Again...I present this statement below and ask this question for anyone who does not believe that the invisible God (SPIRIT) was manifest (made seen) in the flesh:
The Scripture declares that GOD was manifest in the flesh. GOD was justified in the Spirit, GOD was seen of angels, GOD preached unto the Gentiles, GOD was believed on in the world, and GOD was received up into glory.
Question: If not IN JESUS, when did God do this?
Hi His! long time no see!
It will be interesting to see whether you get any naysayers.
,
cm
"In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity." - St. Augustine of Hippo
i'm not arguing that God was not manifest in the flesh because this is plain enough from John 1:14, 18; Phil 2:6f; Col 1:15; Heb 1:3. however if you are hanging your hat on 1 Tim 3:16 as a prooftext you are basing your reading on that which is an unlikely reading. the best texts are translated as, "He was revealed in the flesh..." below is info on this:Originally posted by HIS
The Scripture declares that GOD was manifest in the flesh. GOD was justified in the Spirit, GOD was seen of angels, GOD preached unto the Gentiles, GOD was believed on in the world, and GOD was received up into glory.
you can view this here by looking up 1 Tim 3:16.The Byzantine text along with a few other witnesses (most significantly, 1739; the second correctors of other mss such as Í A C D all tend to conform to the medieval standard, the Byzantine text, and add no independent voice to the discussion) read qeov" (qeos, “God”) for o{" (Jos, “who”). On the other side, the masculine relative pronoun o{" is strongly supported by Í* A* C* F G 33 Did Epiph et pauci. Significantly, D* and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, o{ (Jo, “which”). Thus, externally, there is no question as to what should be considered original: the Alexandrian and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of o{". Internally, the evidence is even stronger. What scribe would change qeov" to o{" intentionally? “Who” is not only a theologically pale reading by comparison; it also is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no obvious antecedent). Intrinsically, the rest of 3:16, beginning with o{", appears to form a six-strophed hymn. As such, it is a text that is seemingly incorporated into the letter without syntactical connection. Hence, not only should we not look for an antecedent for o{" (as is often done by commentators), but the relative pronoun thus is not too hard a reading (or impossible, as Dean Burgon believed). Once the genre is taken into account, the relative pronoun fits neatly into the author’s style (cf. also Col 1:15; Phil 2:6 for other places in which the relative pronoun begins a hymn, as was often the case in poetry of the day). On the other hand, with qeov" written as a nomen sacrum, it would have looked very much like the relative pronoun: q-=s vs. os. Thus, it may have been easy to confuse one for the other. This, of course, does not solve which direction the scribes would go, although given their generally high Christology and the bland and ambiguous relative pronoun, it is doubtful that they would have replaced qeov" with o{". How then should we account for qeov"? It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the qeov" reading came into existence, either via confusion with o{" or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time. Once it got in, this theologically rich reading was easily able to influence all the rest of the mss it came in contact with (including mss already written, such as Í A C D). That this reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading, o{. The neuter relative pronoun is certainly a “correction” of o{", conforming the gender to that of the neuter musthvrion (musthrion, “mystery”). What is significant in this reading is (1) since virtually all the Western witnesses have either the masculine or neuter relative pronoun, the qeov" reading was unknown to them in the 2nd century (when the “Western” text originated, though its place of origination was most likely in the east); they thus supply strong indirect evidence of o{" outside of Egypt in the 2nd century; (2) even 2nd century scribes were able to misunderstand the genre, feeling compelled to alter the masculine relative pronoun because it appeared to them to be too harsh. The evidence, therefore, for o{" is quite compelling, both externally and internally. As B. M. Metzger notes (Textual Commentary, 574), “no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Y) supports qeov"; all ancient versions presuppose o{" or o{; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading qeov".” Thus, the cries of certain groups that qeov" has to be original must be seen as special pleading in this case. To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating, for most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ. They would have dearly loved such a reading as qeov". Further, had heretics introduced a variant to qeov", a far more natural choice would have been Cristov" (Cristos, “Christ”) or kuvrio" (kurios, “Lord”), since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity. See D. B. Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 341-2, for a summary discussion on this issue and additional bibliographic references.
CM...Yes, it has been a long time. I don't visit these forums like I used to.
Disciple...I hear what you are saying, and I don't have a big problem with someone trying to substitute HE for GOD. Clearly, there are several translations that used "God" instead of "He" in verse 16.
Perhaps it is because the preceeding verse says, "great is the mystery of GODLINESS"
I don't find any translation that substitutes another word for "Godliness" in verse 15.
God is clearly the subject in verse 16. Some try to suggest that "HE" is the only acceptable word here because they refuse to acknowledge that it was "GOD with US." They want to suggest that it was someone else (not God) with us.
II Corinthians 5:19 states that GOD (Spirit) was in Christ (anointed one or flesh). From the beginning, it was in the mind and plan of God to come in the flesh and physically live among His people and "personally" minister to their needs as never before.
GOD is SPIRIT. As Spirit, He is invisible and needed a body (flesh) to dwell in to minister to His people.
He did this in the face (person) of Jesus Christ. II Cor 4:6
I know you believe that Jesus Christ is God from your statements.
The bottom line is this:
God is the only Saviour (there are not two or more Saviours)
Jesus is called the Saviour of the World in Scripture.
