₦airaland Forum

Enigma -

I have gone through the verses in the link you provided.

Let me just say again that we need to be careful not to read figures of speech literally. To demostrate this point, I have selected just one of the many verses there:

Rev. 22:17, "And the Spirit and the bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost."

Notice it says that the "spirit and the bride say. . ." - now would you tell me that the bride therein refers to a personal sentient being? I do not know what your perception is, but I know that in christian teaching the bride is a reference to the church. Now, if the bride "says" and yet is not a personal sentient being - why must we in the same sentence and the same context perceive the spirit to be so?

A spirit which is the will of God may teach, comfort and guide - and yet these are not indications of its being personal. I would like that you show me where it is said that it sits on a throne, for example.

@ justcool/ enigma -

The plain truth is that both your explanations are clearly recognisable by the objective mind as attempts to muscle that which is obvious and plain into your preconceived dogma. I cannot put it any more honestly than that.

And in this I needn't write an epistle. I will merely contrast one set of facts against another and the truth will be obvious to all.

First set of facts. The following beliefs are common to you both -

1. Jesus is divine

2. Jesus was the embodiment of the love of the Father

3. Jesus pre-existed this world

4. Jesus had deep knowledge of the purpose of his mission on earth and the will of the Father

5. Being divine, Jesus knew that which was possible and that which was not

Second set of facts -

1. Notwithstanding Jesus' presumed divine nature, he was unable to stand unflinchingly before the moment of torment even when mere mortals have stood unflinchingly before such

2. Notwithstanding that Jesus presumably was the embodiment of the love of the Father he was not able to summon such unflinching courage as would enable him to make the sacrifice for mankind without seeking a cop-out: notwithstanding that many mere mortals have made such painful sacrifices for their families and loved ones without seeking a cop-out.

3. Notwithstanding that Jesus pre-existed this world he did not know the exact permutations subsequent to Gethsemane thus necessitating that prayer.

4. Notwithstanding that Jesus had deep knowledge of the purpose of his mission and the will of the Father he was unable to resist a plaintive plea to avert that which had been inscribed.

5. Notwithstanding that being presumably divine, Jesus supposedly knew that which was possible and that which was not, Jesus proceeded to make that plea in Gethsemane.

I feel that Justcool entirely misses the point for the the following reason -

1. His example of a "wish" not to enter the morning cold is entirely off centre for the simple reason that that only passes as a momentary acknowledgement of the harshness to follow: it does not constitute an earnest prayer for the avoidance of that harshness: if we must be honest with ourselves, Gethsemane was an honest prayer for the complete avoidance of that which was to follow: and we are made aware of this by the exact words deployed in scripture.

2. For enigma, the old excuse of the human/ divine hypostatis is just tiring: for Christ's sake a divine being in human form must have more torque than a mere mortal. For indeed: why was he without sin? The Divine nature, clearly. That same nature logically must operate to offset human frailties such as fear: just as surely as it operated to offset the human tendency to sin.

@ Alethia - I am aghast at your heavy reliance on the word "speaketh."

Does your conscience not speak to you? Is it a separate personal sentient being? No.

Do the times and events of the world not speak to us all? Does this make them personal sentient beings?

Figures of speech, please.

@ Enigma - “Could the will ever disagree with the personage of God”

This is an odd question, but that is the oddity that the Trinity leads us to: I ask again – Could the “Will” of God ever differ from that which resides within the “essence” of God? That is – could the will be of a different or contradictory desire or direction, to the essence of God the Father?

In my view, it certainly cannot, because the will proceeds directly from the person, or, as you put it, the “essence” of God. For this reason the will can only be reflective of the essence, and certainly could not contradict the essence.

Once you accept this, as you per force must, you have conclusively ceded the debate: because as you will see below, God's will could not request of God that God should change God's will to suit the will of God who was on Earth at the time.

I dare you to suggest tat the will can contradict the essence, or bear a different desire, and let us see just how far you are prepared to carry this absurdity.

It is your position that Jesus was the perfect embodiment of God’s will (He was God in fact, you say, which ties the noose of wills only tighter).

