₦airaland Forum

Hi TV01

How bodi now?

@ nuclearboy

Of course it's a waste of time; remember I said so from the beginning although the importance of your own earlier point about the need to inject at least some truths has also been borne out.

Regarding the infilling and indwelling of the Holy Spirit: that is something no one can take away.

Mr. A: I know a Mr Johnson
Mr. B: Well, I haven't met this your Mr Johnson, so he doesn't exist.
Mr. A: OK -- if you say so!

^^^

I certainly can produce "poured out" - from the Bible.

@ All

Anyway, those saying the Holy Spirit is not a personal sentient being have not even left the starting blocks. OK, let me be more charitable; they have made a false start and need to return to the starting blocks. Here are a few things they will need to do just to get off the blocks properly:

1. Define what is meant by "personal"
2. Define what is meant by "sentient"
3. Distinguish between "personal" and "sentient"
4. Explain whether corporealty is essential to either personality or sentience
5. When they say God the Father appeared in the Old Testament, distinguish between a Theophany, Christophany or Angelophany e.g. the Bible itself says in a number of places that no man has seen God or that no man can see God and live!
6. Explain the Spirit of God hovering on waters ---- as being just the 'power', 'force', 'will' or whatever of God doing the hovering
7. Explain the Holy Spirit descending as a dove as just the 'power', 'will', 'force' or whatever of God descending
8. Explain the Holy Spirit descending on the 120 as tongues of fire as just the 'power', 'force', 'will' or whatever of God descending
9. Explain whether any of the following is a personal sentient being:
a. The Pre-Incarnation Jesus Christ
b. The Ascended Jesus Christ
c. Today's Jesus Christ (i.e. (b) expressed in another way)
d. Archangels
e. Angels
f. Cherubim
g. Seraphim
h. "Sons of God"
i. Satan
j. Demons/Evil Spirits

For me this is just for them to get off the starting blocks at all. And notice that I have not so far gone on the offensive; I have not so far dissected their own posts which contain inaccuracies, misunderstandings and, frankly, a lot of nonsense!

OK as the person who started this thread I think I should reveal my own hand and express where I stand.

I totally understand, appreciate and respect my brethren (& sistren) who find themselves no longer able to stomach organised church assemblies and prefer to look for alternatives. Unfortunately the church has been invaded, not merely infiltrated, by anti-Christs, charlatans and fraudsters; sadly, they are carrying along honest, well-meaning but misguided people as well.

Nevertheless, I believe it is possible to remain part of an organised assembly and yet true to Christ and sound christian doctrine. That is why I am still part of an organised church assembly. As a matter of fact I can worship in almost (stress almost) any church assembly where I believe there is at least one (just one) person who honestly and genuinely is putting his trust in the One and Only, the Wonderful Counsellor, the Prince of Peace, the Everlasting Father, the Mighty God, the risen, ascended glorified, the Glorious Lord Jesus Christ. Believe me, I will even worship in such an assembly of WoFers! I will probably never become a member or a regular though!

On one occasion, I was in the US on a Sunday; I went to the church assembly most local to my hotel. It turned out it was a service involving feet washing. I promptly joined in with gusto! I had my feet washed and washed other people's feet. Even today, I do not know/remember what 'denomination' they were. On another occasion here in the UK I went into a Baptist church which turned out to be a strict Baptist church that would not let other Baptists, let alone me, take part in their "Holy Communion". And after the service they expressed hope to see me again in their 'church'. Na so!

In the same token, I will continue to call myself a Christian. I will not let the anti-Christs, charlatans, fraudsters etc deprive me of that appellation by which the apostles (including Peter, James, John Paul etc), the great Church Fathers of gigantic intellect, and countless people throughout history have been known.

Oh btw on when the Holy Spirit 'came into existence'', Hebrews 9 says He is eternal!

@ above

This Jesus Christ who said the above must have been a very incoherent person without clear thinking!

Matthew 28:19

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit

Baptise in the name of

1. The Father
2. The Son
3. The Father's "power", or "will" or "energy" or "whatever"

Yay, yep he's cool and coos his love and best wishes.

Jesoul

I troway plenty salute ooooo! Welcome back.

From here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/aug/09/religion-christianity

Is it possible to revile Christians whilst holding true to Jesus' teachings?

Earlier this month, Anne Rice announced that she was stopping being a Christian – but that she wouldn't give up Christ. Does this make sense? Can you have one without the other? Could you cling to the prophet and abandon Islam? More generally, should anyone be held responsible for the crimes of their co-believers? Should they hold themselves responsible?

It may be that the answer for Christians and for other religions is "yes", they can and should. Monotheistic religions aren't just matters of personal preference, but of collective effort. They command the believers to build a better society. So do many forms of atheism. So if the building turns out to be slaughterhouse, or a jail, perhaps it's right to leave the work crew. But must you then repudiate the ideals that you have seen betrayed?

