Trinity Discussion, split from "Something I Just Read"

[micah7:9]

Molly

Jesus surrenders his will to the Father.
Jesus said I have a will my own will I freely give it over to the Father.

Where is scriptures do we get any thing close to;

1) I the Father give up my free will to you God the Spirit.

2) I God the Spirit give up my free will to you God the Father.

:eek: :doh:

[dajomaco]

Molly so how is that passage the rosetta stone for the personhood of the HS?

First of all, do you believe that Paul was receiving a message from the Holy Spirit on that sinking ship?  Yes or No?

I believe the message originated with God and he dispatched it as he saw fit.

[micah7:9]

Molly so how is that passage the rosetta stone for the personhood of the HS?

First of all, do you believe that Paul was receiving a message from the Holy Spirit on that sinking ship?  Yes or No?

I believe the message originated with God and he dispatched it as he saw fit.

:banana: :thumbsup: :HeartThrob:

[redhotmagma]

Molly so how is that passage the rosetta stone for the personhood of the HS?

First of all, do you believe that Paul was receiving a message from the Holy Spirit on that sinking ship?  Yes or No?

Paul received a message from an angel of God, yes.  Was it through the HS as a 3rd person coequal and coeternal to God the FAther and God the Son?  NO.  For the millionth time, NOBODY is saying the HS doesn't exist.  You keep setting up these straw man arguments Molly.  BTW where in this passage (Acts 27 btw not 17) does it say this is the HS, a separate person within the trinity that is contacting Paul.  It doesn't at all. 

[Molly]

Ok. I'm confused now.

Did Paul receive a message from the Holy Spirit while he was on the sinking ship.

Yes or No?


Acts 27

[micah7:9]

Ok. I'm confused now.

Did Paul receive a message from the Holy Spirit while he was on the sinking ship.

Yes or No?


Acts 27

I believe Paul received a message from the Father by/through His power the Spirit/Holy Spirit.

[Molly]

Is that a yes or a no?

But I was really talking to RHM.

[redhotmagma]

Yes Molly.  Now please enlighten us as to how this shows the HS is a separate person of the trinity. 

[micah7:9]

Personally, I believe the trinity(3 persons in 1 blessed trinity) teaching along with praying to Mary and man having an immortal soul, is un-biblical.
I being raised a Lutheran from K-12 have heard "blessed trinity" used as well in the Catholic belief and in hymn's from those beliefs. Again to emphaize there is no such wording in the Bible.

And I agree with, redhotmagma...... "Paul received a message from an angel of God, yes.  Was it through the HS as a 3rd person coequal and coeternal to God the FAther and God the Son?  NO.  For the millionth time, NOBODY is saying the HS doesn't exist.  You keep setting up these straw man arguments Molly.  BTW where in this passage (Acts 27 btw not 17) does it say this is the HS, a separate person within the trinity that is contacting Paul.  It doesn't at all. "

This discussion for me is only continuing because as I have said before, where in the Bible(other than religious interpretation by someone) do we find any evidence that states God is 3 persons in 1? And since the word trinity, as we all know, is not found in the Bible, just why would anyone accept such a  doctrine without forth right, simple, and plain words to point it out? I fail to see a controversy if there is no sound evidence. In 40 yrs( no bragging it's been 40 years since He began dragging me) of reading and studying the Bible I have found many things that I had believed at one time to be true and the Word proved those beliefs in error. Such is the trinity teaching. :HeartThrob:

[redhotmagma]

It's true, they are not three separate persons [spirit, soul, and body].  They are three in one [within ourselves].

But, don't they act like separate persons sometimes?

And, aren't the three parts of ourselves being saved separately, one after the other, with the redemption of the body last?



14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

--Rom 7

So sin is a person in us? 

20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

This is the other personality that acts differently.

Wouldn't that make us quaternarian beings then in your philosophy?  Body, soul, spirit, sin
:Chinscratch: :CryBaby:

[micah7:9]

Friend, you are truly reaching now imo.

2Co 11:3  and I fear, lest, as the serpent did beguile Eve in his subtilty, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in the Christ;
Simplcity: G572  singleness, that is, (subjectively) sincerity (without dissimulation or self seeking), or (objectively) generosity (copious bestowal): - bountifulness, liberal (-ity), simplicity, singleness.
From...G573 (as a particle of union) and the base of G4120; properly folded together, that is, single (figuratively clear): - single.
Why in the world(possibly a pun) would anyone desire to confuse the singleness of ONE by contibuting a 3 in 1 theory that bears no evidence from the Holy Writ?

