Butch5
Active
Christ
What is the best analogy to explain the Trinity?
- Thread starter MedicBravo
- Start date
B-A-C
Loyal
Yes...
Gen 1:1; In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
..and who is Jesus?
Heb 1:8; But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
Butch5
Active
B-A-C
Loyal
noun
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
God : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as
: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
God : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as
: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe
god noun
a spirit or being believed to control some part of the universe or life and often worshiped for doing so, or something that represents this spirit or being:
Butch5
Active
Ok, thanks! The first one isn't really a definition, it's more of a description of the one true God. The second one, however, is a good definition of the word God. A spirit or being believed to control some aspect of nature or life. The Bible speaks of the pagan gods. The pagans had many gods. They had a sun god. They had a god of fertility. The Egyptians had a god of the Nile. All of these gods, were (in the minds of the pagans) rulers. They had a territory they ruled over, ei . the sun, the Nile, fertility, etc. They also ruled over the people, thus the people gave sacrifices to appease their gods.
So, the word god means a being with a kingdom and subjects. Let's compare that with the passage you posted from Hebrews.
Heb 1:8; But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
The word Kingdom inherently carries with it the idea of a king or ruler and subjects. The Son has a kingdom., thus He has subjects. Let's compare this with Scripture.
In the beginning God speaks and the Son creates. The Father is the ultimate ruler or God. Paul said,
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ
So, the Father is the ultimate Supreme being. So why is Jesus called God? Remember that the word god means a ruler. We have these words from Jesus.
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Jesus said all power in heaven and earth had been given to Him. That makes Him a ruler and thus the reason He is called God. In Heb 1:8 His being called God is directly tied to His kingdom. Him bgeing given all power makes Him God or a ruler. Does this mean He is equal in power with the Father? No.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be tdestroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all
Here Paul is speaking of the end. At the end Christ will turn the Kingdom over to the Father. At that time He will no longer reign over the Kingdom, thus He will not longer be a ruler. Paul tells us that Christ must reign "till" all things are put under His feet. That indicates that His reign will end. The Paul tells us that when all things are put under His feet, which indicates complete dominance, the Father who put everything under Christ's feet is exempt. In other words, Christ has power over everything except the Father. Then Paul concludes that when all is accomplished, Christ, too, will be subject to the Father.
So, we have two rulers here. One is the ultimate supreme ruler who is never subject to anyone, Then we have His Son, who is given all power and is over everything except the Father. Then the Son turns the kingdom over to the Father and the Son is then subject to the Father.
All of that fits with Scriptures. What in there would require us to conclude that both the Father and the Son are actually one ruler or god? If the word god simply means a ruler with a kingdom, why would we assume that having two people called a ruler would somehow make them one being?
B-A-C
Loyal
You are hung up on the idea that one God equals one being.
Myself, my wife, and my kids are a family. We are multiple people, but we are one family.
The US government is made up a legislative branch, a judicial branch, and an executive branch, three groups of people, but only one government.
A football team is made up of 11 players, but it's still one team.
God is made up of three beings. But it's still just One God.
Until you can grasp that concept, God will never make sense.
Jesus was God before all power was given to Him, and He will still be God when He gives it all back to the Father.
No one can "become" a God ( Mormonism ). You're either God, or you aren't.
Dear Butch5,
My Post#12
I had some questions for you in the post. I know you are busy with others, but the Scripture verses that you say that do not exist in Scripture, are there for you to look at, and see that a reasoning mind can come to many conclusions to their meanings, but only one makes sense, and that is the Trinity. Like I said in the post, there are Doctrines that man has given names to whose names are not found in Scripture. This does not mean that the Doctrine does not exist.
Think on this as an example. In the OT, there is not a prophet that explains the existence of God. They just start talking of God, as if it's taken for granted that the reader knows of the existence of God so it goes without saying there is no need to explain Him! (Psalm 14:1) Even though certain characteristics are shown to be had by God. Does this mean that because they just mention a God, but do not explain God's existence, that God doesn't exist? Of course not. This is why I asked you to look at certain scripture, because if you read them, it does not say there is a Trinity, but if you were to count what I call the "Personages" you come up with 3, and so the Doctrine of the Trinity.
Special Note: Oh, in case you are reluctant to discuss this with me because of Samson2020 being banned, and you don't want to follow his route. Be reassured, that he was not banned because of his stance on the Trinity, but rather his stance on Universalism. If you'd like to know any particulars concerning this, I do not mind sharing, but it must be done through a Private Message (PM) and not Open Forum.
