PDA

View Full Version : Holy Spirit or Holy Person?



Naphal
Mar 21st 2007, 08:21 AM
Not sure where this best belongs but I am starting here and letting the mods decide.

I am a Trinitarian that believes that the bible says the Godhead is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. (I prefer to use Spirit over Ghost) Those three make up the Tri of the Trinity.

Since the Holy Spirit is called a Spirit and not a person I do not refer to the HS as a person. The scriptures also identify the HS as the spirit of the Father: Matthew 10:20 and John 15:26 so this is also why I do not refer to the Holy Spirit as a person since it is the spirit of a "person", the Father, as opposed to another unnamed person.

David Taylor
Mar 21st 2007, 11:34 AM
Not exactly clear on your point Naphal, but just be sure you remmber the board rules as you continue this thread.

Board Policy posting rules:

I. The following topics are not allowed on this message board at all:

1. Denial of the deity of Christ -- Teaching that Christ is not God in the flesh.
2. Denial of the trinity/Godhead -- Teaching that that Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ are not deity, and that God is not One and Triune at the same time. Modalism, a form of anti-Trinity teaching, is also not allowed.. This is the teaching that God is one but manifests Himself in three different forms at different times: Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ, and God the Father. IOW, the three persons never exist at the same time.

Silent Wings
Mar 21st 2007, 12:54 PM
The scriptures also identify the HS as the spirit of the Father: Matthew 10:20 and John 15:26 so this is also why I do not refer to the Holy Spirit as a person since it is the spirit of a "person", the Father, as opposed to another unnamed person.


It’s no problem for believers to accept that He is another, but impossible for the rest of the world because they cannot see Him or know Him.


John 14
16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Toolman
Mar 21st 2007, 02:59 PM
Since the Holy Spirit is called a Spirit and not a person I do not refer to the HS as a person. The scriptures also identify the HS as the spirit of the Father: Matthew 10:20 and John 15:26 so this is also why I do not refer to the Holy Spirit as a person since it is the spirit of a "person", the Father, as opposed to another unnamed person.

Naphal,

Scripture also identifies the Father as spirit (John 4:24) and identifies the Holy Spirit as the spirit of Christ (not just the Father) (Romans 8:9) so the Spirit is identified with both Father and Son and both Father and Son are identified as spirit.

Romans 8:9 - But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

Where you may be getting hung up is the word "person" which is a limited word in the doctrine of the Trinity. Matt Slick touches on that in his excellent piece here:

What is the Trinity (http://www.carm.org/doctrine/whatisthetrinity.htm)

He says:


There are three individual subsistences, or persons. The word "subsistence" means something that has a real existence. The word "person" denotes individuality and self awareness. The Trinity is three of these, though the latter term has become the dominant one used to describe the individual aspects of God known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps subsistences is a better word than "person" and makes the doctrine a bit more clearer.

Naphal
Mar 22nd 2007, 10:37 AM
Where you may be getting hung up is the word "person" which is a limited word in the doctrine of the Trinity. Matt Slick touches on that in his excellent piece here:

What is the Trinity (http://www.carm.org/doctrine/whatisthetrinity.htm)

He says:



Perhaps subsistences is a better word than "person" and makes the doctrine a bit more clearer.


Yes I like that. I do disagree that the Holy Spirit is the spirit of Christ because Christ speaks of the HS as the spirit of His Father altho I will agree that the Father anointed Christ with the HS and perhaps in that way we can then consider it his spirit.


"the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name"
"I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter"
"the Comforter" "whom I will send unto you from the Father"
"which proceedeth from the Father"
"it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father"

Toolman
Mar 22nd 2007, 02:00 PM
Yes I like that. I do disagree that the Holy Spirit is the spirit of Christ because Christ speaks of the HS as the spirit of His Father altho I will agree that the Father anointed Christ with the HS and perhaps in that way we can then consider it his spirit.

Well, as we observe some texts we see how interrelated these 3 are and you cannot seperate the Holy Spirit from Christ anymore than you can seperate the Holy Spirit from the Father or Christ from the Father. They are One.

Romans 8:9 - But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

Notice here that Paul equates the Spirit of God with the Spirit of Christ. There is no seperation.

John 14:15-23 - “If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

“A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also. At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”
Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, “Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?”
Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.

Notice in the text above that Christ makes no seperation between the indwelling of the Trinity. In the same breath He speaks of the HS, the Father and Himself dwelling within the believer. Because God is One. When the Spirit dwells in you, the Father and Son dwell in you. When the Son dwells in you the Spirit and Father dwell in you. When the Father dwells in you the Son and Spirit are there.

So, I believe, from scripture that the Holy Spirit (referred to as a "He" by Christ) is as much a reality and "person" of the Godhead as Christ and the Father. While they are seperate in "person" (or subsistence) and purpose they are One in essence and substance.

Naphal
Mar 22nd 2007, 11:28 PM
Well, as we observe some texts we see how interrelated these 3 are and you cannot seperate the Holy Spirit from Christ anymore than you can seperate the Holy Spirit from the Father or Christ from the Father. They are One.

One as in purpose or essence, but not one in body or number according to the Greek for "one". I agree we cannot separate the relationship of each to the other.






Romans 8:9 - But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

Notice here that Paul equates the Spirit of God with the Spirit of Christ. There is no seperation.


Yes they are equated but I have shown that the HS does indeed come from the Father originally and that Christ "received the promise of the Holy Spirit".



So, I believe, from scripture that the Holy Spirit (referred to as a "He" by Christ) is as much a reality and "person" of the Godhead as Christ and the Father. While they are seperate in "person" (or subsistence) and purpose they are One in essence and substance.

But since scripture states the HS is the spirit of the Father then would you not agree the HS is not a separate person? That the HS is the spirit of God the Father?

Toolman
Mar 23rd 2007, 12:38 AM
One as in purpose or essence, but not one in body or number according to the Greek for "one". I agree we cannot separate the relationship of each to the other.

One in essence and substance. There is only 1 God not 3. This one God is revealed in 3 persons or subsistences.




Yes they are equated but I have shown that the HS does indeed come from the Father originally and that Christ "received the promise of the Holy Spirit".


And I have shown, through the scripture, that the Spirit is also Christs (equated with God's Spirit, i.e. 1 and the same) so we must take the WHOLE counsel of scripture when understanding the nature, character and essence of God and not just "camp" on a single passage.


But since scripture states the HS is the spirit of the Father then would you not agree the HS is not a separate person? That the HS is the spirit of God the Father?

No, I would not. Christ refers to the Holy Spirit as a seperate "He" from God the Father and purposefully uses the term "He" to show us that the HS is indeed a person of the Trinity. Scripture also speaks of the HS as being BOTH the Spirit of God the Father AND the Spirit of Christ.

The council in Constantinople in 381 A.D. stated it this way:


We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

by whom all things were made;

who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;

he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;

from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead;

whose kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

This council made up of believers from both east and west (several tracing their discipleship to the apostles) addressing the heretical doctrines of their day spoke of the HS as a seperate "person" from the Father and Son who is to be worhipped and glorified in the Church and through which the prophets have spoken.

Naphal
Mar 23rd 2007, 12:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1201226#post1201226)
One as in purpose or essence, but not one in body or number according to the Greek for "one". I agree we cannot separate the relationship of each to the other.

One in essence and substance. There is only 1 God not 3. This one God is revealed in 3 persons or subsitences.

Absolutely. One God composed of 3, Trinity.





And I have shown, through the scripture, that the Spirit is also Christs (equated with God's Spirit, i.e. 1 and the same) so we must take the WHOLE counsel of scripture when understanding the nature, character and essence of God and not just "camp" on a single passage.

I am only pointing out the origin of the HS to be from the Father. Do you disagree?




No, I would not. Christ refers to the Holy Spirit as a seperate "He" from God the Father and purposefully uses the term "He" to show us that the HS is indeed a person of the Trinity. Scripture also speaks of the HS as being BOTH the Spirit of God the Father AND the Spirit of Christ.

This is personification. The "he" is only used because the spirit is a spirit of a He, the Father. If My spirit was able to leave my body and visit someone they would call the spirit "he" as well but factually it would be my spirit not me as a person. Also, pronouns in the Greek lean toward masculine unless clearly feminine.




The council in Constantinople in 381 A.D. stated it this way:



Quote:
And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.

This council made up of believers from both east and west (several tracing their discipleship to the apostles) addressing the heretical doctrines of their day spoke of the HS as a seperate "person" from the Father and Son who is to be worhipped and glorified in the Church and through which the prophets have spoken.


Very interesting. I agree with what they say.

Toolman
Mar 23rd 2007, 01:14 AM
I am only pointing out the origin of the HS to be from the Father. Do you disagree?

I don't disagree that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, just like the Son is begotten of the Father but the Spirit, like the Son, is eternal and not created (which I'm sure you agree with) and the Spirit is a distinct part of the Trinity seperate from the Father.

You seem to be equating the Spirit as only the Father's Spirit and I believe that to be incorrect and limited.


This is personification. The "he" is only used because the spirit is a spirit of a He, the Father. If My spirit was able to leave my body and visit someone they would call the spirit "he" as well but factually it would be my spirit not me as a person. Also, pronouns in the Greek lean toward masculine unless clearly feminine.

I disagree strongly with the above and believe it falls outside the doctrine of the Trinity. The "He" is not a personification of an non person but is the revelation of the person of the Holy Spirit in the same manner that the incarnation is the revelation of the person of the Son.

The Spirit, in scripture, is claimed to be the Spirit of not only the Father but the Son, so the dogmatic approach of the Spirit being only the Spirit of the Father has some scriptural evidence that must be ignored.

Also Christ speaks equally of Father, Son and Spirit in both the Great Commission and in John 14.


Very interesting. I agree with what they say.

So you agree that the Spirit is a seperate "who" from the Father, a distinct person of the Trinity, who is worthy of worship?

BTW - I appreciate the conversation and I'm not meaning to sound all know it all but I am just pointing out where I believe I see where your view does not fall in line with the doctrine of the Trinity. FWIW.

SIG
Mar 23rd 2007, 01:29 AM
Because the Holy Spirit seems to be invisible (like a "ghost," breath, or wind) we have trouble seeing Him as a "person." But He is a person--a "He" and never an "it." He does not "proceed" from the Father as a created being, of course, as Christ also does not. All Three are eternel, and all Three are "persons."

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit...

Naphal
Mar 23rd 2007, 01:44 AM
I don't disagree that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, just like the Son is begotten of the Father but the Spirit, like the Son, is eternal and not created (which I'm sure you agree with) and the Spirit is a distinct part of the Trinity seperate from the Father.

Certainly.




You seem to be equating the Spirit as only the Father's Spirit and I believe that to be incorrect and limited.

I believe it is only the Father's spirit but that the Son has a special relationship with it reflected in the way "God's spirit" is compared to "Christ's spirit". I believe we have to weigh that with Christ's own words about the HS being his Father's spirit rather than his. Those that believe Christ and the father are the same being simply say it is theirs because they are the same person but I disagree with that knowing that the Father is a separate being from his Son and therefore His spirit is his alone in origin. That the son has partaken of and has been anointed with his Father's spirit is certainly a fact.






I disagree strongly with the above and believe it falls outside the doctrine of the Trinity. The "He" is not a personification of an non person but is the revelation of the person of the Holy Spirit in the same manner that the incarnation is the revelation of the person of the Son.

We disagree there then. Scripture clearly identifies who the spirit belongs to, God the Father. Saying the spirit is its own person rather than the spirit of the father is outside the Trinity doctrine.


The Spirit, in scripture, is claimed to be the Spirit of not only the Father but the Son, so the dogmatic approach of the Spirit being only the Spirit of the Father has some scriptural evidence that must be ignored.

The spirit ultimately belongs to whom the Father gives it to but I cannot understand how you can ignore that scripture says the HS is the Father's that proceeds from Him, even when it is Christ that sends it forth NOT from himself but from His Father.


"the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name"

The Father sends the HS in Christ's name but don't confuse that as being sent from Christ alone.


"I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter"

Christ is clear that any request from him concerning the HS being sent forth means that it comes from the Father.


"the Comforter" "whom I will send unto you from the Father"


Again, Christ can send the HS but it is after requesting it be sent forth by the Father from the father because that is where the HS originates.


"which proceedeth from the Father"

Here is further evidence of the above statement.


"it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father"

And this is the clear identification of who the Holy Spirit is. The HS is the Spirit of God the father, Father of Christ and Father of us all.




So you agree that the Spirit is a seperate "who" from the Father, a distinct person of the Trinity, who is worthy of worship?

The HS is the spirit of the Father. It is not a different "who" or "person" than the father. It is the Father in spirit form.




BTW - I appreciate the conversation and I'm not meaning to sound all know it all but I am just pointing out where I believe I see where your view does not fall in line with the doctrine of the Trinity. FWIW.

I understand but I am a Trinitarian so my belief about the Trinity is in line with the biblical description of it though that may disagree with some other definitions of the Trinity but not with the bible's description because my opinions about the HS and the trinity only come from scripture.

Naphal
Mar 23rd 2007, 01:46 AM
Because the Holy Spirit seems to be invisible (like a "ghost," breath, or wind) we have trouble seeing Him as a "person." But He is a person--a "He" and never an "it." He does not "proceed" from the Father as a created being, of course, as Christ also does not. All Three are eternel, and all Three are "persons."

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit...



Holy Spirit not Holy Person. The Father did not create his own spirit of course. His spirit has always existed just as Christ has.

SIG
Mar 23rd 2007, 02:02 AM
How about "the person Who is the Holy Spirit"?

I did not write "Holy Person." Of course, all Three are Holy...

Naphal
Mar 23rd 2007, 02:14 AM
How about "the person Who is the Holy Spirit"?

I did not write "Holy Person." Of course, all Three are Holy...

To be honest I am really not too dogmatic about this all as long as people understand that the HS is said to be the Father's spirit and that Christ is the one that said it. I prefer "the Holy Spirit is the spirit of a person (the Father)" so it is the most accurate. I fully understand why "three persons" has been used for so long because of the personification of the Spirit in the masculine pronoun.

Toolman
Mar 23rd 2007, 02:26 AM
I understand but I am a Trinitarian so my belief about the Trinity is in line with the biblical description of it though that may disagree with some other definitions of the Trinity but not with the bible's description because my opinions about the HS and the trinity only come from scripture.

All the best heretical views of God come from the scripture. Every person who holds to Tritheism, Modalism or Arianism all defend their positions from scripture.

That is why the early creeds can be a help here because we can see what the early Church held to and what they agreed upon concerning God's essence.

I'm sorry my friend but I must disagree that you are Trinitarian because by your logic you are saying that the Holy Spirit is ONLY the Spirit of the Father and not a distinct person of the Trinity. You are not making a distinction between Father and Spirit but equating them as one person. Therefore I must reject it.

We see the Spirit, Son and Father reflected over and over in scripture as 3 distinct persons, who are of one essence and the doctrine of the Trinity affirms this and not that the Holy Spirit is only the Father's spirit.

Naphal
Mar 23rd 2007, 05:32 AM
All the best heretical views of God come from the scripture. Every person who holds to Tritheism, Modalism or Arianism all defend their positions from scripture.

Yes yes I know this already. I also know that the heretical views are mistaking and misusing scriptures so while they may base things on scriptures it is done in a faulty manner and is easy enough to expose.




That is why the early creeds can be a help here because we can see what the early Church held to and what they agreed upon concerning God's essence.



While historical writings can be interesting they are not what I base my beliefs upon. I use scripture only for that.



I'm sorry my friend but I must disagree that you are Trinitarian because by your logic you are saying that the Holy Spirit is ONLY the Spirit of the Father and not a distinct person of the Trinity.

I don't care what you think I am or not. I am a Trinity believing Christian. Scripture does not state the HS is a person but states it is the spirit of the Father. Each third of the Trinity is God whether in spirit form, the form of the Son or the Father. Each can interact with us individually or in unison. All act in harmony with the other. The Trinity is a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit, not a Father and a Son and a Holy Person.



You are not making a distinction between Father and Spirit but equating them as one person. Therefore I must reject it.

The Father is one person and the HS is his spirit. If you deny this then I will reject what you believe in because the scripture do not support what you are saying.




We see the Spirit, Son and Father reflected over and over in scripture as 3 distinct persons,

The Holy Spirit is reflected as being a spirit of the father not a separate person than the Father. If you think differently then lets start seeing some scriptural support.




who are of one essence and the doctrine of the Trinity affirms this and not that the Holy Spirit is only the Father's spirit.

Christ affirms that the HS is the spirit of His Father. Christ states "the Spirit of your Father" is the one that shall speak through the elect in the end times.

Naphal
Mar 23rd 2007, 05:42 AM
The Holy Spirit is a spirit and is not naturally referred to as the "Holy Person".
If the Holy Spirit were actually a person then we would have the Father, the Son and a third and separate being who really has no name. This isn't the case for scripture speaks of what the Holy Spirit is.

Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Here it's pretty clear that the Father has his own spirit, which raised Christ from the dead.

Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

The Father's spirit is also known as "the glory of the Father".

Luke 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Christ speaking.

"your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him"

Christ says "your Father" which is in heaven (not standing before you) will send you His Spirit if you ask Him. Christ is very clear to say the Holy Spirit comes from our Father which is in heaven, not that the Holy Spirit comes from Christ.


Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Here we see the Trinity: The Father is referred to as "the Highest", then we have the Holy Spirit, and we have the Son of God the Father.


Luke 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

Christ is the Son of the Highest!

Luke 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

As far as I know this is the only time the Holy Spirit has taken a bodily form and it was not of a person but of a bird. Spirits in general are invisible to the human eye so God the Father manifested His Spirit to be visually seen as if it were a dove.


Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

The same Trinity is seen here.

Luke 4:1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,

Jesus is full of his Father's Holy Spirit, and that same spirit led him into the wilderness.

Why does Jesus do as this Spirit leads him?

John 4:34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Because He came here to do the Will of the Father which sent him here!

Acts 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
Acts 1:2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
Acts 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
Acts 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Christ speaks of the Holy Spirit as the "promise of the Father".

Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
Acts 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Acts 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

And here, the power of the Father shall be received by these disciples. That power from the Father is the Holy Spirit that "came upon" them.

Acts 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Acts 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
Acts 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

(CEV) Jesus was taken up to sit at the right side of God, and he was given the Holy Spirit, just as the Father had promised. Jesus is also the one who has given the Spirit to us, and that is what you are now seeing and hearing.

(GW) God used his power to give Jesus the highest position. Jesus has also received and has poured out the Holy Spirit as the Father had promised, and this is what you're seeing and hearing.

(MSG) Then, raised to the heights at the right hand of God and receiving the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, he poured out the Spirit he had just received. That is what you see and hear.


Jesus himself "received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost"!



2 Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

Here is the Trinity again.


1 Peter 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

The Holy Spirit was "sent down from heaven" upon Christ, and upon all men who receive it. It is sent down from the Father "which is in heaven".

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

In these scriptures the the Holy Spirit is referred to as the Comforter, and the Spirit of truth.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Christ is very clear that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father, not from him.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Here we are told two times where the Holy Spirit originates from.

The Fathers sends his own spirit in the name of Christ which means that it is done due to Christ's intervention. It is not Christ's spirit, and it is not a separate person or a person at all. It is a spirit of the Father.

The Holy Spirit, and the Spirit of Truth, and the Comforter are all names for the same Holy Spirit from the Father. Christ prays to His Father to have that Father send His Holy Spirit to us to abide with us.


John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

The HS is called "another comforter", a second type of comforter because Christ was the first comforter. So, when Christ left the world he prayed to the Father to send His spirit to us in Christ's name. So, Christ sends the HS but it actually originates from the Father.

Matthew 10:20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

"the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name"
"I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter"
"the Comforter" "whom I will send unto you from the Father"
"which proceedeth from the Father"
"it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father"

John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
John 16:8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
John 16:9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

The Holy Spirit would not have come to mankind had Christ not ascended to heaven to be with His Father.

Mark 13:11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.

Here we have the delivering up and the time that the Holy Spirit speaks through God's servants in the Tribulation.

Matthew 10:20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

Christ says that it isn't them that will do the speaking, but it will be the Spirit of the Father that will speak! It won't be Christ speaking, it won't be them, it will be the Spirit of God the Father because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father.

Toolman
Mar 23rd 2007, 02:05 PM
While historical writings can be interesting they are not what I base my beliefs upon. I use scripture only for that.

Of course, but if you are coming to the table with a new view which is different than the historical orthodox Christian view of the Trinity which the Church has held to for almost 2000 years that was agreed upon by the united early Church then you had better have a much more solid argument than what has been presented.


I don't care what you think I am or not. I am a Trinity believing Christian. Scripture does not state the HS is a person but states it is the spirit of the Father. Each third of the Trinity is God whether in spirit form, the form of the Son or the Father.

This appears to be starting to slip into modalism now, unless I am misunderstanding your statement. God is made of 3 distinct persons and not "forms". God does not at one time appear as the Father and at another time appear as the Son. They are 3 eternally distinct persons who are of one essence.

BTW - I'm not trying to make this personal but just giving you warning as to where you are not in line with Trinitarian doctrine.


The Holy Spirit is reflected as being a spirit of the father not a separate person than the Father. If you think differently then lets start seeing some scriptural support.

Christ affirms that the HS is the spirit of His Father. Christ states "the Spirit of your Father" is the one that shall speak through the elect in the end times.


Well I have already shared the passages where Christ refers to the HS as a "He" and makes a clear distinction between the Father and the HS.

I have also mentioned that we are to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit clearly making a distinction between Father and the Spirit.

But your fundamental mistake is in believing that a spirit is not a person. To let scripture interpret scripture we will go to the bible to discover if this is so:


Luke 8:2 - and certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities—Mary called Magdalene, out of whom had come seven demons,

Acts 8:7 -For unclean spirits, crying with a loud voice, came out of many who were possessed; and many who were paralyzed and lame were healed.

Acts 16:16-18 - Now it happened, as we went to prayer, that a certain slave girl possessed with a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much profit by fortune-telling. This girl followed Paul and us, and cried out, saying, “These men are the servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to us the way of salvation.” And this she did for many days.
But Paul, greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And HE came out that very hour.

Now, notice I have only posted a few texts here which refer to spirit beings as persons (there are literally dozens more).

The unclean spirits are clearly demons, who are created beings and take special note how Luke speaks of the spirit inside the slave girl as a "HE".

If this were only personification as you stated about the HS in John 14 then Luke should have used "She" not "He".

That is because it is clear in scripture and Christian theology that there are spirits which are "persons", i.e. they have a will, the ability to think and are individual.

The greek word used in all of these verses is Pneuma (http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4151&version=kjv) and it is the same exact word used for the Holy Spirit.

So, just because the Spirit is said to proceed from the Father and belong to the Father does not mean that it is not an individual person of the Trinity, just like the Son. A spirit can be an angel or a demon and obviously they are an individual "person".


Hebrews 1:13-14 - But to which of the angels has He ever said:

“ Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”?[a]

Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation

Notice here that the writer says that the angels are spirits. Spirits who are individual persons.

Hebrews 12:9 - Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live?

Now, notice here that God is called the "Father of spirits".

Once again showing that "spirits" are created beings who are individual persons that BELONG to God.

Now, the Holy Spirit, is a spirit but is not a created being, but is nonetheless an individual person (in the same manner as an angel or demon is a person) within the Trinity, just like the Father and Son and there is no biblical proof to say otherwise and disregard what the Church has held to for 2000 years.

Naphal
Mar 23rd 2007, 08:54 PM
Of course, but if you are coming to the table with a new view which is different than the historical orthodox Christian view of the Trinity which the Church has held to for almost 2000 years that was agreed upon by the united early Church then you had better have a much more solid argument than what has been presented.

Nothing can be more solid than the scriptures I have presented. Never, not a single time is the Holy Spirit referred to as a person. Only man has called the Holy Spirit a person.




This appears to be starting to slip into modalism now, unless I am misunderstanding your statement. God is made of 3 distinct persons and not "forms".

No I don't believe in Modalism. Forms are more accurate than persons because a Spirit is a Spirit not a person. The Father and the Son are persons, albeit not in the human sense of the word. I tend to prefer the terms "beings" or "individuals" for the Father and Son while I maintain Spirit for the spirit. Modalism teaches that there are not these three but only one acting as these three but that is contrary to the bible.




BTW - I'm not trying to make this personal but just giving you warning as to where you are not in line with Trinitarian doctrine.


I understand but I want to warn you that I will not accept your correction on this matter because I know what the bible says and what I am in doctrinal description.





Well I have already shared the passages where Christ refers to the HS as a "He" and makes a clear distinction between the Father and the HS.

That doesn't make the Spirit a person anymore than calling Israel a she makes her a female person. Non-persons are personified and personal pronouns are used.

While it is true that some verses seem to indicate that the Holy Spirit is a masculine person, it could also be shown from hundreds of biblical verses (both Old and New Testaments) that many things animate and inanimate are given genders in the Bible though they are not personalities at all. Such things are even given "mouths" to speak. "If the foot shall say, because I am not the hand, I am not of the body.... And if the ear shall say, because I am not of the body" (I Cor. 12:15,16). Of course, feet and ears do not actually have mouths to speak. They are simply personified by Paul in an allegorical sense. From these indications, no one would seriously consider feet, hands and ears as being personalities. "Let the heaven rejoice, and let the earth be glad. …let the field be joyful . . then shall all the trees of the wood rejoice" (Psa. 96:11,12). But really, the heavens have no actual mouth with which to express joy; the earth has no faculty of its own to be glad; the fields of grass cannot actually show joyfulness; nor can trees of the forest demonstrate a happiness as a human can. The Bible says that "the mountains and hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees shall clap their hands" (Isa. 55:12), but is there anyone so bold as to suggest that mountain and hills can actually sing or that trees really clap hands. These are simple figures of speech.


I have also mentioned that we are to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit clearly making a distinction between Father and the Spirit.

The distinction is that the Holy Spirit is the spirit of the Father. Are you denying this?





But your fundamental mistake is in believing that a spirit is not a person. To let scripture interpret scripture we will go to the bible to discover if this is so:


Luke 8:2 - and certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities—Mary called Magdalene, out of whom had come seven demons,

Acts 8:7 -For unclean spirits, crying with a loud voice, came out of many who were possessed; and many who were paralyzed and lame were healed.

Acts 16:16-18 - Now it happened, as we went to prayer, that a certain slave girl possessed with a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much profit by fortune-telling. This girl followed Paul and us, and cried out, saying, “These men are the servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to us the way of salvation.” And this she did for many days.
But Paul, greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And HE came out that very hour.

Now, notice I have only posted a few texts here which refer to spirit beings as persons (there are literally dozens more).



Spirits are not persons and again, using a personal pronoun as your evidence is severely lacking.





The unclean spirits are clearly demons, who are created beings and take special note how Luke speaks of the spirit inside the slave girl as a "HE".

If this were only personification as you stated about the HS in John 14 then Luke should have used "She" not "He".



This only shows your ignorance of Greek grammar. Whereas the gender of a pronoun sometimes conforms to the generic gender (neuter for a thing, masculine for a person, feminine for a female person) of the pronoun’s referent (the idea to which the pronoun refers) instead of conforming to the grammatical gender of the single noun in the text that represents the referent of the pronoun, the gender of a pronoun always conforms to the generic gender of the pronoun’s referent when the referent of the pronoun is represented in the text by multiple nouns. However, the gender of a substantival (functioning as a noun) articular (having an article) participle (SAP) appears to always conform to the generic gender of the SAP’s referent (the idea to which the SAP refers) regardless of whether the SAP’s referent is represented in the text by multiple nouns or by a single noun or by no noun (more than 90 percent of the time, the referent of the SAP is not represented in the text by any noun). However, I have never seen the masculine generic gender (masculine for a person) used in reference to the “Spirit” anywhere in the New Testament. (The masculine pronouns in John 14-16 can be traced to the noun “comforter.”) So when John says in 1 John 5:7 (NA Greek text), “the Spirit is that which bears witness (neuter generic gender in reference to a thing),” I think that he (John), like the rest of the writers of the New Testament, is showing that although he recognizes the behavior of the Spirit as that of a Person, he (as well as the rest of the New Testament writers) does not regard the Spirit as a separate Person from the Father and the Son but as an element or aspect of Them (the Father and the Son), hence the neuter generic gender in reference to a thing. Just as my spirit is not a separate person from me but an aspect of me, and so I refer to my spirit not as a person but as a thing, likewise the Spirit of God/Christ (Romans 8:9) is not a separate Person from God/Christ but an aspect of Them (God/Christ), and so the New Testament writers appear (to me) to refer to the Spirit not as a Person but as a thing.

In John 1:33 and 8:29 below, the masculine generic gender (masculine in reference to a Person) is used in reference to the Father WITHOUT any antecedent noun in text to serve as a basis for GRAMMATICAL-gender agreement.

(ASV) John 1:33 And I knew him not: but HE THAT SENT (O PEMYAV ) me to baptize in water, HE (EKEINOV) said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit.

(ASV) John 8:29 And HE THAT SENT (O PEMYAV) me is with me; he hath not left me alone; for I do always the things that are pleasing TO HIM (AUTW)

That’s how we know from the Greek that the Father is regarded by the speaker as a Person.

