Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
You don't have to believe in the Trinity. But it is Scriptural. It is not based upon 'tradition'.
Good-Ole-Rebel
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why Didn't the Holy Spirit Know?
- Thread starter rrobs
- Start date
You don't have to believe in the Trinity. But it is Scriptural. It is not based upon 'tradition'.
Good-Ole-Rebel
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Good to hear from you again Good-Ole_Rebel.
If you are right and there really is a trinity, how do we handle 1 Cor 8:6?
But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
As far as I can tell, even if there is a God the Son in the scriptures (which of course there isn't), he would not be the one God. Clearly the Father of Jesus is the one God.
And what about 1 Cor 15:28?And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him (God) that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Can you give me a simple explanation of why these two verses don't contradict a trinity doctrine (there are many others like these)? I think all in all, the scriptures are much easier to understand when the trinity is dropped. Keeping the trinity just requires way too much word twisting and extra-scriptural concepts, which I don't believe God approves.
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
Because there is no Trinity of Gods. There is a Trinity of the One God in three persons.
Concerning (1 Cor. 15:28), I addressed that in post #(89). Exactly right, it means to subordinate. Well, you just read about it in (1 Cor. 15:28). So?
All Persons are equally God. That doesn't negate order of authority. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Well, if you're looking for easy explanations, then yes, go ahead and disregard the Trinity. If you want to be able to know and be able to explain everything about God, then disregard the Trinity. I cannot explain everything about God or the Trinity. But the little that is revealed in the Scripture concerning Him, I believe. And the Trinity is definitely Scriptural.
Do you know everything about God now? Are you still learning about God?
Here's a question. Do you think you will ever know all there is about God? Or will we always throughout eternity be learning about God?
Good-Ole-Rebel
Hi @rrobs : I am writing between appointments at work so I hope my various thoughts are coherent.
1) Rrobs said : “Thanks for the info. I'd never heard that before..” (post #120)
If you follow forum discussions, you will discover a similar historical base model comes up in some form in probably every single forum discussion about the nature of the trinity. In almost each of these discussions you will see that there is a version where Jesus and God and the Holy spirit are all the same (polytheistic monotheism) and versions where Jesus and God and the Holy spirit are different (monotheistic polytheism). Each of these different models (and other models as well) have existed and have been argued about for many, many years.
2) rrobs said : Where did you come across the idea of the early Judeo-Christian model? I'd be interested in hearing more about that.” (post #120)
Just as theists today write various literature, explaining the various beliefs of their various movements, jews and Christians have always written literature explaining their beliefs and what they taught. The early Judeo-Christians did the same. When we read the early literature, written by the Judeo-Christians themselves, one can tell what the early Christians taught and believed as well as follow the evolution of beliefs and doctrines, their origin, their evolution, etc.
For example, New Testament Clement is a convert to Christianity and is a colleague of the apostle Peter. Clement writes his own testimony of what the early Christians of his age believed in and what he learned from the apostle Peter and other early Leaders. Such writings can tell us much regarding what the earliest Christian movement looked like and the various later writings can tell us much about how the movement evolved and schisms occurred over time and geographical distance (east vs west, early vs later movements, etc.).
3) rrobs said : I understand the scriptures to declare that God is holy and that He is spirit. His very nature is holy spirit. I don't see the scriptures saying that holy spirit is in any sense a separate person, sharing in one essence or not. (post #120)
Yes, your interpretation of scriptures is different than that of this early Christian model where the Spirit of God is separate. This causes the problem. In YOUR model, it makes no sense that the spirit doesn’t know what God knows (if they are the same). In the early model where the spirit is separate, then it is logical that one can know and the other not know. In this early Christian model, the question simply doesn’t come up because the answer was obvious to them.
REGARDING THE CONCEPT OF “SPIRITUAL” AND “SPIRIT” IN EARLY LITERATURE
The use of the term “spirit” and “spiritual” as applied to a person, a thing, or even to God himself did not mean that a spiritual thing was ONLY spirit. For example, the Church was described as spiritual. Clement says that “the Apostles declare that the church not only exists now, but has been in existence from the beginning. For she was spiritual, as was also our Jesus” 2nd Clement. This did not mean that the Church and Jesus did not exist in a physical form as well. In this case it meant that the ekklesia as a plan and principle and Jesus as an individual existed prior to their physical form (e.g. The Plan of God to Gather the righteous to him existed prior to creation and Jesus as the “word” existed at creation).
The same principle is demonstrated by the early description of mankind who are described as having a spirit, but not BEING only spirit. They were told to “defile neither your flesh nor the spirit. For they belong together, and one cannot be defiled without the other. Therefore keep both pure, and you will live to God.” Hermas 60:3-4 The point is that in the early Christian model, all these things can be spiritual or have a spirit, but are not ONLY a spirit or spiritual.
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
1) Rrobs said : “Thanks for the info. I'd never heard that before..” (post #120)
If you follow forum discussions, you will discover a similar historical base model comes up in some form in probably every single forum discussion about the nature of the trinity. In almost each of these discussions you will see that there is a version where Jesus and God and the Holy spirit are all the same (polytheistic monotheism) and versions where Jesus and God and the Holy spirit are different (monotheistic polytheism). Each of these different models (and other models as well) have existed and have been argued about for many, many years.
