14 Apr 11
3 edits
The Trinity in the Bible, is not something ANYBODY would imagine or think up. It is too perplexing. And no one who wanted to start a religion would ask people to try to understand something like one God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The existence of a Trinity truth in the Bible (if not the actual word "trinity" ) , is evidence that the product is of God and not man.
The truth of the trinity is the great filter to filter out all the proud headed.
The truth of the Trinity strains out all those who trust in thier own understanding rather than in the revelation of God.
14 Apr 11
Originally posted by menace71It would of course be fine for the trinity if such was the case, but sadly for it, the Hebrews were monotheistic, in that God was one. Clearly Christ himself never mentioned something of such significance and its only laterally, because of the Hellenistic influence that it later was absorbed by the Church through the fourth to the eighth centuries. Today trinitarians are left to state that its inferred from scripture, however once a person realises that Christ was a created entity, separate from God, all other things become clear. There is no mystery, as if God would conceal essential knowledge from us, just truth.
Also RC it's possible just because an idea seems pagan does not mean there is not truth in an idea. Maybe these so called pagan trinities were just imitations of the actually true reality of God. I heard the story of the Gospel is in the stars.
Manny
14 Apr 11
Originally posted by jaywillnope, the scriptures state that its the Christ who filters out those who are proud and who trust in themselves,
The Trinity in the Bible, is not something ANYBODY would imagine or think up. It is too perplexing. And no one who wanted to start a religion would ask people to try to understand something like one God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The existence of a Trinity truth in the Bible (if not the actual word "trinity" ) , is evidence that the product is ...[text shortened]... rains out all those who trust in thier own understanding rather than in the revelation of God.
(Romans 9:32-33) . . .They stumbled on the “stone of stumbling”; as it is written: “Look! I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock-mass of offense, but he that rests his faith on it will not come to disappointment.”
16 Apr 11
Originally posted by menace71But Manny if one really understands what "Truth" means in the Bible and how exacting God is in our worhip to him then one has to realize that the worship God wants from us has to be as close to being true as it can be.
Also RC it's possible just because an idea seems pagan does not mean there is not truth in an idea. Maybe these so called pagan trinities were just imitations of the actually true reality of God. I heard the story of the Gospel is in the stars.
Manny
These scriptures help us to understand how we should view our worship.
Galatians 5:9 (New Living Translation)
9 This false teaching is like a little yeast that spreads through the whole batch of dough!
This scripture is so simple but means so much.
Deuteronomy 4:24 (Young's Literal Translation)
24 for Jehovah thy God is a fire consuming -- a zealous God.
The New World Trans says: "he is exacting exclusive devotion."
John 4:24 (Darby Translation)
24 God [is] a spirit; and they who worship him must worship [him] in spirit and truth.
The word Truth is in the Bible multitudes of times and it's there for us to see the seriousnes of how God views it.
16 Apr 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhen the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned together,
you know i dont subscribe to this point of view Jay, but yes, that is not to say, someone
else shall not. My main objection is as you know, that personification does not
necessarily mean personality, therefore while the scriptures personify the Holy spirit,
it is, not of necessity, a personality. Gods purpose as far as i can discern is that
...[text shortened]... all aspects of
this, i do not doubt, its simply in its personification that we disagree upon.
you seem to accept that the Father and Son as persons in the
Godhead; but the Holy Spirit is not really another person, but
something else that is being personified as a person.
Do you also believe that spirit angels, unclean spirits or wicked
spirits are not persons, but something else being personified as
persons? So when the disciples were commanded to baptize in
the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, were they being
baptized in the Name of two persons and something else?
Jesus told His disciples that He was going away to prepare a
place for them and that He would come back for them. He also
said that during the time He was away He would ask the Father
to send another Helper like Himself referring to the Holy Spirit.
Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as He. If Jesus is a person why
would not another Helper be a person too? Jesus said the Holy
Spirit would teach them and guide them to the truth. Jesus said
that the Spirit would not speak on His own initiative, but whatever
He hears, He will speak and He will disclose to you what is to come.
The Holy Bible also says the Holy Spirit knows the mind of God and
God knows the mind of the Spirit. Since the Spirit has a mind that
knows things, can teach and guide others by speaking what He hears
from God, why would you think Jesus is just personifying the Holy
Spirit? Is Jesus trying to trick us in to believing the Holy Spirit is
a real person for some reason? The Holy Spirit is also spoken of as
testifying or bearing witness of Christ, commissioning people to
service, issuing commands, restraining sin, and interceding in prayer
for us when we don't know how. These are things a person would
be able to do; but I can not understand what else could do these things.
