More Trinity stuff

[Fortigurn]

1) I don't care if classical Trinitarianism is, has been made by some, docetic. I am not docetic, so to reject the Trintarianism so far as our discussion goes based on that heresy is to build a straw man.

I don't reject it because it's Docetic. I have already explained my reasons for rejecting it. I just don't want you claiming you believe Jesus was a man, when you clearly don't. You and I both know that was a burnable offence back in the day, it's radically opposed to trinitarianism of all kinds.

3) Theos en ho logos: yes, logos is qualitative, but it is not adjectival. Notice the NET's translation of the phrase, which I think to be excellent, if not a bit wordy.

I agree, and I'm perfectly happy with the NET's translation as well (I just wish they had put it in the actual text instead of a foonote). It certainly doesn't change the fact that the word of God isn't a person, it's the utterance of God, and it doesn't change the fact that the Greek word LOGOS means 'word' not 'God'.

Ignorance of the means to salvation does not excuse one from the penalty of dying outside of that salvation. That is all the more reason it is our job as believers to share the Gospel with as many people as possible. Those who never hear can't believe, and those who don't believe are not saved (Rom 10:14ff).

I agree that the ignorant are not saved, but how can you justify claiming that they are damned as guilt of breaking a law they have never heard of or broken? Scripture is clear that light brings responsibility, and that the ignorant are not punished as if they are guilty of both knowledge and willful disobedience.

Those without knowledge of the law are not, and cannot be, held responsible to it:

Romans 3:
20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Romans 4:
15Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Romans 5:
3(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

[Fortigurn]

As for the claim that this makes God unjust, I point you to the great flood. God gave men 120 years to repent and avoid the flood. Even more, He gave them Noah. If any had believed Noah's report, they could have been saved by entering the ark with him, and yet they did not believe and thus perished. Do you, though, believe that every person alive on the face of the planet over that 120 year period heard Noah's message? Of course not! I'm sure there were a great many who were swept away in the flood who had absolutely no idea it was coming.

Local flood FTW! Noone who was swept away was ignorant or guiltless.

[Pierac]

Jac wrote: Ignorance is no excuse (Rom 1:20).

Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

I believe you are mistaken in your understanding of this verse. You can not confess your sins to the name of Jesus by simply looking at creation. Yes, you can conceive of a God, but never come up with Him having a Son named Jesus that you must confess your sins. This is why man worshiped nature, it was their ignorance of who God is.

Now Paul tells us that he received Mercy because of his ignorance AND unbelief.

1Ti 1:13 though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief,


What is Peter telling us here?

1Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.
1Peter 4:6 For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.


Let's look at Judgement.

1Ti 1:20 among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

1Co 5:5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

Isa 26:9 My soul yearns for you in the night; my spirit within me earnestly seeks you. For when your judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness.

The author of Hebrews tell us that "man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment." (Heb 9:26)

Yes face judgement. But does that mean condemnation? Could it mean something else?
Like the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved?

Mal 3:2 "But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.

Isa 4:4 When the Lord has washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion and purged the bloodshed of Jerusalem from her midst, by the spirit of judgment and the spirit of burning,

1Co 3:13 each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.

B.W. wrote: You do not understand what Christians mean by the Trinity do you? Therefore, what do you think Christians mean by the Trinity?

B.W. I believed in the Trinity for 27 years. It is just in this past year that I have seen the truth.

Paul

[Jac3510]

I don't reject it because it's Docetic. I have already explained my reasons for rejecting it. I just don't want you claiming you believe Jesus was a man, when you clearly don't. You and I both know that was a burnable offence back in the day, it's radically opposed to trinitarianism of all kinds.

I do believe Jesus was a man. Fully man. Where you and I seem to disagree is that you (and perhaps most?) people think the opposite of God is Man, and the opposite of Man is God. I don't, though, define "God" in such a way that He cannot be human. You apparently do.

