Fully God, Fully Man

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2007,05:07)

If there is not another person, then who or what was the dove that sat on him at the Jordan while the Father in heaven spoke?

Did his own personal Spirit come and sit on him.

It was the Holy Spirit of God, whick God sent.

Tim

April 12, 2007 at 6:02 pm#48726

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2007,05:07)

And also Jesus says the Spirit is subservient to him.

Of course it is.
Jesus can send forth His spirit, just as God can send forth his spirit.

Tim

April 12, 2007 at 6:15 pm#48727

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2007,05:07)

Sorry I dont agree. There is One Spirit, three persons, ONE God.

Sorry, I don't agree. There is the Father, the only true God,
and Jesus CHrist, whom He has sent.
Each of them have a spirit. A Holy Spirit.

Tim

April 12, 2007 at 6:29 pm#48728

Tim2

Participant

Tim,

Paul says there is one Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:4, 12:11, 12:13.

Likewise, in Romans 8 Paul only mentions one Spirit, but he calls Him both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. Romans 8:9-10.

There is only one Spirit, and He's clearly a person if He's a Helper, is always called “He” and “Himself” and never “It,” refers to Himself as “I” and “Me,” He does just as He wills, is called the Lord (and the Lord is a person), and so forth.

Tim

April 12, 2007 at 6:33 pm#48729

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2007,05:07)

Also Matt 28:19 supports the third person.

And this scripture is unambiguous.

Not only is the verse itself ambiguous, whether it is even truly
a scripture at all is ambiguous.

We certainly know from the entire book of Acts that not one desciple obeyed that supposed command. We know that Jesus never commanded it, He said to baptize in His name and that is how the desciples baptized and taught.

Let's suppose for a minute that Mat 28:19 did belong in the New Testament. It still would declare nothing about a trinity.
If I were crass enough to swear in the name of my Mother, father and brother, would that make them a trinity?

You must remain fast in your belief, I respect that.
We will just have to agree to disagree on this point.

Tim

April 12, 2007 at 6:44 pm#48731

Participant

Quote (TimothyVI @ April 13 2007,06:15)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2007,05:07)

Sorry I dont agree. There is One Spirit, three persons, ONE God.

Sorry, I don't agree. There is the Father, the only true God,
and Jesus CHrist, whom He has sent.
Each of them have a spirit. A Holy Spirit.

Tim

So then you believe there is more than one Spirit?

April 12, 2007 at 7:06 pm#48734

Participant

Quote (TimothyVI @ April 13 2007,06:33)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2007,05:07)

Also Matt 28:19 supports the third person.

And this scripture is unambiguous.

Not only is the verse itself ambiguous, whether it is even truly
a scripture at all is ambiguous.

You must remain fast in your belief, I respect that.
We will just have to agree to disagree on this point.

Tim

You say…

Quote

If I were crass enough to swear in the name of my Mother, father and brother, would that make them a trinity?

No but it would make them three persons. Would it not?

If you choose to go outside of scriptures that is your perogative.

The reason the desciples baptised in Jesus name is they knew all power (as in the preceding verse 28:18 shows), was given to him and they knew that Jesus was the name that was given by God for salvation and and that name was the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Jesus gave them his name, he said in my name you shall do this and that.

Matt 28:19 shows a singular, “One” name with three persons all having the definate article.

I believe all the scriptures Tim and you should too, or you open yourself to all kinds of interpretations.

If its Ok to remove one then why not another and so on.

Matt 28:19 is found in all of the major manuscripts and interpreted by all the credible translations as such.

So no it is you who wont let go of your belief to hold on to the truth found in scripture.

But I also respect your stand.

So we can agree to disagree as you say.

April 12, 2007 at 10:32 pm#48778

WhatIsTrue

Participant

WorshippingJesus,

I printed out your post so that I could go through it, and it came out to 11 pages in Microsoft Word! No wonder it took you so long.

In any case, unless you are interested in reading a post the would likely be the equivalent of 22 pages in Microsoft Word, I will limit my response to what I perceive as the highlights of your post. If I have missed any crucial elements of your post, feel free to point out that out to me, and I will respond. Some of the issues that you raised would likely require separate discussions in other threads, but if wish to pursue any of them, I will do my best to oblige.