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><
Butch5
Active
You didn't answer my question. In what I posted, for what reason would anyone conclude that they are one being?
I'm not hung up on it. That's what people say it is. You, your wife, and kinds are one family. But a family isn't one person. It's multiple people. Also, you alone are not a family and neither would your wife and kids be.. Yet when you ask what the Trinity is people say God the Father is fully God, the Son is fully God, the Spirit, is fully God, yet they are one God. How are three different persons one ruler?
I used your definition of god. It was a being that rules over some aspect of nature or creation. We saw that Jesus was given all authority, and a location to rule, thus He is a ruler. However, we also saw that at the end He turns the kingdom, both the location and the subjects over to the Father. At that point He Himself becomes subject to the Father. Please explain to me, how, at that point, Jesus is still a ruler.
What was Jesus ruler of before He was given all power?
What is God if made up of three beings?
I think the gentleman in the video has pointed out there is no way for the mortal mind to present an analogy that's fault free in representing the Godhead (Trinity). It's the same with the origin of God. The mortal mind cannot comprehend something having no beginning or end.
The Scripture gives us no details. I take it that these things are not meant to be understood now, or we as humans are lacking the ability to understand. I believe the Godhead (Trinity) is one of those things we cannot understand in this mortal state but will in the future immortal state.
All we can do is envision the analogies we're capable of understanding. There will be no fault free analogy, as that is a different realm of understanding.
One analogy I heard many years ago was compared in construction terms. The Owner, the Architect, the Contractor.
God the Father is the Owner, Jesus Christ is the Architect, and the Holy Spirit is the Contractor.
God the Father owns everything, Jesus Christ drew up the plans for it to be made, and the Holy Spirit made it appear.
Simple, and full of fault finding I'm sure, but it does give some understanding that lines up with Scripture. Of course not perfectly, but to some degree.
Butch5
Active
Hi Nick,
Actually, I didn't know that he was banned. I don't understand why any doctrine would be off limits. I don't see how we get to the truth if have stuff that can't challenged. Sorry I missed your post.
Nick
"Isaiah 43:10
Isaiah 44:6-8
Isaiah 48:16
In my mentioning of marriage or the coming together of man & woman was only to show you that what you say is interesting conjecture on how God see's the coming together of man & woman from 2 to 1 as your example of why God cannot be 3, but you not mentioning the Scripture verses that tie it to procreation as a definition of the "one flesh" does nothing to further enlighten us to knowing if what you are using/saying is true. However, to give you the benefit of the doubt to what you are saying, it then begs the question of what about those who have no children? Are they somehow absent from being of one flesh for the lack thereof? I do not believe that to be the case.
Yet, the man & woman united become one flesh who were two. The word gymnastics you have tried seems out of place. Why must you use "morph into a single being" to be the end result or to explain 2 into 1? Is it possible that it is something else entirely unknown to man's reasoning? Maybe the totality of man & woman in the flesh that includes the spirit?"
Butch
If we look at the context of the passage we see that it is the creation of man. In that context God told man to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. So, it refers to procreation. There are two ways that a couple can become on flesh. One is literally, as in procreation. The other is figurative, as in unity. When Jesus said, "the Father and I are one" He was referring to unity. Remember in the garden He said, 'not My will, but thine be done." That's unity. Regarding the morphing into one being statement, Christians often say God is three persons in one God, and they refer to God as He. So, we have three separate persons who are somehow a single being. He, is a singular pronoun. When people speak of God they don't say, God they, they say God, He. So, we have three separate persons who are all the same "He". If Christians are like that then somehow they must all morph into one being.
Is it possible that it's something unknown to man? Sure, that's possible. But there isn't much point in telling man something that cannot be understood.
Regarding these passages of Scripture, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. It seems to me that they support the idea of one God.
Nick:
"I toss this out there to you because when scripture describes something that humanity does not have the ability in words to explain, they come up with words in order to do so! Kind of like trying to nail Jello to a wall.
"Butch:
OK. The problem though is that I've not seen Christians claim this. Most I've discussed this with are adamant that there is one God in three persons. Then when I disagree I'm simply told I'm wrong. Let me ask, how does one claim certainty about something they cannot possibly understand? It's like they're saying, I don't understand it but I'm certain I'm correct about it. Then we take it a step further and admit that there it's not mentioned in Scripture, or as you put it "humanity does not have the ability in words to explain,." If words cannot explain it, how can one possibly understand it? They can't. If one can't understand it how can they possibly claim that I'm wrong? The logic simply doesn't follow.
