Jesus denied being God

[synergy]

You were asked multiple questions on how an impersonal thing could

Have an attitude or mind

no answer

consider

no answer


humble himself

no answer

exist in the form of God

We know God has no outward appearance

and the information provided as to the meaning morphe was mixed

Being (ὑπαρχων [huparchōn]). Rather, “existing,” present active participle of ὑπαρχω [huparchō]. In the form of God (ἐν μορφῃ θεου [en morphēi theou]). Μορφη [Morphē] means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ. A prize (ἁρπαγμον [harpagmon]). Predicate accusative with ἡγησατο [hēgēsato]. Originally words in -μος [-mos] signified the act, not the result (-μα [-ma]). The few examples of ἁρπαγμος [harpagmos] (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to ἁρπαγμα [harpagma], like βαπτισμος [baptismos] and βαπτισμα [baptisma]. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won (“robbery”). To be on an equality with God (το εἰναι ἰσα θεοι [to einai isa theoi]). Accusative articular infinitive object of ἡγησατο [hēgēsato], “the being equal with God” (associative instrumental case θεῳ [theōi] after ἰσα [isa]). Ἰσα [Isa] is adverbial use of neuter plural with εἰναι [einai] as in Rev. 21:16. Emptied himself (ἑαυτον ἐκενωσε [heauton ekenōse]). First aorist active indicative of κενοω [kenoō], old verb from κενος [kenos], empty. Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), Php 2:6.

The first word which we must carefully study is “form.” The Greek word has no reference to the shape of any physical object. It was a Greek philosophical term. Vincent has an excellent note on the word. In discussing it, he has among other things, the following to say: “We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophical sense to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character … As applied to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself.

Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader (vol. 5; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 62.

Being in the form of God (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων). Being. Not the simple εἶναι to be, but stronger, denoting being which is from the beginning. See on Jas. 2:15. It has a backward look into an antecedent condition, which has been protracted into the present. Here appropriate to the preincarnate being of Christ, to which the sentence refers. In itself it does not imply eternal, but only prior existence. Form (μορφή). We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character

Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (vol. 3; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887), 430.

in the form of God (not merely the nature of God, which however is implied: but, as in Heb. 1:3, the ἀπαύγασμα τ. δόξης κ. χαρακτὴρ τ. ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ—cf. John 5:37, οὔτε εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε, with ib. 17:5, τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί

Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary (vol. 3; Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), 166.

But scripture settles this

Hebrews 1:3 (KJV 1900) — 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Now explain how an impersonal thing could be

the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power,

so you really have not met the obligation put to you.

You actually expect cultists and heretics to answer your questions? They would never do that. That would expose their ignorance.

 

[TomL]

You actually expect cultists and heretics to answer your questions? They would never do that. That would expose their ignorance.

No but it is good to expose their failures

 

[Peterlag]

You were asked multiple questions on how an impersonal thing could

Have an attitude or mind

no answer

consider

no answer


humble himself

no answer

exist in the form of God

We know God has no outward appearance

and the information provided as to the meaning morphe was mixed

Being (ὑπαρχων [huparchōn]). Rather, “existing,” present active participle of ὑπαρχω [huparchō]. In the form of God (ἐν μορφῃ θεου [en morphēi theou]). Μορφη [Morphē] means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ. A prize (ἁρπαγμον [harpagmon]). Predicate accusative with ἡγησατο [hēgēsato]. Originally words in -μος [-mos] signified the act, not the result (-μα [-ma]). The few examples of ἁρπαγμος [harpagmos] (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to ἁρπαγμα [harpagma], like βαπτισμος [baptismos] and βαπτισμα [baptisma]. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won (“robbery”). To be on an equality with God (το εἰναι ἰσα θεοι [to einai isa theoi]). Accusative articular infinitive object of ἡγησατο [hēgēsato], “the being equal with God” (associative instrumental case θεῳ [theōi] after ἰσα [isa]). Ἰσα [Isa] is adverbial use of neuter plural with εἰναι [einai] as in Rev. 21:16. Emptied himself (ἑαυτον ἐκενωσε [heauton ekenōse]). First aorist active indicative of κενοω [kenoō], old verb from κενος [kenos], empty. Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), Php 2:6.

The first word which we must carefully study is “form.” The Greek word has no reference to the shape of any physical object. It was a Greek philosophical term. Vincent has an excellent note on the word. In discussing it, he has among other things, the following to say: “We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophical sense to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character … As applied to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself.

Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader (vol. 5; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 62.

Being in the form of God (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων). Being. Not the simple εἶναι to be, but stronger, denoting being which is from the beginning. See on Jas. 2:15. It has a backward look into an antecedent condition, which has been protracted into the present. Here appropriate to the preincarnate being of Christ, to which the sentence refers. In itself it does not imply eternal, but only prior existence. Form (μορφή). We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character

Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (vol. 3; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887), 430.

in the form of God (not merely the nature of God, which however is implied: but, as in Heb. 1:3, the ἀπαύγασμα τ. δόξης κ. χαρακτὴρ τ. ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ—cf. John 5:37, οὔτε εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε, with ib. 17:5, τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί

Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary (vol. 3; Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), 166.

But scripture settles this

Hebrews 1:3 (KJV 1900) — 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Now explain how an impersonal thing could be

the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power,

so you really have not met the obligation put to you.

Somebody wrote on another site that there are far more clear Scripture that says Jesus is the son of God than there is Scripture that might be implying he is God. There is no Scripture anywhere in the Old Testament where God ever humbled Himself. God is a warrior and a badass I might add. You were dead if you even walked in the wrong room in the Temple or if you bumped into the Ark. God does not humble Himself. If the Jews had no trinity, and the Christians had no trinity until it was officially declared by the Catholic Church in the 4th century. Then don’t you have to wonder where it came from? If it was formulated by the same Church that brought you Mary Mother of God, immortality of the soul, purgatory and hellfire... then don't you wonder just a little bit?

 

[TomL]

Somebody wrote on another site that there are far more clear Scripture that says Jesus is the son of God than there is Scripture that might be implying he is God. There is no Scripture anywhere in the Old Testament where God ever humbled Himself. God is a warrior and a badass I might add. You were dead if you even walked in the wrong room in the Temple or if you bumped into the Ark. God does not humble Himself. If the Jews had no trinity, and the Christians had no trinity until it was officially declared by the Catholic Church in the 4th century. Then don’t you have to wonder where it came from? If it was formulated by the same Church that brought you Mary Mother of God, immortality of the soul, purgatory and hellfire... then don't you wonder just a little bit?

You failed to address the post you are replying to

You were asked multiple questions on how an impersonal thing could

Have an attitude or mind

no answer

consider

no answer


humble himself

no answer

exist in the form of God

We know God has no outward appearance

and the information provided as to the meaning morphe was mixed

Being (ὑπαρχων [huparchōn]). Rather, “existing,” present active participle of ὑπαρχω [huparchō]. In the form of God (ἐν μορφῃ θεου [en morphēi theou]). Μορφη [Morphē] means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ. A prize (ἁρπαγμον [harpagmon]). Predicate accusative with ἡγησατο [hēgēsato]. Originally words in -μος [-mos] signified the act, not the result (-μα [-ma]). The few examples of ἁρπαγμος [harpagmos] (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to ἁρπαγμα [harpagma], like βαπτισμος [baptismos] and βαπτισμα [baptisma]. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won (“robbery”). To be on an equality with God (το εἰναι ἰσα θεοι [to einai isa theoi]). Accusative articular infinitive object of ἡγησατο [hēgēsato], “the being equal with God” (associative instrumental case θεῳ [theōi] after ἰσα [isa]). Ἰσα [Isa] is adverbial use of neuter plural with εἰναι [einai] as in Rev. 21:16. Emptied himself (ἑαυτον ἐκενωσε [heauton ekenōse]). First aorist active indicative of κενοω [kenoō], old verb from κενος [kenos], empty. Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), Php 2:6.

The first word which we must carefully study is “form.” The Greek word has no reference to the shape of any physical object. It was a Greek philosophical term. Vincent has an excellent note on the word. In discussing it, he has among other things, the following to say: “We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophical sense to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character … As applied to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself.

Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader (vol. 5; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 62.

Being in the form of God (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων). Being. Not the simple εἶναι to be, but stronger, denoting being which is from the beginning. See on Jas. 2:15. It has a backward look into an antecedent condition, which has been protracted into the present. Here appropriate to the preincarnate being of Christ, to which the sentence refers. In itself it does not imply eternal, but only prior existence. Form (μορφή). We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character

Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (vol. 3; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887), 430.

in the form of God (not merely the nature of God, which however is implied: but, as in Heb. 1:3, the ἀπαύγασμα τ. δόξης κ. χαρακτὴρ τ. ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ—cf. John 5:37, οὔτε εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε, with ib. 17:5, τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί

Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary (vol. 3; Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), 166.

But scripture settles this

Hebrews 1:3 (KJV 1900) — 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Now explain how an impersonal thing could be

the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power,

so you really have not met the obligation put to you.

 

[Peterlag]

You failed to address the post you are replying to

You were asked multiple questions on how an impersonal thing could

Have an attitude or mind

no answer

consider

no answer


humble himself

no answer

exist in the form of God

We know God has no outward appearance

and the information provided as to the meaning morphe was mixed

Being (ὑπαρχων [huparchōn]). Rather, “existing,” present active participle of ὑπαρχω [huparchō]. In the form of God (ἐν μορφῃ θεου [en morphēi theou]). Μορφη [Morphē] means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ. A prize (ἁρπαγμον [harpagmon]). Predicate accusative with ἡγησατο [hēgēsato]. Originally words in -μος [-mos] signified the act, not the result (-μα [-ma]). The few examples of ἁρπαγμος [harpagmos] (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to ἁρπαγμα [harpagma], like βαπτισμος [baptismos] and βαπτισμα [baptisma]. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won (“robbery”). To be on an equality with God (το εἰναι ἰσα θεοι [to einai isa theoi]). Accusative articular infinitive object of ἡγησατο [hēgēsato], “the being equal with God” (associative instrumental case θεῳ [theōi] after ἰσα [isa]). Ἰσα [Isa] is adverbial use of neuter plural with εἰναι [einai] as in Rev. 21:16. Emptied himself (ἑαυτον ἐκενωσε [heauton ekenōse]). First aorist active indicative of κενοω [kenoō], old verb from κενος [kenos], empty. Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), Php 2:6.

