthew 11:19 Jesus personified “wisdom” and depicted it as having “works” or “children.” Yet “wisdom” is not a person with an individual existence. Also, Romans 5:14, 21 personalizes “death” and “sin” as ‘reigning kings’. But they are not living personages. In my understanding, Jesus did the same in regard to the spirit; he personalized something that was actually not a person and was never seen as such among the Jewish nation.

Understanding Greek grammar, “Pa·raʹkle·tos” is Scripturally treated as the masculine form of the word. A feminine form is pa·raʹkle·tri·a. In speaking or writing Greek, if one uses either of these words, the pronouns applied to it must match in gender—“he” and “him” with pa·raʹkle·tos and “she” and “her” with a feminine form. So referring to the holy spirit in these terms does not make it a person.



Bible study requires time and patience to take all things into consideration. I have been a student and avid researcher of the Bible for going on 50 years so I take nothing at face value.

Firstly consider that the role of God’s spirit did not change from OT to NT because it never was a person. What changed was the language and required language study to discern. Christendom has woven a web of lies into the Bible’s translations by stealth. Misinterpreting scripture to imply some thing that is never directly stated by either God or his son. There is a scriptural reason as to why that took place, mentioned below....


I hope I have given you sound reasons for believing that there was no change in interpretation as to the role of the holy spirit, for the simple reason that Jesus was Jewish and he used Jewish scripture to instruct his disciples....there was no other scripture. And the OT never taught that the spirit of God was anything but the administration of his power directed to whomever or whatever was necessary in order to accomplish his will and purpose.

The “Christian interpretation” is riddled with errors, passed off as gospel truth. Jesus himself warned that Christianity would be corrupted by men who took over church and who were influenced by the one who sowed the “weeds” (satan the devil, Master of deception) planting a counterfeit form of the real thing....not really discernible in the beginning, but gradually as the weeds grew, they did what weeds do best....they all but choked out the “wheat”.

The divided mess that Christendom is in these days should prove to all discerning Christians that something is horribly wrong with the way they interpret the Bible because there is no unity or full obedience to the teachings of the Christ. Nowhere is that more clearly evident than in those world leaders who claim to be under Christ but who’s hands are dripping in innocent blood. (Isaiah 1:15)

Jesus said that “few” are on the road to life, because the road is cramped and difficult, whereas the road to destruction is broad and spacious, (Matthew 7:13-14).....a way to fool themselves into believing that they are headed for glory, when it is just the opposite......

Which road are we travelling? Do we have lots of company? We should be in a minority.

Peace and truth to you.....

Thank you Jane for your well thought out and articulate response. I won't belabor your points.....very much!

All I can say is that the language didn't change as you allege. I think we can safely assume that the writers of the NT letters quoted Jesus word for word and it was Jesus very clear words that I provided in my post that "changed" how men look at the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as 3 separate personages. As stated before Paul could see this, but apparently the anti-Trinitarians can't.

I agree with you that Bible study requires time and patience and one is to take all things into consideration. You said that you have been a student and avid researcher of the Bible for going on 50 years. But your studies have led you down a completely different path concerning the Trinity than a majority of Christianity and Christian Scholars who have studied as long or longer as you have. So why should I accept your theory on this matter and not theirs?

Mary

 

[tigger 2]

Marymog wrote in #81 above:

However, the Holy Spirit is referred to in personal terms by our Lord throughout the New Testament: And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, who the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.....But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father.....Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convince the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment; of sin"
..............................................................

I'm concerned about the number of folks who do not give us the source of their quotes.

Anyway, the NT Greek of John 14:16, 17 reads "And I will petition the Father and another helper [paraclete] he will give to you that will be with you forever. The spirit of the truth which [o, neuter] the world is not able to receive because it is not beholding it [auto, neuter] nor is knowing [it]. You know it [auto] because it remains with you and is in you."

The problem with pronouns is that they refer back to another noun. And in the case of paraclete, it is in the masculine gender. And spirit, of course, is in the neuter gender. So the part I quoted refers back to "spirit." The rest of your quote refers back to the "paraclete" (comforter).

 

[Aunty Jane]

All I can say is that the language didn't change as you allege.

