Jump to content
IGNORED

The Holy Trinity?


Paper mache

Recommended Posts

Guest shiloh357
2 minutes ago, Brittany said:

I never denied that the HS was divine. Just that it's not a person. It's a force.  
 

The problem is that the Holy Spirit is always referred to by the personal pronoun "He."   There is one exception, but many hundreds of times the Holy Spirit is referenced personally, it is as a person, not a force.  The Bible nowhere indicates that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force.  You have to go outside the Bible to believe that.

Quote

Right. Because before everything was created, there was no such thing as time. But The Word (Jesus) was still begotten.

No He wasn't and you have NO scripture to support that claim.

Quote

Is it possible for us to understand this? Probably not, because we don't understand timelessness. 

Jesus being begotten is not an issue of their not being any time.   Jesus was bogotten at His incarnation.  He pre-existed time with the Father.

Quote

Can you please point out the exact words that show us that they are separate?

They are mentioned separately in two verses side by side.  It's pretty evident they are mentioned separately. 

Quote

what's the difference?

What's the difference?   You say that personal attributes don't give someone personhood.  I am saying that personal attributes reveal personhood. 

Quote

I would still like you to answer my question. It is relevant. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. 

I am a human being. I am tripartite.  I have a spirit and soul and body.  Those are not three persons.  My body is not alive apart from either of them.   My soul is my mind, will and emotions. That will die when I die.

God, is different.  He is one God, but three independent, co-equal persons.

That is something that we can't make sense out of.   But it is not supposed to make sense.   It is that aspect of God that is beyond our ability to comprehend, much less make sense out of. 

So there really is not comparison to be made.  The Holy Spirit is not God's soul.  He lives and works independently, yet cooperatively with God the Father and God the Son.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  12
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  7,689
  • Content Per Day:  2.41
  • Reputation:   2
  • Days Won:  20
  • Joined:  06/30/2015
  • Status:  Offline

12 minutes ago, Brittany said:

It is relevant. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. 

Like a little child, yes, believe YHWH.   YHWH is set apart (holy).  YHWH is SPIRIT (not "a" spirit, but SPIRIT) .

YHWH'S CHILDREN ARE SET APART(by YHWH).    :)   YHWH does not born again an UNholy spirit.......    'selah'

This does not 'defeat' "trinity" nor deny it.  Simply simple true aspects of "trinity" that are usually never even thought of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  227
  • Content Per Day:  0.09
  • Reputation:   150
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  12/18/2016
  • Status:  Offline

2 minutes ago, simplejeff said:

Like a little child, yes, believe YHWH.   YHWH is set apart (holy).  YHWH is SPIRIT (not "a" spirit, but SPIRIT) .

YHWH'S CHILDREN ARE SET APART(by YHWH).    :)   YHWH does not born again an UNholy spirit.......    'selah'

This does not 'defeat' "trinity" nor deny it.  Simply simple true aspects of "trinity" that are usually never even thought of.

Yea, I don't know why we need a trinity doctrine to understand God can send His Spirit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  12
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  7,689
  • Content Per Day:  2.41
  • Reputation:   2
  • Days Won:  20
  • Joined:  06/30/2015
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, Zach said:

It's extremely doubtful to think you could come up with the trinity doctrine all by yourself by just reading Scripture when it took the "church fathers" almost 200 years!

Various aspects of "trinity" are ingrained in society, even for all the unbelievers as well as believers.

They are inundated with ideas from before being born (yes, from conception),  and not all are in line with YHWH'S WORD.

So, no,  no one thinks it up themselves,  as if unaffected by others around them (family), and all society. 

The "church fathers" did not think it up themselves either,  but we are not allowed to discuss that in depth.   Just don't trust anything they said,  or that anyone today says !  (test everything).

YHWH'S PROMISE (OF YHWH'S WORD) is NOT "trust (fill in anything) and you will be blessed" no.  ONLY TRUST YHWH, and you will be blessed.    Likewise NOT seek "religious answers" , no.  (IF you seek religious answers, that is what you will find).   Rather,  SEEK YHWH (HIS KINGDOM) and keep SEEKING,  THEN you will find HIS KINGDOM (HE RULES) and HIM....  this is HIS PROMISE, HIS WORD< not man's,  so is trustworthy and true (that we, everyone, can TRUST YHWH;   and not trust man, flesh, nor mankind) ...... 

