The Two Paraklitas

Comment by James Trimm on July 5, 2012 at 8:18am

It appears to have been the view of the Nazarenes and of the ancient Essenes and at least some Pharisees.  The conflict with Pharisees may also have been reactionary.  Also later Rabbinic Judaism tended to take reactionary positions on the issue when debating with Nazarenes.  I think a lot of it may even be chalked up to misunderstanding. 

Bottom line is that the Three Pillars are One concept with the Middle Pillar being the Son of Yah can be found in the Zohar (showing that it is Jewish) and in the writings of Philo (showing it existed in the first century).

Comment by ben adam on July 5, 2012 at 8:47am

Ok,thanks for the correction, so the sephirot aree god's atributes and they are to be classified as female, male and neutral. the female is the attributes of both God andt he wife "Israel", the male is the attributes of God  "YHWH" only that he does not share. and the son is the attributes of the "alliance between God and his people" and God also, since he is the origin of all of the attributes.
Israel and God are one by the alliance, the intermediary pillar, the son of Yah, the fruit of the alliance.

But let us come back to the bible, if we accept that there are three aspects making one person YHWH, that YHWH manifest himself into three aspects (FATHER, son, holy spirit) and that we apply it to the NT. Then the son was fully YHWH, so how could he die? how could he be tempted? how could'nt he knew everything? why is he compared to Mosheh? Why is it said that Only the father aspect is YHWH? did Yah made a monologue to himself when his son aspect prayed to his father aspect, did he act like he was praying? If he was YHWH himself, why is he said to have been given all authority if as YHWH he already had them all? Why are called his brothers since YHWH hasn't any brothers?..
many other questions arise , but to say that Yehoshua was in some way YHWH himself contradicts the scriptures.

Comment by James Trimm on July 5, 2012 at 8:58am

Well most of your questions presuppose the Orthodox Christian "Christology" 

The Aramaic speaking Assyrian Church of the East gravitated to the Nestorian view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism

And I think it is probably more correct.

We are his brothers by ADOPTION because we have a blood covenant with the Son.

Comment by ben adam on July 5, 2012 at 8:59am

Also, it is impossible if the middle pillar "the son of Yah" is Yah himself because one can not be his own son.

Comment by James Trimm on July 5, 2012 at 9:13am

Your forgetting, the "Son" is the "Son" of the "Father" and the "Mother" not of the Son.

All of these are called both Elohim and YHWH in the Scriptures.

The Father and Mother are opposing finite aspects of the infinite EIN SOF. 

The harmony of the Father and Mother is the Son. 

The Son is therefore "The Image of Elohim" a finite representation of the Infinite One.

Comment by ben adam on July 5, 2012 at 9:19am

No nestorius did not answer these questions, because he sated that Yehoshua was fully divine and fully man. So according to him and most of orthodox Christians laso, only the human nature of Yehoshua was tempted, died, as not omniscient but the Bible never states that only a part of him did, it is stated that Yehoshua as a whole (100 percen of Yehoshua) was tempted, died... this would imply his divine nature, but God cannot be tempted! God cannot Die!....
also he made in every way like us, then he could not be both God and both man.

Comment by ben adam on July 5, 2012 at 9:24am

No it is not stated that it is the son of the father only! it is stated that he is the son of YHWH (father, son, mother) then how can the son be the son of the son?

Comment by James Trimm on July 5, 2012 at 10:16am

So if my fender is scratched and I say that my car is scratched do I have to mean that all 100% of my car is scratched?

Comment by ben adam on July 6, 2012 at 1:00am

when the creator is mentioned in those verses, it is the creator as a whole (100 percent), these verses never state that "a part of YHWH can not die, or a Part of YHWH does not change, etc..." but YHWH in his fullness , the 100 percent of him. Also when Yeoshua is mentioned, it is the same thing, it is never told that only his human nature or only his divine nature did, but all of him in his fullness.

  when you fender is scratched, your car is actually changing because your fender was scratched and the fender is a part of the car, then the car was scratched. If someone scratched the fender of your car, you can actually say to him, "Why you scratched my car?", not only your car have been scratched, but it also changed even if the change was unseen, before it was perfect, then after, there is a scratch on it !

Of course, when you say to your friends that  your new car cannot be scratched, all of the car is mentioned, and when they will see the scratch on its fender, then they will surely think that you are a liar. But if you said that the windows of your car cannot be scratched, but your fender can, then they won't tell you that you are a liar when they will see the scratch on your fender!

