@ Deep Sight

No big deal; I will address issues as I see fit or comment as I deem apposite. I deem my comments in my two initial posts on this thread quite apposite and of course I will not hesitate to make such comments in future if I consider them apposite to the situation.

nuclearboy:

@DeepSight:

Yor 1st attempt above at a reply is hilarious - everyone here knows my style. I am addicted to fun (in the cleanest sense of it) and thus attempt to be imaginative and lively in conversing. But it is tiring to answer the same questions over and over especially when they come from the same person. You seem to go about doing one of two - [a] looking for ways to stand against the "carpenter" [2] offering an alternative "infinity". No wahala, bro, bring it on.

But when you do so, be honest. I notice you refused to comment on my earlier reply (just following MyJoe's post) - it did not allow you continue your agenda so you ignored it and asked the same question AND deduced your own conclusion all by yourself. Sadly, rather than just Judge, Jury and Executioner, you also took on the role of Defendant and so its your own funeral, Sir!

The Bible refers to the Holy Spirit in Aramaic, Greek and English as "HE". All commentaries regard HIM as an individual, superhuman, a distinct personality. BUT you of course, ignore these and insist based on a portion (rather than totality) that He is a force. And then you complain about the word "shallow" which sincerely wasn't intended as an insult.

Did you start University at 400 level OR jump from high school to graduate law school and get your degree thus? When you can answer yes to that, you'll get the point about shallowness in taking a portion rather than the totality.

Let's focus.

Did you note the last four of the quotes from MyjOE which I dusted up again above.

Notice how in contect the scriptures refer to baptism in the Holy Spirit and Fire

And also refers to being steeped in the Holy Spirit and Power.

What do you make of these?

nuclearboy:

@MyJoe:

I see and now get where DeepSight was coming from. I had earlier wondered. Your above somewhat makes sense. However, I (and guess most Christians too) tend to think of the HS more as a "in existence" personage with attributes such as intellect and desire. Note that this description of a personality is not negated by any attribute/description above.

Its like say, you accept my will over a matter. We both know I'm not a force but that I can exert influence. So it is with the HS. Someone who conforms very closely to the Christians ideals as espoused by Christ would be seen as being of higher infilling of the HS than say, your average church goer. I believe that brief summary simplifies and clears up the above

Since you referred me to this post I have read it again, and I cannot understand how it effectively addresses the many obvious references to th Holy Spirit as perhaps the force, or will of God and not as a person.

Now viewing that Spirit as the force of God is more apt to the idea of omnipresence and would give light to what is meant when it is said that God is omnipresent: for indeed the energy of the transcendental creator must needs permeate all creation for it to remain in existence.

Your second post referring to MyJoe's post  (and the last I just saw now after clicking reply) -

It matters not whether I believe you or not. What is significant is your admission that you did not make the link to the repeated "trinity idea". Anyone discussing something he was familiar with would likely not make that blunder. So you are not familiar yet you would judge yourself sufficiently able to pass judgement on what you've just shown you do not understand.

Anyway, lets go your way. The Spirit of Truth will live in each of us. You decided to call it "the ESSENCE of truth". Yet it is referred to as a HE. So a SPIRIT which is the ESSENCE of TRUTH will live in us and it is INDIVIDUAL to each of us according to your own definition. Now I ask - who are you? Are you not a Spirit with an essence living in an individual body? A personage? Well then, what have you defined here - an abstraction? OR did you not just infact, provide a brilliant description of the Holy Spirit of God's indwelling in men?

Seems you jumped in without looking again, bro!  


You wanted me to look at the following -

Deep Sight:

Hebrews 6:4 (New International Version)
4It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit,

Matthew 3:11 (New International Version)
11"I baptize you with[a] water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

Luke 1:35 (New International Version)
35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God.

Acts 10:38 (New International Version)
38how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

I've seen them. Let me re-phrase them in your preferred words

[1] "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the "force"""
[2] "I baptize  ,  ,   , to carry. He will baptize you with the "force" and with fire."
[3] "The angel answered, "The "force" will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. "
[4] "how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the "force" and power, and how He,  "

BELOW EDITED FOR CLARITY since not all may understand the original sarcasm

What do you think of the above? Do you not see something is lost now? What would be the point of "force" and "power"? Repetition? Or why would "force" come upon you and then "power"? Daft, ain't it? What say you of being baptised by "force" and "fire" (who do you think would like to pour the petrol?)? How does one share in a "force"?

