Was Yahshua not concieved of the Holy Spirit? And the reason he is called the son of man is because he has an earthly mother?

Blessings...Miles

The Holy Spirit created Jesus, but notice Luke 1:80. If Jesus' spirit was the Holy Spirit, how could the bolded text be true? The Holy Spirit is perfect, how can it "grow" or "become strong"?

my "personal" belief is that they are one in spirit but two different being working as one...All three(father,son,holy spirit) work as one in some way unknown to myself...the bible talks about Jesus being a created being {col:15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation} then it talks about him being with God (john:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.)then at the end of revelation they talk about worshiping God and Jesus (Rev 22:3 The throne of God AND of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve HIM.) If God and Jesus are embodied within each other why wouldnt it say Gods throne was just there????? By reading the bible I fully understand that if you've seen Jesus you've seen God, he walks, talks, thinks and acts according to God ways.....I guess the best way to describe how I feel about God and Jesus is marraige, the bible talks about the two becoming one flesh,even know a married christian couple is two people the bible states the two become one and some how I think this reflects God and Jesus in a way( I hope I havent confused anyone lol I find it hard to explain myself sometimes) I say that to say its all still a mystery to how the heavens work so Im not sold on the idea I guess stay tuned more will be revealed

Yahshua was concieved of the Holy spirit. This does not mean he did not grow in it the same as us. But he was of his father so the spirit was upon him.Why was Yahshua not born into sin like it says every man is?...Miles

Yep!

we all have our own beleifs.

where you all get that 3 in one agree. even your alls scholars say those verses are spurious. that it does not go along with what is happening. most likely that place i believe in john was just picked to add the 3 agree.yahshua never said he was the father. he said he does the fathers will.that does not make him the father no more than me or you. we are to become adopted sons of tha father not yahshua. how do we do that. the same way by doing the fathers will and his spirit lives in us. the same spirit that lived in yahshua if we do not resist his will.this is again tradition. why is it we love tradition more than the fathers commandments. may v Yahweh's will be done..blessings...miles

even your alls scholars say those verses are spurious.

What scholars? Which verses?

If I can be just like Jesus, then why do I need him?

You don't.
(sorry, couldn't let that opening be wasted, but I meant it in the nicest way possible)

These are the verses that the trinity doctrine comes from. I will have to do some searching and find where they say they are spurious

1 John 5:6-8
7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.
NKJV

here just alittle i found on my bible program

1 John 5:8

5:8 * NU-Text and M-Text omit the words from in heaven (verse 7) through on earth (verse 8). Only four or five very late manuscripts contain these words in Greek.
NKJV

THREE

treis (
<START GREEK>trei=$
<END GREEK>, NT:5143) is regarded by many as a number sometimes symbolically indicating fullness of testimony or manifestation, as in the three persons in the Godhead, cf. 1 Tim 5:19; Heb 10:28; the mention in 1 John 5:7 is in a verse which forms no part of the original; no Greek ms. earlier than the 14 th century contained it; no version earlier than the 5 th cent. in any other language contains it, nor is it quoted by any of the Greek or Latin "Fathers" in their writings on the Trinity. That there are those who bear witness in Heaven is not borne out by any other Scripture. It must be regarded as the interpolation of a copyist.

In Mark 9:31 and 10:34 the best texts have meta treis hemeras, "after three days," which idiomatically expresses the same thing as te trite hemera, "on the third day," which some texts have here, as, e. g., the phrase "the third day" in Matt 17:23; 20:19; Luke 9:22; 18:33, where the repetition of the article lends stress to the number, lit., "the day the third"; 24:7,46; 10:40. For THREE TIMES see THRICE.
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)

1 John 5:7 was quoted (in toto) by Tertullian in "Against Praxeas" in 200 AD.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txv/tertullp.htm

There are many other references, both before and after Nicene.

Why isn't that full verse found in most Greek manuscripts? Probably, because the translators couldn't face the theological problems with a triune God, so they changed the verse.