2) rrobs said : Where did you come across the idea of the early Judeo-Christian model? I'd be interested in hearing more about that.” (post #120)
Just as theists today write various literature, explaining the various beliefs of their various movements, jews and Christians have always written literature explaining their beliefs and what they taught. The early Judeo-Christians did the same. When we read the early literature, written by the Judeo-Christians themselves, one can tell what the early Christians taught and believed as well as follow the evolution of beliefs and doctrines, their origin, their evolution, etc.
For example, New Testament Clement is a convert to Christianity and is a colleague of the apostle Peter. Clement writes his own testimony of what the early Christians of his age believed in and what he learned from the apostle Peter and other early Leaders. Such writings can tell us much regarding what the earliest Christian movement looked like and the various later writings can tell us much about how the movement evolved and schisms occurred over time and geographical distance (east vs west, early vs later movements, etc.).
3) rrobs said : I understand the scriptures to declare that God is holy and that He is spirit. His very nature is holy spirit. I don't see the scriptures saying that holy spirit is in any sense a separate person, sharing in one essence or not. (post #120)
Yes, your interpretation of scriptures is different than that of this early Christian model where the Spirit of God is separate. This causes the problem. In YOUR model, it makes no sense that the spirit doesn’t know what God knows (if they are the same). In the early model where the spirit is separate, then it is logical that one can know and the other not know. In this early Christian model, the question simply doesn’t come up because the answer was obvious to them.
REGARDING THE CONCEPT OF “SPIRITUAL” AND “SPIRIT” IN EARLY LITERATURE
The use of the term “spirit” and “spiritual” as applied to a person, a thing, or even to God himself did not mean that a spiritual thing was ONLY spirit. For example, the Church was described as spiritual. Clement says that “the Apostles declare that the church not only exists now, but has been in existence from the beginning. For she was spiritual, as was also our Jesus” 2nd Clement. This did not mean that the Church and Jesus did not exist in a physical form as well. In this case it meant that the ekklesia as a plan and principle and Jesus as an individual existed prior to their physical form (e.g. The Plan of God to Gather the righteous to him existed prior to creation and Jesus as the “word” existed at creation).
The same principle is demonstrated by the early description of mankind who are described as having a spirit, but not BEING only spirit. They were told to “defile neither your flesh nor the spirit. For they belong together, and one cannot be defiled without the other. Therefore keep both pure, and you will live to God.” Hermas 60:3-4 The point is that in the early Christian model, all these things can be spiritual or have a spirit, but are not ONLY a spirit or spiritual.
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
Last edited:
POST TWO OF TWO
LANGUAGE USED RELATING TO THE HOLY SPIRIT REGARDING THE SPIRIT AS A SPIRIT OF INFLUENCE AND TUTORING TO THE FAITHFUL
The language used in early literature is in the context of God, sending a spirit to them. God doesn’t come to them, but a spirit sent by God is indicated in their literature. While John 15:26 relates Jesus’ promise that “when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceeds from the Father” it is in the context of the spirit being sent from the Father instead of actually being the Father himself.
The concept of a spirit sent forth from God was metaphorized as “living” or moving waters, a stream of influence sent out as a helper, a paraclete sent to guide individuals in the ways of righteousness. In speaking of the spirit of God, it was described as going forth as “a stream, and it became a river great and broad… men were not able to restrain it, nor even the arts of them who habitually restrain water. 10 For it spread over the face of all the earth, and it filled everything. 11 Then all the thirsty upon the earth drank, and thirst was relieved and quenched; 12 For from the Most High the drink was given. Odes of Solomon #6. Notice that in this model, the drink was not the “Most high” but instead was a separate thing given by the Most high. Even the symbolic Dead sea scroll description “You have poured out Your holy spirit upon us…” uses the symbol of the spirit being given as the same manner that water is poured out in it’s distribution. The description of “pouring out” is common (found in 4Q504 Col. 5 as well).
In the New Testament, the language is similar when it is used in Acts “But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: (Acts 2:16-18). In this model, GOD himself is not “poured out” but it is his Spirit which is sent out, is “poured out” upon all mankind.
This symbolism of water and pouring comes partly because of the concept of “fountains” of wisdom and righteousness as a source of these things. For example, in Jewish Enoch, the prophet Enoch describes his heavenly vision where “I saw the fountain of righteousness, which does not become depleted and is surrounded completely by numerous fountains of wisdom. All the thirsty ones drink (of the water) and become filled with wisdom.” 1st Enoch 48:1-7
While wisdom and knowledge is symbolized by “fountains” and “water”, they are not synonymous with God in this model any more than the spirit which is a tool to distribute knowledge and wisdom is synonymous with God.
The early Christians were taught to seek to have the spiritual fountain of living waters with them and to “Fill for yourselves water from the living fountain of the Lord, because it has been opened for you. 2 And come all you thirsty and take a drink, and rest beside the fountain of the Lord.” Odes of Solomon #30:1-3 In this model, the fountain belonged to the Lord, it originated with the Lord, it was distributed by the Lord, but it was not the Lord himself.