Conclusion: JESUS is God our Saviour
How can anyone deny this ( ? )
Good morning, His:
The trinitarians among us 'round here do not deny that Jesus is God our Savior. However, we do recognize the distinction between the Father and the Son. The Father, Son, and Spirit share the same essence, deity, and authority (all of which the Father has given to His Son and His Spirit), and yet there is distinction between them such that they take council with one another. And so Jesus is God our Savior in that He shares in the Father's deity and in that He is the agent of our salvation, while the Father is the author of it.
Consider that Jesus prayed to His Father during His earthly ministry. You're aware of that. Consider also that Paul spoke of the Father as the Lord's God. Let me see whether I can find that quickly (limited time this morning):
Also consider these verses that mark the distinction:NKJ Ephesians 1:3
3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
NKJ Ephesians 1:17
17. that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him,
Consider also that Jesus told the Pharisees that He only did and said what He saw the Father doing and saying.NKJ 1 Corinthians 3:23
23. And you are Christ's, and Christ is God's.
NKJ 1 Corinthians 8:6
6. yet for us there is only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.
NKJ 1 Corinthians 11:3
3. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
NKJ 1 Corinthians 15:24
24. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.
NKJ 1 Corinthians 15:28
28. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.
NKJ Ephesians 4:4-6
4. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling;
5. one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
6. one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
His, I would also exhort you to try an exercise that you might find very interesting. In reading Paul's letters, take note of the phrase "of God" and the phrases "in Christ, "through Christ" etc. Paul speaks so often and in so many ways of the Father as the source and author and of the Son, Jesus, as the agent. And yet he also wrote of Jesus as "the author and finisher of our salvation," which is not contradictory, because God the Father bestowed all His authority upon the Son.
God's triune nature is impossible for us to perfectly understand (or express) here in this life. We're actually better at stating what is not true about it than stating what is true. There are two equal and opposite errors that so many of us fall into, of either denying Jesus' deity and the unity between the Father, Son, and Spirit, or of erasing the distinction between the Father, Son, and Spirit. Recognizing the Biblical distinction in no way contradicts the declaration, "Hear O Israel, the LORD thy God [elohim] is one." The distinction does not make them three gods. Again, the three are one in deity, substance, and authority, yet they are three; the Son and the Spirit are not merely alternative expressions of the Father.
Paradoxical? Yes, but do you know the etymology of the word "paradox?" (I am learning to read Greek). "Para" means "beside," and "doxa" means "glory." Think about it!
prayerfully,
cm
"In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity." - St. Augustine of Hippo
In addition, it is clear from the OT that God is somehow a plural being. note the following:
Gen 1:26 Then God [Elohim - plural noun] said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Gen 3:22 Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"
Gen 11:6 The Lord said, "Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. 7 "Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another's speech." 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city.
Is 6:8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!"
see the following links to see what the Early Church Fathers believed about these verses:
http://www.erie.net/~mrt/web/Trinity1.htm
http://www.erie.net/~mrt/web/Trinity2.htm
http://www.erie.net/~mrt/web/Trinity3.htm
Hello CM…
Those (like myself) who believe in the absolute oneness of God do not (I assume) have a problem with agreeing that there was a distinction between the Father and the Son. However, the difference lies in the concepts that we reject.
We do not see a “God the Son” relationship with God the Father. We see an eternal Spirit (God our Father) relationship with humanity (human nature of the Jesus). We see the Eternal Spirit and God, who is called our Father through creation and adoption revealing Himself in the flesh at a specific point in time. This union of God and flesh or humanity cannot be explained or fully understood with our finite minds.
So, I will not try and begin to explain just how God manifested Himself in the flesh when He conceived in Mary and became a baby and then grew to become a man just like me (with all my weaknesses).
The Trinitarian thought process would suggest that the Son existed from the beginning as a second person of God…equal to God the Father and God the Holy Ghost.
The Scripture states that God is one Spirit and he acts after the counsel of his OWN will and not of another (see Eph 1:11). You are seeing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three separate and distinct persons of a single Godhead. I am seeing the Father as God, the Son as the flesh or humanity that this single God indwelt and was able to manifest Himself to mankind. I also see the Holy Spirit as just a descriptive title of the one God who is our Father. This title of Holy Spirit is used to describe God’s nature and essential being. God is Holy in nature and Spirit in being. Otherwise, you would have to conclude that there is more than one Spirit making up the Godhead (i.e., John 4:24 is clearly referring to the Father).
You stated above that the Son is the “agent of our salvation.” If you are referring to Christ (anointed one) according to His humanity, then I am okay with the statement. God, as Spirit, truly needed something or someone to make himself “visible” to mankind, so He could minister on earth the way that He did.
Note: In order for God to be God, God cannot be anointed….God is the "anointer." This is why Jesus received the title of “Christ.” Jesus, the Christ (the anointed one or Messiah)
I see that you did try and recover from the obvious contradiction by saying that Jesus could still be called an “author” and yet be an “agent.” With my line of thinking above, it can easily be understood. I am not sure yours works.
Of course Jesus (according to his humanity) prayed to his Father. According to your thinking, it would have to be God the Son praying to God the Father. This is a God praying to God concept. God does not need prayer. God only hears and answers prayer.
Please note that the Scriptures you reference about “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ” do not say the “God of God the Son.” Again, they are merely referring to the relationship between the flesh (Christ) and the Spirit (Father).
If you substitute “anointed one” for Christ, it may help you better understand the distinction between the Spirit and the flesh that is referenced so many times in the Scripture.
Consider the Scripture you referenced:
NKJ 1 Corinthians 15:24
24. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.
NKJ 1 Corinthians 15:28
28. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.