Whatever it is that Anne Rice sees in the figure of Christ is the same thing as fuels her revulsion from her fellow Christians. So, how to deal with the problem?

Interesting!

MyJoe:
. . . .
Great!! Great!!!

I need to address this post because of its implications that 'I am running away from a fight'. Way before the most recent "attempts" by you and Deep Sight --- this is what I already said.

Enigma:
^^^

Well, I can only reiterate what we Christians believe: the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

You sought to show that the Holy Spirit is not a personal sentient being. The burden of proof is actually on you and not on us Christians. Nevertheless we Christians on this thread went even beyond what was required --- in the proof that we have provided.

However, you have not met your own intended burden --- to show that the Holy Spirit is not a personal sentient being.

Really, if we say nothing you still have a tough (in fact, impossible) mountain to climb. Indeed we have been indulgent to you in attempting to show you another way of looking at things. It seems advisable once again, for me personally, to wait until I see you show worthwhile 'proof' that the Holy Spirit is not personal and sentient before it is necessary to "continue with the case for the defence."

Yes, I repeat that for me personally it is an indulgence debating with someone who says that the Holy Spirit is not a personal sentient being until that person shows worthwhile proof that the Holy Spirit is not a personal sentient being. So far, I haven't seen any such proof and neither do I expect to see any. Surprise me!

MyJoe:
I am surprised you see an attack in thought out responses. So until every Scripture is dissected one-by-one will an impact be made? I see, but that gives you a huge task in this thread. . . .

The word "attacked" was deliberately in quotes; it was not directed personally; it was directed at a particular selection or two particular selections (one each for you and Deep Sight) from various things on the list.

Deep Sight:
^^^ Enigma, I needn't go through each single verse therein to show you that figures of speech are what are at play. I have said before the the spirit does indeed teach, guide and comfort: this does not make it personal, anymore than your conscience would be a personal sentient being because it teaches and guides you?

It is emphatically obvious in every verse in that link that simple figures of speech are at play - the example of the bride speaking I gave above is sifficient to show this.

Also there is no "attacking" anything - there is only each person's view of scripture.

Refer to answer above: even if I say nothing more you will not be able to prove that the Holy Spirit is not personal and sentient especially at the same time as proving that the Father is personal and sentient.

In fact I will probably not post again (subject to some exceptions) until I see anything even approaching such proof.

MyJoe:
Right. Still you have no record anyone's being filled with God the Father, or with Christ (to say nothing of being poured out), so my statement stands.

In any case, I don't see what this red herring ("filling", the one point you carefully picked out of the many others to address) proves. Remember God and Christ can dwell in your heart, an obvious figure of speech since your heart is way too small to lodge God. God is the universal sovereign, intangible, infinite, incomprehensible. So, of course, he can fill the universe. And Christ is Godlike, according to the Bible.

Oh I can give you "poured out" alright but I won't bother. As I have said before even if I say nothing more on this thread, I expect to be vindicated ----- because I do not see you or Deep Sight being able to prove that the Holy Spirit is not personal and sentient especially at the same time as proving that the Father is personal and sentient.

^^^
Do you notice so far how many they have "attacked" of the things mentioned in the list in the link?

Link again: http://www.carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/verses-showing-identity-ministry-and-personhood-holy-spirit


PS EDIT @nuclearboy I need to reply an email, sorry about lateness.

^^^

You can have it in whatever version you like really.   

Certainly it wasn't the Holy Spirit said to be doing the filling in that instance!

MyJoe:
It has been shown that:
- The Holy is ascribed qualities not usually associated with persons, like being poured out, filing things, overshadowing.
- The Father and Son cannot do the above.
- There are no records of the Holy Spirit interacting with anyone, debating, or deliberating.
- Where the Holy Spirit is ascribed personal qualities, such as comforting, this is clearly a figure of speech.
- There is nothing abnormal about the Holy Spirit being ascribed personal qualities, since the Bible does the same with grace, sin, death and love. And we do same in speech.
- The Bible is full of instances of the Father and Son personally reaching out. But not the Holy Spirit.

But Enigma still wants the “burden of proof” activated. It’s an enigma!  

I will only bother to take on one of this, please work out who the "He" is referring to:

He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)

Ephesians 4:10

^^^

Well, I can only reiterate what we Christians believe: the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

You sought to show that the Holy Spirit is not a personal sentient being. The burden of proof is actually on you and not on us Christians. Nevertheless we Christians on this thread went even beyond what was required --- in the proof that we have provided.

However, you have not met your own intended burden --- to show that the Holy Spirit is not a personal sentient being.

Really, if we say nothing you still have a tough (in fact, impossible) mountain to climb. Indeed we have been indulgent to you in attempting to show you another way of looking at things. It seems advisable once again, for me personally, to wait until I see you show worthwhile 'proof' that the Holy Spirit is not personal and sentient before it is necessary to "continue with the case for the defence."