This “living water” was a spirit sent out from the most high, but was not the same as the most high. The spirit was describe as being “like a letter” and “it was sent from a bow like an arrow that has been forcibly shot. 7 And many hands rushed to the letter, in order to catch (it), then take and read it. Odes of Solomon #23 vs 4-7. In this model, the spirit, symbolized by “a letter send from God” was not God, but a separate mode of communication send out by him and was a method of harmonizing his creation ““As the [wind] moves through the harp and the strings speak, 2 So the spirit of the Lord speaks through my members,” (Ode #6)
Ode #25, 7-11 describes the spirit as “A lamp you set for me both on my right and on my left, so that there might not be in me anything that it not light. And I was covered with the covering of your spirit” God was NOT the lamp in this model, but instead the spirit was the lamp which he set before individuals to “light their way”. While Jesus says the comforter would be sent “the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name…” John 14:26, it is not God who is sending himself in this model, but God is sending another spirit, the paraclete. Thus, it is that in the early synagogal prayers, this model of the spirit as a tool of guidance and tutoring is also manifest. For example in their prayers God is praised because he “sent forth the Christ to men as a man, being uniquely born God [and] you have caused the Paraclete to live in us and you have set up angels (over us) Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers - 7:4; 9-11; 17 also, cf. AposCon 7.38.1-8. In such prayers, Christ is not God, but sent from God. The Paraclete (or holy spirit) is not God, but sent from God. The angels are not God, but separate individuals sent from God, all for the benefit of mankind.
This model of the spirit as a separate tool for tutoring is found in Dead sea scrolls. The instructor for example says “I… the instructor, have known you, O my God, by the spirit which you gave me, and I have listened faithfully to your wondrous council by your holy spirit...” 4Q427 Frag. 3 Col. 20:11-13 In this model, the spirit remains a tool of tutoring and guidance.
Related to the symbolism of water is the concept of purification (the connection to “washing and water and purification/cleansing is obvious) and thus it was taught that “By His truth God shall then purify all human deeds, and refine some of humanity so as to extinguish every perverse spirit from the inward parts of the flesh, cleansing from every wicked deed by a holy spirit. Like purifying waters, He shall sprinkle each with a spirit of truth, effectual against all the abominations of lying and sullying by an unclean spirit. Thereby He shall give the upright insight into the knowledge of the Most High….” 1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11 Col 4 vs 15-26 It is such descriptions that knowledge, wisdom, spirit, purification all relate to each other. Similar language is seen in the Christian texts such as Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs - Judah 20:1-3
Other symbolism is applied to the Spirit of God as a tool of tutoring mankind, For example, Origen quotes the Gospel of the Hebrews where the Savior says : “Even so did my mother, the Holy spirit, take me by one of my hairs and carry me away on to the great mountain Tabor.” (Origen, Commentary on John 2.21.87 [on John 1:3]) and this gift to mankind was seen to exist from the earliest times. For example, the Haggadah tells us that “without the gift of the holy spirit, Adam could not have found names for all; he was in very truth a prophet, and his wisdom a prophetic quality. The Haggadah (The Ideal Man).
While the spirit of God is “sent”, or “poured out” or “proceeds from” or “covers” individuals as the father directs and promise in this model, the model is described in a similar context in New Testament literature. Instead of being “poured out” it may “the Spirit of God” may “descend like a dove, and lighting upon” Jesus while a separate voice from God speaks along the lines of Matthew 3:16-17; This spirit is to live within the individual and be with the individual as a tutoring tool. Thus it is described that “out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given...”.
In this model the spirit is not God, but it is “another comforter “given of God”. 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, John 14:16
I am not saying that your model is false and the earlier Judeo-Christian model is true, simply that they are two different models. In the earlier model, your question in the O.P. as to why the spirit “didn’t know” would not have needed to be asked as the answer was obvious in that historical model.
In any case rrobs, I hope your spiritual journey is good.
Clear
νεσεφιω
LANGUAGE USED RELATING TO THE HOLY SPIRIT REGARDING THE SPIRIT AS A SPIRIT OF INFLUENCE AND TUTORING TO THE FAITHFUL
The language used in early literature is in the context of God, sending a spirit to them. God doesn’t come to them, but a spirit sent by God is indicated in their literature. While John 15:26 relates Jesus’ promise that “when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceeds from the Father” it is in the context of the spirit being sent from the Father instead of actually being the Father himself.
The concept of a spirit sent forth from God was metaphorized as “living” or moving waters, a stream of influence sent out as a helper, a paraclete sent to guide individuals in the ways of righteousness. In speaking of the spirit of God, it was described as going forth as “a stream, and it became a river great and broad… men were not able to restrain it, nor even the arts of them who habitually restrain water. 10 For it spread over the face of all the earth, and it filled everything. 11 Then all the thirsty upon the earth drank, and thirst was relieved and quenched; 12 For from the Most High the drink was given. Odes of Solomon #6. Notice that in this model, the drink was not the “Most high” but instead was a separate thing given by the Most high. Even the symbolic Dead sea scroll description “You have poured out Your holy spirit upon us…” uses the symbol of the spirit being given as the same manner that water is poured out in it’s distribution. The description of “pouring out” is common (found in 4Q504 Col. 5 as well).