Nick:
"Which is what has happened with other doctrines, and not just with the use of the Word Trinity or the Doctrine of the Trinity. It helps to explain what is seen in Scripture as existing, but which Scripture does not give the singular word in describing it. Yet, because it is not given a word of description in Scripture does not mean that concept/doctrine is wrong."
I can agree with the concept of your statement here. And I could accept the argument. But,, you said, "It helps to explain what is seen in Scripture as existing, but which Scripture does not give the singular word in describing it." Here's the problem I find, Is the Trinity doctrine seen "In" Scripture? My answer would be a resounding no. Where in all of Scripture do we find the idea that there is one God in three persons? There are many, many, passages of Scripture that run counter to that idea. The whole idea is based on a few passages that refer to Jesus as God. it's only about 2 or 3 passages. The argument is that because the Father is called God, the Son is called God, and the Holy Spirit is referred to as God, they must all be God. And since Scripture says there is only one God, they must all be one and the same. The problem with that argument is that it can also be used of the false gods. Baal and Molech are also called gods. Does that make them God? If simply being called god makes one the Ultimate God of Christianity then there's a lot more than just a trinity. But what we find yet another fallacy. Christians say no, it only applies to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. My friend, when people do that it's simply Cherry Picking.
When we start trying to defend this doctrine we start down a slippery slope.
This Trinity concept has it's roots in the 5th century Catholic Church. Let me ask a question. Who were they? What did else did they believe? What was the situation that was going on then? Let's look at a few other doctrines. The Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of Purgatory. Do Protestants believe in that doctrine? Most don't. What about prayers to the Saints? Most Protestants reject that. What about indulgences? Most Protestants reject that. As a matter fact that particular doctrine is what sparked the Protestant Reformation. So we have all of these doctrines from the Catholic Church (I'm not knocking Catholics, just pointing out history) which Protestants have flatly rejected. Then we have this Trinity doctrine, another Catholic doctrine. Why is it that Protestants refuse to question this particular doctrine? Protestants use Scripture to counter those other Catholic doctrines, yet When someone uses Scripture to counter the Trinity doctrine somehow that's not a valid method anymore.
There is nothing in the Scriptures that teaches that God is one God in three persons. It's as you listed above. People have looked at Scripture, seen some things and drawn a conclusion. The conclusion they've drawn is illogical and thus, cannot be explained. In the real world it wouldn't be accepted. As I gave the example in another post, If one of you came to work for me and I agreed to pay you $900 a week and then on Friday gave you 300 one dollar bills and told you that each bill was a trinity and was actually three dollars in each bill, you wouldn't accept that at all. You'd want your other $600. So, if you wouldn't accept it in the real world because it makes no sense, why would you believe it of God? Why would any of us believe a bunch of 5th century Christians who tell us something that is completely illogical? I mean, if the Bible stated that God is one being in three persons, I'd be onboard in a heartbeat. But, when some 5th Century Christians that I know nothing about tell me I have to believe what they say or I can't be saved and then what they say is completely illogical, sorry, I'm not buying it. Especially when they've got quite a few other doctrines that are flatly refuted by Scripture. I'm just chalking it up to, these guys have no idea what they're talking about.
I have a serious question for all. Why do you believe this doctrine so adamantly? I mean everyone admits they can't explain it. Most admit they can't understand it. If we can't explain it and we can't understand it, and it's not explicitly stated in Scripture, how does anyone know it's true? Why not, instead of arguing adamantly for the doctrine, say, you know, maybe those 5th century Christians got this wrong. Maybe then didn't understand something. After all, since they've come up with this doctrine "NO ONE" has been able to explain it "logically." We have just about 1600 years Of Christians trying to logically explain this and no one has. How many Christians have there been in those 1600 years? Isn't time we say, hmmmm, maybe those guys made a mistake.
Nick:
I am sure you have looked at the verses mentioned by me above, and am curious of how many personages can be identified in their readings by you?
am sure you have looked at the verses mentioned by me above, and am curious of how many personages can be identified in their readings by you?
While you do that, you might also look to Zechariah 12:1-10. You will notice I'm sure a lot of "i's" being used. Is this being spoken of as God, the preincarnate Jesus, or as some would say a Christophany?
Butch:
If I knew nothing of Scripture I would assume it is referring to one person.
Nick:
Now you can look at the Baptism of Jesus at the Jordan, by John the Baptist. Again, how many personages are identified in these verses as "being" at the same time, who are without fault and consistent in all four Gospels.
Matthew 3:16-17
Luke 3:21-22
Mark 1:10-11
John 1:32-34
Butch:
Other than the crowds I see two persons.