[micah7:9]

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible can help us.
Page 1015: TRINITY--The Christian doctrine of God as existing in three Persons and one Substance IS NOT DEMONSTRABLE BY LOGIC or SCRIPTURAL PROOF..."
The existence of a trinity is admittedly not demonstrable by logic or scriptural proof, however, it is called a "necessary hypothesis."  I would inquire as to just why is it a "necessary hypothesis"? Why hypothesize at all, seeing that the Scriptures give us plain, factual, actual information without having to theorize or hypothesize? Let's get a definition of that word "hypothesis:"
Webster's Dictionary, hypothesis, A system or theory imagined or assumed to account for what is not understood. An unproved theory. theory, a speculative plan... a formulation of underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree... a conjecture; guess.
First of all, nowhere in the Scriptures is God referred to or called a "trinity."
Second, the word "three" is never used in reference to Who or What God is.
Third, God is never called or referred to as "a person."
Four, the holy spirit is never called "God."
Five, since Christ is the Son, He cannot also be the Father or be coequal with His Father. Christ plainly said:
"My Father is GREATER than I" (John 14:28). And where in the Word of God is the Holy Spirit called a person?

[Molly]

Ques: 
Did Paul receive a message from the Holy Spirit while he was on the sinking ship.

Yes Molly.  Now please enlighten us as to how this shows the HS is a separate person of the trinity.

Ok so you say, Yes, Paul received a message from the Holy Spirit while he was on the sinking ship in Acts 27

So who is the Holy Spirit in this passage?  The Angel of God or God?

Because there are only two there who could be giving Paul the message.



23 For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve,

24 Saying, Fear not, Paul; thou must be brought before Caesar: and, lo, God hath given thee all them that sail with thee.

25 Wherefore, sirs, be of good cheer: for I believe God, that it shall be even as it was told me.

--Acts 27

[Molly]

So sin is a person in us? 

I never said that.  If you cannot or will not read what I'm saying, I cannot communicate with you.

Do you understand that?

[micah7:9]

Molly so how is that passage the rosetta stone for the personhood of the HS?

First of all, do you believe that Paul was receiving a message from the Holy Spirit on that sinking ship?  Yes or No?

Paul received a message from an angel of God, yes.  Was it through the HS as a 3rd person coequal and coeternal to God the FAther and God the Son?  NO.  For the millionth time, NOBODY is saying the HS doesn't exist.  You keep setting up these straw man arguments Molly.  BTW where in this passage (Acts 27 btw not 17) does it say this is the HS, a separate person within the trinity that is contacting Paul.  It doesn't at all.

I enjoyed your response. Pretty solid :dsunny:

[Molly]

Ok. I'm confused now.

Did Paul receive a message from the Holy Spirit while he was on the sinking ship.

Yes or No?


Acts 27

I believe Paul received a message from the Father by/through His power the Spirit/Holy Spirit.

Only two in that passage, Micah.  The angel of God and God.   Which is the Holy Spirit?

[micah7:9]

Yes, I agree with you, you are confused. Besides your question has been answered six ways from Sunday.

[Molly]

Yes, I agree with you, you are confused. Besides your question has been answered six ways from Sunday.

Which is the Holy Spirit in that passage, Micah?  God or the angel of God?  Because there are only two in that passage giving Paul the message.

[redhotmagma]

Ques: 
Did Paul receive a message from the Holy Spirit while he was on the sinking ship.

Yes Molly.  Now please enlighten us as to how this shows the HS is a separate person of the trinity.

Ok so you say, Yes, Paul received a message from the Holy Spirit while he was on the sinking ship in Acts 27

So who is the Holy Spirit in this passage?  The Angel of God or God?

Because there are only two there who could be giving Paul the message.



23 For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve,

24 Saying, Fear not, Paul; thou must be brought before Caesar: and, lo, God hath given thee all them that sail with thee.

25 Wherefore, sirs, be of good cheer: for I believe God, that it shall be even as it was told me.

--Acts 27

He does not say I believe God, which is you angel the third person of the trinity.  He says he believes God, as in the message given by God, the message was sent by a messenger aka angel.  Again this proves nothing of your point. 

Have you ever heard the saying "if your only tool is a hammer all you see are nails"?  Molly the term in the christian world is eisegesis, reading into a passage.  The messenger came bearing a message from God.  Paul believed the message sent from God.  Thats it.  There is nothing else in the passage stating that the messenger is the third person of the trinity. 

