Statesboro, GA, USA
Of course the Holy Spirit is mentioned. I never said it wasn't. I am arguing the nature of just what the Holy Spirit is.
But you are not addressing those scriptures which ascribe Deity to the Holy Spirit. Nor are you addressing the scriptures which ascribe Deity to Christ. For whether or not John 1 mentions the Holy Spirit or not, it does mention both God and the Logos as distinct and yet unified. It only takes two, to step out of Unitarianism into what is more akin to Trinitarianism. And seeing that John was addressing mainly the nature of the Logos in Chapter 1, I don't see why that scripture would have to include the Holy Spirit. Aren't there also scriptures which speak of the Holy Spirit and not of Christ? Yet I doubt anyone would want to argue that such texts discount the deity of Christ.
It's hard to convincingly argue from isolated examples of textual absence, when there are many other scriptures which include what you are arguing against. It's almost like trying to prove that Jesus never went to Jerusalem, using scriptures which say that he went to Galilee. That would be quite irrelevant, unless there were no other scriptures that mentioned Jerusalem. See my point?
If the trinity is the true nature of God, then Jesus is praying to the wrong figure of the Godhead. The Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, but Christ calls the Father Godhead His Father, not the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if the HS doctrine is correct, and Christ can pray to any of the Godhead figures as His Father, then He should just save the time and pray to Himself. He will get an answer faster that way.
Again your hyper-pedantic argument only shows that you have a significant misunderstanding of the doctrine, not that the doctrine is untrue.
The impregnation of Mary did not "make" Jesus into the Heavenly Father's son. That relationship was already present spiritually and eternally. What it did do was make Jesus into Mary's son. That's why the Holy Spirit's role in the Virgin Birth has nothing to do with the relationship between the Father and the Son. And yes, I can show you scriptures which plainly state the Son's divine and Eternal nature ... or for the case of this argument, at least a pre-nativity existence of his sonship.
One: The Embarrasment
Believers of the trinity have used the words of 1st John 5:7-8 as a key argument for the trinity.
"For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one."
Admittedly this text is only found in a 14th century manuscript of the Latin Vulgate. This wording is not found in any Greek manuscripts before that, and therefore it is plain that it does not belong to the original text of 1 John.
But a couple of things should be remembered which might lessen this "embarassment" you are trying to punctuate.
1) The doctrine of the Trinity does not rest upon any one verse of scripture. It is a deduction of many scriptural descriptions of the Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. So pointing out this verse does nothing to help your argument.
2) This verse only made it into one modern translation of the Bible, the Authorized Version, or King James Version. And though the verse is not doctrinally "wrong", all other versions (NIV, NASB, ASV, NLT, HCSB- to name a few) do not include it.
3) There are no Bible scholars I know of who would use this isolated verse as the "Key Verse" in proving the doctrine of the Trinity. To say you are overstating your case is an understatement. (That was a neat sentence huh?)
Lastly, for anyone who is interested I'll let you read William Barclay's explanation of how this verse came to be:
"In the Authorized Version, there is a verse which we have altogether omitted. It reads, 'For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one.'
The Revised Version omits this verse and does not even mention it in the margin, and none of the newer translations include it. It is quite certain that it does not belong to the original text.
The facts are as follows. First, it does not occur in any Greek manuscript earlier than the 14th Century. The great manuscripts belong to the 3rd and 4th centuries, and it occurs in none of them. None of the great early fathers of the Church knew it. Jerome's original version of the Vulgate does not include it. The first person to quote it is a Spanism heretic called Priscillian who died in A.D. 385. Thereafter it crept gradually into the Latin texts of the New Testament although, as we have seen, it did not gain an entry to the Greek manuscripts.
How then did it get into the text? Originally it must have been a scribal gloss or comment in the margin. Since it seemed to offer good scriptural evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity, through time it came to be accepted by theologians as part of the text, especially in those early days of scholarship before the great manuscripts were discovered.
But how did it last, and how did it come to be in the Authorized Version? The first Greek testament to be published was that of Erasmus in 1516. Erasmus was a great scholar and, knowing that this verse was not in the original text, he did not include it in his first edition. By this time, however, theologians were using the verse. It had, for instance, been printed in the Latin Vulgate of 1514. Erasmus was therefore criticized for omitting it. His answer was that if anyone could show him a Greek manuscript which had the words in it, he would print them in his next edition. Someone did produce a very late and very bad text in which the verse did occur in Greek; and Erasmus, true to his word but very much against his judgment and his will, printed the verse in his 1522 edition.
