- This topic has 672 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
.
- Posts
GS,
OK, cool. I'll be back later this evening to share what I've seen in Rev. regarding God and Jesus – and how there are two different “voices” that are heard. One is described as “rushing waters” whereas the other one is described as a “trumpet”. It's an interesting study. Now where did I put that study? Ha! I'll find it before tonight.
I work from home and so I check in during the day but do my real studying and contributing during the evening.
Chat soon,
Mandygsilva……remember Revelations is what GOD the Father (Gave) to Jesus to show His servants what must shortly come to past. And He, God,sent and (SIGNIFIED) by His angle or messenger to His servant John. Gsilva if you check out the word (signified) you'll find it means symbolized it. Revelation cannot be understood with understanding the symbols used in it. The book makes no sense without understanding the symbols used. Rather it's an angle, messenger, elders, Jesus or even John speeching it to the churches or us, it is all God the Fathers words being spoken BY HIS SPIRIT through His servants to His servants.
IMO…………….gene
Not3in1…..Right , Jesus is the beginning and end of God The Fathers Plan for all humanity. Right on Mandy.
love and peace to you and yours………………gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 16 2008,04:31) WJ……> you implying the word (WORD) is is not (JUST) a thought , saying or plan. Show your lack of understanding of what the Word of God is, it is more powerful the a two edged sword, separating the bone from the morrow it says. GB. John 1:1 does not say…”In the beginning was the (spoken word of God), and the (spoken word of God) was with God, and the (spoken word of God was God).
This is your own inference. And in fact you are yet to tell me how God’s spoken word is “God”.
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 16 2008,04:31)
So I doint think if we take John as using the word (word) for its actual meanning is down grading anything do you, and Cant you give John enough sense to know what He wrote was exactly what he meant, if He was implying Jesus, He would have simple said Jesus, and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.And again he would have said “Spoken word of God” instead of “Word” if he was implying his spoken word wouldn’t he?
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 16 2008,04:31)
John was just showing that in the beginning God spoke by His words things into being. That is a (power) God Has is to speak thing into existence. He did that in the beginning of this creation. So the word was with GOD and the word Was God. And the word came to be in Jesus< How, by the HOLY SPIRIT, that was given Him.So again, God is a spoken word?
“The Word was God”.Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 16 2008,04:31)
Just like God's Spirit does in all who have it. Jesus didn't say i am the Father did He.Bingo! Yet you say the spoken word “which was God” became flesh and dwelt among us.
If the Word was God and the Word is the Father, for you say…
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 16 2008,04:31)
John was just showing that in the beginning God spoke by His words things into being. That is a (power) God Has is to speak thing into existence. He did that in the beginning of this creation. So the word was with GOD and the word Was God.Then you are saying the Father came in the flesh and we beheld his glory. John 1:14
So John 1:1 to you should read “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the Father and the Word was the (Father). (GB 1:1)
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 16 2008,04:31)
No, he said the Father was (IN) Him, How was He in Him, the same way He can be in us by the same Spirit that was in Jesus also. “if this mind be in you that was (also) in Jesus (IT) shall quicken your mortal bodies, and again, “let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus our Lord”. There is no difference between Jesus and Us, ” wherefore He is not ashamed to called them brethren”.To many bits and pieces of scriptures botched together to fit your view.
First of all Philippians 2:5-7 reads…
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped (held on to)
but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.You can learn more about the dual nature of Jesus Here
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 16 2008,04:31) All who separate Jesus Christ from their likeness are Antichrists, or why do you think John said “whosoever confesses Jesus as not coming in Flesh is Antichrist. People who don't see Jesus as a simple Human being are Antichrist. What God the Father did in the man Jesus He can do for anybody. Or how could we ever come to the Full measure of Christ them. Where is the scripture that says “people who don’t see Jesus as a simple human being are antichrist“? This is your opinion. And as far as Jesus coming in the flesh, those are just wasted words if he simply was born as you and I.
Jesus tells us where he came from…
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. (John 6:38)
John penned these words, and later says…
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (1 John 4:2, 3)These scriptures tie in beautifully with John 1:14, and Phil 2:5-7.