Given this, the simple question is ask; is this –

How could he say: “Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt?”

Does this not show God willing or pleading for something that was AGAINST the Divine will?

Does this not show a possible dichotomy of wills? That his will could conceivably be different from the Father’s will?

Could the son have a different desire from the father? If he does, would that not do sacrilege to the concept of their “oneness”?

Now God is perfect and thus unchangeable.

To draw wisdom from the Bible itself, might I invite you to appreciate that this is the reason why it is stated that God is the same yesterday, today and forever more. The Divine will is inflexible; adamantine. This is also why it is stated that “heaven and earth may pass away, but the word of the lord abideth forever.” The unchangeability of God is something that is enshrined in scripture, aside from being obvious to the deeply philosophical mind.

This Christ is said to be God in human form. He thus had a deep knowledge of the purpose and will of God regarding mankind. From time eternal, being divine, he must know very well the adamantine and unchangeable nature of the Godhead: given its perfection – for that which is perfect cannot be changed.

It is in the light of this that you can begin to appreciate just how BIZZARRE it is to claim that a personage (who is himself ALMIGHTY GOD) and is fully cognisant of –

1. The nature of the Divine Will
2. The Purpose of the redemptive work
3. The absolute necessity of that work for the salvation of his creatures

- would begin to petition himself to avert the divinely willed occurrence.

This can only suggest that he was either not divine, or had a poor grasp of the adamantine and unchangeable nature of the divine will – especially in the context of such a historical act of redemption?

nuclearboy:
Jesus limited Himself but still remained the fullness since God is a Spirit. And they have the same wills.

The bolded above.

I will not answer you. Jesus' own words will answer you.

Matt 26:39 - "Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." - The Prayer in Gethsemane.

Still insist there is no possibility of a dichotomy of wills?

Aha.

1. Was it God?

2. If it was, what is the significance of the wrestling?

3. If it was, what sort of attributes of the biblical deity may be discerned therein.

aletheia:
@Deep Sight: Can you respond to this?

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.

I already made some remarks on Isaiah above –

NOTICE that he says that the child born will be called “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father”. I ask you – is Jesus the Father? No – he is the son, and he made it very clear that he is not the Father in several statements -

“The father is greater than I” – John 14:28 and -

“Of that day no one knows, not the angels, nor the son, but only the Father”. Mark 13:32.

This point is also made clear in a multitude of scripture including Mark 10:18; Jn 17:3; 1 Pet 1:3; Acts 2:22; Luke 22:42.

THEREFORE it is clear that when Isaiah calls him “Everlasting Father”, it is meant in a representative fashion: to wit – He represents the Father. Thus “Mighty God” must be understood in the same way: he represents God. This is clear because you cannot deny that Jesus is not the father. That much he himself made clear in the two quotes above. So Isaiah’s statement is representative. Please read the Bible with a compound approach.

Just as an aside it might also interest you to note that the word translated as ''Mighty God" in Isaiah is El Berith. El Berith is also a canaanite diety.

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?

This is just about as apt as stating that since you are personal and sentient, then your muscles, your voice, or an executive order you issue, are all therefore personal and sentient things.

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;

The spirit causes revelation and inspiration. That is about all that emerges from this quote.

Journey to Canaan

As Jacob neared the land of Canaan, he sent messengers ahead to his brother Esau. They returned with the news that Esau was coming to meet Jacob with an army of 400 men. With great apprehension, Jacob prepared for the worst. He engaged in earnest prayer to God, then sent on before him a tribute of flocks and herds to Esau, "a present to my lord Esau from thy servant Jacob".

