The Trinity?

[epaminondas]

Originally Posted By: epaminondas

For the same reason my mother used to say that if you've seen one circus (big tent, animals, high wire artists) you've seen them all.

So now your comparing Jesus and his Father to the circus?? But I guess in a sense your right!! Jesus and his Father are one, in there love for humanity and would love it, if all could be saved.

No, the comparison is between the expressions of seeing one equals seeing the other because they are very alike. There and their are also very alike, especially in pronunciation, but they are totally different. If English is not your first language or you're less than 10 years old, that can be excused. I'm sure you're a good grandfather and your grandkids love you dearly, but...

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Actually, Paul is saying that Jesus is our example because He chose to give up His position as God in heaven and descend to the level of a servant.

See Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testatment Words, page 887, under "Prize." There it is explained that the passive sense gives the following sense: "Who though He was subsisting in the essentail form of God, yet did not regard His being on an equality of glory and majesty with God as a prize and a treasure to be held fast, but emptied himself thereof."

Yes, right. We are gods and this is an example of what gods should do.

Accountants have gone to jail for less creativity than Vine. Here is the literal Greek. Mouseover on the word harpagmon and see what it shows. Click the link on the left of the word saying 725[e]. You will get to this page. What do you believe? Strong's Concordance, no less.

What do you think any competent, honest court will find?

Do you see why I hold the honesty and/or intelligence of trinitarians in such low esteem?

[John317]

And would add this verse to consider,

Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

It's talking about the fact that Christ came to this world from heaven, out of God's presence. God the Father sent Christ on a mission to the earth. Jesus is not talking about how He came into existence in heaven. His whole point is that He didn't come to earth on his own but He was here in obedience to the commandment of the Father.

[John317]

Quote:

The verse plainly tells us that Christ was in the form of God. "Form" means that Christ was actually God.

What a stretch! On such rests the trinitarian concept.

Explain how this is a "stretch."

Check out the meaning of "form" [Gk morphe] in the Greek-English Lexicons.

Was Jesus a real human being? The text says Jesus took the "form" [Gk morphe] of a human being.

The concept and teaching of the triune God actually rests on the entire Bible, and is founded on hundreds of texts from Genesis to Revelation. It by no means depends on Phil 2. The Trinity teaching is so strong in the Bible that you could delete many verses and the doctrine would still stand. Anti-Trinitarians often want to jettison Matt 28: 19 and 1 John 5: 7, and I tell them it doesn't matter. I concede that 1 John 5: 7 is probably not part of the original letter, but Matt 28: 19 certainly is authentic. It occurs in all of the ancient manuscripts, Greek and non-Greek texts alike. But if you want to get rid of it, go ahead-- it won't make a bit of difference to the Bible's teaching on the subject. God made the truth so redundant in the Bible that it's clear even when you change or delete some key verses.

[Gibs]

Here is when the proceeding forth was in time, then way latter He came to earth in Mary.

Pr 8:22 ¶ The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Gibs]

No trinity,

Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isa 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

And Many, Many more,

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[John317]

Here is when the proceeding forth was in time, then way latter He came to earth in Mary.

Pr 8:22 ¶ The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

First of all, that text is talking about "Wisdom."

Christ is the wisdom of God, but not everything said about "wisdom" in Proverbs applies literally to Christ. Proverbs portrays wisdom as a woman who lives with another woman named Prudence. Is Christ a woman? Obviously not.

Secondly, it's necessary to ask and answer the question, what is meant by "possessed me." How is that evidence that Christ in heaven had a beginning?

Can you show that this is talking about the beginning of the pre-existent Christ?

Remember that Ellen White says that Christ is "the eternal, self-existent Son of God." She also says He is "infinite" and "omnipotant." If Christ had a beginning in heaven at some point, He could not be either "infinite" or "self-existent."

What is "self-existence"? Creatures or beings that have a beginning cannot possibly be "self-existent" or "eternal."

Only God is self-existent, right? So since Christ is self-existent, it means that Christ is God. Christ's existence doesn't depend on anyone outside of Himself.

If we let the Bible interpret itself, Prov 8: 22 is talking about Christ being "possessed" to be the Savior of the world.

[joeb]

Here is when the proceeding forth was in time, then way latter He came to earth in Mary.

Pr 8:22 ¶ The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[John317]

No trinity,

Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isa 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

And Many, Many more,

The Bible teaches that Christ is God. He is "our great God and Savior."

