Michael Brown and James White defend the doctrine of the Trinity

This is not in defense of trinitarianism but only an objection to what ManofGod0000 wrote.

According to John chapter 17, Jesus prayed to his father about his disciples. He prayed that his followers would be one in the same way that he and his father are one.

Did Jesus pray that his followers would be different roles played by the same person?

by ManofGod0000 on 2010/9/17 :

...If you were to ask most Hebraic people, those who are orthodoxed Christians or a part of Judaism, and they will tell you that a trinity is heresy, there is no such thing....

=====================================================
To color outside of the lines delineated in scripture and step outside the boundaries of this witness isn't heresy.

It is false doctrine.

Nowhere in the Bible can anybody show where it states the Spirit of God is a person seperate and distinct from the Father or the Son.

That Nicean Council (325 A.D.) you speak of was an exercise in anti-Semetism, stating such things as to observe Sabbath is anathema, and you are Judaising if you do observe God's designated day over the Pontiff Maximus' designation of Shabbat on the day of Mithras (the sun god).

But Sunday observance and trinity have to be correct, right? How could so many Catholics and Protestants be wrong?

(We know that from Bible example (after example) that the majority is always the deciding factor and correct in following God's ideal towards our best interests...don't we?)

Shalom Shabbat,

gregg

The fact that trinitarianism goes beyond natural and revealed theology does not make oneness/modalism the correct alternative.

If arianism is actually false, it's not like non-arians are suddenly worshiping the entire pagan pantheon by saying God has a divine son.

The whole mess seems to result from not wanting to say Jesus had a beginning on the one hand and from not wanting to say that there is more than one divine being on the other hand.

by naatmi on 2010/9/18 7:19:23

The fact that trinitarianism goes beyond natural and revealed theology does not make oneness/modalism the correct alternative.

=================================================

How about two?
the Father and the Son:
their spirit being one.

Love, Hope, and Faith,
g

by Phanetheus on 2010/9/18 8:39:10

How about two?
the Father and the Son:
their spirit being one.
===================================

Yes, at least two. That much is obvious to me, though what a surprise it was when I first read the new testament (coming from RC trinitarian background). But I can't say much regarding the holy spirit at this point.

by Renoncer on 2010/9/18

Friends, I plead with you to consider the importance of this issue.

Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee. (1 Timothy 4:16)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phaney:
To take that verse and claim that it is in reference to the dogma of the trinity seems a bit out of order.

Think about what Paul states in reference to "the doctrine" being both able to both "save thyself, and them that hear thee." He is speaking in reference to salvation. He is not writing about trinitarianism dogma --(unless of course--which is hardly unusual)-- i missed something. Galatians 1.8-9 and 2.20 are the imperatives of this "the doctrine."

Nobody but nobody is saved because they continue in the dogma of trinity.

I may not understand how this issue is important, as knowledge about this has little to do with any form of salvation from God, be it:
bodily,
the seat of affections: the heart and/or soul
relational,
financial,
etc...
all we need do is cry out to Jesus depending on Him alone, and He, our God delivers, restores, and preserves mightily.
==========================================

R:
When we are told to baptize into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it has serious implications concerning God’s being. It goes along the same lines as Jesus being accused of blasphemy by the religious leaders for making Himself equal to God. It also aligns with the peculiar notion of the Word being WITH God, and the Word BEING God. If the Holy Spirit was simply a different impersonal form of God, then it would not make any sense to speak of Him as distinct from the Father. The same is true of the Son. This applies to any Trinitarian formulas (Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14, 2 Corinthians 1:21-22, Galatians 4:4-6, etc.).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
P:
You didn't mention the passage in I Jn. 5, yet this and the other passages mentioned above are addressed indirectly in the following comment. If you wish to cover the other passages you mentioned one by one, we can do that.

This one passage is a starter only because it cuts away the foundation of this dogma at it's root.

( this is a repeat from p. 3 of the thread "I found this debate interesting "Trinity in the Old Testament"
https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=34842&forum=36&start=20&viewmode=flat&order=0 )

[(...and Rainman deserves response about all this on that thread...)]

Matthew 28:19
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

Having read several mss., not all of them state this; but that's beside the point, this is the recieved text through the accepted standard of Roman Catholicism handed to Anglicans so it must be valid, right?

Welllll... anyway, The verse above it states that the Spirit that is God that dwells in us is Christ, whom is none other than Jesus currently enthroned with the Father...
so this means that if this is indeed a formula, which is seriously doubted that this validates the baptism of John by changing names, we are to...what???

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
a bit of history
(don't ask me to cite this because it was researched years ago and this was recognized as a mere sideline note, and not the basis of study which was how the invented dogma of trinity came to use. i'm not putting up proof as this really is not an important issue (If it were it would have been proclaimed from Gen to Rev.)

When the Bible was translated into the 7 King James versions, all of them used the word baptism, which is actually an English rendering of a Greek word, simply for fear of upsetting the King for synonymously rendering a word such as 'drowing' or 'immersing' or 'engulfing' or 'dunking' in replacement of 'baptising'.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As well, 'in the name of' bears no marks of exactitude in distinction, but represents a principle of purpose and power relagated in the authority given.

Now with these 3 things in mind:
1. That the word 'baptizo' means 'to immerse';
2. "In the name of" is juat as indistinctive as the titles (not names) identified;
and,
3. The Spirit of God in us is the Spirit of Christ
...it can readily be seen as a verse of principle and not some magickal formulae.

We COULD write it like this:

Matthew 28:19
"For this reason, as you go: in your going teach all nations, englufing them in the purpose and power --(name)-- of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

It's either that or:
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them (in water)in the name of the El, and of the Jesus, and of the Christ:"
...which doesn't agree with what they did in Acts during water baptism, of accounts mentioning the name used, they were baptising them in the name of Jesus. (which would make perfect sense for the oneness/apostolic folk, who consider Jesus the Father and the Son...
(...and i'm my own grandpa).

(It's hoped that this settles the issues of 'formula' in the mind of anybody questioning)
============================================

R:
Moreover, when Jesus says that He will ask the Father to give us the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that these three are distinct, and that they interact with one another, in a similar way that we see this interaction being demonstrated at Jesus’ baptism. We cannot deny these truths of Scripture. To deny the deity of Christ would be to reject God (John 14:6-10, 1 John 2:23, John 20:28-29). And the same applies to the Holy Spirit, since He is spoken of at par with the persons of the Father and the Son (Romans 8:9-16). This is not to be taken lightly (2 Peter 2:1). In the same way, the Scriptures vehemently affirm that God is one, that there is only one God (Mark 12:29, Isaiah 44:6). To deny this would be idolatry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P:
You might want to look at that the debate thread mentioned above ( on the first page) in regards to personage.

Of course Jesus spoke of any form of God as distinct and seperate from Himself while dwelling here. Did you know that Jesus always called himself the 'son of man' and never the 'Son of God' while on earth? Though He identified Himself in relation to the Father and His own spirit being God, it was only via comparison in analogy.

The Spirit of God is spoken of at par with Jesus Christ and not the Father, though Yahshuvah is the physical representation of the Father in His spirit, (being within one another), thus the need for a dove as a physically percievable representation of His spirit.

This hardly negates what He said in Jn 3:
11
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12
If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven,

...even the Son of man which is in heaven...

On earth and still in heaven
...hmmm...

This will be offered for consideration:
Jesus took on the form of a man in every aspect though He always had legions of angels at His beck and call. He never claimed divinity though He repeatedly revealed His name. "I AM" . . .
. . . which the orthodox church of that day could not accept

*Phany sits pondering, then drawing comparison to current held opinions about God and what He declares*

The comparative analogy of the Holy Spirit's relation to Jesus in John 14 - 16 is just such an instance. He speaks of of Himself and His spirit, and everything that is mentioned of this spirit of the Holy One is known of Jesus Christ in: person, principle, and proclamation.
============================================

R:
Therefore, to deny the divine person of the Son or of the Holy Spirit, or of the Father, would be to reject God. To deny the oneness of God would be idolatry. If you have any other view of God, guess what, you are not worshipping the true God, you do not know God.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P:
You will have to show where the scriptures state that the Holy Spirit is a person seperate and distinct from Jesus before you will make any headway with the one typing this. Jesus or the apostles never taught that idea.

(you will do well to consider the Hebraic words for 'one' and consider their meaning in the context of what you are saying. The Romans and the Greeks couldn't get their heads around it and most 21st century people can't either. Of course, most all cannot even get their heads around two becoming one flesh, so to speak beyond even this simple fact seems speculative at best.)

We know that the Holy Spirit was seperate and distinct (only according to human perspective) during Jesus' earth walk in the fulness of time, yet through His annointing as Messiah, the Christ, not only were his body and heart resurrected glorified, but His spirit was also. Of the lamb slain are possessed the seven spirits of God!
============================================
R:
I would caution anyone who is so captured by the concept of revival that he has missed the most important thing, that is, who God is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P:Let this be added to that:
Jesus' is God's revelation and manifestation to the whole world, and anything which is not pointing back to Him and what has been accomplished through His completed work at Golgatha is not His spirit but another.

For these purposes His spirit is here:
"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:
1) reprove the world of sin,
[ v. 9--> Of sin, because they believe not on me; ]

2) and of righteousness,
[ v. 10--> Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; ]

3) and of judgment:
[ v. 11--> Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. ]

Jn. 16.7-11
============================================

R:
When Mormons pray for revival, they are praying to a false god, because they reject the full deity of Jesus Christ. When Muslims pray to Allah, they are praying to a false god, because they reject the full deity of Christ. When Unitarians pray, they pray to a false god because they reject the exclusive way in which God has revealed Himself, that is, in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When so-called Christians say there is more than one God, or that God is not distinct in the persons of the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, I am very concerned.

Let us not forsake the most precious and crucial doctrine of God as revealed in His holy Word, which cannot be broken, for the sake of spiritual experience or for the sake of revival.

This plea is given unto you with the uttermost affection. Let not my strong stance be mistaken for any lack of love. I pray that God will help us to remain on the right path, and to avoid the way of destruction. Amen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P:

Anyone who claims to love another yet fails in rebuke is just plain hateful or pseudo-apathetic, whether out of tolerance, just getting along, or not caring at all. Tolerance is not forebearance. Just getting along is not agreeing to disagree. Not caring is not kind and tenderhearted.

(let's not get into false religion)

You state that the Spirit of God is a person distinct and seperate from the Father and the Son.

If this is fact, consider the following and please provide an answer that has scriptural backing to it:

God says my people shall know my name.

We know the name of the Father and we know the name of the Son. If the Holy Spirit is a distinct and seperate person from the Father and the Son, what is His name?

Who is Lord?

Jesus said ," "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you (at) liberty," and again, "I AM...the truth."

It's thought that Paul is pretty clear in stating who God's spirit manifest to us is when he penned in II Cor. 3.17, "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."

Jesus is God's representative and manifestation to us.
Considering this, how could the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of the Lord, the Holy Spirit/Ghost, be anyone other than Jesus?

It is proper to think and speak about the Father and Son as distinct and seperate though 'one'.

It is improper to think and speak about their spirit towards us(in and of Christ Jesus) as distinct and seperate from Christ Jesus.

Where are we told in scripture to pray to the Holy Spirit, and since not, why not?

Search the scriptures and pray about these things.

Agapeo,
g

david c,

Thanks for the note towards building up the saints.

To begin with, i'de like to suggest a message through Bill McLeod:
https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=18112

Please correct me if there is error in the following.
I'm learning just like everyone else.

