The Holy Spirit

[aron]

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

...there still remains an 'elephant-in-the-room' on this thread...

I think so. Irrespective of my inability to clearly articulate it, there still is an unresolved issue(s).

I happily confirm myself as a card-carrying "orthodox" christian, who acknowledges the creedal "trinity" formulation. But I'm old enough and settled in my faith to say that I've never understood it. The Holy Spirit is 1/3 of the Trinity? Huh? And there are a lot of "loose ends" conceptually in the text.

OBW says, "So what?" What difference do all these stories make, even if we make plausible cases for them? Good question. I believe that a powerful story will capture the imagination and bend the behavior. When you begin to look at the world differently you begin to respond differently. A good narrative has that drawing power - it captures your consciousness and alters your behavior. And personality is nothing but behavior, repeated.

The "Star Wars" fans gather every year, dressed as Wookies and Storm Troopers, not because it is real, but because they like the story. Maybe the other 364 days of the year they are computer programmers and police officers, but at least one day of the year they change their behavior, because they like the story. So don't discount the power of the human imagination. Like I said, I loved LOTR when I was young, not because Middle Earth was real, but because it could be real. So it caught my attention.

________________________________

Okay, back to elephant hunting.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

OBW says, "So what?" What difference do all these stories make, even if we make plausible cases for them? Good question. I believe that a powerful story will capture the imagination and bend the behavior. When you begin to look at the world differently you begin to respond differently. A good narrative has that drawing power - it captures your consciousness and alters your behavior. And personality is nothing but behavior, repeated.

Though I did not quote the portion, I agree that stories are often very important. They often show us something about man, the truth, etc., that we don't think about in the particular way. And I still like the LOTR stories. There is a lot to consider there.

But when I said "so what?" (when ever it was — I have lost track of this thread several times) I was mostly suggesting that certain things are, or should be, of less importance to us than others.

When I read the Bible, I see facts and I see intent, commands, etc. To a great degree, the things about what we package together into this teaching of "trinity" is mostly about the facts. God is. The Father is and does. The Son is and does. The Spirit is and does. Figuring them out and systematizing it into the best doctrinal statement does not change who they actually are. And since we only know what we can read in the scripture, then putting more definitions around it, then telling some stories that are not from the Bible but are supplied to support extra-biblical theory, the only conclusion that I can reach is that we are trying to force something into the reading of scripture that is not there.

My "so what" is more like "what makes caring important?" I have agreed with some here that God as one is every bit as much a person as the three are individually. But I am less certain about that now. I could still be wrong because God is not within our sphere of time and space. At some level, we may be more like that galaxy on Orion's belt that was attached to a dog's collar (Men in Black). But when Jesus prays that we would be one as he and the Father are one, the absolute unity of person that One God = one Person implies is somewhat undermined.

But the point is not to figure out how the Father and the Son are one, but to come to live in the unity that Jesus prayed about. That we would be one displaying the truth of God. Revealing to the world that more than a good man is behind our living.

There is no "so what" in that.

But if we are looking for a story, why is it? To support a theory that is already beyond what the scripture actually tells us? To demonstrate what the scripture actually tells us?

Stories like LOTR, or Star Wars provide some insight into man's thinking about things. Truth, justice, human nature, and so on. But everything that the writers portray is not necessarily true. Just because we find a story that sort of fits does not mean that its tendency to compel us in a direction is true. Maybe partly true. But not necessarily all, if any.

I read something yesterday where they used a story that may ahve come from one of the Gnostic gospels. It was credited to another book and it may be that the particulars were a rephrased version. I think I have heard it before and recall it being from on of those gospels, thought I will not say it definitely is.

The story was of Jesus walking along with the disciples and asking them all to carry a rock. Peter, picks up a small one. Then at lunch, Jesus blesses the rocks and they turn in to bread. Peter is finished in one bite. So when Jesus asks them to pick up another, he grabs the biggest one he thinks he can carry. Later Jesus tells them all to throw them in the water. Peter is furious and confused. Jesus asks "Who were you carrying the rock for?"