Jacob then transported his family and flocks across the ford Jabbok by night, then recrossed back to send over his possessions, being left alone in communion with God. There, a mysterious being appeared ("man", Genesis 32:24, 28; or "God", Genesis 32:28, 30, Hosea 12:3, 5; or "angel", Hosea 12:4), and the two wrestled until daybreak. When the being saw that he did not overpower Jacob, he touched Jacob on the sinew of his thigh (the gid hanasheh, גיד הנשה), and as a result, Jacob developed a limp (Genesis 32:31). Because of this, "to this day the people of Israel do not eat the sinew of the thigh that is on the hip socket" (Genesis 32:32). This incident is the source of the mitzvah of porging.[12]

Jacob then demanded a blessing, and the being declared that from then on, Jacob would be called יִשְׂרָאֵל, Israel (Yisra`el, meaning "one that struggled with the divine angel" (Josephus), "one who has prevailed with God" (Rashi), "a man seeing God" (Whiston), "he will rule as God" (Strong), or "a prince with God" (Morris), from Hebrew: שרה‎, "prevail", "have power as a prince".[13] Jacob asked the being's name, but he refused to answer. Afterwards Jacob named the place Penuel (Penuw`el, Peniy`el, meaning "face of God",[14] saying "I have seen God face to face and lived."

Because the terminology is ambiguous ("el" in Yisra`el) and inconsistent, and because this being refused to reveal his name, there are varying views as to whether he was a man, an angel, or God. Josephus uses only the terms "angel", "divine angel", and "angel of God", describing the struggle as no small victory. According to Rashi, the being was the guardian angel of Esau himself, sent to destroy Jacob before he could return to the land of Canaan. Trachtenberg theorized that the being refused to identify itself for fear that, if its secret name was known, it would be conjurable by incantations.[15] Literal Christian interpreters like Henry M. Morris say that the stranger was "God Himself and, therefore, Christ in His preincarnate state", citing Jacob's own evaluation and the name he assumed thereafter, "one who fights victoriously with God", and adding that God had appeared in the human form of the Angel of the LORD to eat a meal with Abraham in Genesis 18.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob

More on the personal depiction of the Father in the OT. . .

Moses saw Yahweh's back because Yahweh covered Moses' face with his hand while passing. “I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by, then I will take away my hand and you shall see my back; but my face shall not be seen,“ (Exodus 33: 22-23.) But Moses had seen Yahweh's face earlier on in (Exodus 33: 11) ….And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face as a man speaketh unto his friend. The Lord came to visit Abraham and ate in his house. Isaiah saw the Lord in his temple. Gideon, Ezekiel, Samson's parents, Daniel, all saw the Lord. Yahweh wrestled with Jacob (Gen. 32: 21) and Jacob nearly defeated him until he managed to remove a bone to wrench Jacob's hip.

Culled: Naiwon Osahon, Article on The Nigerian Voice.

Bah. Its a discussion. No winners or losers. I simply think its interesting and topical, that's all.

^^^ Enigma. . .the Father is recorded as phsyically wrestling one of his prophets in the OT!

I am not missing your point: correct me if I am wrong, but what you are trying to convey is that the very qualities which render the Father sentient are the same qualities that the Holy Spirit posesses and thus this shows the HS to be personal and sentient just as the father is.

This cannot be the case as I have already articulated above and cannot articulate again: the HS is not to be seen preaching in words, strolling in gardens, debating devils, or wrestling prophets. The ontology of the father is thus markedly different from that of the HS.

Enigma:
@ post no 88

And the Holy Spirit teaching, comforting, being grieved?

1. Teaching - The Holy Spirit is not recorded to teach anybody in words - by preaching in words as Jesus did - or as the Father did in the OT. The teachings of the Holy Spirit are spiritual unctions of love which emanate within the spirit. You cannot show me a place where the Holy Spirit is quoted as saying for instance - "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth."

2. Comforting - Again you will not see the Holy Spirit cuddling a person and massaging his frayed nerves. The comfort of the Spirit is the assurance of God's spiritiual grace and protection.

3. Grieving - You will not see the Holy Spirit grieving as Jesus is depicted to grieve in Gethsemane, for instance. The spirit is at odds with an evil thing and this may metaphoricallyt be described as grief.

Now nowhere will you see the Holy Spirit being said to do any of the definitely personal things I mentioned, and which you skimmed over, such as -

- sitting on a throne

- engaging the devil in a debate

- strolling through a garden searching for Adam.

