Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Data On The Trinity

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$1,048.00
Goal
$1,038.00
But, again, your explanation ignores the context, namely, verse 16. We already know from verse 15 that "firstborn" refers to his sovereignty, superiority, or preeminence. Verse 16 cannot be any more clear that this is based on ("For") every single created thing having been created through Christ. This necessarily precludes him from being created. As I pointed out, this agrees perfectly with John 1:3.

Remember that it is context that determines meaning. With "before all things, and in him all things hold together" immediately following "all things were created through him and for him," we understand that "before all things" refers to chronology. That is, Jesus existed before all things that were created. And, as I pointed out, this agrees with John 1:1.

We should also consider John 17:5, "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed" and 17:24, "Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world."

As one can easily see, there is a consistent message throughout the NT, and that is Jesus was in existence prior to creation coming into being.
John 1:3 could very well be referring to God. I don't see how you get Jesus from logos. Again... It is imperative that the serious student of the Bible come to a basic understanding of logos, which is translated as "Word" in John 1:1. Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most versions of John logos is capitalized and translated "Word" (some versions even write "Christ" in John 1:1). However, a study of the Greek word logos shows that it occurs more than 300 times in the New Testament, and in both the NIV and the KJV it is capitalized only 7 times (and even those versions disagree on exactly when to capitalize it.) When a word that occurs more than 300 times is capitalized fewer than 10 times, it is obvious that when to capitalize and when not to capitalize is a translator's decision based on their particular understanding of Scripture. As it is used throughout Scripture, logos has a very wide range of meanings along two basic lines of thought. One is the mind and products of the mind like "reason" (thus "logic" is related to logos) and the other is the expression of that reason as a "word," "saying," "command," etc. The Bible itself demonstrates the wide range of meaning logos has, and some of the ways it is translated in Scripture are: account, appearance, book, command, conversation, eloquence, flattery, grievance, heard, instruction, matter, message, ministry, news, proposal, question, reason, reasonable, reply, report, rule, rumor, said, saying, sentence, speaker, speaker, speaking, speech, stories, story, talk, talking, teaching, testimony, thing, things, this, truths, what, why, word, and words. I had thought you would have picked a verse that had not a wide range of meanings.
 
It is imperative that the serious student of the Bible come to a basic understanding of logos, which is translated as "Word" in John 1:1. Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most versions of John logos is capitalized and translated "Word" (some versions even write "Christ" in John 1:1). However, a study of the Greek word logos shows that it occurs more than 300 times in the New Testament, and in both the NIV and the KJV it is capitalized only 7 times (and even those versions disagree on exactly when to capitalize it.) When a word that occurs more than 300 times is capitalized fewer than 10 times, it is obvious that when to capitalize and when not to capitalize is a translator's decision based on their particular understanding of Scripture. As it is used throughout Scripture, logos has a very wide range of meanings along two basic lines of thought. One is the mind and products of the mind like "reason" (thus "logic" is related to logos) and the other is the expression of that reason as a "word," "saying," "command," etc. The Bible itself demonstrates the wide range of meaning logos has, and some of the ways it is translated in Scripture are: account, appearance, book, command, conversation, eloquence, flattery, grievance, heard, instruction, matter, message, ministry, news, proposal, question, reason, reasonable, reply, report, rule, rumor, said, saying, sentence, speaker, speaker, speaking, speech, stories, story, talk, talking, teaching, testimony, thing, things, this, truths, what, why, word, and words. I had thought you would have picked a verse that had not a wide range of meanings.
The word, translated in context, has a very clear meaning.
 
I just put up on the Internet some data that talks about me in Christ and Christ in me. Does that make me God? Behold 1 John...
God dwelleth in us
Hereby know we that we dwell in him
and he in us
because he hath given us of his Spirit
God dwelleth in him and he in God
he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God
and God in him
we are in him
in his Son Jesus Christ

What does "he hath given us of his spirit" mean. Has He given us His Spirit, part of His Spirit, or ..?

BTW, why doesn't God communicate in conventional English instead of Englyshe that is centuries olde?
 
