|
Post by fixit on Apr 30, 2015 7:28:40 GMT -5
If "God the Father" is a "person" and "the Spirit of God" is another person... ...then "Mary" is a "person" and "The Spirit of Mary" is another person? In Jesus' great commission at the end of his time on earth he said very clearly "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" - a statement that is "trinitarian" to the core. Somehow, I don't see Mary's name or anyone's name in this command - and for good reason. But I think you know that! In whose name did the disciples baptise converts through the rest of the NT?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 30, 2015 7:30:08 GMT -5
Didn't fixit mean our fellow poster 'Mary'? Yes. It seems that Emy is a person and Emy's spirit is another person.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 30, 2015 7:35:42 GMT -5
It's not something that I fully understand and I don't spend much time thinking about it Nobody does fully understand it. If folks spent much time thinking about it they would see the holes in the theory.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 30, 2015 7:39:41 GMT -5
Ancient Semitics and Orientals used the phrase "Son of" to indicate likeness or sameness of nature and equality of being. When Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, His Jewish contemporaries fully understood that He was making a claimed to be God. Why do you think the Jews didn't see the Trinity in the OT?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 30, 2015 7:41:46 GMT -5
If "God the Father" is a "person" and "the Spirit of God" is another person... ...then "Mary" is a "person" and "The Spirit of Mary" is another person? Read that verse again. There is the Holy Spirit and my human spirit. I am a person and the Spirit of God is another person. Spirit being or whatever you like to call it. (Not the spirit of Mary is another person but the Holy Spirit is another). Jesus comes and dwells within the believer (Christ within is your hope of glory). Is Mary (me) a person and Jesus another person? Yes. Is the Holy Spirit separate from my spirit yes. Do all humans have the Holy Spirit or is it something that comes to the believer when they accept Jesus? We all have a human spirit but the Holy Spirit comes and dwells within when we accept Christ. So God is a spirit and God's spirit is a separate person spirit?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2015 9:49:39 GMT -5
I think it best that you explain the difference first, Nathan. If there is a difference between the two terms, then tell us the difference. If there is no difference, then why use the non-biblical term "God the Son?" Can you explain the difference? Is there a difference?
There is NO difference between The Son of God and God the Son= GodheadRon Rhodes wrote: The phrase "Son of God."Ancient Semitics and Orientals used the phrase "Son of" to indicate likeness or sameness of nature and equality of being. When Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, His Jewish contemporaries fully understood that He was making a claimed to be God. The Gospels reveal that Christ was worshiped (Greek: proskuneo, the same Greek word used of worshiping the Father) as God many times. Jesus always accepted such worship from Thomas (John 20:28), the angels (Heb. 1:6), the wise men (Matt. 2:11), a leper (Matt. 8:2), a ruler (Matt. 9:18), a blind man (John 9:23), Mary Magdalene, (Matt. 28:9), and the disciples (Matt. 28:17). Jesus NEVER sought to correct His followers or set them straight when they bowed down and worshiped Him. Indeed, Jesus considered such worship as perfectly appropriate. Of course, we wouldn't expect Jesus to try to correct people (according to Exodus 34:14) in worshiping Him if He was TRULY God (the Son) in the flesh, as Scripture clearly indicates.
There is a difference between the two: one is in the bible and one isn't. I have a high level of doubt about the quote by Ron Rhodes above. I believe the term "Son of God" simply means "son of God" and nothing more. I actually know better, than what Ron Rhodes says regarding this subject. Any person with even a little knowledge about Hebrew and the Hebrew culture should be aware of how Jews use the word "son" in naming someone. For instance, Judah ben Abram simply means "Son of Abram." It doesn't mean anything more than that, Nathan, no matter what Ron Rhodes claims. Ron Rhodes is making a lot of money by selling religious material, including anti-Unitarian material, so it's not surprising that he'd be coming up with arguments for the trinity doctrine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2015 9:58:10 GMT -5
This verse you just quoted calls the spirit a he. I believe God's Holy Spirit comes in when I accepted Christ. My body dies but my Spirit goes back to God. The human spirit is different from the Holy Spirit that comes when we accept Christ. My guess is that the holy spirit is called a 'he' because it was linguistically required by the Greek language. A pencil is a 'he' in German (der bleischtift) but it doesn't mean that a pencil is actually a female. It simply means that the structure of the language requires the masculine definite article in describing the noun. If someone had the time to look into it, I wonder if the grammatical structure of the NT sometimes requires a 'neutral' noun to be a male or female in the language structure.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Apr 30, 2015 11:09:55 GMT -5
Jesus gave us the model prayer, "after this manner pray..." from Matt 6:9-13.