The writers of the New Testament describe the Spirit behaving as a Person would, but that they never grammatically refer to the Spirit as a Person through the use of the masculine generic gender, though they have numerous opportunities to do so.


Just as I could describe my spirit behaving as a person would, I nevertheless would never refer to my spirit as a separate person but as an aspect of a person, that is, as an aspect of me. I think that it’s very likely that the same is true of the way in which the New Testament writers refer to the Spirit of God/Christ.




Once again showing that "spirits" are created beings who are individual persons that BELONG to God.

Rarely are angels called spirits and in those cases they are beings but in every other case a spirit is just that, a spirit that is the spirit of a being.

Toolman
Mar 23rd 2007, 09:12 PM
I understand but I want to warn you that I will not accept your correction on this matter because I know what the bible says and what I am in doctrinal description.

Well, then not sure we'll see much fruit here but I will continue to post so that those reading the thread can determine for themselves.


That doesn't make the Spirit a person anymore than calling Israel a she makes her a female person. Non-persons are personified and personal pronouns are used.

So, you are claiming that the spirit that was inside the slave girl was not a person, albeit not in the human sense of the word (being or individual or whatever term you prefer)?

Your stance is that the demonic spirits spoken of in scripture as being cast out of people, who often speak and scream at such times, are not persons, albeit not in the human sense of the word (being or individual or whatever term you prefer)?


While it is true that some verses seem to indicate that the Holy Spirit is a masculine person,

This alone should give you pause to say perhaps I should reconsider.


The distinction is that the Holy Spirit is the spirit of the Father. Are you denying this?

The Spirit most assuredly proceeds from the Father and belongs to Him (as do all things).

What seperates the Holy Spirit from other spirits is His deity. Not created but eternal of one essence with the Father and the Son.


Spirits are not persons and again, using a personal pronoun as your evidence is severely lacking.

Spirits can most certainly be persons, albeit not in the human sense of the word (we can use being or individual or whatever term you prefer)?

The evil spirits cast out of people, which spoke of their own accord, as well as angels which are called spirits are most certainly persons (or being, individual, whatever).


The writers of the New Testament describe the Spirit behaving as a Person would, but that they never grammatically refer to the Spirit as a Person through the use of the masculine generic gender, though they have numerous opportunities to do so.

I will have to defer the greek to those better equipped than myself. I'll see if I can get some I know here who are a bit studied to input their contribution.


Rarely are angels called spirits and in those cases they are beings but in every other case a spirit is just that, a spirit that is the spirit of a being.

Angels and demons are often (literally dozens of times) called spirit in scripture. I can post more of the verses if you like which refer to demons and angels as spirit.

John146
Mar 23rd 2007, 09:48 PM
After some hesitation, I decided that I'm going to go ahead and throw in my 2 cents.

The discussion is interesting, but this is certainly not a topic worth getting in a heated argument over as long as we agree that the God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are not separate beings as though there were 3 Gods but rather there is one God who takes 3 forms. Can we agree on the following? If so, all is good:

4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. - Ephesians 4:4-6

Believing in what that verse says is what matters, even if we don't comprehend it fully. One thing I will say, though, is that I think Romans 8:9 kind of got swept under the rug in this thread. That shouldn't be done. The terms Spirit of God the Father and the Spirit of God the Son are used interchangeably in that verse. The Spirit of God (the Father) and the Spirit of Christ (God the Son) is the same Spirit. As the passage I quoted says, there is one Spirit. Jesus is fully God and fully man. As man, the Spirit descended upon Him. But as God, the Spirit has always been His Spirit as well as the Father's, of course. So, in effect, as strange as it may sound to carnal minds, His own Spirit descended upon Himself at His baptism. Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." Jesus is even called "everlasting Father" in Isaiah 9:6. There is one God in 3 forms or persons, if you will. They all act together in unison at all times, despite what I read in this thread that they are individuals as if they could act separately from one another. Not so, if that is what was meant. Jesus only did the will of the Father. He didn't do anything on His own accord. The Spirit does not do anything on His own accord, either. As I said, they act together at all times. One God.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. - Genesis 1:26

I don't intend to say much more on this topic. I'm not interested in debating it. I'm open to new angles and to correction, though. If you point out something that I've missed, that's fine with me. I don't have a full grasp of it and neither do any of us. One day we will all understand it more fully.

Naphal
Mar 23rd 2007, 10:40 PM
Well, then not sure we'll see much fruit here but I will continue to post so that those reading the thread can determine for themselves.

There is fruit to be had if we stop making judgments about whether someone is Trinitarian or not. I found that to be insulting and offensive but otherwise I have found you to be pleasant to discuss this with.




So, you are claiming that the spirit that was inside the slave girl was not a person, albeit not in the human sense of the word (being or individual or whatever term you prefer)?

I believe spirits are the spirits of a literal being, especially when that being is not physically present. It is believed by many that the evil spirits are the spirits of the fallen angels which send forth their spirits because they are bound in hell.





Your stance is that the demonic spirits spoken of in scripture as being cast out of people, who often speak and scream at such times, are not persons, albeit not in the human sense of the word (being or individual or whatever term you prefer)?



Yes. Spirits are spirits of "persons".



The Spirit most assuredly proceeds from the Father and belongs to Him (as do all things).

Yes but the Holy Spirit is specifically His spirit in a personal sense as opposed to a general sense that all things are his.




What seperates the Holy Spirit from other spirits is His deity. Not created but eternal of one essence with the Father and the Son.

Of course.




I will have to defer the greek to those better equipped than myself. I'll see if I can get some I know here who are a bit studied to input their contribution.

Ok.




Angels and demons are often (literally dozens of times) called spirit in scripture. I can post more of the verses if you like which refer to demons and angels as spirit.

I am well aware of these occurences but I am also aware of the times that a spirit is just that, a spirit in the literal sense of the word.

Naphal
Mar 23rd 2007, 10:49 PM
After some hesitation, I decided that I'm going to go ahead and throw in my 2 cents.

The discussion is interesting, but this is certainly not a topic worth getting in a heated argument over as long as we agree that the God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are not separate beings as though there were 3 Gods but rather there is one God who takes 3 forms. Can we agree on the following? If so, all is good:


I don't think that's accurate enough. One God taking three forms is really a form of Modalism IMO. What a Trinitarian believes that God is always and has always been those same three. That God doesn't merely take those forms but is those forms. All three existing at the same time. If that's what you mean then I agree.




So, in effect, as strange as it may sound to carnal minds, His own Spirit descended upon Himself at His baptism.

See, that definitely wouldn't be a Trinitarian view because it was the spirit of God the Father that descended upon the Son, a separate and different being of the Trinity. His own spirit didn't descend upon himself.



Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." Jesus is even called "everlasting Father" in Isaiah 9:6.

Yes but being "one" there does not mean one in number as one being appearing as two and Christ's name being called "everlasting Father" does not in fact mean he is his own Father.


Jesus only did the will of the Father. He didn't do anything on His own accord. The Spirit does not do anything on His own accord, either. As I said, they act together at all times. One God.

The spirit is God the father's spirit so it cannot act of its own accord opposite of the desires of the Father because it is the Father himself in spirit form. However, the Son can act upon his own will and accord if he wanted to but he chooses to obey the father and do His will.





And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. - Genesis 1:26

I don't intend to say much more on this topic. I'm not interested in debating it. I'm open to new angles and to correction, though. If you point out something that I've missed, that's fine with me. I don't have a full grasp of it and neither do any of us. One day we will all understand it more fully.


Amen to that.

Toolman
Mar 24th 2007, 12:05 AM
There is fruit to be had if we stop making judgments about whether someone is Trinitarian or not. I found that to be insulting and offensive but otherwise I have found you to be pleasant to discuss this with.

I apologize for that. I didn't mean any personal offense but only that I do not see your position as falling within the doctrine of the Trinity as outlined in scripture and the early Church counsels, as I'm sure you would obviously say that my doctrine does not line up with scripture. Nothing personal there just a comment about the beliefs of the other.

My apologies for the offense.


I believe spirits are the spirits of a literal being, especially when that being is not physically present. It is believed by many that the evil spirits are the spirits of the fallen angels which send forth their spirits because they are bound in hell.

So your position is that demons and angels have physical bodies and that only there "spirit" is what is present in our world?

Naphal
Mar 24th 2007, 12:15 AM
I apologize for that. I didn't mean any personal offense but only that I do not see your position as falling within the doctrine of the Trinity as outlined in scripture and the early Church counsels, as I'm sure you would obviously say that my doctrine does not line up with scripture. Nothing personal there just a comment about the beliefs of the other.

My apologies for the offense.

Thank you, much appreciated.




So your position is that demons and angels have physical bodies and that only there "spirit" is what is present in our world?

Demons and evil spirits are the same thing IMO The only evil things I believe are literal beings are angels that have fallen.

BadDog
Mar 24th 2007, 06:09 PM
Nothing can be more solid than the scriptures I have presented. Never, not a single time is the Holy Spirit referred to as a person. Only man has called the Holy Spirit a person.
It is very difficult to make such a claim, and I would assert just the opposite.

And we must remember that we are talking about God. Yes, we were created in His image, but God is one in essence while 3 distinct persons. Now of course you will not find a scripture which will define it as such. We have to take all of scripture and try to reason out some way to refer to something which is really beyond our ability to relate to. I would go on, but after having read some of your posts on this thread I recognize that you are familiar with basic trinitarian theology.


No I don't believe in Modalism. Forms are more accurate than persons because a Spirit is a Spirit not a person. The Father and the Son are persons, albeit not in the human sense of the word. I tend to prefer the terms "beings" or "individuals" for the Father and Son while I maintain Spirit for the spirit. Modalism teaches that there are not these three but only one acting as these three but that is contrary to the bible.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. You say you don't believe in modalism, yet you say that "forms" are more accurate than "persons." ?? But I do recognize the difference in what you are saying. You really are saying that there are only two Persons, and that the Spirit is really a reference to the spirit of the Father. That is not trinitarianism by any stretch of the imagination though. In trinitarian theology each person fully assumes the divine substance. So in your case you only have two members of the Godhead. As I consider the many places in the NT where the Father, Son and Spirit are referred to together, I cannot but ask why in the world would you refer to the Father, the Son and the spirit of the Father?! If it just happened once or twice, but it occurs a number of times. I'll list those scriptures later.


That doesn't make the Spirit a person anymore than calling Israel a she makes her a female person. Non-persons are personified and personal pronouns are used.
Agreed. That could be what is happening. Really the key is not in the Greek grammar, but in what it means to be a "person." And of course we cannot simply use the term as we would to refer to a human person. God is not "of this world," and we must keep that in mind. It really is not a cop out to say that it is a doctrine beyond the scope of man’s finite mind. John Wesley said, "Bring me a worm that can comprehend a man, and then I will show you a man that can comprehend the triune God." So I think we must be careful about being too adament in our theology regarding God.


While it is true that some verses seem to indicate that the Holy Spirit is a masculine person, it could also be shown from hundreds of biblical verses (both Old and New Testaments) that many things animate and inanimate are given genders in the Bible though they are not personalities at all. Such things are even given "mouths" to speak.
Whether masculine, feminine or neuter - makes no difference. The Spirit is referred to as you would a person in the Bible. Granted, esp. in the OT, the Spirit is referred to in a manner that were it not for other scriptures, it could be argued that the spirit was the spirit of God. But as Toolman has pointed out, the Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ.


The distinction is that the Holy Spirit is the spirit of the Father. Are you denying this?
Definitely. I acknowledge that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, just as the Son was sent from the Father.


Spirits are not persons and again, using a personal pronoun as your evidence is severely lacking.
Not severely lacking - just not the key to supporting the point. It is evidence that the Spirit is a Person and not just some entity. What if this had not been done? I think that would have given more strength to your argument. Also, "spirits" are persons - depending on how you use the term. You can have the spirit of a person, then I would agree. But there are also spirits, and they are entities.


This only shows your ignorance of Greek grammar. Whereas the gender of a pronoun sometimes conforms to the generic gender (neuter for a thing, masculine for a person, feminine for a female person) of the pronoun’s referent (the idea to which the pronoun refers) instead of conforming to the grammatical gender of the single noun in the text that represents the referent of the pronoun, the gender of a pronoun always conforms to the generic gender of the pronoun’s referent when the referent of the pronoun is represented in the text by multiple nouns. However, the gender of a substantival (functioning as a noun) articular (having an article) participle (SAP) appears to always conform to the generic gender of the SAP’s referent (the idea to which the SAP refers) regardless of whether the SAP’s referent is represented in the text by multiple nouns or by a single noun or by no noun (more than 90 percent of the time, the referent of the SAP is not represented in the text by any noun). However, I have never seen the masculine generic gender (masculine for a person) used in reference to the “Spirit” anywhere in the New Testament. (The masculine pronouns in John 14-16 can be traced to the noun “comforter.”) So when John says in 1 John 5:7 (NA Greek text), “the Spirit is that which bears witness (neuter generic gender in reference to a thing),” I think that he (John), like the rest of the writers of the New Testament, is showing that although he recognizes the behavior of the Spirit as that of a Person, he (as well as the rest of the New Testament writers) does not regard the Spirit as a separate Person from the Father and the Son but as an element or aspect of Them (the Father and the Son), hence the neuter generic gender in reference to a thing. Just as my spirit is not a separate person from me but an aspect of me, and so I refer to my spirit not as a person but as a thing, likewise the Spirit of God/Christ (Romans 8:9) is not a separate Person from God/Christ but an aspect of Them (God/Christ), and so the New Testament writers appear (to me) to refer to the Spirit not as a Person but as a thing.
The Holy Spirit is referred to in more than one occasion as PARAKLHTOS - as the One "called to the side." You can't simply discount this. And John 14:25 refers to "the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name..." We see hO PEMYEI - "The One who will be sent." This is the same term used in very much the same manner as you list below to validate the personage of the Father.

PARAKLHTOS is used 5 times in the NT to refer to the Spirit. We cannot just ignore it. And John 14-16 is probably the key text in the Bible is revealing the nature of the Spirit. We cannot simply ignore this text.

I think you meant 1 John 5:6, where it says (in a predicate nominative)...
TO PNEUMA ESTIN TO MARTUROUN
"The Spirit is the testifer," or "The Spirit is the one who testifies." Since both nouns have the article, it must be fully reversible (there are no exceptions to this rule)... "The testifer is the Spirit," or "The one who testifies is the Spirit." How could it be reversible if the Spirit were not a Person?

That sure sounds like referring to a person to me. But I just wanted to point out that the word inserted, "that" in the KJV, is not grammatically sound. Virtually all modern translations have "who." And there is no pronoun there. It is simply a matter of translating an articular participle, which I agree often behaves like a noun (a substantival). But your argument above makes no sense. (Sorry.) What in that text hints that the Spirit was not considered to be a Person by John when he penned it?


In John 1:33 and 8:29 below, the masculine generic gender (masculine in reference to a Person) is used in reference to the Father WITHOUT any antecedent noun in text to serve as a basis for GRAMMATICAL-gender agreement.

(ASV) John 1:33 And I knew him not: but HE THAT SENT (O PEMYAV ) me to baptize in water, HE (EKEINOV) said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit.

That’s how we know from the Greek that the Father is regarded by the speaker as a Person.
?? Sorry, but I'm not following you here.
'O PEMYAS ME BAPTIZEIN EN hUDATI EKEINOS MOI EIPEN
"The one who sent me to baptize with water that one said to me..."
Whether there's an antecedent noun does not negate the grammar.


The writers of the New Testament describe the Spirit behaving as a Person would, but that they never grammatically refer to the Spirit as a Person through the use of the masculine generic gender, though they have numerous opportunities to do so.
You are assuming that the Spirit is masculine in nature. I think you know that just because a noun is masculine or neuter does not mean the thing referenced must also be either masculine or neuter. The key is how in context the Spirit is described.


Just as I could describe my spirit behaving as a person would, I nevertheless would never refer to my spirit as a separate person but as an aspect of a person, that is, as an aspect of me. I think that it’s very likely that the same is true of the way in which the New Testament writers refer to the Spirit of God/Christ.
Concerning the use of "person," it is not used with regard to the trinity in the same manner it is in ordinary usage in which it means an identity completely distinct from other persons. The 3 persons of the Trinity are one in essence. The use of "person" is not the most accurate word to use, but with what are we left? Some have made up new words such as "subsistence" to try to explain what is declared to us in scripture in a way that makes sense to our finite minds. The point is simply that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct in "subsistance" (distinct Persons) yet one in essence. IOW, what you are saying is that there are only the Father and the Son. The Spirit is simply referring to the spirit of the Father.

OK, let's look at some places in he NT where the Father, the Son and the Spirit are referred to together:

Matthew 28:19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...

Acts 8:15-17 After they went down there, they prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For He had not yet come down on any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

Romans 5:5 And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
So, uh... God gave us His spirit. ??

1 Corinthians 12:4-6 Now there are different gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different ministries, but the same Lord (Son). And there are different activities, but the same God (Father) is active in everyone and everything.

2 Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.

Ephesians 4:3-7 diligently keeping the unity of the Spirit with the peace that binds us. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope at your calling; one Lord (Son), one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all. Now grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of the Messiah's gift.

Philippians 2:1 If then there is any encouragement in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any affection and mercy

1 Peter 1:2, 3, 10-12 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father and set apart by the Spirit for obedience and for the sprinkling with the blood of Jesus Christ. May grace and peace be multiplied to you.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. According to His great mercy, He has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that would come to you, searched and carefully investigated. They inquired into what time or what circumstances the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating when He testified in advance to the messianic sufferings and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you concerning things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven.
Here we see many references to the members of the trinity and their various roles. I had to limit this.

Jude 19-21 These people create divisions and are merely natural, not having the Spirit. But you, dear friends, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, expecting the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ for eternal life.

But the key passage that makes it clear that the apostles considered the Holy Spirit to be a Person is seen in Acts 5...

Acts 5:3, 4 Then Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the proceeds from the field? Wasn't it yours while you possessed it? And after it was sold, wasn't it at your disposal? Why is it that you planned this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God!"

Now I realize that your particular view of the Godhead would allow for this. But Peter rebukes Ananias, asking him what consumed him such that he actually lied to the Holy Spirit. Now this is clearly referring to the "Holy Spirit" as an entity - a person. I don't think you can lie to the spirit of a person.

IMO the most natural reading of these texts is to assume that the Spirit is more than just "the spirit of the Father." He is again and again addressed as a person. Also, again and again we see the Father, Son and Holy Spirit listed together in various formulas. We are baptized in all 3 names. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but your approach to this just doesn't make sense. And the Greek does not argue against the Holy Spirit as a person. Perhaps you can expand on that.

And as Toolman pointed out historically the trinity was never really in doubt. It was merely a matter of expressing things in a manner that properly defended the oneness of the Godhead while not allowing modalism.

Now, I do have one question, that wasn't really clear to me - regarding the Greek grammar. you kept referring to the "generic gender." I'm not clear on what you mean by this. I haven't seen such terminology used in grammars before.

Thx,

BD

BadDog
Mar 24th 2007, 06:14 PM
BTW, I am realllyyy sick right now. It was very difficult to make this last post. Please have patience in waiting for my future responses.

Following is a portion of an excellent article on the trinity. In it Richard Strauss talks about the many activities in which the 3 persons of the trinity are closely tied together:

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=223
Scripture links these three persons of the Godhead together so closely in so many divine activities that it would be foolish to deny that any one of them is God. Observe some of those activities.

Creating the World. All three were involved in creation: the Father (Genesis 1:1); the Son (John 1:3,10; Colossians 1:16); and the Spirit (Genesis 1:2, Psalm 104:30). If all three created, then God the Creator must exist in three persons.

Sending the Son. All three members of the Trinity were active in the incarnation. When Mary questioned the angel about the possibility of a virgin birth, the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). The power of the Father, ministered through the agency of the Spirit, resulted in the birth of the Son into the world. This close association in the birth of the Saviour is further indication of their oneness.

Identifying the Messiah. At precisely the proper moment, Jesus Christ was revealed to Israel as her Messiah. John the Baptist was the chosen instrument and the act of baptism was the chosen means. “After being baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased’” (Matthew 3:16-17). As the Spirit came upon the Son, the Father’s voice was heard from Heaven expressing His approval. It was another powerful testimony to the eternal triune Godhead.

Providing Redemption. Two central passages bring the three members of the Godhead together in providing for man’s eternal salvation. “How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (Hebrews 9:14) It was the offering of the Son to the Father by the power of the Spirit. The Apostle Peter taught, furthermore, that God the Father chose us to salvation, God the Son paid for it by shedding His blood, and God the Spirit set us apart unto the obedience of faith (1 Peter 1:1-2). Without each person of the Trinity doing His part we would yet be in our sins.

Proclaiming Salvation. In the early years of the Church God did some spectacular things to verify the gospel message which the apostles were preaching. The writer to the Hebrews tells us: “How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will” (Hebrews 2:3-4). It was the same message that was first spoken by the Son Himself. When the apostles proclaimed it, the Father bore witness to its truthfulness by bestowing miraculous gifts through the Spirit. It was not only a powerful witness to the truth of the message, but another demonstration of the triune God at work.

Sending the Spirit. The three persons of the Trinity are so interwoven in sending the Spirit into the world that it is difficult to distinguish between them. In one passage it is stated that the Father would send Him in Christ’s name and that He would testify concerning Christ (John 14:26). In another it is said that the Son would send Him from the Father (John 15:26). In yet another the Father sends Him and calls Him the Spirit of His Son (Galatians 4:6). What a picture of unity—such perfect unity that the actions of one are considered to be the actions of the other. Orthodox Christian doctrine has long taught that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. But all three are vitally involved in His coming.

Indwelling Believers. Jesus taught His disciples that both He and His Father would make Their abode with them (John 14:23). But their indwelling would be in the person of the Comforter, the Spirit of truth (John 14:16-17). As the Spirit of both the Father and the Son His indwelling is the indwelling of the triune God. That would not be possible unless the three were one.

Baptizing Believers. In our Lord’s commission to His disciples He said, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). The unity of the Godhead is declared by combining them in one name (singular). Yet the distinctiveness of the persons is maintained by listing them separately. It is another link in the long chain of evidence that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are one God.

Entering God’s Presence. All three members of the Godhead are intimately involved in the believer’s access into the presence of God. Speaking of Christ, the Apostle Paul taught, “For through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father” (Ephesians 2:18). Both Jews and Gentiles can approach the Father through the merits of the Son with the help of the Spirit.

Blessing Believers. In Paul’s final remarks to the Corinthian Christians he linked the three members of the Godhead together in a beautiful benediction: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:14). Unless the three are one, eternally and equally supreme, there would be little reason to put them together on an equal basis like this in a divine blessing. The apostle certainly considered them to be one.

Thx,

BD

meta
Mar 24th 2007, 08:29 PM
The Uncreated Triune Being, in my biblical opinion, is without end. YHWY, implies 'without end'. If this Being is without end, I am subject to believe G-d is without form.

There is a word of which escapes me, but implies that much of what was written, especially in the first few chapters of the bible; was written in a language condescending in fashion. So we could have some sense of understanding..but to become fixed, without any notion of reform, (refinemt in understanding) well, I for one do not believe it is of G-d.

The 'Son' personification, in my understanding, (although alluded to in the O.T.) did not become a concrete/conception idea until 'The Word became flesh and dwelt among us'. Not, the Son became flesh and dwelt among us.

Who or what is this Word that became flesh and dwelt among us? It is the Word of G-d. Yes? The first recorded words in the bible that alludes to G-d saying anything was 'And G-d said, 'Let there be Light'. When those words came out of the mouth of G-d (which is written in parabolic form..concerning the Uncreated Spirit) ..there is the same Word that would later incarnate in Yeshua Moshea (Jesus Christ).

All sense-bound thinking in time and space is irrevelant in the realm of the Spirit. Such as Jesus Christ getting baptised and the Holy Spirit descending in a form of a dove, and a voice from heaven speaking..so there we see the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. No. In the realm of the Spirit they are indivisibly One. Yes it is true that such a senario took place, but these things took place for sense-bound time and space earthlings. When the same voice saying the same thing to Peter, James and John took place 'This is my Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased'..Jesus said this voice spoke not for his sake, but for your sake. They needed a tangible exterior witness.

When the Word identified itself in human form, sonship was manifested in identification with all humaniety..when Jesus lived out his earthly ministry..died on the cross and inaugurated the new covenant. It was as such, IMO, that through the mission of Jesus Christ (the Son/Word)..in and through his human identity, he married the divine potential for man, back into the Spirit-World of the All-Pervading Word on a Cosmic scale.

This is why Jesus Christ can be known simultaneously in every part of our world. There is no multiple Jesus'. The same Jesus Christ you have in you, is the same Jesus Christ anyone has in them if they are born of his Spirit.

This arugment for what the church Fathers knew..well, if they are your source of credibilty, their idea of christianity was to put on pompous hats and regalia, set themselves up over the masses in a authoritrian fashion. Burn other christian at the stake for not believing as they believed..got into bailing aunt so-n-so out of purgatory if you walk on your knees til they bleed and say your hail Mary's til you about fainted.

Maybe that is not quite so fair. But I am no prisoner of what they said. I read my share. Quite brilliant minds if I didn't know better.

I think the masculine use of G-d, is not one of gender, but of creative activity. Whereas the feminine is passive. Both are traits of His Triune Being. Surrender to his Lordship is a passive yeilding to His Holy Spirit.

He is (possibly) Triune, in that 'he works all things after the counsel of his own will' (Fatherly initiation) He sends his Word to perform it (Sent his Son) and is made known unto his Church, by way of the world-wisdom of his Holy Spirit (not my will, thine be done..as denoting passive surrender to the feminine side of the Triune Godhead.)

Hope I don't get the boot.

SIG
Mar 24th 2007, 10:45 PM
Just did a Google search ("is the Holy Spirit not a person?") to see who holds this doctrine. It was quite revealing. eventually wound up at wikipedia, which briefly elucidates some of the results I found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Spirit

Clearly, Scripture gives us latitude to believe various thigs of the Holy Spirit; I always check my doctrine to see whose "camp" it might put me in...

intricatic
Mar 25th 2007, 12:16 AM
One question that hopefully will clarify something for me here. Is it the assertion of the OP that the Holy Spirit is separate (not the same) as the Father, or that the Spirit of the Father and the Holy Spirit are the same thing? If so, what is the other half of who the Father is, if He is not pure Spirit to begin with?

In other words, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but the Father is already Spirit, what is the Holy Spirit?

Naphal
Mar 25th 2007, 01:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1202196#post1202196)
Nothing can be more solid than the scriptures I have presented. Never, not a single time is the Holy Spirit referred to as a person. Only man has called the Holy Spirit a person.

It is very difficult to make such a claim, and I would assert just the opposite.

Actually it is easy to make that claim because I have studied this and debated it a lot and never once has anyone shown a scripture that called the HS a person.



And we must remember that we are talking about God. Yes, we were created in His image, but God is one in essence while 3 distinct persons.

Not three persons but two persons and a Holy Spirit. Father Son and HS, that's not three persons.



Now of course you will not find a scripture which will define it as such.

lol, then why did you say I couldn't make a claim like that in your opening statement?



We have to take all of scripture and try to reason out some way to refer to something which is really beyond our ability to relate to. I would go on, but after having read some of your posts on this thread I recognize that you are familiar with basic trinitarian theology

Indeed I am. I believe taking all of scripture and reasoning these things out will result in a fair understanding that the Trinity is two "persons" both male in gender and one Spirit which is referred to in the masculine gender only because of the rules of grammar that default a personal pronoun to the masculine, and because of the fact that the bible states the HS originates from the first male person of the Trinity, the Father.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal
No I don't believe in Modalism. Forms are more accurate than persons because a Spirit is a Spirit not a person. The Father and the Son are persons, albeit not in the human sense of the word. I tend to prefer the terms "beings" or "individuals" for the Father and Son while I maintain Spirit for the spirit. Modalism teaches that there are not these three but only one acting as these three but that is contrary to the bible.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. You say you don't believe in modalism, yet you say that "forms" are more accurate than "persons." ?? But I do recognize the difference in what you are saying.


Then what is your objection? I don't mind "persons" as long as its understood we are taking about divine beings and not human persons, that's all. I believe the HS is a "person" in the sense of being a divine entity or whatever but I don't believe it to be a different personality than of the Father. I believe the HS IS the Father but in spirit form.




You really are saying that there are only two Persons, and that the Spirit is really a reference to the spirit of the Father. That is not trinitarianism by any stretch of the imagination though.

That's what I am saying and yes it is Trinitarianism. Those THREE means Trinity and anyone that believes there are three and always has been is a Trinitarian.




In trinitarian theology each person fully assumes the divine substance. So in your case you only have two members of the Godhead.

No, there are three "members" of the Trinity all all are divine. I simply adhere to the scriptures which tell us the third member is the Spirit of the Father.



As I consider the many places in the NT where the Father, Son and Spirit are referred to together, I cannot but ask why in the world would you refer to the Father, the Son and the spirit of the Father?!


I refer to the HS as the spirit of the Father because that's what we are told!


Mark 13:11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.


Matthew 10:20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

Here we see that the Holy Ghost is indeed "the Spirit of your Father".