The first word which we must carefully study is “form.” The Greek word has no reference to the shape of any physical object. It was a Greek philosophical term. Vincent has an excellent note on the word. In discussing it, he has among other things, the following to say: “We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophical sense to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character … As applied to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself.

Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader (vol. 5; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 62.

Being in the form of God (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων). Being. Not the simple εἶναι to be, but stronger, denoting being which is from the beginning. See on Jas. 2:15. It has a backward look into an antecedent condition, which has been protracted into the present. Here appropriate to the preincarnate being of Christ, to which the sentence refers. In itself it does not imply eternal, but only prior existence. Form (μορφή). We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character

Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (vol. 3; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887), 430.

in the form of God (not merely the nature of God, which however is implied: but, as in Heb. 1:3, the ἀπαύγασμα τ. δόξης κ. χαρακτὴρ τ. ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ—cf. John 5:37, οὔτε εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε, with ib. 17:5, τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί

Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary (vol. 3; Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), 166.

But scripture settles this

Hebrews 1:3 (KJV 1900) — 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Now explain how an impersonal thing could be

the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power,

so you really have not met the obligation put to you.

I don't fail to answer. You don't understand the Scripture I post and so you think I'm not responding to the subject. You do not know who God is or the Christ. So you can't understand.

 

[Peterlag]

The words “HOLY SPIRIT” in the Bible are primarily used in two very different ways: One way is to refer to God Himself and the other is referring to God’s nature that He gives to people. God is holy and is spirit and therefore “the Holy Spirit” with a capital “H” and a capital “S” is one of the many “names” or designations for God. God gives His holy spirit nature to people as a gift and when HOLY SPIRIT is used that way it should be translated as the “holy spirit” with a lowercase “h” and a lowercase “s.” The Bible says there is one God, and one Lord, who is the man Jesus Christ; and one gift of the holy spirit. Most Christians are aware that the original manuscripts of the Bible were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. However, it's not well known that Hebrew and Aramaic do not have upper-case and lower-case letters, but rather they just have one form for their letters.

Greek does have upper and lower-case letters, but the early Greek manuscripts were all written with only upper-case letters. Therefore, the early manuscripts had no such thing as the “Holy Spirit” or the “holy spirit” because what was always written was the "HOLY SPIRIT." The capital or lower-case letters are always a translator’s interpretation whenever we read “Holy Spirit” or“holy spirit” or “Spirit” or“spirit” in the English Bible. The difference is usually due to the theology of the translator. The bottom line is we cannot know from the Hebrew or Greek texts whether the Author meant the “Holy Spirit” or the “holy spirit”because we must decide based on the context and scope of Scripture whether the reference being made is to God or God’s gift.

There are many descriptions, titles, and names for God in the Bible and I would like to add God’s proper name is “Yahweh” which occurs more than 6,000 times in the Hebrew Old Testament and is generally translated as “LORD.” But God is also referred to as Elohim, Adonai, El Shaddai, the Ancient of Days, the Holy One of Israel, Father, Shield, and by many more designations. Furthermore, God is holy (Leviticus 11:44), which is why He was called “the Holy One” (the Hebrew text uses the singular adjective “holy” to designate “the Holy One." He is also spirit (John 4:24). It makes perfect sense since God is holy and God is spirit that “Holy”and “Spirit” are sometimes combined and used as one of the many designations for God. Thus, the Hebrew or Greek words for the "HOLY SPIRIT" should be brought into English as the "Holy Spirit” when the subject of a verse is God.

None of the dozens of descriptions, titles, or names of God are believed to be a separate, co-equal “Person”in a triune God except for the “HOLY SPIRIT” and there is no solid biblical reason to make the "Holy Spirit” into a separate “Person.” In other contexts the “HOLY SPIRIT” refers to the gift of God’s nature that He placed on people and the new birth to the Christian, and in those contexts it should be translated as the “holy spirit." God placed a form of His nature which is “holy spirit” upon people when He wanted to spiritually empower them because our natural fleshly human bodies do not have spirit power of their own. This holy spirit nature of God was a gift from God to humankind and we see this in the case of Acts 2:38 when the spirit is specifically called a "gift" when given to the Christian.

God put the holy spirit upon Jesus immediately after he was baptized by John the Baptist because Jesus himself needed God’s gift of the holy spirit to have supernatural power just as the leaders and prophets of the Old Testament did. This fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies that God would put the holy spirit upon the Messiah enabling him in his ministry. The gift of the holy spirit was born “in”believers (John 14:17) after the Day of Pentecost rather than resting “upon” them and this is one reason why Christians are said to be “born again” of God’s spirit (1Peter 1:3, 23). Christians have spiritual power when they receive the gift of the holy spirit (Acts 1:8) because the holy spirit is born in them and becomes part of their very nature, and this is why Christians are called God’s “holy ones” which is usually translated as “saints” in the New Testament.

God put His gift of the “holy spirit” or the “spirit” on as many people as He deemed necessary in the Old Testament, and we see this when we look at how God took the spirit that was upon Moses and put it upon the 70 elders of Israel. However, today everyone who makes Jesus Christ their Lord receives the indwelling gift of the holy spirit and that's why Peter on the Day of Pentecost quoted the prophecy in Joel that said God would “pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." Many scholars admit the concept of the Trinity that also includes reference to the "Holy Spirit” as an independent “Person” cannot be found in the Old Testament. The Jews to whom the Old Testament was given did not recognize any such being. It's a well-known historical fact that “Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh alone,” was the cry of Israel. No verse or context openly states or even directly infers that there is a separate “Person” called “the Holy Spirit."

Almost every English version translates John 14:17 similarly to “even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him.” Translators capitalize “Spirit” and use “he” and “him”because of their theology. The Greek word “spirit” is neuter and the text could also be translated as “the spirit of truth” and paired with “which” and “it.” The New American Bible reads “which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it.” Capitalizing the “H” and “S” and using the English pronoun “He” is appropriate when God is being referred to as “the Holy Spirit.” However, when we see the “h” and “s” having the lower case such as "the holy spirit" and all the pronouns referring to that spirit being impersonal such as “it” and “which” is when the subject under discussion is the gift of God’s nature.

One of the ways we know that “pneuma hagion” often refers to the gift of God’s nature is that it “belongs” to God, who calls it “my” spirit. The spirit is called “God’s” spirit in many verses and King David understood the holy spirit belonged to God because he wrote “…do not take your holy spirit from me.” The Bible shows us that “the holy spirit” is under God’s authority and direction, which makes sense when we understand it's the gift of His nature that He gives to believers. The words “Messiah” in Hebrew (mashiyach מָשִׁיחַ) and “Christ” in Greek (christosΧριστός) both mean “anointed one.” Thus, the early Christians would have known him as “Jesus the anointed one.” God “anointed” Jesus Christ with the holy spirit and that's why Jesus was said to have been “anointed” even though people knew he had never been formally anointed with oil (Acts 4:27;10:38).

We have no evidence in the Bible that “the Holy Spirit” was ever used as a name because no one ever used it in a direct address. Many people spoke or prayed directly to God, starting out by saying “O Yahweh” (translated as “O LORD” in almost all English versions). Furthermore, the name “Jesus” is a Greek form of the name “Joshua” (in fact, the King James Version confuses “Joshua” and “Jesus” in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8) and many people spoke “to Jesus” in the Bible. But no one in the Bible ever used “the Holy Spirit” in a direct address because there's simply no actual name for any “Person” known as “the Holy Spirit” anywhere in the Bible.

The “holy spirit” God gave in the Old Testament was God’s nature, but after the Day of Pentecost He gave His nature in a new and fuller way than He had ever given it before and this is what was foretold in the Old Testament (Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26). It was because this new spirit was promised in the Old Testament that the New Testament calls it “the promised holy spirit” Ephesians 1:13; Acts 2:33; Galatians 3:14). We have the “first fruits” of the spirit (Romans 8:23) because Christians are the first to receive this new spirit and that's why we have the guarantee that we will be in the coming Messianic Kingdom.

The gift of the holy spirit that Christians have is a gift and thus an “it.” Jesus told the apostles that the spirit would be “in” them (John14:17)—which is what happened on the Day of Pentecost when the holy spirit went from being with or “upon” people in the Old Testament and Gospels to being born “in” people on and after the Day of Pentecost. The spirit is sent by the Father (John 14:16-17) and Jesus (John 16:7). It does not speak on its own, but it speaks only what it hears (John 16:13). Thus, the gift of the holy spirit is directed by God and Jesus, which is what we would expect since it's God’s nature born in us. The gift of the holy spirit is the nature of God, and when it's born in us it becomes part of our very nature (2 Peter 1:4).

God does not change, but the gift of God’s holy spirit that believers have today is different from the spirit that God gave in the Old Testament, and so the gift of God’s spirit has changed. The simple and straightforward reading of the Scripture is that there is one God, who is sometimes referred to as“the Holy Spirit” and one Lord who is the man Jesus Christ, and one gift of the holy spirit that is the nature of God that He gives to people.

 

[TomL]

I don't fail to answer. You don't understand the Scripture I post and so you think I'm not responding to the subject. You do not know who God is or the Christ. So you can't understand.

Yeah you did and changed the subject

You were asked multiple questions on how an impersonal thing could

Have an attitude or mind

no answer

consider

no answer


humble himself

no answer

exist in the form of God

We know God has no outward appearance

and the information provided as to the meaning morphe was mixed

Being (ὑπαρχων [huparchōn]). Rather, “existing,” present active participle of ὑπαρχω [huparchō]. In the form of God (ἐν μορφῃ θεου [en morphēi theou]). Μορφη [Morphē] means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ. A prize (ἁρπαγμον [harpagmon]). Predicate accusative with ἡγησατο [hēgēsato]. Originally words in -μος [-mos] signified the act, not the result (-μα [-ma]). The few examples of ἁρπαγμος [harpagmos] (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to ἁρπαγμα [harpagma], like βαπτισμος [baptismos] and βαπτισμα [baptisma]. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won (“robbery”). To be on an equality with God (το εἰναι ἰσα θεοι [to einai isa theoi]). Accusative articular infinitive object of ἡγησατο [hēgēsato], “the being equal with God” (associative instrumental case θεῳ [theōi] after ἰσα [isa]). Ἰσα [Isa] is adverbial use of neuter plural with εἰναι [einai] as in Rev. 21:16. Emptied himself (ἑαυτον ἐκενωσε [heauton ekenōse]). First aorist active indicative of κενοω [kenoō], old verb from κενος [kenos], empty. Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), Php 2:6.