Cute story. And it can reasonably be a backdrop for certain truth that we can actually find in the Bible. But once you have the story, what else can you glean from it? The apparent arbitrariness of God? A need to be searching for instructions at all times? An expectation that everything is designed and with purpose rather than just life with God working in us through it? What do we get from a compelling story? Maybe one step closer to swallowing deputy authority.

That is why I ask "so what?" What do we actually gain from being right? How does it stack up against scripture? If it is neither supported nor denied, it is "so what?" It could be true, but it wasn't important enough to make a comment on it.

And that last sentence is consistent with my general belief that the scripture is a book that is telling us things straight out. Not in code. The only reason that people don't see what it says is not because the words cannot be understood, but because their eyes have not been opened to see that the claims made are true. It is not a mystery. It is just not believed as true. They do not accept because they do not believe in the one behind the words.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

When I read the Bible, I see facts and I see intent, commands, etc. To a great degree, the things about what we package together into this teaching of "trinity" is mostly about the facts. God is. The Father is and does. The Son is and does. The Spirit is and does. Figuring them out and systematizing it into the best doctrinal statement does not change who they actually are. And since we only know what we can read in the scripture, then putting more definitions around it, then telling some stories that are not from the Bible but are supplied to support extra-biblical theory, the only conclusion that I can reach is that we are trying to force something into the reading of scripture that is not there...

The Spirit is and does... well that is what I am after here. The Holy Spirit is what and does what? Is the Spirit the Angel of the Lord, and how does this relate to the holy angels of God? Because they are also spirits. They also are, and do.

Look in Revelation 22: in verse 7 the Lord Jesus says, "Behold I come quickly", then in verse 8 and 9 it is the messenger angel speaking. Then in verse 13 it is "Behold I come quickly" (Jesus) again, and verse 14 is "I am the Alpha and Omega" again. So the speaking goes from Jesus to the messenger back to God. This happens in the scriptures again and again. First God, then an angel, with no obvious transition. Or vice versa: the person calls the angel "God". And they are all spirits. God is Spirit, and angels are spirits. There is the Holy Spirit and the holy angels of God.

How does this matter? If we understand better (assuming our hearts are pure, of course) we might cooperate better. In Luke chapter 7, the Roman Centurion saved Jesus a trip: "You just say the word". It seems like that statement saved Jesus a few hours of walking. Because later they asked what time the servant was healed and it was the same time Jesus spoke. So obviously He wasn't 100 yards away. He was at quite some distance. The Centurion's understanding of the divine dynamic apparently increased its functional efficiency dramatically. And the Centurion, it seems, wasn't talking about the Holy Spirit ("I also have servants under me").

Maybe if we understood more we might be more effective in our ministry. It's one thing to inherit your father's car. It's another thing entirely to know how to drive it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

The Spirit is and does... well that is what I am after here. The Holy Spirit is what and does what? Is the Spirit the Angel of the Lord, and how does this relate to the holy angels of God? Because they are also spirits. They also are, and do.

Look in Revelation 22: in verse 7 the Lord Jesus says, "Behold I come quickly", then in verse 8 and 9 it is the messenger angel speaking. Then in verse 13 it is "Behold I come quickly" (Jesus) again, and verse 14 is "I am the Alpha and Omega" again. So the speaking goes from Jesus to the messenger back to God. This happens in the scriptures again and again. First God, then an angel, with no obvious transition. Or vice versa: the person calls the angel "God". And they are all spirits. God is Spirit, and angels are spirits. There is the Holy Spirit and the holy angels of God.

How does this matter? If we understand better (assuming our hearts are pure, of course) we might cooperate better. In Luke chapter 7, the Roman Centurion saved Jesus a trip: "You just say the word". It seems like that statement saved Jesus a few hours of walking. Because later they asked what time the servant was healed and it was the same time Jesus spoke. So obviously He wasn't 100 yards away. He was at quite some distance. The Centurion's understanding of the divine dynamic apparently increased its functional efficiency dramatically. And the Centurion, it seems, wasn't talking about the Holy Spirit ("I also have servants under me").