Why didn’t he say “Every Spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ was a simple man is of God? This is your inference.
Why does he use the term, “come in the flesh”?
But, it can’t be that way to you because this would blow your non-preexistent view apart. You are reading into the text your own view.
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 16 2008,04:31)
I know you don't realize it but your, separation of Jesus' exact likeness to us, is an error on your part and all trinitarians who hold this view of Jesus are wrong also.Yes of course, you know more than the millions of scholars and commentators and Trinitarians all over the world and only your views are right.
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 16 2008,04:31)
I would like to take ONE Subject , for us to talk about, Just one Word, and lets stay on subject if we can……The word is GOD. I
would like to know what is your definition of that word.Peace to you and yours…….gene
Are you serious? I have shown you that scriptures clearly teach that the Word in John 1:1 can not be the “spoken word” of the Father because John 1:1 says the “Word is God”, and the “Word was made flesh and dwelt among us”.
Since you will not read my link I will post a clip showing the true interpretation of the Word in John 1:1…
So the language used by John makes explicit that whenever the “beginning” was, the logos was already in existence. By using this construction John was making it clear that logos is without a beginning, The Logos is origin-less, He had no beginning, He is time-less. Robertson also made mention of the juxtaposition of the two words used to describe the pre-incarnate existence of the Word and His incarnation is, I think. The Greek word “en” which denotes continuous action of the Logos existing in the past is in contrast to the aorist verb “egeneto” which John used to describing the incarnation (v 14), which happened at a fixed point in time. This contradistinction in terminology underscores the fact that John was delineating the eternal Logos from the temporal nature of the “things” (or flesh) He created.
and the Word was with God
In the second clause John’s language was typically precise and nuanced, he deliberately invoked a distinction in the two persons of “ton theon” and “ho Logos” and at the same time presented a new dynamic, they were coexisting in relationship. The significant word in the clause is “pros”, when used with the accusative it is widely regarded as being Greek shorthand for proswpon prov proswpon, which means face to face (in relationship). Here is how Robertson exegetes this clause:With God (prov ton qeon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Prov with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use of prov: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklhton exomen prov ton patera). See proswpon prov proswpon (face to face, 1 Corinthians 13:12), a triple use of prov. There is a papyrus example of prov in this sense to gnwston thv prov allhlouv sunhqeiav, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of prov here and in Mark 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koin‚, not old Attic. In John 17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom.
(source)So it’s in this clause that we have the John’s fullest expression of the type of relationship two subjects shared “in the beginning”. The Logos always existed in intimate fellowship with “ton theon” (The Father). Then in verse 3 a bombshell is dropped….
Blessings!
Quote (Not3in1 @ May 16 2008,07:32) Jesus is not the Almighty. No where is he considered such. No language of the bible proves this. Compare the KJV Rev. 1:8 with the NIV Rev. 1:8………….tell me what you see? There is a difference there.
Hi Mandy!
I don’t see the difference!
Quote (Not3in1 @ May 16 2008,07:32)
My mother has an old KJV (probably from the 50's) and guess what? Rev. 1:8 is NOT IN RED PRINT! What do you think this means? Curious, isn't it?Is it possible they didn’t have a two color printing press or they just wanted to do it in black and white? I suppose you could make it mean anything, but it doesn’t.
Quote (Not3in1 @ May 16 2008,07:32)
At any rate, I've done a study of this passage if you care to hear it. Otherwise I won't waste my time. If you read carefully and follow the players there, you will see that Rev. 1:8 refers to God, not Jesus.Really, then tell me who the “Alpha and Omega” is here…
And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.(Rev. 22:12, 13)Who is it that is coming quickly? Who is the “first and the last”?
And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: (Rev 1:17)
Blessings!
GS,
Forgive me but I'm too pooped to get out my study tonight and hash it all over in a post. We got back late from my daughter's softball game (we won), and I'm just too tired. I'm going to browse a little and then hit the hay. I'll try to post tomorrow on this.