YHWH and Y'SHUA are FAITHFUL, PERFECTLY, and TRUTHFUL.   So trust them.   Simple and true.  Shalom, be blessed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  227
  • Content Per Day:  0.09
  • Reputation:   150
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  12/18/2016
  • Status:  Offline

4 minutes ago, simplejeff said:

The "church fathers" did not think it up themselves either,  but we are not allowed to discuss that in depth.   Just don't trust anything they said,  or that anyone today says !  (test everything)

Amen Amen! No need to discuss, excepting others would benefit. But the fact we wouldn't be here for long if we did, kinda says it all

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  32
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  124
  • Content Per Day:  0.05
  • Reputation:   147
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/19/2017
  • Status:  Offline

9 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The problem is that the Holy Spirit is always referred to by the personal pronoun "He."   There is one exception, but many hundreds of times the Holy Spirit is referenced personally, it is as a person, not a force.  The Bible nowhere indicates that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force.  You have to go outside the Bible to believe that.

No He wasn't and you have NO scripture to support that claim.

Jesus being begotten is not an issue of their not being any time.   Jesus was bogotten at His incarnation.  He pre-existed time with the Father.

They are mentioned separately in two verses side by side.  It's pretty evident they are mentioned separately. 

What's the difference?   You say that personal attributes don't give someone personhood.  I am saying that personal attributes reveal personhood. 

I am a human being. I am tripartite.  I have a spirit and soul and body.  Those are not three persons.  My body is not alive apart from either of them.   My soul is my mind, will and emotions. That will die when I die.

God, is different.  He is one God, but three independent, co-equal persons.

That is something that we can't make sense out of.   But it is not supposed to make sense.   It is that aspect of God that is beyond our ability to comprehend, much less make sense out of. 

So there really is not comparison to be made.  The Holy Spirit is not God's soul.  He lives and works independently, yet cooperatively with God the Father and God the Son.

In some languages, lifeless objects are either feminine or masculine, unlike in the English language where everything is neuter (aside from the occasional car being referred to as a "she" and things like that). For example, in French, "the door" is "la porte". Both 'la' and the '-e' ending indicate that the door is feminine. Does this make the door a female person? Of course not! In some cases, where the HS is referred to as "he," it is a matter of grammar/translation, not of theological doctrine. The word used for "spirit" is masculine. In some cases, though, Jesus is simply speaking about Himself in third person, such as in Matthew 13:41; 17:22-23; 19:28; 20:18-19, etc. Since the HS is the Spirit of both the Father and Jesus Christ His Son, He is basically talking about Himself in third person. Which of these two explanations is to be used can be figured out by reading the context of the word.

I have John 3:16,18; 1 John 4:9.

Jesus is the Word, yes? Whose Word? God's Word. So, my understanding is that Jesus was begotten when God first spoke. Could I be wrong? Yeah. So I'm still reading my Bible and doing research.

Not really. I know where you're coming from, but at the same time I don't see it. I would like to note how the Holy Spirit is God, according to Trinitarian belief. So to say that the HS and God are acting separately would imply that the HS isn't God.

Well I deny that as well. We can't even say that personal attributes were given to the HS. And, as I said, personification may have been used.

Any Bible verses to support that last part, aside from Genesis 1:2? I don't ever see a "God the Spirit" in the Bible. I only really see the "(Holy) Spirit" and the "Spirit of God".

Edit: I no longer have any energy to debate, the debate is growing quite redundant. I'll do more Bible study and reading, and I'll change my mind if Scripture shows me a Triune God. That hasn't happened yet.

Edited by Brittany
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  4
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  253
  • Content Per Day:  0.09
  • Reputation:   149
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/10/2016
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  05/11/1963

50 minutes ago, Brittany said:

In some languages, lifeless objects are either feminine or masculine, unlike in the English language where everything is neuter (aside from the occasional car being referred to as a "she" and things like that). For example, in French, "the door" is "la porte". Both 'la' and the '-e' ending indicate that the door is feminine. Does this make the door a female person? Of course not! In some cases, where the HS is referred to as "he," it is a matter of grammar/translation, not of theological doctrine. The word used for "spirit" is masculine. In some cases, though, Jesus is simply speaking about Himself in third person, such as in Matthew 13:41; 17:22-23; 19:28; 20:18-19, etc. Since the HS is the Spirit of both the Father and Jesus Christ His Son, He is basically talking about Himself in third person. Which of these two explanations is to be used can be figured out by reading the context of the word.

That really doesn't fit the Upper Room Discourse, Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself, the Father and the Holy Spirit:

 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. (John 14:10)

“If you love Me, keep My commandments.  And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. (John 14:15-17)

There are a number of examples of this and it's very consistent.

 

Quote

I have John 3:16,18; 1 John 4:9.

Some pretty general statements, let's see where you go with this. I assume the reference to 'God' is causing some confusion.

Quote

Jesus is the Word, yes? Whose Word? God's Word. So, my understanding is that Jesus was begotten when God first spoke. Could I be wrong? Yeah. So I'm still reading my Bible and doing research.

