I read it--you are wrong. They suggest, they do not demand.
Is the Father called "my God" in John 20:28?
- Thread starter kyrios22
- Start date
YHWH(Jehovah) alone is the most high over all the earth-Psalm 83:18-- alone is singular.
He as well states in the OT--I am YHWH(Jehovah) besides me( singular) there is no other God.
In Ezekial over and over, about back then, and in the last days--They will have to know i am YHWH(Jehovah)
Yes because he has godlike qualities--so does Jesus, Moses did as well.
Catholicisms own encyclopedia says different--They have studied the bible over 1750 years.
It was only needed when-plain theos was in the same paragraph like John 1:1-2Cor 4:4--Ho Theos was used to show a difference of what one was actually being called. The only word in Greek for either God or god is Theos. HoTheos showed the difference like in those 2 verses--plain Theos was not being called-The God-a god is correct. The difference proves it.
DoctrinesofGraceBapt
Well-known member
My opinion on why God choose to use the title "Holy Spirit" for the third person of the Trinity isn't relevant at all to the fact that he did choose to use that title. Frankly, the only meaningful response to my position on the Holy Spirit being a person is to deal with the verses that teach such.
It's a guess. I can be wrong on my assessment of who the "My" is referring to without it affecting Trinitarianism in any way.
What on God's green earth are you talking about? How on earth can anyone think Gnosticism is relevant at all in this discussion? Frankly, it sounds like you heard someone else claim that Trinitarianism is related to Gnosticism so you repeat the charge without having the foggiest clue what Gnostics taught. In short, anyone who would make this claim is just expressing the FACT that they either don't understand Trinitarianism or Gnosticism or both.
Again, it's a guess. I can be wrong on my assessment of who the "My" is referring to without it affecting Trinitarianism in any way.
A vacuous cheap shot that isn't meaningful in any way. First of all, you haven't presented any doctrinal failings. Secondly, we never claim to have a full comprehension of all this. We know some, and we are sticking with what we know; the rest is mystery. Thirdly, you misunderstood how we are using the term simple with respect to God. God is simply in that you can't separate him into parts. There is no Jesus part of God and Father's part of God and Spirit's part of God. There is simply God. There are three persons who are that God. How this all works out is not clear, but nothing so far is necessarily wrong. Simplicity is directly inferred from God being before all things and creating all other things. And, the three persons have been revealed in Scripture. So, if you wish to present a "doctrinal failing" then start here. Lastly, I don't see how any of this can be described as being passive aggressive.
- It's not arbitrary. It's related to how the term "Spirit" is functioning in the sentence.
- No one is assuming the existence of a 3rd person. Scripture applies personal pronouns to the Holy Spirit recognizing such as being a third person. 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 that I have said to you." How can Jesus call the Holy Spirit "the Helper" if the Holy Spirit sin't a person? "The Helper" in Greek παράκλητος is a job title. It equivalent to calling the Holy Spirit the consigliere, or the defense attorney. Such is nonsensical if the Holy Spriit is not a person. Likewise, why would Jesus refer to the Holy Spirit with words like "whom" or "he"? How can a non person teach and bring remembrance? And that's just one verse. I could go on and on with other passages expressing the same idea, the Holy Spriit is a distinct person from the Father and the Son, while still being God.
- We are not allowed to guess? We must be able to answer every question any person ever asks about Scripture with authority? Come on, anyone who claims such ability is a wolf seeking whom he could devour. We don't claim to know all things. We simply know some things and hold on to what is true.
God Bless
DoctrinesofGraceBapt
Well-known member
Yes, there is one God. That's point 1 in the Trinity.
Again yes, there is one God. That's point 1 in the Trinity.
Nice job showing that you agree with point 1. Do you have anything meaningful to say about everything else taught in Scripture?
God Bless
johnny guitar
Well-known member
NO godlike qualities with Moses or satan.
johnny guitar
Well-known member
What happened to The Mad Witness???
johnny guitar
Well-known member
NOT interested in encyclopedias; ONLY The Bible.
The word "Holy" is an adjective that describes "Spirit" and is also used as a proper noun for God in the New Testament. But even though it is used as a proper noun it still has the actual meaning of a "Spirit" who is holy. Contrast this with the mention of an "unclean spirit" in the NT. "Unclean spirit" was not used as a proper noun in the NT but was certainly descriptive of the demon it referred to.
You are taking great pains to only see the term "Holy Spirit" as the name of the 3rd person of the Trinity and denying or stripping this name of any descriptive meaning.
It's a guess. I can be wrong on my assessment of who the "My" is referring to without it affecting Trinitarianism in any way.
The Bible uses terms like Spirit of the Father or the Spirit of Christ but never "Spirit of the Holy Spirit". I'm sure you can see why. Are you picking up any descriptive meaning of "Holy Spirit" now?
Kind of a rabbit trail here so I won't go there now. Some Trinitarians have the concept of the Father as the "Supreme God" and one sees a sort of unspoken bias for Trinitarians to see the Father as just a little bit more God than the other two persons. Their words betray them.
