What Happened to God?

a reply to: Sheye

- Does the Bible teach that each of those said to be part of the Trinity is God?

Jesus said in prayer: “Father, . . . this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:1-3, RS; italics added.) (Most translations here use the expression “the only true God” with reference to the Father. NE reads “who alone art truly God.” He cannot be “the only true God,” the one “who alone [is] truly God,” if there are two others who are God to the same degree as he is, can he? Any others referred to as “gods” must be either false or merely a reflection of the true God.)

1 Cor. 8:5, 6, RS: “Although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” (This presents the Father as the “one God” of Christians and as being in a class distinct from Jesus Christ.)

1 Pet. 1:3, RS: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!” (Repeatedly, even following Jesus’ ascension to heaven, the Scriptures refer to the Father as “the God” of Jesus Christ. At John 20:17, following Jesus’ resurrection, he himself spoke of the Father as “my God.” Later, when in heaven, as recorded at Revelation 3:12, he again used the same expression. But never in the Bible is the Father reported to refer to the Son as “my God,” nor does either the Father or the Son refer to the holy spirit as “my God.”)

For comments on scriptures used by some in an effort to prove that Christ is God, see here.

In Theological Investigations, Karl Rahner, S.J., admits: “Θεός [God] is still never used of the Spirit,” and: “ὁ θεός [literally, the God] is never used in the New Testament to speak of the πνεῦμα ἅγιον [holy spirit].”—(Baltimore, Md.; 1961), translated from German, Vol. I, pp. 138, 143.

Do any of the scriptures that are used by Trinitarians to support their belief provide a solid basis for that dogma?

A person who is really seeking to know the truth about God is not going to search the Bible hoping to find a text that he can construe as fitting what he already believes. He wants to know what God’s Word itself says. He may find some texts that he feels can be read in more than one way, but when these are compared with other Biblical statements on the same subject their meaning will become clear. It should be noted at the outset that most of the texts used as “proof” of the Trinity actually mention only two persons, not three; so even if the Trinitarian explanation of the texts were correct, these would not prove that the Bible teaches the Trinity. Consider the following:

(Unless otherwise indicated, all the texts quoted in the following section are from RS.)

- Texts in which a title that belongs to Jehovah is applied to Jesus Christ or is claimed to apply to Jesus

Alpha and Omega: To whom does this title properly belong? (1) At Revelation 1:8, its owner is said to be God, the Almighty. In verse 11 according to KJ, that title is applied to one whose description thereafter shows him to be Jesus Christ. But scholars recognize the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 11 to be spurious, and so it does not appear in RS, NE, JB, NAB, Dy. (2) Many translations of Revelation into Hebrew recognize that the one described in verse 8 is Jehovah, and so they restore the personal name of God there. See NW, 1984 Reference edition. (3) Revelation 21:6, 7 indicates that Christians who are spiritual conquerors are to be ‘sons’ of the one known as the Alpha and the Omega. That is never said of the relationship of spirit-anointed Christians to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them as his ‘brothers.’ (Heb. 2:11; Matt. 12:50; 25:40) But those ‘brothers’ of Jesus are referred to as “sons of God.” (Gal. 3:26; 4:6) (4) At Revelation 22:12, TEV inserts the name Jesus, so the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 13 is made to appear to apply to him. But the name Jesus does not appear there in Greek, and other translations do not include it. (5) At Revelation 22:13, the Alpha and Omega is also said to be “the first and the last,” which expression is applied to Jesus at Revelation 1:17, 18. Similarly, the expression “apostle” is applied both to Jesus Christ and to certain ones of his followers. But that does not prove that they are the same person or are of equal rank, does it? (Heb. 3:1) So the evidence points to the conclusion that the title “Alpha and Omega” applies to Almighty God, the Father, not to the Son.

Savior: Repeatedly the Scriptures refer to God as Savior. At Isaiah 43:11 God even says: “Besides me there is no savior.” Since Jesus is also referred to as Savior, are God and Jesus the same? Not at all. Titus 1:3, 4 speaks of “God our Savior,” and then of both “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.” So, both persons are saviors. Jude 25 shows the relationship, saying: “God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Italics added.) (See also Acts 13:23.) At Judges 3:9, the same Hebrew word (moh·shiʹa‛, rendered “savior” or “deliverer”) that is used at Isaiah 43:11 is applied to Othniel, a judge in Israel, but that certainly did not make Othniel Jehovah, did it? A reading of Isaiah 43:1-12 shows that verse 11 means that Jehovah alone was the One who provided salvation, or deliverance, for Israel; that salvation did not come from any of the gods of the surrounding nations.