This same logic can be applied to YHWH and to Yehoshua.  When the bible said that YHWH in his fullness can not die, and if the son in his fullness died, then he is not YHWH.

Also Rambam said ""God, the Cause of all, is one. This does not mean one as in one of a pair, nor one like a species (which encompasses many individuals), nor one as in an object that is made up of many elements, nor as a single simple object that is infinitely divisible. Rather, God is a unity unlike any other possible unity. This is referred to in the Torah (Deuteronomy 6:4): "Hear Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one."

So according to the Rambam, your thesis of a God, a person made up  of many aspects is not Kosher "nor one as in an object that is made up of many elements".

 

 

Comment by ben adam on July 6, 2012 at 2:11am

Now let us see what the bible says about it

Who is God, Yehoshua , his father or the holy Ghost or all of them?

 What dis Yehoshua said?

John 17:3 "Father ...that they may know you, the only true God, AND Yehoshua hamashiach, whom you have sent."

If one is not sure about the meaning of "Only" here is what the dictinary tells " without anyone or anything else being included", then we can say that The father is the Only God without anyone or anything else being included not even Yehoshua, who is clearly distinct from him.

 

What did the Rav Shau'l said?

In the hebrew version deuteronomy 6:4 we read "Hear Israel, YHWH is our God, YHWH is One (Echad)"

Now This verse is also cites in the Peshitta and the greek texts Mark 12:29 where we the word "one" is translated by ܗܘ eis "Hear Israel, YHWH is our God, YHWH is One (ܗܘ eis)"
Now Paul , in the aramaic and greek versions of  his  letters talks about the one (ܗܘ eis )  God .

Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one (ܗܘ eis). For even if there are gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is Only one (ܗܘ eis) God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Yehoshua hamashiach, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. (1 Corinthians 8:4-6).

Notice that Paul does not identify the one God as a Triune Being. He did not say, "for us there is one God: the Triune God." He identifies our one (Echad) God as the Father. While Trinitarians insist that the one God is not one person, Paul does identify the one (Echad) God as one person. Here Paul clearly indentifies YHWH the Echad Elohim of the Shema as being Only the father and not the son nor the (another supposed person) holy spirit!

Again he makes a clear distinction between this only one God ( the father) , and Yehoshua .

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Yehoshua hamashiach,

Not only the Father is said to be the only one God, but Yehoshua is said to be a man!

 

 

Who Yehoshua is?

Yehoshua is a man, and cannot be God because God is not a man.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Yehoshua hamashiach,

 

James 1:13
For God cannot be tempted by evil.

Hebrews 4:15
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.

The Bible never says that Jesus’ “human nature” was tempted, it says “Jesus” was tempted. Nowhere does it say that “part” of Jesus was tempted; it was “all” of him. If Jesus is God, this is a clear contradiction. Fortunately, Jesus is the human Son of God, so there is no contradiction.

John 14:1
“Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.”

Notice that Jesus didn’t say “the Father,” he just said “God.” Jesus once again makes a clear distinction between himself and God.

 

Hebrews 2:17
For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.

If Jesus is God and also “like us in every way,” that means we are all 100% man and 100% God. This makes no sense. Either Jesus is not God and truly like us in all ways (a man), or he is God and so are we.

What makes more sense?

The Devil and demons call Jesus the Son of God.

The Bible says that “God cannot be tempted” (James 1:13) and we know that the Devil knows Scripture because he quoted it while trying to tempt Jesus (Matt. 4:6). The Devil is totally evil and persistent, but he is not dumb.

Why did the Devil continue to ask Jesus “if you are the Son of God…” when he was tempting him?

Wouldn’t the Devil (Lucifer) and his demons know if they were speaking with the Almighty Himself?

In fact, he tauntingly said to Jesus:

Matthew 4:3
…“If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”

Matthew 4:6
If you are the Son of God, he said, throw yourself down.

