- This topic is empty.
- Posts
If the Spirit is not the Father, but is God, then please explain what that means.
***************
Tim,
The Father IS God. The holy “Spirit” is who God is. In other words, it is NOT who Jesus is. But it is who the Father is. Because the Father IS God – it's worth repeating.Regarding the verses in John: Some people assert that “the Holy Spirit” is a person because the Bible has “he” and “him” in these verses, and in some other places. This assertion is invalid because the gender of the noun and pronoun have nothing to do with whether or not a person or thing is actually a person.
Not3in1,
John 14:16-17, “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; the Spirit of truth …”
John 14:26, “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name …”
John 15:26, “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father …”I wasn't pointing out the pronouns, Not3. I was pointing out that the Father sends the Holy Spirit. You see the Holy Spirit is who the Father is. But these verses show a distinction between the Father and Holy Spirit. Please explain.
Tim
Hi Tim2,
Do you accept the parallelism in these verses?
They seem to show the Spirit is as God.Ps 139
“7Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? “2Sa 23:1 “Now these be the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said,
2Sa 23:2 The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.2Sa 23:3 The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. “
Quote (Tim2 @ April 28 2007,07:23) Not3in1, John 14:16-17, “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; the Spirit of truth …”
John 14:26, “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name …”
John 15:26, “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father …”I wasn't pointing out the pronouns, Not3. I was pointing out that the Father sends the Holy Spirit. You see the Holy Spirit is who the Father is. But these verses show a distinction between the Father and Holy Spirit. Please explain.
Tim
As is per usuall with trinitarians, they start from a false premiss and build their doctrine on that shifting sand.
The Hebrew concept of the word “Holy” is “set asside for a special purpose”. There is no intrinsic spiritual connotation in the word.
The word “Spirit” means breath or wind. When scripture speaks of the Holy Spirit it should be translated as the breath or wind that is set asside for a special purpose. this is simple the breath of God that he has set asside for the purpose of dealing with man. This does not give the idea of a seperate person or personality.Well this is Greek, not Hebrew. But in any event, I'd say holy is a pretty important word. Revelation 15:4: “For You alone are holy.” Isaiah 6:3: “Holy, Holy, Holy, is YHWH of Hosts, the whole earth is full of His glory.” And of course, He is the Holy One of Israel. Isaiah 30:15.
Hi Tim2,
Indeed Christ is the HOLY ONE OF GOD
Luke 4:34
Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God.Of course being OF GOD means he is not that God.
Mark 1:24
Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.And of course there is Holly angels, prophets, places, ground etc
Luke 1:70
As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:Mark 6:20
For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly.Matthew 25:31
When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
Matthew 27:53
And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
Luke 1:72
To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
Acts 6:13
And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:
Acts 7:33
Then said the Lord to him, Put off thy shoes from thy feet: for the place where thou standest is holy ground.So your evidence that Jesus IS the HOLY GOD is a little thin.
Since the following post did not receive a response in the Trinity thread, given the subject matter, I thought that I would place it here for comment.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 25 2007,05:03) Is 1:18 wrote: Quote Hmmm….so are you saying it would be impossible for the omnipotent, eternal SUPREME being to divest Himself of the independant usage of the divine privileges/prerogatives/attributes and put on the cloak of humanity? If he can create a universe I can't see that stretching Him too much…. Even the way that you phrase your question demonstrates how inherently confusing and contradictory this plank of the Trinity doctrine is. What exactly does “put on the cloak of humanity” mean anyway? It sounds more like a (Gnostic) magic trick than an actual transformation of one being into a completely different kind of being.