God: At Isaiah 43:10 Jehovah says: “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” Does this mean that, because Jesus Christ is prophetically called “Mighty God” at Isaiah 9:6, Jesus must be Jehovah? Again, the context answers, No! None of the idolatrous Gentile nations formed a god before Jehovah, because no one existed before Jehovah. Nor would they at a future time form any real, live god that was able to prophesy. (Isa. 46:9, 10) But that does not mean that Jehovah never caused to exist anyone who is properly referred to as a god. (Ps. 82:1, 6; John 1:1, NW) At Isaiah 10:21 Jehovah is referred to as “mighty God,” just as Jesus is in Isaiah 9:6; but only Jehovah is ever called “God Almighty.”—Gen. 17:1.

If a certain title or descriptive phrase is found in more than one location in the Scriptures, it should never hastily be concluded that it must always refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called “king of kings” (Dan. 2:37; Rev. 17:14); and that Jesus’ disciples were actually Jesus Christ, because both were called “the light of the world.” (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12) We should always consider the context and any other instances in the Bible where the same expression occurs.

And on and on it goes with the biblical and historical evidence against the doctrine of the Trinity and showing that Trinitarian theologians have applied eisegesis (reading their doctrines and beliefs into the text) for quite a while now. But I think 3 comments is enough of that for now. I always like the simplicity of the phrase Paul used a couple of times, for example at Eph. 1:3: “Praised be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, ...”.

a reply to: whereislogic

Thank you for all the time you spent on your responses. You make a great case for opposing the concept of the Trinity and have definitely given me food for thought.

a reply to: whereislogic

At Isaiah 10:21 Jehovah is referred to as “mighty God,” just as Jesus is in Isaiah 9:6; but only Jehovah is ever called “God Almighty.”—Gen. 17:1.

160 Reasons Jesus Christ is Almighty God

www.scionofzion.com...

Man does not build pyramids, rockets and computers as part of elaborate matting rituals . Amun exists ! known and unknown .

a reply to: midicon
It actually has. I am not great at starting threads but we are solidly in the Book of Revelations. I will attempt to summarize.

The Beast is not really a beast or a man it is a SYSTEM. This system has been going on for 5 thousand years. At the Apostle John saw a Beast rise out of the sea with 7 heads and 10 horns. The 7 heads are Biblical code for kingdoms. The horns are various kings. head one is Egypt, head 2 is Assyria, head 3 is Babylon, head 4 is Mede-Persia, head 5 is Greece, head 6 is Rome, head 7 is Great Britain . The seventh will be slain and out of the seventh will rise the eighth= The United Nations.

The False Prophet = Television. It has been in the heads of the people brainwashing for 70 years.

The false prophet will look like a lamb but talk like a dragon. Remember not a person but a system. Lucifer tried to Usurp God but was cast down. He tried to usurp God's system or holy mountain. Lucifer brought a system down. I think it was Daniel who saw a lamb with 2 horns. Remember horns are Kingdoms. These kingdoms will be wrapped in Christian facades but are not. Who is that? Great Britain and the USA.

Look at what is going on> Go to Youtube as I cannot embed things not that technologically savvy. Watch Cracking the Code - Ken Klein, Book of Revelation. It all makes sense. Hope I have not slain his words.

a reply to: Ansuzrune

I lasted twenty minutes but at least I had a go. I would suggest that we are not 'solidly in The Book of Revelation'. I find it sad that people like you and others on this page waste so much of your time on nonsense like this.
One thing I can agree with is that there are Governments, systems and people who hide behind a Christian façade. Hey, you only have to look at the posters on this page! Christians who don't understand anything and wear their ignorance on their sleeves. Such is the way!

Anyway, thanks for the video, I hope you have a good day.

a reply to: Ansuzrune

Much of Revelations has already past. Most of that happened not all that long after the words were written. It referenced what was going on when the Temple was destroyed and when Nero butchered a lot of Jews.

a reply to: StallionDuck

Yea it apparently all happened right after the said cruicifixtion an what not during the 300 years of feuding on how the bible should look or be written.

Revelations might as be a missing chapter in the history books, an may have been Romes attempt at repentance in some cases, with use of a whole bunch of symbology that would use in those times.

reply to: EdgeofParadise

It is not surprising. Did you know that in the country of Israel, according to a survey, the majority of people consider themselves nonreligious.