If the Son is the second person in a triune Godhead, how can he remain co-equal with the Father when he is “subject to Him who put all things under Him” ?
Suddenly, this co-existant, co-equal Godhead or doctrine collapses.
You asked me to consider also that Jesus told the Pharisees that He only did and said what He saw the Father doing and saying.
Question: Where is the co-equality in this statement?
You cannot have the Father bestowing all His authority upon the Son without the Son being un-deified in the first place.
Again, it is easily answered and understood when you realize that Jesus had a dual nature. “God the Son” did not have a dual nature. God our Father robbed himself in the flesh and this one called Christ (anointed one) had a dual nature. He was fully man and very God. The Scripture clearly states that it was the Father in son, not the Son in son.
Question: When you say that the trinity is of one substance, what do you mean?
Hello Disciple...
I guess I would like to first suggest that if God is a trinity and this trinity said, "let us..." then what forth person or other being might he have been speaking to in the passages you referrenced?
Elohim
The most commonly used Hebrew word of God is Elohim. This is the original word in almost every Old Testament passage where we see the English word God. It is the plural form of the Hebrew word Eloah, which means God or deity.
Most scholars agree that the use of the plural word Elohim indicates God’s greatness or His multiple attributes. It does not imply a plurality of persons or personalities. The Jews certainly do not see the plural form as compromising their strong monotheism. This is why they also reject the trinity doctrine.
The form of the word, Elohim, is plural. The Hebrews pluralized nouns to express greatness or majesty. The Bible itself reveals that the only way to understand the plural form of Elohim is that it expresses God’s majesty and not a plurality in the Godhead, both by its insistence on one God and by its use of Elohim in situations that definitely portray only one person or personality.
For example, Elohim identifies the singular manifestation of God in human form to Jacob (Genesis 32:30). The Israelites used the word elohim for the golden calf they made in the wilderness (Exodus 32:1, 4, 8, 23, 31), yet the Bible account makes it clear that there was only one golden calf (Exodus 32:4, 5, 8, 19-20, 24, 35). The Old Testament often uses elohim for singular pagan gods such as Baalberith (Judges 8:33), Chemosh (Judges 11:24), Dagon (Judges 16:23), Baalzebub (II Kings 1:2-3), and Nisroch (II Kings 19:37). The Bible even applies Elohim to Jesus Christ (Psalm 45:6; Zechariah 12:8-10; 14:5), and no one suggests there is a plurality of persons in Jesus. So the word Elohim does not indicate three persons in the Godhead.
Only one being called Elohim wrestled with Jacob, only one golden calf was called elohim, and one Lord Jesus Christ is God made manifest in flesh.
you spent some time dealing with the plural word Elohim but explained nothing of the plural pronouns (i.e., us, our). how do you explain them? who is the Lord God talking to? how do you understand these passages?Originally posted by HIS
I guess I would like to first suggest that if God is a trinity and this trinity said, "let us..." then what forth person or other being might he have been speaking to in the passages you referrenced?
i just don't see this distinction (of flesh and spirit) as explaining or being the meaning of the distinction between the Father and Son in Scripture (perhaps you could provide references). what about the distinctions between the Spirit and the Father? please explain the following verses, explaining how they would make any sense if the Father and the Spirit were identical (or just two different ways to describe a monad God; i.e., His role and His nature):Originally posted by HIS
Those (like myself) who believe in the absolute oneness of God do not (I assume) have a problem with agreeing that there was a distinction between the Father and the Son. However, the difference lies in the concepts that we reject.
We do not see a “God the Son” relationship with God the Father. We see an eternal Spirit (God our Father) relationship with humanity (human nature of the Jesus). We see the Eternal Spirit and God, who is called our Father through creation and adoption revealing Himself in the flesh at a specific point in time. This union of God and flesh or humanity cannot be explained or fully understood with our finite minds.
Mt 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
John 14:16 "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you. 18 "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you...26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
John 15:26 "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,
1 Co 12:4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.
Heb 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
1 Pet 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.
HIS, please allow me to respectfully issue a challenge:
What will you do with Jesus' words as He was dying?
Surely you will not say that His divine nature was torn from Him before He died, so that He died merely a man.My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?
From your previous response to me:
I see that I need to back up further, to nearer the beginning, in order to try and clear this up. To say that the Son is co-equal in deity and authority is not to deny that the Son (Word) comes forth from the Father, nor to deny that the Son's authority comes from the Father. What it does mean is that the Son's authority is not other than the Father's authority and that the Son's deity is not derived from any other source. It was necessary for the early churches to state those things in answer to the Arian heretics, who make the Son to be "a god," created at some point in time. But I realize that the meaning of such statements is not immediately clear.You asked me to consider also that Jesus told the Pharisees that He only did and said what He saw the Father doing and saying.
Question: Where is the co-equality in this statement?
You cannot have the Father bestowing all His authority upon the Son without the Son being un-deified in the first place.
As for the Father bestowing all His authority upon the Son, Jesus Himself made it clear that He had done so. This in no way "un-deifies" the Son. There was no time prior to the bestowing - in fact, such an idea is nonsense, if you really think about it. As I recently explained to a Jehovah's Witness participant, to recognize that the Son/Word has the Father as the source of His very being is not to say that He began to exist some time after the Father (another nonsense idea).
The real Nature of God is truly beyond the scope of human expression, and the doctrine of trinity is just the best we can do with it based upon what has been revealed to us in Scripture. It's more a guard against what is not true than it is an perfectly accurate description of what is.