Think what you want . Yahshua never said he was Yahweh. He said he could do nothing without his father. We seem to not to want to believe all those verses. Why do you think the Jews have no problems with christians? Because the scriptures bear out thier is only one Mighty One and he is Yahweh.So they just see you as any other false religion.On the other hand I was on Devon st. in chicago during chr-stmas. Went into a book store were the jews were saying merry chr-stmas to all the chr-stians as they were buying stuff. and they talked to them about JC. No problem. I went and asked if they had any books about The Messiah Yahshua. I was quickly taken aside and told do not say that again. You could be in danger and i would suggest you leave. Now why do you think what I said was dangerous? ....Blessings...Miles

good catch, spider!!

Miles,

the jews have a BIG PROBLEM with Jesus.

see http://messiahtruth.com/response/html

or www.messiahtruth.com

or http://messiahtruth.com/isai53b./html or c./html or a./html

this is a serious and scholarly backed site of Jewish content.

You may learn more than you can bear here.

May your eyes be open, my friend.

There is no love of Jesus in this work, but they are seriously doing their best to explain themselves and defend their faith.


Let me know when you prove their errors. I would like to discuss what you glean, if in fact you are a serious student of truthful representations. There are many things in this site that can be refuted in so many ways, scholastically and historically if you will endeavor your due diligence upon it.

This is what you all call scholarly? It is a old preacher ranting and raving. In 1867 This is not even the piece to deal with John.. You all make stuff up and claim people as scholars. That is not what I presented to you.....Miles

This sounds more like a angry old man to me........
Against Praxeas - Tertullian
Advanced Information

In which he defends, in all essential points, the doctrine of the holy trinity. [7746]

Translated by Dr. Holmes.

Text edited by Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson and first published by T&T Clark in Edinburgh in 1867. Additional introductionary material and notes provided for the American edition by A. Cleveland Coxe, 1886.

Chapter I. Satan's Wiles Against the Truth. How They Take the Form of the Praxean Heresy. Account of the Publication of This Heresy.
In various ways has the devil rivalled and resisted the truth. Sometimes his aim has been to destroy the truth by defending it. He maintains that there is one only Lord, the Almighty Creator of the world, in order that out of this doctrine of the unity he may fabricate a heresy. He says that the Father Himself came down into the Virgin, was Himself born of her, Himself suffered, indeed was Himself Jesus Christ. Here the old serpent has fallen out with himself, since, when he tempted Christ after John's baptism, he approached Him as "the Son of God; "surely intimating that God had a Son, even on the testimony of the very Scriptures, out of which he was at the moment forging his temptation: "If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread." [7747] Again: "If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence; [7748] for it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning thee"'referring no doubt, to the Father'"and in their hands they shall bear thee up, that thou hurt not thy foot against a stone." [7749] Or perhaps, after all, he was only reproaching the Gospels with a lie, saying in fact: "Away with Matthew; away with Luke! Why heed their words? In spite of them, I declare that it was God Himself that I approached; it was the Almighty Himself that I tempted face to face; and it was for no other purpose than to tempt Him that I approached Him. If, on the contrary, it had been only the Son of God, most likely I should never have condescended to deal with Him." However, he is himself a liar from the beginning, [7750] and whatever man he instigates in his own way; as, for instance, Praxeas. For he was the first to import into Rome from Asia this kind of heretical pravity, a man in other respects of restless disposition, and above all inflated with the pride of confessorship simply and solely because he had to bear for a short time the annoyance of a prison; on which occasion, even "if he had given his body to be burned, it would have profiled him nothing," not having the love of God, [7751] whose very gifts he has resisted and destroyed. For after the Bishop of Rome [7752] had acknowledged the prophetic gifts of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, and, in consequence of the acknowledgment, had bestowed his peace [7753] on the churches of Asia and Phrygia, he, by importunately urging false accusations against the prophets themselves and their churches, and insisting on the authority of the bishop's predecessors in the see, compelled him to recall the pacific letter which he had issued, as well as to desist from his purpose of acknowledging the said gifts. By this Praxeas did a twofold service for the devil at Rome: he drove away prophecy, and he brought in heresy; he put to flight the Paraclete, and he crucified the Father. Praxeas' tares had been moreover sown, and had produced their fruit here also, [7754] while many were asleep in their simplicity of doctrine; but these tares actually seemed to have been plucked up, having been discovered and exposed by him whose agency God was pleased to employ. Indeed, Praxeas had deliberately resumed his old (true) faith, teaching it after his renunciation of error; and there is his own handwriting in evidence remaining among the carnally-minded, [7755] in whose society the transaction then took place; afterwards nothing was heard of him. We indeed, on our part, subsequently withdrew from the carnally-minded on our acknowledgment and maintenance of the Paraclete. [7756] But the tares of Praxeas had then everywhere shaken out their seed, which having lain hid for some while, with its vitality concealed under a mask, has now broken out with fresh life. But again shall it be rooted up, if the Lord will, even now; but if not now, in the day when all bundles of tares shall be gathered together, and along with every other stumbling-block shall be burnt up with unquenchable fire. [7757]