We are told in the Holy Bible that the Holy Spirit can be grieved which
seems to indicate He has emotions. The Holy bible also says that peter,
Paul, and Barnabas obeyed the Holy Spirit and according to Acts 5:3,
Ananias and Sapphira were guilty of lying to the Holy Spirit. And just
as God the Father and God the Son can be blasphemed, we are told that
the Holy Spirit can be blasphemed (Matthew 12:32; Mark 3:29-30).
Do you also believe Satan is personified and is not a real person, but
something else? One more thing I noticed about the Holy Spirit is that
when He speaks He uses the personal pronouns "I" and "Me" indicating
He thinks of Himself as a person. Why would you possibly think that
the Holy Spirit is not a person?
16 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsNot a person.
When the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned together,
you seem to accept that the Father and Son as persons in the
Godhead; but the Holy Spirit is not really another person, but
something else that is being personified as a person.
Do you also believe that spirit angels, unclean spirits or wicked
spirits are not persons, but something else being f Himself as a person. Why would you possibly think that
the Holy Spirit is not a person?
Not until the fourth century C.E. did the teaching that the holy spirit was a person and part of the “Godhead” become official church dogma. Early church “fathers” did not so teach; Justin Martyr of the second century C.E. taught that the holy spirit was an ‘influence or mode of operation of the Deity’; Hippolytus likewise ascribed no personality to the holy spirit. The Scriptures themselves unite to show that God’s holy spirit is not a person but is God’s active force by which he accomplishes his purpose and executes his will.
Personification does not prove personality.
It is true that Jesus spoke of the holy spirit as a “helper” and spoke of such helper as ‘teaching,’ ‘bearing witness,’ ‘giving evidence,’ ‘guiding,’ ‘speaking,’ ‘hearing,’ and ‘receiving.’ In so doing, the original Greek shows Jesus at times applying the personal pronoun “he” to that “helper” (paraclete). However, it is not unusual in the Scriptures for something that is not actually a person to be personalized or personified. Wisdom is personified in the book of Proverbs (1:20-33; 8:1-36); and feminine pronominal forms are used of it in the original Hebrew, as also in many English translations. (KJ, RS, JP, AT) Wisdom is also personified at Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35, where it is depicted as having both “works” and “children.” The apostle Paul personalized sin and death and also undeserved kindness as “kings.” He speaks of sin as “receiving an inducement,” ‘working out covetousness,’ ‘seducing,’ and ‘killing.’ (Ro 7:8-11) Yet it is obvious that Paul did not mean that sin was actually a person.
So, likewise with John’s account of Jesus’ words regarding the holy spirit, his remarks must be taken in context. Jesus personalized the holy spirit when speaking of that spirit as a “helper” (which in Greek is the masculine substantive parakletos) Properly, therefore, John presents Jesus’ words as referring to that “helper” aspect of the spirit with masculine personal pronouns. On the other hand, in the same context, when the Greek pneuma is used, John employs a neuter pronoun to refer to the holy spirit, pneuma itself being neuter. Hence, we have in John’s use of the masculine personal pronoun in association with parakletos an example of conformity to grammatical rules, not an expression of doctrine.—Joh 14:16, 17; 16:7, 8.
Lacks personal identification.
Since God himself is a Spirit and is holy and since all his faithful angelic sons are spirits and are holy, it is evident that if the “holy spirit” were a person, there should reasonably be given some means in the Scriptures to distinguish and identify such spirit person from all these other ‘holy spirits.’ It would be expected that, at the very least, the definite article would be used with it in all cases where it is not called “God’s holy spirit” or is not modified by some similar expression. This would at least distinguish it as THE Holy Spirit. But, on the contrary, in a large number of cases the expression “holy spirit” appears in the original Greek without the article, thus indicating its lack of personality.
How baptized in its “name.”