"In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity." - St. Augustine of Hippo
Genesis 1:26
“And God said, Let us make man in our image.”
Why does this verse use a plural pronoun for God? Before I answer this, let me note that the Bible uses singular pronouns to refer to God hundreds of times. The very next verse uses the singular to show how God fulfilled verse 26: “So God created man in his own image” (Genesis 1:27). Genesis 2:7 says, “And the LORD God formed man.” We must therefore reconcile the plural in 1:26 with the singular in 1:27 and 2:7. We must also look at God’s image creature, which is man. Regardless of how we identify the various components that make up a man, a man definitely has one personality and will. He is one person in every way. This indicates that the Creator in whose image man was made is also one being with one personality and will.
Any interpretation of Genesis 1:26 that permits the existence of more than one person of God runs into severe difficulties. Isaiah 44:24 says the LORD created the heavens alone and created the earth by Himself. There was only one Creator according to Malachi 2:10.
Furthermore, if the plural in Genesis 1:26 refers to the Son of God, how do we reconcile this with the scriptural record that the Son was not born until at least four thousand years later in Bethlehem? The Son was made of a woman (Galatians 4:4); if the Son was present in the beginning who was His mother? If the Son be a spirit being, who was His spirit mother? Since Genesis 1:26 cannot mean two or more persons in the Godhead, what does it mean? The Jews have traditionally interpreted it to mean that God talked to the angels at creation. This does not imply that the angels actually took part in creation but that God may have informed them of His plans and solicited their comments out of courtesy and respect.
On at least one other occasion God talked to the angels and requested their opinions in formulating His plans (I Kings 22:19-22). We do know that the angels were present at the creation (Job 38:4-7).
Other commentators have suggested that Genesis 1:26 simply describes God as He counseled with His own will. Ephesians 1:11supports this view, saying that God works all things “after the counsel of his own will.”
By analogy, this is similar to a man saying “Let’s see” (let us see) even when he is planning by himself.
Others explain this passage as a majestic or literary plural. That is, in formal speaking and writing the speaker or writer often refers to himself in the plural, especially if the speaker is of royalty. Biblical examples of the majestic plural can be cited to illustrate this practice.
For example, Daniel told King Nebuchadnezzar, “We will tell the interpretation thereof before the king,” even though Daniel alone proceeded to give the interpretation to the king (Daniel 2:36).
King Artaxerxes alternately referred to himself in the singular and the plural in his correspondence. Once, he wrote, “The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me” (Ezra 4:18). In a letter to Ezra, Artaxerxes called himself “I” in one place (Ezra 7:13) but “we” in another place (7:24).
The use of the plural in Genesis 1:26 also may be similar to the plural Elohim in denoting the greatness and majesty of God or the multiple attributes of God. In other words, the plural pronoun simply agrees with and substitutes for the plural noun Elohim.
Still another explanation is that this passage describes God’s foreknowledge of the future arrival of the Son, much like prophetic passages in the Psalms. We must realize that God does not live in time. His plans are real to Him even though they are in the future as far as we are concerned. He calls those things that are not as though they are (Romans 4:17). A day is as a thousand years to Him and a thousand years is as a day (II Peter 3:8). His plan—the Word—existed from the beginning in the mind of God (John 1:1). As far as God was concerned, the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (I Peter 1:19-20; Revelation 13:8). It is not surprising that God could look down the corridors of time and address a prophetic utterance to the Son. Romans 5:14 says that Adam was a figure of Him who was to come, that is, Jesus Christ. When God created Adam, He had already thought about the Incarnation and created Adam with that plan in mind. Taking this idea a step further, Hebrews 1:1-2 says that God made the worlds by the Son. How could this be, seeing that the Son did not come into existence until a point in time much later than creation? (Hebrews 1:5-6). God used the Sonship to make the world. That is, He hinged everything on the future arrival of Christ. Though He did not pick up the humanity until the fulness of time was come, it was in His plan from the beginning, and He used it and acted upon it from the start. He created man in the image of the future Son of God, and He created man knowing that although man would sin the future Sonship would provide a way of salvation. God created man in the beginning so that man would love and worship Him (Isaiah 43:7; Revelation 4:11). However, by reason of His foreknowledge God knew that man would fall into sin.
God had in His mind the plan for the Incarnation and the plan of salvation through the atoning death of Christ. So, even though God knew man would sin, He also knew that through the Son of God man could be restored and could fulfill God’s original purpose. It is apparent, then, that when God created man he had the future arrival of the Son in mind.
It is in this sense that God created the worlds through the Son or by using the Son, for without the Son, God’s whole purpose in creating man would have failed. In summary, Genesis 1:26 cannot mean a plurality in the Godhead, for that would contradict the rest of Scripture.
I have offered several other harmonizing explanations. (1) The Jews and many Christians see this as a reference to the angels. Many other Christians see it as (2) a description of God counseling with His own will, (3) a majestic or literary plural, (4) a pronoun simply agreeing with the noun Elohim, or (5) a prophetic reference to the future manifestation of the Son of God.
Disciple...
To add to the "let us..." argument, I would like to submit something I read from a Jewish rabbi:
A great number of Trinitarian Christian scholars have long abandoned the notion that Genesis 1:26 implies a plurality of persons in the godhead.
Rather, Christian scholars overwhelmingly agree that the plural pronoun in this verse is a reference to God’s ministering angels who were created previously, and the Almighty spoke majestically in the plural, consulting His heavenly court.