It's satisfying to observe another who endears truth, yet your assumptions of Zechariah seem to be a bit off base ...not to say that mine aren't.

i have been revealed many things about those that stray from the faith once and for all handed down through Jesus and His apostles, of which the scarlet woman, the mother of whoredom, has played no small part. The sad part about this is that these who adhere to such as absolutely correct will not even bother to look for the originating source. Most go on their merry way thinking and stating their view is kosher . . .and calamnity then falls when least expected. Though the work of the Holy Spirit is virtually absent in their lives, the book of His Acts is regarded as simply past historical remeniscience to them. They excuse the failure to walk in His Spirit as Acts examples being something only for the apostles of days gone by rather than recognizing that God does not vouch for nor support error. . . though He does continue to use us in spite of ourselves.

The dogma of trinity was propogated through western (mystico-mythical-magickal) thought attempting to stamp out Judaic mindset and heel-grind any recognition of the Jew, even in the scriptures written through Jews.

The fundamental question of those who believe into obediently following Jesus is not whether our understanding of God's form is correct, but rather whether or not our own lives and what we propogate as doctrine points to Jesus Christ crucified and the apostles teachings, respectively. There is no ultimate glory to God nor power in anything else save this.

As you full well know the majority is always right, so just ignore the few who know they are chosen.
[SERIOUSLY: Reconsider or run as with lemmings into the sea. Trying to make the scriptures say what they do not is the exercise of either running headlong towards a cliff or walking on thin ice.]

For example, the reference given by Renouncer of II Peter 2.1-2 is in reference to false prophets proclamations brought to recognition. In the previous chapter, Peter is speaking about anything that turns our attention from the more sure Word of prophecy, namely Jesus Christ (see also: Rev. 19.10).

With this in mind, how does a view that the Holy Spirit is a seperate and distinct personage 'other than'-->(aka: 'Anti-')

i'm not ashamed of the Gospel

http://www.fireonthealtar.com/compilations/neil%20g/Dwell.mp3

N4J,
That jam tastes very good.

I.

David C:
Phanetheus says
''Ask where the Bible plainly states that the Holy Spirit is a person distinct and seperate from Jesus Christ. If it can't be found, reconsider.''

Anyone with an open mind on reading the New Testament will see that the Godhead is three persons. Each of them testify not of themselves but of the other two.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P:
Anyone who reads the NT without accounting into it that which it is commentary of --(the OT being approximately 4/5ths of the whole Bible)-- with an open mind is fair game for false doctrine.

We can come to the scriptures with preconcieved notions and most likely glean whatever serves our impetus, yet is it what scripture actually says?

i could take two verses:
"Judas Hung himself"
then
"go thou and do likewise"
and set a perfect foundation for a doctrine of gnosticism, but would it be true?
Anybody openminded enough might see this as true.

The dogma of trinity was not propogated until the primitive church had been obliterated from Roman life, having lived in catacombs and fleeing to the mountains or caves. With the original Jerusalem church, it's Judaic roots, and it's teachings violently forced out of the way, Roman Catholicism was instituted through Constantine to create a false institutionalized church under the headship and rule of Roman government.

(Who is head of the church?)

It was not until the third century that the notion of trinity was instituted by this government ruled apostacy.

Constantine recognized that in uniting all varying kultus under the headship of one religion...

by Renoncer on 2010/9/20 4:36:29

Planetheus,
Are you a mormon?
------------------------------------------------------------
Hardly, though currently i am discipling a few of their missionaries away from that cult.

Try a Messianic Jew saved heeding the voice of our Messiah, Yahshuvah. i am water and Spirit baptized...
...and am continually being filled with His Spirit. His gifts given are fully operational in this life.

Davidc has given me the plain and clear testimony of the Word of God as he percieves it to be.

Hardly am i rebelling against God.

i am fully against anything that stands contrary to the complete testimony of Jesus Christ, who is the Word of God, such as the impersonal other you call the Holy Spirit.

God is relational and personal with me and not some no-name indefinite spirit.

Jesus said (in John 10), " But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.

Are you listening to His voice or another?

Me?
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Be wary of what you say just because someone does not adhere to the Scarlet Mother of Harlots dogma continued in and perpetiated by a few of her rebellious bastard children.

Shalom,
gregg

What is this other gospel you speak of?

God Bless You,
gregg

Actually, it was alone with God that these things came to be acknowledged . . . having left most all of the teachings of men (just like me) back at the doormat.

Be wary of what you say just because someone does not adhere to the Scarlet Mother of Harlots dogma continued in and perpetiated by a few of her rebellious bastard children.

Yikes!

We are stepping out on a very weak limb to state that the Holy Spirit is something other than Christ Jesus. This is just another way of saying the Holy Spirit is antichrist.

Wow, what heresy. To suggests that anyone who teaches that the Holy Spirit is someone other than Jesus is antichrist is of itself Antichrist.

Having answered emails and 1 person PM-ing me, yet not yet having answered all those emails...
...man oh man, wow, all the ideas floating aroundabout things i never said nor implied.

Still not done in responding to all, this thread is just sitting dormant and awaiting reply.

Response, as time affords, will be from last to first.

Let's get this right.

by Burn4Christ on 2010/9/20 18:40:13

in my reading of scripture i believe it to be very evident that the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father and Christ yet God.
------------------------------------------------------------P:
Is what you just stated what scripture states?
Where in the Bible does it say that the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father and Christ?
__________________________________________________________

B4C:
With just a plain reading of the text this is what i see scripture to teach.
------------------------------------------------------------
P:
Are you sure you are not just assuming something that just isn't there?
__________________________________________________________

B4C:
When I read the "Spirit of Christ" and the "Spirit of God" (Romans 8:9) that just testifies to me even more that there is One God, in which the persons within that one being of God can be identified as each other yet still remain distinct. The reason God's Spirit is referred to in scripture as the "Spirit of Christ" or Paul states that "there is one Spirit" and follows with "...Now the Lord is that Spirit..." is because the Holy Spirit is who the Bible reveals He is, The Lord Jesus Christ.
------------------------------------------------------------
P:

OK.

Let's get this straight . . . If the Father is the Son is the Holy Spirit to you, no matter how you rationalize this, it contradicts the personage of Godhead. This is an invalid line of reasoning. Where is the Son called the Father and the Father called the Son.

The Spirit is not called our Father, but is referred to as both Lord and Christ. This reveals that the Spirit is Jesus glorified and not the Father.

The reason God's Spirit is referred to in scripture as the "Spirit of Christ" or Paul states that "there is one Spirit" and follows with "...Now the Lord is that Spirit..." is because the Holy Spirit is who the Bible reveals He is The Lord Jesus Christ, (who always has been and is God)
...or is the Bible wrong?

Following that thinking the Father is the Son is the Spirit, yet this is not God's revelation to us.
____________________________________________________________

B4C:
They're interrelationship and union is so perfect that they are recognized as one.(deut 6:4, John 10:30), sharing the same homoousios (being,essence,nature,ect.) and displaying distinctions in relation to mankind (each having their own work yet all intertwined in some way within that work). As one writer put it "they dance together as one with no space or room between them." in function. In my reading of the text in John 16:13 we have Jesus telling us of the selflessness of the Spirit (why scripture is so silent in reguards to him) and his function within the economic trinity. He only glorifies the Christ and dares not to take away from his sacrifice and puts that truth into our hearts to be selfless as he. Likewise we are to be like Christ as well in reguards to humbling ourselves (phil 2:5-9). Hope this edifies.

In Him

------------------------------------------------------------
Now it is not denied that all of the Godhead are recognized as one. It's just that, when spoken of in various avenues of their individual expression, they are not referred to as one another, and names are not used interchangably.
(WE do find this to be the case in referring to the Holy Spirit though . . . but why?)

The Holy Spirit is not a messenger boy nor minister like angels.

Think about this.

The Holy Spirit is God.

The Son speaks himself;
The Father himself speaks;
but this 'coin stamp exact diplicate' of the Father and the Son operate in the same principles?????

Where in the Bible does it say outright that the Holy Spirit is a person seperate and distinct from the Son?

Do you think that just maybe
that when the Spirit of God
is referred to as either the Lord
or the Spirit of Christ
it might just be because this is who He is?

The Holy Spirit glorifies Christ because this Spirit of Christ is the Lord Himself.

(Self-denial is not self-negation.)

i really don't think the scriptures are at all that silent about the Spirit of God, whether in His function as the Holy Spirit of Christ Jesus the Lord, whether through the form of a bird or Shekinah.

Shalom,
g

by MyVeryHeart on 2010/9/20 17:14:40

"Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come." Matthew 12:32

Phanetheus,

If the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus how can one speak a word against Jesus, the Son of Man, and be forgiven, but speak against the Holy Spirit and not be forgiven in this age or in the age to come?
------------------------------------------------------------
P:
Jesus, as the "Son of Man" had emptied himself of all divinity. i am not saying that he was ever not God, because He always is: HE just emptied himself. (I Tim 3.16; Phil. 2.5-7; I Jn. 4.3.

This is why offence here will be forgiven.

We are talking about the unpardonable sin.

The only thing found in the Bible that will not be pardoned is rejecting Jesus as the Christ and Lord, both in this age, and in the age to come. This is understandable as to the why . . . the Spirit of Christ who is the Lord, is Jesus glorified, approved by God which is seen in His resurrection.

Jesus, having recieved His former glory, again everywhere present and filling all in all . . . rejecting the work of His Holy Spirit (Jn. 16.7-11), there is no pardon because He (Jesus) has completed everything necessary to reconcile us back to God.

Jesus left bodily so He could in Spirit, be with all who are His.

(It's either this or the Holy Spirit is someone else undefined and what exactly would be this sin against the Holy Spirit that is not pardoned?????

Shalom,
g

by Notdarkyet on 2010/9/20 15:43:49

We are stepping out on a very weak limb to state that the Holy Spirit is something other than Christ Jesus. This is just another way of saying the Holy Spirit is antichrist.

Wow, what heresy. To suggests that anyone who teaches that the Holy Spirit is someone other than Jesus is antichrist is of itself Antichrist.
------------------------------------------------------------
Antichrist is a spirit and not a person.

Take a piece of paper and draw a line down the middle of it.

On one side of the line, label it Holy Spirit (of Christ Jesus the Lord) and write down all these attributes. The other side of the line we label antichrist, which is everything that is not in the first column.

To say that the Holy Spirit is not the Lord --(and there is only one)-- Jesus (in action or representation) is the spirit of antichrist.

It was not suggested that any person is antichrist. What is meant is that to say that the Holy Spirit is not the Lord Jeusus Christ is the spirit of "something other than"

by EverestoSama on 2010/9/20 15:12:12

Be wary of what you say just because someone does not adhere to the Scarlet Mother of Harlots dogma continued in and perpetiated by a few of her rebellious bastard children.

Yikes!
------------------------------------------------------------
Yikes is right.

That last word in the sentence should have been daughters, referring to intitutionalized protestantism and not individual people in the word "children."

As well, "perpetiated" should have been spelled as "perpetuated."

How'z dat?

Shalom,
g

by MyVeryHeart on 2010/9/24 15:56:31

The only thing found in the Bible that will not be pardoned is rejecting Jesus as the Christ and Lord, both in this age, and in the age to come. This is understandable as to the why . . . the Spirit of Christ who is the Lord, is Jesus glorified, approved by God which is seen in His resurrection.