Now, on to your post!

You wrote:

Quote

First of all if you are going to disprove something, you should go after the proclaimed evidence that a thing is true.

Example being you trying to disprove the Trinitarians theology concerning the Deity of Christ by proving he is a man and not going after the proclaimed scriptures that he is God.

We all believe he is a man. And your scriptures does a good job proving that.

Question is, is he God and man? Or what and who is he?

My point in all of this is to show that scripture may apply the term, “god”, to Yeshua on occasion, but that does not automatically prove that he is “fully God“. In fact, I think that scripture demonstrates quite clearly that he is less than “fully God”, but Trinitarians dismiss the evidence in favor of their theological constraints.

You wrote:

Quote

Can one be fully man and have just the nature of man and yet be the creator? John 1:3, Heb 1:2, Col:1:16,17

This is one of those issues that deserve a separate discussion, as I disagree with your understanding of those verses. YHWH, the Father, created all things by Himself, (Isaiah 44:24), without the aid of “co-creators”. (As an aside, when your god speaks using singular first person pronouns, is he referring to only one person of the Trinity or all three? Or do you have to decide based on your theology rather than simple meanings of common everyday words?) Yeshua was and is the planned Messiah through whom YHWH would redeem all of creation. From that standpoint, without the eventual appearance of Yeshua, the creation would be doomed to destruction and therefore likely not have been created in the first place. Yeshua is the key that holds it all together, but he is not the Creator who brought it into existence.

You wrote:

Quote

Can one be fully man and have just the nature of man and yet own “ALL THINGS”? John 16:15, Col 1:16, Matt 11:27

Yes, but only if they are given to him.

“The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand, (John 3:35).“

You wrote:

Quote

Can one be fully man and have just the nature of man and yet be the exact replication of Gods substance. Heb 1:3 Phil 2:6

My bible says, “… the exact representation of His nature ….” “Replication” is your word, not scripture. Yeshua represents God; he is not a “replication” of Him.

By the way, Phillipians 2:6 is one of the most controversial verses in scripture. Scholars can't agree on how to intepret much of the verse, so as much as you might use it to establish your doctrine, there are scholarly works, (written by Trinitarians), that would cast serious doubt on your interpretation. (If you want specific citations, I will be glad to give them.)

You wrote:

Quote

Can one be fully man and have just the nature of man and yet be “Omnipresent”? Matt 18:19,20,

This is a stretch. In what sense is Yeshua with his disciples in the book of Acts? He appears to Paul physically once. Other than that he is not physically present. His words, his work, and his advocacy with the Father remain. This is no different than me telling my wife that I will be with her when she goes in for surgery. Though I won't physically be present, my heart and mind will be with her. (This is purely hypothetical, by the way. My wife is fine.)

You wrote:

Quote

Can one be fully man and have just the nature of man and yet be “Omnipotent”? Matt 28:19

This is another stretch. Yeshua's power was given to him. They were not inherently his.

“And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, 'All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.' (Matthew 28:18)“

You wrote:

Quote

Can one be fully man and have just the nature of man and yet be “Omniscient? Col 2:3

Clearly, there was a time, and may still be a time, when he did not know everything, as shown in Mark 13:32, which goes to my point that, regardless of what you claim scripture says about him now.

You wrote:

Quote

Can one be fully man and have just the nature of man and yet the Spirit of God be subservient to him? Jn 16:7, Jn 16:13,14

Can one be fully man and have just the nature of man and yet claim to be the “Living Water, the Spirit”? Jn 7:37, 1 Cor 2:13, 2 Cor 3:17

Can one be fully man and have just the nature of man and yet claim that if you have seen him you have seen God? Jn 14:8, Jn 1:18

Can one be fully man and have just the nature of man and yet have the body of God? Acts 20:28, Jn 6:48-54

Can one be fully man and have just the nature of man and yet claim he has seen God yet the scriptures say “No Man has seen God”. Jn 6:46, Jn 1:18

For the sake of time, I am going to lump these all together into one category, which I call “linguistic and/or metaphoric misunderstandings”. If you are dying to get into the specifics of anyone of these scriptures, we can, but I would simply say at the outset that I think that you are misunderstanding the figures of speech being used in these passages.