In the New Testament, the language is similar when it is used in Acts “But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: (Acts 2:16-18). In this model, GOD himself is not “poured out” but it is his Spirit which is sent out, is “poured out” upon all mankind.
This symbolism of water and pouring comes partly because of the concept of “fountains” of wisdom and righteousness as a source of these things. For example, in Jewish Enoch, the prophet Enoch describes his heavenly vision where “I saw the fountain of righteousness, which does not become depleted and is surrounded completely by numerous fountains of wisdom. All the thirsty ones drink (of the water) and become filled with wisdom.” 1st Enoch 48:1-7
While wisdom and knowledge is symbolized by “fountains” and “water”, they are not synonymous with God in this model any more than the spirit which is a tool to distribute knowledge and wisdom is synonymous with God.
The early Christians were taught to seek to have the spiritual fountain of living waters with them and to “Fill for yourselves water from the living fountain of the Lord, because it has been opened for you. 2 And come all you thirsty and take a drink, and rest beside the fountain of the Lord.” Odes of Solomon #30:1-3 In this model, the fountain belonged to the Lord, it originated with the Lord, it was distributed by the Lord, but it was not the Lord himself.
This “living water” was a spirit sent out from the most high, but was not the same as the most high. The spirit was describe as being “like a letter” and “it was sent from a bow like an arrow that has been forcibly shot. 7 And many hands rushed to the letter, in order to catch (it), then take and read it. Odes of Solomon #23 vs 4-7. In this model, the spirit, symbolized by “a letter send from God” was not God, but a separate mode of communication send out by him and was a method of harmonizing his creation ““As the [wind] moves through the harp and the strings speak, 2 So the spirit of the Lord speaks through my members,” (Ode #6)
Ode #25, 7-11 describes the spirit as “A lamp you set for me both on my right and on my left, so that there might not be in me anything that it not light. And I was covered with the covering of your spirit” God was NOT the lamp in this model, but instead the spirit was the lamp which he set before individuals to “light their way”. While Jesus says the comforter would be sent “the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name…” John 14:26, it is not God who is sending himself in this model, but God is sending another spirit, the paraclete. Thus, it is that in the early synagogal prayers, this model of the spirit as a tool of guidance and tutoring is also manifest. For example in their prayers God is praised because he “sent forth the Christ to men as a man, being uniquely born God [and] you have caused the Paraclete to live in us and you have set up angels (over us) Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers - 7:4; 9-11; 17 also, cf. AposCon 7.38.1-8. In such prayers, Christ is not God, but sent from God. The Paraclete (or holy spirit) is not God, but sent from God. The angels are not God, but separate individuals sent from God, all for the benefit of mankind.
This model of the spirit as a separate tool for tutoring is found in Dead sea scrolls. The instructor for example says “I… the instructor, have known you, O my God, by the spirit which you gave me, and I have listened faithfully to your wondrous council by your holy spirit...” 4Q427 Frag. 3 Col. 20:11-13 In this model, the spirit remains a tool of tutoring and guidance.
Related to the symbolism of water is the concept of purification (the connection to “washing and water and purification/cleansing is obvious) and thus it was taught that “By His truth God shall then purify all human deeds, and refine some of humanity so as to extinguish every perverse spirit from the inward parts of the flesh, cleansing from every wicked deed by a holy spirit. Like purifying waters, He shall sprinkle each with a spirit of truth, effectual against all the abominations of lying and sullying by an unclean spirit. Thereby He shall give the upright insight into the knowledge of the Most High….” 1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11 Col 4 vs 15-26 It is such descriptions that knowledge, wisdom, spirit, purification all relate to each other. Similar language is seen in the Christian texts such as Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs - Judah 20:1-3
Other symbolism is applied to the Spirit of God as a tool of tutoring mankind, For example, Origen quotes the Gospel of the Hebrews where the Savior says : “Even so did my mother, the Holy spirit, take me by one of my hairs and carry me away on to the great mountain Tabor.” (Origen, Commentary on John 2.21.87 [on John 1:3]) and this gift to mankind was seen to exist from the earliest times. For example, the Haggadah tells us that “without the gift of the holy spirit, Adam could not have found names for all; he was in very truth a prophet, and his wisdom a prophetic quality. The Haggadah (The Ideal Man).
While the spirit of God is “sent”, or “poured out” or “proceeds from” or “covers” individuals as the father directs and promise in this model, the model is described in a similar context in New Testament literature. Instead of being “poured out” it may “the Spirit of God” may “descend like a dove, and lighting upon” Jesus while a separate voice from God speaks along the lines of Matthew 3:16-17; This spirit is to live within the individual and be with the individual as a tutoring tool. Thus it is described that “out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given...”.
In this model the spirit is not God, but it is “another comforter “given of God”. 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, John 14:16
I am not saying that your model is false and the earlier Judeo-Christian model is true, simply that they are two different models. In the earlier model, your question in the O.P. as to why the spirit “didn’t know” would not have needed to be asked as the answer was obvious in that historical model.
In any case rrobs, I hope your spiritual journey is good.
