As discussed in the Guard Your Thought Life thread, the power of God is what's needed in order for us to live a Christlike life. This works whether one believes the Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Trinity or the operational presence and power of God. The focus is still on God in either case. What does NOT work is the TWI belief that the holy spirit is just a "power-pack" implanted within me that is now part of me and I must use it and control it. Then the focus is all on me and my use of my power by renewing my mind to "operate al nine all the time." This results in spinning one's wheels and getting nowhere.
Right on Mark, oh we agree! Sort of. . . Let's celebrate!! :)
It is the Holy Spirit who works these things in our life. But, we do have to be aware and make a freewill effort to guard against temptation. Prayer being the biggie. . . prayer with faith I mean.
Jesus, while teaching His disciples how to pray said ". . . do not bring us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. . . "
Jesus while in the garden, told Peter, to pray that he would not enter into temptation. Yikes!
God does not tempt men. . . but He will subject them to trials that may expose them to assaults from Satan. As in the case of Job, or Peter. . . . our desires should be to avoid the desires of sin altogether. God will work that into our lives. One way or another. . . usually another. . . . through endurance.
What do these trials do. . . our bouts with temptation? Faith is strengthened with trial. Patience is built. Understanding is gained. Sin exposed. We can't really do this without God. He knows what we need before we ask. There are things in our hearts we are not even aware of. . . which is why you hear Christians asking God to search their hearts.
It is the work of the Holy Spirit. . . we ask to be delivered from temptation. . . but in order to "Renew" our minds about it. . . we have to have that understanding. Despite what TWI said. . . the devil is subtle.
You know what the real sin is? Not depending on God for all of this. Faith. . . I love it. . . it does bring peace.
We sometimes HAVE to go through this stuff to learn. It is how we grow in grace. The real test is in thanking Him for it. . . . rejoicing in the Lord.
When my anxious thoughts multiply within me. . . . your consolation delights my soul!
The first thing I noticed about that article is that it has a lot of sweeping generalities, with very little in the way of actual references. Secondly, most of its quotes are from gnostic writings. While gnosticism did exist and did represent a view that was held by some, it was refuted by the writers of the New Testament and does not reflect the orthodox view. And thirdly, I have to wonder why some of the roles of the Holy Spirit are considered feminine in the first place.
The Holy Spirit plays varied roles in Judeo-Christian traditions: acting in Creation, imparting wisdom, and inspiring Old Testament prophets. In the New Testament She is the presence of God in the world and a power in the birth and life of Jesus.
There's nothing particularly masculine or feminine about acting in Creation, imparting wisdom, or inspiring Old Testament prophets. And as for being a power in the birth of Jesus, the Bible declares that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary. Not that God had intercourse with Mary, as some skeptics think we believe, but God by His Spirit conceived the life of the child within the body of the mother (Mary), which is typically the father's part in the process.
The Holy Spirit became well-established as part of a circumincession, a partner in the Trinity with the Father and Son after doctrinal controversies of the late 4th century AD solidified the position of the Western Church.
Notice, it became a person, a partner in the Trinity. The gnostic idea of a lesser divine being was thoroughly pagan, and had no place in the Scriptures.
For the most part, Ruach or Pneuma have been considered the spiritual force or presence of God. The power of this force can be seen in the Christian church as the "gifts of the Spirit" (especially in today's tongues- speaking Pentecostals). The Holy Spirit was also a source for Divine guidance and as the indwelling Comforter.
Correct. This is the view presented in the Bible. Not a person but the active power and presence of God.
Likewise in Hebrew thought, Ruach Ha Kodesh was considered a voice sent from on high to speak to the Prophet. Thus, in the Old Testament language of the prophets, She is the Divine Spirit of indwelling sanctification and creativity and is considered as having a feminine power.
Considered by whom? It isn't described that way in the Hebrew Scriptures. Power is neither masculine or feminine.
"He" as a reference to Spirit has been used in theology to match the pronoun for God, yet the Hebrew word ruach is a noun of feminine gender. Thus, referring to the Holy Spirit as "she" has some linguistic justification.
Hebrew, as with many languages, assigns grammatical gender to nouns, but it does not necessarily mean that the things are masculine or feminine themselves. But since English normally only uses personal pronouns when referring to persons, there is no "linguistic justification" for referring to the Holy Spirit as "she" just because ruach is feminine grammatically.
Denoting Spirit as a feminine principle, the creative principle of life, makes sense when considering the Trinity aspect where Father plus Spirit leads to the Divine Extension of Divine Sonship.
Perhaps it makes sense when you start with the assumption that it is a separate person. But not when you see it as the presence and power of God. Besides, the Son coming from the Father and the Spirit is not what the official doctrine of the Trinity says. The following is from the Athanasian Creed: "The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding."
The Spirit is not called "it" despite the fact that pneuma in Greek is a neuter noun. Church doctrine regards the Holy Spirit as a person, not a force like magnetism.
This is misleading. The pronouns match the gender of their antecedents in Greek. But in English, when a pronoun refers to an inanimate object, it is translated "it" regardless of whether the Greek word is masculine or feminine grammatically. When pronouns refer to people, they are generally masculine or feminine. So, when it comes to the Holy Spirit, the pronouns being translated "he" and "him" is because of the belief that it is a person. There is nothing that grammatically requires it be translated this way. And yet even in the KJV, Romans 8:16 refers to "the spirit itself."
BTW, Church doctrine regards the spirit as a person, but the Scriptures do not. But neither do they regard it as "a force like magnetism." It's the presence and power of God.
I find it interesting that the article refers to so many gnostic writings (albeit without reference) but makes relatively few citations of the Scriptures. This seems to reflect a mindset that is more and more common these days, that the canon of New Testament Scriptures was arranged to deliberately leave out what they didn't like. But the fact is that none of the gnostic writings was ever considered authoritative by the usual criteria, and the doctrines presented in them were contrary to those presented in the authoritative writings.
I think St. Augustine was right when he claimed that the acceptance of the Holy Spirit as the "mother of the Son of God and wife-consort of the Father" was merely a pagan outlook. The article says that "Mayr contends that Augustine 'skipped over the social and maternal aspect of God,' which Mayr thinks is best seen in the Holy Spirit." But I have to wonder whether the role of the Holy Spirit as presented in the Scriptures can really be described as either masculine or feminine.
In conclusion, we are living at a time of profound and revelatory discoveries of archaeology and ancient spiritual texts that point the way to the future. Christ, himself, was said to have female disciples as disclosed in Gnostic literature and recent archeological findings of early Christian tombs in Italy.
It was no secret that Christ had female disciples. The Bible tells us of them. They were the first to see the empty tomb, for one thing. And several women are mentioned in Acts as having prominent roles in the Church.
There seems to be a hunger to find anything new and sensational, with little regard for what is already established. The testimony that the apostles and other eyewitnesses have already provided is more reliable than some scholars would have us believe. But not all scholars. There are some who believe in the trustworthiness of the Scriptures, and have offered sound rebuttals for anything the opponents of that view might offer. "Profound and revelatory discoveries" have so far not proven anything except that there were some people with different views.
I know we don't agree on who the Holy Spirit is. . . but I wanted to clarify a few things for you. I know you have your understanding. . . not looking for an argument, it is pointless, but you do seem to have this person thing a bit mixed up. It helps to understand that which you argue against. No offense, but you do seem to twist it in explanation.
I get that you can't wrap your head around it. . . that is fine. It is interesting to note though, that while some argue over gender, most do not argue personhood. BTW, if these guys wanted to. . . they could make a very good case that the Holy Spirit is female. Gotta be on your toes!!
We see the same thing soooo differently. But, it is there to see if you want to. Or not.
Not too complicated really. The reason we call the Holy Spirit a person is not because He is embodied, or a human being. . . He is Spirit. . . but a person is self identified, has a mind, a will, distinct entity.
Hate to use this analogy, but is the devil a person, or a force or power?
Scripture does reveal the Holy Spirit with certain personal qualities. YES He is God, but He is distinct and personified in scripture. Dictinct from the Father, and Jesus. Remember, Jesus said He would send another. Although, if you don't believe Jesus is God this won't mean much to you.
Let me give you some examples of why we believe as we do. I know you have your faith's explanation for these, but this is the orthodox or accepted theology. Orthodox simply means right. :) And before you write us off as "misguided" or doing the"best" we can. . . LOL consider, not all Christians are ignorant and unlearned. There is a whole field of theological study called pneumatology and some very gifted scholars have studied the scriptures. Most of them. . . not ever in heretical cults.
The Holy Spirit has a mind ( Romans 8:27).The Holy Spirit helped to settle questions during the Church Council at Jerusalem Acts 15:28 The Holy Spirit dispenses gifts to different individuals according as He wills Corinthians 12:8-11 The Holy Spirit forbade some from going to preach in certain places 16:6-7The Holy Spirit anointed Jesus and sent Him out to preach the gospel (see Luke 4:18-19); In fact, both the Father and the Holy Spirit sent Jesus (see Isaiah 48:16). The Holy Spirit testifies or witnesses of Jesus John 15:26. The Holy Spirit leads God’s people Romans 8:14. The Holy Spirit teaches and causes us to remember the truth John 14:26 The Holy Spirit comforts us as does Christ John 14:16. The Holy Spirit strives with us Genesis 6:3. The Holy Spirit reproves us of sin, righteousness, and judgment John 16:8-11. The Holy Spirit instructs us Nehemiah 9:20.The Holy Spirit speaks, guides, hears and shows John 16:13-15.The Holy Spirit speaks, chooses, calls and sends forth Acts 13:1-4. The Holy Spirit gives messages to prophets and they declare: “Thus saith the Holy Ghost” Acts 21:11.The Holy Spirit has knowledge, and searches all things (see 1 Corinthians 2:10-11). The Holy Spirit sanctifies us Romans 15:16. The Holy Spirit holds communion with us 2 Corinthians 13:14; and so does Christ 1 Corinthians 1:9. The Holy Spirit is the source of regeneration and renewal for salvation John 3:5-8; Titus 3:5. The Holy Spirit resurrects the faithful from the dead Romans 8:11; 1 Peter 3:18. The Holy Spirit is the author of the Bible and moved upon the prophets to speak 2 Peter 1:21. The Holy Spirit is another Comforter other than Christ John 14:16. The Holy Spirit helps our infirmities Romans 8:26. The Holy Spirit can be tempted and lied to see Acts 5:3, 9. The Holy Spirit can be blasphemed and sinned against Mark 3:28-29; Luke 12:10; Matthew 12:31.
From Come Let us Reason. ..
"The main purpose of the Holy Spirit was to come alongside the believer, to do what Jesus did when he was here physically, but mainly from the inside of us. He is called the comforter, this would be a hard thing to do if the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force. The helper paracletos is used for the Spirit in the NT. by Jesus. This was used in Greek almost always of persons. Here the Lord calls him our helper, one that comes alongside. Even with the other titles attributed to him this still does not change who he is behind those titles. He (the Spirit) says "separate Barnabas and Saul to me" he also is identified as "I" in Acts 13:2. If the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force as Jehovah’s Witnesses claim, or a mode as in Oneness Pentecostalism, then He cannot be another of the same kind. Jesus is a person, if the Spirit is another comforter this requires the Spirit to be a person also. How could He duplicate all the things of Jesus unless He is a person? The helper in Gr. paracletos, is used to describe the Spirit in the New Testament by Jesus. This was used in Greek almost always of persons. Here the Lord calls him our helper, one that comes alongside. When we speak of person it does not necessitate form but personality and identityLooking at the attributes of the Spirit we find no difference in His nature, function and communion with the believer than with Jesus. Rom.8:27 He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the spirit is, because he makes intercession for the saints," 1 Cor.2:11: "But the one and the same spirit works all these things dividing to each one as He wills. Acts 8.29: The Spirit spoke to Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it." Rev 2-3: "Let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches" Rev 22.17: The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" If the Spirit is impersonal so is the Bride.
The activities of the Spirit are all descriptions of what persons do. Many groups come to the irrational and illogical conclusion that he is only a force used by the Father to accomplish his purposes. This power the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim is impersonal like an artificial intelligence that will accomplish Gods will in our lives. Romans 8.16: The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. To make the Holy Spirit something other than a personality a being (a force?) This means that we are indwelt with a human non personality. This means we have no inner nature that rules over our body, that all we are is our body just like the evolutionists say.
Paul uses the spirit Gr. pnuema as The masculine pronoun He , giving him identity. The Holy Spirit is portrayed as a personal being with an identity different then both the Father and the Son. He is identified as "I" in Acts 13:2.
As we understand that the nature of the Father and Son and Spirit have always been the same, they are all eternal. They all share in common the same essence, which is God. They also share in the divine name of Yahweh. All the attributes of God that are held in common with the Father and Son are shared also with the Holy Spirit.
He has omnipresence Ps.139:7-10 David writes whether he goes up to heaven or into hell below God is there, he cannot escape his Spirit. He is omnipresent, everywhere since he would dwell in every believer simultaneously.( 3 omnis are described in this passage omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience all attributes of God). The essence of the Holy Spirit is that he is omniscient- all knowing 1 Cor.2:10-11: "For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God." Only God can comprehend God himself, he knows things of God and things we do not know of ourselves.
There are scriptures that refer to the Holy Spirit as being the "Spirit of Jesus", the "Spirit of Christ", or "Spirit of the Son" "the Spirit of the Father" If the Son and Father are persons then this certainly does not make the Spirit a non person."
My favorite, John 14:26 where you have all three. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
Job 32:8 - But it is the spirit in a man, the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding.
John 15:26 - When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.
John 16:5-15 - 5 "Now I am going to him who sent me, yet none of you asks me, 'Where are you going?' 6 Because I have said these things, you are filled with grief. 7 But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; 10 in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11 and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned. 12 "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.
John 3:5-7 - 5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'
John 6:63 - The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.
Ephesians 2:1-5 - 1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.
2 Thessalonians 2:13 - But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.
1 Corinthians 12:13 - For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body - whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free - and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
Ephesians 1:13-14 - 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession - to the praise of his glor
Romans 8:9-10 - 9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.
1 Corinthians 6:19 - Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own.
Ephesians 2:22 - And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.
2 Corinthians 3:17-18 - 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.
Philippians 1:6 - being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.
Philippians 2:12-13 - 12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.
Ephesians 1:17-18 - 17 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18 I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints.
Galatians 5:25 - Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.
Galatians 5:22-23 - 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
1 Corinthians 2:9-14 - 9 However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him" — 10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Psalm 139:7-8 - 7 Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? 8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
Genesis 1:1-2 - 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. Psalm 104:30 - When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth.
Job 33:4 - The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life.
Luke 1:35 - The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.
Romans 8:11 - And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.
If you got through that last post you are a trooper, but just a bit more that may help you understand the orthodox theology of the Holy Spirit. I am sure you are familar with Perichoresis. "The relationship of the Triune God is intensified by the relationship of perichoresis. This indwelling expresses and realizes fellowship between the Father and the Son. It is intimacy. Jesus compares the oneness of this indwelling to the oneness of the fellowship of his church from this indwelling. "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." (John 17:21)" The Holy Spirit is kinda the one who makes this happen.
There is so much revealed in scripture about how God is glorified within Himself. The absolute intimacy and pefection of fellowship within the Godhead. It can render one jelly. Makes your knees go weak. But, without some kind of belief in or understanding of the Godhead. . . none of it is going to work for you.
We love Him because He first loved us. . . that is in relationship. . . love is known in relation to something. God is love. He didn't become Love. . . He is love. He is in relationship within the Godhead.
The church is about unity in relationship. Being one. Everything is about relationship. . . cetainly when it comes to love.
God is a happy God. . . Happy and overflowing within Himself. . . outside of His creation.
Not complicated when you start looking and considering scripture. I know you reject it, but I just wanted to clarify for you.
When I look at things now. . . no preconceived bias. . . I read history and see the trinity was already known. . . clarified and established in creed, not invented. Perichoresis was explored by John of Damascus not invented.
I too see these things in scripture. :) Did you ever stop to ask yourself what it is we are filled with and baptised in? Mind blowing.
I won't get into an argument; as you say, it is pointless. But I wanted to point out that I already dealt with those issues in the article which I have presented in my previous posts.
First of all, the long section you quoted from Come Let Us Reason was arguing against the holy spirit being an impersonal force as the JW's believe, or a mode as the Oneness Pentecostals believe. Neither of these is the position I am presenting.
Secondly, every one of those verses can be understood as God speaking, moving, acting, guiding, giving revelation, etc., by way of His Spirit. Not one of them proves that the Holy Spirit is a separate person from God.
As I pointed out in the article, a person can speak of his spirit or his soul in the same way:
Job 6:4 For the arrows of the Almighty are within me, the poison whereof drinketh up my spirit: the terrors of God do set themselves in array against me.
Job 7:11 Therefore I will not refrain my mouth; I will speak in the anguish of my spirit; I will complain in the bitterness of my soul.
Ps 77:3 I remembered God, and was troubled: I complained, and my spirit was overwhelmed. Selah.
Ps 77:6 I call to remembrance my song in the night: I commune with mine own heart: and my spirit made diligent search.
Isa 26:9 With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early: for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.
Da 2:3 And the king said unto them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit was troubled to know the dream.
Luke 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Ro 1:9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;
Ge 27:4 And make me savoury meat, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat; that my soul may bless thee before I die.
Ge 27:25 And he said, Bring it near to me, and I will eat of my son’s venison, that my soul may bless thee. And he brought it near to him, and he did eat: and he brought him wine, and he drank.
Jud 5:21 The river of Kishon swept them away, that ancient river, the river Kishon. O my soul, thou hast trodden down strength.
Job 7:11 Therefore I will not refrain my mouth; I will speak in the anguish of my spirit; I will complain in the bitterness of my soul
Ps 3:2 Many there be which say of my soul, There is no help for him in God. Selah.
Ps 11:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. In the LORD put I my trust: how say ye to my soul, Flee as a bird to your mountain?
Ps 16:2 O my soul, thou hast said unto the LORD, Thou art my Lord: my goodness extendeth not to thee;
Ps 34:2 My soul shall make her boast in the LORD: the humble shall hear thereof, and be glad.
