The Holy Spirit

Yves Congar has said that there can be "no Christology without pneumatology (i.e. the study of the Holy Spirit) and no pneumatology without Christology." This leads me to wonder about the role that the Holy Spirit plays in Christian Theology?

I think that is a great question for discussion. Is the spirit in the NT the third person of the Trinity or the spirit of God or a spirit of holiness.

What I learned in my lay ministry class is that the Holy Spirit came after Jesus to take Jesus' place. Jesus would no longer there in the flesh to guide the disciples after the Ascension, so the Holy Spirit came in to guide them. I guess the best way to put this is that Jesus is still guiding is but uses the Holy Spirit rather than a physical body to communicate.

"Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father had sent me, so I send you.' When he had said this. he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit.'" (John 20: 21-22, NRSV)

For Catholics the Holy Spirit's guidance of the Church is what ensures that we will not err in core dogmas of the faith. So the Holy Spirit not only guides us and moves in us individually in our lives, but also in the larger body of Christ.

I'd love to hear from someone more theologically educated than I. I just got my AA so when I transfer for the fall to a Catholic university I'll be able to start taking theology and jump into these discussions better!

librattyteen, have you personally just learned about the Bible from books and classes, or have you actually delved into it for yourself?

Just curious.

Mark 1.8

"I have baptized you all with water, but he himself will baptize you all with holy spirit."

Translations capitalize Holy Spirit and add the article - with the Holy Spirit. But that is not required or even implied in the Greek.

How does it change the meaning to baptize with holy spirit, as a substance that is contrasted with water as a substance?

Does Mark intend the Third Person of the Trinity or does he intend a substance that is to be contrasted with water?

Luke and Matthew add fire, as a substance to be contrasted with water.

"He himself will baptize you with holy spirit and fire" or "with the Holy Spirit and fire."

> 4: fuzzi

Both. But my exposure to the Bible has been unusual. I didn't grow up in any church so was never exposed to the Bible until an adult. I did two years of a lay ministry course in the Bible for Catholics, where we got a lot of historical-critical and theological interpretation. I also took a two-semester sequence in Bible as literature in college.

Why do you ask? Have I made a glaringly obvious error? Given what richardbsmith said above, perhaps I did. lol

> 6 Some posters here tend toward a literal reading of the Bible, tending to dismiss anything derived from church tradition. So you will get from them a response that is shaped by those commitments.

I am ordained clergy in a liberal Protestant tradition. From my perspective, the big question I have about what you wrote concerns the idea of Jesus "using" the HS. The doctrine of the Trinity understands the HS as a fully-developed and autonomous (as it were) person. If that's true, then I don't know that we can properly speak about the HS as if it were a force at Jesus' disposal.

> 7

I'm not sure why fuzzi was asking me that. If that was her reason, I would only point out that I was replying to OP's question from my Catholic perspective. I wasn't trying to establish that it was the right one.

Also, fuzzi, on second thought to your question - your query doesn't make sense in my case, since both of the scripture classes I have taken were not based on being told what the text meant but on learning how to read it. So yes, we were explained what things mean and given good context and background knowledge for doing so, but never did that take the place of reading the text itself.

As for your third point, walk2work, you're right. Oddly enough when we were taught this passage in scripture class our teacher was skeptical that the spirit John is talking about is the same as what we now call "Holy Spirit." Some translations have Jesus sending "the advocate" rather than the Holy Spirit. An interesting idea. Perhaps you know what the Greek in that passage says?

>8 JDHomrighausen: lilbrattyteen, it seems to me from reading many of fuzzi's posts that she has set up a dichotomy between "reading the bible yourself and letting God tell you what it means" and "listening to the words of men about the bible" (as usual, apologies to fuzzi if I have misrepresented her position). I and others have frequently disagreed with her on this and pointed out that there is no inherent contradiction between reading the bible yourself, studying it using the best (God-given) tools available, listening to what scholars and tradition have to say about it, and discerning what God is teaching in it. Indeed they are all part of the same dynamic. However I think bible literalists such as fuzzi see it rather differently from mainstream Christians.

I love how others try to read my mind and second guess my questions... :grin:

I have to clock in to work, bbl to try to clarify why I asked what I asked. :)

>10 fuzzi: My apologies, fuzzi, if I have second-guessed you. My comment is based on your writings on many threads, and is not a new thing.

>7 walk2work: The doctrine of the Trinity understands the HS as a fully-developed and autonomous (as it were) person. If that's true, then I don't know that we can properly speak about the HS as if it were a force at Jesus' disposal.

Well, God 'sent' his only Son, so why couldn't Jesus 'send' the Holy Spirit (or the 'Advocate')? God seems to be speaking to us through Jesus, so why can't Jesus speak to us through the HS? Not trying to shoot down your conclusion, just interested in how we get to an understanding on the interactions between the three parts of the Trinity.

PS I have the same trouble trying to grasp how the various members of the Borg on Start Treck function individually and collectively at the same time. :-) Just can't get my head around it.

Os.

>3 JDHomrighausen:
Thanks for your response. There does seem to be a revived interest in Christian Theology in the role of the Holy Spirit in recent decades. For centuries the work and person of the HS was pushed to the margins and often ignored. I think Christians have been coming to terms with the notion that faith needs to penetrate the heart and be a inner reality and experience. For example, Karl Barth often stressed and the "otherness" and "outerness/objectivity" of God; there is little in Barth's Church Dogmatics on the Holy Spirit. Later on in his thinking he started to realize that the HS had been neglected by himself and by other theologians and the church. Alot of Barth's adversion to pneumatology seems to stem from a extreme emphasis that many 19th century romantic thinkers / theologians (ie. Schleiermacher) placed on human experience/existentialism. Movements such as Pentecostalism and Latin American Base Communities have been a corrective to a largely atrophied church. The Eastern Orthodox centuries has been saying for centuries that the West hasn't properly understood the HS (see Daniel Migliore Faith Seeking Understanding p. 168).

I was at Mass in South Africa yesterday evening and the homily was based on the Pentecost Sunday reading from John's gospel. I was struck particularly by the priest's exploration of John 6:12-13:

“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come."

The idea that Jesus has not taught (revealed) all that there is to reveal but there is more to come, via the Holy Spirit, is of course not new to those churches which find revelation in both scripture and tradition. Since John is one of the later NT writings, it implies that there will be more to come which is not in the existing writings which became the canon of scripture. It also supports the idea that our understanding of God will develop as we develop; "you cannot bear them now" implies that you will be able to bear them at some point in the future.

The homily also managed to include reference to the president's genitals, but then I doubt whether there has been any conversation in South Africa in the last week which hasn't mentioned his wedding tackle. If there are non-South Africans out there who don't know what I'm talking about, try googling a new painting of Jacob Zuma called "The Spear".

It is art, right? But apparently better art now that the Spear has been Jack Pollockised. That story made it over to the US.

I thought about this passage of John 16.12-13 ( our reading in the RCL) when walk2work commented on the autonomy of the Holy Spirit.

It brings up a question about the relationships within the Trinity, or for me it brings up questions about the idea of the Trinity.

I find verses 16.8-11 a bit difficult to grasp.

ETA
Added the italicized words - "questions about" - to try to be more clear that the idea of the Trinity is a difficulty for me.

A happy and blessed Pentecost to all my brothers- and sisters-in-Christ!

>15 richardbsmith: I have been advised to read John as poetry rather than narrative prose; I have found that a helpful tack at times.

As for the Trinity, it is no help that the doctrine of the Trinity is not Biblical, but a later formulation. Each of the persons of the Trinity are found in the Bible, yes. But their relationship as "clarified" by doctrine is not.

I, as one if many, find the doctrine of the Trinity hard to grasp. After wrestling many years to fulfill my duty of preaching the Trinity on Trinity Sunday, this year I am going to be on vacation. I'm not feeling a lot of guilt about it.

I like the in-quotations "clarified". For me the doctrine has not at all clarified the Trinity.

It bothers me that requirement for such doctrinal faith has been the cause for so much division within the church.

> 14 "It also supports the idea that our understanding of God will develop as we develop; "you cannot bear them now" implies that you will be able to bear them at some point in the future."

John- this reminds me of something that Barth used to stress (ie., theology is never static but always dynamic). Theology is not a kind of relic regulated to old dusty books, but is always growing, developing and evolving. I imagine that the power of the HS is the engine that propels theology forward. As an aside, I believe that Barth had a huge influence in many of the South African ecclesiastical leaders connected with the anti-aparthied movement (see the Belhar Confession 1982).

I cannot even imagine what my 3-year old daughter's understanding of me was like. Now, as a 15-year-old, her understanding of me is light-years ahead of where it was just 2 years ago. My heart is filled to overflowing when I imagine how she will be as a young adult, and we can talk, and talk, and talk, and really get to know each other.

Jesus used the example of how we care for our children to show us how much we can expect from God. Not to mention the parables of the land-owner and the workers, etc. These are extremely valuable ways of contemplating our relationship with God, and I take it as permission to use my own changing, growing relationship with my daughter in considering such things as my relationship with God.

The oldest scripture seems to reflect an understanding of God as the all-powerful Father who makes the rules, metes out punishment, and defends the people from outsiders (much as my 3-year-old would probably have seen me). Later scripture begins to show a different kind of God, even at the expense of apparent contradictions with earlier scripture. The NT takes this even further with Christ and the HS, with even more apparent contradictions with the OT regarding the nature of God.

But if my 3-year-old could talk to my 15-year-old, I suspect the contradictions about me would be manifold. I know my memory of my own father from childhood is quite alien to my knowledge of my father today.

I see my own journey towards a fuller understanding of God in this way - some things that seemed clear then must be tossed aside to make room for what God is revealing to me now; what I can bear now.

I see the Church's journey towards a fuller understanding of God in the same way. Though it varies across the planet, I suspect the Church is generally in its teen years with God, having passed through its infancy in the early Biblical writings and it's youth in later Biblical writings. Not that some of its members have not moved much further along than the Body as a whole. This way of looking at it fills me with hope and impatience, both for my own journey and for that of the Church. I have to admit to some envy when I read the works of Christians who are much farther along on their journey. I am in no way certain that I will get to where they are before my time is up.

Os.

Os,

What does that analogy say about the understanding of God that is presented in the scriptures? Is it an understanding of a 3 year old, with the Church now approaching the understanding of a teenager?

Paul suggests that we put away childish things?

ETA
I suspect that some Jews would find themselves in disagreement with the claim that the NT takes things further along than the OT scriptures in presenting a more developed understanding of God.

>20 richardbsmith: What does that analogy say about the understanding of God that is presented in the scriptures? Is it an understanding of a 3 year old, with the Church now approaching the understanding of a teenager?

I think God reveals "what we can bear", and, to some extent, what we can bear is based on our development as His children (individually and in community). I refer to the older Biblical texts and the newer without defining any dividing line - I'm not that far along on my own journey to presume so much. I do know that Deuteronomy seems to have the purpose of expanding upon basic rules laid out in Exodus and Leviticus (God's purpose of the priestly scribes' purpose, I'm not sure); that Christ came to fulfill the law; that a tremendous amount of working out just who Christ was took place in the first four centuries of the Church.

Paul suggests that we put away childish things?

Jesus said "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." The mystical statements of Christ are an ongoing challenge for me. My analogy regarding toddlers, teenagers, and adults was meant to reflect the typical human concept of growth and understanding, not to reflect Biblical statements about children and childish things. I probably muddied the waters instead.

I suspect that some Jews would find themselves in disagreement with the claim that the NT takes things further along than the OT scriptures in presenting a more developed understanding of God.

Agreed. But then again, Jewish thought and maturity on the nature of God has developed/changed considerably in the rabbinical era. I have no problem with the idea that God reveals Himself in different ways to different cultures. Francis S. Collins alludes to God revealing himself at least partially during his study of the human genome and it's relationship to evolution. I doubt that that kind of revelation would be of much use to God when working in the lives of Amazon aboriginals (or the Israelites of the Torah, either). At one time, a brass snake held quite a bit of mystical power in the Tabernacle. And I'm quite confident, given the wisdom from the rabbinic tradition that I've run across, that God is at times revealing himself there in ways that I am not ready to understand.

Os.

~18

"> 14 "It also supports the idea that our understanding of God will develop as we develop; "you cannot bear them now" implies that you will be able to bear them at some point in the future."

John- this reminds me of something that Barth used to stress (ie., theology is never static but always dynamic). Theology is not a kind of relic regulated to old dusty books, but is always growing, developing and evolving. I imagine that the power of the HS is the engine that propels theology forward."

It is not that I am unsympathetic to this view, but I am not quite sure how it works in the standard Christian view, outside of Roman Catholicism and the LDS Church(es).

In Judaism the texts, frankly, are only a jumping off place. The real action has always been in the interpretation of the texts, and the interpretations, not infrequently, appear to contradict the facial meanings of the texts. In Roman Catholicism there has always been Church Traditions, and, in exceptional cases, the Pope's Teaching Power. The Mormons, of course, have continuing revelation from a series of living prophets.

But beyond that, I am afraid I just don't get it. The cited passage from John, for instance, would seem to support some sort of "testimony" based on an "inner light" as preached by the Quakers. But presumably we know where that ends up - with the texts again being relegated to a minor or nonexistent role.

So, can someone help me with this?

There are different viewpoints even within the same writing.

A passage which is often given 1 Corinthians 4.6, "that you may learn by us not beyond what is written," as an argument for a bible only based belief.

Yet just a few verses preceding, 1 Corinthians 2.10-13 or so. "10. But to us God has revealed throuth the spirit; for the spirit searches all things, even the depths of God..."

My personal view on 4.6 is that we are missing something of the point, that Paul is not really calling for a scripture only faith. But the plain reading of that verse does seem to call for a scripture only approach to faith.

Any yet that seems to contrast with many other teachings in the Pauline letters.

ETA
Is there a standard Christian view?

How many denominations and churches are there?

In my Sunday study group, no one agrees on a standard Christian view, though I think I am the most unstandard of the bunch.

~22

Let me just add to post ~22 that this is part of a general problem I have when Christians start talking about the HS. It seems to me that they are claiming powers of prophesy (direct communication with G-d), but they either tell me that this isn't a correct interpretation or that, of course it is correct, but so what.

The "so what" in my view is that (the Mormons aside) there are only a few reported guys and gals who talked to G-d, and the situation was previously considered as so rare that they got their own books in the the anthology called "the Bible." I guess I just don't "get" how this has somehow been transformed into "something all believers do."

I am not sure of the question. And I am sure that I will not be sure of the answer.

But I think that guidance and insights from the spirit of God, or from the Holy Spirit, Third Person of the Trinity, are probably not the same kind of talking to God that say Moses or Abraham enjoyed.

~25

I think that is the question, but I would weaken the acknowledged Prophetic part of the (equation?) by pointing out that not all Prophets were Abraham or Moses - that is, they were "instructed" by G-d, but did not meet him "face to face" or otherwise. Well, maybe Samuel, but the rest were pretty much messengers and not much of anything more. Now I understand how the Apostles (minus Paul) might want to make some such claim to Prophetic status, but I don't see how Tom, Dick and Mary Christian can make it in a meaningful way.

Understand, I am NOT talking about "guidance from G-d" in some general and nebulous way, I am specifically talking about the claims made above - that G-d will give some sort of "continuing revelation" to those who heed to Him or that he will reveal what a text "really means" (as opposed to "arguably means"). That seems to me to be considerably "over the edge," and, if it is not, I would be interested in how one gets to that place without falling into fundamentalism.