@Nuclearboy

Did you see this:

Deep Sight:

For the Trinitarians - once it can be shown that the Holy Spirit is conceived in scripture as a force and not a person. . .the entire trinitarian construct instantly collapses and must be and remain dead on arrival.

@DeepSight:

"Power" and "Fire" are words used symbolically in Scripture. Let me give you an idea of what I'm saying. You will come across terms like "refined in the furnace of affliction" in the Bible - these obviously do not refer to a copper/aluminium smelting plant but the purification of the human through tribulations, trials and afflictions.

These are issues rarely discussed on NL since what we mainly have here are members of the crowd that welcomed Jesus to Jerusalem i.e. the feel good crowd led by their baal prophets joagbaje and co. But these are the "heavy" portions of Christianity which create character, build trust and make us true Sons with knowledge of the Father.

So when you see stuff like "the Holy Spirit and Fire", do the math - you're looking at the indwelling of the HS which will be accompanied by a battery/series of experiences designed to make the subject a worthwhile tool in the Hands of His maker. Its not "force and fire".

I hope you get the idea.

@Enigma:

Yes, I did! Thats the reason for this post as complement to the previous. Add this to my last and that rubbish collapses. Sad though, that it is "believers" in the mold of joagbaje that have brought so much shallowness that people cannot see the forest for the trees since its become a cash gospel

It is connecting that post that I quoted with the opening post of the thread that confirmed my own personal initial assessment that the thread is contemptible.

^^ True!

However, the "truth" needs must have a voice so that such does not go unchallenged! At least, another perspective has been offered. Granted that it may be denied by OP, others may in their turn, see the truth!

Oh, I agree with that; and funny enough there might be some good discussion out of it. I will keep out of it for the most part after this though.

nuclearboy:


It matters not whether I believe you or not. What is significant is your admission that you did not make the link to the repeated "trinity idea". Anyone discussing something he was familiar with would likely not make that blunder. So you are not familiar yet you would judge yourself sufficiently able to pass judgement on what you've just shown you do not understand.

I think that simply shows just like I told you that I did not open this thread to discuss the Trinity. I opened it to discuss the nature of the Holy Spirit, in general terms, but specifically as conveyed in scripture. Even when I was Christian I never had the perspective the the Holy Spirit was a personal sentient being. I always viewed it as the force and will of God active within creation. Entirely impersonal.

Anyway, lets go your way. The Spirit of Truth will live in each of us. You decided to call it "the ESSENCE of truth". Yet it is referred to as a HE. So a SPIRIT which is the ESSENCE of TRUTH will live in us and it is INDIVIDUAL to each of us according to your own definition. Now I ask - who are you? Are you not a Spirit with an essence living in an individual body? A personage? Well then, what have you defined here - an abstraction? OR did you not just infact, provide a brilliant description of the Holy Spirit of God's indwelling in men?

Seems you jumped in without looking again, bro!  

Well I still feel that you have not studied MyJoe's quotations with a desire to be objective as to what meaning those verses actually convey. Perhaps we will look at them in specific detail further on, in addittion to what else I may lay out concerning the ontology of the Holy Spirit as wse go along.

You wanted me to look at the following -

I've seen them. Let me re-phrase them in your preferred words

[1] "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the "force"""
[2] "I baptize  ,  ,   , to carry. He will baptize you with the "force" and with fire."
[3] "The angel answered, "The "force" will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. "
[4] "how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the "force" and power, and how He,  "

BELOW EDITED FOR CLARITY since not all may understand the original sarcasm

What do you think of the above? Do you not see something is lost now? What would be the point of "force" and "power"? Repetition? Or why would "force" come upon you and then "power"? Daft, ain't it? What say you of being baptised by "force" and "fire" (who do you think would like to pour the petrol?)? How does one share in a "force"?

Well scripture is laden with repetition, and repetition does not becloud truth. Many traditions deploy repitition as a tool of inclucation of truth.

@DeepSight:

You NEVER were a Christian - what you were was a "joagbaje" or "church-goer" or "tradition-follower". There is NO christian who does not have a personal knowledge of God which would mean indwelling of the HS. That alone fails you totally in your submission. Its like you saying that when you visited the UK last, you were a "Briton" - how sensible is that? Christians on the other hand are like Nigerians in the UK who have dual Nationality - do you get the difference?

Being a lawyer and having a good brain too, I know you are aware that facts and "feelings" refer to different things. That summarizes the MyJoe quotes thing.