You wrote:

Quote

Can one be fully man and have just the nature of man and yet answer the prayers of all men and take all their burdens upon himself. Matt. 11:28-30

This is the primary
purpose of the Messiah: to be a ransom for all. By definition, this ransom was to be a man.

“For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many, (Romans 5:15).“

You wrote:

Quote

Can one be fully man and have just the nature of man and yet raise himself from the dead? Jn 2:19 Jn 1:10:18

This had to be authorized, and granted, by His father first.

John 10:
17 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”

You wrote:

Quote

Now maybe the carnal natural mind of men can not fathom nor reason how this can be. Nevertheless it is scriptural.

Paul the Apostle makes it very clear.

I Tim 3:16
And without controversy great is the “mystery” of godliness: God (he or the Word, it means the same thing) was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Notice the word “Mystery”, Greek ‘musterion’ which means;

1) hidden thing, secret, mystery
a) generally mysteries, religious secrets, confided only to the initiated and not to ordinary mortals
b) a hidden or secret thing, not obvious to the understanding
c) a hidden purpose or counsel
1) secret will
a) of men
b) of God: the secret counsels which govern God in dealing with the righteous, which are hidden from ungodly and wicked men but plain to the godly

Then Paul immedeitly follows by this…

1 Tim 4:
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

You do believe Pauls words don’t you?

That this is a hidden thing, a secret thing which only the Spirit can reveal, and that is hidden from the ungodly and natural men having not the Spirit.

A natural man without the Spirit can not understand the Incarnation.

You see we accept the word by faith, all of it whether we understand it or not.

If Paul says it is a mystery than I believe it is a Mystery.

But the mysteries are being revealed to the called out ones the true believers by the Spirit.

Col 1:27
25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

There is no “Mystery” in another Son of God being born, or another anointed Prophet or King being made known, but there is the Mystery of the Word/God the Lord form heaven coming in the likeness of sinful flesh by emptying himself “not the so called Kenosis heresy” you have spoken of but the “Hypostatic Union”. http://www.carm.org/doctrine/2natures.htm

He humbled himself to the Fathers will even to the death of the cross and raised himself from the grave and by himself sat down at the right hand of the Father. Heb 1:3.

Now he has come to live in us by his “One eternal Spirit”, which we have been made to drink of, the Spirit of God, Gods Spirit that dwells in us.

This is the Mystery “Christ/Gods Spirit living in us as One Spirit.
Rom 8:9-11, 1 Cor 12:13. 2 Cor 3:7

This whole section is troubling in that you are claiming that what you teach and believe is a mystery, and that all else is deception. You are using Paul's words to justify this claim, yet Paul never once explicitly laid out this doctrine that you teach. Is scripture so incomplete, and so unclear that men needed to write down creeds centuries later to define this mystery that Paul did not want us to abandon? Why not just point to one of Paul's epistles and say, “Do not stray from that?”

I appreciate that from your point of view, this makes perfect sense, but for the rest of us, it seems a bit ludicrous.

You wrote:

Quote

That’s right, he saves as both God and man,

So if he didnt save us as God then he must have saved us as a man like you and I. Could a normal man save us?

Do you base your faith in a mere man saving you or do you base your faith in God saving you?

Is 43:11
I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
Also see Hsa 13:4, Is 45:21

Without YHWH, there is no salvation, but it is clear that throughout scripture YHWH uses agents to achieve salvation for a people. Moses is the most famous example. He was the savior sent to rescue the Hebrew people from bondage in Egypt. In much the same way, the Messiah is YHWH's final agent for bringing salvation to mankind, (Hebrews 1:1-2).

Also, Romans 5:19 says:

“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.“

So, no, I do not place my faith in a mere man, I place my faith in YHWH's annointed one, the Messiah, whom YHWH Himself empowers to achieve salvation for mankind.

