Trinity?

[graysparrow]

Hi

Do you believe in a trinitarian God?

[GK]

Yes. All members wearing christian icons on these forums should believe in trinity or they are wearing the wrong icon. That's part of the definition CF uses. All congregational subforums at CF require this.

[ChurchofChrist]

The trinity is God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit

[Frame1520]

The trinity is God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit

Indeed.

[Flatscan82]

The trinity is God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit

Are you sure...because the concept of the trinity didn't come around untill 3rd and 4th century. i understand that christ is god, but does it say in the nt that the holy spirit is god also

[constance]

Are you sure...because the concept of the trinity didn't come around untill 3rd and 4th century. i understand that christ is god, but does it say in the nt that the holy spirit is god also

The word "Trinity" was used in the 3rd century. The Nicene Creed was written in 325. But they reflect the teaching of the Bible.

Ths. Campbell was tried for heresy because he wouldn't use the word - he was tried for days, and the outcome was that his beliefs were completely within the concept of the Trinity - he just wouldn't use the word.

Constance

[blakey]

Yes I believe in the trinity!

[aggie03]

The word "Trinity" was used in the 3rd century. The Nicene Creed was written in 325. But they reflect the teaching of the Bible.

Ths. Campbell was tried for heresy because he wouldn't use the word - he was tried for days, and the outcome was that his beliefs were completely within the concept of the Trinity - he just wouldn't use the word.

Constance

Can you please cite the sources that you used for this information? I am aware of an article that Thomas Campbell wrote for the Redstrone Baptists Association on the "Trinity" in which he never used that word. This was not a trial, and this article was very well received by all members of the association, and those "trinitarians" not in the association as well.

[Athanasian Creed]

The trinity is God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit

No, your terminology is wrong. The Trinity consists of the FATHER, the Word (or Son) and the Spirit. All three Persons of the Godhead are God.

Though the term 'trinity' is man-made the doctrine outlining the nature and Being of God is not - that God is triune is inferred from Genesis to Revelation. And, contrary to belief, the concept of the Trinity is NOT a NT revelation. The OT speaks of the Persons of the Trinity in more than one instance -

Isaiah 48:12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
Isaiah 48:16 Come ye near unto me (Jesus of Nazareth the Christ), hear ye this; from the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord Jehovah (the Father) hath sent me, and his Spirit (the Holy Spirit).
'The Lord Jehovah has sent Me, and His Spirit' - One God in plurality

Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit (the Holy Spirit) of the Lord Jehovah (the Father) is upon me (Jesus of Nazareth the Christ); because Jehovah hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

Isaiah 63:8-10 For he (the Father) said, Surely, they are my people, children that will not deal falsely: so he was their Saviour (Jesus of Nazareth the Christ, Saviour). In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled, and grieved his holy Spirit (the Holy Spirit): therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and himself fought against them.

Zechariah 13:7 Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow (lit. My equal), saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.

Malachi 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me(Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ): and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts (the Father).

Genesis 1:26-27 'God said, let Us make man in Our image after Our likeness..and God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him.' (cf. Genesis 3:22; 11:6-7.)
The general term for 'God' is Elohim, whereas YHWH (i.e. 'the LORD') is His personal name. There are three possible personal numbers in Hebrew: singular, dual, and plural, the last-mentioned indicating three or more, and Elohim is of this kind - plural. It would be natural then to translate it as 'gods', save that it is followed by a singular verb, and there is interchange between singular and plural pronouns (as in Gen 1:26,27)

Isaiah 6:8 'I heard the voice of the Lord saying, 'Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?'. cf. Zechariah 2:8 with v 9 and v 11
- the Lord sends someone who is the Lord! Hence there is a distinction within God.

Isaiah 6:3 'Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Hosts'. (cf. Revelations 4:8)
The threefold ascription of praise to God is significant to our understanding of God as a triune Being.

These all indicate that the Old Testament sees a plurality in the Godhead, a distinction of persons within God.;)




Ray :wave:

[KarateCowboy]

Father, Son, Holy Spirit. I worship all three.

