For, we all gloss over Bible when we read it: it's in the genes, folks (sin nature inherited from Adam, hence the need to breathe 1Jn1:9 and study regularly under your own right pastor). Also, we make SNAP JUDGEMENTS about what verses mean, and we meanly NARROW the interpretation of the verses, so miss out on the treasure in them.

So if you are like most people, you probably fall asleep when reading all those 'begats', thinking that's ALL there is to read in the verses; you probably see only the EVENTS when reading OT stories (i.e., about David), or Gospels: after all, story is straightforward, what ELSE is there to know.. zzzzz. Or, especially, Acts. I can't think of a book more misused, than Acts. To its defenders, every little thing done by the oh-so-holy first generation is aped, from claims of apostleship today all the way down to water baptism and ACTUAL footwashing! Oh yeah, sure, what 'apostle' today SAW CHRIST RISEN, the CRITERION for the GETTING that job (see 1Cor15:1-10)?

Anti-Bible proponents alike misread Acts, so not only Christians are to blame. To its critics, Acts seems a flowery, self-aggrandizing, jew-baiting chronicle of the "Way", right? That's how the hoi pouloi pitch it with their allegedly 'objective' documentaries and books. [You know you're in a crazy world when the definition of 'objective' means someone who LOST FAITH in the faith, and is thus qualified(!) to be an expert on it. From what bias, do you think, huh? Gimme a break! I dare not say where that criterion of 'objective' appeared, since it was in an alma mater university publication!] Lots of kantish speculation that Lukie baby stole his material from Josephus. Yeah, sure. Let's guess again!

UPSHOT: Christianity STARTED OUT APOSTATE, with the Jerusalem CHRISTIANS (viz., Acts 21:18ff -- thoughtfully read from beginning of book to better see 21:18's import). Just as Israel began, basically, with the apostate Exodus generation. Both generations in their turn, wiped out within forty years... So Peter, John, were like Caleb and Joshua. Paul, was 'Moses'. James, starting out at the apostate end, wound up siding with Paul; for that, James would eventually be executed by his fellow believers. And, thereafter, both would be reviled in the name of praising them, via a multitude of FAKE 'gospels' which depict them as doing truly stupid/vile things. As well, stupid myths would circulate (that's how the mariolatry stuff got started). Viz., on James: that nonsense about him never bathing (anathema, to a Jew under the Law!) and about how he died -- by a Church Father, no less (under the pseudonym, Hieronymus)!

INTERPRETING CHRISTIANITY KEY ==> So the first Passover and the Last Passover had parallel results: a type of Diaspora, or going-out. With the first generation, largely believers, but largely negative to the spiritual life. Principle: SPIRITUAL ARREST is due to casting one's interpretation of God's Word in stone. PROVABLE HISTORICALLY. Casting an interpretation in stone is the hallmark characteristic of all religion, Christian or no. In fact, you can see the same phenomena in NON-religious contexts (i.e., political parties, sexual-performance articles in magazines, stuff on diet and health) -- all these castings-in-stone say, you're only a GOOD person if you do it 'this' way. Religifying everything! Satan's Ace Trump, religion, be it in hair gel or genuflecting!

So, we know that 'popular' Christianity is ALWAYS apostate in all its branches. Just as the 'popular' version of Judaism was, during the Lord's 1st Advent, continuing to this day. And the CHIEF characteristic of apostacy? Casting its interpretations in stone, instead of being open to the "Voice" of Cornerstone[Lord], the Holy Spirit! [One of the many names of the Holy Spirit in the OT is "Voice", i.e., that wonderful wordplay on spirit and breath and wind, "the still, small voice". NT sometimes uses this "Voice" moniker, because it's a clip from a famous passage: God to Elijah, when he was in one of his own snits, stuck him in the cleft of a rock and did a little show of power. Not by all that OTHER might, "but by My Spirit"..still, small Voice. Heh.]

So that's why Peter and John but NOT Paul, were given the CANON-writing privileges concerning Our Royal Priesthood and naming sins. For, due to that vow Paul agreed to (Acts21:24ff -- see also Numb6), he nearly blasphemed the Royal Priesthood, almost subjecting it to the Levitical Priesthood -- all to accommodate his good friend, James. (Acts 21:25, cf 15:20 in context.) Col3:25, no one gets away with anything: Paul and James both end up royally punished, but they also royally grow; at the end, martyr-executed.

Do you realize, all of history CHANGED due to that 'little' event? Yet Grace still abounds, too: Paul's epistles contain the most concentrated doctrine in the word of God; of them, uppermost in concentration are Paul's prison epistles. Written due to, and after, that 'little' event in Jerusalem. After, Paul's fall. As a result of that 'little' fracas, all of Christianity polarized between so-called "Pauline" and Jerusalemite interpretations: the latter conglomeration of sects became what's called "ecumenism" today. Rev17 warned of them four years in advance of their politicization; since they were then in Diaspora, Jerusalem having been destroyed, and the latter's wake-up call role (· la 2Tim2:26) didn't stop the NEXT generation from repeating the apostacy of its 'fathers'. So you're ALSO looking at the four-generation curse, writ large.

NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER of Bible Doctrine in the soul, run by the Spirit -- John4:24! If you're interested the lessons I learned from my pastor, start the subseries at 92Spiritual Dynamics, lesson #1498, to get context. It runs several hundred lessons, maybe. Around L.1540 he gets into the example of Paul's fall. For his site, click here. You can't order online, but you can snail-mail or call in the order (for audiotapes, videotapes, or MP3). No money is requested, and no one puts you on some gimme gimme gimme mailing list, either.

1. Study the Middle Eastern& nearby religions just before 1440BC, if you can get good material. Carefully note their DOCTRINES and rituals.
2. Next, do the same study on the same faiths, but at 1330BC; NOTE ANY CHANGES in doctrines, rituals, and what's the justification, if any, given. See if you can trace the changes to the cataclysmic effect of the Exodus (which happened 1440BC, but we're allowing for the effect to affect religious tenets).
3. Next, do the same for 100BC or thereabouts.
4. Next, do the same for 100AD or thereabouts. NOTE HOW ALL RELIGION from this point forward makes some claim to be connected to Christ.
5. Next, study for Christianity's history, the period 100AD-300AD. Use also the classical Roman tomes like Gibbon. TRACE THE POLITICIZATION, especially what years. Note when they stopped being able to read the original-Greek texts. Note when ceremony and the whole religious-institution shtick became a widespread practice. Note, in short, whether the characteristics of Rev17's fake-church 'harlot' began just after John penned it (or see if you can prove that, too).
6. See the correlation and parallel -- between some BIG DIVINE DISPLAY at the Exodus and 1st Advent, and massive RELIGIOUS TENET change within 100 years AFTER each event. Also look at Schism WITHIN the faith, including within Judaism (Books of Exodus-Deut is bald about this, for the Exodus 'display'), and within Christianity (viz., Judaizers against Paul, and Acts 15-end). A lot of corollaries come from this, and I guess for folks who feel they gotta have some 'proof' of God, this kind of study will be helpful (there are shorter, faster ways, like just ask HIM, lol. The anti-corollary is, when God actually DOES something large numbers of people NOTICE, they go wacko, so WHY WANT proof? Not only is the Word of God more a more reliable witness, like Peter said, but it's WAY easier to see MORE proof, and tames wackiness...)

I'd love to write more formally and at length on this topic, but I've no time, right now, nor do I know if I should. Have fun in your own research! This is big stuff: a little event changes history..so NOTHING IN YOUR LIFE IS SMALL, when Scripture is circulating in your head, under the Spirit. For, that still, small Voice..WORKS!

Video above is comprehensive; if you experience problems playing it, just look up "Trinity Verses" and "brainouty" in Youtube. And, if you view it in Youtube, the video description at right of video, provides you with my other webpages where the impact of Trinity is discussed. It's important to see how and WHY Trinity is valid, else you'll not understand either salvation, or the spiritual life.

My sites often focus on the nature of God and Trinity, all of them partial discussions or citation listings; because the topic crops up in so many differing contexts, this page will eventually contain links to all such sections. What follows is perhaps the most economical description, and roster of Bible citations. Use the links above to see more, especially the "Mystery Math" link.

From among the pagetop links, here are the best sections to read:
• DueDisclosure.htm, start from page beginning -- intra-page links will help you sort out when to stop reading;
• LordvSatan2.htm, first section;
• Lvs4a.htm's "Satan's Mystery Math" table and the bulleted text just before it (link of same name in that page will take you there);
• Fixes.htm, first ("Nature of God") section;
• TULpIIIS.htm (shortest).
This site and the "Mystery Math" one offer a roster of categories of Biblical exposition you can check in Bible; which roster actually spans thousands of verses, not some few arcanities. When you purview them, you'll realize there is no excuse to not understand Trinity; to deny Trinity.

To give you an idea of how prevalent Trinity is, the usual OT method of designating Trinity is WORDPLAY in the original languages. That means the Trinity are so well known, nicknames on Abram are used to denote the FATHER; wordplay on children and issue (and even motherhood, in Isa53) are used to denote the Son; wordplay on life and breath are used to designate the Spirit. Because, in the Hebrew, all these ideas tie to SYLLABLES in Their Names. Even the famous YHWH itself, is a concatenation of two famous Hebrew verbs: "to be" (haYAH) and "to become (haWAH). Hebrew is an economical language, so vowels aren't written, but only consonants, because the vowel sounds naturally pronounce given the consonantal juxtaposition. So it was naturally written down, only in consonants, since people didn't need the vowels (vowel points were inserted in the Hebrew OT during the Middle Ages by the Masoretes). So "YHWH" is not a secret, unknown Name and meaning. It is sacred, but not secret (dunno where dingbats got the idea it was secret). So it means "He Who Always Was.. Becomes!" Meaning, God the Son becoming Jesus (=Savior) the Christ(=Messiah=Anointed One, King/Savior). Bible is always clear. So clear, it uses wordplay.

Heck, the month of July-August is even named "Father" (Ab); according to Jewish tradition everything bad that's Temple-related happened on the 9th of Ab. You can prove the 1st Temple was destroyed 10th Ab (9th on solar calendar), Jer52:12. Calendar being off when the 2nd Temple was destroyed would lead to a 9th Ab=28-29August, 70AD, when it burned.

This wordplay sometimes can't even be hidden in translation. Isaiah is constantly playing on Trinity in what he writes. Chapter 9 is a whole Trinity chapter, as is Isa53. Isa63 is a great Trinity chapter, and very bald. Verses 1-9 are about the Son (here depicted at 2nd Advent, having just slaughtered all of Israel's enemies) -- keyword Redeemer (maybe playing back to Job?); verses 9-10 mention all Three of them at once per verse (like a couplet), using Sacred Name Play, showing how They work in concert; note the three "He" clauses in each verse; note how the Holy Spirit is in front by Name in v.10, since it was the Holy Spirit Who lead them out of Israel, around the wilderness (the pillar and the cloud) -- topic of verses 11-14; verse 15-19 are to the Father. Verse 16 is Ab wordplay -- ties to Matt23:9, Isa9:6, focusing on Father and Son Who 'fathered' Salvation-to-Come. Very wry writ! The LXX (Greek OT used by the Lord and NT writers, apostles) tries to emulate the Hebrew wordplay, when it can. In both Massoretic (BHS) Hebrew OT and LXX (which has verses missing from the BHS), Isaiah 53:10-11 uses this "He" structure to denote Father, Son and Spirit via "haphets" and "bouletai" LEGAL CONTRACT clauses. The contract was made in eternity past, else there would be no creation. As you read and ponder its terms, you can see that.