Clear
νεσεφιω
Last edited:
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Well, there is:
Col 1:9,
For this cause we also, since the day we heard [it], do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;
John 17:3,
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
The words "knowledge" in Col 1:9 and "know" in John 17:3 come from the same Greek root word that means an intimate knowledge. We may not know all He knows, but that which He has revealed to us we can know in some detail. In other words, anything God reveals is perfectly understandable. Therefore, the trinity being, as you yourself pointed out, not understandable can not be from God. It must be from some other source. I think Paul called it another Jesus whom he did not preach (2 Cor 11:4). Unfortunately tradition has adapted that other Jesus. It causes no end of confusion, i.e. a lack of understanding (as you yourself said), and therefore stifles the true power the real Jesus has given us to carry out God's will.
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
I said we can understand what is revealed about the Trinity. But we can't understand all about it. Just as we don't ;understand all about God. Thus your statement that because we don't know everything about the Trinity, then it must not be true, is empty.
Are you saying you know everything about God? I'm not asking if you know God, or if you know as much as God. I'm asking do you know everything about God?
You keep saying, "as you said". But I didn't say the things you are saying I said.
Scripture, not tradition, supports the Trinity.
Good-Ole-Rebel
rrobs
Well-Known Member
I think every scripture you quoted is absolute truth. What I didn't see though was any indication the holy spirit is a person in any sense of the word. Just read what's written, without adding anything. For example, John 14:16, does not say the comforter is a person. It actually says nothing about the nature of that comforter, but other verses make it clear that it refers to the gift of holy spirit all born again believers receive. No need to make it a person. It works just fine when understood as a comforter.
It should be noted there is no justification for writing "comforter" with a capital letter. The original texts had no capital letters. That word was capitalized because the scribe who translated it to English had a bias towards the trinity. The same goes with every usage of "holy spirit" where it is capitalized in the English Bibles. Sometimes it does refer to God Himself in which case it is OK. But other times it refers to the gift, or the power that God gives to those who believe. Only the context will make it clear. But, sometimes I'm not sure what it should be. No problem. I don't claim to know it all from A to Z. I'm still learning.
It might help to understand how the Jews understood spirit. It's real simple. They thought it was an invisible force. The first definition in Strong's Concordance for the word "spirit" is "wind." That is a good definition. You can't see wind, but it can sure exercise a force on things in the visible world. God is called holy and a spirit, hence his nature if holy spirit, just like ours is sinful flesh (at least the old man). What God gave to certain people was the ability to exercise the same force as God Himself. It is the very force Jesus claimed on several occasions that enabled him to do the works he did. He said we'd do the same works. That is because God has given us the same spirit He gave to Moses and the others in the verses you mentioned. The only difference is that they all had it on condition and temporally but born again Christians have it forever and unconditionally. It is the incorruptible seed of 1 Peter 1:23. Again, just read what's written there and don't go changing the meaning of "incorruptible seed." We all know what incorruptible means.
It's like reading John 1:1 as, "In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God." If that's not changing the words of God I don't know what is!
Christians need to learn to read what's written and say, "God said it, that settles it!" They keep adding stuff to it and it just obliterates any chance of understanding God's plan of redemption. Ah, by the way, that plan is really what John 1:1 is speaking about. The real John 1:1 reads as, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God."
The words "the word" in John 1:1 are the Greek word "logos." You don't have to dig deep to find out that it means the thought behind what is spoken, i.e. a plan. The essence of that plan is given at the end of John.
John 20:31,
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Again, just stick with what's written and we can easily see that John wrote what he wrote so that we, "might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." I'd advice against changing that to, "might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the God."
For the life of me, I don't understand why any of the above would be offensive to any Christian. It all sounds pretty straight forward, requires no extra-scriptural language to describe. God said wisdom is easily entreated, did He not?
I did not need to to any source outside of the scriptures to make my point. I'm afraid you were forced to refer to "early Christian models" to make yours. I can't emphasize enough the need to stick with the scriptures and nothing but the scriptures when it comes to matters of faith and practice.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
I don't know everything about God.
Col 1:9,
For this cause we also, since the day we heard [it], do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;
If Paul prayed that we can be filled with knowledge, then it must be available. So while, available, I don't consider myself to have apprehended all of the scriptures.
But I do know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is but one God, the Father.
1 Cor 8:6,
But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
If any verse or verses are taken to say Jesus is God, they must somehow be squared with the simple declaration in Corinthians. In light of 1 Corinthians 8:6 I don't see any way that there could be any other God but the Father of our living Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Hi @rrobs :
1) rrobs said : "I think every scripture you quoted is absolute truth. What I didn't see though was any indication the holy spirit is a person in any sense of the word."
You are confused. The Opening post did not ask whether the spirit was a person. The OP asked why the spirit did not know something.
The historical point was that the early Judeo-Christian belief and interpretation did not need to ask this question because the answer in that religion was obvious. Your religion is not the same as theirs. Your points regarding whether the spirit is a person is irrelevant to this historical point.
2) robs said : It should be noted there is no justification for writing "comforter" with a capital letter. The original texts had no capital letters.
I might remind you that the early texts were written in Uncial Greek. Uncial Greek is ALL capital letters.
I do very much agree with you that many of the translators were biased and translated according to their biases and the text has mistakes because of bias. Both you and I have biases and cannot avoid them.
3) rrobs said : I did not need to to any source outside of the scriptures to make my point. I'm afraid you were forced to refer to "early Christian models" to make yours.