The first word which we must carefully study is “form.” The Greek word has no reference to the shape of any physical object. It was a Greek philosophical term. Vincent has an excellent note on the word. In discussing it, he has among other things, the following to say: “We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophical sense to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character … As applied to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself.

Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader (vol. 5; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 62.

Being in the form of God (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων). Being. Not the simple εἶναι to be, but stronger, denoting being which is from the beginning. See on Jas. 2:15. It has a backward look into an antecedent condition, which has been protracted into the present. Here appropriate to the preincarnate being of Christ, to which the sentence refers. In itself it does not imply eternal, but only prior existence. Form (μορφή). We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character

Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (vol. 3; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887), 430.

in the form of God (not merely the nature of God, which however is implied: but, as in Heb. 1:3, the ἀπαύγασμα τ. δόξης κ. χαρακτὴρ τ. ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ—cf. John 5:37, οὔτε εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε, with ib. 17:5, τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί

Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary (vol. 3; Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), 166.

But scripture settles this

Hebrews 1:3 (KJV 1900) — 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Now explain how an impersonal thing could be

the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power,

so you really have not met the obligation put to you.

 

[Peterlag]

Yeah you did and changed the subject

You were asked multiple questions on how an impersonal thing could

Have an attitude or mind

no answer

consider

no answer


humble himself

no answer

exist in the form of God

We know God has no outward appearance

and the information provided as to the meaning morphe was mixed

Being (ὑπαρχων [huparchōn]). Rather, “existing,” present active participle of ὑπαρχω [huparchō]. In the form of God (ἐν μορφῃ θεου [en morphēi theou]). Μορφη [Morphē] means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ. A prize (ἁρπαγμον [harpagmon]). Predicate accusative with ἡγησατο [hēgēsato]. Originally words in -μος [-mos] signified the act, not the result (-μα [-ma]). The few examples of ἁρπαγμος [harpagmos] (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to ἁρπαγμα [harpagma], like βαπτισμος [baptismos] and βαπτισμα [baptisma]. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won (“robbery”). To be on an equality with God (το εἰναι ἰσα θεοι [to einai isa theoi]). Accusative articular infinitive object of ἡγησατο [hēgēsato], “the being equal with God” (associative instrumental case θεῳ [theōi] after ἰσα [isa]). Ἰσα [Isa] is adverbial use of neuter plural with εἰναι [einai] as in Rev. 21:16. Emptied himself (ἑαυτον ἐκενωσε [heauton ekenōse]). First aorist active indicative of κενοω [kenoō], old verb from κενος [kenos], empty. Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), Php 2:6.

The first word which we must carefully study is “form.” The Greek word has no reference to the shape of any physical object. It was a Greek philosophical term. Vincent has an excellent note on the word. In discussing it, he has among other things, the following to say: “We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophical sense to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character … As applied to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself.

Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader (vol. 5; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 62.

Being in the form of God (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων). Being. Not the simple εἶναι to be, but stronger, denoting being which is from the beginning. See on Jas. 2:15. It has a backward look into an antecedent condition, which has been protracted into the present. Here appropriate to the preincarnate being of Christ, to which the sentence refers. In itself it does not imply eternal, but only prior existence. Form (μορφή). We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character

Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (vol. 3; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887), 430.

in the form of God (not merely the nature of God, which however is implied: but, as in Heb. 1:3, the ἀπαύγασμα τ. δόξης κ. χαρακτὴρ τ. ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ—cf. John 5:37, οὔτε εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε, with ib. 17:5, τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί

Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary (vol. 3; Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), 166.

But scripture settles this

Hebrews 1:3 (KJV 1900) — 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Now explain how an impersonal thing could be

the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power,

so you really have not met the obligation put to you.

I don't change the subject. You can't understand. I just posted about the Holy Spirit and that's the subject too and you will not respond to it because you can't.

 

[TomL]

Jesus is a teacher and Jesus said his teachings are not his own in John 7:16.
He was taught by the Father John 828.
Yet Jesus said, we have one teacher, himself, in Matthew 23:8.
However, when he was called good teacher in he denied it Luke 18:18-19

Scripture says what it says. Jesus was a man who was taught by God and spoke the teachings of God as a teacher, but he can't take glory for it. That's why he said only God is good.

You are misunderstanding who Jesus is.

As was noted

Your claim runs counter to the bible's affirmation of the deity of Jesus Christ/the word

 

[TomL]

I don't change the subject. You can't understand. I just posted about the Holy Spirit and that's the subject too and you will not respond to it because you can't.

My post was not about the holy Spirit

You were asked multiple questions on how an impersonal thing could

Have an attitude or mind

no answer

consider

no answer


humble himself

no answer

exist in the form of God

We know God has no outward appearance

and the information provided as to the meaning morphe was mixed

Being (ὑπαρχων [huparchōn]). Rather, “existing,” present active participle of ὑπαρχω [huparchō]. In the form of God (ἐν μορφῃ θεου [en morphēi theou]). Μορφη [Morphē] means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ. A prize (ἁρπαγμον [harpagmon]). Predicate accusative with ἡγησατο [hēgēsato]. Originally words in -μος [-mos] signified the act, not the result (-μα [-ma]). The few examples of ἁρπαγμος [harpagmos] (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to ἁρπαγμα [harpagma], like βαπτισμος [baptismos] and βαπτισμα [baptisma]. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won (“robbery”). To be on an equality with God (το εἰναι ἰσα θεοι [to einai isa theoi]). Accusative articular infinitive object of ἡγησατο [hēgēsato], “the being equal with God” (associative instrumental case θεῳ [theōi] after ἰσα [isa]). Ἰσα [Isa] is adverbial use of neuter plural with εἰναι [einai] as in Rev. 21:16. Emptied himself (ἑαυτον ἐκενωσε [heauton ekenōse]). First aorist active indicative of κενοω [kenoō], old verb from κενος [kenos], empty. Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), Php 2:6.

The first word which we must carefully study is “form.” The Greek word has no reference to the shape of any physical object. It was a Greek philosophical term. Vincent has an excellent note on the word. In discussing it, he has among other things, the following to say: “We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophical sense to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character … As applied to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself.

Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader (vol. 5; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 62.

Being in the form of God (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων). Being. Not the simple εἶναι to be, but stronger, denoting being which is from the beginning. See on Jas. 2:15. It has a backward look into an antecedent condition, which has been protracted into the present. Here appropriate to the preincarnate being of Christ, to which the sentence refers. In itself it does not imply eternal, but only prior existence. Form (μορφή). We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character

Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (vol. 3; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887), 430.

in the form of God (not merely the nature of God, which however is implied: but, as in Heb. 1:3, the ἀπαύγασμα τ. δόξης κ. χαρακτὴρ τ. ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ—cf. John 5:37, οὔτε εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε, with ib. 17:5, τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί

Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary (vol. 3; Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), 166.

But scripture settles this

Hebrews 1:3 (KJV 1900) — 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Now explain how an impersonal thing could be

the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power,

so you really have not met the obligation put to you.

 

[civic]

As was noted

Your claim runs counter to the bible's affirmation of the deity of Jesus Christ/the word

ditto

 

[Peterlag]

My post was not about the holy Spirit

You were asked multiple questions on how an impersonal thing could

Have an attitude or mind

no answer

consider

no answer


humble himself

no answer

exist in the form of God

We know God has no outward appearance

and the information provided as to the meaning morphe was mixed

Being (ὑπαρχων [huparchōn]). Rather, “existing,” present active participle of ὑπαρχω [huparchō]. In the form of God (ἐν μορφῃ θεου [en morphēi theou]). Μορφη [Morphē] means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ. A prize (ἁρπαγμον [harpagmon]). Predicate accusative with ἡγησατο [hēgēsato]. Originally words in -μος [-mos] signified the act, not the result (-μα [-ma]). The few examples of ἁρπαγμος [harpagmos] (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to ἁρπαγμα [harpagma], like βαπτισμος [baptismos] and βαπτισμα [baptisma]. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won (“robbery”). To be on an equality with God (το εἰναι ἰσα θεοι [to einai isa theoi]). Accusative articular infinitive object of ἡγησατο [hēgēsato], “the being equal with God” (associative instrumental case θεῳ [theōi] after ἰσα [isa]). Ἰσα [Isa] is adverbial use of neuter plural with εἰναι [einai] as in Rev. 21:16. Emptied himself (ἑαυτον ἐκενωσε [heauton ekenōse]). First aorist active indicative of κενοω [kenoō], old verb from κενος [kenos], empty. Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), Php 2:6.

The first word which we must carefully study is “form.” The Greek word has no reference to the shape of any physical object. It was a Greek philosophical term. Vincent has an excellent note on the word. In discussing it, he has among other things, the following to say: “We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophical sense to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character … As applied to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself.

Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader (vol. 5; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 62.

Being in the form of God (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων). Being. Not the simple εἶναι to be, but stronger, denoting being which is from the beginning. See on Jas. 2:15. It has a backward look into an antecedent condition, which has been protracted into the present. Here appropriate to the preincarnate being of Christ, to which the sentence refers. In itself it does not imply eternal, but only prior existence. Form (μορφή). We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character

Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (vol. 3; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887), 430.

in the form of God (not merely the nature of God, which however is implied: but, as in Heb. 1:3, the ἀπαύγασμα τ. δόξης κ. χαρακτὴρ τ. ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ—cf. John 5:37, οὔτε εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε, with ib. 17:5, τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί

Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary (vol. 3; Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), 166.

But scripture settles this

Hebrews 1:3 (KJV 1900) — 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Now explain how an impersonal thing could be

the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power,

so you really have not met the obligation put to you.

Again, you say I will not answer. Yet you ask nothing. I don't know what "Have an attitude or mind" means. Is that a Bible verse? You make no sense.

 

[Peterlag]

My post was not about the holy Spirit

You were asked multiple questions on how an impersonal thing could

Have an attitude or mind

no answer

consider

no answer


humble himself

no answer

exist in the form of God

We know God has no outward appearance

and the information provided as to the meaning morphe was mixed

Being (ὑπαρχων [huparchōn]). Rather, “existing,” present active participle of ὑπαρχω [huparchō]. In the form of God (ἐν μορφῃ θεου [en morphēi theou]). Μορφη [Morphē] means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ. A prize (ἁρπαγμον [harpagmon]). Predicate accusative with ἡγησατο [hēgēsato]. Originally words in -μος [-mos] signified the act, not the result (-μα [-ma]). The few examples of ἁρπαγμος [harpagmos] (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to ἁρπαγμα [harpagma], like βαπτισμος [baptismos] and βαπτισμα [baptisma]. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won (“robbery”). To be on an equality with God (το εἰναι ἰσα θεοι [to einai isa theoi]). Accusative articular infinitive object of ἡγησατο [hēgēsato], “the being equal with God” (associative instrumental case θεῳ [theōi] after ἰσα [isa]). Ἰσα [Isa] is adverbial use of neuter plural with εἰναι [einai] as in Rev. 21:16. Emptied himself (ἑαυτον ἐκενωσε [heauton ekenōse]). First aorist active indicative of κενοω [kenoō], old verb from κενος [kenos], empty. Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), Php 2:6.