John 1:3 could very well be referring to God. I don't see how you get Jesus from logos. Again... It is imperative that the serious student of the Bible come to a basic understanding of logos, which is translated as "Word" in John 1:1. Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most versions of John logos is capitalized and translated "Word" (some versions even write "Christ" in John 1:1). However, a study of the Greek word logos shows that it occurs more than 300 times in the New Testament, and in both the NIV and the KJV it is capitalized only 7 times (and even those versions disagree on exactly when to capitalize it.) When a word that occurs more than 300 times is capitalized fewer than 10 times, it is obvious that when to capitalize and when not to capitalize is a translator's decision based on their particular understanding of Scripture. As it is used throughout Scripture, logos has a very wide range of meanings along two basic lines of thought. One is the mind and products of the mind like "reason" (thus "logic" is related to logos) and the other is the expression of that reason as a "word," "saying," "command," etc. The Bible itself demonstrates the wide range of meaning logos has, and some of the ways it is translated in Scripture are: account, appearance, book, command, conversation, eloquence, flattery, grievance, heard, instruction, matter, message, ministry, news, proposal, question, reason, reasonable, reply, report, rule, rumor, said, saying, sentence, speaker, speaker, speaking, speech, stories, story, talk, talking, teaching, testimony, thing, things, this, truths, what, why, word, and words. I had thought you would have picked a verse that had not a wide range of meanings.
If you are just going to copy and paste, so will I, especially since I addressed this and you didn't respond to my post:

You have your argument backwards. You should be looking at those times when both the NIV and KJV capitalize "Word." They may disagree elsewhere, but what does it say when they do agree?

Of course, a serious student of the Bible also knows that context determines meaning. It's the relationship between the words in a verse or passage that determines the particular meaning used. In John 1:1-18, we see that the logos was both "with God" and "was God." Perhaps you can show us where else in the Bible the logos is said to be God. It is that very logos that becomes (enters into time) flesh and makes his dwelling among us as the Son of God.

We should also include Rev 19:13, where the rider on the white horse (Jesus) is said to be "clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God." Lest there be any doubt that this is Jesus, we can see in verse 16 that, "On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords." And this reflects what was stated in Rev 17:14, "They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.” That alone is interesting since Paul uses that phrase in 1 Tim 6:15 in speaking of God.

Then we can look at verse 16 as well:

1Ti 6:15 which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
1Ti 6:16 who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen. (ESV)

Paul says that "no one has ever seen of can see" God. And, yet, Jesus said of himself (all ESV):

Joh 6:46 not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father.

Joh 16:5 But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’

Joh 16:27 for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.
Joh 16:28 I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”

Joh 17:4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do.
Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

Joh 17:8 For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me.

Joh 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.

And on the trail goes, showing that Jesus, as the Son of God, as the Word, is unique, and so words apply to him much differently than they apply elsewhere in Scripture. Or, one could argue that Paul was simply mistaken, but then the inspiration and authority of Scripture is undermined.

And, as I posted in response to someone else:

Context determines meaning. This is especially important to keep in mind when we speak of Jesus, as words or phrases (Son of God, for example) have a different meaning when applied to him than when applied to others. The whole point of John's prologue (1:1-18) is to state who the Word is. So, let's look a bit more closely at 1:1.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (ESV)

The word "was" is the Greek en, which is a form of eimi (I Am), and denotes a continuous action in the past. That is, when the beginning began (creation), the Word was already in existence; it is absolute existence, eternal preexistence.

Then when we look at "with God," it is the Greek pros that is translated as "with." But that doesn't convey the full meaning; it isn't merely speaking of being together or near. It expresses direction towards as in relationship and communion, implying intimacy.

"Was God" means that the Word was divine in nature. It can never mean "a god" or another "God," as both imply polytheism. Again, this is about the logos, who the logos is, not who God is.

Even apart from the Greek, if logos is simply spoken words, then none of John 1:1 makes sense, but the Greek makes it all the more clear. It is very difficult to see how spoken words could have existed for eternity past or how they can be said to be in intimate relationship with God or how they can be said to be divine in nature. Only God has existed for eternity past, only a person could be in intimate relationship with another, and only God is divine in nature.
 