Phanetheus,

So if the Holy Spirit is Jesus Glorified, . . .
------------------------------------------------------------
P:
Jesus is the Christ.
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ.
The Holy Spirit is THE SPIRIT OF Christ, who is none other than Jesus glorified, filling all things, everywhere present in and by His spirit.
__________________________________________________________

MVH:
. . . as you say, then if someone "speaks against him" now that he is Glorified, and in Heaven, then will that sin "not be forgiven in this age or the age to come?"
I would like to remind you the text does not say "reject Jesus as lord", it says "speaks a word against".
------------------------------------------------------------It does not say Jesus as Lord/rejected; however, since the Spirit is the Lord, and only those who confess Jesus Lordship in both deed and word, believing in His resurrection (unto/towards 'righteousness'-->'being-right-and-proper-and-good-in-God's-view), Rom. 10.9-10 are saved, you tell me what examples you can provide showing how this happens. (i know of several instances during this walk with the Lord, where either a individual has been told this may be their last chance to commit their life to Jesus, and/or these have said something to the extent that they will NEVER give Jesus their life and died (within a few if not less) very short days.

Now, granted, i have never really studied nor thought about this scripture prior to you bringing this up. Now i will. What has been answered is what immediately comes to mind...
...so....

because you have only been offering questions and no answers, while prayerfully studying this, if you could, would you define
through scripture:
1.) Who the Son of man is;
2.) Who the Holy Spirit is (specifically, avoiding all abstractions);
3.) What is actually means to "speak a word against."

(our conversation centers on 2.) and 3.) above)
__________________________________________________________

MVH:
"Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come." Matthew 12:32
------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus is bodily, the only immortal (in heaven).

His Spirit is with and in we who serve Him.
There is not another spirit than the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ leading, guiding, and working with/in us, is there? There is one Lord and one Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, the Holy One of God.

To "speak a word against" does not just mean "to say the wrong thing", though by it's very nature, this is the observable result...

"...for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks...", and so to speak against is indicative of a heart condition. To speak "against", one must be decidedly "against" in the first place.

One meaning that has been lost due to modernism is the understanding that our "conversation" is not merely what we say, but is first what we do, and speaking is a result through this. We speak through our actions, of which, or words play a huge role, (Jas. 3).

"word" does not mean one word or thought, but encompasses a whole concept.

What do you understand this verse to say?

Any doctrine that does not begin and end with Christ, with what is between the beginning and the end pointing to Christ, is not of Christ, and is therefore, antichrist.

Does the idea that the Holy Spirit is something or someone other than Christ point a person to Jesus Christ or away towards something/someone else?

Show me verse(s) that say that the Holy Spirit is not the Lord and/or the Spirit of Christ.

Shalom,
g

edited: errors and clarity

by live4jc on 2010/9/24 19:58:23

In John 14:16, Jesus promised that the disciples would be left with 'another Comforter'.

The question, could be asked, "Another, other than whom ? " Jesus, right ? To me this suggests, that just as the Father is distinct in personality from the Son- though both are God...so is the Holy Spirit.

"16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."

In Jesus,
John

------------------------------------------------------------

These verses will now be looked into more closely (study) Jn. 14.15? - 16+.

Note v. 17 you qoute:
"17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive"

Jesus is the truth.
Doesn't this mean that this might just be saying, "Even the Spirit of Christ Jesus; whom the world cannot recieve?"

Think about this as well.
This prophecy begins with Jesus saying to Believe in Him as God, and that even though He's leaving, he comes again to recieve us unto Himself, so that we can be with Him. (Col. 3.1-4)

Where do you see from scripture that the Holy Spirit, the only One Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of Christ, is not the spirit of Jesus Christ?

Shalom,
g

that it was not the fullness of the Godhead whose life was given for us at the cross, by which we should be reconciled to God and live. If you claim that the Son of God died for us on the cross, I gladly welcome you in the camp of the Trinitarians! You must choose between the two: 1) Either the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Jesus during his incarnation on earth distinctly from the Father in heaven; 2) or it is not God who gave his life for us on the cross because the Father was still in heaven when this event happened on earth.

The word "Godhead" is sort of and antiquated word. It does not imply, as it's face value meaning today would have you believe, that it's refereing to three God's in one being. The word "Godhead" leaves the impression of one being with three heads. The word Godhead was to be understood as "Godhood"...meaning divinity (which is why many translations now translate it that way). It was the fulness of the divine natue that was in Christ. It was the Son of God who died for our sins...not the Father.

If you assert that Jesus is normally not distinct from the Father, and that when He came into the world, He separated Himself from the Father, it necessarily implies that He was not fully God while on earth.

How do you explain that God forsook Christ while he was on the cross?

---------------------------------------------------------

Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his (Jesus) cross, by him (Jesus) to reconcile all things unto himself (the Father); by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

----------------------------------------------------------

you said;

"You choose between John 8:32 and 2 Timothy 3:7
See, I have set before you life and death..."

Before you start throwing out John you should learn the contxt of what it's speaking of.

Joh 8:27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.

Christ is rebuking the Pharissee's for their not beliving that he was the Messiah...the one sent by the Father. He certainly wasn't rebuking them for their lack of understanding of the Trinity.

It looks like we are going to have to take this step by step.

by Renoncer on 2010/9/25 6:53:15

Planetheus,
You claim that the fullness of the Godhead does not dwell in the Son separately from the Father.
------------------------------------------------------------
P:
Anything seperated from another part of itself does not make it not itself. It is merely not itself in complete fulness.

__________________________________________________________
R:
The same applies to the Holy Spirit. Thus, you do not believe in the Trinity, a description which simply means that the fullness of the Godhead (deity) dwells in the Father, that the fullness of the Godhead (deity) dwells in the Son, and that the fullness of the Godhead (deity) dwells in the Holy Spirit, each distinctly from one another, yet one in being.
------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity means "three" (in) "unity", "one" and/or "united...
not, "the fullness of the Godhead."

...and no, i do not believe in the trinity.
The Bible does not state or teach this. Catholicism and most Protestantism does.
__________________________________________________________

R:
You don’t believe there is any real relational distinction between the three, but that it is really just one.
------------------------------------------------------------
P:
Now, where has this been written in text from here?

I do not believe there is just one.

The Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son; but where does it say that the Son is in the Spirit or the Father?

God is essentially two different persons, the Father and the Son.

The Spirit of God is the spirit of Christ Jesus the Lord.
There is one advocate and mediator between God and man.
__________________________________________________________
R:

However, you must make sense of the passages where Jesus (the Son of God) speaks to the Father, and speaks of the Holy Spirit. In order to do so, you claim that in the bodily incarnation Jesus left his position as Son of God, to take a mere position as Son of Man.
------------------------------------------------------------
P:
Show where the Bible says any different.
__________________________________________________________

R:
In saying that, you necessarily deny that the fullness of deity dwelt in Jesus Christ while He walked this earth in bodily form.
------------------------------------------------------------
P:
Where it says that the fulness of deity dwells in Jesus bodily is not speaking about his life on earth. Look at the context of that passage in Collosians 1 and reconsider. You will not find any other passages confirming what you are proposing.

What it does say is that Jesus emptied himself of all that was God in becoming a man.

As stated in PMs, this does not mean that He was not God. What it does mean is that He was a man who emptied Himself from all that He was (God) before He came to earth.
__________________________________________________________

R:
You may try mental gymnastics to get out of the implications of your theology,
------------------------------------------------------------
P:
You might try giving some solid Bible verses to what you are proposing. At present, call it mental gymnastics if you will, however, if you were to give a few verses confirming the points you are saying, i'de be glad to accomodate in like fashion
(though this is usually done as well).
____________________________________________________________

R:
but the fact remains that the inevitable implications are that it was not the Son of God who gave His life for us on the cross; that it was not the fullness of the Godhead whose life was given for us at the cross, by which we should be reconciled to God and live.
------------------------------------------------------------
P:
These are not the inevitable implications.

It was Jesus, Son of God as the Son of Man, perfectly without sin who offered up His body and blood for the life and redemption of the world.
After this, though already the Son of God as a man, the Father showed He was pleased with this offering of man to God as the perfect substitute of man --(representing man to God).

Just because Jesus chose not to function as God on earth does not make Him any less God.
(We humans do not even have that option.)
____________________________________________________________

R:
If you claim that the Son of God died for us on the cross, I gladly welcome you in the camp of the Trinitarians!
------------------------------------------------------------
p:
i am not a trinitarian . . . and please read former responses from here in the thread previously mentioned on this thread.
__________________________________________________________

R:
You must choose between the two: 1) Either the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Jesus during his incarnation on earth distinctly from the Father in heaven;
----------------------------------------------------------
P:
How about this?
You tell me how anything on earth can be full and empty at the same time.
__________________________________________________________

R:

2) or it is not God who gave his life for us on the cross because the Father was still in heaven when this event happened on earth.
------------------------------------------------------------
P:
God --(emptied of Himself), as a man.
He gave His life on the cross representing humanity to God because he came and represented, and always does represent, God to man.

Jesus did not tabernacle on earth as God.
Jesus came to earth
emptying himself of Godhood,
as (God became) man
in the person of Jesus Christ...
to redeem man
(not God).

God did not have to come to earth as God.
(God was not the one needing to be saved.)

Do you understand the meaning and purpose behind sacrafice and/or covenant?

God Bless you brother,
non-trinitarian to trinitarian,
g

p.s. i was saved into a relationship with Jesus Christ and not any pet doctrine per se. i serve Him because of this relationship and not because i misinterpret or interpret the scriptures.

Renouncer,

This is where the difficult with you regarding me seems to be.

You think that i am saying that Because God emptied Himself he is no longer Himeslf.

After God (Jesus Christ) emptied Himself of all that was attributed essentially as part of himself, he was still himself.

Hope this helps.

Shalom,
g

stubble + hay.

fit only for the fire.

Why are you all debating something that the Church stopped all debate on in the 4th century?

Consider this for a moment.

Are we men of the world that when someone touches our teachings that we lash back? Muslims and Catholics do that very well, but it should not be so with us. The reason why we lash back is because we are apart of that ancient sect called the Pharisees, who uphold the traditions of men than the word of God.

It's not important how we view the Godhead. God is not at all offended if you see Him as One, Two, Three or Seven. He wants you and I to do one thing. Hear the word of Lord.

Luke 9:35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

Hi Phanetheus,

You said, "After God (Jesus Christ) emptied Himself of all that was attributed essentially as part of himself, he was still himself."

Were you referring to Christ's incarnation?

Do you believe the Lord changed from his divine form into a human form when he "made himself nothing"?

I've been discussing this on crosswalk.com and your statement sounded identical to some of the things I was saying on that forum.

Thanks,
naatmi (notme)

The Father is the Deity subsisting in the prime, un-originated and most absolute manner, or the Deity in its direct existence. The Son is the Deity generated by God's understanding, or having an idea of Himself and subsisting in that idea.

Sounds as if Edwards is saying that Christ had a beginning. That at some time he was generated by the Father who is un-originated. That would actually go against what is normally taught as the Trinity doctrine. Normally people would say that Christ is "eternally begotten of the Father". However, that statemet is an oximoron and an impossiblility. Being begotten implies a begetting. To be eternally begotten means for something to happened that never happened.

Something that is, at its very simplest, a doctrine that we can never fully understand.

"When you read any great mystery, recorded in holy Writ, you are to prostrate your Reason to Divine Revelation."
-Thomas Ken

I know I'm entering this discussion a little late but these are statements I have a problem with. People will say that if you do not adhear to this "mystery" that they cannot realy explain then you are outside of "orthodox" Christianity and in some cases even considered as one who will go to hell. Never mind the fact that they cannot reconcile all the verses on the matter nor can they explain some of the problems with the doctrine of the Trinity. It will always be put for as the "mystery" doctrine that you cannot really understand but you must adhear to and believe to be saved.

