The Trinity and all of its supporting doctrines are all circular in reasoning

[Doug Brents]

How bout Acts 5?

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.”

Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit = Ananias lied to God.

The Father is Spirit and the Spirit is the power of God. God is Holy and God is Spirit therefore God is THE Holy Spirit.
There is also the use of holy spirit as the gift people receive when they repent and are baptized. This gift of holy spirit is the spirit of truth, the helper, the promise of the Father that Jesus poured out on the day of Pentecost. NOT A THIRD UNNAMED PERSON OF THE TRIUNE GOD.

That proves that the Holy Spirit is also God. But it does not prove that the Holy Spirit is the Father. Yes, the Holy Spirit is God, so lying to the Holy Spirit is lying to God. But as John 14:26 shows, the Father is NOT the Holy Spirit.

 

[amazing grace]

That proves that the Holy Spirit is also God. But it does not prove that the Holy Spirit is the Father. Yes, the Holy Spirit is God, so lying to the Holy Spirit is lying to God. But as John 14:26 shows, the Father is NOT the Holy Spirit.

Okay - God is the Holy Spirit. Now if the Father is the only true God then it would follow that the Father is also the Holy Spirit.

John 14 only shows that what Jesus is talking about is NOT THE Holy Spirit but the gift of holy spirit which comes from the Father and was poured out on the day of Pentecost.

What is this referring to? Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified...... Is this the same that is being spoken of in John 14 - the comforter, the helper, the advocate?

 

[Peterlag]

Nope, I will not take a class from someone I already know is a false teacher.

You could come away from Leonard's class knowing who the Holy Spirit is. What the gift of the spirit is that you keep saying is God. Who Jesus Christ is that you keep saying is God. It could fix you all up.

 

[Doug Brents]

Okay - God is the Holy Spirit. Now if the Father is the only true God then it would follow that the Father is also the Holy Spirit.

God is the only God. The Father is part of that God. The Son (Jesus) is part of that God. The Holy Spirit is part of that God.
The Father is not the Son, nor is He the Holy Spirit.
The Son is not the Father, nor is He the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is not the Father, nor is He the Son.

John 14 only shows that what Jesus is talking about is NOT THE Holy Spirit but the gift of holy spirit which comes from the Father and was poured out on the day of Pentecost.

If the Holy Spirit were just a thing, a gift, then He would not be called a "He" by Jesus, nor would it be said that He resides in our heart, and we are His temple.

What is this referring to? Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified...... Is this the same that is being spoken of in John 14 - the comforter, the helper, the advocate?

Yes.

 

[Doug Brents]

You could come away from Leonard's class knowing who the Holy Spirit is. What the gift of the spirit is that you keep saying is God. Who Jesus Christ is that you keep saying is God. It could fix you all up.

If attending his class would make me believe that the Holy Spirit is either just a gift of a feeling and understanding, etc. (like you seem to believe), and not a real person (like Scripture says He is), then I would come away from his class worse off than I am now.

If attending his class would make me believe that Jesus is not God, then I would come away from his class worse off than I am now.

No thanks!!!!!

 

[Peterlag]

Here's a question that flies over the head of every Trinitarian...

The word "Father" is not God and neither is the word "God" because both are names and can also be said they are titles. So what is God?

There's not 3 of me because I can be called uncle, brother, and father. I am not a cousin. They don't write on the package when I give blood... "husband blood" because I'm a human man. What is God?

 

[mikesw]

Here's a question that flies over the head of every Trinitarian...

The word "Father" is not God and neither is the word "God" because both are names and can also be said they are titles. So what is God?

There's not 3 of me because I can be called uncle, brother, and father. I am not a cousin. They don't write on the package when I give blood... "husband blood" because I'm a human man. What is God?

That is the problem of unitarian interpretation. They flatten then language and then cannot comprehend scriptures.

The idea of theos is a type of existence or essence. The designation as theos can figuratively be used as if many exist in this form -- such as a pantheon. The reality is that there is only one true theos. The question we face today is how this Theos has been revealed to us. Obviously with John 1 and Thomas's statement, Jesus is of that -- and perhaps more clearly in his resurrection.

The question is good and obviously been misunderstood by unitarians.

 

[amazing grace]

God is the only God. The Father is part of that God. The Son (Jesus) is part of that God. The Holy Spirit is part of that God.
The Father is not the Son, nor is He the Holy Spirit.
The Son is not the Father, nor is He the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is not the Father, nor is He the Son

God has 3 parts. Isn't that partialism? Partialism is a Christian theological heresy that defines the Trinity as three distinct parts ---- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that combine to form one God.

If the Holy Spirit were just a thing, a gift, then He would not be called a "He" by Jesus, nor would it be said that He resides in our heart, and we are His temple.

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the holy spirit."

The helper is the holy spirit (or spirit of truth). The spirit, being a neuter noun, is not a person and since the helper is equated to the spirit, then we must conclude that although represented by a masculine noun and masculine pronouns, it should also be translated as neuter. The other reasonable exception would be if the figure of speech, personification is in use. Jesus himself said “these things I have spoken to you in figurative language…”

What is this referring to? Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified...... Is this the same that is being spoken of in John 14 - the comforter, the helper, the advocate?