Thanks,
MandyWJ,
We must have been posting at the same time.I'll show you what I mean tomorrow – there is a difference. You may not agree with what I've found, but you'll be able to see why I think the way I do.
Thanks,
MandyWJ……> A word is an intelligent utterance, John was simply saying that God's word was in the beginning and was with God and was God. It plainly say;s that. Now if you and the rest of the trinitarian Scholars want to say it means something other them what it expressly says that up to you. I simply believe it as it is written and apply the word that are written by John, and give him enough credit of writing exactly what he meant to say, If you or your trinitarian scholars choose to change the word (WORD) to Jesus thats your problem not my. It makes perfect sense to me the way it is written and i don't have to substitute another word to get the meaning of what John wrote.
Do you know why John made that statement about Jesus coming in the Flesh in the first place, it was because the Gnostic's were teaching that Jesus was not a real Human being but a GOD who came down from Heaven in the form of a man, kinda of like you trinitarians teach, and when John said came in Flesh
( the article (the) was added by translators) , He meant came into existence as a flesh and blood human being. not as a God. How do i know that, its simple scripture says < God is (NOT) a Man that he should LIE, OR a Son of Man that He should repent. But Jesus said He was SON OF MAN time and time again didn't He. But God said He (WASN'T) A MAN.Your inability to see how God the Father was indwelling Jesus Via His Holy Spirit is also part of the problem. For GOD who has spoken to us in times past through the Prophets, has in these latter days Spoken to us (THROUGH) a son. Ill bet you even believe a (WORD) can actually be Flesh too. But Jesus said the word's i am seeking, are (NOT) MY WORDS but the WORDS of (HIM) who Sent ME.
So your saying Jesus sent Himself right because He is the Word He spoke. How do your trinitarian scholars get around those scriptures. O, i know they just neglect them and pay not attention to them right.
There are hundreds of scriptures that disprove the trinity ideology. But what the use your Hell bent to hang on to your own teachings, but really there not your own .
I would like to discuss with you though your concept of the word (GOD). I think by not fully understanding that word it can easily throw people off in studying God's word.
peace to you and yours WJ………gene
GB
Somehow I don't think you read my post, because you didn't address any of my points but just rehashed the same things over again.
Here I will post it again and will address your post tommorrow.
Blessings!
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 16 2008,04:31) WJ……> you implying the word (WORD) is is not (JUST) a thought , saying or plan. Show your lack of understanding of what the Word of God is, it is more powerful the a two edged sword, separating the bone from the morrow it says. GB. John 1:1 does not say…”In the beginning was the (spoken word of God), and the (spoken word of God) was with God, and the (spoken word of God was God).
This is your own inference. And in fact you are yet to tell me how God’s spoken word is “God”.
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 16 2008,04:31)
So I doint think if we take John as using the word (word) for its actual meanning is down grading anything do you, and Cant you give John enough sense to know what He wrote was exactly what he meant, if He was implying Jesus, He would have simple said Jesus, and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.And again he would have said “Spoken word of God” instead of “Word” if he was implying his spoken word wouldn’t he?
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 16 2008,04:31)
John was just showing that in the beginning God spoke by His words things into being. That is a (power) God Has is to speak thing into existence. He did that in the beginning of this creation. So the word was with GOD and the word Was God. And the word came to be in Jesus< How, by the HOLY SPIRIT, that was given Him.So again, God is a spoken word?
“The Word was God”.Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 16 2008,04:31)
Just like God's Spirit does in all who have it. Jesus didn't say i am the Father did He.Bingo! Yet you say the spoken word “which was God” became flesh and dwelt among us.
If the Word was God and the Word is the Father, for you say…
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 16 2008,04:31)
John was just showing that in the beginning God spoke by His words things into being. That is a (power) God Has is to speak thing into existence. He did that in the beginning of this creation. So the word was with GOD and the word Was God.Then you are saying the Father came in the flesh and we beheld his glory. John 1:14
So John 1:1 to you should read “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the Father and the Word was the (Father). (GB 1:1)
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 16 2008,04:31)
No, he said the Father was (IN) Him, How was He in Him, the same way He can be in us by the same Spirit that was in Jesus also. “if this mind be in you that was (also) in Jesus (IT) shall quicken your mortal bodies, and again, “let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus our Lord”. There is no difference between Jesus and Us, ” wherefore He is not ashamed to called them brethren”.To many bits and pieces of scriptures botched together to fit your view.
