Trinity Passages Can you spot the trinity in each?

[Butch5]

.

thank you so much for responding,


Please consider that you do not understand the problem and delusion that your claim truly represents.

There are no Septuagint manuscripts that date before Yahashua -

This AD date is so very important - because the different Greek versions and codices that date AFTER YAHAUSHA are so vastly different from one another, that the huge differences between these Greek versions - so different and contradictory to one another that even today - 2000 years later if you do your research you will find that the AD Greek Old Testament manuscripts are so filled with corrections, changes and editing comments that these are not even manuscripts or translations.

And none of them are completed OT Greek Bibles - completed until 500 years after Yahashua….

The Codex Sinaiticus - Codex Vaticanus, the Alexandrian text-type

These are all mostly rough drafts, undergoing editing and textual criticism and edited transitions - the Vatican does not put this garbage up on the internet in any complete format.

IN FACT =

Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, are representatives of the fragments of the Alexandrian text-type, and Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have many differences between these two manuscripts.

It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two manuscripts contradict and differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they agree.

This tells us everything we need to know about the claims of the Septuagint,

- because of the fact that - This AD date provides a marker in a timeline that shows that there is nothing completed or uniform - concerning any Greek O. T.

And this is all that exists for any evidence of the Septuagint. A combination of several incomplete rough drafts undergoing editing and corrections and changes - that are filled with contradictions and variants and major differences between them.

This info is found here -

CLICK HERE - Comparison of codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus - Wikipedia



So . What you ask for - concerning proof that Masoretic text are the true manuscripts Vs the Septuagint



this is impossible to prove imperially - because the Roman Catholic Church and Pre Roman Catholic Rome - completely destroyed them - on purpose - it was not just Rome alone but also other entities such as Islam and many other Trinitarian groups.

It is impossible to provide proof from something that has been destroyed and deliberately / purposefully and methodically suppressed and manipulated for nearly 2000 years.

The Roman Catholic Church did not translate any completed Bible Translation until nearly 500 years A.D. AND then did not translate a Bible into any other language outside of Latin alone - until nearly 2000 years A.D.


While producing incomplete rough drafts and works of the Old Testament into Greek that were undergoing editing and corrections until 500 + years after Yahashua.

While burning millions of people alive, torturing and imprisoning and persecuting any who tried to translate the bible.

Today

Modern versions such as the RSV, NIV that sometimes reject a specific Masoretic Hebrew passages will leave a footnote: saying - " SOME Septuagint versions say.... "

This is because the bulk of ONLY Greek O. T. manuscripts THAT EXISTED before 500 A. D.

are so different from one another

And this is exactly and truly - EXACTLY - what your Septuagint is

So when you prove and validate your Greek Septuagint what are you proving and validating.

????/ ????????????????

You are proving and validating the fact that - SOME Septuagint versions say....

That is all your Septuagint is - SOME Septuagint versions say....



And SOME Septuagint versions do not say....



And that is all that exist of the Greek Old Testament. - there are no manuscripts and no scrolls of the Septuagint pre -dating Yahashua.



As I stated before - The Septuagint had to be RECONSTRUCTED and INVENTED out of the nothingness of the less that 1 % of the fragments that existed before Yahashua are not enough to even translate a single page of the Old Testament.

THIS IS THE FACTS - we know

The B. C. Septuagint can not be shown to have existed as a completed OT Greek Translation that was duplicated and copied and widely spread and transmitted to the major cities and churches throughout Egypt and nearby areas.

There are no Septuagint manuscripts - only tiny, teeny shards and shreds of crumbled rotten and flakes of abandoned, lost and thrown away fragments that no one wanted or cared about to preserve a single page - not even a single page was preserved - and probably not even completed.



The Non - Greek O. T. MANUSCRIPTS, however, are mastered and preserved with precision and care precisely duplicated and fervently distributed and transmitted spreading around the world in secular books and letters and documents written on papyrus, parchment, hides, and paper in Hebrew characters, Hebrew Masoretic manuscripts have been preserved in archives and public and private libraries. It has been estimated that there are about 60,000 manuscripts (codices) and about 200,000 fragments if the Masoretic - and they all agree so closely and perfectly that we can look and see the typo and scribal error that randomly happens when thousands upon thousands of copies are being duplicated by thousands of different people.