It changed from Hebrew to Greek and Aramaic.....the Septuagint provides some insight on how the Greek speaking Jews understood their scripture.
"Hades" for example is the Greek equivalent of "sheol", so we know that this idea did not change until much later when the Jews adopted the Greek notion of an immortal soul. It is nowhere taught in Hebrew scripture. Like the trinity, the adopted ideas had to be woven into scripture to make them fit. Because there is no direct statement about the nature of God ever changing from the Hebrew to the Greek understanding of who God was, (Deuteronomy 6:4) "trinitarians" came into the church and spread their weeds until enough time elapsed to attain wide acceptance. It took over 300 years to get enough support for the church to make it official.....how could that be possible if the trinity was always there?

Do you understand that the trinity was very controversial in the early centuries and not all would agree to accept it....so a great many in the church were themselves, "anti-trinitarian".

I think we can safely assume that the writers of the NT letters quoted Jesus word for word and it was Jesus very clear words that I provided in my post that "changed" how men look at the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as 3 separate personages. As stated before Paul could see this, but apparently the anti-Trinitarians can't.

Not a single word of NT scripture was written whilst Jesus was alive. Holy spirit brought back to their minds the things Jesus taught them. (John 14:25-26)
Matthew 's account was the first to be written about 41CE, followed by Luke's in 56-58 CE, (Luke was not an apostle) then Mark's 60-65 (also not an apostle) and John's gospel was not written until 98 CE, along with his 3 letters.
The other books or letters were not compiled in chronological order and sometimes overlapped.

The apostle Paul was the writer of 1 Corinthians 8:5-6....where, speaking on behalf of his Christian brothers he said...

"Indeed, even though there are so-called gods in heaven and on earth—and there are in fact many gods and many lords— 6 for us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things are and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and through whom we exist."

Does Paul contradict himself and all the other apostles.....including Thomas who called Jesus "my Lord and my God".
Jesus is "a god" in the full sense of what the word "theos" means in Greek....."a strong or mighty one".
Strongs Concordance defines "theos" as....
"a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities"....

Christ is called “The mighty God” at Isaiah 9:6, and “the only-begotten god” at John 1:18. Yahweh is not the only "god" as Paul noted above. The very fact that he is called the Almighty God indicates that there are other gods not so mighty, not almighty like he is.

So Thomas could call Jesus "A god", but not "THE God".....and just three verses later Jesus is called “the Son of God,” as we read “But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, you may have life by means of his name.” (John 20:31)

The Bible does not contradict itself but the trinity contradicts the Bible.

I agree with you that Bible study requires time and patience and one is to take all things into consideration. You said that you have been a student and avid researcher of the Bible for going on 50 years. But your studies have led you down a completely different path concerning the Trinity than a majority of Christianity and Christian Scholars who have studied as long or longer as you have. So why should I accept your theory on this matter and not theirs?

I believe that I addressed this point.....
The “Christian interpretation” is riddled with errors, passed off as gospel truth. Jesus himself warned that Christianity would be corrupted by men who took over church and who were influenced by the one who sowed the “weeds” (satan the devil, Master of deception) planting a counterfeit form of the real thing....not really discernible in the beginning, but gradually as the weeds grew, they did what weeds do best....they all but choked out the “wheat”.

The divided mess that Christendom is in these days should prove to all discerning Christians that something is horribly wrong with the way they interpret the Bible because there is no unity or full obedience to the teachings of the Christ. Nowhere is that more clearly evident than in those world leaders who claim to be under Christ but who’s hands are dripping in innocent blood. (Isaiah 1:15)

Jesus said that “few” are on the road to life, because the road is cramped and difficult, whereas the road to destruction is broad and spacious, (Matthew 7:13-14).....a way to fool themselves into believing that they are headed for glory, when it is just the opposite......

I think I remember you once saying that you had a Protestant upbringing but were converted to Catholicism....is that correct? If so, there was a time when you yourself rejected the scholars that formulated Protestant doctrine?

What was responsible for the change of mind? What convinced you to adopt new thinking on the validity of the Catholic church?

 

[charity]

One thing to be aware of is that English translations often insert "the" where it is not in the Greek texts. It doesn't make things easy for the student of God's word, but a good English-Greek Interlinear Bible can be very useful.

