Understanding the GodHead. The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

[Butch5]

Let's look at the exact wording. It's pretty clear that everything someone does, even speaking against Jesus, will be forgiven. The only exception is speaking against the Spirit. That means Jesus isn't the Spirit and he isn't God. The very passage makes the argument for me. I have nothing to add to it.

Matthew 12
31Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

That begs the question, why? If sin against YHWH, the true God, can be forgiven. And if sin against His Son can be forgiven, why can't sin Against the Spirit be forgiven? Many hold that the Spirit is the third person of the Trinity. If sin against the two primary members can be forgiven why not the third? Doesn't the Father have supremacy over all? It would seem that if sin against anyone can't be forgiven it would be the Most High? That leaves us with the question, why?

 

[Runningman]

That begs the question, why? If sin against YHWH, the true God, can be forgiven. And if sin against His Son can be forgiven, why can't sin Against the Spirit be forgiven? Many hold that the Spirit is the third person of the Trinity. If sin against the two primary members can be forgiven why not the third? Doesn't the Father have supremacy over all? It would seem that if sin against anyone can't be forgiven it would be the Most High? That leaves us with the question, why?

I was hoping someone would catch that. It's because God the Father is a holy Spirit and is sometimes called the Holy Spirit.

John 4
23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

 

[Runningman]

Jesus is called “the Lord the Spirit” because where the spirit is, is liberty.

To blaspheme the Holy Spirit would be to attribute the Spirit to something diabolical.

True, but it might be anything God considers to be blasphemy though.

 

[Consecrated Life]

Let's look at the exact wording. It's pretty clear that everything someone does, even speaking against Jesus, will be forgiven. The only exception is speaking against the Spirit. That means Jesus isn't the Spirit and he isn't God. The very passage makes the argument for me. I have nothing to add to it.

Matthew 12
31Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

The "Son of Man" was specified by Jesus .
If Jesus had said the " Son of God" instead there is no doubt that the Son of man would have been covered as well.
Why would He not just specify the "Son of God" then ?
Because the opposite is not true.
The term Son of man , denoting the humanity & the divesting of Glory in His Pre-crucified state does not provide blanket coverage blasphemy & sin against the Son of God.

While there are plenty of scriptures in which the pre-crucified is sinned against and blasphemed , you will notice that in His many appearances in His post-crucified state the scriptures tells us there was not one person who sinned or Blasphemed against Him .

 

[Butch5]

I was hoping someone would catch that. It's because God the Father is a holy Spirit and is sometimes called the Holy Spirit.

John 4
23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Agreed. The Spirit is a manifestation of the Father. Jesus tells us this in John 16. After speaking with the disciples about the Comforter, the Help, also known as the Spirit of Truth, Jesus tells them that He's been speaking to them about the Father using figurative language. That's why after His baptism He said, the Father is in me. It was via the Holy Spirit.

If Jesus told them of Himself and the Father and they didn't believe it could be forgiven. But, when they were witnessing with their own eyes the power of God and calling it demonic, that was going to far. That wouldn't be forgiven. Jesus told them that He had no power to do miracles. He told them it was the Father in Him who was doing the miracles. They saw that with their own eyes and called it demonic. That was going too far.

 

[Fish153]

You're asking good questions. People, finite beings, are made in the image of God, an infinite being.


Another good question, because does not Colossians 1:15-16 say Jesus is the image of the invisible God and that God created through him? What do you suppose God created through a man (an image)?


You must be a Roman Catholic. If not, you haven't read your Bible. Jesus clearly isn't God.

Runningman---- Yes, we were created in the "image" of God. But we are not "EXACT REPRESENTATIONS" of God as Hebrews 1:3 says Jesus is. You conveniently ignore these basic points. If Jesus is an "exact representation" then He has to be Infinite also. Jesus isn't just an "image" of God---He is the "exact representation" of the Father. "3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being" (Hebrews 1:3). The only way to "exactly" represent the Father (infinite), is to be a SON who is infinite also.