The first word which we must carefully study is “form.” The Greek word has no reference to the shape of any physical object. It was a Greek philosophical term. Vincent has an excellent note on the word. In discussing it, he has among other things, the following to say: “We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophical sense to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character … As applied to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself.

Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader (vol. 5; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 62.

Being in the form of God (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων). Being. Not the simple εἶναι to be, but stronger, denoting being which is from the beginning. See on Jas. 2:15. It has a backward look into an antecedent condition, which has been protracted into the present. Here appropriate to the preincarnate being of Christ, to which the sentence refers. In itself it does not imply eternal, but only prior existence. Form (μορφή). We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character

Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (vol. 3; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887), 430.

in the form of God (not merely the nature of God, which however is implied: but, as in Heb. 1:3, the ἀπαύγασμα τ. δόξης κ. χαρακτὴρ τ. ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ—cf. John 5:37, οὔτε εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε, with ib. 17:5, τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί

Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary (vol. 3; Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), 166.

But scripture settles this

Hebrews 1:3 (KJV 1900) — 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Now explain how an impersonal thing could be

the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power,

so you really have not met the obligation put to you.

Your post is about the trinity and the Holy Spirit is about the trinity.

 

[MTMattie]

If the Jews had no trinity, and the Christians had no trinity until it was officially declared by the Catholic Church in the 4th century. Then don’t you have to wonder where it came from? If it was formulated by the same Church that brought you Mary Mother of God, immortality of the soul, purgatory and hellfire... then don't you wonder just a little bit?

No more so then the Church that brought you Mary Mother of God, immortality of the soul, purgatory and hellfire.... were the first to jump on the band wagon of being #1.... as their claim to fame.

From Got Questions

The Trinity is Christianity’s most unique, defining, incomprehensible, and awesome mystery. It is the revelation of who our Almighty Creator actually is—not just a god, but an infinite Being existing in eternity as three co-equal, infinite Persons, consubstantial yet distinct. The origin of the doctrine of the Trinity is the Bible, although the word Trinity is not used in the Bible.

As all orthodox Christians agree, the doctrine of the Trinity holds that God is one essence but three Persons; God has one nature, but three centers of consciousness; God is only one What, but three Whos. Some unbelievers mistakenly call this a contradiction. Rather, the doctrine of the Trinity is a mystery revealed by God in His Word. A contradiction would be to claim that God has only one nature but also three natures, or that He is only one Person but also three Persons.

From the very beginning of the church, Christians have understood the mystery of the Trinity, even before they began using the term Trinity.

For example, the first Christians knew the Son was the Creator (John 1:1–2), the “I Am” of the Old Testament (Exodus 3:14; John 8:58), equal to the Father (John 14:9), and the Judge of all the earth (Genesis 18:25; John 5:22), who is to be worshiped as only God is allowed to be (Deuteronomy 6:13; Luke 4:8; Matthew 14:33).

The first Christians knew the Holy Spirit was a separate Person with His own thoughts and will (John 16:13), who intercedes for us with God (Romans 8:27), proving He is a distinct Person from God the Father—since intercession requires at least two parties (no one intercedes with himself). Furthermore, a human can be forgiven for blaspheming God the Son, but not for blaspheming God the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:32).

New Testament writers mention all three Persons of the Trinity together numerous times (e.g., Romans 1:4; 15:30; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Ephesians 1:13–14; 1 Thessalonians 1:3–6). The early believers knew that the Father and the Son sent the third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit—“another counselor”—to live in our hearts (John 14:16–17, 26; 16:7). These mysteries were accepted fully by the early church as revealed truth, yet without the label of “the Holy Trinity.”

The Old Testament gave glimpses of the Trinity, and no passage of Scripture contradicts the doctrine. For example, in Genesis 1:26 God says in the plural, “Let us make mankind in our image.” God declares that He was completely alone when He created everything, stretching out the heavens and spreading out the earth “by myself” (Isaiah 44:24). Yet Jesus was the instrument of God’s creation (John 1:1–3; Colossians 1:16), in the company of the Holy Spirit who was hovering over the primordial waters (Genesis 1:2). Only the doctrine of the Trinity can explain it all.

The Torah hinted at the idea of God existing in multiple Persons and predicted His coming in the flesh. The Old Testament is filled with references to a coming world ruler (Genesis 49:10) to be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), who was not only God’s Son (Isaiah 9:6) but a Messiah who would be God in the flesh (Isaiah 7:14; Zechariah 2:8–11). But the Jews were looking for—and, under Roman occupation, desperately hoping for—a triumphant, conquering Messiah, not a lowly, suffering Servant (Isaiah 53). Israel failed to recognize the Son of God due to His ordinariness (Isaiah 53:2; Matthew 13:54–58; John 10:33), and they killed Him (Zechariah 12:10; Acts 2:36).

In the years after the death of the last apostle, John, there were many attempts by Christian theologians to define and explain God to the church. Explanations of spiritual reality to earthly beings will always fall short; some teachers’ explanations were a bit off, while others sank into heresy. The errors put forward in post-apostolic times ranged from Jesus being all God and only appearing to be human (Docetism), to His being created rather than eternal (Adoptionism, Arianism, and others), to there being three separate gods in the same family (Tritheism), to the one God playing three different roles at different times (Modalism, Monarchianism).

As no religion can exist without knowing who or what its followers worship, there was a great need to define God in a way that all followers of Christianity would agree upon as “official” or orthodox doctrine. And, if Jesus were not God, all Christians were heretics for worshiping a created being.

It seems that the church father Tertullian (AD 160–225) was the first to apply the term Trinity to God. Tertullian uses the term in Against Praxeus, written in 213 to explain and defend the Trinity against the teaching of his contemporary Praxeus, who espoused the Monarchian heresy. From there, we can jump forward over a century of church discussion, schisms, and debate to the Council of Nicea in 325, when the Trinity was finally confirmed as official church doctrine.

A final observation. Theology is the attempt by flawed humans to understand the words of the Bible, just as science is the attempt by flawed humans to understand the facts of nature. All the facts of nature are true, just as all the original words of the Bible are true. But humans are limited and make lots of mistakes, as history continually shows. So, where there is error or disagreement in science or theology, both disciplines have methods of correction. The history of the early church reveals that many sincere Christian believers “got it wrong” when it came to defining God’s nature (a great lesson on the need for humility). But, through a careful study of God’s Word, the church was finally able to articulate what the Bible clearly teaches and what they knew to be true—God exists as an eternal Trinity.

Not all Catholics are or were necessarily wrong on every thing..... After all... Jesus picked Peter, didn't he? "“I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it."

Now, what about those Jews. Here is one of many....

Is the Trinity in the Hebrew Scriptures? - Jews for Jesus

Though, it's often held to be heretical in modern Judaism, the idea of a God being three-in-one actually has its roots in foundational Judaism.

jewsforjesus.org

It is an all-too-common assumption that the concept of the Trinity is a purely Christian idea. But the idea of a God being a three-in-one unity actually has its roots in foundational Judaism and in the Hebrew Scriptures. Even the concept of the Holy Spirit, the Ruach Ha-kodesh, originates in the Hebrew Scriptures—as early as Genesis 1.

Yet, modern Judaism has reached an overwhelming consensus that one cannot believe in the Trinity and be Jewish. Rabbi Stanley Greenberg argues that “Hebrew Scriptures are clear and unequivocal on the oneness of God.… Monotheism, an uncompromising belief in one God, is the hallmark of the Hebrew Bible, the unwavering affirmation of Judaism and the unshakable faith of the Jew.” He continues, “Under no circumstances can a concept of a plurality of the Godhead or a trinity of the Godhead ever be based upon the Hebrew Bible.” Even if what Christians believe is monotheistic, it does not seem to be monotheistic enough to qualify as true Jewishness.

Many Jewish people do believe in the Trinity.​

But if we are to examine this line of thinking, it is best to begin with the very source of Jewish theology and the only means of testing it—the Hebrew Scriptures. We should be open to exploring and understanding the nuances of the Jewish roots of the Trinity because many Jewish people do believe in the Trinity! If we go back to the Scriptures, the case is clear, and this article will walk you through that case. Our understanding hinges on the Hebrew language, so to the Hebrew first we shall turn.

God is Plural: The Possibility of a Jewish Understanding of the Trinity Through Language​

The name Elohim​

It is generally agreed that Elohim is a plural noun having the masculine plural ending “im.” Elohim is used to describe God in Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” It is also used in Exodus 20:3: “You shall have no other gods [Elohim] before me,” and in Deuteronomy 13:2: “Let us go after other gods [Elohim].” Elohim is the word that is used of the one true God as well as for the many false gods. While the use of the plural Elohim does not prove a Tri-unity, it certainly opens the door to a doctrine of plurality in the Godhead.

Most Hebrew scholars recognize that the word Elohim, as it stands by itself, is a plural noun. But they deny that it allows for any plurality in the Godhead whatsoever, arguing that when “Elohim” is used of the true God, it is followed by a singular verb; when it is used of false gods, it is followed by a plural verb:

But, in fact, the verb used in the opening verse of Genesis is “bara” which means “he created”—singular. One need not be too profound a student of Hebrew to understand that the opening verse of Genesis clearly speaks of a singular God. (Greenberg)

The point made, of course, is true because the Bible does teach that God is only one God, and therefore, the general pattern is to have the plural noun followed by the singular verb when it speaks of the one true God. However, there are places where the word is used of the true God and yet is followed by a plural verb:

Genesis 20:13: “And when God [Elohim] caused me to wander [literally: “They” caused me to wander] from my father’s house.
Genesis 35:7: “There God [Elohim] had revealed himself to him.” [Literally: “They” appeared unto him.]
2 Samuel 7:23: “God [Elohim] went.”” [Literally: “They” went.]
Psalm 58:11: “Surely there is a God [Elohim] who judges.” [Literally: “They” judge.]