Maybe if we understood more we might be more effective in our ministry. It's one thing to inherit your father's car. It's another thing entirely to know how to drive it.

So you're just trying to figure out the mechanics of God? Yer a God mechanic.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

The Spirit is and does... well that is what I am after here. The Holy Spirit is what and does what? Is the Spirit the Angel of the Lord, and how does this relate to the holy angels of God? Because they are also spirits. They also are, and do.

. . . .

In Luke chapter 7, the Roman Centurion saved Jesus a trip: "You just say the word". . . .

Why are we concerned with why and how the Spirit does what he does? Or the Son? Or the Father? Do we really think that understanding it makes it better? Seems that if we do what we have been told to do, we will "experience" what we are designed to experience of God. How God does it does not change the requirement on us. Neither does which of the Godhead (if specifically stated).

My point is not that there is nothing to be known, or at least presumed or postulated, about which does what or how it is done. But I don't think that is what it is about. It is not about how. It is about God. And it is about man. And the requirements on man are not to understand the Trinity. Neither is it to have great worship services, or to "get into our spirit."

It is to represent God on the earth. To bear his image. Bearing it back to him or representing him back to himself is pointless.

Where does the real spiritual warfare occur? At church? In our small groups? In our private time with God? I suggest it is "not really any of the above." Instead, it is everyday as we live our lives in front of the world. As we bear the image of God in a way that it could be called "salt and light." That there is something that must be explained away to arrive at the conclusion that it is just human frailty needing something bigger than himself — even if just in his own mind.

I see the people. The Christians. They are living their lives often the best they can. But when they get together for that pow-wow at church, it is more about how God benefits them than who God is. Yes we need to be in awe of the hallowed one who "art in heaven." And we need to repent daily and confess our shortcomings. And forgive others. Pray for our "daily bread" (even though Lee said that was a poor pathetic prayer). Pray for our walk in the world, that we would not fall to temptation. And for the kingdom to come.

And in that view, I see digging into the Spirit in this way to be a distraction from what we are called to.

And a story about inheriting a car but not knowing how to drive it does not make figuring this out similar.

And that is my two cents. With interest.

I will admit, as I already have, that this is a "view," or a lens. We all use a lens. And surely there is a way to read the Bible, so there is a lens for it. Is mine right? Maybe at times. And not at others. But it is what it is.

You don't need to convince me. I'll jus say to carry on.

[Mephibosheth2]

Originally Posted by aron

I think so. Irrespective of my inability to clearly articulate it, there still is an unresolved issue(s).

I happily confirm myself as a card-carrying "orthodox" christian, who acknowledges the creedal "trinity" formulation. But I'm old enough and settled in my faith to say that I've never understood it. The Holy Spirit is 1/3 of the Trinity? Huh? And there are a lot of "loose ends" conceptually in the text.

...Bingo! ...

And now, as I unsling, and cock, and take careful aim with my trusty old, African hunting-rifle, aron, allow me to shoot you a question (don't worry, it'll just graze...)

Admittedly, you have a problem with the Holy Spirit being one-third of the Trinity. In other words, as I understand it, you are challenged by the whole notion of God being 'Triune', that is, three-in-one...

If we dismiss, therefore, the idea that the Holy Spirit is part of the Godhead and relegate him to the status of an angel (or seven angels-in-one), to that of a mere messenger, if you will; you are now left with the Lord Jesus Christ being 1/2 of the Godhead. Now, how is that any less mystifying than the Spirit being a 1/3 of the Godhead? To me, it seems like just as much of a conundrum: because any arguments in favor of or against the Spirit are exactly as confounding as those that may arise with respect to the Son.