I have heard people speak about direct guidance after prayerful reflection with language such as "God spoke to me."

I think that is only language that describes a something like a peace that is related to a particular direction. I think it is a language preference in certain circles to describe something you have felt, something I have felt, and something they have felt. And when I speak of certain circles I am including some of those in my Sunday study group.

I have heard the phrasing that God spoke to them over a particular decision or direction. It is not language that I use, though the method of prayer I do use.

And, hey, I like Paul.

>22ff Thanks, lawecon.

I am not quite sure how it works in the standard Christian view

I echo Richard's question in >23 richardbsmith:: "Is there a standard Christian view?" If there is, it certainly isn't the view of modern US evangelical fundamentalist Christians. And saying "outside of Roman Catholicism" is basically saying "outside of the largest Christian denomination". I suspect that Orthodox Christians, many other eastern rites and much of Anglicanism would also fall in this "outside"; I'm not sure about Lutherans.

While individuals may have direct experience of God, I don't think that is part of universal revelation. God speaks through God's Church (in the wider sense), and any revelation is tried and tested against both scripture and tradition.

~28

Well, all of that is fine, but I'm getting somewhat of the same disturbing "vibes" that I was getting in the thread on homosexuals and the Church, i.e., "everyone" seems to know what "the Christian position" is until some outsider comes along and starts asking core questions. Then many seem to have quite different answers.

That probably makes some sense when one is talking about a rapidly changing topic like Christian attitudes toward homosexuality, but it seem that it should be a lot less true when speaking of core Christian doctrines - like the nature of and the role of the Holy Spirit.

I think that what is really going on here, John, is what has been going on in Judaism for at least 50 years (some would say for 5,000 years). You have different groups of people who have materially different belief systems, and really speak quite separate languages of faith, all identifying themselves by a common label. When someone points that out, some readily agree (e.g., fuzzi and the Berean Group's repeated distinction between "Bible believing Christians" and "those others") while others want to close ranks and contend that there is really no fundamental differences between Christians (the term "fundamental" being used advisedly).

Frankly, this time I'm on fuzzi's side, although I find her more general doctrinal tenants to be absurd. I think that we should all be more accurate and more honest and simply tell the world that there are virtually no points of similarity between Berean Christians and Roman Catholic Christians or between Reform Jews and the Haredim. These groups, the Christian groups and the Jewish groups, respectively, may (or may not) arise from common historical roots, but the existing plants and flowers today are far different from one another.

Even on a topic such as ritual, there appears to be little similarity between a Catholic Mass and a pentacostal prayer service (to say nothing of a traditional Quaker prayer meeting). Similarly, there is virtually no similarity between what goes on in a Classical Reform service and a Haredim service. (Yes, some of the portions of the service may be in Hebrew in each, but even most of the core prayers and the order of the service have been altered.)

Lawecon,
I'm glad you are around to poke at the weak spots, sometimes. You make me think.

The Trinity is a difficult concept, a 'mystery' as the Church says. As our resident (my parish) theologian has commented, the Church Fathers wouldn't have made this stuff up. It's too strange and inexplicable. They had to wrestle with what Jesus revealed.

The best explication I've come across is by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. And I have to re-read it periodically to try to hold on to it.

>29 lawecon: You have different groups of people who have materially different belief systems, and really speak quite separate languages of faith, all identifying themselves by a common label.

Actually I don't really disagree with you there, lawecon. The gulf between what I would call "mainstream" Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, other eastern rites, others which I don't know and/or can't think of) on the one hand and the US Christians of the new "saved" "born again" ilk is enormous. I was querying your use of the term "standard Christian view". I would say, though, that there still is a rather broad "mainstream" Christian view which is held by far more Christians than the modern US evangelical variety and which also has historical consistency (albeit with developments). This is thus still likely to be broadly useful as a "standard" for Christianity.

>22 lawecon:

When one talks about interpretation I suppose that there are better ways to interpret Scripture and that there are "worse" ways. Many of the early Christians (ie. School of Alexandria {people like Origen})employed the use of allegory when interpreting the Bible. Allegory is not always bad in itself but it does lend itself to a more ambiguous reading of the text. St. Augustine for example (a big fan of allegory) wrote a commentary on the Good Samaritan and goes into great detail about how the GS represents Jesus who saves the "lost soul" of the traveller. Many scholars are cautious of interpreting in this way as it is probably wasn't Jesus' intent in telling the parable. Another common misuse of allegory is to take ambigious and seldom mentioned figures in the Bible (i.e. Melchizedek) and develop intricate and flowering interpretations of scripture surrounding these characters.

A safer bet for biblical interpretation is to use typology. For example, biblical interpreters often talk about Moses being a "type" of Jesus, or the crossing of the Reed Sea as a "type" of baptism.

Obviously there are so many other ways to interpret the Bible. These days many scholars employ the use of historical criticism, existentialism, feminist theology, black theology, liberation theology, political theology, etc... All of these areas can contribute to biblical interpretation. St. Paul even used allegory (ie. the fruit of the spirit, Abraham and Sarah, etc...). He also used typology. It is probably always a good rule of thumb to recognize the limitations of the tools we use when interpreting the Bible. A helpful book on the subject is Grant and Tracy's a Short History of Interpreting the Bible.

The question on how the Holy Spirit guides us as we interpret Scripture is a subject all to itself. Catholics and Protestants greatly differ on the role of the Holy Spirit when it comes to interpretation. I hope that we could all agree that we need the HS to enlighten our minds and penetrate our hearts, and join us together as a people as we engage with the Scriptures.

> 14: johnthefireman

I heartily agree. I don't understand how so many churches jettison tradition. I can't remember where I read this - I think it was an interview with religious studies scholar James Carse - someone said that one could walk into many American churches (especially the Evangelical or nondenominational type) and get the impression that Jesus died last week.

> 16: walk2work:

I once set 2 Corinthians 10-13 - a very hard to comprehend rhetorical conceit Paul made - into verse. (Just hit 'enter' and 'tab' a lot.) It suddenly became comprehensible. Not only did it bring out Paul's rhetorical artistry (esp. through use of repetition) but also made the logic of his "fool's speech" easier to follow. John being the most 'logical' of the gospels (discourses vs. parables), setting him to verse would make it much easier to follow than dense prose.

Anyone know if this has been done?

> 25

My impression is that whether or not a Christian community certifies something as "guidance from God" depends on how momentous the revelation is. Think of it like a Cliffordian dilemma: how much does accepting the truth or falsity of a given proposition impact society?

For example, someone might claim guidance from God that they should ask their girlfriend to marry them, or they should quit their job and go back to school to pursue a career that is a calling. Of course there are no committees to certify whether or not these are correct guidances from God.

But things that have a more prime facie big impact on the community get more scrutiny. Think of the Catholic Church's careful investigation to certify whether or not someone should be beatified or declared blessed. Even in the doctrine of papal infallibility, my understanding is that whatever is declared infallible also has to have the consent of the bishops and 'the faithful.' In these cases there might be a more careful discernment of God's guidance, and this guidance must come to many people before it is accepted as valid. Discernment is communal.

Make sense?

>34 JDHomrighausen: Discernment is communal.

Agreed that for personal matters discernment can be personal, as you say, but that for "universal" matters it is the faith community which discerns and teaches. That is one of the things which separates the traditional mainstream churches (I know, someone will challenge the use of the word "mainstream" but I can't think of a more convenient one for now) from the new evangelical "born again" "saved" Christians who believe it is all about personal interpretation of the bible under God's guidance and seem rather suspicious of communal discernment, which apparently comes from "men" and not from God. If I am misrepresenting fuzzi and others of that ilk from recent threads, my apologies and I look forward to some clarification.

>30 2wonderY: (and previous posts)

So is there really such a chasm between Christians with the doctrine of the Trinity, and, say Hindus with mulitple manifestations of the Godhead? I know they are not the same, but doesn't the Trinity provide the opportunity for the two religions to understand each other better and, possibly, to see God working within each, but in different ways? Just typing a thought that popped into my head moments ago, so I know it's not well thought through.

Os.

>36 Osbaldistone: Interesting thought. I understand the Trinity as a statement that the essence of God is community and relationship, which is a challenge to us to live in/as God by living in community and relationship. Maybe other religions also have a sense of the same truth?

from Fr. Richard Rohr:

"We are threatened by anything that we cannot control, that part of God “which blows where It will” (John 3:8) and which our theologies and churches can neither predict nor inhibit."

and

"We look for God “out there” and the Spirit is always “in here” and “in between” everything."

>38 2wonderY: I've always loved that image of the Holy Spirit blowing where she wills. On Pentecost Sunday last weekend we sang "Spirit of God in the clear running water":

And blow where you will.
Blow, blow, blow till I be
But the breath of the Spirit blowing in me

~32

Thank you for the recommendation. I will look into obtaining a copy.

Even within Evangelical circles, there is a lot of disagreement about the role of the Holy Spirit. Pentecostals and some other denominations believe the Holy Spirit speaks through 'tongues' and prophecy, even today. The 'gifts of the Holy Spirit' as they are called, are still present. Other denominations are more sceptical. But most Evangelical Protestants agree that the Holy Spirit guides our understanding of scripture.

It's understandable that the Catholic church would downplay the role of the Holy Spirit, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. After all, if God communicated directly to Christians today, through prophecy, wouldn't that challenge church authority, and the authority of the revered 'church fathers'?

I agree, though, that there is a huge gulf between what different denominations believe. Within Protestantism, starting in the 17th Century, there was a kind of second Reformation, when dissenters from Anglican and Lutheran tradition broke away to form their own congregations. It is these groups (Mennonite, Presbyterian, Baptist, Quaker, Brethren and later Methodist, etc.) from which the modern Evangelical movement has evolved. In many ways, Lutherans and Anglicans are closer to Catholic traditions and beliefs than to the latter Pentecostal denominations.

I'd like to think we can all get along, and I've attended many non-denominational churches which have been quite harmonious. But even those churches had basic tenets on which all the members agreed (such as the infallibility of the Bible as the Word of God).

>41 madpoet: It's understandable that the Catholic church would downplay the role of the Holy Spirit, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

I'm not sure that the Catholic Church "downplays" the role of the Holy Spirit, simply that when it comes to teaching it sees the Spirit working through the community rather than through individuals.

I'd like to think we can all get along

So would I. I've spent a lot of my life working ecumenically, in a milieu which includes evangelical churches. However it does seem as if there are some who do not value ecumenism and are very exclusive.

~42

Tell me, why would you want to "get along" with those who value quite different things than you and vice-a-versa?

A says "My faith tells me THE TRUTH. It is my duty to bring THE TRUTH to men and women (but mostly men) everywhere, lest they fall into error and descend into eternal Hell Fire. The sword may not be desirable in the abstract, but it often necessary for a Christian nation to conquer a heathen one for everyone's advantage."

B says: "My faith makes me pray and quest for truth, but I do not claim to know truth in any but the most imperfect way. All men suffer from error and sin, but I hope to alleviate some of this suffering through good works and kindness. Force is the domain of the ignorant and should be resorted to only in the most extreme circumstances for immediate self-defense."

Are A and B Christians? Apparently they each think so and at least one of them wants to "get along" with the other.
I can understand this attitude among a persecuted people who have to unite and ignore their differences for some degree of self-protection. I have a great deal of difficulty understanding it among the mighty.

I suspect what is going on is a form of self-delusion. Christian fundamentalists are no more the "brothers" of Christian nonfundamentalists than Jewish fundamentalists are the brothers of nonfundamentalist Jews. Barbarians should not be welcomed and embraced by civilized people, regardless of what they call themselves.

>43 lawecon: Well, firstly Jesus teaches that we should be one. That is an ideal which we probably won't attain, but it's worth a try.

Secondly, despite quite radical differences in doctrine, there may be ways in which we can work together on things we do agree upon. This is true not only in ecumenism but also inter-faith dialogue. I did some work with a progressive Muslim leader in South Africa and his attitude was, "Let's not even talk about theology but let's work together on human rights". Similarly I was once on the fringes of some Christian-Buddhist dialogue where the monks of both sides found that they were on common ground when they talked about meditation and contemplation but had absolutely nothing in common theologically.

And thirdly, I don't think we're supposed to be "mighty". The Church Militant and the Church Triumphant are not the models I identify with. The Church as a Pilgrim People on a journey of exploration, spreading the Good News of God's Kingdom of justice and peace, yes. Humility, yes. Preferential option for the poor and marginalised, yes. Might, no.

The Roman Catholic Church claims all people of good will as part of the family. In the Catechism, it speaks of those who are beyond the visible church -
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/church3.html#Apostolic

The Universal Church includes those who deny their membership, for whatever reason. Sorry, it's not possible to divorce this God except by a total turning away from even the concept of Love.

Though it's sad in some ways that we remain visibly divided, I try to look upon the diversity as a treasure house with many rooms. Each faith claim holds some part of God's beauty in trust.

Each has strengths that other portions may lack - in doctrine, worship, song and praise and prayer.

>43 lawecon:. And who are the 'barbarians'? Whoever you happen to disagree with? You do understand that 'they' probably feel exactly the same way about you?

Many Christians (and probably many Jews) don't feel too comfortable with either A or B. We want a socially active and community focused church, which is not exclusive of anyone, but we aren't comfortable with the 'don't worry everyone will be saved, all beliefs are equally valid, there is no real Truth' wishy-washy attitude, either.

Sometimes I want to say to group A: "It's not just about saving 'souls', but the church needs to care for the whole person. And you need to realize God cares about other people besides white men."

And to group B I want to say: "You're missing the other part of Jesus' message. Salvation is for those who believe in Jesus and accept Him as their savior. But how can they accept Jesus if they haven't heard of Him? Jesus' last command to his disciples was to go out and tell the world the good news. Why aren't you doing that?"

Group A seems to believe in faith without works, which as James told us, is dead.

Group B seems to believe in works without faith. (Or that it doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you are 'doing acts of kindness.')

Both faith and works are part of a healthy Christian life. You need both.

>46 madpoet: "Both faith and works are part of a healthy Christian life. You need both."

I'm guessing you are not claiming that works gets you saved. Action is a response to true faith. And if we act in accord with God's will, the inevitable result is a more heavenly environment here.

>45 2wonderY: The Universal Church includes those who deny their membership, for whatever reason. Sorry, it's not possible to divorce this God except by a total turning away from even the concept of Love.

VOCATUS ATQUE
NON VOCATUS
DEUS ADERIT

from Carl Jung's gravestone - roughly, bidden or unbidden, God is present.

Os.

Of the three persons of the Trinity, it seems to me that, paradoxically perhaps, the Holy Spirit is the most likely for us to confirm scientifically, particularly in light of Dean Hamer's research published in The God Gene, where the author contends that one's predisposition toward spirituality is influenced by genetic factors, and more controversially, proposes that the VMAT2 gene is one of many potential genes that impinge on spirituality. VMAT2 encodes a transporter protein that imports several monoamine neurotransmitters into vesicles in the brain. Thus, an alteration in the transporter could potentially affect the levels of multiple types of neurotransmitters, resulting in altered brain function.

>49 jburlinson:
My ancient Hebrew is pretty rusty, but I think the Hebrew word usually translated as "Holy Spirit", if translated literally, would be "monoamine neurotransmitter" ;-)

Os.

~44

Your second point is good, but totally sidesteps the issue. Presumably a Muslim is not a Christian. The question is whether all Christians are Christians.

Your third point is also good, but again runs up against the fact that there are many many "Christians" who don't agree with those attitudes.

