yeesh...this thread started out so well and now it's all doughy....
Is the Holy Spirit God Himself or a force like in Star Wars?
by I_love_Jeff 224 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Think About It
I've been hit and miss on this board. Did Godrulz resurrect himself as Jonathan Dough?
Think About It
-
designs
Si. lol
-
truthseeker
Johnathan,
I see this will be a battle of wills. My quoted comments in red. My response in blue.
Let's start from the beginning and just so you know, I no longer subscribe to the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses and I do not use their New World Translation of the Bible.I said: "each one is believed to be God but they are lumped together as one single God."
You said: "Not really lumped together. One God Almighty, YHWH, with a triune nature."
I said: "There is only one almighty God who is the Father"
You said: "Trinitarians agree. And that Almighty God is YHWH"
I said: "The mighty god being his son Jesus"
You said: "This is a false teaching, and mischaracterizes the Trinity. Jesus is the Mighty God, as it says in Isaiah 9:6, but that God is YHWH and not some little "a god,", as it says in the next two words: the child born to us is Mighty God, "Eternal Father." That is but one of many reasons. Immanent trinity, the nature of God in himself before creation, does not include Jesus who was not yet born. Jesus is God-Man, God the Son. And because the Word is eternal, he could not be created."
And this is where it gets tricky, for you. You said, "Immanent trinity, the nature of God in himself before creation, does not include Jesus who was not yet born," and then you say, "Jesus is God-Man, God the Son. And because the Word is eternal, he could not be created."
You have tripped yourself up here. If Jesus was not yet born, how could God have been triune in nature. And after Jesus was born, this adds a 4th person to the "triune" making a "quadrune"You're basically telling me that Yahweh has a split personality because this is the only way a Triune God could work. And, even if this was the case, it would still mean two individual personalities, not a whole.
Consider John 8:58: ""I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
You said that "Immanent trinity, the nature of God in himself before creation, does not include Jesus who was not yet born"
So tell me Johnathan, who was Jesus referring to when he said this to the Jews? Or are you going to tell me this is just another part of Yahweh?
I said: "[the mighty god being his son Jesus], who was God's first creation"
You said: "This is arianism, and another false teaching. The Word was not created, and the evidence is overwhelming."
I have not seen overwhelming evidence of any kind, but for those who aren't aware, here is the defintion of what I am being accused of...
The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from—God the Father.
I'm afraid that Arius did not invent this concept, the Bible had it first. Colossians 1:15: "The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."
I submit to you it would be impossible for Jesus to have always existed, because how could a Father and Son exist at the same time?
Are you saying that Proverbs 8:23-31 is wrong?
"The LORD made me at the beginning of His creation, before His works of long ago. I was formed before ancient times, from the beginning, before the earth began. I was brought forth when there were no watery depths and no springs filled with water. I was brought forth before the mountains and hills were established, before He made the land, the fields, or the first soil on earth. I was there when He established the heavens, when He laid out the horizon on the surface of the ocean, when He placed the skies above, when the fountains of the ocean gushed forth, when He set a limit for the sea so that the waters would not violate His command, when He laid out the foundations of the earth. I was a skilled craftsman beside Him. I was His delight every day, always rejoicing before Him. I was rejoicing in His inhabited world, delighting in the human race."This scripture clearly indicates that Christ acknowledged his maker. What more evidence is there to prove that Jesus (the man) had a prehuman existence. Even if you do not accept that Jesus (the man) and Christ (the Son of God) are the same, this scipture proves that Yahweh created the son...or whom do you suppose this to be?
Your points about JWs insertion of the word "other" is moot because I do not subscribe to their belief system or their translation of the Bible.
You said: "However, if, as the Jehovah's Witnesses falsely teach, the preexistent Christ is a created creature only, then the Holy Spirit must also have been created and accordingly there would have been a time when there was no Holy Spirit and therefore God would have lacked power and authority and would not have been omnipotent, according to their theory. But, since the Holy Spirit is eternal, which the Jehovah's Witnesses must concede, and the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ, and this Spirit is the Holy Spirit, Christ the Word must be eternal."