[constance]

Can you please cite the sources that you used for this information? I am aware of an article that Thomas Campbell wrote for the Redstrone Baptists Association on the "Trinity" in which he never used that word. This was not a trial, and this article was very well received by all members of the association, and those "trinitarians" not in the association as well.

My husband passed this info on to me and he has to choose between finding the source and finishing his dissertation or preparing to negotiate for a pastoral position.

:)

He thinks that it's either in the biography of Alexander Campbell by Richardson or Garrett's book on the Disciples. Of course, these are the two standard sources so he might just be confused.

In the meantime, how 'bout this, from
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/tcb/TCB211.HTM
(this is Alexander Campbell talking)


It is one thing to speak of divine truths in our own language, and another to adopt a fixed style of expressing revealed truths to the exclusion of, or in preference to, that fixed by the Spirit, and sometimes, too, at variance with it. For instance, the terms Trinity, first and second person of--Eternal Son, and the eternal procession of the Spirit, are now the fixed style in speaking of God, his Son Jesus Christ, and of the Spirit, in reference to their "personal character." Now this is not the style of the oracles of God. It is all human, and may be as freely criticised as one of the numbers of the Spectator. Yet because of the sanctified character of these terms, having been baptized, or authorized by the orthodox and pious for centuries, it is at the risque of my reputation for orthodoxy, and at the expense of being charged with heresy, that I simply affirm that they are terms that the wisdom of this world teaches, and not the Spirit of God. I would not be startled to hear that I have denied the faith and rejected the revealed character of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, because I have said that the fixed style in speaking of them in the popular establishments is of human origin and of the language of Ashdod, and not of the language of Canaan. This, however, only proves that the terms of human philosophy are held more sacred, than the words of the Holy Spirit.
These terms originate new doctrines. Thus the term "trinity" gives rise to the doctrine of the trinity. And what fierce controversies have originated out of this doctrine! How many creeds and martyrs has it made! Courteous and pious reader, would it not be as wise, as humble, and as modest, too, for us, on such topics, to prefer the words of the Holy Spirit, and to speak of God, his Son, and Spirit, as the apostles did. Moreover, these terms do not help our conceptions of God at all. They rather impede than facilitate our understanding the divine oracles. It is more difficult to conceive of an eternal Son eternally begotten, and of a Spirit eternally proceeding, than to understand anything God has ever spoken to men. And see on what a slender thread those distinctions hang! Because Jesus Christ told his disciples that he would send them the Spirit, which Spirit would or was to proceed from his Father, or to be sent forth by his Father as well as by himself; therefore the schoolmen affirm that the Spirit eternally proceeded, or was eternally coming from the Father!! This is the whole thread on which this "doctrine" hangs. I only instance this, and cannot now pause on the others.

[theartist87]

I worship God. He is all three in one. Not sure if that has a specific name, but I don't believe they are seperate, they are all three in one.

[aggie03]

My husband passed this info on to me and he has to choose between finding the source and finishing his dissertation or preparing to negotiate for a pastoral position.

:)

He thinks that it's either in the biography of Alexander Campbell by Richardson or Garrett's book on the Disciples. Of course, these are the two standard sources so he might just be confused.

In the meantime, how 'bout this, from
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/tcb/TCB211.HTM
(this is Alexander Campbell talking)

I hope you don't mind my getting into a historical discussion with you :) From what I can recall, the article that you have put forward was written by Alexander - I thought Thomas was the one in question about being put on trial?

Regardless, the article you quoted from was from the Christian Baptist, which if I recall correctly, was a periodical that Alexander and Thomas both wrote in (Alexander the lion's share) during and after the time of their association with the "Redstone Baptist Association". It was titled "Christian" because Alexander believed that is what all "believers" should be called and baptist because he believed in immersion rather than other forms of "baptism".

If I remember correctly, neither Thomas or Alexander fell out of favor with the organization due to anything that they wrote concerning the "Godhead". Alexander preached a sermon in 1816 - now called the "Sermon on the Law" (it may have been titled that in 1816, too :) ) - that detailed the relationship between the Old and New Covenant. Hid views on this topic were not very popular with the Association, and there was a great deal of discussion that followed. This was what caused the eventual breach between the Campbell's and the Association.