In short, to find Trinity in the OT, you need to know the rhetorical styles used to communicate it. That's like spotting the characteristics of a car on the road. Once you've seen a Maserati, you'll be able to later recognize another one. Then, you see many of them. So when you hear people bemoan the lack of OT Trinity verses, just smile. They betray their disdain for studying the Word, and then of course disdaining it, blame the Word for being obtuse. It's they who are obtuse. You can prove this. And if you want to know the Word, God will not withhold from your puny brain (however credentialed), the answers. Period. He denies no one. We deny Him. Prove it: use 1Jn1:9, follow prayer protocol (i.e., ask Father in Son's Name) and just ASK HIM to show you where Trinity verses are in the OT. Then go look! That's what I did. Same protocol is available to any brainout, scholar or no. (Again, this isn't to put down scholars. All academia and science are weighed down with politics. A scholar may know well how Trinity is displayed, but because of the political "consensus" rule -- meaning, you have to say fuzz phrases like "the consensus among scholars is", "the data suggest" and you are NOT allowed to be definitive -- the scholar must hedge, in public statements. Can't get politics out of academia and science. People's egos are bound up in their having 'knowledge'. Dunno why people use knowledge to account themselves better or worse than another person. We all have sin natures. But that's how it is. Can't get rid of politics then, because can't get rid of the sin nature.)

One very common style of demonstrating Trinity is antiphony: that means, an interactive singing/chanting reply between two or more 'sides'. Roman Catholicism borrowed from antiphony to create its "mass", where the priest talks and everyone stands up and replies. The Hebrew original is much more enjoyable, but the idea is the same. Hence the OT uses antiphony a lot: One Member suddenly breaking in and talking with Another, as in Psalm 110, Isa52:14-54:1; it's rife in both Psalms and Isaiah, so probably many other prophetical books as well. Translations always cut God's Head off, so these antiphonal discourses, which are communicated via the suffixes of verbs and nouns in the original languages, are usually stripped out in translation. Dingdongs who do that think they are 'cleaning up' a Word which somehow got adulterated, lol: though the liturgy of Hebrew worship is antiphonal! Another good example of antiphony is in Jer30:20-22: usually these verses are mistranslated, thus masking the antiphony (which uses the "He" rhetorical convention, with Father suddenly interrupting to testify in v.21, a parallel verse to Isa53:10's im tashim asham naphesho, a contract clause I live on, daily). Translations always mask Trinity verses: Satan&Co. aren't stupid, but we are. Don't blame the translators, since no one's weaknesses are a match for their strength.

Quite often the Trinity, the Son, the Holy Spirit or Father is designated by EMBEDDED soundplay: the way juxtaposed syllables sound out Their Hebrew names when the sentence is spoken, read. The sound embedding is rife with a number of concepts and words, wryly denoting FOUNDATIONALITY for the verse's topics. A real poignant example of that is the Hebrew of Isa52:14, "k'asher shamemu alayk·", where ke+asher sounds like "kasher", meaning "pure"; and "alayk·" sounds like "Eloheka", meaning Your God (last name, but in this verse the Son takes on Humanity and gets beaten beyond human recognition by those He came to save). Hebrew lexicons like TWOT (The Workbook of the Old Testament) all notice the embedded soundplay on the "El" sound, so this isn't some brainout's news. But it's news to those who don't do their homework, then run in chatrooms and smugly announce that Trinity isn't in the OT, lol, upsetting all the spiritual babies in the 'room'! [Of course, until I did my own homework, I didn't know either. Mea maxima culpa.]

Or, by humorous, tender metaphor: for example, the Holy Spirit is both designated by name and by His Primary Self-Chosen 'Mothering' function, in Gen1:2's "rahaph", a Mother Hen brooding over her chicks. So also, the "wings" (sheltering, defending) or "flying" references in the OT designate Him (as well as Trinity and Father and Son, depending on context): since Christ Himself would 'fly' in the spiritual life of His Humanity, UNDER the Holy Spirit. Notice how flying references air, wind, breath, life ="Ruach", His 'first name' in the OT. So we aren't surprised by Paul's comment to the Thessalonians that the Holy Spirit is the One Who Restrains Evil, that only when He removes Himself at the Rapture, can the "lawless one" arrive (2Thess2:6-7, usu. 2:6 mistranslates "Who" as "what"). [Katechw is used in both verses 6 and 7, so there's no excuse to mistranslate v.6's neuter as "what", since Pneuma is neuter. But because 2Thess 2:2 is mistranslated, the whole chapter gets messed up; same thing happened in 1Cor with respect to 1:5 and 1:10, so this is a common pattern of mistranslation. Translators seem to have a bad hair day with 1Thess2:2. The dia clauses are anarthrous, so YES are talking about The Holy Spirit, and the Word they and others, write the Thessalonians. So it's don't-get-upset-and-therefore-lose-the-Spirit-over-what-Word-written-you, "about the IMPENDING Day of the Lord." That's the best English idiom for translation. More literal would be "about the Day of the Lord which is now impending, sudden, unpredictable and next-in-sequence." The phrase "impending.." is Greek verb enistemi; it means an overhanging, imminent, 'threat' of a thing, next in sequence, you don't know when it will happen. Paul puts it in the perfect tense, signifying the CERTAINTY of the event itself coming to pass at some unpredictable future moment. Paul also plays on that concept in the beginning of the verse with tachews, which is a play on tach˙, the Lord's interjected warning in the Gospel about His Suddenly Coming Back, aka the Rapture. Then Paul further plays on salpigxz, the "trumpet call" in 1Thess4:16, which verse they well knew -- by using Greek soundalike but opposite meaning verb, saleuw, to become discombobulated, agitated like troops in disarray due to defeat on the battlefield (unlike the taxis, battle order, which would result from a salpigxz, see also 1Cor15:52). Yet for all this obviousness, no commercially-published Bible translation I can read, gets 1Thess2:2 right (but my German isn't too good, so check the German); but each translation so mangles the meaning, cutting God's Head off. They all miss the anarthrous construction in the verse. So of course the Holy Spirit's Head is chopped off in v.6. It's incredible, how no one takes a fresh look at the original languages, when providing a 'new' translation to sell the public, but instead just copies the prior translations! But even among those prior translation, you get Big Hints that the original language meaning in v.2 is nothing like the translated 'supposition' idea. For example, the 1989 Reina Valera mistranslates Paul as saying "como si fuera nuestra", but the 1909 Reina properly does not add "si fuera", como si fuera en el verso. The 1989 puts in "que ya hubiera llegado", but the 1909 properly says, "estÈ cerca". The 1909 verse mistranslated as well, but in those two phrases, it's right, but all the other translations (i.e., the 1989) are wrong. Oh: I'm too far off-topic, so I'll stop now.]

But all translations are abstruse, mistranslated, truncated and blanded out versions of Holy Writ. Blasphemous, really. RightPT.htm has a link in it (at its pagetop) on how the Bible is "Badly Translated", and furnishes a summary of how bad the translations are. You can take the categories in the summary and prove every one of them, by comparing any translation to the original-language texts of Bible.

Only in the last 150 years, have the original-language "MSS" (manuscripts) been collated, collected, disseminated. Mankind has largely not had access to the inspired texts, therefore. So, you'll find a long and old 'body' of writings by people we now venerate as 'great', many of whom did not really know Bible well at all. And, since the original-language texts were not available to be consulted, and since people were content to just use what these supposed 'greats' wrote, God didn't cause the texts to BE 'discovered' again, either -- until (mostly) the 1800's. Even so, not much has been done since, to correct the prior misinformed ideas, since by the 1800's, folks like the Church Fathers, etc. were so venerated. Thus everyone wanted and bought what was said by other people, God's Own Word going largely unconsulted. Of course, this stubbornness is even more evident when you do study Bible and realise that even in translation! you can tell a lot of what the 'greats' wrote, wasn't correct. They meant well, they were human, no need to blame. But every need to get the right meaning from Bible. Especially now, when we have the original-language texts available even on the internet, for free...

Bible translations have always been problemmatic, which is why people fight so much; the translations are fuzzy, at best. Scholars know this; pastors know it; but for fear of massive defection, this fact about the translations being bad in key places, is not much discussed. Of course, many of us laymen know this, which accounts for the recent popularity of learning the original languages of Scripture.

The 'body' of old 'Christian' teaching on Trinity is thus often childish, flawed, and poorly-worded. Again, scholars and pastors know this, but the average joe is still inclined to venerate what's old. It's natural respect to want to do this. Hence the old errors are centuries old and persist, no one willing to correct them. Again, for fear of mass defection. Bible Is Perfect, and the translations while flawed, can now be corrected. So you can really still learn Him. Question is, are you willing to compare what you thought was right, to the Real Authority, the original-language preserved-by-God texts of Bible? Your choice.

So now one who uses translations to build doctrines, hates God. No kinder way to put it, and we are all guilty: it's a lot of trouble to use those original-language texts. But God went to a whole lot of trouble to preserve those texts; so anyone who doesn't go to the trouble of learning them, hates God. Granted, we all need the translations partially, and for a while even when using the originals. Granted, you must first be aware that all translations are flawed, to seek the texts He preserved. Granted, many people in history could not get them. But once you know -- and all pastors know, it's taught in seminary -- then there is no excuse. And of course our sin natures genetically 'hate' God, anyway, Isa52:14. What a great salvation, He bought for us!

Big problem among genuine Trinitarians is that they stumble over the bad lawyer language in their denominational creeds. The creeds try to condense Bible's teaching into easy-to-remember formulae, but unfortunately are often poorly thought out. So then, the Trinity get deemed a "mystery", when in fact the language of the creed is at fault. Then, the adherent in the denomination is badgered (sotto voce) into defending the wording, with the result that 'dissonant' wording is subjectively deemed heretical.

It's an easy problem to fix. The creedal definitions of Trinity all intend to rightly convey that the attributes of Father, Son, Spirit are the same, not unequal. This is true. But their wordings deny God's Several Independence. So to deny saying "Gods", which is the Truth, maligns Their Personhoods. This unintended maligning, needs correcting. LordvSatan2.htm tries to offer a correction to the historical "Three IN One" concept in the creeds, to the Biblical "Three AND One", of passages like 2Cor13:14 (communicated by the articles -- look up how articles in Greek, are used).

So, Westminster Creed definition is off in that it assumes "oneness" is quasi-spatial, hence uni-substantial, incapable of being replicated. Hence the creed, like so many before and after it, paints "God" as a hydra-headed monster. So its prescriptive of "oneness", is a quasi-symbiotic(!) co-dependence. So, you are heretical if you say "Gods", lol! As if, each Person wasn't wholly God on His Own? Then salvation would be a sham! Catholic "Unicity" definition is quite similar, but goes farther with the symbiosis, claiming God would otherwise be "diminished" (same term as in the Koran). Other sects basically reflect these two major definitional patterns. Note the inability to recognize that Infinity is qualitative, hence the inability to conceive of more than one set of attributes being Identical in Three Persons. The creedal definitions of "one" make Them 'share' the attributes, which is the opposite of the truth.