Therefore, since there is only "one God" and since there is no God besides Yahweh, it means that Jesus Christ is Yahweh. In fact, Ellen White says that Jesus Christ is "Jehovah Immanuel."

The Bible also says:

Col 3: 11--

"Christ is all, and in all."

Ephes. 4:10

He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.

Everything the Bible says about God the Father, it also says about Christ. In fact, John 1: 1 (last clause) says that the Word was just like God. The NEB correctly translates it, "And what God was the Word was." Heb 1: 3 says that Christ is "the exact representation [or image] of the Father's essence."

[John317]

I'll bet my last cent that Vine was/is a trinitarian.

And I bet you are anti-Trinitarian.

Are you taking the position that no Trinitarian can be trusted to tell the truth about the teachings of the Bible?

Should I take the position that since you are anti-Trinitarian, I cannot trust what you say about the Bible?

The truth is truth no matter who says it. What matters is the evidence and how it is handled and expressed, not whether someone agrees with me or not.

Should we say that so-and-so is non- or ant-Trinitarian and therefore we shouldn't believe what he or she says? That seems to be your position.

[John317]

Quote:

Does the Bible teach Sunday-sacredness? No.

There are millions of Sunday worshipers who'll disagree with you. You know which Biblical passages they'll quote.

\ The point is that there are disagreements over doctrines that are very clear in the Bible, including the Sabbath and the Second Coming. The fact that there is disagreement over a piece of writing-- or a subject-- doesn't mean that the writer (or the Bible) is not clear.

[John317]

.... John 17:3. This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Yeshua the Messiah.

Even a moron will know that a direct Biblical statement trumps one that relies on a deduction - a deduction may be wrong. So, don't even try that.

Also, John 17:3 is not alone in direct Biblical statements negating essential concepts of the trinity.

...I'm waiting...

Notice that eternal life depends on knowing God the Father and Jesus Christ. You know nothing about God the Father except through Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ can do this because He is of exactly the same essence and character as the Father. Heb 1: 3.

John 1:18 (ESV)

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

He who has the Son has the Life; he who does not have the Son does not have the Life. 1 John 5: 12.

Jesus Christ is our great God and Savior. Titus 2: 13; 2 Peter 1: 1.

Jesus Christ is the great I AM of Exodus 3: 14. He declared Himself to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Compare John 8: 58.

Jesus Christ is the One who led the Israeles out of Egypt. The Bible refers to Him in the Old Testament as "God" and "Jehovah," among others.

1 Cor. 10:9:

"We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents." (ESV, KJV, NKJV; See UBS 4th edition; Nestle/Aland 27th edition.)

1 Cor. 10:4:

and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

Jude 1:5:

Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.{ESV; UBS second edition.)

Hebrews 1:10:

And [speaking of Christ]

"You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,

and the heavens are the work of your hands."

Jesus Christ is a part of "the eternal Godhead":

Quote:

The eternal Godhead--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost--is involved in the action required to make assurance to the human agent, . . . confederating the heavenly powers with the human that man may become, through heavenly efficiency, partakers of the divine nature and workers together with Christ. {UL 148.4}

The "eternal Godhead" does not change from 1 to 2 or from 2 to 3. If the "eternal Godhead" has ever been comprised of 3, then it has ALWAYS been comprised of 3. (That is, of course, 3 divine, living Persons, who are "One God," NOT "3 Gods.")

Quote:

The Godhead was stirred with pity for the race, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit gave Themselves to the working out of the plan of redemption. In order fully to carry out this plan, it was decided that Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, should give Himself an offering for sin. What line can measure the depth of this love? God would make it impossible for man to say that He could have done more. With Christ He gave all the resources of heaven, that nothing might be wanting in the plan for man's uplifting. CH 222

Still waiting, friend? :-)

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

You make the same poor argument that can be found thousands of times in the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Let's look more closely at the argument.

For one thing, it would mean that Paul is saying Jesus is our example because He chose not to be a thief. He refused to steal. Is that why Christ is our example? Of course not.

Actually, Paul is saying that Jesus is our example because He chose to give up His position as God in heaven and descend to the level of a servant.

See Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testatment Words, page 887, under "Prize." There it is explained that the passive sense gives the following sense: "Who though He was subsisting in the essentail form of God, yet did not regard His being on an equality of glory and majesty with God as a prize and a treasure to be held fast, but emptied himself thereof."

