Jesus, Lord &amp; Christ.

τὰ

the

Art-ANP

1484 [e]

ethnē

ἔθνη

Gentiles

N-ANP

4789 [e]

synklēronoma

συνκληρονόμα ,

joint-heirs

καὶ

and

4954 [e]

syssōma

σύσσωμα* ,

a joint-body

καὶ

and

4830 [e]

symmetocha

συμμέτοχα*

joint-partakers

tēs

τῆς

of the

Art-GFS

1860 [e]

epangelias

ἐπαγγελίας

promise

N-GFS

1722 [e]

ἐν

5547 [e]

Christō

Χριστῷ

Christ

N-DMS

2424 [e]

Iēsou

Ἰησοῦ ,

Jesus

N-DMS

1223 [e]

dia

διὰ

through

τοῦ

the

Art-GNS

2098 [e]

euangeliou

εὐαγγελίου ;

gospel

N-GNS

Also (see above) the word "promise" is simply the word goodnews/gospel. So it reads partakers of the "gospel in Christ through the gospel." How they partake is by believing the gospel and calling on the name of the Lord, I gather (Romans 10). this also fits with Acts 2 statement by Peter" For the promise is unto you, and the children, and as many as the Lord our God shall call." (the same word, "euangelias" is used there as well; it is also used in Luke 4:18 where Jesus formally announced the start of his ministry by declaring (after reading from Isaiah), "this day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." ....

From what I can tell, that "promise" is directly related to the outpouring (literally) of this holy spirit on those who believe, and there is no question that is it in the realm of the miraculous from start to finish....

*(the word parallel, "par" (golf?) and paraGRAPH,paraplegic, paranormal, etc. -- should communicate the concept of beside and equal.

Ephesians 3, after simply (in one statement -- half a sentence, really -- declaring this "mystery"), Paul continues:

7Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. 8Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known {{the word is "declared" or "made known"}} by the church the manifold wisdom of God, 11According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: 12In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

the eternal purpose which he purposed is another emphasis. The HE in this verse -- which rarely shows up in the trinitarian formula -- is God. Not "God the Father" -- but just "God" purpose in CJ our Lord."

13Wherefore I desire that ye faint not at my tribulations for you, which is your glory.

14For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 16That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; 17That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,18May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; 19And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

20Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, 21Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen

By simple grammar and usage -- prayer is to the Father of "our Lord Jesus Christ." Jesus Christ is "our Lord" to those who have confessed him Lord and believed that God raised him (Subject/verb/object) from the dead (descriptive phrased).

Now here is this "spirit in the inner man." whoever puts that in a statement of beliefs? Of being strengthened by that spirit, and of being "filled with all the fulness of God" -- ??? They cannot say this, because in the other framework, Christ is up in heaven -- as God -- and "raised" (miraculously, given he was dead, I guess like a zombie. In this version, there was no agent, even though according to the record, it took angels to roll away the stone from the tomb. . . . Jesus just "rose bodily."

. . .Apparently the audience long ago (acts 2) didn't need this descriptor: David was dead and buried and his sepulchre is "with us today" -- but not so Jesus, it was proclaimed. There was no, "well what part of David is dead, and what part of Jesus rose." When people started asking that question (Gentiles, I guess?), the answer (I Corinthians 15) was explained, along with the words, "thou fool!"

Regarding "partakers of his promise in Christ through the gospel" (just above), the "promise" is the word 'EUANGELIAS" from which the word Evangelize, and which is also translated "gospel." I.e., Good news.

~@~@~@~@~@~

Since I have already more than made myself a fool in this post by engaging with some -- I'm going to post one more section which shows greek/English of the word "promise" as in "his promise"in Christ -- was described, from Acts 2 and from what I can tell -- refers to the outpouring of holy spirit (no caps intentional) on the day of Pentecost. This is from Acts 2:

29Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he [God] would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32This Jesus hath God raised up, {{Subject, verb, object, right?}} whereof we all are witnesses.33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost,

the italicized phrase is describing JESUS and please notice it's in passive: exalted by the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the "promise of the Holy Ghost." -- who is the actor? (God) who is the recipient (Jesus) and what did Jesus receive ("the promise of the Holy Ghost.")(Interlinear in a minute, here...)

he [JESUS] hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

shed forth is the word "poured out." Same word used of Jesus' shed blood, I think.