Yet both acknowledge Three Independent, Co-Equal, Infinite, Same-Essence Gods, so they are trinitarian, only fuzzy. They just avoid the plural, as if a plural (um, Elohim is plural) were heretical. Kinda stupid to do that, but they think it's polytheistic to say "Gods" -- why, I can't fathom. 2Cor13:14 says Three Co-Equal Infinite Identical-Essence Gods, plural, via the use of its articles (Greek "ho"). No doubt about it. We're talking Triplets, here (my pastor's statement, in describing Trinity).

Designations of this Triplet nature are all over Bible, and as usual, are deft and humorous.

• In Bible, you pay as much attention to what isn't said, as what is said, to learn what was commonly known. Bible is written to teach something you don't otherwise know, duh. So you can know from what is not much explained, what everyone knew. So, notice no one disputing with the Lord in the Gospels, asks who Father or Spirit is. So you would expect that OT references to Each Member of Trinity in OT are not going to be primers, but sophisticated. And so they are.

• The most famous one is the shema, Deut 6:4. Watch how Paul uses its real meaning in the Greek of Eph4:5-7, what a treasure (discovered it by accident -- yeah, no accidents in the Christian's life). In English, you can get it, if you think over the wordplay on "one", which was what endeared the Jews to the shema so much, they still use it every Saturday (not remembering the wordplay, now). One Father, One Son, One Spirit, each One, all United together: by love, not because They can't live alone. Fabulous. In "Satan's Mystery Math" table of LvS4a.htm, you'll find more verses, and in the bulletted text above it, you'll find more data. Also, spend time in lexicons with the Hebrew word echad (spelling varies) and Greek word heis. Like in English, the term is figurative, way more often than it is literal: first, best, united, in agreement, as well as one in number -- "and the two shall become one flesh". Every Jew knows that: my Hebrewspeak book even talks about the modern Israeli use of echad. So Do No Brains Turn On? Guess not.

• The "He" usage in OT and NT, viz., 2Cor5:21, stresses equality -- so alike you can't tell them apart. It's the Ineffable Name, oh, sacred! So only a pronoun is used, fabulous. Breathless awe can barely eke out a "he". A wife who is totally in love with her husband, talks like that. He's the only "he", and she seldom says his name. This is a distinctive feature of Judaism, which the writers use to good effect, and is behind the wordplay of "one", as well. So much awe, can't speak more Who They are...

• Also, Scripture denotes God's LAST NAME (again, my pastor's term) as "Elohim", to convey Equality of Infinite Essence; this is sadly translated "God", so in English we don't see the plural.
• For the First Name, OT will use "Ab" for the Father, either alone or with "Elohim" nearby; "Ruach" for the Spirit, often ALONE, but also with "Elohim" nearby (or with that Hebrew character which looks like a high hyphen); generally "YHWH"+Elohim means Son (but not always), and is the most common. YHWH alone usually denotes the Son, but not always (see Ps110:1 for the wry wordplay there). Even when distinctions are made, the identicality of Essence and view is stressed. Showing Triplets of Attitude and Nature, but Separateness, Independence of Person.

• It IS true that in the OT, "Father" is depicted more with background language features (most often, as the not-in-view object), precisely because until Messiah was born, there was no Priesthood to FATHER. Israel was in training to get to that point, and to do that, she'd have to accept Messiah once He came. But, she didn't. So, Church gets that role: all of Part IV of the "Thinking Series" is devoted to explaining that topic. So when He came, "Father" is upfront and prominent, all the time. Because now there is a Priesthood to Father. But the existence of Father was always known -- just distant, depicted as the Object of the sacrifices (which depicted Christ), the Object of the 'fathering' Branch or Redeemer or simply, "He" (ineffable Name!) Who would pay for mankind (i.e., in Isa53-55). Think: To Whom were all those sacrifices going? Moses didn't even have to say, did he...

• But the Son often said to Whom the sacrifices were going, using the same language as in Ps110:1. For, the OT Sacrifices were always future Memorials to Him taking Humanity and Sacrificing to Father. Never, man sacrificing to God. See "sweet savor" verses in KJV (43!), and all verses where The Lord is speaking, and then says that The Lord is the OBJECT of the sacrifices, like "All fat is the Lord's." Well, Which "Lord"? Certainly Yes the Son, whose Life (represented by fat, all your effort) was being sacrificed. But certainly Yes The Father, who Received that sacrifice. So, all fat IS the Lord-Son's, His Life. So, all fat IS the Lord-Father's, who Gets that sacrifice. Hebrew is all about double-entendre, and every Jew plays with that fact if he knows the language, even today. Mishnah is chock-full of it. So Do No Brains Turn On? Guess not.

  What distinguished Israel from all nations is that their sacrifices witnessed God 'sacrificing' Himself by taking on humanity, not man doing any sacrificing. God-Son sacrifices to God-Father, get it? That was the entire meaning of the Ark, His God-man nature! The entire ritual structure was a Memorial, yet-to-Come!

  Think how the Levitical (and even prior) sacrifices worked. An animal was killed to designate contract. That was just as true when Abel cut the throat of the first lamb (Hebrew, English masks), as when they did it in the Temple. This animal represents a substitutionary payment on MY behalf. I'm not the one dying, My Lord will do the paying for me. Life given to SAVE a life, and the life saved, is as helpless as that animal. But also, Gratitude Memorial, just as we remember soldiers who died on battlefields for our nation's freedom.

  That's why blood was sprinkled on the Ark. Inside the ark were representations of man's sin: the rod that budded (rebellion against Aaron's priesthood, in Numbers), and the first set of Broken Tablets (when Moses first came down from Sinai, operation Golden Calf). Ark represents Christ (gold=deity, wood=humanity), 'holding' sin. Blood Sprinkled represented Payment Completed, and Acknowledgement by Israel (represented by the high priest) of BELIEF. All this, Hebrews painstakingly explains in Chaps 5-10. There is no element whatsoever of man doing ANY paying to God. Only, him acknowledging what GOD does. You have to be downright crazy to think this ritual is man sacrificing something TO God, himself. Everything about it screams, "You can't pay, so I will." So, it's a Memorial to what Son will Voluntarily do, Towards Father, on behalf of humanity. Like, giving one's life for his country. Plain as that.

  Now, Think: the human undergoing this ritual would be inspired to emulate the One Who Pays for him. Out of gratitude. That's why men sign up to Go to war, too. So, What kind of thanksgiving, what kind of relationship, can be done? That's where the rest of the Law, came in: giving outlets for gratitude. You would be grateful not to sin, grateful to spend some token of yourself, grateful to praise, etc. Again, not sacrifice, but outlet for gratitude. Which, a grateful soul, needs. Which, that Most Grateful Soul Paying for mankind, needed the most. "I desire mercy, not sacrifice" finds its fullest expression. Incarnate, even (Ps40, Heb10:5, Hos6:6, Matt9:13,12:7).

  I really don't know if there is a balder way to show Father. Son is pleased with sacrificing HIMSELF. That's why you needed a Temple, which presaged the Promise of His Body as Human. Father was the Object of that sacrificing, so "The Lord" in these hundreds of OT verses, is both Father and Son, each being pleased with the 'aroma' for His Own reasons. Dunno how God could make it plainer than to have the Son tell Israel what to do using "the Lord" as the object -- has to be a different Lord! David sure loved that meaning, in Ps110:1.

  So our not knowing and being confused is here not a 'translation' problem, but a problem of negative volition. These are all symbols, so no language barrier. So if you don't 'get' what they mean, it's only because you don't think about what they mean, due to disinterest or negative valuation assigned to the symbols. And, we all are the "you" in the foregoing sentence. When it comes to the REAL God, there is a natural disinclination to think. It's in the genes...

• So it shouldn't be surprising that though these distinctions are generally translated properly, though wordplay in translation is clear, we, disinterested, miss noticing them. So we also miss "Spirit" used in wordplay with living, meaning you're not productively alive if not empowered by Him; "Father", used in wordplay with Abraham and all corporate begettings (plus passages like Ps110:1, 40:5ff, Isa 9, Isa63).

• Then there are the Father-Son wordplay pairings, where Father fathers Son, and Son fathers everything else. So humorous, you could sit and smile for days. My favorites are in Isa 9, Ps110:1, Heb10:5 (referencing Ps40:5ff), and above all, in Isa53-55, where the Father of the Son fathering salvation is running foundationally throughout. (You'll see it if while reading in the Hebrew or Greek, you ask "To Whom is this payment going? WHO is giving Him the spoils of Victory?" Etc.) But there are many others. Practically every prophecy talking about Messiah will have in it "God" making a statement about Him -- there, often (but not always) God the Father is talking, especially if a possessive is used. "Branch", "Redeemer" passages are easiest to use, here.

• Conceptually, the Trinity is everywhere displayed. For example, Salvation requires Three Persons to unimpeachably execute it, so a verse will stress One Person's Role, whereas another will stress Another's role in it: Father judges, Son's Humanity pays (but He's also Deity, so to be Mediator, see 1Tim2:5); Spirit Empowers Son's Humanity to preserve juridical independence. The Role of each Person is spread about Bible verses dynamically. So, you see Spirit restoring the Earth, in Gen 1:2ff's Hebrew (or LXX); the believer, in Titus 3:5. So, you see the Son being the One who created it all ex nihilo, in Gen1:1 (verses like Isa45:7 identify Who was the Creator; see counterparts like Jn1, Col1:16-18). Father is the Ordainer, Chairman of the Board, so to speak: Eph1 is the easiest of the English passages to read on this, but also in 2Cor5:21, the Lord's use of "Father" and "God" in the Gospels, etc.

• Corporate Decrees often show all Three of Them at once: Gen1:26-27 (spoken by Father), Gen3:22 (spoken by Son), 2Cor13:14 (because all Three Indwell the Church "time" believer), many other passages. John 17 is the quintessential passage on the REAL nature of "oneness", like Marriage. Same words are used: check out the NT Greek of John 17, compared to the LXX verses with the same Greek keyphrases.

• Another big conceptual category is the way verbs are used, when describing God. Hebrew language is big on denoting GOD'S TIMELESSNESS by omitting a verb (so an Attribute is a predicate nominative or an adjective, the constant hayah being His NAME!); or, by putting a verb in the imperfect tense. Greek also has the aorist tense, the root of which is a point in time divorced from time, standing all alone. So you'll see the NT writers use no verb, the aorist, or the imperfect -- thus Hebraistically using Greek verbs -- To Deliberately Tie to the OT Hebraic meanings. Of course, the LXX does that all the time (pun intended). This, of course, alerts you to the Godness nature of Father, Son and Spirit. All of which meaning, is lost in translation (English has no equivalents, for example). So people who won't study the original languages, can pretend Trinity isn't visible in OT or NT. Guess again!

Polytheism's chief characteristic is UNequal essence of gods. Zeus, for example, was more powerful than Pluto (I forget his greek name). So don't mix up UNequal essence with plurality of independent persons -- the former is polytheism. Infinity is not spatial, but qualitative; so the number of Persons, is not diminished at all by being more than one.

Between the distortion over what "sacrifices" meant and what "gods" meant, you can readily see how the whole world always was informed about Trinity, but rejected its meaning. Two key elements: first, that sacrifice everywhere meant, from Gen3 onward (where the Lord sacrifices to clothe Adam and the woman with skins) -- a Commemoration of Salvation To Come, by The One Who Would Take On Humanity. Second, That One would Sacrifice Himself to Father, thereby becoming Mediator-Priest between God and Man, Empowered by the Spirit. Because They are the Same Essence, this juridical solution to sin, works. Else, it could not work, for the One Paying must be equal to the One Receiving, and the One Empowering must create that Equality in the nature added to, for the sake of the natures being paid for. It's simple economics, really. No one thinks it fair to get less value than a thing is supposed to be worth.