I just put up on the Internet some data that talks about me in Christ and Christ in me. Does that make me God? Behold 1 John...
God dwelleth in us
Hereby know we that we dwell in him
and he in us
because he hath given us of his Spirit
God dwelleth in him and he in God
he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God
and God in him
we are in him
in his Son Jesus Christ
Interesting you note God in you when the scripture is clear "Christ in us"
Does that identify Christ as God?
 
If you are just going to copy and paste, so will I, especially since I addressed this and you didn't respond to my post:

You have your argument backwards. You should be looking at those times when both the NIV and KJV capitalize "Word." They may disagree elsewhere, but what does it say when they do agree?

Of course, a serious student of the Bible also knows that context determines meaning. It's the relationship between the words in a verse or passage that determines the particular meaning used. In John 1:1-18, we see that the logos was both "with God" and "was God." Perhaps you can show us where else in the Bible the logos is said to be God. It is that very logos that becomes (enters into time) flesh and makes his dwelling among us as the Son of God.

We should also include Rev 19:13, where the rider on the white horse (Jesus) is said to be "clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God." Lest there be any doubt that this is Jesus, we can see in verse 16 that, "On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords." And this reflects what was stated in Rev 17:14, "They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.” That alone is interesting since Paul uses that phrase in 1 Tim 6:15 in speaking of God.

Then we can look at verse 16 as well:

1Ti 6:15 which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
1Ti 6:16 who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen. (ESV)

Paul says that "no one has ever seen of can see" God. And, yet, Jesus said of himself (all ESV):

Joh 6:46 not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father.

Joh 16:5 But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’

Joh 16:27 for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.
Joh 16:28 I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”

Joh 17:4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do.
Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

Joh 17:8 For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me.

Joh 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.

And on the trail goes, showing that Jesus, as the Son of God, as the Word, is unique, and so words apply to him much differently than they apply elsewhere in Scripture. Or, one could argue that Paul was simply mistaken, but then the inspiration and authority of Scripture is undermined.

And, as I posted in response to someone else:

Context determines meaning. This is especially important to keep in mind when we speak of Jesus, as words or phrases (Son of God, for example) have a different meaning when applied to him than when applied to others. The whole point of John's prologue (1:1-18) is to state who the Word is. So, let's look a bit more closely at 1:1.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (ESV)

The word "was" is the Greek en, which is a form of eimi (I Am), and denotes a continuous action in the past. That is, when the beginning began (creation), the Word was already in existence; it is absolute existence, eternal preexistence.

Then when we look at "with God," it is the Greek pros that is translated as "with." But that doesn't convey the full meaning; it isn't merely speaking of being together or near. It expresses direction towards as in relationship and communion, implying intimacy.

"Was God" means that the Word was divine in nature. It can never mean "a god" or another "God," as both imply polytheism. Again, this is about the logos, who the logos is, not who God is.

Even apart from the Greek, if logos is simply spoken words, then none of John 1:1 makes sense, but the Greek makes it all the more clear. It is very difficult to see how spoken words could have existed for eternity past or how they can be said to be in intimate relationship with God or how they can be said to be divine in nature. Only God has existed for eternity past, only a person could be in intimate relationship with another, and only God is divine in nature.
Who is he praying to? Himself? And I did not just copy and paste the above reply, but rather hand typed it on here for you and then got it back off here and put it somewhere else here.
 
Who is he praying to? Himself?
He is praying to the Father. Obviously not himself. It is precisely one of the reasons why the doctrine of the Trinity best takes into account all that the Bible reveals about the nature of God.

And I did not just copy and paste the above reply, but rather hand typed it on here for you and then got it back off here and put it somewhere else here.
All I was saying was that you copied and pasted from a previous post in this thread. That is why I said: "especially since I addressed this and you didn't respond to my post." And you have again failed to address my points. Please address each point, just as I have been doing.
 
He is praying to the Father. Obviously not himself. It is precisely one of the reasons why the doctrine of the Trinity best takes into account all that the Bible reveals about the nature of God.