Let’s read the comments of a number of preeminent Trinitarian Bible scholars on this subject. For example, the evangelical Christian author Gordon J. Wenham, who is no foe of the Trinity and authored a widely respected two-volume commentary on the Book of Genesis, writes on this verse,
"Christians have traditionally seen [Genesis 1:26] as adumbrating [foreshadowing] the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author."
If you had attended any one of my lectures you would know that the New International Version is hardly a Bible that can be construed as being friendly to Judaism. Yet, the NIV Study Bible also writes in its commentary on Genesis 1:26,
"Us . . . Our . . . Our. God speaks as the Creator-king, announcing His crowning work to the members of His heavenly court. (see 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8; I Kings 22:19-23; Job 15:8; Jeremiah 23:18)"
Charles Caldwell Ryrie, a highly regarded dispensationalist professor of Biblical Studies at the Philadelphia College of Bible and author of the widely read Bible commentary, The Ryrie Study Bible, writes in his short and to-the-point annotation on Genesis 1:26,
"Us . . . Our. Plurals of majesty."
The Liberty Annotated Study Bible, a Bible commentary published by the Reverend Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, similarly remarks on this verse,
"The plural pronoun “Us” is most likely a majestic plural from the standpoint of Hebrew grammar and syntax."
The 10-volume commentary by Keil and Delitzsch is considered by many to be the most influential exposition on the “Old Testament” in evangelical circles. Yet in its commentary on Genesis 1:26, we find,
"The plural “We” was regarded by the fathers and earlier theologians almost unanimously as indicative of the Trinity; modern commentators, on the contrary, regard it either as pluralis majestatis . . . No other explanation is left, therefore, than to regard it as pluralis majestatis . . . ."
The question that immediately comes to mind is: What would compel these evangelical scholars -- all of whom are Trinitarian -- to determinedly conclude that Genesis 1:26 does not suggest the Trinity, but rather a majestic address to the angelic hosts of heaven? Why would the comments of the above conservative Christian writers so perfectly harmonize with the Jewish teaching on this verse?
The answer to this question is simple. If you search the Bible you will find that when the Almighty speaks of “us” or “our,” He is addressing His ministering angels. In fact, only two chapters later, God continues to use the pronoun “us” as He speaks with His angels. At the end of the third chapter of Genesis the Almighty relates to His angels that Adam and his wife have eaten from the Tree of Knowledge and must therefore be prevented from eating from the Tree of Life as well; for if man would gain access to the Tree of Life he will “become like one of us.” The Creator then instructs his angels known as Cherubim to stand at the gate of the Garden of Eden waving a flaming sword so that mankind is prevented from entering the Garden and eating from the Tree of Life. Let’s examine Genesis 3:22-24.
Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever” -- therefore the Lord God sent him out of the Garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the Garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.
This use of the majestic plural in Genesis 3:22-24 is what is intended by the NIV Study Bible’s annotation on Genesis 1:26 (above).
At the end of its comment on this verse, the NIV Study Bible provides a number of Bible sources from the Jewish scriptures to support its position that “God speaks as the Creator-king, announcing His crowning work to the members of His heavenly court.” The verses cited are: Genesis 3:22, 11:7, Isaiah 6:8, I Kings 22:19-23, Job 15:8, and Jeremiah 23:18. These verses convey to the attentive Bible reader that the heavenly abode of the Creator is filled with the ministering angels who attend the Almighty and to whom He repeatedly refers when using the plural pronoun “Us.”
Last edited by HIS; 01-08-2003 at 01:21 PM.
Your Scripture referrences are very easy for me to explain. I don't have time to respond now, but I will try and get back to you soon.Originally posted by disciple
[B]i just don't see this distinction (of flesh and spirit) as explaining or being the meaning of the distinction between the Father and Son in Scripture (perhaps you could provide references). what about the distinctions between the Spirit and the Father? please explain the following verses, explaining how they would make any sense if the Father and the Spirit were identical (or just two different ways to describe a monad God; i.e., His role and His nature)
and how do you reconcile them?Originally posted by HIS
We must therefore reconcile the plural in 1:26 with the singular in 1:27 and 2:7.
the trinitarian does not believe that the trinity composes three gods or three creators but one God and one Creator in three persons (thus a plural being or plurality in unity).Isaiah 44:24 says the LORD created the heavens alone and created the earth by Himself. There was only one Creator according to Malachi 2:10.
the Son clearly pre-existed. if He did not, then these verses would make little sense (there doesn't seem to be evidence that He was referring to being there only in thought or concept or potential as you are suggesting):Furthermore, if the plural in Genesis 1:26 refers to the Son of God, how do we reconcile this with the scriptural record that the Son was not born until at least four thousand years later in Bethlehem? The Son was made of a woman (Galatians 4:4); if the Son was present in the beginning who was His mother? If the Son be a spirit being, who was His spirit mother? Since Genesis 1:26 cannot mean two or more persons in the Godhead, what does it mean?
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being....14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'"
John 8:53 "Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be " 54 Jesus answered, "If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, 'He is our God'; 55 and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His word. 56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." 57 So the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" 58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."
John 16:26 "In that day you will ask in My name, and I do not say to you that I will request of the Father on your behalf; 27 for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I came forth from the Father. 28 "I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father."