All of which the Father is said to do: which closes the shop on your argument that the Father cannot be shown to be sentient either if the Holy Spirit is not so.

^^^ You are still asking for proof that the Father is conveyed within the Bible as sentient? ? ?

I can only ask you to pick up the Book of Job and read it through.

Enigma:
No, sorry I don't see where you have so far shown that the Father is sentient; rather, it seems to me that you are conflating personal and sentient.

Enigma - do you seriously assert to me that the Father as conveyed throughout the OT is not obviously, emphatically and undeniably sentient? ? ?

How does a non-sentient being talk, wage war, demand worship, feel jealousy, engage in debates. . .Are you serious on this point?

Enigma:
^^^ I'm sorry you would have to do much much better; here is a little clue: the Holy Spirit teaches; the Holy Spirit comforts; the Holy Spirit can be grieved.

Try again.

It is not fair for you to deliberately skim over the pointers I referred to. God the Father is undeniably presented as both personal and sentient in the bible -

1. He rests on the seventh day after his work of creation.

2. He visits the garden of Eden and discusses with Adam and Eve

3. He has debates with the satan. See the Book of Job. Perhaps you wish to show me the Holy Spirit doing such?

4. He has a personal relationship with individuals such as Moses and Abraham.

5. He sits on a throne.

6. He gets jealous and angry.

7. He experiences regret.

And many more. Now you cannot reasonably insist that the biblical ontology of the father is impersonal or non-sentient. No non-sentient being could do and say all that the Father is said to have done and said! That would be absurd.

Enigma:
EDITED Whether or not I respond further, this thread fails if you are unable to prove that the Holy Spirit is not sentient as well as proving that He is not personal.

See Posts No 79 & 82 above.

Furthermore the thread still fails if you are unable to prove that God the Father is both personal and sentient.

See post above. The biblical ontology of the father is emphatically personal and sentient. You cannot reasonably deny that.

I need to point out to you that there is no such thing as success or failure for this thread. In the OP i did not mention proving anything. I simply asked a question and we are discussing the question. I wonder why all the bitterness at the simple fact that a question is asked?

Enigma:
One reason why i may not bother to respond is that i raised a more fundamental issue earlier own to which patently there has been no response i.e. Is God the Father a personat OR sentient being?

I may respond to this in two ways. Scripturally and philosophically.

The scriptural response is that which is apt for this thread: for in the OP i have referred to the scriptural ontology of the Holy Spirit. The simple response to your question in scriptural terms is that God, from the very first chapter of genesis through his interaction with the nation of Israel in the Old Testament, and right up to his Judgment and desciption in revelation is emphatically decribed and conveyed as very personal indeed, and not just sentient, but omniscient. I am sure that I do not need to start with the analysis of the creation account, God resting on the sixth day, his walking in the garden and talking with Adam and Eve, the accounts of his special relationship with Moses and ISRAEL, his discourses and special relationship with Abraham, his selection of prophets and messages dictated to such prophets, the account of his discussion with the satan as contained in the Book of Job, HIS sitting on the Throne in Revelation. . .amongst a trillion other personal references in the Bible to God the Father as being a personal being. In addittion to all these he is also described as being very emotional. . .he feels jealousy, anger, regret, love - all of these undeniably render the biblical ontology of God as being a very personal being.

In view of the foregoing, your question is clearly answered: and I am mildly surprised that you would ask it in the first place, as the Bible presents God emphatically as being a personal being.

If I were to give you a philosophical answer, however, I might very carefully say that God may not be personal at all: but finds its personal expression in created beings.

The Holy Spirit is frequently referred to by metaphor and symbol, both doctrinally and biblically. Theologically speaking these symbols are a key to understanding of the Holy Spirit and his actions, and are not mere artistic representations.

Water - signifies the Holy Spirit's action in Baptism, such that in the manner that "by one Spirit [believers] were all baptized", so they are "made to drink of one Spirit".[1Cor 12:13] Thus the Spirit is also personally the living water welling up from Christ crucified[Jn 19:34] [1 Jn 5:8] as its source and welling up in Christians to eternal life.