Do You believe this? Is this Holy and True? Blessings...Miles

Spider is this where you go and get your info as fact? Here is more ranting and raving of this preacher.

He def has proved nothing about John being spurious. Wooldee the high five you gave Spider do you ever check his source? And also Wooldee i do not need to go to that site you tried to challenge me to do so. I know more about the jews and the scriptures than you have forgot. I am tired of your alls lamebrain make up stuff and never give scripture to back it up. When you told me I did not have the Holy Spirit showed your true self.You said that with out giving me anything out of scripture to refute what I had written. The one piece i tried to show you that is a true jewel of the word you said you had no idea what that was or what i was saying.. This is how much you know about the scriptures. Quit lying to yourself and everyone else on hear with key words that the chr-stians put out to try to get new converts to reject wwhat the scriptures really say. Learn something..... Here your alls scholar again...



Chapter II. The Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity and Unity, Sometimes Called the Divine Economy, or Dispensation of the Personal Relations of the Godhead.
In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded [7758] from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her'being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, [7759] the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date [7760] which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas. In this principle also we must henceforth find a presumption of equal force against all heresies whatsoever'that whatever is first is true, whereas that is spurious which is later in date. [7761] But keeping this prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of divers persons; were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged; [7762] especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation [7763] is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order [7764] the three Persons'the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, [7765] but in degree; [7766] not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; [7767] yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [7768] How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.

Chapter III. Sundry Popular Fears and Prejudices. The Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity Rescued from These Misapprehensions.
The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned, ) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation [7769] (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own . The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth. We, say they, maintain the Monarchy (or, sole government of God). [7770] And so, as far as the sound goes, do even Latins (and ignorant ones too) pronounce the word in such a way that you would suppose their understanding of the (or Monarchy) was as complete as their pronunciation of the term. Well, then Latins take pains to pronounce the (or Monarchy), while Greeks actually refuse to understand the , or Dispensation (of the Three in One). As for myself, however, if I have gleaned any knowledge of either language, I am sure that (or Monarchy) has no other meaning than single and individual [7771] rule; but for all that, this monarchy does not, because it is the government of one, preclude him whose government it is, either from having a son, or from having made himself actually a son to himself, [7772] or from ministering his own monarchy by whatever agents he will. Nay more, I contend that no dominion so belongs to one only, as his own, or is in such a sense singular, or is in such a sense a monarchy, as not also to be administered through other persons most closely connected with it, and whom it has itself provided as officials to itself. If, moreover, there be a son belonging to him whose monarchy it is, it does not forthwith become divided and cease to be a monarchy, if the son also be taken as a sharer in it; but it is as to its origin equally his, by whom it is communicated to the son; and being his, it is quite as much a monarchy (or sole empire), since it is held together by two who are so inseparable. [7773] Therefore, inasmuch as the Divine Monarchy also is administered by so many legions and hosts of angels, according as it is written, "Thousand thousands ministered unto Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him; " [7774] and since it has not from this circumstance ceased to be the rule of one (so as no longer to be a monarchy), because it is administered by so many thousands of powers; how comes it to pass that God should be thought to suffer division and severance in the Son and in the Holy Ghost, who have the second and the third places assigned to them, and who are so closely joined with the Father in His substance, when He suffers no such (division and severance) in the multitude of so many angels? Do you really suppose that Those, who are naturally members of the Father's own substance, pledges of His love, [7775] instruments of His might, nay, His power itself and the entire system of His monarchy, are the overthrow and destruction thereof? You are not right in so thinking. I prefer your exercising yourself on the meaning of the thing rather than on the sound of the word. Now you must understand the overthrow of a monarchy to be this, when another dominion, which has a framework and a state peculiar to itself (and is therefore a rival), is brought in over and above it: when, e.g., some other god is introduced in opposition to the Creator, as in the opinions of Marcion; or when many gods are introduced, according to your Valentinuses and your Prodicuses. Then it amounts to an overthrow of the Monarchy, since it involves the destruction of the Creator. [7776]