The Septuagint however - is built upon a flake fantasy consisting of several Vatican-produced rough drafts, undergoing editing and textual criticism and edited transitions that were not even nearly completed until 500 + years after Yahashua.

- the Vatican does not put this garbage up on the internet in any complete format for the public to review, study and understand - they hire and promote scholars to prop up these useless blasphemous jack rags - as something that is important to the Biblical community..

There is absolutely no proof of a Pre-Christian Septuagint.

What is referred to as the Septuagint today is nothing more than compilations of the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus,

and these manuscript versions do not even agree with each other and were never completed within the A. D era with intent = to be distributed and transmitted to the public and community.

Well, it's clear that you're not being objective. So, what you say has to be taken with a grain of salt.

What I find interesting is that you trash the Septuagint and say there is no way to know it's correct. Yet you then say that the validity of the pre Masoretic texts can't be verified either. I doesn't really.matter if the Masoretic texts were exactly the same. If they can't be validated as being the identical to the pre Masoretic texts there's no way to tell of their accurate at all. So, the very argument you use against the Septuagint can be used against the Masoretic text.

So, if the pre Masoretic texts can't be verified why should I accept the Masoretic text as accurate?

 

[only son]

One side has existed as a sentient seed, effective and dedicated to living existence, preserving and maintaining an active real-time perfect as possible, preservation.

the other side simply finds enjoyment in finding random ways to fall in love with the perverting the original message.

these random attempts are why there are thousands of fragments accidentally found scattered throughout Europe and the Middle East - Trinitarians never - never NEVER intended to preserve a single page of the Bible.

This is the most obvious fact that exists on the planet - Muslims are no different.

The entire idea and concept of a Completed Bible translation moving beyond the ancient Latin and Greek and into a modern real-time world language - this concept and idea - this is a total and a complete freak accident in the Trinitarian world.

A mistake - a trinitarian mistake, that suddenly accidentally just happened to accidentally occur behind their backs.

nearly 2000 years after the book was written

 

[Alter2Ego]

I posted this to some antitrinitarian forums. I was hoping they could see it. But it turned out, none could. How are your Trinity spotting skills?

Matt 1:20

But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

Matt 3:16

And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him;

Matt 12:18

“Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles.

Matt 12:28

But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

Matt 22:43

He said to them, “How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying,

Matt 28:19

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Luke 1:35

And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.

Luke 2:26

And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.

Luke 3:22

and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”

Luke 10:21

In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.

John 1:33

I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’

John 3:5

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

John 3:34

For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure.

John 14:16

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,

John 14:26

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

John 15:26

“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.

John 16:15

All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

Acts 1:4

And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me;

Acts 2:33

Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.

Acts 7:55

But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.

Acts 10:38

how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.

Rom 1:4

and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

Rom 8:9

You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

Rom 8:11

If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

Rom 15:16

to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

Rom 15:30

I appeal to you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf,

1 Cor 6:11

And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1 Cor 12:3

Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.

2 Cor 3:3

And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

2 Cor 13:14

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

Gal 4:6

And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”

Eph 2:18

For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father.

Eph 2:22

In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

Phil 3:3

For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh—

2 Thess 2:13

But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

Titus 3:6

whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,

Heb 9:14

how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

Heb 10:29

How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?

1 Pet 1:2

according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.

1 Pet 4:14

If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.

1 John 4:2

By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,

Rev 2:7

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.’

Dave L:

I was NOT able to spot the trinity in any of your above scriptures.

Alter2Ego

 

[complete]

@Alter2Ego

Hello there,

In the verse that @Dave L quoted from Matthew 1:20 in the entry that you were responding to,:-

'But while he (Joseph) thought on these things,
behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream,
saying, Joseph, thou son of David,
fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife:
for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.'

