Thanks for sharing. So you don't believe the OT was inspiried by the holy spirit? The NT directly contradicts God in certain places, but you don't think he's a liar. Why not? What's different? (i may be missing somethin obvious, my questions are not meant for anything other than to learn where you're coming from)

I don't think there was a Holy Spirit before Jesus. There were prophets in the OT, that obviously were inspired by God, but don't think it was the Holy Spirit. Like Samuel that was called 3 times by God and David and Moses that were inspired by God.

I believe that the NT does not contradict the OT, but I think the NT (by Christ our God) gives the proper way of interpreting the Mosaic laws, how to live, how to act, what to believe. I think because when you look at the relation between the Pharisees and Christ, the Pharisees followed the Mosaic laws word for word, but incorrectly, but Christ corrected them, for instance about the Sabbath (Man is not for Sabbath, Sabbath is for Man).

Yes, I see your point that it looks like the NT contradicts the OT so clearly, but Christ made the Law clear for all mankind:

Luke 10:25-28

25And one day an authority on the law stood up to put Jesus to the test. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to receive eternal life?”
26What is written in the Law?” Jesus replied. “How do you understand it?” 27He answered, “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Love him with all your strength and with all your mind.’(Deuteronomy 6:5) And, ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’ ” 28“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do that, and you will live.”.


So when a man after Jesus comes and tells us to do this and that, we have to look at his claim, and compare it with the Bible. If it disagrees with the Bible (or NT to be more specific), it does not come from God, and thus, we shouldn't follow it.

That and God "does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7)

Here are some to start with:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prophchr.html

so are you saying there are no NT (or even OT) prophesy that is unfulfilled?

No. There aren't any unfulfilled prophesies for a "next" testament.

i guess i'm confused why you linked to here:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prophchr.html

I think butcho was asking for the prophesies that predict the writing of the "NT". I'm confused why you don't believe any additional text could be added to the bible during the time that future unfulfilled prophesies are fulfilled.

The link was to show how the NT events were predicted in the OT.

Well, the writing itself was not predicted afaik. The New Testament records the establishment of the New Covenant, the latter being what was predicted.

The question was about additional testaments, not additional text.

I haven't been following this thread super closely, but I'm unsure what the distinction you are making between "testaments" and "additional text" in context of the OP:

"you could elaborate on a scenario in which you would believe and accept additions to the Bible"

So you would accept additional text, but not additional testaments (which is?) ?

Interesting, but what exactly do you mean by the first sentence? You could say that the "Holy Spirit" did not preexist the "Logos", but "Jesus" would refer to the human being Yeshua, the Messiah. You mean the "Word/Logos" instead of "Jesus" ( the human being, who was only given the name Yeshua - a very common name at the time - after his birth ), correct?

The parable of the vineyard tenants tells us the purpose of the prophets and, by implication, why God will send none after Jesus. With no additional prophets, there will be no additional Biblical texts.

Matthew 21

33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:

34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.

35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.

36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.

37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.

38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.

39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.

40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?

41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.

Yes I actually wanted to edit that, I meant something else.
I meant there was no Holy Spirit inside mankind before the Crucifixion of Christ. At Pentecost the 'Comforter' came inside man.

The Holy Spirit is ofcourse existent for ever, like God the Son (God the Word) and God the Father (I'm trinitarian, I know you're not :-)) Although the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father (and trough God the Word, but I'm not sure), it does not mean the Father was before the Holy Spirit as my Church believes they all existed forever.

When I said Jesus Christ, I was talking about the Incarnate Logos, exactly.

It can be confusing at times

concerto, can you provide some cliff noted on that last post of yours? i'm having a hard time understanding how those verses relate to your point...(i am super tire and will read it again when i get up if u don't want to break it down)

The significance of the vineyard tenants parable is that it explains the role of the prophets, especially in terms of the timing of Jesus appearing on Earth. They were representatives and spokesmen of God to the Old Covenant world. Under the New Covenant, such are unnecessary.

See also:

Hebrews 1:1-2 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

The "last days" being of the Old Covenant "heaven and earth" which passed away soon after.

It is talking about the "Book" of revelations, not the bible itself. Remember, the bible wasn't codified until well after the book of revelations was written.

I don't see anything supporting what you've claimed, but if that's what you believe it says then that's your choice. I'm still quite confused how you're getting what you are out of what you've provided.

I so hope I'm here when Jesus come again. That would be craaaaaazy.

Okay, never considered that way before.

Yes, I pretty much agree with these statements and here "mankind" refers to all human beings besides Yeshua the Messiah. [ Yeshua was "baptized" in water and the "Holy Spirit" descended upon him. I believe it was then that the "fullness" of the presence of "G-d" through the "Holy Spirit" dwelt "inside" of him and thus empowered him with all the gifts for his ministry. ]

I also believe all three existed for all time - it's because time did not exist before the creation of the physical cosmos ( many modern cosmologists believe this ) and Hashem ( "G-d" ) created all "things" ( includes physical entities ) through the Word/Logos/Memra ( Jn 1:3 ); therefore, the "Word of G-d" necessarily exists for all time ( which is pointed to by Is 40:8 ).

