Bible Study The Trinity clarified by the apostles and early disciples

[younglite]

This is very, very long, but important. If you're looking for a quick study, I will fail you. As you can imagine, discussing the Trinity is no short study anyway. But I do share a short version below, followed by a very long chain of references you can verify yourself. I trust you will find it logically presented with complete references.

I use both Scriptures, as well as the writings of the very early church fathers – well before Nicaea. Their teachings actually clear up a lot of confusion surrounding the nature of the Trinity. Just so you know, I operate on the premise that those chronologically closer to the apostles will be more accurate than those further away on the timeline. This especially applies to those who had direct mentoring from the apostles themselves who, in turn, passed the same teaching to the next few generations prior to Nicaea. I also operate on the belief that the Greek word monogenes literally means “only-begotten” (birthed, born), not just the “unique” or “one and only” Son of God as many modern translations publish.

Essentially, the apostles (and their disciples) believed both that Jesus was literally begotten of God, and that He was also eternal. He wasn't just the "unique" Son of God. He was birthed from God Himself. Of course, this truth of Him being born is thought by some today (and heretics back then, too) to mean Jesus "had a beginning," therefore, he couldn't be eternal. Not true at all. The apostles taught Jesus was born of God, but His eternity was intact by being in the bosom of His Father for eternity past. I'll give quotes in a moment.

They understood that all creation and other beings were made out of nothing, or out of the substance of creation. They didn't exist prior to being made. But God's Word and Wisdom was begotten of Himself as the Father - His very substance. The Word was within the Father for all eternity, before being begotten. Of course, anything born of God's substance is God. The only thing ever born of God's substance was His Son. He is the only begotten, and He is eternal. (The Holy Spirit was then brought forth from the Son, but that is another discussion for another day).

They believed the Father to be the uncreated “true God,” and the Son and the Spirit to also be God since they originated from God's very substance.

In this light, let us look at Scriptures that are deemed “controversial” or misunderstood according to those who hold to a later orthodoxy that Jesus was not actually begotten, but emanated eternally from the Father.

1 Cor 8:6 - yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

There are 18 verses in the NT explicitly calling the Father God, while in each of those exact verses referring to Jesus as Son of the Father, or as Lord.

In John 5:44, Jesus calls the Father the “only God.” Jesus isn't stating that He isn't God, but that He recognizes the Father as the Almighty, Unbegotten God.

John 17:3, Jesus calls His Father the only true God. Ditto to the comment above.

1 Thess. 1:9-10, Paul also calls the Father the “true God.”

1 John 5:20, John clearly distinguishes “true God” from Jesus.

Of course, this idea of the Father being true God begins to scare many believers. They're afraid that this somehow makes Jesus “less” divine. But He isn't less divine. He is the exact copy of God, and is God. (2 Cor. 4:4, John 1:1) Even the Pharisees knew that by claiming to be the Son of God was the same as being equal with God (John 5:18). So it is right to call the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit “God,” for they all are. But the Son and the Spirit are begotten and brought forth respectively, while the Father is uncreated, unbegotten “true God.”

Luke follows the same understanding when he distinguishes Jesus from the “Most High” God. See Luke 1:32. In this passage (and others) the phrase “will be called” doesn't mean Jesus' incarnation marks the beginning of His being begotten or divine, but rather people will begin to call Him what He already is, and has been.

Eph 1:3 and 17, God is not only the Father of Jesus, but the God of Jesus.

Romans 8:29, Col 1:15 and Heb 1:6, all call Jesus the first-born. From the context of Scripture, the apostles and their disciples' teaching, and from the imagery in the metaphor itself, the Son is literally born of His Father, albeit a birth too wonderful for us to compare to human birth.