- The angel of the Lord spoke the words of God to Joseph, - (God the Father)
- Reference is made to the the baby that Mary would conceive - (God the Son)
- That conception being of the Holy Ghost..- (God the Holy Spirit)

With respect to not acknowledge this is wilful blindness.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Butch5]

@Alter2Ego

Hello there,

In the verse that @Dave L quoted from Matthew 1:20 in the entry that you were responding to,:-

'But while he (Joseph) thought on these things,
behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream,
saying, Joseph, thou son of David,
fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife:
for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.'

- The angel of the Lord spoke the words of God to Joseph, - (God the Father)
- Reference is made to the the baby that Mary would conceive - (God the Son)
- That conception being of the Holy Ghost..- (God the Holy Spirit)

With respect to not acknowledge this is wilful blindness.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Hi Chris,

Some food for thought, if the conception was by the Holy Spirit, who is Jesus' father?

 

[Admon Mikha'el]

Dave L:

I was NOT able to spot the trinity in any of your above scriptures.

Alter2Ego

If you do not believe in the trinity, you will not see it.

 

[Butch5]

If you do not believe in the trinity, you will not see it.

That's an interesting thought. If don't believe in the Trinity, I won't see the Trinity in those passages. That would seem to imply that if I do see the Trinity in those passages I must first believe in the Trinity. If I believed in the Trinity before reading those passages the question arises, Where did this belief in the Trinity come from?

On the flip side, If those passages can be understood in a manner that doesn't show the Trinity then they can be understood differently. If they can be understood differently, they don't prove the Trinity doctrine. That brings me back to the question above, where did the belief in a Trinity come from?

 

[Sue D.]

@Butch5 -- would like to insert a thought -- The existence of the trinity is Assumed as is the existence of God. The Godhead / trinity is eternal as are God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son and the Holy Spirit.

Those passage are from God's Word. God's Word is truth.

God's Word tells us in Matt. that the Holy Spirit came upon Mary and she conceived Jesus Christ. The 'legal' father of Jesus in the Jewish culture that He was born into was Joseph. His Real Father was the Holy Spirit. Well -- God the Father.

 

[Butch5]

@Butch5 -- would like to insert a thought -- The existence of the trinity is Assumed as is the existence of God. The Godhead / trinity is eternal as are God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son and the Holy Spirit.

Those passage are from God's Word. God's Word is truth.

God's Word tells us in Matt. that the Holy Spirit came upon Mary and she conceived Jesus Christ. The 'legal' father of Jesus in the Jewish culture that He was born into was Joseph. His Real Father was the Holy Spirit. Well -- God the Father.

But that's a problem if it's just assumed. One could just assume that there is no Trinity. We have evidence of God. Do we have evidence of a Trinity?

Are you saying then that the Holy Spirit is Jesus' father and not God the Father? It can't be both if the Holy Spirit is a third person.

 

[Sue D.]

As a person takes time to read God's Word -- the trinity is not explained -- it is Assumed to exist by being seen in Scripture.

For instance, in Genesis 1:1 in the beginning God created....... vs 2 ....And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." And then we have 1:26 "Then God said., Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness. That is the 1st evidence of the trinity. And looking at Matthew 28:19 "God therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in he name of the Father nd of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." That is the trinity.

Matthew 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows; After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph , before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit."

 

[Butch5]

As a person takes time to read God's Word -- the trinity is not explained -- it is Assumed to exist by being seen in Scripture.

For instance, in Genesis 1:1 in the beginning God created....... vs 2 ....And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." And then we have 1:26 "Then God said., Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness. That is the 1st evidence of the trinity. And looking at Matthew 28:19 "God therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in he name of the Father nd of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." That is the trinity.

Matthew 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows; After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph , before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit."

But that's not what was said. The statement was, if one doesn't believe the Trinity they won't see it in those passages. That means that the belief comes before the Scriptures. Then in looking at these passages, one would only be seeing what they read as confirmation of what they already believe.