I find that the amount of time the apostles spent preaching the trinity to be very telling on it's importance in salvation. Just go through every apostolic preaching event recorded in the book of Acts and see how often the trinity is presented as a doctrine that is necessary for salvation. See how important it was for them to present this mysterious doctrine to their hearers so they could make sure they are really saved and in agreement with the Christians who would tell them what to believe around 325 A.D. In fact, it may surprise many of you that Christ is never even once preached as almight God in the book of Acts. Jesus is always preached as a man, the Son of Man, or the Son of God, the man sent by God, the Just one, Prince and Savior..ect. It's interesting that today if one emphesis these truths over the preaching of the Trinity (when presenting these's things) it's almost considered heresey.

I wonder how many people will be guilty of consigning people to hell for them not believing in a doctrine that they cannot explain and that they apostles did not explain in their apostolic preaching. What could be a greater crime that condemn a soul that God has already accepted....

Hi Travis,

so that by God's thinking of the Deity must certainly be generated. Hereby there is another person begotten, there is another Infinite Eternal Almighty and most holy and the same God, the very same Divine nature.

That makes no sense....at least to me. That God, by His own thinking, generated another Almighty who is a distinct different person but the same God? And if the "generated" Almighty came from the "ungenerated" Almighty then there was a time when the person of the generated Almighty did not exist. He at least didn't exist in being a conscience sepereate person. That is the logical conclusion of what Edwards said in the above quote.

God the Son bore the Wrath of God the Father on the Cross and died,the Son was raised from the dead by the Spirit and "was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord" Romans 1:4

So if the Son bore the Wrath of God the Father then who bore the wrath of God the Son? Was the Son (eternal almighty) not equally offeneded at our sin? Was our sin only against the Father and therefore the Son was not sinned against when man sinned? And what about the Holy Spirit? Was He not offeneded at our sin as well? If the Fathers wrath was satisfied then who satisfied the wrath of the Son and the Spirit? Could the Father haved died for the Son or the Spirit have died for the Father? Was it just a choice of which persons of the divine Godhead would play which parts OR is our sin against the Father and we have to be reconciled to Him?

Blessings in Christ,

Sean

by naatmi on 2010/9/26 6:34:23

Hi Phanetheus,

You said, "After God (Jesus Christ) emptied Himself of all that was attributed essentially as part of himself, he was still himself."

Were you referring to Christ's incarnation?

Do you believe the Lord changed from his divine form into a human form when he "made himself nothing"?
------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and yes. He made the earth and all that is in it out of nothing.
__________________________________________________________
naatmi:

I've been discussing this on crosswalk.com and your statement sounded identical to some of the things I was saying on that forum.
------------------------------------------------------------
Haven't been there, yet DV, if time affords, will look this week.
__________________________________________________________
n:

Thanks,
naatmi (notme)
-----------------------------------------------------------
ok, we can leave the Arabian religion out of this, once and for all settled.

When first responding to you back in April was it???
i thought notme and then something just clicked in what you posted sounding oh so (that other religion) it was thought your posting handle was relative.

See what thinking does for ya' sometimes???

i should have just asked.

The LORD bless you and keep you.
The LORD make his face to shine upon you
and be gracious unto you.
The LORD guide your path
and guard your way.
Amen.
Amen.

g

NewCovWinDor,
(oh little town in Iowa, how still we see thee lie?)
===================================

NCWD:
Phanetheus, I appreciate your openness of heart, but a persistent leaning to the works of the Law is evident. Your views of the Godhead seem to be symptomatic of what appears to be the larger problem of a "flat-Bible" understanding. Perhaps others have brought this to you before; I don't know.
--------------------------------------------------------------
P:

H onest
O pen
T ransparent
remains the issue within

i read the words 'flat Bible' and thought, as opposed to a biblical sphere?

No, nobody has ever brought this to my attention. In fact, the term/label was looked up ...to no avail.

So, i asked around and got 3 different answers.
Maybe some of what you mean is below?

i am Flat Bible as in:

~all the pieces are a congruent whole, everything is valid for doctrine, reproof and correction to thoughroughly furnish us unto every good work.

~the OT is basis for the NT (being a commentary of the Old). If it were abolished, there is no foundation nor basis for the New.

~It all points to Jesus, and we cannot pick and choose determining what God's will is for us, because we have the answer in black and white, from Genesis to Revelation: Jesus Christ, King over all Kings, and Lord/Master over all . . .
(whether or not God has brought this fact to our attention.)

What you are calling 'works of the Law' is what?

Here's my perspective:

God first made us and then gave us the operator's manual (Torah) to tell us how things will work best for us. Jesus Christ has brought Law to full reality in His sacrafice. What once was hope in sacrafice, by animal proxy, became the completion of God's cutting all former covenants (which all were of promise until God's representative, Jesus Christ came and represented both God and man in the perfect offering of Himself). Now, in dying to thinking something of me can ever keep the Law, and recognizing Jesus let me die with Him in His sacrafice, he has made it possible for me to walk in His Spirit and so meet the very spirit of the Law and not just the letter.

The Spirit is the substance, and the written code is the shadow.

People can make a shadow play of whatever they whim, but the substance is not available in this to make it a reality. Only in our identification with Jesus crucified, entombed, and resurrected, do we experience life in His Spirit . . . and the benefits gleaned through the Law is part of this.

Are you an anarchist?

____________________________________
NCWD:
I fear for you, in your seeming to emphasize that Sunday worship and other things are an aspect of the "harlot church". This is classical Adventist doctrine, and has its roots in the ecstatic movements of the 19th century.

I know, I'm getting a little off subject!
--------------------------------------------------------------
P:
Well, off subject or not, it's appreciated.

i am hardly adventist. About 20 years ago, their teachings were looked into and there were things relative to Jesus Christ and prophecy that just did not sit right, though the exact 'whats' are not even remembered.

Harlot church was coined here after studying into Martin Luther/ John Calvin after seeing Brother Tom write and considering his good words. IT was first found that their reformation, in their own statements, was not a full and complete break from RCism. So, all the early councils of the Roman Catholic were researched, and these doctrinal decrees were compared to scripture.

There are many things very wrong, but three which seem to be at the root of it all are:

~Heaven(?) or Hell
~Trinity
~Negating the: observance of Mosaic Law, and the 4th commandment.

re: 7th day adventists
It was because we agreed Shabbat --
(that word, without the extra B means seven) was consecrated and designated by Godhead as a day to recognize our Creator/Source and a repose from all things He has given as for man
-- that the 7th day folk were looked into.
God gave us six days to do things, and 'betrothed' (STS , but pretty literally) Himself to the 7th to be part of and bless this observance.

According to promises regarding Sabbath, God has blessed me..
... and no man, nor his comments contrary to this, could ever superceed what God has proven in this life through obeying Him through this. He has blessed me through stronger relationship in Him, which just naturally flows out to others. He feeds me with the Heritage of Yakov, and i do ride the High Places of the earth.
(many just say i'm just lucky, but before i did this one thing, i was never so lucky. In fact, if it weren't for bad luck, i would have had no luck at all.

It's thought that the thinking of being a 7th dayer is only because Shabbat is recognized and recieved as the gift God gave it to be: remembering Him alone and seperate from everything He made for our use (with thanksgiving).

____________________________________
NCWD:
The Old Testament has a valid place in the Canon of Scripture, and Paul addresses the subject numerous times in the New Testament... especially the books of Galatians and Hebrews (please, everyone, don't skewer me for hinting that I think Paul wrote Hebrews! :)). These events and laws are examples that point us to the New Testament consummation (1 Corinthians 10:11; Galatians 3:24,25).
--------------------------------------------------------------
P:
You can skewer opinionated ole' gregg.
i suppose that it was Paul who wrote Hebrews. (look at the end note and check Paul's history. It just hints, but the hint is rather strong.)
____________________________________
NCWD:
An example of this "consummation concept" is the "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" doctrine in the Old Testament (Exodus 21:24). This was an example of God's justice, and was commanded to show us His unswerving Truth. But, Jesus told us in Matthew 5:38-42 that we are to "resist not evil". This is one of many, many examples of Old Testament commands that were clarified and put in their proper context by Jesus, our Messiah!
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the context of the synoptics, 'returning good for evil' cannot be left out this passage from Matthew speaking about giving more than expected, rather than taking.

When thinking about these things, i think Jesus knew that the issue near to the heart of his hearers is "what will make me right (in my own eyes), and Jesus gave them a rude awakening. He was not emphasising the expectations from punishment, but rather expectations from returning good for evil.

Kinda' like, "there is no closure for you guys in exacting equality. Here, let's level the playing field... and you guys walk the high way instead of responding to others according to your expectations, straighten up, and act like you are God's child.

All this to say that the laws ordinances (rulings) against us were nailed to the cross, and we best walk in that forgiveness towards others.

Jesus was not invoking a doormat policy. Jesus example is retaliating with good in exchange for evil.

OK, enough with these comments. "Consummation concept is something that will have to be looked into. (this is new to me too.)

I believe God's standard remains as written.
Jesus made the validity or the Law that much more valid rather than negating it. He was for it and never against it.

It's the ordinances (against us) that are nailed to the cross, and those who fail to participate in this gift of Jesus Christ will not suffer an eye for an eye nor a tooth for a tooth, but hell itself, where the worm dieth not, and the fire is never quenched.
(Talk about consummation, hunh?)

i think i know what you are driving at so how about explaining Mt. 5.17-20 and Mt 7.21-23, particularily 7.23.

I'll look at I Cor. and Gal. again again though, to better see what you are pointing at, but are you sure you have the surrounding issues intact when you propose 'consumation?
____________________________________
NCWD
I feel the above similarities to Adventism and neo-Judaisim clearly puts some of your conclusions on the Godhead under suspicion.
--------------------------------------------------------------
i'm hardly neo-jewish.
I do not make any effort to observe anything out of tradition. Rather, the scriptures are reason enough to act and God is my source.
(Eph. 5.1-2)

i am not 7th day adventist, unless observing Shabbat makes me one.

I really do want to know what exactly it is that is so suspicious regarding 'conclusions(?)' regarding godhead because of judaism?

If it's any consolation, i was brought up within Protestantism: Missionary (and Christian) Alliance, Nazarene, Baptist, Evangelical Free . . . to name the more predominant influences of upbringing ...and even went through Confirmation via the Westminster Chatechism . . .

. . . then Jesus saved me, baptised me in His Holy Spirit, and everything changed ---constantly witnessing about Jesus, with various gifts operating as God tells me to do . . . moreso today than when beginning in Him..

Have i been misleading?
(i may not be the swiftest in openly expressing my opinions, according to the controversy seen springing up whenever i lay doings/beliefs on the table from here.)
i lay things on the table, but often fail to show all the details.

Some people avoid me.
Being an open, no holes barred, nothing up my sleeve, calling a spade a spade, kinda' guy they shy away . . . especially those who do not want to hear about Jesus.

Here on SI, i'll state what i believe and why, respond to whoeverybody i can if time affords, and learn many things as a result. Personal views have been changed as well as become more pristine here because of everyone who writes at SI.
____________________________________

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.
-Colossians 2:16-19
--------------------------------------------------------------
Now, i never told anyone that they had to do as i do, though there is no hesitation in telling others to copy Jesus' example.

How any man walks in faith(fulness) towards God is between them and their Maker.

