Defining the godhead - an open discussion on Unitarianism, Binitarianism and Trinitarianism

[SteVen]

Matthew 9:6 NIV
But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.”
So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.”

Mark 2:7 NIV
“Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

]

 

[SteVen]

This scripture cannot be understood any other way. IMHO
Unless a word is missing. "I am!" - I am what?

John 8:58 NET
Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth,[a] before Abraham came into existence,[b] I am!”[c]

]

 

[Wrangler]

I don't claim it is important. Both God and Jesus claim it is important.

We don't honor things, like reasons for a holiday, by not speaking of it. We honor by mentioning. In fact, this is where we get the term "Honorable mention."

I take it back! I do claim saying God's name YHWH is important.

The importance of one's name and geneology is very important in Scripture. Abrahm was renamed Abraham. Ben-oni (which means “son of my sorrow”) was renamed by his father to be Benjamin (Genesis 35:18). Jacob was renamed Israel and Simon was renamed Peter.

In our culture, Cassius Clay renamed himself Muhammad Ali. In an infamous fight with Ernie Terrel, Ali kept asking 'What's my name?" And in an ongoing act of deviance and disrespect, he continued to call the heavyweight champion, Clay. The very least respect we can show to the Creator of the universe, who gave us life, is to call him by his name, YHWH.

 

[SteVen]

I take it back! I do claim saying God's name YHWH is important.

The importance of one's name and geneology is very important in Scripture. Abrahm was renamed Abraham. Ben-oni (which means “son of my sorrow”) was renamed by his father to be Benjamin (Genesis 35:18). Jacob was renamed Israel and Simon was renamed Peter.

In our culture, Cassius Clay renamed himself Muhammad Ali. In an infamous fight with Ernie Terrel, Ali kept asking 'What's my name?" And in an ongoing act of deviance and disrespect, he continued to call the heavyweight champion, Clay. The very least respect we can show to the Creator of the universe, who gave us life, is to call him by his name, YHWH.

Was that the best you could whip up?
(while avoiding my posts #304 on)


]

 

[Wrangler]

avoiding my posts #304 on

Not avoiding it. Just didn't see it. (And for the record, no one is required to respond to every post).

Who was present at Jesus' baptism?

Not sure how this question relates to the OP. I thought we were moving on to the support for binitarianism.

Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as a person. (he)

Never heard of personification?

 

[Wrangler]

Never heard of personification?

Had reason to read this article that implies inanimate objects as living and finding.

There is a particular window of temperature that the zooplankton must find to form oil.​

 

[Joker]

Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as a person. (he)

John 14:26 NIV
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name,
will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

John 15:26 NIV
“When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—
the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.

Let's crisp that argument up a bit.

The Greek word for Advocate here is παράκλητος ("parakletos"), which is a masculine noun. By the rules of Greek grammar, its pronoun and any verbs stating what the subject does also have to be in a masculine tense. Then, since English language only uses "he" or "she" for persons and "it" for things, the translator has to decide from context whether the subject is a "he" or an "it". In this case, the translators decided a priori that the Advocate was a person in John 15:26, so they translated the passage, "He will testify about me". Similarly, the Greek word for spirit is πνεῦμα ("pneuma") and is a neuter noun, so if translated literally, that "whom" in John 14:26 should really be a "which", but the NIV translators decided the Spirit is a "whom".

But, these are good verses, so let's use them. I would argue that the role of an Advocate (or "Comforter") requires a Person, as does the role of "teacher" in John 14:26. Furthermore, since the Spirit "goes out from the Father" and is "sent by the Father", if the Advocate/Spirit is indeed a person, then he/she is distinct from the father. Then the last question would be, "Is the Advocate/Spirit of the same "essence" as the Father and the Son"?

 

[SteVen]

Let's crisp that argument up a bit.

The Greek word for Advocate here is παράκλητος ("parakletos"), which is a masculine noun. By the rules of Greek grammar, its pronoun and any verbs stating what the subject does also have to be in a masculine tense. Then, since English language only uses "he" or "she" for persons and "it" for things, the translator has to decide from context whether the subject is a "he" or an "it". In this case, the translators decided a priori that the Advocate was a person in John 15:26, so they translated the passage, "He will testify about me". Similarly, the Greek word for spirit is πνεῦμα ("pneuma") and is a neuter noun, so if translated literally, that "whom" in John 14:26 should really be a "which", but the NIV translators decided the Spirit is a "whom".

But, these are good verses, so let's use them. I would argue that the role of an Advocate (or "Comforter") requires a Person, as does the role of "teacher" in John 14:26. Furthermore, since the Spirit "goes out from the Father" and is "sent by the Father", if the Advocate/Spirit is indeed a person, then he/she is distinct from the father. Then the last question would be, "Is the Advocate/Spirit of the same "essence" as the Father and the Son"?