All I was saying was that you copied and pasted from a previous post in this thread. That is why I said: "especially since I addressed this and you didn't respond to my post." And you have again failed to address my points. Please address each point, just as I have been doing.
Jesus prayed to God “not my will, but yours, be done” because Jesus and God have separate wills (Luke 22:42; John 5:30). They would have one will if Jesus and the Father are the same “one God.” Trinitarian doctrine claims that Luke is referring to the human will of Jesus, and not his divine will, but that is problematic because the Bible never says anything like that or even hints that Jesus had two wills in conflict with each other inside him allowing one to be human and the other to be divine.

The Bible says Jesus is an “heir” of God (Hebrew 1:2), and a “joint-heir” with us (Romans 8:17). But if Christ is a co-eternal “Person” in the “Godhead” then he cannot be an heir “of God” because being God would put him into a position to be a full owner of everything and that would mean there would be nothing he could “inherit” which is why Jesus cannot be God and an heir of God at the same time. The Bible says that Jesus Christ is the “image of God” Colossians 1:15; 2 Corinthians 4:4). If Christ is the image of God, then he cannot be God because a person cannot be himself and an image of himself at the same time. Jesus can be called the “image” of God because he always did the will of God, and because he was the image of God is why he could say you had seen the Father if you had seen him.

Ephesians 4:4-6 says there is one God and one Lord and one spirit. This verse teaches exactly what the Jews expected based on the Old Testament and what Jesus, Peter, Paul, and others taught: that there was one God, one Lord, and one spirit of God. 1 Corinthians 8:6 says “for us there is one God, the Father… and one Lord, Jesus Christ.” This simple and straightforward language elucidates that the Father is God and the Son is “Lord” making a clear differentiation between the two.

Jesus said: “…the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). In contrast, the orthodox formula of the Trinity says the Father and the Son are “co-equal.” God is greater than Christ, just as Christ is greater than we are. 1 Corinthians 3:23 says “And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.” When the Bible says “you are Christ’s” it's saying “you belong to Christ” and many English versions say exactly that (i.e., CJB; HCSB; NASB; NET; NJB; NLT). So the verse is saying “and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God” (NASB). It seems apparent that Jesus cannot be God and belong to God at the same time.
 
Jesus prayed to God “not my will, but yours, be done” because Jesus and God have separate wills (Luke 22:42; John 5:30). They would have one will if Jesus and the Father are the same “one God.” Trinitarian doctrine claims that Luke is referring to the human will of Jesus, and not his divine will, but that is problematic because the Bible never says anything like that or even hints that Jesus had two wills in conflict with each other inside him allowing one to be human and the other to be divine.

The Bible says Jesus is an “heir” of God (Hebrew 1:2), and a “joint-heir” with us (Romans 8:17). But if Christ is a co-eternal “Person” in the “Godhead” then he cannot be an heir “of God” because being God would put him into a position to be a full owner of everything and that would mean there would be nothing he could “inherit” which is why Jesus cannot be God and an heir of God at the same time. The Bible says that Jesus Christ is the “image of God” Colossians 1:15; 2 Corinthians 4:4). If Christ is the image of God, then he cannot be God because a person cannot be himself and an image of himself at the same time. Jesus can be called the “image” of God because he always did the will of God, and because he was the image of God is why he could say you had seen the Father if you had seen him.

Ephesians 4:4-6 says there is one God and one Lord and one spirit. This verse teaches exactly what the Jews expected based on the Old Testament and what Jesus, Peter, Paul, and others taught: that there was one God, one Lord, and one spirit of God. 1 Corinthians 8:6 says “for us there is one God, the Father… and one Lord, Jesus Christ.” This simple and straightforward language elucidates that the Father is God and the Son is “Lord” making a clear differentiation between the two.

Jesus said: “…the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). In contrast, the orthodox formula of the Trinity says the Father and the Son are “co-equal.” God is greater than Christ, just as Christ is greater than we are. 1 Corinthians 3:23 says “And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.” When the Bible says “you are Christ’s” it's saying “you belong to Christ” and many English versions say exactly that (i.e., CJB; HCSB; NASB; NET; NJB; NLT). So the verse is saying “and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God” (NASB). It seems apparent that Jesus cannot be God and belong to God at the same time.
Nothing which you have given proves the Trinity wrong and these passages are, in fact, one of the very reasons the doctrine of the Trinity exists.

