Hands up who believes in the Trinity!

[glasgowchick]

If the Holy Spirit is nothing more than an impersonal force why is it that the Scriptures always refer to Him in personal language? It seems to me that you are confusing the gift of the Holy Spirit (i.e. the gifts given to us by the Holy Spirit) with the Holy Spirit Himself.

James

Go james :jiggy:
Go James :jiggy:

well said...

 

[jeffrey]

Go james :jiggy:
Go James :jiggy:

well said...

:woohoo: DITTO! :woohoo:

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

If the Holy Spirit is nothing more than an impersonal force why is it that the Scriptures always refer to Him in personal language? It seems to me that you are confusing the gift of the Holy Spirit (i.e. the gifts given to us by the Holy Spirit) with the Holy Spirit Himself.

James

fair point, but why is it that some scriptures say that it is God that will give the spirit? or impart/pour out?

 

[James the Persian]

fair point, but why is it that some scriptures say that it is God that will give the spirit? or impart/our out?

Well, Christ said that He (being God, I realise you dispute this but bear with me for the sakes of argument) would send Him (the Holy Spirit, also God) to us and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (again, God, and I doubt you dispute this). Now, if one Hypostasis of God proceeds the other eternally and the third sends Him to us temporally, what difficulty do you have with the idea that God sends the Holy Spirit? I don't understand. It seems to me that your question might well be a valid point when debating with a Sabellian (modalist) but seems to have no bearing on Trinitarian beliefs.

Of course you can understand God sending Christ in an Arian way as well as a Trinitarian one and the same can be said for understanding the sending of the Holy Spirit in a Pneumatomachist fashion, but your point has no bearing on the difference between our viewpoints as it doesn't deal with the nature of the Holy Spirit or Christ. That's what divides us, not who sent them into the world. The personal language used of the Holy Spirit, however, while having no bearing on the Arian portion of your theology, is a telling argument against your Pneumatomachist tendency to view the Holy Spirit as a non-Person, as you seem to have conceded.

James

 

[jeffrey]

Hope you know, James, your making my brain work overtime following this. What's even more frightening is I think I am. My God! There's hope for me yet! :woohoo:

 

[James the Persian]

Hope you know, James, your making my brain work overtime following this. What's even more frightening is I think I am. My God! There's hope for me yet! :woohoo:

There's hope for everyone as with God anything is possible. I'm living proof. Who would have expected me an ex-Lutheran, ex-atheist, ex-Buddhist (not all at once you understand) to become Orthodox. I certainly wouldn't have done, but here I am and I'm more confident in my faith now than at any point in the past.

I apologise if I'm having to make you work hard. I'm afraid I have a tendency to use the theological language that springs to mind first without giving too much consideration as to whether or not my audience will understand. I admit that this is a failing on my part. To ease understanding of my posts I feel I ought to define a few things, some of which you'll probably already know:

• Arianism - the belief that Christ is not truly God but a created being. Classical Arianism as taught by Arius had it that Christ was a lesser god, created by and dependent on God for existence. Neo-Arian groups are sometimes a little different. For instance, the JWs believe that Christ was the Archangel Michael rather than a created god, but the implications are no different.
• Sabellianism (modalism) - the belief that the three Persons of the Trinity are not Persons but rather modes that God (the divine Monad) assumes in order to fulfil certain functions, rather like an actor wearing masks. In this view the Father is God when in heaven, the Son is God incarnated as the man Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit is God spiritually coming into the world as the Paraclete since Pentecost. The difficulties of reconciling this view with Scriptural and Patristic sources should be reasonably obvious, but some groups, such as Oneness Pentecostals do still adhere to this teaching.
• Pneumatomachism - the belief that the Holy Spirit is not God. Usually this takes the form of the 'Holy Spirit as a power of God' argument raised above, but sometimes takes the view of the Holy Spirit as a created being. It is roughly to the Holy Spirit as Arianism is to Christ.

Hopefully this might be of some help and please don't hesitate to pick me up on it if what I write is near-incomprehensible. I'll always be happy to try and explain.

James

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

actually, i'd like to say thanks for those explanations too, as i was a bit lost there...

 

[Scuba Pete]

So just WHAT is the Spirit???

I Corinthians 2:6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 However, as it is written:
"No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him"— 10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
16 "For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ. NIV

 

[jeffrey]

James, NetDoc, excellent reading. Let of grab my popcorn. Sit back and learn.

