All Claims of The Son's Deity

[mikesw]

For those interested ...
Bart Ehrman is now acknowledging the divinity of Christ being expressed in the synoptic gospels.

 

[e v e]

Hi Civic. @TomL and @Complete

Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah. That was the claim of Jesus during his life, that was the claim that Peter accepted in his confession (and the confession that Jesus applauded as revealed from God). That was the claim that was questioned at the Sanhedrin, the claim that led to the inscription over his cross, the claim that both the repented thief and the centurion at the cross accepted.

Jews accusing Jesus of proclaiming Himself God were enemies of Jesus, making a false accusation of blasphemy. A false accusation that Jesus rejected on the spot.

Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”​

“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”​

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? (John 10:31-36)​

That accusation was so unsustainable, so weak, that the Sanhedrin couldn't use it to sentence Jesus to death.
As you remember, Jesus is not asked to declare if He is God. He is asked to declare if He is the Anointed Son of God, the Messiah. Jesus responds He is, and places himself on the right of the throne of God, not on the throne of God.

In contrast, Jesus claimed to worship the very same God all Jews knew as God. The Unipersonal, Eternal, Only and True God of Israel.

(not associating my reply to your or anyone else's beliefs here.. going Home is not by denomination/sect but between a specific soul and God)

true that those you refer to here in your post are not the hebrew souls following christ who, as souls, followed christ since even before eden fell.... and who followed Christ when he incarnated, and after He died making possible our being rescued out of Babylon.

The opponents of Christ you refer to (pharisees and esau type souls throughout this history) have been His opponents since before the fall.. their serpent masters plotting and scheming to hurt us all.. and though they succeeded to desolate eden in the other reality, up till now, that ends soon, for Christ's return is so very soon.

judaism was never part of eden paradise... when God created His Eden Paradise in the other reality. Rather, judaism always - even in the OT - functioned as a belief more like wolf in sheep's clothing, part of the opponent but on this earth...... we can see that in how while Moses spoke to God, they were busy scheming an idol to worship, as well as other examples, and always claiming to be on the same team as Hebrew Souls (Eden hebrew souls being Christian even THEN in the OT)...

yet not at all israelites were hebrew souls. And similar patterns can be seen today... where are wolves in sheep's clothing everywhere.

No one can deny that Christ, being our deity, spoke to souls such as He did speak to Moses, in the OT, and also to His Prophets. This enmity of eve (the woman) with the serpent... going on between the Him and the evil realm has gone on since the fall or even before, when the evil realm, satanic principalities, plotted to invade eden. It has been a long exhausting war and it ends when Christ our Deity returns soon and restores us to our Eden paradise. For when His 144k sons and daughters return to His Paradise in the other reality, it is over for the evil realm... and, as per prophets, this current earth will be fit ONLY for rats and moles... for the sun will have gone dark and, once trib ends most of jacob (for some will not be willing!) hopefully return to Him (so it's not just the 144k that return to Him, thats just Darby's egostical evil version....) Indeed, no soul of Him will ever return to or remember this dungeon-earth.

 

[101G]

GINOLJC, to all,
Sure, lets compare these two verses, Hebrews 1:10 "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:"

now this,

Zechariah 12:1 "The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him."

question, "is the LORD in Zechariah 12:1 the same one person the Lord in Hebrews 1:10 who laid the foundation of the earth?" yes or no... your answer please.

101G

 

[amazing grace]

That would not be as bad as depersonalizing God.

The Holy Spirit appears where the Father does not. He is distinct but you make him some power.

THE Holy Spirit is God who is the Father. He is not a separate being and that is not what I am making into some type of power.

Jesus did not send an impersonal thing into you. I think however that unitarians want to push personification which is totally unholy. This is a down payment of what we will have later.

Jesus poured out on us, the promise of the Father, the gift of holy spirit. . . And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now. . . . the baptism with Holy Spirit is the living water spoken of in John 7:39 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” which is also -
For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. And . . . . yes, that which we are sealed with . . . you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, which is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. . . the guarantee of our inheritance!!! Which is not speaking of a person.

E.W. Bullinger has a good book on this topic - Word Studies on the Holy Spirit, showing the different usages of Holy Spirit.

Very nice that you got the idea of simile correct.
I think your failure beyond that is the common error of assuming a person means a human. We are not told the effect of the Spirit descending oh him. This may be primarily a witness to him as Messiah. And I can see your total lack of comprehension when you have to ask if this is a literal dove staying on his head.