What does this mean for our understanding of the oneness of God?

The name Eloah​

If the plural form Elohim was the only form available for a reference to God, then conceivably the argument might be that the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures had no other alternative but to use the word Elohim for both the one true God and the false gods. However, the singular form for Elohim (Eloah) appears elsewhere (e.g., Deuteronomy 32:15–17 and Habakkuk 3:3). This singular form could have easily been used consistently, yet it is only used 250 times, while the plural form is used 2,500 times. The use of the plural form again turns the argument in favor of plurality in the Godhead.

Plural pronouns for God​

When God speaks of Himself, He uses the plural pronoun. In Genesis 1:26: “Then God [Elohim] said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.’ He could hardly have made reference to angels since man was created in the image of God and not of angels. The Midrash Rabbah on Genesis recognizes the weight of this passage:

Rabbi Samuel Bar Hanman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan said, that at the time when Moses wrote the Torah, writing a portion of it daily, when he came to this verse which says, “And Elohim said, let us make man in our image after our likeness,” Moses said, “Master of the universe, why do you give herewith an excuse to the sectarians (who believe in the Tri-unity of God)?” God answered Moses, “You write and whoever wants to err, let him err.”1

The Midrash Rabbah tries to avoid the problem and fails to adequately answer why God refers to Himself in the plural. The use of the plural pronoun appears frequently, and avoiding it or explaining it away is insufficient:

Genesis 3:22: “Then the LORD God [YHVH Elohim] said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of us.’”
Genesis 11:7: “Come, let us go down and there confuse their language.”
Isaiah 6:8: “I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?’” This would appear contradictory with the singular “I” and the plural “us” except as viewed as a plurality (us) in a unity (I).

God seems to refer to Himself in the plural, so where does that leave us as we try to understand Him? The authors of Scripture have attempted to deal with His plurality, and their exploration is useful for our understanding.

Plural descriptions of God​

God not only speaks of Himself in the plural, but many authors of Scripture also refer to God’s plurality. Out of the Hebrew, we find that nouns and adjectives describing God are in the plural form:

Ecclesiastes 12:1: “Remember now your Creator.” [Literally: creators.]
Psalm 149:2: “Let Israel rejoice in their Maker.” [Literally: makers.]
Joshua 24:19: “holy God” [Literally: holy Gods.]
Isaiah 54:5: “For your Maker is your husband.” [Literally: makers, husbands.]

While Jewish tradition has commonly rejected the idea of the Trinity, there is no doubt that Judaism portrays a plurality of God’s existence. All the evidence so far rests firmly on the Hebrew language of the Scriptures. If we are to base our theology on Scriptures alone, we have to say that they affirm God’s unity, while at the same time they tend towards the concept of a compound unity. There is room for plurality in the Godhead.

The Shema and God’s Plural Nature​

The resounding and profound words throughout all generations: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!” (Deuteronomy 6:4). This has always been Israel’s great confession. This verse is used more than any other to affirm the fact that God is one and to deny the possibility of plurality in the Godhead.

The word echad does not mean an ‘absolute one’ but a ‘compound one.’​

On the one hand, it should be noted that the very words “our God” are in the plural in the Hebrew text and literally mean “our Gods.” However, the main argument lies in the word “one,” which is a Hebrew word, echad. A glance through the Hebrew text where the word is used elsewhere can quickly show that the word echad does not mean an “absolute one” but a “compound one.”

For instance, in Genesis 1:5, the combination of evening and morning comprise one (echad) day. In Genesis 2:24, a man and a woman come together in marriage and the two “shall become one [echad] flesh.” In Ezra 2:64, we are told that the whole assembly was as one (echad), though of course, it was composed of numerous people. Ezekiel 37:17 provides a rather striking example where two sticks are combined to become one (echad). The use of the word echad in Scripture shows it to be a compound unity and not an absolute unity.

There is a Hebrew word that does mean an absolute unity and that is the word yachid, which is found in many Scripture passages,2 with the emphasis being on the meaning of “only.” If Moses intended to teach God’s absolute oneness instead of as a compound unity, yachid would have been a far more appropriate word. In fact, Maimonides noted the strength of “yachid” and chose to use that word in his “Thirteen Articles of Faith” in place of echad. However, Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Shema) does not use “yachid” in reference to God.

There is sufficient evidence for the plurality of God. But can we come to a concrete understanding of the Jewish view of the Trinity?

A Dual God: Judaism’s Understanding of the Godhead​

Elohim and YHVH​

The case for God’s plurality becomes stronger when we encounter the term Elohim applied to two personalities in the same verse, such as in Psalm 45:6–7:

Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.

The first Elohim is being addressed, and the second Elohim is the God of the first Elohim. And so God’s God has anointed Him with the oil of gladness.

And Hosea 1:7:

I will have mercy on the house of Judah, and I will save them by the LORD their God. I will not save them by bow or by sword or by war or by horses or by horsemen.

The speaker is Elohim who says He will have mercy on the house of Judah and will save them by the instrumentality of YHVH, their Elohim. So Elohim number one will save Israel by means of Elohim number two.

Not only is Elohim applied to two personalities in the same verse, but so is the very name of God: “Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven” (Genesis 19:24). YHVH number one is on earth raining sulfur and fire from a second YHVH who is in heaven.

Furthermore, Zechariah 2:8–9:

For thus says the LORD of Hosts, after his glory sent me to the nations who plundered you, for he who touches you touches the apple of his eye: “Behold, I will shake my hand over them, and they shall become plunder for those who served them. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent me.”

So, again, we have one YHVH sending another YHVH to perform a specific task.

A second example is Zechariah 2:8-9:

For thus says the LORD of Hosts: “He sent Me after glory, to the nations which plunder you; for he that touches you touches the apple of His eye. For surely I will shake My hand against them, and they shall become spoil for their servants. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent Me.”

Again, we have one YHVH sending another YHVH to perform a specific task.

The author of the Zohar sensed plurality in the Tetragrammaton3 and wrote:

Come and see the mystery of the word YHVH: there are three steps, each existing by itself: nevertheless they are One, and so united that one cannot be separated from the other. The Ancient Holy One is revealed with three heads, which are united into one, and that head is three exalted. The Ancient One is described as being three: because the other lights emanating from him are included in the three. But how can three names be one? Are they really one because we call them one? How three can be one can only be known through the revelation of the Holy Spirit.4

The evidence for at least a dual God in the Hebrew Scriptures is clear, but what is Judaism’s response to a triune God?

A Triune God: Judaism’s Understanding of the Holy Spirit​

If the Hebrew Scriptures point to plurality, then how many personalities exist in the Godhead? As we saw above, the names of God are applied to at least two different personalities. Yet, a deeper examination of the Hebrew Scriptures shows three distinct personalities that are considered divine.

First, there are numerous references to the LORD YHVH. Second, there is a personality referred to as the Angel of YHVH who is considered distinct from the other angels. In passages where He is found, He is referred to as both the Angel of YHVH and YHVH Himself. For instance, in Genesis 16:7, He is referred to as the Angel of YHVH, but then in 16:13, as YHVH Himself. In Genesis 22:11, He is the Angel of YHVH, but God Himself in 22:12. Exodus 23:20–23 presents an angel who has the power to pardon sin because God’s own name YHVH is in him. This can hardly be said of any ordinary angel. But the very fact that God’s own name is in this angel shows his divine status.

A third major personality that comes through is the Spirit of God, often referred to as the Ruach Ha-kodesh. There are a good number of references to the Spirit of God in the Hebrew Scriptures.5 The Holy Spirit cannot be a mere emanation because He contains all the characteristics of personality (intellect, emotion, and will) and is considered divine.

There is clear evidence that three personalities are referred to as divine and as being God.​

So then, from various sections of the Hebrew Scriptures, there is clear evidence that three personalities are referred to as divine and as being God: the LORD YHVH, the Angel of YHVH, and the Spirit of God.

The Intersection of God’s Three Personalities​

The Scriptures do present all three personalities of the Godhead together in some passages. Isaiah 48:12–16 reveals a speaker who refers to himself as the one who is responsible for the creation of the heavens and the earth:

Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am he; I am the first, and I am the last. My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand forth together. “Assemble, all of you, and listen! Who among them has declared these things? The LORD loves him; he shall perform his purpose on Babylon, and his arm shall be against the Chaldeans. I, even I, have spoken and called him; I have brought him, and he will prosper in his way. Draw near to me, hear this: from the beginning I have not spoken in secret, from the time it came to be I have been there.” And now the Lord GOD has sent me, and his Spirit.

It is clear that the speaker is God Himself. But then in verse 16, the speaker refers to himself using the pronouns of I and me and distinguishes himself from the LORD YHVH and from the Spirit of God. The Tri-unity is presented in the Hebrew Scriptures with striking clarity.

In Isaiah 63:7–14, there is a reflection back to the time of the Exodus, clearly demonstrating all three personalities as present and active. The LORD YHVH is referred to in verse 7, the Angel of YHVH in verse 9, and the Spirit of God in verses 10, 11, and 14. While God refers to Himself as the one responsible for Israel’s redemption from Egypt, in this passage three personalities are given credit. Yet, no contradiction is seen since all three comprise the unity of the one Godhead.

Are Judaism and the Trinity Reconcilable?​

The Hebrew Scriptures show a plural Godhead. The first person is consistently called YHVH, while the second person is given the names of YHVH, the Angel of YHVH, and the Servant of YHVH. Consistently and without fail, the second person is sent by the first person. The third person is referred to as the Spirit of YHVH or the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit. He, too, is sent by the first person but is continually related to the ministry of the second person.

If the concept of the Tri-unity of God is not Jewish, then neither are the Hebrew Scriptures.​

If the concept of the Tri-unity in the Godhead is not Jewish according to modern rabbis, then neither are the Hebrew Scriptures. Jewish Christians cannot be accused of having slipped into paganism when they hold to the fact that Jesus is the divine Son of God. He is the same one of whom Moses wrote when he said:

Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him. But if you carefully obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. When my angel goes before you and brings you to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, and I blot them out. (Exodus 23:20–23)

Is the Teaching of the New Testament Consistent with the Concept of the Trinity Presented in the Hebrew Scriptures?​

In keeping with the teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures, the New Testament recognizes that there are three persons in the Godhead. The first person is the Father, the second person is the Son, and the third person is the Holy Spirit.