...So Paul is saying that Christ is our example in that He gave up a position that was equal with God the Father in order to die for our sins. We are asked to imitate Him in His unselfishness, not because He refused to steal something that wasn't His, but because He refused to stay in heaven as God while humanity perished.

You blah-blah-blah on and on. I gave you solid reasons why the word "seize" would be more appropriate there than "grasp." Then I clearly showed you, from an authoritative source, what the difference between seize and grasp is. Can't you understand that? Hot air doesn't change facts.

Shouldn't we keep the exchange courteous and polite? It's the Holy Spirit that gives us fellowship and joins us together as brothers in Christ. 2 Cor 13: 14. The Bible says we need to be careful lest we "grieve the Holy Spirit."

You doubtless gave what you considered solid reasons, but I'm asking you to consider further evidence. I've been studying this subject since the early 1970s when I studied with Jehovah's Witnesses.

Your explanation is assuming that the word harpagmos is used in the active sense, which is the act of seizing, robbery; but if it is used in the passive sense, then it refers to a thing held as a prize.

When translated in this way-- that is, in the passive sense-- it reads, "... counted it not a prize that He was on an equality with God." That is accurate and free from all ambiguity.

Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon (page 74) shows that (1) it can mean "the act of seizing, robbery," and (2) it can also mean "a thing seized or to be seized,-- a thing to be seized upon or to be held fast, retained, Phil. 2: 6." (Strongs #725)

The Analytical Greek Lexicon, page 52, defines harpagmos, "In the N.T., a thing retained with an eager grasp, or eagerly claimed and conspicuously exercised, Phil 2: 6."

See also page 108 of BAG's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, where it gives essentially the very same information as given in the other references already quoted.

See alsoThe Incarnation by Gifford, pp. 28, 36, where he treats of this subject at length and in great detail.

If translated in the active sense, the verse has the following meaning: "[Christ] who, because He was subsisting in the essential form of God, did not regard it as any usurpation that He was on an equality of glory and majesty with God, but yet emptied Himself of that co-equal glory..."

On the other hand, if translated in the passive sense, it means, "[Christ] who, though He was subsisting in the essential form of God, yet did not regard His being on an equality of glory and majesty with God as a prize and a treasure to be held fast, but emptied himself thereof."

I believe that the latter translation is the one that harmonizes best with the context and the lesson that Paul is trying to teach. I don't think it makes any sense for Paul to appeal to us to copy Christ on the grounds that Christ didn't steal something that wasn't His in the first place. Why would Christ's decision not to steal something be an admirable quality?

Would that be an example of unselfishness?

Don't you agree that we would have far greater love and admiration knowing that God left the glories of heaven and chose to stoop down to the level of a servant-- not to mention dying on the cross-- because of His love for lost sinners?

That is the greatest example of true unselfishness the universe has ever witnessed.

[John317]

Here is the literal Greek. Mouseover on the word harpagmon and see what it shows. Click the link on the left of the word saying 725[e]. You will get to this page. What do you believe? Strong's Concordance, no less.

What do you think any competent, honest court will find?

harpagmon can mean "to steal" or "to clutch."

Philippians 2:6 N-AMS

BIB: huparchon ou harpagmon hghsato to

NAS: a thing to be grasped,

KJV: robbery

INT: something to be grasped

Your link gives the following definition of harpagmon as used in Phil 2: 6: "something to be grasped." I am in complete agreement with this, as are most translations.

The website you pointed me to is actually saying the same thing I said in my posts, and it is in harmony with the New American Standard and the New International Version.

"Robbery" (KJV; NKJV; YLT) is grammatically correct but it does not give the full sense of the verse.

Please consider following translations of Phil 2: 6:

1) The Christian Standard Bible: "who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage."

2) The English Standard Version: "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped."

3) Goodspeed's American Translation: "Though he possessed the nature of God, he did not grasp at equality with God."

4) William F. Beck's Holy Bible in the Language of Today: "Although He was God, He decided not to take advantage of His being equal with God, as though it were stolen goods."

5) New Century Version: "Christ himself was like God in everything. But he did not think that being equal with God was something to be used for his own benefit."

6) Contemporary English Version: "Christ was truly God. But He did not try to remain equal with God."