Aside of what you have labelled possibly "repetition for conveyance of truth", I have provided samples of how we glean the truth of Scripture with the issue of afflictions. So whist you still remain in the realm of "interpretations" and "possibilities" YET wish to use them to judge, I am telling you the true to God, honest truth. It may not be to your liking but thats why they say truth is bitter.

The Holy Spirit is a Sentient Supernatural Being who has character, likes etc.

Enigma:

It is connecting that post that I quoted with the opening post of the thread that confirmed my own personal initial assessment that the thread is contemptible.

Enigma:

Oh, I agree with that; and funny enough there might be some good discussion out of it. I will keep out of it for the most part after this though.

Your aversion to open discussion is most telling. It both saddens and frightens me. There is something very frigteningly dictatorial about it. Persons who are willing to discuss their faith and seeming inconsistencies therein are democrats and open teachers. Persons who will brand a discussion as "contemptible" and refuse to engage in it simply because it refers to the ontology of the Holy Spirit, and proffers a view that a given ontology will be inconsistent with certain doctrines  - are certainly very intolerant of open discussion indeed.

nuclearboy:

@DeepSight:

You NEVER were a Christian - what you were was a "joagbaje" or "church-goer" or "tradition-follower".

That's a grand judgment you are able to make without ever having met me.

I had rather thought that only God could make such Judgments?

I must retire now. It's really insightful, your omniscience regarding my spiritual past.

The Holy Spirit is a Sentient Supernatural Being who has character, likes etc.

We'll chat about this later. For now your omniscient judgment of my past has left me too temporarily dazed to make further comments.

Deep Sight:

Your aversion to open discussion is most telling. It both saddens and frightens me. There is something very frigteningly dictatorial about it. Persons who are willing to discuss their faith and seeming inconsistencies therein are democrats and open teachers. Persons who will brand a discussion as "contemptible" and refuse to engage in it simply because it refers to the ontology of the Holy Spirit, and proffers a view that a given ontology will be inconsistent with certain doctrines  - are certainly very intolerant of open discussion indeed.

Whatever.

I decide who I consider worth discussing what topic with and when. Actually, looking back over the thread someone made a good response very early on.

enitan2002:

when you personally think you an idea of a subject, why asking a question about it again Cos i'm very sure any explanation different from your own definition wont be acceptable by you.

^^^ Hmm. E se o. Maybe someday I may be worth your time for a chat over a cup of tea.

Untill that day, now I am quite heavy hearted and must be bowed.

@DeepSight:

Its really quite a simple thing - this "omniscience" you accuse me of. (Omniscient BOY  ) NL won't kill me!

DeepSight, would you likely recognise a dog's bark even if you didn't see it? Or the sound of a vehicle passing? Would you realise it got hotter if you entered the boiler room of a metal-refining processor with the room at a temp 20 degrees higher than outside? Would you be omniscient if you did any of this?

There are rules in life and experience makes them obvious to the experienced. Thats why every mature "true" Christian here opposes the same crowd and you'll notice our vituperations are usually reserved for them rather than you. Those rules make it obvious who is what - did you ever notice the similarities in the posts of our muslim brothers? Atheists? Intellectuals? Grail followers? So tell me how I became omnigbogbo-e over understanding you?

Anyway, I still cannot believe such as you would not understand these simple things! Which would infer that its an act designed to achieve some hidden purpose, right? Problem is that I am not super intelligent or such-like. Which is why everyone sees it too and most make the same inference I do - that it is contempt for Christianity. And so all Christians will react to "some" degree or the other, like Enigma did  ignore or lash out.

Its not rocket science and neither is it omnigbogbo-e.  

Deep Sight:

^^^ Hmm. E se o. Maybe someday I may be worth your time for a chat over a cup of tea.

Untill that day, now I am quite heavy hearted and must be bowed.

^^^ No problems; really, no hard feelings. I should be in Naija soon and I move in legal circles, so we might even meet without realising it.

Anyway, what I have expressed is my genuine assessment/judgment of the thread. I am not averse to discussing the Holy Spirit or the Trinity; indeed I was pursuing such a discussion with Kunleoshob recently, except that he pulled out. If my perception is that the discussion is a genuine attempt at either grappling towards the truth or a genuine attempt to understand my/the Trinitarian perspective, I may be happy to engage.

Quote from: MyJoe on Yesterday at 02:46:23 PM
Acts 11:24 (New International Version)
24He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and a great number of people were brought to the Lord.

Acts 7:55-56 (New International Version)
55But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56"Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."