First of all Philippians 2:5-7 reads…
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped (held on to)
but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.You can learn more about the dual nature of Jesus Here
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 16 2008,04:31) All who separate Jesus Christ from their likeness are Antichrists, or why do you think John said “whosoever confesses Jesus as not coming in Flesh is Antichrist. People who don't see Jesus as a simple Human being are Antichrist. What God the Father did in the man Jesus He can do for anybody. Or how could we ever come to the Full measure of Christ them. Where is the scripture that says “people who don’t see Jesus as a simple human being are antichrist“? This is your opinion. And as far as Jesus coming in the flesh, those are just wasted words if he simply was born as you and I.
Jesus tells us where he came from…
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. (John 6:38)
John penned these words, and later says…
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (1 John 4:2, 3)These scriptures tie in beautifully with John 1:14, and Phil 2:5-7.
Why didn’t he say “Every Spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ was a simple man is of God? This is your inference.
Why does he use the term, “come in the flesh”?
But, it can’t be that way to you because this would blow your non-preexistent view apart. You are reading into the text your own view.
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 16 2008,04:31)
I know you don't realize it but your, separation of Jesus' exact likeness to us, is an error on your part and all trinitarians who hold this view of Jesus are wrong also.Yes of course, you know more than the millions of scholars and commentators and Trinitarians all over the world and only your views are right.
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 16 2008,04:31)
I would like to take ONE Subject , for us to talk about, Just one Word, and lets stay on subject if we can……The word is GOD. I would like to know what is your definition of that word.Peace to you and yours…….gene
Are you serious? I have shown you that scriptures clearly teach that the Word in John 1:1 can not be the “spoken word” of the Father because John 1:1 says the “Word is God”, and the “Word was made flesh and dwelt among us”.
Since you will not read my link I will post a clip showing the true interpretation of the Word in John 1:1…
So the language used by John makes explicit that whenever the “beginning” was, the logos was already in existence. By using this construction John was making it clear that logos is without a beginning, The Logos is origin-less, He had no beginning, He is time-less. Robertson also made mention of the juxtaposition of the two words used to describe the pre-incarnate existence of the Word and His incarnation is, I think. The Greek word “en” which denotes continuous action of the Logos existing in the past is in contrast to the aorist verb “egeneto” which John used to describing the incarnation (v 14), which happened at a fixed point in time. This contradistinction in terminology underscores the fact that John was delineating the eternal Logos from the temporal nature of the “things” (or flesh) He created.
and the Word was with God
In the second clause John’s language was typically precise and nuanced, he deliberately invoked a distinction in the two persons of “ton theon” and “ho Logos” and at the same time presented a new dynamic, they were coexisting in relationship. The significant word in the clause is “pros”, when used with the accusative it is widely regarded as being Greek shorthand for proswpon prov proswpon, which means face to face (in relationship). Here is how Robertson exegetes this clause:With God (prov ton qeon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Prov with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use of prov: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklhton exomen prov ton patera). See proswpon prov proswpon (face to face, 1 Corinthians 13:12), a triple use of prov. There is a papyrus example of prov in this sense to gnwston thv prov allhlouv sunhqeiav, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of prov here and in Mark 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koin‚, not old Attic. In John 17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom.
(source)So it’s in this clause that we have the John’s fullest expression of the type of relationship two subjects shared “in the beginning”. The Logos always existed in intimate fellowship with “ton theon” (The Father). Then in verse 3 a bombshell is dropped….
Blessings!