Anointing - The symbolism of anointing with oil also signifies the Holy Spirit, to the point of becoming a synonym for the Holy Spirit. The coming of the Spirit is referred to as his "anointing".[2Cor 1:21] In some denominations anointing is practiced in Confirmation; ("chrismation" in the Eastern Churches). Its full force can be grasped only in relation to the primary anointing accomplished by the Holy Spirit, that of Jesus. Christ (in Hebrew, messiah) means the one "anointed" by God's Spirit.

Fire - symbolizes the transforming energy of the Holy Spirit's actions. In the form of tongues "as of fire", the Holy Spirit rested on the disciples on the morning of Pentecost.

Cloud and light - The Spirit comes upon the Virgin Mary and "overshadows" her, so that she might conceive and give birth to Jesus. On the mountain of transfiguration, the Spirit in the "cloud came and overshadowed" Jesus, Moses and Elijah, Peter, James and John, and "a voice came out of the cloud, saying, 'This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!'"[Lk 9:34-35]

The dove. When Christ comes up from the water of his baptism, the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove, comes down upon him and remains with him.[Mt 3:16]

Wind The Spirit is likened to the "wind that blows where it will,"[Jn 3:8] and described as "a sound from heaven like the rush of a mighty wind."[Acts 2:24]

Culled from Wikipedia.org/wiki/holy_spirit

The Holy Spirit is not a person.

Rather than describing the Holy Spirit as a distinct person or entity, the Bible most often refers to it as and connects it with God's divine power (Zechariah 4:6; Micah 3:. Jewish scholars, examining the references to it in the Old Testament Scriptures, have never defined the Holy Spirit as anything but the power of God.

In the New Testament, Paul referred to it as the spirit of power, love and a sound mind (2 Timothy 1:7). Informing Mary that Jesus would be supernaturally conceived in her womb, an angel told her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you , ," and he defined this as "the power of the Highest," which "will overshadow you" (Luke 1:35).

Jesus began His ministry "in the power of the Spirit" (Luke 4:14). He told His followers, "You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you" (Acts 1:.

Peter relates that "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power" (Acts 10:38). This was the same power that enabled Christ to perform many mighty miracles during His ministry. Likewise, Jesus worked through the apostle Paul "in mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God" (Romans 15:19).

The Holy Spirit is the very nature, presence and expression of God's power actively working in His servants (2 Peter 1:4; Galatians 2:20). Indeed, it is through His Spirit that God is able to be present everywhere at once throughout the universe and affect it at will (Psalm 139:7-10).

Again and again the Scriptures depict the Holy Spirit as the power of God. Furthermore, it is also shown to be the mind of God and the very essence and life force through which the Father begets human beings as His spiritual children. The Holy Spirit is not God, but is rather a vital aspect of God—the divine substance of the Father and Christ as well as the agency through which They work.


Impersonal attributes of the Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit is spoken of in many ways that demonstrate that it is not a divine person. For example, it is referred to as a gift (Acts 10:45; 1 Timothy 4:14). We are told that the Holy Spirit can be quenched (1 Thessalonians 5:19), that it can be poured out (Acts 2:17, 33), and that we are baptized with it (Matthew 3:11).

People can drink of it (John 7:37-39), partake of it (Hebrews 6:4) and be filled with it (Acts 2:4; Ephesians 5:18). The Holy Spirit also renews us (Titus 3:5) and must be stirred up within us (2 Timothy 1:6). These impersonal characteristics are certainly not attributes of a person.

It is also called "the Holy Spirit of promise," "the guarantee of our inheritance" and "the spirit of wisdom and revelation" (Ephesians 1:13-14, 17).

In contrast to God the Father and Jesus Christ, who are consistently compared to human beings in Their form and shape, the Holy Spirit is consistently represented, by various symbols and manifestations, in a completely different manner—such as wind (Acts 2:2), fire (verse 3), water (John 4:14; 7:37-39), oil (Psalm 45:7; compare Acts 10:38; Matthew 25:1-10), a dove (Matthew 3:16) and an "earnest," or down payment, on eternal life (2 Corinthians 1:22; 5:5; Ephesians 1:13-14, KJV). These depictions are difficult to understand, to say the least, if the Holy Spirit is a person.