Are you going to address the points in my rebuttal of your previous post or not? It is poor form to ignore people's points and just keep throwing stuff out there. It also shows that you are not really interested in the truth. Or, perhaps you have no rebuttal, in which case you should change your belief.
 
You lost me. I don't follow your point?
Let me ask you this.
Do you believe Jesus existed or was before the world began? That as He stated came down from heaven and spoke of ascending where He was before. As John stated the eternal life that was from the beginning.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4 We write this to make our[a] joy complete.
 
Nothing which you have given proves the Trinity wrong and these passages are, in fact, one of the very reasons the doctrine of the Trinity exists.

Are you going to address the points in my rebuttal of your previous post or not? It is poor form to ignore people's points and just keep throwing stuff out there. It also shows that you are not really interested in the truth. Or, perhaps you have no rebuttal, in which case you should change your belief.
I have no idea what you're talking about when you say I'm not responding to you. And when I do you call it throwing out stuff. I do like to address one verse at a time and find it not necessary to address 15 different verses at a time from 8 different people on 5 different forums. Do you have one verse you would like me to respond to?
 
Let me ask you this.
Do you believe Jesus existed or was before the world began? That as He stated came down from heaven and spoke of ascending where He was before. As John stated the eternal life that was from the beginning.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4 We write this to make our[a] joy complete.
I do not believe that Jesus is God. A study of the history of the Christian Church shows a definite development in the doctrine of the Trinity over the centuries. For example, the early form of the Apostles Creed (believed to date back to shortly after the time of the apostles themselves) does not mention the Trinity or the dual nature of Christ. The Nicene Creed that was written in 325 AD and modified later added the material about Jesus Christ being “eternally begotten” and the "true God” and about the Holy Spirit being “Lord.” But it was the Athanasian Creed that was most likely composed in the latter part of the 4th century or possibly even as early as the 5th century that was the first creed to explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity.
 
I do not believe that Jesus is God. A study of the history of the Christian Church shows a definite development in the doctrine of the Trinity over the centuries. For example, the early form of the Apostles Creed (believed to date back to shortly after the time of the apostles themselves) does not mention the Trinity or the dual nature of Christ. The Nicene Creed that was written in 325 AD and modified later added the material about Jesus Christ being “eternally begotten” and the "true God” and about the Holy Spirit being “Lord.” But it was the Athanasian Creed that was most likely composed in the latter part of the 4th century or possibly even as early as the 5th century that was the first creed to explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity.
To be clear you believe Jesus began in the womb of Mary and was not sent as on who already existed from above?
 
I do not believe that Jesus is God. A study of the history of the Christian Church shows a definite development in the doctrine of the Trinity over the centuries. For example, the early form of the Apostles Creed (believed to date back to shortly after the time of the apostles themselves) does not mention the Trinity or the dual nature of Christ. The Nicene Creed that was written in 325 AD and modified later added the material about Jesus Christ being “eternally begotten” and the "true God” and about the Holy Spirit being “Lord.” But it was the Athanasian Creed that was most likely composed in the latter part of the 4th century or possibly even as early as the 5th century that was the first creed to explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity.
There are several verses in the NT that God created the creation through Jesus. A few verses that call Him God. Hebrews 1 goes in depth about the "Son". That's scripture. So regardless of whether you believe Jesus is coeternal and coequal with the Father He is alot more then what you appear to believe as stated in scripture.
 
I have no idea what you're talking about when you say I'm not responding to you. And when I do you call it throwing out stuff. I do like to address one verse at a time and find it not necessary to address 15 different verses at a time from 8 different people on 5 different forums. Do you have one verse you would like me to respond to?
We were discussing a verse--one that you gave. You have twice completely ignored my response. This is such a common tactic among those who don't believe Jesus is God. You all end up just repeating your out-of-context verses while ignoring the stronger arguments against your position. And, please, don't complain that people are posting more than one verse at a time when you do the very same thing. Understanding what the Bible says is never about one verse at a time; that is one way to almost guarantee errors in understanding. We must take into account all that the Bible says on a given subject.

