Submitted by Georgie Porgie
Any truly valid interpretation of Scripture must be based upon sound rules. These rules must then be applied consistently. The following are the most basic rules we attempt to always follow in our interpretation of Scripture. We do not feel at liberty to discard these rules when they lead us to a conclusion in contradiction to what ‘orthodoxy’ has taught us. We instead endeavour to allow the scriptures to speak for themselves and believe by faith whatever conclusions they may lead us to.
I It will be assumed that the 39 books of the Old Testament, and the 27 Books of the New Testament are the wholly inspired Word of God. “That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Tim 3:17.
II The Bible itself will always be used to define its own terminology, symbols, etc. No appeal will be made to any man-made dogma, theory, or writing, such as the apocrypha or psudopygrypha, to explain Biblical terms which are already clearly defined within the Bible itself.
III The proper interpretation of any given passage will be determined, not only by that with which it stands immediately connected, but by considering all scriptures which have bearing upon the subject throughout the entire Bible . The truth of any given subject can only be determined by bringing together all scripture which sheds light on that subject.
IV Every passage will be given as literal an interpretation as possible, unless such a literal interpretation would render the meaning absurd, or bring it into disagreement with other passages which speak in positive language.
V No interpretation will be given to any scripture beyond what the fair meaning of the text itself allows. For Example: Carcass cannot in any case be interpreted to mean immortal soul burning in hell.
VI All passages belonging to any particular subject must contain one or more of the peculiar features of that subject, by which it may be identified as belonging to that subject.
VII The truth of any doctrine must be determined firstly by those passages which speak in clear and positive language, and not those which are symbolic or parabolic in nature. No inference should be drawn from any symbolic or parabolic passage which would bring the passage into contradiction with those which speak unequivocally on the same subject.
VIII No doctrine will be derived based on a single passage of scripture, a mere inference, or an argument from silence. Any true doctrine will found throughout the entire Bible.
Fundamental Rules for Interpreting Scripture
1. Since Jesus spoke and the Bible writers wrote primarily for the people of their day, always consider the historical, geographical, and cultural setting of the passage you are studying.
2. Always consider the context of the unit, chapter, and book when interpreting a text. The meaning of each verse must agree with the theme of the unit, chapter, and book, as well as the overall teaching of the Bible.
3. When interpreting a passage or verse, make sure to study each sentence grammatically to get the correct meaning. Pay special attention to the verbs as they deal with actions.
4. Make sure to get the meaning of each text as intended by the Bible writer or inspired speaker before making application. This is called bridge-building and is important in giving Bible studies.
5. Difficult texts must be interpreted in the light of the clear teachings of the whole Bible. Therefore, study all that Scripture teaches on a given subject before coming to a conclusion on any single verse.
6. The New Testament must be interpreted in the light of the Old Testament and vice versa. The Old Testament is promise and the New Testament is fulfilment. Both complement each other.
7. For accuracy, use the best translations and, if at all possible, compare with the original text.
Here are the eight rules:
1) The rule of DEFINITION: What does the word mean? Any study of Scripture must begin with a study of words. Define your terms and then keep to the terms defined. The interpreter should conscientiously abide by the plain meaning of the words. This quite often may require using a Hebrew/English or Greek/English lexicon in order to make sure that the sense of the English translation is understood. A couple of good examples of this are the Greek words “allos” and “heteros”. Both are usually translated as “another” in English – yet “allos” literally means “another of the same type” and “heteros” means “another of a different type.”
2) The rule of USAGE: It must be remembered that the Old Testament was written originally by, to and for Jews. The words and idioms must have been intelligible to them – just as the words of Christ when talking to them must have been. The majority of the New Testament likewise was written in a milieu of Greco-Roman (and to a lesser extent Jewish) culture and it is important to not impose our modern usage into our interpretation. It is not worth much to interpret a great many phrases and histories if one’s interpretations are shaded by pre-conceived notions and cultural biases, thereby rendering an inaccurate and ineffectual lesson.
3) The rule of CONTEXT: The meaning must be gathered from the context. Every word you read must be understood in the light of the words that come before and after it. Many passages will not be understood at all, or understood incorrectly, without the help afforded by the context. A good example of this is the Mormon practice of using 1 Cor. 8:5b: “…for there be gods many and lords many…” as a “proof text” of their doctrine of polytheism. However, a simple reading of the whole verse in the context of the whole chapter (e.g. where Paul calls these gods “so-called”), plainly demonstrates that Paul is not teaching polytheism.
4) The rule of HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: The interpreter must have some awareness of the life and society of the times in which the Scripture was written. The spiritual principle will be timeless but often can’t be properly appreciated without some knowledge of the background. If the interpreter can have in his mind what the writer had in his mind when he wrote – without adding any excess baggage from the interpreter’s own culture or society – then the true thought of the Scripture can be captured resulting in an accurate interpretation. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “Our only interest in the past is for the light it throws upon the present.”
5) The rule of LOGIC: Interpretation is merely logical reasoning. When interpreting Scripture, the use of reason is everywhere to be assumed. Does the interpretation make sense? The Bible was given to us in the form of human language and therefore appeals to human reason – it invites investigation. It is to be interpreted as we would any other volume: applying the laws of language and grammatical analysis. As Bernard Ramm said:
“What is the control we use to weed out false theological speculation? Certainly the control is logic and evidence… interpreters who have not had the sharpening experience of logic…may have improper notions of implication and evidence. Too frequently such a person uses a basis of appeal that is a notorious violation of the laws of logic and evidence.” (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, Boston: W. A. Wilde, 1956)
6) The rule of PRECEDENT: We must not violate the known usage of a word and invent another for which there is no precedent. Just as a judge’s chief occupation is the study of previous cases, so must the interpreter use precedents in order to determine whether they really support an alleged doctrine. Consider the Bereans in Acts 17:10-12 who were called “noble” because they searched the Scriptures to determine if what Paul taught them was true.
7) The rule of UNITY: The parts of Scripture being interpreted must be construed with reference to the significance of the whole. An interpretation must be consistent with the rest of Scripture. An excellent example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity. No single passage teaches it, but it is consistent with the teaching of the whole of Scripture (e.g. the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are referred to individually as God; yet the Scriptures elsewhere teach there is only one God).
8) The rule of INFERENCE: An inference is a fact reasonably implied from another fact. It is a logical consequence. It derives a conclusion from a given fact or premise. It is the deduction of one proposition from another proposition. Such inferential facts or propositions are sufficiently binding when their truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. Competent evidence means such evidence as the nature of the thing to be proved admits. Satisfactory evidence means that amount of proof which would ordinarily satisfy an unprejudiced mind beyond a reasonable doubt. Jesus used this rule when he proved the resurrection of the dead to the unbelieving Sadducees in Matt. 22:23-33.
Learning these eight rules and properly applying them will help keep any interpreter from making errors and will hopefully alleviate many of the disagreements unfortunately present in Christianity today. However, these eight principles are no substitute for the Holy Spirit which will, if you let Him, guide you in the truth [John 14:26]. If you receive Christ into your heart, God will give you the Holy Spirit freely as a gift [Acts 2:38]. I urge you, if you have not already done so, to examine the claims and the work of Jesus Christ and to receive Him as your Saviour.
Interpreting Scripture (Hermeneutics)
Hermeneutics is defined in one dictionary as “the art of finding the meaning of an author’s words and phrases, and of explaining it to others.” When applied to Scripture, accurate hermeneutics would require the scholar to:
• Study the context of the passage and the theme of the book.
• Look up the actual meaning of each word in the original languages.
• Note the verb tenses, the cases, and other grammatical determinants.
• Learn the cultural setting of the passage.
• Determine what the original readers understood it to mean.
• Check out cross-references to see how the words are used in other contexts.
• See how the first mention of the word or topic is presented in the Bible.
• Confirm an interpretation with two or three similar passages.
These are all proven study methods and good guidelines of interpretation. Here are some other additional factors of correct Biblical hermeneutics?
1. Spiritual Perception Over Intellectual Understanding
The first factor of interpreting Scripture is to approach it as an exercise in spiritual discernment rather than just an intellectual pursuit. Paul emphasized this in his letter to the Corinthian believers. “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (I Corinthians 2:14). Jesus Himself confirmed that Biblical understanding does not come from human reasoning but from spiritual enlightenment. He said, “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes” (Matthew 11:25).
The Holy Spirit is the One Who inspired the writing of Scripture, and He is the most qualified One to interpret its meaning to each reader. Jesus assured us that the Holy Spirit would indeed guide us into all truth. “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).
This being the case, it is also reasonable to conclude that if a person who wants to interpret Scripture has sinful habits or practices in his life that grieve the Holy Spirit and quench His power, the Holy Spirit will not reveal the truth of Scripture to such a person. In fact, God warns that such individuals will take Scripture out of context to their own destruction. (See II Peter 3:16.) This result supports the axiom that a man’s morality will dictate his theology and his philosophy.
2. God’s Revelation Over Human Reasoning
In the final analysis, accurate Biblical interpretation is based on the revelation of Jesus Christ throughout the Scriptures. Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than on that walk on the road to Emmaus. The disciples had been personally taught by Jesus for three years.
However, they still did not understand the Scriptures from which He taught. They were distracted by the conflicting interpretations of contemporary scholars. It was not until Jesus began with Moses and all the prophets and explained how they revealed Him that they understood the true meaning of Scripture. “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). They later recalled, “Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the Scriptures?” (Luke 24:32).