I never said that anybody had to, but that they should.

God did not give the Law to harm us. Walking in His standard with a circumcised heart reveals to me more and more how much God really loves us.
(Jn. 14.15. 21, 23)

My (personal) firm conviction is that God in/is love, through His grace gave us Torah and Himself--Christ Jesus,--
grace, and grace upon grace,
so that we could live a godly life.
It's all a matter of what promises one will believe (aka: walk in) and so recieve.
____________________________________
NCWD:
Based on this Scripture, another danger I see in this forum is that we are placing more emphasis on our personal experiences than what the plain Word of God teaches, and what our trusted brethren counsel us. It is good to decide things for ourselves personally, but it must also be tempered by taking counsel from others (Proverbs 11:14). This is not the Catholic route of "Tradition First", but rather a plea to consider what each has to say before we cast it out as "anathema".
--------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed, and even after tried by scripture, i still will not (towards or against personal convictions) anathematize it.
(Often there are pieces to this big picture, that if thrown out, will make the puzzle incomplete. i don't want to wish i had listened.)
____________________________________

We are attempting to interpret the eternal Word of God through our own experiences, and we know that "God is true, and every man a liar". Therefore we must be extremely cautious of our own deceptive hearts (Jeremiah 17:9). Listening to counsel from other brethren is not a sign of weakness, but rather wisdom (Proverbs 9:9). Our own desires to "be right" or to "win" will cloud our judgment easily, which is why I NEED the input of my brothers.
--------------------------------------------------------------

i come to the table more firm in conviction, speaking what i know, (hopefully only ...but i slip up too.)
What i do not know is how my heart has decieved me (and it always does: if not with the wrong thing, in trying to make me think i am right just because i may have been revealed the right thing.)

Here it's not about winning.
It's about greater clarity regarding what God says and does . . . because that's my Abba and my big brother we're talking about.

Counsel from other bretheren without God's counsel, the scriptures, as the source, is questionable at best.

The world's opinion is virtually ignored.

It's been done for so long now --(ever since that first outpouring of His Spirit in this life, over 30 years ago)-- that i don't even know if i ever take any human literally at their word. i just don't know how literally a person is taken, unless we have a one on one relationship, or God tells me differently than what 'i have chosen' to assume. Scripture just comes to mind whatever the means of communication, kinda' like a watchguard towards discernment. It's like human opinion and doing sits second to Biblical counsel via the Holy Spirit.
This is why scripture proof is asked for when it seems unsupportive ( or non-existent) regarding what another says.

Sometimes around a meal, the things out that are brought up here --(only things i write and scripture or comment that stands opposite (no names are used save mine)-- are carried on with in discussion. This happens with both family and other followers of Jesus.

i have been corrected a time or three through this.

Anybody can be blunt and to the point with me.
You will be hardpressed to offend me. If soft or harsh words don't work, it's nothing that a cattle prod and a baseball bat will not solve.

God Bless you all,
gregg

by MyVeryHeart on 2010/9/25 11:57:58

Phanetheus,

I am concerned for you. For several reasons.

1) I am concerned that your love is growing cold.
------------------------------------------------------------
P:
How so?

I fellowship with both the Lord and other believers more than i ever have. Some even share all things as common as my family is learning to do better all the time.
__________________________________________________________

i really am not aguing with anybody per se.

Rather, this is a way of getting a clearer view of what the scriptures say.

Wanna hear something that will floor you ... and Snuf alluded to it:

All seven Spirits of God sent into the earth are in and of Jesus Christ. All are Holy. (see Rev. 5.6)

------------------------------------------------------------
that Edwards statement just doesn't fly. It's flawed in several ways, starting with the things in it that fly in the face of what scripture actually say.

The living abiding Word of God, Jesus Christ was not created, for starters.
____________________________________________________________
MVH:
"the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us." Romans 5:5

Rom. 5.5 is a favorite.

BTW, i don't look at Baptism in the Holy Spirit or any outpouring as an event seperate from salvation. This is parcel with it. Obedience is key.
(that might give light to perspective from here???)

Agapeo,
g

edited: error

by live4jc on 2010/9/24 19:58:23

In John 14:16, Jesus promised that the disciples would be left with 'another Comforter'.

The question, could be asked, "Another, other than whom ? " Jesus, right ? To me this suggests, that just as the Father is distinct in personality from the Son- though both are God...so is the Holy Spirit.
____________________________________________________________

In the prophecy of Jn. 14-16 Jesus speaks that the Holy Spirit in relation to Himself.
Attributes are identical . . .

yet why is the Holy Spirit better after he is no longer present as their comforter?

Because He (Jesus) is in our Father and our Father is in Him, and will be/is in them/us.

Are you getting somewhere with me?

Hope so.

gregg

(Just wanted to bump my questions as the thead seemed to fall by the wayside)

Hi Travis,

so that by God's thinking of the Deity must certainly be generated. Hereby there is another person begotten, there is another Infinite Eternal Almighty and most holy and the same God, the very same Divine nature.

That makes no sense....at least to me. That God, by His own thinking, generated another Almighty who is a distinct different person but the same God? And if the "generated" Almighty came from the "ungenerated" Almighty then there was a time when the person of the generated Almighty did not exist. He at least didn't exist in being a conscience sepereate person. That is the logical conclusion of what Edwards said in the above quote.

God the Son bore the Wrath of God the Father on the Cross and died,the Son was raised from the dead by the Spirit and "was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord" Romans 1:4

So if the Son bore the Wrath of God the Father then who bore the wrath of God the Son? Was the Son (eternal almighty) not equally offeneded at our sin? Was our sin only against the Father and therefore the Son was not sinned against when man sinned? And what about the Holy Spirit? Was He not offeneded at our sin as well? If the Fathers wrath was satisfied then who satisfied the wrath of the Son and the Spirit? Could the Father haved died for the Son or the Spirit have died for the Father? Was it just a choice of which persons of the divine Godhead would play which parts OR is our sin against the Father and we have to be reconciled to Him?

Blessings in Christ,

Sean

But the LORD was pleased To crush Him... (Isaiah 53:10)

Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. (Genesis 22:10)

and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf. (2 Corinthians 5:15)

Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand,he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." (Revelation 14:9-12)

Could you elaberate or give some commentary on how these verse apply to what you are trying to say? Sorry, I understand that these verses are relevant to the converstation but not quite sure what you are trying to say.

Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, AND from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love. 2 John 1:3

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath BOTH the Father and the Son. 2 John 1:9

These are the verses God gave me. I have said all God will allow me to say upon the topic of his divinity at the moment. I dare not speak concerning the things of God without his blessing. Peace unto you.

In Christ Jesus,

Travis

OK Travis. I do hope that is indeed the case. I've often found, concerning this topic, that when people get asked to explain things they cannot that they often choose to bow out of the conversation...or they fall back on the statement that supposedly makes up for all the questions they are unable to answer simply by stating "it's a mystery".

May the Lord bless you Travis...

IN Christ,

Sean

Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, AND from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love. 2 John 1:3

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath BOTH the Father and the Son. 2 John 1:9

Amen Pilgrim.. can you explain what you think these verses are saying in relation to the nature of God or the Trinity?

Travis sed:

God the Son bore the Wrath of God the Father on the Cross and died,the Son was raised from the dead by the Spirit and "was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord" Romans 1:4

The Spirit of Holiness has to be the Spirit of Christ Jesus.

Jesus said that HE lay down His life and HE picks it back up again.

I keep on going through reference after reference and nothing contradicts what has been revealed to me. Not that i doubted for one moment; but that i was looking if there were any grounds for others in saying the Holy Spirit is something other than Christ the Lord.

And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
~ Rev. 5.6

[SIDENOTE: THE SEVEN SPIRITS ARE ONE, AND THESE 7 ASPECTS ARE FOUND IN THE ADMONISHMENTS TO THE 7 CHURCHES MENTIONED IN REV. 1.20 - 3.20]

Onvorten!

Little children,
it is the last time:
and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life. These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
~ 1Jn. 2.18-28

(Here John is saying that the Spirit's prompting and annointing is none other than Christ. We are to abide (remain fixed) in Him.)

How much clearer could this be folks?

Every reference so far has only confirmed convictions regarding this. All the scriptures looked at say this in one way or another.

Now, show me in the Bible where it says that this Spirit of the Holy One is:

1. Another person, rather than the spirit of the Lord, Christ Jesus
2. Seperate from Christ Jesus the Lord
3 Distinct(ly different) from Christ?

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ the Lord.

Who, using scripture, can show otherwise?????
(Please leave all unscripturally founded opinions on the floormat before we enter into further discussions on this matter.)

In the meantime,
This is going to be worked out and written out in detail with many scriptural proofs and it will be posted here on SI.

Either speak now or hold your peace.

El Elyon
and
Yahweh Yahshuvah
bless you all,

gregg

edited: towards clarity

Phillip says:

(re:Heb. 1: . . . )
The very first verse speaks to the Old That is done away, that which is the Law and the Prophets. Then gives the reason for the putting away the Law and the Prophets, to bring into view the Son of God, who is now the only One we have to do with. He now speaks through the Son, not the Law or Prophets. "For as HE Is in this world so are we".
------------------------------------------------------------
Brother:
Neither here nor anywhere else does it say that the Law and the Prophets have been done away with. People can misinterpret scripture to say this, but then they can't use their whole Bible.

When Paul wrote "ALL SCIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof and correction that the man of God may be completely furnished unto every GOOD WORK" the New Testament had not even been completely written yet. It certainly was not yet compiled into one book. Paul was talking about the Old Testament...
...and you say it's done away????

What about Jesus words?

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your GOOD WORKS, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
~ Mt. 5.16-19

Or what of Ephesians 2.8-10?
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

For we are his workmanship, CREATED IN CHRIST JESUS UNTO GOOD WORKS, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

'GOOD WORKS'
IS ALWAYS
in reference to doing
--of what both the Law and the Prophets declare--
obeying God through Christ Jesus.
============================================================

"How can anyone not see what Paul is speaking of in all His epistles? It is not revealed by man or study of the scriptures for it is said there is no life in them. This can only be revealed by the Holy Spirit whom this Christ in you is . . .
. . . Revealed in him. Not by man or word or deed, but by the Spirit of Christ in Him through the teaching of the Holy Spirit.
------------------------------------------------------------

Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is something other than Christ in us?

There is one mediator, intercessor, and advocate between God and man, Jesus Christ.
There are not two.

We are to abide in Christ Jesus, and where are we told to abide in the Holy Spirit?

You make me curious sometimes,
other times straighten me out,
and now i'm considering the ramifications of
the Holy Spirit
being
none other than
Christ Jesus our Lord,

gregg

edited: deleted a repeat of sign-off name

I believe you are right; the revelation of the Three in One comes by the Spirit to those who are themselves partakers of the same grace.

Actually the revelation about God and His nature should come from what the Spirit has already revealed through the scriptures. It is not some mystical thing that must be revealed outside of what is written.

If you are saying that the nature of God is only understood by the Spirit because it's not plainly taught in scripture...then that's the same things the Mormans say. They say you will know that the book of Morman is true because the Spirit will confirm it.

by davidc on 2010/9/29 14:17:21

Phanetheus says
[SIDENOTE: THE SEVEN SPIRITS ARE ONE, AND THESE 7 ASPECTS ARE FOUND IN THE ADMONISHMENTS TO THE 7 CHURCHES MENTIONED IN REV. 1.20 - 3.20
But in Rev 5, the Lamb has the seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth, not to the 7 churches.
The 7 eyes as the seven spirits of God refer to Zecheriah chap 3 where Christ the BRANCH is promised. And to Zech chap 4 where the coming Christ is seen as Zerubbabel.
"For who hath despised the day of small things? for they shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel with those seven; they are the eyes of the Lord, which run to and fro through the whole earth." Zech 4:10 (KJV)

------------------------------------------------------------
p:
The seven eyes spoke to seven churches as in the end of each admonishment, it plainly states, "...Hear what the spirit is saying to the churches..."