Chapter IV. The Unity of the Godhead and the Supremacy and Sole Government of the Divine Being. The Monarchy Not at All Impaired by the Catholic Doctrine.
But as for me, who derive the Son from no other source but from the substance of the Father, and (represent Him) as doing nothing without the Father's will, and as having received all power from the Father, how can I be possibly destroying the Monarchy from the faith, when I preserve it in the Son just as it was committed to Him by the Father? The same remark (I wish also to be formally) made by me with respect to the third degree in the Godhead, because I believe the Spirit to proceed from no other source than from the Father through the Son. [7777] Look to it then, that it be not you rather who are destroying the Monarchy, when you overthrow the arrangement and dispensation of it, which has been constituted in just as many names as it has pleased God to employ. But it remains so firm and stable in its own state, notwithstanding the introduction into it of the Trinity, that the Son actually has to restore it entire to the Father; even as the apostle says in his epistle, concerning the very end of all: "When He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; for He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet; " [7778] following of course the words of the Psalm: "Sit Thou on my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool." [7779] "When, however, all things shall be subdued to Him, (with the exception of Him who did put all things under Him, ) then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all." [7780] We thus see that the Son is no obstacle to the Monarchy, although it is now administered by [7781] the Son; because with the Son it is still in its own state, and with its own state will be restored to the Father by the Son. No one, therefore, will impair it, on account of admitting the Son (to it), since it is certain that it has been committed to Him by the Father, and by and by has to be again delivered up by Him to the Father. Now, from this one passage of the epistle of the inspired apostle, we have been already able to show that the Father and the Son are two separate Persons, not only by the mention of their separate names as Father and the Son, but also by the fact that He who delivered up the kingdom, and He to whom it is delivered up'and in like manner, He who subjected (all things), and He to whom they were subjected must necessarily be two different Beings.

Angry old man.......Blessings...Miles

1) I didn't call is scholarly
2) It was translated into English in 1867, it was written in 200 AD.
3) Chapter 1 doesn't quote 1 John 5:7, but Chapter 2 does.
4) If I believe it or not is immaterial. The point is that "the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" is quoted several times by Tertullian in 200 AD, thus confirming the Historicity of that verse.



In fact, throughout the treatise, Tertullian uses the names "Father" and "Son" for God and Jesus. Tertullian makes many mentions of the trinity from Chapter 2 onward.

Why don't you try reference books for your facts.

(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)
I suppose Vines does not know what he is talking about.
Try an encyclopedia and justify your celebrating Christmas or easter.

These references do stuff on the most part without bias. I am sure you do exactly as Jer. 10 every year and call it good.. Good for what. You reject the so called OT. If you did not you would not twist Pauls words to your own destruction. What does light have to do with darkness? Yes The scriptures says paganism is darkness. You call the Feast of Yahweh which he commanded as old and done away. Then say these are the feast now Christmas and Easter. Look them up in an encyclopedia and prove to me they do not fit the definition of Darkness Yahshua spoke about. If they do then Spider run to the Hills because Satan/Helel is alive and well....Blessings...Miles