Agreed. That could be what is happening. Really the key is not in the Greek grammar, but in what it means to be a "person." And of course we cannot simply use the term as we would to refer to a human person. God is not "of this world," and we must keep that in mind. It really is not a cop out to say that it is a doctrine beyond the scope of man’s finite mind. John Wesley said, "Bring me a worm that can comprehend a man, and then I will show you a man that can comprehend the triune God." So I think we must be careful about being too adament in our theology regarding God.

Fair enough. I just want to educate others in what the Holy Spirit truly is by definition that scripture gives us rather than what man says for his own personal description. It is shocking to me how many Christian had no idea that the bible says the Holy Ghost is the spirit of the Father. They always thought the "three persons" thing meant the HS was actually some invisible "man" apart from the Father and Son. In a way it is an invisible man but that man is known, he is the Father.




Whether masculine, feminine or neuter - makes no difference. The Spirit is referred to as you would a person in the Bible. Granted, esp. in the OT, the Spirit is referred to in a manner that were it not for other scriptures, it could be argued that the spirit was the spirit of God. But as Toolman has pointed out, the Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ.

I see a merger in the NT in that sense and have no issue with the HS being also called the spirit of the son but this is only ok if one understands that the Son himself said the HS comes from and is the spirit of the Father.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal
The distinction is that the Holy Spirit is the spirit of the Father. Are you denying this?

Definitely. I acknowledge that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, just as the Son was sent from the Father.



But that is leaving out another fact that the HS is the spirit of the father, which you deny.





The Holy Spirit is referred to in more than one occasion as PARAKLHTOS - as the One "called to the side." You can't simply discount this. And John 14:25 refers to "the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name..." We see hO PEMYEI - "The One who will be sent." This is the same term used in very much the same manner as you list below to validate the personage of the Father.

PARAKLHTOS is used 5 times in the NT to refer to the Spirit. We cannot just ignore it. And John 14-16 is probably the key text in the Bible is revealing the nature of the Spirit. We cannot simply ignore this text.

No need to ignore it. Calling the HS "the one" doesn't change where the HS comes from, or who's spirit it is.




I think you meant 1 John 5:6, where it says (in a predicate nominative)...
TO PNEUMA ESTIN TO MARTUROUN
"The Spirit is the testifer," or "The Spirit is the one who testifies." Since both nouns have the article, it must be fully reversible (there are no exceptions to this rule)... "The testifer is the Spirit," or "The one who testifies is the Spirit." How could it be reversible if the Spirit were not a Person?

That sure sounds like referring to a person to me.


It is the spirit of a person which is how all these things that normally apply to an actual person can still apply to the spirit of an actual person. The issue is that you believe the HS is a separate and different person from the Father and I cannot agree because the scriptures do not support such a concept.







Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal
The writers of the New Testament describe the Spirit behaving as a Person would, but that they never grammatically refer to the Spirit as a Person through the use of the masculine generic gender, though they have numerous opportunities to do so.

You are assuming that the Spirit is masculine in nature.


The HS is the spirit of a masculine being so the masculine should be used by default in most cases. When "he" is used in relationship to the Spirit it is actually pointed back to the spirits "owner" if you will, the Father.



Concerning the use of "person," it is not used with regard to the trinity in the same manner it is in ordinary usage in which it means an identity completely distinct from other persons. The 3 persons of the Trinity are one in essence. The use of "person" is not the most accurate word to use, but with what are we left? Some have made up new words such as "subsistence" to try to explain what is declared to us in scripture in a way that makes sense to our finite minds. The point is simply that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct in "subsistance" (distinct Persons) yet one in essence. IOW, what you are saying is that there are only the Father and the Son. The Spirit is simply referring to the spirit of the Father.

That's only what I am saying because that's all scripture says. Scripture says Father (one person) Son (second person) and Holy Spirit (a spirit)

There is no third person. think the use of "persons" is misleading and inaccurate to what scripture actually says composes the Trinity/Godhead




OK, let's look at some places in he NT where the Father, the Son and the Spirit are referred to together:

Matthew 28:19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...

Acts 8:15-17 After they went down there, they prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For He had not yet come down on any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

Romans 5:5 And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
So, uh... God gave us His spirit. ??

That's what it says. You don't believe it?


Jude 19-21 These people create divisions and are merely natural, not having the Spirit. But you, dear friends, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, expecting the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ for eternal life.

But the key passage that makes it clear that the apostles considered the Holy Spirit to be a Person is seen in Acts 5...

Acts 5:3, 4 Then Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the proceeds from the field? Wasn't it yours while you possessed it? And after it was sold, wasn't it at your disposal? Why is it that you planned this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God!"

Nothing here says anyone considered the HS a person. Even when Christ appeared to the disciples after the resurrection they thought it was a spirit rather than a person but he allowed them to touch him and assure them that he was not a spirit.




Now I realize that your particular view of the Godhead would allow for this. But Peter rebukes Ananias, asking him what consumed him such that he actually lied to the Holy Spirit. Now this is clearly referring to the "Holy Spirit" as an entity - a person. I don't think you can lie to the spirit of a person.

Of course you can. A spirit is everything a person is but without a physical body. A spirit can talk, read, sing, and be lied to.




IMO the most natural reading of these texts is to assume that the Spirit is more than just "the spirit of the Father." He is again and again addressed as a person. Also, again and again we see the Father, Son and Holy Spirit listed together in various formulas.

But you are adding another unnamed person to those and implying it must be true. There is no one other than the Father and the son and the Holy Spirit. There is no such thing as the father and Son and Holy Person.



We are baptized in all 3 names. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but your approach to this just doesn't make sense. And the Greek does not argue against the Holy Spirit as a person. Perhaps you can expand on that.

Equally, your position defies the literal description of the trinity. Personification is all one needs to understand to know why a spirit of someone can be called a "he".


Now, I do have one question, that wasn't really clear to me - regarding the Greek grammar. you kept referring to the "generic gender." I'm not clear on what you mean by this. I haven't seen such terminology used in grammars before.

That just means one of the three genders. Generic is used instead of being specific to which of the three is meant.

Naphal
Mar 25th 2007, 01:28 AM
Is it the assertion of the OP that the Holy Spirit is separate (not the same) as the Father, or that the Spirit of the Father and the Holy Spirit are the same thing? If so, what is the other half of who the Father is, if He is not pure Spirit to begin with?



The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God the father. I have listed the verses that prove this and they are spoken by the Son so he does not claim that the HS is his personal spirit although other verses later appear to relate the HS to Christ's spirit. Christ says the HS is the spirit of the Father and I know the Father is a different being than the Son.



In other words, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but the Father is already Spirit, what is the Holy Spirit?


The Father is not a spirit himself. He is a literal being just as the Son is and he has a spirit which is Holy, which he sends forth to act in His stead.

intricatic
Mar 25th 2007, 01:52 AM
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God the father. I have listed the verses that prove this and they are spoken by the Son so he does not claim that the HS is his personal spirit although other verses later appear to relate the HS to Christ's spirit. Christ says the HS is the spirit of the Father and I know the Father is a different being than the Son.
So God the Father, and the Holy Spirit are one in the same?




The Father is not a spirit himself. He is a literal being just as the Son is and he has a spirit which is Holy, which he sends forth to act in His stead.So God the Father is a literal being - which I should hope is not contested, but are you also saying God (The Father) has a physical body, just as Christ does?


21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
25 The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When He comes, He will tell us all things.”
26 Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am He.”
(John 4)

Naphal
Mar 25th 2007, 02:04 AM
So God the Father, and the Holy Spirit are one in the same?

Um, in a way, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God the father which isn't the same as you said IMO.



So God the Father is a literal being - which I should hope is not contested, but are you also saying God (The Father) has a physical body, just as Christ does?

Yes.

Daniel 7:9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
Daniel 7:10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
Daniel 7:11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.
Daniel 7:12 As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.
Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
Daniel 7:14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.



24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Note this doesn't mean God is only a spirit. This merely is a reference to the Holy Spirit, not that God the Father is a spirit and no literal being.

intricatic
Mar 25th 2007, 02:15 AM
Um, in a way, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God the father which isn't the same as you said IMO.
Hmm.. Help me understand this. What's the difference between a spirit and a person's being?





Yes.

Daniel 7:9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
Daniel 7:10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
Daniel 7:11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.
Daniel 7:12 As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.
Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
Daniel 7:14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
Was the Holy Spirit one in the same as dwelt in the Tabernacle / Temple in ancient Israel?





Note this doesn't mean God is only a spirit. This merely is a reference to the Holy Spirit, not that God the Father is a spirit and no literal being.
That's not what it says, though. It says "God is Spirit".

SIG
Mar 25th 2007, 02:21 AM
He is also the Spirit of Christ:

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

1Pe 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

Naphal
Mar 25th 2007, 02:24 AM
Hmm.. Help me understand this. What's the difference between a spirit and a person's being?

I meant the difference between lets say you, and your spirit. There is the physical you and then the intangible you. Saying both are one is denying that they are able to separate Imo and is too close to Modalism or something.





Was the Holy Spirit one in the same as dwelt in the Tabernacle / Temple in ancient Israel?



Explain more please.




That's not what it says, though. It says "God is Spirit".

What it doesn't say is "God the Father is only a spirit" which is exactly how most interpret it. God is a spirit, the Holy Spirit. This doesn't mean that all of the Godhead is a spirit.

intricatic
Mar 25th 2007, 03:22 AM
I meant the difference between lets say you, and your spirit. There is the physical you and then the intangible you. Saying both are one is denying that they are able to separate Imo and is too close to Modalism or something.
No, it's actually holistic. The intangible "you" is still a distinct part of the self, which is, in part, why cremation was shunned in ancient Israel - that is, a bodily resurrection was expected, due to the fact that there was no real distinction between body and soul in life. I think there's some truth in this, but the soul/spirit and the body are distinct aspects of a person's being, just not in such a way that they function separately. In other words, the body dies without the Spirit - but the Spirit doesn't die.



Explain more please.
Take Numbers 11, for instance.

16 So the LORD said to Moses: “Gather to Me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people and officers over them; bring them to the tabernacle of meeting, that they may stand there with you. 17 Then I will come down and talk with you there. I will take of the Spirit that is upon you and will put the same upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with you, that you may not bear it yourself alone.
(Numbers 11)

24 So Moses went out and told the people the words of the LORD, and he gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people and placed them around the tabernacle. 25 Then the LORD came down in the cloud, and spoke to him, and took of the Spirit that was upon him (Moses - see vs. 17), and placed the same upon the seventy elders; and it happened, when the Spirit rested upon them, that they prophesied, although they never did so again.
(Numbers 11)
(In Vs. 25, did God come in physical form on a cloud?)

28 So Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ assistant, one of his choice men, answered and said, “Moses my lord, forbid them!”
29 Then Moses said to him, “Are you zealous for my sake? Oh, that all the LORD’s people were prophets and that the LORD would put His Spirit upon them!” 30 And Moses returned to the camp, he and the elders of Israel.
(Numbers 11)

The distinction between the Holy Spirit being an extension of the Father isn't apparent to me from what's seen in scripture. I see the HS as a very personal being that has a unique will which is aligned with the Father and the Son.



What it doesn't say is "God the Father is only a spirit" which is exactly how most interpret it. God is a spirit, the Holy Spirit. This doesn't mean that all of the Godhead is a spirit.
No, it simply says "God is Spirit".

On examining the context of this statement;

21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

It's clearly talking about the Father.

Naphal
Mar 25th 2007, 04:25 AM
I think there's some truth in this, but the soul/spirit and the body are distinct aspects of a person's being, just not in such a way that they function separately.

With us yes, but God can extend his spirit outward and interact with mankind.


The distinction between the Holy Spirit being an extension of the Father isn't apparent to me from what's seen in scripture.

All you have to do is read these:



1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
1 John 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

God gives to us of His Spirit. This is his own personal spirit!


1 Corinthians 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

Again, we are talking about the spirit of God, God the Father to be exact. This is the very same spirit when God the Son said, "it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father"



Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

"the spirit of Him" not that the spirit is a "him" as in its own person and being but it is the spirit of a person, the Father!

The Holy Spirit is not a "him" itself but is the "spirit of Him". Amen?





No, it simply says "God is Spirit".

On examining the context of this statement;

21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

It's clearly talking about the Father.



Close. It clearly speaks of the Father and then talks about the spirit of the Father, the same "spirit of Him" that raised Jesus Christ from the dead.

BadDog
Mar 25th 2007, 04:26 AM
Naphal,

I am still sick, so I'll keep this short.

Thx for answering some of my questions about what you meant regarding the Greek. BTW, I see that you use only the KJV. Are you KJVO as well, or do you just prefer it?

Fact is, you do not believe in any form of a trinity if you do not believe that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person of the Godhead. That should be obvious. And if this is so, then please address my main point with the several verses that I listed which showed the many places when the Father, Son and Spirit are listed together in various contexts. Why would you do so if the three were not distinct. Why refer to the Father, the Son and the spirit of the Father? The most logical thing would be to simply refer to the Father and the Son.

And as Toolman has said, and I pointed this out in that last post, the Son came from the Father as well.

John 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, because I came from God and I am here. For I didn't come on My own, but He sent Me.

John 15:26 "When the Advocate 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."

And why do you insist that we "acknowledge" that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father?

The distinction is that the Holy Spirit is the spirit of the Father. Are you denying this?
If by "of" you mean that the Father sent the Spirit, then I acknowledge that. But if instead you mean that the Spirit is simply referring to the "spirit" of the Father, then we got a problem, and I most definitely deny that. In John 4 we read that "God is spirit..."


The Holy Spirit is referred to in more than one occasion as PARAKLHTOS - as the One "called to the side." You can't simply discount this. And John 14:25 refers to "the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name..." We see hO PEMYEI - "The One who will be sent." This is the same term used in very much the same manner as you list below to validate the personage of the Father.

PARAKLHTOS is used 5 times in the NT to refer to the Spirit. We cannot just ignore it. And John 14-16 is probably the key text in the Bible is revealing the nature of the Spirit. We cannot simply ignore this text.
Comments? John 14-16 ties hO PARAKLHTOS and TO PNEUMA together very clearly.


I think you meant 1 John 5:6, where it says (in a predicate nominative)...
TO PNEUMA ESTIN TO MARTUROUN
"The Spirit is the testifer," or "The Spirit is the one who testifies." Since both nouns have the article, it must be fully reversible (there are no exceptions to this rule)... "The testifer is the Spirit," or "The one who testifies is the Spirit." How could it be reversible if the Spirit were not a Person?

That sure sounds like referring to a person to me. But I just wanted to point out that the word inserted, "that" in the KJV, is not grammatically sound. Virtually all modern translations have "who." And there is no pronoun there. It is simply a matter of translating an articular participle, which I agree often behaves like a noun (a substantival). But your argument above makes no sense. (Sorry.) What in that text hints that the Spirit was not considered to be a Person by John when he penned it?


It is the spirit of a person which is how all these things that normally apply to an actual person can still apply to the spirit of an actual person. The issue is that you believe the HS is a separate and different person from the Father and I cannot agree because the scriptures do not support such a concept.
In your opinion the scriptures do not support that. But you did not deal with the many scriptures I listed to the contrary.

Naphal, You're talking down to people and blasting people as if they are all ignorant. You know, you could be the one wrong here. When Jesus left His disciples He told them that He would not leave them as orphans, but that He would send the PARAKLHTOS ("Advocate" - "Comforter" is OK, but misses it's most common meaning) to them.

And what sense do you make of the following?

Luke 4:1 Then Jesus returned from the Jordan, full of the Holy Spirit, and was led by the Spirit in[to] the wilderness

How does something "lead" and "comfort" and "guide" and "teach" and "remind" if this something is not a person?

I can see how you can have such a view. It's a far cry from those who say that Jesus is not deity. It is Christian. But it is just not the most natural, logical way to read the scriptures on it.

BTW, what is "The Good Seed"?

Gotta go,

BD

intricatic
Mar 25th 2007, 04:57 AM
With us yes, but God can extend his spirit outward and interact with mankind.

All you have to do is read these:

1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
1 John 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

God gives to us of His Spirit. This is his own personal spirit!
Well, that's close, but this still doesn't explain all of the times the Spirit is said to talk to the prophets in the OT, or why God (the Father) has a Spirit of His own. He's not mortal, is He? As I pointed out through the holistic understanding of the body/spirit, the two are indivisible during life. Either God the Father is Spirit, or He's a physical being.

But moreover, was this the same Spirit that spoke to Ezekiel in Ezekiel 3?


12 Then the Spirit lifted me up, and I heard behind me a great thunderous voice: “Blessed is the glory of the LORD from His place!” 13 I also heard the noise of the wings of the living creatures that touched one another, and the noise of the wheels beside them, and a great thunderous noise. 14 So the Spirit lifted me up and took me away, and I went in bitterness, in the heat of my spirit; but the hand of the LORD was strong upon me.
(Ezekiel 3)


24 Then the Spirit entered me and set me on my feet, and spoke with me and said to me: “Go, shut yourself inside your house. 25 And you, O son of man, surely they will put ropes on you and bind you with them, so that you cannot go out among them. 26 I will make your tongue cling to the roof of your mouth, so that you shall be mute and not be one to rebuke them, for they are a rebellious house. 27 But when I speak with you, I will open your mouth, and you shall say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD.’ He who hears, let him hear; and he who refuses, let him refuse; for they are a rebellious house.
(Ezekiel 3)





1 Corinthians 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

Again, we are talking about the spirit of God, God the Father to be exact. This is the very same spirit when God the Son said, "it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father"
I don't deny this - I see this in a different light, though.




Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

"the spirit of Him" not that the spirit is a "him" as in its own person and being but it is the spirit of a person, the Father!

The Holy Spirit is not a "him" itself but is the "spirit of Him". Amen?
No, but it clearly does mean a "him" elsewhere;


1 The hand of the LORD came upon me and brought me out in the Spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley; and it was full of bones. 2 Then He caused me to pass by them all around, and behold, there were very many in the open valley; and indeed they were very dry. 3 And He said to me, “Son of man, can these bones live?”
So I answered, “O Lord GOD, You know.”
4 Again He said to me, “Prophesy to these bones, and say to them, ‘O dry bones, hear the word of the LORD! 5 Thus says the Lord GOD to these bones: “Surely I will cause breath to enter into you, and you shall live. 6 I will put sinews on you and bring flesh upon you, cover you with skin and put breath in you; and you shall live. Then you shall know that I am the LORD.”’”
(Ezekiel 37)







Close. It clearly speaks of the Father and then talks about the spirit of the Father, the same "spirit of Him" that raised Jesus Christ from the dead.
No, it says "God is Spirit", in the middle of discussing worshiping the Father in Spirit and Truth.

Naphal
Mar 25th 2007, 04:58 AM
Naphal,

I am still sick, so I'll keep this short.

Your wellness is in my prayers.




Thx for answering some of my questions about what you meant regarding the Greek. BTW, I see that you use only the KJV. Are you KJVO as well, or do you just prefer it?



I prefer the KJV only because many of the advances study tools are based upon it but I will often refer to newer translations when the KJV translation of over 200 years is outdated.



Fact is, you do not believe in any form of a trinity if you do not believe that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person of the Godhead.

The holy Spirit is a distinct force of God but is not its own separate person. The fact still remains that a Trinity believer differs from any other form of Christian if they believe the Godhead is composed of three rather than two or only one. I believe in three but I also know the difference between a spirit and a person.






That should be obvious. And if this is so, then please address my main point with the several verses that I listed which showed the many places when the Father, Son and Spirit are listed together in various contexts. Why would you do so if the three were not distinct.

Showing the HS in action does not make it a person lol We are told the HS is the Father's spirit and "the spirit of him that raised Jesus CHrist" so any attempt to make it something or someone else and/or its own person will result in failure.




Why refer to the Father, the Son and the spirit of the Father? The most logical thing would be to simply refer to the Father and the Son.

Because the HS is an extremely important part of the Godhead. But, there are examples of only the two persons being addressed:


1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Do you not think denial of the HS makes one an Antichrist? I do, but for whatever reason the writer didn't feel it necessary to mention the Spirit.


2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

Doesn't he also have the HS? Of course.



And as Toolman has said, and I pointed this out in that last post, the Son came from the Father as well.

This isn't in dispute but this doesn't affect that the HS is the Father's own spirit rather than just a spirit that came forth from him in an impersonal way.



And why do you insist that we "acknowledge" that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father?

Because it is biblical fact and very important in this discussion. I see an attempt to deny the HS is the Father's spirit.




If by "of" you mean that the Father sent the Spirit, then I acknowledge that. But if instead you mean that the Spirit is simply referring to the "spirit" of the Father, then we got a problem, and I most definitely deny that.

Then you deny scripture:



1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is
perfected in us.
1 John 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

God gives to us of His Spirit. This is his own personal spirit!


1 Corinthians 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the
deep things of God.

Again, we are talking about the spirit of God, God the Father to be exact. This is the very same spirit when God
the Son said, "it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father"



Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ
from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

"the spirit of Him" not that the spirit is a "him" as in its own person and being but it is the spirit of a person, the Father!

The Holy Spirit is not a "him" itself but is the "spirit of Him".






Comments? John 14-16 ties hO PARAKLHTOS and TO PNEUMA together very clearly.

I already commented:


Calling the HS "the one" doesn't change where the HS comes from, or who's spirit it is.



In your opinion the scriptures do not support that. But you did not deal with the many scriptures I listed to the contrary.

Sorry, but no scriptures presented show such a thing. I have shown over and over that the holy Spirit is the spirit of the Father. Christ said it and so have others.




Naphal, You're talking down to people and blasting people as if they are all ignorant. You know, you could be the one wrong here. When Jesus left His disciples He told them that He would not leave them as orphans, but that He would send the PARAKLHTOS ("Advocate" - "Comforter" is OK, but misses it's most common meaning) to them.

This is what Christ said:

"the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name"
"I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter"
"the Comforter" "whom I will send unto you from the Father"
"which proceedeth from the Father"







And what sense do you make of the following?

Luke 4:1 Then Jesus returned from the Jordan, full of the Holy Spirit, and was led by the Spirit in[to] the wilderness

How does something "lead" and "comfort" and "guide" and "teach" and "remind" if this something is not a person?


Because this is what a spirit of a person can do and does in this example. Are you actually saying the holy Spirit is an individual in its own right, that its not the spirit of either the father or the Son? Is this akin to a second Son? Father, Son and another guy? This is ridiculous. :)

You are literally saying if it walks like a dog, talks like a dog and leads like a dog that it must be a dog! But its not a dog, but a spirit of a dog. Please understand the example and analogy used.





I can see how you can have such a view. It's a far cry from those who say that Jesus is not deity. It is Christian. But it is just not the most natural, logical way to read the scriptures on it.

I disagree. It is the most natural and the most supported by a natural reading of scripture. When scripture says the Holy Spirit is "the spirit of Him (God the Father) which raised Jesus Christ" you are actually in disagreement! You think its "a spirit of him" rather than his own spirit.


Genesis 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Isaiah 30:1 Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin:

Isaiah 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

Isaiah 44:3 For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring:

Isaiah 59:21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

Ezekiel 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Ezekiel 37:14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD.

Ezekiel 39:29 Neither will I hide my face any more from them: for I have poured out my spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord GOD.

Joel 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
Joel 2:29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

Haggai 2:5 According to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so my spirit remaineth among you: fear ye not.

Zechariah 4:6 Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.

Matthew 12:18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.




BTW, what is "The Good Seed"?



The children of the Kingdom, why?

Naphal
Mar 25th 2007, 05:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1203342#post1203342)
With us yes, but God can extend his spirit outward and interact with mankind.

All you have to do is read these:

1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
1 John 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

God gives to us of His Spirit. This is his own personal spirit!

Well, that's close, but this still doesn't explain all of the times the Spirit is said to talk to the prophets in the OT, or why God (the Father) has a Spirit of His own. He's not mortal, is He?

No, the immortal Father is not mortal. Its not even possible. Why God has a spirit isn't known but that he does have a spirit is known. See the end of my last post where verses about God speaking about his spirit is listed.





As I pointed out through the holistic understanding of the body/spirit, the two are indivisible during life. Either God the Father is Spirit, or He's a physical being.


Please don't apply the rules of humanity to God.



But moreover, was this the same Spirit that spoke to Ezekiel in Ezekiel 3?

Yes.



No, but it clearly does mean a "him" elsewhere;

Still not a him but the spirit of a him.




Quote:
Close. It clearly speaks of the Father and then talks about the spirit of the Father, the same "spirit of Him" that raised Jesus Christ from the dead.
No, it says "God is Spirit", in the middle of discussing worshiping the Father in Spirit and Truth.


1:The Holy Spirit is God and is a spirit.
2:The Holy Father is a male being and is God and is not a spirit.
3:The Holy Son is a male being and is God and is also not a spirit.

intricatic
Mar 25th 2007, 05:17 AM
No, the immortal Father is not mortal. Its not even possible. Why God has a spirit isn't known but that he does have a spirit is known. See the end of my last post where verses about God speaking about his spirit is listed.
Why? It's not logically cohesive. God the Father is either a Spiritual being or a physical being, but it's not coherent to say He's both, or that both His Spirit which operates in the world and His body which is ~~elsewhere~~ are equally Him. Or is this a form of panentheism where the Earth is God? That's about the only way I could reconcile it, but I wouldn't want to go there.







Please don't apply the rules of humanity to God.
That's what I see being done with the idea that God the Father is both physical and spiritual being - am I mistaken?





Still not a him but the spirit of a him.
Wait - is the Spirit distinct from God the Father, or is the Spirit God the Father? I'm confused here. The Spirit is addressed as if He were God; So I answered, “O Lord GOD, You know.”

Which attests to this not being a simple force, but either being God Himself, or a distinct aspect of the Trinity with a unique personhood.



1:The Holy Spirit is God and is a spirit.
2:The Holy Father is a male being and is God and is not a spirit.
3:The Holy Son is a male being and is God and is also not a spirit.
How does that work? :confused

John146
Mar 25th 2007, 05:18 AM
Then what is your objection? I don't mind "persons" as long as its understood we are taking about divine beings and not human persons, that's all. I believe the HS is a "person" in the sense of being a divine entity or whatever but I don't believe it to be a different personality than of the Father. I believe the HS IS the Father but in spirit form.
This statement doesn't make a whole lot of sense because God the Father is a Spirit or is Spirit (John 4:23-24). What other form than Spirit does God the Father have? None. God the Father is a Spirit being, as Jesus Himself said. He does not have a physical body as God the Son does.



But that is leaving out another fact that the HS is the spirit of the father, which you deny.
The HS is also the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9, Phillipians 1:19, 1 Peter 1:11), which you deny. You like to point to Romans 8:11, yet you seem to ignore Romans 8:9-10. Romans 8:9 has already been talked about, but look at Romans 8:10. It speaks of Christ being in us. Now, Christ is fully man and fully God. God is Spirit. Jesus, as man, is not inside of us, at least I'm pretty sure of that. ;) But His Spirit is. The Spirit of Christ. Yet we also know the Spirit of the Father is in us. And we know there is only one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4), so if Christ is in us and we know it's His Spirit in us and we also know the Spirit of the Father is in us, then we can only conclude that the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of Christ is the same Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a distinct person of the Trinity. I believe the lyric "God in 3 persons, blessed Trinity" is quite an accurate description of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit does not act separately from the Father and the Son. That's why He can be called the Spirit of God (the Father) or the Spirit of Christ, without suggesting that there are two Holy Spirits.

BadDog
Mar 25th 2007, 06:05 AM
That should be obvious. And if this is so, then please address my main point with the several verses that I listed which showed the many places when the Father, Son and Spirit are listed together in various contexts. Why would you do so if the three were not distinct?

Showing the HS in action does not make it a person lol We are told the HS is the Father's spirit and "the spirit of him that raised Jesus CHrist" so any attempt to make it something or someone else and/or its own person will result in failure.

I listed several texts which tied the 3 members of the Godhead all together in various ways. Why list the Holy Spirit if that's just really referring to the Father again? I still do not follow where you get some sort of trinity in your theology.


Why refer to the Father, the Son and the spirit of the Father? The most logical thing would be to simply refer to the Father and the Son.

Because the HS is an extremely important part of the Godhead. But, there are examples of only the two persons being addressed:

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Do you not think denial of the HS makes one an Antichrist? I do, but for whatever reason the writer didn't feel it necessary to mention the Spirit.

That is because of the particular heresy which John was dealing with - started by Cerenthus. This heresy denied that the Son fully God and fully human. How about when Jesus said that the person who blasphemed the Holy Spirit was guilty of an unforgiven sin?


And why do you insist that we "acknowledge" that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father?

Because it is biblical fact and very important in this discussion. I see an attempt to deny the HS is the Father's spirit.

You certainly do. I deny it. At least, as you are using it. "His Spirit" there is much the same as "His Son." The word for "Spirit" in the OT is feminine, BTW.


Comments? John 14-16 ties hO PARAKLHTOS and TO PNEUMA together very clearly.

I already commented:


Calling the HS "the one" doesn't change where the HS comes from, or who's spirit it is.

I think you're missing my point here: hO PARAKLHTOS ("Advocate") is spoken of in a very personal way. And how can the Spirit be an advocate between us and the Father if it is not distinct from the Father?