I won't comment on your first point, both because I can't claim to know and because I doubt you know either.

~45

"he Roman Catholic Church claims all people of good will as part of the family. In the Catechism, it speaks of those who are beyond the visible church -
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/church3.html#Apostolic

"The Universal Church includes those who deny their membership, for whatever reason."

So, this is sort of like Mormon baptism? I am a fundamentalist Christian and think that the Roman Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon and the Pope is the Anti-Christ. I am a Jew or Muslim and think that Jesus was but a man. But, nevermind, I'm in the Church anyway.

I don't think I like this concept. It sounds rather like the Inquisition resurrected.

>47 2wonderY: "I'm guessing you are not claiming that works gets you saved. Action is a response to true faith. And if we act in accord with God's will, the inevitable result is a more heavenly environment here."

Right, it is God's grace which saves us, not works:

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast." -Ephesians 2:8-9

But if you have faith, you will show it by how you live your life (your actions).

"What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?" -James 2:14

>52 lawecon: " It sounds rather like the Inquisition resurrected."

Not at all. Nothing is required or expected. Think of it more like a family bond. You can leave home, but you can't change your genetics, or how those you left claim you as theirs.

~54

So, I am a member of your family whether I want to be a member of your family or not? How, ah........

(55) We agree...what are the odds?

It is written in the Bible that God 'calls' people to Himself, but a person is not forced to come to God, to believe in Him against his/her will. You have to want it, and ask God for it. If you don't want God, you are free to reject Him.

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not! - Luke 13:34

Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. - Acts 7:51

> 55. So, I am a member of your family whether I want to be a member of your family or not?

That's how families work. It's not all bad, though. More people I can hit up for a loan.

~57

Now I'm convinced I don't like this doctrine.

It's a patronising doctrine. I choose not to be a Roman Catholic. Their documents on one hand claim me as a person of good will, but in other places calls me one of the "separated brethren".

Those who believe in 'universal salvation' often quote the following verses:

'Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.' Phillipians 2:9-11

And a similar verse in Isaiah 45:23

'By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear.'

But it does not say that those who do so will necessarily be saved, as this universal, final confession appears to take place at the final judgement (Romans 14:10-12).

On the other hand, there are numerous verses saying quite clearly what you must do to be saved.

'That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.' -Romans 10:9

See also Acts 16:31, Mark 16:16, John 3:18, John 3:36, Acts 2:38

All these verses say you must believe in Jesus to be saved, and if you don't, you won't be. There is a clear choice presented. Salvation depends on accepting Christ, and is not automatic or forced on the unrepentant.

On the other hand, there are numerous verses saying quite clearly what you must do to be saved.

'That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.' -Romans 10:9

Sounds like work to me.

(61) Okay, whatever, think as you like...even that 'believing' is a work.

But faith/belief is all that is required for salvation, no dunking in water, no eating of bread and wine, no tithing or going to church.

Just belief.

Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. - John 9:35-38

You also cannot live with your father's wife.

So it is: believe, confess with your mouth, and not live with your father's wife.

Is Arius in heaven?

~62

And therein is the major reason that many people not only reject Christianity but find it adherents to be dangerously irresponsible.

(65) And in response, I would suggest that people not follow the adherents, but follow only Jesus Christ.

His followers sure do get things messed up at times...

Does someone follow Jesus by going where the spirit leads, by doing the things in the bible (the OT, the NT, or both) by taking guidance from the church and the full community of believers?

>67 richardbsmith:
Yes.

My longer answer - it's risky for any human to follow only their heart, even if it seems to be of the Spirit, simply because humans are very good at hearing what they want to hear. The safer path, and the one that the NT seems to be laying out for us, is to listen for the 'still, small voice' while in dialogue with scripture and fellow Christians. Being the ecuminicalist that I am, I would suggest one include Christians from other denominations in that dialogue, and even caring, thinking, and well-informed non-believers (such as we often see in this group), for that matter.

I was advised when a young adult that it is wise for a Christian to always have three groups of relationships in place throughout your spiritual journey - Mentors (wisdom from those who are further along in their journey than you), peers (sharing experiences with those who are where you are in your journey), and novices (not the right word, but I've lost it - you guiding those who are travelling the part of the journey that you have already passed through). This has the ring of solid, wise advice, whether referring to your faith journey, your professional career, your education, or even your marriage. Thus, one is always a student, a 'classmate', and a teacher/mentor. The Bible, I believe, is a matchless resource in all three of these relationship groups. I'm not convinced that one should 'interpret' the Bible without at least some of these fellow travellers involved. Not that you shouldn't study the Bible at home on your own, but when you start to get a strong idea of direction, revelation, etc., sharing that with others can help avoid self delusion, or help solidify or grow your understanding.

Os.

>68 Osbaldistone: Thanks, Os. Wise, thoughtful and charitable words.

> 64. Is Arius in heaven?

Yes, but he's confined to "old town" heaven, or "historic heaven" -- the heaven set up by God before Jesus arrived with all his newfangled improvements.

But Arius is after Jesus set up all the rooms for everyone.

>60 madpoet:

Very clearly explained.

I had wondered how universal salvation could be justified. However, even the devil recognises who Christ is and will one day be forced to "bow the knee".

> 72. So, if even the devil will "bow the knee," will the devil not be saved?

> 60, 72.

And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. -- Luke 2:10-11

ALL people. Not SOME people. ALL people.

Then there was the couple on the way to their wedding who were tragically killed in a car accident. When they reached the Pearly Gates they asked St Peter whether it would be possible for them to get married in Heaven, as they had just missed out on earth. He looked a bit flustered but said he'd try to organise it. For the next three years they reminded him from time to time, until finally he came to them one day and told them they could now get married. Sure enough, they were married the next day by a priest.

Things went well for a couple of years but sadly their marriage fell apart, and they went to Peter and asked if it was possible to get a divorce in Heaven. After uttering an obscene oath such as only former fishermen are capable of, he said, "It took me three years to find a priest in heaven; how long do you think it is going to take me to find a bloody lawyer?"

Another contribution from the store of old Catholic jokes, one of our greatest contributions to the ecumenical endeavour.

>73 jburlinson:

That's my point. Bowing the knee doesn't equate to being saved. It merely means they will be forced to acknowledge who God is in the end.

>74 jburlinson: "ALL people. Not SOME people. ALL people."

And I would say it is good news to all people, but that not all people will take it up. Scientific breakthroughs on how to live a healthy and long life are good news to all people, but not everyone will follow the advice and live longer.

> 75 My favorite story about the Holy Spirit: a young classmate of my son, battling the unwelcome pronouncement that animals don't go to heaven, left priest speechless with his challenge, "Yeah, well, how about the Holy Spirit? He's a BIRD, and HE lives in heaven!" :)

> 76. If it makes you feel better to come up with analogies that support your conviction that people, many people, are on their way to hell, well, I just don't know what to say, other than to urge you to re-consider.

And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. 1 Cor. 13:13

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it." Mathew 7:13-14.

Does that sound like everyone is going to be saved? The very next verse warns about false prophets (Mathew 7:15). The universalists remind me of the false prophets of Jeremiah's day who said the people had nothing to worry about, lulling them into complacency and a false sense of security while the enemy was at the gates of Jerusalem.

Many people will miss the chance to repent and actually be saved because they listen to the 'universal salvation' crowd, and think everyone will be saved anyways, regardless, so why not just go ahead and enjoy a sin-filled life?

Or why bother spreading the gospel, and telling others how to be saved, if they will all automatically be saved in the end?

What is narrow about the gate?

> 79. why bother spreading the gospel, and telling others how to be saved, if they will all automatically be saved in the end?

Because you love them?

After all, "gospel" means good news, doesn't it? Why not share the good news that all are saved? If that is indeed our gift by the grace of God, why not proclaim it?

"Fear not," the angel said. After careful study of that phrase, I take it to mean, "do not be afraid." I don't think it's my job to go around trying to frighten people.

Do you honestly believe you can save people by scaring them?

Jesus is the gate.

"I am the gate. If anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved" -John 10:9

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me."
-John 14:6

It's not a popular message. It never has been. People want the easy way. They want to follow the crowd. But the crowd are lemmings, running over a cliff. They are rushing into a trap, and they don't know it.

Meanwhile the false shepherds keep telling the sheep that any and every path will lead to salvation. 'There will even be atheists in heaven! You don't have to believe in God at all!'

But there will be some atheists in heaven. The atheists who change their mind and choose the right path, before it is too late.

""Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me."
-John 14:6

It's not a popular message. It never has been. People want the easy way. They want to follow the crowd. But the crowd are lemmings, running over a cliff. They are rushing into a trap, and they don't know it. "

Yes, indeed. There are those who will fail to keep Kosher and otherwise abide by the Law, although Jesus was quite clear that this must be done.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5: 17-20

But as you say,:....they want the easy way.They want to follow the crowd. But the crowd are lemming, over a cliff....."

So, hopefully you will be able to explain to Jesus why you ran over that cliff when he comes back. We love you and wouldn't want you to suffer eternal Hell Fire. Repent now!!

Do you think the gate mentioned in the Matthew reference is the same gate mentioned in John reference?

I asked a few posts ago, and repeat.

Is Arius in heaven?

>84 richardbsmith: It is not for me to say which individuals are in heaven. Only God knows that. I'll only discuss principles.

The Bible does speak to how to be saved, and what is necessary for salvation. And yes, the two gates are the same.

Look, these are the basics. Milk for baby Christians. If you don't understand salvation, how can you discuss more weighty theological issues? You are not ready for the "meat", as Paul calls it. But you want to discuss the nature of the Trinity?

Discussing the weightier issues might be a way to change the subject of salvation.

We can stick with salvation. Maybe I can be weaned eventually to speak of the nature of the Trinity.

Do you think the gate in Matthew 7.13 is the same gate that is in John10.9?

I am trying to understand what is narrow about the gate in Matthew 7.13.

About Arius's salvation.

I think you can answer the question whether he is in heaven, just based on the principles in which you are well grounded.

Arius believed that there was a time when the son was not.

Does his belief meet the standards of the narrow door?

>81 jburlinson: "Do you honestly believe you can save people by scaring them?"

If someone is in danger, what should you do? Tell them, or keep quiet for fear of offending them?

Jonah saved the people of Ninevah by scaring them. Sometimes it's good to be a little scared. How many of the prophets in the Old Testament went around saying "Don't worry, be happy"? Only the false ones.

Most scientists say we should be worried about climate change. A few scientists say it's not a problem, or it's just part of a natural cycle. Who do you believe? Who is really speaking in the public's interest? I don't know about you, but I'd rather hear an inconvenient truth than a comfortable lie.

Before every financial crisis there are a few economists who say something like, "You know what? I think maybe these subprime mortgages aren't such a good idea." Or: "These Icelandic banks look a little shaky to me." These whistleblowers or 'doomsayers' are never popular during the good times, and only afterward, when things blow up, do people listen to them (too late, of course).

In Matthew it looks to me like the gate is a high ethic standard. Like being perfect as your Father is perfect. Like not being angry with a brother. Like not looking at a woman lustfully. Like cutting off the right hand that causes you to sin. Like having a righteousness that exceeds that of the Pharisees.

The gate in Matthew seems to refer to the ethics that are the subject of the Sermon of which that verse is part.

The gate in Matthew does not seem to me to refer to a symbolic gate that is referenced in another, likely later, gospel. The references to gates in John seem to have different connotation than the ethics of Matthew.

ETA
In reference to my baby Christian status and not quite being ready for the meat of the Trinity. I actually do not think I will ever be mature enough to approach an understanding of the Trinity. So I am not really interested in discussing the nature of the Trinity.

I am however interested in discussing the apparently less meaty topic of salvation.

Re: salvation
It has been suggested that ALL law in the OT and NT must be followed to 'qualify' for salvation. But the NT says we all fall short and only by grace are we saved. Jesus said "I have not come to abolish them [the Law or the Prophets] but to fulfill them". So, just as he conquered death so we don't have to, he has fulfilled the Law so we don't have to, right? That's why he left us with "Love God and love your neighbor" and "go throughout the world preaching the Good News", rather than a long list of rules to follow as in Moses' day. The early church made it quite clear that the Jewish laws were no longer required for Christ's followers, right?

Os.

Paul sure gives a big list of things not to do. Eating the bread without discerning the body. We must not be immoral, idolatrous, adulterous, sexually immoral, thieving, greedy, drunken, revilous, or seizing.

Those that do those things are not inheriters of the kingdom. I can only assume regardless of their confessed position on Jesus as Christ.

Plus you cannot sleep with your father's wife, and if you are a woman it is a good thing to cover your head.

Even loving God and neighbor (which BTW was OT before it was NT) is a commandment of what to do, that is beyond mere believing.

The Sermon quoted from in madpoet's comment 79 also informs us that not everyone who calls Jesus "Lord" will inherit the kingdom.

I think there is more doing in faith than most people are inclined to believe.

As an aside, I think the saving faith is actually the faith of Christ, not our faith in Christ. That is anyway how I read the passages in Paul's letters that relate to this matter.

What does following Jesus mean? I asked that a few comments ago.

My thoughts on this question:

In Gospels Jesus is shown to suggest it means to do the things the Father commands and to do what bears fruit.

His faith has provided salvation. Now go and do the things commanded otherwise you have been calling him Lord but not bearing the fruit that the kingdom demands.

"Whoever does the will of God"

Does is it matter what you do, or only what you believe?

I think Jesus and Paul both teach it matters what you do.

ETA
To correct "is" to it.

A lot of the conversation about those who are saved and those who are not seems to suggest that all those who don't follow Jesus are idle backsliders, lazy people who just can't be bothered to do what deep in their hearts they really know to be the right thing. That is a dangerous and inaccurate caricature of billions of sincere Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, followers of African traditional religion and yes, atheists and agnostics, who are people of good will trying to do the best they can according to their own understanding of the divine, just as we Christians are also trying to do according to our understanding. Even Christians disagree amongst ourselves how to interpret scripture and tradition on the issue of salvation. I suspect that God's unconditional love and mercy, which surpasseth all human understanding, is going to trump the more legalistic approaches to salvation.

~91

All that is very nice, and is undoubtedly the interpretation of one form of early Christianity. (Apparently, there were other forms of early Christianity that disagreed.) That is not, however, what Matthew reports Jesus himself having said about his mission. Nor is it what Jesus and his apostles including, apparently, Paul himself did. As I'm sure you know.

So you can choose between the interpretations of one form of Gentile based early Christianity that held, based solely on the interpretation of a dream of one of its leaders, that you are free from the requirements of the Law (or, as has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread - some of them) or you can come down on the side of all the other evidence.

But remember, if you are a NT literalist you must choose right, or you will be damned forever in eternal Hell Fire. (Strange, isn't it, how the purported literalists pick and choose what they will affirm in the literal meaning of the text?)

"So, just as he conquered death so we don't have to, he has fulfilled the Law so we don't have to, right?"

As you well know, that is not what the text says. It is an imposition on the text from doctrine created at least a century after Jesus was crucified. But if you choose to believe that, that is what you will believe. According to your other beliefs, however, you'd better be right. Your G-d is not forgiving of such fundamental errors and a lifetime of resulting sin.

>>93 John5918:

It is truly difficult to come into a discussion 92 comments down, I have read a little here and there.
Having said that, I must say, that I am in agreement with your statement above.

We Christians are not to judge others.

Behind every strangers face is a potential brother or sister in the Lord. And, truly, who knows the heart of men?
Salvation is a gift from God. Never should we assume that others do not deserve it, or others will not change.
We just don't know what others think/feel at any one time.

