| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Carl" |
| Date: |
30 Aug 2007 11:53:59 AM |
| Object: |
Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity |
It's not surprising that Christians run across cultists, heretics and
nonChristians who deny the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Michael Ediger
addresses the topic from his experience with a denier known as "Apollos."
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity
by Michael J. Ediger
Introduction
Near the end of my ministry in Kentucky, just prior to moving to Denver, I
wrote a series of three articles on the Holy Spirit for the church
newsletter. The first of these articles dealt with the personhood of the
Spirit and His place in the Trinity. This subject struck a nerve with one
gentleman who received the newsletter, who was not a member of our
congregation. He took it upon himself to "set me straight" on the subject
and sent a copy of a paper he had written on the Holy Spirit. Over the next
twelve months we corresponded, primarily debating the doctrine of the
Trinity. He denied it; I affirmed it.
It is not my intention to do an in-depth study of the doctrine of the
Trinity. To attempt such would be beyond the limits of this paper as well as
futile, for finite man is incapable of fully understanding the triune nature
of the infinite God (Isa 55:8-9; Job 11:7). My purpose is to present the
Biblical evidence that supports the Trinity, thereby answering the question,
"Does the Bible teach that there is one God who exists eternally in three
Persons?" To accomplish this, I will deal primarily with the following
hypotheses:
1) What does the Bible mean when it asserts that God is "one"?
2) Is the Father God?
3) Is Jesus (the Son) God?
4) Is the Holy Spirit a Person? Is He also God?
Several observations will of necessity be included under each of the above
hypotheses in order to be as clear as possible in the space allowed for this
study. Other issues, such as the relationship of the three members of the
Godhead to one another and the eternal progression of the Holy Spirit, must
be omitted for the purposes of this paper.
At the end of this study, I will relate the results and my conclusions
specifically to the beliefs of the gentleman from Kentucky. His position
will be proven false, and the Trinity proven Biblical.
1. What does the Bible mean when it asserts that God is "one"?
"Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!"1 These words formed
part of the Shema-the prayer each Jew recited twice daily. That Jehovah is
the one true God is affirmed throughout the Bible. The Chronicler (2Chron
15:3), the Prophets (Isa 37:28; 43:18; Jer 18:16), the Evangelists (Mk
12:29-32; John 17:3) and Paul (1Cor 8:4-6; 1Tim 2:5) are among those who
record this fact.
Jehovah Himself claimed to be the only God in Exodus 26:2-6. He would not
tolerate the worship of any man-made objects (verses 4-5) because He alone
is God, and therefore exclusively worthy of worship.
Yet, as will be shown, the Bible presents two others as God-the man Jesus
and the Holy Spirit. How do we harmonize this with the Shema, that "God is
one?" The key is in understanding what is meant by the word "one."
Genesis 2:24 uses the same word. "For this cause a man shall leave his
father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become
one flesh." Clearly, there are two people in this relationship. Yet
Scripture says they "become one." One what? The obvious answer is, one unit
(family). As such, they are one or single in purpose; but they remain two
persons. It is the relationship between man and woman that provides us with
the image for the one-ness of God.2
"Obviously, there is some sense in which two can be one, since man and woman
are one flesh. Because God is one, it does not necessarily demand that He
cannot also be two or three in another sense or respect."3 The relationship
between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is similar to that of the man and woman
in Genesis 2. All three are one or single-minded in purpose (e.g., John
chapters 14 -16). They are three distinct Persons (as we shall see later),
yet one is essence (e.g., John 10:30; 17:21ff).
Many illustrations of this tri-unity have been offered; but all fall short
of perfectly picturing God's triune nature. For example, the family unit is
one but made up of distinct persons-father, mother, and child. Another
oft-used example is the one of water-ice-vapor, the three states of
moisture. These help despite being inadequate.
All such man-made attempts to explain God's nature fail because the unity of
the Father, Son and Holy Spirit:
.... is beyond the concepts we use to characterize the unity of people and
things.... Some conception of the divine nature is available to us from
divine operations, and God's works are believed to be faithful to God's
essence. But our conceptions do not exhaust God's being nor enable us fully
to comprehend it.4
Because of our finiteness, we do not claim to fully understand the Trinity;
neither do we consider ourselves able to fully explain it. "Since the
Trinity is without qualification the mystery of the faith, faith alone must
provide the approach to the doctrine of the Trinity."5
By looking at the evidence from Scripture we can, by faith, accept it as
God's truth. It is to that evidence we now turn.
II. Is the Father God?
Paul says in 1Cor 8:6, "there is but one God, the Father." This is the One
to whom Jesus prayed in Gethsemane (John 17) and to whom He ascended (John
20:17).
That the Father is God is seen in Isaiah 63:16 and 64:8 in the Old Testament
and in the following passages from the New Testament: 2Cor 1:3, Gal 1:1,
Phil 2:11, Col 1:3, and 1Pet 1:2. Other passages such as Matt 6:8ff; 7:21,
and 1Cor 11:3 also allude to this fact.
God the Father is shown as a distinct Person from the Son and the Holy
Spirit at Jesus' baptism in Matt 3:16-17. "And after being baptized, Jesus
went up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and
He saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon Him, and
behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, 'This is My beloved Son, in whom
I am well-pleased."
Similarly, the Father is distinct from the others in the baptismal formula
of Matt 28:19, the Apostolic Benediction of 2Cor 13:14, and elsewhere (John
14:16,26; 15:26; Acts 2:32-33; 1Cor 12:4-7; and others).
The Bible clearly teaches the Father is God. This point is not usually
debated. The problem some have with the Trinity begins with the Person of
Jesus Christ.
III. Is Jesus (the Son) God?
That Jesus of Nazareth was an actual historical figure has been
well-established by Josh McDowell in his book, Evidence That Demands a
Verdict (volume 1).6 The information McDowell presents is quite sufficient
to satisfy even the most skeptical person.
The question under consideration here has to do with Jesus' deity. If it can
be established from the Bible that Jesus has the same divine nature as God
the Father, then we must believe He also is God-God the Son.
Gary Zeolla lists ten different ways in which the deity of Jesus Christ can
be established.7 For our purposes, we will consider only a few of these.
Jesus is called God in several passages in the Bible. These include John
1:1; 20:28; Hebrews 1:8; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; and 1John 5:26. Other
passages, such as Romans 9:5; Philippians 2:6f; and Colossians 2:9, ascribe
deity to Jesus, thereby showing Him to be God.
One of the verses most often used to prove Jesus is God is John 1:1.
Jehovah's Witnesses claim this verse has been mistranslated and in their New
World Translation of the Holy Scriptures have rendered the debated phrase,
"and the Word was a god" instead of the more accepted, "and the Word was
God." The construction of the phrase in Greek is theos en ho logos.
Robert Bowman writes in regards to this construction:
elsewhere in the New Testament, whenever the word theos is used in the same
construction, it always clearly refers to the true God (Mark 12:27; Luke
20:38; John 8:54; Phil 2:13; Heb 1:16). Thus, the fact that the Word is
called theos in John 1:1 in this construction does not make him any less God
than the Father.8
Another oft-used text is John 20:28, Thomas's declaration, "My Lord and my
God!" Some (like the JWs) try to explain this away by claiming Thomas was
using the expression, "My God!" in the same way it is carelessly used today,
as an exclamation of astonishment. But this is hardly the case. As Bowman
points out, such use was "virtually unknown in Thomas's culture.
First-century Judaism regarded any [such] careless or thoughtless use of the
words Lord and God as bordering on blasphemy."9
Also, the text Specifically says, "Thomas answered and said to Him" (i.e.
Jesus). So Thomas was speaking to Jesus, not making an exclamation.
Although He did not come right out and say, "I am God," Jesus did claim to
be God. The prime example is found in John 8:58, where Jesus said to the
Jews, "Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Here,
Jesus echoes the very words of God to Moses (Exod 3:14; see also Deut 32:39;
Isa 43:10). The following verse (v. 59) tells us that the Jews "picked up
stones to throw at him." Why? Because they understood Jesus' words as a
"claim to the divine name, and hence to the divine nature and eternity.."10
Further, that Jesus is God is shown by the attributes and acts ascribed to
both Jehovah and Jesus. Both are eternal (John 1:1; 17:5; Mic 5:2; Heb
1:11), omnipresent (Ps 139:7-16; Jer 23:23-24; Matt 28:2o; Eph 1:23),
omniscient (John 1:48; 2:25; 6:64; Col 2:3), and omnipotent (Matt 28:18; Heb
1:3).
Both are confessed as Lord (Isa 45:23; Phil 2:11) and worshipped by angels
(Ps 148:2; Heb 1:6) as well as by people (the Psalms; John 4:21-24; Matt
28:17). Both are called Savior (Isa 43:11; 45:22; John 4:42), Judge (Joel
3:12; John 5:27), and Redeemer (Hos 13:14; Rev 5:9; 21:2).