Naphal, You're talking down to people and blasting people as if they are all ignorant. You know, you could be the one wrong here. When Jesus left His disciples He told them that He would not leave them as orphans, but that He would send the PARAKLHTOS ("Advocate" - "Comforter" is OK, but misses it's most common meaning) to them.

This is what Christ said:

"the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name"
"I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter"
"the Comforter" "whom I will send unto you from the Father"
"which proceedeth from the Father"

Actually, this is what Christ said... that I was referencing:

John 14:16-18 And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor (PARAKLHTOS) to be with you forever. He is the Spirit of truth, whom the world is unable to receive because it doesn't see Him or know Him. But you do know Him, because He remains with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you.

So if you're apparently correcting me above, then what did I say that was incorrect? You have a different text in the John 14-16 context.

We're going around in circles here. I guess I'll re-quote those two similar texts again:

John 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, because I came from God and I am here. For I didn't come on My own, but He sent Me.

John 15:26 "When the Advocate 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."

Both the Son and the Spirit came from the Father to perform their ministry on earth in our behalf.


And what sense do you make of the following?

Luke 4:1 Then Jesus returned from the Jordan, full of the Holy Spirit, and was led by the Spirit in[to] the wilderness

How does something "lead" and "comfort" and "guide" and "teach" and "remind" if this something is not a person?


Because this is what a spirit of a person can do and does in this example. Are you actually saying the holy Spirit is an individual in its own right, that its not the spirit of either the father or the Son? Is this akin to a second Son? Father, Son and another guy? This is ridiculous.

You are literally saying if it walks like a dog, talks like a dog and leads like a dog that it must be a dog! But its not a dog, but a spirit of a dog. Please understand the example and analogy used.

You need to understand what I have been saying. I am saying that the Holy Spirit is a person in His own right just as the Son is an individual in His own right. By saying that the Son is a person in His own right does not mean that He's not also the Son of the Father, just as the Spirit is the Spirit from the Father.


BTW, what is "The Good Seed"?


The children of the Kingdom, why?

Just wanted to know what group I was encountering next time I came across this teaching. Let me try to clarify one more thing, then I've got to get to bed:

The "personhood" of the Holy Spirit has been denied by certain non-mainstream groups. It's usually pointed out that the noun for "spirit" in the NT is TO PNEUMA which is neuter and hence the "Spirit" is properly referred to as an "it" rather than a "him," It's kinda like "God's active force"... emanating from the one, true God. This is the JW approach. However, there is no connection in Koine Greek between grammatical gender and personal gender so it is simply not true to say that since the Greek noun TO PNEUMA is neuter the "Spirit" must be an "it." That's not how the grammar works.

You agree with this, don't you? Just wanted to make that clear.

OTOH, Greek grammar does not support the translation of "he" for the Holy Spirit in John 14-16. I agree there. The passages that have been mentioned in John do not actually use the masculine pronoun to refer directly to the Holy Spirit.

But we cannot say that since the grammar doesn't support the personality of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit is not a person. The Greek grammar certainly does not disallow the Holy Spirit as a person. Because gender in Greek is quite arbitrary in that it does not necessarily have to do with "natural gender" or whether someone or some thing is masculine, feminine, or neuter in essence. For example, the word for "word" or "message" in Greek (hO LOGOS) is masculine. Yet there is also another word for "word" which is neuter (TO RHMA). They are sometimes used interchangably. The word "child" in Greek is neuter. Yet a child is clearly a person.

OOps. got one more point that I wasn't clear enough on before:

Jesus told His disciples that the Father would send "another advocate/comforter" (John 14-16). If he is "another" (ALLOS - of the same kind) advocate then he is distinct from Jesus. Yet, clearly, He is sent to replace Jesus as the One who ministers to the disciples. How can a thing do this? How can you refer to the spirit of the Father as something that will keep the disciples from being "orphaned?" Doesn't that require a person?

In John 14-16 the Holy Spirit is seen as distinct from the Father and from the Son, and also as personal. He will teach, guide, help, comfort, etc. These are attributes of persons, not a thing.

Finally, in the Great Commission Jesus told His disciples to "baptize them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit..." That formula makes no sense with your particular view of the Godhead. Perhaps you could expand on that for us.

Thx,

BD

divaD
Mar 25th 2007, 04:56 PM
[QUOTE=Naphal;1203349]


Because the HS is an extremely important part of the Godhead. But, there are examples of only the two persons being addressed:

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Do you not think denial of the HS makes one an Antichrist? I do, but for whatever reason the writer didn't feel it necessary to mention the Spirit.


Let's look at the reason why the mention of the Holy Spirit was not mentioned.

1 Corinthians 12:3 *Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.


The reason is, no one can know the Father and the Son but by the Holy Ghost. So obviously with 1 John 2:22 he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ and he who denieth the Father and the Son does not have the Holy Ghost dwelling within.

Naphal
Mar 26th 2007, 01:43 AM
Why? It's not logically cohesive. God the Father is either a Spiritual being or a physical being, but it's not coherent to say He's both, or that both His Spirit which operates in the world and His body which is ~~elsewhere~~ are equally Him.

How many restrictions do you place on God? I would like a list of the things you think God can't be or do. ;)

God is both a spiritual being and a physical being. God is two beings, A Father and a Son, both are real, literal and have bodies which we are made in the image of. God is also a spirit, called the Comforter and Holy among other things.





Or is this a form of panentheism where the Earth is God? That's about the only way I could reconcile it, but I wouldn't want to go there.



The Earth is a planet, one of billions, and it is not a God.








That's what I see being done with the idea that God the Father is both physical and spiritual being - am I mistaken?

God is what God is. You act as if I am making these things up. You think that because God the father is a literal being in which we are made in the image of, that it somehow equals that God cannot be anything like us but the truth is we have been created to look similar to him. When we die, we will see God the Father as a man/person/being sitting in a throne. His physical descriptions are found in scripture. I don't believe that God has made himself a body just so we can relate or something. I believe God always was in this form.






Wait - is the Spirit distinct from God the Father, or is the Spirit God the Father? I'm confused here. The Spirit is addressed as if He were God; So I answered, “O Lord GOD, You know.”

The Holy Spirit is the spirit of the Father. I am certain I have typed that about 50 times so far as well as quoted the scriptures of Christ telling us this fact. The spirit is then God because it is God's spirit. If someone wants to address the spirit as he or him or even "Father" I have no issue with it because the spirit is Him in spiritual form.



Which attests to this not being a simple force, but either being God Himself, or a distinct aspect of the Trinity with a unique personhood.

It is God himself in spiritual form, not a different person or personality.






How does that work? :confused

How? Perfectly :)

Naphal
Mar 26th 2007, 01:59 AM
This statement doesn't make a whole lot of sense because God the Father is a Spirit or is Spirit (John 4:23-24).


But you are adding "Father to that verse because that's what you assume. However, the Father is never described as a spirit when he appears in scripture. It is even written that a human being will die if they were to look at his face! How do you reconcile that with your belief of the father being a spirit which really has no body parts? Truth is, the only way a human being can interact with the Father safely is when he is in spirit form. This way we can actually have His spirit dwell in us! This is why God is called the "invisible God" because outside of Christ, we cannot see God and survive.





What other form than Spirit does God the Father have? None. God the Father is a Spirit being, as Jesus Himself said. He does not have a physical body as God the Son does.

Both the father and Son have physical bodies. Haven't you read about what the father looks like and that he has white hair and so forth? He is described in both Daniel and Revelation as well as other places that escape me at the moment.




The HS is also the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9, Phillipians 1:19, 1 Peter 1:11), which you deny.

No, I have not denied this. I have only quoted Christ saying the HS is the spirit of the Father. I have said I believe Christ shares in his Fathers spirit, possibly some form of merging which makes it also his spirit.





Yet we also know the Spirit of the Father is in us. And we know there is only one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4), so if Christ is in us and we know it's His Spirit in us and we also know the Spirit of the Father is in us, then we can only conclude that the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of Christ is the same Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a distinct person of the Trinity.

And yet that statement contradicts the fact of the HS being the spirit of the other two. Thus, the HS cannot be a different person of its own.





I believe the lyric "God in 3 persons, blessed Trinity" is quite an accurate description of the Trinity.

It would be if scripture said the Trinity is "Father Son and Holy person" but it doesn't say that.

Its rather funny! "Hey, this is my Father and of course you know me Jesus, and this is our other friend, Mr. no name who is a distinct person even though "he" is actually our spirit."







The Holy Spirit does not act separately from the Father and the Son.


Pardon? How can you argue that the HS is a distinct person but then say "he" does not act separately??

You know, when I encounter a doctrine that so badly and so often contradicts itself I know that it is seriously flawed. I make it a point not to have doctrines of that nature.

Naphal
Mar 26th 2007, 02:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old BadDog
That should be obvious. And if this is so, then please address my main point with the several verses that I listed which showed the many places when the Father, Son and Spirit are listed together in various contexts. Why would you do so if the three were not distinct?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal
Showing the HS in action does not make it a person lol We are told the HS is the Father's spirit and "the spirit of him that raised Jesus CHrist" so any attempt to make it something or someone else and/or its own person will result in failure.

I listed several texts which tied the 3 members of the Godhead all together in various ways. Why list the Holy Spirit if that's just really referring to the Father again? I still do not follow where you get some sort of trinity in your theology.


May I ask why you never capitalize Trinity? I've been noticing that.

Anyways, lets begin with the meaning and origin of the word Trinity:

Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source
trinity
c.1225, "the Father, Son and Holy Spirit," constituting one God in prevailing Christian doctrine, from O.Fr. trinite (11c.), from L. trinitatem (nom. trinitas) "Trinity, triad" (Tertullian), from trinus "threefold, triple," from pl. of trini "three at a time, threefold," related to tres (neut. tria) "three." The L. word was widely borrowed in European languages with the rise of Christianity (e.g. Ir. trionnoid, Welsh trindod, Ger. trinität).
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

It means three. The word does not mean three of any certain thing such as persons. Two persons (father and son) and one spirit is still three and is the only definition of the Trinity given by God and scripture:

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father (person), and of the Son (person), and of the Holy Spirit: (spirit)


So people like you say person, person, person but I adhere to the actual description Christ gives as person, person, spirit.



That is because of the particular heresy which John was dealing with - started by Cerenthus. This heresy denied that the Son fully God and fully human. How about when Jesus said that the person who blasphemed the Holy Spirit was guilty of an unforgiven sin?

How about what? That doesn't turn the spirit into a person.




You certainly do. I deny it. At least, as you are using it. "His Spirit" there is much the same as "His Son." The word for "Spirit" in the OT is feminine, BTW.

lol. That doesn't mean it is a female spirit. I fear for you and your denial because it comes dangerously close to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. I pray that you accept Christ's words about the Holy Spirit being the spirit of his Father. It is now his spirit as well but do not deny what Christ said.




I think you're missing my point here: hO PARAKLHTOS ("Advocate") is spoken of in a very personal way. And how can the Spirit be an advocate between us and the Father if it is not distinct from the Father?

Its distinct, just not a different person. It is the way the Father directly interacts with human beings.




Actually, this is what Christ said... that I was referencing:

John 14:16-18 And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor (PARAKLHTOS) to be with you forever. He is the Spirit of truth, whom the world is unable to receive because it doesn't see Him or know Him. But you do know Him, because He remains with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you.

So if you're apparently correcting me above, then what did I say that was incorrect? You have a different text in the John 14-16 context.

The problem is no amount of how something is described or addressed can change what something is or isn't. You see all these things and see "a person" being described when I see the spirit of a person.






We're going around in circles here. I guess I'll re-quote those two similar texts again:

John 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, because I came from God and I am here. For I didn't come on My own, but He sent Me.

John 15:26 "When the Advocate 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."

Both the Son and the Spirit came from the Father to perform their ministry on earth in our behalf.

Was never in dispute but this really isn't proof that the Holy Spirit is a second son or person. God the Father sent both. One is his son a person, the other is his spirit.





You need to understand what I have been saying. I am saying that the Holy Spirit is a person in His own right just as the Son is an individual in His own right. By saying that the Son is a person in His own right does not mean that He's not also the Son of the Father, just as the Spirit is the Spirit from the Father.

I understand what you are saying, I just see zero evidence for it especially nothing that can challenge the Holy Spirit being a spirit of someone that is named. I know you think its another person, without a body for the most part, that works closely with the son and father but is not either of them. I cannot accept such a belief because I cannot find support in the bible for it.




Just wanted to know what group I was encountering next time I came across this teaching. Let me try to clarify one more thing, then I've got to get to bed:

The "personhood" of the Holy Spirit has been denied by certain non-mainstream groups. It's usually pointed out that the noun for "spirit" in the NT is TO PNEUMA which is neuter and hence the "Spirit" is properly referred to as an "it" rather than a "him," It's kinda like "God's active force"... emanating from the one, true God. This is the JW approach. However, there is no connection in Koine Greek between grammatical gender and personal gender so it is simply not true to say that since the Greek noun TO PNEUMA is neuter the "Spirit" must be an "it." That's not how the grammar works.

You agree with this, don't you? Just wanted to make that clear.

I agree with the statements about the HS. I am not a Greek expert so I'd have to research the statements about the grammar and the gender to know if its accurate. I use it often to help make the proper distinguishment but have no issue with "he" as long as its understand which he the "he" refers to. I do not accept a third person or second son or being of the Trinity as we are told only that there is one Father and one Son and one Holy Spirit. We are not given a third person.


But we cannot say that since the grammar doesn't support the personality of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit is not a person. The Greek grammar certainly does not disallow the Holy Spirit as a person. Because gender in Greek is quite arbitrary in that it does not necessarily have to do with "natural gender" or whether someone or some thing is masculine, feminine, or neuter in essence. For example, the word for "word" or "message" in Greek (hO LOGOS) is masculine. Yet there is also another word for "word" which is neuter (TO RHMA). They are sometimes used interchangably. The word "child" in Greek is neuter. Yet a child is clearly a person.

I've been pretty consistent in arguing that we cannot rely on grammar alone to decide whether the Holy Spirit is a person or a spirit and this simply aids that effort.



Jesus told His disciples that the Father would send "another advocate/comforter" (John 14-16). If he is "another" (ALLOS - of the same kind) advocate then he is distinct from Jesus. Yet, clearly, He is sent to replace Jesus as the One who ministers to the disciples. How can a thing do this? How can you refer to the spirit of the Father as something that will keep the disciples from being "orphaned?" Doesn't that require a person?

The spirit of God suffices quite efficiently as a Comforter without the need of personhood. Keep in mind the Spirit of the father is the same as the Father being there defacto, the only difference is a lack of physical form.




In John 14-16 the Holy Spirit is seen as distinct from the Father and from the Son, and also as personal. He will teach, guide, help, comfort, etc. These are attributes of persons, not a thing.

The attributes apply because the HS is a spirit of a person, not an actual person. The same can be said of mountains and trees and so forth.




Finally, in the Great Commission Jesus told His disciples to "baptize them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit..." That formula makes no sense with your particular view of the Godhead. Perhaps you could expand on that for us.

It makes perfect sense. Its similar to the saying "Do good deeds in the name of all that is good and decent in the world." We need not a "person" or persons associated with the word name. This is the same mistake people make when saying baptising someone in the name of Jesus only somehow violates this other command to baptise in the name of these three. It doesn't mean literally use a name of each but to do it for them or because of them.

Naphal
Mar 26th 2007, 02:50 AM
[quote=Naphal;1203349]


Because the HS is an extremely important part of the Godhead. But, there are examples of only the two persons being addressed:

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Do you not think denial of the HS makes one an Antichrist? I do, but for whatever reason the writer didn't feel it necessary to mention the Spirit.


Let's look at the reason why the mention of the Holy Spirit was not mentioned.

1 Corinthians 12:3 *Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.


The reason is, no one can know the Father and the Son but by the Holy Ghost. So obviously with 1 John 2:22 he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ and he who denieth the Father and the Son does not have the Holy Ghost dwelling within.

Sure, I have no issue with that. I was challenged to show the Father and Son being spoken of without the mention of the Holy Spirit. When you mention one or both of them that automatically includes the HS because they claim the HS as theirs as opposed to a third and separate, different, distinct "person".

John146
Mar 26th 2007, 09:53 PM
[/color]


Both the father and Son have physical bodies. Haven't you read about what the father looks like and that he has white hair and so forth? He is described in both Daniel and Revelation as well as other places that escape me at the moment.

Daniel and Revelation are highly symbolic books. Have you forgotten that no one has seen God the Father (John 6:46, 1 Timothy 6:15-17)? That would include Daniel and John. God does not have a physical body. His glory has been seen, but He cannot be seen fully. If He could, then He would hardly be the all-powerful, all knowing, and omnipresent God that we believe He is, could He? Daniel and John saw God the Father's glory and they described it as best as possible in human terms, but the fact is that God the Father cannot be described adequately in human terms. Do you realize that you are agreeing with Mormonism's view of God the Father? That should make you think twice.



No, I have not denied this. I have only quoted Christ saying the HS is the spirit of the Father. I have said I believe Christ shares in his Fathers spirit, possibly some form of merging which makes it also his spirit.

Sorry, but I believe that's a weak explanation. Why are you denying that Scripture uses the terms Spirit of God and Spirit of Christ as though they are one and the same?



You know, when I encounter a doctrine that so badly and so often contradicts itself I know that it is seriously flawed. I make it a point not to have doctrines of that nature.



Ah, going to the insults card. Very mature of you. I'm not going to play that game. If you want to deny that the Spirit of Christ is the same as the Spirit of God, then that's your choice. I believe Scripture makes it clear that it is the same Spirit and there is only one Spirit. You try to say that the Spirit is only the Spirit of the Father, but that contradicts the verses that call the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Christ.

Let me ask you something: do we not have Christ in us? If so, what does that mean? Do we have the Spirit of the Father and the spirit of Christ in us? Is the spirit of Christ separate from the Holy Spirit? Is that what you think?

Naphal
Mar 26th 2007, 11:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1204323#post1204323)
[/color]


Both the father and Son have physical bodies. Haven't you read about what the father looks like and that he has white hair and so forth? He is described in both Daniel and Revelation as well as other places that escape me at the moment.

Daniel and Revelation are highly symbolic books. Have you forgotten that no one has seen God the Father (John 6:46, 1 Timothy 6:15-17)?

In a vision John and Daniel have seen Him. This is only possible in a vision else they would have died.



God does not have a physical body. His glory has been seen, but He cannot be seen fully.

Actually he very much does have a body. The scriptures describe him.



Do you realize that you are agreeing with Mormonism's view of God the Father? That should make you think twice.

I am agreeing with scriptures view of God the father. It doesn't bother me who else agrees.





Quote:
No, I have not denied this. I have only quoted Christ saying the HS is the spirit of the Father. I have said I believe Christ shares in his Fathers spirit, possibly some form of merging which makes it also his spirit.
Sorry, but I believe that's a weak explanation. Why are you denying that Scripture uses the terms Spirit of God and Spirit of Christ as though they are one and the same?


I haven't denied this. I merely repeat Christ saying the HS is the spirit of his/our Father.






Quote:
You know, when I encounter a doctrine that so badly and so often contradicts itself I know that it is seriously flawed. I make it a point not to have doctrines of that nature.

Ah, going to the insults card. Very mature of you. I'm not going to play that game.


No? Not the negative association accusation about Mormons? Fact is, the doctrine of the HS being it's/his own unique person contradicts what the bible says. That is a simple fact, not an insult.




You try to say that the Spirit is only the Spirit of the Father, but that contradicts the verses that call the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Christ.

That's not what I said. I said it originated from the Father because Christ always says the HS is the Father's spirit.



Let me ask you something: do we not have Christ in us? If so, what does that mean? Do we have the Spirit of the Father and the spirit of Christ in us? Is the spirit of Christ separate from the Holy Spirit? Is that what you think?

I think Christ's spirit is the Holy Spirit and by us having the HS we have Christ in us.

BadDog
Mar 27th 2007, 02:12 AM
May I ask why you never capitalize Trinity? I've been noticing that.
No particular reason for that. I capitalize names and pronouns which reference God as a name. The trinity is a word created by man to refer to the kind of relationship of the Godhead. It refers to the Godhead, but is not a title or taking the place of such. So Godhead, Father, Son, Spirit, Him, etc. should be capitalized. But trinity is merely referring to the fellowship of the Godhead. It's not a title or taking the place of such, so grammatically should not be capitalized, as I see it.


Anyways, lets begin with the meaning and origin of the word Trinity:
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source
trinity
c.1225, "the Father, Son and Holy Spirit," constituting one God in prevailing Christian doctrine, from O.Fr. trinite (11c.), from L. trinitatem (nom. trinitas) "Trinity, triad" (Tertullian), from trinus "threefold, triple," from pl. of trini "three at a time, threefold," related to tres (neut. tria) "three." The L. word was widely borrowed in European languages with the rise of Christianity (e.g. Ir. trionnoid, Welsh trindod, Ger. trinität).
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

It means three. The word does not mean three of any certain thing such as persons. Two persons (father and son) and one spirit is still three and is the only definition of the Trinity given by God and scripture:

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father (person), and of the Son (person), and of the Holy Spirit: (spirit)

So people like you say person, person, person but I adhere to the actual description Christ gives as person, person, spirit.
It came originally from Latin and essentially meant "tri-unity." I often use that expression.


lol. That doesn't mean it is a female spirit. I fear for you and your denial because it comes dangerously close to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. I pray that you accept Christ's words about the Holy Spirit being the spirit of his Father. It is now his spirit as well but do not deny what Christ said.
Be careful of saying such things. I have not even approached any blasphemy of the Spirit. The blasphemy is attributing to the Spirit the work of Satan. How have I said anything of which to be concerned here? The point is merely that the gender used grammatically is not related to the gender of the person/thing. You have actually called the Spirit a nonbeing - I'd be a bit more concerned about that, personally. :P


The problem is no amount of how something is described or addressed can change what something is or isn't. You see all these things and see "a person" being described when I see the spirit of a person.

Was never in dispute but this really isn't proof that the Holy Spirit is a second son or person. God the Father sent both. One is his son a person, the other is his spirit.
How do you send your "spirit?"


I understand what you are saying, I just see zero evidence for it especially nothing that can challenge the Holy Spirit being a spirit of someone that is named. I know you think its another person, without a body for the most part, that works closely with the son and father but is not either of them. I cannot accept such a belief because I cannot find support in the bible for it.
Is there any evidence that the Father has a body?


I agree with the statements about the HS. I am not a Greek expert so I'd have to research the statements about the grammar and the gender to know if its accurate. I use it often to help make the proper distinguishment but have no issue with "he" as long as its understand which he the "he" refers to. I do not accept a third person or second son or being of the Trinity as we are told only that there is one Father and one Son and one Holy Spirit. We are not given a third person.
Well, I'm no expert either. But I know thah the grammatical gender is not necessarily related to the gender of the person itself. The fact that the Spirit (TO PNEUMA) is neuter makes it not one wit more likely that TO PNEUMA is not a person, or that it is referring to a thing. The grammatical gender issimply neuter. So what? In the OT, the grammatical gender is feminine.


I've been pretty consistent in arguing that we cannot rely on grammar alone to decide whether the Holy Spirit is a person or a spirit and this simply aids that effort.
Exactly. I just wanted to be sure you were in agreement that the gender of the noun used was not relevant to thsi discussion.


Finally, in the Great Commission Jesus told His disciples to "baptize them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit..." That formula makes no sense with your particular view of the Godhead. Perhaps you could expand on that for us.

It makes perfect sense. Its similar to the saying "Do good deeds in the name of all that is good and decent in the world." We need not a "person" or persons associated with the word name. This is the same mistake people make when saying baptising someone in the name of Jesus only somehow violates this other command to baptise in the name of these three. It doesn't mean literally use a name of each but to do it for them or because of them.
You're still not addressing my point. And the anology you're using is not parallel at all.

The question is why God would ask us to baptize "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the spirit of the Father"?

I don't think any of us see this as even beginning to make any sense. And if you cannot explain it, you do have a big flaw in your argument.

You base your theology on the particular wording in which the Spirit is referred to as the "Spirit from the father" or the "Spirit of the Father." Your argument is based on the wording, yet you are not concerned with the issue regarding your own wording.

Also, Naphal, the idea of "personification" when the Holy Spirit is referred to with a male pronoun, is difficult to take, IMO. I'm not saying it's not possible, but is that the most logical idea?

I gotta go. I wanted to say more about the use of the grammar in John 14-16, but I'm getting weak and it'll have to wait til later.

CYL,

BD

Naphal
Mar 27th 2007, 02:33 AM
No particular reason for that. I capitalize names and pronouns which reference God as a name. The trinity is a word created by man to refer to the kind of relationship of the Godhead. It refers to the Godhead, but is not a title or taking the place of such. So Godhead, Father, Son, Spirit, Him, etc. should be capitalized. But trinity is merely referring to the fellowship of the Godhead. It's not a title or taking the place of such, so grammatically should not be capitalized, as I see it.

I understand.




Be careful of saying such things. I have not even approached any blasphemy of the Spirit. The blasphemy is attributing to the Spirit the work of Satan. How have I said anything of which to be concerned here? The point is merely that the gender used grammatically is not related to the gender of the person/thing. You have actually called the Spirit a nonbeing - I'd be a bit more concerned about that, personally. :P

Well then, we have warned each other as per our obligation and sense of duty.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal
The problem is no amount of how something is described or addressed can change what something is or isn't. You see all these things and see "a person" being described when I see the spirit of a person.

Was never in dispute but this really isn't proof that the Holy Spirit is a second son or person. God the Father sent both. One is his son a person, the other is his spirit.

How do you send your "spirit?"


I do not know.







Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal
I understand what you are saying, I just see zero evidence for it especially nothing that can challenge the Holy Spirit being a spirit of someone that is named. I know you think its another person, without a body for the most part, that works closely with the son and father but is not either of them. I cannot accept such a belief because I cannot find support in the bible for it.

Is there any evidence that the Father has a body?


The father is described in Daniel and Revelation and various other books.




The question is why God would ask us to baptize "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the spirit of the Father"?

The same reason it doesn't say ""in the name of the Father, Jesus Christ, and the HS"

In most verses we will see "Holy Spirit" or just "Spirit" some we will see "God's spirit" or "spirit of the Father" and so on. All the same Spirit.




Also, Naphal, the idea of "personification" when the Holy Spirit is referred to with a male pronoun, is difficult to take, IMO. I'm not saying it's not possible, but is that the most logical idea?

Yes IMO of course.

BadDog
Mar 29th 2007, 04:06 PM
Naphal,

We can keep going around in circles here. But I would like you to answer one question that has been asked and not really answered yet, if you would:


The question is why God would ask us to baptize "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the spirit of the Father"?


The same reason it doesn't say ""in the name of the Father, Jesus Christ, and the HS"

In most verses we will see "Holy Spirit" or just "Spirit" some we will see "God's spirit" or "spirit of the Father" and so on. All the same Spirit.
But that still isn't addressing why the Father is referred to twice. The question is not why "the Son" instead of "Jesus Christ" is used. The question is why we baptize based on the authority of "the Father, the Son and the Father."

This is significant. It just doesn't fly. So unless you can explain this formula, your argument falls apart. Your argument is based on speculation, so we need more to substantiate the reason for this speculation.

BD

Naphal
Mar 29th 2007, 06:35 PM
But that still isn't addressing why the Father is referred to twice. The question is not why "the Son" instead of "Jesus Christ" is used. The question is why we baptize based on the authority of "the Father, the Son and the Father."

This is significant. It just doesn't fly. So unless you can explain this formula, your argument falls apart. Your argument is based on speculation, so we need more to substantiate the reason for this speculation.

BD

There is a difference between the father and the Spirit of the father. That's why *sometimes* the Holy Spirit is specifically mentioned along with the Father. Christ states the Holy Spirit is the father's spirit so no amount of other scriptures can be used to counter that. I agree that the HS is also later compared or related to Christ's spirit as I have previously stated.

It is said
"Father, Son and Holy Spirit" to assure us that God is three, Triune and yet one. Father, Son and Father would not make sense but Holy Spirit or His Spirit, or the Spirit of Him that raised Jesus, or just plain Spirit is sufficient.

For your belief to stand, not to fall apart and to not be pure speculation you would have to do much better to show the HS is it's/his own person outside of the Father and I believe you would have to prove the HS's name since you believe "he" is a person who is not the Father or the Son but a third, different and distinct person and thusfar you have not done that.

I have pointed out the contradiction of arguing the HS is a third person different and distinct from the other two while also arguing that the HS is the spirit of both of the first two. You will have to solve that and prove who the HS is and what "his" name is if you want to support your belief. Thank you.

BadDog
Mar 29th 2007, 10:08 PM
There is a difference between the father and the Spirit of the father. That's why *sometimes* the Holy Spirit is specifically mentioned along with the Father. Christ states the Holy Spirit is the father's spirit so no amount of other scriptures can be used to counter that. I agree that the HS is also later compared or related to Christ's spirit as I have previously stated.
Naphal,

That's what you need to explain... what is this "difference." You've been really vague.


It is said
"Father, Son and Holy Spirit" to assure us that God is three, Triune and yet one. Father, Son and Father would not make sense but Holy Spirit or His Spirit, or the Spirit of Him that raised Jesus, or just plain Spirit is sufficient.
Please explain how God can be triune and how the spirit of God is different from God.