John 17:5 "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was...24 "Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Heb 1:1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world...10 And, "You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Your hands; 11 They will perish, but You remain; And they all will become old like a garment, 12 And like a mantle You will roll them up; Like a garment they will also be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end."
see the following for more info:
http://www.aomin.org/The_Pre_Existence_of_Christ.html
http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/preexist.htm
so are the angels created in God's image too? is man created after the image of God AND the angels? this explanation falls flat on it's face and does even more so when we look at Gen 3:22 and 11:7. also there is no mention of angels in the text and to make the claim that it is implied (since God cannot possibly be a plural being; again this objection is based on your presuppositions and not on what is explicit or implicit in the text itself), is to read into the Scripture what is not there. but when we look at such passages as John 1:1ff, 17:1ff; Col 1:15ff; and Heb 1:1ff we find that it was the Son who was there in the beginning (and not just in thought or concept or potential). this answers our question that it wasn't the angels who the Lord God was speaking to.The Jews have traditionally interpreted it to mean that God talked to the angels at creation. This does not imply that the angels actually took part in creation but that God may have informed them of His plans and solicited their comments out of courtesy and respect.
i take it you understand the morning stars and sons of God to be angels. this however needs to be proven and cannot be assumed. also, it doesn't say anything about Him dialoguing with them or asking them for their counsel. in fact Scripture is explicit that God counsels with no one (Isaiah 40:13; Jeremiah 23:18; Ro 9:19ff, 11:34; 1 Corinthians 2:16; Eph 1:11).We do know that the angels were present at the creation (Job 38:4-7).
so is man created in the image of God and His counsel (Gen 1:26f)? does God's counsel know good and evil (Gen 3:22)? can His counsel confuse languages (Gen 11:7)? the context of all of these passages militates against this view.Other commentators have suggested that Genesis 1:26 simply describes God as He counseled with His own will. Ephesians 1:11supports this view, saying that God works all things “after the counsel of his own will.”
By analogy, this is similar to a man saying “Let’s see” (let us see) even when he is planning by himself.
well looking at the context tells us why Daniel speaks in this way:Others explain this passage as a majestic or literary plural. That is, in formal speaking and writing the speaker or writer often refers to himself in the plural, especially if the speaker is of royalty. Biblical examples of the majestic plural can be cited to illustrate this practice.
For example, Daniel told King Nebuchadnezzar, “We will tell the interpretation thereof before the king,” even though Daniel alone proceeded to give the interpretation to the king (Daniel 2:36).
Dan 2:17 Then Daniel went to his house and informed his friends, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, about the matter, 18 so that they might request compassion from the God of heaven concerning this mystery, so that Daniel and his friends would not be destroyed with the rest of the wise men of Babylon...19 Then the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a night vision. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven; 20 Daniel said, "Let the name of God be blessed forever and ever, For wisdom and power belong to Him. 21 "It is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings; He gives wisdom to wise men And knowledge to men of understanding. 22 "It is He who reveals the profound and hidden things; He knows what is in the darkness, And the light dwells with Him. 23 "To You, O God of my fathers, I give thanks and praise, For You have given me wisdom and power; Even now You have made known to me what we requested of You, For You have made known to us the king's matter." 24 Therefore, Daniel went in to Arioch, whom the king had appointed to destroy the wise men of Babylon; he went and spoke to him as follows: "Do not destroy the wise men of Babylon! Take me into the king's presence, and I will declare the interpretation to the king."...27 Daniel answered before the king and said, "As for the mystery about which the king has inquired, neither wise men, conjurers, magicians nor diviners are able to declare it to the king. 28 "However, there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and He has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will take place in the latter days. This was your dream and the visions in your mind while on your bed.
certainly he alone was audibly giving the interpretation of the dream but it was on behalf of the men of Babylon and as a messenger of God (who spoke with/through Daniel...thus we). this one doesn't work.
well for one the document/letter was sent not just against King Artaxerxes but against all the inhabitants (thus us).King Artaxerxes alternately referred to himself in the singular and the plural in his correspondence. Once, he wrote, “The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me” (Ezra 4:18). In a letter to Ezra, Artaxerxes called himself “I” in one place (Ezra 7:13) but “we” in another place (7:24).
Ezra 4:8 Rehum the commander and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to King Artaxerxes, as follows
plus the fact that it was translated and read before him explains why he says that it was sent to us.
as far as Ezra 7 goes context once again tells us why he speaks in the plural (rather than an explanation of majestic plural for artistic or literary reasons):
Ezra 7:14 "Forasmuch as you are sent by the king and his seven counselors to inquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem according to the law of your God which is in your hand, 15 and to bring the silver and gold, which the king and his counselors have freely offered to the God of Israel, whose dwelling is in Jerusalem,...23 "Whatever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be done with zeal for the house of the God of heaven, so that there will not be wrath against the kingdom of the king and his sons. 24 "We also inform you that it is not allowed to impose tax, tribute or toll on any of the priests, Levites, singers, doorkeepers, Nethinim or servants of this house of God...27 Blessed be the Lord, the God of our fathers, who has put such a thing as this in the king's heart, to adorn the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem, 28 and has extended lovingkindness to me before the king and his counselors and before all the king's mighty princes. Thus I was strengthened according to the hand of the Lord my God upon me, and I gathered leading men from Israel to go up with me.
again this explanation does not work. perhaps you have others?
examples?? then why switch back to singular in v. 27?The use of the plural in Genesis 1:26 also may be similar to the plural Elohim in denoting the greatness and majesty of God or the multiple attributes of God. In other words, the plural pronoun simply agrees with and substitutes for the plural noun Elohim.
do you have evidence that this is simply God speaking to someone else prophetically (even though they weren't even there yet)? where does it say that Christ was only in the mind of God in the beginning? where does it say God created the world through the idea or future appearance of Christ? i'm sorry but i'm failing to see your explanation in Scripture.It is not surprising that God could look down the corridors of time and address a prophetic utterance to the Son.
it seems that you actually object to the plurality because it contradicts your presuppositions...because i don't think it contradicts Scripture at all. in fact, it explains it and is quite consistent with it.In summary, Genesis 1:26 cannot mean a plurality in the Godhead, for that would contradict the rest of Scripture.