You wrote:

Quote

Gal 3:20
A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.

What is Paul saying?

A Mediator represents two partys God and Man, but then Paul says “God is One”. So God is not only the party but he is also the mediator.

1 Tim 2:25
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Jesus is the God man that is the mediator.

This is why scriptures declare if we have the Son then we have the Father/God.

The scripture that you quote belies your point. Yeshua is not the “God man” mediator. He is a mediator as a man only.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, (1 Tim 2:25).

You wrote:

Quote

Acts 4:12
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

The Father has given him a name above his own name. Would the Father do this to anyone else other than the Word/God when he says there is no one else but him? The Father and the Word is One!

You missed the key phrase, “under heaven given among men“. This qualifies the intent of the phrase, “none other name“. Clearly, YHWH Himself is exempted from this.

You wrote, in response to my question, “Can one be fully God … and yet be ignorant?”:

Quote

Jesus the Word/God took on human form and was by emaculate conception born a man and called the Son of God by the Father and also given a name which was “Emmanual”, God with us.

This same Jesus being “found in the fashion” of a man grew in wisdom and in stature and in favour with God and man.

I don’t know the time table of your scripture. But I can tell you this, by the time Jesus was in his 30s he said…

Jn 16:
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15 *All things* that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that **he shall take of mine**, and shall shew it unto you.

He had been given “all things”, and by the scriptures above that would include all “Truth”. So the day and hour of his return is included in this, wouldn’t you think?

Dosn’t seem like anyone ignorant to me.

In fact I don’t think he was ignorant when he was a boy disputing with the leaders of the day.

But his wisdom and knowledge that was in him at birth “grew” as he got older until he knew all that the Father had given him from before the foundation of the world, when it was all made by him and for him.

Do you believe it is impossible for the Creator God to do this, to become our “only Saviour”, when it was impossible for any man to do this?

Do you think anyone understands how a virgin can be with child by the Hoy Spirit? Could anyone know the genetics of Christ Body?

For he must fulfill all righteiousness. Yes the Word/God could become a flesh man and still keep his Spiritual identity. The Lord from heaven, the second Adam.

None of this, whether or not it is true, negates the fact that Yeshua did not know something. You can't have it both ways. You can't be “omniscient” and not know something. Clearly, he was either one or the other. Despite your protestations to the contrary, scripture clearly shows that he did not know everything. Or are you claiming that Mark 13:32 is a false scripture?

You wrote, in response to my question, “Can one be fully God … and yet be powerless?”:

Quote

You think he was powerless because he says he came to do the Fathers will?

The one who calmed the storms and seas and walked on water and healed all manner of sickness Etc, Etc, Etc.

So was he a puppet on a string to you that had no life or power of his own? Was he just an empty vessel that the Father worked through and he did nothing? Powerless?

What does these scriptures mean to you…
Heb 10:
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Do you notice the “I”, Jesus chose to leave his Glory he shared with the Father to become our sacrifice, this was the mutual love shared with the Father and the Word, the Father sent and the Word came. Is that powereless. He made the choice.

Jn 10:
17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. “ I have power to lay it down”, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Jn 5:
17] But Jesus answered them, “My Father worketh” hitherto, and I work.
18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. (Is this Powerless?)
[20] For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.[/I]

Do you see the power Jesus had? The Father shows Christ all things and he has the power to carry out what he sees the Father do. Even to lay down his life and to take it up again. Jesus does nothing without the Father true, but the Father does nothing without Jesus, including the Creation of all things.

Heb 1:3
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had **by himself** purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

That’s Power!

That Yeshua chose to do his Father's will is a beautiful thing, but it does not automatically make him all powerful. His power, as stated over and over again in scripture, was granted to him by his Father. As a reminder, many prophets displayed the same kind of power as he did while on earth – parting the sea, raising the dead – so such displays of power alone do not make one God. They merely demonstrate that God has granted you power. YHWH does not need any one to grant Him power, but Yeshua did.