Now, on to the topic at hand: holy spirit. I will first describe another spirit mentioned in scripture.

The scriptures speak about the "spirit" of the world. This is the damaging, impelling force that has mankind acting without regard for the will of God. What are some of the characteristics? "reacting to situations on the basis of pride, manifesting a rebellious attitude toward authority, giving free rein to the desires of the fallen flesh, allowing one's life to be dominated by the desire to possess what one sees, giving vent to one's emotions in abusive speech and violent acts, giving to humans and things the worshipful honor that belongs to God, basing one's hopes and fears on that humans are able to do".

God's holy spirit, to me at least, is that which is divine. It is a force for good. It gives us the strength to endure in this wicked world. Hence Jesus, who is the head of the congregation, encourages us to ask for holy spirit, and promises us he will give it. (Luke 11:13) If we are the kind that see God's holy spirit as a force in our lives, then we should be manifesting it by our speech, actions, and godly devotion. I do not see it as a third person. I am of the opinion that it is a force, God's active force.

My apologies if I have repeated anything previously said. Or, if I am out of place commenting on this thread.

I find this discussion very interesting.

> 85. Look, these are the basics. Milk for baby Christians. If you don't understand salvation, how can you discuss more weighty theological issues?

Baby Christians are the best kind. I love them; they're so cute and they say and do the most adorable things. Jesus apparently liked them too, advising the grown-ups to be more like them.

BTW -- Do you understand salvation? I wonder, since you say: "It is not for me to say which individuals are in heaven. Only God knows that."

>78 jburlinson:
If it makes you feel better to come up with analogies that support your conviction that people, many people, are on their way to hell, well, I just don't know what to say, other than to urge you to re-consider.

It doesn't make me feel better. The whole issue makes me very very sad. I would love to be wrong, but I honestly believe that's what the Bible teaches. You take a couple of verses and use them to over-rule other Biblical teaching. My analogy shows that the verses you use can be interpreted in another way.

I'm not trying to convince you because I want people to be judgemental, or because I think Christianity should be an exclusive club, but because it's a matter of life and death. The more Christians who are taken in by this deception, the less effort will be made in evangelism, and the more people will perish.

> 97. The more Christians who are taken in by this deception, the less effort will be made in evangelism, and the more people will perish.

Not at all. The more people who believe in the truly good news of universal salvation, the more joyful spirits there will be. The more joyful spirits, the more evangelism and fearlessness. The more evangelism and fearlessness, the better examples. The better examples, the more people will be drawn to the good news -- the kingdom of heaven right here on earth.

Harping (pun intended) on hell and damnation only alienates people or makes them nervous. Nervous people might profess faith in Christ through fear (see The Rage Against God), but have they really experienced the kingdom of heaven when they do that?

Who was the better evangelist -- St. Francis or Savonarola?

Jesus harped on Hell more than He preached on Heaven.

I suppose you don't like His methods...

~99

It is good that you have surveyed the full range of Jesus' preaching and done a statistical study of this sort. I guess that is the advantage of talking daily to the HS. The rest of us just have to make do with fragmentary compilations of some of the things he may have said compiled by other people 50-150 years after he was crucified. We are, obviously, at a great disadvantage.

> 99. Jesus harped on Hell more than He preached on Heaven.

Interesting comment. How would you quantify that? It's certainly not my experience of the gospels.

From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Matthew 4:17. If He was harping on damnation, wouldn't he have said: "Repent: or go to hell."? And yet, according to Matthew, he said something quite different.

Don't you like his message?

>97 eclecticdodo: Well said.

Jburlinson, and others: I understand where you're coming from. I don't like it either when preachers are always talking about Hell, and nothing else. But to pretend it doesn't exist, or that there is no danger of anyone going there, is to deceive yourself, and others. You aren't doing anyone any favors by giving them false security.

There was a man a few years ago, Timothy Treadwell, who filmed nature documentaries. He was filming one about grizzly bears in Alaska. But he was too careless: he didn't treat the bears with the proper respect and caution. Other bear researchers warned him, but he ignored them. In the end, he and his girlfriend were killed and partially eaten by a bear.

That's what lack of proper respect and fear of danger leads to. And Hell is a very real danger.

Jesus' references to Hell (Gehenna) is an interesting study:
Mt 5.22

Mt 5.29, 5.30, Mt 18.9 Mk 9.43, 45

Mt 10.28 Lk 12.5

Mt 23.33

Perhaps also related are the parables about not being able to join in the feast at the coming of the kingdom. We can look at those as well.

Fear is a healthy emotion: it keeps a person from doing those things that would end in a tragic or painful manner.

Mt 3.10 the Baptizer talks about bearing fruit or being burned as chaff
Mt 5.22 if you say "You fool" you may go to Gehenna of fire

Mt 5.29 and others cut off the body part that causes you to sin

Mt 10.28 fear who can destroy the soul as well as the body, so do not sin

Mt 23.33 hypocritical religious leaders will not escape the judgement of Gehenna

>92 richardbsmith: and 94

I should have made it more clear that my post was in the form of a couple of questions because I wanted to ask questions. These are positions for which I've seen some very strong theological arguments, set clearly against the positions posted here that failure to clearly understand and follow all that the Bible commands could mean eternal damnation.

My sense is that Christ comes down somewhere between these two. Yes, he gave us some pretty strong words in some of his parables and direct statements. But he also seems to be trying to tell us that we WILL fall short, but that salvation is still available from a loving God. Most on this thread seem to at least appreciate the difficulty of apparently conflicting scripture on such subjects.

Anyway, perhaps the post feeds the discussion in a healthy way.

>92 richardbsmith: richardbsmith As an aside, I think the saving faith is actually the faith of Christ, not our faith in Christ.

I sure hope so. I have a lot more confidence in his faith that in my own.

Os.

My question then given the quick and dirty review in 102 and 104 of Jesus' teaching about Gehenna:

Are these demands for ethical behavior or demands for a profession of faith in Jesus that determine judgement for Gehenna?

>94 lawecon:

But remember, if you are a NT literalist you must choose right, or you will be damned forever in eternal Hell Fire. (Strange, isn't it, how the purported literalists pick and choose what they will affirm in the literal meaning of the text?)

I think the literalists are generally do conclude that many (if not most) will be damned. So I don't understand how your parenthetical relates to the main sentence here. I think literalists do pick and choose - at least as to what they read as metaphor and what they read as history - but I'm not sure I understand the relevence here. If I've missed an important point, perhaps some clarification. If not, I'm willing to move on without clarity. :-)

"So, just as he conquered death so we don't have to, he has fulfilled the Law so we don't have to, right?"
As you well know, that is not what the text says.

I think I know this, but (as I tried to clarify in my post 106) I was hoping for some informed comment on what I find a challenging phrase, especially given the later scripture (Epistles) where at least some of these laws are considered no longer valid because of Christ's death and resurrection.

According to your other beliefs, however, you'd better be right. Your G-d is not forgiving of such fundamental errors and a lifetime of resulting sin.

I'm assuming you're talking to some general audience here, rather than specifically at me. If I've ever posted anything that suggests that my "G-d is not forgiving of such fundamental errors and a lifetime of resulting sin", I guess I've done an even poorer job of stating where I am in my faith journey than I thought. I may be unclear on just how we know what laws are, and what laws are not, required of Christians for salvation, but I'm pretty solidly convinced that God is a forgiving God who creates as many opportunities as possible for us to find our way to Him. I know he has for me (and I'm still looking for more).

Os.

105

Just to be clear Os, my mention of the saving faith of Christ, rather than our saving faith in Christ, is a reference to Galatians2.16 and like verses.

Often translated " know that a man is not justified by works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ."

I would read that verse as "know that a man is not justified by works of the law, but through the faith of Jesus the Christ"

> 97, 102, 104. I'm interested in how you understand the following passages:

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. John 12:32. Why does Jesus say He will draw all men, when he doesn't mean all men?

For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen. Romans 11:32. Why say, "all things" unless the meaning is that all things are to him?

Why do you have such a hard time accepting a God powerful enough and loving enough to cause all souls to be rescued from a state of separation and returned to their intended state of unity and harmony with the divine?

Why do you insist on a God of limits and conditions?

And, for those of you who feel it important to extol the benefits of fear: Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. Philippians 4:6-7.

ETA the reference to Romans. Give credit where credit is due.

Why do some insist on making God fit into what they want instead of accepting Who He is and doing what He wants?

(110)Do a Bible search on fear of God/the Lord.

We should fear him as we would fear a parent, and yet see the love He has for us.

> 111. Is your question directed at me, at yourself, or is it rhetorical?

112. We should fear him as we would fear a parent

I didn't fear my parents. Did you?

I did have an uncle who I tried to stay away from, though. And my maternal grandfather was hell on wheels.

If you did not fear your parents, why did you behave?

(113) Either.

Another example of fear:

You are driving down the road and stop at a red light. No one is on the road except you.

Do you go ahead and 'run' the red light?

Would you run the red light if a police car was behind you?

115. If you did not fear your parents, why did you behave?

I didn't always behave. But when I did, it was because I thought it was the better thing to do. Basically, it was the free will thing.

fuzzi,

Does behavior matter?

>118 jburlinson: "I didn't always behave. But when I did, it was because I thought it was the better thing to do. Basically, it was the free will thing."

Then you are like no child I've ever known. And I've taught kindergarten through high school.

117. That's a good example of fear. I don't see how it applies to God, though.

There's one thing about all this fear business that puzzles me. If I understand your position on salvation correctly, you're saying that all that is required is the profession of belief in Jesus Christ. I profess my belief in Jesus Christ. Not only do I believe that He's my savior, but I believe he's the Savior of all humanity.

I'm not afraid of Him. My feelings about Him are pretty much the exact opposite of fear, in fact.

And yet, you and others seem to be saying there's something wrong with me for not feeling the fear. Also, something wrong with me for my inclination towards a belief in universal reconciliation. Then again, you've told me that any of my "works" are of no consequence as regards salvation, my profession of belief in Jesus is necessary and sufficient. But now you tell me that I'm not doing what He wants and am trying to lead other people astray.

What's the emoticon for a spinning head? :)

> 120. Then you are like no child I've ever known. And I've taught kindergarten through high school.

Are you saying that all instances of good behavior among schoolchildren are the result of their fear of their teacher?

>122 jburlinson: "Are you saying that all instances of good behavior among schoolchildren are the result of their fear of their teacher?"

No. Just in children under 5. ;)

But no teacher can maintain discipline in class without occasionally punishing the students. If the students know they won't be punished for misbehaving, they WILL misbehave.

Why are we talking about behavior? What does behavior have to do with justification by a profession of faith?

>121 jburlinson: If you are saved, you have nothing to fear. But telling other people, who are not saved, that they have nothing to fear is deceiving them and endangering their lives.

For example: A tornado is coming. You are safe in a storm shelter. Your friend is outside, unaware of the tornado approaching. You have no reason to be worried, for your own safety, but he most certainly does. If you don't tell him about the tornado, or worse, tell him everything is fine, and he dies when the tornado strikes...

> 125. If you don't tell him about the tornado, or worse, tell him everything is fine, and he dies when the tornado strikes...

No way. I open the door to my shelter and let him in, and anyone else standing there, and, what do you know, there's somehow room enough for everyone! Just like the loaves and the fishes.

telling other people, who are not saved, that they have nothing to fear is deceiving them and endangering their lives.

I thought you said in # 85 that: ""It is not for me to say which individuals are in heaven. Only God knows that." If you don't know who is not saved, why do you think that I know who is not saved?

Does the threat of the tornado bring faith or does it motivate right behavior?

Is the avoidance of threat of eternal damnation and burning in hell fires the ground for true faith and love of God and his righteousness?

> 126. Is the avoidance of threat of eternal damnation and burning in hell fires the ground for true faith and love of God and his righteousness?

That is a very interesting question. It puts me in mind of the old expression, "such and such scared the bejesus out of me." The implication is that when the fear comes in, the Jesus goes out.

What the heck does that mean, you might ask? Well, I might answer that the kind of fear that some folks seem to be talking about is all about me and my well-being. I fear hell and damnation for myself, so I change my ways.

That isn't Jesus' way at all. His way is all about God and other people. "Love God, love your neighbor, love your enemies."

You don't get to love of others through fear for yourself.

>97 eclecticdodo: You take a couple of verses and use them to over-rule other Biblical teaching. My analogy shows that the verses you use can be interpreted in another way

I think the same could be said of you, eclecticdodo. Clearly there is disagreement amongst Christians about salvation. They have all looked at the same verses and interpreted them "in another way" to each other. The Catholic Church (which I know fuzzi doesn't accept but I don't know your stance) definitely says that salvation is there for all (cf an oft-quoted part of Lumen Gentium from Vatican II), and that's not just someone's off-the-cuff opinion, it's the result of two millennia of reflection on scripture and tradition.

>111 fuzzi: Why do some insist on making God fit into what they want instead of accepting Who He is and doing what He wants?

Once again, the same could be asked of you, fuzzi. Those of us who disagree with you would say that our interpretation of who he is and what he wants is more accurate than yours.

>104 fuzzi: Fear is a healthy emotion

I think that's an overgeneralised and simplistic statement. While fear is useful when, for example, I'm caught up in a war zone and have to make decisions about survival, I don't think it is very healthy in terms of spiritual and personal growth.

>104 fuzzi: it keeps a person from doing those things that would end in a tragic or painful manner; >105 richardbsmith: If you did not fear your parents, why did you behave?; >117 fuzzi: You are driving down the road and stop at a red light. No one is on the road except you. Do you go ahead and 'run' the red light? Would you run the red light if a police car was behind you?

fuzzi, I think you have a very cynical view of human nature. Do people only do good things out of fear? I agree with >118 jburlinson:: I didn't always behave. But when I did, it was because I thought it was the better thing to do. And, for the record, I stop at red lights regardless of who is watching me, because I think it is the safe thing to do.

~108

"I think the literalists are generally do conclude that many (if not most) will be damned. So I don't understand how your parenthetical relates to the main sentence here."

The parenthetical relates back to the Matthew passage, which was the centerpiece of the post to which you were responding. I do not believe that most of the posters to this thread are engaging with that passage Here it is again:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5: 17-20

Now, in my view at least, and I have at least looked at several different translations, there are real problems for orthodox Christians in this passage. Remember, this is purportedly a quotation from Jesus, not Peter having a dream which was later interpreted. But if what it says is true, then most Christians, including the Biblical literalists are acting contrary to Jesus' explicit instructions, and, for the literalists at least, will therefore be damned.

The standard interpretation: that when Jesus said very clearly that he had not come to abolish the law, what he really meant was that he had come to abolish the law, just isn't plausible. It particularly isn't plausible when Jesus and his Disciples continued to follow the Law and Jesus often reprimanded the "Pharisees and the teachers of the law" for their hypocritical claims to follow the law when they were only incompletely doing so. The apocalyptic interpretation - that Jesus meant what he said but that he only expected his followers to live up to a puristic form of the law for a short period of time - after which they would become exhalted in the coming Kingdom of Heaven - seems to fit a lot better.

That converts to Jesus would have to follow the law even better than the "the Pharisees (the proto-rabbis) and the teachers of the law(the scribes)," was not, of course, what Paul wanted. And apparently Paul convinced at least some of Jesus' other followers that gaining converts (the main barrier to which throughout Second Temple history was the requirement of the Law for circumcision and the Kosher laws) was their goal, not the particulars of what Jesus taught. (Or, to put a better light on it, perhaps Paul was unfamiliar with this teaching.)

