Excellent Post Mad Dawg.
Are You Paul or are you Saul?
If I had to pick one apostle, I think, as much as some of the stuff Paul says echos my own views, I would be John.
I truly think that God and Jesus are ONE and that they are Love.
Of course this is John of the letters of John and the Gosple of John, not that nut job on the island.
I agree Spike! Nothing nutty about John :)
Good article Maw Dawg :)
For those who haven't had time to read it all, check out this nugget
That suggests that we either have a portion of the original gospel of Matthew, or an immediate copy which was written while Matthew and the other disciples and eyewitnesses to the events were still alive. This would be the oldest manuscript portion of our Bible in existence today, one which co-exists with the original writers!
What is of even more importance is what it says. The Matthew 26 fragment uses in its text nomina sacra (holy names) such as the diminutive "IS" for Jesus and "KE" for Kurie or Lord (The Times, Saturday, December 24, 1994). This is highly significant for our discussion today, because it suggests that the godhead of Jesus was recognised centuries before it was accepted as official church doctrine at the council of Nicea in 325 AD
This is an important point for ongoing Trinity debate.
All the best,
Actually, Stephen, a trio or trinity require 3. Since only 2 are involved, it would have to be a duo or duality, I suggest. And, thank for your support regarding John of the Revelation. Saul would have stoned him, etc. Paul would have gone preaching and teaching with this John, I suggest.
I agree. However, if Jesus is God, not "a god" then that is two thirds of the way to the Trinity and the last third falls easily into place.
There are not very many who believe Jesus is God but do not believe that the Holy Spirit is.
Anyhow, check these verses out once again.
Romans 8:9-10 (New International Version)
9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.
All the best,
As to Stephen and I, our spirits reason differently one from the other, according to the training our individual consciences have received. Thus, as to Romans 8:9, I believe that "by the Spirit" means "by the person's own spirit". In this application, the "trinity" differs depending on which person is being referred to. If it is me, then my spirit, Jehovah's spirit, and Jesus' spirit would all concur. To each, his own, literally.
The "nut job" remark, in jest hence the wink, was in reagrds to those that believe that John of Patamos ( SP?) was on one heck of an acid trip !!
As to Stephen and I, our spirits reason differently one from the other, according to the training our individual consciences have received. Thus, as to Romans 8:9, I believe that "by the Spirit" means "by the person's own spirit".
You need to get some new teachers.
Acts 2:17 (New International Version)
17 " 'In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
Yes, John had a vision because of the the Holy Spirit, God's Spirit, not because of his own spirit. Just like all these dudes
Ezekiel 8:3 (New International Version)
3 He stretched out what looked like a hand and took me by the hair of my head. The Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven and in visions of God he took me to Jerusalem, to the entrance to the north gate of the inner court, where the idol that provokes to jealousy stood.
Ezekiel 11:24 (New International Version)
24 The Spirit lifted me up and brought me to the exiles in Babylonia in the vision given by the Spirit of God.
All the best,
Stephen: all I can say is … context, context, context!!! My Post 451 was specific to the phrasing in Romans 8:9-10. Each of the other texts has their own particular context and phrasing, which change the meaning accordingly, I suggest. Saul the Pharisee would have been dogmatic about, or blinded to, these matters. Paul the Apostle would have reasoned these matters out very carefully, weighing the spirit of the words used in each setting according to a more spiritually-attuned range of factors.