I agree, and I'm perfectly happy with the NET's translation as well (I just wish they had put it in the actual text instead of a foonote). It certainly doesn't change the fact that the word of God isn't a person, it's the utterance of God, and it doesn't change the fact that the Greek word LOGOS means 'word' not 'God'.

I'll deal with this in detail in a minute. I'm going to walk through your post point by point.

I agree that the ignorant are not saved, but how can you justify claiming that they are damned as guilt of breaking a law they have never heard of or broken? Scripture is clear that light brings responsibility, and that the ignorant are not punished as if they are guilty of both knowledge and willful disobedience.

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times. We are not damned for breaking the law. Jesus' death took care of that. No one is damned for sin. They are damned for their status of being in Adam. They damned for being spiritually dead, for being forensically unrighteous.

Local flood FTW! Noone who was swept away was ignorant or guiltless.

I don't believe in a local flood, and if I were to accept a local flood, I'd argue it was universal in scope. Chalk that up to another theological difference between us.

That said, the underlying point remains the same. There are more than a few stories in Scripture in which God condemns an entire people group for the collective disobedience. It is absurd to think that in every instance that every individual in the group heard the warning.

Now, I'll deal with Pierac's post as it is shorter, then I'll move point by point through your longer argument.

[Jac3510]

Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

I believe you are mistaken in your understanding of this verse. You can not confess your sins to the name of Jesus by simply looking at creation. Yes, you can conceive of a God, but never come up with Him having a Son named Jesus that you must confess your sins. This is why man worshiped nature, it was their ignorance of who God is.

Did I say that you could confess your sins by looking at creation? Of course not. Every conservative theologian I know, without exception, openly acknowledges that general revelation is enough condemn but not enough to save. Is unbelief the same as ignorance? No, it is not. That, though, does not help the cause of the ignorant. We are saved through belief. While ignorance <> unbelief, you cannot belief that of which you are ignorant.

So, we return to Rom 1:20. Every man has enough knowledge of God through general revelation that he is without excuse. His ignorance of the means of salvation does not save him. A man may be saved only by believing what God said about Jesus Christ.

Now Paul tells us that he received Mercy because of his ignorance AND unbelief.

1Ti 1:13 though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief,

What mercy did Paul receive? If you look in the OT, especially in Leviticus, you see that there were two major classifications of sin. One group of sins were those which were committed unknowingly, that is, in ignorance. The others were those committed "of a high hand," that is, in full knowledge it was sin, and yet committed regardless. For the former, there was no sacrifice, no mercy: only death.

Paul acted in ignorance, and therefore, he (graciously) received mercy.

What is Peter telling us here?

1Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.
1Peter 4:6 For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.


Let's look at Judgement.

1Ti 1:20 among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

1Co 5:5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

Isa 26:9 My soul yearns for you in the night; my spirit within me earnestly seeks you. For when your judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness.

A list of verses without exegesis doesn't do anything. I have to know how you understand them.

Yes face judgement. But does that mean condemnation? Could it mean something else?
Like the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved?

Mal 3:2 "But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.

Isa 4:4 When the Lord has washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion and purged the bloodshed of Jerusalem from her midst, by the spirit of judgment and the spirit of burning,

1Co 3:13 each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.

Judgment, like all words, carries a semantic range. Context determines what it means. In some cases, "judgment" refers to eternal condemnation. In others, it refers to temporal wrath. Still in others it refers to the experience the righteous will go through as their rewards are determined in the next life. And yet in others, it is a general word that conveys some or all of these ideas. Context, my friend, context.

[Fortigurn]

I don't reject it because it's Docetic. I have already explained my reasons for rejecting it. I just don't want you claiming you believe Jesus was a man, when you clearly don't. You and I both know that was a burnable offence back in the day, it's radically opposed to trinitarianism of all kinds.

I do believe Jesus was a man. Fully man.

No, you believe he is the 'Godman'. That is a class which is not equivalent to 'man'.