Today Israel's population is about 9,100,000. Out of that 9,000,000 there are about 75 % that practice Judaism, about 18% that practice Islam, 1.6 % that are Druids and only about 2 % that are Christian. Others are scattered religions of little importance.

My point? Out of those 9,000,000 + Jews they have about 13 % that do not believe in an after life. How can we have 13 % that do not believe in God and yet those 13 % practice Judaism? Actually that is nothing new. We see this very same thing in the NT bibles. Take a look at the Sadducees of the NT. There you can see that the Sadducees did not believe in an afterlife and yet accepted Torah. Jerusalem was governed by the Sadducee's in both the religious affairs and the civil affairs during the time of Jesus.

Being religious is not the true picture. We see this in the Roman off shoots called the denominations of Christianity.

a reply to: EdgeofParadise

The search for God is a long one that spans the thousands of years of human civilization. And to give a treatise on all would be too long here, a long book indeed would need to be made after much research.

incorrect. the search was never for god, but for immortality and relevance. the ability to live forever, and the capacity for value. not just money value but existential gravitas that is valid throughout the universe to the end of time. basically the next best thing to being god but without the responsibility of creating or owning entire galaxies and whoever lives in them, because that would mean you have to actually do something useful. ego hates being useful because that implies accountability, the practice of self critique and character growth. what is the point of being king if you have to be good at it.

a reply to: Deetermined

One's Trinitarian glasses have to be really thick (-12?) to think that the first reason there is a good reason to believe that Jesus is Almighty God. To people who aren't as indoctrinated, conditioned and biased in favor of the Trinity, when they read that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, it's obvious that that excludes Jesus from being that particular (invisible) God. Which is what is implied by saying that Jesus is Almighty God, i.e. the invisible God mentioned there (even though the Trinitarian conveniently ignores that this particular God is invisible and splits God up into 2 Gods, one invisible, the other visible, or 2 modes of the same God, 2 parts of or persons in the same God, to avoid having to admit that they're actually talking about 2 Gods, just saying things like 'but these are not 3 Gods but 1 God or 3 persons that make up 1 God' as is sometimes done regarding the Trinity, doesn't really change that, if you say 3 persons/individuals are individually the individual referred to as "God", then you are both talking about 3 Gods and 1 God at the same time, regarding the same 1 individual, which remains a contradiction no matter what dishonest statements you make thereafter to obscure that contradiction, either for others or for your own ease of mind).

When A is the image of B, A cannot be B. This is how logic and an honest rational use of language works. There's no point in arguing that you agree that Jesus is not the invisible God mentioned there, cause the invisible God mentioned there is “God Almighty.” So that supposed agreement would then contradict the title of that page and your argument that Jesus is Almighty God. You'd end up contradicting yourself (even if you do the invisible vs visible trick I mentioned, doesn't change a thing about the fact/truth that the invisible God mentioned there is “God Almighty”, so saying that Jesus is Almighty God boils down to claiming that Jesus is the invisible God mentioned there, which he clearly is not; but I guess a Trinitarian argues this away by using the same trick when they say 'the Son is God, the Father is God, but the Son is not the Father', that's a blatant contradiction which can't be argued away by talking about 3 different states of water, or any example of 3 parts that make up 1 whole, but where the individual parts are not eachother, cause that would be an erronuous misleading analogy, which also incidentally has nothing to do with Bible teachings and you'd think at least 1 Bible writer would have used the same or a similar example to explain to us how God is to be understood if that really is how God is to be understood).

Let's do that last one in a mathematical form as well to demonstrate the contradiction (mathematics and logic are intrinsically connected):

When one says that: 'the Son = God' and 'the Father = God'...
that's like saying: 'A = 1' and 'B = 1'
Then one can no longer say that A is not B, cause we all know 1=1 (and those are both assigned to A and B respectively, so A=B because A=1 and B=1 and 1=1, A and B are the same in that statement, so A=B. So one cannot say 'the Son is not the Father' after the initial statement, unless one doesn't mind talking in contradictions, and we are definitely talking about individuals here (an identification), not a description of what something is* as in the case of 'ice = H2O', 'water = H2O' and 'gas = H2O') *: a classification (the Son = godly/divine/a god, is a classification for example, just like saying we are humans, Peter = human, Rob = human, but Peter is not Rob, that statement is fine but not comparable to the statement 'the Son = God' where the God mentioned there is implied to be Almighty God, "the only true God", "the invisible God", a particular individual).