At Matthew 28:19 reference is made to “the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit.” A “name” can mean something other than a personal name. When, in English, we say, “in the name of the law,” or “in the name of common sense,” we have no reference to a person as such. By “name” in these expressions we mean ‘what the law stands for or its authority’ and ‘what common sense represents or calls for.’ The Greek term for “name” (onoma) also can have this sense. Thus, while some translations (KJ, AS) follow the Greek text at Matthew 10:41 literally and say that the one that “receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man, shall receive a righteous man’s reward,” more modern translations say, “receives a prophet because he is a prophet” and “receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man,” or similar. (RS, AT, JB, NW) Thus, Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament (1930, Vol. I, p. 245) says on Matthew 28:19: “The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.” Hence baptism ‘in the name of the holy spirit’ implies recognition of that spirit as having its source in God and as exercising its function according to the divine will.
16 Apr 11
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie=========================================
Not a person.
Not until the fourth century C.E. did the teaching that the holy spirit was a person and part of the “Godhead” become official church dogma. Early church “fathers” did not so teach; Justin Martyr of the second century C.E. taught that the holy spirit was an ‘influence or mode of operation of the Deity’; Hippolytus likewise ascribed no ...[text shortened]... spirit as having its source in God and as exercising its function according to the divine will.
Justin Martyr of the second century C.E. taught that the holy spirit was an ‘influence or mode of operation of the Deity’
=======================================
Lie - Half truth above.
Justin Martyr wrote the Holy Spirit was a "WHO", a Person.
Justin Martyr (A.D. 100 - 160)
"It is wong, therefore, to understand the Spirit and the power of God as anything else than the Word, who is also the Firsborn of God."
The First Apology - Justin Martyr, Chapter 33
16 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillpersonification does not prove personality.
[b]=========================================
Justin Martyr of the second century C.E. taught that the holy spirit was an ‘influence or mode of operation of the Deity’
=======================================
Lie. Justin Martyr wrote the Holy Spirit was a "WHO" a Person.
Justin Martyr (A.D. 100 - 160)
"It is wong, therefore, t ...[text shortened]... rd, who is also the Firsborn of God."
The First Apology - Justin Martyr, Chapter 33[/b]
16 Apr 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"Now the Lord is the Spirit. And where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom" (2 Cor 3:17)
personification does not prove personality.
That's the apostle Paul.
Shall we go back to the Lord Jesus Himself ?
"The Lord IS THE SPIRIT." Dance for us now.
And WHO by chance would Paul be talking about when he mentions "Lord"?
"We do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord ..." (2 Cor. 4:5)
16 Apr 11
Originally posted by jaywillyes Christ is a life giving Spirit, God himself is a spirit, Angels are also described as spiritual sons of God, those who are resurrected to be with Christ and who will rule as Kings and priest are also termed spirits, what of it? The Bible states that Gods spirit moved two and fro upon the surface of the earth during its creation, are we to take it to mean that Christ moved two and fro upon the surface of the earth? I dont think so.
[b] "Now the Lord is the Spirit. And where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom" (2 Cor 3:17)
That's the apostle Paul.
Shall we go back to the Lord Jesus Himself ?
"The Lord IS THE SPIRIT." Dance for us now.
And WHO by chance would Paul be talking about when he mentions "Lord"?
"We do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord ..." (2 Cor. 4:5) [/b]
16 Apr 11
Originally posted by menace71I guess if you think a good model is always going to reflect reality as in what
It's the best model of what is seen and known. It does not militate against Creation or the bible. I'm no expert but I've done enough research and reading to believe the BB is the best model. There are issues with it as with any model but it best fits what we know about the universe so far. Do you have a better model? Sure you can say God did it and that i ...[text shortened]... it was the expansion of everything in the universe Time / Space / Matter ect
Manny
really happen that is one thing. You must assume quite a bit to be so sure.
Kelly
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
16 Apr 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTrinitarians usually refer to the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons (Greek hypostases),[1] in One Divine Being (Greek: Ousia),[2] called the Godhead (from Old English: Godhood), the Divine Essence of God. (Wikipedia)
yes Christ is a life giving Spirit, God himself is a spirit, Angels are also described as spiritual sons of God, those who are resurrected to be with Christ and who will rule as Kings and priest are also termed spirits, what of it? The Bible states that Gods spirit moved two and fro upon the surface of the earth during its creation, are we to take it to mean that Christ moved two and fro upon the surface of the earth? I dont think so.
I bring this up because you say "...Gods spirit moved two and fro upon the surface of the earth during its creation...". If you mean by "God" the One Divine Being, then you are referring to the unity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit in that one divine being.
At least, this is what I was taught.