So, it's not surprising that every culture's religion talks of "oneness", "spirits", of "sacrifice", and "to the gods". They just cut out the original meaning, changing the meaning the very same way that an original language changes in sound and spelling, over the years. So notice: you can't go the opposite direction, from multiple unequal gods to Three Infinite Gods. It has to start with the Three Infinite Ones and truncate downward, conceptually. Same, for the idea of "sacrifice": you can't start with man doing the sacrificing and then go UP to God doing it, you have to start with God doing it and then subtract from that meaning. In short, both ideas and words change from some initial state and then due to subtractions, become something else. Because, like the first law of math, no set of ideas, like no set of numbers, can contain itself, but is contained by something larger than itself. So when you multiply those subtracted meanings, you morph out a whole language of thought, ideas, culture, religion, whatever.

Notice how the angst of Christians centers on a problem of what "one" means as a concept, when applied to "God". So, it's not a problem with the translation, but with the brain reading it. Since "one" in every language known to man is always used more often figuratively than literally, i.e., "to be of one mind" (unitedness), "to become one flesh" (euphemism for the sex act, again a unitedness), "One World" (again, unitedness), clearly the brain shuts off, when seeing "one" with respect to "God"; even though "God" is a plural word (Elohim), or a corporate noun (Theos). So it's not the Bible which is abstruse. The brain reading it, isn't working.

So, it's no surprise that many within and without Christendom, have problems conceiving of Infinite God as being capable of plurality. Somehow that would 'diminish' Him ('diminish' being a keyword in Koran and in Catholic "Unicity" definition). Hinduism, Islam, Judaism alike share this inability to conceive how Infinity can BE infinity, if more than one Person. Why? Because to them Infinity is spatial. The idea 'occupies all', so cannot be more than one in number. If infinity were spatial, it would occupy space, hence could not be but one in number. In which case, none of us could exist, but there would only be one person: the deity. Who wouldn't then BE infinite, because spatial, anyway. Anyone else of ANY type of life thus takes up space, so would 'diminish' that deity, too. But the facts contradict the foregoing sentence, because we exist; hence such a definition of infinity cannot be accurate. Hence theoretically (though we know the actual truth from Bible), there can be any number of non-spatial Infinite Gods.

So, those accounting infinity as spatial, when faced with the dissonant fact of plurality of persons, wave the conundrum away as a 'mystery'. So too, among Trinitarians trapped in this same illogic. Illogic, for we know absolutely that Infinity is not spatial, since we all exist, and we have immaterial souls. None of which, take up any space at all. So an Infinite Mind is non-spatial, and can be of any number, as well. There are, in fact, only Three such Persons, and Each of Them is Unique; even as, each of us (though of smaller minds), is unique.

So all three faiths must resort to the idea that God 'manifests' Himself in different FORMS; all these forms, are BUT forms, so always the same Person is displayed. Hinduism, of course, is best known for this idea of manifestation, but the other two major faiths alike propound it. Yes, even the Koran talks about the Holy Spirit, and repeatedly. Post-Bible Judaism's (non-Biblical) Mishnah is chock-full of references to the Spirit (and some to the Father), as well. Do your own homework, see for yourself. [According to Encarta 2004 (which isn't always accurate, k) the Mishna was compiled toward the end of the 2nd century, beginning of the 3rd century. That's significant, because Christian apostacy was in full swing beginning in the 2nd century -- which is why Revelation had to be written and had to be the last book of the Bible (same idea as why Malachi is the last OT book). By 96AD Christian apostacy had begun swinging to the Rev17 harlot, and Rome was the center of that politicization (see Rom12:1-3 in the Greek, to know why -- pleasing men was more important than pleasing God, so Paul lambasts the Romans in those verses). So you have two apostacizing trends going at the same time, one in Christianity, one in Judaism. That's the historical backdrop for the "Satan's Mystery Math" table in LvS4a.htm.]

So Christians who claim God is but one person by recourse to 'manifestation' verses, desperately need a course in the English language, and to breathe 1Jn1:9. This is one of the clearest categories manifesting satanic clouding of mankind. Frankly, the word "manifestation" is mistranslated. It's phaneroo, which means to DISCLOSE INFORMATION, not a showing of self. Even in English, "manifestation" doesn't necessarily mean to show the self, but to show 'something'. But "manifestation of the Spirit" in English is misleading, and does sound like the Spirit is showing Himself Personally. That's not what the Greek means at all. You'll see this, since the Greek of one of these verses, 1Cor12:7, will be explained in detail, below.

So this "manifestation" tenet -- which underlies Hinduism and all Eastern pagan religions -- is really, a 'manifesto of Satan': his own oneness 'doctrine'. Satan is sooo into deriding God. God has His Own Oneness Begetting Plan, as evidenced in John 17. Satan thus wordplays off that, to a 'fornicating' definition of God being One Person. Masturbation, get it? Sorry, but Satan&Co. are into coarse wordplay, and so is the Bible (which coarseness is always blotted out from translations). So Satan touts "oneness" as being merely manifestations or 'parts of' the One to Obfuscate (the "O" in his "DIOS" strategy of making God foreign to us). Trinity is thus Obfuscated, and now salvation as portrayed in the Bible, won't work. So Bible looks like it's a lie, or a goofball book, so now everyone should abandon Bible or call it a mystery, never learning what's in the Bible, but rather preening over how self believes God despite the fact He makes no sense! See, religiosity is petty. Satan invented religion in Gen3, so "oneness" is disgusting to him. All the phallicism promoted by Satan&Co. is a burlesque to deride mankind and above all, to deride God's True Definition of Oneness.

Of course, this satanic doctrine manifests also in the Trinitarian who makes God an Egg, so that you can't say, "Gods". Same clouding: inability to think of Infinity except in a spatial manner is behind ALL such clouding. The person clouded by spatial ideas of Infinity (an oxymoron, since space LIMITS SIZE), can't understand that They are not cojoined in nature. So, such a person, cojoins them; so, makes God an Egg. So, makes God not-god. Not meaning to, of course. Same conceptual error that infinity were spatial, as plagues the 'manifestation' people.

See, the fact that Father Son Spirit are Each of Identical Infinite Essence does not mean that they are cojoined by nature. They Are Separate, Independent Persons. Else, They would not Each BE Holy, Infinite (etc.) GOD. So, They Voluntarily Unite (static present tense, always was and always will be true): It's not forced, it's Love. All this, is in the meaning of the Greek articles of 2Cor13:14, especially given the Voluntary Indwelling by Each of Them in the believer, which is the main Bible doctrine taught in that closing-salutation verse. The verse is your key to how "oneness" is a Voluntary Unitedness, not a symbiosis, nor a hydra-headed stuckness. It has no verb in it, meaning there is no beginning, no ending: perfect description of Infinity. [Verse's topmost layer of meaning is a wish for Fellowship, which depends on the believer using the mechanic of naming sins to be filled with the Spirit, i.e., as described in 1Jn1:9. But underlying that is the STRUCTURE. Can't have the potential for Fellowship, if not already, united. But the believer is united, due to the Indwellings. Hence, verse makes it clear that on God's part, the unitedness is voluntary, provided, and They are In us; question is, our response. So we also know immediately, even were there no other confirming verses in Bible, that Their Own Unitedness, Is Voluntary, Not Forced. God is never inconsistent.]

The two most spiritually-incurable groups of folks alive, are a) the religious crowd, who preen over their self-worth, and b) those with trapped yearnings for God. Obviously, not everyone has regressed in a) and b) so far as to be unreachable; and probably everyone within these groups has a mix of a) and b) motivating them. The unreachability is manifested in irrationality about self-evident facts, like the one about the self-evident Non-Spatial Nature of Infinity, given above. You gotta pray for them, because their ears are closed. The a) people desperately yearn to be good, so will not be able hear God has something better for them. The b) people desperately yearn to be loyal (their one sanity, being they know they are not capable of being good), so can't hear God doesn't need their loyalty, but has something to give them to make them loyal, to feed that yearning. It's heartbreaking.

Let's just pick a 'oneness' Christian who speaks English. The keyword he's invariably stuck on, is "manifest", especially since that word is used in the Bible. (Same satanic blinding problem as suffered by the Hindus, Moslems, Jews.) English verb "to manifest x" means To Make It Known, Demonstrate, Disclose it; the archaic noun form, "manifestation of x", used to mean To What Actor The Disclosure BELONGS. Yeah, the actor is disclosing his IDENTITY when he speaks: DEPOSITION is the proper legal term; the actor is peripheral to the disclosure, the WITNESS, itself.

Problem with modern English "manifestation of", is that the object, is the CONTENT of the disclosure; manifesto of the Unabomber, manifest of cargo, manifestation of symptoms. Notice how, the object is inanimate, because it is INFORMATION. Maybe information ABOUT a person, but is not the person himself. Rather, the verb "to manifest" would be used for persons: he manifests himself truly; she manifests cupidity. The child manifests talent. Because, "manifestation of" OBJECTIFIES a thing to the INFORMATION about it, so makes it impersonal.

But the archaic "manifestation of", is rooted in non-English languages; the GENITIVE CASE, which English also translates with "of", which is truncated from, "ORIGIN of". [English "of" is always a shorthand: from the source of, from the desk of, of possession, etc. So all these different meanings being cut to "of", is fine for the English speaker, because he knows what's in ellipsis. But when translating, you must put back in which type of "of", the original language means, else conundrums like this one over 1Cor12:7's "manifestation of the Spirit", go on forever!] So also here, the ORIGIN or AGENCY of the material is stressed. This webpage is a manifestation of brainout, meaning FROM "brainout". So English "manifestation of the Spirit" in verses like 1Cor12:7, means AGENCY, not content; since He is a Person, not inanimate. But it's dated English. No one bothers to change it in translations, because the old is venerated.

Unlike English, Bible's Greek is precise, so you know what is meant. Bible's Greek is so precise, in fact, that wordplay, especially of double-entendres, is rife. This wordplay always references etymological nuances (facts about how words got formed). Translators don't (and can't) translate into English (or any other language), all this precision and wordplay. For example, when 1Cor12:7's Greek text says "phanerosis tou pneumatos" (our infamous "manifestation of the Spirit"), it's using WORDPLAY:

• "phanerosis" , noun with a root meaning of "brought to light", with a verb ending the verse (as participle), "sumpherw", root meaning as something God BRINGS you. "Sum" prefix on a Greek word in Bible, only signifies GOD is the Actor. Never, man. But the Divine Actor is always cut out from the translation of sum- words, so you often think it's man (Jas2:22, Rom8:28, Eph4:16 are verses with sum- prefixes in them, and none in translation make it clear only God ever does the action).
• So for wordplay here, think of English word, "to ferry". To bring OVER, via some kind of journeying, so you can GET it.
• So, Paul is playing on phanerow, to bring to light, make clear, disclose, make known -- because "phaner" and "phero" sound somewhat alike, and both involve God BRINGING something profitable to you. It's cute wordplay with the sum- prefix (sumphero), because Paul's getting ready to talk about the BODY being brought together in Christ, how the Spirit will be doing that. God, never man.
• Spirit ferries food to the flock; Spirit forms folks and forges faith. See? that kind of wordplay, right down to the BREATHING sound of "ph", showing He's SPIRIT. f-f-f-f-f, breathing. Fabulous!
• So the genitive case (tou pneumatos) designates WHO is ferrying.
• For the CONTENT of WHAT is ferried, Greek uses the DATIVE case. Because, ferrying TO someone.
• So sumphero, God ferries something for your profit. To, you. So it is OF GOD, but TO you. See how much clearer Greek is?