The Devil knew that Jesus was a man, the Son of God, and the promised Messiah, and that is why he did his best to try to get him to sin. The Devil knew that if he could get Jesus to sin one time, he could not be the perfect sacrifice that was necessary for the forgiveness of our sins.

he never instructed his disciples to worship himself or the Holy Ghost, but the Father, and the Father only. “When ye pray, say Our Father which art in heaven,” Luke 11:2. “In that day, ye shall ask me nothing. Whatsoever ye ask of the Father in my name,” &c., John 16:23. “The hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him,” John 4:23.

immediately after being filled with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, thus addressed the Jews: “Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles, and wonders, and signs which God did by him, in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain; whom God hath raised up,” &c., Acts 2:22-24.Paul expressly states, that “all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ,” 2 Cor. 5:8.

in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Christ is compared with Moses in a manner that would be impious if he were the Supreme God. “For this man (Christ) was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch,” &c., Heb 3:3.

God, in the later ages, hath spoken by his Son, and appointed him heir of all things, Heb 1:2 and we are also his co-heirs. If he already had all things under his feets as God, then why is he said to be a heir?

the Apostle John asserts that “no man hath seen God at any time”; which is not true, if Christ were God.

If his immediate disciples believed him to be the Almighty, would they have been so familiar with him, have argued with him, betrayed him, denied him, fled from him, and left him to be dragged to the cross?

the Apostles, after they had been filled with the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, did not preach that Christ was God; but preached what was altogether inconsistent with such a doctrine, Acts 2:22; 13:23; 17:3, 31; 22:8.

there are 320 passages in which the Father is absolutely, and by way of eminence, called God; while there is not one in which the Son is thus called.there are 105 passages in which the Father is denominated God, with peculiarly high titles and epithets, whereas the Son is not once denominated.there are 90 passages wherein it is declared that all prayers and praises ought to be offered to Him, and that everything ought to be ultimately directed to his honor and glory; while of the Son no such declaration is ever made.of 1,300 passages in the New Testament wherein the word God is mentioned, not one necessarily implies the existence of more than one person in the Godhead, or that this one is any other than the Father.

 

 

Who or what is the holy spirit?

According to the Revelation of Yohanan, there were only two thrones in the heaven, the throne of God and the throne of Yehoshua the lamb, When Stephen was stoned, he said that he saw Yehoshua next to YHWH. Never Yohanan nor stephen mention the presence of a third person in their visions, so what happened to the holy spiritn, the supposed third person of the Godhead?

this proves that he holy spirit is not a person among the Godhead, but something else.

These are 34 reasons to believe that the Holy spirit is not a person, they will also tell us what really it is.

1. God is said to have a throne (1 Kings 22:19; Dan. 7:9), inhabit heaven as His dwelling place (1 Kings 8:30,39,43 and 49), and yet “heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain” Him (1 Kings 8:27). So how can He be said to have a throne and a dwelling place and yet be uncontainable? Ps. 139:7 indicates that God’s spirit and His presence can be equivalent terms. God is therefore omnipresent by His “spirit,” which is not a separate “person.” This presence can also be extended by His personal ministers and agents, whether Christ, angels, or believers. None of these is a separate person who is also “God” in some multi-personal Godhead, but rather empowered agents who are equipped to do the will of God.

2. Exodus 23:20-22 mentions the angel of God’s presence that would go before Israel in the wilderness. “Person” God has permitted angels to speak as if they were God Himself, and even to use His personal name, YAHWEH. A few examples of this principle are Manoah and his wife (Judges13:21 and 22), Jacob wrestling (Gen. 32:24-30; Hos. 12:3-5), Moses (Ex. 3:2-4 , 6 and 16) and Gideon (Judges 6:12, 13, 16 and 22). What is sometimes attributed to Jesus or to “the Holy Spirit” in the Old Testament is better explained by this principle of God manifesting Himself by means of an angelic messenger who speaks for Him in the first person (“I the Lord,” etc.) and manifests His glory.

3. Although the Hebrew word for “spirit” (ruach), can refer to angels or evil spirits, which are persons or entities with a personality, the Hebrew usage of “the spirit of God” never refers to a person separate from, but a part of, God Almighty. Neither does the phrase, “the spirits of God” occur, which would refer to separate spiritual entities within a multipersonal God.

a. Zechariah 6:5 refers to the “four spirits of the heavens” riding in chariots, but the NIV text note supplies an alternate reading of “winds,” which makes more sense in the context—the four winds of heaven going North, East, etc.).
b. Revelation 1:4 refers to the “seven spirits” before the throne of God. Are these seven “Holy Spirits,” or sentient entities, within the “Godhead?” The context provides the answer: they are the seven lamps of fire burning before the throne (4:5 – NRSV) and the seven horns and seven eyes of the slain Lamb (5:6). These are likely the same “spirits” mentioned in Isaiah 11:2 in connection with the Messiah: the spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of wisdom, the spirit of understanding, the spirit of counsel, the spirit of might, the spirit of knowledge and the spirit of the fear of the Lord. These “spirits” are undoubtedly symbols of the intense power of insight and judgment with which the Lamb will judge and reign over the earth during the Millennium.

