God ~ The Holy Spirit

[Rick W]

It all boils down to the Hebrew concept and definition of what Elohim and El are. It is very much different than Pauline Christianity's concept.

It's all in the definition...

So Georges. I'd be interested in your definition or at least one you believe to be the correct one.

Take your pick...deoending on the "Hebrew" understanding of what the passage calls for.

No, not me. You know where i stand. It's you I'm interested in. Which definition do you follow? Which one do you base your argument on that the trinity doesn't exist? Since you say it depends on definition please tell us the definition you choose.

 

[Georges]

francisdesales wrote:
francisdesales original response in red.
georges reply in blue.
francisdesales response in black.


OK...I'm back...

You are reading into 2 Tim what is not there. It doesn't say "the believers" turned away from Paul.

Please....

It says that there were those of the synogogue refused to accept Paul's message.

Ephesus is Asia...do the research on it...when the Rabbis refer to Asia it's always in reference to the capitol of Asia and that is Ephesus....put 2 and 2 together man.....[/color]

Christian believers did not turn their backs on Paul.

Yes they did, and Jesus commends them for it in Rev 2. Who do you think teaches the principles of Balaam, including the Nicolaitans and those of Jezebel?

It was the Jews who turned their back on Paul's message because they were so enamoured with their rituals, rather than what they were meant to represent.

Not so...it was the Jewish Christians (Nazarene Jews) who tested Paul.

You are confusing ALL Ephesians are being part of the Church described in Revelation. What makes you think that ALL Ephesians are part of the Church?

They are not...you've got to realize the groups involved in the timeframe of Paul's missionary journeys. Pagan's, Jews, Jewish believers, Gentile believers.

And such is my point. Some Ephesians, whether pagan or Jews, did not accept the Gospel.

True...they did not accept it as Paul had presented it....with the help of the OT, James, Peter, John and Jude, they knew what to look for. However, the Gentile Pagans who were seeped in Mystery Religion, Gnosticism and Greek Philosophy were ready to accept Pauls teachings. However, they were a minority in the believing community which were still mainly made up of Jewish believers...

THEY are the ones who cast Paul out, not the Christian believers.

Believe what you will....you are certainly free to do so...

In your last post, you attempted to relate these Jews and pagans with the Church of Ephesus mentioned in Revelation. They are NOT the same people!

You are spinining it pretty fast here....I won't reply...it doesn't merit a response...

Thus, the Church is NOT condemning Paul! It is pagans who desired to continue to worship idols and Jews who desired to hold onto their dietary laws and restrictions (rather than faith in God) as the means to enter into the Kingdom of God.

Why would the pagan's give a hoot? Were the pagans afraid that the Jews would frown upon their pagan practices? Hardly....

And....you are very misinformed concerning the "dietary laws"....The beef is this....Acts 15....James commands that the new believers abstain from food sacrificed to idols.

Paul states in his epistles that it is OK to eat the food sacrificed to idols, since Idols are nothing...

What does Jesus say?

Rev 2:14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.


Sorry to break this to you...they have manuscripts of the Tanach that are as close to pristine as you can expect (minor letter modifications, etc). What I mean by that is that the most ancient copies of the Tanach manuscripts are almost identical with the text available (in Hebrew) today. The Septuagint I will admit has minor translation flaws as many translations do when extralanguage barriers are to be crossed. Blatent edits to fit a theology are unexcusable...wouldn't you agree?

Actually, the Septuagint is closer to the Dead Sea Scrolls then the Hebrew Old Testament that the Masoretics passed on by oral tradition. But how do you know that the Tanach is "pristine"? You don't have the original autograph!

Because of the way the texts were copied and the great pains to achieve accuracy for one...the proof is in the earliest texts almost being letter for letter the same...next?

According to the Scriptures themselves, we have the Law "found" by Ezra. Most scholars say that his version of the Law was edited, by at least three different groups (if you believe the DEP theory), or a combination of three different traditions put into one manuscript. Thus, the Torah was edited at one point - meaning, we don't have the original three different traditions "pristine". An editor had three different traditions, and rolled them into one. What is important is that God inspired this editor to produce what we have today.

OK...don't have a problem with that....if it didn't pass the Kosher test it would have been rejected...

As to the "blatant" edits, I agree. They are efforts to use modern language to bring the Word of God more readily to modern man's lingo. At times, this effort ends up changing the meaning of the intent of Scriptures. I thus prefer a more literal interpretation of Scriptures, such as the RSV or the Douay Rheims, rather than the NIV.