Couldn't they at least have started with an argument that is a little less far-fetched and contradictory?

1 Timothy 6:20,21

20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.” 21 By making a show of such knowledge, some have deviated from the faith.

May the undeserved kindness be with you.

Eisegesis is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text.

I suspect the rest of the 'reasons' listed there is more of the same wishful eisegesis and convenient biased contradictory interpretations.

It's also a bit lazy to link to a page that goes through the standard Trinitarian eisegesis-routine rather than respond to any of the points made in my commentary. I've heard it all before, and the Trinitarians here have already been sufficiently indoctrinated with this stuff that it probably doesn't make much of a difference whether you link this standard Trinitarian eisegesis here or not. It works nicely as a red herring or distraction from the points I've been making though, but it's still lazy and it doesn't address any of the issues with the doctrine of the Trinity and where it contradicts with the clear/unambiguous statements and teachings of the Bible (including Jesus himself).

As mentioned before regarding eisegesis:

A person who is really seeking to know the truth about God is not going to search the Bible hoping to find a text that he can construe as fitting what he already believes. He wants to know what God’s Word itself says. He may find some texts that he feels can be read in more than one way, but when these are compared with other Biblical statements on the same subject their meaning will become clear. It should be noted at the outset that most of the texts used as “proof” of the Trinity actually mention only two persons, not three; so even if the Trinitarian explanation of the texts were correct, these would not prove that the Bible teaches the Trinity.

From being familiar with your commentary before, I can conclude or estimate that you are not such a person who is really seeking to know the truth about God. You think you already know it and are quite set in your ways (centering around eisegesis).

a reply to: EdgeofParadise
He said he would never leave us or forsake us.

Organised religion..thats what happened.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Deetermined

When one says that: 'the Son = God' and 'the Father = God'...
that's like saying: 'A = 1' and 'B = 1'
Then one can no longer say that A is not B, cause we all know 1=1

Should have gone with:

'A = Andy' and 'B = Andy'
Then one can no longer say that A is not B, cause we all know Andy = Andy, so A = B, the exact opposite of A ≠ B.

To make it more clear how this applies in discussions about identity (identification). Now I left the door open for someone to twist my point and ignoring that part of the explanation regarding the difference between classifications and identifications. My example was meant as an example regarding the identification of God, but using numbers allows for it to be interpreted as a classification as in my example of different states of water (H2O). Arguing that it logically works out in that example (ice is not liquid water, liquid water is not gas, or better said, steam). It still doesn't work out in the mathematical example using numbers and it definitely doesn't work out if we're talking about identifications or identity.

Working through the logic of the example above, a classification example would be:

'A = a letter', 'B = a letter'
Then you can still say A is not B, even if they are both letters. That would be comparable to my water-example, but not comparable to the statements made by Trinitarians as in the famous picture that is used to 'explain' the Trinity to the flock (indoctrinate really), which are statements regarding identity. See picture below at 2:52:


Sadly I'm out of edit time. Please don't go there, I'm not pointing it out now for nothing. Well, I hope.

And just to be clear, in my example I'm obviously not talking about 2 different individuals who both happen to have the name "Andy" (I'm talking about 1 individual named "Andy", in both cases it's the same individual/person). Cause that's not what the Trinitarians are talking about either when they say that 'the Son = God' and 'the Father = God'. They are talking about 3 persons being 1 God (or in 1 God), i.e. 3 persons/individuals being 1 individual* called by the generic noun "God", i.e. 3 individuals being 1 individual, a blatant contradiction obscured by ignoring synonyms and the proper meaning and correct usage of the word "person" ( a synonym for "individual" or "being", the noun that is, not the verb). *: and that individual being the same individual in all 3 statements: 'the Son = God', 'the Father = God' and 'the Holy Spirit = God'. What their claims 'almost'* boil down to is:

3b = 1b
where 'b = a being, person, individual

*: That's why they sometimes say 3 persons in 1 God (being), instead of 3 persons = 1 God (being)*. Don't want to make the contradiction of '3b = 1b' too obvious of course. Satan is cunning and subtle. *: although sometimes you do get a 'God is three persons' from a Trinitarian, or something that sounds suspiciously similar. They can never quite get their story straight anyway, often making arguments and statements that are incompatible with statements made by other Trinitarians; after all, they often will admit that the Trinity “is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.” (Cardinal John O’Connor) Why is the Trinity so difficult to understand?