Tell me -- where is the personality, equal relationship (grammatically) and the agency and action of the "holy ghost." If it's equal in personality and activity to father and son, or God and Lord JC -- how come it doesn't show up here, of all primary accounts in the so-called Christian church? [[well, for one -- this is NOT a primary account in many or most Christian churches. If it were, more followers probably would pick up on the lingo...]]

What is poured out clearly has power and can be "seen and heard." But I don't see it as an equal agent.

34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

35Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Lord means Lord, and Christ refers to the anointing. Here's verse 33, and that's for this ridiculous, three-day project (on my part) called a post. Also, disclaimer -- I do not claim to be and am not a Greek scholar. I just have some basics and choose to use some of the tools available; and made diligent use of the hard-copy (paper) books [Lexicon and Concordance mostly] before it all went on-line (and actually prefer them). After many experiences in life which showed me that people's goodness, or "evil-ness" could not be identified by the state of their doctrine, I lost interest in being technically correct as to doctrine. However, we are in an election year -- this is now part of our culture and increasingly part of our government -- and how would you like people running the US Government, i.e., lawyers -- who cannot even remotely summarize plain English into plain English and do not accept that there's a two-thousand year history behind the bastardization of the Bible, and resistance into MOST people even having access to its truth -- from a religion currently represented by the Vatican?

This whole deal (topic of post) is far more about power, technology, and infrastructure and influence among men by men, than about preaching the gospel.

ACTS 2, Peter speaking to a large audience immediately after the outpouring of the holy spirit on the day of Pentecost and after the new phenomon of speaking in tongues which, moreover, was understood by people of many languages and cultures come up to Jerusalem for this feast.

WHY, then, would not such a group as HORIZONS INTERNATIONAL be supremely interested in this record, which narrates how many of many ethnicities were reached, miraculously, when 12 disciples (minus Judas,+ a chosen successor, as we found) simply obeyed their Lord and tarried in Jerusalem to be endued with power from on high? APPARENTLY they were doing something right!

33 3588 [e]

33 tē

33 τῇ

33 By the

33 Art-DFS

1188 [e]

dexia

δεξιᾷ

right hand

Adj-DFS

3767 [e]

oun

οὖν

therefore

τοῦ

–

Art-GMS

2316 [e]

theou

θεοῦ

of God

N-GMS

5312 [e]

hypsōtheis

ὑψωθεὶς ,

having been exalted

V-APP-NMS

tēn

τήν

–

Art-AFS

5037 [e]

τε

and

Prtcl

1860 [e]

epangelian

ἐπαγγελίαν

[the] promise

N-AFS

τοῦ
of the
Art-GNS

4151 [e]
pneumatos
πνεύματος
Spirit
N-GNS

3588 [e]
tou
τοῦ
–
Art-GMS

40 [e]
hagiou
ἁγίου ,
Holy
Adj-GNS

2983 [e]
labōn
λαβὼν
having received
V-APA-NMS

3844 [e]

para

παρὰ

from

τοῦ

the

Art-GMS

3962 [e]

patros

πατρὸς ,

Father

N-GMS

1632 [e]

execheen

ἐξέχεεν

he poured out

V-AIA-3S

3778 [e]

touto

τοῦτο

this

DPro-ANS

3739 [e]

ὃ

which

RelPro-ANS

4771 [e]

hymeis

ὑμεῖς

you

PPro-N2P

καὶ

both

991 [e]

blepete

βλέπετε

behold

V-PIA-2P

καὶ

and

Wycliffe (1320-1380) being English was dealing with matters of the Papacy and not matters of survival under Islam

191 [e]

akouete

ἀκούετε .

hear

V-PIA-2P

The scripture itself is orderly, not garbled and fragmented -- and this doesn't happen when diced, sliced, and reconstituted by men speaking (in this case) English, who apparently were NOT "holy men speaking as they were moved by the holy ghost" or in essence, people whose purpose and intent is not in alignment with that of those who originally spoke, wrote, and even later translated into English -- the gospels.

This is not to say they haven't been working hard, or do not understand the cultures they are seeking to disciple...

"This Jesus hath God raised up." Jesus, the dead man in the grave, God, the living God, made two things: "both Lord and Christ." Then LORD is one thing, and Christ is another, obviously!