My failure in assuming a person means a human . . . by an English dictionary or by your definition? What is a person?
Yes, to me a person is an individual human being—a man, woman, or child; implying a distinction from an animal or a thing.

I'm not the one who claims the holy spirit is a person. I understand what was meant - I am the one who identified it as a simile and you got that but yet, you fail to understand the use of personification. I said nothing about "the effect of the Spirit" but I do believe that being anointed with holy spirit enabled him to withstand the temptations of Satan and to walk in total obedience to God his Father.

Then you fail again to ask if an extra person is in us as if this were a physical body in his. You should have learned that the spirit of a man is dead without Christ such that the Holy Spirit has a place in us made for uhhh "spirit."
If your perception of these things were true, it would be ridiculous, but you are showing a depersonalization of God, which is quite awful.

I haven't failed anything for this is not a test of any kind. . . Again, I do not claim that the holy spirit is a physical body . . . I believe it is means by which God in Christ dwells in us. Yes, For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead. . . . If one doesn't have the Spirit dwelling in them - they are spiritually dead.

Depersonlization of God according to AI refers to theological and cultural processes that diminish God's personal attributes, transforming God from a relational, living being into a more abstract, impersonal force, concept or system of decrees . . .
Pause: . . . It's not God that I am saying is an abstract, impersonal force therefore I am not depersonalizing God at all.

(con't.) . . . This depersonalization can occur through various means, including interpreting God through Greek philosophical frameworks, emphasizing divine will to the extreme, or the scientific revolution's objectification of the world and humanity. It can also be a subjective experience, where individuals feel disconnected from God, or a theological tendency, such as the depersonalization of the Holy Spirit, where the divine personhood is overlooked in favor of God's abstract power or will.
The last sentence: If speaking of the gift of holy spirit that one receives upon repentance and baptism . . . then I do see being baptized with holy spirit, the gift of holy spirit being poured out, i.e. the Comforter, partaking of the divine nature, etc. - I do not see as a person but as power that God gives us so 'as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him'. That's why Jesus told the disciples . . . "And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”------But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” . . Then read the book of Acts where Peter with great boldness spoke the word of God and operated with power in the first century church.

 

[e v e]

well, depersonalization: God certainly refers to ruach, His Spirit, always in feminine language. Why? Whereas the greek language has a trans or neuter component, and I've seen many say His spirit is an IT (no gender at all), not even male. Just an IT. That IT type of "One" though is definitely platonic! And I've been told the gender God uses is just 'incidental' ... and told, don't look at that. Sad depersonalization... assumptions based on opinion too. also, in rev, a very corrupt text just in this one section, acting as if only jewish males are part of the 144k. ridiculous. (just a short sketch of very involved themes, which anyone else could research...)

And then comments about Christianity starting when Christ incarnated and his ministry. Oh, so what deity then was talking to Moses? Where was Christ when eden was made? Who followed Him? See the illogic of all the assumptions having been made, that I've mentioned... and ponder.

 

[amazing grace]

For those interested ...
Bart Ehrman is now acknowledging the divinity of Christ being expressed in the synoptic gospels.

Did you watch it?

 

[mikesw]

THE Holy Spirit is God who is the Father. He is not a separate being and that is not what I am making into some type of power.

That would be weird of a mere man sending the Father in the guise of the person of the Holy Spirit while calling the Father the comforter. I see how that obviously becomes confusing.

Jesus poured out on us, the promise of the Father, the gift of holy spirit. . . And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now. . . . the baptism with Holy Spirit is the living water spoken of in John 7:39 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” which is also -
For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. And . . . . yes, that which we are sealed with . . . you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, which is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. . . the guarantee of our inheritance!!! Which is not speaking of a person.

E.W. Bullinger has a good book on this topic - Word Studies on the Holy Spirit, showing the different usages of Holy Spirit.

Indeed Bullinger recognizes that the Holy Spirit is just one person. He is an advocate for the recognition of the Triune God and does not deviate from that. We can speak of the person of the Holy Spirit not in the sense of a corporeal being in the flesh but of having his own actions but as spirit.

My failure in assuming a person means a human . . . by an English dictionary or by your definition? What is a person?
Yes, to me a person is an individual human being—a man, woman, or child; implying a distinction from an animal or a thing.

Wowsa. You are not studying or recognizing the philosophical use of the term. That means you do not know what you are denying. I keep reminding Peterlag of his narrow thinking because of his restriction to the Unitarian Pocket Dictionary instead of analytical thought.