I have no idea what you are talking about. JWs never said the Holy Spirit was created, they have always taught it was God's Active Force, something God has as part of his existence. JWs never said there was never a time before the Holy Spirit was created. You are confusing the issue. I see this as a straw man argument.
The Scriptures do not say they are equal, coeternal or one single God. Matthew 28:19 "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," This simply shows they are in unity with each other and does not say that they are all one in the same.
Mark 12:28-30 "One of the scribes approached. When he heard them debating and saw that Jesus answered them well, he asked Him, "Which commandment is the most important of all? "This is the most important," Jesus answered: Listen, Israel! The Lord our God, The Lord is One. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength."
Jesus was talking about his Father, not a triune god.
Just as the Word (who was also a God in Yahweh's eyes) had taken Eve from the body of Adam to create her, God had directly created the Word from Himself. And since the Word was created directly from God, it can be said that God also created all things, because the Word is an extension of God, as so are we in unified creation. The creation as a whole is unified as helping and serving one another. Remember the Scripture that says to be great you must be a servant of others. It was The Word (God’s Spokesman), who later became Jesus Christ.
Proverbs 8:30 “I was a skilled craftsman beside Him. I was His delight every day, always rejoicing before Him."John 17:5 Now, Father, glorify me in Your presence with that glory I had with You before the world existed. “Before the world existed”. The Word was with God before the world existed. The following scripture also shows how Jesus existed as The Word before all else.
John 14:28 You have heard Me tell you, ‘I am going away and I am coming to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I.Christ was first The Word and then he became Jesus Christ.
Paul speaks of truly coming to know who Christ was in the following scriptures:
Philippians 3:7-8 But everything that was a gain to me, I have considered to be a loss because of Christ. More than that, I also consider everything to be a loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. Because of Him I have suffered the loss of all things and consider them filth, so that I may gain Christ.
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of the woman, and God is the head of Christ.
1 Corinthians 15:28 And when everything is subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who subjected everything to Him, so that God may be all in all.
John 5:19 Then Jesus replied, “I assure you: The Son is not able to do anything on His own, but only what He sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, the Son also does these things in the same way.God is the Creator of spirit energy. The Word was first created as a spirit.
Hebrews 1:7 "And about the angels He says: He makes His angels winds, and His servants a fiery flame;" That reveals they are of powerful design other than flesh.
Luke 24:39 "Look at My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself! Touch Me and see, because a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you can see I have."
Spirit energy does not possess flesh. God started off the Word as a spirit. The rest of creation was created by the Word. This is what the Word is all about. It's what eludes people that lack insight. It is also part of what Christ is to be honored concerning his sacrifice. This is the reason why the Trinitarian belief is a false teaching in God's eyes.
-
jonathan dough
And this is where it gets tricky, for you. You said, "Immanent trinity, the nature of God in himself before creation, does not include Jesus who was not yet born," and then you say, "Jesus is God-Man, God the Son. And because the Word is eternal, he could not be created."
You have tripped yourself up here. If Jesus was not yet born, how could God have been triune in nature. And after Jesus was born, this adds a 4th person to the "triune" making a "quadrune"
There is not tripping up here. You're just not paying attention, that's all. Your statement "If Jesus was not yet born, how could God have been triune in nature, " indicates you don't understand the difference between immanent and economic trinity yet, or the God-man Jesus that is the hypostatic union. Immanent trinity refers to God before creation, before baby Jesus was born; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The divine person who was, and is, God the Son was a divine person who assumed a human nature. When was that human nature assumed? When Mary gave birth to Jesus, or at conception. Thus, the God-man. Go re-read the section explaining the difference between immanent and economic trinity.
http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html#2
And because the Word is eternal, he could not be created."
I'm referring to the Word, the Second Person of the trinity when I say "he" could not be created. Not the created humanity of Jesus. I thought that would have been clear by now.
You're basically telling me that Yahweh has a split personality because this is the only way a Triune God could work. And, even if this was the case, it would still mean two individual personalities, not a whole.
Are you talking about YHWH (triune) or Jesus (dual)? I've already explained in detail and quoted numerous mainstream references that address the personality of the triune God, that they are not considered individual separate entities like humans.“Person” refers to a form in which the divine essence exists, not a created human, but three personal self-distinctions (The New Bible Dictionary [Grand Rapids, Michigan, W. M. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962], 1300) (New Bible Dictionary).