In John 14:9-11, Jesus says, “If you've seen me, you've seen the Father.” Many believe that this means Jesus is the same as the Father. And He is definitely the same substance. But He is not so much the same that He is indistinguishable from the Father. 2 Cor. 4:4 clearly says Jesus is the “image of God.” The Son (even before His incarnation) is the visible “image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15). The Father is revealed via His Son. From the “angel of the Lord” in the OT, to Moses' burning bush and cleft-of-the-rock experience, to the NT – all these events are the Son being present to reveal the unseen Father. No one has seen the Father except the Son (John 6:46).

New disciples were trained as the first century was coming to a close. Peter, John and Paul were soon to pass. Well known disciples were Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp. They were all directly taught by the apostles. Clement of Rome was discipled by both Paul and Peter. As his name indicates, he was the Overseer of the believers in Rome. He wrote letters even as the NT was still being written. He states:

[Grant unto us, Lord,] that we may set our hope on Thy Name which is the primal source of all creation, and open the eyes of our hearts, that we may know Thee, who alone abidest Highest in the lofty, Holy in the holy; who layest low in the insolence of the proud, who settest the lowly on high, and bringest the lofty low; who makest rich and makest poor; who killest and makest alive; who alone art the Benefactor of spirits and the God of all flesh; who
lookest into the abysses, who scanest the works of man; the Succor of them that are in peril, the Savior of them that are in despair; The Creator and Overseer of every spirit; who multipliest the nations upon earth, and hast chosen out from all men those that love Thee through Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, through whom Thou didst instruct us, didst sanctify us, didst honor us.
(1 Clement 59:3)

And in verse 4:

Let all the Gentiles know that Thou art the God alone, and Jesus Christ is Thy Son, and
we are Thy people and the sheep of Thy pasture.

And in 1 Clement 61:3:

O Thou, who alone art able to do these things and things far more exceeding good than these for us, we praise Thee through the High priest and Guardian of our souls, Jesus Christ, through whom be the glory and the majesty unto Thee both now and for all generations and for ever and ever. Amen.
(Clement of Rome, 1st Epistle)

As you can see, he also distinguished the Father alone as God, but also recognized Jesus as His “beloved Son.”

Ignatius of Antioch (discipled by Peter and John) wrote:

“But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For "the Word was made flesh."
(Ignatius to the Ephesians, chapter VII)

and in his letter to the Magnesians:

“...that you may rather attain to a full assurance in Christ, who was begotten by the Father before all ages, but was afterwards born of the Virgin Mary without any intercourse with man. He also lived a holy life, and healed every kind of sickness and disease among the people, and wrought signs and wonders for the benefit of men; and to those who had fallen into the error of polytheism He made known the one and only true God, His Father, and underwent the passion, and endured the cross...”
(Ignatius to the Magnesians, chapter XI)

and his letter to the Romans:

"I long after the Lord, the Son of the true God and Father, even Jesus Christ. Him I seek, who died for us and rose again.
(Ignatius to the Romans, chapter VI)

Polycarp was discipled by John. He wrote an epistle to the church in Philippi. One portion of that letter states:

Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal
High-priest Himself the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in
faith and truth, and in all gentleness and in all avoidance of wrath
and in forbearance and long suffering and in patient endurance and in
purity; and may He grant unto you a lot and portion among His saints,
and to us with you, and to all that are under heaven, who shall
believe on our Lord and God Jesus Christ and on His Father that
raised him from the dead.
(Epistle to the Philippians, Polycarp 12:2)

It's interesting that he states in the same paragraph the Father is the God of Jesus, but also that Jesus is God, which is true.

 

[younglite]

Like the apostles before him, Polycarp trained others. His most well-known disciple was Irenaeus of Lyons. In the middle of the 2nd century, Irenaeus wrote to refute many gnostic heresies that were growing rampant. He writes:

“For faith, which has respect to our Master, endures unchangeably, assuring us that there is but one true God, and that we should truly love Him for ever, seeing that He alone is our Father;”
(Against Heresies, Book 2, chapter XXVIII, section 3)

“For consider, all ye who invent such opinions, since the Father Himself is alone called God, ...moreover, the Scriptures acknowledge Him alone as God; and yet again, since the Lord confesses Him alone as His own Father, ...consider the terrible blasphemy [ye are thus guilty of] against Him who truly is God.”
(Against Heresies, Book 2, chapter XXVIII, section 4)