The Church holds that the END PRODUCT is indeed inspired by God.

To the winner the spoils....

God has done what God has done...

Apparently, you believe that the NT was written to counter Paul.

Nope...Just the epistles of James, Peter, John, Jude, Letters of Revelation. Of course your assumption is expected of someone just jumping into the debate without reading their antagonist's entire post.

As I said before, I disagree with your assertion. You have presumed that I just "jumped in" to the conversation. I have read your posts and remain unconvinced.

That's not all I have to offer on the subject.....there's the DSS and Pseudo-Clementine literature that should be taken into account as well.

It's not my job to convince you....there are others that have pm'ed me (fear of the mods I guess) to say there is pause to consider...


As a Catholic, I don't find Scripture contradicting itself. James AND Romans are Scriptures.

Cause you don't have all the tools to make you take a closer look at it...

If one finds that James 2 and Romans 3 contradict, it is because of the human reader who reads Scriptures without the Church to aid him. James does NOT contradict Paul. That is YOUR assumption which leads you to dismiss the parts of Scripture that you do not like, maintaining your erroneous theology.

LOL....

IF the Church had problems with Paul, why exactly did they include his writings in the Canon of Scripture determined in the late 300's by the Catholic Church?

Because by that time the church was thouroughly antisemitic and so far removed from the influence of the Jamesian Chruch in Jerusalem, that they didn't have anything else to go on...Hmmmm...why did it take 400 years.....let's put it into time perspective. The USA has been a country for 200 plus years....How long did God take to finalize the NT canon? 400 years? Twice as long as the history of the USA....come on....If the complete NT were truly inspired, it would have been canon at 95 AD.

That is the subject of a whole post itself. I won't address why it "took so long" except to note that the canon went through a state of acceptance by the entire Church, just as the OT canon by the Jews was not instantaneously accepted. Consider that Esther wasn't considered part of the OT by Jews until well after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD... Canons are subject to acceptance by the community.

Yeh the OT was pretty much accepted....I believe Esther to be the only book not to have the name of God mentioned...

To the other point, suffice to say that "the church being antisemitic" is ridiculous -

Please don't make me print out the history of the Antisemitic Christian Chruch...just about every council held in the early Christian church had something to do with antisemitism....you can look that up yourself..

this does NOT explain why JAMES writings REMAIN!

True enough...Martin Luther wanted it removed....

If the Church was "anti-semetic", they would have followed in the wake of your opposite, Marcion - who kept Paul and Luke and tossed the rest of the NT out the window.

Well at least you agree that Marcion is opposite of me...

HE couldn't accept the "evil God" of the OT and thus, did away with all things Jewish - probably to his chagrin that Jesus happened to be Jewish... You present the same argument from the opposite direction - and it fails for the opposite reason.

Not....

IF the Church was anti-semetic, then James and Matthew and anything "contradicting" with Paul would have been removed...

Not...the church considers them Christians and not Jews....another misconception....the early Church were Nazarene Jews...they were not named as Christians before Antioch...hello Paul....

and...it was by the grace of God that James and some of the other books were kept as they were not held in great esteem...take Revelation, that was on the fence most of the time....if we didn't have Revelation, we would not have been able to ferret Paul out in the modern age...



Read the "non Canical" Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions (an important early Christian document). In it Peter details how Satan told Jesus in the wilderness that he would send false apostles and teachers to counter his aposltes....very interesting reading and an explanation as to why Paul's writings were left in.

Also consider, the Church Center moved from Jerusalem to Rome...if it was still centered in Jerusalem, Paul wouldn't be in the NT...all you would have is the Tanach, Gospels (pure), and Revelation.

The Pseudo-Clementine Recogntions are heretical writings in the fashion of Arianism.

LOL....again to the winner the spoils....have you read them...there is not one thing in there that you'd disagree with...other than the fact it is the Jewish version of the event of Acts....from Peter's recounting. Just as Luke was Paul's biographer and gave Paul's account of Acts, the PC's give probably James' account of that time.

Not to mention, Peter gives the criteria for true and false apostles, not to mention a several page rendition about the divinity of Jesus I think you'd find interesting...

I don't doubt that Paulinists would find it heretical in their camp.... :-D

It claims that the Son of God is a creature and that the Spirit is a creation of the Son.

Not so....Peter claims that Jesus taught that there is only 1 God and that he was the Son of God.