Lu 12:19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.
Would anyone say that these verses prove that "Me" and "My Spirit" are two different people? Or "Me" and "My Soul"? Of course not. Consider this verse: Gen. 45:12 - "And, behold, your eyes see, and the eyes of my brother Benjamin, that it is my mouth that speaketh unto you." Is Benjamin's mouth a separate person from Benjamin? Obviously not. "My mouth speaks to you" is simply another way of saying, "I speak to you." Nor is the Lord's mouth a separate person from the Lord:
Jos 9:14 And the men took of their victuals, and asked not counsel at the mouth of the LORD.
1Ki 13:21 And he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the LORD, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the LORD, and hast not kept the commandment which the LORD thy God commanded thee,
To disobey the mouth of the Lord is to disobey the commandments that the Lord spoke. Nobody would argue that the Lord's mouth is a separate person. The spirit of the Lord is no different. In fact in two different parallel passages, the power of God is described as both the spirit and the finger of the Lord.
Matt. 12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
Luke 11:20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.
The Spirit of God, or the Holy Spirit, is a way of speaking about the means by which God interacts with the world. The "finger of God" is another way of saying the same thing. You certainly wouldn't consider the Finger of God to be a person. Just as I can speak of my soul longing, or my heart desiring (and it means that I long and desire), so referring to God's Spirit saying and doing things is a way of speaking about God saying and doing them.
You asked, "is the devil a person, or a force or power?" He is a person. Again, I am not claiming that God is not a person. I am saying that the person of God communicates and interacts with the universe, and with people specifically, by way of what is called His Holy Spirit. But it is not a separate person from God Himself. If it were, "he" would have sent greetings to the church, and as a co-equal and co-eternal person, would have been included in those verses I quoted that refer to the Father and the Son.
You said, "He is Spirit. . . but a person is self identified, has a mind, a will, distinct entity." That is exactly the problem. When you speak of the Holy Spirit as a person that "is self identified, has a mind, a will, distinct entity," and then you say that this person is God, you now have two "persons" who are God. And Jesus makes three. And the whole idea of three persons, but still one God, just doesn't fit with logic or the Scriptures. God is always presented as ONE person. Hear O Israel, the LORD is our God, the LORD is ONE. Jesus quoted and corroborated the Shema, and nowhere in the Bible can "one" ever be shown to mean "three in one."
Still, I don't expect you to change your mind. If I could get you to understand just one thing, it would be that this belief is not the product of a few cult-influenced teachers. All throughout history, there have been many respected Bible scholars who have understood these things. They may be in the minority, but they are not just in cults like TWI. Remember the quote I had in the article? Alan Richardson, in his Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1958, p. 120), desribes the holy spirit like this:
To ask whether in the New Testament the spirit is a person in the modern sense of the word would be like asking whether the spirit of Elijah is a person. The Spirit of God is of course personal; it is God's dunamis [power] in action. But the Holy Spirit is not a person, existing independently of God; it is a way of speaking about God's personally acting in history, or of the Risen Christ's personally acting in the life and witness of the Church. The New Testament (and indeed patristic thought generally) nowhere represents the Spirit, any more than the wisdom of God, as having independent personality.
You said, "When I look at things now. . . no preconceived bias. . . I read history and see the trinity was already known. . ." But looking at the Scriptures to explain the Trinity IS preconceived bias. It is not explicitly stated anywhere in the Bible, and the only way ANYONE has even heard of the Trinity is because somebody taught them about it.
But still, as you said, it's pointless to argue. I just wanted to point out that I'd already dealt with those arguments, and to clarify what I believe to be the Biblical understanding of God's Holy Spirit. I also wanted to point out that the belief in God as One Person is held by more and more Bible scholars, and not the wild idea of a cult.
I won't get into an argument; as you say, it is pointless. But I wanted to point out that I already dealt with those issues in the article which I have presented in my previous posts.
Mark, this actually IS argument, but fine. From my perspective, it is a weak argument. What can I say. From the perspective of orthodox theology. . . . it is rejected. We actually SEE something different.
First of all, the long section you quoted from Come Let Us Reason was arguing against the holy spirit being an impersonal force as the JW's believe, or a mode as the Oneness Pentecostals believe. Neither of these is the position I am presenting.
No, you are espousing some form of modalism. Not a new heresy. If you know your history, which you once advised me to learn, you know what the discussion was about between Arius and Alexander and you know what Sabellianism is. This is actually the same argument settled 100's of yeas ago. It is actually what Arius got miffed about. He was an argumentitive man.
Secondly, every one of those verses can be understood as God speaking, moving, acting, guiding, giving revelation, etc., by way of His Spirit. Not one of them proves that the Holy Spirit is a separate person from God.
Mark, weak argument. They can be understood anyway you choose, but what are they actually revealing? A person with distinct identity. You have to come to
it with NO preconcieved bias and humble yourself and let it speak to YOU. Not the other way around. You are so busy explaining God, you are missing Him revealing Himself. These verses reveal a distinct personality. God can be a trinity. You just can't accept that He is. I never said He was seperate from God. . . He is God. . . One God. Seperate from the Father, and the Son. . . not from God. Distinct person within the Godhead. You need to understand how they work in concert to be one God. . . or it just stymies you. It does fit together beautifully, One God.
As I pointed out in the article, a person can speak of his spirit or his soul in the same way:
Of course we can speak of ourselves the same way. . . . we are made in His image. We are a trinity.
Would anyone say that these verses prove that "Me" and "My Spirit" are two different people? Or "Me" and "My Soul"? Of course not. Consider this verse: Gen. 45:12 - "And, behold, your eyes see, and the eyes of my brother Benjamin, that it is my mouth that speaketh unto you." Is Benjamin's mouth a separate person from Benjamin? Obviously not. "My mouth speaks to you" is simply another way of saying, "I speak to you." Nor is the Lord's mouth a separate person from the Lord:
Mark, I didn't use these verses because they do not reveal the distinct and separate entity of the Holy Spirit. Just because one does and the other doesn't . . . . doesn't mean they cancel each other out. They don't negate the reality of the Holy Spirit revealed as having mind, will, and self-identity.. . . it isn't even a good reasoned argument. It is superfical, do you think Christians don't understand language and lit? Is your body the same as your spirit, is your mind the same as your body? They are distinct yet make up the one who you are. . . no? Do they interact in concert with each other to make up one Mark. . . in theory in perfect unity? Diverse yet in unity. Are they all you? One Mark? When you die Mark, will your body remain but your spirit depart? Will your mind be with your body in death? Do your body and mind have the same will? Mine sure don't. . . my mind tells me I am 21. . . my body says "ahhhh, hang on a minute". God is one Mark. Distinct seperate three persons. . . one God.
Jos 9:14 And the men took of their victuals, and asked not counsel at the mouth of the LORD.
1Ki 13:21 And he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the LORD, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the LORD, and hast not kept the commandment which the LORD thy God commanded thee,
To disobey the mouth of the Lord is to disobey the commandments that the Lord spoke. Nobody would argue that the Lord's mouth is a separate person. The spirit of the Lord is no different. In fact in two different parallel passages, the power of God is described as both the spirit and the finger of the Lord.
The Spirit of the Lord is no different than His mouth or finger? Hmmm, I would say there might be a difference.
Matt. 12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
Luke 11:20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.
The Spirit of God, or the Holy Spirit, is a way of speaking about the means by which God interacts with the world. The "finger of God" is another way of saying the same thing. You certainly wouldn't consider the Finger of God to be a person. Just as I can speak of my soul longing, or my heart desiring (and it means that I long and desire), so referring to God's Spirit saying and doing things is a way of speaking about God saying and doing them.
You just gave Him a voice. You just made Him distinct. A WAY of speaking. A way of doing. . . the problem you have is He is described as another-who reveals Jesus. Distinct-with will, mind, personality and duties. He can be grieved, blasphemed, He decides, He imparts, He communicates, He resides within us. The Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit. Not the finger of God. You have to really embrace modalism to see it your way. What happens when you do this. . . . is that you lose God. You miss it. The interaction of God within Himself. . . it is stunning. God is a trinity, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Distinct, yet within each other in perfect community and love as ONE God. Can't get around it. Unity with diversity, it is everywhere in creation if you have eyes to see. You are a family . . . one family. . . distinct members. The church. . . many members, each with their own office or duty or talent or gift. . . one body. It is all there.
You asked, "is the devil a person, or a force or power?" He is a person. Again, I am not claiming that God is not a person. I am saying that the person of God communicates and interacts with the universe, and with people specifically, by way of what is called His Holy Spirit.
YEP
But it is not a separate person from God Himself. If it were, "he" would have sent greetings to the church, and as a co-equal and co-eternal person, would have been included in those verses I quoted that refer to the Father and the Son.
Says who? That is a very weak argument. Especially given the personality of the Holy Spirit. He is meek. Fruit of the Spirit, come from the Holy Spirit. . . love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. Breath, oil to annoint, a dove. Why a dove? Those poor who could not afford a lamb. . . brought two doves to the temple. God accepted two doves from the poor. Does that not speak to your heart about who the Holy Spirit is?
Not to say He is weak. . . He did appear as fire. Mark there is so much there to see. I love the Holy Spirit. Makes my knees weak.
You said, "He is Spirit. . . but a person is self identified, has a mind, a will, distinct entity." That is exactly the problem. When you speak of the Holy Spirit as a person that "is self identified, has a mind, a will, distinct entity," and then you say that this person is God, you now have two "persons" who are God. And Jesus makes three. And the whole idea of three persons, but still one God, just doesn't fit with logic or the Scriptures. God is always presented as ONE person. Hear O Israel, the LORD is our God, the LORD is ONE. Jesus quoted and corroborated the Shema, and nowhere in the Bible can "one" ever be shown to mean "three in one."
He is shown as three in one. The Lord is ONE. You don't see it and you have found "another" explanation. Your mind rebells at this, I know. Hard to accept, once denied so vehemently. Because you deny it, you miss how God is one. It is there and THAT is what captivates our hearts and ravishes our souls. That is how we learn about how God is love.
Still, I don't expect you to change your mind. If I could get you to understand just one thing, it would be that this belief is not the product of a few cult-influenced teachers. All throughout history, there have been many respected Bible scholars who have understood these things. They may be in the minority, but they are not just in cults like TWI. Remember the quote I had in the article? Alan Richardson, in his Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1958, p. 120), desribes the holy spirit like this:
Mark, are you kidding me? I was in a Christ denying cult for a very good part of my adult life. There is a Christian world that you don't begin to comprehend. I have believed BOTH ways. I know the fruit of false teaching. It is an empty faith. I am not trying to be rude. I promise you, I really like you. In fact, I believe you are hungry for the things of God. But, I have to be honest here. There are no Christian theologians who deny the scriptures in favor of heresy. This is how we distinguish the two. Orthodoxy. Which simply means right. It is not orthodox because we don't get it. . . .we are not mean when we use the word heresy. . . it is just an unacceptable because it opposes scripture. It may sound "intellectual" to you. . . but I could give you a hundred books refuting modalism. It then becomes endless debates over words. Does that sound familar at all?
You said, "When I look at things now. . . no preconceived bias. . . I read history and see the trinity was already known. . ." But looking at the Scriptures to explain the Trinity IS preconceived bias. It is not explicitly stated anywhere in the Bible, and the only way ANYONE has even heard of the Trinity is because somebody taught them about it.
Mark, the word bible is not in the bible. . . Trinity is just a word to describe what is revealed about God in scripture. It is there which is why we can see and understand it. . . explaining it is a different matter . . . unless one has the eyes to see. You have parroted this response before. Doesn't make it true. If you keep saying that no one would see it revealed in scripture unless taught. . . you discount 100's of years of great Christian thinkers and you discount the many of us EX-TWI who have come to this position once opposed, by simply praying and reading. It is just not a true statement. It sounds like a programmed response.
But still, as you said, it's pointless to argue. I just wanted to point out that I'd already dealt with those arguments, and to clarify what I believe to be the Biblical understanding of God's Holy Spirit. I also wanted to point out that the belief in God as One Person is held by more and more Bible scholars, and not the wild idea of a cult.
No Mark, it is the God of the cults. Google it :) LOL Just kidding. God is able and does deliver. I know you desire Him over a system of belief. I have every confidence in Him. .. carry on telling us how God is not known or understood by 2000 years of Christianity and VP was wrong, but now you have it right. . . . sorry for the disrupt. Just remember, we are finite trying to define infinite. . . . doesn't wrap up in a neat little package... .
And most certainly, the mystery of godliness is great:
It was in 321 A.D. that Constantine made the first national Sunday Law enforcing rest from labor. Following this, in 324, was the First Council of Nicea which was one of the most influential meetings in paving the way for the setting up of the papacy.
"The Emperor Constantine made the following announcement in his letter to all [bishops, etc.] who were not present at the Council: '...It was declared... We ought not therefore to have anything in common with the Jews ...we desire, dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the... company of the Jews, ... it is our duty not to have anything in common with the murderers of our Lord,... You should consider not only that the number of churches in these provinces make a majority, but also that it is right to demand what our reason approves, and that we should have nothing in common with the Jews.... accept joyfully the divine favor, and this truly divine command; for all which takes place in the assemblies of the bishops ought to be regarded as proceeding from the will of God...'" History of the Councils, p. 322-4.
How widely this varies from Christ's own words, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not." Matt 23:2,3. Or from Paul's attitude in Romans, chapters 9-11, and 2 Corinthians 3:16.
One of the main "Jewish" things that was replaced by Greco-Roman-Egyptian-Babylonian/Pagan things was the Hebrew language, which "was cultivated as the most sacred tongue in the world." Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 97. All of the original Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts of the New Testament were translated into Greek by the time of Constantine when the Latin Bible (the Vulgate) began to become dominant over all other languages in regards to church matters. It appears that any Hebrew or Aramaic letters and manuscripts that may have been written by the Apostles have all been hidden or destroyed. Even the Aramaic and Hebrew versions of the New Testament that we have today are themselves translations from other languages.
"What advantage then hath the Jew?... Much every way: chiefly because that unto them were committed the oracles (Greek – logion – utterances) of God." Romans 3:1,2. It was the "utterances (words) of God," that were committed to the Jews, to be preserved in "the most sacred tongue in the world," Hebrew.
One of the greatest losses which the church of God has suffered as a result of the separation from the "most sacred tongue in the world," Hebrew, was the loss of the gender represented therein. Though there is what is known as a "common" gender in Hebrew (which is usually expressed in the feminine), there is no absolute "neuter" gender expressed in Hebrew as there is in Greek and other languages. Many people have been led to mock the idea of inanimate objects, and even expressions having gender assigned to them. But ridicule of the things that God has appointed is not inspired of the Holy Spirit who "moved" the "holy men" of old to use gender when writing the things of His Holy Word.
This great breach which has caused a great loss to the body of Christ is most readily seen in the change of thinking in regards to the gender of the Holy Spirit. In Hebrew, the word which is translated Spirit is ruah, and is feminine; while the Greek word is pneuma, and is neuter; and the Latin word is spiritus, and is masculine.
--------------
Bahá'í Faith
In the Bahá'í Faith, the Holy Spirit, also known as the Most Great Spirit, is seen as the bounty of God. It is usually used to describe the descent of the Spirit of God upon the messengers/prophets of God, which are known as Manifestations of God, and include among others Jesus, Muhammad and Bahá'u'lláh. In Bahá'í belief the Holy Spirit is the conduit through which the wisdom of God becomes directly associated with his messenger, and it has been described variously in different religions such as the burning bush to Moses, the sacred fire to Zoroaster, the dove to Jesus, the angel Gabriel to Muhammad, and the Holy Maiden to Bahá'u'lláh. The Bahá'í view rejects the idea that the Holy Spirit is a partner to God in the Godhead, but rather is a pure reflection of God's attributes.
Islam
Holy Spirit in Islam is an agent of divine action or communication commonly identified with the angel Gabriel (ar: Jibreel) or Ruhul Qudus but also alternatively with the created spirit from God by which he enlivened Adam, made Mary pregnant with Jesus, and inspired the angels and the prophets. The belief in Trinity is explicitly forbidden by the Qur'an and called a grave sin. The same applies to any idea of the duality of God (Allah).
Judaism
In Judaism, the idea of God as a duality or trinity is heretical (see Deuteronomy 6:4). Nonetheless, the term Ruah Ha-qodesh (Holy Spirit) is found frequently in Talmudic and Midrashic literature. In some cases it signifies prophetic inspiration, while in others it is used as a hypostatization or a metonym for God. The Rabbinic “Holy Spirit,” has a certain degree of personification, but it remains, “a quality belonging to God, one of his attributes” and not, as in Christianity, representative of “any metaphysical divisions in the Godhead.”
Mark, this actually IS argument, but fine. From my perspective, it is a weak argument. What can I say. From the perspective of orthodox theology. . . . it is rejected. We actually SEE something different.
Why do you hold "orthodox theology" in such high esteem? Many of the tenets of the Protestant Reformation were considered "heresy" because they challenged what was considered "orthodox theology" by the Roman Catholic Church at the time.
No, you are espousing some form of modalism. Not a new heresy.
Modalism is defined as "the view that God variously manifested Himself as the Father (primarily in the Old Testament), other times as the Son (primarily from Jesus’ conception to His ascension), and other times as the Holy Spirit (primarily after Jesus’ ascension into Heaven)." Also, "Yet another aspect of Modalistic Monarchianism / Modalism / Sabellianism is Patripassianism, which is the view that it was God the Father who became incarnate, suffered, died, and was resurrected. Patripassianism essentially teaches that God the Father became His own Son." (These definitions are from the Got Questions? website.)
In contrast, I am saying that God is one person, and does not change. The phrases "Spirit of God" and "Holy Spirit" are simply ways of referring to the presence and power of God in operation. It is a figurative way of speaking about God in relation to His creation. It is closer to the understanding of holy spirit under Judaism in Cman's post. Which makes sense since the OT revealed God's nature, and the NT reflects that same understanding.
Mark, weak argument. They can be understood anyway you choose, but what are they actually revealing? A person with distinct identity.