What makes God “true God” is the fact that He is the source of the Son. It was only later that the overreaction to Arius teachings made Jesus virtually just like the Father in all aspects, and much of that teaching is still predominant today. The idea that the Son and Holy Spirit have always existed externally with the Father for all time is not a teaching of these early disciples. Yes, they believed the Son and the Spirit are eternal, but that in eternity past, the Son was inside of the Father before being birthed, born, begotten – whatever word to describe a birthing point of being brought forth from the inside to being eternally on the outside with the Father. Then, after begotten, the Father and Son brought forth the Holy Spirit.

The apostles and their disciples never get into long descriptions of how the Son was begotten of the Father. They believed that His “begotten-ness” was too wonderful to describe and too mysterious to understand. Having said that, there are many quotes that show that they believed in the birth of the Son before the creation of the world.

Irenaeus of Lyons (Polycarp's disciple) also wrote this against the gnostics:

If any one, therefore, says to us, "How then was the Son produced by the Father? "we reply to him, that no man understands that production, or generation, or calling, or revelation, or by whatever name one may describe His generation, which is in fact altogether indescribable. Neither Valentinus, nor Marcion, nor Saturninus, nor Basilides, nor angels, nor archangels, nor principalities, nor powers [possess this knowledge], but the Father only who begat, and the Son who was begotten. Since therefore His generation is unspeakable, those who strive to set forth generations and productions cannot be in their right mind, inasmuch as they undertake to describe things which are indescribable. For that a word is uttered at the bidding of thought and mind, all men indeed well understand. Those, therefore, who have excogitated [the theory of] emissions have not discovered anything great, or revealed any abstruse mystery, when they have simply transferred what all understand to the only-begotten Word of God; and while they style Him unspeakable and unnameable, they nevertheless set forth the production and formation of His first generation, as if they themselves had assisted at His birth, thus assimilating Him to the word of mankind formed by emissions.
(Against Heresies, Book 2, chapter XXVIII, section 6, see 5 also for context)

But that He had, beyond all others, in Himself that pre-eminent birth which is from the Most High Father, and also experienced that pre-eminent generation which is from the Virgin, the divine Scriptures do in both respects testify of Him:
(Against Heresies, Book 3, chapter XIX, section 2)

He [Father] has a vast and unspeakable number of servants. For His offspring and His similitude do minister to Him in every respect; that is, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Word and Wisdom;
(Against Heresies, Book 4, chapter VII, section 4)

Irenaeus was clear that he believed the Son was “produced” from the Father. Scriptures call it “begotten.” To be clear, they are not saying Jesus was “made” from nothing as Arius later taught, or that there was a time “when He was not.” That would be heresy and should be deemed as such. The Son was not made from nothing, but rather birthed from God Himself. In many of their writings, He is called the “Self-Begotten God.”

So did Irenaeus stray from what the apostles believed? No, he did not. Many early church fathers wrote about this “time” of birth of the Son...

Justin Martyr:
“For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs. Also elsewhere, reiterates: Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power...
(Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter CV)

I have discussed briefly in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same. “
(Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter CXXVIII)

"You perceive, my hearers, if you bestow attention, that the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created; and that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, any one will admit."
(Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter CXXIX)

Tatian (Justin Martyr's disciple):
God was in the beginning; but the beginning, we have been taught, is the power of the Logos. For the Lord of the universe, who is Himself the necessary ground of all being, inasmuch as no creature was yet in existence, was alone; but inasmuch as He was all power, Himself the necessary ground of things visible and invisible, with Him were all things; with Him, by Logos-power, the Logos Himself also, who was in Him, subsists. And by His simple will the Logos springs forth; and the Logos, not coming forth in vain, becomes the first-begotten work of the Father. Him (the Logos) we know to be the beginning of the world. But He came into being by participation, not by abscission; for what is cut off is separated from the original substance, but that which comes by participation, making its choice of function, does not render him deficient from whom it is taken. For just as from one torch many fires are lighted, but the light of the first torch is not lessened by the kindling of many torches, so the Logos, coming forth from the Logos-power of the Father, has not divested of the Logos-power Him who begat Him.
(Tatian's Address to the Greeks, chapter V)