• "Disclosure BY AGENCY OF the Spirit"
• "Disclosure BELONGING TO the Spirit" (He's the Speaker/Actor, and it's HIS Information to give)
• "Disclosure BY MEANS OF the Spirit"
• "Disclosure ABOUT the Spirit's Ministry" (definitely an intended meaning in 1Cor12:7, He manifests Himself to make manifest, the Truth).

So if "manifestation of the Spirit" meant to show Himself, then 1Cor12:7's "manifestation of the Spirit" would NOT be the translation: for the Object being disclosed in Greek grammar, must be in the DATIVE case. So, if you look in 1Cor12:8ff, a bunch of dative cases are thus used. See, you give disclosure TO someone for their benefit, and you're giving IT; and, you're giving it OF yourself (your own mouth, your own free will, etc). So, we have the 'manifestation of Paul', in 1Cor12, since Paul is disclosing how then-extant spiritual gifts were apportioned, allotted to the Body, FROM the Spirit.

Here's my pastor's corrected translation of 1Cor12:7 from a live Bible class under my pastor which I have on tape (all tapes are of live classes). I pasted the entire text from notes I made in BibleWorks, so just skip over what you don't understand:

"L 1604. Thieme's translation is very different: Now to each one is given for the benefit (didomi+dat of advantage) of the team (sumpheron), the Doctrinal Teaching (phanerosis) OF (objective genitive) the Spirit, for the purpose of being beneficial to the team. (pros to sumpheron, with pros as acc of PURPOSE and sumpheron, idiomatically: it's ATTIC GREEK prep phrase, concept of purpose of benefit to the organization). BDAG "y.subst.to" heading confirms this, and has cross-refs. Again, idea of public contribution -- so is it related to sunteleias in Matt28:20 (see VERindex on that word)?

Early in s.1 of tape is exeg. BDAG noted that sumphero has also a connotation of benefit-for-the-team (didn't use quite such words, but same meaning)."

So "manifest" always means, even in English, evidence, showing, telling, making known, making a public declaration, making something else clear which was not. The actor only shows up on the stage, because he's doing the disclosing. So if you get your eyes on the Actor, you don't hear what He says; and you'll mistake 1Cor12:7 as being manifestation of the Actor AS an Actor, when His purpose for being on stage, is to GIVE information. Which, you won't hear. Yeah, the Actor is God, and no one is more important. Father is God, no one more important than Him. Son is God, and no one more important than Him. Spirit is God (John 4:23 should not be rendered "God is a Spirit", but "Spirit, God!" -- no verbs there, stressing His Godness). And Spirit shows on stage the most during the Age of Church (Eph3:21, other passages). So no one more important, than Him.

In 1Cor12, for example, Spirit will be disclosing Bible Doctrine which wasn't known before; the manner of the disclosure was then spectacular in nature (tongues, sudden knowledge, healing, miracles); but always such manners-of-disclosure are peripheral to the CONTENT, just as the webpage background is peripheral. The webpage background is manifested, too; but what's IN it, is the focus, not what it looks like. Same, for an author: content, not messenger. Hence, even in English, a "manifesto" means a DISCLOSURE of belief with the rationales underlying it. If I am ill, I will manifest symptoms. A ship's list of cargo is called a manifest. Notice when the subject is a person, and the manifestation is ABOUT the person, in English "manifestation" had to become, a verb, "to manifest". But it's not a verb, in 1Cor12:7, so is About Information He Provides, and only tangentially about Him showing Himself (in HIS Opinion). So the genitive case, "tou pneumatos", is first Who Testifies, and About What. That He shows Himself in the process, goes without saying.

Commentators on this verse feel as though they give short shrift to God the Holy Spirit if they don't focus on the FACT of Him showing Himself. Which accounts for a lot of why "manifestation" never at least gets retranslated to the superior truncated meaning, "disclosure"; which meaning focuses instead, on What He SAYS. Disrespect for content more surely disrespects the Speaker. To just think, "Oh, He's Here!" but then to not listen to what He says, well: see Jn16:9. The Spirit and the Lord Focus on Content. After all, God IS, Truth. God prizes the Truth above His Own Person: Ps138:2b.

So, since the above is true, the solution for a Christian stuck on "oneness" based on "manifest" terminology, is for him to investigate how phanerow or phanerosis is used all over Bible (very common word). But, he won't do that; hence, you cannot help him. So, what he needs, is to breathe 1Jn1:9 so to be Filled with the Spirit -- Who will be only Too Glad to Heal such a person from his wounded ideas of oneness; Who as always, will make known, disclose, make clear, 'manifest', the Truth.

Larger corollary: if we're not listening to the Spirit, we won't be listening to anyone else, either. So all this 'debating' people do over whether God is One Person, an Egg, or Three Gods, can't help. Trapped yearning for God can only be freed, BY God; and there's no one more interested in saving the trapped: 1Tim2:4. "Let him who has an ear, hear what the Spirit says to the churches." You have an ear, so you can hear. I have one also. So all we can do, is keep on being willing to do our own hearing, like James 1 says (esp. vv19-23); and leave the healing of the deaf, to the One Who Manifests the Truth.

Even Larger corollary: God uses those who are hearing to buy time and benefits for those not yet (or never) hearing, analogous to how He obtained propitiation from the Cross. That is a very sophisticated concept, and is explained in various ways in other webpages. For me, the whole concept is exquisitely summarized in the amalgamation of both Masoretic and Greek LXX text of Isa53:10-12, esp. the amalgamated v.11. Isa53.htm has details. I live on that passage daily, to survive the grief over my suffering brethren, for whom I myself can do nothing. But HE can!

Have you ever heard the hysterical comedy routine of Abbott and Costello, named "Who's on First?" It's sold on video, and it was popular on American television some decades ago. It was about a misunderstanding between the hearer and the speaker about various baseball players during a game; the speaker meant "Who" as a person's name, but the hearer interpreted "who" as an interrogative pronoun. By the end of this extremely funny routine, the hearer is so completely upset with the speaker, he hits him.

In real life, it's not so funny. A spiritual person will open his ears. A carnal person will have closed ears. The latter will be prickly, as a result of being deaf. We all become temporarily deaf; but, with 1Jn1:9, our ears open. Open ears can hear. Open ears, open eyes. He who has an ear, let him HEAR. However, even if one's ears are open..do the familiar words coming into the ear gate really have the same meaning as they appear to have? Ahhh.

Thus this cautionary note about reading. Words "A" uses to "B" (and vice versa) are really words each defines in his own way, even if they speak in the same language. It's an inevitable part of being human that words are colored by how we've learned them. So, if someone else uses those words, we have the habit of prejudically interpreting them -- despite the (unknown, to us) fact that the OTHER person isn't using the same word in that manner. So, much misunderstanding and upset results. A famous example of this would be the guy who says "I love you" -- what it means to him, versus what it means to the recipient, are often quite different!

Women and men really do think differently. The man tends to want only key facts, often with lots of graphical style, because his brain already LINKS the facts to get the big picture. Women, by contrast, tend to need the big picture EXPLAINED to them; from there, any facts can be slotted where needed. That is why, for example, men are less likely to say "I love you", because it's ASSUMED the loved one knows that already; instead, the 'facts' of doing stuff, being together, is communicated. Women, by contrast, seem to need to hear that big-picture 'I love you' in order to analyze and sort what the 'facts' (doing, being) mean.

Much misinterpretation of the Bible occurs because we 'hear' definitions which aren't the same as the Bible's, even though the Bible uses the same words (even assuming accurate translation). One of the greatest things about Scripture I ever learned is this partial quote of my pastor's: the key to interpreting Scripture properly is to "apprehend the exact THOUGHT of the writer." That would also be critical to understanding ANYTHING anyone says, wouldn't it?

In sum, the meaning in any communication depends on the thought behind it; and above all, on the definition of words one uses. You learn what these are by asking as you read/hear, "what does the writer/speaker himself MEAN?" Obviously I won't have done a perfect job of expressing myself; and, some of my words might bug you. So: I apologize to you in advance! Hope you find what you read productive of your OWN spiritual insights before the Lord!

Quickest Lie Detector: whatever is most true, we most DENY. And, the obverse: whatever we most PROMOTE, is the most FALSE. "Denial" is but one of 8+ psychological defense mechanisms in the soul: Denial is the version which flat REFUSES SEEN TRUTH. So, since Denial flat refuses seen truth, you REVERSE what is denied, to SEE the Truth. The stronger the denial, the stronger the truth was seen. Simple example: we just couldn't BELIEVE what our eyes saw on 9/11, so we all stopped what we were doing and watched TV over and over to TRY to accept it.

Denial, like all defense mechanisms, has a two-sided behavior. The 'defense' side shoves DOWN the truth; the 'attack' side REPLACES that truth with a lie to LOCK AWAY the truth from the conscious mind. So, if you can't tell what is denied, you CAN usually tell what is loudly promoted. What is promoted, will generally be the OPPOSITE of the truth. Because, whatever's true, just is. You don't need to promote what already EXISTS, lol. Salesmen have to sell what is NOT bought, not what already IS bought, get it?

Since God is bigger than 9/11, our denial of Him is naturally greater, too. NATURALLY. So we 1) deny the TRUTH OF HIM WE SAW, and 2) REPLACE that truth of Him we saw with some LIE. That's one reason why there are soooo many versions of 'god' out there. You can back into what REALITY was SEEN AND REJECTED by reversing what LIES are promulgated. This is especially true, when it comes to detecting truth about God.

It's a GENETIC BRAIN IMPULSE, to deny God or any other truth. Soul either accepts the impulse (which creates sin), or rejects it. Adam's Original Sin of rebellion against God spawned all psychological defense mechanisms (see Gen3 for the birth of them).

When Adam sinned, he set into his BIOLOGY rejection impulses, because body is designed to OBEY thought. We inherit Adam's BIOLOGY, so we are BORN SINNERS, which is why we needed a Cross. (See Romans 5:12 in the original Greek, and 1Cor15:22 in original Greek or translation.) Hence the defense mechanisms are genetic brain impulses. Hence the Bible condemns the "flesh" (Bible keyword for the sin nature in our biology), which is why women get pregnant: God won't touch the biology until it can exist on its own. So we become HUMAN AT BIRTH, and WE SIN because those genetic impulses are many, insistent, and sooner or later as BABIES we give into one of them. LordvSatan2.htm, the second part in the "Thinking" series, explains this effect in excruciating detail.

From the moment we first sin, the defense mechanisms multiply in our SOUL, too. So the body and the soul INTERCONNECT via the defense mechanisms. Any psychiatrist can tell you how hard it is, to counteract the defense mechanisms. All mental illness which is not organically caused, is a battle of VOLITION. Cure is only through LEARNING TRUTH. Especially and most quickly, Bible (though most psychiatrists don't accept Bible as being Truth).