Where you and I seem to disagree is that you (and perhaps most?) people think the opposite of God is Man, and the opposite of Man is God. I don't, though, define "God" in such a way that He cannot be human. You apparently do.

It's called the law of contradiction. God /= man. Man /= God. Therefore, you cannot be God and man without violating the law of contradiction. You cannot be P and not-P simultaneously.

I'm going to walk through your post point by point.

It doesn't really matter what you say, because you can't contradict Psalm 33:6, you can't contradict Genesis 1, and you can't contradict the explicit teaching of the apostles, who consistently taught only that Jesus is a man. But since you've already told me you couldn't care less what the Bible says explicitly or non-explicitly, we're operating according two different paradigms and we're not going to agree.

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times. We are not damned for breaking the law. Jesus' death took care of that. No one is damned for sin. They are damned for their status of being in Adam. They damned for being spiritually dead, for being forensically unrighteous.

Where does the Bible say any of that?

I don't believe in a local flood...

I know you don't. I was simply pointing out that a local flood doesn't have this problem.

That said, the underlying point remains the same. There are more than a few stories in Scripture in which God condemns an entire people group for the collective disobedience. It is absurd to think that in every instance that every individual in the group heard the warning.

You think so?

[Jac3510]

Fortigurn

I was in the middle of replying to your longer thread when I saw your most recent statement here:

It doesn't really matter what you say

If that is your attitude, then I don't suppose there is any reason to continue this discussion. Usually, I have these types of discussions for the sake of the readers, but I have my sincere doubts that anyone here, other than Pierac, maybe, will give your arguments any serious weight at all simply because our underlying theologies are incompatible. If, then, "it doesn't matter what" I say, then everything I say is a waste of time. I have much better things to do then explain my position to someone who isn't even going to give me a proper hearing.

God bless

[FFC]

It's called the law of contradiction. God /= man. Man /= God. Therefore, you cannot be God and man without violating the law of contradiction. You cannot be P and not-P simultaneously.

I'm very surprized at how you limit the Lord God almighty. With God all things are possible, right?

[Pierac]

Hey Fortigurn, I'm using some of your stuff now.


Spirit or Flesh?

Many prophecies indicated that the Coming One would arise from the "seed," the stock of humanity, in a particular from Abrahamic and Davidic stock. The Messiah would be from the biological chain within the human family, specifically of Jewish pedigree: "The Lord your God will rise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your own countrymen [literally, brothers]; you shall listen to him" (Deut.18:15).
In this passage, Moses predicts that the coming Messiah would be a person "like me," raised up from "among" the people of Israel, and that God would not speak to the people directly, because they were afraid that if God spoke without a mediator they would die (V.16). The coming "prophet" would be a man of whom it is said that God would "put his word in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And it shall come about whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him” (v. 18-19). To say that the Messiah is God Himself is to contradict the whole point of this prophecy. For it announces that the ultimate spokesman for God is expressly not God but a human being. The New Testament says that Jesus is the one who fulfilled this prophecy (Acts 3:22; 7:37).

Understandably, no Jew who believe theses Scriptures ever imagined that the baby born in Bethlehem was going to be Jehovah himself come as a human baby. In addition, Jehovah God says clearly that he is not a man (Numbers 23:19; Job 9:32). The converse is therefore true: if a person is a man, then he can not be God.

On the authority of Jesus himself we know that the categories of "flesh" and "spirit" are never to be confused or intermingled, though the course of God's Spirit can impact our world. Jesus said, "That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit" (John 3:6). And "God is Spirit." The doctrine of the incarnation confuses these categories.

What God has separated man has joined together! One of the charges that the apostle Paul levels at simple man is that we have "exchange the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man." Romans 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Has it ever dawned on us as we sit and church listening to how the glorious Creator made Himself into a man that we could be guilty of this very same thing? The doctrine of the incarnation has reduced the incorruptible God to our own corruptible image. We are made in God's image, not the other way around. It would be more appropriate to put this contrast in starker terms. The defining characteristic of the Creator God is his absolute holiness. God is utterly different from and so utterly transcendent over His creation that any confusion is forbidden!