Acts 8:15 (New International Version)
15When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit,

Acts 9:17 (New International Version)
17Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit."

Jude 1:20 (New International Version)
20But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit.

Hebrews 6:4 (New International Version)
4It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit,

Acts 13:19 (New International Version)
19he overthrew seven nations in Canaan and gave their land to his people as their inheritance.

Matthew 3:11 (New International Version)
11"I baptize you with[a] water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

Luke 1:35 (New International Version)
35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God.

Acts 10:38 (New International Version)
38how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

Want more? 

1. Your argument and Deepsight's is fundamentally flawed as it does not put "the unknown" into perspective.

what is the "known"? we know that God consists of three persons ELOHIM. This Elohim consists of the Father , son and the holy spirit. We know that everything that exists was created by the Son, we know that it was the son that gave the 10 commandments, the son appeared to moses in a burning bush and also gave him 613 commandments for israel, we know that all the biblical names used to describe God actually refers to the son . . . and the son incarnated in human form to redeem mankind from sin as Jesus Christ. We have only seen the son, we do not know the Father or the Spirit. what we know from about the father or spirit are the things the son revealed to us. the things the son did not reveal are what I call "the unknown"

2. You call the holy spirit a force because His presence is manifested as spirit form to human carnal understanding.
But Jesus also said that "where two or three are gathered in my name, surely I am there" Jesus appearance here is in the form of a spirit force. . . . which can be likened to the holy spirit. does that make Jesus a force and not a person?

3. If Jesus is the Prince of Peace . . . .who then is Melchisedec, the king of peace?

4. Jesus is called the "only begotten" . . . .meaning Godlike. Jesus called the holy spirit "another comforter" . . .which implies another Godlike person.

5. The presence of the holy spirit which is often mistaken as a force is just a consequence of not understanding the omnipotence of God. if we believe that God is omnipotent, why do we then ascribe His presence to a mere "force".

6. Jesus asked that new converts be baptised in the name of the father, son and holy spirit . .  . . .why would he ask that we be baptised in the name of a force and 2 persons.

7. Paul wrote that the holy spirit prays for us with groanings that that cannot be uttered . . . this sounds like a person praying and not force.

Heheheh Im glad to see that NL hasnt changed much. Lol.

^^ What planet did you come in from?

God has revealed Himself to us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And there is a verse that clearly shows this in the Old Testament.
Isaiah 9:
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

In this singular verse we see described the Incarnation and the names of the Savior
1. Counsellor, (Holy Spirit)
2. The mighty God, The everlasting Father
3. The Prince of Peace (Jesus the Son)
All showing the unity of the Godhead.

Since God is "Personal" and "Sentient" and the Holy Spirit is God, it perforce follows that the Holy Spirit is "Personal" and "Sentient"
An impersonal force does not speak, does it?
Acts 21:
11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.
1 Tim 4:1
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

So the bible clearly reveals who the Holy Spirit is, but this discussion will only end up discussing the "Trinity".

@nucelarboy: Lolz!! Na Planet Earth o. Kai my workplace knows how to stretch people!!

@nuclearboy

Email sent.

I am surprised noetic16 says my "argument" is "flawed" even though I have not made any argument at all. You asked for verses which "suggest" what is contained in Deep Sight's position in op, and I provided them. Instead of reading the verses for what they say you commence elaborate gymnastics, writing lines that neither seriously address the verses nor add up at all, even talking about Melschisedec! If you ask five Christians their opinion on who Melchisedec is you will get five opposing opinions. That is what you are using to back up your position on the Holy Spirit. Haba noetic16!

And the way you use the word "known" always leaves me overgasted. Noetic16's opinion on anything = "the known". His understanding of Melchisedec = the known "ontology" of melchisedec. Hiya!   "We" don't "know" that God consists of three persons!

What nuclearboy says about the Holy Spirit being capable of filling people while remaining a person is logical possible. But the Bible goes beyond that. We see the Holy Spirit being "received" into someone, "overshadowing" a woman, etc. Acts 10:38 hardly leaves room for doubt: anointing with Holy Spirit and power. Can the Father anoint someone with The Son and power? No, because the Son is a person. On the other hand, the verses personifying the Holy Spirit do not on their own prove anything since wisdom, sin, death and grace are personified in the Bible. And I have read Bible scholars who suggest that John's personification of the Holy Spirit was merely in conformity with grammatical rules.