 

[glasgowchick]

James, NetDoc, excellent reading. Let of grab my popcorn. Sit back and learn.

As Long as you share the popcorn

 

[jeffrey]

As Long as you share the popcorn

Chomp Chomp Chomp Passes popcorn to glasgowchick

 

[glasgowchick]

Chomp Chomp Chomp Passes popcorn to glasgowchick [/QUOTE

Just grabbed a handful " mmmmmmm" chomp chomp chomp thanks :biglaugh:

 

[true blood]

Next You'll tell me John did not write his Gospel, Or Revelations, that he wasn't there when Jesus died. You side stepped the question. It seems you are talking the parts of the Bible you wish to believe and ignoring the rest.

If you do not know just say so next time. I asked a simple question and your reply didn't even attempt to answer but rather you wrote some evasive remarks. I've tried to understand the "trinity" but it lacks reason and logic. So I'm looking into why those who believe in the "trinity" do so. There is definately a link with John involved that borders on idolatry. And I'm wondering why you assume that John is the person referred to "whom Jesus loved" when there is zero verses that state this whereas if you read John 11:5 it states "now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus", John 11:3 "...he (Lazarus) whom thou lovest is sick", 11 "...Our friend Lazarus sleepeth". You see there are records of the deep human love of intimate friendship Jesus had with Lazarus. Why do trinitarians make a doctrine that it is John? Seems suspicious to me and possible a root of the trinity myth.

 

[Scuba Pete]

True blood,

We believe that the person who wrote John was the person that Jesus loved because the scriptures tell us so:

John 21:20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"

22 Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?" 24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. NIV

Obviously Lazarus could not testify about Jesus' tears while he was dead, so we KNOW it wasn't him.

 

[glasgowchick]

True blood,

We believe that the person who wrote John was the person that Jesus loved because the scriptures tell us so:

John 21:20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"

22 Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?" 24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. NIV

Obviously Lazarus could not testify about Jesus' tears while he was dead, so we KNOW it wasn't him.

Hi ND, Good Scripture, Its funny you should use that Scripture, It was the same Scripture my preacher talked to me about this morning at bible study..Good minds think alike oopssssss sorry wrong Icon I mean't it to be a wink

 

[chuck010342]

I wanted this to be a poll, but wasn't clever enough to figure out how to set one up. anyhow, who believes in the Trinity?

I do.

I'll start it off by saying 'I don't!'. I think it's the biggest load of rubbish that anyone can get by twisting scrpitures.

The mormons and the JW's almost use the exact same words to describe it.

Could you also explain why you believe or or don't believe

"Before Abraham was I am"

"I and the father are one"

"Nobody gets thru the father execpt thru me"

I'd love if you could list some scriptures to back your views.

already done.

and i should say, please quote scriptures in context and in relation to other scriptures. (But i'm not saying you need to quote whole chapters...) Thank y'all!

why don't you look them up?

(P.S. Before anyone says 'Why don't you list any scriptures to back your beliefs?', I'd like to cite the whole of the Bible as that is enough for anyone to realise that the trinity is made up nonsense!) :jiggy:

please explain how those verses don't show that Jesus is God.

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

I do.



The mormons and the JW's almost use the exact same words to describe it.



"Before Abraham was I am"

"I and the father are one"

"Nobody gets thru the father execpt thru me"


already done.

why don't you look them up?


please explain how those verses don't show that Jesus is God.

No probs. i'm going home now tho, so you'll have to wait....sorry....

 

[michel]

I do.



The mormons and the JW's almost use the exact same words to describe it.



"Before Abraham was I am"

"I and the father are one"

"Nobody gets thru the father execpt thru me"


already done.

why don't you look them up?


please explain how those verses don't show that Jesus is God.

I'm with you on this one Chuck!

 

[glasgowchick]

I do.



The mormons and the JW's almost use the exact same words to describe it.



"Before Abraham was I am"

"I and the father are one"

"Nobody gets thru the father execpt thru me"


already done.

why don't you look them up?


please explain how those verses don't show that Jesus is God.

Hi Chuck, the NWT Translates John 8:58 Jesus said to them " most truley I say to you before Abraham came into existence " I have been"...

On saying that tho I am with you on this :woohoo:

 

[Scuba Pete]

GlasgowChick,

Thanks for the kind words! You might have noticed, but I would rather answer questions with references to Scripture than rely on my own devices. God always says it better!