WJ…….Ill start by saying i have come to a different understanding about the word GOD then i used to. I don't Know if you have read Jeff Benners Book (the Mechanical Translation of the Book of Genesis) or not, but its quite interesting, because there has never been a mechanical translation done before from what I've heard. Anyway his book explains the way the Hebrews understood the word written in Genesis, It's very interesting and from what i Have checked so far quite accurate.
He Says, the word we translate as God was ELOHIYM and simply meant
(POWERS) another words the word was not representing a person at all but and attribute He possessed, another words His powers, and i read where Issac Newton said the similar thing in his general scholium He said the word (God) can only be used to represent domain or authority of some kind and is expressed in some form of power.When you put that thought in the scriptures we read it clarifies them another words anyone can be a God or have some kind of power, because that's all the word implies. So when Jesus said ” the scriptures said they were Gods it was implying they were given power to exercise the Father's will. Now the word LORD or YHWH (HE EXISTS) and when you connect it with God or Elohiym (POWERS) it would come out LORD GOD or YHWH Elohiym or HE EXISTS WITH POWERS which is express as Almighty GOD> Another words the word God by it self does not imply a deity at all. It can be connected with a deity but doesn't have to be.
what do you think………………gene
I fully agree with you my brother Gene,
The spoken words of God are nothing but God. Even the human science accepts it. The words I speak are me. The language used by st. John are poetic in nature. You can not take them as literal. The word was personified by John. “Without him (it) nothing came into being that has been made… In him (it) was life …”. These are the words personified by John. There is no jimmic here. I wonder how many times in how many topics this verse has been debated. There is no end.
WJ, ask God for His understanding of the scriptures properly.
May God bless you all
Adamgollamudi! Maybe YOU need to ask God for greater understanding, because in John 1:1 it says that the Word was God and the Word was with God and the Word became flesh.
The Word was a Spirit being the Son of God, because He came forth from God the Father.
Col. 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God the FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATURES. The Word who became Jesus was there before the world was.
Col. 1:16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible…… All things were created through Him and for Him.
Col 1:17 And He is before all things and in Him all things consist.
The next verse is very important so please read this again and again.
Col. 1:18 And He is the Head of the body the Church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead that IN ALL THINGS HE MAY HAVE PREEMINENCE.
Now look up and see what PREEMINECE MEANS.
It means that He was first in all.
SO HE WAS THE FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION, AND THE FIRSTBORN FROM THE DEAD. AND NOW SITS AT THE RIGHTHAND OF GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY. THE HIGHEST POSITION BESIDES GOD THE FATHER.
Rev. 3:14 ” These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness the BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF GOD.
So are you going to believe this ore are you going to deny these scriptures?
One more thing, like some might say that it proves that there is a trinity. Oh, now because of
Ephesians 4:4-6 read it, I am not going to write it out. You have to prove all things to yourself that is what 1 Thes. 5:21 tells us to do.
Peace and Love Mrs.hey come on seek,
Don't misunderstand my words. We were all together in the same level of beliefs of triune God. That was an old story. I debated many times and many ways to prove trinity. Read the posts of Gene, Not3in1, Adam, Martian etc. See the spirit of understanding behind them. Have any others in this forum demonstrated such wisdom. One side you say God is one and otherside you say Jesus is also God and creator. Please come out from such confusing spirits. Try to understand things of God in the context of Jewish beliefs not as pagans like we do in India here.
Sorry if I hurt you. I suffered this ambiguity years together. I don't want anybody else to suffer this way. I thank God for giving me understanding about the simple truth of His existence and Characteristics.
Peace to you.
AdamYou are doing well gollamudi,
You must understand the scriptures simply, as a child would.
Not through the eyes of theologians whose wisdom may very well
be foolishness in the eyes of God.Tim
gollamudi…….> God has given you the Spirit of Truth and it has delivered you from the corruption of false Christianity, and don't let false gibberish sway you, you have pure faith given you by our Father Just lean on Him, Yoke with Him the way Jesus our Brother and High priest did, You never know what God the Father has in mind for you in India, look forward to meeting you in person some day.
peace and love to you and yours……….Your brother in the anointing……gene
Quote:”The Word was a Spirit being the Son of God,”
Hi Seek and you will find,
How could he be a spirit being with the Father when John 4:24 says, ” God is a Spirit? I'd like to know, because we can't have the Father as a spirit, the Son as a Spirit, and the Holy Spirit as the spirit. That equals 3 spirits. That is not what John 4:24 says.