Having received (labon) of the Father the promise (EPangelia, not EUangelia, my mistake, above) of THE holy THE spirit, he has Shed forth (poured out) TOUTO (the same), which (not "who") you now see and hear.

Uses of "Epangelian" are 52: (in various forms also). this is another easy way to find parallel uses of certain words in the scripture, thanks to the power of hyperlink:

For what it's worth (if it's worth anything) 52 = 13 X 4. 13 represents rebellion, 4 represents the world. this is definitely, in its power of deliverance and message about Christ, I would have to say, a rebellion against the present "ruler of this world" who, Biblically speaking, is God's enemy. I may be right or entirely off base in noticing that, however, I just did notice it. (in our calendar there are 52 weeks in a year, right? Maybe look at one usage per week and see what comes up!!!) :). Sometimes they may cluster together.

Then go look at 52 statements of faith (I gather most by now will resemble the Lausanne Confession or whatever it calls itself -- and see if any of them mention this "promise of the Father," and put the story of its deliverance in a timeline like the Bible does.

If there is next to no resemblance, then you know who you are dealing with -- i.e., a widely-networked group which simply doesn't belief the gospel, although it's certainly preaching and influencing nations....

Regarding "angels" -- they are messengers; they don't make the message, they just deliver it. (cf. Gabriel to Mary, etc.) (angels to shepherds, and so on). . . . If they get the message wrong, they don't get too many repeat assignments. they also are clearly powerful and do things. But they are MESSENGERS. Anyone who wants to "evangelize" should first actually be an evangelist, and if they are not and still with to evangelize, getting the basic message straight is primary, and is a sign of submission to the one who sent it which still, by my understanding, is, God.

Strong's Greek 1860
52 Occurrences

If anyone wishes clarification, or to further ask me about this (I am better in an interactive than presentational mode, specifically when I know what a person's questions are, or concerns) submit a comment; maybe I will talk off-line, if there appears to be a willingness to hear and not simply wish to argue. I don't mind "argument" in the true sense of the word, which includes, show me the stuff and stay in the conversation when a "to the contrary" is presented.

That said, it really can be a waste of time. Better yet, seek validation or invalidation oneself. Most people are too invested in their institutions as moral and social support groups (if not financial) to honestly admit that, if they'd been seriously deceived or lied to -- they'd quit supporting it.

Above, a 777 Broadway, Colorado, are two organizations Horizons International and "tgichurch.org" "The Gathering International Church (same primary leadership), both of which subscribe to the Lausanne Covenant.

Businesswise, there are two more trade names for these two organizations that meet at the same place: Biblical Missology and

"International Crossroads"

A quick look at the website of Biblical Missology (after noticing that it POSSIBLE self-created as a trade-name around the issue of responding to the Wycliffe challenge?) is that it is primarily a mixture Georges Houssney & (son or relative?) of Muslim Converts and leadership with some backgrounds from: Biola, Fuller, Talbot, Southern Baptist, etc. Themesong (or at least website) reads:

Restoring the Gospel to Missions and Missions to the Church, under the Authority of Scripture, for the Glory of the Triune God.

“…for building up the body of Christ” –v.12 ( Eph 4:11-16 )

It takes some real "chutzpah" to cite that famous "One God" section in Ephesians (or what follows it). the word "Triune God" occurs nowhere in scripture, nor does the word "trinity" for that matter.

The "biblical missology" page is fascinating and shows serious scholarship and putting various languages the Bible has been translated into - or from -- into a historic concept.

http://biblicalmissiology.org/2012/09/03/meaning-discrepancy-in-terminology-between-christians-and-muslims-pt-i/ (notice date -- this past weekend):

by GEORGES HOUSSNEY on SEPTEMBER 3, 2012 · LEAVE A COMMENT · in BIBLICAL MISSIOLOGY,CONTEXTUALIZATION, CULTURAL ISSUES, ISLAMIC STUDIES, MISSIOLOGICAL CRITICISM,TRANSLATION ISSUES

his paper is based on almost forty years of involvement in Bible translation in various Middle Eastern languages.[1] My career as a Bible translator began in 1973 when I embarked on a tour of the Arab countries trying to understand the distinct dialects and how they relate to each other and to the classical/formal Arabic taught in schools. I was searching for an answer to this puzzling question: “How can I produce an Arabic Bible that communicates the Christian message to the majority of Arabs, namely Muslims?”