Not really. I know where you're coming from, but at the same time I don't see it. I would like to note how the Holy Spirit is God, according to Trinitarian belief. So to say that the HS and God are acting separately would imply that the HS isn't God.

Well I deny that as well. We can't even say that personal attributes were given to the HS. And, as I said, personification may have been used.

Any Bible verses to support that last part, aside from Genesis 1:2? I don't ever see a "God the Spirit" in the Bible. I only really see the "(Holy) Spirit" and the "Spirit of God".

Edit: I no longer have any energy to debate, the debate is growing quite redundant. I'll do more Bible study and reading, and I'll change my mind if Scripture shows me a Triune God. That hasn't happened yet.

Got to be honest here, I went through something a lot like this years ago. My thing wasn't the Holy Spirit or the Father but the Incarnation. I did all the cross referencing and for the life of me I couldn't see it for quite a while, actually a year or two. Eventually the opening verses of John's Gospel and Hebrews began to sink in but what broke through was Jesus' before the High Priest convinced me. The Trinity is one of the great paradoxical doctrines of the New Testament, the Old Testament puts so much emphasis on God being one and then with the New Testament revelation emerges with all the elements of three persons all being the one eternal God.

I do a lot of debate, I can understand if you find it tiresome and tedious, you'll have to work this out over time. Just a word of advice, not interested in being confrontational here because believe me I can empathize. Find a text like the Upper Room Discourse and take some time to do a careful exposition, the cross referencing will come in time. Take as much as time as you need and let me know if there is anything I can do to help. I enjoy this kind of thing, sorting through expositions is one of my favorite pass times.

10 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The problem is that the Holy Spirit is always referred to by the personal pronoun "He."   There is one exception, but many hundreds of times the Holy Spirit is referenced personally, it is as a person, not a force.  The Bible nowhere indicates that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force.  You have to go outside the Bible to believe that.

That's a solid point, sound Biblical support. Every now and then a point like that just needs to be allowed to sink in.

“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:” (John 16:7-8)

Grace and peace,
Mark

Edited by thilipsis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
4 hours ago, Brittany said:

In some languages, lifeless objects are either feminine or masculine, unlike in the English language where everything is neuter (aside from the occasional car being referred to as a "she" and things like that). For example, in French, "the door" is "la porte". Both 'la' and the '-e' ending indicate that the door is feminine. Does this make the door a female person? Of course not! In some cases, where the HS is referred to as "he," it is a matter of grammar/translation, not of theological doctrine. The word used for "spirit" is masculine. In some cases, though, Jesus is simply speaking about Himself in third person, such as in Matthew 13:41; 17:22-23; 19:28; 20:18-19, etc. Since the HS is the Spirit of both the Father and Jesus Christ His Son, He is basically talking about Himself in third person. Which of these two explanations is to be used can be figured out by reading the context of the word.

Right, but the references to the Holy Spirit using "He"  is coupled with personal attributes.   It's not a grammatical "He."   The Holy Spirit, according to the Bible has  emotions, and can be lied to, is a guide, a teacher, a comforter, has a will, a mind, loves, and can enjoy fellowship, prays, speaks, inspires, and convicts.

Those attributes defy any claim that He is just an impersonal force.  To look at all of those personal attributes and claim the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force is simply not rational and rather bizarre, to be honest.  So the personal pronoun 'HE'  coupled with the all of those characteristics that make up the personality, office and work of the Holy Spirit simply testifies against your argument that "He"  simply a reference to the grammatical gender of an inanimate, impersonal object. 

Quote

I have John 3:16,18; 1 John 4:9.

No, you don't have those.    John 3:16 is talking about Jesus' physical birth to the virgin, Mary.   That is when He was begotten, everyone knows that.  Same applies to I John 4:9.   Jesus was the only begotten Son of God.  That was not the case prior to the incarnation and you have no Scripture that references Jesus having been begotten prior to the incarnation.   You're just wrong on that point and need to give it up.  You have nothing to support that argument, period.

Quote

Jesus is the Word, yes? Whose Word? God's Word. So, my understanding is that Jesus was begotten when God first spoke. Could I be wrong? Yeah. So I'm still reading my Bible and doing research.

Yeah, you're wrong on that point.   Because when the Bible says Jesus is the "Word" it is not talking about the spoken "word."

Quote

Not really. I know where you're coming from, but at the same time I don't see it. I would like to note how the Holy Spirit is God, according to Trinitarian belief. So to say that the HS and God are acting separately would imply that the HS isn't God.

No, it wouldn't imply that.  That's what you're trying to read into the idea of them being separate.  The point behind mentioning that they are separate or independent Persons is just that, they are Persons.   They are separate persons working in cooperation with each other.