4. As with the Hebrew word, ruach, the Greek word for spirit (pneuma) also has many different meanings, the correct one also being determinable only from the context of each occurrence. Although Greek has both upper and lower case letters, the early manuscripts employed either one or the other. Therefore, no accurate distinction can be made in the original manuscripts of the Bible between upper case “Holy Spirit,” a proper noun referring to God, and lower case “holy spirit,” referring to an impersonal force. Compounding the problem is the fact that the article “the” was often added by translators, leading the reader to think that “the Holy Spirit” is referring to a separate person, a third person of “the Holy Trinity” as taught by traditional Christian orthodoxy.

5. Scholars admit that the concept of the Trinity cannot be substantiated in the Old Testament. In particular, “the Holy Spirit” as any kind of independent or distinct entity has no place in Old Testament revelation. Therefore, they say, the concept must be derived from the New Testament. With the exception of a few comparatively difficult verses in the Gospel of John that are often misunderstood, the New Testament also gives no certain and incontrovertible indication of a “Holy Spirit” as a personal being co-equal with the Father and the Son. This is a rather glaring omission if the Triune God is supposed to provide the foundation of Christian orthodoxy, yet the “tri-unity” of God cannot be clearly established even with New Testament revelation. Thus it makes sense to understand “holy spirit” in the New Testament just as it was understood in the Old Testament, either God Himself or His presence and power.

6. The Greek word for “spirit,” pneuma, is neuter, as are all pronouns referring to the spirit, making them necessarily impersonal. New Testament translators knew this grammatically, but groundlessly translated references to the coming “spirit of truth” as “He” instead of “it” because of their Trinitarian prejudice (e.g., John 14:17). If they had consistently translated the neuter pronouns of John 14 through 16 as “it,” “its,” “itself” and “which” instead of “he,” “his,” “him,” “who,” and “whom,” the case for the “personality of the Holy Spirit” would largely disappear from Christian belief. Such a major theological doctrine with such important implications for foundational Christian theology cannot depend on a few pronouns, but rather should be founded upon the weight of the biblical evidence considered as a whole, apart from tradition and prejudice.

7. Any translation from one language to another must recognize the relative unimportance of gender. For the most part, languages that assign a gender to nouns do so in a rather arbitrary manner. For instance, the Spanish word for car is masculine, el carro, while a bicycle is feminine, la bicicleta. Yet no one would translate into English “the car, he…” or “the bicycle, she…” Either word would require the neuter “it” to reflect the impersonal nature of the object. A writer or a poet might employ such a figurative expression in the use of pronouns, but any reader acquainted with the objects referred to would recognize the figure of speech employed. Such poetic personification is employed in reference to “the Comforter.”

8. The figure of speech Personification is common in Scripture, and is defined as attributing personal qualities, feelings, actions, etc., to things that have no real personality or personal consciousness. Wisdom is personified as such in Proverbs 8 and 9, yet no sensible person would seriously consider that a literal person named “Wisdom” helped God create the world, as Proverbs 8:30 says. The spirit of God is personified as “the Comforter” in John 14:16 and 26, 15:26, 16:7. Therefore, personal pronouns are appropriate to agree with the personal nature of the figurative title. It is clear from John 16:13 that this Comforter is “sent,” “does not speak of himself” and is instructed (“whatever he hears he speaks”).

9. The “Comforter,” more properly translated as “Counselor,” is said by Jesus to fill the void created by his going to the Father (John 14:12). By this spirit he would still be present: “I will come to you” (14:18); “I am in you” (14:20); and “I will show myself” (14:21). By this spirit his work with them would continue: “It will teach you”(14:26); “It will remind you of everything I have said” (14:26); “It will testify about me” (15:26); “It will convict the world of guilt” (in preparation for his judgment—16:8); “It will guide you into all truth” (16:13); “It will bring glory to me by taking what is mine and making it known to you” (16:14).