Now let's look at John 1:10 regarding, the world was made through Him (Jesus).

John 1:10 In the world He was, and the world came into being through(dia) Him, and the world knew Him not." 11 To His own He came, and those who are His own accepted Him not."

To be a Christian means you know that our Lord Jesus is the diameter, the purpose of the universe. His kingdom is coming! This is God's purpose and it will not be frustrated. Another verse saying the same thing is Hebrews 1:2. It says God has “appointed” His son to be the “heir of all things” and that it was “through him that he made the world'(s). Here our translations are not quite accurate, what the author wrote was not that through Jesus God made
the world(s) but ages. God planned to complete His purpose for all creation through the agency of his son Jesus. The preposition that is used in relation to Jesus and the world, or the ages, is “through” (Greek dia from which you will see comes our English word diameter).

Dia is the “preposition of attendant circumstances" and signifies instrumental agency. Put simply, this means that dia denotes the means by which an action is accomplished. And Scripture tells us that God the originator is bringing His purpose, His logos to fulfillment through Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Agent, the Mediator of God's master plan. Jesus is always seen as secondary, or subordinate to the Father.

There are occasional exceptions to this general use of the preposition dia. Sometimes blessings are said to come to us through God (e.g. 1 Cor 1:9; Heb.2: 10). But usually there is a clear distinction made between God's initiating activity and the means through which God brings that activity to pass. The prepositions used of God's action are hypo and ek which point to primary causation or origin. Let's cement this idea in our minds by looking at one or two verses that highlight the difference: “yet for us there is but one God, the father, from [ek, 'out from' ] whom are all things, and we exist for [ eis, 'to' ] Him; and one lord, Jesus Christ, through [dia] him” 1Cor.8:6). Prepositions are the signposts that point out the direction of a passage. Ek indicates something coming out from its source or origin, and indicates motion from the interior. In other words, all things came out from the loving heart of God, or God's “interior”, so to speak.

This agrees with Genesis 1:1 which says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”. Both verses say that the source of “all things” is the one true God, the Creator of the heavens and the earth and the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

In contradistinction to this "one God and Father" out of Whom all things originate, the "one Lord, Jesus Messiah” is giving the preposition dia which means "through." In other words, Jesus is God's agent through whom God accomplishes His plan for our lives. This is a consistent pattern all the way through the N.T. God the Father is the source, the origin of all blessings, and Jesus His Son brings those blessings of salvation to us:

"Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ" (2 Cor.5:18).

"God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ… has blessed us… in Christ. He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to himself” (Eph.1:3-5).
"For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thess.5:9).

"God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus” (Rom. 2:16).

"For God… has saved us, and called us... according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity" (2 Tim 1:9).

"Blessed be God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has caused us to be born-again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Peter 1:3).

"To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen" (Jude 25).

"Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which god performed through him in your midst" (Acts 2:22).

Paul tell us in 1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.


Always God the Father is the source and origin of all works, deeds and salvation which come to us through the mediatorship of his son. From Him comes all to us through our Lord Jesus Christ so that to God the Father made all the praise be directed. The Father is the sole origin and Creator of "all things." In contrast, Jesus is the Father's commissioned Lord Messiah through whom God's plan for the world is coming to completion. The whole Bible from cover to cover categorically states that God created the universe and all the ages with Jesus Christ at the center of his eternal purpose. Jesus is the diameter running all the way through.

“The world was made through him,” i.e. with Christ in mind.

In the light of this background, it is far better to read John's prologue to mean that in the beginning God had a plan, a dream, a grand vision for the world, and a reason by which he brought all things into being. This word or plan was expressive of who He is.

CLV(John 1:1)
In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. " 2 This was in the beginning toward God. 3 All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being."


What is eternal life?

Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

Interlinear Scripture Analyzer John 17:3
Αυτη δε εστιν η αιωνιος ζωη ινα γινωσκωσιν σε τον
SAME YET IS THE eonian LIFE THAT THEY-MAY-BE-KNOWING YOU THE

μονον αληθινον θεον και ον απεστειλας ιησουν χριστον
ONLY TRUE God AND WHOM YOU-commission JESUS ANOINTED


It is and was important to Jesus that we understand and know the only true God. That is what this search was all about. To seek and know the only true God, The Father! The Father tells us the only way we can know him is through his Son, Jesus!

He sits at the right Hand of the Father. Jesus is the mediator between the one God the Father and
man, and there is no other way to the Father!

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,


How come we never see the Greek word Theós anēr in our Greek text to describe Jesus? It was used in the classics to describe “Divine Men.” Yet, it is never used to describe Jesus in our Greek text.

A Study of the Divine Man
Theos aner:
Unusual birth, performance of miracles, heroic death, becomes a divinity
Source http://www.english.ilstu.edu/students/k ... intro.html
Notice this site uses Jesus as an example but the word is missing from our texts.

Paul

[Jac3510]

On the authority of Jesus himself we know that the categories of "flesh" and "spirit" are never to be confused or intermingled, though the course of God's Spirit can impact our world. Jesus said, "That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit" (John 3:6). And "God is Spirit." The doctrine of the incarnation confuses these categories.

So you believe that when a person is born again, they aren't born with a Spirit "from above," but instead their, sinful, dead spirit is just reformed?

You and Fortigurn can throw every verse you want at us about Jesus being a man. We all believe He was man. Fully man. 100% man. We just don't believe that He was a man with a sinful nature like you and I have. As the Son of God, born not in Adam's image but in God's, He is 100% divine. Contrary to Fortrigurn's "logic", there is nothing contradictory in that statement. He's simply improperly defined "God" and "Man."

Anyway, notice that in Gen. 5:3, Adam's son was born "in his image." All of us were born with Adam's image, save Jesus Christ. Jesus was born in God's image. He was fully man. He was more human than you or I, because our humanity is marred. The entire basis of your theology is simply wrong. So, again, feel free to quote verses that talk about the humanity of Jesus. No one here will argue, so you are just wasting your time.

[B. W.]

...B.W. I believed in the Trinity for 27 years. It is just in this past year that I have seen the truth.
Paul

Then please answer the question - explain your definition of the Trinity?
-
-
-

[B. W.]

I don't reject it because it's Docetic. I have already explained my reasons for rejecting it. I just don't want you claiming you believe Jesus was a man, when you clearly don't. You and I both know that was a burnable offence back in the day, it's radically opposed to trinitarianism of all kinds.

I do believe Jesus was a man. Fully man.

No, you believe he is the 'Godman'. That is a class which is not equivalent to 'man'.

Where you and I seem to disagree is that you (and perhaps most?) people think the opposite of God is Man, and the opposite of Man is God. I don't, though, define "God" in such a way that He cannot be human. You apparently do.

It's called the law of contradiction. God /= man. Man /= God. Therefore, you cannot be God and man without violating the law of contradiction. You cannot be P and not-P simultaneously.

I'm going to walk through your post point by point.

It doesn't really matter what you say, because you can't contradict Psalm 33:6, you can't contradict Genesis 1, and you can't contradict the explicit teaching of the apostles, who consistently taught only that Jesus is a man. But since you've already told me you couldn't care less what the Bible says explicitly or non-explicitly, we're operating according two different paradigms and we're not going to agree.

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times. We are not damned for breaking the law. Jesus' death took care of that. No one is damned for sin. They are damned for their status of being in Adam. They damned for being spiritually dead, for being forensically unrighteous.

Where does the Bible say any of that?

I don't believe in a local flood...

I know you don't. I was simply pointing out that a local flood doesn't have this problem.