After they left this group, I'm not sure who would have put either of them on trial - I don't believe that they formally belonged to any denominational group who would have had authority over them. Perhaps, you are referring to some of the problems that Thomas had in Ireland before coming to the US?

I surely don't want to disturb your husband's studies - and this isn't something incredible important. It's vaguely on topic and interests me very much, though :) If you happen to have a chance to look into these things more I would really appreciate it. I love discussing history.

[constance]

Hahah. :)

I just told mrconstance to come here and answer this question.

if you PM mrconstance maybe he will come in here and talk to you his very self. Because if it's not reformation I just don't want to know any more...

La la la la la la

:)

[KarateCowboy]

I'll put it this way. If you look at the very first book of the Bible in the very first chapter in the very first sentence it mentions the Trinity. Not in English, mind you. The Hebrew word used in Genesis there is 'Elohim'. Now we all know that the Arabic word for God is 'Allah'. Well, languages are related to one another, and the Hebrew word for God is 'Elah'. Why then does the Bible use 'Elohim'? Well, because it's plural. That's right plural. I could go on and on about theology and such, but in the end it gives us one of two choices: A) Judaism was a made up religion that evolved out of polytheism. B) The word is a sort of plural that does not translate perfectly into English and refers to the Trinity. The choice is yours.

Amen.

[constance]

Aggie, mrconstance -

Why don't you start a new thread to talk about the Campbellites?

[GeorgeE]

Many people get really upset if you say something about the trinity; but I must ask are we seeking truth or just defending our turf.

I have heard there are probably over two hundred different names or natures of God in the Bible. God has many natures and characters and I cannot find the word trinity in any of them. Elohim speaks of duality not the trinity.

If I was a Jew I would declare there is just one God in fact a Jew would get real upset with you if you tried to tell him God is three any thing, not one. Elohim was used in Ps 82 and it speaks of mankind and our fallen nature.

Psalm 82:5
6 </SPAN>I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

ELOHIM (GOD)
The only name used in the first chapter of Genesis, is GOD, or Elohim. This is the name we need to know before all others. And I declare, His children would have more peace if they knew it! Elohim, in the Hebrew, means "to swear." It describes One who stands i n a covenant-relationship ratified by an oath.

Psalm 110:4 says, "The Lord sware and will not repent. . . "and this was prior to creation. So, before He even made man, God made a covenant concerning him! Under this name we see God, according to His own will, working on a dark and ruined creation till, by His Word, all is set in order and made very good. He brings back His light and life and then His image into the creature. In virtue of His own nature and covenant-relationship to His creation, He can never leave it, fallen as it is, till all again is very good.

I have no problem with the fact that God has three manifestations; not three persons; the word person when it comes to the Godhead is put their by religion and cannot not even be found in the translation.

In fact the word Godhead was added by the translators: Strong’s Dictionary Number 2304 theios (thi'-os); from 2316; godlike (neuter as noun, divinity): notice you cannot find the word godhead in the strong’s translation. King James Version mistranslated it godhead. The proper translation would be devine or godlike.

1 Tim 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (KJV)


John 15:26
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: (KJV)

Who sent the comforter Jesus or the Father? Gal 4:6 and because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. (KJV) Jesus was not a representation of himself; he was a representation of an invisible God. God was in was in Christ; this was not an independent act of Jesus.

[Counter-Reformer]

In fact the word Godhead was added by the translators: Strong’s Dictionary Number 2304 theios (thi'-os); from 2316; godlike (neuter as noun, divinity): notice you cannot find the word godhead in the strong’s translation. King James Version mistranslated it godhead. The proper translation would be devine or godlike.
Collosians 2:9:
For in him dwells the whole fullness of the deity 4 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/colossians/colossians2.htm#foot4) bodily,

You are begging the question. How can the fullness (100%) of a deity dwell inside a a creature? That would make the creature that has 100% deity of the first, a second God.




1 Tim 2:5



For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (KJV)

No argument here. Christ being the eternal Word of God and as True Man is the perfect mediator between The father and man,as per the Nicene Creed.