However, there's nothing in these passages that would assume a Trinity. For instance, in Gen 1 the breath of God was hovering over the face of the waters. I wouldn't assume that someone's breath was a person. Gen 1:26 could be, and probably is a "Royal We". However, "we" could also refer to just two, the Father and Son. And, Mathew 28:19, Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Breath. I wouldn't assume that someone's breath is another person.

Since Mary was found with child of the Holy Spirit does that make the third person of the Trinity Jesus' father?

 

[Butch5]

Question: If the Trinity is three coequal, coeternal, persons how is it that the third person, the Holy Spirit doesn't know that other two?

"All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. (Matt. 11:27 NKJ)

 

[Admon Mikha'el]

But that's not what was said. The statement was, if one doesn't believe the Trinity they won't see it in those passages. That means that the belief comes before the Scriptures. Then in looking at these passages, one would only be seeing what they read as confirmation of what they already believe.

However, there's nothing in these passages that would assume a Trinity. For instance, in Gen 1 the breath of God was hovering over the face of the waters. I wouldn't assume that someone's breath was a person. Gen 1:26 could be, and probably is a "Royal We". However, "we" could also refer to just two, the Father and Son. And, Mathew 28:19, Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Breath. I wouldn't assume that someone's breath is another person.

Since Mary was found with child of the Holy Spirit does that make the third person of the Trinity Jesus' father?

Butch...you know the saying "Seeing is believing" Well that saying is all backward....The way is goes is "Believing is seeing" If you don't believe it you will either not get it or you will refuse to see it.

 

[Butch5]

Butch...you know the saying "Seeing is believing" Well that saying is all backward....The way is goes is "Believing is seeing" If you don't believe it you will either not get it or you will refuse to see it.

I don't believe that's necessarily so. Many of the things I believe now I didn't use to believe. However, when they were shown to me I saw that they were correct and chose to believe them.

 

[Admon Mikha'el]

I don't believe that's necessarily so. Many of the things I believe now I didn't use to believe. However, when they were shown to me I saw that they were correct and chose to believe them.

What you believe is not relevant to facts....The facts stand no matter what you believe.

 

[Sue D.]

But that's not what was said. The statement was, if one doesn't believe the Trinity they won't see it in those passages. That means that the belief comes before the Scriptures. Then in looking at these passages, one would only be seeing what they read as confirmation of what they already believe.

However, there's nothing in these passages that would assume a Trinity. For instance, in Gen 1 the breath of God was hovering over the face of the waters. I wouldn't assume that someone's breath was a person. Gen 1:26 could be, and probably is a "Royal We". However, "we" could also refer to just two, the Father and Son. And, Mathew 28:19, Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Breath. I wouldn't assume that someone's breath is another person.

Since Mary was found with child of the Holy Spirit does that make the third person of the Trinity Jesus' father?

People read the Word of God and then comes the belief through the working of the Holy Spirit.

The point of the Holy Spirit coming upon Mary enabled Jesus Christ to be both all human and all divine. And That was necessary for His dying on the cross to be more than simply another religious teacher of that day. He became the Perfect Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

There Are those who 'assume' that a Roman soldier had sex with Mary and thus she became pregnant. Because -- after-all -- how could a virgin get pregnant. But -- the Bible is correct -- the Holy Spirit came upon her and she conceived.

He had Two fathers -- a spiritual Father and an earthly / legal Father.

Kind of like -- we are born physically and Then need to be born Spiritually in order to have eternal salvation.

What do you mean by a 'Royal We'.

Scripture says 'of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Not breath.

A person should Not be adjusting Scripture to fit their personal beliefs.

 

[Butch5]

What you believe is not relevant to facts....The facts stand no matter what you believe.

What I believe is relevant when you make a statement like this.

" Butch...you know the saying "Seeing is believing" Well that saying is all backward....The way is goes is "Believing is seeing" If you don't believe it you will either not get it or you will refuse to see it. "

You said if i don't believe it I won't get it. That statement makes my beliefs relevant to the conversation.

 

[Admon Mikha'el]

What I believe is relevant when you make a statement like this.

" Butch...you know the saying "Seeing is believing" Well that saying is all backward....The way is goes is "Believing is seeing" If you don't believe it you will either not get it or you will refuse to see it. "

You said if i don't believe it I won't get it. That statement makes my beliefs relevant to the conversation.