Great insights, thanks! I'm glad you are here to help.

An "advocate" wouldn't be much of an advocate if "it" was an it.
As if to say, "The Advocate is here, we'll bring it in." Say what?

There needs to be a person either in it, or behind it, to make it of any value at all.
Even an ambassador SPEAKS on behalf of the one represented.
And has the authority to do so.

/

 

[Mr E]

Let's crisp that argument up a bit.

The Greek word for Advocate here is παράκλητος ("parakletos"), which is a masculine noun. By the rules of Greek grammar, its pronoun and any verbs stating what the subject does also have to be in a masculine tense. Then, since English language only uses "he" or "she" for persons and "it" for things, the translator has to decide from context whether the subject is a "he" or an "it". In this case, the translators decided a priori that the Advocate was a person in John 15:26, so they translated the passage, "He will testify about me". Similarly, the Greek word for spirit is πνεῦμα ("pneuma") and is a neuter noun, so if translated literally, that "whom" in John 14:26 should really be a "which", but the NIV translators decided the Spirit is a "whom".

But, these are good verses, so let's use them. I would argue that the role of an Advocate (or "Comforter") requires a Person, as does the role of "teacher" in John 14:26. Furthermore, since the Spirit "goes out from the Father" and is "sent by the Father", if the Advocate/Spirit is indeed a person, then he/she is distinct from the father. Then the last question would be, "Is the Advocate/Spirit of the same "essence" as the Father and the Son"?

In other words-- the Holy Spirit in this instance, is a he, because a translator decided to make her one. Kinda like fourth grade teachers now do to young girls.

In terms of 'essence' -- the essence of the Father is spirit. God is spirit. The essence of the spirit, is of course the same-- spirit. And for the son? Everyone wants to say-- 'Oh, the son is Jesus--- and he is flesh.' That's not how it works. Scripture is explicit. Spirit gives birth to spirit. The fruit is always from the tree that formed it. The essence (nature) of the offspring is the same nature of the parents. God doesn't violate His good nature. He doesn't stray from the principles of nature that He established.

Above-- Spirit gives birth to spirit.
Below-- Flesh gives birth to flesh.

On earth as it is in heaven.

 

[Joker]

In other words-- the Holy Spirit in this instance, is a he, because a translator decided to make her one. Kinda like fourth grade teachers now do to young girls.

In the case of John 15:26, the "He" grammatically refers back to Advocate, so there are no translational gimmicks going on. But in other verses, such as John 14:17 ("the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you."), the English translators intentionally changed the neuter Spirit pronoun "It" to a masculine "He/Him". The decision was somewhat arbitrary; they could've just as easily personalized the Spirit as a "She/Her". Since the Spirit is somewhat mysterious, "She" might be more appropriate.

In terms of 'essence' -- the essence of the Father is spirit. God is spirit. The essence of the spirit, is of course the same-- spirit. And for the son? Everyone wants to say-- 'Oh, the son is Jesus--- and he is flesh.' That's not how it works. Scripture is explicit. Spirit gives birth to spirit. The fruit is always from the tree that formed it. The essence (nature) of the offspring is the same nature of the parents. God doesn't violate His good nature. He doesn't stray from the principles of nature that He established.

The theologians are pretty adamant that Jesus's essence is both fully divine and fully human. Both parents' natures. How else could He identify with us and we with Him? That one has implications on Atonement theory.

And there's still the question of whether the Holy Spirit's spirit essence (slash underlying reality) is the same spirit essence (slash underlying reality) as God-the-Father. How would you go about proving or disproving that?

 

[Mr E]

The theologians are pretty adamant that Jesus's essence is both fully divine and fully human. Both parents' natures. How else could He identify with us and we with Him? That one has implications on Atonement theory.

And there's still the question of whether the Holy Spirit's spirit essence (slash underlying reality) is the same spirit essence (slash underlying reality) as God-the-Father. How would you go about proving or disproving that?

The theologians then, make a claim that Jesus never did. That's telling. Since they are the ones making a positive claim, then they are the ones with a burden of proof.

Here's the issue. The two natures are distinct and different. When you say- 'both parent's natures' you are mashing the two distinct and different natures together as if they are one and the same, or interchangeable with one another. They are not. (that's the distinct and different premise).

The spiritual nature is spiritual-- spirit gives birth to spirit.

The physical nature is physical-- flesh gives birth to flesh.

One, (the physical) is the image (reflection, representation, or likeness) of the other. -but they are not the same, or interchangeable. Still-- for one to be true, the other must also be true.