In any case, the passage says what it says and is not to be explained away by reference to a later symbolic dream of Peter's or Church Tradition, unless you are Roman Catholic and put a very strong emphasis on Church tradition.

As to your confusion as to who I am talking to - my view is that this is a thread not a two party conversation. If you want to engage in a two party conversation, I'd be delighted to do so. However, in the context of this thread, the dominate posters appear to be Biblical literalists, what they'd probably self-describe as evangelicals and what I would describe as fundamentalists.

I don't think that view works, but if anyone wants to adopt that view they have to deal with passages like the above - passages that not only describe the, perhaps sometimes ambiguous acts of Jesus or the sometimes vague oracle-like allusions, but assert that they are a word for word record, repeated several times, of a definite clear teaching. As these people have told us repeatedly, the Bible is inerrant - hence, it can't contain contradictions - and its "plain meaning" is independent of and/or supreme over Church tradition or teachings. Hence, this passage is really a problem for them, or should be if they are serious in their view and want to avoid Hell Fire.

~111

"Why do some insist on making God fit into what they want instead of accepting Who He is and doing what He wants?"

Perhaps it is because they don't talk to G-d on a daily basis and thus they don't know with absolute and unquestionable certainty Who He Is and What He Wants. As I said above, it must be nice to be in that privileged position.

My goodness, look at all these wonderful righteous people.

I guess some of us just are such terrible sinful people that we need Jesus more than others:

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:20

But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Matthew 9:13

When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Mark 2:17

I'd rather rely on Jesus Christ's righteousness than my own, which isn't worth 'jack'.

This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. 1 Timothy 1:15

> 132. My goodness, look at all these wonderful righteous people. I guess some of us just are such terrible sinful people that we need Jesus more than others

Why does the thought that there are "wonderful righteous people" mean that other people are "terrible sinful people"?

What's the point of mocking "wonderful righteous people" anyway?

And who, on this thread, has claimed to be a "wonderful righteous person"?

As for needing Jesus, we all need Jesus. Fortunately, he's there for all of us. That's good news, isn't it? Why should anyone feel sheepish about it?

First, a simple statement: it has been my understanding (reinforced by decades of pastors teaching essentially this) that the word 'fear' when used regarding our relationship with God means love, respect, and knowledge that God has the power to protect us and to enforce his laws. Not fear in the sense that it seams some are reading this.

>111 fuzzi:
But will you ever answer the question asked in 110?

>112 fuzzi:
I did fear my parents (taking 'fear' to mean respected their authority and ability to enforce the rules). But I never feared that they would throw me into a dungeon, a snakepit, or Hell. And Christ said because of God's greater love and power, we should expect better from Him than from our human father.

>115 fuzzi: If you did not fear your parents, why did you behave?

I craved my parents approval/joy. I'm glad of this - you're childhood doesn't sound as joyful, assuming fear is what you remember.

>117 fuzzi: You are driving down the road and stop at a red light. No one is on the road except you. Do you go ahead and 'run' the red light? Would you run the red light if a police car was behind you?

Unless the light is clearly broken, I wait. I believe in the power that commonly accepted rules gives a community and its members. I teach this to my children, and they seem to get it. It's this sense of the power of commonly accepted rules, I believe, that drives this discussion - we would all like to have a common understanding of God's rules/desires and so we exchange our thoughts, our insight, our revelations, our experiences. No child likes chaos - they crave knowledge of what's expected.

>121 jburlinson: What's the emoticon for a spinning head?

I use %^|

Os.

>130 lawecon:
Thanks. That works for me. I mistakenly assumed that since your response was to my post, the word 'you' meant me. I should have thought it might be the plural 'you' (damned English - the language, not the people, I mean). :-)

I agree with your observation that a literal Biblical interpretation seems to support full adherence to all Laws (OT and NT). We will fall short, but it would seem that trying is expected. First question - when is the Sabbath, again? Does it start on Friday at sundown, or on Sunday at midnight?

Os.

ETA second paragraph

>132 fuzzi:
Righteousness, yes, that's it.

Micah 6
6 With what shall I come before the Lord
and bow down before the exalted God?
Shall I come before him with burnt offerings,
with calves a year old?
7 Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,
with ten thousand rivers of olive oil?
Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression,
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
8 He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humblya with your God.

I believe verse 8 is the best definition we have of righteouness - to do what is required by God. The rest, as the wise rabbi said, is commentary.

Os.

>132 fuzzi: My goodness, look at all these wonderful righteous people

Where? Who? I confess to being rather baffled by this remark.

>135 Osbaldistone:
Second question - how do I follow ALL of the law when it describes in great detail how I am to sacrifice the sheep, goat, bird, etc. for purification when I have violated the law. And then, Jesus goes and says (as fuzzi reminds us) "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice", which seems consistent with the Micah verses I used in talking about righteousness.

I think the answer is - the laws evolved as the Children of Israel grew in knowledge of God. But the complexity of the Bible (esp. the OT) regarding what we must do and not do is overwhelming, especially when you add in what seems like fairly clear examples of laws becoming obsolete in the scripture itself. It would seem I must absorb the entire OT and NT to know if a passage in Numbers is still valid. Or am I going off on the wrong track here?

Os.

>132 fuzzi: (and 137)
I have to admit to becoming a bit frustrated with fuzzi. I am certain she has wisdom received from her own faith journey to share with all, but she does not respond to direct questions most of the time, instead posting scripture passages, as if we have not read them before and we will understand them exactly as she does and then we all have the same understanding. As if simply posting it without explanation/commentary shines a light on the answer to the question asked.

Fuzzi - this approach is not helping me much at all. I put a lot of faith in the power of Scripture, but that does not guarantee that simply posting a scripture will allow me to grasp what's in your head.

Os.

>130 lawecon: lawecon - If you want to engage in a two party conversation, I'd be delighted to do so.

As would I. I find this post by post discussion of faith and theology quite frustrating and am not very effective in getting what's in my head and on my heart into a (somewhat) compact post. I'd love to have a few hours one-on-one in a coffeshop so I can better understand your thoughts and better express mine (with facial expressions, hand gestures, body language, intonation, etc., plus the chance to quickly restate with misunderstood). Sigh...

Os.

140. facial expressions, hand gestures, body language, intonation

Skype?

Os, sorry if I have not responded to something that you wished me to respond to.

There are several persons who post in this area who I have put on ignore because it is apparent that they do not want to hear what I have to say, only to play something akin to 'stump the Christian'.

When I have answered queries from them in the past, they ignore what I have posted, or twist it into something it is not, or ask another 'Can God make a rock so big that He can't lift it?' sort of asinine question.

One gets tired of answering "Why? Why? Why?" from people who are not five years old. I prefer to answer those who really SINCERELY want to know, not those who just want to argue and debate.

So, what would you like me to try to answer? There's a lot in this thread and my time has been extremely limited lately. :)

(135) Os wrote "I agree with your observation that a literal Biblical interpretation seems to support full adherence to all Laws (OT and NT). We will fall short, but it would seem that trying is expected. First question - when is the Sabbath, again? Does it start on Friday at sundown, or on Sunday at midnight?"

Actually, it doesn't support full adherence to the OT laws. I suggest you read Galatians, Romans and Colossians for more on how keeping the OT laws is no longer needed for salvation.

Aprapos of one of the threads, and curious timing: Today I heard a presentation of results of recent behavioural studies. Dan Ariely (his book is The Honest Truth About Dishonesty) stated that "When we do experiments, when we try to tempt people to cheat, we don't find that these three elements — what do we stand to gain, probability of being caught, and size of punishment — end up describing much of the result."

The fear of getting caught and being punished doesn't much factor in to the decision to break the rules or follow the rules.

He does go on to say that the real harm to society is more like the death of a thousand cuts. That is, the very few who do really bad things contribute very little to society's harm, while the millions who do very small bad things (like minor income tax cheating, little lies, etc) do the majority of the harm simply because of their massive numbers. Those that cheat just a little is virtually all of us.

So, God's interest in holding us to a strict set of rules may well be for the well being of the communities in which we live.

Os.

~132

Ah, now you are contrasting your modest righteousness to the disfavor of other posters in this thread - yet you just told us that you Know Who G-d Is and What He Wants.

I don't think you can have it both ways at once. Either you are a prophet or you are not specially righteous, but not both.

~135

I had always believed that it starts on Friday at sundown. I believe that the Roman Catholics agree with me on that, both in terms of when things like Easter start and in terms of distinguishing between the Sabbath and the Lord's Day. Other Christian groups differ one way or the other.

Never heard that it started on Sunday at midnight. Where did that come from?

~139

"I have to admit to becoming a bit frustrated with fuzzi. I am certain she has wisdom received from her own faith journey to share with all, but she does not respond to direct questions most of the time, instead posting scripture passages, as if we have not read them before and we will understand them exactly as she does and then we all have the same understanding. As if simply posting it without explanation/commentary shines a light on the answer to the question asked."

If you think that this performance is frustrating you ought to try reading through the thread entitled Reading The Bible In A Year. If you did that you would find that fuzzi is not alone in her views and there are many people posting to Librarything that carry her tendencies far beyond what she does. It is truly an enlightening experience.

>146 lawecon: Never heard that it started on Sunday at midnight. Where did that come from?

Well, if Sunday is the sabbath that many Protestants keep holy, it starts at midnight (12:00am), right. Or is there some teaching I've not been aware of regarding how Sunday is kept?

Os.

~140

I am in Phoenix. Would be happy to meet you in any coffee shop in the metro area, or in much of Northern or Southern AZ. Would even be happy to introduce you to a host of really interesting Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. (I collect eccentrics - of course you are surprised to learn that fact.)

Fuzzi

Re: your 142
Mostly I was reacting to posts by you that seemed to ignore posts directed to you. But if you have some on ignore, that would make sense. No specific unanswered question that I was looking for; more that the conversation seemed to have a developed a limp. :-)

Re: your 143

I've read these Books, and am aware of statements made in the Epistles regarding how, for example, "through the law, [Paul] died to the law" (Galatians 2). However, I have also read Christ's words in Matthew 5:18-19 "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." These are the words I was speaking to in my post 135.

Christ didn't say "Until Paul tells you otherwise...". The words attributed to Paul and those of the Gospel seem to set up a permanent debate over the law. However, Colossians seems to clarify what is meant by dying to the law with "These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings", which suggests that he is not talking about the law in the Torah, but other manmade laws. So the OT laws still stand, right? In Colossians, many of the OT laws are reiterated in words attibuted to Paul - "Put to death,...sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry...8 But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. 9 Do not lie to each other...".

Romans 2 is filled with admonishment to obey the law, including v12-13 "All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. Romans 2:7 even seems to support works in seeking salvation - "To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life"

So, it's not clear to me how you conclude that "keeping the OT laws is no longer needed for salvation". I see validity in scripture for those who say that faithfully following Christ is all that is needed, and for those who say that we must follow the law for salvation. And writings attributed to Paul seem to say both at one time or another.

Os.

~142

"One gets tired of answering "Why? Why? Why?" from people who are not five years old. I prefer to answer those who really SINCERELY want to know, not those who just want to argue and debate."

I would certainly never think of asking a graduate professor or a rabbi or a priest or a minister if I "SINCERELY want to know," not when you are available.

>149 lawecon:
Not in the cards any time soon. I'm in Central Texas, with no travel budget until I get off the unemployment rolls. But keep it on the back burner.

Os.

~152

I spent a lot of time in the Dallas area and in the College Station/Bryan area, before it was a party town (many, many years ago). Still like West Texas. Don't anticipate visiting any other part soon. Sad. Perhaps I need to have my techie son-in-law get my computer audio/visual capacities improved. A four way hook up would be interesting. (I also know some really interesting political theorists and ethicists.)

> 142. There are several persons who post in this area who I have put on ignore because it is apparent that they do not want to hear what I have to say

If that includes me, I'm a bit surprised, since you occasionally respond to my posts, e.g. 115-117.

Does anyone know how to find out if someone has put you on ignore? If I could figure that out, it'd be easier to know who and what to respond to.

>154 jburlinson:
Everyone who has put jburlison on ignore, please respond to this post.

(there, that should do it)

Os.

> 155. Thank you. The direct way is almost always the best way.

It actually doesn't bother me to be ignored. It's just that it's kind of embarrassing when you don't realize you're being ignored.

>156 jburlinson:
Personally, I can't imagine how you could make sense of a thread if some 'speakers' are ignored. If they had nothing constructive to offer, I suppose it would make sense.

Os.

>157 Osbaldistone: Personally, I haven't put anyone on 'ignore', although I know of one person (not on this thread) who has me on 'ignore'. I read everyone's comments, but some are just not worth responding to. And on a thread like this, with so many different people contributing, I just don't have time to respond to everyone. There's more to life than LT!

(158) madpoet wrote "There's more to life than LT!"

Well spoken. My time is precious, to me.

I've visited internet message boards and have 'debated' with people about my beliefs for over ten years. I don't hide from hard questions, but I also don't answer every question that is asked of me, especially when a person has developed a habit of asking the 'Can God...' sort of facetious questions.

And when a person has shown over a period of time that they are more interested in arguing than discussing, I put them on ignore. I only answer if I see them quoted, and feel that a response is warranted.

(if someone says something really disparaging about Jesus, that person will immediately receive an 'ignore'. I don't think any of those types are in this thread, they are mainly 'drive by' insulters.)

It's interesting how 'religion/faith' can bring out the worst in people. I've had nice conversations with 'ignored' people in other areas of LT, about books and gardens and such. It's only on the 'religion/faith' areas that I choose to ignore them.

I wonder, could LT develop a 'ignore in this thread' sort of option? :)

(150) Os, I will try to get back to you later: I'm at work and it's almost time to 'punch in'. :)

~139

"It's interesting how 'religion/faith' can bring out the worst in people. I've had nice conversations with 'ignored' people in other areas of LT, about books and gardens and such. It's only on the 'religion/faith' areas that I choose to ignore them."

Perhaps religion brings out what you perceive as the worst in people because you make ridiculous claims to authority and special access to G-d. People react negatively to those who say the equivalent of "I'm one of the greatest people in history. You should listen to me and do what I say. Perhaps you should even make me ruler of the world - for your own good, of course, so you don't burn eternally in Hell Fire."

Perhaps you don't make such claims in other areas of Librarything, because you know you don't have anything to back them up. When you claim to have grown a 500 pound cabbage, for instance, people will want to see pictures and will ask why it hasn't been in the news.

But, of course, in "religion," at least certain sorts of religion, the claim itself is counted as Truth, and those who advance claims of special privilege are insulted if others don't acknowledge just how special they are. After all, G_d Himself acknowledges their specialness.

So........... Holy Spirit??

In one sentence, what is your personal view of what is holy spirit/Holy Spirit? You can put texts next to your explanation.

I have found that when discussing topics of faith where different people hold different views, it is best to get to why they think that way, and try to understand their personal point of view, that way we can exercise empathy, regardless of whether you agree or not.

In the long run, the time and energy used on argument is ill-spent. We will not have the last word. The one who can clarify matters is himself silent, and looking and listening........waiting to see how we run things down here.

So, I still don't have a clear view of Holy Spirit/holy spirit.......what say ye?

CSailin, I trust in the veracity of the Bible, and consider it to be the final authority in my life.

The Holy Spirit is mentioned throughout the entire Bible, both the Old Testament (OT) and New Testament (NT) but described in different forms. Sometimes He is referred to as the Spirit of God, or the Comforter, or the Holy Ghost.