What happened is that God became a man (not that man became God).​

The New Testament answers the question of Proverbs 30:4: “What is his name, and what is his son’s name? Surely you know!” His son’s name is Yeshua (Jesus). In accordance with the Hebrew Scriptures, he is sent by God to be the Messiah, but this time as a man instead of as an angel. Furthermore, he is sent for a specific purpose: to die for our sins. In essence, what happened is that God became a man (not that man became God) in order to accomplish the work of atonement.

The New Testament calls the third person of the Godhead the Holy Spirit. He is related to the work of the second person—consistent with the Hebrew Scriptures. Evidently, there is a consistent body of teaching in both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament related to the Tri-unity of God. The New Testament presents a truthful and consistent picture of who God is, making it a reliable Jewish source for understanding the plurality of the Godhead.

 

[TomL]

Your post is about the trinity and the Holy Spirit is about the trinity.

Nope my post was about the personality of the word

So i repeat

My post was not about the holy Spirit

You were asked multiple questions on how an impersonal thing could

Have an attitude or mind

no answer

consider

no answer


humble himself

no answer

exist in the form of God

We know God has no outward appearance

and the information provided as to the meaning morphe was mixed

Being (ὑπαρχων [huparchōn]). Rather, “existing,” present active participle of ὑπαρχω [huparchō]. In the form of God (ἐν μορφῃ θεου [en morphēi theou]). Μορφη [Morphē] means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ. A prize (ἁρπαγμον [harpagmon]). Predicate accusative with ἡγησατο [hēgēsato]. Originally words in -μος [-mos] signified the act, not the result (-μα [-ma]). The few examples of ἁρπαγμος [harpagmos] (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to ἁρπαγμα [harpagma], like βαπτισμος [baptismos] and βαπτισμα [baptisma]. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won (“robbery”). To be on an equality with God (το εἰναι ἰσα θεοι [to einai isa theoi]). Accusative articular infinitive object of ἡγησατο [hēgēsato], “the being equal with God” (associative instrumental case θεῳ [theōi] after ἰσα [isa]). Ἰσα [Isa] is adverbial use of neuter plural with εἰναι [einai] as in Rev. 21:16. Emptied himself (ἑαυτον ἐκενωσε [heauton ekenōse]). First aorist active indicative of κενοω [kenoō], old verb from κενος [kenos], empty. Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), Php 2:6.

The first word which we must carefully study is “form.” The Greek word has no reference to the shape of any physical object. It was a Greek philosophical term. Vincent has an excellent note on the word. In discussing it, he has among other things, the following to say: “We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophical sense to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character … As applied to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself.

Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader (vol. 5; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 62.

Being in the form of God (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων). Being. Not the simple εἶναι to be, but stronger, denoting being which is from the beginning. See on Jas. 2:15. It has a backward look into an antecedent condition, which has been protracted into the present. Here appropriate to the preincarnate being of Christ, to which the sentence refers. In itself it does not imply eternal, but only prior existence. Form (μορφή). We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character

Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (vol. 3; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887), 430.

in the form of God (not merely the nature of God, which however is implied: but, as in Heb. 1:3, the ἀπαύγασμα τ. δόξης κ. χαρακτὴρ τ. ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ—cf. John 5:37, οὔτε εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε, with ib. 17:5, τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί

Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary (vol. 3; Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), 166.

But scripture settles this

Hebrews 1:3 (KJV 1900) — 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Now explain how an impersonal thing could be

the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power,

so you really have not met the obligation put to you.

 

[TomL]

Again, you say I will not answer. Yet you ask nothing. I don't know what "Have an attitude or mind" means. Is that a Bible verse? You make no sense.

read again you were plainly asked

My post was not about the holy Spirit

You were asked multiple questions on how an impersonal thing could

Have an attitude or mind?

no answer

consider?

no answer


humble himself?

no answer

exist in the form of God?

We know God has no outward appearance

and the information provided as to the meaning morphe was mixed

Being (ὑπαρχων [huparchōn]). Rather, “existing,” present active participle of ὑπαρχω [huparchō]. In the form of God (ἐν μορφῃ θεου [en morphēi theou]). Μορφη [Morphē] means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ. A prize (ἁρπαγμον [harpagmon]). Predicate accusative with ἡγησατο [hēgēsato]. Originally words in -μος [-mos] signified the act, not the result (-μα [-ma]). The few examples of ἁρπαγμος [harpagmos] (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to ἁρπαγμα [harpagma], like βαπτισμος [baptismos] and βαπτισμα [baptisma]. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won (“robbery”). To be on an equality with God (το εἰναι ἰσα θεοι [to einai isa theoi]). Accusative articular infinitive object of ἡγησατο [hēgēsato], “the being equal with God” (associative instrumental case θεῳ [theōi] after ἰσα [isa]). Ἰσα [Isa] is adverbial use of neuter plural with εἰναι [einai] as in Rev. 21:16. Emptied himself (ἑαυτον ἐκενωσε [heauton ekenōse]). First aorist active indicative of κενοω [kenoō], old verb from κενος [kenos], empty. Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), Php 2:6.

The first word which we must carefully study is “form.” The Greek word has no reference to the shape of any physical object. It was a Greek philosophical term. Vincent has an excellent note on the word. In discussing it, he has among other things, the following to say: “We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophical sense to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character … As applied to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself.

Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader (vol. 5; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 62.

Being in the form of God (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων). Being. Not the simple εἶναι to be, but stronger, denoting being which is from the beginning. See on Jas. 2:15. It has a backward look into an antecedent condition, which has been protracted into the present. Here appropriate to the preincarnate being of Christ, to which the sentence refers. In itself it does not imply eternal, but only prior existence. Form (μορφή). We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character

Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (vol. 3; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887), 430.

in the form of God (not merely the nature of God, which however is implied: but, as in Heb. 1:3, the ἀπαύγασμα τ. δόξης κ. χαρακτὴρ τ. ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ—cf. John 5:37, οὔτε εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε, with ib. 17:5, τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί

Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary (vol. 3; Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), 166.

But scripture settles this

Hebrews 1:3 (KJV 1900) — 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Now explain how an impersonal thing could be

the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power,

so you really have not met the obligation put to you.

 

[Peterlag]

No more so then the Church that brought you Mary Mother of God, immortality of the soul, purgatory and hellfire.... were the first to jump on the band wagon of being #1.... as their claim to fame.

From Got Questions

The Trinity is Christianity’s most unique, defining, incomprehensible, and awesome mystery. It is the revelation of who our Almighty Creator actually is—not just a god, but an infinite Being existing in eternity as three co-equal, infinite Persons, consubstantial yet distinct. The origin of the doctrine of the Trinity is the Bible, although the word Trinity is not used in the Bible.

As all orthodox Christians agree, the doctrine of the Trinity holds that God is one essence but three Persons; God has one nature, but three centers of consciousness; God is only one What, but three Whos. Some unbelievers mistakenly call this a contradiction. Rather, the doctrine of the Trinity is a mystery revealed by God in His Word. A contradiction would be to claim that God has only one nature but also three natures, or that He is only one Person but also three Persons.

From the very beginning of the church, Christians have understood the mystery of the Trinity, even before they began using the term Trinity.

For example, the first Christians knew the Son was the Creator (John 1:1–2), the “I Am” of the Old Testament (Exodus 3:14; John 8:58), equal to the Father (John 14:9), and the Judge of all the earth (Genesis 18:25; John 5:22), who is to be worshiped as only God is allowed to be (Deuteronomy 6:13; Luke 4:8; Matthew 14:33).

The first Christians knew the Holy Spirit was a separate Person with His own thoughts and will (John 16:13), who intercedes for us with God (Romans 8:27), proving He is a distinct Person from God the Father—since intercession requires at least two parties (no one intercedes with himself). Furthermore, a human can be forgiven for blaspheming God the Son, but not for blaspheming God the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:32).

New Testament writers mention all three Persons of the Trinity together numerous times (e.g., Romans 1:4; 15:30; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Ephesians 1:13–14; 1 Thessalonians 1:3–6). The early believers knew that the Father and the Son sent the third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit—“another counselor”—to live in our hearts (John 14:16–17, 26; 16:7). These mysteries were accepted fully by the early church as revealed truth, yet without the label of “the Holy Trinity.”

The Old Testament gave glimpses of the Trinity, and no passage of Scripture contradicts the doctrine. For example, in Genesis 1:26 God says in the plural, “Let us make mankind in our image.” God declares that He was completely alone when He created everything, stretching out the heavens and spreading out the earth “by myself” (Isaiah 44:24). Yet Jesus was the instrument of God’s creation (John 1:1–3; Colossians 1:16), in the company of the Holy Spirit who was hovering over the primordial waters (Genesis 1:2). Only the doctrine of the Trinity can explain it all.

The Torah hinted at the idea of God existing in multiple Persons and predicted His coming in the flesh. The Old Testament is filled with references to a coming world ruler (Genesis 49:10) to be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), who was not only God’s Son (Isaiah 9:6) but a Messiah who would be God in the flesh (Isaiah 7:14; Zechariah 2:8–11). But the Jews were looking for—and, under Roman occupation, desperately hoping for—a triumphant, conquering Messiah, not a lowly, suffering Servant (Isaiah 53). Israel failed to recognize the Son of God due to His ordinariness (Isaiah 53:2; Matthew 13:54–58; John 10:33), and they killed Him (Zechariah 12:10; Acts 2:36).

In the years after the death of the last apostle, John, there were many attempts by Christian theologians to define and explain God to the church. Explanations of spiritual reality to earthly beings will always fall short; some teachers’ explanations were a bit off, while others sank into heresy. The errors put forward in post-apostolic times ranged from Jesus being all God and only appearing to be human (Docetism), to His being created rather than eternal (Adoptionism, Arianism, and others), to there being three separate gods in the same family (Tritheism), to the one God playing three different roles at different times (Modalism, Monarchianism).

As no religion can exist without knowing who or what its followers worship, there was a great need to define God in a way that all followers of Christianity would agree upon as “official” or orthodox doctrine. And, if Jesus were not God, all Christians were heretics for worshiping a created being.

It seems that the church father Tertullian (AD 160–225) was the first to apply the term Trinity to God. Tertullian uses the term in Against Praxeus, written in 213 to explain and defend the Trinity against the teaching of his contemporary Praxeus, who espoused the Monarchian heresy. From there, we can jump forward over a century of church discussion, schisms, and debate to the Council of Nicea in 325, when the Trinity was finally confirmed as official church doctrine.