That said, the underlying point remains the same. There are more than a few stories in Scripture in which God condemns an entire people group for the collective disobedience. It is absurd to think that in every instance that every individual in the group heard the warning.

You think so?

Well stated Fortigurn, your faith is indeed in man and not in God who alone saves. Only God saves then who is Jesus? Who is the Jesus you believe in? Does he save or not? The bible is very plain on this matter and you cannot twist it away so easily.

Doctrines of man's intellect goes around in circles — you are very good at that.

You and I have been this route before and the thread had to be closed. I ask that the thread not be closed so it can be finished. I'll refrain from responding to you and leave that up to Jac and others. Yes, Jac can handle your comments.

But answer — who is the Jesus you believe in? Why did he go to the cross? Stick with what you believe in and state it plainly.
-
-
-

[B. W.]

Pierac,

Who then is Jesus you believe in - why the cross and resurrection?

State your belief as well as your definition of the Trinity.

No one can look on God and live so why did Jesus come? Answer - so we can look and live. Think on it a moment. Only the Lord can save — why did Jesus come.

Only the Lord God can save and then who is Jesus?

State your definition of the Trinity plainly and nothing else as well as what your belief is about who Christ is and the actions of cross and resurrection...

and stay on topic...
-
-
-

[Pierac]

Jac wrote: We just don't believe that He was a man with a sinful nature like you and I have.

Jac that's the whole point. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and was born with out sin. He became corruptible flesh yet he never sinned. If he did not have the nature of the flesh then what was the point of going into the desert to be tested for 40 days? Yet, He was never tested or preformed any miracles until He was anointed at His Baptism. He is the Son of God, the Christ…the anointed one!

Luk 2:40 The Child continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him.

Heb 5:8 Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.

Yes, increasing in wisdom and learning obedience, yet was with out sin. He is our supreme role model in how to live our lives.

Jac wrote: notice that in Gen. 5:3, Adam's son was born "in his image." All of us were born with Adam's image, save Jesus Christ. Jesus was born in God's image.

Gen 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Gen 9:6 "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.

Jac we are all made in the image of God.

B.W. wrote: explain your definition of the Trinity?

That's easy, there is no Trinity.

B.W. wrote: Who then is Jesus you believe in - why the cross and resurrection?

First, “why the cross” Because with out the shedding of Blood there can be no forgiveness of sin. The offering had to be with out blemish.
Also … Col 1:19 For in him (Jesus) all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Now do you want to know who Jesus is to me?

Jesus is the Son Of God.
Jesus is the Prophesied Messiah.
Jesus is our Lord and Savior.
Jesus is our brother.
Jesus is our role model.
Jesus is also our mediator with God.

Jesus is the Messiah, the king of Israel. He is the anointed one of God. God has anointed Jesus with His spirit and this is how God is with us. It is God working through Jesus. God did not come AS Jesus, He came IN Jesus. The best definition of Jesus is given by Peter in Acts 2:22 and Acts 10:38:

"Jesus the Nazorean was a man commended to you by God with mighty deeds, wonders and signs, which God worked through him in your midst."

"How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power. He went about doing good and healing all those oppressed by the devil, for God was with him."

Peace,

Paul

[Pierac]

Jac wrote: So you believe that when a person is born again, they aren't born with a Spirit "from above," but instead their, sinful, dead spirit is just reformed?

Let's look at Hebrew understanding of the Spirit to answer your question.

One of the biggest problem for those holding that Holy Spirit is the third member of the Godhead is the Old Testament itself. The Old Testament is the foundation of our Bibles, the first 75% of the book. And an incontrovertible fact is that the Hebrew Bible does not support the idea that the Spirit of God is a distinct member of the Godhead at all. Even committed Trinitarians like George Ladd admit in his book, A Theology of the New Testament “The ruach Yahweh (Spirit of the Lord) in the Old Testament is not a separate, distinct entity; it is God's power-the personal activity in God's will achieving a moral and religious objective. God's ruach is the source of all that is alive, of all physical life. The Spirit of God is the active principle that proceeds from God and gives life to the physical world (Genesis 2:7). It is also the source of religious concerns, raising up charismatic leaders, whether judges, prophets, or kings. The ruach Yahweh(Spirit of God) is a term for the historic creative action of the one God which, though it defies logical analysis, is always God's action.