 

[Free]

Those verses also show that blaspheming Jesus is forgivable whereas blaspheming God is not forgivable. Therefore, speaking against Jesus is not equal to speaking against God, in accordance with Jesus isn't God.

They say "Spirit" or "Holy Spirit," not "God." By your own reasoning then, the Father isn't God, since the Holy Spirit clearly isn't the Father. You need to pay attention significantly better attention to context.

Mat 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.”
Mat 12:25 Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand.
Mat 12:26 And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?
Mat 12:27 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges.
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.
Mat 12:29 Or how can someone enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.
Mat 12:30 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
Mat 12:31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
Mat 12:32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (ESV)

Notice that the claim by the Pharisees was essentially that Jesus was casting out demons by Satan. So, what is this "unforgivable sin"? It's attributing to Satan the incredible mercy and power of the Holy Spirit, which was intended to display the power of God, in setting people free. It's basically charging the Holy Spirit of being in league with Satan. That's an incredible blasphemy.

Another good question, because does not Colossians 1:15-16 say Jesus is the image of the invisible God and that God created through him? What do you suppose God created through a man (an image)?

This is the type of understanding one gets when they ignore context and beg the question.

 

[Free]

Agreed. The Spirit is a manifestation of the Father. Jesus tells us this in John 16. After speaking with the disciples about the Comforter, the Help, also known as the Spirit of Truth, Jesus tells them that He's been speaking to them about the Father using figurative language. That's why after His baptism He said, the Father is in me. It was via the Holy Spirit.

Except that none of that fits the language nor the continued distinction made throughout the NT between the Father and the Holy Spirit. It is meaningless, at best, to call the Father the Holy Spirit if they are one and the same. Everything in the NT suggests that the Father and the Holy Spirit are distinct, just as the Father and the Son are distinct.

Mat 3:16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him;
Mat 3:17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” (ESV)

Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (ESV)

Joh 15:26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. (ESV)

Act_7:55 But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. (ESV)

Rom 8:9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. (ESV)

Gal 4:6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" (ESV)

Php 1:19 for I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance, (ESV)

1Pe 1:10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully,
1Pe 1:11 inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. (ESV)

The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of God, but he is also called the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of Jesus Christ, the Spirit of his Son, etc. This simply shows the relational closeness and interpenetration or mutual indwelling of the three persons. It is really worth noting 1 Pet 1:10-11, which is speaking of the OT prophets, prophesying by the Spirit of Christ.

 

[Free]

How many things have you said wrong here, your logic and conclusions are both train wrecks. The only thing you have done here is keep me busy correcting you.

That's one way to yet again avoid addressing the logic of the two arguments I presented. You anti-Trinitarians have all sorts of ways of dismissing things without addressing them. It's shameful, actually. On this particular point--the two logical arguments from 1 Cor 8:6--neither you nor any other anti-Trinitarian has even tried to show where my logic is wrong; not once.

Once again:

1Co 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. (ESV)

First, if "one God, the Father" precludes the Son from also being God, then it necessarily follows that "one Lord, Jesus Christ" precludes the Father from also being Lord. That is basic logic and sound reasoning. Yet, we know that the Father is also Lord.

Second, if "from whom are all things" speaks of the Father's absolute existence, then it necessarily follows that "through whom are all things" speaks of the Son's absolute existence. Again, basic logic and sound reasoning.

If you disagree, then please show me where my reasoning is wrong. You claiming my "logic and conclusions are both train wrecks" doesn't mean they are. You have to actually show they are; show where the errors are.

As far as how the Apostle referring to Yahweh as God and Yeshua as Lord.

They did that even in the scripture that you gave. Here is some more….

Acts 20:21, Romans 5:1, 5:11, 15:6, 1st Corinthians 15:57, 2nd Corinthians 1:3, 2nd Corinthians 11:31, Galatians 1:3 , Galatians 6:14, Ephesians 1:3, Ephesians 1:17, Ephesians 3:14, Ephesians 5:20, Colossians 1:3, 1st Thessalonians 1:3, 1st Thessalonians 3:11, 1st Thessalonians 3:13, 1st Thessalonians 5:23, 2nd Thessalonians 1:8, 2nd Thessalonians 1:12, 2nd Thessalonians 2:16, Hebrews 13:20, 1st Peter 1:3, Jude 1:21

I did 1st Corinthians 8:6 as one of those few scriptures that support the one God formula.