I have pointed out the contradiction of arguing the HS is a third person different and distinct from the other two while also arguing that the HS is the spirit of both of the first two. You will have to solve that and prove who the HS is and what "his" name is if you want to support your belief. Thank you.
Still sure sounds like a distinct Person to me. It kinda comes down to our definition of "person." In trinitarian theology the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in essence. That would certainly encompass their spirits. In your theology, it appears that they are not "one" in essence but instead that there are two or three distinct "Gods." But that violates the teaching in OT and NT that God is one. In your theology you believe in tritheism - three Gods... or perhaps it's two Gods. Regardless, don't you see the problem?

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!

Ephesians 4:4-6 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

The words tri-unity or trinity are used to refer to the fact that the Bible speaks of one God, but attributes the characteristics of God to three distinct Persons: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The doctrine of the trinity states that there is one God who is one in essence or substance, but three in personality. This does not mean three independent Gods existing as one - that's tri-theism, but three Persons who are co-equal, co-eternal, inseparable, interdependent, and eternally united in one absolute Divine Essence and Being.

In Genesis 1 it specifically says that God created heaven and earth, but that it was the Holy Spirit who moved over the earth to infuse it with life in the sense of protecting and participating in the work of creation and in the separating that went on in days two and three.

The Spirit is distinguished from the Lord in a few passages in the OT:

Isaiah 48:16-18 "Come near me and listen to this: "From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens, I am there." And now the Sovereign Lord has sent me, with his Spirit. This is what the Lord says--your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: "I am the Lord your God, who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go. If only you had paid attention to my commands, your peace would have been like a river, your righteousness like the waves of the sea.

Isaiah 59:20, 21 "The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins," declares the Lord. "As for me, this is my covenant with them," says the Lord. "My Spirit, who is on you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and forever," says the Lord.

Isaiah 63:8-14 He said, "Surely they are my people, sons who will not be false to me"; and so he became their Savior. In all their distress he too was distressed, and the angel of his presence saved them. In his love and mercy he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old. Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he turned and became their enemy and he himself fought against them. Then his people recalled the days of old, the days of Moses and his people-- where is he who brought them through the sea, with the shepherd of his flock? Where is he who set his Holy Spirit among them, who sent his glorious arm of power to be at Moses' right hand, who divided the waters before them, to gain for himself everlasting renown, who led them through the depths? Like a horse in open country, they did not stumble; like cattle that go down to the plain, they were given rest by the Spirit of the Lord. This is how you guided your people to make for yourself a glorious name.

You are seeing "His" Spirit and assuming possessiveness which was not intended and more than that which is seen in Jesus is "His" Son. You will have tri-theism if you do not accept the Holy Spirit as a distinct person of the trinity. You can't have it both ways.

The Holy Spirit is recognized as God. Earlier I listed Acts 5:1-4, where we saw that in lying to the Holy Spirit, Ananias was lying to God. The Spirit also has the attributes which only God, as a Person, can possess - like omniscience (1 Cor. 2:10) and omnipresence (1 Cor. 6:19). To say that the Spirit of the Father must have His attributes just doesn't make any sense. Either He is a distinct pertson, or He is not. You cannot act like He is one moment and then like He is not the next. And it is the Holy Spirit who regenerates people to new life (see John 3:5ff and Titus 3:5), which has to be a work of God for only God has the power of life (John 1:4 - "In him was life, and that life was the light of men.")

Finally, His deity is clear by the divine names used for the Spirit as "the Spirit of our God," (1 Cor. 6:11), which should be understood as "the Spirit, who is our God," BTW. Grammatically, that IS what it means.

1 Corinthians 6:11 KAI EN TW PNEUMATI TOU QEOU hMWN.

This is very common, and is referred to as the genitive of simple apposition. The NASB has...

NASB Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

As you mentioned in an earlier post, it is a substantive (the head noun) - and since it's in the same case (genitive) as the modifiyng noun, the yare referring to the same entity. (Wallace, p. 95) He compares the genitive of apposition to this - the genitive of simple apposition.

For example, when we refer to the "temple of His body," it would be better translated as "the temple, which is His body." In this case "the Spirit of our God" would be better translated as "the Spirit, Who is our God." Most Bibles translate it simply - allowing the reader to draw his own conclusions about what is happening grammatically. I like such as approach. But in this instance, you are not translating "TW PNEUMATI TOU QEOU hMWN" as intended, IMO.

1 Corinthians 6:9-12 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

"Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything.

This is talking about believers who are living as if they were not washed in Christ's blood and sanctified by the Spirit. Translating EN as "by" (means) makes sense here. I like what the NIV did. If I translated it more naturally, it becomes much more clear:

But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord, that is Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit, Who is our God.

There is no possessiveness there.

CYL,

BD

Naphal
Mar 30th 2007, 02:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1210358#post1210358)
There is a difference between the father and the Spirit of the father. That's why *sometimes* the Holy Spirit is specifically mentioned along with the Father. Christ states the Holy Spirit is the father's spirit so no amount of other scriptures can be used to counter that. I agree that the HS is also later compared or related to Christ's spirit as I have previously stated.

Naphal,

That's what you need to explain... what is this "difference." You've been really vague.


The same difference between you and your spirit. I don't find that to be vague.



Please explain how God can be triune and how the spirit of God is different from God.

Triune means three in one, that's what God is. Do you not believe in a Triune God?


The Spirit of God is obviously God's spirit rather than God physically.



Still sure sounds like a distinct Person to me.

You are certainly not alone in that belief. As I have said, I believe the HS to be the spirit of a distinct person.






It kinda comes down to our definition of "person." In trinitarian theology the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in essence. That would certainly encompass their spirits.

Sure but the way you word this sounds like you believe the HS has a spirit also which isn't the case. The HS is a spirit, not has a spirit.







In your theology, it appears that they are not "one" in essence but instead that there are two or three distinct "Gods."


That's a common claim against the Trinity and those that believe in it but to be brief, God is one composed of three, Triune. This doesn't equal more than one God.





But that violates the teaching in OT and NT that God is one. In your theology you believe in tritheism - three Gods... or perhaps it's two Gods. Regardless, don't you see the problem?

The problem is you are wrongly defining the beliefs of Trinitarians.




Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!

Ephesians 4:4-6 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

The words tri-unity or trinity are used to refer to the fact that the Bible speaks of one God, but attributes the characteristics of God to three distinct Persons: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

That is one way to explain it but as I have said, the bible says two persons and one Spirit, not three persons. Since the Spirit is of the father and Son then we cannot also claim it is a third separate and different person.





The doctrine of the trinity states that there is one God who is one in essence or substance, but three in personality.

Again, that is one definition but not one I believe in. Three having the same personality is way too close to Modalism for me and trust me I know a lot about that because a church I used to be a part of believed in that and I naturally disagreed on that stance. They used very similar language. I don't recall which you believe in so pardon that but for me anything close to Modalism, One God in three modes or personalities is not something I believe in.




This does not mean three independent Gods existing as one - that's tri-theism, but three Persons who are co-equal, co-eternal, inseparable, interdependent, and eternally united in one absolute Divine Essence and Being.

I don't believe in the Godhead being co-equal because it is written that the Father is the head of (higher authority than) the Son as well as the some will be in submission to the Father. If you don't know the verses I refer to I will happily supply them. God also is not one being. That is Modalism which teaches the Son and the Father are actually one being or person.





The Spirit is distinguished from the Lord in a few passages in the OT:

Isaiah 48:16-18 "Come near me and listen to this: "From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens, I am there." And now the Sovereign Lord has sent me, with his Spirit. This is what the Lord says--your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: "I am the Lord your God, who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go. If only you had paid attention to my commands, your peace would have been like a river, your righteousness like the waves of the sea.

It clearly says "the Lord" and then calls the Spirit "his spirit" which is in harmony with the NT where one verse says the Holy Spirit is "the spirit of him that raised Jesus". The Him in both refers to the Father. The same goes for the other verses you quote.



You are seeing "His" Spirit and assuming possessiveness not intended and more than that in Jesus is "His" Son. You will have tri-theism if you do not accept the Holy Spirit as a distinct person of the trinity. You can't have it both ways.

No, believing the Holy Spirit is a distinct and separate person other than either the Father or Son, ie a person rather than their spirit would be closer to tri-theism IMO because it denies the fact that the HS is the spirit of someone else not a person in it's own right.




The Holy Spirit is recognized as God.

Indeed. It is God in spirit form, specifically it is written to be the spirit of God.






Earlier I listed Acts 5:1-4, where we saw that in lying to the Holy Spirit, Ananias was lying to God.

See above.






The Spirit also also has the attributes which only God, as a Person, can possess like omniscience (1 Cor. 2:10) and omnipresence (1 Cor. 6:19). To say that the Spirit of the Father must have His attributes just doesn't make any sense.


lol. If the Spirit of the Father does not have the fathers attributes, or the Sons attributes, exactly who else is left for the spirit to have attributes from? You are inventing a third person different from the Father and son and that simply isn't supported in the bible. There is only those two persons and their spirit, period.






Either He is a distinct pertson, or He is not.



Not. It is the father, or in other times the son and possibly even them both.




You cannot act like He is one moment and then like He is not the next. And it is the Holy Spirit who regenerates people to new life (see John 3:5ff and Titus 3:5), which has to be a work of God for only God has the power of life.


The HS is God. But the problem is you are saying the HS is neither the father or the son but someone else but IMO that's impossible due to all the verses saying who the HS belongs to!

I did not comment on any of the rest which was designed to prove the HS is God because it isn't in contention.

BadDog
Mar 30th 2007, 12:37 PM
Any comments on 1 Corinthians 6:10, 11?

BD

BadDog
Mar 30th 2007, 02:08 PM
The same difference between you and your spirit. I don't find that to be vague.
But I am not maintaining that my spirit has any sovereignty. I am not talking about my spirit as you would another person.



Triune means three in one, that's what God is. Do you not believe in a Triune God?
BD: Yes, I do. You... I'm not sure about that. :D

The Spirit of God is obviously God's spirit rather than God physically.
"Physically." ??? So you are separating God into a physical and a spirit "person." ?? The Jews did not think like that, but holistically. How about a "soul"? Does God (the Father) have a soul? How about the Holy Spirit? Does "it" have a "soul"?


Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!

Ephesians 4:4-6 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

The words tri-unity or trinity are used to refer to the fact that the Bible speaks of one God, but attributes the characteristics of God to three distinct Persons: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The doctrine of the trinity states that there is one God who is one in essence or substance, but three in personality.

That is one way to explain it but as I have said, the bible says two persons and one Spirit, not three persons. Since the Spirit is of the father and Son then we cannot also claim it is a third separate and different person.

You are certainly not alone in that belief. As I have said, I believe the HS to be the spirit of a distinct person.
Naphal,

And what you are saying is "Two Gods and one Spirit." You believe that God is not "one."


It kinda comes down to our definition of "person." In trinitarian theology the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in essence. That would certainly encompass their spirits.

Sure but the way you word this sounds like you believe the HS has a spirit also which isn't the case. The HS is a spirit, not has a spirit.
No, I agree that the Holy Spirit always is seen as a "spirit." It means "breath" or "wind" in both Hebrew and Greek. It's a pretty vague, flexible term. It seems that in every instance in which God "appears" in the Bible He does so by sending His Son or His Spirit.


In your theology, it appears that they are not "one" in essence but instead that there are two or three distinct "Gods."

That's a common claim against the Trinity and those that believe in it but to be brief, God is one composed of three, Triune. This doesn't equal more than one God.
Naphal,

No, I am making this claim against your theology, not as traditionally defined by Christianity. But as you've defined it, I'm confused. You need to be more specific in what you are saying about the Spirit.


But that violates the teaching in OT and NT that God is one. In your theology you believe in tritheism - three Gods... or perhaps it's two Gods. Regardless, don't you see the problem?

The problem is you are wrongly defining the beliefs of Trinitarians.
Naphal,

??? Where? What have I said that does not agree with trinitarian theology? Please be specific, quoting what I have said, and then show where it does not agree with the council of Trent, for example. The issue is that as you see it all Christianity is teaching about the Godhead something about which you do not agree.


Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!

Ephesians 4:4-6 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

The words tri-unity or trinity are used to refer to the fact that the Bible speaks of one God, but attributes the characteristics of God to three distinct Persons: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

That is one way to explain it but as I have said, the bible says two persons and one Spirit, not three persons. Since the Spirit is of the father and Son then we cannot also claim it is a third separate and different person.


The doctrine of the trinity states that there is one God who is one in essence or substance, but three in personality.

Again, that is one definition but not one I believe in. Three having the same personality is way too close to Modalism for me and trust me I know a lot about that because a church I used to be a part of believed in that and I naturally disagreed on that stance. They used very similar language. I don't recall which you believe in so pardon that but for me anything close to Modalism, One God in three modes or personalities is not something I believe in.
How is it even close to modalism - the idea that there is but one God who appears in more than one form? Let's face it: your concept of the Godhead IS modalism as regards the Spirit, and is multi-theism as regards the Godhead in general. You say that the 3rd person of the trinity is not a distinct person but that he is merely the spirit of the Father. Now if that is not closer to modalism, then you do not understand modalism. You are reducing the trinity to two persons and an appearance of one (or both) in the form of the spirit of one (or both).

And you accuse me of getting too close to modalism?! Ridiculous!


I don't believe in the Godhead being co-equal because it is written that the Father is the head of (higher authority than) the Son as well as the some will be in submission to the Father. If you don't know the verses I refer to I will happily supply them. God also is not one being. That is Modalism which teaches the Son and the Father are actually one being or person.
"One person." That is the key. And traditional trinitarianism does not teach that the Godhead is "co-equal," as you have defined it, either. They are co-equal in terms of all being fully God, all being fully eternal, sovereign, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc. But that does not assume that they do not have different roles and responsibilities. The Son submits Himself to the Father just as the purpose of the Spirit's indwelling believers is to bring to remembrance all that the Son had taught, and to lift up and reveal/explain the Son. Please do not talk down to me. I have been very careful not to do so to you. I have been patient and respectful. I am simply trying to pick through what you are teaching so that the inconsistiencies, as I see them, are clear to all.

OK, everyone please note what Naphal said above, which I emboldened and underlined. "God is also not one being." IOW, Naphal has made it clear that he does not believe in monotheism - that there is only one God. He sees the members of the Godhead, about which it is still vague to most of us, as being completely distinct. Two (or three) Gods.

In the early days of the church, they had to deal with such false doctrine. We need to see the members of the Godhead as distinct, yet that there is but one God. "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one." (Deuteronomy 6:4)

Naphal, you have just said that "the Lord our God, the Lord is two" (or is it "three?"... I'm still not clear on that.)

Naphal, I am not trying to give you a hard time. I am merely trying to show thelogical direction your theology takes you. When someone first hears about the trinity and studies it, say at a seminary. It may seem like so much double-talk. But as we study the history of how the Church came up with this complex formula. It was simply a matter of trying to take what God's Word says and then try to get it to fit together in a way that is consistent.

People came up with ideas of modalism and tri-theism, such as you have espoused, when they emphasize one portion of God's Word in exclusion to another. Now I have to say that your particular view of the Godhead is one that is quite unique - historically speaking. But you do display the same sort of struggles that we all go through as we attempt to understand the uniqueness of just who God IS.


The Spirit is distinguished from the Lord in a few passages in the OT:

Isaiah 48:16-18 "Come near me and listen to this: "From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens, I am there." And now the Sovereign Lord has sent me, with his Spirit. This is what the Lord says--your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: "I am the Lord your God, who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go. If only you had paid attention to my commands, your peace would have been like a river, your righteousness like the waves of the sea.

It clearly says "the Lord" and then calls the Spirit "his spirit" which is in harmony with the NT where one verse says the Holy Spirit is "the spirit of him that raised Jesus". The Him in both refers to the Father. The same goes for the other verses you quote.
"His" in the sense that He proceeds from the Father - the "sovereign Lord." But the Son was also sent by the Father here, right? You are assuming that this is the spirit of the Father.


You are seeing "His" Spirit and assuming possessiveness not intended and more than that in Jesus is "His" Son. You will have tri-theism if you do not accept the Holy Spirit as a distinct person of the trinity. You can't have it both ways.

No, believing the Holy Spirit is a distinct and separate person other than either the Father or Son, ie a person rather than their spirit would be closer to tri-theism IMO because it denies the fact that the HS is the spirit of someone else not a person in it's own right.

I understand where you are going here. But we have already established that you do not see the Godhead as "one God" above. So I'll just leave it at that.



The Holy Spirit is recognized as God...

Indeed. It is God in spirit form, specifically it is written to be the spirit of God.
Uh, we're still going around in those circles. :P Which is understandable. I tin ka key to all this is that we need an explanation to the question I have continued to ask about how you make sense of the trinitarian formula for baptism. You have to say more there than you have thus far.



Earlier I listed Acts 5:1-4, where we saw that in lying to the Holy Spirit, Ananias was lying to God.

See above.
??? Specifically not reallyanswered, thoughI recognize that to you to lie to the spirit of a person is to lie to that person. But in this instance we see Peter referring to someone lying to the spirit of God. He does nto seem to be referring to something, but someone.


The Spirit also has the attributes which only God, as a Person, can possess like omniscience (1 Cor. 2:10) and omnipresence (1 Cor. 6:19). To say that the Spirit of the Father must have His attributes just doesn't make any sense.

lol. If the Spirit of the Father does not have the fathers attributes, or the Sons attributes, exactly who else is left for the spirit to have attributes from? You are inventing a third person different from the Father and son and that simply isn't supported in the bible. There is only those two persons and their spirit, period.

You are missing the point. A spirit of someone does not have "attributes." Only persons have such. The way you are defining this "spirit" "it" is essentially a person in its own right. The only difference is that I assume that you are not giving it any sovereignty.


You cannot act like He is one moment and then like He is not the next. And it is the Holy Spirit who regenerates people to new life (see John 3:5ff and Titus 3:5), which has to be a work of God for only God has the power of life.

The HS is God. But the problem is you are saying the HS is neither the father or the son but someone else but IMO that's impossible due to all the verses saying who the HS belongs to!
OK, everyone, did you catch this? Naphal sees the Holy Spirit as God. But this "God" belongs to someone else. ??? God belongs to no one!! That is not possible. God IS fully sovereign. Hence it is not possible to say that the Holy Spirit is God. You're trying to piece together a trinity, of sorts. What you have just said above is a contradiction by definition.

I did not comment on any of the rest which was designed to prove the HS is God because it isn't in contention.
Naphal,

Actually, it is in contention. It is not possible for you to hold to the deity of the Holy Spirit if you do not believe that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person. You simply cannot have your cake and eat it too.

So you have two things to deal with here:
1 - You hold to a two-God system (or perhaps three - I'm not clear on that)
2 - You hold to the Holy Spirit being God when He is not a person.

Take care,

BD

BadDog
Mar 30th 2007, 02:23 PM
I am re-posting this portion of my previous post so that everyone can clearly see a distinctive of Naphal's theology which is a big problem, theologically:


I don't believe in the Godhead being co-equal because it is written that the Father is the head of (higher authority than) the Son as well as the some will be in submission to the Father. If you don't know the verses I refer to I will happily supply them. God also is not one being. That is Modalism which teaches the Son and the Father are actually one being or person.


"One person." That is the key. And traditional trinitarianism does not teach that the Godhead is "co-equal," as you have defined it, either. They are co-equal in terms of all being fully God, all being fully eternal, sovereign, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc. But that does not assume that they do not have different roles and responsibilities. The Son submits Himself to the Father just as the purpose of the Spirit's indwelling believers is to bring to remembrance all that the Son had taught, and to lift up and reveal/explain the Son. ...

OK, everyone please note what Naphal said above, which I emboldened and underlined. "God is also not one being." Any red flags coming up for any of you?

Naphal has made it clear that he does not believe in monotheism - that there is only one God. He sees the members of the Godhead as being completely distinct. Two (or three) Gods. He would not agree (he would not express it that way) that this is what he is teaching. How can we conclude otherwise? "God is also not one being." Then... He is two beings (or three). That is not biblical:

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one."

In the early days of the church, they had to deal with such false doctrine. We need to see the members (persons) of the Godhead as distinct, yet that there is but one God. It is a fine line to walk here.

Naphal, you have just said that "the Lord our God, the Lord is two" (or is it "three?"... I'm still not clear on that.)


Naphal also said, "I don't believe in the Godhead being co-equal."

IOW, Naphal believes that the Son is God, but He is less than the Father. Either you are God or you are not. You cannot be "a God." God is fully sovereign. So, in Naphal's theology the Son is not sovereign (by definition) - that is reserved for the Father alone. He is also not "omnipotent" (all-powerful).

These are two issues which naturally arise from Naphal's particular theology. First, he believes in multiple Gods. And I am not posting this to put down Naphal's theology, for I sense that he is very sincere in his search for the truth, and I respect him in that. ... But I am concerned about others viewing this thread getting their personal understanding about God all confused. Secondly, Nathan does not believe that Jesus is sovereign... is all-powerful.

God is God alone. If your God lacks a single biblical attribute, then He is not the God of the Bible.

Comments?

BD

Naphal
Mar 30th 2007, 07:27 PM
Any comments on 1 Corinthians 6:10, 11?

BD



1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1 Corinthians 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

This simply proves that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God rather than someone itself.

Naphal
Mar 30th 2007, 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1210969#post1210969)
The same difference between you and your spirit. I don't find that to be vague.

But I am not maintaining that my spirit has any sovereignty. I am not talking about my spirit as you would another person.

But you are talking about God's spirit as if it is another person! :)







Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1210969#post1210969)
Triune means three in one, that's what God is. Do you not believe in a Triune God?
BD: Yes, I do. You... I'm not sure about that. :D

The Spirit of God is obviously God's spirit rather than God physically.

"Physically." ??? So you are separating God into a physical and a spirit "person." ??



No, that's what you are doing. The Father is a real being/person and he has a Spirit which is his spirit not a separate person.



The Jews did not think like that, but holistically. How about a "soul"? Does God (the Father) have a soul? How about the Holy Spirit? Does "it" have a "soul"?

The soul and the spirit are together. The Father has a Spirit but the Spirit does not.

Does this supposed third person you believe in have a spirit? Have a name?





Quote:
Originally Posted by BadDog
Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!

Ephesians 4:4-6 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

The words tri-unity or trinity are used to refer to the fact that the Bible speaks of one God, but attributes the characteristics of God to three distinct Persons: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The doctrine of the trinity states that there is one God who is one in essence or substance, but three in personality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal
That is one way to explain it but as I have said, the bible says two persons and one Spirit, not three persons. Since the Spirit is of the father and Son then we cannot also claim it is a third separate and different person.

You are certainly not alone in that belief. As I have said, I believe the HS to be the spirit of a distinct person.

Naphal,

And what you are saying is "Two Gods and one Spirit." You believe that God is not "one."



No, one God made up of two persons and their Spirit, a Trinity.






Quote:
Originally Posted by BadDog
It kinda comes down to our definition of "person." In trinitarian theology the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in essence. That would certainly encompass their spirits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1210969#post1210969)
Sure but the way you word this sounds like you believe the HS has a spirit also which isn't the case. The HS is a spirit, not has a spirit.

No, I agree that the Holy Spirit always is seen as a "spirit." It means "breath" or "wind" in both Hebrew and Greek. It's a pretty vague, flexible term. It seems that in every instance in which God "appears" in the Bible He does so by sending His Son or His Spirit.



Here you say His Spirit but you argue with me that this isn't His Spirit but some other person. Which is it? The HS is either his Spirit or a person he knows.







Quote:
Originally Posted by BadDog
In your theology, it appears that they are not "one" in essence but instead that there are two or three distinct "Gods."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1210969#post1210969)
That's a common claim against the Trinity and those that believe in it but to be brief, God is one composed of three, Triune. This doesn't equal more than one God.

Naphal,

No, I am making this claim against your theology, not as traditionally defined by Christianity. But as you've defined it, I'm confused. You need to be more specific in what you are saying about the Spirit.



I have been more specific than you have been IMO. I have said the HS is a Spirit, not a person. It is the spirit of the father and then we are also told it is the Spirit of Christ. Either way, it isn't a person separate and of and in it's own right outside of the two persons of the Trinity.

You however argue that it's a person but then also say it's "God's Spirit" or the Spirit of the father and Christ. Those two positions counter each other. I am siding with one of them but you hold both. That's where your confusion stems from IMO.








Quote:
Originally Posted by BadDog
But that violates the teaching in OT and NT that God is one. In your theology you believe in tritheism - three Gods... or perhaps it's two Gods. Regardless, don't you see the problem?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1210969#post1210969)
The problem is you are wrongly defining the beliefs of Trinitarians.

Naphal,

??? Where? What have I said that does not agree with trinitarian theology? Please be specific, quoting what I have said, and then show where it does not agree with the council of Trent, for example. The issue is that as you see it all Christianity is teaching about the Godhead something about which you do not agree.



"In your theology you believe in tritheism - three Gods... or perhaps it's two Gods."

The Trinity doctrine does not teach three Gods even though we believe that the one God is composed of three, Father son and Holy Spirit. I only disagree with some of the Trinity definitions pertaining to the Holy Spirit being a person but I agree completely with the concept of three in one, Trinity.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal
Again, that is one definition but not one I believe in. Three having the same personality is way too close to Modalism for me and trust me I know a lot about that because a church I used to be a part of believed in that and I naturally disagreed on that stance. They used very similar language. I don't recall which you believe in so pardon that but for me anything close to Modalism, One God in three modes or personalities is not something I believe in.

How is it even close to modalism - the idea that there is but one God who appears in more than one form?

Because they also believe it is one person or personality appearing in three forms or modes.




Let's face it: your concept of the Godhead IS modalism as regards the Spirit, and is multi-theism as regards the Godhead in general.



No offense but I think your beliefs actually are closest to Modalism and tir-theism.



You say that the 3rd person of the trinity is not a distinct person but that he is merely the spirit of the Father. Now if that is not closer to modalism, then you do not understand modalism. You are reducing the trinity to two persons and an appearance of one (or both) in the form of the spirit of one (or both).

That is not Modalism as I am very familiar with their beliefs. The bible only describes the Godhead as Two persons (father and son) and one Spirit (of or related to both) so any other definition comes outside of scripture. You say Father, Son and Person and the Bible says Father Son and Spirit.




"One person." That is the key. And traditional trinitarianism does not teach that the Godhead is "co-equal," as you have defined it, either. They are co-equal in terms of all being fully God, all being fully eternal, sovereign, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc. But that does not assume that they do not have different roles and responsibilities. The Son submits Himself to the Father just as the purpose of the Spirit's indwelling believers is to bring to remembrance all that the Son had taught, and to lift up and reveal/explain the Son. Please do not talk down to me. I have been very careful not to do so to you. I have been patient and respectful. I am simply trying to pick through what you are teaching so that the inconsistiencies, as I see them, are clear to all.

I am not trying to talk down to you anymore than I have perceived you have towards me. I suppose it it's impossible for either of us to hear the disagreements of the other and not perceive a "tone".

some definitions of the trinity does include complete equality of the Godhead which isn't the case. I am glad we agree on that as well as agree that each of the Trinity is fully and equally God.






OK, everyone please note what Naphal said above, which I emboldened and underlined. "God is also not one being." IOW, Naphal has made it clear that he does not believe in monotheism - that there is only one God. He sees the members of the Godhead, about which it is still vague to most of us, as being completely distinct. Two (or three) Gods.

Modalism teaches God is one being acting in different modes. Trinatarianism teaches there is more than one being in the Godhead.



Naphal, you have just said that "the Lord our God, the Lord is two" (or is it "three?"... I'm still not clear on that.)

Two persons and one Spirit, three. I have said that repeatedly. I can also prove it:


Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit:

Please quote a single verse that calls the Spirit a person rather than a spirit as above and I will admit defeat and error.





Naphal, I am not trying to give you a hard time. I am merely trying to show thelogical direction your theology takes you.

I feel the same and I am trying to show you the same.



Originally Posted by Naphal
It clearly says "the Lord" and then calls the Spirit "his spirit" which is in harmony with the NT where one verse says the Holy Spirit is "the spirit of him that raised Jesus". The Him in both refers to the Father. The same goes for the other verses you quote.

"His" in the sense that He proceeds from the Father - the "sovereign Lord." But the Son was also sent by the Father here, right? You are assuming that this is the spirit of the Father.


It's not just that the spirit came from the father but it is possessive that it is His own Spirit which is why Christ himself says the same thing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1210969#post1210969)
The same difference between you and your spirit. I don't find that to be vague.

But I am not maintaining that my spirit has any sovereignty. I am not talking about my spirit as you would another person.

But you are talking about God's spirit as if it is another person! :)







Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1210969#post1210969)
Triune means three in one, that's what God is. Do you not believe in a Triune God?
BD: Yes, I do. You... I'm not sure about that. :D

The Spirit of God is obviously God's spirit rather than God physically.

"Physically." ??? So you are separating God into a physical and a spirit "person." ??



No, that's what you are doing. The Father is a real being/person and he has a Spirit which is his spirit not a separate person.



The Jews did not think like that, but holistically. How about a "soul"? Does God (the Father) have a soul? How about the Holy Spirit? Does "it" have a "soul"?