Obviously, God cannot be a man because He would cease to be God in the process. (Yes, there are some things that are impossible for God, not the least of which would be dying on a cross or being tempted by Satan). Of course, as you well know, Trinitarians do not claim that God became a man, as that would imply that God replaced His God-nature with human nature. They assert instead that Jesus took on human nature in addition to his inherit God-nature. What exactly does that mean? As far as I can tell, it is an incoherent distinction without a logical difference, as it leads to the “elephant-grasshopper” conundrum that you did not address in my last post:
Quote An elephant divests himself of the privileges, prerogatives and attributes attendant with being a large warm blooded mammal and becomes a grasshopper, but he remains an elephant?!?! Now, I realize that I may not be thinking very lucidly, but how is this any different than what Trinitarians propose when they assert the “dual nature” of Jesus? Are they not asking us to believe that a single person can, in his very nature, exist as two completely different kinds of beings at the same time? Are they not asking us to believe the analogous equivalent that a large warm blooded elephant could exist as a small six-legged insect, at the same time, without contradiction?
Certainly, if my analogy is incorrect, show me how.
Is 1:18 wrote:
Quote Incidentally, what do you believe He “emptied” Himself of, WIT? And how do you interpret this verse? 2 Corinthians 8:9
For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich.In what sense, and when, was He rich?
In what sense, and when, did He become poor?Ironically, I agree with your original CEO analogy as the best way to understand Phillipians 2:6-9. To me, these verses speak of Yeshua's stature not his nature. As the Messiah, the Son of God, he was above all other men, but he humbled himself in service of men in order to do his Father's will, ultimately for the redemption of mankind. If you read the account of his wilderness temptation by Satan, you can see that Satan's primary objective was to get him to assert his the privileges of his stature in place of fulfilling his humble mission.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 06 2007,18:42) Quote (Not3in1 @ April 06 2007,01:46) You cannot deny that at some point in Jesus' life – he was all of these things that WIT is saying of him. Even if Jesus was only ONCE some or one of these things…….could he really be “fully” God? I don't think so.
I think this is maybe a very simple message. One that makes complete sense. At least to this simple mind.
Keep it simple. Keep on track. Thanks, WIT. I'll have to read all the rest of your responses here. Good thread
Not3in1Do you feel good about calling Yeshua these thing?.
Put it this way. If you were there would you say these things to Yeshua?
Jesus you are ignorant.
Jesus you are powerless.
Jesus you lack wisdom.
Jesus you need perfecting.
Jesus you cant be God and die.
Maybe you could say these things to him. I dont know.
But this truly makes me sick to my stomach to hear this coming from a professing child of God.
Oh yeah,
I was warned about you. They said your beliefs were wacked!!! You should not try so hard to prove them right!Quote (martian @ May 09 2007,10:37) Quote (Tim2 @ April 28 2007,07:23) Not3in1, John 14:16-17, “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; the Spirit of truth …”
John 14:26, “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name …”
John 15:26, “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father …”I wasn't pointing out the pronouns, Not3. I was pointing out that the Father sends the Holy Spirit. You see the Holy Spirit is who the Father is. But these verses show a distinction between the Father and Holy Spirit. Please explain.
Tim
As is per usuall with trinitarians, they start from a false premiss and build their doctrine on that shifting sand.
The Hebrew concept of the word “Holy” is “set asside for a special purpose”. There is no intrinsic spiritual connotation in the word.
The word “Spirit” means breath or wind. When scripture speaks of the Holy Spirit it should be translated as the breath or wind that is set asside for a special purpose. this is simple the breath of God that he has set asside for the purpose of dealing with man. This does not give the idea of a seperate person or personality.
Of course there is a distinction. Isn't there a distinction between you and your breath?John 14:16-17, “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; the breath of truth …”
John 14:26, “But the Helper, the Holy breath, whom the Father will send in my name …”
John 15:26, “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the breath of truth who proceeds from the Father …”So the breath of God comes from God. Pretty simple. Just because the word “pneuma” was wrongly translated by trinitarians does not change the true meaning of the word. Of course Trinitarians are not interested in truth. Only in doctrine.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ May 11 2007,01:19) Martian, To whom are you speaking?