But the presence or absence of "the" is still not the defining factor. Context is the surest way to determine if God is speaking about Himself or the gift He gives to us.

It is also important to realize the God did not capitalize words. The capitals are all present or not depending on the translators. Yet another complication, but as I said above, context is usually the key. There are some places where I'm not sure if it's talking about God or His gift, but little by little they may reveal themselves to me as I continue to study.

God bless

Hello @Rich R,

The following link will take you to a book, which looks at all the usage of the word 'spirit' in the New Testament, and identifies whether it is the Giver or the Gifts which are the subject of the verses in question. I have a copy and find it extremely useful.

http://www.bibleunderstanding.com/GiverandHisGifts, The E.W.Bullinger.pdf

Within the love of Christ our Saviour,
our Lord and Head.
Chris

 

[Scott Downey]

Thank you Jane for your well thought out and articulate response. I won't belabor your points.....very much!

All I can say is that the language didn't change as you allege. I think we can safely assume that the writers of the NT letters quoted Jesus word for word and it was Jesus very clear words that I provided in my post that "changed" how men look at the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as 3 separate personages. As stated before Paul could see this, but apparently the anti-Trinitarians can't.

I agree with you that Bible study requires time and patience and one is to take all things into consideration. You said that you have been a student and avid researcher of the Bible for going on 50 years. But your studies have led you down a completely different path concerning the Trinity than a majority of Christianity and Christian Scholars who have studied as long or longer as you have. So why should I accept your theory on this matter and not theirs?

Mary

When it comes to these kinds of strongholds of the mind, only God can enlighten someone to the truth.
You can offer scriptures and proofs and should do so, but in my experience, many people are locked into their theology, actually bound by it.

 

[PinSeeker]

"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in Him, Who is the head of all rule and authority." (Colossians 2:8-10)

Grace and peace to all.

 

[Rich R]

Hello @Rich R,

The following link will take you to a book, which looks at all the usage of the word 'spirit' in the New Testament, and identifies whether it is the Giver or the Gifts which are the subject of the verses in question. I have a copy and find it extremely useful.

http://www.bibleunderstanding.com/GiverandHisGifts, The E.W.Bullinger.pdf

Within the love of Christ our Saviour,
our Lord and Head.
Chris

I have that book myself. It is a good one for sure.

There is also "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" by Victor Paul Wierwille. I know he's controversial, but even the greatest rogues aren't 100% wrong. I knew him personally and despite his shortcomings (not as bad as my own), I think he was a great man of God. He led me into the manifestations, which nobody else did. Whatever else he may have done, I'll be forever grateful for that.

In any case, it's a really good book. He studied Bullinger but I thing he went beyond.

God bless you in a real special way today!

 

[Scott Downey]

"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in Him, Who is the head of all rule and authority." (Colossians 2:8-10)

Grace and peace to all.

Titus 2:12-14
New King James Version
12 teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age,
13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.

Gave Himself for who exactly?
US, that means the believers, His church is who He died for.

He died so that those who believe would not perish but have eternal life.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Let me just split this scripture to discuss the points it raises individually.....

"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

Was this true in the first century when Paul penned those words? Since Paul was appointed as an "apostle to the nations" it most certainly was.
Paul's address to the men of Athens at the Ar·e·opʹa·gus confirmed that he was dealing with the great pagan philosophers of the Greek world. Paul's education as a Pharisee had prepared him to speak before such learned men. His address was masterful and inspiring.(Acts 17:16-24)

So because these philosophical ideas can creep into human thinking, what makes you think that it was not already happening back in Paul's day?
What if the denominations of Christendom are the outcome of those very ideas? People being led away from the truth and basing their faith on the philosophies and traditions of men who claimed to represent Christ, but were not teaching his truth? (Acts 17:22-31) The trinity was formulated by the RCC over 300 years after Christ's death.....these were the ones who deified Mary and taught that she was the "mother of God". Was she?

For in Him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in Him, Who is the head of all rule and authority." (Colossians 2:8-10)

This part of the scripture speaks of the relationship of the Father to his son.
The word "fullness" there is "plērōma" which Strongs describes as....
"that which is (has been) filled....
that which fills or with which a thing is filled...."
So how are we to understand what Paul was saying, given that he never once mentioned a triune God in any of his writings. (1 Corinthians 8:5-6 is a complete contradiction, in fact.)