I'm not the one who claims the holy spirit is a person. I understand what was meant - I am the one who identified it as a simile and you got that but yet, you fail to understand the use of personification. I said nothing about "the effect of the Spirit" but I do believe that being anointed with holy spirit enabled him to withstand the temptations of Satan and to walk in total obedience to God his Father.

So God the Son has to have the third person of the Trinity to avoid temptation? Not sure how you make that argument stand.

I haven't failed anything for this is not a test of any kind. . . Again, I do not claim that the holy spirit is a physical body . . . I believe it is means by which God in Christ dwells in us. Yes, For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead. . . . If one doesn't have the Spirit dwelling in them - they are spiritually dead.

I think the only way Christ can be in us is due to his divinity but you have some other theory I guess.

Depersonlization of God according to AI refers to theological and cultural processes that diminish God's personal attributes, transforming God from a relational, living being into a more abstract, impersonal force, concept or system of decrees . . .
Pause: . . . It's not God that I am saying is an abstract, impersonal force therefore I am not depersonalizing God at all.

You miss the argument. You are converting him to an it. You are advocating an idea on obviously shaky ground. Not sure where you get these ideas.

(con't.) . . . This depersonalization can occur through various means, including interpreting God through Greek philosophical frameworks, emphasizing divine will to the extreme, or the scientific revolution's objectification of the world and humanity. It can also be a subjective experience, where individuals feel disconnected from God, or a theological tendency, such as the depersonalization of the Holy Spirit, where the divine personhood is overlooked in favor of God's abstract power or will.
The last sentence: If speaking of the gift of holy spirit that one receives upon repentance and baptism . . . then I do see being baptized with holy spirit, the gift of holy spirit being poured out, i.e. the Comforter, partaking of the divine nature, etc. - I do not see as a person but as power that God gives us so 'as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him'.

That is such New Age thinking. You should avoid those influences.

That's why Jesus told the disciples . . . "And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”------But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” . . Then read the book of Acts where Peter with great boldness spoke the word of God and operated with power in the first century church.

You are a bit closer when you just share scripture. You just have to adjust your thinking closer to scripture.

 

[mikesw]

Did you watch it?

haha. Did you watch it?

 

[amazing grace]

haha. Did you watch it?

I don't know if you did but yes, I watched it. It seems that Bart Ehrman changed his mind regarding Jesus being God only in the Gospel of John [Jesus Interrupted, pg. 141-142, 2009] to include the synoptic Gospels in his blog post of 2014 in which he stated:

"Those Gospels do indeed think of Jesus as divine. Being made the very Son of God who can heal, cast out demons raise the dead and pronounce divine forgiveness, receive worship together suggest that even these gospels Jesus was a divine being, a God-man, in all the Gospels, but in very different ways depending on which gospel you read." [of course, we know that "Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— Jesus was able to do these things because God was working in and through him.]

Rev. Green also mentioned an interview with Alex O'Connell in which he said Ehrman alluded to something quite different from what he said in 2014 . . . then he makes this point:
"We just want to say to people, you know, you have to be careful quoting Bart Ehrman because he may say different things at different times. . . ." So, I don't know if it's good that Bart Ehrman changed his mind or not!

I did like the way people were encouraged to be thoughtful when hearing things and to keep open the ability to change one's mind.

 

[amazing grace]

That would be weird of a mere man sending the Father in the guise of the person of the Holy Spirit while calling the Father the comforter. I see how that obviously becomes confusing.

It's even weirder that you don't distinguish THE Holy Spirit, aka God from what is spoken of as the gift of holy spirit. Jesus poured out the gift of holy spirit on the day of Pentecost NOT THE FATHER!! It is the gift of holy spirit, aka the new birth, aka being born again, aka the indwelling of the Spirit that is the Comforter. With all the scripture I have posted concerning the gift of holy spirit, I can see this is falling on deaf ears.

Indeed Bullinger recognizes that the Holy Spirit is just one person. He is an advocate for the recognition of the Triune God and does not deviate from that. We can speak of the person of the Holy Spirit not in the sense of a corporeal being in the flesh but of having his own actions but as spirit.

I understand that Bullinger is a Trinitarian but that does not mean that he doesn't have good knowledge on how the Holy Spirit is used in scripture.

Wowsa. You are not studying or recognizing the philosophical use of the term. That means you do not know what you are denying. I keep reminding Peterlag of his narrow thinking because of his restriction to the Unitarian Pocket Dictionary instead of analytical thought.

Oh, Unitarians have a Pocket Dictionary? I'll have to get me one!

So God the Son has to have the third person of the Trinity to avoid temptation? Not sure how you make that argument stand.