My understanding of Who the Holy Spirit is as follows:

He is part of the trinity of God

He is equal to each of the other parts of the trinity: God the Father and God the Son, Jesus Christ, yet is one with Them

He "indwells" those who either are righteous or have the righteousness of God through Jesus Christ.

He teaches and leads God's children, born again believers, in what they should and should not do

Clear as mud, hmm? :)

(160) Ridiculous claims perhaps to you, but not to those who also 'know' God through His Son, Jesus Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit.

They do understand. :)

Re: your 143

I've read these Books, and am aware of statements made in the Epistles regarding how, for example, "through the law, Paul died to the law" (Galatians 2). However, I have also read Christ's words in Matthew 5:18-19 "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." These are the words I was speaking to in my post 135.

Christ didn't say "Until Paul tells you otherwise...". The words attributed to Paul and those of the Gospel seem to set up a permanent debate over the law.

Paul was given revelation through God, referred to as a mystery. At one point in Jesus' ministry, He mentions that He has more to tell His disciples, but that they are unable to handle it at the time (John 16:12). So God gives Paul more information to share with followers and believers of His Son, Jesus Christ. And the Holy Spirit, which is given to believers, helps to make things clear.

The Law is still here, with us, in more ways than one:

1. The Law is the Bible, the Torah, the word of God. God has promised to preserve His word, the Law and the Prophets, to not allow it to disappear (Psalms 12:6-7). One could interpret Jesus' teaching in this way, that God's word will not pass away, and that includes the Law. Not one jot or tittle will disappear from His word if He preserves it for us.

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. - Matthew 24:35

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. - Mark 13:31

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. - Luke 21:33

2. The Law (commandments) still applies to those who don't want to accept God's offer of salvation through Jesus Christ. They have to be more righteous than the Pharisees, and to keep the whole law without failing in any one point (James 2:10)

If you want to be judged by how you keep the Law, you will be judged that way. If you'd rather let God judge you by and through Jesus Christ, you need to accept His offer of salvation.

Os wrote: Romans 2 is filled with admonishment to obey the law, including v12-13 "All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. Romans 2:7 even seems to support works in seeking salvation - "To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life"

Read a little further, into Romans 3, for clarification:

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. - Romans 3:20-28

As I see it, the confusion with the Bible is twofold:

1. Without the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the spiritual messages in God's word, the Bible, are not easily understood...if at all.

2. Without "rightly dividing" God's word, you can really get into doctrinal trouble. The Bible, as a whole, needs to be read and studied and scriptures compared to one another. Taking one verse out of context can cause numerous problems.

Hope that helps. :)

> 161. In one sentence, what is your personal view of what is holy spirit/Holy Spirit? You can put texts next to your explanation.

"In one sentence", whew, that's a challenge; I wonder if I can do that. Whoops, I just ended my sentence, so I might have disqualified myself. Doggone it, I did it again: let me try again, one last time.

The Holy Spirit is manifested to me personally as an intense inner experience with both cognitive and emotional components: cognitive, in that I have an intuition of the interconnectedness of all things, especially a connection to a supreme power and to all living things, particularly human beings; and emotional, in that I experience great joy and gratitude (I can think of no other word, at the moment), accompanied with a strong feeling of love for whatever I happen to be in the vicinity of.

Within that gabble are a number of words that each require their own one-sentence definitions: e.g., "power", "connection", "joy", "gratitude", "love", etc. I also have a lot more to say about all of this, but that will all have to wait for other sentences.

> fuzzi

The first two items under your item 2 present a view I've never heard before - that there are two paths to salvation described in the NT: 1) keep the whole law without failing in any one point; and 2) accept God's offer of salvation through Jesus Christ. I have to chew on this a bit, especially with Christ saying no one gets to the Father except through me.

In your item 3, you quote Paul in Romans 3 saying "by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight". I had quoted Paul in Romans 2 saying "...it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous", implying that those who do not will not be declared righteous. I don't see how the Chapter 3 quote could possibly, as you say, 'clarify' the Chapter 2 quote when it literally contradicts it. In the first, Paul points to a way to salvation via the law. In the second, Paul says no flesh shall be justified by deeds of the law. As I said, Paul seems to hold two conflicting positions on the law and salvation. You must be bringing these two statements into some kind of conformity in your own understanding, but simply saying that without the HS it's hard to understand doesn't describe how you see these two passages being in conformity.

Os.

>158 madpoet: madpoet There's more to life than LT!

I should hope so, given the title of this group. :^)

Os.

> 166. I have to chew on this a bit, especially with Christ saying no one gets to the Father except through me.

I'm figuring this is a reference to "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6 KJV.

There are different ways of thinking about this saying of Jesus. The way some people read this is, "no one is saved except through profession of belief in Jesus."

But it could mean other things, such as:

All come to The Father through My action -- i.e. Jesus' saving act. and/or,

Perhaps Jesus, when he uses the term "me", is referring to his Christ nature, a divine nature of which we are promised that we can "partake". 2 Peter 1:4., and/or

Jesus elsewhere states, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." John 8:58, KJV. Obviously, he is not referring to himself as the stepson of Joseph, but as the eternal logos. So, when He says "through me" or "by me", perhaps the meaning is by/through that mystical understanding of Him. and/or

Perhaps, more poetically, His reference to "me" is similar if not identical to the way Walt Whitman starts Song of Myself:

I CELEBRATE myself, and sing myself,
And what I assume you shall assume,
For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.

edited for typo

Getting back to the Holy Spirit...

When we are talking about the Holy Spirit we are talking about the Spirit of God who has been revealed to us through the Trinity. This Spirit therefore is a Spirit that is all about relationship and community.

I'm afraid that I'm starting to sermonize...my apologies... but I believe that God has been revealed to us as relational. To be created in God's image mean to be created as relational beings. We find ourselves in relationship with the plant, animal and mineral world. We find oursleves to be in relationship with each other; and we find ourselves being called into relationship with God. The Spirit of the Trinity is a Spirit of love and unity that calls us into creative community.

This has practical outcomes for the way in which we engage not only each other but how we treat our planet. The Spirit of God calls us to work for greater love, justice and mercy in our communities and societies and to also work for greater justice for our planet.

~163

A perfect example of the misunderstanding of some nonJews regarding what it means to be a "chosen People" (as well as the same incredible conceit that goes back to Plato and his Philosopher-King).

(166) in brief...salvation and eternity in Heaven is based upon our righteousness...one sin makes a person guilty of breaking all. And since none of us could be sinless, none of us can be good enough for Heaven. Theoretically, we could be good enough to keep all the law perfectly and earn eternity with God, but practically, no one can.

So it might appear that there are two ways to Heaven, but if we could do it on our own, by keeping the law and not sinning, then we would not have needed Jesus Christ to die as payment for our sins.

Reasoning Points on Holy Spirit:

The term "holy spirit" appears 94 times in scripture. 1 time in Psalms, 2 times in Isaiah, and the most occurrences appear in the books of Luke (13 times) and Acts (41 times)

The Bible compares the holy spirit to water.

When promising future blessings for his people, God said: “I shall pour out water upon the thirsty one, and trickling streams upon the dry place. I shall pour out my spirit upon your seed, and my blessing upon your descendants.”—Isaiah 44:3.

When God pours out his spirit upon his servants, they become “full of holy spirit,” or “filled with holy spirit.”

Jesus, John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and the disciples who were gathered together on the day of Pentecost 33 C.E. are all described as being full of, or filled with, holy spirit.—Luke 1:15; 4:1; Acts 4:8; 9:17; 11:22, 24; 13:9.

Consider this: Could a person be ‘poured out’ on many different individuals?

Would you say that one person could ‘fill’ a whole group of people? That defies logic.

The Bible does refer to people becoming filled with wisdom, understanding, or even accurate knowledge, but it never describes anyone as being filled with another person.—Exodus 28:3; 1 Kings 7:14; Luke 2:40; Colossians 1:9.

The Greek word translated “spirit” is pneu′ma, which also conveys the idea of an invisible power. According to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, the word pneu′ma “primarily denotes the wind . . . also breath; then, especially the spirit, which, like the wind, is invisible, immaterial and powerful.”

Clearly, then, the holy spirit is not a person.

This is what I believe to be what the Bible really teaches.

> 172. “primarily denotes the wind . . . also breath; then, especially the spirit, which, like the wind, is invisible, immaterial and powerful.”

So the holy spirit is some kind of gaseous substance?

~171

"in brief...salvation and eternity in Heaven is based upon our righteousness...one sin makes a person guilty of breaking all. And since none of us could be sinless, none of us can be good enough for Heaven. Theoretically, we could be good enough to keep all the law perfectly and earn eternity with God, but practically, no one can."

You do realize, I hope, that Jews never believed anything of that sort. That this, just like Original Sin, is entirely an invention of orthodox Christians to justify the anomalies in their theology.

> 173 It is God's active force....energy beyond our imagination....invisible to us....an invisible power.

It was the power/energy/active force used in creation... and today it is used by our Creator to empower Christians, as in the first century, to do his will of witnessing and spreading the good news of God's kingdom. We can ask for it when in need. Especially should we pray for it when attempting to read and understand the Bible. It also is a helper in that it helps us to endure under the pressure of this difficult world we live in.

I invite you to take your time and read through the scriptures I cite above.

If you have any questions on them feel free to leave me a message.

Thanks. :)

>169 picklesan:
Related to your post - someone once posited an answer to the question - "Why did God create mankind?"

Answer - so he could be in relationship with us.

Very powerful stuff, which comes with tremendous responsibilities and wondrous promise.

Os.

>171 fuzzi: So it might appear that there are two ways to Heaven, but if we could do it on our own, by keeping the law and not sinning, then we would not have needed Jesus Christ to die as payment for our sins.

So why would Paul spend so much time laying out an alternate path to salvation that he knew was a red herring, and would even serve as a trap, especially to those who may not have access to all of the letters traveling around from Paul and other Epistle writers? I don't believe God tricks us into taking the wrong path. Would you do that to your children? Sure, at times He has caused people to take the wrong way in the service of his ends, but for Paul to claim to speak for God and line out false paths to salvation seems ludicrous, even sinful according to his own teachings about misleading Christs followers. There must be some other reason for his 'you could take this path, or you could take that path" teaching.

Os.

>161 CSailin: Holy Spirit?? In one sentence...

I think I tried to do that in >37 John5918:: I understand the Trinity as a statement that the essence of God is community and relationship, which is a challenge to us to live in/as God by living in community and relationship, and find that I am very much in agreement with jburlinson in >165 jburlinson: and picklesan in >169 picklesan:.

(172) The Bible does refer to people becoming filled with wisdom, understanding, or even accurate knowledge, but it never describes anyone as being filled with another person.—Exodus 28:3; 1 Kings 7:14; Luke 2:40; Colossians 1:9.

Sure it does, I'll look up the references and get back to you.

Oh, wait, here's something about the Holy Spirit (the Comforter) being "he" and "him":

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
Of sin, because they believe not on me;
Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; John 16:7-10

(177) Paul does not spend time laying out a path that will work, but is showing that there is no other way possible to achieve salvation outside of Jesus Christ.

God wants all to be saved, that none should perish, but we know that most will reject His offer of salvation. Still, He waits with open arms for those who will come to Him.

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
- 1 Timothy 2:3-4

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. - 2 Peter 3:9

(179>fuzzi.... You bring up a valid point using John 16:7-10. Let me ask you, can you tell me what John 14:16,17 says in your Bible?

This will help me give you a thorough reply.

I look forward to your scriptural examples of anyone being filled with another person.

(181) CSailin wrote: fuzzi.... You bring up a valid point using John 16:7-10. Let me ask you, can you tell me what John 14:16,17 says in your Bible?

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. - John 14:16-17

I'm at work (lunchtime) so my Bible isn't handy, but using an online Bible program, I found the following for you:

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: - John 15:26

The Comforter will testify of Jesus.

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. - John 17:20-23

God the Father, God the Son are One in each other, and those who believe on Jesus Christ will also be one with God.

Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. - John 14:10-11

Jesus Christ the Son is in God the Father, and God the Father is in Jesus Christ.

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; ... But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. - John 14:16, 26

The Comforter/Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit will abide with us forever, just as we abide in Christ, and in the Father as well.

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. - John 15:5-7

Abide in Christ and He will abide in you.

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? - 1 Corinthians 3:16

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? - 1 Corinthians 6:19

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. ...

But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. ...

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. ...

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: ...

Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. - Romans 8:9, 11, 14, 16, 26-27

That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us. - 2 Timoty 1:14

The Holy Spirit/Comforter/Holy Ghost acts like a person in what He does. He also abides with us or dwells in us.

Amen!

(182) fuzzi> Abundance of texts indeed. Thanks for the examples.

Here are some points that have helped me understand holy spirit as the Bible uses it, specifically at John 14:16,17:

POINT #1....

Did you know that the Greek word for spirit (pneu'ma) is in itself neuter in gender and is properly referred to, therefore, by the neuter pronoun in English (it) because it does not have personality?

This can readily be seen from the readings of literal translations, such as the one by Rotherham.

At John 14:16, 17, Rotherham renders Jesus’ words as follows: “I will request the Father, and Another Advocate pa‧ra′kle‧tos will he give unto you, that he may be with you age-abidingly,—the Spirit pneu′ma of truth,—which the world cannot receive, because it beholdeth it not nor getteth to know it. But ye are getting to know it; because with you it abideth, and in you it is.”

Notice that the pronoun is masculine in gender (“he”) when the antecedent is the masculine noun pa‧ra′kle‧tos but neuter (“it”) when the antecedent is the neuter noun pneu′ma.

This fact is often concealed in Bible translations, as neuter pronouns are replaced with masculine pronouns.

**** NOTE THIS.....A footnote in The New American Bible on John 14:17 admits: “The Greek word for ‘Spirit’ is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English (‘he,’ ‘his,’ ‘him’), most Greek MSS manuscripts employ ‘it.’”

POINT #2.....

It is important to note that personification does not prove personality.

It is true that Jesus spoke of the holy spirit as a “helper” and spoke of such helper as ‘teaching,’ ‘bearing witness,’ ‘giving evidence,’ ‘guiding,’ ‘speaking,’ ‘hearing,’ and ‘receiving.’ In so doing, the original Greek shows Jesus at times applying the personal pronoun “he” to that “helper” (paraclete). (Compare John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15.)

However, it is not unusual in the Scriptures for something that is not actually a person to be personalized or personified. Wisdom is personified in the book of Proverbs (1:20-33; 8:1-36); and feminine pronominal forms are used of it in the original Hebrew, as also in many English translations. (KJ, RS, JP, AT)

The apostle Paul personalized sin and death and also undeserved kindness as “kings.” (Ro 5:14, 17, 21; 6:12) He speaks of sin as “receiving an inducement,” ‘working out covetousness,’ ‘seducing,’ and ‘killing.’ (Ro 7:8-11) Yet it is obvious that Paul did not mean that sin was actually a person.

So, likewise with John’s account of Jesus’ words regarding the holy spirit, his remarks must be taken in context.

Jesus personalized the holy spirit when speaking of that spirit as a “helper” (which in Greek is the masculine substantive pa‧ra′kle‧tos).

Properly, therefore, John presents Jesus’ words as referring to that “helper” aspect of the spirit with masculine personal pronouns.

On the other hand, in the same context, when the Greek pneu′ma is used, John employs a neuter pronoun to refer to the holy spirit, pneu′ma itself being neuter. Hence, we have in John’s use of the masculine personal pronoun in association with pa‧ra′kle‧tos an example of conformity to grammatical rules, not an expression of doctrine.—Joh 14:16, 17; 16:7, 8.