They can't be understood any way that I choose. It has to fit with the Scriptures. I know you think that the Trinity does, but we disagree there, so we probably are wasting our time debating.
I never said He was seperate from God. . . He is God. . . One God. Seperate from the Father, and the Son. . . not from God.
Jesus called God his Father, and many Scriptures refer to God the Father. But the point I was making is that none of the verses you had quoted prove that the Holy Spirit is a separate person from God the Father. There is no "God the Holy Spirit" in the Bible, nor is there a "God the Son."
Of course we can speak of ourselves the same way. . . . we are made in His image. We are a trinity.
This idea comes from Greek philosophy, not from Hebrew thinking. The Scriptures present man as a single entity, a soul, with no separation between body and spirit. And before you say, "Says who?" I will answer, any Bible dictionary will demonstrate how those words are used in the Bible. But I've been over this too.
Mark, I didn't use these verses because they do not reveal the distinct and separate entity of the Holy Spirit. Just because one does and the other doesn't . . . . doesn't mean they cancel each other out. They don't negate the reality of the Holy Spirit revealed as having mind, will, and self-identity.. . .
I didn't say they did. I was using it as an illustration of how Hebrew idiomatic language refers to "my soul" doing something, when it literally means "I do it." The same idiomatic language is used to describe God doing something by saying "His Spirit." And it is even more specific in the NT, where "the Spirit" refers to the spirit of the risen Christ in addition to the Holy Spirit of God. I Cor. 2:11 - "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."
It isn't even a good reasoned argument. It is superfical, do you think Christians don't understand language and lit?
I think in many cases they don't understand the Hebrew way of thinking and speaking. That is one of the roots of the problem.
Is your body the same as your spirit, is your mind the same as your body? They are distinct yet make up the one who you are. . . no? Do they interact in concert with each other to make up one Mark. . . in theory in perfect unity? Diverse yet in unity. Are they all you? One Mark? When you die Mark, will your body remain but your spirit depart? Will your mind be with your body in death? Do your body and mind have the same will? Mine sure don't. . . my mind tells me I am 21. . . my body says "ahhhh, hang on a minute".
This illustrates my point. Yes, my body and my mind work together. But I do not say that my body is a separate person that is "self identified, has a mind, a will, distinct entity" from my mind. My mind may want to think I'm 21, but my body includes senses which relay information that tells me otherwise. The center of my consciousness is still one, my will is still one, I am still one person. This is all very simple. And when I use figurative language saying "my mouth" speaks to you when I mean that "I am speaking to you" there is no misunderstanding that my mouth is a separate person from me with a distinct will and/or consciousness. Why can it not be that straight forward with God?
You just gave Him a voice. You just made Him distinct.
Those two statements are contradictory. Giving Him a voice does not make Him a distinct person any more than my voice is a distinct person from me.
The Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit. Not the finger of God.
NOT the finger of God? Was Luke wrong to use that term?
The interaction of God within Himself. . . it is stunning. God is a trinity, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Distinct, yet within each other in perfect community and love as ONE God.
The problem is that God is not presented in the Scripture as a community, a family, or anything else plural. He is constantly referred to in thousands of verses as a single person, a single entity, using singular verbs, pronouns, and adjectives (except for the four verses where he is probably talking to His angels when He says "us").
Can't get around it. Unity with diversity, it is everywhere in creation if you have eyes to see. You are a family . . . one family. . . distinct members. The church. . . many members, each with their own office or duty or talent or gift. . . one body. It is all there.
A family is more than one person. But God is presented as a singular person in the thousands of references to Him in the Bible.
He is shown as three in one. The Lord is ONE.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about three-in-one. The ONLY verse that uses that phrase (I John5:7) is a known addition to the text which has been corrected in newer versions.
...It is an empty faith.
I know many Biblical Unitarians who would disagree with that.
Mark, are you kidding me? I was in a Christ denying cult for a very good part of my adult life.
No, I'm not. There have been groups of people who have rejected the Trinity ever since it was first articulated. We were in a cult who happened to share that belief, but that doesn't mean that only cults have that belief. Unless of course you choose to define a cult as "anyone who doesn't agree with the majority's doctrine." By that definition, Jesus' followers were a cult, as are all Protestants.
There are no Christian theologians who deny the scriptures in favor of heresy.
There are no Christian theologians who deny THE SCRIPTURES. But there are quite a few who deny that the Trinity is Scriptural. BTW, do you know that the Trinity was considered "heresy" when it was first propounded?
Mark, the word bible is not in the bible. . . Trinity is just a word to describe what is revealed about God in scripture. It is there which is why we can see and understand it. . .
I'm not just saying the WORD Trinity isn't in the Bible. The concept of "three persons existing in one God" is not there. I pointed out above that the only verse that has the phrase "these three are one" is a known addition. God is always presented as one person, and His Son is just that - His Son.
. . . you discount 100's of years of great Christian thinkers and you discount the many of us EX-TWI who have come to this position once opposed, by simply praying and reading.
Then you are likewise discounting the 100's of years of Christian thinkers who have seen that the Trinity is not Scriptural (albeit in the minority), as well as many ex-TWI who have studied it for themselves both in and out of TWI and independently reached the same conclusion.
...carry on telling us how God is not known or understood by 2000 years of Christianity and VP was wrong, but now you have it right. . . . sorry for the disrupt. Just remember, we are finite trying to define infinite. . . . doesn't wrap up in a neat little package... .
I am not saying "now I have it right." I am relating what others have seen as well. Again, just because people have believed something for 2000 years doesn't make it right. And I don't consider it "trying to define infinite." I consider it to be a simple matter of understanding that which God has revealed to us about Himself. He may be infinite, but He chose to reveal His nature to us with words - words which make sense. The single simplest, easiest relationship we humans can understand, that of a parent and a child, is how the Father and His Son are revealed to us. My father is not me, and I am not my father. My father and I are not "two persons yet one essence." God the Father and Jesus the Son are presented as two separate entities, with separate thoughts and wills, one having begotten the other.
John 17:3 - "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."
I Corinthians 8:6 - "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."
I Timothy 2:5 - "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
Good for you cman. . . told ya Mark. . . on your toes! They can make a strong case.
I will stick with Christianity though. . . :)
Cman indeed makes a strong case for the loss of the Hebrew understanding and thinking that is absolutely essential to understanding the Scriptures. It was from that loss and the replacement with Greek and Pagan ideas that many unscriptural doctrines crept into the Church.
But I still contend that the grammatical gender of words in Hebrew, as with other languages, does not imply that inanimate objects themselves have masculine or feminine characteristics.
Cman indeed makes a strong case for the loss of the Hebrew understanding and thinking that is absolutely essential to understanding the Scriptures. It was from that loss and the replacement with Greek and Pagan ideas that many unscriptural doctrines crept into the Church.
But I still contend that the grammatical gender of words in Hebrew, as with other languages, does not imply that inanimate objects themselves have masculine or feminine characteristics.
Mark,
Jews reject Jesus. You know what might be fun for you. . . . in all seriousness. . . speak about the Holy Spirit to a Messianic Jew who embraces the triune nature of God, and knows scripture well. Lots of them around. It would be another perspective and a learning experience if nothing else.
You may have already done this. . . . but, they can explain to you the stumbling blocks, why the Jewish faith rejects Jesus, and expound on scripture and the Holy Spirit in a way that makes you want to sit at their feet and listen all night. Those who know Judaism and Orthodox Christianity. It is enlightening.
Lots of Messianic fellowships around. :)
If anyone is interested in the topic of the Holy Spirit from a more traditional understanding. . . ."The Holy Spirit, His Gifts and Power
Puritan John Owen wrote one of the best studies on the Holy Spirit over three hundred years ago. Owen explores the biblical portrait of the Spirit, showing us how He indwells all believers to equip them for service, love one another, and empower them to defeat sin in their lives."
True, Jews reject Jesus. But since the Bible is written from a Jewish mindset, it's vital to understand Jewish thinking in order to understand the Bible. I think the loss of that understanding is the root of the biggest doctrinal errors that crept into the Church, including conscious existence after death, and replacement of God's Kingdom on earth with a spiritual kingdom of the heart, in addition to the Trinity. (See this article for more on this.)
You said in an earlier post (as do many Trinitarians) that the Trinity was "defined" not "developed." Many Trinitarians hold that the word "Trinity" as well as other Trinitarian language (such as "three persons in one God," "one substance," "eternally begotten," etc.) was coined to describe concepts that are in the Bible. This should send up a red flag for any Bible student. It suggests that God didn't do a good enough job communicating His nature in the Scriptures inspired by Him. If God was indeed "one essence existing in three persons" surely in His infinite wisdom He could have come up with words to describe it. But there is nothing that suggest such a concept in the Bible. Why would He leave it up to people writing over 100 years after the NT was completed?
The historical facts are, that Trinitarian language and concepts were developed to explain an apparent contradiction that would have been easily understood if they had understood the Scriptures from a Hebrew point of view. That apparent contradiction was that they saw a few verses where Jesus was called God, and a few that seemed to say the Holy Spirit was God. So now they had a dilemma. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. But taken literally, that would make three Gods. (Gnostic Christians in fact did suggest that Jesus was a "lesser deity".) But rather than adopt a form of polytheism, they came up with the explanation that God and Jesus were of "one substance" but distinct persons. Later the Holy Spirit was declared to be also of the same substance, and that they were in fact "three persons, yet one God."
None of this language is in the Bible, and in fact would be completely unnecessary if they had understood the Hebrew mindset. I explained in this thread how the Hebrews understood God's Holy Spirit. I deal with in what sense Jesus is called God (for sure in only two verses) in my article on Who Is Messiah. So with Jewish understanding there would have been no apparent contradiction that they would need to explain. But they invented language which is illogical, self contradictory, and not found in the Bible. Then they took the concepts and read them back into the Bible (forcing it in most cases) and thus claimed that the concepts were there.
As if that weren't bad enough, those who disagreed were left out of the proceedings at the counsels where the official doctrine was voted on. And after it became official, anyone who disagreed was threatened with excommunication, torture, or death. This is how "most" Christians came to believe in the Trinity hundreds of years ago, and was an unquestioned tradition for hundreds of years. But it didn't remain unquestioned. Radical Reformationists questioned it but were persecuted for it. And since the 1800s there have been many individuals and even whole denominations who have written about it, as well as about death being unconsciousness, and about the literal nature of God's future Kingdom on earth. These great truths, that were lost when the Church rejected all things Jewish, have been observed in the Bible by scattered minorities for over a hundred years now. But to see them one has to be willing to test one's traditional beliefs against the Scriptures and not accept anything just because most Christians have believed it for hundreds of years.
I was thinking that maybe I should be a bit more detailed in my explanation of the Holy Spirit as a person. It is not fair just to throw something out and not fully explain it to you. You mentioned the understanding of Hebrew to understand Scripture. It is also important to understand words and the etymology of the words we use when explaining something. Lexicographers use modern usage to define a word . . . . that can often be confusing to us when we are discussing words used in the bibleor theology in their historical sense. Especially to explain something. Our dictionary changes as the use of words change. I bet you knew that. In fact, wrong usage can become defining in time.
Now, you are a thinking man and I imagine to myself you are more than willing to consider.
Contradictions are not to be embraced as part of the truth. . . in fact, in the Christian faith we stand against relativism where contradiction is exalted to the level of truth.
The idea of God being three may appear to break the rule of noncontradiction to you. Something cannot be P and non P at the same time in the same relationship. I am with you on this. I love reason and logic. I get that is what you hear when a Christian says God is three persons One God.
When a Christian says God is One. He is saying God is one in ESSENCE(Substance) three in PERSON. I hope to show you we are not as far apart in thought as it may appear, but I gotta get cerebral here, so bear with me.
If I were to say to you God is 3 in essence(Substance) and 3 in person, that would be a contradiction. Kinda of like when you tell me God is one and sends parts of Himself out to express Himself to us in different ways. You have to explain away the personification of the Holy Spirit. The bible is clear on this issue. The Holy Spirit has distinctive duties, He is another for a specific purpose. He remind us, He points to Jesus, He convicts us, He comforts us. . . . . .
But, God being one essence, three in person does not break the law of non contradiction. Remember, truth is subject to the actual laws of logic. It can't break the rules. Christianity is a REASONable faith. We can say in A God is unity. . . in B diversity. Now, you can be a father, and son at the same time, but you cannot be your own father. Not in the same relationship. Are you with me?
I bet you would agree with me that the NT is full of paradox? No? Jesus saying you have to lose your life to find it. Die to live. . . Believe then see. . .
What is a paradox? The prefix para means to come along side something. Jesus spoke in parables. He would give His message and then throw along side a story to illustrate the message. The root of paradox is from the word doxein. . . to seem, to appear
It is important to understand this root and can be illustrated in the heresy of Docetism which came out of gnosticism.Same root word. Many Greeks could not understand the incarnation, they accepted the resurrection, but did not believe the divine could mingle with flesh. So, they said Jesus did not have a real physical body, but He seemed or appeared to have one. He was an illusion. They didn't deny He was God, they denied He came in the flesh, or was God in the flesh.
Paradox, is something that at first glance appears to be a contradiction. But upon closer inspection is not. It is something we see all over the NT.
The trinty is paradoxical, but not contradiction. It requires more than a first glance. It requires understanding language and its uses. Tertullian articulated the trinity with specific language and meaning.. .. . the church did struggle with its paradoxical nature, but not so much with the scriptural evidence of the trinity. That was what they persued understanding of. . . they saw the deity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit one with the Father. They understood from the OT the Lord your God is one God.
They articulated the God of scripture through theology. . . .just like we do. Our attempt to explain the infinite.
Understanding history is actually pretty complex. The who's, the thought processes of the day, the opposing schools of thought . . . how their understanding was reached. . . the use of words, personalities and such. The controversy goes much deeper in understanding than "the trinity was made up".
Christianity is a monotheistic faith. The bible is clear. . . one Lord. . . we agree on this. We even agree on more than you think. You say the Holy Spirit is that PART of God, expressed to us.
Here is what Tertullian articulated. God is one in essence three in person. Faithful to the clear teaching of scripture. You have to really veer from a clear understanding to deny this. In fact, you have to form a whole new theology, which is going to deny deity to Jesus and deny the personification of the Holy Spirit to make anything work. You lose the God of scripture.
Essence comes from the word ousia which means being or substance. God is one essence, not a bunch of parts sent here and there. That would give Him more than one being. God is one being. Essence is essentially the stuff of God's one being. What makes you different from a cat? A cat different than a flower? A flower different than God? It is the essence, or stuff you are. We are talking about the essence of diety. That is a pretty heady topic.God is one in essence.
When we use the word person, it comes from the word. . . Persona
When Tertullian used it. . . it was different from our use. It was used in a legal sense or in the dramatic arts. It means mask (Like the twin masks of tragedy/comedy) or role. Masks fit over a face don't they?
Other words are used instead of person that might help. Subsistence is one. Just to clarify, I do not mean poor or below par.
Sub means under or below. . . and sistance. . . same root as existence right? . . . Existence means, to stand out of being, in the philosopical sense? God doesn't exist in the classical meaning of the word. He did not stand out of being. . . He is pure being. We exist.
God is eternal but, subsistence would mean underneath the pure being of God. As we use it.
Three subsistences underneath or below the pure being of God. Similar to what you say when you say that part of God. We need to distinguish between these subsistences. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is essential to do this, or you end up with nothing. God does it in scripture. Otherwise, it is empty and void. It is not the God of scripture.You end up rewriting the meaning of verses that are clear. . .and stripping God of His deity.
When you add that great is the mystery of Godliness into the mix. . . it can get confusing. However, God does not speak in contradiction. It is not that God gets it and we just need to take it on faith, . . . . no. . . otherwise how could you trust anything He says. . . you would never know if it was your understanding. . . or "God" logic?? We could then take anything in the bible. . . say it means thus and just attribute it to "God" logic. Been there -- done that. . . .
The Christian faith has no contradiction. Contradiction in relativism is the hallmark of truth. Not Christianity. Paradox and Mystery are something else. Musterion. The scripture has many mysteries. The mysterious nature of something does not anull the reality of it. If it did, modern science would disappear. We still don't know the complete nature of motion or time and the complete workings of gravity. There are elements still hidden from our understanding. Right? We still have gravity.
I can't claim to fully comprehend the act of divine creation. That God, by the power of His words, spoke light into being? No finite mind can claim this. I cannot claim to grasp the totality of the infinite with the ability of a finite mind. We don't have a comprehensive knowledge of God. The finite cannot contain the infinite. A perfect knowledge of Him is beyond us.
Now we know in part. . . . see in a mirror dimly. . . .
Paul was fond of speaking of mysteries. The unfolding of mystery concerning the church. The inclusion of the gentiles, the second coming, the resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the mystery of Godliness. Remember, these things were hidden in the OT and revealed or unfolded in the NT.
However, they are not fully comprehended. Finite mind, infinite God, we see through a glass darkly. At best, it is a progressive unfolding for our understanding from God Himself. There is still so much to learn and understand about God. Revealed or UNFOLDED in the NT is an elaboration of the Godhead. The nature of God. Yet, we cannot claim a comprehensive understanding of God. NONE of us can.
A contradiction is unintelligable, yet, a mystery is something I don't now understand, but given more information, I may understand it. It unfolds. God Himself unfolds it for us.Gaining understanding shrinks the mystery, Mystery, paradoxically, is a legitimate part of knowledge and should provoke humility in us. Not breed arrogance.You and I stand before an infinite God. We don't KNOW all things. We can't wrap it up neatly in an abberant theology, while looking down on the very faith we claim.
Remember, you believe in a vigin birth, the resurrection, and the miracles Jesus did. Explain How God raised Jesus from the dead for me? What was it He did. How was Jesus concieved? How did the blind man see?
You can't explain how, but you believe He did by His power. Why is it so difficult to believe God is one essence three persona. You believe He reveals Himself in parts. He doesn't have more than one being? We BOTH believe in an invisible God.
It is not a contradiction, it is a paradox.
GREAT is the mystery of Godliness, which was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit. . . recieved up into glory.