That is correct. You told us what your own belief is but you were not then able to tell us how the early Judeo-Christians themselves interpreted the scriptures you referred to. Your model of religion is a more modern and more personal model and not a more ancient and more historically correct model of early Christian beliefs and interpretation. Your religion is unable to use much of the early Judeo-Christian literature because the early Christian movement describe different beliefs and different interpretations than your religion. They are different.
Early Judeo-Christian texts demonstrate what early Judeo-Christians themselves wrote about their belief. They described what they believed and how they interpreted texts. That was my historical point as it relates to the question in the Opening Post.
Their belief would not have asked the question your belief asked in the OP, regarding "why did the spirit not know something God knew" if the two are the same being. For ancient Christians with the early model, the question would have been irrational.
4) rrobs said : I can't emphasize enough the need to stick with the scriptures and nothing but the scriptures when it comes to matters of faith and practice.
The problem is that one cannot do that IF one is trying to discover how the early Christians themselves interpreted scriptures and what they themselves believed.
Your biases are quite different than theirs. Your language is different than theirs. Your beliefs are different than theirs.
If you ever become interested in what early Judeo-Christianity was like, your historical discovery must pay attention to more and larger historical data streams than simply using your own current modern religious belief.
While you can form your own personal belief system and set of interpretations by reading a single book (or less) from the scriptures, that still will leave you historically ignorant about many, many aspects of the early Judeo-Christian belief system with their different set of interpretations. Do you see the important difference?
Why is your set of interpretations of ancient texts to be preferred over the interpretations and religion of Clement who was taught by the apostle Peter? (or any of the earliest Christians of the apostolic age?)
Clear
ειτζτζνεω
1) rrobs said : "I think every scripture you quoted is absolute truth. What I didn't see though was any indication the holy spirit is a person in any sense of the word."
You are confused. The Opening post did not ask whether the spirit was a person. The OP asked why the spirit did not know something.
The historical point was that the early Judeo-Christian belief and interpretation did not need to ask this question because the answer in that religion was obvious. Your religion is not the same as theirs. Your points regarding whether the spirit is a person is irrelevant to this historical point.
2) robs said : It should be noted there is no justification for writing "comforter" with a capital letter. The original texts had no capital letters.
I might remind you that the early texts were written in Uncial Greek. Uncial Greek is ALL capital letters.
I do very much agree with you that many of the translators were biased and translated according to their biases and the text has mistakes because of bias. Both you and I have biases and cannot avoid them.
3) rrobs said : I did not need to to any source outside of the scriptures to make my point. I'm afraid you were forced to refer to "early Christian models" to make yours.
That is correct. You told us what your own belief is but you were not then able to tell us how the early Judeo-Christians themselves interpreted the scriptures you referred to. Your model of religion is a more modern and more personal model and not a more ancient and more historically correct model of early Christian beliefs and interpretation. Your religion is unable to use much of the early Judeo-Christian literature because the early Christian movement describe different beliefs and different interpretations than your religion. They are different.
Early Judeo-Christian texts demonstrate what early Judeo-Christians themselves wrote about their belief. They described what they believed and how they interpreted texts. That was my historical point as it relates to the question in the Opening Post.
Their belief would not have asked the question your belief asked in the OP, regarding "why did the spirit not know something God knew" if the two are the same being. For ancient Christians with the early model, the question would have been irrational.
4) rrobs said : I can't emphasize enough the need to stick with the scriptures and nothing but the scriptures when it comes to matters of faith and practice.
The problem is that one cannot do that IF one is trying to discover how the early Christians themselves interpreted scriptures and what they themselves believed.
Your biases are quite different than theirs. Your language is different than theirs. Your beliefs are different than theirs.
If you ever become interested in what early Judeo-Christianity was like, your historical discovery must pay attention to more and larger historical data streams than simply using your own current modern religious belief.
While you can form your own personal belief system and set of interpretations by reading a single book (or less) from the scriptures, that still will leave you historically ignorant about many, many aspects of the early Judeo-Christian belief system with their different set of interpretations. Do you see the important difference?
Why is your set of interpretations of ancient texts to be preferred over the interpretations and religion of Clement who was taught by the apostle Peter? (or any of the earliest Christians of the apostolic age?)
Clear
ειτζτζνεω
Last edited:
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
Well, if you don't know everything about God, by your own formula, your view of God must be from another source then the Bible. See your post #(126).
I have never said any thing else but that there is one God. You can repeat (1 Cor. 8:6) till the cows come home and I will say the same. I agree with it. There is one God. But just as Scripture speaks of One God, it speaks of God being Three Persons, the Trinity.
What you are saying is because you reject the Trinity, any verses that speak to the Trinity must be rejected, in light of (1 Cor. 8:6). You are saying any verses that show that Jesus is God must be rejected because you reject the Trinity, in light of (1 Cor. 8:6). In other words, it is you who are forcing and twisting your view of God upon Scripture.
Good-Ole-Rebel
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Well, I almost hate to bring up 1 Cor 8:6 again, but there is one major point you are missing.
1Cor 8:6,
But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
Jesus is called the Son some 50 times in the scripture. He is never called the Father.