This was my post, just above on this page: https://christianforums.net/threads/data-on-the-trinity.91799/page-7#post-1691581
 
Here's another one...

The “holy spirit” God gave in the Old Testament was God’s nature, but after the Day of Pentecost He gave His nature in a new and fuller way than He had ever given it before and this is what was foretold in the Old Testament (Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26). It was because this new spirit was promised in the Old Testament that the New Testament calls it “the promised holy spirit” Ephesians 1:13; Acts 2:33; Galatians 3:14). We have the “firstfruits” of the spirit (Romans 8:23) because Christians are the first to receive this new spirit and that's why we have the guarantee that we will be in the coming Messianic Kingdom.

The gift of the holy spirit that Christians have is a gift and thus an “it.” Jesus told the apostles that the spirit would be “in” them (John 14:17)—which is what happened on the Day of Pentecost when the holy spirit went from being with or “upon” people in the Old Testament and Gospels to being born “in” people on and after the Day of Pentecost. The spirit is sent by the Father (John 14:16-17) and Jesus (John 16:7). It does not speak on its own, but it speaks only what it hears (John 16:13). Thus, the gift of the holy spirit is directed by God and Jesus, which is what we would expect since it's God’s nature born in us. The gift of the holy spirit is the nature of God, and when it's born in us it becomes part of our very nature (2 Peter 1:4).

God does not change, but the gift of God’s holy spirit that believers have today is different from the spirit that God gave in the Old Testament, and so the gift of God’s spirit has changed. The simple and straightforward reading of the Scripture is that there is one God, who is sometimes referred to as “the Holy Spirit” and one Lord who is the man Jesus Christ, and one gift of the holy spirit that is the nature of God that He gives to people.

Now for the Truth...

Exo 8:19 Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God." But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.
Exo 31:18 And he gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.


Luk 11:14 Now he was casting out a demon that was mute. When the demon had gone out, the mute man spoke, and the people marveled. 15 But some of them said, "He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons," 16 while others, to test him, kept seeking from him a sign from heaven…
Luk 11:20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Scriptures that says Jesus cast out demons by the Spirit of God. This would strongly lead to the conclusion that the finger of God is the Spirit of God the Father.

Mat 12:22 Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. 23 And all the people were amazed, and said, "Can this be the Son of David?" 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, "It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons."
Mat 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.


When you connect Luke 11:20 with Matthew 12:28 then you get the understanding of what the finger of God is.
Luk 11:20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Mat 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

Now the same is true with the Holy Spirit. We also have in the Bible two parallel teachings of the same subject one Matthew and one in Luke.
Luk 12:11
And when they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not be anxious about how you should defend yourself or what you should say, 12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."

Mat 10:19 When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. 20 For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

When you connect to Matthew 10:20 with Luke 12:12 you get an understanding of what the Holy Spirit is. It is the Spirit of the Father. There is no separate being called the Holy Spirit. Again that's why the Holy Spirit is never worshiped, prayed to, or has a seat on a throne.

Paul
 
Psalms 110:1

Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."

Psalms 110:1 is a unusual verse. It is referred to in the New Testament 23 times and is thus quoted much more often than any other verse from the Old Testament. It’s importance must not be overlooked. It is a psalm that tells us the relationship between God and Jesus.

Psalms 110:1 is a divine utterance although poorly translated if your version leaves out the original word "oracle". It is “the oracle of Yahweh” (the One God of the Hebrew Bible, of Judaism and New Testament Christianity) to David's lord who is the Messiah, spoken of here 1000 years before he came into existence in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

I want to bring attention to the fact that David's lord is not David's Lord. There should be no capital on the word "lord." The Revised Version of the Bible (1881) corrected the misleading error of other translations which put (and still wrongly put) a capitol L on lord in that verse.

He is not Lord God, because the word in the inspired text is not the word for Deity, but the word for human superior- a human lord, not a Lord who is himself God, but a lord who is the supremely exalted, unique agent of the one God.