To Jesus are also ascribed the works of God: creation (John 1:3; Col 1:16),
preservation (Col 1:17), providence (Heb 1:3), forgiveness of sins (Mk
2:5-11; Luke 5:20-24), and even raising the dead (John 5:21).
Three titles used of Jesus in the New Testament indicate His divinity: God
(John 1:1; 20:28); Son of God (John 5:18f; 1John 4:15; Heb 1:3), and Lord
(Rom 1:9; Phil 2:9-11; Heb 1:10; Rev 19:16). All three "connote divinity in
some NT literature, the latter especially because of the powerful
associations derived from its use for adonay in the LXX [Septuagint]."11
This sample of the Scriptural teaching concerning the Person of Jesus Christ
should be enough to convince the seeker of truth that Jesus, the Son, is
God. There is no other logical conclusion. This is the witness of the Bible.
IV. Is the Holy Spirit a Person? Is He also God?
Perhaps the most controversial point of the doctrine of the Trinity has to
do with the Holy Spirit. It is two-fold: 1) Does the Bible teach that the
Holy Spirit is a Person? and 2) does the Bible teach the deity of the Spirit
(is He God)?
That the Holy Spirit is a Person is easily established from Scripture.
Occasionally the writers of the Old Testament "ascribe personal activities
and moods to the Spirit (Gen 6:3; 2 Sam 23:2; Neh 9:20; Isa 34:16;
63:10)."12
Throughout the New Testament characteristics of persons are ascribed to the
Spirit. The Holy Spirit leads people (Matt 4:1; John 16:13; Rom 8:14),
speaks (John 16:13-14; Acts 4:25; 11:12; 1Tim 4:1; Heb 3:7), bears witness
or testifies (John 15:26; Acts 20:23; Rom 8:16; 1John 5:7,8), teaches (Luke
12:12; John 14:16; 1Cor 2:13), and has a mind and can reason (Acts 15:28;
Rom 8:27; 1Cor 2:11).
The Holy Spirit can be blasphemed (Matt 12:31-32), lied to (Acts 5:3-4), and
grieved (Eph 4:36). Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Matt 1:18, 26;
cf. Luke 1:35). Paul and Barnabas were "sent out" by the Holy Spirit (Acts
13:4; cf. v.2). Paul was forbidden to go to Asia by the Holy Spirit (Acts
16:6,7). All these things can hardly be said of a thing; they are all true
of a person. Logic dictates that the Holy Spirit is a Person.
Further proof of the Spirit's personhood can be seen in Jesus promise to
send "another Helper" (John 14:16). In 1John 2:1, Jesus is said to be our
Helper, or Advocate. The same title is applied to the Spirit in John 14:16
(the Greek word is the same). If one (Jesus) is a Person, we would expect
the other (the Holy Spirit) to be a Person, too. Later in John 14:26, Jesus
says the Spirit will be sent in Him name. Normally a person sends another
person -not a thing - in his name.
It should be clear from this evidence that the Holy Spirit is not a mere
impersonal force (contra the JWs and other cults), but a personal being.
That the Holy Spirit possesses deity can also be easily determined from
Scripture. He is ascribed the attributes of deity: eternity (Heb 9:14),
omniscience (1Cor 2:10,11; John 14:26; 16:12,13), omnipotence (Luke 1:35),
and omnipresence (Ps 139:7-10).
The Holy Spirit is said to do the divine works of God: creation (Ps 104:30;
Gen 1:2; Job 33:4), regeneration (John 3:5), the inspiration of Scripture (2
Pet 1:21), and the raising of the dead (Rom 8:11). Several other passages
consider the words and works of the Spirit to be the same as those of God
(Lev 16:1-34; cp. Heb 9:7f; Isa 6:8-10; cp. Acts 28:25-27; and Jer 31:33,34;
cp. Heb 10:15-17).
The Holy Spirit is called God (Acts 5:3,4; 2Cor 3:17,18) and the context of
Hebrews 3:7 seems to indicate that the Spirit is God. Other passages which
speak of the "Spirit of God" or "Spirit of Christ" (and other like terms)
also indicate the deity of the Spirit.
The logical conclusion is there is a third Person called God in the Bible:
God the Holy Spirit.
V. Three Distinct Persons
Although the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all called God, they are
always distinguished from one another. The Father is not the Son; neither is
the Son the Father. The Holy Spirit is distinct from both the Father and the
Son.
The distinction between Father and Son is seen in such passages as Matthew
11:27; John 5:20, 22; 14:16; and Matthew 27:46. Luke makes this distinction
in Luke 23:34,46, Stephen in Acts 7:55, and Peter in 1Peter 1:3.
That the Holy Spirit is a distinct Person from the Father and the Son is
seen in Isaiah 48:16; Matthew 3:16,17; John 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:7-15; and
Acts 1:4,5.
All three Persons of the Trinity are mentioned together in the triadic
formulas of the New Testament (Matt 28:19; Rom 14:17,18; Gal 3:11-14; 4:6;
2Cor 1:21 22; 3:3; 13:14; 1Peter 1:2).
The evidence from the Bible sets forth three divine Persons-Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit-as one God, not three Gods (John 10:30; 14:16-23; Rom 8:9; 1Cor
2:11). Therefore, the doctrine of the Trinity is without doubt a Scriptural
doctrine.
Only trinitarianism affirms the deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit, as taught in the Scriptures. Only it affirms that Jesus is the Son
of God, fully human and fully divine. Only trinitarianism affirms the
personhood and deity of the Holy Spirit as set forth in the Bible.
Therefore, only the doctrine of the Trinity-that God is one substance or
essence but three Persons-"preserves the oneness and uniqueness of God"
evident throughout the Bible.13
Conclusion
The gentleman from Kentucky ("Apollos") agrees that the Father is God. Like
others who deny the Trinity, his problems begin with the Person of Jesus
Christ.
In his reply to my letter of December 24, 1998, "Apollos" finally answered
my question, "Do you believe that Jesus Christ is God?" He stated, "No,
Jesus Christ is not God; He is the Son of God." In spite of the proof I
offered, this man refused to acknowledge Jesus is God.
"Apollos" believes that the Holy Spirit is the Bible or the Word of God. He
stated, "Simply speaking, the Spirit is the Word of God, the truth."14 His
two favorite proof texts are Ephesians 6:17 and I John 5:7-both obviously
taken out of context and severely misinterpreted! Further proof of his
belief could be documented from several other of his writings, but this
statement is a fair representation of his doctrine of the Holy Spirit.
"Apollos" clearly does not believe that: 1) Jesus Christ is God; 2) the Holy
Spirit is a Person; and 3) the Holy Spirit is God. His beliefs concerning
the doctrine of the Trinity are clearly seen in his essay, "The Holy Spirit
(Ghost)." - And his beliefs parallel those of the Jehovah's Witnesses in
several respects.
It doesn't take a seminary-educated Christian familiar with the Bible to see
that "Apollos" is in opposition to the plain Biblical truth of the Trinity.
As C.S. Lewis observed:
If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it
easier. But it isn't. We can't compete, in simplicity, with people who are
inventing religions. How could we? We're dealing with Fact. Of course anyone
can be simple if he has no facts to bother about!15
It seems, from my correspondence with him, that "Apollos" does not like to
deal with Fact. He would rather invent his own religion. And because of
this, I pray for him.
Addendum
Although this paper was originally written in answer to "Apollos"' theology,
it applies equally to any and all cults and/or individuals who deny the
Biblical doctrine of the Trinity. In the past several months, I have been in
contact with many who deny this essential doctrine of the Christian faith,
and I offer this brief study in its defense.
C. S. Lewis' observation quoted above is so very true! The God of the Bible
is NOT some man-made icon who is easily understood. Rather, He reveals
Himself in the pages of Scripture as a very complex God--yet One with whom
we can and indeed must have a close, personal relationship. The prophet
Isaiah records God as saying, "For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are My ways your ways" (55:8). We will never fully understand the
triune God of the Bible until we stand face-to-face.
If we are true to the Biblical record, and deal with the FACTS, as has been
done in this paper, we can come to no other logical conclusion than has been
stated above. Any conclusion to the contrary is the result of "inventing
religions" by twisting the sacred Scriptures to say something it does not
say.
May the honest seeker of truth deal with the FACTS of Scripture as presented
in this paper.
Footnotes:
1 Deut 6:4. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotes taken from: New
American Standard Bible. La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1977.
2 Diogenes Allen, Philosophy for Understanding Theology (Atlanta: John Knox
Press, 1985), pp. 104-105. This is not to say, however, that God is a
"family" in the way some cultists would have us believe (e.g., Herbert W.
Armstrong and his "disciples").
3 David L. Hocking. The Nature of God in Plain Language (Waco: Word, 1984),
p. 68.