Maybe most Christians don't misunderstand. . . . they understand all too well God is infinite and revealed.
I think you may need to reread my posts. First, what you claim I have said is NOT what I have been saying, and you have misunderstood and/or misquoted me more than once. You said:
You say the Holy Spirit is that PART of God, expressed to us.
You believe He reveals Himself in parts. He doesn't have more than one being?
This is NOT what I believe. I have said many times that I believe the holy spirit is God's operational presence and power. Not a PART of God. The Way taught it was part of God but I have demonstrated in detail why I don't believe that to be true. In another post you said I believed that it was God in a different mode. It seems like you can't get past the first step, that it isn't a person, and haven't really grasped what I'm saying it is.
Secondly, I have heard your argument before...
Here is what Tertullian articulated. God is one in essence three in person. Faithful to the clear teaching of scripture.
The problem is, it is NOT faithful to clear teaching of Scripture. There is NOTHING in the Scriptures that refers to God as an "essence." He is always addressed as a person, and declared to be ONE person. That one person is declared to be the Father of Jesus, and Jesus is differentiated in many places from GOD - not just from the Father. If you haven't read my article about it, I recommend you do. You will find that it is a bit different from TWI or ex-TWI handling of the issue, although there are a number of points in common.
Tertullian and others had to invent language in order to explain how Jesus could be God but not contradict the strict belief in ONE God. But let me repeat what I said about that in my previous post:
Many Trinitarians hold that the word "Trinity" as well as other Trinitarian language (such as "three persons in one God," "one substance," "eternally begotten," etc.) was coined to describe concepts that are in the Bible. This should send up a red flag for any Bible student. It suggests that God didn't do a good enough job communicating His nature in the Scriptures inspired by Him. If God was indeed "one essence existing in three persons" surely in His infinite wisdom He could have come up with words to describe it. But there is nothing that suggests such a concept in the Bible. Why would He leave it up to people writing over 100 years after the NT was completed?
You are correct when you say Tertullian used words in a different sense than we would. They were also a different sense than the Bible used them. And more importantly, they were heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. The resulting doctrine is extremely confusing, and theologians have wrestled with it for hundreds of years, and have never successfully explained it, falling back on "we can't explain it, it's a mystery." In contrast, the Bible speaks of God, who created the world by Himself, and who had a Son, named Jesus. Simple. No need for convoluted theories and twisting meanings of words and inventing new ones. As I said before, if the Trinity were true, God could have come up with the right words much better than any man, and would have used them in His revelation of Himself to us. The only reason anybody ever started to think a new explanation was needed was because they lost sight of the simple understanding of the Bible from a Hebrew perspective.
You asked, "Why is it so difficult to believe God is one essence three persona?" It wouldn't be difficult at all, if it had been stated in the Bible, but it isn't. I would ask you, "Why is it so difficult to believe that God is one person, the father of Jesus, whom Jesus called the only true God (John 17:1-3)?"
The Trinity would be a paradox rather than a contradiction if the Bible clearly stated any of the major points of it. But it doesn't. It's more than just the word Trinity that is not in the Bible. You cannot show me any Scripture where God is presented as an essence, or as multiple persons. All any Trinitarian can offer as proof is that the Bible seems to call Jesus and the Holy Spirit God. But when you understand that in light of the Hebrew understanding of those things, there is no contradiction, and no need to coin new words and terms in order to explain it. And since there are also MANY things about the Trinity that contradict clear Scriptures, it is not just a paradox. (See my article for the clear contradictions.)
As for trying to understand what is beyond our understanding, I addressed that point in my article, which I will quote here:
Trinitarians often make the claim that it doesn’t matter if the doctrine is illogical by our standard of reason, because it is based on God’s higher standard of reason, which we can’t understand. If that were the case, then somewhere in His written revelation to us it would have to be explicitly stated. If it is not based on human reason, then it cannot be reasoned out from any of the supposed "implications" in the Scriptures, as Trinitarians claim it is. God would have to make a specific, though seemingly illogical, statement that he was "three persons, yet one God." He would have to make such a statement, and perhaps include the statement that it does not fit with our reason, so we must simply accept it on faith. But of course He made no such statement anywhere in Scripture.
This is not to make the claim that we understand everthing about God. Certainly there are things mentioned in the Scriptures that are mysterious to us. But how many God is, is not one of those things, since He repeatedly tells us that he is one. We are told that the Scriptures give us knowledge of "everything that pertains to life and godliness" (II Peter 1:3). Yet they make no explicit statement regarding the Trinity, or the two natures of Jesus which supposedly explain the very clear distinctions between God and His Son.
And so you know, I have a housefull of young Christian men here. . . . 20 years old and known by their fruit. If you knew their true goodness in the Lord you would blush.
They have a relationship with God, not their own understanding of the bible. They are known by the love they have for one another. If you really understood what you sit and pass judgement on when you call most Christians wrong and that they misunderstand. . . . well, you might mourn as I did.
What if you are wrong? What if your knowledge has failed you and you are really passing judgement on God's people?
I feel so sorry for you and the burden you carry feeling you must correct the whole Christian Church. Why. . . even Jesus Himself couldn't carry this burden. . . or could He?
My sheep hear my voice.
I think I will pass on anymore "articles". Others may differ.
And so you know, I have a housefull of young Christian men here. . . . 20 years old and known by their fruit. If you knew their true goodness in the Lord you would blush.
They have a relationship with God, not their own understanding of the bible. They are known by the love they have for one another. If you really understood what you sit and pass judgement on when you call most Christians wrong and that they misunderstand. . . . well, you might mourn as I did.
I am not passing judgment on anyone. The fact that people believe doctrine that I believe is contrary to the Bible has no bearing on their Christian character. I have met both Trinitarians and Biblical Unitarians that love God and exhibit fruit in their lives, and I have met members of both groups who do not, as well.
What if you are wrong? What if your knowledge has failed you and you are really passing judgement on God's people?
What if I'm right? How would we know? I think the Bible has to be our standard for truth, and I demonstrated what I believe the Bible teaches.
As I said, I'm not passing judgment on anyone. And while you haven't done so, many Trinitarians have passed judgment, claiming that anyone who doesn't believe in the Trinity is not truly Christian and destined for hell. I make no such judgment.
I feel so sorry for you and the burden you carry feeling you must correct the whole Christian Church. Why. . . even Jesus Himself couldn't carry this burden. . . or could He?
My sheep hear my voice.
I think I will pass on anymore "articles". Others may differ.
True knowledge is marked by humility.
Don't feel sorry for me. I don't carry any such burden. I couldn't correct the whole Christian Church if I wanted to. Those who hunger for the truth and search the Scriptures like the Bereans did will find it. I just post what I believe the Bible teaches. If people want to look into it and see for themselves "whether these things are so" they have that option. If they don't, that's their choice too.
Jesus did in fact carry that burden. He spoke the words that we are supposed to believe and follow. And he is the one who confirmed the Shema and called his Father "the only true God." Jesus was not a Trinitarian.
If you choose to pass on any more articles, that's your choice. Godspeed.
The fact that you AGAIN sit from a small group outside the church pronouncing "Great Misunderstanding" "Most Christians wrong" and "What I see the problem as" speaks to your character, and your judgements,. . . . . not theirs.
They are known by their fruit, and the love they have for one another. Known to be His. Christians are connected to the vine. . . don't worry so, they know Him. . . personally and deeply. His nature is revealed not misunderstood.
I don't believe you are on the road to hell, but to deliverance. It is just a bumpy and often long road for us ex-twi. . . we travel through alot of different places to get there.
Lot's of people claim to "look into things" . . . . call themselves like the Bereans too.
It puzzles and concerns me that you seem to be bothered more by my suggestion that most Christians are wrong than by the actual evidence one way or the other in the Bible. Are you Roman Catholic or Protestant? Half of the Christian Church considers the other half to be "wrong." Why is it not more important to consider what the Bible says?
It puzzles and concerns me that you seem to be bothered more by my suggestion that most Christians are wrong than by the actual evidence one way or the other in the Bible. Are you Roman Catholic or Protestant? Half of the Christian Church considers the other half to be "wrong." Why is it not more important to consider what the Bible says?
Mark,
Please don't be concerned or puzzled. It is just your assumption that I don't think what the bible says is more important. Your understanding constitutes your reality.
I really don't know many Christians other than those like Dave Hunt (The Berean Call) who get down on Catholics too much. I went to a Mass this past summer. I really enjoyed it and the message was great. I can look past the Mary statues and saints. . . it was really kind of nice. We went with my sister-in-law. We are very close to her. . . and she is shhhhhhh (a catholic).
I guess to sum up what bothers me. . . is the sweeping pronouncment and ringing judgements you make, based soley on your own understanding of scripture and limited exposure to the church. It is quite a feat.
You might just be wrong. Remember, I have believed both ways. You seem to forget that.
Hate to burst your bubble, but we have some pretty smart Christians who know Hebrew, OT, and Judaism pretty well. Sorry to tell you. . . we even have Hebrew scholars.
BUT. . . Mark, there are Christians in this world. . . . who have PARTS of a bible. . . passed from town to town. . . tattered and worn. . . and they know more about God than you and I ever will.
Christianity is a heart matter, you can think you have it ALL figured out, and God will pull that little rug right out from under you.
I am astounded that from your little place in the world, you have decided the entire Church is tricked and just plain wrong about something so personal and so real and alive within them. All because you see the bible the right way now. Amazing ability. . . how many years were you in seminary?
What I find more ironic, is that you are correcting the last group you were in that had it all right, but are now wrong on what you decide they are. I bet you used to say the bible said something different. In fact, I know you did.
You changed your mind? Bet you were so sure before? No?
We are finite. . . limited in explaining the infinite. Finite cannot contain infinite. When we think we have. . . . we usually are tricked.
I know you love God. . . that is enough for me. . . my faith is not in my own ability, but in His. . . if I couldn't even read. . . He would make a way for me to know Him.
If He makes Himself known. . . . He does not lie. The church knows God. It is His church.
Please don't be concerned or puzzled. It is just your assumption that I don't think what the bible says is more important. Your understanding constitutes your reality.
I was merely going by the fact that in nearly every post you express concern that I am "pronouncing the entire church wrong" and not dealing with any of the Biblical issues. You seem to express more concern about whether the Church is mistaken than about what is really true. At least it comes across that way.
I really don't know many Christians other than those like Dave Hunt (The Berean Call) who get down on Catholics too much. I went to a Mass this past summer. I really enjoyed it and the message was great. I can look past the Mary statues and saints. . . it was really kind of nice. We went with my sister-in-law. We are very close to her. . . and she is shhhhhhh (a catholic).
My point wasn't about whether Catholics are right or wrong, good or bad. My point was that before the Reformation, Protestants would say that "the whole church was wrong" about a lot of things. And now, whichever half (or actually third, if you include the Eastern Orthodox) of the Mainstream Church someone is in, they would consider the other half (or third) wrong. How is that any different from what you say I do?
I guess to sum up what bothers me. . . is the sweeping pronouncment and ringing judgements you make, based soley on your own understanding of scripture and limited exposure to the church. It is quite a feat.
Again, I am not making any judgments, nor is it solely on my understanding. I am simply writing about what I and many others have seen from the Bible. Anybody that holds ANY position that is contrary to someone else's is going to say that somebody is wrong. That is not a character judgment. And BTW, how do you know how much exposure to the Church I have had?
You might just be wrong. Remember, I have believed both ways. You seem to forget that.
I haven't forgotten it. I'm wondering, what changed your mind? Did you in fact study the Bible and seek the truth after TWI, or did you decide that since TWI was wrong on so many things, that maybe Orthodox Christianity was right after all? (It's difficult to get tone across in written text, so please don't take these questions as accusations. I am actually asking.) And if you did study the Bible, have you considered any other views of Biblical Unitarianism besides TWI and its offshoots? Because they didn't do a very good job of presenting it. (That's not just my opinion either.)
Hate to burst your bubble, but we have some pretty smart Christians who know Hebrew, OT, and Judaism pretty well. Sorry to tell you. . . we even have Hebrew scholars.
How would that burst my bubble?
BUT. . . Mark, there are Christians in this world. . . . who have PARTS of a bible. . . passed from town to town. . . tattered and worn. . . and they know more about God than you and I ever will.
Christianity is a heart matter, you can think you have it ALL figured out, and God will pull that little rug right out from under you.
I agree. But I don't think it's ALL heart and no mind. The two aren't mutually exclusive. God expects us to study the Scriptures if we want to really know Him and not be deceived.
What I find more ironic, is that you are correcting the last group you were in that had it all right, but are now wrong on what you decide they are. I bet you used to say the bible said something different. In fact, I know you did.
You changed your mind? Bet you were so sure before? No?
I'm not sure what you mean by me now being "wrong on what you decide they are."
Nevertheless, God has indeed "pulled the rug out from under me." Yes, I thought I knew it all when I was in the Way, but about ten years ago I found that most of what I thought I knew was wrong. I almost gave up, but God kept prodding me to look at the Bible again, without anybody telling me what I had to believe. I learned from other scholars, but not because they were charismatic cult leaders, but simply because they presented their views clearly and logically and I could not argue with it.
I am astounded that from your little place in the world, you have decided the entire Church is tricked and just plain wrong about something so personal and so real and alive within them. All because you see the bible the right way now. Amazing ability. . . how many years were you in seminary?
It is not just "my little place in the world." I have read the ideas of many scholars, some from hundreds of years ago. Some of them decided that the entire Church in their lifetime was "tricked and just plain wrong." Martin Luther is one; Michael Servetus is another. I am likewise astounded that you can't even accept that possibility, when Jesus and Paul both said to beware of false teachers and false doctrines. You are astounded at the suggestion that the majority of the Church could be wrong. But don't Christians say the same thing about all the Jews? Many of them hold their beliefs to be as personal and real and alive as Christians do theirs. The same goes for many Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. If there is an objective Truth, some people are going to be wrong.
You seem to be implying that I am egotistical, thinking "I see the Bible the right way now." But aren't you saying a similar thing in a way? You are convinced that although you believed what TWI taught once, you "see the Bible the right way now." The only difference is that you have numbers on your side. But God gave us His Word so we could have proof of His Truth and not have to go along with the masses.
The important question is not who has the truth, but what is the truth. You keep saying I could be wrong. True; so could you. So could anybody. The entire Church does not agree on very much. It comes down to what is your standard for determining what the truth is? (I could ask you how many years of seminary you've had, too. But who says the truth can only be found in seminaries?)
We are finite. . . limited in explaining the infinite. Finite cannot contain infinite. When we think we have. . . . we usually are tricked.
But you say that you have - how do you know you're not tricked? I'm not being facetious here. I wrestled with that for a long time. While we can't know everything about the infinite God, He did choose to reveal Himself by His Word. It is not beyond our ability to understand. It all seems very subjective - everybody has their own beliefs, it's all good - until you really look at the Bible and search for answers. I got to the place where I said I didn't care who was right, I just wanted to know the truth.
I know you love God. . . that is enough for me. . . my faith is not in my own ability, but in His. . . if I couldn't even read. . . He would make a way for me to know Him.
Surely you aren't suggesting that we can know God just from the heart without reading His Word?
If He makes Himself known. . . . He does not lie. The church knows God. It is His church.
Of course God doesn't lie. But the devil is the father of lies, and he wants nothing more than to deceive God's Church. That's why we were warned about false doctrines, and told to search the Scriptures so we could recognize the counterfeit doctrines. The devil is a master at counterfeiting. Would you be judgmental of someone who was deceived by being given a counterfeit $20 bill? Neither would I. Like I've been saying, I don't judge anyone or look down on them just because they happen to have been taught what I believe to be wrong doctrine. But at the same time, should I not present what I believe to be the truth? If you are convinced that your truth is right, why not discuss the Biblical evidence? If you're right it should stand up to my "errors." But if you don't even consider any other view because it's not what the majority believes, then how can you really be sure I'm wrong or you're right?
I know you love God. . . that is enough for me. . . my faith is not in my own ability, but in His. . . if I couldn't even read. . . He would make a way for me to know Him.
Surely you aren't suggesting that we can know God just from the heart without reading His Word?
Mark,
Not trying to change the subject here or to put mock your belief. And maybe this ought to be in it's own thread. But are suggesting you do NOT believe the opposite of what you thought might have been suggested? "That God CAN be known just from the heart without reading his Word?"...
The Word.. God's Word.. His Word... Just sounds so unrelational.. Rather than a living breathing relationship with a living and breathing God who wants us to know him personally, intimately, and sit in his lap and call him daddy, it almost sounds like a dull boring relationship with a non-living organism "His Word" aka "The Book" aka "The Bible". And everything you get is from this black and white written and printed by men book, rather than words that the creator of all things speaks to you personally.
When it is written in Romans, "... that which may be known of God is manifest in them[saints]; for God hath shewed it unto them. ", do you think that God only showed them through this black and white text??? I sure hope not.
Is it not written after that verse in that black and white text that, "The invisible things of Him(God) from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and godliness; so that they are without excuse" ?
So if they are without excuse, according to "His Word", then there must be enough in "the things that are made" that all would be capable of clearly seeing His eternal power and godliness and knowing God.
God's greater than a book. And knowing him personally, which can come about in a myriad of ways, and giving him his rightful place as the creator, is what God's interested in. And while I agree, we have a standard that others who knew the this Creator wrote words that God shared with them, there's more to knowing God, in fact, there are other ways to finding God, than that one book you have written which wasn't even around for millenniums.
In fact, many have written about Him in every century. Some in that canon of books you have, others not. Some have known Him better than others. Some tend to add traits in their mind about him that probably don't quite agree with who He really is. He is invisible after all.
But if there's anything, at least I think, God cares about, it is his children, his creation. And he desires His creation to recognize Him and imitate Him. He is love, and that's what He asks of us, because He did create us with that purpose. How you find him, what book, what he looks like, what words are attributed, are all secondary. But do you know Him?! No about Him, but personally.