I'm saying that if you do not believe it you will refuse to see it.....You twist my words as you twist Gods Word.

 

[Butch5]

People read the Word of God and then comes the belief through the working of the Holy Spirit.

The point of the Holy Spirit coming upon Mary enabled Jesus Christ to be both all human and all divine. And That was necessary for His dying on the cross to be more than simply another religious teacher of that day. He became the Perfect Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

There Are those who 'assume' that a Roman soldier had sex with Mary and thus she became pregnant. Because -- after-all -- how could a virgin get pregnant. But -- the Bible is correct -- the Holy Spirit came upon her and she conceived.

He had Two fathers -- a spiritual Father and an earthly / legal Father.

Kind of like -- we are born physically and Then need to be born Spiritually in order to have eternal salvation.

What do you mean by a 'Royal We'.

Scripture says 'of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Not breath.

A person should Not be adjusting Scripture to fit their personal beliefs.

But that doesn't answer the question. Who is Jesus' father? Is it God the Father or the third person of the Trinity?

The Royal we is a literary device. It's where a person, usually high ranking, is referred to in the plural instead of the singular. It's done to emphasize greatness. If you Google "Royal We" or "Majestic Plural" it should give you a definition.

The Scripture says breath. The translators translated it Spirit. Gen 1 it is ruach, it's primary meaning is wind or breath. It is the same word used in Gen 6.

2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. (Gen. 1:2 NKJ)
"And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die. (Gen. 6:17 NKJ)

In each of these passages the Hebrew word is ruach. Because the translators use different words to translate this one Hebrew word the real meaning of the word is hidden. In Gen. 1:2 the translators capitalized the word and translated it Spirit. This gives the impression that it's the supposed third person of the Trinity. Yet in Gen 6;17 they translate the very same word with the word breath and they don't capitalize it. Unless one looks for this they would have no idea that these two English words were the same Hebrew word. By doing this we don't get to see the real meaning of ruach.

By the blast of God they perish, And by the breath of His anger they are consumed. (Job 4:9 NKJ)
8 And with the blast of Your nostrils The waters were gathered together; The floods stood upright like a heap; The depths congealed in the heart of the sea. (Exod. 15:8 NKJ)
16 Then the channels of the sea were seen, The foundations of the world were uncovered, At the rebuke of the LORD, At the blast of the breath of His nostrils. (2 Sam. 22:16 NKJ)
3 As long as my breath is in me, And the breath of God in my nostrils, (Job 27:3 NKJ)
19 Our pursuers were swifter Than the eagles of the heavens. They pursued us on the mountains And lay in wait for us in the wilderness.
20 The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the LORD, Was caught in their pits, Of whom we said, "Under his shadow We shall live among the nations." (Lam. 4:19-20 NKJ)

In all of these passages the bolded word is ruach. Do any of these passages seem to indicate the third person of the Trinity? We have the breath of God's anger. We have the blast (breath) of God's nostrils. We have the breath in God's nostrils. We have God's breath in Job's nostrils. We have the breath in man's nostrils. Each of these passages is the same word that the translators translated and capitalized as Spirit in Gen. 1:2. If the word doesn't mean the third person of the Trinity in any of these passages, how does it mean the third person of the Trinity in GEn.1:2?

 

[Butch5]

I'm saying that if you do not believe it you will refuse to see it.....You twist my words as you twist Gods Word.

You're assuming to read my mind. There was time when I believed the Trinity doctrine just as most state it here. So, I saw it. However, what I learned is that I saw it because it was presupposed. I was taught that it was there so I assumed it was. A deeper study of the doctrine, appropriate Scriptures, and church history, showed me otherwise.

But, this goes back to what I said originally. When you said if one doesn't believe it they won't see it. That implies that the belief comes before reading the Scriptures. Likewise the belief in the Trinity comes before reading the Scriptures. Thus, the doctrine is presupposed. This is confirmation bias. It's interpreting evidence based one what one already believes. That's the point I made in the first post.