These impulses pass themselves off as truth, and they do it by means of hooked-on-FEELINGS. Because the body DOES really feel in order to give feedback to the soul via the brain, you will have a hard time DISTINGUISHING between a feeling which LIES, and one which is true. For example, you can FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE around someone; that FEELING might SEEM like it's something wrong with the other person -- but instead, it's something wrong with YOU that you don't want to admit, so the defense mechanism of "projection" (assigning self's flaws to an outer object) will be operating.

Since all defense mechanisms HIDE stuff in the subconcious, you won't necessarily KNOW THE DIFFERENCE between truth and a lie. Bible is real handy here, because it defines sin, and all sin USES defense mechanisms. So, if a feeling of jealousy occurs, the subconsious is CONDEMNING you (rightly or wrongly, doesn't matter), and the 'jealousy' is to defend you against the subconscious self-condemnation. Just use 1Jn1:9 and move on. You don't have to psychoanalyze yourself: just keep on using the Four Essentials (link at Home pagetop), which are far more effective.

The strongest sins in mankind are those most rooted in Adam's original sin: distrust/ hostility/ rebellion toward God, frenetic selfness (consequence of distrust, etc., multifaceted), fear, accusation/blaming. The Four Essentials, if maintained consistently over some years, WEAKENS these tyrannical urges and REPLACES them with God's Own Lifestyle (a thinking pattern which 'blooms' whoever learns it). So this is a big battle. Always distrust any urge. Get into the habit of using 1Jn1:9, so you will get into the habit of monitoring your thoughts, and can eventually fire Bible Doctrine (i.e., promises) at the urges. This protection habit will free up your life, so you'll no longer be a marionette, puppetted by urges!

Lies aren't strictly human in origin, but are demonic, as well. "Demons" are angels who rebelled against God before the RESTORATION of the Earth (Gen1:2ff). Some angels sinned first, and their sin, like Adam's, was really the sin of REBELLING AGAINST GOD. It's not the sin itself, but the REBELLION, which is the problem. You know that, because SIN was never imputed to us, but PASSED OVER (root meaning of "Passover") -- and poured out onto Christ on the Cross. So what remains, is the rebellion, and the rebellion is angelic, not just human. So now let's look at SATANIC lies, for these lies are promulgated ON us, because THEIR rebellion is an ongoing UNSEEN Trial, and we are Trial Evidence. (The whole "Thinking" series is on this topic. Box accessible from Home pagetop.)

To say "UNSEEN" is not quite correct. It's seeable, alright, but (as it were) in CODE: if you have the decoding device you need, you can see anywhere at anytime, what's going on in the Trial. Bible is that decoding device, and it says so, in a bizillion ways. Heb11:1 in the God-Breathed Greek is a great summary statement of not only the trial and the Bible as decoder, but of HOW you become a Victorious Witness. English masks most if not all of that meaning. The "Appendix" of the "Thinking" series uses the Bible decoding to ILLUSTRATE the VISIBLE evidence, so you can DECIPHER what you see more quickly. It took me about 30 years' downtime in daily Scripture study to get all this understanding, so hopefully the writing will save YOU time, if the Holy Spirit wants you to read anything I write.

THERE'S NOTHING GOOFY ABOUT THE FACT GOD LIVES, ANGELS REBEL, ETC. Don't get all tingly over it, k? Just learn. God isn't disclosing this stuff to get us scared, titillated or.. enthralled, fantasizing we should fight the demons, exorcise, and all that CLAPTRAP THEY PEDDLE. WE ARE TO BECOME AS BIG AS CHRIST, says Eph4; and since Christ is Seated and Ruling (Heb1&2) we don't fight, HE does (see also Eph3&6). So what we are NOW, is inconsequential. Treat yourself as you are to BECOME, not as what you are. Same for anyone and anything else. We started at the low end, and He grows us to the high end. Angels started at the high end. That's the only difference. Christ became bigger than all angels PUT TOGETHER (Heb1:4, Greek) but started out, Perfect Human. And He didn't USE HIS PERFECTION to grow, HE USED THE WORD UNDER SPIRIT'S POWER to grow. Thus we can too. So think like a soldier, not a titillated civilian...

So even if you are too young in Scripture to refute it by means of the Word itself, you can use a) and b) for due diligence testing, breathing 1Jn1:9 to be online with the Spirit. He will prove it to you via the Word itself, so THINK and DIG. This is also a good way to detect any lies you yourself believe. We are all naturally BLIND in Adam (i.e., 1Cor15:22, Rom5:12); the blindness is GENETIC, so only getting the WORD enables sight (1Jn1:5-10), since we are still in our same bodies. So there is no shame in detecting an error, anywhere.

Like that Monty Python skit where everything on the menu was Spam, everything on the Satan&Co. menu is ..mocking. Like "Indrid Cold", a demon headgame played on someone John Keel knew (Mothman Prophecies) turns out to be Latin VERBAL anagram which in a dozen ways or more translates with the central meaning of.. you guessed it! .. mocking (ridere).

Same can be said for the Koran: there are bald hints of demon authorship strewn liberally in each Sura; to NOT GET the hints, means you did NO HOMEWORK on the Sura. Nor is it hard to do the homework: in but a month of reading through the Koran, I found mockings on every page, tied to specific ORIGINAL-language meanings in Bible verses. HUNDREDS, if not thousands of VERY CLEVER references (I finally stopped counting). The same is true for every other holy book I examined, though the sophisticated references and the claim that Scripture was adulterated, vary in quantity and stridency. You can always tell the character of the author from a book. So, too, here.

At the time the Koran was written no one had ACCESS to the FULL original-language manuscripts. The only translations AVAILABLE were partial (i.e., only Gospels and some Psalms), adulterated or unreadable (too-fancy script) or CAPTURED (i.e., Jerome's translation wasn't ALLOWED OUT until circa 800 AD, when his version of Latin was long DEAD). Which facts of course Satan SPONSORED; so the demon author of the Koran COULD TRUTHFULLY say in the Suras that the Christians and Jews had ADULTERATED texts.

So also, he plays on BAD INTERPRETATIONS of Bible then-current, like the hydra-headed idea of God (thus not a whole Himself, so needs partners), the is-Jesus-God controversy, and a wide variety of other goofinesses. Note how the BAD INTERPRETATION is mocked in order to mock SCRIPTURE itself. For, because they had bad interpretations, the BOOK they had is ALSO held to be bad by anyone READING the Koran's inveighing. Satan's not stupid: he doesn't condemn the BOOK, but the believers -- knowing full well that the Koranic 'believers' WILL condemn the BOOK. So it's THEIR fault, not his, in the Trial.

So, one's alleged faith in Koran/ Book of Mormon/ "x", is mocked. Which joke no one obviously 'caught', till yet. Even Christians and anti-Muslims today who recognize the Koran BLATANTLY CONTRADICTS the parts of the Bible it claims to laud, don't get the joke. If they did, they'd STOP criticising Muslims and Koran, and START respecting that a real Lord vs. Satan Trial is occurring -- with us humans as the mocked bait, by the latter party. ["Appendix" link of "Thinking" series has the details.]

Same for the science versus God debates. Christians have the goofy interpretation that God made creation INITIALLY in six days. So, that becomes the popular idea of what the BIBLE says -- and NO ONE DOES HIS HOMEWORK. Same trick as in the 'perpetual virgin' myth about Mary; same trick as in 600AD, and still just as effective today (i.e., popular 'gospel' versus John 3).

If on the other hand, you see more about God from the exposed lie, you are AVOIDED.. to be mocked later, hopefully. For, the LAST thing they want is your growing in Christ due to their lie. So if you catch onto one of their lies via this page, just learn more about God from it. You are SUPPOSED TO DETECT lies, so you don't fall FOR them (1Jn4). So you DO have to research these things. Yet don't react to or promote any discovery, try to make money on it, etc. For if you do, you will be .. you guessed it!.. MOCKED. Big-time. For, in reacting, promoting, making money, you demonstrate that SOMETHING OTHER THAN GOD is more important, to you. Thus they GET PERMISSION to mock you, under the terms of the Trial.

Just as Christ and Paul explained, MEMORY is the Scriptural purpose of the Eucharist, during which you "eat" the WORD you remembered about Christ Himself; "eat" in Bible is THINKING, NOT cannibalism. So, note the reversal: Christians FORGET verses like all of John 6 and Luke22:19, 1Cor11:24-25, and instead of THINKING of Him, promote the Eucharist as the devil's table (1Cor10:21), a PAGAN MYSTICAL CANNIBALISM, emoting: a custom dating back to 3000 BC or earlier. Despite the common sense that God is ALWAYS PRESENT; despite numerous NT verses saying the Trinity INDWELL YOU! (See "in you" NT verses with "God" or "Christ" or "Holy Spirit" as the subject. The Indwellings are an upgrade on the Tabernacle Glory, since each believer is now a Temple, 1Cor6. For fellowship: 2Cor13:14. So there are many more Indwelling verses than here listed. Father's Indwelling is easily seen in Eph4:6; Son, in Rom8:10, Col1:27; Spirit, in 1Cor3:16, 6:19. Usually these verses are MIStranslated, so you may need a lexicon.)

So you don't need some special ceremony, lol, to GET "The Presence". Those under the reversal ARE BLIND to how Satan derides them: so you don't blame or cajole them, you pray for them, like you would pray for any SICK person. Blindness is a sickness, like any other, and we all inherited Adam's figleaves BLINDNESS (think over Gen3). We only differ in WHERE and HOW and HOW LONG we are blind, so there's no need for prejudice, name-calling, etc. Use 1Jn1:9 like breathing, to get the Spirit's BRAINS (so to speak), since He is NOT Blind, lol. [More info on Adam's blindness is in Part II of the "Thinking" series at Home pagetop, far right box: Search on "In the beginning..Man" to get quickly to that section. BTW: In cannibalism, the SPIRITUAL NATURE/PRESENCE of the eaten human was deemed ABSORBED when you ate him, so you got more strength, etc.]

Another Example: Hustling for God is popularly touted, but if you search the WORD for all such references, you find that works are NOT popular with God. See Rev20:11-15 in even the KJV! Read the Gospels and try to list what WORKS the Lord Himself did, and what HE SAID about works, including His Own. That ought to be a quick sleuthing job, as an appetizer. Quicker still, is 1Cor3: only wood is man-made (with an ax, etc.), get it? Works, of course, are the OPPOSITE of WORD. Something you 'do' is the opposite of something you LEARN. And of course, don't you first have to GROW BY LEARNING? So a seed can't bear fruit until grown up to be a mature TREE. See the reversals? Cart-before-horse? Satan's not stupid.

Even study of the WORD is popularly touted in a satanic way. Sure, GOD'S WILL IS INDEED Study of the Word, which ALONE works. But.. watch how the WORD is used popularly -- as a FEELY experience to enslave you to emotion; as a DUTY, to control PEOPLE, rather than to FREE YOU (Jn8:32)! Even common sense knows people are the opposite of GOD. So the Focus is opposite, too: on body, on do's, rather than on God, on know's. Watch what VERSES are used over and over -- without any regard to the CONTEXT of those verses; without any regard to the way those same WORDS are used in the REST of Scripture. This misuse of Scripture is how Satan tempted the Lord in the 2nd Temptation (all satanic lies are variations on the Three Temptations, which you can also use as a lie detector). Satan DISTORTED and thus REVERSED THE MEANING of Ps91, to make it look like Jesus could JUMP FROM THE TEMPLE, which is goofy.. baiting Him, you see. Baiting us, too...