It remains, therefore, that if we cannot accept that the Holy Spirit is God, then we cannot also accept that Jesus Christ is God. Unless, of course, the concept of the 'Diune God' (or two-in-one) is something that makes much more sense to you, somehow, than a God who is three-in-one! And so alas, we find ourselves in the unenviable position of denying the very deity of, not only the Holy Ghost, but of Jesus Christ Himself; which is the very cut and thrust of the Islamic philosophy and the central emphasis of the Koranic scriptures! ...(cf 2 Tim 1:7 & 2 Tim 3:5)...see, where we've ended up?...

The problematic phraseology aside, which I do not support -because it is really mathematically impossible to break down things of eternal dimensions and proportions into halves and quarters, and other such fractions (Infinity divided by three, or by four, or by seventy-six, or by a hundred million, is still Infinity!)- the crux of the matter is that God is Spirit (John 4:24) and the Spirit is the Son (which I will later show you from verses you yourself quoted and misinterpreted from Revelation) and therefore, the Son is God. He is not a 1/3 of God anymore than you can have a 1/3 of Infinity (which is impossible according to our narrow and limited four-dimensional view and concept of everything) He just is God, as the Spirit, just is God.

To put it in kindergarten-picture terms: to frame 'words' you need your 'breath' i.e. you cannot speak without your breath; the Son is the Word, the Spirit is the Breath. The Breath is required to frame the Word. Both are the Same and Both are Eternal. John has used an ordinary fact crucial to everyday life as a metaphor to convey to us some idea of the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. He couldn't have been more clear. Anything less than this is and you have 'Allah'.

...So, can you really have your cake and eat it too?...

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

If we dismiss, therefore, the idea that the Holy Spirit is part of the Godhead and relegate him to the status of an angel (or seven angels-in-one), to that of a mere messenger, if you will; you are now left with the Lord Jesus Christ being 1/2 of the Godhead. Now, how is that any less mystifying than the Spirit being a 1/3 of the Godhead? To me, it seems like just as much of a conundrum: because any arguments in favor of or against the Spirit are exactly as confounding as those that may arise with respect to the Son.

I don't think that Awareness has 'dismissed' the Holy Spirit to the role of a 'mere messenger', as you've said. He has said that the Holy Spirit is the seven spirits of God who are the seven first-created angles in the universe. These seven first-created angles are very special to God and are not only mere messengers. Awareness has even proved it in the bible when the apostle john said that he wrote to the seven angles of the seven churches and in each case after the message to each church, there was an exhortation that whoever had an ear to hear what the Spirit (i.e. one of the first-created angles) was saying to the churches should hear. It shows the angle is the same as the Spirit. This, in my opinion, proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the Spirit is the seven angles of God who stood before the throne. Moreover, Awareness has also proved this out of Rev 22: 7-9. Thanks Awareness.

I'm sorry guys, I meant Aron, noty Awareness.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I'm sorry guys, I meant Aron, noty Awareness.

I'm glad that my ideas made some sense to somebody. But I'll take OBW's advice and drop it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I'm sorry guys, I meant Aron, noty Awareness.

Shewwwwwwwwwww!!! For a second there I thought I woke up and believed the book of Revelation belongs in the canon.

In truth I have modified my position on the book of Revelation. In reading how early Christians interpreted the book, shortly after it was written, I found the book was first taken to mean all about the Roman Empire, and God's shortly to come Kingdom.

But it didn't take long before the book became about other Christians, and early "stray" movements. Like the revival around 60 years after Rev. was written of Montanus. Montanus' charismatic movement was inspired by John's Revelation, caught on quickly, and swept thruout the Empire.

"Everywhere Montanus traveled with the two women prophets who initiated the revival with him, Priscilla and Maximilla , they aroused enthusiastic supporters— and hostile opponents. Those who accused the “new prophets” of being inspired by Satan also attacked John’s now famous— or infamous— Book of Revelation, saying that what it “revealed” was nothing but the mad ravings of a heretic."
- Pagels, Elaine (2012-03-06). Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, and Politics in the Book of Revelation (p. 104). Penguin Group US. Kindle Edition.