The earliest use of the word “Trinity” comes from Theophilus, the 7th bishop of Antioch. He writes ca. 169-183 AD:

God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things.
(Theophilus, Book 2, chap X)

Hear what I say. The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam. For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence." The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place.
(Theophilus, Book 2, Chapter XXII)

 

[younglite]

There's more. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen all speak of this unspeakable birth of the Son from the Father as the beginning of it all. I have about 40 pages of notes, so I'll spare you even longer posts to begin this thread.

As stated in the beginning, the apostles believed in one God – the Father. In one sense He was alone before begetting, but in another sense He was not alone, for the Son and Spirit were within Him. But they also understood that the Son and the Spirit were also God by nature of being produced from Him. The later teaching of the Trinity having always existed “as-is” for eternity past doesn't hold in light of these early teachings.

You may say, “I have never heard this before.” Well, neither did I growing up in church, going to Bible college later or even among well-educated, believing friends. I was taught this only by reading the Bible. I was reading 2 Corinthians 4:4 as part of my daily reading. I must have read it hundreds of times, but Christ being called the “image of God” really bothered me. We as men are the image of God, I thought. Christ is God. Why is He being called an image? This led me on a year long quest to study the Scriptures focused on this idea. I concluded by Scriptures alone that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were viewed differently from God the Father by the NT writers. I wasn't clear how, but I wanted to delve deeper. I exhausted my reading in Scripture, so I began reading the writings of the early disciples. It took me some time to make the shift, but I had to believe what I was reading, or else declare them all heretics.

I am still confused why their writings and “early orthodoxy” are ignored for the later “orthodoxy” which came after Nicaea. However, if you read the earlier versions of the Nicaean Creed, it says exactly what these early disciples taught, as well:

“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father...”

I understand many will “read what they believe” rather than believe what they read. It's normal. I had a very hard time un-learning what I had been taught to believe what I was reading. Nonetheless, I offer this as a small sampling of teaching that, in my opinion, summarizes a more accurate view of the apostles' teaching. It certainly has cleared up many of the “contradictions” of the Son-being-God issues for me. He is God!

I'm fine with disagreement. I only ask that you keep your questions and comments civil. Any attacking will be ignored, and not replied to.

Peace.

 

[Obadiah]

This Original Post stomps all over the guidelines for A&T forum original posts which states: "Original posts should reference specific scripture and what it is the member wants to say or ask about that scripture" This is not a resolution about a specific scripture but rather an entire Bible Study that for all intents and purposes can not be debated in any practical fashion. There is a reason for the character limit on this site. In addition, since we do not allow teaching against the trinity on this site, there is no way for anyone to debate the con side of this without running afoul of the Terms of Service.

I am moving this to the Bible Study forum where I believe it will be a better fit.

 

[younglite]

My apologies. I am new. I did look through the various guidelines, but other than the number of characters (such a topic required more than a few quotes), I thought it was the best category. But thank you for proper placement.

To be clear, I am not teaching against the Trinity. I believe in God as Father, Son and Spirit. I believe the Niceaen Creed. I simply offer that what is currently taught - namely the Son and Spirit existing alongside the Father for all eternity - isn't consistent with Scripture and the earliest teachings. There is a reason for the Father-Son imagery, and the copious times they used begotten, born, birth, produced, etc.

Peace.

 

[davidtitor]

I want to know what the trinity actually is, but too many words here. Thank you for your posts, if i have the time, I will read it carefully.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I want to know what the trinity actually is, but too many words here. Thank you for your posts, if i have the time, I will read it carefully.

Yeah, too much to read.
How does one respond to it all?