Illustrates that your view is arbitrary and not backed by evidence.
I can't imagine Isaiah seeing the Lord High and lifted up and saying, "Wow, the LORD is Simple!. Your concept comes from someone who was over analyzing God in their mind and not reading enough Isaiah. "Part" or "Parts" are normally applied to physical things, but you would presume to apply it to an omnipotent Spirit being? It's like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Empty philosophy.
Jesus also said within this context in John 14:18 "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you." He goes on to explain that the coming of the Holy Spirit will be how He manifests Himself to his disciples. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (2 Cor. 3:17). Jesus would be with his disciples in ANOTHER FORM. He was with them in the flesh, but would be in them as the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit has rationality and personality, not as a 3rd person in the Trinity, but as God Himself. The Holy Spirit is God Himself as revealed in spiritual presence and action. The word "Holy" describes God's fundamental moral character and the word Spirit describes God's basic non-moral nature (God is Spirit). Yes all those different terms in Romans 8 refer to the Holy Spirit, but so does the rest of the Bible.
Thanks
Your translations are erred. Its 100% undeniable fact-The Abrahamic God that Israel served and was taught is a single being God, not 3 beings making up 1 God. Jesus was taught that single being God when he attended those places of worship as was every bible writer= undeniable fact. Jesus teaches that God-John 20:17, Rev 3:12--You outright refuse to believe Jesus and fact over translation errors.
Moses caused 10 plagues on Egypt, he parted the red sea in front of all their eyes--Thats not godlike qualities? Satan has mislead 99% minimum ever since Eden, he controlled the weather to kill Jobs children, that isnt god like qualities?
johnny guitar
Well-known member
Single BEING IN THREE Persons.
johnny guitar
Well-known member
God caused 10 plagues on Egypt, NOT Moses.
DoctrinesofGraceBapt
Well-known member
Except for the fact that it is used as a title for a person in the NT, a "he" who has the job παράκλητος, helper, defense attorney (cf John 14:26). When it is used as a title for a person, it is not "a "Spirit" who is holy"; it's in reference to a particular person.
Do you know of a use of the phrase "the Holy Spirit" that isn't being used as a title for a person in Scripture? If it is being used as a proper noun, then it would be wrong to read into it "any descriptive meaning."
If "Holy Spirit" is being used as a proper noun, then it would be wrong to read into it "any descriptive meaning." Why are you choosing to add a descriptive meaning to a proper noun? FYI, I'm not saying one can't take from the fact that the third person is a Spirit who is holy from the fact that his title is Holy Spirit, but one shouldn't be interpreting a proper down as descriptive. Such would be abusing Scripture.
Such a depiction would be a denial of Trinitarianism. Congrats, you found an inconsistent Trintiarian. How does that help your case?
Seriously? How can a guess on a more obscure passage condemn an entire perspective as arbitrary? Where's the logic in this?
Interesting that you referenced Isaiah 6, because John says the person Isaiah saw high and lifted up was Jesus(cf John 12:41). FYI, we are denying applying "parts" to an omnipotent Spirit being. It's truly funny when someone tries to mock you for a position they hold.
Yes, how does Jesus saying "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you." undermine Jesus referring to the Holy Spirit in the third person as he/him/whom? The use of the 3rd person argues against the possibility that the HS is Jesus.
Where does Jesus "explain that the coming of the Holy Spirit will be how He manifests Himself to his disciples."? If you assert something, back it up. You kept on talking, but you never justified any of these claims.
Jesus says "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever. 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." John 14:16-17. Jesus clearly differentiates both himself and the Father from this Comforter. Your theory makes sense until one actually looks at the wording of the NT. Not to mention the fact that you just contradicted yourself. You just said Jesus "was with them in the flesh, but would be in them as the Holy Spirit.", but then you say "The Holy Spirit is God Himself as revealed in spiritual presence and action." Which is it? Is the HS "God Himself as revealed in spiritual presence and action" or Jesus?
God Bless
DoctrinesofGraceBapt
Well-known member
Trinitarians believe God is a singular being.
Trinitarians don't believe in 3 beings making up 1 God.
Yes, Jesus was taught a single being God. Who are you arguing with?
What "translation errors."? You keep on making vague references without ever backing up your assertions.
God Bless
OldShepherd
Well-known member
As I see not a clue. Whenever you make a grammatical statement/argument please cite an accredited Greek gramma. As it is you just pulled something out of thin air. I don't meant something posted on some anonymous web site. I mean an accredited peer reviewed grammar published by an accredited publisher. I'm not holding my breath cuz such a critter don't exist.
OldShepherd
Well-known member
Still an anonymous source. Find me something peer reviewed written by a scholar with some letters after his/her name; e.g. ThD, PhD, MTh etc.
He did it through Moses as he is the one who does it all through Jesus as well-Acts 2:22,, 1Cor 8:5-6-- It is God doing it all, you are correct. Jesus teaches he could do 0 of his own-John 5:30