Naturally, the Church has nothing to do with such writings.

Sad to say that is true....

Now, there are some fanciful biographical items in there, some of which may or may not be true. However, it is unreliable, since the theology itself is false. One would need to coorobarate with other biographies to determine the truth of such writings.

LOL...much of it agrees with the Damascus Document and the Habbakuk Peshar of the Dead Sea Scrolls...

Your point of view makes little sense. The fact of the matter is that ALL Scriptures are inspired, whether written by Paul or by James.

That is the problem...where is it stated that? How do you know that? Who promoted that? "All Scripture" in reality is the OT, and writings containing Jesus' words only. Paul's epistles were not scripture when they were written. People are taught that "all Scripture" is Paul and even the other Apostles as being on the same team, when they are not...

PETER HIMSELF says that the writings of Paul are "Scripture".

"even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15-16.

Now really....were does that fit into Peters message for the chapter...pretty strange don't you think...considering much of the book is about Paul in a very negative way.

The Apostles knew they were teaching the Gospel given to them by God Himself.

Yes, the legit Apostles did know that....I agree...

Thus, it only stands to reason that their writings, once determined to be from them, would be inspired by God.

I will agree that James, Peter, John and Jude were inspired...but without Paul's epistles, they are unessasary.

Now, you can discuss whether the Apostles as a group were wrong - but there is no doubt that they could NOT disagree IF they were inspired by God. Either the entire group was wrong, or the entire group was right.

Paul wasn't a legit Apostle...that's the whole point....Read the PC's...Peter states that there are 12 only.....Paul has no witness to him being a legit apostle other than himself....

You can't have it where some Apostles taught correctly God's Word, while others did not.

12 did, 1 outsider did not...

The Church recognizes Paul as an Apostle - and nowhere do we have contradicting ideas that Paul was NOT an Apostle in the writings of the rest of the NT.

The reason why the "catholic" letters follow Paul's writings is because the catholic letters are written to the universal church, not to specific communities.

Nooooot...the reason is that they are held in less esteem in the "Catholic" church than those of Paul....and they are written to the Jewish believing communities...

Wrong. Again, your idea is highly subjective. Held in less esteem? By whom? Secondly, much of the catholic epistles were not written to Jews! None of John's epistles are written to Jews! And Revelation is certainly not written to Jews! Peter writes to Gentile Christians - but where does he say he is writing to Jews? Speculations...

The Church doesn't include the Gospel of Thomas in the Canon, nor would it include the Pauline Corpus IF it was NOT inspired by God.

What if God had nothing to do with the formation of the NT canon....ever consider that?

When if God had nothing to do with the formation of the OT Canon...ever consider that? See where you take us?

Except for a lot of "thus saith the Lord" and phrases such as that...Paul gives his own commandments and opinions...another thing Peter defines as being a "no no" when considering true and false apostles....see the PC's again (opps I forgot, it's heretical ;-) )on that subject...

Marcion couldn't conceive of the "God of the OT" being the same God of Love of the NT. His idea was to remove any Jewish "tainted" NT books, such as Matthew and James.... And Marcion was declared a heretic.

Marcion was declared a heretic, but many of his idea's and theology infiltrated church doctrine....

Like what??? That there are two separate gods?

Ugh...yeh...trinity...hello.....

A demiurge? Sorry, but the Church expresses that the Old Testament AND the New Testament are the Word of God - understanding that the New is hidden in the Old and that the New reveals the meaning of the Old.

I'm not Marcion...I don't support Paul as he did...I would say you may be closer to him then I....I don't support any of the Gnostic tinged interpretation that he, or Paul may have inferred.

You are the opposite of Marcion in theology, but you share the same concept - cut up the Scriptures to fit your theology.

LOL....you'll have a bunch of supporters on that one I'll warrant.. :-D

Sorry, but it is clearly seen throughout the Scriptures. We don't have to be circumcised to achieve eternal life - we don't have to convert to Judaism to be saved.

Ah! but it is the physical act that show's the devoted's intent. If you wish to identify yourself as a follower of God, you obey his commandment. It's the intent....No, you don't have to convert to Judaism, just obey God's commandment.

Of course! And the physical ritual is now called "Baptism". Circumcision of the flesh is merely a sign that gives no spiritual benefit. The old is a shadow of the new. When you are driving a car and read road signs that point to "Los Angeles", you follow them. However, once you reach the destination, what is the purpose of following the signs? We don't need to follow the signs of the Old Covenant because the New Covenant fulfills and subsumes it. Now, to enter into the Kingdom of God, the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE is given the option to become Baptized in God's name, the Trinity. That is the revelation given to us by the Apostles.