 

[younglite]

You want a short version? Fair enough. The posts above are long indeed. When posting such bold claims, you need to have exact referencing to show you're not just making this stuff up. But if you'll accept this short version (and read the above references later for verification), here you go...

The apostles and their disciples taught that God the Father is "true God." This doesn't mean that the Son and the Spirit are not God. They taught that they were God, too, by way of being brought forth from the Father. What is brought forth of God's substance is God, just as a fire started from another fire is no less "fire" than the original fire.

But before the "beginning," God had His Word and Wisdom within Himself (references show that the place of "within" was the bosom/bowels of the Father). The Father predestined all of creation in cooperation with His Word and Wisdom within, before the beginning. Then, at the time He was ready to act on His plan - "in the beginning" - He brought forth (begat) the Logos (Word) without losing any reasoning faculties of His own. The Word became the visible form of Him as the invisible, unbegotten God. The first act after begetting His only begotten Son was to bring forth the Holy Spirit.

The in cooperation with the Word and Wisdom (Son and Spirit), the heavens were created with the angels, then the earth and man were created. So instead of having three gods, you have one God who is revealed in Three Persons. Nothing else is comprised of the substance of God other than the Father, Son (Word) and Spirit. The Trinity is God, with the Father being the head of the Trinity.

This visible Logos was the light and life of men. It was He, being the visible image of God, that revealed the Father in the OT. Any "appearance" of God is seen via the Logos. Burning bush, cleft of the rock, Jacob's wrestling, Angel of the Lord, etc. No one has ever seen the Father, except the Logos. And in the NT, it was He that became flesh and was called Jesus and Emmanuel - God with us. All else we believe about the Trinity holds true. The only difference in their teaching, and the later "orthodox" teaching was the later teaching taught that the Trinity was always what it is now - the Son and Spirit were existing alongside God the Father for eternity past. But I can't find this teaching anywhere in the early disciple's writings. Even the Nicean Creed says otherwise. And the teachings of these early disciples make the "confusing" Scriptures (regarding the Father being the God of the Son) now make sense.

 

[Butch5]

There's more. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen all speak of this unspeakable birth of the Son from the Father as the beginning of it all. I have about 40 pages of notes, so I'll spare you even longer posts to begin this thread.

As stated in the beginning, the apostles believed in one God – the Father. In one sense He was alone before begetting, but in another sense He was not alone, for the Son and Spirit were within Him. But they also understood that the Son and the Spirit were also God by nature of being produced from Him. The later teaching of the Trinity having always existed “as-is” for eternity past doesn't hold in light of these early teachings.

You may say, “I have never heard this before.” Well, neither did I growing up in church, going to Bible college later or even among well-educated, believing friends. I was taught this only by reading the Bible. I was reading 2 Corinthians 4:4 as part of my daily reading. I must have read it hundreds of times, but Christ being called the “image of God” really bothered me. We as men are the image of God, I thought. Christ is God. Why is He being called an image? This led me on a year long quest to study the Scriptures focused on this idea. I concluded by Scriptures alone that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were viewed differently from God the Father by the NT writers. I wasn't clear how, but I wanted to delve deeper. I exhausted my reading in Scripture, so I began reading the writings of the early disciples. It took me some time to make the shift, but I had to believe what I was reading, or else declare them all heretics.

I am still confused why their writings and “early orthodoxy” are ignored for the later “orthodoxy” which came after Nicaea. However, if you read the earlier versions of the Nicaean Creed, it says exactly what these early disciples taught, as well:

“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father...”

I understand many will “read what they believe” rather than believe what they read. It's normal. I had a very hard time un-learning what I had been taught to believe what I was reading. Nonetheless, I offer this as a small sampling of teaching that, in my opinion, summarizes a more accurate view of the apostles' teaching. It certainly has cleared up many of the “contradictions” of the Son-being-God issues for me. He is God!

I'm fine with disagreement. I only ask that you keep your questions and comments civil. Any attacking will be ignored, and not replied to.

Peace.