Pure nonsense . . . he was anointed with holy spirit at his baptism - that was what the dove represented - that anointing was not an anointing with a 'third person of the Trinity'.

I think the only way Christ can be in us is due to his divinity but you have some other theory I guess.

You miss the argument. You are converting him to an it. You are advocating an idea on obviously shaky ground. Not sure where you get these ideas.
That is such New Age thinking. You should avoid those influences.

You are a bit closer when you just share scripture. You just have to adjust your thinking closer to scripture.

Nope, too old for new age stuff.
And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” Is this referring to the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity or is this talking about the gift of holy spirit Jesus would pour out on the day of Pentecost?

Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. Is this referring to the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity or is this talking about the gift of holy spirit Jesus would pour out on the day of Pentecost?

I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ Is this talking about the Holy Spirit the third person of the Trinity or is this talking about the gift of holy spirit Jesus poured out on the day of Pentecost?

Thank you but I believe my thinking falls right in line with scripture just as I am sure you think yours does.

 

[Peterlag]

It's even weirder that you don't distinguish THE Holy Spirit, aka God from what is spoken of as the gift of holy spirit. Jesus poured out the gift of holy spirit on the day of Pentecost NOT THE FATHER!! It is the gift of holy spirit, aka the new birth, aka being born again, aka the indwelling of the Spirit that is the Comforter. With all the scripture I have posted concerning the gift of holy spirit, I can see this is falling on deaf ears.

I understand that Bullinger is a Trinitarian but that does not mean that he doesn't have good knowledge on how the Holy Spirit is used in scripture.

Oh, Unitarians have a Pocket Dictionary? I'll have to get me one!

Pure nonsense . . . he was anointed with holy spirit at his baptism - that was what the dove represented - that anointing was not an anointing with a 'third person of the Trinity'.

Nope, too old for new age stuff.
And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” Is this referring to the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity or is this talking about the gift of holy spirit Jesus would pour out on the day of Pentecost?

Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. Is this referring to the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity or is this talking about the gift of holy spirit Jesus would pour out on the day of Pentecost?

I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ Is this talking about the Holy Spirit the third person of the Trinity or is this talking about the gift of holy spirit Jesus poured out on the day of Pentecost?

Thank you but I believe my thinking falls right in line with scripture just as I am sure you think yours does.

Is your concept of all the data on the scripture you have posted concerning the gift of holy spirit the same as mine...

Data On The Holy Spirit | The Gift of God’s Spirit Has Changed

The data on the Holy Spirit. The gift of God's spirit has changed. Learn more about data on the Holy Spirit here at Walking By The Spirit and read the free book.

walking-by-the-spirit.com

 

[amazing grace]

Is your concept of all the data on the scripture you have posted concerning the gift of holy spirit the same as mine...

Data On The Holy Spirit | The Gift of God’s Spirit Has Changed

The data on the Holy Spirit. The gift of God's spirit has changed. Learn more about data on the Holy Spirit here at Walking By The Spirit and read the free book.

walking-by-the-spirit.com

yes.

 

[Victoria]

I see Origen & the Textual Critics that have since followed created all this confusion.
If something is figurative to one, it's their truth. If something is figurative
to another, that's their truth. What if you're all right?

How about instead of "who" is right, why not go w/ "what" is right?
Just some food for thought.

 

[Peterlag]

I see Origen & the Textual Critics that have since followed created all this confusion.
If something is figurative to one, it's their truth. If something is figurative
to another, that's their truth. What if you're all right?

How about instead of "who" is right, why not go w/ "what" is right?
Just some food for thought.

Matthew 7:13
...But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

 

[Victoria]

Matthew 7:13
...But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Salvation being the most important, yup

 

[Victoria]

Pure nonsense . . . he was anointed with holy spirit at his baptism - that was what the dove represented - that anointing was not an anointing with a 'third person of the Trinity'.

Hi there, amazing grace

The Holy Spirit, "aka" 3rd person of the Godhead, is who comes to live within a believer upon salvation.
The apostle Paul tells us that He (the Holy Spirit) seals us until the day of redemption too

"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession [adoption/catching up "aka" rapture], unto the praise of his glory." Ephesians 1:13-14

We couldn't get our glorified bodies otherwise to be able to operate in the heavens. The Holy Spirit meanwhile lives within us, ministers God's Word unto us, transforms us from the inside out, & enables us to walk in the spirit.

 

[Peterlag]

I could write a book just on these 4 verses...