“And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth, (Matthew 28:18).“

By the way, in my bible, the phrase “by himself” in Hebrews 1:3 has a footnote that says it is disputed, so you probably shouldn't try to build any doctrines around it.

You wrote, in response to my question, “Can one be fully God … and yet lack wisdom?”:

Quote

I reiterate His wisdom and knowledge that was in him at birth “grew” as he got older until he knew all that the Father had given him from before the foundation of the world, when it was all made by him and for him. By the time he was in his thirtys we read the following…

He had been given “all things”, and by the scriptures above that would include all wisdom and knowledge. Col 2:3

I am not sure how this addresses the issue as it is still clear that there was a time that Yeshua had less wisdom. YHWH can not be described as lacking wisdom in any regard, at any time. You can't have it both ways.

You wrote, in response to my question, “Can one be fully God … and yet need perfecting?”:

Quote

Surely you are not incinuating Jesus was not perfect? He is and was the Spotless Lamb of God, the perfect sacrifice.

Jn 14:30
Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

Heb 4:15
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Do you think the writer of Hebrews would write he had no sin and then in the next chapter say he needed perfecting?

Heb 5:
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made *perfect*, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

He was tempted like we were and learned what it was to be a man and submit in obedience through his sufferings

“Perfect” Greek, ‘teleioo’ which means;
1) to make perfect, complete
a) to carry through completely, to accomplish, finish, bring to an end
2) to complete (perfect)
a) add what is yet wanting in order to render a thing full
b) to be found perfect
3) to bring to the end (goal) proposed
4) to accomplish
a) bring to a close or fulfilment by event
1) of the prophecies of the scriptures

He carried out completely the will of the Father and fulfilled all the scriptures concerning himself so he could be a our High Priest after the order of Melchisedec. Jesus was the perfect sinless Lamb , the only only perfecting he needed was the carrying out the Fathers will.

Actually, I like your analysis here. I don't see anything to which I object, so I will consider my original question unsubstantiated, at this point.

You wrote, in response to my question, “Can one be fully God … and yet die?”:

Quote

This is an easy one. The Word/God did not die. Jesus the Eternal Spirit that was with the Father could not die. His body died.

James 2:26
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

The life of the flesh is in the blood. When Jesus gave up the ghost it was the life in his flesh and blood. His Spirit went to hades for three days and three nights. The body of God died. Acts 20:28
1 Peter 3:18, Eph 4:8,9
Jesus was the resurrection and the life. This is how that he could raise himself up from the grave. Yet we know that God raised him also. That is because they are One.

It was the offering of his body that fulfilled the law of God. His blood was spilled and we are saved by it. Heb 10:10

Why would Jesus eternal Spirit die. Ours dosnt. Paul says…

2 Cor 5:
1. For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
3. If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
4. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
5. Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
6. Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
7. (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)
8. We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord

This is another issue that deserves a whole separate discussion. Whereas you believe that Yeshau only sacrificed his body, (which is hardly a sacrifice, given that he did not need one in the first place, from your perspective), I believe that Yeshua sacrified himself. That's what he says, in Revelations 2:8, and I believe him. He does not say, “My body was dead.” He says, “I was dead.” Of course, ignoring the plain meaning of scripture to replace it with theologically nuanced interpretation is common practice for those whose beliefs originate from outside the pages of scripture.

You wrote:

Quote

Again if the creed agrees great if not I accept the scriptures I have shown. Jesus is/was God in the flesh.
By faith I believe it and accept the words of Thomas that he is my Lord and My God also.

Creeds may not personally define your faith, but your beliefs are strongly shaped by them. You certainly won't find terms like, “three in one”, “coequal”, “co-creator”, “God the Son, “fully God”, “very God”, etc. in scripture. Those ideas are all taught elsewhere. Misunderstandings abound when those ideas are imported into scripture.

I know that my post will not magically change your thinking, but I hope that it at least demonstrates to you that there are solid reasons why many of us have serious doubts about the Trinity doctrine which you find so crucial to your faith.

April 12, 2007 at 10:39 pm#48779

Participant

Quote (TimothyVI @ April 13 2007,05:58)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2007,05:07)

If there is not another person, then who or what was the dove that sat on him at the Jordan while the Father in heaven spoke?