The soul and the spirit are together. The Father has a Spirit but the Spirit does not.

Does this supposed third person you believe in have a spirit? Have a name?





Quote:
Originally Posted by BadDog
Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!

Ephesians 4:4-6 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

The words tri-unity or trinity are used to refer to the fact that the Bible speaks of one God, but attributes the characteristics of God to three distinct Persons: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The doctrine of the trinity states that there is one God who is one in essence or substance, but three in personality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal
That is one way to explain it but as I have said, the bible says two persons and one Spirit, not three persons. Since the Spirit is of the father and Son then we cannot also claim it is a third separate and different person.

You are certainly not alone in that belief. As I have said, I believe the HS to be the spirit of a distinct person.

Naphal,

And what you are saying is "Two Gods and one Spirit." You believe that God is not "one."



No, one God made up of two persons and their Spirit, a Trinity.






Quote:
Originally Posted by BadDog
It kinda comes down to our definition of "person." In trinitarian theology the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in essence. That would certainly encompass their spirits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1210969#post1210969)
Sure but the way you word this sounds like you believe the HS has a spirit also which isn't the case. The HS is a spirit, not has a spirit.

No, I agree that the Holy Spirit always is seen as a "spirit." It means "breath" or "wind" in both Hebrew and Greek. It's a pretty vague, flexible term. It seems that in every instance in which God "appears" in the Bible He does so by sending His Son or His Spirit.



Here you say His Spirit but you argue with me that this isn't His Spirit but some other person. Which is it? The HS is either his Spirit or a person he knows.







Quote:
Originally Posted by BadDog
In your theology, it appears that they are not "one" in essence but instead that there are two or three distinct "Gods."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1210969#post1210969)
That's a common claim against the Trinity and those that believe in it but to be brief, God is one composed of three, Triune. This doesn't equal more than one God.

Naphal,

No, I am making this claim against your theology, not as traditionally defined by Christianity. But as you've defined it, I'm confused. You need to be more specific in what you are saying about the Spirit.



I have been more specific than you have been IMO. I have said the HS is a Spirit, not a person. It is the spirit of the father and then we are also told it is the Spirit of Christ. Either way, it isn't a person separate and of and in it's own right outside of the two persons of the Trinity.

You however argue that it's a person but then also say it's "God's Spirit" or the Spirit of the father and Christ. Those two positions counter each other. I am siding with one of them but you hold both. That's where your confusion stems from IMO.

Naphal
Mar 30th 2007, 09:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadDog
But that violates the teaching in OT and NT that God is one. In your theology you believe in tritheism - three Gods... or perhaps it's two Gods. Regardless, don't you see the problem?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1210969#post1210969)
The problem is you are wrongly defining the beliefs of Trinitarians.

Naphal,

??? Where? What have I said that does not agree with trinitarian theology? Please be specific, quoting what I have said, and then show where it does not agree with the council of Trent, for example. The issue is that as you see it all Christianity is teaching about the Godhead something about which you do not agree.



"In your theology you believe in tritheism - three Gods... or perhaps it's two Gods."

The Trinity doctrine does not teach three Gods even though we believe that the one God is composed of three, Father son and Holy Spirit. I only disagree with some of the Trinity definitions pertaining to the Holy Spirit being a person but I agree completely with the concept of three in one, Trinity.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal
Again, that is one definition but not one I believe in. Three having the same personality is way too close to Modalism for me and trust me I know a lot about that because a church I used to be a part of believed in that and I naturally disagreed on that stance. They used very similar language. I don't recall which you believe in so pardon that but for me anything close to Modalism, One God in three modes or personalities is not something I believe in.

How is it even close to modalism - the idea that there is but one God who appears in more than one form?

Because they also believe it is one person or personality appearing in three forms or modes.




Let's face it: your concept of the Godhead IS modalism as regards the Spirit, and is multi-theism as regards the Godhead in general.



No offense but I think your beliefs actually are closest to Modalism and tir-theism.



You say that the 3rd person of the trinity is not a distinct person but that he is merely the spirit of the Father. Now if that is not closer to modalism, then you do not understand modalism. You are reducing the trinity to two persons and an appearance of one (or both) in the form of the spirit of one (or both).

That is not Modalism as I am very familiar with their beliefs. The bible only describes the Godhead as Two persons (father and son) and one Spirit (of or related to both) so any other definition comes outside of scripture. You say Father, Son and Person and the Bible says Father Son and Spirit.




"One person." That is the key. And traditional trinitarianism does not teach that the Godhead is "co-equal," as you have defined it, either. They are co-equal in terms of all being fully God, all being fully eternal, sovereign, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc. But that does not assume that they do not have different roles and responsibilities. The Son submits Himself to the Father just as the purpose of the Spirit's indwelling believers is to bring to remembrance all that the Son had taught, and to lift up and reveal/explain the Son. Please do not talk down to me. I have been very careful not to do so to you. I have been patient and respectful. I am simply trying to pick through what you are teaching so that the inconsistiencies, as I see them, are clear to all.

I am not trying to talk down to you anymore than I have perceived you have towards me. I suppose it it's impossible for either of us to hear the disagreements of the other and not perceive a "tone".

some definitions of the trinity does include complete equality of the Godhead which isn't the case. I am glad we agree on that as well as agree that each of the Trinity is fully and equally God.






OK, everyone please note what Naphal said above, which I emboldened and underlined. "God is also not one being." IOW, Naphal has made it clear that he does not believe in monotheism - that there is only one God. He sees the members of the Godhead, about which it is still vague to most of us, as being completely distinct. Two (or three) Gods.

Modalism teaches God is one being acting in different modes. Trinatarianism teaches there is more than one being in the Godhead.



Naphal, you have just said that "the Lord our God, the Lord is two" (or is it "three?"... I'm still not clear on that.)

Two persons and one Spirit, three. I have said that repeatedly. I can also prove it:


Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit:

Please quote a single verse that calls the Spirit a person rather than a spirit as above and I will admit defeat and error.





Naphal, I am not trying to give you a hard time. I am merely trying to show thelogical direction your theology takes you.

I feel the same and I am trying to show you the same.



Originally Posted by Naphal
It clearly says "the Lord" and then calls the Spirit "his spirit" which is in harmony with the NT where one verse says the Holy Spirit is "the spirit of him that raised Jesus". The Him in both refers to the Father. The same goes for the other verses you quote.

"His" in the sense that He proceeds from the Father - the "sovereign Lord." But the Son was also sent by the Father here, right? You are assuming that this is the spirit of the Father.


It's not just that the spirit came from the father but it is possessive that it is His own Spirit.

Originally Posted by Naphal
No, believing the Holy Spirit is a distinct and separate person other than either the Father or Son, ie a person rather than their spirit would be closer to tri-theism IMO because it denies the fact that the HS is the spirit of someone else not a person in it's own right.

I understand where you are going here. But we have already established that you do not see the Godhead as "one God" above. So I'll just leave it at that.


We have only established that you have made that accusation but it is not a true one. God is one God, period.


Uh, we're still going around in those circles. :P Which is understandable. I tin ka key to all this is that we need an explanation to the question I have continued to ask about how you make sense of the trinitarian formula for baptism. You have to say more there than you have thus far.

I have answered it fully and completely. Baptising in the name of the full Godhead does not make the Holy Spirit a Holy Person.



But in this instance we see Peter referring to someone lying to the spirit of God. He does nto seem to be referring to something, but someone.

And that someone is the person the spirit belongs to.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal
lol. If the Spirit of the Father does not have the fathers attributes, or the Sons attributes, exactly who else is left for the spirit to have attributes from? You are inventing a third person different from the Father and son and that simply isn't supported in the bible. There is only those two persons and their spirit, period.

You are missing the point. A spirit of someone does not have "attributes." Only persons have such. The way you are defining this "spirit" "it" is essentially a person in its own right. The only difference is that I assume that you are not giving it any sovereignty.

Yes, the spirit of someone, in this case God, does have attributes. The spirit is not a person in it's own right but is from and is of a person so the persons attributes apply to their spirit.




Quote:
Originally Posted by BadDog
You cannot act like He is one moment and then like He is not the next. And it is the Holy Spirit who regenerates people to new life (see John 3:5ff and Titus 3:5), which has to be a work of God for only God has the power of life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal
The HS is God. But the problem is you are saying the HS is neither the father or the son but someone else but IMO that's impossible due to all the verses saying who the HS belongs to!

OK, everyone, did you catch this? Naphal sees the Holy Spirit as God. But this "God" belongs to someone else. ??? God belongs to no one!!


Oh? The Son does not belong to the Father? Have you not read the son can do nothing of himself but only that which the Father gave him? That the Son does the will of the Father? Certainly the son belongs to the father and thus the Father's Spirit belongs to the father as well.




That is not possible. God IS fully sovereign. Hence it is not possible to say that the Holy Spirit is God.

The Holy Spirit is God but cannot act upon it's own will in contradiction to the Father. If you think sovereignty means the ability to rebel then you misunderstand how God is sovereign.




I did not comment on any of the rest which was designed to prove the HS is God because it isn't in contention.





Actually, it is in contention. It is not possible for you to hold to the deity of the Holy Spirit if you do not believe that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person.

Deity isn't related to personhood. That's your mistake. The holy Spirit is God but is not a person. The Holy Spirit is a Spirit and unlike you I can prove this. You cannot prove the Holy Spirit is not a spirit.





You simply cannot have your cake and eat it too.

So you have two things to deal with here:
1 - You hold to a two-God system (or perhaps three - I'm not clear on that)


There is one God but God is not one person, nor is God three persons. God states that God is A Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit. Any definition that falls outside of that is incorrect.

1:The Holy Spirit is God and is a spirit/not a person.
2:The Holy Father is a male being/person and is God and is not a spirit.
3:The Holy Son is a male being/person and is God and is also not a spirit.








2 - You hold to the Holy Spirit being God when He is not a person.





Yes because no where in the bible does God say his spirit is a person.

Toolman
Mar 30th 2007, 09:40 PM
There is one God but God is not one person, nor is God three persons. God states that God is A Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit. Any definition that falls outside of that is incorrect.

1:The Holy Spirit is God and is a spirit/not a person.
2:The Holy Father is a male being/person and is God and is not a spirit.
3:The Holy Son is a male being/person and is God and is also not a spirit.


Naphal,

Just to be completely clear here you believe that God the Father has a physical body (just like a human), Christ (BEFORE incarnation) had a physical body (just like a human) and the Holy Spirit is not a "being" because He does not have a physical body like a human.

Is that correct?

Naphal
Mar 30th 2007, 10:45 PM
Naphal,

Just to be completely clear here you believe that God the Father has a physical body


Yes the father has a physical body as shown in many places such as Daniel and Revelation.


Christ (BEFORE incarnation) had a physical body

Yes. He was not some disembodied spirit. He would have had a body similar to a heavenly or Celestial body also similar to the glorified body he has now but without the scars.



and the Holy Spirit is not a "being" because He does not have a physical body like a human.

The Holy Spirit does not have a physical body when it is away from either the Son or the Father.

Naphal
Mar 30th 2007, 10:49 PM
Naphal,

Just to be completely clear here you believe that God the Father has a physical body (just like a human), Christ (BEFORE incarnation) had a physical body (just like a human) and the Holy Spirit is not a "being" because He does not have a physical body like a human.

Is that correct?

And do you believe as BD does that the holy Spirit is not the spirit of the father as in his actual, personal spirit but is a spirit-person sent by the Father with it's/his own different personality?

Toolman
Mar 31st 2007, 02:18 AM
Yes the father has a physical body as shown in many places such as Daniel and Revelation.

God is also described in scripture as having wings, do you believe He has wings?

Almost all theologians and denominations of Christianity agree that these anthropomorphic descriptions of God the Father are descriptions of God with human witnesses trying to express the inexpressible, and limited by the constraints of language.

If Daniel was trying to describe the ‘Ancient of Days’, it makes sense that he ‘saw’ God’s eternal nature in the context of white hair, i.e. extreme old age.


Yes. He was not some disembodied spirit. He would have had a body similar to a heavenly or Celestial body also similar to the glorified body he has now but without the scars.

Scripture please. I counter that God was not flesh and blood, with a physical body, until the incarnation.

Hebrews 10:5-7 - Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:
“ Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
But a body You have prepared for Me.
In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin
You had no pleasure.
Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—
In the volume of the book it is written of Me—
To do Your will, O God.’”


The Holy Spirit does not have a physical body when it is away from either the Son or the Father.

I didn't ask if He had a physical body but asked if the Holy Spirit is not a "being" because He does not have a physical body?

Is that your rational for contending that the Holy Spirit is not a "being", because He does not have a physical body?


And do you believe as BD does that the holy Spirit is not the spirit of the father as in his actual, personal spirit but is a spirit-person sent by the Father with it's/his own different personality?

I believe that the Holy Spirit is a distinct "being" seperate from the Father, in the same manner that the Son is seperate from the Father, yet of one essence with the Father, just as the Son is of one essence with the Father.

Naphal
Mar 31st 2007, 03:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1212345#post1212345)
Yes the father has a physical body as shown in many places such as Daniel and Revelation.

God is also described in scripture as having wings, do you believe He has wings?


God compares himself to a mother bird covering her young with her wings but that is a comparison about how much he cares and protects us not a physical description, but you already know that I am sure.




Almost all theologians and denominations of Christianity agree that these anthropomorphic descriptions of God the Father are descriptions of God with human witnesses trying to express the inexpressible, and limited by the constraints of language.

Then we couldn't trust anyone's description of any person if this was really what was happening. No, the Son is in the image of the Father and the father and Son are both physical beings in nature. This doesn't make them in our image but we are in their image.




If Daniel was trying to describe the ‘Ancient of Days’, it makes sense that he ‘saw’ God’s eternal nature in the context of white hair, i.e. extreme old age.

The Father is not described as "aged" in human terms but definitely a male being with white hair. I accept this description of Him and expect to see Him as such.







Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1212345#post1212345)
Yes. He was not some disembodied spirit. He would have had a body similar to a heavenly or Celestial body also similar to the glorified body he has now but without the scars.

Scripture please. I counter that God was not flesh and blood, with a physical body, until the incarnation.


I have already mentioned the scriptures and you quoted part of them. I never said "flesh and blood" I said "a heavenly or Celestial body also similar to the glorified body he has now but without the scars."

So far you haven't proven that Daniels or Johns or anyone's descriptions of the father are symbolic only. You can believe it but that doesn't equal proving it. I do have these descriptions and use them as my evidence as well as humans being made in His image.





Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1212345#post1212345)
The Holy Spirit does not have a physical body when it is away from either the Son or the Father.

I didn't ask if He had a physical body but asked if the Holy Spirit is not a "being" because He does not have a physical body?

The Holy Spirit is the spirit of God, not a being.


Is that your rational for contending that the Holy Spirit is not a "being", because He does not have a physical body?
One of them. The other is that we are told the HS is the spirit of God.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1212345#post1212345)
And do you believe as BD does that the holy Spirit is not the spirit of the father as in his actual, personal spirit but is a spirit-person sent by the Father with it's/his own different personality?

I believe that the Holy Spirit is a distinct "being" seperate from the Father, in the same manner that the Son is seperate from the Father, yet of one essence with the Father, just as the Son is of one essence with the Father.


So when Christ refers to the HS as "the spirit of your father" you do not believe this because you believe the HS is a person or being separate from the Father?



Genesis 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

When God speaks of "my spirit" you think he is talking about a different person and not his own spirit?

You really believe the Father and the Holy Spirit are two different people?

excubitor
Mar 31st 2007, 10:56 AM
Not sure where this best belongs but I am starting here and letting the mods decide.

I am a Trinitarian that believes that the bible says the Godhead is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. (I prefer to use Spirit over Ghost) Those three make up the Tri of the Trinity.

Since the Holy Spirit is called a Spirit and not a person I do not refer to the HS as a person. The scriptures also identify the HS as the spirit of the Father: Matthew 10:20 and John 15:26 so this is also why I do not refer to the Holy Spirit as a person since it is the spirit of a "person", the Father, as opposed to another unnamed person.

Sorry I'm a bit late coming in on this subject. I have not kept up with the thread and so am just responding to the OP. So apologies if some of these points have already been covered.

This is a very interesting question which I like many other christians have pondered over the years. None of us can comprehend the richness of the depth of the Godhead. We use mortal words confined to three dimensions and so how can we comprehend let alone express God who is really beyond our comprehension.

In fact God gave us the best way and most fullest way for us to understand him when he sent his Son. Let us imagine a ball passing through a two dimensional world. How would it be manifested. It would be a dot becoming a small circle growing ever larger till it was a certain size and then as it passes through to the other side of the two dimensional world it grows ever smaller until it is a dot and then it disappears. So then the cartoons in the two dimensional world boast that they understand a sphere. It is like this with God as compared to man. When we have these conversations we are just like two cartoon characters in a two dimensional world arguing about what a sphere is. God who exists in ten dimensions has given us a way to understand him in our three dimensional world that cannot be improved by our discussions here. That way is through his son Jesus who is the exact representation of his being. So let us take the fullness of the Godhead and pass him through the three dimensional world. How does he appear? How is he manifested? Entirely as Jesus Christ. We cannot improve this description and this revelation.

Unfortunately though the enemy rejects Jesus Christ and spreads lies and heresies about God. One of these for example is that the Holy Spirit is an inanimate force, like Gaia the life force or the force in Star Wars. The Holy Spirit is not like this at all because the Holy spirit has all of the personal qualities of a person. Why? Because he is the ghost of a man. When Jesus died he "gave up the ghost" and his spirit departed him. Which spirit was that. Which ghost? The Holy Spirit. The Holy Ghost. This is how Jesus dwells in us. Because his ghost dwells in us so that we are at one with Jesus because we are born of the same soul, so to speak. And how is it that Jesus and the Father are one? Also because they have the same Holy spirit.

What is a ghost? The dictionary definition is "the departed soul of a dead man". Jesus died and when he was resurrected he breathed on the disciples and imparted the Holy Ghost to them; conveying that it was his Ghost which he gave them. This is profound because it shows that his Ghost had returned to him.Then after he returned to heaven he sent his Spirit to dwell in all Christians who waited there in Jerusalem as he had commanded.

So the Father is a person who is in heaven. The Son was a person on earth and who is now in heaven ON the fathers right hand. Now we know that the essence of a man is in his soul. When his soul departs he dies. So a man is made up of a soul and a body. So it is with God. When Jesus died his body lay in the garden tomb, but his Holy Ghost descended into hell to preach to the prisoners there and then at the resurrection his Ghost returned to him restoring life to him. So when he was in the grave where was his person? A corpse is not a person. We look at a corpse and say "He is departed" "He has gone" Meaning the person's soul has departed. Meaning that the substance of the person is in his soul. So therefore it follows that the soul of God is also a person. So we have The person of the Father and the person of the Son and the person of the Holy Ghost but we cannot say that they are persons independant of one another. We do not say that there are three persons with three distinct souls. Not at all. They all exist together in unison and are inseparable although readily distinct.

We know this because what happened to Jesus when his Ghost left him? HE DIED and was not and yet he lived on by his Ghost which is a quickening spirit and able to reenter his body and resurrect life back into the dead flesh. Therefore Jesus said "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
and also
John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again
Meaning that his Ghost has the power to resurrect his body.

So in various places regarding the resurrection we have the Son raising up his body, the Father raising up his body, and the Spirit raising up his body. This can only be possible if they are all one even though three are described.

We may say that there are three persons but if we say that there are three seperate persons, as if there are three persons sitting on three thrones in heaven each with seperate thoughts and agendas and seperate souls then we are falling into heresy every bit as much as if we were to blatantly state that there are three seperate Gods.

I believe that this statement is entirely in line with the board rules and with the teachings of the fathers who were forced to make generalisations which could easily be misconstrued by the unlearned. They were forced to do this to combat damnable heresies which continually sprang up in these early days.

The creeds form a valuable guidepost for us but they are only frameworks and guides for our thoughts which should grow and expand as we mature in the faith. Our comprehension of God however will never approach understanding the full measure of the fulness of our Lord and Almighty God. Let the Muslim and the Jew who teaches that the One God must be easily understood as One God like we are each ONE human be considered anathema to the faith. And let the Hindu and all idolators who claim that God is a pantheon of seperate beings also be considered anathema to the faith.

And let us all take hold of the Revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ who is the best description of the Godhead that humanity is capable of perceiving this side of the resurrection.

Toolman
Mar 31st 2007, 02:05 PM
God compares himself to a mother bird covering her young with her wings but that is a comparison about how much he cares and protects us not a physical description, but you already know that I am sure.


Actually there are dozens of verses that say nothing of Him being like a mother bird but just speak of His wings:

Ruth 2:12 - The LORD repay your work, and a full reward be given you by the LORD God of Israel, under whose wings you have come for refuge.”

Psalm 17:8 - Keep me as the apple of Your eye;Hide me under the shadow of Your wings,

Psalm 36:7 - How precious is Your lovingkindness, O God!Therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of Your wings.

Psalm 63:7 - Because You have been my help,Therefore in the shadow of Your wings I will rejoice.

Psalm 91:4 - He shall cover you with His feathers,And under His wings you shall take refuge; His truth shall be your shield and buckler.

Malachi 4:2 - But to you who fear My name The Sun of Righteousness shall arise With healing in His wings; And you shall go out And grow fat like stall-fed calves.

So, here we have a multitude of scripture attesting to God having a pair of wings and yet you say it is a figure of speech, a way in which man can understand the attributes of God and yet the descriptions of God with human physical parts is literal because He is described that way in Daniel and Revelation, two of the most prophetic and symbolic books in scripture. :hmm:


Then we couldn't trust anyone's description of any person if this was really what was happening. No, the Son is in the image of the Father and the father and Son are both physical beings in nature. This doesn't make them in our image but we are in their image.

We are talking about God here and not a human. We have all types of descriptions of God in scripture that are ways for us to understand a being who is not physical. Descriptions of God's hands, wings, our names carved in His hands, etc. are descriptive ways for us to understand God's attributes not a literal physical form.


I have already mentioned the scriptures and you quoted part of them. I never said "flesh and blood" I said "a heavenly or Celestial body also similar to the glorified body he has now but without the scars."

You have provided no scripture that declares that Jesus Christ had a physical body of any type before the incarnation.

You have also not provided any scripture that declares Christ's body has changed since the ascension from a body of flesh and bone to some other type of body (heavenly/celestial).

I await these clear scriptures.


So far you haven't proven that Daniels or Johns or anyone's descriptions of the father are symbolic only. You can believe it but that doesn't equal proving it. I do have these descriptions and use them as my evidence as well as humans being made in His image.

And you have not proved that they are literal. You can believe that but it doesn't equal proving it.

Humans made in His image describe His attributes not a physical form. Otherwise we would have wings, white hair, eyes on fire, etc. using your logic.


The Holy Spirit is the spirit of God, not a being.

A spirit can be a being and is declared so very often in scripture:

Mark 5:1-2 - And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes.
And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit (pneuma),

For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit.

And all the devils (Daimon) besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.

This is just 1 simple example of spirits that are beings. There are literally dozens of these passages that show that a spirit being does not need a physical body to be considered a being.

The bulk of your position is built on the assumption that a spirit, because it does not have a physical body, cannot be a being. Scripture shows time and again this is not the case.


One of them. The other is that we are told the HS is the spirit of God.

God is also declared to have 7 spirits in Revelations. Do you believe that God has multiple Holy Spirits?

Revelation 4:5 - And from the throne proceeded lightnings, thunderings, and voices. Seven lamps of fire were burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.

Revelation 5:6 - And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent out into all the earth.


Or is He, as scripture declares, the Father of spirits.

Hebrews 12:9 - Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live?


So when Christ refers to the HS as "the spirit of your father" you do not believe this because you believe the HS is a person or being separate from the Father?

I believe the Holy Spirit belongs to the Father, just as the Son belongs to the Father.


Genesis 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

When God speaks of "my spirit" you think he is talking about a different person and not his own spirit?

You really believe the Father and the Holy Spirit are two different people?

In the same exact manner that the Father and Son are two different "people" I believe the same distinction exists between the Father and the HS and the Son and the HS.

BadDog
Apr 1st 2007, 07:22 PM
1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1 Corinthians 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

This simply proves that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God rather than someone itself.Naphal,

But you ignored my Greek grammatical analysis of it.


Here you say His Spirit but you argue with me that this isn't His Spirit but some other person. Which is it? The HS is either his Spirit or a person he knows

C'mon, Naphal. "His Spirit" in the sense that Jesus is "His Son." !! I was very clear about that, yet you are ignoring what I have said, just as I see you are ignoring what Toolman has said.


But that violates the teaching in OT and NT that God is one. In your theology you believe in tritheism - three Gods... or perhaps it's two Gods. Regardless, don't you see the problem?


The problem is you are wrongly defining the beliefs of Trinitarians.


Naphal,

??? Where? What have I said that does not agree with trinitarian theology? Please be specific, quoting what I have said, and then show where it does not agree with the council of Trent, for example. The issue is that as you see it all Christianity is teaching about the Godhead something about which you do not agree.


"In your theology you believe in tritheism - three Gods... or perhaps it's two Gods."

The Trinity doctrine does not teach three Gods even though we believe that the one God is composed of three, Father son and Holy Spirit. I only disagree with some of the Trinity definitions pertaining to the Holy Spirit being a person but I agree completely with the concept of three in one, Trinity.
???

Naphal, that is the issue I am finding with YOUR theology. Did I say that I believe in tri-theism? So let me repeat, and this time please do not quote my issue with your theology as if it were my theology!!! What have I said which does not agree with tr-unity (trinitarian) theology? You said that I don't understand trinitarian theology... that I was wrongly defining the beliefs of trinitarians. Where?! What I did above is point out the error in your theology.

What I said above - in blue - was regarding your theology as I interpret it. And if we look at a couple of quotes from your posts, it will become very clear just why I said it about your theology. (Not about trinitarian theology.)

And let's report your comments so that we can all see it:

I don't believe in the Godhead being co-equal because it is written that the Father is the head of (higher authority than) the Son as well as the some will be in submission to the Father. If you don't know the verses I refer to I will happily supply them. God also is not one being. That is Modalism which teaches the Son and the Father are actually one being or person

Now look at the two red statements above and please explain how that is traditional trinitarian theology. If you do not believe in God being one being, as you stated above, then that means that you see the Father and the Son as two completely separate beings - you may prefer "two persons"... right? If not true, then please explain yourself.


BTW, modalism is NOT the belief that the Father and Son are one being... it is the belief that the Father, Son and Spirit are one person. Big difference. This is a matter of history, Naphal. You may not like the definition developed centuries ago, but do not call it modalism when it does not fit the bill. So could you explain how your statement that

"God is also not one being."

is not multi-theism? How does it not contradict Deuteronomy 6:4?

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Listen, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One."


Guys, my father-in-law just passed away (he knew the Lord), so I'll not be able to respond much on this or other threads for a couple weeks. Hope this thread doesn't cool off during that time. Could someone make sure that Naphal addresses what he said in red above? Thx.

Take care,

BD

Naphal
Apr 2nd 2007, 10:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1212667#post1212667)
God compares himself to a mother bird covering her young with her wings but that is a comparison about how much he cares and protects us not a physical description, but you already know that I am sure.

Actually there are dozens of verses that say nothing of Him being like a mother bird but just speak of His wings:

Ruth 2:12 - The LORD repay your work, and a full reward be given you by the LORD God of Israel, under whose wings you have come for refuge.”

Psalm 17:8 - Keep me as the apple of Your eye;Hide me under the shadow of Your wings,

Psalm 36:7 - How precious is Your lovingkindness, O God!Therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of Your wings.

Psalm 63:7 - Because You have been my help,Therefore in the shadow of Your wings I will rejoice.

Psalm 91:4 - He shall cover you with His feathers,And under His wings you shall take refuge; His truth shall be your shield and buckler.

Malachi 4:2 - But to you who fear My name The Sun of Righteousness shall arise With healing in His wings; And you shall go out And grow fat like stall-fed calves.

So, here we have a multitude of scripture attesting to God having a pair of wings and yet you say it is a figure of speech, a way in which man can understand the attributes of God and yet the descriptions of God with human physical parts is literal because He is described that way in Daniel and Revelation, two of the most prophetic and symbolic books in scripture. :hmm:

It's the same difference. The wings are symbolic. None of these are physical descriptions of the Father as we find elsewhere.




Quote:

We are talking about God here and not a human. We have all types of descriptions of God in scripture that are ways for us to understand a being who is not physical. Descriptions of God's hands, wings, our names carved in His hands, etc. are descriptive ways for us to understand God's attributes not a literal physical form.

You may believe the Father is not a physical being but I do. I believe the father and Son are physical beings and the HS is a spirit.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1212667#post1212667)
I have already mentioned the scriptures and you quoted part of them. I never said "flesh and blood" I said "a heavenly or Celestial body also similar to the glorified body he has now but without the scars."

You have provided no scripture that declares that Jesus Christ had a physical body of any type before the incarnation.


Exd 3:4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called
unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he
said, Here [am] I.
Exd 3:5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off
thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest holy ground.

Jos 5:14 And he said, Nay; but [as] captain of the host of the LORD
am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did
worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?
Jos 5:15 And the captain of the LORD'S host said unto Joshua, Loose
thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest
holy. And Joshua did so.