Your grammar in a couple of places makes it difficult to understand what your point is.

But for every scripture you give me that supports the one God formula I can give you 50 that do not.

This is the type of poor reasoning that has led you to tritheism. It becomes a numbers game of what you feel different texts are supporting in this discussion. But, that is to take everything out of context. It is never a matter of the side which appears to have more support is the truth. All must be taken together.

God the Father and God the Son are both Gods. The Apostles were just showing a distinction between the two....showing difference.

He's showing they are distinct, yes, but he absolutely cannot be showing that they are both Gods.

Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.
'I am" getting hungry....But I am not God. Just because the word I am appear in scripture does not mean they are referring to God I AM.

I hope you realize what the text actually states here: "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” This is important because "He" doesn't appear in the Greek.

Joh 8:23 He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
Joh 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.” (ESV)

So, immediately before Jesus says "unless you believe that I am you will die in your sins," he clearly claims to be "from above" and "not of this world." Besides claiming preexistence, it strongly suggests that unless one believes he is I Am, they will die in their sins. Both of those verses then support what he says in verse 58.

Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.”
Joh 8:57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (ESV)

At least here the translators didn't add "He," since, once again, it isn't in the Greek. Perhaps they left it out because here it grammatically makes no sense to say "I am He;" it would make Jesus say nonsense.

Jesus is addressing the question: “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” His response is, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

First, if Jesus was to say "before Abraham was, I am he," would that mean he is claiming to be Abraham? But, that wouldn't be true and it would be nonsense to claim that before Abraham was, he was Abraham. Or, would it mean he is claiming to be someone else, such as the Messiah? But, that doesn't make sense either, since the question posed wasn't about who he was. So, in both cases, he would neither answer the question nor would his answer make sense grammatically.

Second, if Jesus meant "before Abraham was, I am he," then why did the Jews pick up stones to stone him? What blasphemy did he seemingly commit that demanded his death?

What we can plainly see is that the question is one of chronology and age. So, Jesus answers that with chronology and age, or better, with the nature of being. Jesus contrasts the limited existence of Abraham in time, with his own eternal preexistence. That actually answers the question and makes sense grammatically. It also makes sense of why the Jews wanted to stone him--they (falsely) saw his claim to be I Am as blasphemy.

 

[Free]

I did not dismiss it, I said I already covered the topic....and no the New Testament does not teach monotheism.

You said you already covered the topic, but you didn't, you dismissed it without addressing it. The point in question is one of several verses I gave, but this one in particular is problematic for your tritheism:

Isa 43:10 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. (ESV)

Of course, when combined with all the others I gave, in which Yahweh says "there is no god beside me," or something similar, it leaves you with only two options:

1. God either lied, so he cannot be the God of the Bible.
2. God didn't know two other gods existed, which means he is not omniscient and, therefore, cannot be the God of the Bible.

The NT most definitely teaches monotheism, from Jesus himself, no less:

Mar 12:29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
Mar 12:30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ (ESV)

That affirms that Yahweh is the only God:

Deu 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
Deu 6:5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. (ESV)

Notice how close that happens to be to 1 Cor 8:6:

1Co 8:4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.”
1Co 8:5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—
1Co 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. (ESV)

It's also worth noting what Paul says in verse 4--'we know . . . that "there is no God but one."' Paul reaffirms the Shema immediately before expanding on it, showing that the one God who is Lord is the Father and the Son. Even if you don't believe Paul is expanding on the Shema, he uses the Shema to reaffirm monotheism. So, is Paul now lying?

 

[Free]

One of the best proofs of what the scriptures mean is when it is stated and then it happens.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son…

Luke 1:31
And behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.

Luke 1:35
The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

Matthew 1:20
But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

So Begot means sire offspring.

Again, you completely avoided the points I made. You're not even trying to address the different words being used in the Greek and their different meanings.