In Matthew 1:20 we find further evidence that the Holy Spirit is not a distinct entity, but God's divine power. Here we read that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. However, Jesus continually prayed to and addressed God the Father as His Father and not the Holy Spirit (Matthew 10:32-33; 11:25-27; 12:50). He never represented the Holy Spirit as His Father. Clearly, the Holy Spirit was the agency or power through which the Father begot Jesus as His Son.

Culled from Beyond-Today Booklets

nuclearboy:
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)

Actually Tri theism refers to three deities and not one deity showing himself as three.

Enigma:
^^^^ Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Human "descriptions", "representations"  or "depictions" rarely if ever work! We all (at least we Christians) recognise that we cannot fully encapsulate God --- thus in a way the less said the better. We can only confine ourselves to that much that is revealed in Scripture and confirmed to our own individual spirit (the experiential element) by the Holy Spirit. This much is revealed in Scripture:

a. the Father is God
b. Jesus Christ is God
c. the Holy Spirit is God

We will be on strong and surer ground if we confine ourselves within the boundaries of revelation. Whenever we go beyond that we are always likely to fall short or to stray. In fact, that is what is at the heart of the debates from the very beginning (i.e. pre Nicene/Athanasian creeds) (a) understanding what is revealed and (b) going beyond or even falling short of what is revealed because of trying to fit revelation within the very finite limits of human conceptions and perceptions.

I would have loved to comment that this post suffers an internal inconsistency, however I recall that you are yet to grant me permission to discuss with your esteemed self, so I reserve my comments and await the permission, if it will ever come.

Enigma:
@kunleoshob

Instead of making foolish allegations

Permit me to say that this is rather heavy handed. The gentlemen merely stated his view in very civil terms and did not insult you.

chyz:
The Holy Spirit is not a being. Its not something that will just come out of nowhere in a church service or mosque and make you shake around and "speak in tongues". Having the holy spirirt simply means that youve refrained from doing evil and everything that is against the command of God.Once youve done that and which is following Gods command/word your spirit is now clean and holy. Thats what holy spirit means. dont let others fool you.

Also, if you actually take time and read the Bible instead of flipping it open once in a while and just picking any verse and start reading it, you would understand that there were jews from different land and each had their own language(native tongue). Some traveled to a place outside of their land and could speak the language of the people whos land they were going to along with their own language. In the other land they often met people from home and became close with them.whenever people from the land that they were in were plotting against one of them then they would speak in there own tongue(language) so that the plotters/devils couldnt hear/understand what they were saying. That is what speaking in tongues means. All of that nonsense that people in the church do is not real. They may make themselves believe that they were speaking in "tongues" but its all nonsense. READ YOUR BIBLE!

Thank you for this brilliant post.

nuclearboy:
^^^
Your aversion for the RCC is turning you into a "joagbaje" who chooses what he likes and discards the truth. You're no longer the same man

"And He will be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlssting Father, Prince of Peace" Is 9:6a. From String's Hebrew Dictionary, we get Mighty God defined as "Shortened from H352; strength; as adjective mighty; especially the Almighty (but used also of any deity): - God (god), X goodly, X great, idol, might (-y one)".

So yes, Kunle, the Bible calls Jesus God.

On Isaiah – NOTICE that he says that the child born will be called “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father”. I ask you – is Jesus the Father? No – he is the son, and he made it very clear that he is not the Father in several statements -

“The father is greater than I” – John 14:28 and -

“Of that day no one knows, not the angels, nor the son, but only the Father”. Mark 13:32.

This point is also made clear in a multitude of scripture including Mark 10:18; Jn 17:3; 1 Pet 1:3; Acts 2:22; Luke 22:42.