Dunn, in his book Christology in the Making adds, “The continuity of thought between Hebraic and Christian understanding of the Spirit is generally recognized…There can be little doubt that from the earliest stages of pre-Christian Judaism "spirit” (ruach) denoted power - the awful, mysterious force of the wind (ruach), of the breath (ruach) of life, of ecstatic inspiration (induced by divine ruach)… in particular, "Spirit of God" denotes effective divine power… In other words, on this understanding, Spirit of God is in no sense distinct from God, but is simply the power of God, God himself acting powerfully in nature and upon men.”

It makes a big difference to our Western minds at least - right at the start of the Bible, whether we translate "this Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters or "a wind [breath] from God swept over the face of the waters" (Gen 1:2). The first possibility conveys to our modern minds the impression that the Spirit is an individual in “his” own right. Many Trinitarians read it that way. The second possibility suggest that God's energetic and creative presence was active.

Psalms 139 expresses this Hebrew parallelism beautifully: "where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence?" (v.7). Thus, the Spirit of God is a synonym for God's personal presence with us. N.H. Snaith in his book The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament
explains, “The ruach-adonai [Spirit of the Lord] is the manifestation in human experience of the life-giving, energy-creating power of God. And, The Spirit of the Lord is the medium through which God exerts his controlling power."

A brief look at a few more Old Testament verses will show this Hebrew parallelism, where the Spirit of God (Heb. ruach) can mean the breath, life, Spirit, presence, and most particularly - a word of Yahweh: (Job 26:4) (Job 27:3-4) (Job 32-8) (2Sam.23:2) (Prov.1:23) and, Isa 40:7 The grass withers, the flower fades when the breath of the LORD blows on it; surely the people are grass. 8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our Godwill stand forever.

It is vital not to rush over this. Many other Old Testament examples could be cited to show that spirit and breath are interchangeable. The fact that the 'spirit' and 'breath' are translations of the same Hebrew and Greek words points to the root meaning of spirit as God's creative power, the energy behind his utterance.
Another renowned known Anglican, J.I. Packer in his book Keep in Step with the Spirit (also a committed believer in the Trinity) acknowledges that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit's “distinct personhood is not expressed by the Old Testament writers.”
So then, by what reason then do these commentators come to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead? They admit that they stepped outside the boundaries of the Old Testament. They would have us believe that it is a doctrine newly revealed only in the New Testament. The New Testament does not alter the Hebrew concept of “spirit” as we will see. The Bible scholar N. H. Snaith states that: “The New Testament pneuma (spirit) is used in all the ways in which the Hebrew ruach ( breath, wind, spirit) is used. It is used of the wind (John 3:8), of human breath, both ordinarily (2 Thessalonians 2:8) and of the breath which means life (Rev. 11:11). It is used of the vital principle in man (Luke 8:55, etc.), as opposed to 'flesh.'”

Luke writes concerning the Ministry of John the Baptist that: "It is he who will go as a forerunner before him and the Spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous; so as to make ready a people prepared for Lord" (Luke 1:17). The Virgin Mary is told that "[the] Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadowed you" (Luke 1:35). And concerning the promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit the risen Jesus predicts that the disciples are to wait in Jerusalem where they "shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you" (Acts 1:18). In these three Lukan passages we observe the interplay of the concepts of "power" and "spirit" precisely as found in the Old Testament.