Quote

Well I deny that as well. We can't even say that personal attributes were given to the HS. And, as I said, personification may have been used.

Sorry, but personal attributes reveal personhood, especially the numerous personal attributes the Bible reveals to us about the Holy Spirit, coupled with the fact that the Bible always refers to the Holy Spirit as a person.   It's like LGBT community today denying the gender of a man who has all of the physical attributes of a 60 year old white  man and claiming he is 30 year old Chinese woman.   That is the level of denial you're operating on at this point. 

Quote

Any Bible verses to support that last part, aside from Genesis 1:2?

I have already provided several places in Scripture in previous posts.   For example, the baptism of Jesus and the fact that Jesus stated that just as He was sent by the Father, He would send the Holy Spirit to be another comforter. 

Quote

I don't ever see a "God the Spirit" in the Bible. I only really see the "(Holy) Spirit" and the "Spirit of God".

Yes but you believe in the deity of Jesus but "God the Son" isn't in the Bible, either.   So you really don't have a rational argument on that point.

Quote

dit: I no longer have any energy to debate, the debate is growing quite redundant. I'll do more Bible study and reading, and I'll change my mind if Scripture shows me a Triune God. That hasn't happened yet.

But you're not honest with the text.   You are trying to prove an assumption, not search for truth.   You are not doing research   You have an assumption going in, and you're trying to filter the Bible through that assumption.  And you're redefining key terms like what it means to be person, in order to brush aside passages of Scripture that don't fit with your assumption and actually point to the inaccuracy of your assumption.  You're more concerned with protecting what you want to believe than arriving at the truth.

You are not willing to suspend your disbelief enough to treat the text objectively.  And you've proven that you're willing to descend to  logical absurdity to protect your assumption.  So no matter what the Bible says, you'll either deny the Bible says it, or find a way to rationalize away what the Bible says to insulate your disbelief, as you have already  done in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  23
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  977
  • Content Per Day:  0.21
  • Reputation:   641
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  07/15/2011
  • Status:  Offline

There are two vital questions which we need to ask ourselves. The first one is, Who was this Person that God sent? This  question is critical because if the sending of this Person is the key  factor in the revelation of God's love, then it must be clear that the  key question is, "What was the RELATIONSHIP  between this Person & God?"

Let  me illustrate my point. If John 3:16 had read, "God so loved the world  that He gave an angel whom He created…." or, "God so loved the world  that He gave His friend…." Would the action really have impressed us  with the fact that God's love for us is very great? Men would have  understood if God had claimed to have given an angel. We would have  comprehended it if God had claimed to have given His friend, but would  this really have revealed God's love for man? The plain fact is, God's  consistent testimony is that He gave HIS SON. In the very words  of that Son, "His only begotten Son." How great is God's love for us?  The answer to that question pivots around the issue of Who Jesus really  was. ONLY  AS WE CAN DISCERN THE TRUE IDENTITY OF CHRIST CAN WE APPRECIATE THE  ENORMITY OF THE SACRIFICE WHICH GOD MADE FOR MAN, & THEREFORE THE  MAGNITUDE OF HIS LOVE FOR US.  

 

A relevant question is, "WHY does the Bible call Jesus the "Son of God."  Is  this term one that was coined by the gospel writers, was it a  FIGURATIVE term, was it a TITLE like the term "prophet (as some have  suggested)?"  The  plain fact of the matter is that God Himself in the presence of a  multitude of people proclaimed, "This is my beloved SON (Matt. 3:17)." Again,  Jesus Himself over and over declared that He was the SON OF GOD, &  MORE THAN THAT, "THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD." (John 3:16) The testimony of these two Beings none dare contradict, or ascribe to tradition, custom or misunderstanding. Surely, God knew the identity of Jesus & Jesus Himself must have known His own identity. Let  us then make note of the fact that in seeking to convey to human minds  the relationship between God & Jesus, both Jesus & God have used  the word "Son" & "Father". ANY HUMAN BEING THEREFORE IS GUILTY OF THE GREATEST PRESUMPTION IF HE CONCLUDES THAT JESUS IS ANYONE OTHER THAN THE SON OF GOD.

DID GOD MERELY USE HUMAN TERMINOLOGY WHEN HE REFERRED TO JESUS AS HIS "BELOVED SON," SO THAT WE COULD UNDERSTAND HOW HE FEELS ABOUT JESUS? Was  this an attempt on the part of God to mislead us, or to enlighten us?  Does God want us to believe something is so, even though it isn't? IF GOD WANTS US TO THINK OF JESUS AS HIS SON, WHY SHOULD WE THINK OF HIM AS BEING GOD HIMSELF? Are we wiser than God? When God says, "this is my beloved Son," how can we be so presumptuous as to say, "He was NOT really God's Son, but that He was God Himself!!" Let  us be certain of this: God has given us the information which we need  & what He tells us is what He expects us to believe & to  receive. Furthermore, the only safety in this world lies in believing & receiving that word.