The holy spirit was said to "fill" the disciples at Pentecost. (Acts 2:4) Others too were said to be "filled with holy spirit". (Acts 4:31)
The disciple Stephen when being martyred.....
"But he, being full of holy spirit, gazed into heaven and caught sight of God’s glory and of Jesus standing at God’s right hand, 56 and he said: “Look! I see the heavens opened up and the Son of man standing at God’s right hand". (Acts 7:55-56)

Stephen was filled with holy spirit and received a heavenly vision to strengthen him. Who did he see? He saw Jesus at God's right hand, but there is not a single scripture that states that the holy spirit is ever seen at his left.....so was the holy spirit missing because it was filling Stephen? And what about the 120 of Jesus' disciples at Pentecost? How does the holy spirit "fill" 120 people if it is a person?

So how are we to understand what this "fullness of deity" means with reference to Jesus? This word in Greek ("theotēs") appears only once, so we have no other verses to compare it to.
Were not his disciples to be "in him" as he was "in" his Father? This is discussing the kind of unity that exists between Father and son....the same kind of unity that was between Christ and his disciples.

John 17:20-22...
“I am not asking on behalf of these alone, but also for those who believe in Me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; just as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.

22 The glory which You have given Me I also have given to them, so that they may be one, just as We are one".

If Paul states that Jesus is...."the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation"....then we first need to ask how a material being can be the "image" of someone who is invisible? This is clearly indicating that the likeness is in his character and in his personality and teaching.

That being said, "the fullness of deity" would be Jesus representing the fullness of his Father's spiritual qualities to his disciples....which is why he could say that those who had seen him "had seen the Father also." He was the absolute representation of his Father in human form.....which never meant that he was "God incarnate"....something that is never mentioned in the scriptures at all.

 

[PinSeeker]

Let me just split this scripture to discuss the points it raises individually...

LOL! Well, the "points" it raises in Jehovah's Witness's minds... :) See, here's the problem (we agree in principle on this) ~ the lens used to see these things.

Was this true in the first century when Paul penned those words?

Of course.

So because these philosophical ideas can creep into human thinking...

Right, and this is the problem, as I said.

...what makes you think that it was not already happening back in Paul's day?

What makes you think that I think that? Assuredly, that's not what I think. There's nothing new under the sun.

The trinity was formulated by the RCC over 300 years after Christ's death...

Absolutely not. It was the first time any formal council had been formed and convened to study the matter causing disagreement ~ a heresy first proposed by Arius of Alexandria that affirmed that Christ is not divine but a created being. And this goes back to my statement just a moment ago that... there's nothing new under the sun. There were some who postulated ~ just as there are today still (i.e, Jehovah's Witnesses and others), and always will be, until His return ~ that Jesus was not divine but merely created.

...these were the ones who deified Mary and taught that she was the "mother of God". Was she?

Well, some of them thought Mary to be deity, I'm sure, and that's terribly wrong, but we cannot attribute that of all who were involved with the Council of Nicea. That's not even what that Council met to discuss and resolve; they met to discuss and resolve the Arian heresy (see above). And we cannot say of any one person or group of persons that if they understand any one thing wrongly, then every other understanding regarding even related things is wrong by extension; such would be ridiculous, but that seems to be what you're insinuating. You and I would agree that, while we disagree on some things (obviously), there are many other things that we would be absolutely agreed on.

Regarding Mary, it depends on what you mean by "mother of God." Was she the human woman who gave physical birth to Jesus? Well sure, we all agree on that, so yes, she was his earthly mother. She was the earthly mother of the God made man. But, on the other hand, God has no "mother," as He is self-existing and eternal. So... yes and no. :) We agree on the elevation of Mary to co-Redeemer status; it is wholly unscriptural and thus not to be done. Mary was merely another in the royal line through which Jesus came, which is a significant thing for sure, but not indicative of her being somehow "greater" than any other woman in the history of mankind. Why did she "find favor with God," as Gabriel told her in Luke 1? It was surely not because she was "one with the Father," as Jesus was/is... or anywhere close. :)

The word "fullness" there is "plērōma" which Strongs describes as.... "that which is (has been) filled.... that which fills or with which a thing is filled...."