The Hebrew word for the status of the son of God and Psalms 110:1 is adoni. This word occurs 195 times in the Hebrew Bible and never refers to God. When God is described as "the Lord" (capital L) a different word, Adonai, appears. Thus the Bible makes a careful distinction between God and man. God is the Lord God (Adonai), or when his personal name is used, Yahweh, and Jesus is his unique, sinless, virginally conceived human son (adoni, my lord, Luke 1:43; 2:11). Adonai is found 449 times in the Old Testament and distinguishes the One God from all others. Adonai is not the word describing the son of God, Jesus, and Psalms 110:1. adoni appears 195 times and refers only to a human (or occasionally an angelic) lord, that is, someone who is not God. This should cut through a lot of complicated post Biblical argumentation and create a making which in subtle ways that secures the simple and most basic Biblical truth, that God is a single person and that the Messiah is the second Adam, "the Man Messiah" (1 Tim. 2:5).

Let's have a look at a few Old Testament verses that show us the clear distinction alluded to here. In Genesis 15:2, Abraham prays to God and says, "O LORD, God [Adonai Yahweh], what will you give me, since I am childless?" In another prayer Abraham's servant addresses God: "O LORD, God of my lord Abraham, please grant me success today" (Gen. 24:12). The second word for "my lord" here is adoni which according to any standard Hebrew lexicon means "Lord," "Master," or "owner." Another example is found in David's speech to his men after he had cut off the hem of King Saul's robe and his conscience bothered him: "So he said to his men, far be it from me because of the Lord [here the word is Yahweh, Lord God] that I should do this thing to my lord [adoni].”

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, page 157. states… "The form Adoni (‘my lord’), a royal title (Sam. 29:8), is to be carefully distinguished from the divine title Adonai (‘Lord’) used of Yahweh. Adonai the special plural form [the divine title] distinguishes it from adoni [with short vowel] = ‘my lords.’” Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 3, page 137. States… “lord in the Old Testament is used to translate Adonai when applied to the Divine Being. The [Hebrew] word… has a suffix [with a special pointing] presumably for the sake of distinction... between divine and human appellative.” Wigram, The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament, p. 22. states…

“The form ‘to my lord,’ I’adoni, is never used in the Old Testament as a divine reference… the general excepted fact is that the masoretic pointing distinguishes divine reference (adonai) from human references (adoni).”

“The Hebrew Adonai exclusively denotes the God of Israel. It is attested about 450 times in the Old Testament…Adoni [is] addressed to human beings (Gen 44:7; Num 32:25; 2 Kings 2:19, etc.). We have to assume that the word Adonai received it’s special form to distinguish it from the secular use of adon [i.e. adoni]. The reason why [God is addressed] as Adonai [with long vowel] instead of the normal adon, adoni or adonai [short vowel] may have been to distinguish Yahweh from other gods and from other human Lord's.” from

Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible, p. 531.

If David the Psalmist had expected the Messiah to be the Lord God he would not have used "my lord" (adoni), but the term used exclusively for the one God, Jehovah- Adonai. Unfortunately, though, many English translations which faithfully preserved this distinction elsewhere capitalize the second "lord" only in Psalms 110:1. This gives a misleading impression that the word is a divine title.

Occasionally, it will be objected that this distinction between Adonai and adoni was a late addition to the Hebrew text by the Mesorites around 600 to 700 AD and therefore is not reliable. This objection needs to be considered in the light of the fact that the Hebrew translators of the Septuagint (the LXX) around 250 B.C. recognize and carefully maintained this Hebrew distinction in their work. They never translated the second “lord” of Psalm 110:1 (“my lord,” kyrios mou) to mean the Deity. The first LORD of Psalm 110:1 (the LORD, Ho Kyrios) they always reserve for the one God, Jehovah.

Both the Pharisees and Jesus knew that this inspired verse was crucial in the understanding of the identity of the promised Messiah. Jesus quoted it to show the Messiah would be both the son (descendent) of King David and David's “lord” (see Matt. 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44). This key verse, then, quoted more than any other in the New Testament, authorizes the title "lord" for Jesus. Failure to understand this distinction has led to the erroneous idea that whenever the New Testament calls Jesus "Lord" it means he is the Lord God of the Old Testament.

Paul
 
Back
Top