John 15:26
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: (KJV)


Yes, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. But he too can be lied too, can be blasphemed, and can grieve etc.





Who sent the comforter Jesus or the Father? Gal 4:6 and because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. (KJV) Jesus was not a representation of himself; he was a representation of an invisible God. God was in was in Christ; this was not an independent act of Jesus.





[/quote]
Vine's:

The word is used (1) of an "image" or a coin (not a mere likeness), Matt. 22:20; Mark 12:16; Luke 20:24; so of a statue or similar representation (more than a resemblance), Rom. 1:23; Rev. 13:14,15 (thrice); 14:9,11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4; of the descendants of Adam as bearing his image, 1 Cor. 15:49, each a representation derived from the prototype; (2) of subjects relative to things spiritual, Heb. 10:1, negatively of the Law as having "a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things," i.e., not the essential and substantial form of them; the contrast has been likened to the difference between a statue and the shadow cast by it; (3) of the relations between God the Father, Christ, and man, (a) of man as he was created as being a visible representation of God, 1 Cor. 11:7, a being corresponding to the original; the condition of man as a fallen creature has not entirely effaced the "image;" he is still suitable to bear responsibility, he still has Godlike qualities, such as love of goodness and beauty, none of which are found in a mere animal; in the Fall man ceased to be a perfect vehicle for the representation of God; God's grace in Christ will yet accomplish more than what Adam lost; (b) of regenerate persons, in being moral representations of what God is, Col. 3:10; cp. Eph. 4:24; (c) of believers, in their glorified state, not merely as resembling Christ but representing Him, Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 15:49; here the perfection is the work of Divine grace; believers are yet to represent, not something like Him, but what He is in Himself, both in His spiritual body and in His moral character; (d) of Christ in relation to God, 2 Cor. 4:4, "the image of God," i.e., essentially and absolutely the perfect expression and representation of the Archetype, God the Father; in Col. 1:15, "the image of the invisible God" gives the additional thought suggested by the word "invisible," that Christ is the visible representation and manifestation of God to created beings; the likeness expressed in this manifestation is involved in the essential relations in the Godhead, and is therefore unique and perfect; "he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father," John 14:9. "The epithet "invisible." ... must not be confined to the apprehension of the bodily senses, but will include the cognizance of the inward eye also" (Lightfoot).

[tsukino_Rei]

I'm confused. While beleif in the Nicene Creed is a requirement to be defined as Christian according the over-all forum guidelines, one of the defining principles of the Restoration Movement is that it does NOT require beleif in any Creed, including the Nicene Creed. This seems a contradiction.

As trinitarianism in outlined the Nicene Creed but is not so specifically outlined in the Bible it would seem that the Restoration Movement does not, or at least should not, require beleif in a Trinity.

[Counter-Reformer]

I'm confused. While beleif in the Nicene Creed is a requirement to be defined as Christian according the over-all forum guidelines, one of the defining principles of the Restoration Movement is that it does NOT require beleif in any Creed, including the Nicene Creed. This seems a contradiction.

As trinitarianism in outlined the Nicene Creed but is not so specifically outlined in the Bible it would seem that the Restoration Movement does not, or at least should not, require beleif in a Trinity.
There are two types of restoration movements. One type is the Orthodox trinitarian movements like the Trinitarian Bible Society and couple others. The other are heterodox movements that deny the trinity is some form or fashion such as the Mormons, JWs, Old guard SDAs, etc.

[constance]

We baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Please read the sticky.

Constance

[tsukino_Rei]

From the sticky -

"1) "No Creed but Christ." Acceptance of or adherence to a written creed is not necessary for fellowship, church membership, or participation in church practices. No Restoration Movement congregation has any written creeds.

2) "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent." In essence, this means that congregations affiliated with the Restoration Movement reject chatechisms and the like, and base their beliefs only on Scripture.

3) "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, love." Believers affiliated with the Restoration Movement will not exclude other Christians from fellowship based on differing beliefs on "non-essential" doctrines. Restoration Movement believers will show love to believers with whom they may disagree."