Yes, I believe he sent His son, the man, Jesus, to show us more perfectly as a living, breathing example. A creation that shows us this invisible God. And this creation recognized God for who He was, His creator that created Him with a purpose. To give his life for us that we might justly be redeemed. And in recognizing God for who He was and fulfilling that purpose, God has raised Him and set at His right hand to be Lord over all. Sure.. But I also believe God is not limited, it is us who limits Him. Limits in what way He can work, and in what ways He is known. But ultimately, His children who recognize Him are known, because their hearts imitate Him. Not because of a standard doctrine that all must bow to, but because their lives show Him! Images of God, what we were created for. That purpose. As Christ is the perfect image of that invisible God!
Mark, it appears you have the idea that speculating one's way into an ancient Jewish worldview (some of which involved rank Christ-less unbelief) is some magic decoder ring for understanding Scripture.
I don't like being blunt, but I don't think you are hearing me.
You are right, I don't really care to look into these paticular beliefs.
But, how blithely and conveniently you discount the verses and theology I have posted for you thus far. . . . as if your weak exegisis has somehow disposed of it.
Again, and for the final time. Theology is not a bad thing. . . . it is our way of explaining God.
You have a theology. . .
But, you are absolutely right. I don't really care about what you see in the bible. Your theology doesn't move me. It is yours and reveals your relationship with God. . . not mine. . . and I wouldn't care what you said EXCEPT. . . .
You pass such sweeping judgement on the entire church. It amazes me. So, you are right this is what bothers me more. . .
I guess you fancy yourself some kind of modern day reformer. I didn't catch that before.
But, it might surprise you why it bothers me. The church can take it. . . it is an ancient heresy. Been around for centuries. It bothers me because I don't want you to have to answer for this. You do the same thing the JW's do. . . Satan has tricked the church with the trinity. Nothing new. . . under the sun. . .
I have compassion for you. I think it is dangerous waters.
What I believe is. . . .our perception of issues related to the Trinity and the hypostatic union greatly influence how we read the Bible. Don't you agree? Our very understanding of scripture. It affects our interpretation of many passages and it affects the application we draw from those passages.
Which brings me to my point. . . it is so often expressed on these forums...The disparity between those of the church and those in the cults.
You see it articulated often here. "I went to church, and the people seem to really have something. . . ." "Too bad they don't know correct doctrine."
I always find it ironic we don't make the connection, but still sit from a distance that is created by our aberrant understanding of scripture.
By their fruit they are known. . . . . . connected to the vine. . . . by the love they have for one another. You even called it their character. . .God alive in the hearts of men and women in the church. . . again, they KNOW Him. They have an intimate and personal LOVE relationship with Him. Some DIE for Him.
These are the people you judge as not knowing God. The very ones who belong to Him.
Not good for you. . . . .
You asked about my study and journey. Doesn't really matter. I have had some pretty lucky breaks, gone to some pretty good schools. . met some pretty smart people, but in the end. . . it is God who makes Himself known to us. . . He enlightens.
He and He alone is due the glory. . . not my study. . . not my ability. . . not my knowledge of Hebrew culture.
If you are depending on your own ability. . . hang it up now. It will fail you.
Come, let us reason together. . . you and God together. . . reason these things out.
Love is in relationship. . . when you love Him with all your mind. . . it is in relationship. . . He is part of that.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
28
22
6
Popular Days
Feb 4
19
Feb 9
11
Feb 16
8
Feb 6
6
Top Posters In This Topic
Abigail 9 posts
Mark Clarke 28 posts
geisha779 22 posts
cman 6 posts
Popular Days
Feb 4 2009
19 posts
Feb 9 2009
11 posts
Feb 16 2009
8 posts
Feb 6 2009
6 posts
geisha779
Right on Mark, oh we agree! Sort of. . . Let's celebrate!! :)
It is the Holy Spirit who works these things in our life. But, we do have to be aware and make a freewill effort to guard against temptation. Prayer being the biggie. . . prayer with faith I mean.
Jesus, while teaching His disciples how to pray said ". . . do not bring us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. . . "
Jesus while in the garden, told Peter, to pray that he would not enter into temptation. Yikes!
God does not tempt men. . . but He will subject them to trials that may expose them to assaults from Satan. As in the case of Job, or Peter. . . . our desires should be to avoid the desires of sin altogether. God will work that into our lives. One way or another. . . usually another. . . . through endurance.
What do these trials do. . . our bouts with temptation? Faith is strengthened with trial. Patience is built. Understanding is gained. Sin exposed. We can't really do this without God. He knows what we need before we ask. There are things in our hearts we are not even aware of. . . which is why you hear Christians asking God to search their hearts.
It is the work of the Holy Spirit. . . we ask to be delivered from temptation. . . but in order to "Renew" our minds about it. . . we have to have that understanding. Despite what TWI said. . . the devil is subtle.
You know what the real sin is? Not depending on God for all of this. Faith. . . I love it. . . it does bring peace.
We sometimes HAVE to go through this stuff to learn. It is how we grow in grace. The real test is in thanking Him for it. . . . rejoicing in the Lord.
When my anxious thoughts multiply within me. . . . your consolation delights my soul!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
One of my all time favorite verses! (Psalm 94:19)
The first thing I noticed about that article is that it has a lot of sweeping generalities, with very little in the way of actual references. Secondly, most of its quotes are from gnostic writings. While gnosticism did exist and did represent a view that was held by some, it was refuted by the writers of the New Testament and does not reflect the orthodox view. And thirdly, I have to wonder why some of the roles of the Holy Spirit are considered feminine in the first place.
There's nothing particularly masculine or feminine about acting in Creation, imparting wisdom, or inspiring Old Testament prophets. And as for being a power in the birth of Jesus, the Bible declares that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary. Not that God had intercourse with Mary, as some skeptics think we believe, but God by His Spirit conceived the life of the child within the body of the mother (Mary), which is typically the father's part in the process.
Notice, it became a person, a partner in the Trinity. The gnostic idea of a lesser divine being was thoroughly pagan, and had no place in the Scriptures.
Correct. This is the view presented in the Bible. Not a person but the active power and presence of God.
Considered by whom? It isn't described that way in the Hebrew Scriptures. Power is neither masculine or feminine.
Hebrew, as with many languages, assigns grammatical gender to nouns, but it does not necessarily mean that the things are masculine or feminine themselves. But since English normally only uses personal pronouns when referring to persons, there is no "linguistic justification" for referring to the Holy Spirit as "she" just because ruach is feminine grammatically.
Perhaps it makes sense when you start with the assumption that it is a separate person. But not when you see it as the presence and power of God. Besides, the Son coming from the Father and the Spirit is not what the official doctrine of the Trinity says. The following is from the Athanasian Creed: "The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding."
This is misleading. The pronouns match the gender of their antecedents in Greek. But in English, when a pronoun refers to an inanimate object, it is translated "it" regardless of whether the Greek word is masculine or feminine grammatically. When pronouns refer to people, they are generally masculine or feminine. So, when it comes to the Holy Spirit, the pronouns being translated "he" and "him" is because of the belief that it is a person. There is nothing that grammatically requires it be translated this way. And yet even in the KJV, Romans 8:16 refers to "the spirit itself."
BTW, Church doctrine regards the spirit as a person, but the Scriptures do not. But neither do they regard it as "a force like magnetism." It's the presence and power of God.
I find it interesting that the article refers to so many gnostic writings (albeit without reference) but makes relatively few citations of the Scriptures. This seems to reflect a mindset that is more and more common these days, that the canon of New Testament Scriptures was arranged to deliberately leave out what they didn't like. But the fact is that none of the gnostic writings was ever considered authoritative by the usual criteria, and the doctrines presented in them were contrary to those presented in the authoritative writings.
I think St. Augustine was right when he claimed that the acceptance of the Holy Spirit as the "mother of the Son of God and wife-consort of the Father" was merely a pagan outlook. The article says that "Mayr contends that Augustine 'skipped over the social and maternal aspect of God,' which Mayr thinks is best seen in the Holy Spirit." But I have to wonder whether the role of the Holy Spirit as presented in the Scriptures can really be described as either masculine or feminine.
It was no secret that Christ had female disciples. The Bible tells us of them. They were the first to see the empty tomb, for one thing. And several women are mentioned in Acts as having prominent roles in the Church.
There seems to be a hunger to find anything new and sensational, with little regard for what is already established. The testimony that the apostles and other eyewitnesses have already provided is more reliable than some scholars would have us believe. But not all scholars. There are some who believe in the trustworthiness of the Scriptures, and have offered sound rebuttals for anything the opponents of that view might offer. "Profound and revelatory discoveries" have so far not proven anything except that there were some people with different views.
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Mark,
I know we don't agree on who the Holy Spirit is. . . but I wanted to clarify a few things for you. I know you have your understanding. . . not looking for an argument, it is pointless, but you do seem to have this person thing a bit mixed up. It helps to understand that which you argue against. No offense, but you do seem to twist it in explanation.
I get that you can't wrap your head around it. . . that is fine. It is interesting to note though, that while some argue over gender, most do not argue personhood. BTW, if these guys wanted to. . . they could make a very good case that the Holy Spirit is female. Gotta be on your toes!!
We see the same thing soooo differently. But, it is there to see if you want to. Or not.
Not too complicated really. The reason we call the Holy Spirit a person is not because He is embodied, or a human being. . . He is Spirit. . . but a person is self identified, has a mind, a will, distinct entity.
Hate to use this analogy, but is the devil a person, or a force or power?
Scripture does reveal the Holy Spirit with certain personal qualities. YES He is God, but He is distinct and personified in scripture. Dictinct from the Father, and Jesus. Remember, Jesus said He would send another. Although, if you don't believe Jesus is God this won't mean much to you.
Let me give you some examples of why we believe as we do. I know you have your faith's explanation for these, but this is the orthodox or accepted theology. Orthodox simply means right. :) And before you write us off as "misguided" or doing the"best" we can. . . LOL consider, not all Christians are ignorant and unlearned. There is a whole field of theological study called pneumatology and some very gifted scholars have studied the scriptures. Most of them. . . not ever in heretical cults.
The Holy Spirit has a mind ( Romans 8:27).The Holy Spirit helped to settle questions during the Church Council at Jerusalem Acts 15:28 The Holy Spirit dispenses gifts to different individuals according as He wills Corinthians 12:8-11 The Holy Spirit forbade some from going to preach in certain places 16:6-7The Holy Spirit anointed Jesus and sent Him out to preach the gospel (see Luke 4:18-19); In fact, both the Father and the Holy Spirit sent Jesus (see Isaiah 48:16). The Holy Spirit testifies or witnesses of Jesus John 15:26. The Holy Spirit leads God’s people Romans 8:14. The Holy Spirit teaches and causes us to remember the truth John 14:26 The Holy Spirit comforts us as does Christ John 14:16. The Holy Spirit strives with us Genesis 6:3. The Holy Spirit reproves us of sin, righteousness, and judgment John 16:8-11. The Holy Spirit instructs us Nehemiah 9:20.The Holy Spirit speaks, guides, hears and shows John 16:13-15.The Holy Spirit speaks, chooses, calls and sends forth Acts 13:1-4. The Holy Spirit gives messages to prophets and they declare: “Thus saith the Holy Ghost” Acts 21:11.The Holy Spirit has knowledge, and searches all things (see 1 Corinthians 2:10-11). The Holy Spirit sanctifies us Romans 15:16. The Holy Spirit holds communion with us 2 Corinthians 13:14; and so does Christ 1 Corinthians 1:9. The Holy Spirit is the source of regeneration and renewal for salvation John 3:5-8; Titus 3:5. The Holy Spirit resurrects the faithful from the dead Romans 8:11; 1 Peter 3:18. The Holy Spirit is the author of the Bible and moved upon the prophets to speak 2 Peter 1:21. The Holy Spirit is another Comforter other than Christ John 14:16. The Holy Spirit helps our infirmities Romans 8:26. The Holy Spirit can be tempted and lied to see Acts 5:3, 9. The Holy Spirit can be blasphemed and sinned against Mark 3:28-29; Luke 12:10; Matthew 12:31.
From Come Let us Reason. ..
"The main purpose of the Holy Spirit was to come alongside the believer, to do what Jesus did when he was here physically, but mainly from the inside of us. He is called the comforter, this would be a hard thing to do if the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force. The helper paracletos is used for the Spirit in the NT. by Jesus. This was used in Greek almost always of persons. Here the Lord calls him our helper, one that comes alongside. Even with the other titles attributed to him this still does not change who he is behind those titles. He (the Spirit) says "separate Barnabas and Saul to me" he also is identified as "I" in Acts 13:2. If the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force as Jehovah’s Witnesses claim, or a mode as in Oneness Pentecostalism, then He cannot be another of the same kind. Jesus is a person, if the Spirit is another comforter this requires the Spirit to be a person also. How could He duplicate all the things of Jesus unless He is a person? The helper in Gr. paracletos, is used to describe the Spirit in the New Testament by Jesus. This was used in Greek almost always of persons. Here the Lord calls him our helper, one that comes alongside. When we speak of person it does not necessitate form but personality and identityLooking at the attributes of the Spirit we find no difference in His nature, function and communion with the believer than with Jesus. Rom.8:27 He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the spirit is, because he makes intercession for the saints," 1 Cor.2:11: "But the one and the same spirit works all these things dividing to each one as He wills. Acts 8.29: The Spirit spoke to Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it." Rev 2-3: "Let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches" Rev 22.17: The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" If the Spirit is impersonal so is the Bride.
The activities of the Spirit are all descriptions of what persons do. Many groups come to the irrational and illogical conclusion that he is only a force used by the Father to accomplish his purposes. This power the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim is impersonal like an artificial intelligence that will accomplish Gods will in our lives. Romans 8.16: The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. To make the Holy Spirit something other than a personality a being (a force?) This means that we are indwelt with a human non personality. This means we have no inner nature that rules over our body, that all we are is our body just like the evolutionists say.
Paul uses the spirit Gr. pnuema as The masculine pronoun He , giving him identity. The Holy Spirit is portrayed as a personal being with an identity different then both the Father and the Son. He is identified as "I" in Acts 13:2.
As we understand that the nature of the Father and Son and Spirit have always been the same, they are all eternal. They all share in common the same essence, which is God. They also share in the divine name of Yahweh. All the attributes of God that are held in common with the Father and Son are shared also with the Holy Spirit.
He has omnipresence Ps.139:7-10 David writes whether he goes up to heaven or into hell below God is there, he cannot escape his Spirit. He is omnipresent, everywhere since he would dwell in every believer simultaneously.( 3 omnis are described in this passage omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience all attributes of God). The essence of the Holy Spirit is that he is omniscient- all knowing 1 Cor.2:10-11: "For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God." Only God can comprehend God himself, he knows things of God and things we do not know of ourselves.
There are scriptures that refer to the Holy Spirit as being the "Spirit of Jesus", the "Spirit of Christ", or "Spirit of the Son" "the Spirit of the Father" If the Son and Father are persons then this certainly does not make the Spirit a non person."
My favorite, John 14:26 where you have all three. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
Job 32:8 - But it is the spirit in a man, the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding.
John 15:26 - When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.
John 16:5-15 - 5 "Now I am going to him who sent me, yet none of you asks me, 'Where are you going?' 6 Because I have said these things, you are filled with grief. 7 But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; 10 in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11 and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned. 12 "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.
John 3:5-7 - 5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'
John 6:63 - The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.
Ephesians 2:1-5 - 1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.
2 Thessalonians 2:13 - But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.
1 Corinthians 12:13 - For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body - whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free - and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
Ephesians 1:13-14 - 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession - to the praise of his glor
Romans 8:9-10 - 9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.
1 Corinthians 6:19 - Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own.
Ephesians 2:22 - And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.
2 Corinthians 3:17-18 - 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.
Philippians 1:6 - being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.
Philippians 2:12-13 - 12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.
Ephesians 1:17-18 - 17 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18 I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints.
Galatians 5:25 - Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.
Galatians 5:22-23 - 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
1 Corinthians 2:9-14 - 9 However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him" — 10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Psalm 139:7-8 - 7 Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? 8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
Genesis 1:1-2 - 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. Psalm 104:30 - When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth.
Job 33:4 - The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life.
Luke 1:35 - The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.
Romans 8:11 - And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Mark,
If you got through that last post you are a trooper, but just a bit more that may help you understand the orthodox theology of the Holy Spirit. I am sure you are familar with Perichoresis. "The relationship of the Triune God is intensified by the relationship of perichoresis. This indwelling expresses and realizes fellowship between the Father and the Son. It is intimacy. Jesus compares the oneness of this indwelling to the oneness of the fellowship of his church from this indwelling. "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." (John 17:21)" The Holy Spirit is kinda the one who makes this happen.
There is so much revealed in scripture about how God is glorified within Himself. The absolute intimacy and pefection of fellowship within the Godhead. It can render one jelly. Makes your knees go weak. But, without some kind of belief in or understanding of the Godhead. . . none of it is going to work for you.
We love Him because He first loved us. . . that is in relationship. . . love is known in relation to something. God is love. He didn't become Love. . . He is love. He is in relationship within the Godhead.
The church is about unity in relationship. Being one. Everything is about relationship. . . cetainly when it comes to love.
God is a happy God. . . Happy and overflowing within Himself. . . outside of His creation.
Not complicated when you start looking and considering scripture. I know you reject it, but I just wanted to clarify for you.
When I look at things now. . . no preconceived bias. . . I read history and see the trinity was already known. . . clarified and established in creed, not invented. Perichoresis was explored by John of Damascus not invented.
I too see these things in scripture. :) Did you ever stop to ask yourself what it is we are filled with and baptised in? Mind blowing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Geisha,
I won't get into an argument; as you say, it is pointless. But I wanted to point out that I already dealt with those issues in the article which I have presented in my previous posts.
First of all, the long section you quoted from Come Let Us Reason was arguing against the holy spirit being an impersonal force as the JW's believe, or a mode as the Oneness Pentecostals believe. Neither of these is the position I am presenting.
Secondly, every one of those verses can be understood as God speaking, moving, acting, guiding, giving revelation, etc., by way of His Spirit. Not one of them proves that the Holy Spirit is a separate person from God.