It starts with addressing the Father. Then, later he told us to ask the Father in the name of Jesus.
Fortunately, the Bible gives us answers to our many questions.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Apr 30, 2015 11:19:10 GMT -5
But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. Acts 5:3-4
Q. Who is being lied to? A. The Holy Spirit B. God C. Both A and B
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2015 13:53:14 GMT -5
There is a difference between the two: one is in the bible and one isn't. I have a high level of doubt about the quote by Ron Rhodes above. I believe the term "Son of God" simply means "son of God" and nothing more. I actually know better, than what Ron Rhodes says regarding this subject. Any person with even a little knowledge about Hebrew and the Hebrew culture should be aware of how Jews use the word "son" in naming someone. For instance, Judah ben Abram simply means "Son of Abram." It doesn't mean anything more than that, Nathan, no matter what Ron Rhodes claims. Ron Rhodes is making a lot of money by selling religious material, including anti-Unitarian material, so it's not surprising that he'd be coming up with arguments for the trinity doctrine.
The Son of God and God the Son= Godhead.
"Son of God" draws attention to his humanity, whereas "God the Son" refers more generally to his divinity, including his pre-incarnate existence. So, in Christian theology, Jesus was always God the Son,[1] though not revealed as such until he also became the Son of God through incarnation.Yes, Son of God is biblical and does draw attention to his humanity. "God the Son" is not in the bible. Son of God is Christian theology. God the Son is Roman Catholic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2015 13:58:49 GMT -5
But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. Acts 5:3-4 Q. Who is being lied to? A. The Holy Spirit B. God C. Both A and B Oh, geez. I was hoping this wouldn't come up, as I really don't feel like debating the Holy Spirit. But, here goes: It all has to do with the definite article in the biblical Greek. The definite article "THE Holy Spirit" refers to the Person of God. Not a separate person from the Father, but to the ONE Person of God. This is because: 1) God is holy. 2) God is a spirit. 3) Therefore, God (the Father) is the HOLY SPIRIT. There's NO NEED to add a 'third person'. Holy spirit (without a definite article) refers to the gift, "holy spirit". The gift of holy spirit is given by the Giver, the Holy Spirit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2015 14:14:07 GMT -5
But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. Acts 5:3-4 Q. Who is being lied to? A. The Holy Spirit B. God C. Both A and B Oh, geez. I was hoping this wouldn't come up, as I really don't feel like debating the Holy Spirit. But, here goes: It all has to do with the definite article in the biblical Greek. The definite article "THE Holy Spirit" refers to the Person of God. Not a separate person from the Father, but to the ONE Person of God. This is because: 1) God is holy. 2) God is a spirit. 3) Therefore, God (the Father) is the HOLY SPIRIT. There's NO NEED to add a 'third person'. Holy spirit (without a definite article) refers to the gift, "holy spirit". The gift of holy spirit is given by the Giver, the Holy Spirit.
and yet they are 3 different beings otherwise why baptize in the name of God, the Son and the Holy spirit that would be like baptizing in the name of me, myself and I.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2015 14:28:03 GMT -5
Oh, geez. I was hoping this wouldn't come up, as I really don't feel like debating the Holy Spirit. But, here goes: It all has to do with the definite article in the biblical Greek. The definite article "THE Holy Spirit" refers to the Person of God. Not a separate person from the Father, but to the ONE Person of God. This is because: 1) God is holy. 2) God is a spirit. 3) Therefore, God (the Father) is the HOLY SPIRIT. There's NO NEED to add a 'third person'. Holy spirit (without a definite article) refers to the gift, "holy spirit". The gift of holy spirit is given by the Giver, the Holy Spirit.
and yet they are 3 different beings otherwise why baptize in the name of God, the Son and the Holy spirit that would be like baptizing in the name of me, myself and I. Throughout the New Testament they baptized in the name of Jesus. To baptize in "the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" means to baptize in the authority of the 3. It doesn't say these three are one God in this passage. I never said that the Father and the Son are NOT two different beings. They clearly are. The Holy Spirit is GOD, but not a separate person from the Father. The holy spirit is the gift God gives to believers. One can attempt to fit the traditional Trinity into this bible verse (Matthew 28:19) but the traditional 'creed' of trinitarianism is absent in this verse. This verse simply mentions the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It doesn't attempt to equate the 3, as the Nicene Creed and that insane Athanasian Creed do.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Apr 30, 2015 15:07:38 GMT -5
Nathan why do the Gospel writers use the term Son of God 46 times and God the Son 0 times? Why did they feel no need to use the term but trinitarian minded posters do? Now, I am not always in agreement of how you show up here. But I think this is a very legitimate question.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 30, 2015 15:39:05 GMT -5
Oh, geez. I was hoping this wouldn't come up, as I really don't feel like debating the Holy Spirit. But, here goes: It all has to do with the definite article in the biblical Greek. The definite article "THE Holy Spirit" refers to the Person of God. Not a separate person from the Father, but to the ONE Person of God. This is because: 1) God is holy. 2) God is a spirit. 3) Therefore, God (the Father) is the HOLY SPIRIT. There's NO NEED to add a 'third person'. Holy spirit (without a definite article) refers to the gift, "holy spirit". The gift of holy spirit is given by the Giver, the Holy Spirit.