Quote (gollamudi @ May 16 2008,19:49) hey come on seek,
Don't misunderstand my words. We were all together in the same level of beliefs of triune God. That was an old story. I debated many times and many ways to prove trinity. Read the posts of Gene, Not3in1, Adam, Martian etc. See the spirit of understanding behind them. Have any others in this forum demonstrated such wisdom. One side you say God is one and otherside you say Jesus is also God and creator. Please come out from such confusing spirits. Try to understand things of God in the context of Jewish beliefs not as pagans like we do in India here.
Sorry if I hurt you. I suffered this ambiguity years together. I don't want anybody else to suffer this way. I thank God for giving me understanding about the simple truth of His existence and Characteristics.
Peace to you.
Adam
Hi Adam,I agree with what you are saying and was blessed by your explaination of “it” regarding the “Word”. Great explaination there, brother.
The frustration with preexistent believer's, such as “Mrs.” (who is also called “Irene”, and “Seek and you will find”), is that they hold onto ideas that are closely related to the trinity belief. It's hard to let go of all of these beliefs, I guess.
But Jesus cannot be born a man and have preexisted his birth in some divine fashion. You are correct to dismiss this thought. We were not re-born from spirit beings, for example. If Christ be as we are, then it only stands to reason that his beginning was our beginning…..at birth.
Now the scriptures teach that Jesus had a beginning that reached beyond our beginning. This begs the question, in what capacity did our Lord exist if he wasn't physically born yet? And I'm sorry to say that this question remains for the most part, unanswered. We can guess, but that's all that is.
Arguments for preexistence have not convinced me. The disciples, Paul and other's – including Jesus himself- did not expound on this preexistent state. We have received no lessons on this topic. It's up for grabs. I have my theories…
Take care and thanks for your kind words,
MandyQuote (gsilva72 @ May 17 2008,02:40) Quote:”The Word was a Spirit being the Son of God,” Hi Seek and you will find,
How could he be a spirit being with the Father when John 4:24 says, ” God is a Spirit? I'd like to know, because we can't have the Father as a spirit, the Son as a Spirit, and the Holy Spirit as the spirit. That equals 3 spirits. That is not what John 4:24 says.
GS,WOW – you have shared an original thought here on the topic. I've never heard this before, and you are right. That would make 3 spirits. Hmmmm Interesting, indeed.
I'm running today but plan to get back to you tonight regarding Rev. 1:8 (thanks for being patient with me).
Love,
MandyI guess the questions being begged then are – is it the Spirit where the individual's centre of consciousness exists, is it where their identity and personality comes from? Are spirits even unique to the individual, or is it universal to the kind or being. I personally don't have a problem accepting Yeshua and the Father shared the same Spirit. This is the natural and ONLY LOGICAL inference that could be taken from these verses:
1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.and;
Ephesians 2:18
For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.and;
Ephesians 4:6
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.cf.
John 14:16-17
16″I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.and;
John 14:23
23Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.More than one identity indwells the believer, yet only one Spirit. So Yeshua and the Father sharing the same Spirit does not make them the same person. In my humble opinion the identity comes from the soul, not the Spirit. So I do not see this as any kind of refutation of trinitarianism.
Blessings
Hi Bro. Isaiah:
You say:
Quote More than one identity indwells the believer, yet only one Spirit. So Yeshua and the Father sharing the same Spirit does not make them the same person. In my humble opinion the identity comes from the soul, not the Spirit. So I do not see this as any kind of refutation of trinitarianism. That is because the Word of God which is the spirit of the Son has come form God. There is but one God, and there is only One only begotten Son but many sons of God. The Father and Son are two distinct souls or individuals, but who that person is is determined by what he does. The life that the person lives determines who he is.
Quote Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. Quote Jhn 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