7) The New Living Translation: "Though he was God, he did not demand and cling to his right as God."

8) The Message: "He had equal status with God but didn't think so much of himself that he had to cling to the advantages of that status no matter what."

9) New Life (Ledyard): "Jesus has always been as God is. But He did not hold to His rights as God."

10) Kenneth Wuest's Expanded Translation: "[Jesus], who has always been and at present continues to subsist in that mode of being in which He gives outward expression of His essential nature, that of absolute deity, which expression comes from and is truly representative of His inner being [that of absolute deity], and who did not after weighing the facts, consider it a treasure to be clutched and retained at all hazards, this being on an equality with deity [in the expression of the divine essence]." (Kenneth S. Wuest was Teacher Emeritus of New Testament Greek at the Moody Bible Institute.)

11) Richmond Lattimore, Acts and Letters of the Apostles (Farrar, Straus, Giroux, New York, 1982): "He was in the form of God, but did not think to seize on the right to be equal to God."

(Richard Lattimore is the translator of very widely sold editions of the Greek classics, such as Homer's Iliad and the Odyssey as well as most of the Greek tragedies and comedies. For decades he also taught translation of Greek literature at several prominant universities.)

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Explain how this is a "stretch."

Check out the meaning of "form" [Gk morphe] in the Greek-English Lexicons.

A figurine in the form of a bird is not a bird. Why say something is in the form of something else if one wants to say the two are the same or the same species? Why not come straight out and say it, like Jesus said the Father is the only true God?

[epaminondas]

Quote:

The website you pointed me to is actually saying the same thing I said in my posts, and it is in harmony with the New American Standard and the New International Version.

It also very clearly says the harpagmon means to seize. Words can't change that. Do you grow tired reading beyond a line or two?

I've already quoted it, but here it is again:

Quote:

Strong's Concordance

harpagmos: the act of seizing or the thing seized

Original Word: ἁρπαγμός, οῦ, ὁ

Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine

Transliteration: harpagmos

Phonetic Spelling: (har-pag-mos')

Short Definition: spoil, an object of eager desire, a prize

Definition: spoil, an object of eager desire, a prize.

So, you say seize is completely wrong, it should be grasp? You say no alternative exists? It should be the trinitarian way, come hell or high water. That's what trinitarians always say. In the middle ages they burned many people at the stake. And they were not only Catholics. Calvin had Micheal Servetus killed and Micheal Servetus was right.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Your explanation is assuming that the word harpagmos is used in the active sense, which is the act of seizing, robbery; but if it is used in the passive sense, then it refers to a thing held as a prize.

Verbs don't change their meaning from active voice to passive voice. If I say "trinitarians burned many people at the stake" or "many people were burned at the stake by trinitarians," the verb "to burn" means the same in both instances.

This is again smoke and mirrors bending things the trinitarian way.

[epaminondas]

Notice that eternal life depends on knowing God the Father and Jesus Christ. You know nothing about God the Father except through Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ can do this because He is of exactly the same essence and character as the Father. Heb 1: 3.

John 1:18 (ESV)

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

He who has the Son has the Life; he who does not have the Son does not have the Life. 1 John 5: 12.

Jesus Christ is our great God and Savior. Titus 2: 13; 2 Peter 1: 1.

Jesus Christ is the great I AM of Exodus 3: 14. He declared Himself to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Compare John 8: 58.

Jesus Christ is the One who led the Israeles out of Egypt. The Bible refers to Him in the Old Testament as "God" and "Jehovah," among others.

1 Cor. 10:9:

"We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents." (ESV, KJV, NKJV; See UBS 4th edition; Nestle/Aland 27th edition.)

1 Cor. 10:4:

and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

Jude 1:5:

Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.{ESV; UBS second edition.)

Hebrews 1:10:

And [speaking of Christ]

"You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,

and the heavens are the work of your hands."

Jesus Christ is a part of "the eternal Godhead":

Quote:

The eternal Godhead--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost--is involved in the action required to make assurance to the human agent, . . . confederating the heavenly powers with the human that man may become, through heavenly efficiency, partakers of the divine nature and workers together with Christ. {UL 148.4}

The "eternal Godhead" does not change from 1 to 2 or from 2 to 3. If the "eternal Godhead" has ever been comprised of 3, then it has ALWAYS been comprised of 3. (That is, of course, 3 divine, living Persons, who are "One God," NOT "3 Gods.")