This Hebrew concept is further seen in the famous passage where the apostle Paul burst out in praise to God. He does this by quoting from Elijah 40:13: “Oh, the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and unfathomable His ways! [Now his Old Testament quotation] For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became his counselor?” (Rom.11:33-34)
But when we compare his source in Isaiah we note that Paul has changed it slightly. Isaiah actually wrote, "Who has directed the spirit of the Lord, or as His counselor has informed him?"

What we see here is a typical Hebrew understanding: To have the mind of the Lord is to be directed by the Spirit. There are many New Testament examples of this interplay between “mind” and “spirit.” In Philippians 2, Paul wants the Christian to be "of the same mind," which is to be "united in spirit, intent on one purpose"(v.2). On a personal level, how may I know that I am filled with the Holy Spirit? The answer is when I have the mind of God, the attitude that He has, the values that his word and espouses and above all the truth which it teaches!

Another passage of interest in this vein is 1 Corinthians 2:10-12.
1Co 2:10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches
everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of
that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit
of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who [Greek neuter
“which”] is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.
Here "the spirit of the man which is in him" is paralleled with "the Spirit of God" which is from
God. It is quite clear that a person's spirit is not a separate person from himself, but is rather
his/her own mind and inner thoughts. Just so, "the Spirit of God" refers to God's inner and
personal centre, His mind and word, even His self-consciousness.

Spirit = Power = Mind = Presence = Breath = Wind = Word

It is quite evident that in the apostle's mind to be filled with the spirit is precisely the same thing as letting the word (teaching, message) of Christ direct our lives. This is simply to say that in John chapters 14 to 16, "the Spirit" that will come to help the apostles will be the post-resurrection revelation of Christ's message directed by the risen Christ to the world through the apostles.

The acid test as to whether I have "Jesus in my heart" is whether I have his words informing and empowering my life. If his Gospel-word is the motivating principle in my life, then I have the Spirit of God dwelling in me. Indeed, I have the Father and the Son. Hence Paul's vigorous warning that if anyone fails to demonstrate the presence of the words of Christ in his life, he is devoid of understanding (1 Tim 6:3).

I am firmly convinced that the Scriptures are harmonious concerning the Spirit of God as being a power and word and mind of God in action. The Trinitarian assertion that the Holy Spirit is God himself is surely impossible to maintain when we note that nowhere in the Scripture is the Holy Spirit prayed to or worshiped.

At the end of the last book of the Bible when the redeemed saints are in the presence of God and of Jesus Christ in glory it is not a strange omission that the third member of the Godhead has no seat of authority on the final throne?


When reading in Exodus awhile back, I came upon the phrase "the finger of God." I was aware that the same phrase was used in the book of Luke regarding the method Jesus uses to cast out demons. I decided to do a phrase study using e-Sword. The following information is from my latest research.

Exo 8:19 Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God." But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.
Exo 31:18 And he gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.


Luk 11:14 Now he was casting out a demon that was mute. When the demon had gone out, the mute man spoke, and the people marveled. 15 But some of them said, "He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons," 16 while others, to test him, kept seeking from him a sign from heaven…
Luk 11:20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.


I had also come upon Scriptures that says Jesus cast out demons by the Spirit of God. This would strongly lead to the conclusion that the finger of God is the Spirit of God the Father.


Mat 12:22 Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. 23 And all the people were amazed, and said, "Can this be the Son of David?" 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, "It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons."
Mat 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.


When you connect Luke 11:20 with Matthew 12:28 then you get the understanding of what the finger of God is.
Luk 11:20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Mat 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.


Now the same is true with the Holy Spirit. We also have in the Bible two parallel teachings of the same subject one Matthew and one in Luke.
Luk 12:11 And when they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not be anxious about how you should defend yourself or what you should say, 12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."

Mat 10:19 When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. 20 For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.


Likewise, when you connect to Matthew 10:20 with Luke 12:12 you get an understanding of what the Holy Spirit is. It is the Spirit of the Father. There is no separate being called the Holy Spirit. Again that's why the Holy Spirit is never worshiped, prayed to, or has a seat on a throne.


Paul