Since Jesus is not the Father, he is not the one God of the early church.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
You keep mentioning my interpretation vs. the interpretation of others.
2 Pet 1:20,
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
I don't think this verse needs interpretation. It simply says that the scriptures are not of one's own private interpretation. It does not need interpretation because it, like most literature, simply interprets itself. Do you go to great lengths to interpret the daily paper? Doesn't it pretty much just say what it means and mean what it says? Why should the scriptures be any different? They are not. In fact they are more clear than any newspaper ever published. Of course things like the trinity obliterates that simplicity and makes us twist the normal use of words and simple everyday concepts.
Hi @rrobs
rrobs said : "You keep mentioning my interpretation vs. the interpretation of others.
Yes I do. I mention this BECAUSE your interpretation is different than that of many other Christians, especially the ancient Judeo-Christian model I discussed. Your religion is different than theirs.
The many competing Christian movements often interpret scriptures differently than each other. You interpretation of texts is different than that of @Good-Ole-Rebel and it is different than mine. It is partly because your interpretation of scriptures is different than others that your beliefs form differently than others. (I would assume this point is obvious that individuals have different interpretations)
The Historical point is that YOUR interpretation is different than that of early Judeo-Christians and that INSIDE YOUR interpretation and belief system, your O.P. question "Why did the spirit not know what God knew if they were the same" may make sense but it would have been irrational in the interpretation and beliefs of the early Judeo-Christian model where the two are not the same. Surely you are able to see this?
My question remains :
Why is your set of interpretations of ancient texts to be preferred over the interpretations and religion of Clement who was taught by the apostle Peter? (or any of the earliest Christians nearer to the apostolic age?)
In any case, I hope your journey is good and your insights are satisfying @rrobs.
Clear
ειτζφυσεω
rrobs said : "You keep mentioning my interpretation vs. the interpretation of others.
Yes I do. I mention this BECAUSE your interpretation is different than that of many other Christians, especially the ancient Judeo-Christian model I discussed. Your religion is different than theirs.
The many competing Christian movements often interpret scriptures differently than each other. You interpretation of texts is different than that of @Good-Ole-Rebel and it is different than mine. It is partly because your interpretation of scriptures is different than others that your beliefs form differently than others. (I would assume this point is obvious that individuals have different interpretations)
The Historical point is that YOUR interpretation is different than that of early Judeo-Christians and that INSIDE YOUR interpretation and belief system, your O.P. question "Why did the spirit not know what God knew if they were the same" may make sense but it would have been irrational in the interpretation and beliefs of the early Judeo-Christian model where the two are not the same. Surely you are able to see this?
My question remains :
Why is your set of interpretations of ancient texts to be preferred over the interpretations and religion of Clement who was taught by the apostle Peter? (or any of the earliest Christians nearer to the apostolic age?)
In any case, I hope your journey is good and your insights are satisfying @rrobs.
Clear
ειτζφυσεω
Last edited:
cataway
Well-Known Member
the trinity thing ,would like to promote the 3, father son and holy spirit as God all being equal . equal would indicate that there is no chain of command . how ever 1CORINTHIANS 11:3 does indeed give the proper
relationship
3 "But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn, the head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God. "
relationship
3 "But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn, the head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God. "
rrobs
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure, but we may have been arguing the same point all this time. The scriptures make no clear declaration anywhere that God and the so-called Holy Spirit (those caps again
- yes, originals in all caps) are one and the same person in any sense whatsoever.In my OP I was giving Trinitarians the benefit of the doubt. I think the key word was "if" the holy spirit..." I was merely trying to point out that IF HS was God, then why didn't it know all that God knew? I was debunking the trinity. At least making a stab at it.
I'm glad you mentioned Clement. All the history I know is pretty clear that he was a Greek philosopher before converting to Christianity. It seems his main goal in life was to merge the scriptures with Platonic thought. Since I am a true believer in Luther's sola scripture, Plato holds no sway in my mind when it comes to doctrinal matters. Ditto with 99% of the "church fathers." But, as you said, that is just me. Still, God does exhort all Christians to speak the same thing. Either He was playing a game with us or it is possible for Christians to unite at least as to the nature of God and their savior, Jesus Christ.
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well-Known Member
That's because Jesus is the Son. He is not the Father. But the Son is God also.
Good-Ole-Rebel
I agree with @cataway that there is a hierarchy in the trinity of the ancient Judeo-Christian movement. That is, while there is a degree of unity in principles within the ancient model of the trinity, it was not a complete equality in historical Christianity.
When 1 Corinthians 11:3 says “the head of the Christ is the God", similarly, the ancient Judao-christian literature of the period demonstrates clearly their belief that God the Father has ultimate authority over all other beings who are subservient to him. As Barnabas said : “to rule” implies that one has authority, so that the one giving orders is really in control.” (The Epistle of Barnabas 6:18) This ancient Judao-Christian framework was very clear that ALL authentic religious authority, whether that given to the Son Jesus, to angels or to men, flows from that ultimate source and is delegated to a specific degree to his authentic servants as he sees fit.