That's a pretty good synopsis.I agree with you in all but one aspect. The Nicene Creed says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. I' not away of any Christ or Scripture that indicates that the holy Spirit was begotten.

Also, I don't know if you posted this passage, I don't remember seeing it. However, Jesus said that He came out of God.

42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. (Jn. 8:42 NKJ)

The word "from" is the Greek word "ek" which means to come out of.

 

[younglite]

I' not away of any Christ or Scripture that indicates that the holy Spirit was begotten.

Thanks for your reply. To be clear, I never said the Holy Spirit was begotten. The Son is the Only Begotten. In fact, I said that the first thing that happened after the Son was begotten was that the Father and Son brought forth the Holy Spirit.

I may have worded a phrase to seem that the Holy Spirit was begotten. Sorry for that - I'll explain. The Holy Spirit is a tricky read because there is so much written on the Son, and scant passages on the Spirit. The early fathers hint that the Spirit came from the Son. Specifically Wisdom was the embodiment of the Word when He was begotten. (I can give quotes, but it's pretty late right now.) I suspect it's possible - my own theory, but not proven - that God brought forth the Holy Spirit from Christ much like he brought Eve from Adam. This would be consistent with the Holy Spirit being of the substance of God, but not begotten. It would also be consistent with the Nicean Creed stating that the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son.

John 8:42 is one of the most compelling verses for this discussion. I don't think I mentioned it, but I have it in my notes. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Butch5]

Thanks for your reply. To be clear, I never said the Holy Spirit was begotten. The Son is the Only Begotten. In fact, I said that the first thing that happened after the Son was begotten was that the Father and Son brought forth the Holy Spirit.

I may have worded a phrase to seem that the Holy Spirit was begotten. Sorry for that - I'll explain. The Holy Spirit is a tricky read because there is so much written on the Son, and scant passages on the Spirit. The early fathers hint that the Spirit came from the Son. Specifically Wisdom was the embodiment of the Word when He was begotten. (I can give quotes, but it's pretty late right now.) I suspect it's possible - my own theory, but not proven - that God brought forth the Holy Spirit from Christ much like he brought Eve from Adam. This would be consistent with the Holy Spirit being of the substance of God, but not begotten. It would also be consistent with the Nicean Creed stating that the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son.

John 8:42 is one of the most compelling verses for this discussion. I don't think I mentioned it, but I have it in my notes. Thanks for sharing.

Hi younglite,

Actually you did. In the opening post you said, " But the Son and the Spirit are begotten and brought forth respectively, while the Father is uncreated, unbegotten “true God.” I can see from your last post that you don't believe that.

I too had wondered about the Spirit.. I belong to a group of guys who delve deeply into the Scriptures and they've just looked into the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures. It's been an interesting study. If you're interested I can give you some links to it. It's about 6 hours of audio teaching on the Holy Spirit.

 

[younglite]

Sure, send the links. Does the study focus primarily on the role and activities of the Holy Spirit? Does it mention His origins at all?

Okay, I see where you got confused. When someone says Jack and Jill went to their house and apartment "respectively," it means Jack went to his house and Jill went to her apartment. When I say "the Son and the Spirit are begotten and brought forth respectively," it means the Son was begotten and the Holy Spirit was brought forth. Sorry to confuse you. Thanks for commenting.

 

[Butch5]

Sure, send the links. Does the study focus primarily on the role and activities of the Holy Spirit? Does it mention His origins at all?

Okay, I see where you got confused. When someone says Jack and Jill went to their house and apartment "respectively," it means Jack went to his house and Jill went to her apartment. When I say "the Son and the Spirit are begotten and brought forth respectively," it means the Son was begotten and the Holy Spirit was brought forth. Sorry to confuse you. Thanks for commenting.

Ah, I see what you meant now. My mistake. The study is one who the Holy Spirit is. It's actually a series on the doctrine of God. It looks at the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The 8 videos/audios "The Breath of God" are on the Holy Spirit.

http://www.oasischristianchurch.org/bbi_02.html