 

The second vital question which we must ask is, WHEN DID JESUS BECOME THE SON OF GOD? This question is a critical one because God's love for us is revealed in the gift of His Son. Yet,  God could NOT have loved Christ as a Son UNTIL He became His Son. Does  this sound logical? God's love for His Son must be measured from the  time when He had a Son. If  Jesus had existed before He became God's Son, then God may have loved  Him as a brother, as a friend, may even have been said to love Himself,  if as some say, Jesus was God Himself. HOWEVER, HE COULD NOT HAVE LOVED HIM AS HIS SON UNTIL HE BECAME HIS SON. 

***WHEN DID JESUS BECOME THE SON OF GOD?  Strenuous efforts have been made to prove that God NEVER had a Son  BEFORE Jesus came to earth. Such efforts have come from all quarters,  but all of them fail in the light of the plain simple word of God. Was  there a time when God said, "Son, you may go?" 1 John 4:9 says that God sent His only begotten Son into the world. WHEN did this happen? Was it BEFORE Jesus came into the world or was it AFTER He came into the world? Did  God first send Jesus into the world & then AFTER His arrival here,  say, "Son, you may go into the world?" These questions may seem  ridiculous, but they need to be asked in order that it may become clear  how unreasonable is the position that Jesus NEVER became God's Son until  AFTER He had come into the world. BASIC  LOGIC SHOULD TELL US THAT IF GOD SENT HIS SON INTO THE WORLD  (John  3:17; 1 John 4:9) THEN HE MUST HAVE HAD A SON TO SEND (Mark 12:6). He  did not send Himself to become His Son, He did not send His friend to  become His Son, He did not send a part of Himself to become His Son. AT THE MOMENT WHEN JESUS WAS SENT, HE WAS ALREADY THE SON OF GOD. ***

To  believe that Jesus was NOT God's Son UNTIL He was conceived in Mary's  womb would present the ridiculous idea that Jesus arrived BEFORE He was  sent. Or that God sent His Son BEFORE He had a Son.

 

TESTIMONY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
There  are several verses in the Old Testament which clearly reveal the truth  that God had a Son LONG BEFORE Jesus ever came to the earth.

"Who  hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind  in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath  established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, AND WHAT IS HIS  SON'S NAME,  if thou canst tell?" (Prov 30:4)

 

Which TWO beings was this verse speaking of? One of them is clearly the Creator of all things, the One who "bound the waters in a garment" & "established all the ends of the earth." However, there is another person mentioned. HERE LONG BEFORE CHRIST WAS BORN IN BETHLEHEM THE QUESTION IS ASKED, "WHAT IS HIS SON'S NAME?" If God did NOT have a Son at that time what is the meaning of the question?
Again  when we look at Proverbs 8:22-31 it is difficult for us to  misunderstand the meaning of the passage. Of Whom is this passage  speaking? The  first few verses of the chapter indicate that it is speaking of  "wisdom." However, as often happens with Old Testament prophetic or  poetic passages the subject changes from a GENERAL  application to A  SPECIFIC application to someone in particular. IT IS CLEAR THAT THESE VERSES MUST BE SPEAKING OF A PERSON, RATHER THAN THE ABSTRACT QUALITY OF WISDOM BECAUSE IT STATES THAT "I WAS BROUGHT FORTH"  (v 24, 25). If we were to conclude that this refers to the quality of  wisdom, then we would also have to conclude that there was a time,  BEFORE God brought forth wisdom, when wisdom did NOT exist & that  therefore at one point, God was NOT wise. THIS PERSON MENTIONED IN  VERSES 22-31 HAS SOME VERY PARTICULAR SPECIFICATIONS WHICH COULD APPLY TO ONLY ONE BEING IN THE UNIVERSE. 
Let us look at some of these specifications:

1. The person was "brought forth" (born, begotten. v 24, 25) The term "brought forth" is translated as "given birth" in the NIV & also in the BBE  (Bible in basic English). In the NLT & the NJB as "I was born."  Nearly every other version translates it as "brought forth."