All of these statements point to the role of the gift of holy spirit in continuing the work that Jesus started, and even empowering his followers for greater works. This spirit is not independent and self-existent, but is “the mind of Christ” within the believer, influencing, guiding, teaching, reminding and pointing the believer to follow his Lord and Savior. This spirit is certainly not “co-equal” when by its very design it serves the risen Lord and Christ. Yet because it carries the personal presence of Christ into the life of every believer, the use of Personification is highly appropriate. As a practical matter, holy spirit in us will not lead us anywhere that the Lord himself would not lead us if he were personally present. We can study Christ’s life and his priorities in the written Word to verify whether the “spirit” leading us in is fact the spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ or whether it is “another spirit.” For instance, he whose basic commitment was “it is written” will not be leading his followers away from relying on Scripture as the only rule of faith and practice.

10. The “soul” or the “spirit” of man is often personified like the spirit of God is. “Why art thou cast down, O my soul?” (Ps. 42:5). “I will say to my soul, ‘Soul, thou hast much goods laid up…’” (Luke 12:19). “The spirit indeed is willing…” (Matt. 26:41). “The spirit of Titus was refreshed…” (2 Cor. 7:13). Yet no one would argue that the “spirit of man” is a separate person from the man himself. The figure of speech Personification is universally and readily recognized, and in the case of “the Comforter” ought to be recognized as well.

11. The spirit of man bears the same relation to man as the spirit of God bears to God (1 Cor. 2:11). As the spirit of man is not another person distinct from himself, but his human consciousness or mind by which he is able to be self-aware and contemplate things peculiar to himself, so the spirit of God is not another person distinct from God. It is that consciousness and intelligence that is essential and peculiar to Him whereby He manifests and reveals Himself to man. As the spirit of man means the man himself (the essence of a man is his mind), so the spirit of God means God Himself. The parallel usage of mind and spirit is seen in the Apostle Paul’s citation of Isaiah 40:13 (NRSV) (“Who has directed the spirit of the Lord, or as His counselor has instructed him?”) and in Romans 11:34 and 1 Corinthians 2:16 where “spirit” is rendered “mind.”

12. If the “spirit of truth” in John 14:17 is a person, then “the spirit of error” in 1 John 4:6 must also be a person, since the two are directly contrasted. The fact is that each “spirit” represents an influence or a power under which a person acts, but neither is a person in itself.

13. 1 Corinthians 2:12 directly opposes the “spirit of the world” with “the spirit which is of God.” As the “spirit of the world” is not a person separate from “the world,” neither is the “spirit of God” a person separate from God. Each is an influence emanating from a source that produces certain attitudes, behaviors or “fruit.”

14. The “breath” of God and the “spirit” of God are synonymous terms (Job 4:9; Ps. 33:6; Ps. 104:29 and 30; John 3:8; Job 27:3). It is as inconceivable that the breath of God could be a person distinct from God as that the breath of a human could be a person distinct from a human. It is especially absurd to speak of one self-existent and eternal person as “the breath” of another such person.

15. The “spirit of God” is synonymous with the “hand” and “the finger” of God (Ezek. 3:14; Job 26:13; Ps. 8:3; Luke 11:20). It is nonsense to call a “co-equal and co-eternal person” the “hand” and finger” of another such person. In fact, as a man’s hand and finger are subordinate and submissive to the will of a man, so the spirit of God is subordinate to the will of God. As what is done by the hand of a man is done by the man himself, so what is done by the spirit of God is done by God Himself. His spirit is his will in action, performing that which He “sends” it to perform.

16. The “spirit of your Father,” is synonymous with “the holy spirit,” and is said to speak in our stead on certain occasions when we might be brought before men for possible persecution or trial (Matt.10:19 and 20; Mark 13:11; Luke 12:11 and 12). On the same topic, Luke 21:15 says that Christ will give us “a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.” Rather than saying that a person called “the Holy Ghost” will speak through us, these verses teach that we will be inspired by the supernatural power of God and Christ to speak as they give us guidance.

17. If the spirit is a sentient (able to sense, be self-aware), separate and distinct being with personality, then Jesus either did not know this or was very inconsistent in giving “Him” proper due. In Matthew 11:27, Jesus asserts that “no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son…” If “the Holy Spirit” is a person distinct from the Father, and is also omniscient and almighty “God,” then would He not also have to know the Father and the Son? Jesus’ statement, then, would not have been true, and in fact would be a lie.