THEREFORE it is clear that when Isaiah calls him “Everlasting Father”, it is meant in a representative fashion: to wit – He represents the Father. Thus “Mighty God” must be understood in the same way: he represents God. This is clear because you cannot deny that Jesus is not the father. That much he himself made clear in the two quotes above. So Isaiah’s statement is representative. Please read the Bible with a compound approach.

Just as an aside it might also interest you to note that the word translated as ''Mighty God in Isaiah is El Berith.  El Berith is also a canaanite diety.

At all events I did not intend this to be another trinity-bashing thread: we have had enough of that already. Let's focus on the nature of the Holy Spirit.

Edit

During the first part of the night, Siddhartha understood that suffering has a cause, and expressed his understanding. Then during the middle part of the night, he understood how to destroy suffering, and expressed his understanding. Finally, during the third part of the night, he described reaching enlightenment, "even as the sun was lighting the heavens."

And the foregoing quote from you, Pastor, is more than sufficient for me to rest the discussion as it entitely proves everything i argued in Post No. 63 above: namely that the foundation and thrust of the 4 Noble Truths is Suffering and the avoidance of suffering which is entirely different from the foundation and thrust of Christrian doctrine: which is salvation through the sacrifice of christ and non-contingent love.

This firmly upholds the initial statement i put to you in the other thread.

There is really nothing to add.

Inasmuch as I believe I have concluded everything i have to say in Post No. 63  above, I really must express distress at the rather superficial similarities being drawn between the Garden of Eden and Buddha's elightenment under a Boddhi Tree. For crying ot loud, is the mere mention of the word "tree" sufficient to draw a similarity? The two stories are starkly different! The elightenment which man derived from eating the forbidden fruit was material and worldly - the enligntenment which the Buddha referred to was spiritual and metaphysical. . .I really do not get this!

^^^ I think I understand what you're trying to communicate. Still have some little questions though. Later.

^^^ 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.

^^^ Well for me, that seems rather like asking "when did God become active."

That's not a question that is within the province of the Human mind to know.

However in my view the Holy Spirit could not have become active only two thousand years ago. It has been active as long as God has been excersing his will.

That certainly predates the existence of this universe.

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.

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:
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.

Hi Rhino. . .I think Vescuci has pretty much summed it up. But to add a few based on what you laid out.

[quote author=Rhino.3dm link=topic=491015.msg6515667#msg6515667 date=1280997851]^^^ 1. Definition[/quote]I think the Holy Spirit is the will, energy and power of God active within creation.

To make sense of that we need perhaps to understand what God is. It may not be possible to have a full understanding: given that God is transcendental and beyond the grasp of finite minds such as ours, but I believe it is possible to have an idea.

A good idea of what God is, I belive, is to say that God is that eternal and self-existent element which is the basis for all reality.

2. Proof.

I agree with Vesc that proof of the Holy Spirit's existence is not required for a theist. God's existence would naturally presupose God's energy or WILL - which is what I describe as the Holy Spirit.

But in very simple terms -

1. Finite things exist

2. Finite things must exist of a cause, reason, or basis

3. The cause, reason or basis, to be the cause of finite things cannot itself be finite: it is accordingly infinite or eternal

4. That infinite or eternal element is what i describe as God

5. The physical cosmos alone as reprsentative of finite things is imbued with vast energy

6. Thus the cause which is infinite and eternal is also imbued with power

7. That power, as active within creation, is what i call the Holy Spirit

3. Mode of operation

It is often said that God works in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform. . .but I think that the power and will of God are discernible in patterns in everyuthing that we see around us. When a seed is planted, a tree would grow. How's that for an M.O? Sublime.

4. Evidence(real life encounter, not hear say)

I think you encounter the Holy Spirit when you experience the unifying cosmic power of the ONE UNIVERSAL LOVE which is at the soul of God.

5. When did he/she came into being

6. Any possible life span.

If God is eternal, surely the Holy Spirit being God's power/ force/ will/ energy is eternal as well.

7. Religion inclination i.e if any.

I think that there is only one religion known to the Holy Spirit and it shows itself in the Unifying Love of God and Harmony in creation. Harmony is a construct of balance which derives from Justice & Karma.

^^^ He didn't say so.

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.