4 Allen, p., 101.
5 Walter Kasper, The God of Jesus Christ (New York: Crossroad Pub. Co.,
1984), p. 273.
6 Josh McDowell. Evidence That Demands a Verdict (San Bernardino: Here's
Life Publishers, 1972), pp. 81-87.
7 See the Scripture Study, The Doctrine of the Trinity found in my Scripture
Workbook.
8 Robert M. Bowman, Jr. Why You Should Believe in the Trinity (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1989), p. 93.
9 Ibid., p. 96.
10 E. Calvin Beisner. God in Three Persons (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1984), 33.
11 Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,
rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), s.v. "Trinity," by Cornelius
Plantinga, Jr., p. 915.
12 Ibid., p.915.
13 Bowman, p. 135.
14 "Apollos," "The Holy Spirit (Ghost)," n.d.
15 Cited in Bowman, pp. 138-1 39.
.
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity |
30 Aug 2007 02:51:36 PM |
|
|
Carl wrote:
It's not surprising that Christians run across cultists, heretics and
nonChristians who deny the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity.
There is no "Biblical doctrine of the trinity."
In fact, even _honest_ trinitarians admit that it was unknown to First
Century Christians.
History of The Trinity
The growth of the doctrine of a triune God, is briefly but plainly, set
forth in the following facts:
A.D. 29 Jesus said, "The Lord our God is one Lord" (Mark 12:29).
A.D. 57 Paul said, "To us there is but one God" (1 Cor. 8:6).
A.D. 96 Clement said, "Christ was sent by God".
A.D. 120 "Apostles' Creed": "I believe in God the Father".
A.D. 150 Justin Martyr, introduces Greek Philosophy.
A.D. 170 The word "Trias", appears first in Christian literature.
A.D. 200. "Trinitas" is first introduced by Tertullian.
A.D. 280 Origen, opposes prayers to Christ.
A.D. 260 Sabellius: "Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three names for the
same God".
A.D. 300 Trinitarian prayers unknown in the Church.
A.D. 325 "Nicene Creed" affirms Christ to be "Very God of Very God".
A.D. 370 Doxology composed.
A.D. 381. Council of Constantinople invents "Three persons in One God".
A.D. 388 Emperor Theodosius threatens punishment to all who won't
worship the Trinity.
The false doctrine of the "trinity" was "formulated" and or "developed"
during the three or four hundred years after the passing of the Apostles
-- after the Bible was complete.
The false doctrine of the triune god was institutionalized by the pagan
man/god Constantine in AD 325. The "trinity" is a Greek Metaphysical
explanation of pagan triune gods 'painted over' (added into) scripture.
The idea that God is a "triune god" is not found in the Word of God.
Athanasius has also admitted that the triune gods was added to the
church after the Bible was completed -- and that those who believe what
IS in the Bible will be judged for what they find IN God's Word:
Quote:
I certainly agree that for those who are truly seperated from the
historical Christian Church and her teachings and who have possession
of the Holy Bible and have faith in God will not be judged according
to what I or any within the historical Church have been exposed to,
but will stand before God on the Last day and shall be accountable to
Him for what they -did- know and how they loved and responded to
others with the little truth they had.
end quote.
See.
http://tinyurl.com/edrvk
or try
http://tinyurl.com/zdg6k
-------------------------
Athanasius statement is certainly convoluted, but it is a confession
that "trinity doctrine" was unknown to First Century Christians, and
that it is unnecessary for salvation.
A Christian may, indeed should, believe every Word God gave to describe
and reveal Him Self, His Son and His Holy Spirit to His People -- and
reject the false doctrine of the triune gods.
For a "Biblical Doctrine of God" see:
http://tinyurl.com/2lw6ev
Glenn
His witness
--
Note, the site at xprt.net will close 1Sept07 and open as
www.thelittlebookopened.org [Key words:] "The Little Book";
Glenn McClary, servitum, gaedhealic, oldwetdog
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity |
30 Aug 2007 06:30:09 PM |
|
|
The bible describes a family from cover to cover, and every family
consists of three. Adam was the first child created in the image of
God then God separated His image into male and female, neither of them
equals and neither more important than the other. So from the very
beginning God created His image as a family - a child and two
parents. When a man and woman come together physically and
spiritually as one in God life is carried forward whether or not they
have physical children. That's an image of God.
Each of us who are God's spiritual children share this relationship
with our Heavenly Father and His Spirit. The relationship of three
exists.
Scripture doesn't have to say 'trinity' because it describes it.
On Aug 30, 2:51 pm, Glenn <gamccl...@spiritone.com> wrote:
Carl wrote:
It's not surprising that Christians run across cultists, heretics and
nonChristians who deny the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity.
There is no "Biblical doctrine of the trinity."
In fact, even _honest_ trinitarians admit that it was unknown to First
Century Christians.
History of The Trinity
The growth of the doctrine of a triune God, is briefly but plainly, set
forth in the following facts:
A.D. 29 Jesus said, "The Lord our God is one Lord" (Mark 12:29).
A.D. 57 Paul said, "To us there is but one God" (1 Cor. 8:6).
A.D. 96 Clement said, "Christ was sent by God".
A.D. 120 "Apostles' Creed": "I believe in God the Father".
A.D. 150 Justin Martyr, introduces Greek Philosophy.
A.D. 170 The word "Trias", appears first in Christian literature.
A.D. 200. "Trinitas" is first introduced by Tertullian.
A.D. 280 Origen, opposes prayers to Christ.
A.D. 260 Sabellius: "Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three names for the
same God".
A.D. 300 Trinitarian prayers unknown in the Church.
A.D. 325 "Nicene Creed" affirms Christ to be "Very God of Very God".
A.D. 370 Doxology composed.
A.D. 381. Council of Constantinople invents "Three persons in One God".
A.D. 388 Emperor Theodosius threatens punishment to all who won't
worship the Trinity.
The false doctrine of the "trinity" was "formulated" and or "developed"
during the three or four hundred years after the passing of the Apostles
-- after the Bible was complete.
The false doctrine of the triune god was institutionalized by the pagan
man/god Constantine in AD 325. The "trinity" is a Greek Metaphysical
explanation of pagan triune gods 'painted over' (added into) scripture.
The idea that God is a "triune god" is not found in the Word of God.
Athanasius has also admitted that the triune gods was added to the
church after the Bible was completed -- and that those who believe what
IS in the Bible will be judged for what they find IN God's Word:
Quote:
I certainly agree that for those who are truly seperated from the
historical Christian Church and her teachings and who have possession
of the Holy Bible and have faith in God will not be judged according
to what I or any within the historical Church have been exposed to,
but will stand before God on the Last day and shall be accountable to
Him for what they -did- know and how they loved and responded to
others with the little truth they had.
end quote.
See.
http://tinyurl.com/edrvk
or try
http://tinyurl.com/zdg6k
-------------------------
Athanasius statement is certainly convoluted, but it is a confession
that "trinity doctrine" was unknown to First Century Christians, and
that it is unnecessary for salvation.
A Christian may, indeed should, believe every Word God gave to describe
and reveal Him Self, His Son and His Holy Spirit to His People -- and
reject the false doctrine of the triune gods.
For a "Biblical Doctrine of God" see:http://tinyurl.com/2lw6ev
Glenn
His witness
--
Note, the site at xprt.net will close 1Sept07 and open aswww.thelittlebookopened.org[Key words:] "The Little Book";
Glenn McClary, servitum, gaedhealic, oldwetdog
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity |
31 Aug 2007 12:41:18 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:30:09 -0700,
wrote:
The bible describes a family from cover to cover, and every family
consists of three. Adam was the first child created in the image of
God then God separated His image into male and female, neither of them
equals and neither more important than the other. So from the very
beginning God created His image as a family - a child and two
parents. When a man and woman come together physically and
spiritually as one in God life is carried forward whether or not they
have physical children. That's an image of God.
Each of us who are God's spiritual children share this relationship
with our Heavenly Father and His Spirit. The relationship of three
exists.
Scripture doesn't have to say 'trinity' because it describes it.
That's an interesting perspective. :)
Many things are in threes. In fact, the atom, if we accept
the current theory, has three parts. Protons, Neutrons
and Electrons, just for one example. Or was I supposed
to give three? :)
--
A liberal is someone who will give away everything
except his/her own possessions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity |
31 Aug 2007 09:40:36 AM |
|
|
Hello Dave,
Your observation of the atom in threes is valid. There's more to the
atom than what you described but the basic makeup of every atom is
just as you described. There is more in scripture than we can
understand but relationships of threes exist from cover to cover and
we (spiritual children of God i.e.: saved through belief in Christ and
learning from the Spirit) are able to understand those.
Scripture is filled with relationships of threes and they are all
important. I have learned that of these relationships are built upon
the foundation of one: Water.