What?

What do you mean "What?"? Look at what you quoted from me: "Where?".

So, that is the point where you look at what I quoted of you, which was "And I have addressed this too." Then, you follow that back to see where you said that, and that leads you HERE.

From there, you can see the rather large post of mine that you quoted and claimed to already have addressed. So, I asked you "Where?," as in "Where did you address anything in that post?," because I can see nowhere where you addressed any of it.

(It's all rather easy--just click on the member name at the top of a quote, with the little "up arrow" inside the circle beside it, and it will bring you to the post that was quoted.)

I am not debating that the New Testament is talking about a pre-existent Christ. I am just looking for proof in the Old Testament.
I say show me where Yeshua is active in the OT by name.

As I have pointed out more than once, Jesus clearly wasn't born until the NT, it's rather what starts the whole thing off. So, you will never find his name in the OT. Whether or not there is clear proof of the Son acting in the OT is not relevant since the NT clearly states that he was.

And, again, the Bible uses progressive revelation and the latter revelations cannot contradict that which has come before. That means that the revelation in the NT that there are three divine persons, absolutely cannot contradict the monotheism of the OT; they cannot be separate Gods. Besides which, I have pointed out several times that that would mean God either lied in the OT or there was at least one thing he didn't know. Either way, he could not be the God of the Bible. It would also mean that Jesus and Paul are wrong--liars really--in their affirmation of monotheism.

You know that Yahweh repeatedly said that He was the only God and there was no one like Him.
And then what happens if you do find it. That sets Judaism on it ear, it no longer a one God religion.

Once again, this is all fallaciously begging the question and has been addressed as such before. It ignores the plain meaning of the Greek and ignores the several passages I have given which clearly show that the Son was the agent of creation, which means it is logically impossible for the Son to not have never existed. This is very basic reasoning based on clear and plain passages in the Bible.

 

[Runningman]

The "Son of Man" was specified by Jesus .
If Jesus had said the " Son of God" instead there is no doubt that the Son of man would have been covered as well.
Why would He not just specify the "Son of God" then ?
Because the opposite is not true.
The term Son of man , denoting the humanity & the divesting of Glory in His Pre-crucified state does not provide blanket coverage blasphemy & sin against the Son of God.

Seems you have suddenly created a two Jesus' theology. There is no distinction between the Son of man and Son of God. Here's a good one for you. Was the Son of man or Son of God crucified? Choose carefully.

While there are plenty of scriptures in which the pre-crucified is sinned against and blasphemed , you will notice that in His many appearances in His post-crucified state the scriptures tells us there was not one person who sinned or Blasphemed against Him .

Barely any of Jesus' teachings are repeated verbatim post-crucifixion, but they still stand.

 

[Runningman]

Runningman---- Yes, we were created in the "image" of God. But we are not "EXACT REPRESENTATIONS" of God as Hebrews 1:3 says Jesus is. You conveniently ignore these basic points. If Jesus is an "exact representation" then He has to be Infinite also. Jesus isn't just an "image" of God---He is the "exact representation" of the Father. "3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being" (Hebrews 1:3). The only way to "exactly" represent the Father (infinite), is to be a SON who is infinite also.

Being like God, partaking of God's divine nature, is your calling. This isn't something that was supposed to be exclusive to Jesus.

Ephesians 4
24And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

2 Peter 1
4Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

 

[Runningman]

They say "Spirit" or "Holy Spirit," not "God." By your own reasoning then, the Father isn't God, since the Holy Spirit clearly isn't the Father. You need to pay attention significantly better attention to context.

Mat 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.”
Mat 12:25 Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand.
Mat 12:26 And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?
Mat 12:27 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges.
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.
Mat 12:29 Or how can someone enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.
Mat 12:30 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
Mat 12:31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
Mat 12:32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (ESV)

Notice that the claim by the Pharisees was essentially that Jesus was casting out demons by Satan. So, what is this "unforgivable sin"? It's attributing to Satan the incredible mercy and power of the Holy Spirit, which was intended to display the power of God, in setting people free. It's basically charging the Holy Spirit of being in league with Satan. That's an incredible blasphemy.