The Captain of the host is clearly Christ because no angel would allow
himself to be worshipped and, as evidenced by the burning bush, when
God is present the ground is holy. While the burning bush is the
Father (also called the "Lord of hosts"), the "captain of the LORD'S host" is Jesus.

Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine:
and he [was] the priest of the most high God.
Gen 14:19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed [be] Abram of the
most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
Gen 14:20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered
thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

Christ was in physical form as Melchizedek and this was before his human birth.

Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in
the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the
fourth is like the Son of God.

Many believe this was Christ. I do.



You have also not provided any scripture that declares Christ's body has changed since the ascension from a body of flesh and bone to some other type of body (heavenly/celestial).

That is the heavenly body that Christ possesses now and that the angels have always possessed. This really would be a different topic so I'll leave that as is for now.




Humans made in His image describe His attributes not a physical form. Otherwise we would have wings, white hair, eyes on fire, etc. using your logic.

No, being created in God's image does not mean his non physical attributes as man was not created in God's non-physical image. That is clear from the sinfulness and fall of man./ Man was created in God's physical image and no, not in exact image but in basic physical image. We look like he does.




A spirit can be a being and is declared so very often in scripture:

[I]Mark 5:1-2 - And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes.
And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit (pneuma),

For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit.

And all the devils (Daimon) besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.

This is just 1 simple example of spirits that are beings. There are literally dozens of these passages that show that a spirit being does not need a physical body to be considered a being.

No. This is an example of a man who was possessed with a spirit/spirits.

Now, "being" can be defined many different ways. I don't agree that spirits are the same as people/persons. They are bodiless themselves when spirits.



The bulk of your position is built on the assumption that a spirit, because it does not have a physical body, cannot be a being. Scripture shows time and again this is not the case.

I am going on the stance of the Father and Son being physical beings as opposed to the Holy Spirit which never has a physical body. By this definition spirits have no bodies but people do. One cannot call the HS a person in this regard because there is no physical body.






Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1212667#post1212667)
[I]One of them. The other is that we are told the HS is the spirit of God.

God is also declared to have 7 spirits in Revelations. Do you believe that God has multiple Holy Spirits?


God has one Holy Spirit which is His personal spirit. God's 7 spirits are not his personal spirit but spirits that he sends. There is a huge difference between his spirit and all other spirits.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1212667#post1212667)
So when Christ refers to the HS as "the spirit of your father" you do not believe this because you believe the HS is a person or being separate from the Father?

I believe the Holy Spirit belongs to the Father, just as the Son belongs to the Father.


But you don't believe the HS is his own personal spirit and that's where we disagree, at least the beginning foundation of our understanding of the Godhead.


In the same exact manner that the Father and Son are two different "people" I believe the same distinction exists between the Father and the HS and the Son and the HS.

See above.

What is this Holy Person's personal name?

Naphal
Apr 2nd 2007, 10:36 PM
Naphal,

But you ignored my Greek grammatical analysis of it.



C'mon, Naphal. "His Spirit" in the sense that Jesus is "His Son." !! I was very clear about that, yet you are ignoring what I have said, just as I see you are ignoring what Toolman has said.

I disagree with the opinion that "his spirit" is not a reference to his personal spirit when it's concerning the holy Spirit. I'll address it further in a second post.



Naphal, that is the issue I am finding with YOUR theology. Did I say that I believe in tri-theism? So let me repeat, and this time please do not quote my issue with your theology as if it were my theology!!! What have I said which does not agree with tr-unity (trinitarian) theology? You said that I don't understand trinitarian theology... that I was wrongly defining the beliefs of trinitarians. Where?! What I did above is point out the error in your theology.

You keep insisting that believing there is more than one person in the Godhead equals belief in more than one God. This is a very common attack on the Trinitarian stance. The fact is Trinitarins believe in one God made up of more than one person or being. That doesn't equal more than one God no matter how you slice it. I have said you don't understand our belief because you use the same tactics as all anti-Trinitarians.






And let's report your comments so that we can all see it:

Quote:
Originally Posted by old Naphal
I don't believe in the Godhead being co-equal because it is written that the Father is the head of (higher authority than) the Son as well as the some will be in submission to the Father. If you don't know the verses I refer to I will happily supply them. God also is not one being. That is Modalism which teaches the Son and the Father are actually one being or person

Now look at the two red statements above and please explain how that is traditional trinitarian theology.



The Trinity is the bible is the Father, Son and HS. I am in complete alignment with that. I have already given the definitions and origins of the word Trinity in which I am also in agreement with so your constant insistentence that I am not a believer in the Trinity is incorrect and offensive. We have already discussed that co-equal can be defined different ways and we already concluded we agreed the Godhead is co-equal in deity but not in authority.






If you do not believe in God being one being, as you stated above, then that means that you see the Father and the Son as two completely separate beings - you may prefer "two persons"... right? If not true, then please explain yourself.

The Father is not the son and the son is not the Father as Modalism teaches. They are two persons or beings. But, you keep claiming I believe in two Gods because of this.



BTW, modalism is NOT the belief that the Father and Son are one being... it is the belief that the Father, Son and Spirit are one person.

That's the same thing. God is not one being or person but a Father, a Son and a HS. Whether being, or person or individual, it is Modalism that teaches God is only one of these and this one "being, or person or individual" acts as the Father sometimes, the son other times and other times as the HS. This is known as acting in modes or offices. From modes comes the term Modalism.




"God is also not one being."

is not multi-theism? How does it not contradict Deuteronomy 6:4?

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Listen, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One."

God is one God, not one being. If God were one being then there would be no Father and Son, just one being.





Guys, my father-in-law just passed away (he knew the Lord), so I'll not be able to respond much on this or other threads for a couple weeks. Hope this thread doesn't cool off during that time. Could someone make sure that Naphal addresses what he said in red above? Thx.

Someone help BD respond to the countless things I have posted to him that has gone unanswered in this thread...He seems to like to make accusations and throw out questions but doesn't like to answer questions.

One thing I want answered especially is why when I say I believe in a Father and a Son and that they are two persons that he accuses me of believing in two Gods. A discussion is only as good as the participants willingness to be fair and answer questions as they would also like their questions answered. I have re-read this thread and a majority of the things I have said or have asked have gone unanswered. Perhaps it's my fault for not insisting that he answer me in a timely manner. He fired back so many things that I decided to answer them and hope he eventually answers mine.

Naphal
Apr 2nd 2007, 10:54 PM
Naphal,

But you ignored my Greek grammatical analysis of it.


For example, when we refer to the "temple of His body," it would be better translated as "the temple, which is His body." In this case "the Spirit of our God" would be better translated as "the Spirit, Who is our God." Most Bibles translate it simply - allowing the reader to draw his own conclusions about what is happening grammatically. I like such as approach. But in this instance, you are not translating "TW PNEUMATI TOU QEOU hMWN" as intended, IMO.

1 Corinthians 6:9-12 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

"Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything.

This is talking about believers who are living as if they were not washed in Christ's blood and sanctified by the Spirit. Translating EN as "by" (means) makes sense here. I like what the NIV did. If I translated it more naturally, it becomes much more clear:

But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord, that is Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit, Who is our God.


Since neither of us are Greek scholars lets peruse the work of many of them and see if your alternate translation is up to par:

1Co 6:11
(ALT) And these some of you* were! _But_ you* yourselves were washed [or, purified], _but_ you* were sanctified, _but_ you* were justified [or, declared righteous] in the name of the Lord Jesus and in [or, by] the Spirit of our God!

(ASV) And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.

(BBE) And such were some of you; but you have been washed, you have been made holy, you have been given righteousness in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

(Bishops) And such were some of you: but ye are wasshed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are iustified in the name of the Lord Iesus, and by the spirite of our God.

(CEV) Some of you used to be like that. But now the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and the power of God's Spirit have washed you and made you holy and acceptable to God.

(Darby) And these things were some of you; but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified, but ye have been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

(DRB) And such some of you were. But you are washed: but you are sanctified: but you are justified: in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God.

(EMTV) And such were some of you! But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

(ESV) And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

(GB) And such were some of you: but yee are washed, but yee are sanctified, but yee are iustified in the Name of the Lord Iesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

(GNB) Some of you were like that. But you have been purified from sin; you have been dedicated to God; you have been put right with God by the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


(GW) That's what some of you were! But you have been washed and made holy, and you have received God's approval in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

(HNV) Such were some of you, but you were washed. But you were sanctified. But you were justified in the name of the Lord Yeshua, and in the Spirit of our God.



(ISV) That is what some of you were! But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.


(KJV) And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.


(KJVA) And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

(LITV) And some of you were these things, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God.

(MKJV) And such were some of you. But you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

(Murdock) And these things have been in some of you: but ye are washed, and are sanctified, and made righteous, in the name of our Lord Jesus the Messiah, and by the Spirit of our God.

(RV) And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.


(WEB) Such were some of you, but you were washed. But you were sanctified. But you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God.

(Webster) And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

(WNT) And all this describes what some of you were. But now you have had every stain washed off: now you have been set apart as holy: now you have been pronounced free from guilt; in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and through the Spirit of our God.

(YLT) And certain of you were these! but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were declared righteous, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God.


It would seem an overwhelming majority of translations preserve the possessive language of the KJV translation. I then have to reject your translation from "Spirit of our God" to your "the Spirit, who is our God" only because the text does not support that wording.

Saved7
Apr 3rd 2007, 12:26 AM
Not sure where this best belongs but I am starting here and letting the mods decide.

I am a Trinitarian that believes that the bible says the Godhead is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. (I prefer to use Spirit over Ghost) Those three make up the Tri of the Trinity.

Since the Holy Spirit is called a Spirit and not a person I do not refer to the HS as a person. The scriptures also identify the HS as the spirit of the Father: Matthew 10:20 and John 15:26 so this is also why I do not refer to the Holy Spirit as a person since it is the spirit of a "person", the Father, as opposed to another unnamed person.


Don't know if this has been addressed yet, but just in case...if you don't call the HS a person, then you aren't calling God a person. Jesus said that God is Spirit, and we know that God is Holy (Holy Spirit). That said, then that Spirit, is the person of God. Also, don't forget that the Jesus also calls the HS the comforter a "he". Saying when "he" comes "he" will teach you in all and guide you. In many many places the HS is referred to as a "he". Therefore, HE MUST BE A PERSON.;)

Naphal
Apr 3rd 2007, 12:52 AM
Don't know if this has been addressed yet, but just in case...if you don't call the HS a person, then you aren't calling God a person. Jesus said that God is Spirit, and we know that God is Holy (Holy Spirit). That said, then that Spirit, is the person of God.

But no scripture in the bible says the Holy Spirit is "the person of God". The bible says the HS is the "Spirit of God". It's so easy to make small changes but on this subject I think we have to stick as close to what the bible says as we can.

The HS is definitely a real, valid, affective force in the world. The HS is one third of the Godhead, fully God since any part of the Godhead is still God. The issue seems to be what to refer to the HS as. Many say "person" and a purist like myself wants to stick to what God refers to the HS as, "the holy Spirit".



Also, don't forget that the Jesus also calls the HS the comforter a "he". Saying when "he" comes "he" will teach you in all and guide you. In many many places the HS is referred to as a "he". Therefore, HE MUST BE A PERSON.;)

Many things are personified in that way like mountains so calling your car a "she" doesn't make it a person.

If we use "God is a spirit" to make the HS a person (which makes no sense) then we are also making Jesus a spirit rather than a person since he is also God.

The verse does not say "God is only a spirit". What it's really talking about is the Father's own personal spirit is God and he sends his spirit forth into the world to interact with us. God the Holy Spirit is Spirit, specifically the spirit of God the Father. That is what Christ was talking about. How the invisible God, His Father would be present in our lives in spiritual form.


John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

divaD
Apr 3rd 2007, 01:06 AM
Don't know if this has been addressed yet, but just in case...if you don't call the HS a person, then you aren't calling God a person. Jesus said that God is Spirit, and we know that God is Holy (Holy Spirit). That said, then that Spirit, is the person of God. Also, don't forget that the Jesus also calls the HS the comforter a "he". Saying when "he" comes "he" will teach you in all and guide you. In many many places the HS is referred to as a "he". Therefore, HE MUST BE A PERSON.;)



I agree and I believe these verses alone prove that the Holy Spirit is a person. He is described as a 'he' and a 'him'.

John 14:16 *And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

John 14:26 *But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:26 *But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

John 16:7 *Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

Naphal
Apr 3rd 2007, 01:58 AM
I agree and I believe these verses alone prove that the Holy Spirit is a person. He is described as a 'he' and a 'him'.

John 14:16 *And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

John 14:26 *But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:26 *But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

John 16:7 *Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d910201.htm

Question One: Is the Holy Spirit a Person or a Power? What are the biblical proofs that could support the Holy Spirit as being a distinct person within the Godhead and representing a third member of a divine Trinity (three persons in one comprising the Godhead)?

Answer: Though the word "Spirit" in John 14:26 is neuter in gender (expressing no personality of itself, the pronoun that describes the Spirit is masculine This would lend weight that the Spirit is a personality who appears as one having masculine qualities. Thus, it seems perfectly proper to call him "he." This is emphasized by the repeated statements that "he shall teach you" (verse 26); "he shall bear witness" (John 15:26); "he, when he is come will convict" (16:8); "he shall guide you" (16:13); and "he shall glorify me" (16:14). These verses strongly imply, so many scholars urge, that the Spirit is a personality because of the use of these masculine pronouns. Besides this, the Spirit is said to be able to speak: "The Spirit speaks expressly" (I Tim. 4:14). It is argued that the Spirit could hardly utter words from its mouth unless it was a personality.


Comment: While it is true that the above verses seem to indicate that the Holy Spirit is a masculine person, it could also be shown from hundreds of biblical verses (both Old and New Testaments) that many things animate and inanimate are given genders in the Bible though they are not personalities at all. Such things are even given "mouths" to speak. "If the foot shall say, because I am not the hand, I am not of the body.... And if the ear shall say, because I am not of the body" (I Cor. 12:15,16). Of course, feet and ears do not actually have mouths to speak. They are simply personified by Paul in an allegorical sense. From these indications, no one would seriously consider feet, hands and ears as being personalities. "Let the heaven rejoice, and let the earth be glad. …let the field be joyful . . then shall all the trees of the wood rejoice" (Psa. 96:11,12). But really, the heavens have no actual mouth with which to express joy; the earth has no faculty of its own to be glad; the fields of grass cannot actually show joyfulness; nor can trees of the forest demonstrate a happiness as a human can. The Bible says that "the mountains and hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees shall clap their hands" (Isa. 55:12), but is there anyone so bold as to suggest that mountain and hills can actually sing or that trees really clap hands. These are simple figures of speech.

divaD
Apr 3rd 2007, 02:37 AM
Comment: While it is true that the above verses seem to indicate that the Holy Spirit is a masculine person, it could also be shown from hundreds of biblical verses (both Old and New Testaments) that many things animate and inanimate are given genders in the Bible though they are not personalities at all. Such things are even given "mouths" to speak. "If the foot shall say, because I am not the hand, I am not of the body.... And if the ear shall say, because I am not of the body" (I Cor. 12:15,16). Of course, feet and ears do not actually have mouths to speak. They are simply personified by Paul in an allegorical sense. From these indications, no one would seriously consider feet, hands and ears as being personalities. "Let the heaven rejoice, and let the earth be glad. …let the field be joyful . . then shall all the trees of the wood rejoice" (Psa. 96:11,12). But really, the heavens have no actual mouth with which to express joy; the earth has no faculty of its own to be glad; the fields of grass cannot actually show joyfulness; nor can trees of the forest demonstrate a happiness as a human can. The Bible says that "the mountains and hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees shall clap their hands" (Isa. 55:12), but is there anyone so bold as to suggest that mountain and hills can actually sing or that trees really clap hands. These are simple figures of speech.



While these are very good examples and I see your point, for one to fully understand these examples, one must be able to interpret what they symbolize.

Naphal
Apr 3rd 2007, 02:42 AM
And if I were to speak about my spirit I would never suggest my spirit is a separate and different person from myself. I could refer to my spirit as a "he" because it's my spirit and I am a male and if I were able to project my spirit beyond my body and interact with people on the other side of the world I can somewhat understand how they might think my spirit was actually a person in it's own right but the facts would be it was my personal spirit and not a different person than me.

Is your spirit a different person? A person at all?

Toolman
Apr 3rd 2007, 02:21 PM
No. This is an example of a man who was possessed with a spirit/spirits.

Yes, spirits who could talk, think, act, had personality, i.e. they were beings.


Now, "being" can be defined many different ways. I don't agree that spirits are the same as people/persons. They are bodiless themselves when spirits.

No where does scripture proclaim that evil spirits have physical bodies, they simply are spiritual beings with all the attributes of a being without a physical body.

In the same manner the Holy Spirit is a being. Just because He does not have a physical body does not make Him not a being anymore than it does the spirits mentioned here.

This is where we will continue to disconnect I suppose but I clearly see the Holy Spirit as a spirit being that is a person of the Trinity, just as the Father and Son are.


I am going on the stance of the Father and Son being physical beings as opposed to the Holy Spirit which never has a physical body. By this definition spirits have no bodies but people do. One cannot call the HS a person in this regard because there is no physical body.

Scripture defines spirits as beings all the time as I showed. The evil "pneuma" that possessed the people did not have physical bodies of their own yet were "persons" in the same since as God is a person.

As I said I'm ok with using the word "being" instead of "person" if that is what you are getting hung up on.


God has one Holy Spirit which is His personal spirit. God's 7 spirits are not his personal spirit but spirits that he sends.

Not according to the text:

Revelation 4:5 - And from the throne proceeded lightnings, thunderings, and voices. Seven lamps of fire were burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.

Do you deny that the spirits spoken of here belong to God the Father?

John 14:26 - But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

Do you deny that the Holy Spirit is sent out?


There is a huge difference between his spirit and all other spirits.

The Holy Spirit is not created and is eternal and is God. Yet He is a spirit being and has all the attributes of a spirit being.


But you don't believe the HS is his own personal spirit and that's where we disagree, at least the beginning foundation of our understanding of the Godhead.

Yes.


What is this Holy Person's personal name?

The Holy Spirit's role is to testify of Christ and convict the world of sin. Therefore we can only refer to Him as the scripture refers to Him, Holy Spirit, Comforter, Helper.

John 15:26-27 - “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.

BadDog
Apr 3rd 2007, 05:12 PM
Original BadDod post:

Finally, His deity is clear by the divine names used for the Spirit as "the Spirit of our God," (1 Cor. 6:11), which should be understood as "the Spirit, who is our God," BTW. Grammatically, that IS what it means.

1 Corinthians 6:11 KAI EN TW PNEUMATI TOU QEOU
hMWN.

This is very common, and is referred to as the genitive of simple apposition. The NASB has...

NASB Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

As you mentioned in an earlier post, it is a substantive (the head noun) - and since it's in the same case (genitive) as the modifiyng noun, they are referring to the same entity. (Wallace, p. 95) He compares the genitive of apposition to this - the genitive of simple apposition.

For example, when we refer to the "temple of His body," it would be better translated as "the temple, which is His body." In this case "the Spirit of our God" would be better translated as "the Spirit, Who is our God." Most Bibles translate it simply - allowing the reader to draw his own conclusions about what is happening grammatically. I like such as approach. But in this instance, you are not translating "TW PNEUMATI TOU QEOU hMWN" as intended, IMO.

1 Corinthians 6:9-12 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

"Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything.

This is talking about believers who are living as if they were not washed in Christ's blood and sanctified by the Spirit. Translating EN as "by" (means) makes sense here. I like what the NIV did. If I translated it more naturally, it becomes much more clear:

But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord, that is Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit, Who is our God.

There is no possessiveness there.


Since neither of us are Greek scholars lets peruse the work of many of them and see if your alternate translation is up to par:

1Co 6:11
(ALT) And these some of you* were! _But_ you* yourselves were washed [or, purified], _but_ you* were sanctified, _but_ you* were justified [or, declared righteous] in the name of the Lord Jesus and in [or, by] the Spirit of our God!

(ASV) And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.

(BBE) And such were some of you; but you have been washed, you have been made holy, you have been given righteousness in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

(Bishops) And such were some of you: but ye are wasshed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are iustified in the name of the Lord Iesus, and by the spirite of our God.

(CEV) Some of you used to be like that. But now the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and the power of God's Spirit have washed you and made you holy and acceptable to God.

(Darby) And these things were some of you; but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified, but ye have been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

(DRB) And such some of you were. But you are washed: but you are sanctified: but you are justified: in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God.

(EMTV) And such were some of you! But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

(ESV) And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

(GB) And such were some of you: but yee are washed, but yee are sanctified, but yee are iustified in the Name of the Lord Iesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

(GNB) Some of you were like that. But you have been purified from sin; you have been dedicated to God; you have been put right with God by the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


(GW) That's what some of you were! But you have been washed and made holy, and you have received God's approval in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

(HNV) Such were some of you, but you were washed. But you were sanctified. But you were justified in the name of the Lord Yeshua, and in the Spirit of our God.



(ISV) That is what some of you were! But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.


(KJV) And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.


(KJVA) And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

(LITV) And some of you were these things, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God.

(MKJV) And such were some of you. But you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

(Murdock) And these things have been in some of you: but ye are washed, and are sanctified, and made righteous, in the name of our Lord Jesus the Messiah, and by the Spirit of our God.

(RV) And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.


(WEB) Such were some of you, but you were washed. But you were sanctified. But you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God.

(Webster) And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

(WNT) And all this describes what some of you were. But now you have had every stain washed off: now you have been set apart as holy: now you have been pronounced free from guilt; in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and through the Spirit of our God.

(YLT) And certain of you were these! but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were declared righteous, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God.

It would seem an overwhelming majority of translations preserve the possessive language of the KJV translation. I then have to reject your translation from "Spirit of our God" to your "the Spirit, who is our God" only because the text does not support that wording.
It is not true that those translations show possessiveness by how they translated the text. They have translated it simply as "the Spirit of our God." They have essentially not interpreted it, but left it up to the reader to interpret.

You are assuming that "of" indicates "possessiveness." Those translations do not support the idea of possessiveness. The KJV is not translated in that manner. "Of" does not in general indicate possessiveness.

I quoted Daniel Wallace's Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics (page 95). There he refers to the simple genitive of opposition (which is likely here since we have two substantives in the same case and referring to the same thing), which I believe this to be. You are saying that it is a genitive of possession. That is a possibility. But there are genitives of apposition, the attributive genitive, the partitive genitive ("which is a part of..." - not likely here), the descriptive genitive which is probably the most basic genitive type.

The point here is simply that "Spirit of our God" can indicate apposition in English and we should not assume "possessiveness." It simply indicates that the Spirit is connected to our God in some manner. All of these genitive types are basically ways to try to understand what is happening based on context. They are attempting to categorize the manner in which a genitive case noun modifies or relates to another noun. In this case the other noun modified is also genitive, which lends itself to a genitive of simple apposition. But there are many genitive constructions, and the subjective and objective genitives are very common as is the descriptive and apposition genitives. I gave reasons why the grammatical structure lends it self to the genitive of simple apposition. Why are you assuming a genitive of possession? What in the structure or context makes you assume that? (Because you are assuming that.)

This is what I meant by you not addressing the grammatical comments of 1 Corinthians 6:11 before. This text was one of your key texts for showing that the Spirit, in your opinion, is the Spirit (possessed by) God, the Father (and the Son).

Again, those translations you quoted do not assume possession at all. You are the one assuming this idea. "Our" modifies God, but why assume that the same is true of "Spirit"? The best translation which puts it all together is simply "by the Spirit which is our God." Simple apposition is a common genitive.

For example, let's look at another place where similar confusion arises. In 2 Corinthians 5:14 "the love of Christ" can be referring to the love which Christ has for Paul, or the love which Paul has for Christ. Theologians disagree over which is most likely. (One is the subjective genitive and the other is an objective genitive.) But Bibles simply translate it as "the love of Christ," allowing the reader to draw his/her own conclusions about which of these two is being said. I personally prefer such in a study Bible. But you cannot assume possessiveness simply because "of" (and "for") is the most common way that Bibles translate the genitive, in general. They are not assuming possessiveness.

So then, Spirit of God could refer to the Spirit which our God has or the Spirit which is our God. You are considering only one of many possibilities here. Let's look at one more example:

Matthew 12:31 refers to the "blasphemy of the Spirit." Now if we assume possessiveness here, then it is the Spirit which is blaspheming! Obviously, that would not work. It refers to blasphemy against the Spirit, and is an example of an objective genitive. The plenary genitive, the subjective and often the objective genitive and the possessive and descriptive genitives all usually are translated as simply "of" in our Bibles. The same is often true of the genitive of comparison and the genitive of simple apposition. Now the possessive genitive is actually usually translated as "belonging to" or "possessed by." Why didn't the KJV translate 1 Corinthians 6:11 as "by the Spirit belonging to our God"? Why wouldn't they have done so if they were intending to show possession in their translation?


Now when I asked people earlier to follow this thread and make sure that you addressed this issue, I did so not because I thought you were dodging the issue. (I explained that earlier. I apologize if it came across as such.) I do think you are sincere as well. But I think that you are sincerely wrong and that you are making some assumptions grammatically which should not necessarily be made - ones which line up with your view, of course.

Now I explained at the end of my last couple of posts that I am not in a position to carry on this debate in detail. But this particular issue is one of three that I see as critical. The other two have to do with you referring to those two comments you made earlier, which I hoped someone else would be able to pursue. You specifically said that there is not one God, yet you are surprised that I see that as tri-theism. Deuteronomy 6:4 says that the Lord our God is one God.

I hate to get so technical here, but you are greatly simplifying things. Simply put, why should we assume possessiveness here? Those translations did not do so. I can find dozens of examples in the (KJV if you insist) NT in which "of" is used with a genitive and possessiveness is clearly not the intent, as in Matthew 12:31 above. We could look at examples in which two substantives are used and how often possessiveness is indicated.

Better to just not assume.

Gotta go.

Take care,

BD

BadDog
Apr 3rd 2007, 05:51 PM
Nice post, Toolman.


As I said I'm ok with using the word "being" instead of "person" if that is what you are getting hung up on.

It is really difficult to find terms to use to express the ideas about the Godhead in the NT, for sure.

But most theologians say there is one being, but 3 persons.

I just posted about 1 Corinthians 6:11 again, with some detail. Naphal is frustrated because I am not able to respond to all of his points. I understand, and am frustrated that I simply do not have the time. If you are anyone else can try to address his concerns there, it would be appreciated. He is trying to address so many posters.

Thx,

BD

BadDog
Apr 3rd 2007, 05:56 PM
And if I were to speak about my spirit I would never suggest my spirit is a separate and different person from myself. I could refer to my spirit as a "he" because it's my spirit and I am a male and if I were able to project my spirit beyond my body and interact with people on the other side of the world I can somewhat understand how they might think my spirit was actually a person in it's own right but the facts would be it was my personal spirit and not a different person than me.

Is your spirit a different person? A person at all?
Keep in mind that you are asusming possessiveness here. As I see it, this doesn't really apply then.

BD

BadDog
Apr 3rd 2007, 06:01 PM
Question One: Is the Holy Spirit a Person or a Power? What are the biblical proofs that could support the Holy Spirit as being a distinct person within the Godhead and representing a third member of a divine Trinity (three persons in one comprising the Godhead)?

Answer: Though the word "Spirit" in John 14:26 is neuter in gender (expressing no personality of itself, the pronoun that describes the Spirit is masculine This would lend weight that the Spirit is a personality who appears as one having masculine qualities. Thus, it seems perfectly proper to call him "he." This is emphasized by the repeated statements that "he shall teach you" (verse 26); "he shall bear witness" (John 15:26); "he, when he is come will convict" (16:8); "he shall guide you" (16:13); and "he shall glorify me" (16:14). These verses strongly imply, so many scholars urge, that the Spirit is a personality because of the use of these masculine pronouns. Besides this, the Spirit is said to be able to speak: "The Spirit speaks expressly" (I Tim. 4:14). It is argued that the Spirit could hardly utter words from its mouth unless it was a personality.
Naphal,

As is answered above, the Spirit is referred to as One who glorifies Christ, as One who guides, speaks, etc.. (The 1 Timothy 4:14 text) That certainly indicates that this is referring to more than just the spirit of God moving.


But no scripture in the bible says the Holy Spirit is "the person of God". The bible says the HS is the "Spirit of God". It's so easy to make small changes but on this subject I think we have to stick as close to what the bible says as we can.
And where does scripture refer to the Son as "the person of God"?!


Someone help BD respond to the countless things I have posted to him that has gone unanswered in this thread...He seems to like to make accusations and throw out questions but doesn't like to answer questions.

One thing I want answered especially is why when I say I believe in a Father and a Son and that they are two persons that he accuses me of believing in two Gods. A discussion is only as good as the participants willingness to be fair and answer questions as they would also like their questions answered. I have re-read this thread and a majority of the things I have said or have asked have gone unanswered. Perhaps it's my fault for not insisting that he answer me in a timely manner. He fired back so many things that I decided to answer them and hope he eventually answers mine.
Naphal,

I've answered this one 3 times now. (See post # 60, 62) You specifically said that there is more than one God:

I don't believe in the Godhead being co-equal because it is written that the Father is the head of (higher authority than) the Son as well as the some will be in submission to the Father. If you don't know the verses I refer to I will happily supply them. God also is not one being. That is Modalism which teaches the Son and the Father are actually one being or person.
"God is not one being." It is not the statement that the father and the Son are two persons that I am reacting to. We agree there. It is your statement above that God is NOT one being. That is simply not traditional trinitarian theology. God IS one being. There is one God alone. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Listen, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One."