Nick: As far as Scripture verses disproving it. I'd disagree. People will see what they want to see, even to removing what is being said out of context to what is written.
It is as if when Scripture speaks of God the Father, if it doesn't mention God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit, that somehow the other parts of the Godhead cease to exist! This is prevalent in what is called the "Oneness" Theology. If you don't know about them, you should check it out. Sadly, you might even agree with them!
I agree that people see what they want to see. If that wasn't the case this doctrine wouldn't exist. And, when one believes the Trinity doctrine there is a tendency to read into God, three separate persons. This is the problem No one can establish from Scripture that there is one God in three persons. However, people will tend to read that into Scripture when they hold that position.
I could post passage after passage refuting the doctrine or showing it's illogical. Paul, speaking of the many gods of the pagans says, "to us there is one God, the Father.' He contrasts the one God with Jesus. That right there is conclusive to anyone who is willing to hear. Jesus when praying to the Father said the Father is the only true God.
Nick:
"That being said, the same can be said for each co-equal part of the Godhead. Meaning that if just God is mentioned that it must be God the Father, instead of just God as in Father, Son, Holy Spirit. One must always keep in mind the context of what is being written. In other words, the Who, What, When, How, Why of Scripture. Jesus talking of His Father, and always doing what He sees speaks to a Godhead that is as close as I can tell is hierarchal. Yet, always, I say again, always in agreement. Of the same essence meaning characteristics, co-eternal, and to break it down even more. If you could if it were possible to take any of the three away, you will not then have God! Each part of Scripture that each is mentioned, remove them as an exercise is something you should do. Then tell me what you have, and if there is any coherence in what is being said, that is, if anything is being said!"
Butch:
Hierarchal in what? That's the problem.
Nick:
Too often Jesus is seen as the weak link in all this, because He was the first begotten Son of God. It is like Jesus had no existence prior to this point in time. Which one can see throughout the OT is not the case, and so the use of Christophany for showing Jesus' presence at different times in the OT. That He wasn't called Jesus, okay, but how many names does He have or is identified as being?
Butch:
How is Jesus coeternal if He is the begotten Son? Sure, God's Son pre-existed His virgin birth. He's all through the OT. However, If one is begotten they can't be eternal. Paul said that Jesus was the first of born of creation.
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:13–15.
According to Paul Jesus was begotten before creation. How can one be both eternal and begotten?
Nick:
Then the Holy Spirit, is easy to set aside too, because He is perceived as only a "force", a conveyance for the will of God the Father, or God the Son if you will, with no characteristics of identity so to speak. Again, anything in Scripture that speaks to decision making/identity of self by the Holy Spirit is skipped/glossed over. We do not really even know how the Holy Spirit does what He does, nor any other parts of the Godhead for that matter, but we somehow know He is not God! lol
Butch:
The Jews understood the Spirit as the power or Shekinah Glory of God. That begs the question, why didn't the Jews understand the Holy Spirit as at least a second person? One could argue that, like the Son, the Holy Spirit was hidden in the OT. If that's the case then we would expect the Holy Spirit, like Son, to be revealed as another person in the NT. Is that what we find in Scripture? Luke understand the Holy Spirit as "the power of the Highest."
Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Lk 1:30–35.
However, Jesus tells us that the Holy Spirit is actually a figurative way of speaking of the Father.
“And these things I did not say to you at the beginning, because I was with you.
5 “But now I go away to Him who sent Me, and none of you asks Me, ‘Where are You going?’ 6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. 8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you....
25 “These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but I will tell you plainly about the Father. 26 In that day you will ask in My name, and I do not say to you that I shall pray the Father for you; 27 for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from God. 28 I came forth from the Father and have come into the world. Again, I leave the world and go to the Father.”
29 His disciples said to Him, “See, now You are speaking plainly, and using no figure of speech!
Here Jesus is speaking of the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth. He tells the disciples that He has spoken those things in figurative language and that the time is coming when He will no longer speak to them in figurative language but will tell them plainly of the Father. What He had been telling them about the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, was figurative language. He had been speaking of the Father in figurative language. The Comforter and the Spirit of Truth are the Father.
This passage tells us that there is no third person. The Holy Spirit is not a third person, it's the Father.
Nick:
am sure that much of what is being said, doesn't make sense to you, but then when has the workings of God, made sense to the imperfect/sinful man, which is everyman?
If this at least gives you pause or provides you something to chew on so to speak. Then all to the good. We should always be searching, seeking, to know God, because that is what Eternity is for don't you know!