In Jeremiah 2:13 God said "They have forsaken me, the spring of living
water." Zechariah 4:18 prophesies the Christ and God's spiritual
children of the New Testament: "On that day living water will flow out
from Jerusalem, half to the eastern sea and half to the western sea,
in summer and in winter." The apostle John described living water in
chapter 4 and also in Revelation 7 and 22. Revelation 22 describes
"the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the
throne of God and of the Lamb" which ties it back to Jeremiah 2:13 (a
'spring' is a source, and 'water' is life.) Recognizing and
understanding the role of physical and spiritual water in scripture is
important as the physical descriptions and our physical understanding
helps us understand the spiritual relationships that exist there.
It's like Michael Ediger observed in the first post of this thread:
He wrote:> "Many illustrations of this tri-unity have been offered;
but all fall short of perfectly picturing God's triune nature. For
example, the family unit is one but made up of distinct persons-
father, mother, and child. Another oft-used example is the one of
water-ice-vapor, the three states of moisture. These help despite
being inadequate."
Michael was right on target when he wrote what he did. Michael
recognized the relationship existing with water but could not explain
it. The explanation exists and it could only come from a spiritual
child of God outside of his field of study.
The spiritual bond of a loving family unit (of three) is like the
nuclear bond of the water molecule. The two hydrogen atoms are
physically associated with power and heat, and the oxygen molecule is
physically associated with life and the promise of life. Our lives
cannot exist without water, nor can we physically exist without the
energy of the hydrogen atoms or the life provided through the oxygen
atom. Just as we need physical water and it's components to live, we
also need the family structure described in scripture to live.
Understanding the physical structures and phases of water in scripture
help us recognize and understand the spiritual relationships that are
described there. And Dave, only the spiritual children of God from
our physical generation are capable of understanding the relationships
written into scripture concerning water.
I know what I'm sharing probably isn't clear but I may be able to
provide enough insight on this subject where it would make more sense
after a period of evaluation. This doesn't change the salvation gift
in any way - it helps us understand it. I don't know it all but I
understand this. What I cannot do well is effectively communicate.
You know, these threads are both blessings and frustrations. There's
a lot of good stuff that disappears into the archives.
Ray
On Aug 31, 12:41 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:30:09 -0700,
wrote:
The bible describes a family from cover to cover, and every family
consists of three. Adam was the first child created in the image of
God then God separated His image into male and female, neither of them
equals and neither more important than the other. So from the very
beginning God created His image as a family - a child and two
parents. When a man and woman come together physically and
spiritually as one in God life is carried forward whether or not they
have physical children. That's an image of God.
Each of us who are God's spiritual children share this relationship
with our Heavenly Father and His Spirit. The relationship of three
exists.
Scripture doesn't have to say 'trinity' because it describes it.
That's an interesting perspective. :)
Many things are in threes. In fact, the atom, if we accept
the current theory, has three parts. Protons, Neutrons
and Electrons, just for one example. Or was I supposed
to give three? :)
--
A liberal is someone who will give away everything
except his/her own possessions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity |
01 Sep 2007 06:11:16 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 07:40:36 -0700,
wrote:
Hello Dave,
Your observation of the atom in threes is valid. There's more to the
atom than what you described but the basic makeup of every atom is
just as you described. There is more in scripture than we can
understand but relationships of threes exist from cover to cover and
we (spiritual children of God i.e.: saved through belief in Christ and
learning from the Spirit) are able to understand those.
Scripture is filled with relationships of threes and they are all
important. I have learned that of these relationships are built upon
the foundation of one: Water.
In Jeremiah 2:13 God said "They have forsaken me, the spring of living
water." Zechariah 4:18 prophesies the Christ and God's spiritual
children of the New Testament: "On that day living water will flow out
from Jerusalem, half to the eastern sea and half to the western sea,
in summer and in winter." The apostle John described living water in
chapter 4 and also in Revelation 7 and 22. Revelation 22 describes
"the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the
throne of God and of the Lamb" which ties it back to Jeremiah 2:13 (a
'spring' is a source, and 'water' is life.) Recognizing and
understanding the role of physical and spiritual water in scripture is
important as the physical descriptions and our physical understanding
helps us understand the spiritual relationships that exist there.
And this should tell us how New Jerusalem is not
a physical city.
--
To email, just remove the underscores.
A liberal is someone who will give away everything
except his/her own possessions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity |
02 Sep 2007 09:39:18 AM |
|
|
Hello Dave,
You wrote on Sep 1, 6:11 am > "And this should tell us how New
Jerusalem is not a physical city."
From what I undersdtand from my studies of scripture I will stand with
you on this. The New Jerusalem is the city of God as described in
Revelation and it is spiritual, not physical. Matthew recorded in
23:27 Jesus as saying ""O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the
prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to
gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her
wings, but you were not willing." He is addressing the physical city
and the city of man's understanding each one of the Pharisees,
teachers of the law and blind guides built into their lives.
Ray
..
On Sep 1, 6:11 am, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 07:40:36 -0700,
wrote:
Hello Dave,
Your observation of the atom in threes is valid. There's more to the
atom than what you described but the basic makeup of every atom is
just as you described. There is more in scripture than we can
understand but relationships of threes exist from cover to cover and
we (spiritual children of God i.e.: saved through belief in Christ and
learning from the Spirit) are able to understand those.
Scripture is filled with relationships of threes and they are all
important. I have learned that of these relationships are built upon
the foundation of one: Water.
In Jeremiah 2:13 God said "They have forsaken me, the spring of living
water." Zechariah 4:18 prophesies the Christ and God's spiritual
children of the New Testament: "On that day living water will flow out
from Jerusalem, half to the eastern sea and half to the western sea,
in summer and in winter." The apostle John described living water in
chapter 4 and also in Revelation 7 and 22. Revelation 22 describes
"the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the
throne of God and of the Lamb" which ties it back to Jeremiah 2:13 (a
'spring' is a source, and 'water' is life.) Recognizing and
understanding the role of physical and spiritual water in scripture is
important as the physical descriptions and our physical understanding
helps us understand the spiritual relationships that exist there.
And this should tell us how New Jerusalem is not
a physical city.
--
To email, just remove the underscores.
A liberal is someone who will give away everything
except his/her own possessions.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity |
03 Sep 2007 12:51:54 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 07:39:18 -0700,
wrote:
Hello Dave,
You wrote on Sep 1, 6:11 am "And this should tell us how New
Jerusalem is not a physical city."
From what I undersdtand from my studies of scripture I will stand with
you on this. The New Jerusalem is the city of God as described in
Revelation and it is spiritual, not physical. Matthew recorded in
23:27 Jesus as saying ""O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the
prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to
gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her
wings, but you were not willing." He is addressing the physical city
and the city of man's understanding each one of the Pharisees,
teachers of the law and blind guides built into their lives.
In Revelation, the city is a symbolic representation
of the bride (church) being wed to the Lamb (Christ).
--
To email, just remove the underscores.
A liberal is someone who will give away everything
except his/her own possessions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity |
03 Sep 2007 05:56:37 PM |
|
|
Dave,
You wrote> "In Revelation, the city is a symbolic representation of
the bride (church) being wed to the Lamb (Christ)"
There is nothing symbolic about it! If you believe that Jesus Christ
is who he says he is then you believe in the promise of our God of
eternal life. If you do not then you cannot understand scripture.
Do you believe that Jesus Christ was crucified and died on a cross and
three days later was resurrected the Son of God? My question is
sincere. Yes or no.
Ray
On Sep 3, 12:51 am, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 07:39:18 -0700,
wrote:
Hello Dave,
You wrote on Sep 1, 6:11 am "And this should tell us how New
Jerusalem is not a physical city."
From what I undersdtand from my studies of scripture I will stand with
you on this. The New Jerusalem is the city of God as described in
Revelation and it is spiritual, not physical. Matthew recorded in
23:27 Jesus as saying ""O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the
prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to
gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her
wings, but you were not willing." He is addressing the physical city
and the city of man's understanding each one of the Pharisees,
teachers of the law and blind guides built into their lives.
In Revelation, the city is a symbolic representation
of the bride (church) being wed to the Lamb (Christ).
--
To email, just remove the underscores.
A liberal is someone who will give away everything
except his/her own possessions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity |
03 Sep 2007 06:28:52 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 15:56:37 -0700,
wrote:
FYI, please do not top post. This is not lazy email
and it messes up the order of the discussion. Please
remember, there might be 10 people involved and
who said what, when, gets messed up this way!
In usenet, you are supposed to:
1) Respond to EACH POINT, BELOW each point.
2) FORMAT the message properly, even if the
other person didn't.
3) I would recommend to you that you set your
word wrap to 60 characters per line, since at
your current rate, after quoting it once, it gets
broken up and I have to manually fix it, which
I have done in this message as well. Note how
nice and neat it looks below. :) This makes it
easier to follow the discussion as it progresses.