And that's fine (although not Scripture), but we have to hold that in tension with at least what Paul says (which is Scripture), in Philippians 2, namely that Jesus was "in the form of God" and "emptied Himself" and thus took the "form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men," from which we cannot avoid the fact that He was "in the form of (morphe') God" even before He was "born in the likeness of men"... He took on the form of (morphe') man. And even in this last phrase, "born in the likeness of men," we must see that He was at least somewhat more than mere man even before His conception in Mary's womb and only born in man's likeness. So the only real question left from that (on the subject we're discussing, anyway) is, "How much more than mere man was/is He?" Well, the answer to that question is, "Infinitely more than man." And to your citation here regarding 'fullness,' "Was He 'filled with the fullness of deity' only at some point after His creation (and of course He was not created (Scripture refutes that idea) but is eternal in the same manner as the Father, which He clearly stated in John 8:58 and John 17:5) or more temporally speaking, "Was He 'filled with the fullness of deity' sometime (any period of time) after His birth of Mary?" And the answer to both of those questions is a resounding no. He was always, from eternity past (and into eternity future) filled with the fullness of deity. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8).

So how are we to understand what Paul was saying, given that he never once mentioned a triune God in any of his writings. (1 Corinthians 8:5-6 is a complete contradiction, in fact.)

He did ~ and 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 is not in any way a contradiction of the idea of a triune God, so the question itself is stopped in its tracks. Your whole breaking down of the idea of filling is stopped in its tracks because of what I said immediately above.

If Paul states that Jesus is...."the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation"....then we first need to ask how a material being can be the "image" of someone who is invisible? This is clearly indicating that the likeness is in his character and in his personality and teaching.

Two things to this (although I have covered this ground several times over; we have gone round and round):

1. The concept of "image" is far more far-reaching than ~ and surely not wooden, as ~ Jehovah's Witnesses want to paint it.
2. Yes, it is indicative of His character and His personality and teaching, but that's not nearly all. Not nearly. I could expound on this, but it is really, albeit unintentionally, defining the infinite in terms of the finite ~ even defining God in terms of creation ~ which is not to be done.

That being said, "the fullness of deity" would be Jesus representing the fullness of his Father's spiritual qualities to his disciples....which is why he could say that those who had seen him "had seen the Father also." He was the absolute representation of his Father in human form.....which never meant that he was "God incarnate"...

So what I have said here is an absolute debunking of this... statement. Christ Jesus was, is, and will always be one with the Father, and not a mere "representative" of the Father. This is, using your own words, never mentioned in the scriptures at all. He did, in and of Himself, display to His disciples all the qualities and intrinsic nature of the Father even being in the form (morphe') of man, but He was only capable of this because all these qualities and this intrinsic nature were/are His own, even as the Father.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Pierac]

Agreed. But so, even in the same verse, why does the New World Translation have a comma inserted between "Simon Peter" and "a slave and servant"? Why is that, AJ? :)

But to the point under discussion here, the English Standard Version (ESV) reads, "...by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ..."

Look. The insertion of the comma by some translations (in either case) is not heretical, but can be misunderstood (the wrong inference can be made). Even so, the Word of God is still the Word of God. The comma can only "change the meaning of the text" in the eye of the beholder, who may or may not be leaning on his/her own understanding, which, of course, God implores us through Solomon not to do. In any case, Jesus Christ is both God and Savior. To separate the two ~ 'God' from 'Savior' or vice-versa ~ would be to suggest (to my implication above) that Peter, earlier in the same verse, separates himself 'bond-servant' and 'apostle' of Jesus Christ and makes himself out to be two (or possibly three) different people, a ridiculous supposition.

Samuel, the writer of 1st and 2nd Kings, David, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Hosea, Luke, Paul, Peter, Jude... they all acknowledge God and Jesus to be Savior in various places:

2 Samuel 22:3 ~ "...my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold and my refuge, my Savior..."

2 Kings 13:5 ~ "Therefore the LORD gave Israel a Savior..."

Psalm 17:7 ~ "Wondrously show your steadfast love, O Savior of those who seek refuge from their adversaries at your right hand."