The same is true for Jesus’ assertion in Matthew 24:36 that no one knew the hour of his Second Coming except the Father. How could “the Holy Spirit” be kept in the dark about this very important prophetic event? Are we to believe that it is possible for one member of the Godhead to keep a secret from another member while sharing the same eternal and divine “essence” of “Godself?”

18. If the spirit of God is a unique and separate person, and having “spirit” is prerequisite to having a unique and separate personality, then the person called “the Spirit of God” must have his own “spirit” peculiar to himself and distinct from the Father and Son. We would then be forced to the absurd belief in “the spirit of the Spirit.” If “the Holy Spirit” has no spirit of His own, then He could not be said to have a separate “personality.”

If “God” is three co-equal persons, the third person can no more be “the spirit” of the first person, than the first person can be “the spirit” of the third person. To avoid this absurdity, “the spirit of God” cannot have a separate personality, but must be the power, influence, sufficiency, fullness or some extension of the Father, the real and unitary person called the One True God.

19. The spirit of God is said to be divisible and able to be distributed. God took of the spirit that was upon Moses and put it upon the 70 elders of Israel (Num. 11:17-25). Joel 2:28, quoted by Peter on the day of Pentecost, says that God “will pour out of my spirit” (Acts 2:17). Understood literally, the Greek says “some of,” or “‘part of’ my spirit.” The footnote in Weymouth’s translation reads “literally ‘of’ or ‘from’ my spirit—a share or portion.” Though we cannot conceive of how a person might be so divided, we can understand that the spirit of God, as the power of God, might be distributed among many. 1 John 4:13 echoes this truth in saying, “We know that we live in Him and He in us, because he has given us of his Spirit” (NIV).

20. Many words associated with God’s spirit give it the attributes of a liquid, which by definition cannot refer to a person. This liquid language is consistent with the spirit being His presence and power. We are baptized (literally “dipped”) with and in it like water (Matt. 3:11; Acts 1:5). We are all made to “drink” from the same spirit, as from a well or fountain (1 Cor. 12:13). It is written on our hearts like ink (2 Cor. 3:3). We are “anointed” with it, like oil (Acts 10:38; 2 Cor. 1:21 and 22; 1 John 2:27). We are “sealed” with it as with melted wax (Eph. 1:13). It is “poured out” on us (Acts 10:45; Rom. 5:5). It is “measured” as if it had volume (2 Kings 2:9; John 3:34). We are to be “filled” with it (Acts 2:4; Eph. 5:18). This “filling” is to capacity at the new birth and to overflowing as we act according to its influence.

Even the use of spirit as “wind” implies a liquidity, for air masses behave as a fluid, flowing from areas of higher to lower pressure. All this figurative language must be designed to point us to the truth that the spirit of God is the invisible power and influence of God. It comes into our lives to buoy us up, to help us, to comfort us, to unite us and anoint us for the work to which He has called us. As liquid seeks the lowest level, so the spirit of God comes to us in our lowly and needy state, beneath our sins and iniquities, our faults and our failures to lift us up to stand in all the grace and truth that Christ brought.

21. The “holy spirit” is clearly said to be given by God to men. A divine “person” cannot be given or bestowed by another divine person, because to be given is to be under the authority of another. If “the Holy Spirit” is co-equal with the Father, He cannot be under His authority.

22. By definition, the spirit of God is derived from God. What comes from God as its source cannot also be “God,” without the term “God” being reduced to a formless and incomprehensible abstraction. Nothing and no one can be both a source of a thing and the thing itself.

23. In biblical usage, “the Holy Spirit” is a synonymous term for “God.” In Acts 5:3, Peter says Ananias lied to “the Holy Spirit.” In verse 4 Peter says he lied to “God.” This is an example of the common Semitic parallelism of equivalent terms, and is not evidence that Ananias lied to two separate persons. If that were the case, why would verse 4 not say that Ananias lied to “the Father” instead of to “God.” Neither is this parallelism evidence that another divine person called “the Holy Spirit” is also “God” and therefore part of a triune “Godhead.”