Regards

Sorry didn't respond to the last paragraph....too tired to and I have to respond to my other friends...I think we need to shorten the post a bit eh?

 

[Georges]

No, not me. You know where i stand. It's you I'm interested in. Which definition do you follow? Which one do you base your argument on that the trinity doesn't exist? Since you say it depends on definition please tell us the definition you choose.

First off....I believe that God, is Jehovah....alone. Jesus is the Son of God, but not God. I believe the HS as seen in Isa 11:2 is the seven faceted complete power and essense of God...

So I believe that God exsists...just not in a co-equal, same substance trinity form....

and I did lay it out in the previous post.....Jehovah is El, the head of the Elohim....El is part of the Elohim as the Supreme, but the Elohim are not El.

The Holy Spirit of EL (Jehovah) is his power and essence...He (Jehovah) empowers man with one or all of the 7 facets of the Holy Spirit.

Pick whatever definition from those I posted in the previous post to match the above...

 

[Atonement]

I'm guessing that one of these day's I'll log in and find myself kicked out... I guess that's a small price to pay for #1 defending my position when called on it (lewis is a mod who asked for my opinion) and #2 putting forth a position from "out of the box" that may answer or help with someone elses struggle concerning the same questions I once had.

Let's make this simple. Regardless of who asked you a question, if your answer violates the terms of service, you alone are responsible. In order for yourself not to violate the TOS; would be to simply say something as "my opinion may violate the TOS, but here is my opinion yada yada yada I care not to elaborate much more".

As far as wisdom is concerned, I think you'd be doing a disservice to the forum with futher action. I think I put forth challenging questions...some are tough to answer but need to be addressed...even Peter said "Be prepared to give an answer"...I am.

You are not doing anyone a service by violating the rules set on this board. You may challange, you may correct, you may edify and can even debate, but you shall not violate the rules in place. Challange us with something that does not violate, or one day you will not be able to sign in here.

Sorry Atonement....I am just as much a Chrisitian as you are, I'm sure. I'm not putting down Christianity, I was stating what was wrong with certain aspects of it, and correcting the error. Now, I may be guilty of pointing out the error of the ruling elite's basic tenets of faith as defined in the TOS, that however doesn't make me hostile to what your definition of Christianity might be...my apologetics are not an act of hostility, but rather a desire to correct misconceptions.

I quoted the entire 1st rule so there is no misconception of what rule you are breaking. I bolded what was the important portion of the rule being broken.

We consider Paul's writings to be part of the inspired Word of God. This is a Christian forum and any posting(s) that is intended to purpously distort Paul's writings will not be tolerated.

I didn't distort Paul's writings...I don't have to. Paul convicts himself, if you take a serious look at it. Please show me where I altered any of Paul's writing...

Where in these rules do you read that you altered Pauls wrightings? You have distorted Pauls wrightings; by questioning 3/4 of the NT that was written by Paul and the Word of God that we all here believe in. If you can not refrain from this type of posting, this place is not for you. I'll let you make that choice.

 

[francisdesales]

{Christian believers turned their backs on Paul}, and Jesus commends them for it in Rev 2. Who do you think teaches the principles of Balaam, including the Nicolaitans and those of Jezebel?

Whatever. Paul complains about the silversmiths who cast him out of Ephesus because he is disrupting their idol-making trade, not Christians. Is this so difficult to comprehend? Or are you saying that the Christians were idol-worshipers???

Were the pagans afraid that the Jews would frown upon their pagan practices? Hardly....

Actually, yes...The Jews were scandalized by the Gentile practice that had no concern for kosher laws. Some Jews, weak in faith, had a hard time letting go of these rules that were added on after the Decalogue was given.

But how do you know that the Tanach is "pristine"? You don't have the original autograph!

Because of the way the texts were copied and the great pains to achieve accuracy for one...the proof is in the earliest texts almost being letter for letter the same...next?

I'd call this a classic case of "arguing in a circle". The "earliest texts" are NOT the autographs...

That's not all I have to offer on the subject.....there's the DSS and Pseudo-Clementine literature that should be taken into account as well.

As I said, it is an unreliable source because it preaches an Arian message - NOT Christian - and was not written by Clement. The biographical data may or may not be correct, so I would take anything said in the PSEUDO-Clementines with a grain of salt.