 

2. the Person was "set up"(born) BEFORE anything was created. A period referred to as "everlasting" (v 23)
3. The Person was PRESENT during all the creative acts of God (v 27-29)
4. The companionship of this person with God was constant & brought "delight" to God (v 30)
Who  is it that the Bible says was "begotten" by God (John 3:16) from the  days of "everlasting" (Micah 5:2) Who was present & active during  the creation of the entire universe (Eph 3:9; Gen 1:26), & Who  brought delight to the heart of God (Matt 3:17)? Only ONE Being in the entire universe fits the description. THIS PASSAGE IS CLEARLY REFERRING TO JESUS CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD, WHO, ACCORDING TO 1 COR 1:24 IS THE WISDOM OF GOD.

"…the  Son of God declares concerning Himself: "The Lord possessed Me in the  beginning of His way, before His works of old. I was set up from  everlasting. . . . When He appointed the foundations of the earth: then I  was by Him, as one brought up with Him: and I was daily His delight,  rejoicing always before Him." Proverbs 8:22-30.

 

Those who deny that Jesus is truly the Son of God have two problems with this passage. FIRSTLY,   they see clearly that IT SPEAKS Of A STARTING POINT FOR CHRIST. A time  when He was "brought forth." Regardless of the fact that this time is so  far back in eternity as to be referred to as "everlasting," they have a  problem because they feel that Jesus is God Himself & as such could  not have had a beginning. SECONDLY,  they feel that the term "brought forth" implies creation & of  course, if Jesus was created then He could not have been a divine being  & it would not have been possible for Him to have paid the price for  man's redemption.

BORN OR CREATED?
Yet, the Scriptures are greater than the opinions, the fears, the misconceptions & the biases of men. ACCEPTING WHAT THE SCRIPTURES SAY AS THEY SIMPLY READ WOULD BRING UNDERSTANDING & WOULD CLEAR UP THE DIFFICULTIES. Let  us examine the second objection first. Are we suggesting that Jesus was  CREATED if we accept that He was BORN of God? Let us be reasonable. IS THERE ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE WHERE "BORN" MEANS "CREATED" OR VICE VERSA? This matter is very simple. Creation  has to do with forming, or bringing something into existence using  materials which are NOT a part of myself or without the use of  pre-existing materials. BEGETTING, OR THE BIRTH PROCESS IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. IN  BIRTH, THE NEW ENTITY WAS ONCE A PART OF THE ORIGINAL & IS COMPOSED  OF THE SAME SUBSTANCE & POSSESSES THE SAME QUALITIES AS THE  ORIGINAL.  The new entity may even be said to  have existed BEFORE he was born in the sense that his life was already  present in his parent's life (Heb 7:9,10). THE BIBLICAL TESTIMONY EVERYWHERE CONCERNING CHRIST IS THAT HE WAS BORN OF GOD, NOT CREATED BY GOD.

 

The other objection has to do with the question, could Christ truly be God if He had a beginning? Well,  first of all Jesus could NEVER be God (Himself). There is only ONE  Being in the Bible Who bears the title "God" and this is the Father  (John 17:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Rev 21:22). However, the relevant question is, could Jesus be a DIVINE being, could He possess the qualities of God if He had a beginning?

When  a child is born, what qualities is he born with? Apart from the fact  that his development is not complete, does he come short of his parents  in any way? OBVIOUSLY, IF JESUS WAS BORN, BEGOTTEN, BROUGHT FORTH BY GOD, THEN HE MUST POSSESS ALL THE QUALITIES OF GOD! It is  evident that He is NOT inferior to God in any way, but possesses in His  NATURE every attribute which by nature belongs to God. HOW  DOES THE FACT THAT HE HAD A BEGINNING TRILLIONS OF YEARS AGO NEGATE HIS  DIVINITY? This is like saying that because a human son is not as old  his father, he is not as human as his father! THE KEY QUESTION, IS WHETHER JESUS WAS BORN OR CREATED. Jehovah's Witnesses claim that He was created. Trinitarians say He was neither born nor created. THE BIBLE HOWEVER, TEACHES THAT HE WAS BEGOTTEN OF GOD WAY BACK IN THE DAYS OF "EVERLASTING". This is the only conclusion which fits all the facts of Scripture.

ENLIGHTENED OR CONFUSED?
Many & varied are the ways in which the enemy of all truth has sought to obliterate this truth. Another  group of Christians, zealous for the traditions of past centuries have  speculated (and pushed these speculations on others) that Jesus, Who was  God Himself, decided billions of years ago to ACT in the ROLE of a son,  while God Himself (another one) would ACT in the ROLE of a Father. At  the same time God Himself (still another one!) would ACT in the ROLE of  Holy Spirit. This decision was taken by God Himself Who was not three  Gods, but one God ACTING IN THREE ROLES!! When  theories such as these have been embedded into the minds of simple  people it is no wonder that when they are asked simple questions such as  "Who is God?" Or "was Jesus the true Son of God?" All they can do is  stammer & stutter & give a blank stare. Is this what God was trying to tell us when His son made the following simple, straightforward, but sublime statement?