Quote:

The Godhead was stirred with pity for the race, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit gave Themselves to the working out of the plan of redemption. In order fully to carry out this plan, it was decided that Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, should give Himself an offering for sin. What line can measure the depth of this love? God would make it impossible for man to say that He could have done more. With Christ He gave all the resources of heaven, that nothing might be wanting in the plan for man's uplifting. CH 222

Still waiting, friend? :-)

Where's the quote? No direct statements. And where did you nullify John 17:3? Ellen White is not in the same league as the Bible. As said before, she did make quite a number of mistakes.

I'm still waiting for the direct Biblical statement that clearly spells out the trinity.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Are you taking the position that no Trinitarian can be trusted to tell the truth about the teachings of the Bible?

When it concerns the trinity, oh yes. The majority of them will lie, cheat, obfuscate and even burn non-trinitarians at the stake (it has happened) to not admit they've been so wrong for so long. The rest will see the error of their ways.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

The truth is truth no matter who says it. What matters is the evidence and how it is handled and expressed, not whether someone agrees with me or not.

Yes, like John 17:3, 1 Cor 8:6, 1 Tim 2:5 and many more. It's a pity trinitarians ignore them. If they knew the truth it would set them free from the error of the trinity.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

The fact that there is disagreement over a piece of writing-- or a subject-- doesn't mean that the writer (or the Bible) is not clear.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the Bible were clear on everything everyone would have believed the same. Why so many denominations? Most of them really believe they go by the Bible.

[Gibs]

epaminondas

I am with you, too many skim over the Word and read it for what they want to believe or been taught of men. Each verse must be "absorbed" in the context of the matter being presented but is not. The context in most cases is ignored.

It is absolute there is no trinity and but few verses are needed to know it! They have been posted here, won't but paste three now.

Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[epaminondas]

Gibs,

Like you, I believe there is no trinity. But unlike you, I don't believe there's one with three names, Yahweh, Jesus and the nameless one just called the Holy Spirit.

Trinitarians say Jesus is responsible for his own existence.

Quote:

WEBME: John 6:57. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he who feeds on me, he will also live because of me.

This should be enough to knock the "Jesus responsible for his own existence" theory on the head. But it doesn't. Why? Can't trinitarians read? Do they read but not understand? It's really so simple and clear.

Furthermore, here it says Jesus was led, by the Holy Spirit, no less, to be tempted (tested) by Satan.

Quote:

WEBME: Matthew 4:1. Then Yeshua was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

And here it says temptation has as little effect on God as facts and logic on a trinitarian.

Quote:

WEBME: James 1:13. Let no man say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God,” for God can’t be tempted by evil, and he himself tempts no one.

So, Jesus was tempted/tested by the devil, but God can't be tempted by evil (the devil is evil, among others). Therefore, Jesus can't be God. This is not rocket science; we have two clear facts and a valid deduction based on those clear facts. This deduction is very easy to arrive at and doesn't need great powers of logic. What's wrong with these trinitarians?

I believe right at the bottom of the trinitarian concept you will find people with a great love of endless speculation and a belief that one can come to a valid decision without facts, but just talk. They love anything vague for they can hold forth endlessly on it and claim they have found out its exact meaning. And they have a few magic words which can mean whatever they want it to mean. You have "extended" and their great favourite is "begotten." They are artists, people into the humanities, philosophers, psychologists and their hot air brethren. They hate facts and logic. For this reason it is unlikely that one would change any of their minds.

If one has to believe anything one knows to be false to believe one's pet theory, one's pet theory is wrong.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

The context in most cases is ignored.

And in many cases, after thousands of years, involving different peoples with different ways living in different worlds, making understanding between them and us hard, the context has been lost. This is the case at some points in some of Paul's letters.

Guessing at what the context may have been won't deliver reliable results. And some Bible writers, most noticeably Paul, did not always write in a straight-forward matter, just stating facts. Unfortunately Paul often succumbed to the temptation of flowery writing at the expense of clarity. Every kook cites Paul for the most way-out ideas, like not having blood transfusions.

If we're honest we'll admit that sometimes we just don't know and cannot know.

[Gibs]

In all cases and depending on the mindset the correct context still can be arrived at with careful comparison of all scripture on the subject and the guidance of His Spirit.

That is the crux of the matter, who is guiding?

Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.