As I pointed out in the article, a person can speak of his spirit or his soul in the same way:
Would anyone say that these verses prove that "Me" and "My Spirit" are two different people? Or "Me" and "My Soul"? Of course not. Consider this verse: Gen. 45:12 - "And, behold, your eyes see, and the eyes of my brother Benjamin, that it is my mouth that speaketh unto you." Is Benjamin's mouth a separate person from Benjamin? Obviously not. "My mouth speaks to you" is simply another way of saying, "I speak to you." Nor is the Lord's mouth a separate person from the Lord:
Jos 9:14 And the men took of their victuals, and asked not counsel at the mouth of the LORD.
1Ki 13:21 And he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the LORD, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the LORD, and hast not kept the commandment which the LORD thy God commanded thee,
To disobey the mouth of the Lord is to disobey the commandments that the Lord spoke. Nobody would argue that the Lord's mouth is a separate person. The spirit of the Lord is no different. In fact in two different parallel passages, the power of God is described as both the spirit and the finger of the Lord.
Matt. 12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
Luke 11:20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.
The Spirit of God, or the Holy Spirit, is a way of speaking about the means by which God interacts with the world. The "finger of God" is another way of saying the same thing. You certainly wouldn't consider the Finger of God to be a person. Just as I can speak of my soul longing, or my heart desiring (and it means that I long and desire), so referring to God's Spirit saying and doing things is a way of speaking about God saying and doing them.
You asked, "is the devil a person, or a force or power?" He is a person. Again, I am not claiming that God is not a person. I am saying that the person of God communicates and interacts with the universe, and with people specifically, by way of what is called His Holy Spirit. But it is not a separate person from God Himself. If it were, "he" would have sent greetings to the church, and as a co-equal and co-eternal person, would have been included in those verses I quoted that refer to the Father and the Son.
You said, "He is Spirit. . . but a person is self identified, has a mind, a will, distinct entity." That is exactly the problem. When you speak of the Holy Spirit as a person that "is self identified, has a mind, a will, distinct entity," and then you say that this person is God, you now have two "persons" who are God. And Jesus makes three. And the whole idea of three persons, but still one God, just doesn't fit with logic or the Scriptures. God is always presented as ONE person. Hear O Israel, the LORD is our God, the LORD is ONE. Jesus quoted and corroborated the Shema, and nowhere in the Bible can "one" ever be shown to mean "three in one."
Still, I don't expect you to change your mind. If I could get you to understand just one thing, it would be that this belief is not the product of a few cult-influenced teachers. All throughout history, there have been many respected Bible scholars who have understood these things. They may be in the minority, but they are not just in cults like TWI. Remember the quote I had in the article? Alan Richardson, in his Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1958, p. 120), desribes the holy spirit like this:
You said, "When I look at things now. . . no preconceived bias. . . I read history and see the trinity was already known. . ." But looking at the Scriptures to explain the Trinity IS preconceived bias. It is not explicitly stated anywhere in the Bible, and the only way ANYONE has even heard of the Trinity is because somebody taught them about it.
But still, as you said, it's pointless to argue. I just wanted to point out that I'd already dealt with those arguments, and to clarify what I believe to be the Biblical understanding of God's Holy Spirit. I also wanted to point out that the belief in God as One Person is held by more and more Bible scholars, and not the wild idea of a cult.
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I won't get into an argument; as you say, it is pointless. But I wanted to point out that I already dealt with those issues in the article which I have presented in my previous posts.
Mark, this actually IS argument, but fine. From my perspective, it is a weak argument. What can I say. From the perspective of orthodox theology. . . . it is rejected. We actually SEE something different.
First of all, the long section you quoted from Come Let Us Reason was arguing against the holy spirit being an impersonal force as the JW's believe, or a mode as the Oneness Pentecostals believe. Neither of these is the position I am presenting.
No, you are espousing some form of modalism. Not a new heresy. If you know your history, which you once advised me to learn, you know what the discussion was about between Arius and Alexander and you know what Sabellianism is. This is actually the same argument settled 100's of yeas ago. It is actually what Arius got miffed about. He was an argumentitive man.
Secondly, every one of those verses can be understood as God speaking, moving, acting, guiding, giving revelation, etc., by way of His Spirit. Not one of them proves that the Holy Spirit is a separate person from God.
Mark, weak argument. They can be understood anyway you choose, but what are they actually revealing? A person with distinct identity. You have to come to
it with NO preconcieved bias and humble yourself and let it speak to YOU. Not the other way around. You are so busy explaining God, you are missing Him revealing Himself. These verses reveal a distinct personality. God can be a trinity. You just can't accept that He is. I never said He was seperate from God. . . He is God. . . One God. Seperate from the Father, and the Son. . . not from God. Distinct person within the Godhead. You need to understand how they work in concert to be one God. . . or it just stymies you. It does fit together beautifully, One God.
As I pointed out in the article, a person can speak of his spirit or his soul in the same way:
Of course we can speak of ourselves the same way. . . . we are made in His image. We are a trinity.
Would anyone say that these verses prove that "Me" and "My Spirit" are two different people? Or "Me" and "My Soul"? Of course not. Consider this verse: Gen. 45:12 - "And, behold, your eyes see, and the eyes of my brother Benjamin, that it is my mouth that speaketh unto you." Is Benjamin's mouth a separate person from Benjamin? Obviously not. "My mouth speaks to you" is simply another way of saying, "I speak to you." Nor is the Lord's mouth a separate person from the Lord:
Mark, I didn't use these verses because they do not reveal the distinct and separate entity of the Holy Spirit. Just because one does and the other doesn't . . . . doesn't mean they cancel each other out. They don't negate the reality of the Holy Spirit revealed as having mind, will, and self-identity.. . . it isn't even a good reasoned argument. It is superfical, do you think Christians don't understand language and lit? Is your body the same as your spirit, is your mind the same as your body? They are distinct yet make up the one who you are. . . no? Do they interact in concert with each other to make up one Mark. . . in theory in perfect unity? Diverse yet in unity. Are they all you? One Mark? When you die Mark, will your body remain but your spirit depart? Will your mind be with your body in death? Do your body and mind have the same will? Mine sure don't. . . my mind tells me I am 21. . . my body says "ahhhh, hang on a minute". God is one Mark. Distinct seperate three persons. . . one God.
Jos 9:14 And the men took of their victuals, and asked not counsel at the mouth of the LORD.
1Ki 13:21 And he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the LORD, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the LORD, and hast not kept the commandment which the LORD thy God commanded thee,
To disobey the mouth of the Lord is to disobey the commandments that the Lord spoke. Nobody would argue that the Lord's mouth is a separate person. The spirit of the Lord is no different. In fact in two different parallel passages, the power of God is described as both the spirit and the finger of the Lord.
The Spirit of the Lord is no different than His mouth or finger? Hmmm, I would say there might be a difference.
Matt. 12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
Luke 11:20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.
The Spirit of God, or the Holy Spirit, is a way of speaking about the means by which God interacts with the world. The "finger of God" is another way of saying the same thing. You certainly wouldn't consider the Finger of God to be a person. Just as I can speak of my soul longing, or my heart desiring (and it means that I long and desire), so referring to God's Spirit saying and doing things is a way of speaking about God saying and doing them.
You just gave Him a voice. You just made Him distinct. A WAY of speaking. A way of doing. . . the problem you have is He is described as another-who reveals Jesus. Distinct-with will, mind, personality and duties. He can be grieved, blasphemed, He decides, He imparts, He communicates, He resides within us. The Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit. Not the finger of God. You have to really embrace modalism to see it your way. What happens when you do this. . . . is that you lose God. You miss it. The interaction of God within Himself. . . it is stunning. God is a trinity, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Distinct, yet within each other in perfect community and love as ONE God. Can't get around it. Unity with diversity, it is everywhere in creation if you have eyes to see. You are a family . . . one family. . . distinct members. The church. . . many members, each with their own office or duty or talent or gift. . . one body. It is all there.
You asked, "is the devil a person, or a force or power?" He is a person. Again, I am not claiming that God is not a person. I am saying that the person of God communicates and interacts with the universe, and with people specifically, by way of what is called His Holy Spirit.
YEP
But it is not a separate person from God Himself. If it were, "he" would have sent greetings to the church, and as a co-equal and co-eternal person, would have been included in those verses I quoted that refer to the Father and the Son.
Says who? That is a very weak argument. Especially given the personality of the Holy Spirit. He is meek. Fruit of the Spirit, come from the Holy Spirit. . . love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. Breath, oil to annoint, a dove. Why a dove? Those poor who could not afford a lamb. . . brought two doves to the temple. God accepted two doves from the poor. Does that not speak to your heart about who the Holy Spirit is?
Not to say He is weak. . . He did appear as fire. Mark there is so much there to see. I love the Holy Spirit. Makes my knees weak.
You said, "He is Spirit. . . but a person is self identified, has a mind, a will, distinct entity." That is exactly the problem. When you speak of the Holy Spirit as a person that "is self identified, has a mind, a will, distinct entity," and then you say that this person is God, you now have two "persons" who are God. And Jesus makes three. And the whole idea of three persons, but still one God, just doesn't fit with logic or the Scriptures. God is always presented as ONE person. Hear O Israel, the LORD is our God, the LORD is ONE. Jesus quoted and corroborated the Shema, and nowhere in the Bible can "one" ever be shown to mean "three in one."
He is shown as three in one. The Lord is ONE. You don't see it and you have found "another" explanation. Your mind rebells at this, I know. Hard to accept, once denied so vehemently. Because you deny it, you miss how God is one. It is there and THAT is what captivates our hearts and ravishes our souls. That is how we learn about how God is love.
Still, I don't expect you to change your mind. If I could get you to understand just one thing, it would be that this belief is not the product of a few cult-influenced teachers. All throughout history, there have been many respected Bible scholars who have understood these things. They may be in the minority, but they are not just in cults like TWI. Remember the quote I had in the article? Alan Richardson, in his Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1958, p. 120), desribes the holy spirit like this:
Mark, are you kidding me? I was in a Christ denying cult for a very good part of my adult life. There is a Christian world that you don't begin to comprehend. I have believed BOTH ways. I know the fruit of false teaching. It is an empty faith. I am not trying to be rude. I promise you, I really like you. In fact, I believe you are hungry for the things of God. But, I have to be honest here. There are no Christian theologians who deny the scriptures in favor of heresy. This is how we distinguish the two. Orthodoxy. Which simply means right. It is not orthodox because we don't get it. . . .we are not mean when we use the word heresy. . . it is just an unacceptable because it opposes scripture. It may sound "intellectual" to you. . . but I could give you a hundred books refuting modalism. It then becomes endless debates over words. Does that sound familar at all?
You said, "When I look at things now. . . no preconceived bias. . . I read history and see the trinity was already known. . ." But looking at the Scriptures to explain the Trinity IS preconceived bias. It is not explicitly stated anywhere in the Bible, and the only way ANYONE has even heard of the Trinity is because somebody taught them about it.
Mark, the word bible is not in the bible. . . Trinity is just a word to describe what is revealed about God in scripture. It is there which is why we can see and understand it. . . explaining it is a different matter . . . unless one has the eyes to see. You have parroted this response before. Doesn't make it true. If you keep saying that no one would see it revealed in scripture unless taught. . . you discount 100's of years of great Christian thinkers and you discount the many of us EX-TWI who have come to this position once opposed, by simply praying and reading. It is just not a true statement. It sounds like a programmed response.
But still, as you said, it's pointless to argue. I just wanted to point out that I'd already dealt with those arguments, and to clarify what I believe to be the Biblical understanding of God's Holy Spirit. I also wanted to point out that the belief in God as One Person is held by more and more Bible scholars, and not the wild idea of a cult.
No Mark, it is the God of the cults. Google it :) LOL Just kidding. God is able and does deliver. I know you desire Him over a system of belief. I have every confidence in Him. .. carry on telling us how God is not known or understood by 2000 years of Christianity and VP was wrong, but now you have it right. . . . sorry for the disrupt. Just remember, we are finite trying to define infinite. . . . doesn't wrap up in a neat little package... .
And most certainly, the mystery of godliness is great:
He was manifested in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit,
seen by angels,
preached among the Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
(well...here's another bone)
It was in 321 A.D. that Constantine made the first national Sunday Law enforcing rest from labor. Following this, in 324, was the First Council of Nicea which was one of the most influential meetings in paving the way for the setting up of the papacy.
"The Emperor Constantine made the following announcement in his letter to all [bishops, etc.] who were not present at the Council: '...It was declared... We ought not therefore to have anything in common with the Jews ...we desire, dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the... company of the Jews, ... it is our duty not to have anything in common with the murderers of our Lord,... You should consider not only that the number of churches in these provinces make a majority, but also that it is right to demand what our reason approves, and that we should have nothing in common with the Jews.... accept joyfully the divine favor, and this truly divine command; for all which takes place in the assemblies of the bishops ought to be regarded as proceeding from the will of God...'" History of the Councils, p. 322-4.
How widely this varies from Christ's own words, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not." Matt 23:2,3. Or from Paul's attitude in Romans, chapters 9-11, and 2 Corinthians 3:16.
One of the main "Jewish" things that was replaced by Greco-Roman-Egyptian-Babylonian/Pagan things was the Hebrew language, which "was cultivated as the most sacred tongue in the world." Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 97. All of the original Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts of the New Testament were translated into Greek by the time of Constantine when the Latin Bible (the Vulgate) began to become dominant over all other languages in regards to church matters. It appears that any Hebrew or Aramaic letters and manuscripts that may have been written by the Apostles have all been hidden or destroyed. Even the Aramaic and Hebrew versions of the New Testament that we have today are themselves translations from other languages.
"What advantage then hath the Jew?... Much every way: chiefly because that unto them were committed the oracles (Greek – logion – utterances) of God." Romans 3:1,2. It was the "utterances (words) of God," that were committed to the Jews, to be preserved in "the most sacred tongue in the world," Hebrew.
One of the greatest losses which the church of God has suffered as a result of the separation from the "most sacred tongue in the world," Hebrew, was the loss of the gender represented therein. Though there is what is known as a "common" gender in Hebrew (which is usually expressed in the feminine), there is no absolute "neuter" gender expressed in Hebrew as there is in Greek and other languages. Many people have been led to mock the idea of inanimate objects, and even expressions having gender assigned to them. But ridicule of the things that God has appointed is not inspired of the Holy Spirit who "moved" the "holy men" of old to use gender when writing the things of His Holy Word.
This great breach which has caused a great loss to the body of Christ is most readily seen in the change of thinking in regards to the gender of the Holy Spirit. In Hebrew, the word which is translated Spirit is ruah, and is feminine; while the Greek word is pneuma, and is neuter; and the Latin word is spiritus, and is masculine.
--------------
Bahá'í Faith
In the Bahá'í Faith, the Holy Spirit, also known as the Most Great Spirit, is seen as the bounty of God. It is usually used to describe the descent of the Spirit of God upon the messengers/prophets of God, which are known as Manifestations of God, and include among others Jesus, Muhammad and Bahá'u'lláh. In Bahá'í belief the Holy Spirit is the conduit through which the wisdom of God becomes directly associated with his messenger, and it has been described variously in different religions such as the burning bush to Moses, the sacred fire to Zoroaster, the dove to Jesus, the angel Gabriel to Muhammad, and the Holy Maiden to Bahá'u'lláh. The Bahá'í view rejects the idea that the Holy Spirit is a partner to God in the Godhead, but rather is a pure reflection of God's attributes.
Islam
Holy Spirit in Islam is an agent of divine action or communication commonly identified with the angel Gabriel (ar: Jibreel) or Ruhul Qudus but also alternatively with the created spirit from God by which he enlivened Adam, made Mary pregnant with Jesus, and inspired the angels and the prophets. The belief in Trinity is explicitly forbidden by the Qur'an and called a grave sin. The same applies to any idea of the duality of God (Allah).
Judaism
In Judaism, the idea of God as a duality or trinity is heretical (see Deuteronomy 6:4). Nonetheless, the term Ruah Ha-qodesh (Holy Spirit) is found frequently in Talmudic and Midrashic literature. In some cases it signifies prophetic inspiration, while in others it is used as a hypostatization or a metonym for God. The Rabbinic “Holy Spirit,” has a certain degree of personification, but it remains, “a quality belonging to God, one of his attributes” and not, as in Christianity, representative of “any metaphysical divisions in the Godhead.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Good for you cman. . . told ya Mark. . . on your toes! They can make a strong case.
I will stick with Christianity though. . . :)
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Mark, this actually IS argument, but fine. From my perspective, it is a weak argument. What can I say. From the perspective of orthodox theology. . . . it is rejected. We actually SEE something different.
Why do you hold "orthodox theology" in such high esteem? Many of the tenets of the Protestant Reformation were considered "heresy" because they challenged what was considered "orthodox theology" by the Roman Catholic Church at the time.
No, you are espousing some form of modalism. Not a new heresy.
Modalism is defined as "the view that God variously manifested Himself as the Father (primarily in the Old Testament), other times as the Son (primarily from Jesus’ conception to His ascension), and other times as the Holy Spirit (primarily after Jesus’ ascension into Heaven)." Also, "Yet another aspect of Modalistic Monarchianism / Modalism / Sabellianism is Patripassianism, which is the view that it was God the Father who became incarnate, suffered, died, and was resurrected. Patripassianism essentially teaches that God the Father became His own Son." (These definitions are from the Got Questions? website.)
In contrast, I am saying that God is one person, and does not change. The phrases "Spirit of God" and "Holy Spirit" are simply ways of referring to the presence and power of God in operation. It is a figurative way of speaking about God in relation to His creation. It is closer to the understanding of holy spirit under Judaism in Cman's post. Which makes sense since the OT revealed God's nature, and the NT reflects that same understanding.
Mark, weak argument. They can be understood anyway you choose, but what are they actually revealing? A person with distinct identity.
They can't be understood any way that I choose. It has to fit with the Scriptures. I know you think that the Trinity does, but we disagree there, so we probably are wasting our time debating.
I never said He was seperate from God. . . He is God. . . One God. Seperate from the Father, and the Son. . . not from God.