24. “The holy spirit” is equivalent to “the power of the Most High,” as Luke 1:35 (NIV) clearly indicates by another use of parallelism (cp. Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8; 10:38; Rom. 15:13; Rom. 15:18 and 19; 1 Cor. 2:4 and 5). The context is the conception of Jesus Christ. Matthew 1:18 also records that Mary “was found to be with child through ‘the Holy Spirit.’” Yet all through the New Testament are references to the fact that God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. If “God” is “the Father,” and “the Holy Spirit” is also “the father” of the baby Jesus, there is a potential paternity suit. Trinitarianism leads to much unnecessary confusion by asserting a separate personality of “the Holy Ghost,” and cannot explain away the logical conclusion that according to that view the Son has two “Fathers,” or two separate persons fathering Jesus.

25. The “Holy Spirit” (properly “holy spirit”) is used synonymously and interchangeably with “the spirit of Jesus” (Acts 16:7; Phil. 1:19); “the spirit of the Lord” (Luke 4:18, etc.); “the spirit of his son” (Gal. 4:6); “the spirit of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:19). In this usage, “the spirit” is the mind and power of Jesus Christ, who fills and guides believers to do the will of God, his Father. He is, after all, the expert in how humans can be influenced to obey the will of God without coercion or intimidation. The following are examples of the interrelationship and interdependence between the Lord Jesus Christ and his “spirit.”

a. Acts 13:2 says, “The Holy Spirit said, ‘Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.’” Later in Acts 16:6 (NIV), in the midst of the work Paul was called to, “the Holy Spirit” kept Paul and his companions from preaching in Asia. Verse 7 (NIV) says that the “spirit of Jesus” would not allow them to enter Bithynia.
b. 2 Corinthians 3:17 and 18 says that the Lord (Jesus) is “the Spirit.” He has been invested with all spiritual authority and power to effectively carry out his responsibility as the Head of his body. By his “spirit” he is able to guide and direct his many servants (2 Cor. 12:8 and 9).
c. Galatians 5:22 and 23 list the “fruit of the spirit” (the nature of Jesus Christ); John 15:5 says “If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit.”
d. We are sanctified by the spirit (2 Thess. 2:13); we are sanctified in Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 1:2), whom God made to be sanctification for us (1 Cor. 1:30).
e. The spirit of truth, holy spirit, is the counselor (parakletos); we have an advocate (parakletos) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous (1 John 2:1).
f. We are strengthened by the spirit in the inner man (Eph. 3:16); Christ dwells in our hearts (Eph. 3:17).
g. We have access to the Father by the spirit (Eph. 2:18); in Christ and through faith in him we have access with confidence to God (Eph. 3:12).
h. The spirit apportions to each one individually as he chooses (1 Cor. 12:11 – AMP); the Lord Jesus pours out the spirit (Acts 2:33) and gave some apostles, some prophets, etc. (Eph. 4:11).
i. The spirit intercedes for us (Rom. 8:26); Christ Jesus intercedes for us (Rom. 8:34).
j. The Spirit says to the churches… (Rev. 1:1); the revelation of Jesus Christ…to show to his servants (Rev. 2:7).

26. Many Trinitarians assert that “the Holy Spirit” comes and permanently dwells within a believer when he accepts Jesus Christ as his Savior. But many also teach that the Holy Spirit comes upon a believer after he is born again. They also pray for “the Holy Spirit” to attend their meetings, and welcome “Him” to come as He desires. This puts them in the difficult position of having to explain how a Christian can have the person of “the Holy Spirit” simultaneously dwelling in him and coming and going from Christian meetings.

The simple answer to this dilemma is that there are two usages of “the spirit” that must be distinguished. One is “the gift of God’s nature that is permanently received when a person is born again.” The other is “the power and influence of God” as He manifests His presence in His Creation (Gen. 1:1) and among His people (2 Chron. 5:14). In contrast to the permanent gift, this can wax and wane according to the faith of those present and the will of God in the situation. The gift of God’s nature, holy spirit, is not always being energized into manifestation. God, “the Holy Spirit,” (the Giver) energizes the spirit within believers as they act in faith (Acts 2:4).

27. John 7:39 says that the Holy Spirit was not yet given, and in Acts 1:4 and 5 (NIV) Jesus tells his disciples to wait for “the gift of my Father” that would come “in a few days.” If the Holy Spirit is a person, and He was present in the Old Testament, then how is it possible for Him to be spoken of as “not yet given.” It is also confusing to contemplate how the gift of a “person” is even possible, and the only answer Trinitarians can provide is that this is part of the “mystery” of the Trinity.