In most formularies the doctrine is stated by saying that God is one in His essential being, but that in this being there are three Persons, yet so as not to form separate and distinct individuals. They are three modes or forms in which the divine essence exists. ‘Person’ is, however, an imperfect expression of the truth in as much as the term denotes to us a separate rational and moral individual. But in the being of God there are not three individuals, but only three personal self-distinctions within the one divine essence. (New Bible Dictionary, 1299, 1300)
Fourth, while each Person is self-conscious, He never acts independently.
[P]ersonality in man implies independence of will, actions, and feelings, leading to behavior peculiar to the person. This cannot be thought of in connection with the Trinity; each Person is self-conscious and self-directing, yet never acting independently or in opposition. (ibid.)
Fifth, The Jehovah’s Witnesses argue,“ Thousands of times throughout the Bible, God is spoken of as one person. When he speaks, it is as one undivided individual…. Why would all the God-inspired Bible writers speak of God as one person if he were actually three persons? … What purpose would that serve except to mislead people?” (Should You Believe, Chapter 6).
This line of argument illustrates their confusion. The triune God is not split into three. He is one undivided individual as just mentioned. His diversity manifests itself in operations and characteristics:
When we say that God is a unity we mean that though God is in Himself a threefold centre of life, His life is not split into three. He is one in essence, in personality, and in will. When we say that God is a Trinity in unity we mean that there is unity in diversity, and that diversity manifests itself in Persons, in characteristics, and in operations. (New Bible Dictionary, 1299, 1300)
If you are referring to "two individual personalities" of the God-man, in the sense of Christ the God-man having seperate wills, why yes, the orthodox teach that.
Just as there are two complete and perfect natures in Christ, one divine, the other human, there are two wills in Christ, one divine, the other human. (Catholic Encyclopedia, 947)
http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html
Consider John 8:58: ""I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
You said that "Immanent trinity, the nature of God in himself before creation, does not include Jesus who was not yet born"
So tell me Johnathan, who was Jesus referring to when he said this to the Jews? Or are you going to tell me this is just another part of Yahweh?I'm saying that Jesus at John 8:58 was referring to his divine self, God the Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Not the man (baby) of the God-man that was born to Mary. In so doing he was claiming divinity, that he was YHWH. Jesus was, and is, God.
“The humanity of Christ is a creature, it is not God” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 922).
-
jonathan dough
I said: "[the mighty god being his son Jesus], who was God's first creation"
You said: "This is arianism, and another false teaching. The Word was not created, and the evidence is overwhelming."
I have not seen overwhelming evidence of any kind, but for those who aren't aware, here is the defintion of what I am being accused of...
The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from—God the Father.
I'm afraid that Arius did not invent this concept, the Bible had it first. Colossians 1:15: "The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."
You might think you are no longer a JW, but you still are, to the very core.
I don't know how much evidence you want or need, but I can tell that you haven't read any of what has been presented to you because I've already covered all of the issues in the material I submitted to you.
I'm afraid that Arius did not invent this concept, the Bible had it first. Colossians 1:15: "The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."
First, as I mentioned, Col 1:17 provides that the Word was before all things, not other things, but all things. Therefore he could not be a thing, and could not have been created.
Secondly, Col 1:15 provides two reasons why the Word was not created.
1) He was the image of the invisible God, the invisible made visible.At 2 Corinthians 4:4, the “image of God” means that Christ is “essentially and absolutely the perfect expression of the Archtype, God the Father” (Strong and Vine’s, 77).
[I]n Colossians 1:15, “the image of the invisible God “gives the additional thought suggested by the word “invisible,” that Christ is the visible representation and manifestation of God to created beings; (5c) the likeness expressed in this manifestation is involved in the essential relations in the Godhead and is therefore unique and perfect; “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father,” John 14:9. (ibid., 77)
Understanding "image" depends on how the concept is used elsewhere. For example:
At Hebrews 1:3 Christ is said to be “the very imprint of His (God’s) being” (NAB) (“the very stamp of his nature” (RS) (“the express image of His substance” (Strong and Vine’s, 269). The Greek word used here for image, stamp or imprint is charaktar and means an exact copy or representation, and stresses complete, not partial, similarity of essence.