As a Catholic, I don't find Scripture contradicting itself. James AND Romans are Scriptures.

Cause you don't have all the tools to make you take a closer look at it...

Oh brother. Yea, I forgot I checked my brain at the door of the Catholic Church when I entered in...

If one finds that James 2 and Romans 3 contradict, it is because of the human reader who reads Scriptures without the Church to aid him. James does NOT contradict Paul. That is YOUR assumption which leads you to dismiss the parts of Scripture that you do not like, maintaining your erroneous theology. Nothing funny there.

Yeh the OT was pretty much accepted....I believe Esther to be the only book not to have the name of God mentioned...

Pretty much accepted? Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Even in the Gospels, we find Jews disagreeing on WHAT is the Sacred Scriptures. The Sadducees believed it was ONLY the Pentateuch. The Pharisees included much more. I don't see any sort of monolithic acceptance of Scriptures until well into the second century on the part of Judaism.

Please don't make me print out the history of the Antisemitic Christian Chruch...just about every council held in the early Christian church had something to do with antisemitism....you can look that up yourself..

If the Church, as a BODY, was anti-Semetic, they would have cut out the Jewish Scriptures and any other Scriptures that spoke favorably about the Jews, such as Matthew or James. Were individuals anti-Semetic? Sure. Were some Jews anti-Christian? Sure. But that ignores my point. The Christians were initially a Jewish sect who were cast out of the synogogue. It was a bitter pill to swallow that the Jews did not convert or see the fulfillment of Jesus Christ as the Messiah.

Martin Luther wanted [James} removed....

Yea, another self-proclaimed interpreter of what is Sacred Scriptures, just like you and Marcion... Fortunately for Protestantism, cooler heads prevailed.

Well at least you agree that Marcion is opposite of me...

Only in your concept of Judaism. You are the same in that you both have no problems with setting yourself up as the arbitrary determiner of God's Word, declaring above the Church, the People of God, what is God's Word... Yes, the arrogance is a commonly held trait.

IF the Church was anti-semetic, then James and Matthew and anything "contradicting" with Paul would have been removed...

the early Church were Nazarene Jews...they were not named as Christians before Antioch...hello Paul....

How do you know that? That is the first time it is in WRITING!!! How do you know at what point Gentile believers were calling themselves Christians? I doubt they were calling themselves Jews since they weren't circumcised, nor did they abstain from eating pigs. Granted, the first few years, the Nazarenes were practically all Jews. But once the Church was persecuted and people went out of Jerusalem and spread the Word, people would naturally look at themselves differently then as just a Jew.

Have you read them {The Pseudo-Clementine Recogntions} ...there is not one thing in there that you'd disagree with...

Say what? A writing that claimed that Jesus was not God and the Spirit was a creation of Jesus Christ? Give me a break. These are Arian writings, as I have said before, heretical in theology. Who knows about the biographical details, because CLEMENT didn't write it. Someone had to "CLAIM" to be Clement so as it would get some sort of authority. That in itself makes it suspect.

PETER HIMSELF says that the writings of Paul are "Scripture".

"even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15-16.

Now really....were does that fit into Peters message for the chapter...pretty strange don't you think...considering much of the book is about Paul in a very negative way.

LOL!!! Spinning again, I see. Peter doesn't mention Paul until he tells us that his writings, while difficult to understand, are SCRIPTURE!!! PETER HIMSELF, the leader of the "Jewish" sect of Christians, calls Paul's writings inspired by God...That pretty much kills your pet project.

You can rant and rave all you want about Paul, not understanding how Paul and the Jewish Christian writings compliment each other, but it is a fact that the Jewish Christian communities did not condemn Paul's teachings. We don't find writings in James or Peter or John or any other Apostle that condemns Paul. Any references to "psuedo" writings is pointless. Am I supposed to believe the Talmud claims that Mary had an affair with a Roman Centurion, a vicious and scandalous invention to maintain a Jew in their intricate system of rules and regulations that hardly express God's will? Am I suppose to read polemic literature and believe it without reflection?

Until you can explain why there are Jewish writings in the "Pauline Christian" Church's Bible, until you can explain why the Scriptures do not relate any Christian believer expelling Paul, until you can explain why your theories rely on falsely attested writings, there really is no further point in proceeding.

Regards

 

[Georges]

You win.... :bday: :bday: :bday: GLTY....