and yet they are 3 different beings otherwise why baptize in the name of God, the Son and the Holy spirit that would be like baptizing in the name of me, myself and I. Have you noticed they baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in the book of Acts? Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Acts 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 30, 2015 15:41:41 GMT -5
But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. Acts 5:3-4 Q. Who is being lied to? A. The Holy Spirit B. God C. Both A and B God was being lied to. God is a spirit, a holy spirit.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 30, 2015 17:04:54 GMT -5
Have you noticed they baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in the book of Acts? Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Acts 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Who can forgive sin, but God ONLY. Was Peter teaching Jesus is Godhead here in Acts? And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. ..... every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, You missed the point. In the book of Acts believers were baptized in the name of Jesus - with no mention of being baptized in the name of the Trinitarian formula. Could it be that Trinitarians slipped their formula into Matthew's gospel?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 30, 2015 18:09:08 GMT -5
Nathan you have not answered my question, you answering my question by saying what I and others do, that is not answering these two questions: 1)Why do the Gospel writers use the term Son of God 46 times and God the Son 0 times? I don't know.2)Why did they not use the term God the Son? They could have but they didn't. I don't know. God the Son (Greek: Θεός ὁ υἱός) is the second person of the Trinity in Christian theology. The doctrine of the Trinity identifies Jesus as God the Son, united in essence but distinct in person with regard to God the Father and God the Holy Spirit (the first and third persons of the Trinity). In these teachings, God the Son pre-existed before incarnation, is co-eternal with God the Father (and the Holy Spirit), both before Creation and after the End (see Eschatology). Son of God for some draws attention to his humanity, whereas God the Son refers more generally to his divinity, including his pre-incarnate existence.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_the_SonCan you answer my question... You don't accept the word God the Son.... But do you BELIEVE and ACCEPT Jesus is God's Son/God the Son? God the Son is not the same as Son of God. If it was the same, why would Trinitarians bother using a non-biblical term when they could be using the biblical term "Son of God"?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 30, 2015 18:13:36 GMT -5
You missed the point. In the book of Acts believers were baptized in the name of Jesus - with no mention of being baptized in the name of the Trinitarian formula. Could it be that Trinitarians slipped their formula into Matthew's gospel? NO. I didn't miss the point! Peter didn't follow the instruction of Jesus in Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Why would Peter baptize in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, if HE wasn't in the Godhead/Father, Son and Holy Spirit? We KNOW ONLY God can forgive sin. Why would Peter baptize people in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins? if he wasn't God. Can you explain to us, fixit? Thanks.You're missing the point Nathan. If baptism in the name of the Trinitarian baptism formula was necessary, the book of Acts would have recorded that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2015 18:23:15 GMT -5
But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. Acts 5:3-4 Q. Who is being lied to? A. The Holy Spirit B. God C. Both A and B God was being lied to. God is a spirit, a holy spirit. Exactly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2015 18:31:03 GMT -5
Some people (Adam and Eve, King David) in the Old Testament knew about the Triune God. However, Jesus came to REVEAL more details of the Godhead to His disciples.Triune God in the Old TestamentHowever, even though God is one of His essential being or nature, He is also three Persons. God (Elohim/Plural) said, " Let US! make man in OUR image." (Gen. 1:26) God said, "Behold, the man has become One of us." (Gen. 3:22). God's plural personality is alluded to here, for He could NOT be talking to angels in these instances, because angels could not and did not help God create. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ, NOT the angels, created all things (John 1:3; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:2). King David wrote in Psalm 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. King David wrote in Psalm 51:10 Create in me a clean heart O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take NOT thy Holy Spirit from me. Restore unto the joy of thy Salvation, and uphold me with thy Spirit. Genesis 1:1,2 In the beginning God/Elohim=Plural created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the earth. God said to the Son, " And thou Lord (Jesus) in the beginning has laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands..." (Heb. 1:10,11) John wrote in (John 1:3,10) ALL things were made by Him (Jesus) and without him was not anything made that was made. He was in the world and the world was MADE by Him, and the world knew him not. Nathan, NONE OF THE PASSAGE YOU POSTED HERE SPEAK OF A TRINITY. You KNOW as well as most of the other posters, that these are very inadequate passages to be quoting to prove a trinity.