The Illustrated Bible Dictionary gives one reason. Speaking of the Trinity, this publication admits: “It is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible.” Because the Trinity is “not a biblical doctrine,” Trinitarians have been desperately looking for Bible texts​—even twisting them—​to find support for their teaching. Which brings us back to the topic of eisegesis.

a reply to: whereislogic

Does the Bible teach that all who are said to be part of the Trinity are eternal, none having a beginning? Col. 1:15, 16, RS: “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth.” In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”?

Jesus was not the first born of this creation. Cain was the first born from the creation of Adam and Eve.. Adam was the first creation of this creation of humans. It can be argued whether Eve was created or born but Eve was brought forth from Adam. Cain was born from the procreation of Adam and Eve without further influence from the Creator. According to KJV scriptures, Jesus was conceived from the Creator and then born from a procreated woman. This is why Jesus is called both the son of man and the begotten Son of God.

Jesus was not only the image of The Most High but was in His likeness as well. The difference being that Jesus was brought forth by The Most High from His previous existence as “The Word of God”. So in the sense of procreation, Jesus was not pro created but was translated. Jesus became a translated entity and was not created any more than you or I are created. All of the human race came into existence from pro creation except Jesus. Jesus came into terrestrial existence from translation or substance change. In this sense Jesus is then the first and only known entity to have had this translation into this terrestrial realm. .

The words first born are not in the NT KJV scriptures pertaining to Jesus. The words first born are in other scriptures pertaining to pro creation but not translation. Why is that? Because there is no other entity in this creation that has been translated into this creation besides Jesus.

Now as far as Holy Spirit or Spirit or Holy Ghost is concerned, it is nothing but bantering gobblegook. If one should tear the OT from the NT and discard the NT, one would find the same Holy Spirit as in the NT. Both are the same Spirit of The Most High. Let’s be honest in thus debate.. The age old argument of trinity or triune is nothing but doctrinal arguments and nothing can truly be resolved in such an argument. Both bibles of Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek cite that there are Spirits from God and no one truly knows exactly what substance those Spirits are or how they are forceful in our existence. You cannot sense Spirit by our five senses nor can you or I understand exactly what they are. You and I have not the slightest confirmation of Spirit except that it simply happens by the perfect will of the Most High. Or so we believe.

Gen 1:1-2
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Then we have a prophecy from Joel which tells us the Spirt from God or by God is a ministering Spirit of sorts.

Joe 2:28
And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

We then see another type of Spirit and we truly do not understand this either.

1Sa 16:23
And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.

Here we see an evil Spirit come upon Saul, so we understand that there are evil spirits and good Spirits but this is not a Holy Spirit such as shown in the NT. Scripture tells us that this evil Spirit was directed to afflict Saul by The Most High. Then if it is evil it cannot be The Most High. It would be from The Most High but of a substance different from The Most High. Do you see how one can get so confused and caught up in doctrine that they lose sight of that which they know nothing about?

Now people can argue till this creation dissolves and never really know the truth. Are there many Spirits from the Most High? Literature seems to infer that there are many Spirits from The Most High and many can argue that these Spirits are entities of some sort. After the arguments and the tempers calm down then what is the solution? The solution is that there could be many spirits from or in or by the same Creator but one thing is clear in the NT and that is that Jesus did converse with an evil spirit and that the evil spirit did harm to others. We also see in Isaiah that God does create these spirit entities.

Isaiah_45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.


You don’t know and I don’t know what this great mystery truly is. All we know is what others have taught us and they may also know no more than you or I know. It comes to the point of theology and most theology comes from literature and literature is written by people.

God, this is a long thread and I am not going to read it all. The OP is a Jehovah's Witness, which is enough for me to disregard him completely, while he waits for his Day of Judgement. All the worthy dead rising up to the paradise on Earth.

Jehovah.
Yahweh.
YHWH.

The god who made the second creation of the Adam and then, when the Adam got all grumpy, the Eve, in the so-called Garden of Eden. Mere naked slaves who were told they could never have the knowledge to recognise their own capabilities. Work the garden [whatever it was] be ignorant and worship your 'God'.

Along comes Lucfer, the bringer of light and convinces Eve that she and Adam are so much more that they think they are. So the knowledge is imparted and Eve tells Adam and YHWH, whilst walking through the garden in the afternoon breeze...like all omnipotent beings need to do...spots that his lowly servants have suddenly covered their genitals.