Dave,
You wrote "In Revelation, the city is a symbolic
representation of the bride (church) being wed
to the Lamb (Christ)"
There is nothing symbolic about it! If you believe
that Jesus Christ is who he says he is then you
believe in the promise of our God of eternal life.
If you do not then you cannot understand scripture.
First of all, it was rude of you to treat me this way
and assume the worse about me, when maybe you
just misunderstood my point!
But don't worry; forgiven; forget about it, it never
happened. :)
Anyway, to respond to what you said... :)
Okay, I see your point. But I think you misunderstood
my intent. I didn't mean that the marriage doesn't
actually happen. Only that it isn't a physically literal
city floating down from Heaven. In other words,
the wedding of the church to Christ is described
symbolically, by using the description of the city.
Of course our eternal life in Christ is literal! :)
Do you believe that Jesus Christ was crucified
and died on a cross and three days later was
resurrected the Son of God? My question is
sincere. Yes or no.
No. He was already the Son of God. <lol!> :)
But seriously, my answer is above. And I would also,
while applauding you for your deep belief, caution you
that I am not some fake, as is most people here. I am
an actual pastor who has spent many years in the Bible
and who has read the entire Bible 15 times and the NT
hundreds of times and various parts of the OT hundreds
of times. So I think I am somewhat familiar with what
it says, okay? :)
I don't say that to brag. Only to let you know that I am
not some wannabe, as are 95% of the people here,
who are here because no one will let them run all of
the churches in the world in real life! :)
I am not saying that you are one of those people.
So far, you seem sincere and seem to be one of
that 5% and I am grateful for that!
Anyway, please let us continue on, as I believe that
you are one of those people with whom it will be
a wonderful experience to have come to know.
And no, I am not patronizing you.
--
To email, just remove the underscores.
A liberal is someone who will give away everything
except his/her own possessions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity |
04 Sep 2007 09:55:48 AM |
|
|
Hi Dave,
Thank you for the information you presented in your most recent reply
to me. I don't know what you mean by setting word wrap as I've worked
through any posting irregularities before I respond. But don't focus
on this first paragraph, what follows is much more important.
Many years ago I said something in humor to a wonderful teenage girl
who was babysitting our young children. I used negative humor to
compliment her, something that my father did with I lived with my
parents. I said something I knew was absolutely not true about her
thinking that she and the few friends around us would recognize I was
saying just the opposite. She smiled uncertainly when she heard me
speak my words. It was not until later that I learned how much my
words hurt her.
What I intended as a compliment hurt her very deeply and I have never
forgotten how she understood the words I spoke. Although I
immediately called and apologized to her and her parents and asked
their forgiveness (which they gave) I am sure she remembers that
incident today. What she understood was what I said, not what I
meant. That was over 20 years ago and my heart still hurts every time
I remember.
I learned from that incident and I have tried from that time to be
aware of what I write or say because I know that people who do not
know me only hear (understand) the words that I speak or write and not
always hear the words that I mean.
I asked you if you were a believer in Jesus Christ and you wrote
"No". I think you meant yes. You tried to qualify your statement but
for those who do not know you or understand what you wrote, all they
saw was 'No'.
You wrote> "First of all, it was rude of you to treat me this way and
assume the worse about me, when maybe you just misunderstood my
point!
My post to you was not intended to be rude. I did not understand your
point because I do not know you. We are spirits on this board - every
one of us - and all I know about you is how you present yourself in
your interactions with me and the others.
You wrote >But seriously, my answer is above. And I would also, while
applauding you for your deep belief, caution you that I am not some
fake, as is most people here.
How do you know who is a fake and who is not - by what they write or
say or by their fruits? Jim and Tammy Baker - great evangelists at
one time fell from grace because of greed. They took the money God's
children sent to them to carry the word of God to the world and lived
a lavish lifestyle. It was reported that they built a $25,000 dog
house among other things. Their actions spoke louder than the words
they used. Although they were speaking the right words, their legacy
was not one of God's servants, but one of greed.
So what were they - servants of God or not? They were known by their
fruits and by their fruits they fell.
You wrote> I am an actual pastor who has spent many years in the Bible
and who has read the entire Bible 15 times and the NT hundreds of
times and various parts of the OT hundreds of times. So I think I am
somewhat familiar with what it says, okay? :)
Consider what you just wrote against this example: I have driven
different types of vehicles perhaps a few million miles in my lifetime
and I am very familiar with how they operate. I have driven clutch
type passenger busses, automatic busses, diesel trucks, rear and front
wheel drive cars with carburetors and fuel injection - turbocharged,
motorcycles, and ATVs (to mention a few) but this does not make me a
mechanic. I know how to skillfully drive them and I perform minor
maintenance on my vehicles but I do not know how to rebuild an engine
or a transmission because I do not understand their design.
You may be familiar with what the verses in the bible say and where
they are, but do you understand what the verses mean? I am not trying
to be rude or unkind, I am only trying to help you understand that
there is much for you to learn.
You wrote> I don't say that to brag. Only to let you know that I am
not some wannabe, as are 95% of the people here, who are here because
no one will let them run all of the churches in the world in real
life! :)
But you are bragging - can't you see? The world knows you by your
fruits. You mean well but your words shout spite and rejection. You
continually point to yourself and how much you know, but no one knows
you - all they know of you is what your words project and many of them
point to you. You should be projecting Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ
did not come to judge the world, but to save it. Look to his example
and emulate him.
Here are some posts you may be interested in.
The Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity entire thread (the
role of the Holy Spirit post Sep 1, 8:43 pm)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian.baptist/browse_thread/thread/65cb7e4666b95bd5/2efdc87952be35ab#2efdc87952be35ab
Life Before the Flood,
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian.baptist/browse_thread/thread/19e37ae141ee2f31/167ee7ddf36e62f6#167ee7ddf36e62f6
and this link to an ongoing discussion of The Serpent of Genesis 3 -
The Garden of Eden.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian.baptist/browse_thread/thread/8acb916c397c88b9/61c35fedf177f82b?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1#61c35fedf177f82b
I've laid out scriptural sequences and understanding in order. Are
they 100 correct? I cannot say but I encourage anyone who takes the
time to look at them to study and evaluate the truths that are
presented against the Word of God. I want to know if I am wrong. I
have tried to list every verse to show the order and understanding
that God presents to us.
Believing what people say as absolute truth without understanding if
they are right or not is dangerous. When we blindly do this it puts
our safety and the safety of our loved ones in their hands. This is
addressed in the thread of the Serpent of Genesis 3. Just because a
person claims to be something doesn't mean that person is true. One
has to study and evaluate and learn to understand what is true and
what is not.
About Jesus Christ? I first believed in faith. I saw some truth and
I believed in the truth. Over the years I have learned more about
Jesus Christ and who he is for me and everyone else, and I understand
more and I understand the truth of our God.
You wrote > In usenet, you are supposed to: (and then your list of
requirements)
About responding, I will try to respond to you in the sequence way you
want. But you should be the servant helping others, not asking or
demanding that others should serve you.
Peace to you,
Ray
On Sep 3, 6:28 pm, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 15:56:37 -0700,
wrote:
FYI, please do not top post. This is not lazy email
and it messes up the order of the discussion. Please
remember, there might be 10 people involved and
who said what, when, gets messed up this way!
In usenet, you are supposed to:
1) Respond to EACH POINT, BELOW each point.
2) FORMAT the message properly, even if the
other person didn't.
3) I would recommend to you that you set your
word wrap to 60 characters per line, since at
your current rate, after quoting it once, it gets
broken up and I have to manually fix it, which
I have done in this message as well. Note how
nice and neat it looks below. :) This makes it
easier to follow the discussion as it progresses.
Dave,
You wrote "In Revelation, the city is a symbolic
representation of the bride (church) being wed
to the Lamb (Christ)"
There is nothing symbolic about it! If you believe
that Jesus Christ is who he says he is then you
believe in the promise of our God of eternal life.
If you do not then you cannot understand scripture.
First of all, it was rude of you to treat me this way
and assume the worse about me, when maybe you
just misunderstood my point!
But don't worry; forgiven; forget about it, it never
happened. :)
Anyway, to respond to what you said... :)
Okay, I see your point. But I think you misunderstood
my intent. I didn't mean that the marriage doesn't
actually happen. Only that it isn't a physically literal
city floating down from Heaven. In other words,
the wedding of the church to Christ is described
symbolically, by using the description of the city.
Of course our eternal life in Christ is literal! :)
Do you believe that Jesus Christ was crucified
and died on a cross and three days later was
resurrected the Son of God? My question is
sincere. Yes or no.