In reading the above points it is important to take your time and read carefully. While at first it might sound a bit confusing as it refers to Greek grammar, it actually is a clear explanation of John's use of "it" and "he".

Of course, I am sharing with you what I believe to help you understand my point of view.

Having once believed in the holy spirit as the third person of the trinity I understand why trinitarians believe what they do.

Thanks for reading my thoughts.

> 184. ... is properly referred to, therefore, by the neuter pronoun in English (it) because it does not have personality

Did you know that, since the gender of many animals such as rabbits, insects, etc. is not usually obvious, these animals are usually referred to as "it", except in some veterinarian or literary contexts? And yet, the book Rabbits for Dummies contains the following advice: "You can win your bunny over to the point where he's incredibly comfortable with you." It all revolves around the issue of "personality." As anyone with a pet rabbit knows, you don't have to be a person to have personality.

>185 jburlinson:
And you don't necessarily have a personality if you're a person. ;-)

Os.

>184 CSailin:
Though the OT, produced by a partriarchal priest-scribe system, tends to refer to God as He, there are other terms used by God and for God that are not necessarily masculine. I once had a pastor who would not allow hyms to be sung if they had feminine references to God, because it was not Biblical. Many of the feminine references disappear in translation, or even in the typical understanding of the ancient Hebrew by the patriarchal priests, scribes, and rabbis.

First of all, God seems to take pains to ensure that he is not represented as a sexual being, that maile fertility symbols (Ashera, tree-structures, standing stones) are not allowed, and those that existed in Canaan before the Israelites crossed the Jordan were to be totally obliterated. (Deut 16).

The OT refers to the "God who gave you birth" (Deut 32:18) and "From whose belly does ice come; who gave birth to heaven’s frost? (Job 38:29), all very feminine images. I'm no student of ancient Hebrew, but it is my understanding that the word for wind/Spirit often used in the OT has the same root as that for 'womb'. Not a case for a feminine God, but a case for a God that contains all aspects of what humans consider masculine and feminine. This sense seems to me to be magnified in the majority of characteristics attributed to Christ.

Os.

(184) CSailin, I'll get back to you later, when I'm on my lunch break...work awaits me right now. :)

>185 jburlinson: What an interesting note from the book.

And speaking of rabbits and personalities.........allow me to chase one and share a little humor and nostalgia
here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBiJAxgZFFI

This popped into my head. That is how I am wired....connecting thoughts over and over and linking ideas, people, events, data, songs, etc.

Thanks for sharing.

>187 Osbaldistone: God he/she

I also am not an authority. But I do read alot, and talk about the scriptures alot.

Most Bible students realize that just as assigning human features to God is not to be understood literally, the use of the masculine gender to describe God should not be taken literally. Gender distinction is unique to physical creatures and is a linguistic device that reflects the limitations of human language to capture fully the essence of Almighty God, Jehovah.

The Bible says "GOD is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth". This statement reveals a basic truth about God’s form, or nature—he is a spirit! (John 4:19-24) Still, he is described in the Bible as a person, an individual.

I really enjoyed reading your points.

I remember in university I had a professor who, whenever referring to God, referred to him as a "she".
Having been raised a baptist, that really upset me!

Later we all learned he was gay, he died of aids.....very sad. He was one of my favorite professors.
He was a wonderful professor, and had a passion for education and preparing the next generation of teachers.

>188 fuzzi: Okee Dokey........no hurry.

>190 CSailin: CSailin, I think you make a very important point that all we have are partial images of a God who is greater than we can imagine. So whether it is he, she, it, or whether it is father, mother, son, spirit, judge, lord, king or whatever, it is only an incomplete attempt by us to understand and articulate our experience of God in human terms. Mystics would use terms such as desert, the cloud of unknowing, nada, nothing to describe their experience of God, "nothing" meaning "no thing", ie God is not a thing. The apophatic tradition goes along these lines, I believe.

> 192 johnthefireman, I totally agree with you. We are so limited in our thinking. And it is so easy to set up a "belief" system in our pretty little heads.
God, the Creator, is so............. so.......Almighty.....which hardly seems like a good enough word in my vocabulary to describe Him. I am at a loss for words when I attempt to describe who God is to me.

John, I think this is the reason we are told in scripture to observe creation........Have you ever been out in the middle of a dark desolate place at midnight and had the Milky Way above your head and felt like a molecule.....so small, that you felt you would be crushed by the universe at any moment?

Observing the heavens is one way to draw closer to the Supreme being, because you are instantly humbled by it's size, and order, and splendor and beauty. That is why we are invited to do so over and over in scripture. It keeps us humble. Our neighbor has a wonderful telescope. Last week we saw Saturn with it's rings, out there, all by it's lonesome, reflecting the sun's light.......what a wonderful sight.......just hanging there, held by nothing.

I love that Jesus said at Matthew 5:3......."Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need". Many non-christians, with a deep regard for the Creator, are wonderful human beings, with much spirituality. I have had the pleasure to come in contact with many of them. Speaking with them about creation and the Creator is a breath of fresh air. They in turn listen as I share my faith in God's son and his sacrifice for us.

You have to be willing to speak to all kinds of people, about all kinds of things with the end goal of wanting to understand them and their beliefs.
This way, the world is a happier place John, don't you think? Becoming all things to all peoples.....I've read that somewhere...hmm :)

>192 John5918: Have you ever been out in the middle of a dark desolate place at midnight and had the Milky Way above your head...

Yes, and Africa is a perfect continent on which to do so! I presented a paper on Creation Spirituality (not to be confused with Creationism) in association with the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg about 10 years ago, and I recall focusing on a theme from either Thomas Berry or Brian Swimme (can't remember now for sure which one, and they co-authored some books anyway) that our role is to stand in awe of God's creation.

>194 John5918: our role is to stand in awe of God's creation.

Yes, that is our role.....and yet, unlike other things we are in awe of and cannot own, touch, or ride, we can enjoy creation all we want. We can scale mountains, sample the bounty growing on the earth, delight in the fragrances of flowers, swim the oceans, rivers and lakes, and marvel at all the wonders of creation put here for our enjoyment.

You might enjoy visiting the TED site and viewing some of the talks presented by scientists and explorers. Also, the symphony of science website is kind of neat......both are well worth navigating to and exploring.

Let me know what you think.

Here is a link to a talk about the night sky that I absolutely loved. The comments below the talk led me to a site based in Chile, where astronomers/photographers take time lapse videos of the Milky Way nightly.

Here are the links:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lucianne_walkowicz_look_up_for_a_change.html
http://www.symphonyofscience.com/

I discovered my love for science way too late. Could have been a scientist.......well, at least with the internet, I can explore all I want, and learn and share what I learn with others. :)

(I saw the Milky Way for the first time on the island of Hispanola.......almost fainted at the sight......have yet to see it again...hoping to see it though....I don't give up hope)

>184 CSailin:: I think that your objection to calling the Holy Spirit a "person" is based on a misunderstanding of what theologians mean by the term "person" when applied to each of the aspects of the triune God -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

In everyday language, "person" means an individual being whose individuality is defined (that is, delimited) by being distinct from other "persons". Thus, you are a person and I am a person, and those two persons are distinct and cannot overlap--that is, I am not and cannot be you, and you are not and cannot be me (in theological language, this is known as "incommunicability", that is, that you and I must always be understood as separate and distinct persons that cannot be joined into a single unity; "you" can never mean "we", nor can "I").

But when we use the term "person" of each of the members of the Trinity, we use it in a very different sense; for each person of the Trinity, while distinct from one another according to relationship (the Father begets the Son, the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father {and, from some theological perspectives, from the Son -- more on that in a bit}), exists completely as the Godhead: the Father is wholly God, the Son is wholly God, the Holy Spirit is wholly God. Thus, the relationship between the Godhead and each person is one of identity, not distinction; and the relationship between each person is distinctive and of a specific type (begetting, begotten, and proceeding). As several posters in this thread (including johnthefireman) have noted, the essence of the trinitarian life is relational community: the truth the Trinity reveals to us is the way that Love as a relationship between subjects is at the heart of being.

(A side note: when we use the term "person" of Jesus Christ, we are not referring theologically to the historical human person named Jesus, but to this distinct but consubstantial aspect of God. When theologians talk about the humanity of Jesus, we talk about Jesus having two natures in one person: a divine nature and a human nature. How that "two natures in one person" thing works is a whole other can of worms that we will leave unopened for the moment.)

The English use of "person" derives from the Latin term "persona" to describe each of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. "Persona" denoted originally the mask worn by an actor on stage, but by extension became a term to describe the entire "role" played by any individual, and thus the identity, as it were, of each individual. "Persona" thus was used by Latin theologians to describe each office, as it were, of the Trinity; but crucially, each "persona" was identical to the one "substantia" or "substance" / "being" of God (thus the Nicene Creed says that Jesus Christ, the Son, is "one being with the Father" or "of one substance with the Father" or "consubstantial with the Father", that is, that both the Father and the Son are of the same one being, which is the one being of the Godhead).

Unfortunately, this caused a significant amount of friction with Greek-speaking theologians, for whom the Greek word corresponding to the Latin "persona" ("prosopon") was not at all adequate to describe each aspect of the Trinity. The Greeks used the term "hypostasis", which is technically equivalent to the Latin "substantia" (substance, being), for each of the three aspects of the Trinity--a terminology which, from the Latin perspective, denied the Nicaean doctrine that God is of one substance, not three.

Eventually (but only very slowly and with lots of acrimony), theologians were able to sort things out and realize that the essence of both eastern and western belief on the three-in-one-ness of the Trinity was substantially the same, obscured only by differences in terminology. (For a more thorough treatment of this, see here and here.)

Anyway, to summarize this point: when we use "person" to describe the Holy Spirit, we are using it in a very technical sense to describe the Holy Spirit as (1) wholly God and (2) distinct from the Father and the Son. We are not using it to describe the Holy Spirit as an incarnate being like Jesus. Thus, it is in no way contradictory to say that the Holy Spirit is a "person" and yet indwells in many.

Now, the relationship between the two persons of the Father and the Son is very clear and undisputed: the Father begets the Son, the Son is begotten of the Father--God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father (to quote from the Nicene Creed).

The relationship between the Holy Spirit and the other persons of the Trinity, however, is much more difficult to ascertain. The basic idea that emerged in eastern Greek theology is that the Holy Spirit proceeds directly from the Father (John 14:16-17, "And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.") as an autonomous power ("dynamis" in the Greek) of God.

Western, Latin theologians, however, developed a different understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit in which the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son (thus why this dispute is known as "filioque", which is the Latin term added into the Nicene Creed {not found in the Greek version} indicating that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "and the Son"): John 14:26, "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name..."

In the last few decades, theologians from both sides have finally gotten together and agreed that both perspectives are valid when considered within the different frameworks within which east and west understand the composition and operation of the Trinity.

>196 nathanielcampbell: Thanks, Nathaniel. I enjoyed that very clear and readable articulation of a somewhat arcane topic.

>196 nathanielcampbell: Thanks for adding to the conversation Nathaniel

>192 John5918:
I think flexibility in such terminology is essential if we want to be able to witness to people where they are. Describing God as the Father to a child suffering abuse at home can't help but drive out any images we may offer of One who loves us and forgives us so that we might grow in our relationship with Him. Some other pronoun is necessary. King is probably not the most helpful title in the US, given our rejection of such earthly sovereigns. It works for those who have grown up with that image, but for someone who is 'testing the waters', such terminology is likely to rub up against deeply held concepts of freedom of choice and self-determination.

The Church has been quite willing over the millenia to re-cast the language as it has spread around the globe. Christ the shepherd didn't work well when the ca 6th century Church began witnessing in the warrior culture of the Saxons. But the Christ who triumphed over Satan, evil, and death had the seats filled. Thus the Gospel was translated into what is now called The Heliand, the Saxon Gospel. It seems odd that some of us argue over such terminology when the need to witness where people are (spiritually and culturally) is so strong. God will lead us all to a right place once we're willing to start the journey.

Os.

(184) Thanks for reading my thoughts.

You are welcome. Thank you in advance for reading and considering my reply:

Without needing to consult one of the numerous Greek New Testaments (there is no ‘one’ Greek NT, despite people referring to ‘The Greek’), I will attempt to show that God is a trinity, and that the Holy Ghost/Spirit is part of the Godhead.

The trinity of God is a belief/doctrine that God, while One, also is three distinct persons. God is the Father, God is also the Son, and God is also the Holy Ghost.

For example:
1 John 5:7 - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

This verse is also referred to as the “Johannine Comma”.

Despite efforts by some to discredit this scripture, saying it was added to manuscripts at a later date, there is ample proof that it existed before other Greek manuscripts that omit it.
Church ‘Father’ Cyprian writes around A.D. 250 the following:

"The Lord says 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"

There are others who mention this verse. In the UBS Greek NT (4th edition) it notes that the "comma" is attested by the Latin church fathers Cyprian (d. 258), Pseudo-Cyprian (4th century), Priscillian (d. 385), the Speculum (5th century), Varimadum (UBS date "445/480"), Pseudo-Vigilius (4th or 5th century), and Fulgentius (d. 533), as well as a few other manuscripts.

Yes, there are only a few early Greek texts that include the Johannine Comma, but there are more early Latin texts that contain it than Greek texts that don’t!

The Johannine Comma is strong evidence for the Trinity of God. Those who do not want to believe in the Trinity make great efforts to disprove it, but do not succeed.

Now, back to your first point:

This point, about spirit being in the neuter proving that the Holy Spirit is not a person, but an ‘it’ can be debated. One way to prove the authenticity of the trinity (God/Father/Holy Spirit=One God) is to refer back 1 John 5:7, the “Johannine Comma”:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

The ‘Word’ is, of course, Jesus Christ. The usage of ‘Word’ to refer to the Son of God is seen in the book of John, so it makes sense that John would have used this term in his first epistle as well. This speaks for the authenticity of the verse.

Some teach that this verse should not be included in 1 John 5 as the Greek textual evidence is weak, though not non-existent.

Here is what someone else wrote about the inclusion of the Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:

The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are followed by a participle that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the Greek masculine participle oi marturountes. With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper Greek grammar.

Even though Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD) does not testify to the authenticity of the Comma, he makes mention of the flawed grammar resulting from its absence. In his Theological Orientations he writes referring to John:

. . . (he has not been consistent) in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourselves disclaim in the case of Deity? 8

It is clear that Gregory recognized the inconsistency with Greek grammar if all we have are verses six and eight without verse seven. Other scholars have recognized the same thing. This was the argument of Robert Dabney of Union Theological Seminary in his book, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek (1891). Bishop Middleton in his book, Doctrine of the Greek Article, argues that verse seven must be a part of the text according to the Greek structure of the passage. Even in the famous commentary by Matthew Henry, there is a note stating that we must have verse seven if we are to have proper Greek in verse eight. 9

While I am not a Greek scholar, I have studied other languages aside from English, and this makes sense to me.

I’ve run out of time, but this should help to clarify my position as someone who believes not only the doctrine of the Trinity of God, but also that there is ample evidence in the Bible to prove it.

>200 fuzzi:: To claim that, "Those who do not want to believe in the Trinity make great efforts to disprove {the Johaninne Comma}, but do not succeed" is a disingenous leap of logic. Making critical observations about the origin and evolutions of the text of I John does not necessarily involve "not wanting to believe in the Trinity".

There is significant but not conclusive evidence that the Johannine comma is an addition. I'm inclined to think that it was inserted by the so-called "Johannine community", i.e. the community that gave rise to the epistles of John. That doesn't make it "unbiblical" or"false" or a conspiracy. It is simply to say that multiple authors had input over multiple generations into the construction of the New Testament text.

Furthermore, positing that the primary author of I John didn't originally write 5:7 in no way means that I "do no want to believe in the Trinity". I do believe in the Trinity (as delineated in my post 196 above).

Unfortunately, fuzzi has a tendency to accuse anyone who takes a more critical approach to the constructions of the New Testament canon of texts as trying to undermine Christianity. Not at all! It is a terrible mistake to say that one must deny historical (or scientific) evidence in order to preserve Christianity, for that leads on a quick road to the destruction of Christianity as a vehicle of truth.

> 196. you and I must always be understood as separate and distinct persons that cannot be joined into a single unity; "you" can never mean "we", nor can "I").

Then what is the meaning of: "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." John 17:21-23 KJV.

>200 fuzzi: The usage of ‘Word’ to refer to the Son of God is seen in the book of John, so it makes sense that John would have used this term in his first epistle as well

Although there are strong arguments against the author of John's gospel being the same as the author of the epistles of John, eg in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary which I use. This commentary also disputes the Johannine Comma, stating that it is not attested before the end of the 4th century CE.

Incidentally, I'm not disputing "the doctrine of the Trinity of God", but I'm not convinced you have provided the strongest of the "ample evidence" here.

>202 jburlinson:
Without this (John 17:21-23), I'm not sure what my faith would hang on. As a Christian, I am a creation of the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist. The center of my worship life is communion as a part of the Body of Christ. I agree that, being imperfect and incomplete, we will always be "separate and distinct" earthly beings, but we can and are routinely "joined into a single[, mystical] unity" as the Body. I have felt it often; I have, I believe, even glimpsed it once.

Os.

ETA correct brackets in the quote.

> 204. I have felt it often; I have, I believe, even glimpsed it once.

I, too, have felt it. When you have felt it, no more need be said. It can be communicated with a glance -- or even, as I believe has just happened, an online comment.

I've not glimpsed it, though. Could you explain?

>205 jburlinson: could you explain
Oooh. Words, huh?

Sitting in a sanctuary, in quiet meditation while a small congregation are gathered around the table, partaking of Communion, [my hands shake while I type this] I've slipped into deep, unintended contemplation. I feel a sense of spaciousness (no good words here) and can't help but glance up. Across the room I am 'aware' for a period of no time (no good words here either) of the presence around the table of people I've not seen in years, people who have passed away, people I've never worshiped with and faces I don't recognize at all. Simultaneously I'm looking at the same folks I saw in the pews before we began the sacrament. Fortunately, I'm sitting, as a mild sense of vertigo comes on for a moment.

I can't do any better with this - I used to ponder this moment quite often, but now it's just with me. I believe Christ was there, across the room or behind me or both, but that remains a feeling that came with the moment, not so much a physical sense.

I'm making a mess of this, but you asked, and I mentioned it in an unguarded moment, so I feel I need to give it a try.

I've tried to preach on this, but the best I've been able to do is to share it as best I can with folks struggling with the mystery of the Eucharist, to glean from it whatever the Spirit might make available. In the darkest of moments, when I've feared Christ is nowhere to be found, I've hung on to this. Whatever else, I know this. It was 25 years ago.

And I'm an engineer - I should know better. :-)

The only thing remotely like it since was when playing strings in a duet while the congregation (in another church) was coming forward to partake. But this was strictly aural. I had stopped playing and my partner was improvising on the Native American flute. The sound of shuffling feet and whispered words as the Body and Blood were being shared seemed to extend out well beyond the walls of our sanctuary. But I couldn't look up. I just bathed in it. Probably just the effect of the flute and the footfalls reverberating off the walls. As I said, I've always been a creation (creature?) of the sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist.

Os.

> 206. Very nicely done. Much appreciated. I believe I understand. Thank you.

>206 Osbaldistone: Ditto. Thanks, Os, for sharing.

>202 jburlinson:: I should perhaps have been more clear in what I was trying to say. I do not dispute that Christ offers us sacramentally and ecclesiologically a unity of grace over against a diversity of sin, weakness, failure, blindness, etc.

But the communion offered sacramentally by grace is of a different sort from what theologians call "communicability" or "the communion of idioms". What I was trying to distinguish was between the everyday usage of the term "person" to denote a distinct individual and the theological usage of the term "person" to denote an office of the Trinity. In the everyday usage, you and I are and will always be distinct persons: you cannot be me and I cannot be you. What makes me me and what makes you you is this distinction that I, as an individual person, am a cohesive entity entirely distinct from you, an individual person.

I hope that this makes at least some sense? I never meant to dispute the unity offered to us in Christ; rather, I was trying to illustrate how the common definition of "person" is no the same as the theological definition when predicated of the Trinity.

>209 nathanielcampbell:
Cool with me! My spouse and I are two individuals and are also one in a mystical way that continues to fill me with awe. I cannot deny the mystical union, but neither would I deny that I remain a separate person from her (I know there are many times when I'm not separate enough - you know, that "diversity of sin, weakness, failure, blindness, etc" you mentioned). In this sense, that separateness is part of the blessing of marriage.

Os.

>196 nathanielcampbell: NathanielCampbell...."I think that your objection to calling the Holy Spirit a "person" is based on a misunderstanding of what theologians mean by the term "person" when applied to each of the aspects of the triune God -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

Not quite Nathaniel. My objection to calling the Holy Spirit a "person", and believing it to be a part of a triune God, is that I have not, from my studies, come to see this as a Bible teaching.

Also, given the history of the trinity, which expression does not even appear in scripture, I find it hard to see God as such(A trinity that is).

I believe and have faith in God the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth. I believe and have faith that he sent his only begotten Son to the Earth to give his life on behalf of humankind, and to share the good news of a kingdom that will restore peace to the earth, Jesus Christ, the Messiah. And, I believe the holy spirit, God's spirit......his active force, is given to us to live our christian life with power. This spirit, this force, allows us to have the strength beyond what is normal at times, and other times it helps us to discern God's will and guides us in our everyday life. It guides our speech, our actions, our thoughts.

One way to know who has the spirit of God in their lives is to observe if they display the fruit of the spirit as outlined by Paul in Galatians 5:23-24.
Does the person claiming to be a christian display love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control?

Or does he or she display the fruit of the spirit of the world? Which interestingly enough Paul also outlines these in the very same chapter.
Those following the world manifest the world's spirit (style of life), and I quote scripture, "fornication, uncleanness, loose conduct, idolatry, practice spiritism, enmities, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, contentions, divisions, sects, envies, drunken bouts, revelries, and things like these", Galatians 5:19-21.

At this point of my life, and given my studies of the last 21 years, it is where I am. I was raised to believe in the holy spirit as a person. For over 30 years I believed this to be true. I don't any more.

Thanks for reading my thoughts.

>200 fuzzi: fuzzi.......It took me a while to get back to you, for this I apologize.

You said: "Without needing to consult one of the numerous Greek New Testaments (there is no ‘one’ Greek NT, despite people referring to ‘The Greek’), I will attempt to show that God is a trinity, and that the Holy Ghost/Spirit is part of the Godhead."

I am no Greek scholar, and the only reason I make reference to the Greek, is that it was the common language when Jesus was on Earth. The New Testament was written in Greek, hence my reference to it. I, like you, see the entire Bible as God's word, and have deep respect for it. I would never want to go beyond what it says and take philosophies of men as truth, making God's word invalid.

Thank you for explaining your belief in the Trinity. Like I said, I used to believe in it as well.

I was hoping to finish discussing our conversation on the holy spirit and was looking forward to staying with the scripture in John 14 until we came to a consensus.

I'm not good at jumping around from topic to topic and idea to idea leaving everything unresolved and with no consensus or understanding.

Oh well, if you ever find additional information to continue the discussion of John 14:16-17 let me know.

Enjoy your weekend!!

> 211. One way to know who has the spirit of God in their lives is to observe if they display the fruit of the spirit as outlined by Paul in Galatians 5:23-24.
Does the person claiming to be a christian display love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control?

There are people who don't claim to be Christians who display these qualities as well. Do they have the spirit of God in their lives? (By asking this question, I have given a hint as to what I believe the answer to it is.)

>213 jburlinson: Yes.

>213 jburlinson:. The hint was not necessary :) as I have come to the same conclusion. Therefore, I make every effort not to judge others.

People from all over the world may display the qualities outlined in scripture, whether or not they are believers. It doesn't matter who you are.

I think that is why Jesus outlined two laws which all of us, humans, should give serious thought to.

Love God and love others. And do not forget the Golden Rule......treat others as you would like others to treat you.

You can't go wrong with these. This is MHO.

Life is so short......it's so much more productive to be focused on loving others and being compassionate than on all the negative traits we humans possess. God is able to reach people in various ways....I truly believe this. One less thing to worry about.

>211 CSailin:: "I believe and have faith in God the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth. I believe and have faith that he sent his only begotten Son to the Earth to give his life on behalf of humankind, and to share the good news of a kingdom that will restore peace to the earth, Jesus Christ, the Messiah. And, I believe the holy spirit, God's spirit......his active force, is given to us to live our christian life with power. This spirit, this force, allows us to have the strength beyond what is normal at times, and other times it helps us to discern God's will and guides us in our everyday life. It guides our speech, our actions, our thoughts.

This is a fine summary of Christian orthodoxy that comports well with traditional statements of the faith, e.g. the Apostle’s and Nicene Creed. Like those Creeds, it is based on the Bible, and its statements about each of these three aspects/manifestations/“persons” comports with what the Bible tells us.

But you see, there is a fundamental human drive to be curious about such things, to understand what precisely they mean – this is part of the divine gift of reason and creative discovery that comes with being made in God’s image and likeness. To quote Anselm of Canterbury, “While the right order requires that we should believe the deep things of the Christian faith before we undertake to discuss them by reason, it seems careless for us, once we are established in the faith, not to aim at understanding what we believe.”

This is the drive that animates me as a theologian. I look at your statement of faith, or at the Creeds, and I want to know, “How does that work?” I look at what the Bible tells me and I know that God is absolutely one (a fundamental aspect of God’s special revelation of himself to the Jews), but that there is also three: the Father, the Son (aka the Word), and the Holy Spirit. How does that work? How are there three whatever-you-want-to-call-them’s but still only one God? How do the three relate to each other? Is each one part of God? But to say that each one is a “part” implies a multiplicity in what is supposed to be a unity. So is each one completely God? Then how is each one separate from the other? For we know that the Father is not identical to the Son (Jesus himself tells us this repeatedly in the gospels), and obviously the Holy Spirit was sent after and separately from the Son, who ascended into Heaven.

This brings us, then, to the word “Trinity”, which comes from the Latin word “trinitas”, which simply means “threeness”, just like the Latin word “unitas” means “unity” or “oneness”. So, theologians say that we believe in a “trinity in unity”, which is just another way of saying “a threeness in oneness”. The word “Trinity” simply describes the phenomenon of God’s scriptural revelation of himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – threeness, but still oneness. Using the word “Trinity” as shorthand for this Biblical information is just like using “Beatitudes” to describe a series of Jesus’ statements in the Sermon on the Mount – you won’t find the word “beatitude” in the text, but only because “beatitude” is a word we use to designate the whole series.

But let me come back to all of those questions I asked in the previous paragraph. How does this whole threeness-in-oneness work? Well, a lot of early Christians had a lot of different ideas about how it worked. One group in the late third and fourth centuries who came to be known as “Arians” because one of their leaders was named “Arius”, proposed that God the Father was the One God, and that Jesus Christ as the “firstborn of creation” (Colossians 1:15) and “a little lower than the angels” (Hebrews 2:7) was the first emanation from God—not God himself, but of the highest order of spiritual beings after God. (Arius was using a neo-platonic philosophical framework in which the origin of all being is the One, from which emanates all successive levels of being. The One is an absolute unity and so can’t have three aspects like Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; thus, this triad must be an emanation from the monad and thus cannot be identical with the One.)

Well, this seemed wrong to a lot of Christians because it seemed to deny that Jesus was the same One God as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But, Arius’ views were very attractive to a lot of other Christians, especially those who had been educated in the neo-platonic philosophy of that time period. Eventually, after the Emperor Constantine determined to legalize Christianity throughout the Roman Empire and to promote its orthodoxy, a big meeting of all of the Church’s leaders was convened in the city of Nicaea (in modern north-western Turkey) to determine which view of the relationship between the Father and the Son was correct. Out of this “council” came the Nicene Creed, which attempts to state the fundamentals of Christian belief as derived from the Bible and as clarified to avoid the mistakes made by the Arians.

Nicaea would not be the last of the great church councils – by the ecumenically accepted count, there would eventually be seven great church councils, each tasked with making decisions about which of a variety of views on the identity of Jesus Christ and the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were correct and which were not correct.

In the course of those councils and the development of Christianity’s understanding of the various questions I listed earlier, a theological vocabulary developed (as for example I described in post 196 as to theological use of the word “person”). Thus, it would be wrong to say such theological vocabulary is not “biblical”, for in every instance its development and usage was guided by the Christian community’s attempt to understand, “What does the Bible mean when it says … ?” So, to come back to your statement of faith that I quoted at the beginning of this post: what you describe is a triune God, that is, the One God revealed in Judaism, but also the threeness of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit revealed in Christianity.

>216 nathanielcampbell: Thanks, Nathaniel. Nicely put. You articulate well the link between tradition and scripture.

> 216. But you see, there is a fundamental human drive to be curious about such things, to understand what precisely they mean – this is part of the divine gift of reason and creative discovery that comes with being made in God’s image and likeness.

There's another way to think of this, though, which is that the "drive to be curious" is not a divine gift at all but is, when considered within the context of the Genesis myth, a perverse desire to emulate God. Stated another way, this drive could be considered an attribute of our evolved problem solving capacities, which have served us so well, so far, in the struggle to survive as a species with somewhat limited physical assets (i.e., not very fast, not very strong, hides not tough enough, etc.)

From this perspective, "being made in God's image" could be understood as being able to appreciate the created world as "good", as long as "good" doesn't connote morally correct. More of an aesthetic thing, perhaps. "Reason" could even be understood as part of God's curse for man's presumptuousness in trying to emulate Him -- the "knowledge of good and evil" is no good thing, in other words, because, at this point, "good" is now corrupted with moral significance.

In short, the urge to know "how does that work?" is our affliction and will never be overcome until we die or until we are able to abandon our dependence on reason.

From this point of view, the "trinity" is something like a koan, or a paradox intended to afford us some kind of intuitive enlightenment or at least challenge us to acknowledge the ultimate unknowability of God. If it fails to do that, it has no value and could even be pernicious, as, indeed, the doctrine has proved to be over the centuries. Any time someone kills someone else over a thought experiment like the "trinity", something has gone very wrong.

>218 jburlinson: In short, the urge to know "how does that work?" is our affliction and will never be overcome until we die or until we are able to abandon our dependence on reason.

Perhaps, but wanting to learn how something works is a behaviour quite unrelated to wanting to force the other to agree with the conclusion we've reached. The second is as likely to occur when no real thought has been given to the conclusion as when the conclusion is the result of years of study.

Os.

Theology has also been described as "faith seeking understanding", fides quarens intellectum.

>211 CSailin: regarding your view on the Trinity--do you think Jesus is God?