You could try reading scripture rather than posting irrelevant questions.
Christendom's Trinity: Where Did It Come From?
- Thread starter Alter2Ego
- Start date
Doug Brents
Active Member
Please stick to the topic at hand, and quit blowing smokescreens to disguise or obscure the Truth.
I didn't ask you about a "devil spirit". I asked about Satan. Is Satan an "it"?
Peterlag
Active Member
We are talking about the word "spirit" and the word "logos" and both of them are an it. Now I don't see how I am not sticking to the topic or blowing smokescreens. It's not my fault you do not understand the two different ways the word "spirit" is used in the Bible. And so you confused one way with another way and then tell me I'm blowing smokescreens when I mention them.
Runningman
Active Member
Yes Jesus had a human body. No it doesn't say God became a human, incarnated, or otherwise.
Doug Brents
Active Member
Answer the question:
IS SATAN AN "IT"?
Peterlag
Active Member
It's a stupid question and does not apply to the subject we are conversing about.
Doug Brents
Active Member
No, it is not, and sure it does. Satan is a spirit. He is an individual spirit, an angel created by God, who came to God and discussed Job in Job 1 and 2. Satan is not an "it", but an individual, specific, masculine being; a he.
Yes, there is a spirit that is defined as "those qualities regarded as forming the definitive or typical elements in the character of a person, nation, or group or in the thought and attitudes of a particular period". And this meaning of the word is used in some places in Scripture. But for the most part, when "spirit" is talked about in Scripture it is referring to, "the nonphysical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character", and this includes beings which have no inherent physical form (like angels).
Peterlag
Active Member
Oh good you too know that the devil is a him. I do too.
Peterlag
Active Member
The Old Testament prophecies about the coming Messiah foretold...
that he would be a human being who would be the offspring of Eve (Genesis 3:15); a descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 22:18); a descendant of Judah (Genesis 49:10; a prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15); a son of David (2 Samuel 7:12-13; Isaiah 11:1); a king ruling under Yahweh (Psalm 110:1); and a ruler from among the people of Israel (Jeremiah 30:21). That explains why the people were all expecting a human Messiah.
The Old Testament refers to the Messiah as “one like a son of man” and the phrase “son of man” was a Semitic idiom for a human being and it's used that way throughout the Old Testament. The phrase “son of man” also became a title of the Messiah when Daniel referred to him as “one like a son of man” (Daniel 7:13) and that explains why Jesus called himself “the son of man” many times. The New Testament teaches Jesus was a man and Jesus himself said he was “a man who has told you the truth” John 8:40.
that he would be a human being who would be the offspring of Eve (Genesis 3:15); a descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 22:18); a descendant of Judah (Genesis 49:10; a prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15); a son of David (2 Samuel 7:12-13; Isaiah 11:1); a king ruling under Yahweh (Psalm 110:1); and a ruler from among the people of Israel (Jeremiah 30:21). That explains why the people were all expecting a human Messiah.
The Old Testament refers to the Messiah as “one like a son of man” and the phrase “son of man” was a Semitic idiom for a human being and it's used that way throughout the Old Testament. The phrase “son of man” also became a title of the Messiah when Daniel referred to him as “one like a son of man” (Daniel 7:13) and that explains why Jesus called himself “the son of man” many times. The New Testament teaches Jesus was a man and Jesus himself said he was “a man who has told you the truth” John 8:40.
Doug Brents
Active Member
Then the spirit inside of you is NOT an "it", Satan, the devil, is a "him".
I cannot believe the number of times that an argument that jesus is human has been given. There is no controversy on that, so why does Peterlag not recognize the futility of arguing something already recognized among both Christians and unitarians?
Dan 7:13-14 was recognized by the High Priest of Jesus' claim of deity. Why cannot Peterlag accept that?
John 1 shows that the Word has all the nature and attributes of God and then has become flesh. Why does Peterlag reject John 1?
Too much testimony of scripture is being blindly rejected by the unitarians.
Peterlag
Active Member
Well, now let's see if we can try to help you once again...
The words “HOLY SPIRIT” in the Bible are primarily used in two very different ways: One way is to refer to God Himself and the other is referring to God’s nature that He gives to people. God is holy and is spirit and therefore “the Holy Spirit” with a capital “H” and a capital “S” is one of the many “names” or designations for God. God gives His holy spirit nature to people as a gift and when HOLY SPIRIT is used that way it should be translated as the “holy spirit” with a lowercase “h” and a lowercase “s” and then that spirit is an it.
The common error of unitarians is to flatten language so God cannot represent various ideas with single words. This is not unusual for novice interpreters to trip up on. Especially, the scripture does not support some odd spiritist, unitarian interpretation.