This “mystery” is solved when we understand that the spirit of God we receive is not a separate person, but rather the gift of God to empower His people. In the Old Testament, this empowering was temporal, hence David could pray that it not be removed from him (Ps. 51:11). It was also measured out differently to different people, hence Elisha could pray to receive a “double portion” (2 Kings 2:9). It was not given to all, and therefore its presence was noteworthy (Gen. 41:38). Since Pentecost, when the spirit was said to have “come,” it is now in all believers permanently and without measure, as it had been given to Jesus Christ. He who had the spirit “without measure” (John 3:34), enabling him to do his Messianic work, poured out this same spirit on Pentecost (Acts 2:33 – NIV). And it is he, the true Baptizer, who fills each believer who comes to him for salvation (Matt. 3:11; Eph. 1:23).

28. The only verse that would indicate that there might be three persons sharing one name is Matthew 28:19: “…baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” This verse is quoted in a different form by the early Church Fathers, notably Eusebius (d. 340), who quotes the verse at least 18 times as follows: “baptizing them in my name.” This agrees with the testimony of the Book of Acts and Paul’s epistles, which associate only the name of Jesus Christ with baptism. Even if the verse reads as found in modern versions today, it does not validate the “Holy Spirit” being a separate person from God.

Arguments from Omission

29. The Holy Spirit is never worshiped as are the Father and the Son, neither does any verse of Scripture command such worship. This is surprising if the Holy Spirit is truly a co-equal and co-eternal member of a triune “God” worthy of worship. If “God” is worthy of worship, and “God” exists in three persons, then shouldn’t each “God” person be worthy of worship? Then why is this idea not found in the Scripture?

30. In the opening of their New Testament epistles, every one of the writers identifies himself with God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, but not one does so with “the Holy Spirit.” If they were ignorant of the truth of a “tri-personal” God, and this truth constitutes the foundation of the Christian faith, then their apostleship was incomplete at best, and at worst they were teaching error. Their failure to clearly teach a three person Godhead proves the assertion that the doctrine of the tri-personal God and a third person in an eternal Godhead was not believed or practiced by the Apostles. In fact, the doctrine was not codified until the fourth century in the Athanasian creed. Since it was not believed nor practiced by the apostles, and the apostles were commissioned by the Lord Jesus himself, then it is logical to assert that the doctrine was not believed nor practiced by the Lord Jesus either.

31. Lacking sufficient Scriptural justification, the orthodox view of “the Holy Spirit” was fully developed in the fourth century after Christ and the Apostles, contemporaneously with the rise of Neoplatonic philosophy, which posited an abstract God “beyond being,” in which a variety of divine persons could be “one” in “essence.” This was basically a regurgitation of Gnostic philosophy, which had been vigorously opposed by the first century Apostles but later embraced by many of the “Church Fathers” who helped to establish “orthodoxy.”

32. In the Church Epistles, (Romans through Thessalonians), the Apostle Paul sends personal greetings from “God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” If “the Holy Spirit” were an integral and personal part of a triune Godhead, then why does “He” not send “His” personal greetings as well? The only good answer is that there is no such person, for as an inspired writer of Scripture, Paul was on intimate talking terms with God and the Lord Jesus. If there were a third person involved, wouldn’t Paul have surely known about it and included “Him” in his greetings to the churches? When Paul does include additional persons in his greetings, salutations and adjurations, he names “the elect angels,” not “the Holy Spirit” (1 Tim. 5:21; cp. Luke 9:26 and Rev. 3:5).

33. In the NIV translation, Philippians 2:1 and 2 refers to “fellowship with the Spirit,” yet 1 John 1:3 says that our fellowship is with “the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.” Why is the Holy Spirit left out? A better translation of Philipians 2:1 is the King James Version, which renders the phrase “fellowship of the spirit,” pointing to the fellowship among believers who share a common spirit and who therefore ought to be able to get along with each other.

34. In the eternal city of Revelation 21 and 22, both God and Jesus Christ are prominently featured. Each is pictured as sitting on his throne (Rev. 22:1). If “the Holy Spirit” is a “co-eternal” member of a triune Godhead, it is strange indeed that He seems to have no seat of authority on the final throne. This is consistent with the biblical truth that there is one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, and no such separate person known as “the Holy Spirit.

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/holy-spirit/34-reasons-wh...

 

 

 

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• Next ›
• Page