Peterlag
Well-known member
God's form is spirit. Jesus had the spirit of God in him and so do I and I'm not God.
Your Views on The Trinity
- Thread starter Cyrus
- Start date
Peterlag
Well-known member
What I honestly would like to know is why there's so many who seem 100 percent convinced that there's a trinity. Why is what I'm looking for. What profit would there be in having God come to the earth as a man? What profit would that produce. I asked this question many times and only get 2 answers which are because the Bible says so which I have never saw to be the case. And the other answer given is that only God could have redeemed us which is also not true because Romans 5:15 says “For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.” The Bible specifically says that a man must do it. The book of Corinthians makes the same point Romans does when it says “For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:21). So I would honestly like to know why this trinity is so important that so many want to believe it?
Peterlag
Well-known member
Here's my take on
John 8:58
At the last super, the disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ. They said literally, "Not I am, Lord" Matthew 26:22, 25. No one would say the disciples were trying to deny they were God because they were using the phrase "Not I am." "I am" was a common way of designating oneself and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. The argument is made that because Jesus was "before" Abraham, Jesus must be God. Jesus figuratively existed in Abraham's time. He did not actually physically exist as a person, but rather he existed in the mind of God as God's plan for the redemption of man. In order for the Trinitarian argument that Jesus' "I am" statement in John 8:58 makes him God, his statement must be equivalent with God's "I am" statement in Exodus 3:14. The two statements are very different. The Greek phrase in John does mean "I am." The Hebrew phrase in Exodus means "to be" or "to become." God was saying "I will be what I will be."
Peterlag
Well-known member
LOL. I would offer a counterargument if I understood your point. So far the biggest question I have gotten from you is why I think I'm an expert in this field and why I don't answer you and why I answer in the wrong straw-man way.
Peterlag
Well-known member
The Word of God is not a person. Nor is my word a person. Words are a communication device. They are not living beings. No wonder I can't understand you. It seems to me you are off topic.
No. My biggest question is why you rarely offer a counterargument that actually addresses what I actually wrote. Until you do, this conversation remains case closed.
What? Do you mean that a book written about Jesus did not simply get off topic in the first chapter but finally got to the topic of Jesus in later chapters?
Until Peterlag offers a full documentation of his view, all he ends up doing is guerilla warfare by attacking one verse or another one while hoping to dissuade people from the faith by that approach. The question arises as to the his overall perspective on Christianity.
Peterlag
Well-known member
Some Data on the Holy Spirit...
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.
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.
101G
Well-known member
thanks for the reply. but another ERROR on your part. consider this. the Lord Jesus was Spirit before being
G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') v.
1. to make empty.
Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" Philippians 2:7 "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:" Philippians 2:8 "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
notice he made himself of no reputation, now the question. "What was he before being G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō')? and there is no other creatures but us human and angels. so that leave only one area...... "GOD".
101G.
Peterlag
Well-known member
The word “form,” which is the Greek word morphē, is often referred to as Christ’s inner nature as God. This is so strongly asserted that in Phil. 2:6 the NIV has “being in very nature God.” The evidence does not support that morphē refers to an “inner essential nature" but rather an outer form.
Vine’s Lexicon has under “form”: “properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual… it does not include in itself anything ‘accidental’ or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation.”a Using lexicons like Vine’s, Trinitarians boldly make the case that the “nature” underlying Jesus’ human body was God. Trinitarian scholars like Vine contrast morphē, which they assert refers to an “inner, essential nature,” with schema, (in Phil. 2:8, and translated “fashion”) which they assert refers to the outward appearance. We admit that there are many Trinitarian scholars who have written lexical entries or articles on the Greek word morphē and concluded that Christ must be God. A Trinitarian wanting to prove his point can quote from a number of them. However, we assert that these definitions are biased and erroneous. In addition, we could not find any non-Trinitarian scholars who agreed with the conclusion of the Trinitarian scholars, while many Trinitarian sources agree that morphē refers to the outward appearance and not an inner nature.