As possibly some other posts, or links (and history) should show, what we (and most of the world) associates with "the Christian message" is the Trinitarian message, which by at least 300AD was being argued --vigorously -- and 381 A.D. a second Roman emperor had seen fit to issue an edict on. However this doesn't appear to closely match the scriptures of the Old Testament (at all), or in context, the majority of what's now "the New Testament." It is essentially a church-state synthesis, and not essentially Jewish, nor is it Pauline -- and much of this NT is "Pauline" as it were.

In addition to my experience and research that I have personally conducted in a number of these countries, I collected a number of books written by Christians and Muslims on a particular topic. By comparing the terms and idioms used to express the same thoughts, I was able to arrive at the meanings as perceived by the two cultural groups, Christians and Muslims.

My goal was to produce a translation that serves the Church and at the same time communicates clearly and accurately to Muslims

That's the context. the timeframe here is post-300AD:

There is no conclusive evidence that Arabic was among the languages to which the Bible was translated before Islam. However, Anton Baumstark (1872-1948) was convinced that the gospel had existed in Arabic in pre-Islamic times. He argues that a certain Armenian monk, Euthymius (377-473) evangelized the Arabs. Naturally then he must have used at least one gospel or selections from the New Testament in his work. Irfan Shahid argued that the Najran tribes in Southern Arabia had been Christianized and that their primary language was Arabic. Therefore their Church liturgy could not have been Syriac since Najran is far removed from Syria and Palestine. He writes: “…there was a Gospel in South Arabia around 520 AD. . . .

Even if no portion of the Bible was ever translated to Arabic, the fact that there were many Christians among the Arabs allows us to speculate that they may have orally translated portions of the Bible from Aramaic, the ‘lingua franca’ of the time

(makes sense enough . . . . .)

Early Arabic Bible Translations:

Beginning with the eighth century, Muslim-Christian encounters sparked a flurry of debates that led to a rich body of literature by Christian apologists defending the faith against Islamic polemics. As a result, and particularly in the ninth century, many embarked on translating the gospels and other portions of the Bible to Arabic.

Sidney Griffith embarked on a serious inquiry into the appearance of the Arabic Bible in the early Islamic period. In 1985 he wrote a well-researched article detailing the development of the early Arabic manuscripts. Griffith found out that the first known Arabic manuscripts of portions of the New Testament date back to 867 A.D

That's still not pre-300 A.D.

One noteworthy common feature of all these translations [into Arabic] from Greek, Coptic and Syriac is that they all utilize Christian, not Muslim terminology. This is a significant observation because Christians were living as subjects to Islam and would have been tempted to compromise or reduce the pressure on them. Yet they were consistent in faithfully retaining the language of the Church in the Bible.

The Arabic Bible in the Protestant Era:Until the twentieth century, Bible translations in Arabic and other Middle Eastern languages were based on the original languages and some cases on Coptic and Syriac manuscripts. The protestant reformation of the sixteenth century turned the tide. The focus in Biblical scholarship shifted from the East to the West. Most prominent among all the English language translations was the King James Bible first published in 1611 which became the favorite Bible for the English-speaking world until recently.

Rev. Houssney's emphasis, obviously and naturally, is his field of work -- which is reaching Muslim countries with the Christian (=trinitarian) message by means of a Bible which spoke in the appropriate language without compromising the message. This does not deal at all with the politics behind the King James translation, or what Wycliffe had available to translate from, as opposed to Tyndale.

He also translated from the Vulgate (Latin), hardly the earliest manuscripts:

How Wycliffe came to be active in the interest of Urban is seen in passages in his latest writings, in which he expressed himself in regard to the papacy in a favorable sense. On the other hand he states that “it is not necessary to go either to Rome or to Avignon in order to seek a decision from the pope, since the triune God is everywhere. Our pope is Christ.” It seems clear that Wycliffe was an opponent of that papacy which had developed since Constantine. He taught that the Church can continue to exist even though it have no visible leader; but there can be no damage when the Church possesses a leader of the right kind.