Jesus called God his Father, and many Scriptures refer to God the Father. But the point I was making is that none of the verses you had quoted prove that the Holy Spirit is a separate person from God the Father. There is no "God the Holy Spirit" in the Bible, nor is there a "God the Son."
Of course we can speak of ourselves the same way. . . . we are made in His image. We are a trinity.
This idea comes from Greek philosophy, not from Hebrew thinking. The Scriptures present man as a single entity, a soul, with no separation between body and spirit. And before you say, "Says who?" I will answer, any Bible dictionary will demonstrate how those words are used in the Bible. But I've been over this too.
Mark, I didn't use these verses because they do not reveal the distinct and separate entity of the Holy Spirit. Just because one does and the other doesn't . . . . doesn't mean they cancel each other out. They don't negate the reality of the Holy Spirit revealed as having mind, will, and self-identity.. . .
I didn't say they did. I was using it as an illustration of how Hebrew idiomatic language refers to "my soul" doing something, when it literally means "I do it." The same idiomatic language is used to describe God doing something by saying "His Spirit." And it is even more specific in the NT, where "the Spirit" refers to the spirit of the risen Christ in addition to the Holy Spirit of God. I Cor. 2:11 - "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."
It isn't even a good reasoned argument. It is superfical, do you think Christians don't understand language and lit?
I think in many cases they don't understand the Hebrew way of thinking and speaking. That is one of the roots of the problem.
Is your body the same as your spirit, is your mind the same as your body? They are distinct yet make up the one who you are. . . no? Do they interact in concert with each other to make up one Mark. . . in theory in perfect unity? Diverse yet in unity. Are they all you? One Mark? When you die Mark, will your body remain but your spirit depart? Will your mind be with your body in death? Do your body and mind have the same will? Mine sure don't. . . my mind tells me I am 21. . . my body says "ahhhh, hang on a minute".
This illustrates my point. Yes, my body and my mind work together. But I do not say that my body is a separate person that is "self identified, has a mind, a will, distinct entity" from my mind. My mind may want to think I'm 21, but my body includes senses which relay information that tells me otherwise. The center of my consciousness is still one, my will is still one, I am still one person. This is all very simple. And when I use figurative language saying "my mouth" speaks to you when I mean that "I am speaking to you" there is no misunderstanding that my mouth is a separate person from me with a distinct will and/or consciousness. Why can it not be that straight forward with God?
You just gave Him a voice. You just made Him distinct.
Those two statements are contradictory. Giving Him a voice does not make Him a distinct person any more than my voice is a distinct person from me.
The Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit. Not the finger of God.
NOT the finger of God? Was Luke wrong to use that term?
The interaction of God within Himself. . . it is stunning. God is a trinity, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Distinct, yet within each other in perfect community and love as ONE God.
The problem is that God is not presented in the Scripture as a community, a family, or anything else plural. He is constantly referred to in thousands of verses as a single person, a single entity, using singular verbs, pronouns, and adjectives (except for the four verses where he is probably talking to His angels when He says "us").
Can't get around it. Unity with diversity, it is everywhere in creation if you have eyes to see. You are a family . . . one family. . . distinct members. The church. . . many members, each with their own office or duty or talent or gift. . . one body. It is all there.
A family is more than one person. But God is presented as a singular person in the thousands of references to Him in the Bible.
He is shown as three in one. The Lord is ONE.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about three-in-one. The ONLY verse that uses that phrase (I John5:7) is a known addition to the text which has been corrected in newer versions.
...It is an empty faith.
I know many Biblical Unitarians who would disagree with that.
Mark, are you kidding me? I was in a Christ denying cult for a very good part of my adult life.
No, I'm not. There have been groups of people who have rejected the Trinity ever since it was first articulated. We were in a cult who happened to share that belief, but that doesn't mean that only cults have that belief. Unless of course you choose to define a cult as "anyone who doesn't agree with the majority's doctrine." By that definition, Jesus' followers were a cult, as are all Protestants.
There are no Christian theologians who deny the scriptures in favor of heresy.
There are no Christian theologians who deny THE SCRIPTURES. But there are quite a few who deny that the Trinity is Scriptural. BTW, do you know that the Trinity was considered "heresy" when it was first propounded?
Mark, the word bible is not in the bible. . . Trinity is just a word to describe what is revealed about God in scripture. It is there which is why we can see and understand it. . .
I'm not just saying the WORD Trinity isn't in the Bible. The concept of "three persons existing in one God" is not there. I pointed out above that the only verse that has the phrase "these three are one" is a known addition. God is always presented as one person, and His Son is just that - His Son.
. . . you discount 100's of years of great Christian thinkers and you discount the many of us EX-TWI who have come to this position once opposed, by simply praying and reading.
Then you are likewise discounting the 100's of years of Christian thinkers who have seen that the Trinity is not Scriptural (albeit in the minority), as well as many ex-TWI who have studied it for themselves both in and out of TWI and independently reached the same conclusion.
...carry on telling us how God is not known or understood by 2000 years of Christianity and VP was wrong, but now you have it right. . . . sorry for the disrupt. Just remember, we are finite trying to define infinite. . . . doesn't wrap up in a neat little package... .
I am not saying "now I have it right." I am relating what others have seen as well. Again, just because people have believed something for 2000 years doesn't make it right. And I don't consider it "trying to define infinite." I consider it to be a simple matter of understanding that which God has revealed to us about Himself. He may be infinite, but He chose to reveal His nature to us with words - words which make sense. The single simplest, easiest relationship we humans can understand, that of a parent and a child, is how the Father and His Son are revealed to us. My father is not me, and I am not my father. My father and I are not "two persons yet one essence." God the Father and Jesus the Son are presented as two separate entities, with separate thoughts and wills, one having begotten the other.
John 17:3 - "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."
I Corinthians 8:6 - "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."
I Timothy 2:5 - "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Cman indeed makes a strong case for the loss of the Hebrew understanding and thinking that is absolutely essential to understanding the Scriptures. It was from that loss and the replacement with Greek and Pagan ideas that many unscriptural doctrines crept into the Church.
But I still contend that the grammatical gender of words in Hebrew, as with other languages, does not imply that inanimate objects themselves have masculine or feminine characteristics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I'm not that smart. Just know how to put info together.
And observation as well as realization.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Mark,
Jews reject Jesus. You know what might be fun for you. . . . in all seriousness. . . speak about the Holy Spirit to a Messianic Jew who embraces the triune nature of God, and knows scripture well. Lots of them around. It would be another perspective and a learning experience if nothing else.
You may have already done this. . . . but, they can explain to you the stumbling blocks, why the Jewish faith rejects Jesus, and expound on scripture and the Holy Spirit in a way that makes you want to sit at their feet and listen all night. Those who know Judaism and Orthodox Christianity. It is enlightening.
Lots of Messianic fellowships around. :)
If anyone is interested in the topic of the Holy Spirit from a more traditional understanding. . . ."The Holy Spirit, His Gifts and Power
Puritan John Owen wrote one of the best studies on the Holy Spirit over three hundred years ago. Owen explores the biblical portrait of the Spirit, showing us how He indwells all believers to equip them for service, love one another, and empower them to defeat sin in their lives."
Some of the Puritans are really fun to read.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
True, Jews reject Jesus. But since the Bible is written from a Jewish mindset, it's vital to understand Jewish thinking in order to understand the Bible. I think the loss of that understanding is the root of the biggest doctrinal errors that crept into the Church, including conscious existence after death, and replacement of God's Kingdom on earth with a spiritual kingdom of the heart, in addition to the Trinity. (See this article for more on this.)
You said in an earlier post (as do many Trinitarians) that the Trinity was "defined" not "developed." Many Trinitarians hold that the word "Trinity" as well as other Trinitarian language (such as "three persons in one God," "one substance," "eternally begotten," etc.) was coined to describe concepts that are in the Bible. This should send up a red flag for any Bible student. It suggests that God didn't do a good enough job communicating His nature in the Scriptures inspired by Him. If God was indeed "one essence existing in three persons" surely in His infinite wisdom He could have come up with words to describe it. But there is nothing that suggest such a concept in the Bible. Why would He leave it up to people writing over 100 years after the NT was completed?
The historical facts are, that Trinitarian language and concepts were developed to explain an apparent contradiction that would have been easily understood if they had understood the Scriptures from a Hebrew point of view. That apparent contradiction was that they saw a few verses where Jesus was called God, and a few that seemed to say the Holy Spirit was God. So now they had a dilemma. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. But taken literally, that would make three Gods. (Gnostic Christians in fact did suggest that Jesus was a "lesser deity".) But rather than adopt a form of polytheism, they came up with the explanation that God and Jesus were of "one substance" but distinct persons. Later the Holy Spirit was declared to be also of the same substance, and that they were in fact "three persons, yet one God."
None of this language is in the Bible, and in fact would be completely unnecessary if they had understood the Hebrew mindset. I explained in this thread how the Hebrews understood God's Holy Spirit. I deal with in what sense Jesus is called God (for sure in only two verses) in my article on Who Is Messiah. So with Jewish understanding there would have been no apparent contradiction that they would need to explain. But they invented language which is illogical, self contradictory, and not found in the Bible. Then they took the concepts and read them back into the Bible (forcing it in most cases) and thus claimed that the concepts were there.
As if that weren't bad enough, those who disagreed were left out of the proceedings at the counsels where the official doctrine was voted on. And after it became official, anyone who disagreed was threatened with excommunication, torture, or death. This is how "most" Christians came to believe in the Trinity hundreds of years ago, and was an unquestioned tradition for hundreds of years. But it didn't remain unquestioned. Radical Reformationists questioned it but were persecuted for it. And since the 1800s there have been many individuals and even whole denominations who have written about it, as well as about death being unconsciousness, and about the literal nature of God's future Kingdom on earth. These great truths, that were lost when the Church rejected all things Jewish, have been observed in the Bible by scattered minorities for over a hundred years now. But to see them one has to be willing to test one's traditional beliefs against the Scriptures and not accept anything just because most Christians have believed it for hundreds of years.
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Mark,
I was thinking that maybe I should be a bit more detailed in my explanation of the Holy Spirit as a person. It is not fair just to throw something out and not fully explain it to you. You mentioned the understanding of Hebrew to understand Scripture. It is also important to understand words and the etymology of the words we use when explaining something. Lexicographers use modern usage to define a word . . . . that can often be confusing to us when we are discussing words used in the bibleor theology in their historical sense. Especially to explain something. Our dictionary changes as the use of words change. I bet you knew that. In fact, wrong usage can become defining in time.
Now, you are a thinking man and I imagine to myself you are more than willing to consider.
Contradictions are not to be embraced as part of the truth. . . in fact, in the Christian faith we stand against relativism where contradiction is exalted to the level of truth.
The idea of God being three may appear to break the rule of noncontradiction to you. Something cannot be P and non P at the same time in the same relationship. I am with you on this. I love reason and logic. I get that is what you hear when a Christian says God is three persons One God.
When a Christian says God is One. He is saying God is one in ESSENCE(Substance) three in PERSON. I hope to show you we are not as far apart in thought as it may appear, but I gotta get cerebral here, so bear with me.
If I were to say to you God is 3 in essence(Substance) and 3 in person, that would be a contradiction. Kinda of like when you tell me God is one and sends parts of Himself out to express Himself to us in different ways. You have to explain away the personification of the Holy Spirit. The bible is clear on this issue. The Holy Spirit has distinctive duties, He is another for a specific purpose. He remind us, He points to Jesus, He convicts us, He comforts us. . . . . .
But, God being one essence, three in person does not break the law of non contradiction. Remember, truth is subject to the actual laws of logic. It can't break the rules. Christianity is a REASONable faith. We can say in A God is unity. . . in B diversity. Now, you can be a father, and son at the same time, but you cannot be your own father. Not in the same relationship. Are you with me?
I bet you would agree with me that the NT is full of paradox? No? Jesus saying you have to lose your life to find it. Die to live. . . Believe then see. . .
What is a paradox? The prefix para means to come along side something. Jesus spoke in parables. He would give His message and then throw along side a story to illustrate the message. The root of paradox is from the word doxein. . . to seem, to appear
It is important to understand this root and can be illustrated in the heresy of Docetism which came out of gnosticism.Same root word. Many Greeks could not understand the incarnation, they accepted the resurrection, but did not believe the divine could mingle with flesh. So, they said Jesus did not have a real physical body, but He seemed or appeared to have one. He was an illusion. They didn't deny He was God, they denied He came in the flesh, or was God in the flesh.
Paradox, is something that at first glance appears to be a contradiction. But upon closer inspection is not. It is something we see all over the NT.
The trinty is paradoxical, but not contradiction. It requires more than a first glance. It requires understanding language and its uses. Tertullian articulated the trinity with specific language and meaning.. .. . the church did struggle with its paradoxical nature, but not so much with the scriptural evidence of the trinity. That was what they persued understanding of. . . they saw the deity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit one with the Father. They understood from the OT the Lord your God is one God.
They articulated the God of scripture through theology. . . .just like we do. Our attempt to explain the infinite.
Understanding history is actually pretty complex. The who's, the thought processes of the day, the opposing schools of thought . . . how their understanding was reached. . . the use of words, personalities and such. The controversy goes much deeper in understanding than "the trinity was made up".
Christianity is a monotheistic faith. The bible is clear. . . one Lord. . . we agree on this. We even agree on more than you think. You say the Holy Spirit is that PART of God, expressed to us.
Here is what Tertullian articulated. God is one in essence three in person. Faithful to the clear teaching of scripture. You have to really veer from a clear understanding to deny this. In fact, you have to form a whole new theology, which is going to deny deity to Jesus and deny the personification of the Holy Spirit to make anything work. You lose the God of scripture.
Essence comes from the word ousia which means being or substance. God is one essence, not a bunch of parts sent here and there. That would give Him more than one being. God is one being. Essence is essentially the stuff of God's one being. What makes you different from a cat? A cat different than a flower? A flower different than God? It is the essence, or stuff you are. We are talking about the essence of diety. That is a pretty heady topic.God is one in essence.
When we use the word person, it comes from the word. . . Persona
When Tertullian used it. . . it was different from our use. It was used in a legal sense or in the dramatic arts. It means mask (Like the twin masks of tragedy/comedy) or role. Masks fit over a face don't they?
Other words are used instead of person that might help. Subsistence is one. Just to clarify, I do not mean poor or below par.
Sub means under or below. . . and sistance. . . same root as existence right? . . . Existence means, to stand out of being, in the philosopical sense? God doesn't exist in the classical meaning of the word. He did not stand out of being. . . He is pure being. We exist.
God is eternal but, subsistence would mean underneath the pure being of God. As we use it.
Three subsistences underneath or below the pure being of God. Similar to what you say when you say that part of God. We need to distinguish between these subsistences. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is essential to do this, or you end up with nothing. God does it in scripture. Otherwise, it is empty and void. It is not the God of scripture.You end up rewriting the meaning of verses that are clear. . .and stripping God of His deity.
When you add that great is the mystery of Godliness into the mix. . . it can get confusing. However, God does not speak in contradiction. It is not that God gets it and we just need to take it on faith, . . . . no. . . otherwise how could you trust anything He says. . . you would never know if it was your understanding. . . or "God" logic?? We could then take anything in the bible. . . say it means thus and just attribute it to "God" logic. Been there -- done that. . . .
The Christian faith has no contradiction. Contradiction in relativism is the hallmark of truth. Not Christianity. Paradox and Mystery are something else. Musterion. The scripture has many mysteries. The mysterious nature of something does not anull the reality of it. If it did, modern science would disappear. We still don't know the complete nature of motion or time and the complete workings of gravity. There are elements still hidden from our understanding. Right? We still have gravity.
I can't claim to fully comprehend the act of divine creation. That God, by the power of His words, spoke light into being? No finite mind can claim this. I cannot claim to grasp the totality of the infinite with the ability of a finite mind. We don't have a comprehensive knowledge of God. The finite cannot contain the infinite. A perfect knowledge of Him is beyond us.
Now we know in part. . . . see in a mirror dimly. . . .
Paul was fond of speaking of mysteries. The unfolding of mystery concerning the church. The inclusion of the gentiles, the second coming, the resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the mystery of Godliness. Remember, these things were hidden in the OT and revealed or unfolded in the NT.
However, they are not fully comprehended. Finite mind, infinite God, we see through a glass darkly. At best, it is a progressive unfolding for our understanding from God Himself. There is still so much to learn and understand about God. Revealed or UNFOLDED in the NT is an elaboration of the Godhead. The nature of God. Yet, we cannot claim a comprehensive understanding of God. NONE of us can.
A contradiction is unintelligable, yet, a mystery is something I don't now understand, but given more information, I may understand it. It unfolds. God Himself unfolds it for us.Gaining understanding shrinks the mystery, Mystery, paradoxically, is a legitimate part of knowledge and should provoke humility in us. Not breed arrogance.You and I stand before an infinite God. We don't KNOW all things. We can't wrap it up neatly in an abberant theology, while looking down on the very faith we claim.
Remember, you believe in a vigin birth, the resurrection, and the miracles Jesus did. Explain How God raised Jesus from the dead for me? What was it He did. How was Jesus concieved? How did the blind man see?
You can't explain how, but you believe He did by His power. Why is it so difficult to believe God is one essence three persona. You believe He reveals Himself in parts. He doesn't have more than one being? We BOTH believe in an invisible God.
It is not a contradiction, it is a paradox.
GREAT is the mystery of Godliness, which was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit. . . recieved up into glory.
Maybe most Christians don't misunderstand. . . . they understand all too well God is infinite and revealed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Geisha,
I think you may need to reread my posts. First, what you claim I have said is NOT what I have been saying, and you have misunderstood and/or misquoted me more than once. You said:
You say the Holy Spirit is that PART of God, expressed to us.
You believe He reveals Himself in parts. He doesn't have more than one being?
This is NOT what I believe. I have said many times that I believe the holy spirit is God's operational presence and power. Not a PART of God. The Way taught it was part of God but I have demonstrated in detail why I don't believe that to be true. In another post you said I believed that it was God in a different mode. It seems like you can't get past the first step, that it isn't a person, and haven't really grasped what I'm saying it is.