Real simple example: look at John 3. Operative verb there for salvation is BELIEVE. Then turn on Christian TV (cable or public), and listen to what THEY say is the 'gospel'; "they" being ANYONE, famous or unknown. It's positively UNCANNY how surgically PRECISE is the REVERSAL of John 3's "believe": you'll hear them say ANY VERB EXCEPT believe, as the way to get saved. Or, "believe" is ALWAYS barnacled with OTHER VERBS, ADDING TO "believe" as the requirement, which NEGATES belief.

More importantly, these adulterated gospels OBVIOUSLY and DIRECTLY DERIDE CHRIST HIMSELF, since even John 3 is clear in translation; since He never says anything but "believe"; neither does any other salvation verse in Scripture. This negating-and-substituting is how the Catholic Church became what it is today: now all the independents are going in the same direction, reversing Scripture in goofy and obviously DERIDING ways. More about this trend follows below, in this Caveat#1.

We humans are driven by our feelings, not our brains. As noted near the beginning of this Caveat #1, even our thinking is just so much rationalization to get us to FEEL GOOD. So, if it makes a translator feel BAD to translate a phallic-cult keyword in Bible, he'll SHAVE OUT the part of the meaning which bothers him -- or, the publishing committee will -- all in the name of public ACCEPTANCE. Aha: popular, see? Satan ALWAYS PROMOTES MASS APPEAL. Lies sell, if they are made popular.

So you can know it's satanic; thus you won't be so tempted to blame mere people. We humans aren't that smart, k? See Eph6, because Satan will use the lies you discover to PROMOTE reaction against those who still believe in the lies. DON'T REACT, or use 1Jn1:9 like breathing until you calm down. God will TAKE CARE OF IT. You just keep learning. Holy Spirit provides the Spiritual IQ (my pastor's term for Filling, which you get from 1Jn1:9 usage, see Caveat #3). You thus know He will help those in the lie you detect for the same reason He's teaching YOU, so you don't need to PROMOTE anything. You only end up getting in Satan's 'court' if you promote anything.

Bible often takes a concept and TWEAKS it to show the difference between FAKE "x", and TRUE "x". For example in the OT, "gods" vs. God is a common tweaking topic. Like how Isaiah (44:7-20) mocks the guy who fashions an idol out of wood (man-made, get it) -- and then falls down worshipping it. (See NIV/NASB, esp. v.15.) The concept of works is a favorite 'idol' Bible tweaks, as in Rev17, the politico-religious FAKE CHURCH, a VERY common harlotry metaphor in OT (see all of Hosea, esp. the beginning; also Eze16). The Lord does a lot of tweaking, as do the NT writers, so you should find a lot of tweaking style. (The gnostics are constantly tweaked, for example.) Then, apply what you learned of Scripture's tweaking style to detect finer points about what BIBLE says versus the popular notions on whatever topic you are researching. Then, notice how Satan TWEAKS BACK by reversing whatever fine points you'd found in Scripture.. in the real world.

You WON'T be able to prove the full BIBLE TRUTH by this method, but you WILL be able to prove ENOUGH that the popular notion a) maligns God and b) is made popular by Satan for that reason. The TRUTH has many parameters, like math, since God is Infinite. So, you'll need to be under a pastor for awhile, breathing 1Jn1:9, before you get a good grasp of those parameters. See? LEARN FIRST. No one becomes a mathematician/surgeon of the Word (Heb4:12) overnight, lol. Kids gotta grow up, right, before they can take a job? Didn't the Lord Himself FIRST TRAIN IN THE WORD for 30 years, before He met Satan (see Matt4:4)? So it should take awhile, to learn before one can 'earn' -- even our bodies, tell us that much.

Or, do your own search now. You could start with all Bible references to "fruit" to see BIBLE SAYS THE OPPOSITE of what you commonly hear touted as "fruit" by Christians. But there are hundreds of "fruit" verses and their synonymal concepts. It may be simpler to start with "tithe", to see how it was ONLY FOR ISRAEL's INCOME TAX, not money you give to a church; how Temple offerings were ALWAYS voluntary, from Exodus forward. What key verb is in the popular promotion of "tithe"? How does it malign God to claim you must "tithe" to your church? Have fun searching (hint, read Leviticus and Deuteronomy, even in English).

It's extremely important you do your own homework: purpose of the spiritual life is to develop your THINKING, to ready you for living with God forever, thinking compatible thoughts, the basis for rapport in LOVE. Which should make common sense, lol: who likes to be around someone whose THINKING is incompatible?

Gist: Bible uses different words to distinguish between the "Filling of the Spirit" we get as Church, from all other covenantal groups. Greek verb "plerow" is exclusively for Church, derived from the Victory of Christ. For the OT, Trib and Millenial folks, the Greek verb is "pimplemi" (with an eta, not episilon). Both plerow and pimplemi are used hundreds of times in the Bible. Look up each occurrence (which is easy to do, if you have software like BibleWorks), and carefully notice how the BIBLE uses both words. Once you do, you should see that pimplemi was always related to physicalities, versus plerow, which is related to the soul. Neither verb connotes permanence (i.e., pimplemi is used for Hebrew sabea over 100 times in the OT, and sabea signifies fullness from eating a meal or other temporary surfeit). Both therefore are STATES which can be on or off. Most significantly, notice how the usage of pimplemi STOPS being used of the Filling of the Spirit, after Acts. That's your big red flag that the "filling" of the temporary spiritual gifts which you could see (physicalities, again), ended when the apostles ended (last one being John). You had to see the Resurrected Christ to be an apostle, 1Cor15:1-10. John was the last of them.

There are hundreds of verses to plow through in order to see the difference in scope and meaning between pimplemi and plerow. The video list below will go through those verses, simply showing live, pan-Bible, where they are. If you use 1Jn1:9 as you study them, you'll see the difference clearly. I summarized the difference in both video and a Word doc. Videos constitute a simple Word search in Bible, showing the difference between the "filling" of the Spirit OT people got, vs. Christ's and Church. Vast difference, as you'll see when you examine how Bible uses two keyverbs, pan-Bible: pimplemi for the OT people, and plerow for the NT people starting with Christ and after He Rose. Use 1Jn1:9 as you analyze the live BibleWorks Word search in the 'pimplemi' videos. These videos are dull Word searches to show how the term is used pan-Bible. So you'd be better off just searching on 'pimplemi' and its root, in the LXX; then, same for the NT but add the verb plerow. Also search on the cognate noun pleroma, which is one of Paul's favorites. It means PREGNANT (lit., to fill up a ship or a woman with CARGO), so that's a big difference right there. Compare to Hebrew maleh.

Someday I'll post them in vimeo. Even so, you can download the vids directly from their Apache server folder at brainout.net/downloads/movies/pimplemi
Word doc summarizing the difference, as shown in Part I's video: click here.

The NT verb is plerow, and I've not yet done the plerow videos. Still, once you see the Word search on pimplemi, you know how to do it for plerow, especially if you have BibleWorks, which is able to search on the lemma (root form, so you get all the morphological hits).

What follows below are quick notes, not well-written; I just needed to jot down some ideas, especially since there's so much nonsense about pimplemi and the Filling of the Spirit, on the internet. But hey: as always, it's best to just search the Bible itself on pimplemi and plerow and their roots, see for yourself how Bible uses the terms. Seriously, that search will save you a ton of time and you will learn much. Of course, without 1Jn1:9, John 14:26 will not operate, so you will not be Filled with the Spirit, and your searching would become pointless. So use 1Jn1:9 as you search Bible, or in anything you do.. all day and night, ideally. Else you're wasting your time.

Honestly, it's not rocket science to do this, especially with Bible software which lets you search in the original-language texts. Took me maybe a few days to see the basic difference between plerow and pimplemi in Bible, searching in BibleWorks. The difference is really pretty clear. Then again, if you're not used to being under a pastor who teaches from those texts, it will take you longer. Still, you can compare pimplemi and plerow usage with a translation in each occurrence, and notice by CONTENT, how they differ. You don't need to be a Greek geek, k?

You do need to keep asking God. We all need that. Anything one reads can be used by God. God will point out what's true and what's false in anything, anywhere, if we ASK Him. All too often, we don't ask, think we're supposed to 'do it ourselves', etc. Christ didn't do that, Phili2:5-10. So we shouldn't either. So I don't worry about how 'my' writing sounds: if it's true, God will tell the reader. Where it's wrong, God will tell the reader. Point is, should you be reading at all? ASK Him, for I have no clue.

Revelation closed the Canon of Scripture, says Rev22:6-21 (epilogue of the four Revelation 'plays' showing how history ends). In 1Jn1:1-4, 2:1, 2:6ff etc., John repeatedly told his readers that he was the last Canon writer (John uses clever Greek keywords referring back to Isa53:1 in the LXX, which you miss in English). The temporary spiritual gifts between Pentecost on 30AD and the closing with Revelation were related to a) warning Israel that Messiah had left and the Temple was to be destroyed (viz., Isa28, 1Cor13:1-8 and Chap14 on tongues); b) SUBSTITUTE-TEACHING the Canon while its writers were being spiritually developed enough to write it down (1Cor13, but really ALL of 1Cor, in Greek head-body/ marital wordplay beginning in 1:5). The actual list of citations is much longer, because the wordplay in the original languages makes the point clear. (English translations tend to truncate meaning.) So to prove this to yourself, look for head-body analogies, and the many Word metaphors nearby (like water, riches, gold, stones, etc). Foundational Bible doctrines Bible expresses in foundational ways using very precise wordplay on etymology, case endings (objective and subjective genitive, for example, to display the Love Of God circle). Endless!

John was the last living apostle; Paul, the last appointed one (see 1Cor15:1-10, Gal2). So forget the nutcases who claim to be apostles, now. You had to see the Resurrected Christ to be an apostle, for that's how GOD appointed you. Matthias and the other guy Peter (in a moment of weakness) elected by lot, are never heard from again, in Bible. Paul, by contrast, was appointed by God in a dramatic way on the Damascus Road. So too, James (Lord's half-brother via Mary, brother of Jude -- neither of those two names were their real names). So No Gifts Remain Because No Apostles Remain. We have the Word in writing, pastor-teachers, and evangelists -- that's it (Eph4:11-16 in Greek).

Parts III-IV explained our legacy in Christ. This page is partly designed for Part V, on the topic of what spiritual life the Trib believers get. They get a truncated OT style of life. Question is, what is that? The Church Life is answered in Parts III-IV, and the basic faith-resting style of living was answered in Part II. But What Role Of The Spirit, especially since hundreds of verses, both bald and basic (not visible in English), STRESS His Role from Gen1:2 onward?

You can track the duality of these two different-covenant Roles of the Spirit, and thus the gifts that go with them, in the Bible. It's not hard: you do need a good study bot or software program. I use BibleWorks, because it is so sophisticated. You might prefer something else.

Upshot: in the original languages, God uses different verbs for the enduing OT-style power which went with those temporary spiritual gifts. Most common one, is "pimplemi". It's used all over the place in the OT, as the comments below will illustrate. There are other verbs as well, but pimplemi is specialized to the Power of the Spirit. You'll see the term used in Acts and Gospels for Spirit's power, but NOT afterwards. That's very telling. Watch Whenever Bible Changes A Word In A Quote Or A Habitual Word To Something Else. It's always a tipoff, always important.