Psalm 106:21 ~ "They forgot God, their Savior, who had done great things in Egypt,"

Isaiah 19:20 ~ "It will be a sign and a witness to the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt. When they cry to the LORD because of oppressors, He will send them a Savior and defender, and deliver them."

Isaiah 43:3 ~ "For I am the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior."
​

Likewise, God (the Father) is acknowledged in many places throughout the Bible as Lord. This is the Word of the Lord. Thanks be to God.

Psalms 110:1


Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."


Psalms 110:1 is a unusual verse. It is referred to in the New Testament 23 times and is thus quoted much more often than any other verse from the Old Testament. It’s importance must not be overlooked. It is a psalm that tells us the relationship between God and Jesus.

Psalms 110:1 is a divine utterance although poorly translated if your version leaves out the original word "oracle". It is “the oracle of Yahweh” (the One God of the Hebrew Bible, of Judaism and New Testament Christianity) to David's lord who is the Messiah, spoken of here 1000 years before he came into existence in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

I want to bring attention to the fact that David's lord is not David's Lord. There should be no capital on the word "lord." The Revised Version of the Bible (1881) corrected the misleading error of other translations which put (and still wrongly put) a capitol L on lord in that verse.

He is not Lord God, because the word in the inspired text is not the word for Deity, but the word for human superior- a human lord, not a Lord who is himself God, but a lord who is the supremely exalted, unique agent of the one God.

The Hebrew word for the status of the son of God and Psalms 110:1 is adoni. This word occurs 195 times in the Hebrew Bible and never refers to God. When God is described as "the Lord" (capital L) a different word, Adonai, appears. Thus the Bible makes a careful distinction between God and man. God is the Lord God (Adonai), or when his personal name is used, Yahweh, and Jesus is his unique, sinless, virginally conceived human son (adoni, my lord, Luke 1:43; 2:11). Adonai is found 449 times in the Old Testament and distinguishes the One God from all others. Adonai is not the word describing the son of God, Jesus, and Psalms 110:1. adoni appears 195 times and refers only to a human (or occasionally an angelic) lord, that is, someone who is not God. This should cut through a lot of complicated post Biblical argumentation and create a making which in subtle ways that secures the simple and most basic Biblical truth, that God is a single person and that the Messiah is the second Adam, "the Man Messiah" (1 Tim. 2:5).

Let's have a look at a few Old Testament verses that show us the clear distinction alluded to here. In Genesis 15:2, Abraham prays to God and says, "O LORD, God [Adonai Yahweh], what will you give me, since I am childless?" In another prayer Abraham's servant addresses God: "O LORD, God of my lord Abraham, please grant me success today" (Gen. 24:12). The second word for "my lord" here is adoni which according to any standard Hebrew lexicon means "Lord," "Master," or "owner." Another example is found in David's speech to his men after he had cut off the hem of King Saul's robe and his conscience bothered him: "So he said to his men, far be it from me because of the Lord [here the word is Yahweh, Lord God] that I should do this thing to my lord [adoni].”

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, page 157. states… "The form Adoni (‘my lord’), a royal title (Sam. 29:8), is to be carefully distinguished from the divine title Adonai (‘Lord’) used of Yahweh. Adonai the special plural form [the divine title] distinguishes it from adoni [with short vowel] = ‘my lords.’” Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 3, page 137. States… “lord in the Old Testament is used to translate Adonai when applied to the Divine Being. The [Hebrew] word… has a suffix [with a special pointing] presumably for the sake of distinction... between divine and human appellative.” Wigram, The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament, p. 22. states…

“The form ‘to my lord,’ I’adoni, is never used in the Old Testament as a divine reference… the general excepted fact is that the masoretic pointing distinguishes divine reference (adonai) from human references (adoni).”

“The Hebrew Adonai exclusively denotes the God of Israel. It is attested about 450 times in the Old Testament…Adoni [is] addressed to human beings (Gen 44:7; Num 32:25; 2 Kings 2:19, etc.). We have to assume that the word Adonai received it’s special form to distinguish it from the secular use of adon [i.e. adoni]. The reason why [God is addressed] as Adonai [with long vowel] instead of the normal adon, adoni or adonai [short vowel] may have been to distinguish Yahweh from other gods and from other human Lord's.” from Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible, p. 531.