“For the Father anointed the Son, and the Son anointed the apostles, and the apostles anointed us.” (The gospel of Phillip). Early sacred texts make clear that ancient Judao-Christians believed that God the Father wielded ultimate authority. This is true whether it was Jewish Enoch who proclaimed of the Father “Your authority and kingdom abide forever and ever; and your dominion throughout all the generations of generation;..” (1st Enoch 84:2) or whether it is New Testament Hermas who taught “God alone has the power to give healing, for all authority is his. (Hermas 60:3-4).
This pattern of hierachy appears in multiple ways in multiple texts. For example, New Testament Clement, the colleague of the Apostle Peter says that “The Apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus the Christ was sent from God. 2 So then Christ is from God, and the apostles are from Christ. Both therefore, came of the will of God in good order..” 1 Clement 42:1-4;
The most common description of Heirachy in early Christianity was one in which authority originates in God the Father, who then delegates commissions and authority to others. That is, God the Father commissions and sends the Son, the spirit, etc.
Clear
When 1 Corinthians 11:3 says “the head of the Christ is the God", similarly, the ancient Judao-christian literature of the period demonstrates clearly their belief that God the Father has ultimate authority over all other beings who are subservient to him. As Barnabas said : “to rule” implies that one has authority, so that the one giving orders is really in control.” (The Epistle of Barnabas 6:18) This ancient Judao-Christian framework was very clear that ALL authentic religious authority, whether that given to the Son Jesus, to angels or to men, flows from that ultimate source and is delegated to a specific degree to his authentic servants as he sees fit.
“For the Father anointed the Son, and the Son anointed the apostles, and the apostles anointed us.” (The gospel of Phillip). Early sacred texts make clear that ancient Judao-Christians believed that God the Father wielded ultimate authority. This is true whether it was Jewish Enoch who proclaimed of the Father “Your authority and kingdom abide forever and ever; and your dominion throughout all the generations of generation;..” (1st Enoch 84:2) or whether it is New Testament Hermas who taught “God alone has the power to give healing, for all authority is his. (Hermas 60:3-4).
This pattern of hierachy appears in multiple ways in multiple texts. For example, New Testament Clement, the colleague of the Apostle Peter says that “The Apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus the Christ was sent from God. 2 So then Christ is from God, and the apostles are from Christ. Both therefore, came of the will of God in good order..” 1 Clement 42:1-4;
The most common description of Heirachy in early Christianity was one in which authority originates in God the Father, who then delegates commissions and authority to others. That is, God the Father commissions and sends the Son, the spirit, etc.
Clear
Last edited:
Hi @rrobs
rrobs said : "I'm glad you mentioned Clement. All the history I know is pretty clear that he was a Greek philosopher before converting to Christianity."
Again, you are confused. My reference was from I Clement (FIRST Clement) who was a convert to Christianity and became coworker/colleague of the apostle Peter. The Clement you are referring to was of a later age.
rrobs said : "I'm not sure, but we may have been arguing the same point all this time."
Perhaps we have. I was describing factual, textual history while you seemed to be describing personal belief and interpretation (this is not necessarily "truth", but merely the early Christians description of what THEY thought was "truth" - there is a difference). I apologize if the discussion may have been confusing.
IF your point is that there is some sort of difference between God the Father, his son the messiah and the Holy Spirit, then this is more in line with Early Judeo-Christian worldviews. The difficulty is not in demonstrating that there is or is not a trinity of individuals described in the early historical concept of the Godhead, but the difficulty lies in the various theories as to what the differences are and what different roles they served, etc. i.e. the details.
In any case rrobs, I honestly hope your spiritual journey in this life is wonderful and good.
Clear
ειτζσενεω
rrobs said : "I'm glad you mentioned Clement. All the history I know is pretty clear that he was a Greek philosopher before converting to Christianity."
Again, you are confused. My reference was from I Clement (FIRST Clement) who was a convert to Christianity and became coworker/colleague of the apostle Peter. The Clement you are referring to was of a later age.
rrobs said : "I'm not sure, but we may have been arguing the same point all this time."
Perhaps we have. I was describing factual, textual history while you seemed to be describing personal belief and interpretation (this is not necessarily "truth", but merely the early Christians description of what THEY thought was "truth" - there is a difference). I apologize if the discussion may have been confusing.
IF your point is that there is some sort of difference between God the Father, his son the messiah and the Holy Spirit, then this is more in line with Early Judeo-Christian worldviews. The difficulty is not in demonstrating that there is or is not a trinity of individuals described in the early historical concept of the Godhead, but the difficulty lies in the various theories as to what the differences are and what different roles they served, etc. i.e. the details.
In any case rrobs, I honestly hope your spiritual journey in this life is wonderful and good.
Clear
ειτζσενεω
Last edited:
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Well, there may have been some confusion, but I think we're getting past that.
Yes, I was thinking of the later Clement. I looked at the letter Clement 1 wrote to the Corinthians. I couldn't help but notice his consternation at the divisions in the church of Corinth. Apparently he, like myself and others, believes it must be possible to speak the same things. It would seem to me that the most basic thing we all ought to agree on is the nature of God and His son, Jesus Christ. I can't think of anything more diametrically opposed than Jesus being God or not being God. It seems like that is more than a minor detail to me. It seems pretty fundamental to a true and unbiased understanding of the scriptures.
In any case, I appreciate your good wishes to me and I wish you the best in return.