John 3:34
For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

John 5:21, 23, 26
For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

 

[Victoria]

GINOLJC, to all,
Sure, lets compare these two verses, Hebrews 1:10 "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:"

now this,

Zechariah 12:1 "The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him."

question, "is the LORD in Zechariah 12:1 the same one person the Lord in Hebrews 1:10 who laid the foundation of the earth?" yes or no... your answer please.

101G

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." John 1:1-3

Yes, 101G... the same LORD of the Old Testament is the same LORD of the New Testament.

"Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." Isaiah 44:6

"Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." Isaiah 48:12

Jesus is the King of Israel

"He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him." Matthew 27:42

"Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel." John 1:49

"Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea." Revelation 1:11

"And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;"
Revelation 2:8

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." Revelation 22:13

 

[mikesw]

I don't know if you did but yes, I watched it. It seems that Bart Ehrman changed his mind regarding Jesus being God only in the Gospel of John [Jesus Interrupted, pg. 141-142, 2009] to include the synoptic Gospels in his blog post of 2014 in which he stated:

"Those Gospels do indeed think of Jesus as divine. Being made the very Son of God who can heal, cast out demons raise the dead and pronounce divine forgiveness, receive worship together suggest that even these gospels Jesus was a divine being, a God-man, in all the Gospels, but in very different ways depending on which gospel you read." [of course, we know that "Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— Jesus was able to do these things because God was working in and through him.]

Rev. Green also mentioned an interview with Alex O'Connell in which he said Ehrman alluded to something quite different from what he said in 2014 . . . then he makes this point:
"We just want to say to people, you know, you have to be careful quoting Bart Ehrman because he may say different things at different times. . . ." So, I don't know if it's good that Bart Ehrman changed his mind or not!

I did like the way people were encouraged to be thoughtful when hearing things and to keep open the ability to change one's mind.

Funny how you forgot to highlight Bart finding the gospels sharing Jesus as divine and, with crude wording, " a God-man, in all the gospels."
It should be a caution to unitarians who miss the obvious detail, even shared by a skeptic of the Bible. But it is useful if someone is reasonably informed of good doctrine and rejects unitarian arguments to the contrary of scripture.
Indeed I have changed doctrines (as summary of details of scripture) due to the consistent message shared in specific areas. So I appreciate when someone finds some insight but is willing to have it go through the debates whether the ideas make sense.

 

[mikesw]

It's even weirder that you don't distinguish THE Holy Spirit, aka God from what is spoken of as the gift of holy spirit. Jesus poured out the gift of holy spirit on the day of Pentecost NOT THE FATHER!! It is the gift of holy spirit, aka the new birth, aka being born again, aka the indwelling of the Spirit that is the Comforter. With all the scripture I have posted concerning the gift of holy spirit, I can see this is falling on deaf ears.

The Divine Son is able to give the gift of the Holy Spirit. I'm not sure why that is a problem.
Sure it is a new birth where God's Spirit abides in man. I'm not sure what you are contesting.

I understand that Bullinger is a Trinitarian but that does not mean that he doesn't have good knowledge on how the Holy Spirit is used in scripture.

Oh, Unitarians have a Pocket Dictionary? I'll have to get me one!

Bullinger's ideas can be useful. I am just noting that he is not denying the Holy Spirit in the way you would wish to.

Pure nonsense . . . he was anointed with holy spirit at his baptism - that was what the dove represented - that anointing was not an anointing with a 'third person of the Trinity'.

Oops. I forgot. For the unitarian this is just this impersonal power commonly pushed by New Age religions. It is possible that the divine Son also had the third person of the Trinity in him. So you could be half-right but still erring on who the Holy Spirit is

Nope, too old for new age stuff.
And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” Is this referring to the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity or is this talking about the gift of holy spirit Jesus would pour out on the day of Pentecost?

If you are not New Age, then stop speaking like a New Ager.

Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. Is this referring to the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity or is this talking about the gift of holy spirit Jesus would pour out on the day of Pentecost?

Did Jesus walk on water or did he walk on h2o? There is no problem of Jesus sending the Holy Spirit as the third person of the Trinity into their lives. Indeeed the Spirit had not been given to the disciples until the Day of Pentecost.

I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ Is this talking about the Holy Spirit the third person of the Trinity or is this talking about the gift of holy spirit Jesus poured out on the day of Pentecost?

Thank you but I believe my thinking falls right in line with scripture just as I am sure you think yours does.

Your thinking could still be corrected while you are alive

Seriously though I do acknowledge that someone could come out with a better description of the Godhead than the current recognition. That was one curiosity I had when first discussing stuff on what became unitarian adherents.