Yes.

And isn't John 7:39 be talking about the gift of holy spirit?

 

[Doug Brents]

God has 3 parts. Isn't that partialism? Partialism is a Christian theological heresy that defines the Trinity as three distinct parts ---- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that combine to form one God.

Nope, there is no "partialism".
Grace's body is fully Grace. Grace's soul is fully Grace. Grace's spirit is fully Grace. In the same way:
The Father is fully God. Jesus is fully God. The Holy Spirit is fully God.

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the holy spirit."

The helper is the holy spirit (or spirit of truth). The spirit, being a neuter noun, is not a person and since the helper is equated to the spirit, then we must conclude that although represented by a masculine noun and masculine pronouns, it should also be translated as neuter. The other reasonable exception would be if the figure of speech, personification is in use. Jesus himself said “these things I have spoken to you in figurative language…”

The Holy Spirit, whom Jesus foretold would be given to the Church, is God's Spirit, the Spirit that was hovering over the deep in Gen 1, the Spirit that rested on Moses and the prophets, the Spirit that lives within my heart today, the Spirit that translates what I think and say to God in terms I myself don't even understand (Rom 8:26-27). Notice here that the Spirit has a mind of His own; He is not just holy gifts from God.

And isn't John 7:39 be talking about the gift of holy spirit?

No. It is talking about the Holy Spirit who would come to live in the hearts of those who love Jesus and are washed in His blood.

 

[amazing grace]

Nope, there is no "partialism".
Grace's body is fully Grace. Grace's soul is fully Grace. Grace's spirit is fully Grace. In the same way:
The Father is fully God. Jesus is fully God. The Holy Spirit is fully God.

God is the only God. The Father is part of that God. The Son (Jesus) is part of that God. The Holy Spirit is part of that God.
The Father is not the Son, nor is He the Holy Spirit.
The Son is not the Father, nor is He the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is not the Father, nor is He the Son.

And if all are the one God then each of them are God, right?
So if God is the Holy Spirit then the Holy Spirit is God......AND
if the Father is God and God is the Father and God is the Holy Spirit then the Father is also the Holy Spirit.
if the Father is fully God and the Son is fully God and the Holy Spirit is fully God then EACH ARE GOD..... UH-OH

The Holy Spirit, whom Jesus foretold would be given to the Church, is God's Spirit, the Spirit that was hovering over the deep in Gen 1, the Spirit that rested on Moses and the prophets, the Spirit that lives within my heart today, the Spirit that translates what I think and say to God in terms I myself don't even understand (Rom 8:26-27). Notice here that the Spirit has a mind of His own; He is not just holy gifts from God.

I agree that the holy spirit is how God in Christ dwell in us via the new birth, via being born again of the Spirit which I believe is through the gift of holy spirit given to those who have faith in Christ. It is the baptism of the holy spirit, aka being filled with the spirit, aka rivers of living water, aka the promise of the Father Jesus told the disciples to tarry in Jerusalem for, the power from on high to embolden them in their walk, that which Jesus poured out on the day of Pentecost, that which we are given to help us become more like Christ.

No. It is talking about the Holy Spirit who would come to live in the hearts of those who love Jesus and are washed in His blood.

You don't think that in this verse Jesus was talking about the gift of holy spirit but THE actual HOLY SPIRIT?
Exactly --- the indwelling of the spirit via the gift of holy spirit..... Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
So, the Holy Spirit wasn't around in the Old Testament? Moses didn't have the Spirit of God, upon him? The prophets of God did not have the spirit of God upon them?

The new birth, the baptism with holy spirit, the repentance, baptism and receiving the gift of holy spirit because Jesus has been glorified -- is what I consider John 7:39 to be talking about.

 

[Doug Brents]

And if all are the one God then each of them are God, right?
So if God is the Holy Spirit then the Holy Spirit is God......AND

Yes.

if the Father is God and God is the Father and God is the Holy Spirit then the Father is also the Holy Spirit.

No.

if the Father is fully God and the Son is fully God and the Holy Spirit is fully God then EACH ARE GOD.....

Yes.

UH-OH

Where is the "uh-oh"? If you understand Scripture, then the Father being fully God, and the Son being fully God, and the Holy Spirit being fully God does not give any cause for an "Uh-Oh".

I agree that the holy spirit is how God in Christ dwell in us via the new birth, via being born again of the Spirit which I believe is through the gift of holy spirit given to those who have faith in Christ. It is the baptism of the holy spirit, aka being filled with the spirit, aka rivers of living water, aka the promise of the Father Jesus told the disciples to tarry in Jerusalem for, the power from on high to embolden them in their walk, that which Jesus poured out on the day of Pentecost, that which we are given to help us become more like Christ.

It is all of those and more. The Holy Spirit is God living with our hearts just as He did in the Temple in Jerusalem, and the Tabernacle in the wilderness. Do you think that was just a power to embolden Israel? No, it was the very Spirit of the Living God. And that Spirit dwells within me.