Personally, I have zero expertise on the holy spirit. But I am fairly familiar with the Bible and I know its position weigh more in the direction of the Holy Spirit being God's active force than being a person. We also know  from the writings of Justin Martyr, Hyppolytus and the others that the early church believed  the Holy Spirit to be God's active force. The personal Holy Spirit became official and everyone switched over when the Trinity was invented at a council meeting.

There are verses which clearly describe the holy spirit as an inanimate something, a thing, a force. Trinitarians gloss over them. There are verses, too, which appear to ascribe personality to the Holy Spirit. Unitarian Christians, of course, have ways of explaining these away. And so the divide goes on . . . 

nuclearboy:

@DeepSight:

You NEVER were a Christian - what you were was a "joagbaje" or "church-goer" or "tradition-follower".

MyJoe:

I am surprised noetic16 says my "argument" is "flawed" even though I have not made any argument at all. You asked for verses which "suggest" what is contained in Deep Sight's position in op, and I provided them. Instead of reading the verses for what they say you commence elaborate gymnastics, writing lines that neither seriously address the verses nor add up at all, even talking about Melschisedec! If you ask five Christians their opinion on who Melchisedec is you will get five opposing opinions. That is what you are using to back up your position on the Holy Spirit. Haba noetic16!

why are u angry? oight, I withdraw my statement . . . . cos like u rightly stated u presented no argument, just the relevant verses. perhaps I am guilty of accurately deciphering your arguments without u stating them.

and whats your take on melchisedec? who is He? and how do u relate His title as the King of peace to Jesus as the prince of peace?

And the way you use the word "known" always leaves me overgasted. Noetic16's opinion on anything = "the known". His understanding of Melchisedec = the known "ontology" of melchisedec. Hiya!   "We" don't "know" that God consists of three persons!

erm. . .who is "we"? God consists of three persons and this is illustrated all through the scriptures.

What nuclearboy says about the Holy Spirit being capable of filling people while remaining a person is logical possible. But the Bible goes beyond that. We see the Holy Spirit being "received" into someone, "overshadowing" a woman, etc. Acts 10:38 hardly leaves room for doubt: anointing with Holy Spirit and power. Can the Father anoint someone with The Son and power? No, because the Son is a person. On the other hand, the verses personifying the Holy Spirit do not on their own prove anything since wisdom, sin, death and grace are personified in the Bible. And I have read Bible scholars who suggest that John's personification of the Holy Spirit was merely in conformity with grammatical rules.

Jesus also said that He and the father will dwell in whosoever believes/loves Him (John 14:23) does that make Jesus a mere force?

Personally, I have zero expertise on the holy spirit. But I am fairly familiar with the Bible and I know its position weigh more in the direction of the Holy Spirit being God's active force than being a person. We also know  from the writings of Justin Martyr, Hyppolytus and the others that the early church believed  the Holy Spirit to be God's active force. The personal Holy Spirit became official and everyone switched over when the Trinity was invented at a council meeting.

There are verses which clearly describe the holy spirit as an inanimate something, a thing, a force. Trinitarians gloss over them. There are verses, too, which appear to ascribe personality to the Holy Spirit. Unitarian Christians, of course, have ways of explaining these away. And so the divide goes on . . . 

If u cannot make sense of my primordial response to you. . .then I cant help further. The point is that Christ also functions as a force when He chooses to, does that stop him from being a person?

We may also ask: is "God" the Father a personal sentient being? If we can show that "God" the Father is either not personal or sentient, then not only the idea of the Trinity is dead then the "Father" too cannot be "God"; we might as well say with Nietszche that God is dead.

noetic16:

why are u angry? oight, I withdraw my statement . . . . cos like u rightly stated u presented no argument, just the relevant verses. perhaps I am guilty of accurately deciphering your arguments without u stating them.

Nah, I’m not angry. Just flabberwhelmed when I saw our post.

noetic16:
and whats your take on melchisedec? who is He? and how do u relate His title as the King of peace to Jesus as the prince of peace?

I believe the writer(s) of the book of Genesis were talking about a man. A king who also doubled as a priest, one ordained for priesthood by God. Reading anything else into it is just pure speculation, in my opinion. When Paul said he had neither beginning nor end, he could not have been speaking literally about a man who was born by a man and woman like every other. It is a fact the names of Melchizedec’s father and mother, as well as children, are not mentioned in the Bible. Thus we know neither his ancestry nor posterity. His birth and death are also not recorded. That made the man, Melchizedec, King of Peace and Righteousness, the perfect specimen for Paul to use as a typification of Jesus, believed by Christians to be the greatest king and priest of all.

noetic16:
erm. . .who is "we"? God consists of three persons and this is illustrated all through the scriptures.