 

[golfjack]

reply

The Holy Spirit convicts an unbeliever of Sin, Right? What convicts a Believer of Sin? Looking for comments.



May God bless, golfjack

 

[jgredline]

You win.... :bday: :bday: :bday: GLTY....

Georges
Is that a pick of you in your avatar?

 

[Georges]

Georges
Is that a pick of you in your avatar?

Yeh...bet you couldn't tell I was that good lookin from my posts...huh...

:wink:

 

[lovely]

George,

I was noticing the trend lately of everyone's pictures in the avatars...I thought maybe I didn't get the memo. Then, I thought, everyone is just giving us a glimpse of who we are talking to, and it's kind of fun. Yours...lol. I am still giggling! :-D Too funny, you silly.

The Lord bless you.

 

[lovely]

Jack, this is a good question. I think this one could be a thread subject in and of itself. I will pray about it, and look into the Word. I think I know the answer, but I want to know that I do.

The Lord bless you.

 

[Georges]

George,

I was noticing the trend lately of everyone's pictures in the avatars...I thought maybe I didn't get the memo. Then, I thought, everyone is just giving us a glimpse of who we are talking to, and it's kind of fun. Yours...lol. I am still giggling! :-D Too funny, you silly.

The Lord bless you.

All I can say is......Laaaaaddddyyyyyy......

Thanks...JL cracks me up....thought my pals would get a kick out of it...

PS...that's what I look like after a marathon post.....

 

[Georges]

Actually I was thinking about hollering at you for a cup of coffee the next time I was in Dallas. I have medical appointments at the Baylor Rehab Clinic on Gaston. Perhaps we could drink a cup there one day.

Edited:
Giving out personal information here is prohibited here by me. I never thought anyone would give out personal information on themself, so I will ask that it be added to the rules.

moderator

 

[Atonement]

Gabby, I cleaned what I thought should be cleaned out from this thread. I hope this is better for you. Sorry about all the hi-jacking.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

Gabby, I cleaned what I thought should be cleaned out from this thread. I hope this is better for you. Sorry about all the hi-jacking.

Thanks Atone!

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

In my corner of the world, if you don't do it right ~ you do it over. I am going to try this question again.

PLEASE DO NOT HI JACK THE THREAD AGAIN!

My question is for those who do not believe in the Trinity.
There has been much said about if you believe Jesus is God or not. Scriptures have been posted to support your opinion as to who Jesus Christ is. I would like to know what you believe about the Holy Spirit.

As one who believes in the Trinity, ie: Jesus Christ is God manifested in the flesh, and the Holy Spirit is God living within the heart of the believer.

For those of you who do not believe in the Trinity, you have expressed what you believe about who Jesus Christ is. Who or what do you believe the Holy Spirit is?

 

[Georges]

In my corner of the world, if you don't do it right ~ you do it over. I am going to try this question again.

PLEASE DO NOT HI JACK THE THREAD AGAIN!

My question is for those who do not believe in the Trinity.
There has been much said about if you believe Jesus is God or not. Scriptures have been posted to support your opinion as to who Jesus Christ is. I would like to know what you believe about the Holy Spirit.

As one who believes in the Trinity, ie: Jesus Christ is God manifested in the flesh, and the Holy Spirit is God living within the heart of the believer.

For those of you who do not believe in the Trinity, you have expressed what you believe about who Jesus Christ is. Who or what do you believe the Holy Spirit is?

And I'll try to answer again without being attacked again, hopefully. I am a non trinitarian and you asked....The HS is a what not a who.

Isa 11:2 pretty much puts an end to that argument.

 

[mutzrein]

Hi Gabby

Your post to me in the 'attributes of God' thread has prompted me to revisit here. I do recall seeing that Atonement had cleaned up this thread but as with others that had been hijacked, did not revisit. Do you have any comment about the post I made to you?

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

I have a question for those who do not believe in the Trinity.
There has been much said about if you believe Jesus is God or not.
What do you believe about the Holy Spirit? Who or what is the Holy Spirit if you do not believe it is God? In what way is the Holy Spirit not God?

There is a big difference Gabby, between the holy spirit being 'with them' and 'in them'.

True. There is a difference.

The question at the beginning was "Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is God? If not, then who or what do you believe about the Holy Spirit?

 

[mutzrein]

Gabby - I haven't forgotten this. Summer vacation here and lots to do and keep up with and I need to give this topic some consideration.

The Lord bless you