So now I think we need the book of Revelation. So we can beat up and condemn other Christians ... like: I'm/we're Overcomers, and you/they aren't.

Ha ....

[aron]

Let me revisit this from another angle: Let's ignore as nonessential whether and how angels are spirits, and of what kind, or whether there are seven spirits or one Holy Spirit sevenfold intensified, burning in front of the throne in John's Revelation.

But consider this from John's perspective: there is clearly differentiation. There is the One who was and is and who's coming, who is on the throne. There are seven spirits in front of the throne. There is the LOGOS at the right hand of God. How can you say that the Father is the Son, who is the Spirit, sevenfold or otherwise? What do you see in this scene that supports such notions? Only your doctrine, is what, not the imagery of the scene itself. On the contrary, John's vision in Revelation 1 doesn't support Lee's doctrine; rather Lee's doctrine is imposed on John's vision, and doesn't fit very well.

Secondly, irrespective of details, we see One on the throne, we see the LOGOS beside the throne, we see seven spirits before the throne, and we see 24 elders around the throne. Look at the placement, the clearly differentiated spatial arrangement here: on the throne, beside the throne, in front of the throne, and around the throne. Can't we see the difference? There is order here, and there's differentiation. It is not some bland, homogenized mass of undifferentiated "God".

But - and here is my point - in this differentiation there is absolute, impenetrable oneness. You don't see any of the 24 elders pining away for one of the seven slots in front of the throne. You don't see seven spirits, or angels for that matter, arguing with each other over who's in the middle and who's in the outer position. Each is absolutely where he is supposed to be. Each is in absolute coordination, kinship harmony, and fellowship. No one's demanding to impose some different structure on the scene. God has already done this. There is multiplicity, plurality, and differentiation. But it is all "one".

So -- every time some disgusted Christian leaves "degraded Christianity" and starts some new, supposedly purified "restorationist" or "recovery" movement, how can we say it's God's will? "The age was dark, and then God raised up Watchman Nee", etc, etc.... I don't care how logical it seems to you. I don't care how repugnant, "devilish" and so forth fallen Christianity seems; or how attractive your notion seems by contrast. Who are you to impose your idea of order on God?

Paul said this in 1 Cor 7: "Wherever you are when God calls you, remain. If God called you as a slave, then be a slave." In God's choice there is no slave nor free, no male or female, no Gentile or Jew, no Baptist or Methodist. It doesn't matter. What you are is what you are. Where God calls you, remain, until and unless God changes it. Don't let the devil trick you into pining for a better, "restored" or "recovered" situation. We on the other hand, can control our response: inner peace and joy. We're on the glassy sea, already on "proper ground".

Originally Posted by aron

But consider this from John's perspective: there is clearly differentiation. There is the One who was and is and who's coming, who is on the throne. There are seven spirits in front of the throne. There is the LOGOS at the right hand of God. How can you say that the Father is the Son, who is the Spirit, sevenfold or otherwise? What do you see in this scene that supports such notions? Only your doctrine, is what, not the imagery of the scene itself. On the contrary, John's vision in Revelation 1 doesn't support Lee's doctrine; rather Lee's doctrine is imposed on John's vision, and doesn't fit very well.

Secondly, irrespective of details, we see One on the throne, we see the LOGOS beside the throne, we see seven spirits before the throne, and we see 24 elders around the throne. Look at the placement, the clearly differentiated spatial arrangement here: on the throne, beside the throne, in front of the throne, and around the throne. Can't we see the difference? There is order here, and there's differentiation. It is not some bland, homogenized mass of undifferentiated "God".

Dude, what about the four living creatures? where do htey fit in your picture of hierarcy? are they equal with the lamb because they are in 'the midst' of the throne, just like He is (NOT 'beside the throne'). You ask what do I see in thise scene that suppports such notions of the Son being the Spirit....hmmm....well, lets see now....hmm..what about the 'seven eyes of the lamb being the seven spirits of God'???...Gotcha!..

what are you smokin', dude?