^^^ 

OK: we can agree to disagree on whether Jesus showed a will different from the will of the Father.

Back to the purpose of this thread (i.e. whether the Holy Spirit is personal and sentient) and I pose this question once again:

Enigma:
do you now still think that the Holy Spirit is not a personal sentient being? Especially after the following link given earlier above?  http://www.carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/verses-showing-identity-ministry-and-personhood-holy-spirit

The answer to your post (no 120) really is in my post (no 117). There are two parts to the answer: (a) the passage does not show a difference of will(s) between Jesus and God the Father (pls see a reasonable expansion of this point by justcool just above); (b) the statement was made by Jesus the human not Jesus the God. We Christians believe that whilst on earth, Jesus was both fully human and fully God; we call it the Hypostatic Union; please look it up.

By the way, my curiosity leads me to ask this: do you now still think that the Holy Spirit is not a personal sentient being? Especially after the following link given earlier above?  http://www.carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/verses-showing-identity-ministry-and-personhood-holy-spirit

vescucci:
In other words there is only either Jesus, Jevovah or The Holy Spirit at any one time but not all three? Let me rephrase: Is Jesus equal in all respect to The Holy Spirit and mutually to God, the Father?

BTW, I thoroughly respect your position concerning explaining God and also your refreshing simple outlook on the trinity

I'm not sure I fully understand this question. It seems straightforward that there are all the three at anytime; all three are in heaven now; even if we say only the Spirit is on earth now but then He is perpetually connected to the other two from whom he proceeds (according to the Trinitarian formula with the Filioque included).

Deep Sight:
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.

But if you are arguing from the Bible/Christian perspective, as you did yesterday, the answer to this is extremely simple. Jesus, while on earth, was both divine and human! For a start the passage does not suggest a difference of will; more critically, you are referring to the human Jesus rather than the divine Jesus! It is a different thing if you are saying Jesus the man (EDIT i.e. the historical figure) was not God at all!

@ both of you chaps (especially vescucci); tomorrow for me please, a bit late so I'm turning in; I'm only good for reading now.

@vescucci

Firstly, please note two things: (a) I have said on this thread that in a sense the less said in "explaining" God, the better; (b) I do not claim to know everything let alone all there is to know about God. Additionally, I have said that I can countenance a suggestion that the doctrine of the Trinity is not necessarily perfect and cannot fully encapsulate God.

OK: again some basic background (indeed repetition): in my view, the Bible teaches that the Father is God, that the Son is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. The Bible also teaches that God is One.

It seems to follow to me that the One God is equal with Himself, His will agrees with His will, He is of the one substance with Himself!

@ aletheia

May I help by giving Deep Sight a parting gift i.e. as I am basically now taking a back seat.

Try this: http://www.carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/verses-showing-identity-ministry-and-personhood-holy-spirit



PS look at the very last thing in the list: the Holy Spirit Himself is the truth! Of whom else can we say that He is the Truth?

Edit: I realise in hindsight that that last one in the list may be challenged on the basis that it is from the disputed Johannine Comma; nevertheless, at least it cannot be argued that that was done by the Church Fathers or by the Catholic/RCC Church; again at the least, it suggests that some of the Bible redactors had a conception of the Holy Spirit as God or indeed of the Trinity.

Further Edit Looking at it again, it is actually not part of the Johannine Comma (verse 7!) which gives even much less room for the challenge of its authenticity; also, the point I made about the logical effect of even saying that the Johannine Comma is a late insert is an attestation of a very early conception of the Trinity still stands.

Further Further Edit More on the Johannine Comma in this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-497445.0.html#msg6576034

-

^^^^ Sure! But we cannot go on and on until we reach (oneness of) infinity . There comes a point when we agree or at least agree to disagree agreeably!

^^^ If you think you have proven your case, I'm happy to leave you with that thought.

Sorry, don't mean to be rude but you still really haven't got my point.

BTW who did the Father "cuddle"? We at least know various people that the Holy Spirit "cuddled" --- and I will not tell you who! Perhaps if you research that you will start to get my point?

@ post no 88

And the Holy Spirit teaching, comforting, being grieved?

He who asserts must prove.

Your primary task: prove that the Holy Spirit is (a) not personal and (b) not sentient. Until I see anything approaching such proof, I'm not sure there is much I need to say further. Lawyers call it "no case submission"!

Secondly, prove that the Father is sentient ----- not just personal! If you can prove that, then compare your proof of it with whether the holy Spirit is also sentient.

Deep Sight:
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?

Unfortunately, you are missing the point.  

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

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.

Try again.

Deep Sight:
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 discussion the question. I wonder why all the bitterness at the simple fact that a question is asked?

I'm afraid I do not see any bitterness on my part; what I see is myself challenging ideas.

^^^ 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.

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

Surely, you can post any comment you like; I cannot stop you though it would be my choice whether to respond or not. You started the thread anyway.

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

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.

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