[mrconstance]

I'm confused. While beleif in the Nicene Creed is a requirement to be defined as Christian according the over-all forum guidelines, one of the defining principles of the Restoration Movement is that it does NOT require belief in any Creed, including the Nicene Creed. This seems a contradiction.

As trinitarianism in outlined the Nicene Creed but is not so specifically outlined in the Bible it would seem that the Restoration Movement does not, or at least should not, require belief in a Trinity.

I'm an ex-Catholic who joined the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the most liberal group within the Restoration Movement. I think that Alexander Campbell was trying to say the same thing that Karl Rahner and Heinrich Fries wrote in their book Unity of the Churches An Actual Possibility.

No church of any significant size actually requires its members to believe in the doctrines of the Nicene Creed. If you went into a Roman Catholic (orthodox Presbyterian, Missouri Synod, etc.) and started asking the members detailed questions about the Trinity, you would find that the members held all sorts of unorthodox opinions.

People aren't expected to actually believe the creed of their church; they are only expected not to challenge the creed of their church. In the end, the creed serves more to differentiate one church from another than to actually define what people are allowed to believe.

Here's a quote from Alexander Campbell that expresses it pretty well.

"Few, therefore, can unite upon any one creed of opinions and inferences. The union that subsists in any one sect, built upon such inferences, is a union resolvable into ignorance and authority. I know so much of human nature as to authorize me to affirm that if any one sect...were to invite heir own people to examine their own creed, and to decide whether the inferences were fairly drawn, and then to insist upon an agreement in opinion, they would fall into a hundred sects in a short time. Almost every man who presumes to examine them, and assumes a little independence, becomes, in the estimation of his brethren, a heretic. They have, for the sake of peace, to keep their creed as much out of sight as possible, and to teach it without seeming to teach it." Millennial Harbinger 1:2 (1 Feb 1830), p. 56.

With that said, Restoration Movement teachers have affirmed that the Nicene Creed is an expression of Christian truth. As a soon-to-be pastor, I intend to make the Trinity a focus of my preaching and teaching...but I'd have to work just as hard to teach Trinitarian doctrine in any other church.

[Ravenonthecross]

The believing that God is triune or the Father , son and Holy Ghost is what makes us christian. It has to be. All three are mentioned as part of God in some way or fashion in the bible, and God says he is one, and there's only one of him, so by conclusion he must be a triune God.This is what i believe. The Lord God is my god, and my only god, i shall not hold any other gods before him or honor or worship any god except the Lord God. I would not deny this, and would believe this unto death. I know this is radical, yet at the same time following in the footsteps of our lord Jesus Christ is radical and revolutionary in of itself.

[Ravenonthecross]

Hi, constance. I'm Ravenonthe cross. It's nice to meet you. I've seen you post in...i think it was in an restoration thread. I as a catholic know very little about protestant churchs and am curious about them any info would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!! I'd appreciate a reply greatly.

[constance]

Hi Ravenonthecross,

mrconstance would be a great person for you to talk to (he's the person posting above) - he has taught religion at catholic universities, he understands how to explain.... :)

[tsukino_Rei]

The believing that God is triune or the Father , son and Holy Ghost is what makes us christian.

And here I thought following Christ and being transformed into Christ-likeness was what makes us Christian.

[constance]

little MOD HAT

Hi! I'd just like to let you know that this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t3049353-[open]-whats-the-rm-whats-a-protestant.html

Is available to ask questions about our theology and practice. It's open to anyone, regardless of their faith icon. RMers, please feel free to join in there as well.

The current thread "Trinity?" is not open, if you are not a Restoration Movement congregation member, you may not debate here.

Thank you!

Mod hat off....

[hoadelphos]

I'm confused. While beleif in the Nicene Creed is a requirement to be defined as Christian according the over-all forum guidelines, one of the defining principles of the Restoration Movement is that it does NOT require beleif in any Creed, including the Nicene Creed. This seems a contradiction.

As trinitarianism in outlined the Nicene Creed but is not so specifically outlined in the Bible it would seem that the Restoration Movement does not, or at least should not, require beleif in a Trinity.