Sorry, I was speaking of worshippingjesusQuote (martian @ May 10 2007,10:32) Oh yeah,
I was warned about you. They said your beliefs were wacked!!! You should not try so hard to prove them right!
Ad hominemQuote (WhatIsTrue @ May 10 2007,09:36) Since the following post did not receive a response in the Trinity thread, given the subject matter, I thought that I would place it here for comment. Quote (WhatIsTrue @ April 25 2007,05:03) Is 1:18 wrote: Quote Hmmm….so are you saying it would be impossible for the omnipotent, eternal SUPREME being to divest Himself of the independant usage of the divine privileges/prerogatives/attributes and put on the cloak of humanity? If he can create a universe I can't see that stretching Him too much…. Even the way that you phrase your question demonstrates how inherently confusing and contradictory this plank of the Trinity doctrine is. What exactly does “put on the cloak of humanity” mean anyway? It sounds more like a (Gnostic) magic trick than an actual transformation of one being into a completely different kind of being.
Obviously, God cannot be a man because He would cease to be God in the process. (Yes, there are some things that are impossible for God, not the least of which would be dying on a cross or being tempted by Satan). Of course, as you well know, Trinitarians do not claim that God became a man, as that would imply that God replaced His God-nature with human nature. They assert instead that Jesus took on human nature in addition to his inherit God-nature. What exactly does that mean? As far as I can tell, it is an incoherent distinction without a logical difference, as it leads to the “elephant-grasshopper” conundrum that you did not address in my last post:
Quote An elephant divests himself of the privileges, prerogatives and attributes attendant with being a large warm blooded mammal and becomes a grasshopper, but he remains an elephant?!?! Now, I realize that I may not be thinking very lucidly, but how is this any different than what Trinitarians propose when they assert the “dual nature” of Jesus? Are they not asking us to believe that a single person can, in his very nature, exist as two completely different kinds of beings at the same time? Are they not asking us to believe the analogous equivalent that a large warm blooded elephant could exist as a small six-legged insect, at the same time, without contradiction?
Certainly, if my analogy is incorrect, show me how.
Is 1:18 wrote:
Quote Incidentally, what do you believe He “emptied” Himself of, WIT? And how do you interpret this verse? 2 Corinthians 8:9
For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich.In what sense, and when, was He rich?
In what sense, and when, did He become poor?Ironically, I agree with your original CEO analogy as the best way to understand Phillipians 2:6-9. To me, these verses speak of Yeshua's stature not his nature. As the Messiah, the Son of God, he was above all other men, but he humbled himself in service of men in order to do his Father's will, ultimately for the redemption of mankind. If you read the account of his wilderness temptation by Satan, you can see that Satan's primary objective was to get him to assert his the privileges of his stature in place of fulfilling his humble mission.
Hi WhatisTrue,It seems that your argument is that it's impossible for God to take on the nature of a man. Why do you think that? I'd be cautious about imposing limits on God beyond what He has revealed in Scripture, such as that He cannot lie. In any event, John 1 says the Word was God, and the Word became flesh.
Tim
Quote (martian @ May 12 2007,07:56) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ May 11 2007,01:19) Martian, To whom are you speaking?
Sorry, I was speaking of worshippingjesus
martianAfter seeing your post on Jn 1:1, I wouldnt be to proud if I were you.
By the way, please enlighten me on my teachings when they are wrong. I would love honest dialoge with you.
Anyway, I wish you the very best friend!
Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 12 2007,17:29) Quote (martian @ May 10 2007,10:32) Oh yeah,
I was warned about you. They said your beliefs were wacked!!! You should not try so hard to prove them right!
Ad hominem
Is 1:18Nice word. Thanks!
This seems to be what happens a lot around here.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the person”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. *It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.*
Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as being guilty of the same thing that he is arguing against.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 12 2007,17:29) Quote (martian @ May 10 2007,10:32) Oh yeah,
I was warned about you. They said your beliefs were wacked!!! You should not try so hard to prove them right!