Disciple:
You asked me to explain some verses that you posted in a previous message (above) in defense of my argument against the doctrine of the trinity. I will answer them one at a time:
Verse:
Mt 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit...
Comments:
This verse is asking for a singular and proper “name” of the one who is called Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It does not use the plural word “names.” Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not proper names…They are TITLES for the ONE true and living GOD.
I am a father, son, brother, and friend to many...BUT, these true and valid titles have no legal authority or power. The only authority and power I have is when I use my proper name. Have you ever tried to sign a check using a title "father" or "son" etc.? Do you think the bank would cash it? Likewise, the only name with power for our salvation is the proper name of Jesus Christ. This is the name in which God revealed Himself to mankind.
Please NOTE: Matthew 28:19 has been called “The Great Commission” by many. But, what these “many” fail to do is apply they other accounts of this commission that was given to his apostles and recorded by (for example) Luke. In Luke 24:47, Jesus stated that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in “His” name. By reading the preceding verses you understand that Jesus was referring the “CHRIST.” He was speaking in prophetic past about Himself and stated that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His own name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
This was fulfilled in Acts 2 and specifically verse 38 when Peter stated the following:
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The singular proper name of Jesus Christ was used / commanded over every baptismal candidate throughout the book of Acts and then reaffirmed in the epistles.
NO WHERE in the Scripture was anyone baptized using the phrase: In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There was no need to, since everyone in those days understood that this singular name was represented by the Lord Jesus Christ. This fact cannot be argued by Trinitarians.
The Father
The term “God the Father” is biblical and refers to God Himself (Galatians 1:1-4). God is the Father; He is not merely Father of the Son, but the Father of all creation (Malachi 2:10; Hebrews 12:9). He is also our Father by reason of the new birth (Romans 8:14-16). The title Father indicates a relationship between God and man, particularly between God and His Son and between God and regenerated man. Jesus taught many times that God is our Father (Matthew 5:16, 45, 48). He taught us to pray, “Our Father which art in heaven” (Matthew 6:9). Of course, Jesus as a man had an additional relationship to God in a sense that no one else has ever had. He was the only begotten Son of the Father (John 3:16), the only One who was actually conceived by the Spirit of God and the only One who had the fulness of God without measure. The Bible plainly states that there is only one Father (Malachi 2:10; Ephesians 4:6). It also clearly teaches that Jesus is the one Father (Isaiah 9:6; John 10:30). The Spirit that dwelt in the Son of God was none other than the Father. It is important to note that the name of the Father is Jesus, for this name fully reveals and expresses the Father. In John 5:43, Jesus said, “I am come in my Father’s name.” According to Hebrews 1:4, the Son “by inheritance obtained a more excellent name.” In other words, the Son inherited His Father’s name. We therefore understand why Jesus said that He manifested and declared the Father’s name (John 17:6, 26). He fulfilled the Old Testament prophecy that stated the Messiah would declare the name of the LORD (Psalm 22:22; Hebrews 2:12).
Question for Disciple: In what name did the Son come? What name did He obtain from His Father by inheritance? What name did the Son manifest?
The answer is apparent. The only name He used was the name of Jesus, His Father’s name.
The Son
Basically, the term “Son of God” refers to God as manifested in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ for the salvation of mankind. The name of the Son is Jesus: “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS” (Matthew 1:21). Since Father refers to deity alone, while “Son of God” refers to deity as incarnated in humanity, I (oneness Christians) do not believe that the Father is the Son. The distinction is pivotal.
We can say the Son (flesh / humanity) died, but we cannot say the Father (eternal Spirit) died.
The deity in the Son is the Father. Although we do not believe that the Father is the Son, we do believe that the Father is in the Son (John 14:10). Since Jesus is the name of the Son of God, both as to His deity as Father and as to His humanity as Son, it is the name of both the Father and the Son.
The Holy Ghost
The terms “Holy Ghost” and “Holy Spirit” are interchangeable, meaning identically the same. These two terms in the KJV are translated from the one Greek word pneuma; therefore, there is absolutely no distinction between the terms. Either is perfectly acceptable since both mean the same. The Holy Spirit is simply God. God is holy (Leviticus 11:44; I Peter 1:16). In fact, He alone is holy in Himself. God is also a Spirit (John 4:24), and there is only one Spirit of God (I Corinthians 12:11; Ephesians 4:4). Therefore, “Holy Spirit” is another term for the one God.
That the Holy Ghost is God is evident from a comparison of Acts 5:3 with 5:4 and from a comparison of I Corinthians 3:16 with 6:19. These passages identify the Holy Ghost with God Himself. We cannot limit the terms “Holy Ghost,” “Holy Spirit,” or “Spirit of God” to the New Testament, nor can we so limit the role or manifestation of God they describe. We find the Spirit mentioned throughout the Old Testament beginning with Genesis 1:2. Peter tells us that the prophets of old were moved by the Holy Ghost (II Peter 1:21).