The scholars of Jesus’ day carried out heated debates over the correct interpretation of Scripture, but Jesus counselled them to search the Scriptures on the basis that they testified of Him. “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (John 5:39).
3. Genuine Love Rather Than Justification of Selfishness
Since the Scriptures reveal the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, it also follows that the primary theme of the Bible is the love of God and how we are to live out His love in our daily words and actions.
When a clever lawyer tried to involve Jesus in a wordy battle, He began his forensic sparring with the question “Which is the greatest commandment?” The reply that Jesus gave is a profound principle for Biblical interpretation. All the Law and prophets are based on the command to love God with all of our hearts, souls, minds, and strength, and to love our neighbours as ourselves.
Therefore, we must interpret Scripture on the basis of how it teaches us to love God and to love others. Love is the theme of the Bible. All good character qualities are simply practical expressions of genuine love. When the Pharisees used the Law of Moses to justify their harsh and unloving treatment of wives, Jesus reproved them for hardness of heart and took them back to the Creation design of one man and one woman becoming one flesh for the rest of their lives.
The lawyer who tried to engage Jesus in debate then tried to justify himself by asking, “Who is my neighbour?” to which Jesus responded with the parable of the Good Samaritan.
4. Christ’s Commands Over Man’s Theology
Every interpretation of Scripture is based on some foundational structure of reasoning. Jesus provides the structure of truth in the commands that He gave to His disciples during His earthly ministry, and they are the guiding lights for correct Biblical interpretation. They clarify what was written in the Old Testament and are further explained in New Testament teaching. Jesus promises that if we keep His commands before our eyes, He will reveal more of Himself to us. This was the great goal of Paul: “That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection” (Philippians 3:10). Jesus further promises, “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31–32).
It is customary for a Bible scholar to base his interpretation of a passage on the theological position that he has accepted. The problem with this approach is that no theological system is totally without some human error, because it is not inspired. It is man’s explanation of Biblical truth.
This is not to say that theology is unimportant. Wrong doctrine leads to wrong behaviour. No one was more concerned about false doctrine than the Apostle Paul. He maintained a continual battle against false teaching. However, he did not base sound doctrine on the theological views of his day but on the words of Jesus Christ and that which leads to Christ like living.
He explains this in his epistle to Timothy. “If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself” (I Timothy 6:3–5).
5. One Interpretation and Many Applications
The Bible makes it clear that there is only one interpretation of Scripture. However, there can be many applications. It is the Holy Spirit Who guides us not only to the right interpretation of a passage but also to the precise application of Scripture to our daily lives. If our lives are in harmony with the Lord, we can expect the Holy Spirit to illuminate certain passages of Scripture for our personal application. When this happens, it is God giving us a “rhema” of Scripture.
In the New Testament, the Word of God is generally referred to by the Greek word logos. Jesus is identified as the Living Word (logos). However, there are many references that use the Greek word rhema to define the Word of God. A rhema is a precise direction of Scripture for a particular person or circumstance. When Jesus told Peter to cast his net on the other side of the boat, Peter replied, “Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word [rhema] I will let down the net” (Luke 5:5). Jesus did not tell every one to cast their nets on the other side of the boat—only Peter.
It is on the point of the Holy Spirit applying a passage of Scripture to a decision that critics often rise up and claim that this is not acceptable hermeneutics. Their quarrel is not with believers who know in their spirits that God is directing them by the witness of two or three rhemas, but with the Holy Spirit Who confirms the application of rhemas.
Jesus used rhemas in overcoming Satan’s temptations, and one of the passages He used affirms rhemas. “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word [rhema] that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4).
6. Correct Divisions of Truth Versus Truth Out of Balance
Paul gave Timothy wise instruction in hermeneutics when he wrote, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (II Timothy 2:15).
Scripture is a living, powerful instrument in the hand of God. It functions on what appears to us to be paradoxes. In a similar fashion, the muscles in our bodies are only able to function by opposing tensions.
On the one hand, Scripture presents the Law of God, but then it contrasts this with the grace of God. Scripture teaches the need for justice, but then it counters this with mercy. We are told to cease from our own labour and enter the rest that is in Christ. At the same time, we are commanded to work for the night is coming when no man can work and to labour for the Lord. We have freedom in Christ. However, we are to make ourselves servants to all people.
If we emphasize only one side of God’s Biblical equation, we can certainly support it with verses of Scripture, but we will come out with the wrong answer. Truth out of balance leads to heresy. For example, if we emphasize the “rest” that a believer has and fail to give equal and primary emphasis to the “labour” of a believer, we will view any emphasis on working for the Lord as legalism.
Paul put labour and rest together when he wrote, “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief” (Hebrews 4:9–11). Similarly, there is certainly freedom in Christ. However, if we focus on freedom, we will react to God-ordained authority as being oppressive and cultish.
Proper hermeneutics requires diligent use of all the above factors under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Avoid Scripture Twisting: Eight Basic Rules Of Bible Interpretation
1. Begin with what the passage says, but always ask, “What does the passage mean?”, not what it “says.”
2. Pay attention to the Greek and Hebrew, (For those without language training, an interlinear Bible used in conjunction with a Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words or Expository Dictionary of Bible Words is recommended).
3. Remember the context. Read verses in the context of the whole passage, the chapter and even the book. Finally, keep in mind the larger context of the New Testament or Old Testament.
4. The Bible is progressive revelation. This means that, generally, the New Testament specifically interprets the Old Testament.
5. Always interpret the incidental passage by the systematic teachings of that topic; consider all the passages dealing with the topic, A good topical Bible is a useful aid (e.g. Nave’s Topical Bible).
6. Interpret the unclear passages by the clear ones. A favourite ploy of the cults is to choose a difficult passage and build their unique doctrines on it.
7. Beware of novel interpretations, check various conservative commentaries on the passage. There is very little new under the sun. Many of the heresies of the cults have been dealt with thoroughly. Even though there are many Christian denominations, it is interesting that on the essential doctrines there is solid agreement. Always go beyond what the passage is saying to get at its intended meaning. Cult leaders are expert in isolating passages and imposing their interpretation on it.
8. Come to Scripture prayerfully, submitting to be taught by the Holy Spirit, allowing the Scripture to interpret itself and not be clouded by personal doctrinal presuppositions.
1. Pray! Pray! Pray! The Holy Spirit knows better then you do!
2. Always know what the verse actually says, not what you think you remember it saying
3. Take the verse in literary context, don’t just read what you want to read to prove your point and don’t forget the Bible is a mosaic of different kinds of literature meant to be read different ways.
4. Take the verse in cultural context, just like you saying “it’s raining cats and dogs” is not what you literally meant
5. Remember the Bible is a whole 66 books! Interpret all verses in relation the other 1000’s of verses
6. Check the other translations, The variations are complimentary and show the whole picture
7. The Bible was not originally written in English, go back to the sources
8. Theological presuppositions are bad, scripture determines doctrine, not the other way around
9. Check the Theologians’ opinions, The Ph.D, professor of heart surgery of Harvard is better then your uncle Ted’s heart removal service. Professional opinions matter! (but don’t assume they’re always right)
10. Assume nothing, be ready to learn, don’t give up. Remember, only God knows everything.
561 responses to “Hermeneutics And Exegesis”
Thanks Zoe for your detailed response. It will take the BU household awhile to process, we are not as sharpe as BT who has already generated questions.
The Triune God of Historic Divine Revelation, as Revealed in His Word, the Bible.
Almighty God, the Father, declares in Isaiah 42: 8.
“I am the Lord, that is My name, And My glory I will not give to another.”
All of the nature, essence, attributes and Glory of God the Father, are equally in the Son, and the Holy Spirit
Relationship and Distinction in the Godhead.
1. The Scriptures recognise three as God.
a. The father is God (John 6:27; 1Peter 1:2; Romans
1:7).
b. Christ is God ( John 1: 1, 18; Titus 2:13; Romans
9:5)
c. The Holy Spirit is God (acts 5: 3,4)
2. The Scriptures recognise clear distinctions as
Persons.
a. The Son recognizes the Father distinct from
Himself.
b. The Father and Son are distinguished as Begettor
and Begotten. (Psalms 2:7; John 1: 14-18; 3:16)
c. The Son recognizes that He was sent by the
Father, and the Holy Spirit will be sent from the
Father through the Son. (John 10:35; Galatians 4:4;
John 14:6, 17; 15:26).
3. The Scriptures recognize three in creation.
a. The Father in creation ( Exodus 20:11)
b. The Son in creation. (Col. 1:16,17; John 1:3;
Heb. 1: 2,10).
c. The Holy Spirit in creation. (Job 33: 4; Psa. 104:
30; Gen. 1:2; Job 26: 13).
4. The Scriptures show the eternity of the Godhead
a. The eternity of the Father. (Deut. 33:27; Psa. 90:2)
b. The eternity of the Son. ( Micah.5:2; John 1:1;
Phil 2:6).
c. The eternity of the Holy spirit. (Heb. 9:14)
5. The Scriptures show the Omnipresence of the
Godhead.
a. Omnipresence of the Father. (Jer. 23: 23-24).
b. Omnipresence of the Son. (Eph. 1:23; Matt 18:20)
c. Omnipresence of the Holy Spirit. (Heb. 9:14).
6. The Scriptures show the Omniscience of the
Godhead.
a. Omnscience of the Father. (Prov. 15:3; Heb. 4:12;
1 John 3:20).
b. Omniscience of the Son. ( John 21: 17: Col 2:3)
c. Omniscience of the Holy Spirit ( 1 Cor. 2:10).
7. The Scriptures show the Omnipotence of the
Godhead.
a. Omnipotence of the Father (Matt. 19:26)
b. Omnipotence of the Son. (Phil 3:21; Rev. 1:8; Matt
28:18).
8. The Scriptures show the Immutability of the Godhead
a. Immutability of the Father (Mal. 3:6; James 1:17)
b. Immutability of the Son. ( Heb. 13:8).
c. Immutability of the Holy Spirit ( Implied not stated).
Though the Father, Son and Holy Spirit maintain these qualities in common, they also remain distinct from each other.
THE FATHER.
The Father is God, a distinct Person. He is eternal, self-existent, invisible and immortal, dwelling in light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see. (1 Tim 2:5; 6:16; 1 Cor. 8:4; John 6:27; 1 Peter 1:3; Deut. 32: 4; 11 Sam. 7:14; Psa. 89:26; Mal. 2:10; Matt 6:9; Mark 11;25; Luke 12:30; John 4:21; 11 Cor. 6: 18; Phil 4:19; James 1:17; 1 John 2: 15-16).
THE SON.
The Son is God, a distinct Person, co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. He is a distinct personality, made visible by the Incarnation. The Son was pre-existent. That is, He existed before the world was. He was eternally existent with the Father and with the Holy Spirit. (Mic. 5:2; John 8: 56-58: John 17: 5; 1 Cor 15: 47: phil 2: 6-7; col. 1:17; John 1: 1-3, 14; Rev. 22: 13, 16).
The Son not only was pre-existent, but pre-eminent above all things except the Father (Matt 11:27; 28: 18; Luke 20: 41-44; John 3: 13, 31: Acts 10:36; Eph 1:20; Heb 1: 5-6, 4: 1 Peter 3:22: Rev. 3:14).
The Son is to be worshipped as God. This would be blasphemy and idolatry if the Son were not God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. (Matt 2:11; 14:33; Luke 24: 52: John 5:23; Acts 7: 59-60: Gal 1:5; Heb 1:6; 11 Peter 3:18; Rev. 5: 11-14).
The Son is God manifesr in the flesh. ( 1 Tim 3:16: John 1: 14-16),
THE HOLY SPIRIT
The Holy Spirit is God, a distinct personality. He is not merely an influence, but a divine Person, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and the Son. (Gen. 1:2; 6:3; Isaiah 63: 10; Joel 2:28; Matt 10:20; Luke 12:12; John 14: 16-17: 15: 26: Acts 2:4; 5: 3-4; Rom 6:14; 1 Cor 3:16: Gal 4:6; Eph 1:13; Heb 2:4; Eph 4:30; 1 Cor 6:19). (The Foundations of Christian Doctrine, pp. 60, 61) emphasis added.
ps. I will not be distracted by answering questions until I have completed this discourse of the Trinity.
In my above No. 7, the Omnipotence of the Godhead, I omitted reference to the Holy spirit, which should read:
c. Omnipotence of the Holy Spirit. ( 1 Corinthians 12: 8-11).
David (and onlookers):
I originally wrote the Shamrock Principle note some years ago for Christians facing perplexity on the doctrine of the triune, redemptive, one and only true God, Lord, Saviour and Creator. In light of the concerns I see at BU, I have updated it overnight, for a somewhat wider audience, here.
Of particular concern in that update is the problem where we are often tempted to rhetorically pick at perceived weak points in a system of thought, not realising that it is all too easy to thereby erect and knock over a strawman, when we face counter-intuitive but well founded truths. (Observe again my remarks yesterday afternoon — just before heading out to take my son fishing as he has eagerly been asking! — on how we can easily think it absurd that one can stand at one and the same point on the surface of the earth and be simultaneously north of London, Bridgetown and Kingston. [And BTW, this is an example of complex unity: ONE is not so simple a concept as we were led to believe back in primary school! Just ask any systems thinker.])
Now, you asked for a 100-word summary of the doctrine of the trinity.
That is not hard to find as such — e.g. cf the classic creeds, as say the Catholic Encyclopedia — I cite this to show that the doctrine is an in-common point — notes:
The issue, though, is not how to state the doctrine, but to clarify and warrant it in the teeth of many challenges and misunderstandings. Thus, I emphasise:
Similarly, to see why Christians hold this understanding of God, we first need to understand why Christians are Christians, i.e we must first address the central warranting argument of the Christian faith: the salvific death, burial and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christos/ Messiah, leading to his appearing to over 500 witnesses and pouring out his Spirit in power according to the prophecies of the Scriptures, so that across 20 centuries millions have come to know the one true living God personally and in life-transforming ways “according to the Scriptures.”
Thus, Jesus of Nazareth is Lord of Life, Saviour and Eschatological Son of Man, who is the Anointed — what Christ and Messiah mean — of the Ancient of Days of Daniel 7. The OT scriptures (the Hebrew Tanakh) that prophesied Messiah’s coming and passion, up to and including salvific death, burial and resurrection [cf Is 53 etc] are thus shown to be the Word of God, profitable to teach us truth, correct error and coach us in righteousness. Similarly, the writings of the Anointed One’s authorised represetnatives,t eh apostles are scripture. From these we learn — as ZSoe has outlined — how the nature of God is complex unity, one God manifest inthreee persons.
A profound mystery, and not wholly comprehensible. but, already we know that it powerfully answers to the problem of the one and the many, with particular relevance to the value and dignity of the individual human being that gives us rights.
And in fact, implicit or explicit trinitarian monotheism is the ONLY live option worldview that gives a solid answer to this longstanding philosophical problem. (Cf the already excerpted discussion on that.)
So, if we can swallow quantum “wavicles” and transfinite sets where the cardinality of the subset is equal to that of he whole set [1, 2, 3, . . . “obviously” has the same “number” of elements as 2, 4, 6, . . . (a proper subset,the evens), namely Aleph-null! And, Cantor had a whole philosophy of the eternal that exploits things like that!] — similar cases of complex unity with properties of he whole manifest in the parts — we can humble ourselves to swallow the equally counter-intuitive doctrine of the trinity too, in light of its warranting basis.
“There are more things in this world than are dreamed of in your philosophy!”
G’day
D
PS: Here is Wikipedia’s 101 level discussion [and remember this is a secularist evolutionary materialism-leaning reference]:
PPS: Reflect too on the Triquetra, a traditional symbol of tri-unity. (To help us get started, consider from familiar geometrical figures how a triangle is at once three and one, without contradiction, as is the shamrock leaf a unity that has three equal lobes and one stem.)
PPS: As a bonus, observe that the shamrock’s lobes are heart-shaped! Happy St Pat’s Day to you all.
@ David
I am sure that you are familiar with the concept of ‘groupthink’. It is a fairly common and dangerous aspect of human behavior where group members try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing and understanding issues.
Now if you took the time to look at each and every reference provided by Mr Zoe what you will find is than in NO INSTANCE does any of them say, or even suggest, that his conclusion of God being “three persons, distinguishable, but indivisible” is the case.
What he (and all proponents of this theology) has done is to established his conclusion which is directly copied from the consensus taken by the Constantine council – and then rattle off a host of ‘references’ which says nothing of the sort.
We all know that situations of this sort call for an open-minded analysis of the facts AFTER WHICH a rational conclusion, based on those facts, is drawn.
Now all his references point to the following;
-The term ‘God’ refers to a collective body.
-There are clearly identifiable individuals which comprise that collective body
– There is a unity of knowledge, purpose, spirit and power among the collective body
Mr Zoe would now have us jump to the (preconceived) conclusion that:
– There are THREE individuals total.
– These three form some mystical trilogy – such that ‘all are one and one is all’ (or some similarly illogical gobbledygook….)
– Anyone failing to join his groupthink is a heretic.
On the other hand, when Bush Tea analyze the references my conclusion are that:
-There exists a group (of Big Boss Engineers) who collectively we refer to as ‘God’
-There are at least two distinct individuals identified….may be many more
-This group appears to be configured in the style of a ‘family’ as we know it
-Like a good family, there are ‘of one mind’; Individuals can represent the position of the family; Individuals have various responsibilities; etc
Using simple common sense, Bush Tea would further conclude the following:
1 – Since this same God made us ‘in his own image’ it must follow that human social interactions should reflect whatever is God’s social arrangements.
2 – Do you know of any Human Trinity arrangements?( present company excepted LOL)
3 – On the other hand, are you aware of any human family arrangements with a Father at the head etc..? One where families are of ‘one mind’? where ‘blood is thicker than water?’
4 – The thing about God creating man in God’s own image is that it tells us quite a lot about God obviously.
5 – Now unlike ‘Trinities’, families are open to infinite growth. Children enter that family and mature into senior members of the family.
6 – Unlike ‘Trinities’ – there can be adoptions, inclusion by marriage, etc. in families.
Are you beginning to see, David, how dangerous and misleading this ‘Anti -God’ theology has been?
Do you understand that this Trinity doctrine seeks to prescribe that the VERY MESSAGE that Jesus came to proclaim (the GOOD NEWS that man can be born (again) into the family of God and grow to be full members (so that ‘where he is’ i.e. the state that he is in, these ‘children of God’ will be also) is NOT possible for mankind?
David, believe me- if there is an ANTI CHRIST, then it is the TRINITY Doctrine.
@ ac
…so wait, you dump the Bush man just so…? What happen, you frighten for the bush bath because Zoe push in he mouth talking foolishness ’bout evil spirits and such?
What Zoe what??!!
Girl Zoe is so wrong about everything that you can safely ask his advice and then do the opposite… rotfl
…. let we arrange the thing nuh, – you don’t know what you are missing – a bath compliments the bush man…..!!
Bush Tea:
It should be plain that there is no groupthink involved, as there is a process of objective warrant being laid out for public inspection, there is no suppression of questioning or dissent — though there is every attempt to play at strawman objections and distractions — and there are no thought police in sight on the side of those of us who think the concept of the triune God is reasonable, philosophically powerful and Biblically credible in the context that there is warrant for the Christian faith tracing to the resurrection of Jesus.
Instead of playing at nasty labelling games, why not instead address the argument we have made, on the merits?
is the resurrection warranted, why or why not?
does or does it not warrant he core Christian faith, why or why not?
is the Bile warranted why or why not? is the triune concept credibly established from the text thereof why or why not?
And, does it answer seriously to the problem of the one and the many, why or why not? (Including human individuality and dignity, thus rights and freedoms and justice as a claim against the state and community — including, e.g. to abolish slavery adn do away with racism etc)
Are there many misunderstandings that need to be corrected why or why not?
We have done our homework. have you done yours?
G’day
D
“The UNITY IN TRINITY, and the TRINITY IN UNITY is to be worshipped.”
Dr. Dale in the 19th century made the following statements:
“From eternity to eternity GOD is FATHER, SON and HOLY SPIRIT. The Father is God, but not apart from the Son or the Holy Spirit. The Son is God, but not apart from the Father and the Holy spirit. The Holy Spirit is God, but not apart from the Father and the Son. There is but ONE GOD, but in the GODHEAD there are THREE PERSONS. There are not three Gods, but in the life and being of the one God, there are three persons of consciousness, volition and activity, and these are know to us as THE FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT.”
The Father is all the fulness of the Godhead, invisible, without form, whom no man hath seen or can see.
The Son is all the fulness of the Godhead, manifested, made visible.
The Holy Spirit is all the fulness of the Godhead, acting immediately upon the creature, and thus making manifest, or revealing, the Father and the Son.
The Father planned redemption.
The Son effected redemption.
The Holy Spirit applies redemption.
The Father is always the Father. The Father is not the Son, nor the Holy spirit. The Son is always the Son. The Son is not the Father, nor the Holy Spirit. The Holy spirit is always the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son.
The Eternal Characteristics of the Godhead.
The Biblical revelation shows that each person in the Godhead, has certain characteristics, manifestations and operations which never change.
The Father is eternally the Father.
The Son is eternally the Son.
The Holy Spirit is eternally the Holy Spirit.
The characteristics and attributes of the Godhead are changeless. God is one in operations, but three in revelation and manifestation.
1. Charateristics of the Father
The characteristics of the Father, consistent in every clear statement of Scripture and every God-created type and symbol, are seen in the following:
a. First Person in mode of operation. The First Cause,
the Original, the Source, the Biginning, the
Commencement, the Fountain-head of all wisdom.
The Absolute. “In the beginning God.” (Genesis 1:1)
b. The Foundation of our redemption. (John 3:16).
c. The Covenant-Maker and Keeper, the Covenant
Promiser.
d. The Architect, Designer, Controller and Sustainer.
e. Light, Life and Love.
f. Glory, Majesty, Unapproachable Light, Holiness
and Fire. (1 Tim 6:16; Heb 12:29)
g. Invisible, Spiritual, eternally the Father.
h. The Begetter (John 3:16; 1: 10-12)
i. Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, Immutable,
Eternal.
2. Characteristics of the Son
The characteristics of the Son, consistent also in all
clear statements of Scriptures and every God-
ordained type and symbol are seen in the following:
a. Second Person in mode of operation, for the
purpose of redemption. Not inferiority, not inequality
but submission and obedience in redemption’s plan
to the Father’s will. the subject one, the obedient
Son.
b. The Eternal Word (John 1: 1-3)
c. The Mediator, Medium, and Umpire between God
and man. The Intecessor, the Advocate.
d. The God-Man. The union of the divine nature and
human nature in one Person. The Word made flesh.
(John 1: 14-18). God manifesh in the fleah.
e. The Only Begotten Son. The fulness of the
Godhead bodily in human form. (Col. 1:19; 2:9).
f. Redeemer, Savior, Grace of God personified.
g. Sacrifical body and blood. The ratification of the
covenant by blodd.
h. The central Person of the Godhead. The one in the
midst.
i. The visible revelation and expression of the
invisible God in human form. ( Rom 1:19-20; Heb.
1:3).
j. Eternally the Son. Co-equal in power, nature,
attributes and glory with the Father and the Holy
Spirit.
3. Characteristics of the Holy Spirit
The characteristics of the Holy Spirit are always
consistent throughout the Scriptures and the types
and symbols of the Spirit are based on the following.
a. The third Person in mode of operation for the
purposes of redemption. Not inferiority, nor
inequality, but the servant Person in the Godhead,
pointing to the Father and the Son.
b. Proceeding fromj the Father, through the Son.
(John 15: 26; 16:16).
c. The Inspirer, Revelator, Illuminator of the Word, the
written and living Word. The communicator, the
Teacher.
d. The Quickener, the Unction, the Anointing. (1 John
2: 20, 27).
e. The Sanctifying Power, the Indeweller in the
multitude of believers, the Presense in the Chruch.
f. Fruitfulness, Fruit of the Spirit.
g. Numberlessness, Multiplicity, Exhaustlessness.
h. The Symbolized One, as Rivers, Co-equal in
nature, power, attributes and glory with the Father
and the Son.
(The Foundations of Christian Doctrine, pp.62-64)
emphasis added.
Dictionary
Let me admit that I never read anything that you write. Long ago, bush tea decided that you were an idiot and I have treated your posts accordingly.
I may be wrong in this conclusion, however it has been some time since I have erred in such matters.
Your last post however, when I noted that you started with ‘Bush Tea’ and actually ended shortly afterward, I decided to make an exception.
I regret that decision.
What irrational ranting and ravings! Nothing that you said makes any sense ….. RU 4 REAL?
Skipper, stay where ever you are, if you ever come to Barbados you will be sent straight to Jenkins for your own protection….
If you wish to engage me, translate the following into ‘sane’ for me PLEASE.
************************************************************************************
is the resurrection warranted, why or why not?
does or does it not warrant he core Christian faith, why or why not?
is the Bile warranted why or why not? is the triune concept credibly established from the text thereof why or why not?
And, does it answer seriously to the problem of the one and the many, why or why not? (Including human individuality and dignity, thus rights and freedoms and justice as a claim against the state and community — including, e.g. to abolish slavery adn do away with racism etc)
Are there many misunderstandings that need to be corrected why or why not?
****************************************************************************************
@ Mr Zoe
I am surprised that you have not yet run out of books to quote. I am not surprised however that your posts are becoming increasingly irrelevant.
Sir, can we have a coherent discussion? …. you know, one where we talk about the same thing; Where you respond to positions put? This business where you reproduce a series of bible study guides in response to specific criticisms of your so called doctrine will get us nowhere.
It will also be helpful if you can interact in your own words – rather than all these quotes from dead white men who knew no more that you do.
Come on Mr Zoe, you have to represent the side – GP off somewhere whining and Dick ….. well let’s just say it is up to you….
Illustrations of the Godhead
There have been many attempts to illustrate the ‘trunity’ of God. Undoubtedly the richest ‘types’ and ‘symbols’ of the Godhead are those that Almighty God has given in His Word, the Bible. The very fact that God has given so many ‘threes’ in His Word, is sufficient evidence that God was endeavoring to convey some truth concerning His own ‘truine’ Being. Romans 1: 19-20 tells us that “the invisible things of HIM are clearly seen, being understood by the THINGS that are MADE, even His Eternal power and Godhead…”
The following are a number of illustrations of the ‘triunity’ from God’s Book of natural creation, and then from God, Book of revelation, the Bible.
1. Natural Illustrations of Triunity
a. Light (Genesis 1: 1-5)
Light in one – unity
Light is manifested in three major colors, golden
yellow, scarlet red and heavenly blue.
b. Water
Water is one -unity
Water is manifested in three forms – water, ice and
steam.
c. Sun
There is one Sun relative to earth – one major ruling
light.
this one Sun manifest threefold power- light, fire
energy.
d. Space
Space is a whole – unity, one
Space has three dimensions – breadth, length,
depth.
e. Matter
Matter or substance is one
Matter is also threefold – energy, motion,
phenomena.
f. Eternity
Eternity is one – timelessness
eternity is also threefold – time past, time present,
time future.
g. Triangle
A triangle is one complete object – unity
A triangle is also a threefold object
Take away any one side and the triangle is
destroyed.
h. Man
Man is one – a united or whole person
Man is threefold or a tripartite being – spirit, soul
and body; two invisible parts, one visible.
The visible reveals the invisible.
i. Consciousness
Man being a triune being, having spirit, soul and
body, has a threefold consciousness.
Conscious means a knowing of oneself.
Spirit is the God-conscious part of man which
contacts the spirit realm.Soul is the self-conscious
part of man which contacts the inner realm. Body
is the sense-conscious part of man which
contacts the natural realm. The triunity of man is a
mystery, yet a reality. ( 1 Thess. 5:23).
2. Biblical Symbols and Types of Triunity
Scripturea bounds with glorious symbols and types
setting forth the triunity of God. It is the
characteristics of these objects, institutions and
people that make them illustrations of the Godhead
and these should be studied to unfold their meaning.
The key to these symbols and types will usually be
the central one of the three. This will generally reveal
the Son of God as being the Word of God or as the
mediator with His sacrificial body and blood.
a. The Sun, Moon and Stars (Genesis 1:14)
The Sun, Moon and Stars are the source of our
light and life, and these are the first manifested
three in then Bible. These show forth the
characteristics of the Godhead.
The Sun – Source of light and life; the FATHER
The Moon – Becomes as blood; the SON (Rev.6:
12).
The Stars – Multitudes; the Holy Spirit in the Saints.
b. The Ark of Noah (Genesis 6: 14-22)
God commanded Noah to make an Ark
according to specifications which He Himself
gave. It was made with “lower, second and third
stories.” This one Ark with three stories is a
marvelous type of God. One God who in three
Persons: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
It took a triune Ark to bring salvation to Noah and
his family from waters of judgment. And it is the
ministry of the triune God to bring salvation to
mankind from coming judgment upon the sin and
all ungodly flesh. (Matt 24: 37-42).
First Story…The Father, Foundation, Beginning
One Ark- Second Story…The Son, the Door, the Way
(John 10:90
Third Story…The Holy Spirit, the Window, the
Illuminator (John 14: 26).
The Godhead Bodily
The Scriptures state that the fulness of the Godhead
dwells bodily in the Son. (Col. 1:19; 2: 9).
The Lord Jesus Christ IS the visible and bodily revelation of the Godhead. He is the visible manifestation of the invisible Persons in God. In the mystery of Godliness, “God manifest in the flesh” (1 Tim 3:16), the Bible shows that the Father and the Holy Spirit indwelt the Son.
The Father indwelt the Son. (John 14: 8-11) All that Jesus said and did was by the Father’s indwelling. He could say that when we saw Him, we saw the Father. However, He never said He was the Father. He was one with the Father in will and purpose. And although in this mystery the Father dwelt in Him, yer He prayed to the Father in heaven. (John 17: 1-3). The Holy Spirit indwelt the Son. (John 3: 33-34) Jesus received the Holy spirit without measure. However, Jesus never said He was the Holy Spirit. Thus, in recognizing that the Son is the fulness of the Godhead bodily, it also must be recognized that the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father; the Son is not the Holy Spirit, nor the Holy Spirit the Son or the Father. The Father is eternally the Father. The Son is eternally the Son. The Spirit is eternally the Spirit.
(The Foundations of Christian Doctrine, pp. 64, 65, 67,68) emphasis added.
@ Bush Tea
You said…….”David, believe me- if there is an ANTI CHRIST, then it is the TRINITY Doctrine.”
**************************************************************************
BT, if you ever said a true thing in your life then this statement would have to be it!
The whole concept of the Council of Nicaea was completely false! Constantine had to find a way to bring all the different doctrines that existed at that time to a common understanding in order to stop all the wrangling and political upheaval that then existed. He, therefore, ordered all the heads of the different factions to attend the council and thrash out their differences. Notice even then they could not come to a consensus. They had to VOTE to reach a common understanding!! Where then was heavenly guidance in all of that?? Where was the influence of the Holy Spirit in this so called council?? Why would they have had to VOTE (!) if they were being influenced by heavenly powers?? The only influence/guidance they had at that council was self survival! Constantine was totally fed-up with all the wrangling and he gave them an ultimatum……..agree with each other or face the sword!! He wanted political stability and he was going to have it regardless of what he had to do. And, voila, we ended up with the “Nicene Creed” together with the other addendum that resulted from the subsequent councils.
And that is the foundation of all that the “BU trilogy” is putting forward here. The Nicene Creed!! Good luck to them and all who fall for their treatise!
I wonder where ROK is with all that is transpiring on this thread? Rok will be able to tell the “BU trilogy” all about that “Nicene Creed” and what they can do with it!! LOL.
Mr Zoe,
All jokes aside. Would you like a time-out so that you can consult with a friend? You are truly beginning to worry the bush man now…..
1 – You have not insulted me in more than 3 posts
2 – You have not responded to a single point that I posted challenging your Trinity
3 – It now appears that you have sunk to the level of looking for threes (or was it trees?) in the bible…
*******************************************************************************************
The very fact that God has given so many ‘threes’ in His Word, is sufficient evidence that God was endeavoring to convey some truth concerning His own ‘truine’ Being.
********************************************************************************************
HaHa ha hah hah LOL ….. muh belly….
Take a break Mr Zoe, The Bush man will be here when you are REALLY ready again.
By the way, let us look at the bible reference that you posted above;
*******************************************************************************************
Romans 1: 19-20 tells us that “the invisible things of HIM are clearly seen, being understood by the THINGS that are MADE, even His Eternal power and Godhead…”
********************************************************************************************
Zoe, THIS IS EXACTLY what I said to you above. In OTHER WORDS sir, If you want to learn about God, look at the things that he has made.
Now what did he make IN HIS OWN IMAGE?….. mankind right?
What do you see in mankind that reflects a trinity? ….. NOTHING Right??!!
What do you see in mankind that reflects a FAMILY structure?? EVERYTHING right?
What does this suggest to you Zoe? to look for t(h)rees?
Man take a break do!!
@ Bush Man, Butt out….”You do the deeds of your father…You are of your father the DEVIL and the desires of you father you want to do …he who is of God hears God’s Words; therefore YOU DO NOT HEAR, (Why?) because YOU ARE NOT OF GOD.( John 8: 41, 44b, 47).
Go and join your ‘family’ of Witchcraft practioners, who have NO part in the family of Almighty God, and get another ‘Bush-Bath’ courting your demonic ‘spirit’ guides, I REBUKE you in the Name of The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you son of unrighteousness!!!
@Bush Tea
Man, looka yuh bess be careful, hear. Yuh got the Lightman calling down heaven upon yuh hear. ROTFLOL.
*******************************************************************
BTW, BT, I here listening to a very appropriate song entititled….”Praise The Lord I Saw The Light”!
@the hood
man, I see you all over looking for trouble. “Trouble don’t set up like rain.” “It does come down just so, bram!”
…but you were correct in your summation. You see how they went after the only three out of hundreds that did not sign? It was brutal. Some signed and gave up their bishophood (lol), but even then, they did not escape the persecution because to do that was an act of defiance.
All the crap about no pressure on the bishops is pure BS. Constantine did not even care what they agreed to; once they agreed. You see what happened to Arius? He was the first example. They knew that they had to agree if not, those who disagreed would have lost their heads.
That is where the politics started. I used to say that Christ was the best politician that ever lived, but considering that he is a mere phantom, that quality would have to be attributed to those who came up with the story.
Well!! The insults are working Mr Zoe…..
Now….
If only you can respond to the points raised with relevant, logical posts…..
@ Bush Tea,
BT, in addition to all the examples of “THREEs” in the Bible, what about all the examples of “SEVENs” and “SEVENTYs”? He forget about all those other examples??
BT
I am listening to another favourite song of mine……..”Amazing Grace”. One of the best!
******************************************************************
” I once was lost but now I’m found”……………..etc,etc. You can fill in the rest.
@ Mr Hood
Clearly you are gallows bait….
You started all this trouble -you know?!! Then you sat back and watched as the bushman took all the rage of the BUT (BU Trinity) …. LOL
Thanks for the concern but it is not needed – Be concerned instead that our BU friends be allowed to see the light.
I am surprised that such allegedly well-read bloggers as the BUT are unaware of the significance of the Nicene Council……
I see The Hood, the Mormon Polythiest, has arisen to join the other BU ‘ “Slanderous Satanic Snipers” *SSS* from the pit of the LDS deceivers!
Birds of a feather do flock together, as they continue to suppress the TRUTH of God’s Word.
“For the WRATH of God is revealed from heaven against ALL ungodliness and UNRIGHTEOUSNESS of men (i.e., HOOD, BUSH MAN et al!) who SUPPRESS the TRUTH in unrighteousness.” ( Rom. 1: 18).
Sowing the seeds of your own DESTRUCTION!!!
@all
Forgive the BU household asking another question which is divided on this issue of Trinity. Please explain the role of the Book of Jesus in this conversation.
@ Bush Tea
“Be concerned instead that our BU friends be allowed to see the light.”
********************************************************************
I could not agree more with you.
I not worried about you, BT. I have every confidence that you can hold your own against these “three”!
All I can say is that LOVE will overcome. It always does! And, these three need all the love that we can have for them. More than what I can say that they are offering us!!
@ Mr Zoe
Does all your rantings and curses mean that you have no answers to the questions asked?
Well then Sir, the accepted procedure in a debate, is to concede that you have encountered a ‘more perfect’ understanding of the issue -and let us move on to some really challenging issue…… You see, this matter of the Trinity is child’s play. How can you expect to defend a doctrine that :
1 – is not presented in your bible
2 – is not represented in God’s creation
3 – makes no logical sense
4 – can clearly be traced to a meeting organized in 325 by a man for the expressed purpose of bullying then ‘priests’ into submission
What do you want to discuss next? I would be happy to explain what the Holy Spirit REALLY is…..
By the way, with respect to your constant cursing and damning of the bushman – Don’t you feel that you should really be praying for me if you think that I am so lost?