Secondly, I have heard your argument before...
Here is what Tertullian articulated. God is one in essence three in person. Faithful to the clear teaching of scripture.
The problem is, it is NOT faithful to clear teaching of Scripture. There is NOTHING in the Scriptures that refers to God as an "essence." He is always addressed as a person, and declared to be ONE person. That one person is declared to be the Father of Jesus, and Jesus is differentiated in many places from GOD - not just from the Father. If you haven't read my article about it, I recommend you do. You will find that it is a bit different from TWI or ex-TWI handling of the issue, although there are a number of points in common.
Tertullian and others had to invent language in order to explain how Jesus could be God but not contradict the strict belief in ONE God. But let me repeat what I said about that in my previous post:
You are correct when you say Tertullian used words in a different sense than we would. They were also a different sense than the Bible used them. And more importantly, they were heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. The resulting doctrine is extremely confusing, and theologians have wrestled with it for hundreds of years, and have never successfully explained it, falling back on "we can't explain it, it's a mystery." In contrast, the Bible speaks of God, who created the world by Himself, and who had a Son, named Jesus. Simple. No need for convoluted theories and twisting meanings of words and inventing new ones. As I said before, if the Trinity were true, God could have come up with the right words much better than any man, and would have used them in His revelation of Himself to us. The only reason anybody ever started to think a new explanation was needed was because they lost sight of the simple understanding of the Bible from a Hebrew perspective.
You asked, "Why is it so difficult to believe God is one essence three persona?" It wouldn't be difficult at all, if it had been stated in the Bible, but it isn't. I would ask you, "Why is it so difficult to believe that God is one person, the father of Jesus, whom Jesus called the only true God (John 17:1-3)?"
The Trinity would be a paradox rather than a contradiction if the Bible clearly stated any of the major points of it. But it doesn't. It's more than just the word Trinity that is not in the Bible. You cannot show me any Scripture where God is presented as an essence, or as multiple persons. All any Trinitarian can offer as proof is that the Bible seems to call Jesus and the Holy Spirit God. But when you understand that in light of the Hebrew understanding of those things, there is no contradiction, and no need to coin new words and terms in order to explain it. And since there are also MANY things about the Trinity that contradict clear Scriptures, it is not just a paradox. (See my article for the clear contradictions.)
As for trying to understand what is beyond our understanding, I addressed that point in my article, which I will quote here:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
May God help you.
And so you know, I have a housefull of young Christian men here. . . . 20 years old and known by their fruit. If you knew their true goodness in the Lord you would blush.
They have a relationship with God, not their own understanding of the bible. They are known by the love they have for one another. If you really understood what you sit and pass judgement on when you call most Christians wrong and that they misunderstand. . . . well, you might mourn as I did.
What if you are wrong? What if your knowledge has failed you and you are really passing judgement on God's people?
I feel so sorry for you and the burden you carry feeling you must correct the whole Christian Church. Why. . . even Jesus Himself couldn't carry this burden. . . or could He?
My sheep hear my voice.
I think I will pass on anymore "articles". Others may differ.
True knowledge is marked by humility.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
He has, thanks! :)
I am not passing judgment on anyone. The fact that people believe doctrine that I believe is contrary to the Bible has no bearing on their Christian character. I have met both Trinitarians and Biblical Unitarians that love God and exhibit fruit in their lives, and I have met members of both groups who do not, as well.
What if I'm right? How would we know? I think the Bible has to be our standard for truth, and I demonstrated what I believe the Bible teaches.
As I said, I'm not passing judgment on anyone. And while you haven't done so, many Trinitarians have passed judgment, claiming that anyone who doesn't believe in the Trinity is not truly Christian and destined for hell. I make no such judgment.
Don't feel sorry for me. I don't carry any such burden. I couldn't correct the whole Christian Church if I wanted to. Those who hunger for the truth and search the Scriptures like the Bereans did will find it. I just post what I believe the Bible teaches. If people want to look into it and see for themselves "whether these things are so" they have that option. If they don't, that's their choice too.
Jesus did in fact carry that burden. He spoke the words that we are supposed to believe and follow. And he is the one who confirmed the Shema and called his Father "the only true God." Jesus was not a Trinitarian.
If you choose to pass on any more articles, that's your choice. Godspeed.
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Mark,
The fact that you AGAIN sit from a small group outside the church pronouncing "Great Misunderstanding" "Most Christians wrong" and "What I see the problem as" speaks to your character, and your judgements,. . . . . not theirs.
They are known by their fruit, and the love they have for one another. Known to be His. Christians are connected to the vine. . . don't worry so, they know Him. . . personally and deeply. His nature is revealed not misunderstood.
I don't believe you are on the road to hell, but to deliverance. It is just a bumpy and often long road for us ex-twi. . . we travel through alot of different places to get there.
Lot's of people claim to "look into things" . . . . call themselves like the Bereans too.
http://www.thebereans.net/cultus.shtml
They are only "Bereans" if they agree with you.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Geisha,
It puzzles and concerns me that you seem to be bothered more by my suggestion that most Christians are wrong than by the actual evidence one way or the other in the Bible. Are you Roman Catholic or Protestant? Half of the Christian Church considers the other half to be "wrong." Why is it not more important to consider what the Bible says?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Mark,
Please don't be concerned or puzzled. It is just your assumption that I don't think what the bible says is more important. Your understanding constitutes your reality.
I really don't know many Christians other than those like Dave Hunt (The Berean Call) who get down on Catholics too much. I went to a Mass this past summer. I really enjoyed it and the message was great. I can look past the Mary statues and saints. . . it was really kind of nice. We went with my sister-in-law. We are very close to her. . . and she is shhhhhhh (a catholic).
I guess to sum up what bothers me. . . is the sweeping pronouncment and ringing judgements you make, based soley on your own understanding of scripture and limited exposure to the church. It is quite a feat.
You might just be wrong. Remember, I have believed both ways. You seem to forget that.
Hate to burst your bubble, but we have some pretty smart Christians who know Hebrew, OT, and Judaism pretty well. Sorry to tell you. . . we even have Hebrew scholars.
BUT. . . Mark, there are Christians in this world. . . . who have PARTS of a bible. . . passed from town to town. . . tattered and worn. . . and they know more about God than you and I ever will.
Christianity is a heart matter, you can think you have it ALL figured out, and God will pull that little rug right out from under you.
I am astounded that from your little place in the world, you have decided the entire Church is tricked and just plain wrong about something so personal and so real and alive within them. All because you see the bible the right way now. Amazing ability. . . how many years were you in seminary?
What I find more ironic, is that you are correcting the last group you were in that had it all right, but are now wrong on what you decide they are. I bet you used to say the bible said something different. In fact, I know you did.
You changed your mind? Bet you were so sure before? No?
We are finite. . . limited in explaining the infinite. Finite cannot contain infinite. When we think we have. . . . we usually are tricked.
I know you love God. . . that is enough for me. . . my faith is not in my own ability, but in His. . . if I couldn't even read. . . He would make a way for me to know Him.
If He makes Himself known. . . . He does not lie. The church knows God. It is His church.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Please don't be concerned or puzzled. It is just your assumption that I don't think what the bible says is more important. Your understanding constitutes your reality.
I was merely going by the fact that in nearly every post you express concern that I am "pronouncing the entire church wrong" and not dealing with any of the Biblical issues. You seem to express more concern about whether the Church is mistaken than about what is really true. At least it comes across that way.
I really don't know many Christians other than those like Dave Hunt (The Berean Call) who get down on Catholics too much. I went to a Mass this past summer. I really enjoyed it and the message was great. I can look past the Mary statues and saints. . . it was really kind of nice. We went with my sister-in-law. We are very close to her. . . and she is shhhhhhh (a catholic).
My point wasn't about whether Catholics are right or wrong, good or bad. My point was that before the Reformation, Protestants would say that "the whole church was wrong" about a lot of things. And now, whichever half (or actually third, if you include the Eastern Orthodox) of the Mainstream Church someone is in, they would consider the other half (or third) wrong. How is that any different from what you say I do?
I guess to sum up what bothers me. . . is the sweeping pronouncment and ringing judgements you make, based soley on your own understanding of scripture and limited exposure to the church. It is quite a feat.
Again, I am not making any judgments, nor is it solely on my understanding. I am simply writing about what I and many others have seen from the Bible. Anybody that holds ANY position that is contrary to someone else's is going to say that somebody is wrong. That is not a character judgment. And BTW, how do you know how much exposure to the Church I have had?
You might just be wrong. Remember, I have believed both ways. You seem to forget that.
I haven't forgotten it. I'm wondering, what changed your mind? Did you in fact study the Bible and seek the truth after TWI, or did you decide that since TWI was wrong on so many things, that maybe Orthodox Christianity was right after all? (It's difficult to get tone across in written text, so please don't take these questions as accusations. I am actually asking.) And if you did study the Bible, have you considered any other views of Biblical Unitarianism besides TWI and its offshoots? Because they didn't do a very good job of presenting it. (That's not just my opinion either.)
Hate to burst your bubble, but we have some pretty smart Christians who know Hebrew, OT, and Judaism pretty well. Sorry to tell you. . . we even have Hebrew scholars.
How would that burst my bubble?
BUT. . . Mark, there are Christians in this world. . . . who have PARTS of a bible. . . passed from town to town. . . tattered and worn. . . and they know more about God than you and I ever will.
Christianity is a heart matter, you can think you have it ALL figured out, and God will pull that little rug right out from under you.
I agree. But I don't think it's ALL heart and no mind. The two aren't mutually exclusive. God expects us to study the Scriptures if we want to really know Him and not be deceived.
What I find more ironic, is that you are correcting the last group you were in that had it all right, but are now wrong on what you decide they are. I bet you used to say the bible said something different. In fact, I know you did.
You changed your mind? Bet you were so sure before? No?
I'm not sure what you mean by me now being "wrong on what you decide they are."
Nevertheless, God has indeed "pulled the rug out from under me." Yes, I thought I knew it all when I was in the Way, but about ten years ago I found that most of what I thought I knew was wrong. I almost gave up, but God kept prodding me to look at the Bible again, without anybody telling me what I had to believe. I learned from other scholars, but not because they were charismatic cult leaders, but simply because they presented their views clearly and logically and I could not argue with it.
I am astounded that from your little place in the world, you have decided the entire Church is tricked and just plain wrong about something so personal and so real and alive within them. All because you see the bible the right way now. Amazing ability. . . how many years were you in seminary?
It is not just "my little place in the world." I have read the ideas of many scholars, some from hundreds of years ago. Some of them decided that the entire Church in their lifetime was "tricked and just plain wrong." Martin Luther is one; Michael Servetus is another. I am likewise astounded that you can't even accept that possibility, when Jesus and Paul both said to beware of false teachers and false doctrines. You are astounded at the suggestion that the majority of the Church could be wrong. But don't Christians say the same thing about all the Jews? Many of them hold their beliefs to be as personal and real and alive as Christians do theirs. The same goes for many Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. If there is an objective Truth, some people are going to be wrong.
You seem to be implying that I am egotistical, thinking "I see the Bible the right way now." But aren't you saying a similar thing in a way? You are convinced that although you believed what TWI taught once, you "see the Bible the right way now." The only difference is that you have numbers on your side. But God gave us His Word so we could have proof of His Truth and not have to go along with the masses.
The important question is not who has the truth, but what is the truth. You keep saying I could be wrong. True; so could you. So could anybody. The entire Church does not agree on very much. It comes down to what is your standard for determining what the truth is? (I could ask you how many years of seminary you've had, too. But who says the truth can only be found in seminaries?)
We are finite. . . limited in explaining the infinite. Finite cannot contain infinite. When we think we have. . . . we usually are tricked.
But you say that you have - how do you know you're not tricked? I'm not being facetious here. I wrestled with that for a long time. While we can't know everything about the infinite God, He did choose to reveal Himself by His Word. It is not beyond our ability to understand. It all seems very subjective - everybody has their own beliefs, it's all good - until you really look at the Bible and search for answers. I got to the place where I said I didn't care who was right, I just wanted to know the truth.
I know you love God. . . that is enough for me. . . my faith is not in my own ability, but in His. . . if I couldn't even read. . . He would make a way for me to know Him.
Surely you aren't suggesting that we can know God just from the heart without reading His Word?
If He makes Himself known. . . . He does not lie. The church knows God. It is His church.
Of course God doesn't lie. But the devil is the father of lies, and he wants nothing more than to deceive God's Church. That's why we were warned about false doctrines, and told to search the Scriptures so we could recognize the counterfeit doctrines. The devil is a master at counterfeiting. Would you be judgmental of someone who was deceived by being given a counterfeit $20 bill? Neither would I. Like I've been saying, I don't judge anyone or look down on them just because they happen to have been taught what I believe to be wrong doctrine. But at the same time, should I not present what I believe to be the truth? If you are convinced that your truth is right, why not discuss the Biblical evidence? If you're right it should stand up to my "errors." But if you don't even consider any other view because it's not what the majority believes, then how can you really be sure I'm wrong or you're right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Mark,
Not trying to change the subject here or to put mock your belief. And maybe this ought to be in it's own thread. But are suggesting you do NOT believe the opposite of what you thought might have been suggested? "That God CAN be known just from the heart without reading his Word?"...
The Word.. God's Word.. His Word... Just sounds so unrelational.. Rather than a living breathing relationship with a living and breathing God who wants us to know him personally, intimately, and sit in his lap and call him daddy, it almost sounds like a dull boring relationship with a non-living organism "His Word" aka "The Book" aka "The Bible". And everything you get is from this black and white written and printed by men book, rather than words that the creator of all things speaks to you personally.
When it is written in Romans, "... that which may be known of God is manifest in them[saints]; for God hath shewed it unto them. ", do you think that God only showed them through this black and white text??? I sure hope not.
Is it not written after that verse in that black and white text that, "The invisible things of Him(God) from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and godliness; so that they are without excuse" ?
So if they are without excuse, according to "His Word", then there must be enough in "the things that are made" that all would be capable of clearly seeing His eternal power and godliness and knowing God.
God's greater than a book. And knowing him personally, which can come about in a myriad of ways, and giving him his rightful place as the creator, is what God's interested in. And while I agree, we have a standard that others who knew the this Creator wrote words that God shared with them, there's more to knowing God, in fact, there are other ways to finding God, than that one book you have written which wasn't even around for millenniums.
In fact, many have written about Him in every century. Some in that canon of books you have, others not. Some have known Him better than others. Some tend to add traits in their mind about him that probably don't quite agree with who He really is. He is invisible after all.
But if there's anything, at least I think, God cares about, it is his children, his creation. And he desires His creation to recognize Him and imitate Him. He is love, and that's what He asks of us, because He did create us with that purpose. How you find him, what book, what he looks like, what words are attributed, are all secondary. But do you know Him?! No about Him, but personally.
Yes, I believe he sent His son, the man, Jesus, to show us more perfectly as a living, breathing example. A creation that shows us this invisible God. And this creation recognized God for who He was, His creator that created Him with a purpose. To give his life for us that we might justly be redeemed. And in recognizing God for who He was and fulfilling that purpose, God has raised Him and set at His right hand to be Lord over all. Sure.. But I also believe God is not limited, it is us who limits Him. Limits in what way He can work, and in what ways He is known. But ultimately, His children who recognize Him are known, because their hearts imitate Him. Not because of a standard doctrine that all must bow to, but because their lives show Him! Images of God, what we were created for. That purpose. As Christ is the perfect image of that invisible God!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Mark, it appears you have the idea that speculating one's way into an ancient Jewish worldview (some of which involved rank Christ-less unbelief) is some magic decoder ring for understanding Scripture.
I don't like being blunt, but I don't think you are hearing me.
You are right, I don't really care to look into these paticular beliefs.
But, how blithely and conveniently you discount the verses and theology I have posted for you thus far. . . . as if your weak exegisis has somehow disposed of it.
Again, and for the final time. Theology is not a bad thing. . . . it is our way of explaining God.
You have a theology. . .
But, you are absolutely right. I don't really care about what you see in the bible. Your theology doesn't move me. It is yours and reveals your relationship with God. . . not mine. . . and I wouldn't care what you said EXCEPT. . . .
You pass such sweeping judgement on the entire church. It amazes me. So, you are right this is what bothers me more. . .
I guess you fancy yourself some kind of modern day reformer. I didn't catch that before.
But, it might surprise you why it bothers me. The church can take it. . . it is an ancient heresy. Been around for centuries. It bothers me because I don't want you to have to answer for this. You do the same thing the JW's do. . . Satan has tricked the church with the trinity. Nothing new. . . under the sun. . .
I have compassion for you. I think it is dangerous waters.
What I believe is. . . .our perception of issues related to the Trinity and the hypostatic union greatly influence how we read the Bible. Don't you agree? Our very understanding of scripture. It affects our interpretation of many passages and it affects the application we draw from those passages.
Which brings me to my point. . . it is so often expressed on these forums...The disparity between those of the church and those in the cults.
You see it articulated often here. "I went to church, and the people seem to really have something. . . ." "Too bad they don't know correct doctrine."
I always find it ironic we don't make the connection, but still sit from a distance that is created by our aberrant understanding of scripture.
By their fruit they are known. . . . . . connected to the vine. . . . by the love they have for one another. You even called it their character. . .God alive in the hearts of men and women in the church. . . again, they KNOW Him. They have an intimate and personal LOVE relationship with Him. Some DIE for Him.
These are the people you judge as not knowing God. The very ones who belong to Him.
Not good for you. . . . .
You asked about my study and journey. Doesn't really matter. I have had some pretty lucky breaks, gone to some pretty good schools. . met some pretty smart people, but in the end. . . it is God who makes Himself known to us. . . He enlightens.
He and He alone is due the glory. . . not my study. . . not my ability. . . not my knowledge of Hebrew culture.
If you are depending on your own ability. . . hang it up now. It will fail you.
Come, let us reason together. . . you and God together. . . reason these things out.
Love is in relationship. . . when you love Him with all your mind. . . it is in relationship. . . He is part of that.
Thanks for your time.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.