Question to Disciple: If the Holy Spirit is simply God, why is there a need for this term?
My comment: The reason is that it emphasizes a particular aspect of God. It emphasizes that He who is a holy, omnipresent, and invisible Spirit works among all men everywhere and can fill the hearts of men.
When we speak of the Holy Spirit, we are reminding ourselves of God’s invisible work among men and of His ability to anoint, baptize, fill, and indwell human lives. The term speaks of God in activity: “And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” (Genesis 1:2).
It refers to God working among mankind to regenerate man’s fallen nature and enable him to do the supernatural will of God in the world. We note that the Spirit is the agent in the new birth (John 3:5; Titus 3:5). Since the Holy Spirit is God Himself, we properly use the pronouns He and Him to refer to the Spirit. We often use “Holy Ghost” and “Holy Spirit” as abbreviated forms of “the baptism (or gift) of the Holy Ghost,” and in such cases it is proper to use the pronoun it as a substitute. When we do this, however, we should always remember that the Holy Ghost is God and not merely an unintelligent force or fluid.
The following verses of Scripture reveal that the Holy Ghost is not an unintelligent force but is in fact God: Acts 5:3-4, 9; 20:23, 28; 21:11. The Spirit is revealed and received through the name Jesus.
He is not a separate person with a separate identity who comes in another name.
Jesus said, “The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name . . .” (John 14:26). So the Holy Ghost comes in the name of Jesus.
Last edited by HIS; 01-10-2003 at 03:20 PM.
Another ComforterFrom Disciple: Please explain the following text...
John 14:16 "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you. 18 "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you...26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
In John 14:16, Jesus promised to send another Comforter.
In verse 26 He identified the Comforter as the Holy Ghost.
Does this imply the Holy Ghost is another person in the Godhead? No. It is clear from the context that the Holy Ghost is simply Jesus in another form or manifestation. In other words, “another Comforter” means Jesus in the Spirit as opposed to Jesus in the flesh.
In verse 16 Jesus told the disciples about the other Comforter. Then in verse 17 Jesus told them they knew the Comforter already, because He dwelt with them and would be in them.
Who dwelt with the disciples at that time?
Jesus, of course. The Spirit of Jesus dwelt with the disciples since the Spirit was robed in the flesh, but soon the Spirit would be in the disciples through the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus made this even clearer when He said in verse 18:
“I will not leave you comfortless: I WILL COME to you.”
Jesus went to heaven in His glorified body so He could form a new relationship with His disciples, by sending back His own Spirit as the Comforter. He said to them, “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” (John 16:7).
Note Also: Jesus is the way, TRUTH, and life. In this passage we are studying, Jesus says the comforter is the “SPIRIT OF TRUTH.”
Question: If the Spirit of Truth is coming, then who’s Spirit would that be but the Spirit of Jesus. Otherwise…Are there two or more Spirits of Truth? Does the Scripture declare this? The answer is no. There is only one Spirit of Truth referenced in the Scripture.
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, according to Scripture (Romans 8:9; II Corinthians 3:17-18).
When we have the Spirit in us, we have Christ in us (Ephesians 3:16-17).
In short, Jesus had dwelt with the disciples physically for about three years, but the time had come for Him to depart. However, He promised He would not leave them alone, comfortless, or as orphans. Instead, He promised to come back in a new way. He would not come in a visible body to dwell with them and be limited by that body, but He would return in Spirit so that He could dwell in them.
So the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, is the Spirit of Jesus. This is Jesus manifested in a new way; Jesus can be with us and in us.
He can be in all of His disciples all over the world at the same time and He can fulfill His promise to be with us until the end of the age (Matthew 28:20).
I was asked to explain this verse also:
John 15:26 "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me"
Let's examine this more closely:
John 15:26 "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me
Compare the above verse with this verse:
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Notice how in one place you have JESUS stating the He will send the Comforter, and in another place stating that the Father will send the Comforter. For a Trinitarian, this would seem like a contradiction since you hold to the belief that the Son and Father are separate and distinct persons of a triune Godhead.
But, when you understand that the FATHER (who is God) was in Christ (anointed flesh / body) speaking through Him, then it is not a problem. Jesus was fully man (exactly like you and me) and very God.
The terms “Spirit of God” and “Spirit of Christ” are interchangeable and refer to the same Spirit. This Spirit IS the Holy Ghost or God Himself.
Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
In the above verse, you can see that the Spirit of God is the same as saying the Spirit of (that was in) Christ. This same Spirit is the Holy Spirit described in the Scripture as the “Comforter.” God is not comprised of two or more "separate" Spirits.
God is only one Spirit being. To believe anything more than this, is polytheism.
Ask yourself this question: How many Spirits make up the Godhead? One, two, three or more? If you say one, then my explanation and the Scripture should make sense to you.
Again, 15:26 states that this Comforter is the “Spirit of Truth.” We understand from the Scripture that JESUS is the Way, TRUTH, and Life. The Holy “Ghost” (spirit of a departed one) is simply Jesus in another form. In other words, “another comforter” means Jesus in the Spirit as opposed to Jesus in the flesh.
just a quick comment/question. what is a Spirit? is it a thing? is it subject to the earthly/physical limitations that we are? is a Spirit something that can be physically understood or described?Originally posted by HIS
Ask yourself this question: How many Spirits make up the Godhead? One, two, three or more? If you say one, then my explanation and the Scripture should make sense to you.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks