No, that makes the spirit something God possesses.
Jehovah alone is the creator of the Universe.
- Thread starter Dartman
- Start date
- Status
Apple7
New member
What's the 'Spirit and Power' of Elijah, Trev?
Don't be so afraid to look it up in the OT...after all, its in YOUR quote!
Apple7
New member
Lashing-out in hatred won't convince anyone.
Put your anger into defending YOUR scriptural examples.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Dear Unitarians, Arians, Sabellians, Adoptionists, and other heterodox and/or heretical anti-Trinity proponents:
The Trinity doctrine is an immutable and non-negotiable doctrine of the authentic ancient historical apostolic and catholic orthodox Christan faith. The Cappadocians, in particular, brought explicit clarity to the Trinity, and dealt with every argument of concern in the 4th century leading into the 381AD Ecumenical Council in Constantinople.
There is nothing new being argued or presented here by opponents to the Trinity doctrine. This forum does not suffice as a means of rehashing the unrehashable. The Trinity doctrine stands as the only valid Christian doctrine for Theology Proper, and most who reject it have no idea what it actually is and means with any depth of exegetical or lexical comprehension.
The Trinity doctrine is an immutable and non-negotiable doctrine of the authentic ancient historical apostolic and catholic orthodox Christan faith. The Cappadocians, in particular, brought explicit clarity to the Trinity, and dealt with every argument of concern in the 4th century leading into the 381AD Ecumenical Council in Constantinople.
There is nothing new being argued or presented here by opponents to the Trinity doctrine. This forum does not suffice as a means of rehashing the unrehashable. The Trinity doctrine stands as the only valid Christian doctrine for Theology Proper, and most who reject it have no idea what it actually is and means with any depth of exegetical or lexical comprehension.
LOL .... making ludicrous assumptions seems to be a specialty of yours.
I will give you this, the trinity is mainstream christianity, and "many there be which go" that direction.
Matt 7:13-14 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
That being said, do you know what would be really amazing?
Just imagine if you actually had the kind of authority you are pretending to have!
Wow!
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
LOL. I’m not the one pretending to have the authority to override Patristic doctrine built upon Apostolic truth as presented in the divinely inspired text.
I’m not the one rehashing defeated arguments and proof-texting foolishly out of context verses like the one above to attempt to apply it to the Trinity doctrine.
I’m not the one kicking against the pricks via modernist innovation based upon revisionist and reconstructionist fallacies.
Why do you think it’s so important to exert yourself here? Trinitarians aren’t going to budge. You’re not going to be corrected. And you can’t even wield the sword effectively, as exampled by the verse you just posted.
You have nothing irrefutable, and you’re nothing as an alleged theologian compared to the Cappadocians and others. All you have is your bare assertions and historical revisionism. Why bother?
Last edited:
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Go ahead and extensively and authentically and lexically represent the Trinity doctrine as defined by the Cappadocians in all its minutiae. Let’s see if you even comprehend it for what it actually is rather than a parody and misrepresentation.
Start with the basic Greek terms and their clear definitions. I’ll wait.
Greetings again Apple7,
Luke 1:15–17 (KJV): 15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. 16 And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. 17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
This simply says that John the Baptist would fulfil the same role as Elijah in turning the hearts of the children to the fathers. He would have the same teaching “spirit” and be effective “power”.
Although you have not stated this, I assume that you may do a simple swap and say that “spirit and power” is the Holy Spirit, in the same way as you seemed to make a swap for when “the word of God came to John in the wilderness” also was the Holy Spirit or rather the 3rd Person of the Trinity. But the role of Elijah was very specific, in a way different from other prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. And John the Baptist was to some extent destined to fulfil some aspects of the role of Elijah, and Luke 1:15-17 quotes and alludes to Elijah’s future work mentioned in Malachi 4:5-6. To understand this mention of what John the Baptist was to accomplish then, requires an understanding of what Elijah did and tried to achieve, and where he failed, and also consider the future work of Elijah described in Malachi 4:5-6.
Also I believe that when the word of God came to John the Baptist in the wilderness, that this is a very succinct description of the start of John’s ministry. Compare the specific initiation of the ministries of Isaiah in Isaiah 6, Jeremiah in Jeremiah 1 and Ezekiel in Ezekiel 1, and each of these were accompanied with them participating in interactive visions. Each of these prophets then spake, not their own words, but the Word of God. With these three prophets we could say that the word of God came unto them, because what they spoke was from outside of them, they spoke God's words. With John the Baptist we have no detail, but in a sense only the outcome, that John was now equipped to speak not his own words, but the Word of God. We do have a clue of this in Isaiah 40:3-5,6-8 where the “Voice” is instructed what to preach. There is a strong link between Isaiah 40:3-5 in summary form and the actual preaching by John in Luke 3:7-14.
Kind regards
Trevor
I will repeat what I stated in my previous post first which you have in a way bypassed.
Luke 1:15–17 (KJV): 15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. 16 And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. 17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
This simply says that John the Baptist would fulfil the same role as Elijah in turning the hearts of the children to the fathers. He would have the same teaching “spirit” and be effective “power”.
Although you have not stated this, I assume that you may do a simple swap and say that “spirit and power” is the Holy Spirit, in the same way as you seemed to make a swap for when “the word of God came to John in the wilderness” also was the Holy Spirit or rather the 3rd Person of the Trinity. But the role of Elijah was very specific, in a way different from other prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. And John the Baptist was to some extent destined to fulfil some aspects of the role of Elijah, and Luke 1:15-17 quotes and alludes to Elijah’s future work mentioned in Malachi 4:5-6. To understand this mention of what John the Baptist was to accomplish then, requires an understanding of what Elijah did and tried to achieve, and where he failed, and also consider the future work of Elijah described in Malachi 4:5-6.
Also I believe that when the word of God came to John the Baptist in the wilderness, that this is a very succinct description of the start of John’s ministry. Compare the specific initiation of the ministries of Isaiah in Isaiah 6, Jeremiah in Jeremiah 1 and Ezekiel in Ezekiel 1, and each of these were accompanied with them participating in interactive visions. Each of these prophets then spake, not their own words, but the Word of God. With these three prophets we could say that the word of God came unto them, because what they spoke was from outside of them, they spoke God's words. With John the Baptist we have no detail, but in a sense only the outcome, that John was now equipped to speak not his own words, but the Word of God. We do have a clue of this in Isaiah 40:3-5,6-8 where the “Voice” is instructed what to preach. There is a strong link between Isaiah 40:3-5 in summary form and the actual preaching by John in Luke 3:7-14.
Kind regards
Trevor
Nor am I. I have no authority, I put my trust in the Scriptures. And, the Scriptures state clearly that the believers are supposed to check EVERYTHING with the Scriptures;
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
2 Tim 3:15-17 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
See, that's where the problem with your theory really becomes obvious. There is obvious conflict between the gradually developed doctrine of trinity, and the New Testament.pps said:
Yes, you are. Your argument has been defeated MANY times. About half of my congregation is made up of people who USED to be trinitarians, but were willing to consider the truth. And, the invention of the criticism of so called "proof texts", was purely motivated by frustration at trying to work around those simple, clear and direct statements of Scripture.pps said:
Proper exegesis of the Scriptures BEGINS with the simple, clear and direct statements of Scripture.
Neither am I. Those "Patristic " writers were arguing with my predecessors. And, when those "Patristic" writers actually got POWER, they began murdering my predecessors. Check the list of those beliefs martyred by the "Holy" Church! Those who reject the trinity are almost ALWAYS listed.pps said:
There are several reasons. One, " ..iron sharpens iron..", it helps me keep, or occasionally find those WONDERFUL "clear, simple and direct statements of Scripture that are so crucial to finding truth.pps said:
Millions have.pps said:
Hmmm .... how would you know? How many of my current beliefs are BECAUSE of a "correction"?pps said:
LOL ..... sounds like the criticism of the frustrated to me.pps said:
Here is a test of your "sword" abilities.
Find me ONE text that "clearly, simply and directly" STATES your theory.
Find me ONE text that describes ANY tenet unique to trinity, in an explanation of Jesus, or God, to any audience in the Gospels, or the book of Acts.
And, before you waste your time, the text MUST directly STATE your theory ...... not merely be worded in a way that you claim MEANS something like a tenet unique to your faith.
For clarity, John 1:1-5 doesn't work, because you HAVE to re-interpret "word/logos" DIFFERENTLY than logos is used in the rest of John's gospel.
When you actually consider setting aside the brainwashed perspective carefully developed in the trinitarian doctrine, and accept the NATURAL, COMMON meaning of "logos", the "trinitarian proof text" miraculously vanishes. Nor does John 20:28, since the five words spoken by Thomas are NOT clear .... WITHOUT The context ..... and the context CLEARLY establishes that Thomas had JUST been convinced that "his God" had raised "his Lord" from the dead.
Phil 2:5-12 doesn't work, because the text is discussing Christ's DECISIONS, and conditions during and after his ministry! NOT before he was alive!!!
So, being robbed of your most common "proof texts", please show us what you've got. I'll wait.
I really don't care. Man's opinions are irrelevant. The Scriptures are the sole source of reliable, confirmable, TRUTH.
So, you are going to wait a LONG time.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
And, Dartman thinks that a brain is a spirit: http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-spirit-quot&p=5313840&viewfull=1#post5313840
Last edited:
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Yeah, that’s a real problem. Wow. :O
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
The funniest part of all this is that I spent years as an anti-Trinity apologist (including most of the tenure on TOL), attempting to get others to comprehend that moderns who claim to be Trinitarians are actually more Tritheist, Arian, Sabellian, Unitarian, or at least a Semi- form of one of those (or others, like Adoptionist or Pneumatomachian, etc.)
So you’re barking up the wrong tree when you think I’ve had “a brainwashed perspective carefully developed in the Trinitarian doctrine”, etc.
Logos doesn’t need a special meaning for the Trinity. It merely needs the full and anarthrous meaning from the inspired Greek text. The eternal and uncreated Son IS God’s own eternal and uncreated Logos. They’re coterminous. Logos needs no excursions into the competing definitions of Philo and others, historically. All it needs is the breadth, depth, and height of the term and its lexical scope of definition and application.
Jesus Christ is God’s Logos, just as man has logos. That the Logos was personified in flesh is something that can be readily understood and taught without falsely limiting the term and its continuum of meaning. Only English speakers do that with their hyper-arthrous concepts like yours and the other Socinians (Christadelphians, et al).
I used to side with all anti-Trinitarians for years until I realized I was criticizing modern understandings of the Trinity rather than the Trinity itself.
You DO care more what men (particularly yourself) say and teach than what scripture says. I could take you to a series of verses and terms with authentic lexicography and demonstrate the Trinity doctrine irrefutably from scripture. But it won’t be according to the false standards you’ve set via low-context English proof-texting, which is fallacious.
Between a handful of terms in scripture, it is impossible for Theology Proper to be anything but Trinitarian. But you won’t be corrected because you want scripture to say “Trinity”. It doesn’t say “church pew” or a thousand other things, either; and I’m fine if you remain anti-Trinitarian. It’s quite literally no skin off my nose.
(BTW, I’m a Unihypostatic Multi-Phenomenal Trinitarian, which is the best means of addressing all the criticisms you have, but remains orthodox instead of your heterodoxy and heresy.)
(BTW again... In John 1:1, the anarthrous Theos irrefutably disannuls Unitarianism, even if it leaves an outside possiblity for Arianism or Sabellianism. But the first few verses of Hebrews 1 are absolutely a nail in the coffin for any of the above, even if someone can’t ever comprehend the simple breadth of the lexicography.)
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Dartman's had me on "Ignore" for close to two months, now.
Among other things, he doesn't like it when people point out to him that Jesus, in John 17:3, did NOT say that ONLY God the Father is the only true God. Dartman, being a unitarian, despises logic, and he pretends to be incapable of comprehending that the statement 'God the Father is the only true God' is NOT the same as the statement 'ONLY God the Father is the only true God'. He's a dyed-in-the-wool Christ-hater and, thus, a proud irrationalist.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
In other words... You can’t and won’t even state the minuatiae of what you’re allegedly refuting. I can undertand that, since you don’t know anything about Cappadocian doctrine that affirms Apostolic teaching and scripture itself.
Again, no skin off my nose if you’re anti-Trinitarian. I’ve reconciled every other view of Theology Proper to the truth of the Trinity, even after being anti-Trinitarian for too long a time.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
In fact, Scripture doesn't even say "Unity" in any way, shape, or form that could be even remotely useful for anti-Trinitarians.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Dartman's had me on "Ignore" for close to two months, now.
Among other things, he doesn't like it when people point out to him that Jesus, in John 17:3, did NOT say that ONLY God the Father is the only true God. Dartman, being a unitarian, despises logic, and he pretends to be incapable of comprehending that the statement 'God the Father is the only true God' is NOT the same as the statement 'ONLY God the Father is the only true God'. He's a dyed-in-the-wool Christ-hater and, thus, a proud irrationalist.
Yes, I’ve had to deal with many such Unitarians and their semi-compatriot Arians. I really like the contrast you make between the two statements above.
In the end, all Unitarians are God haters, and thus Christ haters. Sad.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Interesting. Dartman, a Christ-hating heretic who considers Trinitarianism to be heresy, nevertheless affirms that Trinitarianism is Christianity. See, conversely, no Christian would ever consider Dartman's Christ-blaspheming, anti-Trinitarian ravings to be Christianity, nor an heretic such as Dartman to be a Christian. No Christian will ever (to use Dartman's word) "give" Dartman that his anti-Christ unitarianism is Christianity. When one hates Jesus Christ, The Logos, as does Dartman, one cannot help but also hate logic.
Apple7
New member
You're toast...
You're toast...
:cigar:
Since you want to compare the prophets, in relation to The Word of God, let's do exactly that, Trev...
Let's begin with your example of Ezekiel:
The Word of God & The Hand of God are each mentioned, in the third person, as referenced to Ezekiel, at the River Chebar (Eze 1.3).
The Word of God is also called The Glory of God (Eze 1.28), and is described as standing (Eze 3.23).
The Glory of God has the appearance of a Man (Eze 1.26 – 28).
Ezekiel states that the Glory of God by the river (Eze 1.3, 28) is the same Glory of God as mentioned throughout the book (Eze 3.22 – 23; 10.18 – 20; 43.3).
The Hand of God, as mentioned in Eze 1.3, is The Spirit (Eze 3.14; 8.3; 37.1).
The Spirit & the Glory of God are mentioned together – but at the same time, distinction is made between them (Eze 1.28 – 2.2; 3.12 – 14, 23 – 24; 8.3 – 4; 10.18 – 11.1, 22 – 23; 43.1 – 5)
Now...
Please detail to us, Trev, exactly how your simplistic view of The Word of God 'coming' to Ezekiel lines-up with your cultic-assertion below...
Start digging your way out of this one...or...run away from it...your call...
You're toast...
:cigar:
Since you want to compare the prophets, in relation to The Word of God, let's do exactly that, Trev...
Let's begin with your example of Ezekiel:
The Word of God & The Hand of God are each mentioned, in the third person, as referenced to Ezekiel, at the River Chebar (Eze 1.3).
The Word of God is also called The Glory of God (Eze 1.28), and is described as standing (Eze 3.23).
The Glory of God has the appearance of a Man (Eze 1.26 – 28).
Ezekiel states that the Glory of God by the river (Eze 1.3, 28) is the same Glory of God as mentioned throughout the book (Eze 3.22 – 23; 10.18 – 20; 43.3).
The Hand of God, as mentioned in Eze 1.3, is The Spirit (Eze 3.14; 8.3; 37.1).
The Spirit & the Glory of God are mentioned together – but at the same time, distinction is made between them (Eze 1.28 – 2.2; 3.12 – 14, 23 – 24; 8.3 – 4; 10.18 – 11.1, 22 – 23; 43.1 – 5)
Now...
Please detail to us, Trev, exactly how your simplistic view of The Word of God 'coming' to Ezekiel lines-up with your cultic-assertion below...
Start digging your way out of this one...or...run away from it...your call...
- Status