(2) In the NT it is used metaphorically in Heb 1:3, of the Son of God as “the express image of His substance.” The phrase expresses the fact that the Son “is both personally distinct from, and yet literally equal to, Him of whose essence He is the imprint. The Son of God is not merely his “image” (His character), He is the “image” or impress of His substance, or essence. It is the fact of complete similarity which this word stresses. (Strong and Vine’s, 269)
Accordingly, such equality applies to His eternal existence, omnipotence and omniscient nature, as God and the Word are literally equal to each other with respect to their essential being.
2) He was the first born of all creation; not the first of creation to be born, but preeminent, above creation.
The Word, Christ, was the firstborn of all creation, but not in the sense of being created - (Colossians 1:15)[Top]
The Jehovah's Witnesses erroneously teach that “Having been created by God, Jesus is in a secondary position in time, power, and knowledge. Jesus, in his pre-human existence, was “the first-born of all creation (Col 1:15 NJB)” (Should You Believe, Chapter 6), the first created thing.
They apply “first-born” (Greek protokos) narrowly and limit it to human procreation. Like a man fathering a son, Jesus, they claim, was the first creature born, or fathered, by God; a created subordinate being and therefore not eternal.
The Jehovah's Witnesses base this argument on prior usage of the phrase “first-born (of)” in the context of then-living creatures which they claim always belonged to a group of some kind, and therefore Jesus belonged to the group of all created things. They write:
(2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures, the same meaning applies - the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; the “firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; the “firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What then causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? (Reasoning, 408) (emphasis added)
The manner in which they phrase the issue assumes Christ the Word is a creature, writing: each time the expression “first born of” occurs, in each such instance that it is applied to creatures the same meaning applies, that the first born is part of a group.” But this is a mere play on words and begs the question whether Christ was a creature in the first place? The issue, rather, revolves around the definition of “first born” or “first born of” creation and how that is applied before its use at Colossians 1:15 and afterward, whether or not it was applied to creatures.
“First born of” is not limited to a group of creatures but is used in the Old Testament figuratively for disease or plague (NAB notes Job 18:13). The “first-born of death consumes his limbs” (NAB Job 18:13).
Isaiah 14:30 illustrates the figurative use of “the firstborn of.” It states: “And the firstborn of the poor shall eat; and the needy shall lie down in safety” (Green’s Literal Translation). These verses emphasize the poorest of the poor. It does not state, nor can it be implied, that only those people who were the procreative firstborn of each family who happened to be poor would eat, and their poor siblings would starve. It does not carve out one group of first-born poor from the rest of the poor, but it identifies those hungering poor in general, the neediest of the needy.
The term “first-born” (son) (Hebrew bkowr ) was used at Exodus 4:22 to refer to all of Israel as a group, not part of a group, and that relationship was not the result of physical procreation because they already existed. Rather, it was a spiritual and religious relationship; Israel was God’s Son.
(7) Israel was God’s “first-born”; it enjoyed a privileged position and blessings over all other nations (Ex 4:22; Jer 31:19). (Strong and Vine’s, 39)
At Deuteronomy 21:16, 17 “first-born” (Hebrew bkowr) also has the meaning of superiority of position, not the first created male child.
[T]hen on the day when he assigns his possessions as an inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of the loved as the first-born in preference to the son of the disliked, who is the first-born, but he shall acknowledge the first-born, the son of the disliked, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the first issue of his strength; the right of the first-born is his.
Here, the son of one wife who is not the mother of the actual first-born son should not be treated as such with respect to disposition of her husband’s inheritance (ibid.).
As you can see, “first-born” or “first-born of” is not limited to a member of a group of creatures but has broad application. According to Strong and Vine’s, “firstborn” (Greek protokos) with reference to the preexistent Christ is used “of His relationship to the Father, expressing His priority to, and preeminence over, creation, not in the sense of being the first to be born. It is used of superiority of position (cf. Ex 4:22; Deut 21:16, 17)” (ibid., 218).