Are you not concerned that you appear to hate me just because I have a different view to yours? Are you not concerned that this suggests that you may not be reflecting the character of a loving christian? Perhaps your whole basis for your faith is flawed….
Don’t you think that this is well worth a full review on your part? If you are right, such a review will only reinforce this – if I am right, it just might save your soul….
@ All, True LOVE is grounded in TRUTH, Righteousness, and Justice; NOT in False doctrine, heresy and demonic deception!
“Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, ‘If you abide in My Word, (The Bible) you are My disciples indeed. And you shall KNOW the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall make you FREE.” (John 8: 32) emphasis added.
KNOW: From the Gk word ‘ginosko’ Compare ‘prognosis’ ‘gnomic,’ ‘gnomom’ ‘gnostic’ To perceive, understand, recognize, gain knowledge, realize, come to know, ‘Ginosko’ is the knowledge that has an inception, a progress, and an attainment, it is the recognition of TRUTH by personal experience.
The Word of God, the Bible IS, absolute Truth, the written Word, confirmed by the ‘Logos’ the Risen, Resurrected, Ascended, Living, Eternal Word, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST!
And of course the only people who can interpret the Bible is the “BU trilogy”!! Man, don’t meh muh laugh muh guts out hey!! You so funny you could do better than any comedian on TV!! LOL
BT,
Man I real disappointed in your Philistine behaviour of late. First the personal attacks on GP… then the attacks on the doctrine of the Trinity… and if that wasn’t bad enough, you trying to put a horn on my good friend BAFBFP. LOL
Could you explain what you meant by this statement: “David, don’t tell anyone else this, but that council even made an insert into the bible script at that time (somewhere in 2 John 5 if I recall correctly…) to support their vote”?
David, you should heed BT’s advice and “don’t tell anyone” that, as it is incorrect.
Onlookers:
Bush Tea has made it quite clear that he views me with ill-informed, ill-tempered, ill-mannered contempt and closed-mindedness. (An attitude that, frankly, is cropping up among too many in Barbados and the wider Caribbean these days; and which, if it gets utterly out of hand, will cost us dear.)
So, in further dealing with issues he raises, I do so for your benefit; on the assumption — actually, knowledge — that among the onlookers are those who genuinely wish to learn.
Before specifically responding on points, I ask the interested onlooker to work his or her way through the summary here so you can see how I have handled the evidence as opposed to how BT has.
Now, I will address his earlier post now,using arrows to break up his text:
_______________
>>Now if you took the time to look at each and every reference provided by Mr Zoe what you will find is than in NO INSTANCE does any of them say, or even suggest, that his conclusion of God being “three persons, distinguishable, but indivisible” is the case.
1 –> And no-one in recent years ever claimed that such a quite could be found in the Bible. The triune conception of God is an inference to best explanation based on the substance of the texts we do have, as may be seen from Section B, the previously linked discussion
What he (and all proponents of this theology) has done is to established his conclusion which is directly copied from the consensus taken by the Constantine council
2 –> the triune understanding of the whole counsel of Scripture on the matter predates Constantine by many many years indeed. For instance the Apostle’s Creed, a C2 summary, is trinitarian.
3 –> As a matter of fact, Constantine, no theologian, would have been happy with an Arian resolution if thast was the consensus, anything that would keep the Empire from being fatally split in the face of almost overwhelming enemies. It is the theologians, on the strength of the cumulative force of the Scriptural witness who stated the consensus view inherited from the earlier generations of the church across the empire — and remember this was the first time they could openly meet on such a wide scale, as this was when the persecutions had just ended [i.e . no Dan Brownesque grand conspiracy maintained for generations was possible] — and as based on the teachings of the Scriptures they had preserved for 250 or so years at that time
– and then rattle off a host of ‘references’ which says nothing of the sort.
4 –> Strawman: we do not need a specific text to state the words of the creed to see that the substance of the creed is taught, on sound exegesis. Note how BT ducks the duty of even basic inductive Bible Study, preferrign tot oss off conspiracy theories, namecalling accusations and appeals to “common sense” i.e. to prejudices assumed as criteria for good thinking.
5 –> Worse, BT is here dismissing the detailed technical work of exegesis by those who have spent careers at it, and the resulting consensus; on his own authority. In effect, he is setting out to write his own scriptures or at least authoritative key to the scriptures, without benefit of having to be prophesied in advance in major religious texts of our civilization, and without having to do miraculous signs, capped off by rising from death with 500+ witnesses.
We all know that situations of this sort call for an open-minded analysis of the facts AFTER WHICH a rational conclusion, based on those facts, is drawn.
6 –> And, in fact, that I am in the end a creedally orthodox Christian is the result of my own independent study of Scriptures and the surrounding issues, not indoctrination. The same holds for many others. believe you me, if I were not convinced of the resurrection and of meeting Jesus in life-transforming power, thus of the Scriptures and the message I have found in them on the strength of now decades of close reading and thought, I would not be a Christian.
7 –> I might be something like a Jew, but not a Christian.
8 –> Note also, something that should be happening but is not: BT is here simply ducking the job of actually going through the substance of the texts, by pre-imposing his own conclusion on a flawed assertion that unless the creed appears in effect as explicit statements of the text, it cannot be based on the texts. A fallacy, as anyone who undertands what P=> Q means can tell you. P is sufficient for Q and Q is NECESSARY for P In short, the triune concept of the one true God is teh direct and forceful implication of the cumulative texts, with the largest cluster of texts affirming there is one God, and with texts implying or exhibiting that the One God is manifest in distinct persons, Father, Son, Spirit.. (Cf the texts i cite in extenso in Section B the linked to see this. Notice how BT simply dismisses and disdains without addressing and showing on the merits why the orthodox understanding is wrong.)
Now all his references point to the following;
-The term ‘God’ refers to a collective body.
9 –> Imposes an idiosyncratic term, body, which is artfully not defined other than to suggest “committee.”
-There are clearly identifiable individuals which comprise that collective body
– There is a unity of knowledge, purpose, spirit and power among the collective body
10 –> The sense of the Scripture is that there is UNITY and diversity that forms the Godhead,s that there is not a committee of three but one being who is eternally manifest in three persons
Mr Zoe would now have us jump to the (preconceived) conclusion that:
11 –> Note the loaded language
12 –> in fact, there are several significant texts that specifically cluster on three, Father, Son, Spirit, e.g. the Great Commission’s baptismal formula and the famous grace often used to close a service
– There are THREE individuals total.
– These three form some mystical trilogy – such that ‘all are one and one is all’ (or some similarly illogical gobbledygook….)
– Anyone failing to join his groupthink is a heretic.
13 –> Again, prejudicial namecalling and accusation substitute for actually engaging the text adn warranting his views. In short, we actually see a turnabout accusation: if you disagree with BT — on BT’s own authority, you are dismissed.
14 –> Meanwhile those who have actually taken time to study the background materials and examine and assess the evidence — with a perfect right to walk away form any institution we see as being in the wrong on the key matters [and believe you me I have points where, on the strength of my own investigations I strongly disagree with any number of denominations, and have publicly exposed destructive groups, some of which fear my name to this day!] aresimply tossed aside contemptuously as indulging groupthink.
On the other hand, when Bush Tea analyze the references my conclusion are that:
-There exists a group (of Big Boss Engineers) who collectively we refer to as ‘God’
-There are at least two distinct individuals identified….may be many more
14 –> in fact there are three persons identified as being in ECHAD, complex unity, and nowhere is there any suggestion of “many more” as we can see form the fact that BT is unable to cite a source
-This group appears to be configured in the style of a ‘family’ as we know it
-Like a good family, there are ‘of one mind’; Individuals can represent the position of the family; Individuals have various responsibilities; etc
15 –> the unity is not that of a family (which in normal usage cosntitutes discitnct human beings) but of being
Using simple common sense, Bush Tea would further conclude the following:
1 – Since this same God made us ‘in his own image’ it must follow that human social interactions should reflect whatever is God’s social arrangements.
2 – Do you know of any Human Trinity arrangements?( present company excepted LOL)
–> Humans, in families or not, may be in agreement, but do not constitute ONE being
3 – On the other hand, are you aware of any human family arrangements with a Father at the head etc..? One where families are of ‘one mind’? where ‘blood is thicker than water?’
4 – The thing about God creating man in God’s own image is that it tells us quite a lot about God obviously.
5 – Now unlike ‘Trinities’, families are open to infinite growth. Children enter that family and mature into senior members of the family.
16 –> H’mm, that sounds rather familiar. Indeed, we now know what this is about: the above is in fact Mormon, polytheistic one god per planet populated by spirit children theology; where the children can then go on to be gods of their own planets, providing they have been good mormons.
17 –> if this is not what it is, it is very close to what it is, and this thinking falls afoul of all that Mormon theology falls afoul of. That is, whether or not the doctrine beign espoused by BT is creedally LDS, it is substantially the same.
6 – Unlike ‘Trinities’ – there can be adoptions, inclusion by marriage, etc. in families.
18 –> Again, observe that out of whole cloth a personal speculation has been forcfe fitted on the text, EISEGESIS, not exegesis.
19 –> And, i beg to remind, that I have insisted that he triune conception of God is in terms of warrant, a secondary matter.
20 –> First, address the key warranting case the Christian faith has: the resurrection of Jesus in the fulfillment of prophecies, e.g. Is 53 700+ years ahead of time. On this we know that he risen one is Lord of Life, and that the prophetic Scriptures are credibly the word of God; thence also the scriptures written by or under his authorised, Spirit empowered spokesmen are also the Word of God.