No. He was already the Son of God. <lol!> :)
But seriously, my answer is above. And I would also,
while applauding you for your deep belief, caution you
that I am not some fake, as is most people here. I am
an actual pastor who has spent many years in the Bible
and who has read the entire Bible 15 times and the NT
hundreds of times and various parts of the OT hundreds
of times. So I think I am somewhat familiar with what
it says, okay? :)
I don't say that to brag. Only to let you know that I am
not some wannabe, as are 95% of the people here,
who are here because no one will let them run all of
the churches in the world in real life! :)
I am not saying that you are one of those people.
So far, you seem sincere and seem to be one of
that 5% and I am grateful for that!
Anyway, please let us continue on, as I believe that
you are one of those people with whom it will be
a wonderful experience to have come to know.
And no, I am not patronizing you.
--
To email, just remove the underscores.
A liberal is someone who will give away everything
except his/her own possessions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity |
04 Sep 2007 10:53:51 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 07:55:48 -0700,
wrote:
Hi Dave,
Thank you for the information you presented in your most recent reply
to me. I don't know what you mean by setting word wrap as I've worked
through any posting irregularities before I respond. But don't focus
on this first paragraph, what follows is much more important.
Do you understand what top posting is?
How do you know who is a fake and who is not - by what they write or
say or by their fruits? Jim and Tammy Baker - great evangelists at
one time fell from grace because of greed. They took the money God's
children sent to them to carry the word of God to the world and lived
a lavish lifestyle. It was reported that they built a $25,000 dog
house among other things. Their actions spoke louder than the words
they used. Although they were speaking the right words, their legacy
was not one of God's servants, but one of greed.
I have never taken pay for pastoring.
You wrote> I am an actual pastor who has spent many years in the Bible
and who has read the entire Bible 15 times and the NT hundreds of
times and various parts of the OT hundreds of times. So I think I am
somewhat familiar with what it says, okay? :)
Consider what you just wrote against this example: I have driven
different types of vehicles perhaps a few million miles in my lifetime
and I am very familiar with how they operate. I have driven clutch
type passenger busses, automatic busses, diesel trucks, rear and front
wheel drive cars with carburetors and fuel injection - turbocharged,
motorcycles, and ATVs (to mention a few) but this does not make me a
mechanic.
Nor does reading a book make you a writer. But no one
said you had to be a writer, to understand what you are
reading, so that is a bad analogy, since not being a writer
doesn't mean that you can't know the book inside out
and understand it very well.
You wrote> I don't say that to brag. Only to let you know that I am
not some wannabe, as are 95% of the people here, who are here because
no one will let them run all of the churches in the world in real
life! :)
But you are bragging - can't you see?
No, I am qualifying my remarks, since as you said,
we don't know each other. A statement of fact is
not automatically bragging, any more than you
listing the different types of vehicles you can drive
in a group about driving is automatically bragging.
You wrote > In usenet, you are supposed to: (and then your list of
requirements)
About responding, I will try to respond to you in the sequence way you
want. But you should be the servant helping others, not asking or
demanding that others should serve you.
Telling you proper posting structure has nothing to do with
asking you to serve me. That's ridiculous to say! It's
called, "proper usenet netiquette", that's all.
--
To email me, just remove the underscores.
A liberal is someone who will give away everything
except his/her own possessions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity |
04 Sep 2007 03:00:11 PM |
|
|
Hi Dave,
You wrote:> Do you understand what top posting is?
No I do not. Perhaps you could explain 'top posting' to me.
You wrote:> I have never taken pay for pastoring.
That was not my point. Perhaps I used a poor example. What I am
trying to communicate is that all that any of us know of you is what
you project of yourself. People are distrustful of others, especially
people claiming to be teachers of scripture for good reasons. I tried
to cite a good reason.
I implore you to show people HOW scripture is true - don't just tell
them that something they distrust is true. Admit it when you don't
know something and seek an answer. Open your mind to learn because
you do not know it all - none of us do but some of us do understand a
little more than others. Listen to what others say because there may
be truth in their words. God's Spirit speaks to us through others -
Christian and non-Christian alike.
You wrote:> Nor does reading a book make you a writer. But no one
said you had to be a writer, to understand what you are reading, so
that is a bad analogy, since not being a writer doesn't mean that you
can't know the book inside out and understand it very well.
Teaching an understanding of a subject is different from teaching an
interpretation. An understanding is developed on a foundation of
truth which can be explained so others are able to understand what is
true and what is not true. An interpretation is merely a formulated
guess so interpretations are built on the foundation of mans
understanding i.e. sand. All of us interpret our world to help us
move through it but interpretations sometimes places our lives and the
lives of others in danger. Many people have been killed or injured
due to placing their faith in those who have interpreted their
conditions incorrectly.
Many scriptural teachers in the Christian faith teach 'truth' from the
interpretations of others. They do not understand what they are
teaching and they will not admit it. When a student asks difficult to
answer questions the most common answer they get is 'faith', or they
are bombarded with verses of scripture that make no sense. The reason
it doesn't make sense is because many of the teachers don't understand
what they're teaching and their pride or their training keeps them
blind. Many teachers fall back and point to what others say - very
few will admit that they do not know. The student is left confused
because the truth of scripture is real and so many people claim to
have the answer, but few are able to show them how to understand.
Teaching interpretations is good only as long as the teacher and the
student know and understand that interpretation only means an educated
guess. The wise person interprets to gain understanding through
evaluation and adjustment.
I will readdress a previous comment of yours. You wrote> I am an
actual pastor who has spent many years in the Bible and who has read
the entire Bible 15 times and the NT hundreds of times and various
parts of the OT hundreds of times. So I think I am somewhat familiar
with what it says, okay? :)
Just because you read something many times doesn't qualify you as one
who understands it. On my illustration of the cars, I would much
rather have a mechanic repair my broken car engine who understands its
design than one who only thinks they know how it's built. How much
damage has been done by people wielding tools that didn't understand
what they were doing? I will choose a person who will work through my
problems through seeking understanding over those who claim they know
the answers without asking any questions. I've seen too much of the
latter in many areas of life today.
You wrote:> No, I am qualifying my remarks, since as you said, we
don't know each other. A statement of fact is not automatically
bragging, any more than you listing the different types of vehicles
you can drive in a group about driving is automatically bragging.
I don't know how to help you see how you come across to others. You
have projected to the world through your most recent post that
practically everybody you interact with is stupid.
You wrote this: "I don't say that to brag. Only to let you know that
I am not some wannabe, as are 95% of the people here, ..."
How would you respond to me if I treated you in such a derogative
manner? Instead of relating to people through loving and honest
responses, they are reacting with your choice of angry and hostile and
arrogant words. What I shared with you about driving a car was an
allegory and you completely missed the picture.
You wrote > In usenet, you are supposed to: (and then your list of
requirements)
I'll stress this again: You should be the servant helping others, not
asking or demanding that others should serve you.
The first three gospels (Matthew 26, Mark 14 and Luke 22) record
events of the last supper where Jesus Christ told his disciples "And
he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying,
"This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." (from
Luke 22) and He talked about the cup.
Someone recently pointed out to me that the Gospel of John was shaky
because John didn't include it in his gospel. I responded that the
initiator of the Gospel of John (who I am convinced was the apostle
John) most certainly did! John described it in word pictures instead
of using the short, defined words as the others did.
After Jesus washed the feet of his disciples and moved back to the
head of the table, he spoke to his disciples and said this: (John
13:15) "I have set you an example that you should do as I have done
for you." And then in the following chapters he fills his cup with
his living water (his blood) and gave it to his disciples to drink by
sharing the meaning of scripture to them.
Dave, show the world HOW Jesus Christ lives in you. Serve others by
emulating Jesus Christ! Set your personal requirements for usenet use
aside and work with people instead of against us. You are the only
person I have ever come across on these many boards that demands that
all posts must be answered in a very structured and specific way.
Whether you see this or not, I am trying to show that you are
demanding that people meet your needs and desires and in doing this
you do not project Jesus Christ to them.
Please study the list of the Holy Spirit verses provided to you in the
link above. These verses describe Jesus Christ and explains how the
Spirit of God helps us understand who and what we are. Eat the bread
Jesus Christ offers you and drink from His cup (take in his example by
living his life through understanding scripture). In this way you
will carry Him to the world and the world will know you by His
fruits. I'll be praying for you.
Peace,
Ray
On Sep 4, 10:53 am, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 07:55:48 -0700,
wrote:
Hi Dave,
Thank you for the information you presented in your most recent reply
to me. I don't know what you mean by setting word wrap as I've worked
through any posting irregularities before I respond. But don't focus
on this first paragraph, what follows is much more important.
Do you understand what top posting is?
How do you know who is a fake and who is not - by what they write or
say or by their fruits? Jim and Tammy Baker - great evangelists at
one time fell from grace because of greed. They took the money God's
children sent to them to carry the word of God to the world and lived
a lavish lifestyle. It was reported that they built a $25,000 dog
house among other things. Their actions spoke louder than the words
they used. Although they were speaking the right words, their legacy
was not one of God's servants, but one of greed.