(Prototokos) Firstborn is used (1) of Christ as born of the Virgin Mary (Mt 1:25; Lk 2:7), (2) of His relationship to the Father, expressing His priority to, and preeminence over, creation, not in the sense of being the first to be born. It is used of superiority of position (cf. Ex 4:22; Deut 21:16, 17). (3) Chronologically, the four passages relating to Christ as firstborn, first begotten, may be set forth thusly: (3a) Col 1:15, where His eternal relationship with the Father is in view, and the clause means both that He was the firstborn before all creation and that He Himself produced creation (the genitive case being objective, as v. 16 makes clear); (3b) Col 1:18 and Rev 1:5, in reference to His resurrection; (3c) Rom 8:29, His being firstborn among those living by faith alone in God the Father; (3d) Heb 1:6, first begotten, stresses His superior position, His preeminence over all; His second advent in contrast to His first advent, at His birth, being implied. (Strong and Vine’s, 218)
As such, the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong in their interpretation of “first-born” at Colossians 1:15, 16, and Trinitarian Christians are correct in saying “that the ‘first-born’ here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished. Thus, Christ could be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those whom he created,” (Reasoning, 408). This is particularly true in light of the unequivocal language of Colossians 1:17 which says “He is before all things” (RSV).
http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-6.html#31
I submit to you it would be impossible for Jesus to have always existed, because how could a Father and Son exist at the same time?
You don't seem to want to let go of this, still thinking in human father/son terms when in fact we are dealing with Spirit. I have explained this ad naseum. Maybe I haven't been clear or patient enough, and for that I apologize. Perhaps metaphor will help. Irenaeus (d. 200 A.D.) saw the Son and Spirit’s roles as the two hands of the Father. Just as Paul says at Col 1:17: “He is before all things.” He was not created but rather “set up” or “poured out” (Hebrew Nacak) as one pours out an existing libation, or casts existing metal or anoints an existing king (Strong and Vine’s, 188).
-
truthseeker
You don't seem to want to let go of this, still thinking in human father/son terms when in fact we are dealing with Spirit. I have explained this ad naseum. Maybe I haven't been clear or patient enough, and for that I apologize. Perhaps metaphor will help. Irenaeus (d. 200 A.D.) saw the Son and Spirit’s roles as the two hands of the Father. Just as Paul says at Col 1:17: “He is before all things.” He was not created but rather “set up” or “poured out” (Hebrew Nacak) as one pours out an existing libation, or casts existing metal or anoints an existing king (Strong and Vine’s, 188).
I have thoroughly read your explanations, I just don't agree. I understand your arguments but I can't accept them. But we can do that in a spirit of learning. There is no bad feeling on my part here.
-
truthseeker
God's first move in restoring what went wrong was to ask the Word (who became Jesus Christ) if he would be willing to balance the scale of righteous law by giving his life for Mankind born into secondary sin.
The Word agreed to give his life, taking on mankind’s sin through the ransom sacrifice. In exchange, God promised his first born son a Kingdom for himself and all those that put faith in the ransom through Christ’s sacrificial blood.
God explained that the Word must give up his heavenly home and be made a little lower than he was for a short time, that he must be born of mankind and wear a human container.
Because Satan challenged all of God's creation to be tested, the Word (Jesus) would himself undergo a testing as a human and prove himself without a blemish in order for the ransom to be fulfilled.
God told him he would be called Jesus meaning the “Salvation of Yahweh” and since his anointing was from his Father, he would also be called “Christ” meaning “Messiah” or "Anointed One”. In addition, God asked that the Word be instrumental in removing the reproach that Satan had placed upon His name by being the vindicator of his Father at the expense of his perfect life and the possibility of failing and forevermore losing his own precious existence in creation.
-
Twitch
Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship.
-
truthseeker
Twitch,
I agree. Size doesn't necessarily matter, it's the power we possess :)
God being "nature" is the first in our reality. Michael was then created and through him he created the invisible spiritual reality first, then the visible realm second which reflects the natural order of authority stair-stepped back up to God at the top.
For us, we are flesh and blood first of the natural order, and then we become spiritual by rebirth to God's family. Christ was born as a human baby and then reanimated as a spirit to regain his old position as the Word and received his new position as the King of his own kingdom that his Father had promised.