He dealt with matters such as the wealth of the church and sought to "do away with the present hierarchy" (from same site):

Wycliffe’s Activity as a Preacher

Wycliffe aimed to do away with the existing hierarchy and replace it with the "poor priests" who lived in poverty, were bound by no vows, had received no formal consecration, and preached the Gospel to the people. These itinerant preachers spread the teachings of Wycliffe. Two by two they went, barefoot, wearing long dark-red robes and carrying a staff in the hand, the latter having symbolic reference to their pastoral calling, and passed from place to place preaching the sovereignty of God. The bull of Gregory XI. impressed upon them the name of Lollards, intended as an opprobrious [shameful/negative] epithet, but it became a name of honour. Even in Wycliffe's time the "Lollards" had reached wide circles in England and preached "God's law, without which no one could be justified."

When John Huss (Jan Hus) of Bohemia later was executed, they were actually upset with his propagation of Wycliffe. Matters of property, wealth, etc. were involved --one can see why it would antagonize certain authorities, not to oversimplify.

This Biblical Missology statement (above) again mentions Wycliffe's translation into English from Latin (dismissively), but omits the later Tyndale from the Greek & Hebrew, which is common knowledge, one would think. Near the top of the article, it's building a case for the Arabic translations as opposed to Wycliffe/English.

The Arabic translations of the Bible have an older history than that of the English Bible. Scores of Arabic versions had been in existence when the first English Bible known as the Wycliffe Bible was completed in England shortly after John Wycliffe’s death in 1384.

It's fairly common knowledge that the Vulgate (Latin) version is not the oldest. Here's even a Wikipedia statement regarding Tyndale's later (1500s) version, and the danger he was into for translating from the Greek and Hebrew as opposed to from the official, Latin, version:

The chain of events that led to the creation of Tyndale’s New Testament possibly began in 1522, the year Tyndale acquired a copy of Martin Luther’s German New Testament. Inspired by Luther’s work, Tyndale began a translation into English using a Greek text "compiled by Erasmus from several manuscripts older and more authoritative than the Latin Vulgate" of St. Jerome (A.D. c.340-420), the only translation authorized by the Roman Cathlic Church. ^[3]^[4] Tyndale made his purpose known to the Bishop of London at the time, Cuthbert Tunstall, but was refused permission to produce this "heretical" text. Thwarted in England, Tyndale moved to the continent.^[5] A partial edition was put into print in 1525 in Cologne. But before the work could be completed, Tyndale was betrayed to the authorities ^[6]and forced to flee to Worms, where the first complete edition of his New Testament was published in 1526.^[7]

So overall in the context of "Biblical Missology" and "for the glory of the Triune God," here's the scholar's and translator's conclusion:

Conclusion:

It is not not absolutely certain that the Bible existed in Arabic before Islam. If it did, it was either translated orally or in written form from the Syriac. Over 137 manuscripts in Arabic existed however before the dawn of the 20th Century. The Arabic translations were free from Western influence until the missionary era beginning with the 19th century. More recently, in the last 50 years, several attempts were made to Islamize the Arabic Bible by utilizing Qur’anic terminology. History teaches us that this is not a wise idea as it confuses both Christians and Muslims and hinders the communication of a clear message among them.

From what he's saying about the timeline, while Arabic translations may have been free from "Western"influence they were not early enough to be free from Constantine's, Council of Nice, or in essence, Trinitarian influence. As such, it seems to me that on the one thing Muslims get right (and mainstream Christians get wrong, IF the Bible is meaningful at all) is this matter of the Trinity, which is as significant as what is the gospel, who is God, who is Jesus Christ, and in what relationship to both of them is the "promise of the Father," i.e., the holy spirit. I do not capitalize because when I read "for truly John baptized with water, ye shall be baptized with the holy ghost not many days hence," I believe a parallel is intended. I do not capitalize oil, water, wind, or fire for the most part -- all of which this "Holy Ghost" has been compared to, in the scriptures.

While Biblical Missology has a web page called "Who Are We?" -- the most accurate answer would be, a trade name of Horizons International registered -- this past month (August 2012) for the purposes of addressing certain questions.

Once there, the reader is not told who they are, but what B.M. "has":

Biblical Missiology has unofficial members representing dozens of organizations. Each member is able to contribute and partake in discussions concerning the application of biblical missiology.

Biblical Missiology has a leadership team that leads the general direction of the organization and helps with the public workings of the organization.