This is the type of understanding one gets when they ignore context and beg the question.

The Holy Spirit is the Father and sometimes used to describe an anointing. The Father is holy and a Spirit right? Then we can call Him Holy Spirit which is scriptural.

Here's a question, if the Father isn't the Holy Spirit then why didn't Jesus mention the Holy Spirit is someone who knows him and the Father?

Matthew 11
27All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

 

[Butch5]

Except that none of that fits the language nor the continued distinction made throughout the NT between the Father and the Holy Spirit. It is meaningless, at best, to call the Father the Holy Spirit if they are one and the same. Everything in the NT suggests that the Father and the Holy Spirit are distinct, just as the Father and the Son are distinct.

Mat 3:16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him;
Mat 3:17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” (ESV)

Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (ESV)

Joh 15:26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. (ESV)

Act_7:55 But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. (ESV)

Rom 8:9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. (ESV)

Gal 4:6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" (ESV)

Php 1:19 for I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance, (ESV)

1Pe 1:10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully,
1Pe 1:11 inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. (ESV)

The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of God, but he is also called the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of Jesus Christ, the Spirit of his Son, etc. This simply shows the relational closeness and interpenetration or mutual indwelling of the three persons. It is really worth noting 1 Pet 1:10-11, which is speaking of the OT prophets, prophesying by the Spirit of Christ.

It's a manifestation of the Father. Gabriel calls it the power the Highest.


Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

The Holy Bible: King James Version.

The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God

The Holy Bible: King James Version. 2009.

The Holy Spirit, is the power of the Highest. The one born shall be called the Son of God. He's not called the Son of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit is a third person then He is Jesus' Father. Because it is the Spirit that impregnated Mary. However, the Holy Spirit isn't called Jesus's Father, God is. The only way God can be the Father is if the Holy Spirit is a manifestation of the Father, just as Jesus stated.

Some food for thought. The Spirit appears all through the OT. How come the Jews never understood that as one God in two persosn?

 

[Grailhunter]

That's one way to yet again avoid addressing the logic of the two arguments I presented. You anti-Trinitarians have all sorts of ways of dismissing things without addressing them. It's shameful, actually. On this particular point--the two logical arguments from 1 Cor 8:6--neither you nor any other anti-Trinitarian has even tried to show where my logic is wrong; not once.

Once again:

1Co 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. (ESV)

I told you before I have addressed this. Posts 80 In my long essay on the Trinity and post 163

 

[Grailhunter]

First, if "one God, the Father" precludes the Son from also being God, then it necessarily follows that "one Lord, Jesus Christ" precludes the Father from also being Lord. That is basic logic and sound reasoning. Yet, we know that the Father is also Lord.

Second, if "from whom are all things" speaks of the Father's absolute existence, then it necessarily follows that "through whom are all things" speaks of the Son's absolute existence. Again, basic logic and sound reasoning.

If you disagree, then please show me where my reasoning is wrong. You claiming my "logic and conclusions are both train wrecks" doesn't mean they are. You have to actually show they are; show where the errors are.

I cannot address what you are saying, except to say what you are saying is not in the Bible.

 

[Grailhunter]

Your grammar in a couple of places makes it difficult to understand what your point is.

Use both halves of your brain and concentrate.

 

[Grailhunter]

This is the type of poor reasoning that has led you to tritheism. It becomes a numbers game of what you feel different texts are supporting in this discussion. But, that is to take everything out of context. It is never a matter of the side which appears to have more support is the truth. All must be taken together.

You are right it is not a number game. It is a matter of understanding the scriptures as a whole. Taking 2 or 3 scriptures and making them a primary part of your religious beliefs is bad enough. But taking 2 or 3 scriptures that are contradictory to over 150 other scriptures is a very bad way to understand the meaning scriptures as a whole. But it is a goodway to come up with false beliefs.

 

[Grailhunter]

He's showing they are distinct, yes, but he absolutely cannot be showing that they are both Gods.

They are showing they are both Gods and the Apostles believed Yeshua is a God.