Did his own personal Spirit come and sit on him.

It was the Holy Spirit of God, whick God sent.

Tim

Hi,
Did a dove come and sit of Jesus?
Who saw this?

Can God not pour of His Spirit?

April 12, 2007 at 11:28 pm#48783

Participant

Quote (Tim2 @ April 13 2007,06:29)

Tim,

Paul says there is one Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:4, 12:11, 12:13.

Likewise, in Romans 8 Paul only mentions one Spirit, but he calls Him both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. Romans 8:9-10.

Tim

Actually Tim2,

If you read the Greek interlineary and not the KJV of the bible you will see that the Spirit is always referred to as It, itself or the Greek word autos which means ” the same” if it is referred to more than once in the same sentence.

The translators added the pro nouns that you describe, if they are there.

Tim

April 13, 2007 at 12:38 am#48791

Tim2

Participant

And “me”? Acts 13:2 -“moi”

April 13, 2007 at 1:06 am#48797

Participant

Hi Tim2,
Acts 13.2
” 2As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.”
Are you surprised?
Acts 28
” 25And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,

26Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:

27For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

April 13, 2007 at 1:37 am#48798

Participant

Hi WIT,
You say
'This is a stretch. In what sense is Yeshua with his disciples in the book of Acts? He appears to Paul physically once. Other than that he is not physically present. His words, his work, and his advocacy with the Father remain. This is no different than me telling my wife that I will be with her when she goes in for surgery. Though I won't physically be present, my heart and mind will be with her.”

Christ is with his body on earth enlivening then and uniting them with the Spirit given to him and to them. Thus they were more than agents just as Christ was more than an agent for God. God was in him. God was in them.

April 13, 2007 at 4:26 am#48827

Participant

WIT

You say…

Quote

You are right it does not change my thinking.

You are also right that it does demonstrate why people have doubts about the Trinitarian faith, mainly because they sidestep scriptures with human logic.

It goes like this. If it dosnt make logical sence then it cant be God.

So I have given you my “opinion” and you have given me yours.

We serve a diferent Jesus.

But I wish you the very best and yours, and also pray that we will all come into full knowledge of the truth.

Blessings

April 13, 2007 at 4:58 pm#48856

Participant

Quote (TimothyVI @ April 13 2007,11:28)

Quote (Tim2 @ April 13 2007,06:29)

Tim,

Paul says there is one Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:4, 12:11, 12:13.

Likewise, in Romans 8 Paul only mentions one Spirit, but he calls Him both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. Romans 8:9-10.

Tim

Actually Tim2,

The translators added the pro nouns that you describe, if they are there.

Tim

Your statement is ambiguos.

If you look at the Greek intelinear for John 16:7

It reads “…If-ever yet I-May-Be-being-gone I-shall-be-sending *Him*(Autos) toward you”

I believe the translators translated properly using the pro nouns since the Spirit had all the characteristics of a person.

All of the major credible translations render the word “Autos” in this verse as him.

The word is found over 5000 times in the AV and translated as following.

AV – him 1952, his 1084, their 318, he 252, her 242, they 121, same 80, himself 58, misc 1678; 5785

Many of these scriptures used the word for Jesus and the Father.

So if you want to call the Spirit an “IT” then thats up to you.

But you will find yourself in disagreement with all the credible translations and also you will be joining the JWs.

Blessings

April 13, 2007 at 5:02 pm#48857

Participant

Quote (TimothyVI @ April 13 2007,11:28)

Quote (Tim2 @ April 13 2007,06:29)

Tim,

Paul says there is one Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:4, 12:11, 12:13.

Likewise, in Romans 8 Paul only mentions one Spirit, but he calls Him both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. Romans 8:9-10.

Tim

Actually Tim2,

The translators added the pro nouns that you describe, if they are there.

Tim

Also I find it interesting that you just put up an argument that the Spirit, Comforter “parakletos” is Jesus Spirit and now you are saying the Spirit is an it.

What exactly do you believe?

April 13, 2007 at 5:09 pm#48860