A final observation. Theology is the attempt by flawed humans to understand the words of the Bible, just as science is the attempt by flawed humans to understand the facts of nature. All the facts of nature are true, just as all the original words of the Bible are true. But humans are limited and make lots of mistakes, as history continually shows. So, where there is error or disagreement in science or theology, both disciplines have methods of correction. The history of the early church reveals that many sincere Christian believers “got it wrong” when it came to defining God’s nature (a great lesson on the need for humility). But, through a careful study of God’s Word, the church was finally able to articulate what the Bible clearly teaches and what they knew to be true—God exists as an eternal Trinity.

Not all Catholics are or were necessarily wrong on every thing..... After all... Jesus picked Peter, didn't he? "“I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it."

Now, what about those Jews. Here is one of many....

Is the Trinity in the Hebrew Scriptures? - Jews for Jesus

Though, it's often held to be heretical in modern Judaism, the idea of a God being three-in-one actually has its roots in foundational Judaism.

jewsforjesus.org

It is an all-too-common assumption that the concept of the Trinity is a purely Christian idea. But the idea of a God being a three-in-one unity actually has its roots in foundational Judaism and in the Hebrew Scriptures. Even the concept of the Holy Spirit, the Ruach Ha-kodesh, originates in the Hebrew Scriptures—as early as Genesis 1.

Yet, modern Judaism has reached an overwhelming consensus that one cannot believe in the Trinity and be Jewish. Rabbi Stanley Greenberg argues that “Hebrew Scriptures are clear and unequivocal on the oneness of God.… Monotheism, an uncompromising belief in one God, is the hallmark of the Hebrew Bible, the unwavering affirmation of Judaism and the unshakable faith of the Jew.” He continues, “Under no circumstances can a concept of a plurality of the Godhead or a trinity of the Godhead ever be based upon the Hebrew Bible.” Even if what Christians believe is monotheistic, it does not seem to be monotheistic enough to qualify as true Jewishness.

Many Jewish people do believe in the Trinity.​

But if we are to examine this line of thinking, it is best to begin with the very source of Jewish theology and the only means of testing it—the Hebrew Scriptures. We should be open to exploring and understanding the nuances of the Jewish roots of the Trinity because many Jewish people do believe in the Trinity! If we go back to the Scriptures, the case is clear, and this article will walk you through that case. Our understanding hinges on the Hebrew language, so to the Hebrew first we shall turn.

God is Plural: The Possibility of a Jewish Understanding of the Trinity Through Language​

The name Elohim​

It is generally agreed that Elohim is a plural noun having the masculine plural ending “im.” Elohim is used to describe God in Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” It is also used in Exodus 20:3: “You shall have no other gods [Elohim] before me,” and in Deuteronomy 13:2: “Let us go after other gods [Elohim].” Elohim is the word that is used of the one true God as well as for the many false gods. While the use of the plural Elohim does not prove a Tri-unity, it certainly opens the door to a doctrine of plurality in the Godhead.

Most Hebrew scholars recognize that the word Elohim, as it stands by itself, is a plural noun. But they deny that it allows for any plurality in the Godhead whatsoever, arguing that when “Elohim” is used of the true God, it is followed by a singular verb; when it is used of false gods, it is followed by a plural verb:


The point made, of course, is true because the Bible does teach that God is only one God, and therefore, the general pattern is to have the plural noun followed by the singular verb when it speaks of the one true God. However, there are places where the word is used of the true God and yet is followed by a plural verb:


What does this mean for our understanding of the oneness of God?

The name Eloah​

If the plural form Elohim was the only form available for a reference to God, then conceivably the argument might be that the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures had no other alternative but to use the word Elohim for both the one true God and the false gods. However, the singular form for Elohim (Eloah) appears elsewhere (e.g., Deuteronomy 32:15–17 and Habakkuk 3:3). This singular form could have easily been used consistently, yet it is only used 250 times, while the plural form is used 2,500 times. The use of the plural form again turns the argument in favor of plurality in the Godhead.

Plural pronouns for God​

When God speaks of Himself, He uses the plural pronoun. In Genesis 1:26: “Then God [Elohim] said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.’ He could hardly have made reference to angels since man was created in the image of God and not of angels. The Midrash Rabbah on Genesis recognizes the weight of this passage:


The Midrash Rabbah tries to avoid the problem and fails to adequately answer why God refers to Himself in the plural. The use of the plural pronoun appears frequently, and avoiding it or explaining it away is insufficient:


God seems to refer to Himself in the plural, so where does that leave us as we try to understand Him? The authors of Scripture have attempted to deal with His plurality, and their exploration is useful for our understanding.

Plural descriptions of God​

God not only speaks of Himself in the plural, but many authors of Scripture also refer to God’s plurality. Out of the Hebrew, we find that nouns and adjectives describing God are in the plural form:


While Jewish tradition has commonly rejected the idea of the Trinity, there is no doubt that Judaism portrays a plurality of God’s existence. All the evidence so far rests firmly on the Hebrew language of the Scriptures. If we are to base our theology on Scriptures alone, we have to say that they affirm God’s unity, while at the same time they tend towards the concept of a compound unity. There is room for plurality in the Godhead.

The Shema and God’s Plural Nature​

The resounding and profound words throughout all generations: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!” (Deuteronomy 6:4). This has always been Israel’s great confession. This verse is used more than any other to affirm the fact that God is one and to deny the possibility of plurality in the Godhead.

The word echad does not mean an ‘absolute one’ but a ‘compound one.’​

On the one hand, it should be noted that the very words “our God” are in the plural in the Hebrew text and literally mean “our Gods.” However, the main argument lies in the word “one,” which is a Hebrew word, echad. A glance through the Hebrew text where the word is used elsewhere can quickly show that the word echad does not mean an “absolute one” but a “compound one.”

For instance, in Genesis 1:5, the combination of evening and morning comprise one (echad) day. In Genesis 2:24, a man and a woman come together in marriage and the two “shall become one [echad] flesh.” In Ezra 2:64, we are told that the whole assembly was as one (echad), though of course, it was composed of numerous people. Ezekiel 37:17 provides a rather striking example where two sticks are combined to become one (echad). The use of the word echad in Scripture shows it to be a compound unity and not an absolute unity.

There is a Hebrew word that does mean an absolute unity and that is the word yachid, which is found in many Scripture passages,2 with the emphasis being on the meaning of “only.” If Moses intended to teach God’s absolute oneness instead of as a compound unity, yachid would have been a far more appropriate word. In fact, Maimonides noted the strength of “yachid” and chose to use that word in his “Thirteen Articles of Faith” in place of echad. However, Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Shema) does not use “yachid” in reference to God.

There is sufficient evidence for the plurality of God. But can we come to a concrete understanding of the Jewish view of the Trinity?

A Dual God: Judaism’s Understanding of the Godhead​

Elohim and YHVH​

The case for God’s plurality becomes stronger when we encounter the term Elohim applied to two personalities in the same verse, such as in Psalm 45:6–7:


The first Elohim is being addressed, and the second Elohim is the God of the first Elohim. And so God’s God has anointed Him with the oil of gladness.

And Hosea 1:7:


The speaker is Elohim who says He will have mercy on the house of Judah and will save them by the instrumentality of YHVH, their Elohim. So Elohim number one will save Israel by means of Elohim number two.

Not only is Elohim applied to two personalities in the same verse, but so is the very name of God: “Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven” (Genesis 19:24). YHVH number one is on earth raining sulfur and fire from a second YHVH who is in heaven.

Furthermore, Zechariah 2:8–9:


So, again, we have one YHVH sending another YHVH to perform a specific task.

A second example is Zechariah 2:8-9:


Again, we have one YHVH sending another YHVH to perform a specific task.

The author of the Zohar sensed plurality in the Tetragrammaton3 and wrote:


The evidence for at least a dual God in the Hebrew Scriptures is clear, but what is Judaism’s response to a triune God?

A Triune God: Judaism’s Understanding of the Holy Spirit​

If the Hebrew Scriptures point to plurality, then how many personalities exist in the Godhead? As we saw above, the names of God are applied to at least two different personalities. Yet, a deeper examination of the Hebrew Scriptures shows three distinct personalities that are considered divine.

First, there are numerous references to the LORD YHVH. Second, there is a personality referred to as the Angel of YHVH who is considered distinct from the other angels. In passages where He is found, He is referred to as both the Angel of YHVH and YHVH Himself. For instance, in Genesis 16:7, He is referred to as the Angel of YHVH, but then in 16:13, as YHVH Himself. In Genesis 22:11, He is the Angel of YHVH, but God Himself in 22:12. Exodus 23:20–23 presents an angel who has the power to pardon sin because God’s own name YHVH is in him. This can hardly be said of any ordinary angel. But the very fact that God’s own name is in this angel shows his divine status.

A third major personality that comes through is the Spirit of God, often referred to as the Ruach Ha-kodesh. There are a good number of references to the Spirit of God in the Hebrew Scriptures.5 The Holy Spirit cannot be a mere emanation because He contains all the characteristics of personality (intellect, emotion, and will) and is considered divine.

There is clear evidence that three personalities are referred to as divine and as being God.​

So then, from various sections of the Hebrew Scriptures, there is clear evidence that three personalities are referred to as divine and as being God: the LORD YHVH, the Angel of YHVH, and the Spirit of God.

The Intersection of God’s Three Personalities​

The Scriptures do present all three personalities of the Godhead together in some passages. Isaiah 48:12–16 reveals a speaker who refers to himself as the one who is responsible for the creation of the heavens and the earth:


It is clear that the speaker is God Himself. But then in verse 16, the speaker refers to himself using the pronouns of I and me and distinguishes himself from the LORD YHVH and from the Spirit of God. The Tri-unity is presented in the Hebrew Scriptures with striking clarity.

In Isaiah 63:7–14, there is a reflection back to the time of the Exodus, clearly demonstrating all three personalities as present and active. The LORD YHVH is referred to in verse 7, the Angel of YHVH in verse 9, and the Spirit of God in verses 10, 11, and 14. While God refers to Himself as the one responsible for Israel’s redemption from Egypt, in this passage three personalities are given credit. Yet, no contradiction is seen since all three comprise the unity of the one Godhead.

Are Judaism and the Trinity Reconcilable?​

The Hebrew Scriptures show a plural Godhead. The first person is consistently called YHVH, while the second person is given the names of YHVH, the Angel of YHVH, and the Servant of YHVH. Consistently and without fail, the second person is sent by the first person. The third person is referred to as the Spirit of YHVH or the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit. He, too, is sent by the first person but is continually related to the ministry of the second person.