Ad hominem
Nice word – Wrong aplication. Is worshippingjesus a belief? I said his beliefs were wacked not him. Try looking at what is posted before you try to impress us with your dictionary.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 12 2007,17:53) Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 12 2007,17:29) Quote (martian @ May 10 2007,10:32) Oh yeah,
I was warned about you. They said your beliefs were wacked!!! You should not try so hard to prove them right!
Ad hominem
Is 1:18Nice word. Thanks!
This seems to be what happens a lot around here.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the person”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. *It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.*
Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as being guilty of the same thing that he is arguing against.
Why should anyone go around the circle with you again. I spent 2 weeks reading the dialog on these boards before starting to post. I saw many on here give you very very very clear explanation of John 1. You even admitted in one instance that Logos meant idea, statement or speech, yet you still go back to the same old argument when pressed. You are not willing to believe the truth.I did not make a personal atack on you, but I will state again. Concerning your willingness to recieve truth when shown to you, your method of biblical interpretaion, and your adhearance to pagan practices instituted by constantine are wacked.
Quote (martian @ May 15 2007,02:06) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 12 2007,17:53) Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 12 2007,17:29) Quote (martian @ May 10 2007,10:32) Oh yeah,
I was warned about you. They said your beliefs were wacked!!! You should not try so hard to prove them right!
Ad hominem
Is 1:18Nice word. Thanks!
This seems to be what happens a lot around here.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the person”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. *It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.*
Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as being guilty of the same thing that he is arguing against.
Why should anyone go around the circle with you again. I spent 2 weeks reading the dialog on these boards before starting to post. I saw many on here give you very very very clear explanation of John 1. You even admitted in one instance that Logos meant idea, statement or speech, yet you still go back to the same old argument when pressed. You are not willing to believe the truth.I did not make a personal atack on you, but I will state again. Concerning your willingness to recieve truth when shown to you, your method of biblical interpretaion, and your adhearance to pagan practices instituted by constantine are wacked.
martianYou say…
Quote
You even admitted in one instance that Logos meant idea, statement or speech, yet you still go back to the same old argument when pressed. You are not willing to believe the truth.Could you please show me where I ever said that the Word in John 1:1 means idea, statement or speech?
Thanks
Quote I did not make a personal atack on you, but I will state again. Concerning your willingness to recieve truth when shown to you, your method of biblical interpretaion, and your adhearance to pagan practices instituted by constantine are wacked. BTW.
Do you have any degrees in Hebrew, Greek or Latin? What is your credentials?
This is a real problem here, that many attack the scriptures that we have and do so by quoting scattered antagonist and unbelievers who wrest the scriptures to their own destruction.
You say many have come here giving very clear difinitions of Jn 1:1.
As far as I know there has been no credible scholars or anyone with any authority in Greek, Hebrew or Latin here giving explanations for John 1:1.
So you throw accusations at me because I hold to the written word that we have, and accuse me of following constantine.
But I trust in the scriptures that we have and there interpretations of John 1:1.
If you dont believe the scriptures, what source do you have?
You seem to reject over 600 sholars and the many translations that they are responsible for.
It seems to me my friend rather than making broad accusations concerning my beliefs being wacked, that you should present some “Evidence” that what I teach is false.
Or at least tell me why you follow the Arians and there rejection of John 1:1 and the Deity of Christ.
Or show me by scriptures why you think the scholars are all liars.
Why not go around with me again. Lets see your poof and evidence that the many translations we have are false in rendering John 1:1 as…
Jn 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.John confirms this toward the end of his Gospel by presenting Thomas bold acclamation that Jesus was his “Lord and God”, without rebuke or correction, and then emmediatly says this was a sign.
How do you explain this?
This is unambiguous!
Blessings!
Quote I did not make a personal atack on you, but I will state again. Concerning your willingness to recieve truth when shown to you, your method of biblical interpretaion, and your adhearance to pagan practices instituted by constantine are wacked. Somebody please tell me what the definition of a “personal attack” is?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