(John  3:16-17) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten  Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have  everlasting life. {17} For God sent not his Son into the world to  condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

UNPOPULAR TRUTH
Why  is the devil so fiercely opposed to the truth that Jesus IS THE TRUE  SON OF GOD?  It is not difficult to find the answer to this question. The Bible declares that God's love is revealed in the fact that God gave His Son to die for mankind (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9,10). How can we understand & appreciate the wonder of that love if we fail to discern the IDENTITY of the One Who was sent? If we fail to grasp the value of the gift that was given & what it cost God to give it? It is only as we understand Christ's IDENTITY that we shall love God as we should (1 John 4:19). Therefore our love for God & our victory over sin are linked to the truth that Jesus IS the Son of God. "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God (1 John 5:5)?" No wonder the devil hates this truth!

What is difficult to understand is why Christians should so determinedly oppose the plainest statements of the word of God. WHY  SHOULD PERSONS WHO CLAIM TO LOVE GOD & TO DESIRE HIS GLORY SO  STUBBORNLY OPPOSE THE ONE TRUTH WHICH REVEALS THE LOVE OF GOD MORE FULLY  THAN ANYTHING ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE? This truly is a mystery almost as great as the so-called Trinity!

Hundreds  of years ago during the fourth century AD the spirit of compromise, the  desire for worldly popularity combined with the influence of paganism,  brought the doctrine of the trinity into the Christian faith. Since that  time it has become so deeply ingrained into the traditions of  Christendom that it has become the foundation doctrine of MOST Christian  denominations & it is considered blasphemy to speak against it, but why do Christian men & women cling so tenaciously to the error? Why, in the light of the plain statements of Scripture, do they continue to embrace a Trinitarian God? The answer is popularity. No church will be accepted today (this has been true for the past 1500 years) unless it professes belief in the trinity. A denial of the trinity will result in a church instantly receiving the label of CULT. Therefore,  this doctrine which is entirely founded upon the TRADITIONS  of men  rather than the word of God has risen to such universal prominence that  when one simply expresses the Biblical truth that Jesus is the Son of  God, he is accused of heresy.

 

THE APOSTLE'S TESTIMONY Did the apostles believe in a trinity? Apart from the books of Luke & Acts the entire New Testament was written by men who had been personally taught by the Lord Jesus. Even the apostle Paul, though he never knew Jesus personally while He was on earth testifies that he was taught personally by Christ (Galatians 1:11,12). Did Jesus  reveal a Trinitarian God to these apostles? Did He teach them this  doctrine which was so radically different from the Old Testament concept  of God? If He did, why didn't they proclaim it as forcefully & as  clearly as they proclaimed that Jesus was the Son of God? Why is it that this doctrine "is not EXPLICITLY TAUGHT in the New Testament (Encarta Britannica)" but is rather "INFERRED" from certain passages? Is this the way that God reveals important truths? Merely giving HINTS & leaving us to FORMULATE our conclusions? Why  is it that the statements of the New Testament consistently declare  that there is only ONE GOD & that this one God is the Father (1 Cor.  8:4-6; John 17:3; Eph. 4:6)? Didn't these apostles know the truth about God? How can we conclude that their writings suggest that God is a Trinity when they themselves proclaimed Him to be an INDIVIDUAL? Do we have the contradictory situation where Christ's appointed depositories of His truth HINTED that God was a Trinity, but DECLARED that He was a single Person? Why would they do this? Is it that they were suggesting something which they weren't sure of & which they left to later generations of "theologians" to properly work out? DO YOU SEE HOW CLEARLY THIS FITS INTO THE TEACHINGS & PRINCIPLES OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM? The  Roman Church teaches that the revelations of the Scriptures are NOT a  complete revelation, sufficient to reveal the way of salvation. They  claim that the TRADITIONS & teachings of the "church" are a  continuing source of revelation & therefore, they take the position  that the teachings of the church are ABOVE the Bible. For  them, it does not pose a problem that the Trinity is NOT taught in the  Bible. It is enough that the Church accepted the doctrine & that for  many centuries it has been a teaching of the Church. This for a Roman Catholic is enough to make the doctrine truth. Protestants,  however, insist that the Bible contains all the truth which is  necessary for salvation, hence the protestant principle of "sola  Scriptura," (The Bible only). When  Protestants take the position that a doctrine which is not explicitly  taught in the Scriptures, but was developed gradually during the years  subsequent to the time of Christ & the apostles, is to be accepted  as truth, this is a dangerous precedent. In  taking this position they have stepped onto the ground of Roman  Catholicism & have thereby opened the door to the acceptance of all  the other unscriptural & even anti-scriptural teachings of Rome, particularly in light of the fact that Rome herself boasts that the trinity doctrine is the very foundation of all her other teachings and dogma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  32
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  124
  • Content Per Day:  0.05
  • Reputation:   147
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/19/2017
  • Status:  Offline

6 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Right, but the references to the Holy Spirit using "He"  is coupled with personal attributes.   It's not a grammatical "He."   The Holy Spirit, according to the Bible has  emotions, and can be lied to, is a guide, a teacher, a comforter, has a will, a mind, loves, and can enjoy fellowship, prays, speaks, inspires, and convicts.