It isn't illustrated all through the scriptures.

noetic16:
Jesus also said that He and the father will dwell in whosoever believes/loves Him (John 14:23) does that make Jesus  a mere force? 

If u cannot make sense of my primordial response to you. . .then I cant help further. The point is that Christ also functions as a force when He chooses to, does that stop him from being a person?

I already acknowledged this. But you see, there is a difference in references to Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The Father and Jesus can dwell in your heart. But with the Holy Spirit, what do we see? It does not dwell in your heart. It fills your heart, or overshadows you. Thus, while the Son can dwell in your heart, he cannot fill you. Only the Holy Spirit fills people. You pray for the Holy Spirit and it is given to you. You don't pray for the son and he is given to you. When you pray to the Father he draws you to the son in his grace. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit can be distributed, the son can't. See? 

Enigma:

We may also ask: is "God" the Father a personal sentient being? If we can show that "God" the Father is either not personal or sentient, then not only the idea of the Trinity is dead then the "Father" too cannot be "God"; we might as well say with Nietszche that God is dead.

We are looking at things from biblical perspectives in this thread. We can show from the Bible that the Father is personal. But that won't be necessary, of course, since you probably know lots more about it than I do.

MyJoe:



We are looking at things from biblical perspectives in this thread. We can show from the Bible that the Father is personal. But that won't be necessary, of course, since you probably know lots more about it than I do.

Sure (as in we are looking at things from the biblical perspective essentially  )

While we can easily point to personal references to God the Father, we can also point to personal references to the Holy Ghost as your penultimate post acknowledged.

Now: is it more (or less for that matter) difficult to show from the Bible that the Holy Ghost is sentient than it is to show that the Father is sentient? That is the issue I was trying to point out.

We are generally talking about human conceptions and perceptions. As has been pointed out many times on this forum, often we are trying to box "God" within finite human perceptions/conceptions whereas God is transcendental and above and beyond human conceptions/perceptions.

Let us consider it: leaving Jesus out of it, can we paint a picture of what "God" (i.e. the Father) looks like? Can we paint a picture of how He can feel or exactly how he is sentient? Even as a force, how exactly does the Holy Spirit emanate from the Father? What part of the Father does the Holy Spirit emanate from? Or perhaps the Father Himself is spirit ---- in which case we come back to the need to explain how the Father is sentient?

Aww, you people are breaking DS' heart.

I never really knew that Nuclearboy was a trinitarian. Nice to know. Allow me to ask: have you attained that plane of intuitive understanding of the trinity be it by yourself or with the help of the Holy Spirit? C. S. Lewis tried to explain it as what we'd make of a three dimensional figure provided we were mere lines, i.e. one dimensional. Do you just know and can't explain it, know and can or really don't know but trust God that it is true?

vescucci:

Aww, you people are breaking DS' heart.

I never really knew that Nuclearboy was a trinitarian. Nice to know. Allow me to ask: have you attained that plane of intuitive understanding of the trinity be it by yourself or with the help of the Holy Spirit? C. S. Lewis tried to explain it as what we'd make of a three dimensional figure provided we were mere lines, i.e. one dimensional. Do you just know and can't explain it, know and can or really don't know but trust God that it is true?

The question here, is what is Trinity? In a discussion between myself and Viaro long ago, it came out that there exists 2 definitions - [1] 3 persons in the GodHead which is accepted as Trinity [2] 1 God showing Himself as 3 which is "Tri" ethism/whatever (I no hear english this night)

I believe in [2]. There is only one God but just as Enigma has very cleverly asked above (seemingly without anyone noticing), who ever saw God the Father to know He is "Sentient" and who also then, did see the HS and decide He too, is Sentient. Jesus is what we have all seen. What I have said before on this forum is the following

[1] Imagine me calling you on a Phone - That is the Father
[2] Imagine me sending you my memoirs, a record of my thoughts and understanding - That is the Holy Spirit
[3] Imagine me standing before you - That is the Son

Now tell me - am I three people in one union or three manifestations of the same person?

[1] Imagine me calling you on a Phone - That is the Father
[2] Imagine me sending you my memoirs, a record of my thoughts and understanding - That is the Holy Spirit
[3] Imagine me standing before you - That is the Son

Now tell me - am I three people in one union or three manifestations of the same person?
[quote][/quote]

I would rather 'imagine' 'imagine ' am not imagining what you said i should imagine. Kai rudedde ne kawai!