I have never taken pay for pastoring.
You wrote> I am an actual pastor who has spent many years in the Bible
and who has read the entire Bible 15 times and the NT hundreds of
times and various parts of the OT hundreds of times. So I think I am
somewhat familiar with what it says, okay? :)
Consider what you just wrote against this example: I have driven
different types of vehicles perhaps a few million miles in my lifetime
and I am very familiar with how they operate. I have driven clutch
type passenger busses, automatic busses, diesel trucks, rear and front
wheel drive cars with carburetors and fuel injection - turbocharged,
motorcycles, and ATVs (to mention a few) but this does not make me a
mechanic.
Nor does reading a book make you a writer. But no one
said you had to be a writer, to understand what you are
reading, so that is a bad analogy, since not being a writer
doesn't mean that you can't know the book inside out
and understand it very well.
You wrote> I don't say that to brag. Only to let you know that I am
not some wannabe, as are 95% of the people here, who are here because
no one will let them run all of the churches in the world in real
life! :)
But you are bragging - can't you see?
No, I am qualifying my remarks, since as you said,
we don't know each other. A statement of fact is
not automatically bragging, any more than you
listing the different types of vehicles you can drive
in a group about driving is automatically bragging.
You wrote > In usenet, you are supposed to: (and then your list of
requirements)
About responding, I will try to respond to you in the sequence way you
want. But you should be the servant helping others, not asking or
demanding that others should serve you.
Telling you proper posting structure has nothing to do with
asking you to serve me. That's ridiculous to say! It's
called, "proper usenet netiquette", that's all.
--
To email me, just remove the underscores.
A liberal is someone who will give away everything
except his/her own possessions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity |
05 Sep 2007 11:26:18 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:00:11 -0700,
wrote:
Hi Dave,
You wrote:> Do you understand what top posting is?
No I do not. Perhaps you could explain 'top posting' to me.
Top posting is when you place your answer above
the text you are responding to, meaning at the top
of the message.
Proper usenet netiquette is to place your response
to each portion of text you are responding to,
below that portion of text.
I would also ask... What do you use to write in
usenet with? I ask, because it does not seem that
it is putting the normal ">" symbol before the text
that you are quoting.
You wrote:> I have never taken pay for pastoring.
That was not my point. Perhaps I used a poor example. What I am
trying to communicate is that all that any of us know of you is what
you project of yourself. People are distrustful of others, especially
people claiming to be teachers of scripture for good reasons. I tried
to cite a good reason.
I implore you to show people HOW scripture is true - don't just tell
them that something they distrust is true. Admit it when you don't
know something and seek an answer. Open your mind to learn because
you do not know it all - none of us do but some of us do understand a
little more than others. Listen to what others say because there may
be truth in their words. God's Spirit speaks to us through others -
Christian and non-Christian alike.
Here you are, assuming that I think or said that I know
everything. Yet there are how many people here who
think they can teach the whole planet?
You wrote:> Nor does reading a book make you a writer. But no one
said you had to be a writer, to understand what you are reading, so
that is a bad analogy, since not being a writer doesn't mean that you
can't know the book inside out and understand it very well.
Teaching an understanding of a subject is different from teaching an
interpretation.
No, it isn't, since an interpretation is nothing more
than one's understanding of what something says.
The only variance, is that with an interpretation,
it is always someone else's work that you are
attempting to explain.
An understanding is developed on a foundation of
truth which can be explained
That is not true. An understanding can be completely
wrong. You can understand someone to be saying
something and I understand them to be saying something
else completely and we were both standing there and
heard them say what they said.
An interpretation is merely a formulated guess
An interpretation can be right or wrong. An interpretation
may give and promote the correct, or incorrect way to
understand something.
Many scriptural teachers in the Christian faith teach 'truth' from the
interpretations of others. They do not understand what they are
teaching and they will not admit it. When a student asks difficult to
answer questions the most common answer they get is 'faith', or they
are bombarded with verses of scripture that make no sense.
Which is what I see a lot of in these groups.
And yes, I can say, that people do not see
me dodging difficult questions.
This is not to say that I believe that I know everything
there is to know in Scripture. Of course there are things
that I am continuing to study, like everyone else.
The reason it doesn't make sense is because many
of the teachers don't understand what they're teaching
and their pride or their training keeps them blind.
Now please tell this to those guilty of it. Or is this
really about you not liking what I believe and trying
to attack me and my integrity in a round-a-bout way?
Many teachers fall back and point to what others say - very
few will admit that they do not know. The student is left confused
because the truth of scripture is real and so many people claim to
have the answer, but few are able to show them how to understand.
They know how to understand and do not wish to.
Teaching interpretations is good only as long as the teacher and the
student know and understand that interpretation only means an educated
guess. The wise person interprets to gain understanding through
evaluation and adjustment.
You have failed to account for stubbornness and vanity.
I will readdress a previous comment of yours. You wrote> I am an
actual pastor who has spent many years in the Bible and who has read
the entire Bible 15 times and the NT hundreds of times and various
parts of the OT hundreds of times. So I think I am somewhat familiar
with what it says, okay? :)
Just because you read something many times doesn't qualify you as one
who understands it.
And saying it as a response to someone who hasn't
and yet, acts as if I am ignorant of the Scriptures,
does not mean I say it to brag.
The fact is, 95% of the people in Christian/Biblical
news groups, are wannabees, who aren't asked to
lead anything in real life and think they're supposed
to be teaching the world what's right, with all of
their 14 months of reading portions of Scripture
and only doing so in the light of what some writer
of a book said and then claim that their supposed
wisdom comes from God and His word. And then
you have the nerve to tell this garbage to me and
to try to pretend that I'm doing something wrong?!
Please! Wake up!
I think you are just another Futurist, who doesn't
like the fact that I do explain what I post and
can't dispute it.
If you're so confident though, why do you not
show me where I am wrong, specifically explaining
where, how and why? And why have you not taken
issue with anyone else that I have seen, even if
their very first response to something I have said is,
"You are Satan!" ??? No, no problem with them, right?
Oh wait, let me guess... I'm a pastor, so that means
that you though it best to try to talk to me about it,
right? Please! The fact is, that you have no problem
with what these people are doing, because you're a
Futurist too! The fact is, that you can write to me
until you're blue in the face, but I can't change
the things that they say.
You wrote > In usenet, you are supposed to: (and then your list of
requirements)
I'll stress this again: You should be the servant helping others, not
asking or demanding that others should serve you.
And I'll tell you again, since you are cocky and need
it shoved at you again. It is not asking you to serve
me, to tell you how a message is supposed to be
posted in usenet. Why do you think it's okay to
pretend that millions of usenet users should change
usenet format, just for you?!
Am I supposed to fly to your home and set it up
for you?! Get a grip, son!
As I said, stubbornness. (:
--
To email me, just remove the underscores.
A liberal is someone who will give away everything
except his/her own possessions.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Merlin" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity |
03 Sep 2007 06:37:40 PM |
|
|
On Sep 3, 6:56 pm, wrote:
Dave,
You wrote> "In Revelation, the city is a symbolic representation of
the bride (church) being wed to the Lamb (Christ)"
There is nothing symbolic about it! If you believe that Jesus Christ
is who he says he is then you believe in the promise of our God of
eternal life. If you do not then you cannot understand scripture.
Do you believe that Jesus Christ was crucified and died on a cross and
three days later was resurrected the Son of God? My question is
sincere. Yes or no.
Ray
A liberal is someone who will give away everything
except his/her own possessions.
christian does not exist with well defined and socially manipualive
insults.
it isn't important to beileve in death.
it isn't necessary to worship death to be a christian.
as there is no death that is part of jesus message
jesus is alive today and never died.
unless you know something the rest of us don't and believe jesus died
and is not available to you now
as no christians seems to know jesus today when jesus via love not
insults can make himself available to anyone that calls.
call out to jesus ask jesus what jesus says about love and life and
insults.
have you not heard of your living vital soul?
do you not know everyone has one a soul that is?
as jesus had a soul so we have souls that live forever do we not?
does the your soul die? cause jesus has told merlin jesus soul is
part of the fabric of the universe seen and unseen.
you seem to be saying your are limited the limitations of earth,
that you are of this earth and cannot imagine a life with your human
body.
does the christian soul disintegrate when you are not pure enough in
this in the after life?
does the christian soul get captured and put in a conentration camp
after life when jesus is unhappy with you?
is that what you are worried about?
punishment? fear of the consequences of your daily life?
why are christians so afraid? where is the love jesus taught?
why is death so important that you worship death rituals?
each human flesh of a dead man, and ritually drink the blood of a dead
man
that you may gain that man's ability to defeat death?
how does that happen? how does death happen? how have you come to
worship death?
not going to heaven? is that your fear?
christians seem very afraid and fear seems to bring on the insults of
others.
except for tammy faye.
so you must worship the death of jesus to prove your worthiness to
god?
when jesus asks us only to love each other as we love ourselves?
in love with the living gay jesus,
merlin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity |
31 Aug 2007 10:57:23 AM |
|
|
Hello Dave,
Your observation of the three components in the atom is valid.