The churches being on earth through the to and fro of the eyes, they are observed, exhorted, rebuked, and corrected.

__________________________________________________________
davidc:
And to John's first letter
You say "Here John is saying that the Spirit's prompting and annointing is none other than Christ. We are to abide (remain fixed) in Him."
John writes "Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father"
ie if the Holy Spirit abide in you, you will abide in the Son and in the Father...
------------------------------------------------------------
????? "ie if the Holy Spirit abide in you, you will abide in the Son and in the Father."?????

This passage does not say "Holy Spirit" anywhere, but refers to the Son and the Father, so what else can we add to this?
__________________________________________________________

davidc:

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."
The annointing is the Holy Spirit which they had received at their new birth, and He abideth in them, just as Jesus promised them:
"Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you" John 14:17
------------------------------------------------------------

Since Jesus is the one truth, you are in a roundabout way saying that the Holy Spirit is the spirit of Christ Jesus.
__________________________________________________________

davidc:

Don't fight against the Word of God, but receive it as a child and feed .
Paul prays for the Epesians: "That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith" Eph 3:16-17
The proper place for the Holy Spirit is is our inner man. The proper place for Christ is in our hearts.
David
------------------------------------------------------------

i'm not fighting anything, and i crave the Word of God more than food and sleep.

i'm seeing something new develop here through concourse with you though brother.
Please, if you have time, define the constitution of man, based on both the Old and New testament in congruency, if possible.

From what has been learned, the heart is the inner man. God's Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, the Lord is the Spirit who speaks to where our affections lie (aka:heart) (volition/perception): attitudes, intellect, feelings, memory, etc.

God Bless you,
gregg

p.s. Have you listened to the sermon by Bill McLeod or checked the history of origins for the dogmatic THEORY of the Holy Spirit being something other than (=anti-) Christ?

Phillip quoting Barnes:

" . . . (4.) It cannot mean that the Holy Spirit, the Third Person in the Trinity, showed that Jesus was the Son of God by raising him from the dead, because that act is nowhere attributed to him . . .

Wrong!

Jesus Attributed this work as He Himself doing it.

As far as the rest goes, it was not the spirit of Jesus Christ that was crucified but the body.

When Jesus came to earth to redeem all thing to himself, he emptied Himself from all that is God of Him . . .
. . .thus the need for the Holy Spirit, as a seperated aspect of Himself.

Agapeo,
gregg

When Jesus came to earth to redeem all thing to himself, he emptied Himself from all that is God of Him . . .
. . .thus the need for the Holy Spirit, as a seperated aspect of Himself.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. JESUS did NOT empty himself of who is is,
He always was, is and will be the eternal Som of God.
Becoming a son of man did nothing to change this.

by Notdarkyet on 2010/9/29 17:00:56

When Jesus came to earth to redeem all thing to himself, he emptied Himself from all that is God of Him . . .
. . .thus the need for the Holy Spirit, as a seperated aspect of Himself.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. JESUS did NOT empty himself of who is is,
He always was, is and will be the eternal Som of God.
Becoming a son of man did nothing to change this.

------------------------------------------------------------
What we need here is some clarity.
This seems identical to what i just went through with Renouncer.

OK , obviously there is misunderstanding and i wrote it wrong so here we go:
(with scripture to clarify, this is what is known truth here)

Jesus Christ existed as the Word from the very beginning.
(Jn. 1.1)

He came to earth as "God with us."
(Is. 7.14 / Mt. 1.23)

He was concieved by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin.
(Mt. 1.20 / Is. 7.14)

He let go of being God to become a man, completely emptying himself of all that was God in Him to become a man.
(Phil. 2.5-7)
He became completely human. Note that through His ministry on earth, he claimed no authority for what He taught, miracles worked, or anything else of His own authority, and pointed to our Father as the source.
(Jn. 14.10, 28)
[in fact, scriptures point out limits to what Jesus could do, not only because of obedience, but because of his humaness (Mk. 6.5). God is not controlled by man's belief or unbelief.]

Just because he completely emptied himself, he did not become non-God. He was God and became completely a man...

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." (I Tim. 3.16)

This is really quite a bit more serious than most people realize, because the scriptures label antichrist any idea that Jesus was not fully human:

"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."
(I Jn. 4.2-3)

Sincerely,
gregg

p.s. The Father did not declare Jesus the Son of God until after He was recieved up into glory:
Logos yes;
His right arm/hand, yes;
Jesus Christ, yes;
etc...

... Son of God always?
Where does the scripture say this?

He was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.
He was ordained Son of God after His resurrection.
(Some people recognized He was "The Son of God, Messiah" before His resurrection,
but He was not (en)titled until after being recieved into glory.)

Hi Phillip,

The dogmatic theory of trinity does not fly, and the proof of Richard Phillips is shortsighted to say the least.

Every attribute of the Son is stated in the Bible as of the father as well.

Scripture however states that the attributes of the Holy Spirit (of Christ Jesus who is Lord) are the same as Jesus and these are attributed of and from Jesus, not the Father.

There is one mediator, advocate, and intercessor between God and man, Jesus Christ('s body and soul in heaven, His very spirit in the earth, in heaven (and being of Him, in us as well) is He who fills all in all.

Goodnight ya'll,
and God bless,
gregg

For Gehenna is
the denial of the dogma of trinity

wow...could you point me to a scripture that verifies this? I couldn't find one BUT I could find a verse in Revelations and Galations that condemns a man for adding to God's word and changing His gospel.

I'll ask this again, go to the book of Acts and show me where Trinitarian preaching was preached as a necessary doctrine to believe to be saved. If it's not there, which it isnt, and you are requiring it for one to be "really" saved, then are you not guilty of the galation error by adding and changing the gospel which must be believed? Even if the Trinity is sound biblical doctrine would you not be anamatha for requiring something for salvation that God doesn't?

Bretheren,

i am sorry for not being clear enough when responding, in a way probably never intended, Ryan pointed this out to me. Thank you.

Praying myself to sleep last night, at the last moments of aware rational consciousness, these words rang out:
"This is my beloved Son, in whom i am well pleased."

i woke early God calling me to pray for the Dallas event, but after being told this, i was told to look on SI at the Rabbi thread . . .
(and i didn't even recognize there was one having devoted what extra time is available to this thread.)

. . . and that i needed to be clearer in what was written. (My constant editing of posts is clear enough evidence of this.)

I am very sorry that over the past months i have not stated everything in complete clarity.

Renouncer,

We are begotten of the Holy Spirit after repentance and conversion, following into this begetting baptism into Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ had the Holy Spirit within Him from conception.

He is Immanuel, God with us in the flesh, who emptied himself of His own Godhood so that we men could be reconciled to God.

God giving the sign of the (everywhere present)Spirit (of God) descending in the form of a dove was an indication to men that in following in Jesus footsteps, we would be baptised by Him with His --( Jesus = God )-- Holy Spirit.

Phillip,

There are still a few inconguencies in what you are saying, yet you have given me more scripture (and commentaries) to mull over and meditate on regarding the issue of this thread. Thanks.

Dr. Brown is a favorite preacher here though Mr. White has been heard to say things that do not agree with the totality of scripture --(Not that i haven't)--, and the debate will soon be heard out, seeing that shortly, a little time will be available for this.

Burn 4Christ and
ManofGod0000,
(who got us going on this again again)
Neil,
jimp,
davidc,
John,
Pilgrim,
naatmi,
Travis,
Chris,
Grant,
NotDarkYet,

The concern is known from all the words written and i really do not know what to say but thank you.

sscott and i are probably moreso in the same boat than most, and after going to the Library, i might just understand whether or not this is so better.

TOWARDS CLARITY:

In complete ideology based on current understanding of scripture, rather than stressing that the Holy Spirit is none other than Jesus
(' spirit, who is the only middle-person, one to appeal to, and intercessor
--( the only go-between and attourney for us)--
between God and man) ),
i know that i know that the Father has taken up abode with me in this Holy One, Jesus Christ in me.

God is hardly distant from me.
His voice --(the voice of Jesus is heard and communicated with through living, in whatever is done or not done.)

Scripture nowhere says that the Holy Spirit is a person seperate and distinct from Jesus Christ.

Rather, the Bible says this Spirit is:
~the Lord (Jesus being the one and only Lord)
~the (spirit) of the Holy One (Jesus being this very person prophetic fulfillment)
~the Spirit of Christ (Jesus being the Messiah (aka: Christ))
...and attributes are identical to Jesus and not a different person.

We also find many references, that in comparison, state that the Holy Spirit did something, and then in another place, Jesus is attributed to doing the same thing.

The apostles never taught that a trinity existed, so what gives us the right to?

Why now,
with these things laid out in this thread,
--in merely a scratch the surface manner--
is it so wrong for me to believe what the Bible says over what traditionalism of the apostate heirarchies have claimed for over 16 hundred years.

God Bless you all.

Lord willing, i'll be back,
but how soon is not known.

In the meantime,
alot of studying
and listening
will be done.

Again, i am sorry if i have not been clear enough.

Nobody will convince this one here of anything apart from scriptural proof...
(...and i am learning all the time.)

gregg

p.s.

joeSOC,

That paraphrase of Florensky is kix!
i'm still laughing.

The living God is a Trinity and no amount of scripture twisting is going to change that.

THis is neither an argument or even up for debate, this is especially a revelation that a human being must get from God alone.

That's interesting. So far I've noticed,in this thread, that no matter what persuasion someone has about the Godhead they all same the exact same thing above.

by davidc on 2010/9/30 15:52:07

Hi Gregg, welcome back
------------------------------------------------------------
Hi David,
Quick turnabout at work let me free early.

____________________________________________________________
"if you have time, define the constitution of man, based on both the Old and New testament in congruency, if possible.
From what has been learned, the heart is the inner man. God's Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, the Lord is the Spirit who speaks to where our affections lie (aka:heart) (volition/perception): attitudes, intellect, feelings, memory, etc."

I really don't have the ability to do what you ask, perhaps someone else could.
I think this could be part of your difficulty in not believing that the Holy Spirit and Christ are different persons of the Godhead. You believe them to be the same as you believe that the inner man and the heart are the same.
------------------------------------------------------------
Total agreement here, and that is why it was asked in the first place . . .

. . . and pleasse, really think about this before anything else is continued in this post:

Different life experiences form perspectives from which develops perception.

Many people adhere to cultural norms because it seems safe.
The church as we know it is such a culture, the Body of Christ.

We all come from varying backgrounds yet attempt to find unity through conformity; however, conformity and blind acceptance to things not written as taught in the Bible is walking in the traditions of men. Whether what is accepted is actually the truth or less than truth, this is often done with doctrine, dogma, theology, theories, opinions, and so on.

How many are following human traditions --(making the Word of God of no effect to them)-- and how many will meditate on scripture til' revelation from God comes, and other scriptures begin to reveal a greater congruency to the whole of them?

Our knowledge and understanding of God
((and man) and the world around us)
is limited to how much we understand Genesis to Revelation. This is God's Message and revelation breathed out to man.

To most around me, unless directly instructed by God's Holy Spirit, for the often, i will not say to them things expressed here,
due to the cultural/experience/conformity/perspective/perception issue.

You say something that sounds whack and most shut-down, putting on blinders and inserting ear plugs.

You say something after that one (seeming) error, word spreads, and people just automatically hit the off switch whenever you say something.

Rather, i work with each according to their point of understanding in God's Word, namely Jesus Christ.

It is because this issue is not taught by the apostles that it is brought up, looking for greater clarity, from sensible giving forgiving loving brothers and sisters here on SI, to whom our faith is much more than a 10 minute devotional, church on Sunday, or a brief prayer . . . and off they go to other things.

Some no doubt will greatly oppose and at the same time not hear you out. Others will debate. Some will just quit reading.

No doubt what comes from these lips and fingertips furrows eyebrows, both here and abroad . . . especially when expression is of scripture, or perspective/perception of it, that they may not have even considered, particularily in relation to Jesus Christ.
__________________________________________________________

davidc:

I believe that my inner man or my soul is where the Holy Spirit abides. There He speaks to me of the love of God, and bears witness that I am a child of God through that one baptism. Once my soul was sold unto sin and I was an enemy of God. But Jesus paid the price to buy back my rebellious soul, and now I belong to Him. The Holy Spirit constantly tells me so. He gives me power to live. He is a full and flowing river of life in my soul. So for me, the inner man is, as you say, part of man's constitution.

The heart however is not strictly part of our constitution in the way that our soul, our spirit or our body are. The heart is the moral centre of our lives. To use a comparison - we would say that a book consists of a spine, cover and printed pages; It also has a title and an author, and usually a plot or theme. All are aspects of the book, but not in the same way. So the heart of man is his centre. It is where his treasure is. It is not physical like the body or spiritual like the soul, it is moral. And this is where Jesus dwells. When He saved me, He gave me a new moral centre as the old was corrupt, deceitful and desperately wicked (I tell you the truth). He dwells in my heart by faith. The righteousness of God is my centre and Christ is all my treasure. Day by day He makes me to grow in love. And this, all by the power of the Holy Spirit which works in the inner man.

I am not completely satisfied with what I have written that it is thoroughly scriptural. Perhaps some would say otherwise.
------------------------------------------------------------

Far be it from me to tell you your experience of God in this way is not God at all, or something else so foolish.

God reveals Himself to each person relative to their understanding, life-situation, perception and so on. God never expects us to immediately come to Him on His level, knowing all things and so on.
(In Revelation we see a pronouncement twice about the same thing: that "the devil decieved the whole world" of which everybody has been or is still a part of that system.)
God draws us to Himself while we are still decieved, and gradually, here a little, there a little, depending on our humility and fear of Him, he shows us the hows and whys of living in His Spirit . . . untangling the mess we have made of our perception.

i write from personal study (in relation to living), and with this you may not agree, so you will be told what has been taught to me through study of OT and New, and personal experience will be left alone at this point.

(It's prayed this will be understood to avoid further confusion.)

Hebrew:

Ruach = (the whirlwind of) feelings, emotions, and attitudes

Nephesh = (intellection) memory, rationale, reason and intuition.

Neschamah = (the body of light which) provides breath, consciousness, and the ability to commune.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Greek:

Psyche = soul

Pneuma = Breath and/or spirit.

When the Bible speaks of heart, it has always come to be recognized as something relative to affections. So, often, instead of saying heart (which most do not clearly understand) i will use "seat of affections" alternately with the word heart.

(Now, Watchman Nee has a three volume book called "The Spiritual Man", which although in some ways is laced with oriental mysticism, for the most part takes the perspective of looking at man as spirit, soul, and body which is the greek psychocosmic perspective. There are few errors in the books doctrine, except perhaps where he claims tha intuition is part of the spirit, whereas i understand it to be on the fringe of the reasoning faculties, even as imagination/memory.)

i see the soul only as mind and emotions.
The intention (aka:volition, will) to do is recognized as part of spirit.
i see the heart as a composite of both spirit and soul, the Word of God dividing between the intentions and thoughts, respectively. (see Heb 4.12 to verify this). This is why i call the heart the inner man, (as in the whole constitution within man).

Interestingly, in Messianic circles associated with, the Holy Spirit is referred to as the " RUACH ha' kodesh ", which confirms what you write above. Hebrews see affections, emotions, and feelings (in that order) as the source of human action/interaction . . . because a person will not do anything that does not move through these channels.

Interesting as well, is when in China, the believers there have been noticed to often call the Holy Spirit " Resident Boss ", which also confirms what you wrote above. Orientals are a more reserved people for the most part and like to think there is a rational reason to the source of all their actions (this is the residual influence mostly of Buddhism, Shintoism, and Hinduism).

i can see how both are right in their own way considering their own cultural/experience/conformity/perspective/perception ways of leaning.
(world view)

Holy and spirit are as well none specific abstractions. This is what Westernly influenced people stick with in referring to the Spirit of God.

__________________________________________________________

That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; 17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; 19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. 20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, 21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen Eph 3:16-21 (KJV)

David
------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks, and i
. . . 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; 10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; 11 Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness; 12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. . . Col. 1.9c -14 (KJV)

Amen

(this has got me thinking seriously about praying all Paul's prayers from the epistles for the body of Christ as a whole.)

May the wealth of
our Father's grace
in Christ Jesus
be poured out
to all who read this,

gregg

Hallo David,
Hopes and prayers are all is well.

I read Nee about 30 years ago. From what you stated, you may never have read volume three, so the comments about the oriental mysticism may not seem appropriate. (i stopped and started reading those volumes so many times, (at times checking things stated against correlary scripture, but mostly just taking a breater), that i finished it in about 2.3 years.
(It was thought to be pendantically --(Ron--Philogos caused me to learn that word)-- dry from the onset.)

Regarding my comment on Heb. 4.12, you said, "Isn't that a bit 'wooly'. The passage from Hebrews says... (then you close with Ez. 36).

No, not 'wolly' at all i was considering this the work of Jesus, The Word of God (Jn. 1.1)
...but here again, is this the work of the Spirit or the Lord Christ Jesus?
(You can see perhaps what i mean about how the Bible repeats the work of the Spirit as identical and often identified as the work of Jesus Christ alternately?)

. . . and no i did not plan that as some type of foil and/or scandelon to draw you in. (it was just noticed)

In the end of the letter you said "God's word speaks for itself", yet i look at this a bit differently perhaps. (Before the revelation of Jesus Chirst through His Holy Spirit --rhema-- of Bible writ, to me, and i consider to others as well, it's just scripture. I see God's Word as a person always, revealed by God's very spirit.

At least, perhaps, we are on the same page in considering scriptural references to 'water' of to represent the Word of God, i.e., Jn. 3.5, 4.10-14, 7.37-38; Eph. 5.25-27; Jn. 14.6 & 17.17; Is. 55; etc. . .

My emphasis was on the dividing of soul and spirit relative to thoughts and intentions, respectively. What you brought up was never intended to be the consideration of implication.

i do believe it is the work of Jesus. . .
(through His spirit, not soul nor body).

Shalom Shabbat,
gregg

p.s. it is not only Jesus who refers to Himself regarding water, but the spirit is alluded to in like manner.

Brother David and Phillip,

It was stated "...Heb. 4.12 for starters...", and from this beginning point we diverge.

Many say that the soul is the mind, will, and emotions (including Nee) however through scriptural proof, this has been found not to be the case. This is why 'THE WILL to do' is considered of spirit.

The Lord woke me and brought two scriptures to mind to relate, telling me that i have not answered your question and also needed to clarify something to Phillip in this.

The intentions are part and parcel of the will, most clearly seen in what Jesus to the three who were to watch and pray with Jesus before He offered Himself to God for man as the perfect sacrafice, the Lamb of God, who will remove forever the sins of the world. Jesus after having prayed the first time, found them sleeping, and having rebuked them, He said, "THE SPIRIT IN-DEED IS WILLING, but the flesh is weak," and then he told them to catch some shut-eye,
(but apparently perhaps John was awake moreso than the other two, as he is the only one who reports/testifies about words of this prayer time in John 17).

The other verse comes from Proverbs and states, "guard your heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life"(KJV), or "...from it flow life and it's issues..."

( We can know that the soul of man does not produce life, but the spirit, because Adam's creation event states, "...and God breathed into him the breath of liveS..."

by ManofGod0000 on 2010/10/2 10:18:18

Do you have any understanding of that piece of scripture brother, have you studied it, do u take it totally literal as it is written.

------------------------------------------------------------
Yes,

Finishing writing to Dave and Phil, someone else wanting to use this computer as well, i had planned on just going back to bed, until those words just bubbled up and were poured out (as instructed).
(It's not just something that was spouted off, but first:
~this was the dream that woke me;
~after typing regarding man's constitution relative to the unction given, it happened again as a lucid vision;
~then words were given by God's holy spirit to write.
(hardly ever has this happened in the past, usually being one one (possibly two) of the above three mentioned, most often revealing (to me at least) a greater understanding of what exactly the Bible is saying.
__________________________________________________________

I say to you, Read about where the Rapture theory comes from, that is all I said, I didnt question Ithess4:13, I have heard of the Paul, in my opinion, he is the greatest christian, if you will, to ever walk the face of the earth.
------------------------------------------------------------
The least of these here and around us is greater.
The first shall be last and the last shall be first.
(WE MUST serve and support them.)

I Thess. 4 leaves only questions for the (post-)modern reader, and even in the greek it creates too many questions to be the basis of any dogma like that, due to it's non-specificity.

BTW, i've read what you wrote, however, from what is known now Darby RE-introduced the concept to help make his dispensational theory have more consistency --though it is still riddled with holes.
__________________________________________________________

But, rapture is NO where in scripture, look it up, google it b4 you just respond, this is what I have been trying to say, since I started posting on this subject....
------------------------------------------------------------

It has not been looked up on the internet...
except when someone was trying to convince me that a pre-trib rapture was going to occur.
(A series of programs were watched on youTUBE per suggestion. Though they were pre-trib, they convinced this one that much more, such is not the case.)

Being new to SI, that thread was started by yours truly. (If recalled correctly, it was in the "Scripture and Doctrine" folder. It was called either "A Can of Worms" or "Another Can of Worms.")

What is written and taught through these lips and fingertips hardly ever leaves the carton until the Bible (only) facts are clarified by God Himself. . .
. . .unless pride rears it's ugly head again.

(Sometimes still an issue with me, and when i do not bow down to Him and apologize to the bretheren, (now because our Lord has made recognition of it's mechanix so clear to me, He disciplines me most severely. (YES REALLY) The first time it really got out of hand, while crossing the street, i was hit and pulled through the wheel-well of a car, catapulted approximately 40 feet, making a one-point landing on the back of this head, DEAD. You might think being resurrected with a new lease on life, complete loss of memory, being told that i would never even walk again, and all the other injuries sustained in this flesh would keep me on the straight and narrow, but i still slip and fall. Though He has healed the carcass completely since then (1985), this one thing has more than all else opened these eyes in recognizing whose Boss, and it has made me so dependent on Him about everything imaginable . . .
. . .then there's the angel He sent immediately after that incident while still in intensive care. That scared me sooo much that i still literally shake bodily if it flashes through memory again.
That one incident as a whole has made me (literally) fear the Word of God and His testimony, the scriptures, more than all else).

Though you have cited Irving(?) of 200 years past, the church apostate promoted the notion long before John Darby RE-introduced the falsehood.
(It's not recalled who exactly here pointed this out to me about 12(?) weeks ago) It was on a thread started by Matt, (MGUILDER) about dispensationalism.