Quite true....most of the sphere of Christianity consider the RM to be unorthodox. And we are. But that is not to say we need to assert it here...there are plenty of topics to engage in instead of breaking the house rules.

All of the Creeds are true to some extent...it's the definition of terms that can be a problem. "Trinity"...not in the Bible by a long shot, but it does express the Godhead in a rather clumsy manner, but not off the mark to be a problem of faith.

EL is Hebrew for God; ELOHYM is the plural form of EL; the raw translation is mighty one. In Genesis it says "let us create man in our own image" and the raw Hebrew corresponds well with that translation. All of the Talmud and the Kabballah (not the New Age junk) confirms it. In fact, most of the NT is hidden within the OT...it was a mystery until Jesus came.

Consider this...Paul says that husband and wife are one...that is difficult for humans to really grasp intellectually and emotionally. The Bible says that God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are also One...the finite has great difficulty in fully comprehending the infinite. I find that the Creeds are a crude attempt of the finite to define the Infinite.

[hoadelphos]

Here is something rather interesting that I ran across in the Hebrew OT

The first three letters of Torah, as written in Hebrew and translated as create, are BEIT-RESH-ALEF which stand for BEN, RUACH and ABBA, and translate into Son, Spirit and Father.

As I always say, the NT is hidden within the OT.

[lady06]

1 We all know that there is a GOD in heaven.

2 Who is Jesus Christ then?
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Now, the bible states clearly that Jesus Christ is the Word of God made into flesh i.e. incarnate into human form.

3 Who is the Holy Spirit? Read what the bible says:
Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Ro 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

The above verses teach us that the Holy Spirit is really God's Spirit. Since Christ is the Word of God and is ONE with God, the Holy Spirit is also the Spirit of Christ.

Thus, we have the Trinity, Father + Son + Holy Spirit.
All of the same essence yet separate. 3 = 1 (ONE GOD) & 1 = 3. ONE GOD not three.

God bless.

[aggie03]

Here is something rather interesting that I ran across in the Hebrew OT

The first three letters of Torah, as written in Hebrew and translated as create, are BEIT-RESH-ALEF which stand for BEN, RUACH and ABBA, and translate into Son, Spirit and Father.

As I always say, the NT is hidden within the OT.

This is rather interesting! Thanks for posting it. :)

[Athanasian Creed]

1 ...Thus, we have the Trinity, Father + Son + Holy Spirit. All of the same essence yet separate. 3 = 1 (ONE GOD) & 1 = 3. ONE GOD not three. God bless.



Not seperate, distinct.

The God Being is one yet consists of three Divine Persons sharing in the same essence (what makes God God) yet differing in subsistence.

Each Person in and of Themselves is Lord and God yet not 3 Lord's or 3 God's but 1 Lord and 1 God.

The Father is uncreated and unbegotten, the Son uncreated but begotten of the Father. The Spirit uncreated and unbegotten, proceeds from both the Father and the Son. He is known as the Spirit of God and the Spirit of (God's) Son/of Christ. ;)


Ray :wave:

[yeshuaslavejeff]

people who return to Yahweh's plan do so a little at a time - they are not nearly able to do so all at once. this is largely because they can't find a group that is in Yahweh's plan whole heartedly like little children and fully trusting.
one of the first things someone returning to Yahweh in Yeshua's grace learns is the truth about Yahweh's Instructions and lovingly trustingly obeying Him.
this is learned from Abba Yahweh directly whenever someone gives up everything to follow and be united with Yeshua forever, immersed in Him.
He alone is Faithful and True, and no one who obediently trusts in Him is ever disappointed. What they learn is what the first century Jewish set-apart believers knew first hand, though now as then with persecution and suffering.
Returning to Yahweh's Plan in Yeshua's grace requires all of one's energy and power and love and hope and mind and strength and life - anything less is idolatry, like saying to Yahweh "You are first, as long as I can keep '...' ". Only the Father Abba Yahweh can accomplish this radical change in a persons life, anyone who thinks they have it made or that they can accomplish it themselves is lost, according to Yeshua's Word now and in the NT.