You don't think that in this verse Jesus was talking about the gift of holy spirit but THE actual HOLY SPIRIT?

Absolutely I believe that this was the Spirit of the Living God.

Exactly --- the indwelling of the spirit via the gift of holy spirit..... Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
So, the Holy Spirit wasn't around in the Old Testament? Moses didn't have the Spirit of God, upon him? The prophets of God did not have the spirit of God upon them?

Moses and the prophets (everyone in the OT that had the Spirit) had the Spirit UPON them. But we today have the Spirit WITHIN us. In the OT, God lived in the Temple. Today, our body is the Temple of God, and He dwells in our hearts.

The new birth, the baptism with holy spirit, the repentance, baptism and receiving the gift of holy spirit because Jesus has been glorified -- is what I consider John 7:39 to be talking about.

Then you are partially correct. But it is more than that; it is the Spirit of the Living God who comes to live within the hearts of the Church.

 

[Runningman]

You think you did something while not having typed it in here? You have quoted a christian theologian who admits the Triune God. Where does his logic get mixed up if that is what you are trying to claim? You have the same problem with Meyer that you do with your own beliefs. You cannot overcome the testimony against the unitarian stronghold of belief.


You fail to disprove the scriptures that show the deity of Christ and of his preexistence. Just as Meyer has shown, there is a progressive revelation of who Jesus would be, but you pretend that defends the idea of the Word as some inanimate disassociated aspect from God. I cannot find that defendable in scripture--at least you have not proven your basis for disbelief

You seemed to have lost where we are at in this discussion and Meyers plain statements about the Word not being God. You can start back in post 2,008, but here's what I said in post 2,024. Expecting an honest address of what Meyers said this time instead of more deflection.

He did a great job calling the Logos “the self-revelation of the divine essence...proceeding hypostatically from Him..." rather than the divine essence itself, or saying the Word is the Son. So he doesn't believe the Word (Son) is eternally begotten, but rather something that proceeded from revelation. He also admitted the Word is distinct from God, regardless of it possessing divine characteristics. He also said of the Word "a creating, quickening, and illuminating personal principle" meaning the Word is a function of God, rather than a personal being. He also said of the Word that it “places the subordination of the Son in His dependence on the Father.” So he's a subordinationist too. God isn't a co-equal party to him.

Meyer's isn't an orthodox trinitarian. He resembles more closely proto-trinitarian and binitarian style sects from the post-Biblical period.

He's possibly making an effort to prevent himself as being viewed a modalist, which is something trinitarians always struggle with, but I believe he's more likely a closet Unitarian. He also stops short of ever saying the Word incarnated, saying the Word "appeared bodily in the man Jesus” so the Logos is not who Jesus is, but something Jesus has. He also wouldn't call the Word the creator, but rather instrumental in creation. All of that is exactly what we're saying.

I can see you possibly misunderstood him since all you do is project your companion philosophy onto Scripture.

 

[mikesw]

You seemed to have lost where we are at in this discussion and Meyers plain statements about the Word not being God. You can start back in post 2,008, but here's what I said in post 2,024. Expecting an honest address of what Meyers said this time instead of more deflection.

He did a great job calling the Logos “the self-revelation of the divine essence...proceeding hypostatically from Him..." rather than the divine essence itself, or saying the Word is the Son. So he doesn't believe the Word (Son) is eternally begotten, but rather something that proceeded from revelation. He also admitted the Word is distinct from God, regardless of it possessing divine characteristics. He also said of the Word "a creating, quickening, and illuminating personal principle" meaning the Word is a function of God, rather than a personal being. He also said of the Word that it “places the subordination of the Son in His dependence on the Father.” So he's a subordinationist too. God isn't a co-equal party to him.

hypostatically indicates being of the same substance, the same divine essence. The concept you utilize is that the words of God function as some attributes such as ideas, or preferences. The "personal principle" is pointing to a "person" and this is followed by "within the spiritual realm as well; and which, being equal to the Godhead itself in essence and glory"
Obviously you do not read the context or you did not comprehend it or you read what you wanted it to say. Again you would be saying the words of God are the full essence of God, of doing all that God can do. That is stretching ideas to the breaking point.

Meyer's isn't an orthodox trinitarian. He resembles more closely proto-trinitarian and binitarian style sects from the post-Biblical period.

He's possibly making an effort to prevent himself as being viewed a modalist, which is something trinitarians always struggle with, but I believe he's more likely a closet Unitarian. He also stops short of ever saying the Word incarnated, saying the Word "appeared bodily in the man Jesus” so the Logos is not who Jesus is, but something Jesus has. He also wouldn't call the Word the creator, but rather instrumental in creation. All of that is exactly what we're saying.

Can you find scholars who advance your speculation of Meyer on the verge of being a modalist? I have no idea what that even means within the understanding the Triune God. Don't abuse the discussion with your endless speculations.

I can see you possibly misunderstood him since all you do is project your companion philosophy onto Scripture.