Anyway, we are on the same page it's thought.

One need look no further than the synoptic Olivet Discourses to be very clear about the time of Jesus' return (Mk. 13, LK. 21, and Mt. 24).

It will be added that the tribulation is not what most folks concieve it to be, as the tribulation is actually is of the time all in the relation to the world's king's surrounding 'Yeru-Shalom' and that Revelation covers the time-frame from when it was written to the end of this kosmos' age and beyond.
__________________________________________________________

We have learned what people in sanctuarties and churches have told or taught us, but get the truth, in all of our getting, lets get an understanding.

If you can tell me that you know Beyond and absolute shadow of a doubt that there will be such an event then , all I can say is God bless you, and we'll move on to another discussion.
------------------------------------------------------------
No matter how valid the comments of men may seem on scripture, for well over 7 years, the scripture and His revelation of it to me is all that is the source of deep inspection.

In this post, you could have just been told that there is no agreement about a rapture here, but how would that have helped you further?

Please, oh please regard this final exhortation seriously
(especially in regards to end time prophecy)

As deep cries out to deep,

שַׁאֲלוּ שְׁלוֹם יְרוּשָׁלִָם

First,

Having listened to the line of fire broadcast on Dr. Browns Line of Fire recording on the page that Christopher gave us,and reading the (currently) 29 comments, when the Jewish voice airs this debate sceduled for November, i'll be on it like white on rice.

One person, Ray, who comments caused a jolt of laughter in reading, who drew comparison to 4 different views, my own being made into an Elmer Fuddism, coining the word twinitarian.

Anyway, can someone please explain why in reference to God's Spirit, the Bible does not say "God the Spirit" which trinitarians emphasis as though it were in the Bible?

Searching through, we see repeatedly, "the Spirit OF: God, Christ, the Lord
and never "God the Spirit."

Personally, it's thought that this should be clear sign enough that the Spirit is of God, and not a seperate and distinct person. Add to this, there is no name given the Holy Spirit except in indication through title, when Paul writes, "Now the Lord is the -one- Spirit..."

------------------------------------------------------------

Shalom Phillip,

you are beginning to touch on the area that raises several possibilities as to how this resurrection will occur.
(You have not really touched on the exact phrase that makes these passages so non-specific that several possibilities as to how this will occur could be brought up.)

It's hoped that we will not even get into that, but rather, you are exhorted to look at the full counsel of scripture in relation to this passage, and ignore opinions already promoted that have caused so many divisions which just should not be.

Why would the phrase "and remain" be used with "we that are alive" if there were no something that caused only a remnant of us to still be alive in the first place?

In Revelation it is written about the voice of the angel at the 7th trumpet of God comparable to I Thess. 4.16, and there we see the detailing of this event of which Paul writes.

Most importantly though, in v. 15a, Paul says this information was recieved by 'we' from the Lord's very words, and it would be fool hardy to take this one lone passage and affirm a theory from it that would also neccessitate other non-Biblical beliefs (such as 3 judgements instead of 2).

So what did Jesus say that we know of regarding the time-frame of this event?

1.

BUT IN THOSE DAYS,
AFTER THAT TRIBULATION,

the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.

AND THEN
shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

AND THEN
shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.
~Mk. 13.24-27

2.

AND WHEN
ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
Luk 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

FOR THESE BE
the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. . .

. . .AND
there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

AND THEN
shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
~Lk. 21.20-22, 25-27

3.

IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE TRIBULATION
OF THOSE DAYS
shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

AND THEN
shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven:

AND THEN
shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

AND
he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
~Mt. 24.29-31

What really makes me wonder if they have read their Bibles or are following human opinion, is that most all Rapturists do not look to Jesus say on the matter. Paul says this is who these words were expressed through.

May we all grow
through the grace, wisdom, and knowledge
in Jesus Christ,
gregg

Brother Ryan and those still peeking into this thread,

Most importantly, considering the end of our Faith (in and of Him), it's always gives goosebumps -REALLY- to hear about the advance of God's Kingdom. Let's always pray that the influence of Jesus in the lives of those with whom we cross paths will draw them closer to our Father through the Lord Jesus Christ even like you say. From here, you can know that it's prayed by whatever way possible, through both what we sheep consider both good and bad, that both these and others will continually grow into the annointing of Jesus who died and lives for us.

It's hoped that you yourself will be given opportunity to share in supporting these new disciples.

By ourselves, we don't even cope properly with the world. Oh sure, we might usually manage to meet daily responsibilities and appear to have it all together, but it is just going through the motions without recognizing who holds the very air we breath and our own breath in His hands.

When flying, for most, it is fraught as hour after hour of extreme boredom with just a few intermittent moments of sheer terror. Living on earth can become like that when we do not remain within The One who made us.

When sarcastic and sometimes cynical remarks are heard regarding those who might not have had the opportunity to grow up in Christ as others, it hurts. Not only because these things should not even be aired, but we who do such
--(yes, sometimes i do it; but never without chastening knowing better than that more and more as growth continues)--
see these things that don't seem right because we are to come along side, step in, and share how God has made a way for all of us to remain in Him; if not in example and a good word about walking in the Spirit of Jesus Christ, in prayer.

Count me in.

____________________________________________________________

You wrote:
After reading your replies, I can see I misunderstood where you were coming from on quite a few points, and I apologize.

I have an unfortunate habit of reading into people far more than what they actually write, and I has a tendency to get me into trouble. "A fool's voice is known by his multitude of words." :)
------------------------------------------------------------

. . . and "in a multitude of words sin is not lacking."

Personal tendency is to try to explain every little detail but in doing this, often, more is left out than if a short response were made. i often excuse it as a means to greater concourse, but often those who do not have an attention span to reach beyond what's in front of the face, it can put them off.

Seldom do i read into what others say, though i often question, and tend to draw out further what is intended in conversaion through this impetuous curiousity.
(Don't think that i did not really get on the nerves of some; especially those in my upbringing, be it teacher, preacher, parent. God be thanked he is not like that. He's the only one who puts up with it, and actually enjoys hearing everything wondered and thought. i question just about everything, not out of doubt, but to gain clearer perspective.)

------------------------------------------------------------

It is wondered what of personal views regarding dunity that you consider to stand against scripture. This has been thought through thoroughly, though it is only the one's here of SI that have made me consider more possible ramifications of such an affirmation.

One thing that has been noted of my personal dogma in this is that the more the concept is weighed by the bar of intuition, the more i realize how Jesus Christ is affective and effective in all things.
------------------------------------------------------------

In questioning antinomianism, i was wondering not if, but how anarchistic you were. Iniquity is human tendency, and it's always wondered where each individual draws the line, then says, "don't step over these things i will always decide for myself."

Sadly, americanized christianity tends to take a low view of anyone who does not act as though they are independent, mistaking freedom for the power(?) to choose for myself.

The fact remains, we are of a Kingdom where the King of Kings will one day rule with an iron 'fist'. Grace has never been an excuse to walk any way we please. Rather, it is an opportunity to submit to Him and His law willingly, and our faithfulness Him in Kingdom Law now, He provides not only a better life here and now, but a special place for us in His coming Kingdom.

The issue is not to obtain righteousness by the Law, but fear of God in the heathen as God empowers us through walking according to His standard, Jesus Christ here and now. It's all about living in faith that God's Kingdom has already come, and watching the result accord with this.

What was really meant in asking if you were an anarchist is that knowing God's Kingdom superceeds human standards and results, are you against the (whole counsel of scriptural) Law?

It's interesting that you pin the title 'Levitical Law' on everything(?) within Mosaic codex. Are you inferring that because Moses was of Levi, that Torah was only for the Levites?

Personally, i understand Levitical Law to be only that portion of Mosaic Law which regards religious ordinances ('against us').

To say that following dietary teachings is not needful, is implying that i can eat anything i want no matter how damaging it is to God's Temple.

To say that the moral Law is obsolete is implying that i can do whatever i want and not reap consequences for my actions.

What does the Bible say?

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. (Gal. 6.7-8)

We need remain in the Spirit of Jesus Christ walking as He is or we will do whatever we think is best with devastating results.

In Romans, Paul makes it clear that those not abiding by God's standard are under it's curse. On the other side, he also says we are not indebted to the whole of the Law, i.e., Gal. 5.3. In Hebrews, the fine details of what of the Law was actually transmogrified (metathesis). Nowhere in there do we see the moral code or dietary teachings being transferred/changed at all.

Yes, i am flat Bible as you explain it, yet this view is through Christ our Lord's finished work.

Jesus Christ's willing sacrafice for us was not so we could go do (and even eat) whatever we please without consequence.
Jesus gave up His body for the life of the world and shed His blood towards this union with God.

This New Covenant ratified ALL former covenants (of promise)
--and this steps far beyond Sinai--
rather than abolishing any of them.

The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which was written was upright, even words of truth. The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd. And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. (Eccl. 12.10-14)

What man is he that feareth the LORD? him shall he teach in the way that he shall choose. His soul shall dwell at ease; and his seed shall inherit the earth. The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant. (Ps. 25.12-14)

Consider Mt. 5.16-18 in regards to the following words.

Jesus never raised the standard above the Law. What He actually did was fill in what was missing that leads towards obedience to His written standard. It is only through walking in Jesus can the letter be (not abolished but) fully filled.

Sure Jesus death frees us us from bondage to the Law walking in His spirit; but, "shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God Forbid!"

God's standard has never changed.
The Levitical way (of priestly ordinances, such as baptisms, sign of covenant, sacrafice, attire, theocracy etc...) is what changed.

Human tendency is to look towards the restrictions and think of them alone, but all Torah is for our benefit, and nobody will see the blessings therein without obedience into them, even as Jesus Christ thought, did, and proclaimed.

In Jesus Christ, through His faith(fulness) we are priveledged to walk above the Law, not without it.

Switch up the word 'law-breaker' for 'iniquity' in Mt. 7.23 as iniquity is deciding right and wrong for ourself, disregarding God's standard: the Law.

We do not gain righteousness before God by the Law. The Law was God's first big love-gift (grace) to humanity. By it we may walk more healthy, wealthy, and wisely among men who will not honor God.

God gave the Law so we could live prosperous peaceful lives, not to rule and be ruled by the one we see in the mirror or even other men.
____________________________________________________________

Just keep close to the Lord and be so, so careful that you continue to find Jesus as your only wisdom, righteousness and sanctification. Thanks for being open, brother!
------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not a loner; but i'm not up for following any movement either. Ya' know, i slip and fall just like everyone else. . .
but we have an advocate who interceeds for us when we stumblingly bumble and miss the mark.

We all fail in many ways, but if we know the holy, good and right thing to do and don't do it, we sin.

Pressing in gives hint as to just how narrow the way really is.

In identifying with Him in His death burial and resurrection, we walk in the spirit of His life, faithful to God.

Yes, "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world."
(That one sin mentioned is not believing God first --to the end.)
Jesus is the pioneer and finality of our faith.
WE remain fixed in Him because nobody can pluck us out of His hand.

Looking towards the end of our one Fath(fulness),
Love, hope, and faith,
gregg

We are all born criminals with a death sentence pronounced before we were ever a twinkle in our parents eyes.

Come into the fullness of everlasting relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

He became the slain and living Saviour with us in mind before He formed the world's foundation.

( Considering this just boggles the noggin.)

p.s. Your input is more than just recieved here

edited: errors and thoughts added