If you were to go to a Jewish Synagogue and use this argument with a Rabbi they'd look at you as if you were crazy. An educated Jew, one who knows his Torah, would NEVER agree with your interpretation of the use of the Royal We, etc. Your argument holds absolutely NO WATER. You consistently twist the words SON OF GOD into GOD THE SON, like it's some sort of mantra. No matter how you cut it, it's still TWISTING OF THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE.
One interesting thing: if Jesus was God, why would he need to pray for the Father to renew a RIGHT SPIRIT within him. Why would he fear that God would CAST HIM FROM HIS PRESENCE? Why would he fear that God would take away holy spirit from him? Makes no sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 30, 2015 19:04:40 GMT -5
God the Son is not the same as Son of God. If it was the same, why would Trinitarians bother using a non-biblical term when they could be using the biblical term "Son of God"? God is Jesus' Father= The Son of God.... Christ/God exists from eternity with the Father before he begotten as Jesus 2000 yrs ago= God the Son. Jesus is both the Son of God and God the Son.How could God send his only begotten son, if he was not begotten until he was sent?
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
Post by hberry on Apr 30, 2015 19:32:11 GMT -5
I love how John Stott spoke of Jesus: "One of the most extraordinary things Jesus did in his teaching (and did it so unobtrusively that many people read the Gospels without even noticing it) was to set himself apart from everybody else. For example, by claiming to be the good shepherd who went out into the desert to seek his lost sheep, he was implying that the world was lost, that he wasn't, and that he could seek and save it.
In other words, he put himself in a moral category in which he was alone. Everybody else was in darkness, he was the light of the world. Everybody else was hungry; he was the bread of life. Everybody else was thirsty; he could quench their thirst. Everybody else was sinful; he could forgive their sins. Indeed, on two separate occasions he did so, and both times observers were scandalized.
If Jesus claimed authority to forgive the penitent, he also claimed authority to judge the impenitent. Several of his parables implied that he expected to return at the end of history. On that day, he said, he would sit on his glorious throne. All nations would stand before him, and he would separate them from one another as a shepherd separates his sheep from his goats. In other words, he would settle their eternal destiny. Thus he made himself the central figure on the day of judgment.
Even if no one else did, Jesus certainly believed he was unique. He makes maybe his most extravagant claim in John 14:6."
Although this is only marginally related to the on-going the trinity debate, these words have helped me think more clearly about Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 30, 2015 19:48:39 GMT -5
So do you consider yourself a Trinitarian?? Bob - I've never thought of myself as a "Trinitarian" and I don't talk much about the Trinity per se. That's why I put "trinitarian" in inverted commas - it's not a term that I would ordinarily use. I came to an understanding from the Bible that God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit so I tend to couch in those terms. I've read a lot since but don't really worry about too much of the detail apart from the different roles/responsibilities and the order/relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It's not something that I fully understand and I don't spend much time thinking about it - I did that a few years ago based on Scripture. Probably the best book I've read on it is The Everlasting God by Broughton Knox - Broughton was a great Christian thinker/writer and a Godly man based in Sydney and known by many that I fellowship with. But the Anglican creed professes belief in the trinity.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 30, 2015 19:58:15 GMT -5
Didn't fixit mean our fellow poster 'Mary'? Yes. It seems that Emy is a person and Emy's spirit is another person. So a spirit is a person. Sounds like the US Supreme Court -- corporations are people. Now there's a mystery for you.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 30, 2015 20:19:32 GMT -5
This whole discussion sounds like the Roman church fathers trying to figure out how they were going to use the Bible to support their new doctrine. Augustine had the best advice: It's a mystery, just accept it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2015 20:41:21 GMT -5
NathanB, You are way off base as far as saying that only God can forgive sins. The Disciples (Workers) could/can forgive sins. According to you, that would make the Disciples equal to God. Read John 20:23, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." There's also passages that speak of the Disciples (Workers) as having the authority to bind things in heaven, and things on earth. So, it it NOT only God Who has the power to forgive sins.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Apr 30, 2015 20:54:20 GMT -5
NathanB, You are way off base as far as saying that only God can forgive sins. The Disciples (Workers) could/can forgive sins. According to you, that would make the Disciples equal to God. Read John 20:23, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." There's also passages that speak of the Disciples (Workers) as having the authority to bind things in heaven, and things on earth. So, it it NOT only God Who has the power to forgive sins. Misty can you clarify what you mean here ? The workers are NOT Disciples !
|
|