Angry and betrayed, he casts them out into a world already populated with humans from the first creation by El, the higher god and the leader of the visitors to our planet.

Fallen angels, demons and giants and the daughters of men.
What a mess, let's wipe it all out with a ginormous flood and start again with the pure.
It didn't work.

YHWH...brutal, jealous and selfish, sending men into battle to slaughter whole towns, keep the women, kill the men. Take the women for yourselves, regardless of age. Whatever weapons he gave them did the job.

YHWH = Bastard.
The spoilt brat of a god-like race.
A race to whom a thousand of our years is but a day to them.

Will they come back?
I hope so because your Witnesses will mean nothing to them.
You will burn with the rest of us.


That's my take on it.

a reply to: whereislogic

- Does the Bible teach that each of those said to be part of the Trinity is God?

We cannot discuss that question with any sort of understanding unless we are all using the same source of literature. We are not using the same source and for that reason we could never agree with each other. What is more is that the true source includes both the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek autographs of which we have none.

Even if we had the autographs of both bibles we would have to have true translations and then discuss interpretations. Both translations and interpretations should be void of influence. Then what would be the answer to this quarrel? The answer would be to listen to the author in his/her intent but we all know that is impossible. It is not reasonable to introduce interpretations of literature that is not even translated by qualified translators. That is what we have in this OP.

I am not trying to influence either party but in my opinion most people are not understanding substance change. Jesus became terrestrial by translation only and not by creation. The terrestrial Jesus was God in the celestial substance but was not God in the terrestrial substance. Jesus was translated twice in His resurrection and was never in two portions such as He created Adam. By twice is meant that Jesus was translated from "The celestial Word Of God" to the terrestrial Jesus by the same Most High that is His Father. He then was once again translated [restored] back to His former estate of which He now is once again "The Word Of God." This is the true doctrine of the Christ according to the brother Jacob [James The Just].

Now the doctrine of the Holy Spirit comes to us first in the Tanakh and not the NT of the Apostles, such as many are not aware of. The Most High has many spirits of many designs. Some which are evil and some which are good. Are they all independent entities? They are all independent entities and all are subject to the will of their Creator. Every spirit has a purpose. One evil spirit was given to affect Saul. Another good spirit was given to Samuel. Both had a message of purpose and both were directed by the perfect will of The Most High.

In this case, of the disciples of the Christ Jesus, a Holy Spirit is given as a help meet to this world till the return of the Christ. But to argue that of which we know nothing more is foolish. There are everlasting spirits and there are spirits of purpose. A tree has a spirit of life but not eternal life. Its purpose is to serve the Creator in whatever manner the Creator has designed. Such may be the Holy Spirit that The Most High gave to this creation. We simply do not know more than this.

a reply to: EdgeofParadise
Why do you call Him Jehovah? Why not YHWH?
And if, as seems increasingly evident, you are a disciple of charles taize russell, I think you will find the Israelites are 'Jehovah's witnesses'.
What covenant do you profess to have with Him, and by what means?

a reply to: whereislogic

Col. 1:15, 16, RS: “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth.” In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”? (1) Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons.

You do not understand Christianity and the interpretation you use is not correct. You have used creation when the word creation is not referenced, The reference is creature and not creation.

The true reading is --
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Jesus [while being terrestrial] was the first born of all creatures of this terrestrial substance by translation only. That also applies to Jesus before His translation as He was "The Word of God" and first born of all creatures. The creatures being the heavenly host. Jesus was never created but in fact was the Creator of all creation.

You ask why the Most High and the Holy Spirit are not also considered born? Because both are the same as being the Most High. Nothing is above or beneath The Most High. The most High brought forth His begotten Son whom He gave the power to create and the authority of life within Him. The Holy Spirit is the Father as total Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not begotten by The Most High but is The Most High and has never been born. The last act of this entire creation is when the Son gives all authority back to the The Most High.

1Co_15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

While there are good spirits from God there is only one Holy Spirit and that is The Most High. A doctrine is most generally accepted theology by a particular group of people and certainly does not apply to all Christians.

a reply to: Seede
What is appearing presently is the manifestation..... the image of the invisible God..... in this ever present image everything appears.... no thing is separate from this image as there is nothing but the ever present image.
The image can appear as words telling stories about other.....words and concepts arise and fall away within the image.

Unfortuneatly there is a belief that Christ is/was a person.