Those attributes defy any claim that He is just an impersonal force.  To look at all of those personal attributes and claim the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force is simply not rational and rather bizarre, to be honest.  So the personal pronoun 'HE'  coupled with the all of those characteristics that make up the personality, office and work of the Holy Spirit simply testifies against your argument that "He"  simply a reference to the grammatical gender of an inanimate, impersonal object. 

No, you don't have those.    John 3:16 is talking about Jesus' physical birth to the virgin, Mary.   That is when He was begotten, everyone knows that.  Same applies to I John 4:9.   Jesus was the only begotten Son of God.  That was not the case prior to the incarnation and you have no Scripture that references Jesus having been begotten prior to the incarnation.   You're just wrong on that point and need to give it up.  You have nothing to support that argument, period.

Yeah, you're wrong on that point.   Because when the Bible says Jesus is the "Word" it is not talking about the spoken "word."

No, it wouldn't imply that.  That's what you're trying to read into the idea of them being separate.  The point behind mentioning that they are separate or independent Persons is just that, they are Persons.   They are separate persons working in cooperation with each other.

Sorry, but personal attributes reveal personhood, especially the numerous personal attributes the Bible reveals to us about the Holy Spirit, coupled with the fact that the Bible always refers to the Holy Spirit as a person.   It's like LGBT community today denying the gender of a man who has all of the physical attributes of a 60 year old white  man and claiming he is 30 year old Chinese woman.   That is the level of denial you're operating on at this point. 

I have already provided several places in Scripture in previous posts.   For example, the baptism of Jesus and the fact that Jesus stated that just as He was sent by the Father, He would send the Holy Spirit to be another comforter. 

Yes but you believe in the deity of Jesus but "God the Son" isn't in the Bible, either.   So you really don't have a rational argument on that point.

But you're not honest with the text.   You are trying to prove an assumption, not search for truth.   You are not doing research   You have an assumption going in, and you're trying to filter the Bible through that assumption.  And you're redefining key terms like what it means to be person, in order to brush aside passages of Scripture that don't fit with your assumption and actually point to the inaccuracy of your assumption.  You're more concerned with protecting what you want to believe than arriving at the truth.

You are not willing to suspend your disbelief enough to treat the text objectively.  And you've proven that you're willing to descend to  logical absurdity to protect your assumption.  So no matter what the Bible says, you'll either deny the Bible says it, or find a way to rationalize away what the Bible says to insulate your disbelief, as you have already  done in this thread.

We'll have to agree to disagree. 

And, your accusations are false. The reason I switched from trinitarian beliefs to binitarian beliefs in the first place was because I am looking for the truth. I was very uncomforyable with making that switch, because I knew my parents and boyfriend wouldn't like it. So I haven't told them yet. If I find truth about a trinity in the Bible, I will accept it. The truth of the matter is, I am tired of this debate. You are using the same arguments in this debate, expecting to change something by using the same arguments. It doesn't work like that. I have not found any convincing arguments for the trinity, only against the trinity, and that is the truth. Could that change? Yes. I am NOT trying to evade the truth, I am not trying to only look at what backs up my beliefs. I want tknow the truth. If you believe otherwise, then so be it. I don't care. God knows the truth about me, and that's all that matters. 

Assuming makes a donkey out of both of us. Don't do it. 

& btw, no, we don't see "God the Son." And that is why I don't believe God the Father and God the Son are the same. I believe The Son is divine, but He is not THE God. He just shares His father's nature, due to being His literal Son (which would explain how He acts subordinate to the Father). I believe the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God the Father and of Christ, so when Christ speaks of sending another comforter, He's actually speaking of sending His own Spirit. If I see anywhere in the Bible that we are to praise and worship the HS, then I'll search more into that and possibly change my beliefs again, because that shows that the HS would have to be God, since even the angels said to only worship God when multiple people fell down to worship them. 

Those are my beliefs at the moment, and they will remain so until I find proof in the Bible. I am not going to debate anymore on this subject, for now. I may return to this thread later or make a new one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...