The next step was that in 1550 Stephanus printed his great edition of the Greek New Testament. This 1550 edition of Stephanus was called- he gave it that name himself -The Recieved Text, and it was the basis of the Authorized Version and of the Greek text for centuries to come. That is how this verse got into the Authorized Version. There is, of course, nothing wrong with it; but modern scholarship has made it quite certain that John did not write it and that it is a much later commentary on, and addition to, his words; and that is why all modern translations omit it.
(from 'The Daily Study Bible' by William Barclay)
Two: Trinity Not Mentioned
Why continue with a fallacious method of argument? Absensce of one summative descriptive word does not disprove or prove a doctrine.
The Holy Spirit isn't a SEPARATE ENTITY, it is the Spirit OF God! It is how God gets things done. Let's see the trinity theory and the phrase 'Spirit of God'
Since 1 Peter 1:11 would lead us to believe that the Holy Spirit is also "The Spirit of Christ", using those very words, then maybe the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father, and of Christ ... exactly as the doctrine of the Trinity states. Your interpretive problem, is that you are pitting isolated scripture against scripture rather than taking the larger contextual view.
Taking one scripture in isolation, and building a doctrine on it, does not represent "childlike simplicity" unless of course you are taking that in the negative sense. My wife told me the story the other day, how when she was a child, she thought the variations of yellow lines on the highway (alternating between double, single, and interspaced) was due to the fact that the highway crew didn't have enough paint. Perfectly reasonable, I suppose, given the "isolated" information she was working with ... but wrong nonetheless.
You do have a name, just like every living human being has one, just like God the Father has one, and in His case it is so revered that certain people are not allowed to say it, just like the Son of God has name, but no where is the Holy Spirit NAMED as in a separate entity that is part of a triune Godhead.
Same fallacy. The abscence of a personal name would in no way disprove the Trinitarian doctrine. Personality is evident in other ways: by personal pronouns, acts of will, etc ... And Ringo's point, which you didn't address, is that giving out a personal name is optional even in earthly society.
false christianity BORROWED from Hinduism and its belief in a triune godhead.
I think historical "borrowing" is something which cannot be presumed because of superficial similarities. Actual connections have to be established, or it's a mere suspicion. I get the feeling that if the triune U.S. Government of Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary had existed prior to Christianity, you would have made the same connection. Or you could say that the U.S. government copied Hinduism as well?
Also Hinduism does not believe in a "godhead" in any similar fashion to Christianity. There are actually some 300,000,000 Hindu gods and godesses, which constitutes a pantheon. This is a very different belief system. And "borrowing" could only be the conclusion of a casual observer ... or someone looking to make connections, prior to any careful examination.
Charles Penglase, writing about similarities between Mesopotamian myths once wrote that ""It is all too easy to run eagerly after superficial parallels which cannot really be sustained under a closer scrutiny. Accordingly, the parallels must have similar ideas underlying them and, second, any suggestion of influence requires that the parallels be numerous, complex and detailed, with a similar conceptual usage ... Finally, the parallels and their similar underlying ideas must involve central features in the material to be compared. Only then, it would seem, may any claim stronger than one of mere coincidence be worthy of serious consideration"
JCP, Consider the legends of Romulus and Remus written by Livy and Plutarch, written between 30 B.C. and 100 A.D. Let me acquaint you with some of its content:
- When Romulus and Remus were born Amulius took them and put them into a basket and threw them in the Tiber river, hoping they would drown.
- They were rescued by a wild wolf, who fed the babies with her own milk. A woodpecker also helped and fed them berries.
- They were later rescued by the shepherd Faustulus and his wife who raised them as their own sons.
- Romulus killed Remus with an axe in a quarrel. Romulus later founded the city of Roma.
- The legend ends by telling how Romulus was carried up to the heavens by his father, Mars.
Note that there are more than a few striking similarities between these legends and writings in the Jewish Old Testament: Moses was placed in a river in a basket. Elijah was fed by ravens. Pharoah's daughter found and raised Moses as her own. Cain killed Abel in a fit of anger, and afterward went and founded a city called Nod. Elijah was carried up into the Heavens in a Chariot of fire.
But you'll not find anyone linking the Jewish Old Testament and the later Roman Legends of Romulus and Remus. hmmmm. Seemingly obvious similarities, do not always indicate borrowing.
And there are many more similarities in this example, than the Christian Trinity / Hindu pantheon.
if you have ever followed my message, it is one of inclusion and salvation, not one of "my way or the highway"
And you just claimed that those who disagree with you doctrinally about the Trinity worship Satan as Lord? How inclusive.