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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes.
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.
That is the problem of unitarian interpretation. They flatten then language and then cannot comprehend scriptures.
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.
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."
And isn't John 7:39 be talking about the gift of holy spirit?
Nope, there is no "partialism".
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.
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.
And if all are the one God then each of them are God, right?
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.
You don't think that in this verse Jesus was talking about the gift of holy spirit but THE actual HOLY SPIRIT?
Yes.
No.
Yes.
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".
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.
Absolutely I believe that this was the Spirit of the Living God.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
Okay, God is the Holy Spirit.
How does the Father who is God separate himself from being the Holy Spirit who is also God?
EACH --- as a determiner each is used to refer to every one of two or more people or things, regarded and identified separately.
John 7:39 is talking about something that would not be received until AFTER Jesus was glorified.----so it's something different than what the OT believers had......it is the fulfillment of this:
"Proceeding hypostatically from him (God)" means the Word is not the source.
Blind as a bat trinitarians rarely confess that they can be confused with modalists, but some hint at it in their commentaries. It's because Scripture explicitly states the Father is alone the true God, some honest trinitarian scholars respect this and accept it, but do not abandon their idol. Since some won't do that until judgement day, and they can't make Scripture go away on the point of the Father's exclusive deity, then most of the time trinitarian commentators are cognizant to show as much distinct between God and Jesus as possible, without going too far with it, while simultaneously not saying that Jesus is merely a mode of the Father, yet still walking that tight rope to deny they are polytheists. Trinitarianism is a highly inflexible and precarious balancing act and it doesn't resist the slightest breeze of Biblical opposition.
you still have not demonstrated an error in Meyer's argument for the Triune God. You repeat the words but do not seem to understand what you are saying. You have to show how Meyer has erred in showing the deity of Christ.
I have no idea of who these so-called modalists. YOu really distort the discussion unless you are saying Meyer is a modalist. Our discussion never revolves around whether the Father is God. Again you just avoid the reality. The fact at hand is the deity of Christ in the Godhead. You just have no argument in these statements.
Hogwash. If some hypothetical trinitarian "commentators" get God described wrong, that does not make God a liar. You are again skipping the testimony of scripture about the deity of Christ after distorting Meyer's discussion.
If you really think scripture is showing polytheism, at least you are recognizing the deity of Christ. It is the realization that polytheism is not applicable here that results in the Trinitariann doctrine. If you can prove why John 1 was wrong and that Thomas was mistaken calling Jesus God and why Jesus lies about preexistence, then go ahead.
Since the Word was "Proceeding hypostatically from him (God)" then it isn't an eternal being. So now we know that if something has a source, a beginning point, then it is not eternal and also we know that things that are not God can be divine. You have done nothing to budge Meyers an inch from his position that he doesn't actually believe the Word is literally God.
mmmhm. Your eisegesis seems to to have reached a fever pitch. I don't know how you can continue day in and day out making unsupported Scriptural claims about "the deity of Christ in the Godhead" when the Bible never once says that. And you didn't even pause to consider that before continuing on.
You seem to understand that people can be wrong about who God is. How about you?
You are proving yourself getting lost in the wording of scholars. you must depend on weak sources or your own understanding.
uh. How should he have worded it so you would know what he meant? You keep on having magic phrases that you expect to be said so that even a unitarian can understand who Jesus is. We have seen that such a narrow expectancy of unitarians cannot be met because they design it so no one can says Jesus is LORD.
Your argument fails every time for the same reasons when you try to use 1 John 1 to deny who Jesus is.
Again it is not surprising that unitarians require magic wording that never will be added to scripture since we already know Jesus is LORD and is the incarnation of the Word.
I do understand your errors. I try to correct yours. I too had been a unitarian for brief time before 2015. Scripture corrected my mindset. If you are like Peterlag, you do not have the Spirit of God guiding you. That is an additional weakness on your part.
goofy is as goofy shares. your point makes no sense.
This applies to you as well. It doesn't say anything about an eternal existence and it doesn't say that Jesus Christ existed before creation. You should reply more about what the text says and explain your understanding of it rather than expose your double standards and biases about his commentary. I will even throw you and underhand pitch so you can get back on track.
I acknowledge what the text says about the word, which Meyer's describes as "a creating, quickening, and illuminating personal principle" not a person. Can you show where Meyers may have contradicted himself and spouted anything about your flavor of Logos theology?
Just going with Meyers' statements about how he didn't indicate the Word is God in the same way you do. Meyers' believes that the Word is never called Jesus in the entire Bible, that the Word has no clear pre-existence, and didn't incarnate. I have shown you explicitly where he said such. Maybe you should find where Meyers' said otherwise instead of just fuss about him not validating your beliefs?
I hardly see John as a failure when he opened up his divinely-inspired prologue in 1 John 1, calling the Word a thing, eternal life, something that was revealed by Jesus to the apostles. The Word is something Jesus has, not who he is. As Meyers' said: the Logos "appeared bodily in the man Jesus” so that is not an incarnation. The Bible never says the Word incarnated.
You are the one using magic words like "incarnation" when the Bible never says that.
Now that we have pointed out your misunderstandings, care to give it another swing and address Meyers' commentary this time? You focus too much on trying to tear down your opponents rather than the Scripture itself. Is it because you can't win a Scriptural debate so you think that if you blaspheme the Spirit of God in me and Peter that it helps? I hardly see it helps at all.
Nope. Matt 28:19, it would make no sense to say, "... in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Father." The Holy Spirit is not just another name for the Father.
They have different roles, different personalities, etc. The Father lives in Heaven, but the Holy Spirit lives within my heart and the hearts of all those who are in Christ.
Again,
As noted before, the Holy Spirit was still active in the OT, but He did not reside within the hearts of His saints; He rested ON them, not WITHIN. After Jesus was glorified the Spirit took up residence WITHIN the hearts of His saints.
You are correct as far as you are taking it, but that is not just the empowerment you are envisioning. That is actually the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, who is taking up residence within the hearts of His saints. If you don't have His Spirit living within you, then you do not belong to Him (Rom 8:9-11).