Peterlag
Active Member
It's so crazy how much traction this false doctrine has gotten...
considering the fact that even Trinitarian scholars have admitted that it's not spelled out in Scripture, and that they have to rely on church fathers 300 years after Christ to try to prove its validity. Never mind the fact that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the Trinitarians so called proof texts fall apart under scrutiny. I personally tried as hard as I could to approach it with an open mind and unbiased approach because I WANTED to believe in the Trinity, and yet the more I studied it, the further it pushed me away and proved itself to be nonsensical. I also saw MANY former Trinitarians who said they had their eyes opened and are now Unitarian, but interestingly I have never seen any the other way around.
It's been over a year and a half now since I decided to study the Trinity in depth for 8-10 hours every day and after a LOT of debating, studying and prayer I'm now POSITIVE that the Trinity is an unscriptural false doctrine of MEN. It's clear that it started around 300 years after Christ with the council of Nicaea, and wasn't even fully ironed out until Chalcedon in 451, and then was VOTED into existence. I've simply seen too many contradictions and issues with it, and yet the Unitarian approach makes EVERYTHING click into place, and it all works so simply and beautifully that it cannot be anything but the truth.
Written by: Adam Ahlander
Edited by: Me
considering the fact that even Trinitarian scholars have admitted that it's not spelled out in Scripture, and that they have to rely on church fathers 300 years after Christ to try to prove its validity. Never mind the fact that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the Trinitarians so called proof texts fall apart under scrutiny. I personally tried as hard as I could to approach it with an open mind and unbiased approach because I WANTED to believe in the Trinity, and yet the more I studied it, the further it pushed me away and proved itself to be nonsensical. I also saw MANY former Trinitarians who said they had their eyes opened and are now Unitarian, but interestingly I have never seen any the other way around.
It's been over a year and a half now since I decided to study the Trinity in depth for 8-10 hours every day and after a LOT of debating, studying and prayer I'm now POSITIVE that the Trinity is an unscriptural false doctrine of MEN. It's clear that it started around 300 years after Christ with the council of Nicaea, and wasn't even fully ironed out until Chalcedon in 451, and then was VOTED into existence. I've simply seen too many contradictions and issues with it, and yet the Unitarian approach makes EVERYTHING click into place, and it all works so simply and beautifully that it cannot be anything but the truth.
Written by: Adam Ahlander
Edited by: Me
too bad all that study ended up with the wrong conclusion based also on inaccurate facts. The votes were just to get the churches on the same track, not to create a doctrine from scratch. duh
the unitarians would have us believe that a new doctrine formed in around 325 and suddenly everyone who had been unitarian suddenly accepted a foreign doctrine and approved it. If that is what happened, it must have been of God since that would be a miracle of miracles.
Then it shows how people get stuck in the unitarian heresy and cannot get out. I happened to do that though. I was briefly a unitarian but then realized that was not what scripture points to. the unitarian beliefs are so weak that they have not been able to get converts to the unitarian system here.
Doug Brents
Active Member
You have a neat and tidy way of making Scripture fit your belief pattern. But you are not God, and you do not get to decide how God intended for His Word to be understood.
John 14 is very clear in its description of who, not what, the Holy Spirit is. The Holy Spirit is a helper, a replacement for Jesus in the life of those who are in Christ Jesus.
Matt 28:19 is also clear in placing the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as three individuals with one authority and power.
Yes, the Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, but the Holy Spirit is not the Father, any more than the Son is the Father.
Peterlag
Active Member
The spirit you mention above is one of the ways the word "spirit" is used in the Bible. And Matthew 28:19 is probably not a real verse but was added later by the Catholics. Here's some data on that...
The early church was always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century. The Catholics acknowledge baptism was changed and Scripture such as Matthew 28:19 that was never in the Bible was added by them.
Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the 2nd Century. - Britannica Encyclopedia, 11th Edition, Volume 3, page 365.
The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century. - Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53.
Christian baptism was administered using the words "in the name of Jesus" page 377. Baptism was always done in the name of Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr, page 389. - Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 2.
Here the authors acknowledged that the baptismal formula was changed by their church. - Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, page 263.
The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus. - Schaff & Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Volume 1, page 435.
It must be acknowledged that the three-fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus. - Hastings Dictionary of Bible, page 88.
And concerning 1 John 5:7-8 where it has the words "In heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" are words that are not found in any Greek Manuscript before the 15th or 16th century and in no ancient Version. - E. W. Bullinger., A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament: (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1975), p. 11 of Appendix A.
Similar threads