If David the Psalmist had expected the Messiah to be the Lord God he would not have used "my lord" (adoni), but the term used exclusively for the one God, Jehovah- Adonai. Unfortunately, though, many English translations which faithfully preserved this distinction elsewhere capitalize the second "lord" only in Psalms 110:1. This gives a misleading impression that the word is a divine title.

Occasionally, it will be objected that this distinction between Adonai and adoni was a late addition to the Hebrew text by the Mesorites around 600 to 700 AD and therefore is not reliable. This objection needs to be considered in the light of the fact that the Hebrew translators of the Septuagint (the LXX) around 250 B.C. recognize and carefully maintained this Hebrew distinction in their work. They never translated the second “lord” of Psalm 110:1 (“my lord,” kyrios mou) to mean the Deity. The first LORD of Psalm 110:1 (the LORD, Ho Kyrios) they always reserve for the one God, Jehovah.

Both the Pharisees and Jesus knew that this inspired verse was crucial in the understanding of the identity of the promised Messiah. Jesus quoted it to show the Messiah would be both the son (descendent) of King David and David's “lord” (see Matt. 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44). This key verse, then, quoted more than any other in the New Testament, authorizes the title "lord" for Jesus. Failure to understand this distinction has led to the erroneous idea that whenever the New Testament calls Jesus "Lord" it means he is the Lord God of the Old Testament.

Come on PinSeeker... Study harder.... Stop sitting in your church letting others tell you what to believe and follow!!!
Paul

 

[PinSeeker]

Come on PinSeeker... Study harder.... Stop sitting in your church letting others tell you what to believe and follow!!!

I would say the same to you, Pierac. Except in a more polite, tactful, graceful way. Peace to you, my friend.

 

[Scott Downey]

I would say the same to you, Pierac. Except in a more polite, tactful, graceful way. Peace to you, my friend.

His response to you is something he also used on me a while ago.

 

[PinSeeker]

His response to you is something he also used on me a while ago.

I'm sure he's used the same... talking points... :)... over and over again.

Grace and peace to you, Scott!

 

[Scott Downey]

I'm sure he's used the same... talking points... :)... over and over again.

Grace and peace to you, Scott!

To you as well.
If you read, the apostles in their letters liked to say that to all the churches

Romans 1:7
To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,

To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood:

Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

Praise to God for a Living Hope

 

[Marymog]

It changed from Hebrew to Greek and Aramaic.....the Septuagint provides some insight on how the Greek speaking Jews understood their scripture.

I apologize. When we were talking about the language changing I didn't think we were talking about the dialect changing. I thought we were talking about the linguistics. None the less, Jesus made it clear that the Holy Spirit was it's own personage.

 

[Marymog]

Do you understand that the trinity was very controversial in the early centuries and not all would agree to accept it....so a great many in the church were themselves, "anti-trinitarian".

Yes, I do understand that.

What I think you don't understand is that the "anti-trinitarian" teaching was deemed heretical by The Church. There were a few great minds in The Church that accepted it but the majority DID NOT. That is why it lost out to the Trinity teaching. The word "Trinity" did not come into use to define what was already being taught by Ignatius (a student of the Apostle) concerning the Trinity. You are getting hung up on when the word started getting used to describe what Christ said instead of when the teaching actually started.

None the less, I know NOTHING I say will convince you and you will continue to accept the teaching of Arius which waned after his teaching was determined heretical. You will continue to accept what the some radical reformation groups, particularly Anabaptist, who brought back Arius teaching in the 16th century. Good luck....Only one teaching can be right.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Jesus made it clear that the Holy Spirit was it's own personage.

No, he did not.....nowhere did Jesus ever refer to himself or the Holy Spirit as “God”.
Any reference to gender or person in connection with the Holy Spirit had to do with Greek grammar, not identifying God’s spirit as a separate person.

What I think you don't understand is that the "anti-trinitarian" teaching was deemed heretical by The Church.

Well, I believe that by that time the “weeds” of Jesus’ parable were well and truly establishing themselves and we see that it was the ‘heretics’ who were screaming “heresy” when their false doctrines were questioned. We all know how “the church” dealt with anyone it branded as a heretic.