16 Apr 11
Originally posted by JS357actually the term used in the context of the creation is different from those which
Trinitarians usually refer to the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons (Greek hypostases),[1] in One Divine Being (Greek: Ousia),[2] called the Godhead (from Old English: Godhood), the Divine Essence of God. (Wikipedia)
I bring this up because you say "...Gods spirit moved two and fro upon the surface of the earth during its creation...". ...[text shortened]... ather, Son and Holy Spirit in that one divine being.
At least, this is what I was taught.
you quoted,
The Greek pneuma (spirit) comes from pneo, meaning “breathe or blow,” and the
Hebrew ruach (spirit) is believed to come from a root having the same meaning.
Ruach and pneuma, then, basically mean “breath” but have extended meanings
beyond that basic sense. They can also mean wind; the vital force in living
creatures; ones spirit; spirit persons, including God and his angelic creatures; and
Gods active force, or holy spirit. (Compare Koehler and Baumgartner’s Lexicon in
Veteris Testamenti Libros, Leiden, 1958, pp. 877-879; Brown, Driver, and Briggs
Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1980, pp. 924-926; Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Friedrich, translated by G. Bromiley,
1971, Vol. VI, pp. 332-451.)
All these meanings have something in common: They all refer to that which is
invisible to human sight and which gives evidence of force in motion.
The actual verse states,
(Genesis 1:2) . . .Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was
darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God’s active force* was
moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.
* active force (spirit).” Hebrew, weruach. Besides being translated “spirit,” ruach is
also translated “wind” and by other words that denote an invisible active force as above.
16 Apr 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou quoted Matthew 28:19 and concentrated on the "name" and completely
Not a person.
Not until the fourth century C.E. did the teaching that the holy spirit was a person and part of the “Godhead” become official church dogma. Early church “fathers” did not so teach; Justin Martyr of the second century C.E. taught that the holy spirit was an ‘influence or mode of operation of the Deity’; Hippolytus likewise ascribed no ...[text shortened]... spirit as having its source in God and as exercising its function according to the divine will.
ignored that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are grouped together
there. If the Father and the Son are persons, it does not make sense to me
to say the Holy Spirit is not a person and is the only one being personified
here. But even if your understanding of the "name" is correct in this case,
an influence or mode of operation or active force does not have authority.
Authority comes from the maker of the law not the law itself. You say that
in a large number of cases the expression “holy spirit” appears in the original Greek without the article, thus indicating its lack of personality. But in this
quote in Matthew 28:19 the same personal article for "THE" is used three
times just before Father, just before Son, and just before Holy Spirit. I
have an Interlinear Bible in Hebrew, Greek, and English. I have the
Septuagint with the Apocrypha in Greek and English (Old Testament only).
I have an Analytical Greek New Testament with and interlinear grsmmatical
analysis of each word. I have The NKJV Greek English Interlinear New
Testament. I have the Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament.
I have the Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament. I have
Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. These are all in my
personal library. So if you want to talk about the Holy Bible from the
orignal language, I can look it up. So you better know what you are
talking about and not just passing on something you heard. I am not going
to let you get away with saying the Holy Spirit is just a force and not a
person. We all know that personification is sometimes used to explain
things to make it easier to understand like wisdom. But the Holy Spirit
is God, not an active force. In Acts 5:3 Peter said "Ananias, why has
Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back some of
the price of the land?" Then Peter continues, "You have not lied to men,
but to God." You can not "lie" to a force, only a person can be lied to.
And Peter believes the Holy spirit is God. You could use your logic to
say God the Father and God the Son are also personified, if you pick out
the right verses. You never answered my question about Satan. Is Satan
also personified in your opinion?
16 Apr 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobie===================================
Not a person.
Not until the fourth century C.E. did the teaching that the holy spirit was a person and part of the “Godhead” become official church dogma. Early church “fathers” did not so teach; Justin Martyr of the second century C.E. taught that the holy spirit was an ‘influence or mode of operation of the Deity’; Hippolytus likewise ascribed no ...[text shortened]... spirit as having its source in God and as exercising its function according to the divine will.
Lacks personal identification.
Since God himself is a Spirit and is holy and since all his faithful angelic sons are spirits and are holy, it is evident that if the “holy spirit” were a person, there should reasonably be given some means in the Scriptures to distinguish and identify such spirit person
====================================
"Now the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:17)
There is no problem with identification of the Holy Spirit with those who confess Jesus Christ as Lord.
The only identification problem you JWs have is that you do not accept that Jesus Christ is Lord.