Butch:
I've been there brother. I used to be a Trinitarian. It was actually looking at the Scriptures that caused me to reject the doctrine. Then looking at church history just confirmed what I had seen. It's hard to express the depth that I look at with these doctrines. I don't just look at a few passages here and there and draw a conclusion. I have looked at this subject in great depth. What we're discussing here is just dust on the surface. The real evidence becomes apparent once we get below the surface. We can go there if you're interested.
B-A-C
Loyal
You keep saying this, and yet the council of Nicea confirmed in the Nicene creed in 325.
The council at Nicea was not affiliated with the Roman Catholic church. ( although some may have been members ).
Butch5
Active
The Nicene Creed does not agree with the modern doctrine if the Trinity.
Filioque clause in brackets:
It says He's the only begotten of the Father. Begotten of the Father. It doesn't say begotten of Mary. They believed He was begotten of the Father. The Trinity doctrine says He was eternal. In the creed they go on to say, "God from God." The word they translate "from" is the Greek word "ek". It literally means to come out of. So, they believed that Jesus came out of God. The Trinity doctrine doesn't agree with that. They go on to mention His being begotten again. Then they say, "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life." Who is the Lord, the giver of life? It's the Father. Paul also says,
Romans 8:11 (NKJV): 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
If the spirit of Him. Who is Him? It can only be the Father. It can't be Jesus because He's the one being raised. It can't be the Holy Spirit because it's what's being used to raise Christ. That only leaves the Father. The Spirit of the Father raised Christ. In the Creed they said the Spirit was the Lord, the giver of Life. The Father is the Lord and the giver of life. The creed aligns with what Jesus said in John 16 about the spirit being figurative language about the Father. In this creed we only have 2, not 3 persons
That's a far cry from what people today call the Trinity. Three coequal, coeternal, persons, who are all one God.
Butch5
Active
Jesus said, 'I and the Father are one". There are only two ways we can understand that. It's either literal or figurative. If it's literal it means they are the same being. It doesn't mean there are two persons of God. They literally have to be one and the same. The other way to understand it is figuratively. There are two ways we could understand it figuratively. We have the example of Adam and Eve becoming one flesh. That could be understood through their offspring. Or, it could mean they are unified. Obviously Jesus and the Father didn't beget another being. That only leaves unity. We see in Scripture that Jesus is the express image of the Father. That speaks to unity. In the garden Jesus said, 'not my will, but your be done.' That speaks to unity. Jesus said the words He spoke were not His, but the Father's. That speaks to unity. Jesus said He had cone to do the Father's will. That speaks to unity.
Since a literal understanding is impossible and the procreation option isn't viable we are left with the only possible option which we find in several passages of Scriptures.
So why would keep arguing for something else when we have the answer right in front of us?
Since a literal understanding is impossible and the procreation option isn't viable we are left with the only possible option which we find in several passages of Scriptures.
So why would keep arguing for something else when we have the answer right in front of us?
I have met some through the years who didn't recognize the Holy Spirit as an independent member of the Triune Godhead.
I believe He is a person independent of the Father and the Son. The Scripture says He grieves, He has a will, He can be lied to, etc.
The Father refers to the Holy Spirit as "My Spirit" and He also refers to Christ as "My Son." Both being independent of the Father.
John said "there are 3 that bear record in heaven," the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
I definitely see the Holy Spirit as an independent member of the Triune God. Some call that the Trinity.
Butch5
Active
Can the Father be grieved and lied too? Does He have a will?
Here's something to consider the Greek and Hebrew words that translated spirit mean wind. Why would a third person of the Trinity be called wind? The Father has a name, it's Yahweh. The Son has a name, it's Jesus. Why is the supposed third person called wind?
I could say that the Word is the written Word of God (the Holy Bible) and that the Word is Jesus Christ in the flesh, and be correct both ways.
It's the context of Scripture that decides which I would be referring to.
In context, the Holy Spirit cannot mean the "wind" when He is referred to as grieving, having a will, and being lied to.
Butch5
Active
Why not?
It's a fact that there is a difference of opinion in what Scriptural context is saying.
When it comes to context with a name and an action, as I have shown, it comes down to common sense.
But I also have to say that common sense to one is not common sense to another.
So it seems we disagree.
Butch5
Active
Consider these passages.
Romans 8:19 (NKJV): 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.
Romans 8:22 (NKJV): 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.
The creation isn't a person or alive and yet Paul says it has an expectation and eagerly awaits. How can that be? He says the creation groans and labors. How can that be?
It's obviously figurative language. Why couldn't Scripture use the same language of the Spirit? I mean, the word spirit is, itself, a figurative definition of the Greek and Hebrew words for wind.