The following is a non-exhaustive list of the leadership team. (includes one of the people quoted in Huffington Post, above --Scott Seaton):

It appears also that they are trying to create a field of study, "missology" -- probably in relationship to studying MISSIONS. Good thing the word "biblical" was included, as the word "missology" links to beauty pageants, i.e., Miss Universe, etc.! Probably an unfortunate choice; I wonder if this is why (two days later) the trade name "International Crossroads" was also filed by Horizons International...

Basically, I see it as a media blitz -- through multiple usernames, trade names, and (with each one, a website, and a product or message) if one traces enough of them back, the terminology, doctrine, often personnel, and world views are practically clones of each others)

Here's another (related?) one: not "THE GATHERING INTERNATIONAL CHURCH" but 'THE GATHERING INTERNATIONAL."

which turns out to be (Caucasian Jesus here, and all) an "outreach" (probably, trade name) of "the Great Commission, Inc." which is another gol-danged 501(c)3 inc. The "by word" is II Thessalonians 2:1, well known among Christians...

Welcome!

The Gathering International, an outreach of the Great Commission Inc., is a fellowship of believers charged with bringing the revelation of Jesus Christ to our 21st century world. We are committed to bring the Church, His body, into the full revelation knowledge of Him and the liberty of the Holy Spirit, for the purpose of fulfilling the Great Commission to the glory of Christ, our Lord and Savior. We accomplish our mission as an expression of the love of Christ through all of the means left to the church by our Lord. We acknowledge the gifting of the Holy Spirit and the ministries set in His church, where by we carry out our mission.

Hopefully by this far in the post, someone will recognize up front that the name of Jesus (at which "every knee shall bow") didn't make front-page mention, nor did for that matter, the name of God. Same diff, right? However there is a loose patchwork of Bible-sounding terminology into an incoherent whole with a clear reference ("great commission") to Matthew 28:19.

The Great Commission – The Great Commission is the 501 3c organization established in 1999. It is the umbrella for all the personally identified ministries on this site. We are involved in church planting, education, communications and outreach. Some places of outreach that would interest you are the state prisons, men and women discipleship, home groups and personal evangelism. Our commitment is to walk and do in the earth what the Lord Jesus has for us today in the now. We do not want to walk in front of Him or behind Him but in cadence with Him. We are open to assist you, our fellow laborers in Christ, in any way as the Lord leads.

Our Statement of Belief

1) The bible is the complete divine revelation of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. (II Timothy 3:16, 17)
2) God is both one and triune. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (II Corinthians 13:14)

Note: sticking a cite as a post-it next to a claim doesn't prove anything. As with attorneys, check the cites, and their context. In context, it's allocated grace, love, and communion as coming from three different entities (and of course the word "triune" is no where, nor "one God,"

4For though he [Christ] was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you.

14The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

(the "AMEN" appears to be because this is the end of II Corinthians. The beginning goes like this, as do most of the epistles:

2Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

3Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;

I Corinthians talked about unity, and explained many spiritual matters, and was very strong reproof. II Corinthians begins by talking about comfort during tribulation, including the comfort of fellowship with one another: II Cor 1:

18But as Godis true, our word toward you was not yea and nay. 19For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea. 20For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us. 21Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; 22Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

In I Cor 1, he stated that it was God who had called them into the fellowship of Jesus Christ, and after reproof for divisions and schisms, then began systematically laying out spiritual versus natural wisdom....and what this spirit was given for.... It's beautiful writing and beautifully laid out, unlike most creeds.

9God isfaithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

In I Corinthians 1 (by quick, web-page search) "God" is mentioned 20 times. "Lord Jesus Christ" 4 times, but "Jesus Christ" 8 times. How does this chapter speak about God, Christ, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and what does it say about them?

Like most church epistles, it begins like this: Where's God the Holy Spirit? Where's the "triunity" in the opening passage?

3Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

3) The Son of God became incarnated as a man, Jesus, born of a virgin, that He might be our Redeemer, Savior and Lord. (Luke 1:30-35)
4) Jesus came as a complete man and He actually lived on this earth for over thirty years to make God the Father known to man. (John 6:30)
5) Jesus died on the cross for our sins and shed His blood for the accomplishment of our redemption. Thus, salvation is based on faith in Jesus Christ alone and not by any good works of our own. Matt 27:27-31,35, John 1:29, I Timothy 2:5, Eph.2:8,9)
6) Jesus, after being buried for three days, resurrected bodily from the dead and ascended to the heavens, and God made Him to be our Lord. (Luke 24:46)
7) After Christ’s Ascension, He poured out the Holy Spirit and baptized His chosen ones into one Body.

That's nice, but just disorderly. Most people don't do well with a hodgepodge of facts to memorize. For example, Point 6 == "Jesus, after being buried [[i.e., DEAD]] for three days, resurrected bodily from the dead and ascended to heavens and God made Him to be our Lord." For one, it's just plain awkward -- for another the word "resurrect" when used as a verb (the Bible typically puts it "raise" as in God raised Jesus from the dead) -- is Transitive, and takes a direct object. There is no "direct object" when it's Jesus resurrecting (himself), so apparently for comfort level, the word "bodily" is thrown in. WHY NOT just say it like the Bible says it? (arggh!!) which is to say, better!

Having just thrown in "God" as an afterthought at the end of point 6, point 7 then goes (see above) -- "He (which one? God, or Christ?) poured out the Holy Spirit and baptized his chosen ones into the one body."

That must be why Peter said "repent and be baptized" -- because no repentance was needed. "He" just did it. (???)

If I'm not too lazy to look these verses up, why not just post the verses themselves on the page as creed?

Here's from I Corinthians 2, which lays out (systematically) this issue of spirit:

9But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

the heart of man (in general) was clueless as to the things god hath prepared for them that love him (=/= all, obviously). BUT God HAS revealed (these things) unto us by his Spirit, for the spirit searches all things, the deep things of God. (now he's going to compare this with the spirit of man knowing the things of man).

11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

"even so" are the words indicating comparison. the Spirit of God knows /searches the deep things of God, and the spirit of {a, an individual;it's singular} man knows the things of that man. Next, he talks about RECEIVING the spirit which is of God. Please note, a not point here does it say "holy spirit" "the holy spirit" or "the holy ghost." This section is explaining spirit as how one knows the deep (heart) things -- of a man, or of God. As God reveals things by his spirit, receiving that spirit of God = we may know those things. Here it's the spirit of the world v. the spirit of God which are contrasted.

12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

the only use of "holy ghost" in the entire segment is right there at the end. It say, having received the spirit of God in order to know the things of God, the things freely given to us of God (things that otherwise didn't enter the heart of man, even) -- we now SPEAK those things. This book (I Corinthians) in its title isn't from Paul only, but Paul, Silvanus and Timothy -- and that appears to be the "WE" meant in "which things also we speak." Clearly the Corinthians were not speaking those -- they were boasting of which leader they were following, and had strife....

Here's how the Greek reads, and then I really have to go -- after asking, given all the ministerial and pastoral seminary "firepower" of some of these groups, how come they weren't smart enough to, like Paul, Silvanus and Timotheus, simply preach the word, instead of compiling corporate articles of faith they have a consensus on? Look at the emphasis, as it flows:

9But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

verse 13, Interlinear: I'll highlight the words for "spiritual." Notice the meaning reads a little differently than "comparing spiritual things with spiritual."

13 3739 [e]

13 ha

13 ἃ

13 which

13 RelPro-ANP

καὶ

also

2980 [e]

laloumen

λαλοῦμεν ,

we speak

V-PIA-1P

3756 [e]

ouk

οὐκ

not

Adv

1722 [e]

ἐν

1318 [e]

didaktois

διδακτοῖς

taught

Adj-DMP

442 [e]

anthrōpinēs

ἀνθρωπίνης

of human

Adj-GFS

4678 [e]

sophias

σοφίας

wisdom

N-GFS

3056 [e]

logois

λόγοις ,

words

N-DMP

235 [e]

all'

ἀλλ'

but

1722 [e]

ἐν

in [those]

1318 [e]

didaktois

διδακτοῖς

taught

Adj-DMP

4151 [e]

pneumatos

πνεύματος ,

of [the] Spirit

N-GNS

4152 [e]

pneumatikois

πνευματικοῖς

by spiritual [means]

Adj-DNP

4152 [e]

pneumatika

πνευματικὰ

spiritual things