If the concept of the Tri-unity of God is not Jewish, then neither are the Hebrew Scriptures.​

If the concept of the Tri-unity in the Godhead is not Jewish according to modern rabbis, then neither are the Hebrew Scriptures. Jewish Christians cannot be accused of having slipped into paganism when they hold to the fact that Jesus is the divine Son of God. He is the same one of whom Moses wrote when he said:

Is the Teaching of the New Testament Consistent with the Concept of the Trinity Presented in the Hebrew Scriptures?​

In keeping with the teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures, the New Testament recognizes that there are three persons in the Godhead. The first person is the Father, the second person is the Son, and the third person is the Holy Spirit.

What happened is that God became a man (not that man became God).​

The New Testament answers the question of Proverbs 30:4: “What is his name, and what is his son’s name? Surely you know!” His son’s name is Yeshua (Jesus). In accordance with the Hebrew Scriptures, he is sent by God to be the Messiah, but this time as a man instead of as an angel. Furthermore, he is sent for a specific purpose: to die for our sins. In essence, what happened is that God became a man (not that man became God) in order to accomplish the work of atonement.

The New Testament calls the third person of the Godhead the Holy Spirit. He is related to the work of the second person—consistent with the Hebrew Scriptures. Evidently, there is a consistent body of teaching in both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament related to the Tri-unity of God. The New Testament presents a truthful and consistent picture of who God is, making it a reliable Jewish source for understanding the plurality of the Godhead.

There is not one verse that says Jesus is God the Son. Nor has there ever been a teaching on it anywhere in the Bible. The Jews never saw it anywhere in the entire Old Testament nor anyone in the New Testament ever taught it. The Catholics who invented this nonsense have used only about 8 verses that they have to piece together from statements that are scattered all over the New Testament. One should think if such nonsense was true and important that it would have been taught by someone. And it is not. If the Jews had no trinity, and the Christians had no trinity until it was officially declared by the Catholic Church in the 4th century. Then don’t you have to wonder where it came from? If it was formulated by the same Church that brought you Mary Mother of God, immortality of the soul, purgatory and hellfire... then don't you wonder just a little bit?

 

[Peterlag]

Nope my post was about the personality of the word

So i repeat

My post was not about the holy Spirit

You were asked multiple questions on how an impersonal thing could

Have an attitude or mind

no answer

consider

no answer


humble himself

no answer

exist in the form of God

We know God has no outward appearance

and the information provided as to the meaning morphe was mixed

Being (ὑπαρχων [huparchōn]). Rather, “existing,” present active participle of ὑπαρχω [huparchō]. In the form of God (ἐν μορφῃ θεου [en morphēi theou]). Μορφη [Morphē] means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ. A prize (ἁρπαγμον [harpagmon]). Predicate accusative with ἡγησατο [hēgēsato]. Originally words in -μος [-mos] signified the act, not the result (-μα [-ma]). The few examples of ἁρπαγμος [harpagmos] (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to ἁρπαγμα [harpagma], like βαπτισμος [baptismos] and βαπτισμα [baptisma]. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won (“robbery”). To be on an equality with God (το εἰναι ἰσα θεοι [to einai isa theoi]). Accusative articular infinitive object of ἡγησατο [hēgēsato], “the being equal with God” (associative instrumental case θεῳ [theōi] after ἰσα [isa]). Ἰσα [Isa] is adverbial use of neuter plural with εἰναι [einai] as in Rev. 21:16. Emptied himself (ἑαυτον ἐκενωσε [heauton ekenōse]). First aorist active indicative of κενοω [kenoō], old verb from κενος [kenos], empty. Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), Php 2:6.

The first word which we must carefully study is “form.” The Greek word has no reference to the shape of any physical object. It was a Greek philosophical term. Vincent has an excellent note on the word. In discussing it, he has among other things, the following to say: “We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophical sense to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character … As applied to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself.

Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader (vol. 5; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 62.

Being in the form of God (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων). Being. Not the simple εἶναι to be, but stronger, denoting being which is from the beginning. See on Jas. 2:15. It has a backward look into an antecedent condition, which has been protracted into the present. Here appropriate to the preincarnate being of Christ, to which the sentence refers. In itself it does not imply eternal, but only prior existence. Form (μορφή). We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character

Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (vol. 3; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887), 430.

in the form of God (not merely the nature of God, which however is implied: but, as in Heb. 1:3, the ἀπαύγασμα τ. δόξης κ. χαρακτὴρ τ. ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ—cf. John 5:37, οὔτε εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε, with ib. 17:5, τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί

Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary (vol. 3; Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), 166.

But scripture settles this

Hebrews 1:3 (KJV 1900) — 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Now explain how an impersonal thing could be

the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power,

so you really have not met the obligation put to you.

I give you no answer because your question makes no sense.

 

[TomL]

I give you no answer because your question makes no sense.

You just changed your excuse as to why you did not address my post


You were asked multiple questions on how an impersonal thing could

Have an attitude or mind

no answer

consider

no answer


humble himself

no answer

exist in the form of God

We know God has no outward appearance

and the information provided as to the meaning morphe was mixed

Being (ὑπαρχων [huparchōn]). Rather, “existing,” present active participle of ὑπαρχω [huparchō]. In the form of God (ἐν μορφῃ θεου [en morphēi theou]). Μορφη [Morphē] means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ. A prize (ἁρπαγμον [harpagmon]). Predicate accusative with ἡγησατο [hēgēsato]. Originally words in -μος [-mos] signified the act, not the result (-μα [-ma]). The few examples of ἁρπαγμος [harpagmos] (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to ἁρπαγμα [harpagma], like βαπτισμος [baptismos] and βαπτισμα [baptisma]. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won (“robbery”). To be on an equality with God (το εἰναι ἰσα θεοι [to einai isa theoi]). Accusative articular infinitive object of ἡγησατο [hēgēsato], “the being equal with God” (associative instrumental case θεῳ [theōi] after ἰσα [isa]). Ἰσα [Isa] is adverbial use of neuter plural with εἰναι [einai] as in Rev. 21:16. Emptied himself (ἑαυτον ἐκενωσε [heauton ekenōse]). First aorist active indicative of κενοω [kenoō], old verb from κενος [kenos], empty. Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), Php 2:6.

The first word which we must carefully study is “form.” The Greek word has no reference to the shape of any physical object. It was a Greek philosophical term. Vincent has an excellent note on the word. In discussing it, he has among other things, the following to say: “We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophical sense to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character … As applied to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself.

Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader (vol. 5; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 62.

Being in the form of God (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων). Being. Not the simple εἶναι to be, but stronger, denoting being which is from the beginning. See on Jas. 2:15. It has a backward look into an antecedent condition, which has been protracted into the present. Here appropriate to the preincarnate being of Christ, to which the sentence refers. In itself it does not imply eternal, but only prior existence. Form (μορφή). We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character

Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (vol. 3; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887), 430.

in the form of God (not merely the nature of God, which however is implied: but, as in Heb. 1:3, the ἀπαύγασμα τ. δόξης κ. χαρακτὴρ τ. ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ—cf. John 5:37, οὔτε εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε, with ib. 17:5, τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί

Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary (vol. 3; Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), 166.

But scripture settles this

Hebrews 1:3 (KJV 1900) — 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Now explain how an impersonal thing could be

the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power,

so you really have not met the obligation put to you.

 

[Peterlag]

You just changed your excuse as to why you did not address my post


You were asked multiple questions on how an impersonal thing could

Have an attitude or mind

no answer

consider

no answer


humble himself

no answer

exist in the form of God

We know God has no outward appearance

and the information provided as to the meaning morphe was mixed

Being (ὑπαρχων [huparchōn]). Rather, “existing,” present active participle of ὑπαρχω [huparchō]. In the form of God (ἐν μορφῃ θεου [en morphēi theou]). Μορφη [Morphē] means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ. A prize (ἁρπαγμον [harpagmon]). Predicate accusative with ἡγησατο [hēgēsato]. Originally words in -μος [-mos] signified the act, not the result (-μα [-ma]). The few examples of ἁρπαγμος [harpagmos] (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to ἁρπαγμα [harpagma], like βαπτισμος [baptismos] and βαπτισμα [baptisma]. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won (“robbery”). To be on an equality with God (το εἰναι ἰσα θεοι [to einai isa theoi]). Accusative articular infinitive object of ἡγησατο [hēgēsato], “the being equal with God” (associative instrumental case θεῳ [theōi] after ἰσα [isa]). Ἰσα [Isa] is adverbial use of neuter plural with εἰναι [einai] as in Rev. 21:16. Emptied himself (ἑαυτον ἐκενωσε [heauton ekenōse]). First aorist active indicative of κενοω [kenoō], old verb from κενος [kenos], empty. Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), Php 2:6.

The first word which we must carefully study is “form.” The Greek word has no reference to the shape of any physical object. It was a Greek philosophical term. Vincent has an excellent note on the word. In discussing it, he has among other things, the following to say: “We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophical sense to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character … As applied to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself.

Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader (vol. 5; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 62.

Being in the form of God (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων). Being. Not the simple εἶναι to be, but stronger, denoting being which is from the beginning. See on Jas. 2:15. It has a backward look into an antecedent condition, which has been protracted into the present. Here appropriate to the preincarnate being of Christ, to which the sentence refers. In itself it does not imply eternal, but only prior existence. Form (μορφή). We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character

Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (vol. 3; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887), 430.

in the form of God (not merely the nature of God, which however is implied: but, as in Heb. 1:3, the ἀπαύγασμα τ. δόξης κ. χαρακτὴρ τ. ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ—cf. John 5:37, οὔτε εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε, with ib. 17:5, τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί

Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary (vol. 3; Grand Rapids, MI: Guardian Press, 1976), 166.

But scripture settles this

Hebrews 1:3 (KJV 1900) — 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Now explain how an impersonal thing could be

the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power,

so you really have not met the obligation put to you.

There's no accuse or refusing to answer. You make no sense with half statements pieced together from words pulled out of context scattered all over the Bible. I am an expert in biblical data and you need to ask a question that makes sense for me to answer. You guys got nothing. Something that is openly admitted by theologians that is not known by many Christians is that the doctrine of the Trinity is not stated in the Bible, but is actually “built” by piecing together statements that are said to support it. Since most Christians believe the Trinity is a mystery and not to be understood is a huge reason why doctrinal discussions about it are often avoided or brushed aside and ignored. Worse, the teaching that the Trinity is a“mystery” has been used as a club to beat down doubters and dissenters, and those people are often branded as “heretics” and their role in Christianity minimized.