The "Trinity Doctrine" states the equality of these three; however, there is no scripture that states such an equality ( although there are places where all three are named together: e.g., in the "Great Commission" at the end of Matthew's account ), nor does any scripture state they are all of the same "substance". On the other hand, the divine nature of Yeshua ( and the "Holy Spirit" ) is clearly expressed; the Father "acts" in this world through Yeshua and the "Holy Spirit" and both "act" with divine authority. The Father can not be seen directly; He is only manifested and "seen" through Yeshua and the Ruach HaKodesh, but not everyone "sees" this. The "fullness" of the unseen Father is expressed through Yeshua as you likely know from Col 1:19-20, 2:9-10 and Jn 14:8-21. From the "Great Commission", Yeshua was given all authority "in heaven and on earth". IMHO, the Father is only greater than Yeshua with respect to the throne ( see the hint in Gen 41:38-40 ).
The filioque clause is the problem: IMHO, the Orthodox position is "correct", i.e., the Ruach HaKodesh proceeds from the Father. The clearest expression is at the "baptism" of Yeshua: where did the "Spirit" come from? It's also expressed in Jn 15:26 and other verses from John's account: Yeshua sends the Ruach HaKodesh ( = "Holy Spirit" ) from the Father to those who believe.

Bigpooch,

could you explain a little deeper how you view the relationship between The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit? What you're saying is very interesting and seems to make sense, but at first glance I am having trouble understand what logically follows from this as to the relationship of the three. It is traditionally views that they are one, but I am not quite understanding how they can be one, if there are really not one in a hierarchical manner.

I honestly don't think this can be answered "correctly" and "sufficiently" for everyone. The Father, Son and "Holy Spirit" are all in the "business of salvation". An extremely important passage is Jn 14:8-14. A marvellous chapter is Luke 15, but I could be guilty of eisogesis if I were to express my "take" on it now.

The Father is equivalent to Hashem or ehyeh-asher-ehyeh, who always was, is and will be, pure being or some might even think of as the "ground of being". He is the "G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ( ~ Israel )", but from Jn 1:18, no human being ( with the exception of the "Word" ) has ever seen Him. He is the Father of the Son and the "sons" and "daughters" who are given the "right" to become "children of G-d".

The "Word of G-d" ( "Son of G-d" is more of a messianic title, but Yeshua is the "unique" son that has made "G-d" known; many of those that believe that Yeshua is the Messiah are "sons" and "daughters" of "G-d" ) or "Logos" or "Memra" seems more like the divine word/thought/manifestation and has a name nobody knows ( so we won't know everything about him ). Somehow, he is a "Lord", a king, a priest, a prophet, the "judge of all mankind", the "Lamb of G-d" who takes away the sin of the world, the "Lion of Judah", the "light", and some would even say he is the "living Torah", "Wisdom", and the "Tree of Life". The "Word" was always with the Father, just as my thoughts were always mine after my birth. On the other hand, somehow the "Word" and the Father are "one" and this is not simply unity, but an extremely close unity ( sometimes we have a glimpse of this by the way human fathers and sons relate, but it's best to think of Jn 14:8-14 ); on the other hand, there is a distinction expressed in "the throne of G-d and of the Lamb" in Rev 22:1 and 22:3 - both "G-d" and the "Lamb" are mentioned, yet there is only one throne. John 20:17 also expresses the distinction quite well. The most important aspect of the "Word" for human beings is that somehow he "tabernacled" by taking human form to fulfill his messianic role by being the "Lamb of G-d".

The Ruach HaKodesh is equivalent to the "Spirit of G-d". Yeshua makes a useful analogy in his discussion with Nicodemus in Jn 3. Again, we can't "see" the Ruach HaKodesh, just as we can't see Hashem, and sometimes it seems we don't even know where it just came from or where it is going! This reminds me of when Phillip received instruction from the "Spirit" to go over to the chariot of the Ethiopian eunich in Acts 8. Somehow, immediately after the immersion of the eunich, the "Spirit" suddenty took Philip away ( but here we do know where he went, at least according to the written account ). IMHO, the Ruach HaKodesh is not "Gabriel" ( as some Muslims believe ), or simply a nonpersonal force, but is able to "speak" to believers and guide them into truth. The Ruach HaKodesh empowers believers to be witnesses that give testimony concerning Yeshua and to be able to follow Hashem's commands ( or to "do G-d's will" ). It is essentially how "G-d" dwells within us: it's important to think about what Yeshua means in Jn 14:10-12; basically, Hashem dwells in Yeshua through the Ruach HaKodesh and it is the only means by which Hashem can dwell within each of us ( remember the often quoted "He that is in you is greater than he that is in the world"? The first "He" is none other than "G-d" himself! ).

When Yeshua was immersed by "John the Baptist", the Ruach HaKodesh fully dwelt in Yeshua to empower him completely. Yeshua had to go back to his Father so that the Ruach HaKodesh could now be somehow "distributed" to all messianic believers; of course, not all are apostles, not all are prophets, not all are teachers ( and not all speak in "tongues" as Paul mentioned ), but different spiritual gifts are given to different parts of the "body of Christ" ( some would call "The Church" ). This "body" doesn't exist as some organization that is physically seen, but it is partially invisible except to those who are able to "see" spiritually. The "body" is founded on a "chief cornerstone" ( currently invisible ) and composed of "living stones" each having some capacity to receive the Ruach HaKodesh and thus enable "G-d" to dwell among human beings.

Now it seems from what I've stated above that Hashem, the "Logos" and the Ruach HaKodesh are three different entities, but somehow they are all "one" or united in a very close sense. IMHO, the "Oneness" belief of some Pentecostals is erroneous; Hashem and Yeshua are distinct. On the other hand, the Ruach HaKodesh must be very closely related to "G-d" since it is the only means ( today ) by which Hashem directly interacts in this world and how Hashem dwells within us. Yeshua quite clearly mentions that he will send the "Spirit" from Hashem to believers, so the Ruach Hakodesh seems to be distinct, at least from a human perspective. Does the Ruach HaKodesh dwell among human beings that are outside the Abrahamic monotheisms? Only "G-d" knows, but it was made possible by Yeshua returning to his Father and his "G-d".

The "oneness" is in unity and purpose, according to what "Yeshua" means.