A study of other lexicons (many of them Trinitarian) gives a totally different picture than does Vine’s Lexicon. E. W. Bullinger gives morphē a one-word definition, “form. The scholarly lexicon by Walter Bauer, translated and revised by Arndt and Gingrich, has under morphē, “form, outward appearance, shape.”c Gerard Kittel, TDNT, has “form, external appearance.” Kittel also notes that morphē and schema are often interchangeable. Robert Thayer, in his well-respected lexicon, has under morphē, “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance.” Thayer says that the Greeks said that children reflect the appearance (morphē) of their parents, something easily noticed in every culture. Thayer also notes that some scholars try to make morphē refer to that which is intrinsic and essential, in contrast to that which is outward and accidental, but says, “the distinction is rejected by many.”
7xLightray
Member
Why would I, or most anyone, prove we are not, as a whole, human "Singular"? We are all human "Singular," but we each are a separate human being, which is not the same as the Trinity.
Peterlag
Well-known member
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.
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.
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.
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.
Peterlag
Well-known member
- He was not unoriginated. Christ was the only begotten Son of God (John 3:16).
- He was not self-existent. “I live because of the Father” (John 6:57).
- He was not immortal. Jesus died and God resurrected Him (Acts 13:30).
- He was not all wise. Jesus “grew in wisdom” (Luke 2:52).
- He was not all-powerful. Christ said “the Son can do nothing by Himself” (John 5:19).
- He was not omnipresent. Jesus said after Lazarus died “I am glad I was not there” (John 11:15).
Yay. Those are great finds. It is amazing how all the people who met together to discuss the divinity of Christ and the Triune nature of God missed those verses. What's your venmo account? I have to go write those verses into my bible. I'm sure they forgot to add those to my bible.
you should read scripture instead of just making stuff up. So you think they were stoning him because he said he was figuratively existing in God's mind before Abraham existed? Which of the Jews conveyed that idea to you?
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Hi mikesw
You have been appealing many times to an argument of authority: if early Christians had those verses, and yet developed the doctrine of Trinity, they must be right... somehow.
No, mikesw.
Early Christians had several views on this subject.
It is possible that some Christians missed those verses.... that some others rejected them, in favor of other verses.... or even that few of them manipulated the sacred text, as in the Joannic comma. All these are real possibilities.
@Peterlag and me are not bringing new stuff here.
Theologians have discussed this for centuries.
Non-religious modern scholars are strongly leaning against the Trinity being the original doctrine taught by the disciples.
Neither Trinitarians nor Unitarians are fool or perverse. We are all children of the same God, and we want to serve Him.
Last edited:
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
For Jews, there was no one and only way to commit blasphemy.
A person could blaspheme about any sacred thing that the enemies of such person regarded as blasphemous.
If a person talked against the Temple, for example, that person could be charged with blasphemy.
A charge of blasphemy could be easily concocted to eliminate an undesired individual.
Abraham was considered a sacred figure, the Father of the nation.
Christ was teaching that recognizing God as The Father is far more important that recognizing Abraham as a Father.
Christ was the Son of God. His accusers were proud to be children of Abraham. But God comes first, then Abraham.
Before Abraham, Christ was. And so Noah and Enoch. The gospel of God is eternal and goes beyond national heritage or ethnicity.
Peterlag
Well-known member
We bicker about Jesus being not God most of the time. Here's some data on the Spirit part...
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.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
I agree
I wonder what would be the meaning that a Trinitarian friend could give to the expression "I worship the Holy Spirit".
If the meaning is something like: "I follow the guide of the Holy Spirit" "I let the Holy Spirit work in me", etc. then there is no difference from saying "I follow the guide of God" or "I let God work in me".
What I mean is that recognizing an independent personality of the Holy Spirit does not affect (for good or bad) the daily relationship of that person with God. It is just a theological thesis, not a living experience.
Peterlag has contributed nothing but confusion. I cannot even tell what his views are about Christianity. It hardly helps to bring him into the discussion. Nor does it really have significance that non-religious modern scholars don't agree with the Trinity. How many even would agree with the other details about God in the Bible?
What you do not get is that the truth of God matters. So if you are denying the deity of Christ, you are denying all that God has done.
Sure early Christians had different views. That it what the councils were for, especially in light of the detrimental views held by some. The early writers were struggling with the same scriptures we have now. But they had different issues they were focused on and had not settled issues until priorities could shift to a better sense first about Christ's deity and then about the Trinity.
So maybe you have an argument to share to overcome the testimony of scripture about the deity of Christ and the Spirit.