21 –> This is the critical step: if this fails, we go no farther, save as an interesting exploration of particular classical literature.
22 –> But, as we have seen, the test is passed, handsomely. So in that context we must pay careful heed tothe teachings in teh Scripures that are authentically form God.
23 –> In that context, we investigate on sound princ iples of reading, studying and understanding.
24 –> it is as a fruit of centuries of such study that we can see that the triune conception and understanding of God is indeed well warranted by the Scriptures.
Are you beginning to see, David, how dangerous and misleading this ‘Anti -God’ theology has been?
25 –> turnabout false accusation
Do you understand that this Trinity doctrine seeks to prescribe that the VERY MESSAGE that Jesus came to proclaim (the GOOD NEWS that man can be born (again) into the family of God and grow to be full members (so that ‘where he is’ i.e. the state that he is in, these ‘children of God’ will be also) is NOT possible for mankind?
26 –> this, David, is provably another gospel of a different kind, presented in the name of being the true gospel; observe especially how it is being asserted without careful step by step warrant, in the name of “common sense.” (But common sense may be a euphemism fro idiosyncracies and prejudices. That is why step by step warrant is needed.).
27 –> one may be free to make up and hold to such a view if one wishes, but this cannot properly be called truly Christian, as it is polytheistic, not monotheistic.
28 –> indeed, it is neo-pagan
David, believe me- if there is an ANTI CHRIST, then it is the TRINITY Doctrine.
29 –> Concluding turnabout false accusation>>
________________
Okay, we now know that BT is a Mormon advocate, or a neo-Mormon advocate [using the term descriptively for someone who is of similar thought but may not be an official member of the LDS.)
Onlookers, instead, I invite you to simply work your way through the note linked at the top if this post, and see for yourselves if the case is reasonable based on the issues at stake and the evidence in hand.
On to the next set of points . . . later, I have an urgent meeting to go to.
D
Never knew a simple clarification of the Trinity doctrine would have generated such ruckshun. The good thing is that the wealth of information provided by Zoe, Dictionary, Bush Tea along with the clarifications will allow people who have doubts to make up their minds.
“Birds of a feather do flock together, as they continue to suppress the TRUTH of God’s Word…”
Talk about slanderous? Who is suppressing Zoe from spouting his truth of his god’s word?
“For the WRATH of God is revealed from heaven against ALL ungodliness and UNRIGHTEOUSNESS of men…”
That is what you believe? Good for you.
PS: H’mm: on second thought, I think that the above, in light of the already linked step by step working out that BT has plainly chosen to ignore, is enough to point to the place where the serious onlooker can find more than adequate answers to BT’s attempt to reflect the challenges that readers will need to settle for themselves unto me. And BT, if you bother totread this, teh point of the cluster fo quesitons is that eqach person thinking thtoug he issue of the Crhistain understanding of God needs to first find out if the Christian faith is sufficiently warranted to be taken seriously. On Ac 17, that means he needs to address the warrant for the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. On that, he then needs to see the implications for the status of the OT and NT as God-inspired Scripture [or not]. Then, he needs to work through the documents to see what they teach, on sound principles of reading and interpreting. And he needs as well to see if the triune conception of ultimate reality does in fact soundly answer to the vexed philosophical problem of the one and the many, of unity and diversity [which has Plato and Aristotle often on opposite sides, that is how vexed it is and how longstanding it is].. It turns out that one application and context of that problem is the individuality and dignity of the human being, with implications for the claim “I have a right that X.” (For instance, “I have a right that no-one can kidnap and sell me into or keep me in slavery.”)
“Bush Tea has made it quite clear that he views me with ill-informed, ill-tempered, ill-mannered contempt and closed-mindedness.”
Perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black.
In fairness to GP he has commented several times that he is busy working on a project.
MICRO MOCK ENGINEER!!!!
Welcome back my friend – Man I miss you so much! – maybe that is why I was taking out my frustrations on poor GP and Zoe….
Wait – you figure out an answer for that chicken and egg situation that makes sense yet????? LOL
Serious though MME, I apologize for the GP thing man, but he was getting out of hand; insulting people, putting down ‘dumpsey’ boys like BT (de man call me a seed picker MME!!) – and worst of all posting lonnnnngggggggg post like dictionary ….. with nuff big words like ‘exegeses’ and ‘hermeneutics’ and other words that hard to spell….. man MME, I could not help it….
About the Trinity – man MME you can’t be serious. Do you have any idea exactly WHY Jesus gave up his exalted status and came and died…..? The Trinity nonsense is the worst scam ever perpetrated on the human race.
As to BAFBFP…. he made the mistake when he posted that fancy picture…. between you and me, ac ain’t the kind of girl that really ’bout them handsome fellows…. (she too suspicious and jealous for that..) so I make a big foot move and it like it working….. shhhhhh!!
I was offering her a bush bath – but Zoe push in he mouth talking bout obeah and all sort of junk – I meant a bath administered by the bushman….. ROTFL
Talking bout the secret between me and David – are you challenging the bushman?
I will repeat publicly then;
1 John 5, 7-8 was maliciously added to the manuscript of the bible in order to lend support to the doctrine of the trinity.
LOL ….. you mean that EVERYBODY didn’t know that…..?
@MME
Although it surprises many Bible students to learn that 1 John 5:7 as it is found in the King James Version of the Bible, is not actually found in the early manuscripts of the New Testament. Even such a careful scholar as John Nelson Darby omits it from his translation of the Bible as having no real manuscript authority.
The student should, however, realize that this does not at all affect the truth of the inspiration of the Scriptures.
Some people think it is important to retain the verse because it mentions the three Persons of the Trinity. However, the truth of the Trinity does not depend upon this verse alone, but is found in many other portions of the sacred Scriptures.
Connsequently, serious honest Bible expositors do not teach or comment on 1 John 5:7 except to point out that it was added to the manuscript by the KJV translators in the quest for clarity.
These translators did not seems to understand that the Bible can stand on its own feet as it were.
It is noteworthy that Luther did such an excelent job in translating the Latin Vulgate to the vernacular of the German people, that there has not been any more translations of the Bible in to German.
“The student should, however, realize that this does not at all affect the truth of the inspiration of the Scriptures.”
********************************************************************************************
Maybe not the inspiration, but certainly the exegeses and hermeneutics thereof …LOL
Here is the only instance where the bible is alleged to have said the the father, the son and the holy spirit are one and we are told that it “does not affect the truth…..”
Since we have let the cat out of the bag, how about all of the other known errors in the various versions of the bible?
for example, 1 Corinthians 1:18 should be: “For the preaching of the cross is to them that (perish) are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are (saved) being saved it is the power of God”
Does this have new meaning for those who believe that they are ‘SAVED’.
In the final analysis it matters little to BT if there are errors in the bible. If one is led by the spirit – as is a requirement to understand anyway, the errors will stick out like sore thumbs and lead to appropriate research….. if however one is depending on the exegeses of the actual text then…….
@ Bush Tea
Don’t you realise that the BUT figure that they are already SAVED (past tense). In other words as far as they are concerned they (BUT) are already sitting on their thrones and are therefore looking at us plebs from an elevated (judgmental?) position.
This reminds me of the scripture…………that those who think they are going to be first will be sorely surprised when they find out they coming in last!
@the hood
“Don’t you realise that the BUT figure that they are already SAVED (past tense). ”
I suspect that you are right… but as you say, they destined for last. First they have very little faith. 2nd they have corrupted the interpretation of the scriptures and have therefore broken the commandment; thou shalt not bear false witness.
@ Bush Tea
Here is a quote from Matt.19:14
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
*******************************************************************
Now did Jesus say these words or not? I believe he did, now this being so, can you tell me how many children would know about “hermeneutics and exegeses”?
So 1 John 5-7 was added to the Bible by KJV translators !!!! What next…? This house of cards like it’s going to fall!
@ Mr Hood,
It just makes a mockery of the whole concept of exegeses and the other big fancy word.
GP himself says that:
*********************************************************************************************
“It is customary for a Bible scholar to base his interpretation of a passage on the theological position that he has accepted. The problem with this approach is that no theological system is totally without some human error, because it is not inspired. It is man’s explanation of Biblical truth.
**********************************************************************************************
Can you now see the geneses of some of these ‘errors’ that crop up in the bible? Well-meaning but misguided zealots ‘improved’ the manuscripts by adjusting , deleting and inserting texts in an effort to ‘clarify’ matters depending on their particular theology.
There are scores of such errors, even in the KGV, which is accepted as one of the most accurate….. it therefore baffles the mind when Zoe talks as follows:
**********************************************************************************************
The Word of God, the Bible IS, absolute Truth, the written Word, confirmed by the ‘Logos’ the Risen, Resurrected, Ascended, Living, Eternal Word, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST
**********************************************************************************************
…….he means except for the numerous errors.
Onlookers
I have been referred to a post – Dictionary // March 14, 2010 at 4:07 PM
…where one Dictionary says:
*******************************************************************************************
Bush Tea has made it quite clear that he views me with ill-informed, ill-tempered, ill-mannered contempt and closed-mindedness.
*******************************************************************************************
This is patently untrue.
I actually said that I consider you to be an idiot. However I am now beginning to reconsider this position, as It seems that I may have been quite generous in my initial assessment.
@ Bush Tea
I think you have won this round hands down. Now the BUT can go to preach elsewhere. They will not get many, if any, conversions on this site.