How can you put such great store in such a corrupt church? It’s appalling and bloody history is enough to show us all that Christ was never in it. (Matthew 7:22-23) When the corruption began....Christ left the building.
The “weeds” would be left to grow until the time of the harvest, which we see is fast approaching.

There were a few great minds in The Church that accepted it but the majority DID NOT. That is why it lost out to the Trinity teaching. The word "Trinity" did not come into use to define what was already being taught by Ignatius (a student of the Apostle) concerning the Trinity. You are getting hung up on when the word started getting used to describe what Christ said instead of when the teaching actually started.

The “great minds” began to be corrupted very early in the history of “the church”. Jesus and his apostles warned that this apostasy would happen, and it was starting even when the apostles were still alive, so it was nothing new even in those early centuries. It gained ground when the devil managed to infiltrate the minds of men who were growing spiritually drowsy. Jesus said these “weeds” were sown “while men were sleeping”.

What the devil had done to Judaism, he did to Christianity in exactly the same way.....he got the “traditions of men” to replace the word of God. Man made traditions became more important than God’s word, and like the Jews who had their Talmud, the Catholic Church produced its catechism. Both became more important than God’s word. The devil is laughing at all the ones he has been able to steal away from God whilst making them think that their worship is acceptable. (Matthew 15:7-9) Do the deceived know that they are?

The Jews did not know a triune god, but the pagans did, and we see them depicted in their ancient art and statuary. God’s people were never to imitate the pagans, but we know that they did, and God punished them for it. The pagans never imitated the Christians though....so where did the idea of a trinity come from? Not the Bible.....it was woven into the Bible by suggestion and inference by those who could influence others. There is not a single verse in the Scriptures where either God or his son claim to be three. But we do have Deuteronomy 6:4 (the shema) that plainly tells us that YHWH is “one”.

None the less, I know NOTHING I say will convince you and you will continue to accept the teaching of Arius which waned after his teaching was determined heretical. You will continue to accept what the some radical reformation groups, particularly Anabaptist, who brought back Arius teaching in the 16th century. Good luck....Only one teaching can be right.

You are correct, nothing will convince me that the Catholic church is anything but a travesty..... but JW’s are not Arians. The God of Arius was not a triune Being, but he was ‘incomprehensible’. We do not worship a triune God because Jesus didn’t ever teach this. Even in heaven the Father is still his God. (Revelation 3:12) So if you want to believe the real heretics and fall for the devil’s lies, that is up to you. Our God is not incomprehensible, but He has revealed himself to those who accepted the ‘cleansing, refining and purifying’ that the prophet Daniel said would take place at “the time of the end”. The wicked, he said would remain stuck in their errors and would therefore receive no insight or understanding, despite the abundance of knowledge we have today. (Daniel 12: 4, 9-10) Only God will reveal that knowledge to those he chooses. (John 6:65; 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12)

Do you believe that we are living in the last days of this present world system?
Has the Catholic church really ever represented Christ on this earth, since they ignore most of his teachings and have substituted their own adopted ideas instead. From whom did they adopt their teachings? Not the first century Christians I can assure you.

These did not teach that a “Pope” (Pontiff) was to be head of the church....nor that Mary was “the mother of God”...or that “saints” are there to pray to. There was no such place as “purgatory” or “limbo” or that infants should be baptized. There is no “hellfire” of eternal torment.

The first Christians refused to have images to use in worship because God’s law forbade even the making them. (Exodus 20:4-5) Christ taught us to love our enemies but the church sought to torture confessions out of people so that they had an excuse to murder them. The only thing the church was authorised to do was excommunicate trouble makers and wilful sinners.....to remove them from associating with it members. (1 Corinthians 5:9-13) But the church covered up its pedophile priests for probably centuries. Catholic institutions were notorious for their cruelty and abuse of children. They were more about punishment than Christian kindness.

I don’t rely on the so called “apostolic fathers” to furnish my truth....I rely on Jesus and his apostles whose teachings are recorded under the direction of God’s spirit....and they never once mentioned a trinity.

But as you said, we will each find out soon enough whose teachings were correct.....who were serving the true God and teaching his truth.....and who were serving the interests of the fake god who rules this world, and falling for his deceptions. (1 John 5:19; 2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

God knows those whose hearts are not corrupted.