No-extra-charge corollary: Trinity is clear, in the OT. You'd pretty much have to throw out Abram (Father) and the entire Levitical-Deuteronomy sacrifices, to 'miss' it. If you're not looking you won't find it. The entire basis of the Mosaic Law, is a FATHER, Abram. The entire reason why Abram SACRIFICED his son was to commemorate what EL-ELyon was going to do to HIS Son, get it? So lots of fathering wordplay is in Psalms, Isaiah, Zechariah, etc. Marital and sex and fathering and spiriting/breathing plays on Elohim (a plural last name of God, to designate More Than One, duh) are rife throughout Scripture.

So, as you search out the hundreds of verses with Spirit or Spirit-Yahweh in them, you'll run across FATHER verses, too. One of my favorites is Isa63:16. Think: no one asked the Lord who the Father was in the Gospels. No one asked who the Son was. No one asked who the Spirit was. They didn't crucify Him for claiming there was such a Person as Son, but for claiming that's Who HE was. Course, if you think about it -- all those Levitical sacrifices, depicting Messiah-to-Come -- To Whom were they made? Just Who was going to GET the Sacrifice OF the Messiah? For surely, He'd not be sacrificing Himself TO Himself, would he? See, we are all sooo brainouts...

So, if you don't know the difference between the temporary "pimplemi" versus "plerow" (and you won't, because translations translate these words the same), then you will mistake the spiritual life, and thus fail in it.

So these are great tracking verbs to use in books like Acts, for example, to see how all those flashy spiritual gifts, were TEMPORARY. Verb pimplemi tells you that. Temporarily full, as in being full from a meal. Full of physicality-related power to make Temple parts, be a good ruler, say what God wants -- OT style power. 1Cor13 of course, is bald about the temporariness ("they shall cease"); but you can tell by tracking the verbs in Bible, WHEN they ceased. Honestly, if you even had a smidgen of doubt this is the Word of God, you will have no doubts after you do this Wordsearch. For example, No one before Christ ever got "plerow". See Luke 2:40. We know He's our Precedence, if only from Part IVa, if not from real Bible verses like Phili2:5ff. So think: you should get the Spirit without measure, even as He did (Luke 2:40, Luke 4:1, John 7:39 -- and for legacy, John 12:3, John 3:29 John 15:11, Jn17:3, and all other pleroma verses)! Isa40:4, came true in HIM, so the verse is changed from lifted up to Filled, in Luke 3:5, because He was lifted up on the Cross!

Remember, Pentacost-Temple destruction period was simultaneously the last 40 years of the Jewish "time" (age), and the first 40 years of the Church "time", as Part IVa painstakingly explained. So you've got TWO covenants operating simultaneously, and so the Bible uses different words to distinguish between them. So, Acts 2:2, uses plerow, depicting the NEW Filling, but in an OLD format as predicted in Joel 2 -- well, the Hebrew word in Joel 2:28 is shaphak (Gk: ekchew; it has an emptying-male-organ connotation -- useful metaphor, in understanding God's plan to make sons!) [Lexicons are sooo cute when they are nervous about sexual words: Bauer calls it "cause to be emitted in quantity"; "a form censured by grammarians" notes Thayer's lexicon -- yeah, no wonder -- it's used as a euphemism for moment of orgasm, see the sample passages under Liddel-Scott and others!]

But now look at Acts 2:4, a TONGUES verse -- verb SWITCHES to pimplemi. Couldn't be clearer. Trace it, see for yourself. Acts 3:10 (and 5:17) on the reaction, also uses pimplemi, so ask yourself how 'spiritual' it is, to be 'filled' with tongues, k? Peter is pimplemi, in Acts 4:8 -- giving a speech, lalew'ing (SPIRIT controls his vocal chords with his consent, just as in tongues). Same phenomenon, in Acts 4:31 (and end Acts 9:17, 13:9), for power of SPEECH (etc), a PHYSICAL thing. But in Acts 5:3 (and 5:28, 13:52), as in the OT, plerow (NOT pimplemi) is used with the heart -- in 5:3, Ananias' heart is filled with SATANIC thinking (versus doctrinal thinking, as in Hezekiah's prayer in Kings, as we saw in Part IVd). Same construction, in Rom1:29 -- being filled with satanic THOUGHT.

So notice that PLEROW is to fill you up with THINKING, not feeling; not physical, but perceptual: trace plerow in all NT epistles after Acts, especially Romans (esp.Chapt8), Corinthians, Ephesians, and Hebrews, where plerow is a keyword used to craft the outline of the epistle. This, because the biggest promise in Bible post-salvation, is to get His Word written in our hearts and minds -- see wordplay in Jer31:31-34 compared to the interpretational quotes of Heb8:8-12 and 10:15-17 (Heb101517.htm has an exegesis). See? Filled hearts was always the objective. Due to that First Filled Heart, Christ's. Romans 8 explains the mechanics.

Of course, translations truncate so many different Bible verbs to "fill" (a real flaw, especially in New Jerusalem Bible, though many Bible words defy translation and you can't really blame anyone) -- so you can't tell in translation, the distinctions. That's why so many teachers totally screw up books like Acts and the Gospels, thinking there should be prophetic utterance, physical filling, etc. They don't do their Bible homework. Well, maybe they couldn't. Unless you have good Bible software -- and who had any, prior to ten years ago -- it's kinda hard to see the vast distinction between pimplemi and plerow. [It's really hard for a pastor to go against other scholars. Many just go along with 'experts' they feel are more spiritual than themselves. They need your prayers. Prayers are volitional votes: look up how God uses prayer to judge the earth, in Revelation. So vote that pastors get the help they need.]

So, check out "pimplemi" in the LXX (Heb is sabea, same essential meaning). For example, John the Baptist was "pimplemi" (Luke 1:15, only NIV translates the "from birth" (ek koilias), rightly; but even NIV gets the TYPE of Filling, misstated). [It's positively criminal the way translations reverse what Bible says in Luke 1:15 and all other womb passages: see NoWombLife.htm and compare for yourself what Bible says in the inspired languages, versus the satanic translations. If I didn't see for myself how awful the abuse of God's Inspired Word, I'd not even believe what I'm typing, here...]

Until Pentecost, the Jewish-related spiritual gifts, were "pimplemi": a limited version of Holy Spirit's Empowerment, because Christ had not yet risen (John 7:39, Heb5-10). Search on the morphological forms of pimplemi in the OT: you'll find a LOT of them. Basically, pimplemi is a PHYSICAL filling. Filling your head; you could SENSE it. (No "pimplemi" is given Church after Canon completed.) The guys who built Solomon's Temple, were pimplemi; so too, the prophets and David. The verb pimplemi filled their physical ability; and as a result, spiritual ability is enhanced. The 'conduit' is the physical. This conduit thus reminded the believer that Christ would COME in the FLESH, so the flesh was the agent of spirituality: hence all those mnemonic, metaphoric, rituals.

Important: as Peter explains in Acts 2, this new Filling was to fulfill God's promise of Word in hearts (see Jer31:31-34, Acts 8:8-10:17 and like passages). So, it has to play the way the OT promised: VISIBLY. Not, to be spectacular, but because visibility and palpability represented The Upcoming or Present, Incarnation. Cross was successful. When Christ is again come, you again have visible spiritual gifts in the Millenium. So the Trib people get the OT-style visible/ palpable gifts as a Promise of Messiah's Return within the seven years.

But for Church, it's all the reverse, as Part IVa, explained. So, Greek verb plerow, by contrast, is way bigger, a Spiritual Filling -- you cannot sense it. Every use of the term in the OT and NT conveys an objective absoluteness, to-the-brim; pimplemi, by contrast, conveys a RELATIVE 'satiety'. Moreover, Plerow is used of THINKING, but pimplemi, of physicalities. See, you are 'full' when you are satisfied, or 'full' when you have enough adequate to the task; but due to Christ, the Spirit is given "without measure", John 7:39 and like passages. Big Difference. So a different verb, plerow.

Plerow is never used of the Spirit, in the OT; but only of things (and thought -- very common to use plerow with the heart). In fact, because the pimplemi was OT and was feelable, John had to write 1Jn after the Temple was destroyed (though even before John died, both forms of Filling were used): because, younger believers didn't know, anymore, what was "Filling". So, John had to write a series of parallelisms to explain how to make SURE you were filled (1Jn1:5-10, using special OT terminology as analogies). So, this latter Plerow is what we Church get. You can't feel the Holy Spirit, because the Filling is PERCEPTUAL, not visions, dreams, tongues or other obsolete nonsense which only kiddies could use, 1Cor13. But we are adult sons: "Abba, Father" verse.

The biggest other difference between the two verbs, besides Plerow being ABSOLUTE, is a COMPLETENESS in Plerow which is lacking in pimplemi. It was always true that you had to be a believer to get the Spirit; that if you sinned you lost whatever power of the Spirit you had (e.g., 1Jn1:9 for us, Ps32:5, 66:18, other verses like it for OT). But the amount of understanding with pimplemi was extremely limited: in fact, pimplemi has a passivity about it pretty much like tongues. The Holy Spirit runs the power via your consent, but the pimplemi powers were always physically-related, so kinda like magic -- better speech, stronger skill, probably healings and miracles, etc. Plerow, by contrast is Perception And Use Of Doctrine, pure. That's why Paul is said to be pimplemi when Ananias first rescues him, but later plerow when he's learned something. You can talk from 'yourself' in that you understand the doctrine yourself, so put it in your own words. That's plerow. Or, you can be a CONDUIT for that power, which is pimplemi. The Lord is Plerow, not mere pimplemi. Pleroma is a frequent, witty nickname for Him, in the NT (Eph4:13 being the reason why). Greek term Pleroma had heavy god-fills-you cultural loading, hence the wry nickname for the Real God Who Was Filled up with Our Sins, to Fill up God's Heaven with 'children' (main theme in Isa53).

Notice God's precision in depicting the Hypostatic Union, the God-man. Because the period 30-70AD was dually two covenants operating, believers during that time got both kinds of power. Paul explains the relationship between both sets, in 1Cor13; how when the HEAD comes (called Love, Perfect, other metaphors, but the Head of the Body concept began way back in 1Cor1:5).. when this Head is in Writing, then the childish, imperfect gifts will end. So notice how even here, the temporary gifts for Canon teaching before it was written, are VISIBLE, because it's about His HEAD. Then, the BOOK which is His Thinking, becomes ONE HEAD from Whom all can learn to think (Eph4:5,13 -- it's His Head, there, not a denomination or Christian get-alongness). See the "tongues" were about the Gospel for the unbeliever (1Cor14 tells you that) -- now upgraded to "tongues" of Original Language Scripture the Holy Spirit Teaches You to understand via your right pastor. So you end up reading the REAL WORDS He commissioned each human author to write. So when you read the Greek of Eph4, you're reading what the Holy Spirit actually had Paul write. Not, hearsay. See: it's all a head power you cannot feel or sense; and is 100% supernatural, no oooh-ahh like in the movies. God's Brains are SUPPOSED to replace your own, via 1Jn1:9 breathed.

So, the pimplemi powers gradually reduced. Paul couldn't heal one of his friends, though he'd had healing power as a credit card (that's its sole purpose) for teaching. Once he didn't need the credit card anymore, God took it away. (So forget all those fakir healers today -- if God took it away from Paul, THEY DON'T HAVE IT.)

Someday I'll have to fix this explanation, but at least you've got some ideas to play with. Sorry it's not better, right now!

So test all this: use a detailled lexicon to get the difference between Plerow and pimplemi: Strong's isn't strong enough, k?