There's more to the atom than what you described but the basic makeup
of every atom is just as you described. There is more in scripture
than we can understand but relationships of threes exist from cover to
cover and we (spiritual children of God i.e.: saved through belief in
Christ and learning from the Spirit) are able to understand those.
Scripture is filled with relationships of threes and they are all
important. I have learned that of these relationships are built upon
the foundation of one: Water.
In Jeremiah 2:13 God said "They have forsaken me, the spring of living
water." Zechariah 4:18 prophesies the Christ and God's spiritual
children of the New Testament: "On that day living water will flow out
from Jerusalem, half to the eastern sea and half to the western sea,
in summer and in winter." The apostle John described living water in
chapter 4 and also in Revelation 7 and 22. Revelation 22 describes
"the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the
throne of God and of the Lamb" which ties it back to Jeremiah 2:13 (a
'spring' is a source, and 'water' is life.) Recognizing and
understanding the role of physical and spiritual water in scripture is
important as the physical descriptions and our physical understanding
helps us understand the spiritual relationships that exist there.
It's like Michael Ediger observed in the first post of this thread:
He wrote:> "Many illustrations of this tri-unity have been offered;
but all fall short of perfectly picturing God's triune nature. For
example, the family unit is one but made up of distinct persons-
father, mother, and child. Another oft-used example is the one of
water-ice-vapor, the three states of moisture. These help despite
being inadequate."
Michael was right on target when he wrote what he did. Michael
recognized the relationship existing with water but could not explain
it. The explanation exists and it could only come from a spiritual
child of God outside of his field of study.
The spiritual bond of a loving family unit (of three) is like the
nuclear bond of the water molecule. The two hydrogen atoms are
physically associated with power and heat, and the oxygen molecule is
physically associated with life and the promise of life. Our lives
cannot exist without water, nor can we physically exist without the
energy of the hydrogen atoms or the life provided through the oxygen
atom. Just as we need physical water and it's components to live, we
also need the family structure described in scripture to live.
Understanding the physical structures and phases of water in scripture
help us recognize and understand the spiritual relationships that are
described there. And Dave, only the spiritual children of God from
our physical generation are capable of understanding the relationships
written into scripture concerning water.
I know what I'm sharing probably isn't clear but I may be able to
provide enough insight on this subject where it would make more sense
after a period of evaluation. This doesn't change the salvation gift
in any way - it helps us understand it. I don't know it all but I
understand this. What I cannot do well is effectively communicate.
You know, these threads are both blessings and frustrations. There's
a lot of good stuff that disappears into the archives.
Ray
On Aug 31, 12:41 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:30:09 -0700,
wrote:
The bible describes a family from cover to cover, and every family
consists of three. Adam was the first child created in the image of
God then God separated His image into male and female, neither of them
equals and neither more important than the other. So from the very
beginning God created His image as a family - a child and two
parents. When a man and woman come together physically and
spiritually as one in God life is carried forward whether or not they
have physical children. That's an image of God.
Each of us who are God's spiritual children share this relationship
with our Heavenly Father and His Spirit. The relationship of three
exists.
Scripture doesn't have to say 'trinity' because it describes it.
That's an interesting perspective. :)
Many things are in threes. In fact, the atom, if we accept
the current theory, has three parts. Protons, Neutrons
and Electrons, just for one example. Or was I supposed
to give three? :)
--
A liberal is someone who will give away everything
except his/her own possessions.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity |
30 Aug 2007 09:43:15 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:51:36 -0700, Glenn <gamcclary@spiritone.com>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Carl wrote:
It's not surprising that Christians run across cultists, heretics and
nonChristians who deny the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity.
There is no "Biblical doctrine of the trinity."
In fact, even _honest_ trinitarians admit that it was unknown to First
Century Christians.
Not true. Trinitarians who are not EDUCATED, Trinitarians who are not
serious Bible students may think that.
But any serious Bible student knows better.
Any serious Bible student (that does not include you) can have the
Trinity pointed out to him/her in the 1st chapter of Genesis
(something you continue to REFUSE to examine honestly)
I have several times pointed out the Trinity in the narrative
concerning the 40-year wanderings of the Children of Israel.
The Holy Spirit appeared in the burning bush.
Isaiah pointed out that the Messiah would be BOTH Father AND Son.
I could go on, but you're not receptive to the TRUTH.
Your mind has been clouded with lies.
john w
snip
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity |
30 Aug 2007 11:39:15 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:43:15 -0700, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:51:36 -0700, Glenn <gamcclary@spiritone.com>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Carl wrote:
It's not surprising that Christians run across cultists, heretics and
nonChristians who deny the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity.
There is no "Biblical doctrine of the trinity."
In fact, even _honest_ trinitarians admit that it was unknown to First
Century Christians.
Not true. Trinitarians who are not EDUCATED, Trinitarians who are not
serious Bible students may think that.
But any serious Bible student knows better.
Any serious Bible student (that does not include you) can have the
Trinity pointed out to him/her in the 1st chapter of Genesis
(something you continue to REFUSE to examine honestly)
I have several times pointed out the Trinity in the narrative
concerning the 40-year wanderings of the Children of Israel.
The Holy Spirit appeared in the burning bush.
Isaiah pointed out that the Messiah would be BOTH Father AND Son.
I could go on, but you're not receptive to the TRUTH.
Your mind has been clouded with lies.
john w
snip
John,
You are not a serious Bible student. You tell some good stories and
may be a good story teller but you are not a serious student of the
Bible. If you were serious you would righly divide the word of truth
by expounding the Scriptures line by line and word by word rather than
offering "the Bible says this because I say so." What credability you
had went down the tubes when you began agreeing with Carl who knows
less Bible than you.
While I always recognized that you were not one to know the word
verbatim; you did have a lot of it in your heart. But lately, you
have been showing you understand less of it than I thought you did.
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity
himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in another.
Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maat" |
|
| Title: Re: Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity |
30 Aug 2007 11:34:03 PM |
|
|
john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> news:crved35asssmjuugvi09eb0vsr80ev1dg5@
4ax.com sqalled why me, to which the skies answered, Why Not.
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:51:36 -0700, Glenn <gamcclary@spiritone.com>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Carl wrote:
It's not surprising that Christians run across cultists, heretics and
nonChristians who deny the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity.
There is no "Biblical doctrine of the trinity."
In fact, even _honest_ trinitarians admit that it was unknown to First
Century Christians.
Not true. Trinitarians who are not EDUCATED, Trinitarians who are not
serious Bible students may think that.
So you feel perfectly free inserting your point of view which is an error?
But any serious Bible student knows better.
Hebrew bible students know better, even the Greek tradition does not
sponsor a Trinity concept. Invariably, it must be misconstrued taking text
out of context, interpolating it to mean what you want to hear. Of course,
you have established beyond doubt that a biblical scholar you are not.
Any serious Bible student (that does not include you) can have the
Trinity pointed out to him/her in the 1st chapter of Genesis
The Trinity does not exist in Genesis and to claim so means that you are
taking text out of context as well as interpolating it to mean whatever it
is you want. Here is the last chapter of Genesis.
50:1 And Joseph fell upon his father's face, and wept upon him, and kissed
him.
50:2 And Joseph commanded his servants the physicians to embalm his father.
And the physicians embalmed Israel.
50:3 And forty days were fulfilled for him; for so are fulfilled the days
of embalming. And the Egyptians wept for him threescore and ten days.
50:4 And when the days of weeping for him were past, Joseph spoke unto the
house of Pharaoh, saying: 'If now I have found favour in your eyes, speak,
I pray you, in the ears of Pharaoh, saying:
50:5 My father made me swear, saying: Lo, I die; in my grave which I have
digged for me in the land of Canaan, there shalt thou bury me. Now
therefore let me go up, I pray thee, and bury my father, and I will come
back.'
50:6 And Pharaoh said: 'Go up, and bury thy father, according as he made
thee swear.'
50:7 And Joseph went up to bury his father; and with him went up all the
servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house, and all the elders of the
land of Egypt,
50:8 and all the house of Joseph, and his brethren, and his father's house;
only their little ones, and their flocks, and their herds, they left in the
land of Goshen.
50:9 And there went up with him both chariots and horsemen; and it was a
very great company.
50:10 And they came to the threshing-floor of Atad, which is beyond the
Jordan, and there they wailed with a very great and sore wailing; and he
made a mourning for his father seven days.
5 | | | |