Poor Zoe goes around in circles repeating the same thing ad nauseum and saying nothing. Dictionary, I never read, so don’t know what nonsense he spouts, but I will take your word for it that “idiot” was a compliment. ha ha ha.
The Doctrine of The Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit IS the third divine Person of the Eternal Godhead, co-equal, co-eternal, and co-existent with the Father and the Son. It IS His ministry to convict and convert as well as to reveal the Son and the Father to the believer. Since the Glorification of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit in all his Glorious operations is working through all who believe on the Father through the Son. This is why the present era is known as the age of the Holy Spirit.
NOTE: At the onset, let it be known, that those ‘imposters’ here on BU and elsewhere, who are ‘pettigogger’s’ ‘tricker’s’ in short, ‘foxes’ seeking to deceive innocent observers, by using such terms, as ‘the Holy Spirit’ when in fact, they vehemently DENY and decry *His* very Deity, as the Third Person of the Eternal Godhead, from such Scoffering scammers, be WARNED, stay clear!
Hear from Almighty God’s Inspired Word, which *He* the Holy Spirit directed.
IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit IS one of the most important doctrines in the Word of God, the Bible, and is one of the foremost TRUTHS of redemption. Therefore the believer should seek to know all he can of the Person, ministry and work of the Holy Spirit as revealed in Scripture, the Bible. From GENESIS to REVELATION, relative to both CREATION and REDEMPTION, the Holy Spirit IS seen in operation. In the midst of the chaotic condition seen in Genesis 1: 1-2, we see the Holy Spirit moving “And the Spirit of God MOVED upon the face of the waters.” Between these two verses, the BEGINNING and the CONSUMMATION of the Holy Spirit’s work, we have a VAST amount of Biblical revelation of the Holy Spirit’s ministry. The Holy Spirit is mentioned more than 90 times in the Old Testament with a least 18 different titles also given. In the New Testament the Holy spirit IS mentioned more than 260 times along with 39 different names and titles. Out of the 27 books of the New Testament, only 11 John and 111 John have no reference to the Holy Spirit. The Old Testament foretold the coming of “the last days” when the Holy spirit would be poured out upon all flesh. In contrast to Old Testament times, when the Spirit was only available to a select few in Israel. In God’s plan, this present age has been given over to the ministry of the Holy spirit.
These FACTS emphasize the importance of the true Justified believer, coming to KNOW, understand, appreciate and experience the Person, work and ministry of the Holy spirit in his/her life. It is fear, formalism and ignorance, which rob the Church from studying the doctrine of the Holy spirit, and thus making room for *His* blessed ministrations.
The Personality of The Holy Spirit.
A. The Holy Spirit IS NOT an Influence.
The Holy Spirit IS NOT to be looked upon merely as an inflluence, as certain Cults believe. Many believers are robbed of a personal relationship with the Holy Spirit, because they consider HIM to be an inpersonal influence, power and energy. It is true that the Holy Spirit does influence the life of the Justified believer, and HE is revealed as the power of God, BUT, this influence IS a personal one. There are several reasons why this misunderstanding has arisen, the chief being the following:
1. The Holy Spirit is soken of as being “The Spirit of God” and the word “Spirit” (Gk, Pneuma) means ‘breath’ or ‘wind’, which implies the concept of an unseen force (Isaiah 40: 7; John 3: 5-8),
2. The Holy Spirit is symbolized as being wind, water, fire, oil, or other impersonal objects. This seems to negate the FACT that the Holy Spirit IS a divine Person. However, there are many symbols relative to the Son of God also, such as LAMB, a ROCK, and a LION, yet these things DO NOT negate the Son being a divine Person. Neither do symbols of the Holy Spirit negate HIS personality.
3. The Holy Spirit’s work seems to be so mystical, secret, and invisible. This does NOT, however, deny the personality of the Spirit, for “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24) YET, a real divine Person.
4. The Holy Spirit as a divine title seems harder for believers to relate to than titles “Father” and ‘Son’ (Matt. 28:19). No doubt, this is because these titles have a much more human feeling about them than “the Holy Spirit”. But this DOES NOT deny the Personality of the Holy Spirit. Evil spirits are real personalities and their work is evidenced everywhere. Angels are also spirit beings, yet real personalities. Man is a spirit being with a soul and body, a real person have coporality (Heb. 1:7, 14; 12: 23; Prov. 20: 27; 1 Tim 4:1). Thus the Holy Spirit IS a real Person, through invisible and incorporal.
There are seveal reasons why Justified believers should not consider the Holy Spirit as a mere influence or impersonal force.
1. IT IS contrary to the teaching of Scripture. The Bible shows the Holy Spirit to be a Divine Person.
2. It will hinder worship. True worship IS a personal activity, a means of personal relationship.
3. It will hinder proper reverence. To speak of the Holy Spirit as an “it” as was erroneously rendered in the KJV version (Rom. 8:16, 26) has mislead many. This mistranslation was corrected in other translations. In the teaching of Jesus in John Gospel, He USES the personal PRONOUN over 10 times concerning the Holy Spirit. Not understanding the personality of the Holy spirit can cause people to look on the Holy Spirit as something like “this power” and want to purchase it, even as did Simon the SOCERER (Acts 8:9-24).
4. It will hinder Relationship. Almighty God desires to have a personal relationship with each one of us. Thus, God Himself comes and lives within those of us, WHO are Born Again of the Holy Spirit, Saved, Justified, through Jesus’ Atoning Death and Resurrection,. It would be impossible to have any relationship with an IMPERSONAL force, which, the Holy Spirit IS NOT. We must KNOW the Holy spirit as our friend, helper, comforter, and indweller. In this way we can honor Him. The Justified belliever has MORE than an “influence” living within him; he HAS the Person of the HOLY SPIRIT.
The Holy Spirit Revealed as a Person.
The Holy S pirit IS revealed in the Scripture, the Bible, to be the third Person in the Eternal Godhead. This title is often associated with the Person of the Father and the Person of the Son (Matt. 28: 19; 11 Cor. 13: 14: 1 John 5: 7,8). It would be meaningless to read these Scriptures and see the Father and Son as Persons associated with an “influence”, i.e., the impersonal Holy Spirit. Personality does not depend on corporality in God as in mankind.
The Holy Spirit IS refered to with Personal Pronouns
Although the word “Spirit” is in the neuter gender, the Lord Jesus Christ, used personal pronouns when He spoke of the Holy spirit. The pronouns “He’, “HIM” and “HIMSELF” are used a number of times in John’s Gospel when speaking of the Holy spirit. These pronouns are IN the masculine gender (John 14: 15, 16, 26: 16: 7-14; 15: 26-27).
The Holy Spirit IS spoken of AS having personal qualities.
The three main qualities which constitute personality are attributed to the Holy Spirit. The Holy spirit has:
a. Mind (Romans 8:27; 1 Cor 2: 10-13).
b. Will (1 Cor. 12:11).
c. Emotions ( Romans 8:26-27; 15:30; Col. 1:8).
(The Foundations of Christian Doctrine, pp. 73, 74) emphasis added.
As to be expected, the BU *SSS* deceivers, and haters of God’s Truth, will be angered at what the Holy Spirit is, the Personal, Third Person of the Eternal Godhead, whose WORD, drives them up against their, Polythiestic IDOLATRY, which IS from the PIT-of HELL.
The Holy Spirit, and the WORD of God agree ( 1John 5: 7,8). The Holy Spirit INSPIRED the Word of God, the Bible, AND so WILL NEVER contradict it. No person can claim ‘illumination’ as the LDS frauds et al do, by the Holy Spirit in his interpretation of ANY passage, IF, that interpretation is in conflict with other passages of Scripture. The Holy spirit WILL NEVER communicate to the mind of a true, Justified believer, ANY doctrine OR meaning of Scripture, which is not ALREADY in Scripture itself.
As so often seen here on BU, the likes of the *SSS* and the false Cults, LDS et al, masquerading as some kind of Christian, with their ‘corrupt’ systems of hermeneutics, are NOT intellectually honest. Rather, they twist, pervert and convolute the Word of Truth, to suit their FALSE doctrine, deceiving thousands of people daily around the world.
A bit later, some more wonderful, Biblical facts, re the Holy Spirit, who ALONE can lead, guide, teach, comfort, and illuminate the Word of Truth, that He Inspired, the Bible.
More ‘demonic’ led ‘parasites, one Pat et al, are crawling all over the crab-barrel of DARKENED ignorance , from whence their spirtual ‘filth’ emanate!
BT,
This was your original statement: ““David, don’t tell anyone else this, but that council even made an insert into the bible script at that time (somewhere in 2 John 5 if I recall correctly…) to support their vote”?”
Your initial reference to “2 John 5” threw me, although to be fair, you did say you were recalling from memory. I am familiar with the Comma Johanneum, but the first appearance of this is in a few copies of the Latin Vulgate some 400+ years after the Council of Nicea, and its first appearance in a Greek New Testament translation occurs some 600+ years after the Council of Nicea. That council can be blamed for many things, but making that “insert into the bible” is not one of them. 1 John 5 was definitely not used to “support their vote”, as the inserted text you refer to did not exist at that time or for several hundred years after the meeting… do you recall where you got that information from?
Do you consider Matthew 28:19 (“baptizing them into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”) to be a corruption of Scriptures also? I know there are some people that make this claim, but IMHO their supporting evidence is very weak.