No, not one person, but yes, one being. Earlier you responded to a comment of mine...


BTW, modalism is NOT the belief that the Father and Son are one being... it is the belief that the Father, Son and Spirit are one person.

That's the same thing. God is not one being or person but a Father, a Son and a HS. Whether being, or person or individual, it is Modalism that teaches God is only one of these and this one "being, or person or individual" acts as the Father sometimes, the son other times and other times as the HS. This is known as acting in modes or offices. From modes comes the term Modalism.

No, they are not the same thing. Look it up. Yes, modalism is a belief that God is One person who simply "appears" in various forms. (Wikipedia: "Ancient Sabellianism or modalism is defined by some as the belief that the Godhead is comprised of one God that manifests himself in different forms at different times.") What have I said which comes even close to that? That is not what I am saying. Tri-theism is a belief that there are 3 distinct Gods. (Not persons.) And you specifically said that God is not one being. That is tri-theism. You are saying that there is more than one God. I realize that you do not think that you are doing so, just as those Christians who describe the trinity in a modalistic manner often do not realize what they are doing.

The dictionary defines the trinity as, "Trinity Theology. In most Christian faiths, the union of three divine persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in one God. Also called Trine." Again, here's what Wikipedia says about the definition of the trinity, as upheld by traditional Christianity:

In Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons: the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth), and the Holy Spirit. Since the 4th century, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as "one God in three persons," all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal persons, are of one indivisible Divine essence, a simple being.

Now, I insist that God is One Being - that there is but one God - because scripture is very clear on that. When you say that God is more than one being, please at least acknowledge that this is NOT traditional trinitarian theology. To say that God is more than One being is to say that there is more than one God. (By the definition of theword, "being.") That is why it is stated "One God, three Persons.")


BD

BadDog
Apr 3rd 2007, 07:04 PM
God is one God, not one being. If God were one being then there would be no Father and Son, just one being.
You are confusing the meaning of "person" and "being" as used by theologians.

Now granted it is very difficult to come up with terms that accurately describe what the Bible says on this. Webster's dictionary says about being:


the quality or state of having existence b (1) : something conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists (3) : the totality of existing things c : conscious existence : LIFE
2 : the qualities that constitute an existent thing : ESSENCE; especially : PERSONALITY
3 : a living thing; especially : PERSON
IOW, "Person" can be used to refer to a being, of course, but they are not synonymous. Basically the idea of a being is one who has conscious existence. Essence esp. personality is the focal point. To say that God is one is to say that there is one essence which is God.

However, when you look up the concept of "person" the idea is that of a personality - of "self." IOW, if someone recognizes himself, then he is a person.

The Son recognizes Himself as distinct from the Father when conversations are described. We are saying that the same is true of the Holy Spirit.

The following link is s good, short article which explains the importance of recognizing the difference between the meanings of "person" and "essence:"
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1409 regarding:
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=215


The key to defining the trinity is understanding the terms “person” and “essence.” God is one in essence, yet he subsists in three distinct persons. There is unity in diversity, equality among the diverse persons, and diversity in the operations of the three persons of the Godhead. Tri-theism (three distinct gods) is an error to avoid in thinking about the trinity. So also is modalism (one person in the Godhead who appeared in different ways) and Arianism, the latter of which denies the deity of Christ.

Here's Webster's dictionary on "trinity":

The union of three divine persons (or hypostases), the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in one divinity, so that all the three are one God as to substance, but three Persons (or hypostases as to individuality).
Hypostases is the plural of hypostasis which means "the substance, the underlying reality, or the essence."

The problem here is really that we are using the same terms differently. In speaking of the tri-unity, the term "person" is not used in same way that it is in everyday usage where it refers an identity completely distinct from all other "persons." So many have acknowledged that the word "persons" tends to detract from the idea of the unity of the Godhead. But scripture is clear that the three "Persons" are inseparable, inter-dependent, and eternally united in one divine "Being."

You will find various ways to define the "trinity" - somewhich use "person" and some which do not - using some other somewhat made-up term instead, such as "subsistence." They are trying to indicate some quality or distinctness of existence. So the expression, "God has three substances" is used. Most have continued to use "persons" because we have not been able to find a better term, and no one really knows what you mean when you refer to "subsistence." :P The word "substance" is intended to speak of God’s essential nature or being and "subsistence" describes His quality of existence."

"Essence" refers to "the intrinsic or indispensable, permanent, and inseparable qualities that characterize or identify the being of God." The words tri-unity or trinity are used to refer to the fact that the Bible speaks of one God, but attributes the characteristics of God to three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We do have to walk a narrow line so as not to slip into either modalism or tri-theism.

The doctrine of the trinity states that there is one God who is one in essence or substance, but three in personality. This does not mean three independent Gods existing as one, but three Persons who are co-equal, co-eternal, inseparable, interdependent, and eternally united in one absolute divine essence and being.

Hope that's not too confusing! :D

BD

divaD
Apr 3rd 2007, 07:53 PM
This thread is kind of hard to follow with all of the quotes. But here's a good example of a spirit that talks, thinks and makes decisions. If this spirit has these capabilities, then it should be no suprise that the Holy Spirit is indeed a person.


2 Chronicles 18:19 *And the LORD said, Who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one spake saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner.
20 *Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will entice him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith?
21 *And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the LORD said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so.
22 *Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against the

Saved7
Apr 3rd 2007, 10:31 PM
But no scripture in the bible says the Holy Spirit is "the person of God". The bible says the HS is the "Spirit of God". It's so easy to make small changes but on this subject I think we have to stick as close to what the bible says as we can.

The HS is definitely a real, valid, affective force in the world. The HS is one third of the Godhead, fully God since any part of the Godhead is still God. The issue seems to be what to refer to the HS as. Many say "person" and a purist like myself wants to stick to what God refers to the HS as, "the holy Spirit".




Many things are personified in that way like mountains so calling your car a "she" doesn't make it a person.

If we use "God is a spirit" to make the HS a person (which makes no sense) then we are also making Jesus a spirit rather than a person since he is also God.

The verse does not say "God is only a spirit". What it's really talking about is the Father's own personal spirit is God and he sends his spirit forth into the world to interact with us. God the Holy Spirit is Spirit, specifically the spirit of God the Father. That is what Christ was talking about. How the invisible God, His Father would be present in our lives in spiritual form.


John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Ok, so why then would the Holy Spirit have a name? Baptizing them in the NAME of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Would Jesus say this word "name" about only two of the three titles given, and yet lump them all together? Jesus is very careful about what He says, He never says anything haphazardly.:saint:

Saved7
Apr 3rd 2007, 10:44 PM
And what of this my brother....

Isa 9:6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=9&verse=6&version=kjv#6)For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Whose name shall be called these things? The Child, the Son, Him whose shoulders shall bare the govt?
Didn't you say that placing the word "he" with the word "comforter" doesn't make the Holy Spirit a person? Have you ever known a "thing" to be a he or a she?
Wouldn't counsellor and comforter be the same thing?

Naphal
Apr 3rd 2007, 10:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1215541#post1215541)
No. This is an example of a man who was possessed with a spirit/spirits.

Yes, spirits who could talk, think, act, had personality, i.e. they were beings.


They were spirits of beings, not beings themselves.



No where does scripture proclaim that evil spirits have physical bodies, they simply are spiritual beings with all the attributes of a being without a physical body.

No where does scripture proclaim that evil spirits are people either.




In the same manner the Holy Spirit is a being. Just because He does not have a physical body does not make Him not a being anymore than it does the spirits mentioned here.

The Holy Spirit is not a being but the spirit of a being.




This is where we will continue to disconnect I suppose but I clearly see the Holy Spirit as a spirit being that is a person of the Trinity, just as the Father and Son are.

Yes, this is where we disagree. Even beyond the difference in words and definitions I will in no way accept that the HS is a different and separate person from the Father and Son because I do not find that supported in scripture.




Scripture defines spirits as beings all the time as I showed. The evil "pneuma" that possessed the people did not have physical bodies of their own yet were "persons" in the same since as God is a person.


I disagree. What I see shown is the spirit of a being being sent forth and interacting with people.



As I said I'm ok with using the word "being" instead of "person" if that is what you are getting hung up on.

I don't believe either applies to spirits when the spirit is separate from the body.






Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1215541#post1215541)
God has one Holy Spirit which is His personal spirit. God's 7 spirits are not his personal spirit but spirits that he sends.

Not according to the text:

Revelation 4:5 - And from the throne proceeded lightnings, thunderings, and voices. Seven lamps of fire were burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.


We know there is only one Holy Spirit so that spirit is then different than these 7 right? Why is it different? because the HS is God's actual, personal spirit as opposed to any and all other spirits "of" God.




Do you deny that the spirits spoken of here belong to God the Father?

Everything belongs to God but not everything is his personal spirit.








Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1215541#post1215541)
There is a huge difference between his spirit and all other spirits.

The Holy Spirit is not created and is eternal and is God. Yet He is a spirit being and has all the attributes of a spirit being.



The Holy Spirit is not created and is eternal and is God yet is not a separate person outside of the Father and Son. The HS is the Father's spirit which also became the Son's spirit so it is now their spirit.






Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1215541#post1215541)
What is this Holy Person's personal name?

The Holy Spirit's role is to testify of Christ and convict the world of sin. Therefore we can only refer to Him as the scripture refers to Him, Holy Spirit, Comforter, Helper.


Those are titles and descriptions but not personal names as the father and Son have. The reason the HS has no name is because it is not a person but a spirit of a person. My name is Jay but I would not say my spirit is another person with a different name or a name at all. It would simply be my spirit.






John 15:26-27 - “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.

The He is the father who sent his own spirit.

Naphal
Apr 3rd 2007, 11:01 PM
Original BadDod post:



It is not true that those translations show possessiveness by how they translated the text. They have translated it simply as "the Spirit of our God." They have essentially not interpreted it, but left it up to the reader to interpret.

I disagree. That is possessiveness. It is even extra important that it says "the spirit of God" as opposed to "a spirit of God" which is impersonal possessiveness. It's still possessive nonetheless but significant that the article is present. This proves this is a specific spirit of God rather than any number of other spirits. "the spirit of God" means the Holy Spirit only.








You are assuming that "of" indicates "possessiveness." Those translations do not support the idea of possessiveness. The KJV is not translated in that manner. "Of" does not in general indicate possessiveness.

spirit of God, his spirit, my spirit, the spirit of him that raised Jesus....these are all consistent with personal possession. I understand that is hard for you to accept since you do not believe the HS is God's own spirit but a separate person but there is way too much evidence showing this to be how it is.






I quoted Daniel Wallace's Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics (page 95). There he refers to the simple genitive of opposition (which is likely here since we have two substantives in the same case and referring to the same thing), which I believe this to be. You are saying that it is a genitive of possession. That is a possibility. But there are genitives of apposition, the attributive genitive, the partitive genitive ("which is a part of..." - not likely here), the descriptive genitive which is probably the most basic genitive type.


Like I am showing above, scriptural context and the various wording used concerning God's one certain and specific Spirit does denote possession in the very personal sense.




For example, let's look at another place where similar confusion arises. In 2 Corinthians 5:14 "the love of Christ" can be referring to the love which Christ has for Paul, or the love which Paul has for Christ.




Now when I asked people earlier to follow this thread and make sure that you addressed this issue, I did so not because I thought you were dodging the issue. (I explained that earlier. I apologize if it came across as such.) I do think you are sincere as well. But I think that you are sincerely wrong and that you are making some assumptions grammatically which should not necessarily be made - ones which line up with your view, of course.

If all I had was "spirit of God" then you'd have a valid argument but since I am basing possessiveness on much much more than just that then focusing solely on the "of God" simply doesn't affect my position.



You specifically said that there is not one God, yet you are surprised that I see that as tri-theism. Deuteronomy 6:4 says that the Lord our God is one God.

Sir, I have said repeatedly there is one God. I demand of you as a gentlemen to either PROVE by quoting me saying there is not one God or to apologize openly for making this false accusation. I will not address any more of your posts until this is resolved.

Naphal
Apr 3rd 2007, 11:07 PM
And what of this my brother....

Isa 9:6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=9&verse=6&version=kjv#6)For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Whose name shall be called these things? The Child, the Son, Him whose shoulders shall bare the govt?

Jesus.




Have you ever known a "thing" to be a he or a she?

My car's name is Betty and she is a very nice car. She is a car not a person.

Toolman
Apr 4th 2007, 01:51 AM
They were spirits of beings, not beings themselves.


No, they are beings. No where does scripture define these evil spirits as having physical bodies but shows that they clearly do not.


No where does scripture proclaim that evil spirits are people either.

Evil spirits are not human people, that is correct, they are persons (beings0 nonetheless, just as God the Father and the Holy Spirit are not human people either yet they are nonetheless persons.


The Holy Spirit is not a being but the spirit of a being.

I have understood your belief.


Yes, this is where we disagree. Even beyond the difference in words and definitions I will in no way accept that the HS is a different and separate person from the Father and Son because I do not find that supported in scripture.

I understand that you do not see it, yet I must present what I see as truth.


I disagree. What I see shown is the spirit of a being being sent forth and interacting with people.

Please share the scripture that speaks of these evil spirits having physical bodies, otherwise I must regard it as man made.


We know there is only one Holy Spirit so that spirit is then different than these 7 right? Why is it different? because the HS is God's actual, personal spirit as opposed to any and all other spirits "of" God.

Yet the scripture clearly states they are the "Spirits of God", which exactly what you base your belief on the Holy Spirit being the "Spirit of God" so I don't see why you don't except God having multiple spirits.

You also said these were spirits He sends out but the text says the same of the Holy Spirit.


Everything belongs to God but not everything is his personal spirit.

If a spirit belongs to a person then I would say that is pretty personal. Does your spirit belong to you?


The Holy Spirit is not created and is eternal and is God yet is not a separate person outside of the Father and Son. The HS is the Father's spirit which also became the Son's spirit so it is now their spirit.

If the HS is eternal and Christ is eternal then how did the Spirit "become" the Son's Spirit? Did God change?


Those are titles and descriptions but not personal names as the father and Son have. The reason the HS has no name is because it is not a person but a spirit of a person. My name is Jay but I would not say my spirit is another person with a different name or a name at all. It would simply be my spirit.

As I said the Spirit's role is to glorify and testify of the Son. We don't need to know His personal name. He glorifies another.

watchinginawe
Apr 4th 2007, 03:33 AM
I'm putting this thread on notice of closing. It has been a lively discussion by all sides and I appreciate the civility (for the most part) and the information for anyone taking the time to read through. Those active in the thread please make your summations and we will close this thing off tomorrow evening. OK?

God Bless!

BadDog
Apr 4th 2007, 04:03 AM
Naphal,

You asked Toolman about why the HolySpirit has no name - a good question, which Toolman answered well. The Holy Spirit does have a name:

Mattthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

I mention this because this is a critical text which needs to be addressed by anyone claiming the Holy Spirit is not a Person.


I disagree. That is possessiveness. It is even extra important that it says "the Spirit of God" as opposed to "a spirit of God" which is impersonal possessiveness. It's still possessive nonetheless but significant that the article is present. This proves this is a specific spirit of God rather than any number of other spirits. "the spirit of God" means the Holy Spirit only.


spirit of God, his spirit, my spirit, the spirit of him that raised Jesus....these are all consistent with personal possession. I understand that is hard for you to accept since you do not believe the HS is God's own spirit but a separate person but there is way too much evidence showing this to be how it is.

Like I am showing above, scriptural context and the various wording used concerning God's one certain and specific Spirit does denote possession in the very personal sense.

These are also all consistent with the Spirit being a unique, distinct Person. We can take each of those and refer to the Son as well:

"the Son of God," "His Son," "My Son," The Son of Him that...,"


If all I had was "spirit of God" then you'd have a valid argument but since I am basing possessiveness on much much more than just that then focusing solely on the "of God" simply doesn't affect my position.

Naphal,

I explained above that there is a relationship indicated by such expressions as "His Spirit" ("His Son" - parallel - "And the blood of Jesus, His Son, purifies us from all sin.") or "My Spirit" ("My Son" - parallel - as when the Father said "This is My son, in whom I am well pleased.") But we cannot assume that possessiveness is indicated. And we should note that if we acknowledge that "Spirit of God" is not indicating possessiveness, then those other texts you list are a very small percentage of texts left on the Spirit. And in general the Spirit is not referred to even as "the Spirit of God," but just as "the Spirit" or "the Holy Spirit."

Let's be specific:
Out of 120+ uses in Pauline epistles, only 8 refer to the Spirit as the "Spirit of God."
Out of 20 uses in the general epistles, only 1 refers to the Spirit as the "Spirit of God."
Out of 15 uses in Revelation, none refer to the Spirit as the "Spirit of God."
Out of about 75 uses in the gospels, only 2 refer to the Spirit as the "Spirit of God."

That's 11 uses in the NT out of about 225 total uses of "Spirit." Perhaps 5%. That's about the same as the percentage of times that the Son is referred to as "His Son" or "My Son."


Sir, I have said repeatedly there is one God. I demand of you as a gentlemen to either PROVE by quoting me saying there is not one God or to apologize openly for making this false accusation. I will not address any more of your posts until this is resolved.Naphal,

OK, let's do this one more time...

I don't believe in the Godhead being co-equal because it is written that the Father is the head of (higher authority than) the Son as well as the some will be in submission to the Father. If you don't know the verses I refer to I will happily supply them. God also is not one being. That is Modalism which teaches the Son and the Father are actually one being or person.
OK, where you said above that "God is also not one being" you are in direct contradiction of just about every theologian who holds to trinitarianism. I acknowledged that you did not see this as saying that there is more than one God - tri-theism. But I listed many articles in which theologians said that such a statement was indeed tri-theism.

I realize that we are dealing with the meaning of terms here - defining things differently.

How can God be more than one being and yet there be but one God? You are using "being" differently than its basic meaning in English.

The reason this distinction is important is that you are referring to the Holy Spirit as not a person (personality if you wish) yet as part of a holy trinity. You are clearly using the concept of tri-unity/trinity differently than the rest of us here.

Now Naphal, I was very respectful in my posts, expressing respect for you, appreciation for your sincerity and genuineness. Yet you accused me of modalism, and did not support the claim by any quotes nor did you apologize for it. Instead you took a quote I made regarding your theology and made it appear that this was my position.

Now this thread has persisted due to the graciousness of the moderators on this board. It is in contradiction to board policies, yet since you seemed to be genuine in your questions, I think this board has been very respectful and considerate in how they handled things. And I have been respectful and not tried to blast you. So why do you insist now that I have not been gentlemanly in how I have interacted with you?!

I understand that you are not trying to say that there is more than one God. But I am trying to show that this is actually what one must logically conclude from what you have said.

I am simply saying that logically it seems apparent to us that the Holy Spirit is referred to as a distinct person just as the Son is in the NT.

I tell you what. I think I've said about all that needs to be said. We have already started going around in circles, and I see no further value for participating in this thread. You are a precious "person" for whom our Lord died. I do not want to anger you or offend you - it's just not worth it. The only reason I got involved here was out of concern for those who lurk around threads such as this one... young believers who might become confused by what you have posted.

If you wish to continue this discussion, perhaps it would be best to email me or PM me.

Take care,

BD

Naphal
Apr 4th 2007, 05:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1216782#post1216782)
They were spirits of beings, not beings themselves.

No, they are beings. No where does scripture define these evil spirits as having physical bodies but shows that they clearly do not.


I have been saying that spirits do not have their own bodies. Spirits belong to people that have bodies.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1216782#post1216782)
No where does scripture proclaim that evil spirits are people either.

Evil spirits are not human people, that is correct, they are persons (beings0 nonetheless, just as God the Father and the Holy Spirit are not human people either yet they are nonetheless persons.


Person/people does not have to denote humanity. While God the Father is a person, the Holy Spirit is a spirit and not a person. There is a difference between a spirit and a person.




Quote:

Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1216782#post1216782)
I disagree. What I see shown is the spirit of a being being sent forth and interacting with people.

Please share the scripture that speaks of these evil spirits having physical bodies, otherwise I must regard it as man made.


No spirit has a body of it's own but I do believe evil spirits come from evil angels as the holy Spirit comes from the father. But, scripture doesn't address the origins of evil spirits that I know of so I base my belief upon the example of the Holy Spirit.

You would also then have to prove that evil spirits are beings themselves and do not originate from physical beings if we want to be fair about this.




Yet the scripture clearly states they are the "Spirits of God", which exactly what you base your belief on the Holy Spirit being the "Spirit of God" so I don't see why you don't except God having multiple spirits.


1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.


Ephesians 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.


Ephesians 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

There is one spirit of and from God, a personal, special spirit which is God and is the Spirit of God. Any and all other spirits are different and are not in the same category.




You also said these were spirits He sends out but the text says the same of the Holy Spirit.

But do not confuse the Holy Spirit as being no different than these other 7. You are trying to equate and equal them but there is only One Spirit of God in the sense of His actual spirit.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1216782#post1216782)
Everything belongs to God but not everything is his personal spirit.

If a spirit belongs to a person then I would say that is pretty personal. Does your spirit belong to you?


Each persons spirit is their spirit. It belongs to them, not to say it does not on a deeper sense belong to God.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1216782#post1216782)
The Holy Spirit is not created and is eternal and is God yet is not a separate person outside of the Father and Son. The HS is the Father's spirit which also became the Son's spirit so it is now their spirit.

If the HS is eternal and Christ is eternal then how did the Spirit "become" the Son's Spirit?


This I do not know. All I know is that Christ received the promise of the Holy Spirit in his human life and also said the Holy spirit was the spirit of his Father and then later in the NT the Spirit of Christ is equated to and with that same Holy Spirit.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1216782#post1216782)
Those are titles and descriptions but not personal names as the father and Son have. The reason the HS has no name is because it is not a person but a spirit of a person. My name is Jay but I would not say my spirit is another person with a different name or a name at all. It would simply be my spirit.

As I said the Spirit's role is to glorify and testify of the Son. We don't need to know His personal name. He glorifies another.


"He" has no name because "he" isn't a person. "He" is the spirit of a person that has a name. :)

Naphal
Apr 4th 2007, 06:37 AM
I'm putting this thread on notice of closing. It has been a lively discussion by all sides and I appreciate the civility (for the most part) and the information for anyone taking the time to read through. Those active in the thread please make your summations and we will close this thing off tomorrow evening. OK?

God Bless!

Sounds good. I want to thank all involved and especially the moderators for allowing something normally considered too controversial for this forum. :)

I'll prepare a summation as my last post for this thread and post it before too late tomorrow evening. Thank you.

BadDog
Apr 4th 2007, 04:41 PM
I think I've made a summation already. But I would like to make a general comment that many of you have probably already observed:

This really has to do with definitions, how we use various terms. I have noticed that we all define and use the following terms differently:

spirit
being
person - personality
people
essence
trinity tri-unity

Not long after the apostolic era, Christians began to try to express the concept of the Godhead such that it conformed with scripture (OT and NT) and enabled them to make sense of scriptures regarding the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Even today theologians have difficulty coming up with a simple definition of the trinity that is biblical and helpful. I just say "one God, three Persons." Yet clearly "person" doesn't quite work in the same sense that we use it in everyday conversations. "Substance" is often used, butthat's pretty vague. A common term used is "subsistence" which appears to be a term developed for use here.

I used the term "tri-theism" to explain how I viewed Naphal's theology. Tritheism teaches that there exists three Gods, not three persons, within the Godhead; that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one only in purpose, not in essence. That is probably not precisely what Naphal is saying.

Here is a common definition of the trinity:

"There is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three co-eternal and co-equal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence."

The word substance means essence, independent being. Essence is what a thing is and when used to describe the relationship of the Persons to the Godhead, it means they are the same indivisible, numerical essence. When Trinitarians say God is, one we mean one in essence. The word subsistence refers to the manner of existence that distinguishes one thing from another. It is a way of trying to be more accurate than the term "person."

BTW, Naphal does not agree with the portion above that says that they are "co-equal."

Now the whole undivided essence of God belongs to each of the three persons equally in classic trinitarianism. No one really denies that the Father is God, but many do deny that the whole undivided essence of God belongs to Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit as well. Hence they deny the deity of Christ and/or the Holy Spirit. That is not Naphal's position. Naphal is clearly a Christian. JWs typically do this, which is where I have encountered this viewpoint regarding the Holy Spirit before.

As I see it, either you are God, or you are not. To be God, you cannot be diminished in any of those attributes at all. That's where the "co-equal" necessity comes from. Since Naphal sees God as being above the Son (though he maintains the deity of Christ), that is an issue. As I see it, such a position just is not tenable.

Now Naphal's position that the Holy Spirit is not a distinct person of the trinity is in theory a possibility. I just do not see the Spirit described in that manner in the Bible. I believe Naphal would say the same in reverse, that our position is possible theoretically, but as he sees it it does not confrom to scripture.

His position is based on his perception that the Spirit is referred to in the NT as something which is possessed by the Father (and the Son). However, I believe that to be an unsound perception. I think that I have shown that the same sort of "possession" can be shown regarding the Father's relationship to the Son. There is a heirarchy in the Godhead, though they must be equal in essence and every attribute.

Again, IMO the best thing to do for someone intersted in pursuing this topic is to be very careful about how they define their terms.

Well, I did not intend to, but I guess I ended up making a summation. :P

Naphal, I truly did not intend to disrespect your position. I did feel that I needed to pursue a few points, even after you disagreed that you were saying something, because that was the logical conclusion, IMO.

Take care,

BD

Naphal
Apr 4th 2007, 08:25 PM
Matthew 10:20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
The two verses above are closely related as The spirit of the Father shall speak through the elect but it won't be the elect speaking nor their words. The same for Christ when he credited the words he was speaking were not his but the Father dwelling in Him. How did the Father dwell in Christ? Via the Holy Spirit. Thus, when the Holy Spirit of the Father speaks, it is the Father speaking not a different person as is being suggested.

Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

One way to identify who or what the Holy Spirit is is by studying who raised Jesus from the dead. Here we read that it was "the Spirit of him" as in the Spirit of God. But it is been disputed what this means. Does this mean a spirit that God sent as opposed to his own personal, unique spirit? Does it mean the Spirit is a person separate from the Father meaning not the Father but someone else?

Acts 3:26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

1 Thessalonians 1:10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

Here is a good clue. We see that the Father of Jesus raised Jesus from the dead so we know that the previous verse which said "the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead" is equal to God the Father, the father of Jesus is the one who did the raising and He did this Himself in spirit form, the Holy Spirit, God the Father's own personal spirit. Not a spirit as in a person or servant of the Father but the Father himself.

The key part of these verses is that the one who raised Jesus is Jesus' Father therefore we know that the spirit of the Father is actually the Father as a spirit or in spirit form. The Holy Spirit is not a different person than the Father but the Father's actual spirit.

Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)

Here it is said much plainer.

Who raised Jesus? The Father, or some other supposed person who is not the Father?

The Holy Spirit is said to have raised Jesus and here we have it said that the Father raised Jesus hence the Holy Spirit is the Father in some way rather than the Holy Spirit being a different person than the Father.

I do not view this topic as salvational in nature but I do view it as being important because God has revealed himself and yet we are very confused about who and what He is. As for the concept of the Godhead being "co-equal" if that means equal as far as all being fully God then yes they are equal, but there is hierarchy in the Godhead and in that sense they are not co-equal.

So in summation, how do we describe God in simple terms?

One God, three persons? I think that's too simplistic and isn't accurate to the following scripture:

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit:

One God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Any other terms or definitions reach beyond what scripture itself gives us. Over and over we see these three in this description so who are we to alter it?

So, I will always choose "the Holy Spirit" over "the Holy Person".

Souled Out
Apr 4th 2007, 08:45 PM
God has always been Father in reference to His relationship to man, but His relationship to the man, Christ, is much different than His relationship to any other man because He IS the Father of the only begotten Son.

We know this, but we can’t lose sight of this truth when we read Luke 1:35.

BadDog
Apr 4th 2007, 10:39 PM
Nice post, Naphal. It also records that Jesus raised Himself...

John 2:18-22 Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?"

But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

John 11:25, 26 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"

Philippians 3:9-11 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Romans 1:1-4 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God--the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.


Just as all members of the trinity were involved in the creation, so all were involved in the resurrection of Christ.

BD

Naphal
Apr 4th 2007, 10:49 PM
Nice post, Naphal. It also records that Jesus raised Himself...

John 2:18-22 Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?"

But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

John 11:25, 26 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"

Philippians 3:9-11 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Romans 1:1-4 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God--the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.


Just as all members of the trinity were involved in the creation, so all were involved in the resurrection of Christ.

BD

Christ didn't raise himself from the dead. This is best for another thread.

watchinginawe
Apr 4th 2007, 11:29 PM
I'm closing the thread now. If anyone didn't get their last post in, just PM me and we can have a midnight opening. :)