[micah7:9]

Col 1:16  because in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and for him, have been created,
Col 1:17  and himself is before all, and the all things in him have consisted.
1Co 8:6  yet *we* have but one God, the Father, who is the source of all things and for whose service we exist, and but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom we and all things exist.

[redhotmagma]

So sin is a person in us? 

I never said that.  If you cannot or will not read what I'm saying, I cannot communicate with you.

Do you understand that?

No you didn't say that, because you missed the point.  You used the passage trying to say that we have multiple personalities like the trinity, attempting to show the flesh being one of those personalities.  But you missed the actual point of the passage.  Sin is what does the bad things in us.  It is sin.  Therefore I was pointing out the fallacy of your argument, and saying that sin must be the personality. 

[Molly]

Ques: 
Did Paul receive a message from the Holy Spirit while he was on the sinking ship.

Yes Molly.  Now please enlighten us as to how this shows the HS is a separate person of the trinity.

Ok so you say, Yes, Paul received a message from the Holy Spirit while he was on the sinking ship in Acts 27

So who is the Holy Spirit in this passage?  The Angel of God or God?

Because there are only two there who could be giving Paul the message.



23 For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve,

24 Saying, Fear not, Paul; thou must be brought before Caesar: and, lo, God hath given thee all them that sail with thee.

25 Wherefore, sirs, be of good cheer: for I believe God, that it shall be even as it was told me.

--Acts 27

He does not say I believe God, which is you angel the third person of the trinity.  He says he believes God, as in the message given by God, the message was sent by a messenger aka angel.  Again this proves nothing of your point. 

Have you ever heard the saying "if your only tool is a hammer all you see are nails"?  Molly the term in the christian world is eisegesis, reading into a passage.  The messenger came bearing a message from God.  Paul believed the message sent from God.  Thats it.  There is nothing else in the passage stating that the messenger is the third person of the trinity.

Ok, do you want to change your answer then?  Paul did not receive a message from the Holy Spirit, after all?  Because it doesn't sound like you wish to say that the Holy Spirit is an angel, and it doesn't sound like you wish to say that the Holy Spirit is God.  Am I right?

So the Holy Spirit is not in that passage at all now, according to you?  And, Paul did not receive a message from the Holy Spirit?

[Molly]

So sin is a person in us? 

I never said that.  If you cannot or will not read what I'm saying, I cannot communicate with you.

Do you understand that?

No you didn't say that, because you missed the point.  You used the passage trying to say that we have multiple personalities like the trinity, attempting to show the flesh being one of those personalities.  But you missed the actual point of the passage.  Sin is what does the bad things in us.  It is sin.  Therefore I was pointing out the fallacy of your argument, and saying that sin must be the personality.

Our flesh is not sin, and I never said that.  I said that the three different aspects of ourselves could be warring with each other.

But, Jesus had a flesh body and did not sin.

[eaglesway]

So sin is a person in us? 

I never said that.  If you cannot or will not read what I'm saying, I cannot communicate with you.

Do you understand that?

No you didn't say that, because you missed the point.  You used the passage trying to say that we have multiple personalities like the trinity, attempting to show the flesh being one of those personalities.  But you missed the actual point of the passage.  Sin is what does the bad things in us.  It is sin.  Therefore I was pointing out the fallacy of your argument, and saying that sin must be the personality.

Our flesh is not sin, and I never said that.  I said that the three different aspects of ourselves could be warring with each other.

But, Jesus had a flesh body and did not sin.

Yet, someone who believes that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are three different aspects of One God(not three separate gods who are somehow 1 god at the same time), the God of 1 Corinthians 8:6, is a heretic. Convenience is a deceptive master.

[Molly]

So sin is a person in us? 

I never said that.  If you cannot or will not read what I'm saying, I cannot communicate with you.

Do you understand that?

No you didn't say that, because you missed the point.  You used the passage trying to say that we have multiple personalities like the trinity, attempting to show the flesh being one of those personalities.  But you missed the actual point of the passage.  Sin is what does the bad things in us.  It is sin.  Therefore I was pointing out the fallacy of your argument, and saying that sin must be the personality.

Our flesh is not sin, and I never said that.  I said that the three different aspects of ourselves could be warring with each other.

But, Jesus had a flesh body and did not sin.

Yet, someone who believes that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are three different aspects of One God(not three separate gods who are somehow 1 god at the same time), the God of 1 Corinthians 8:6, is a heretic. Convenience is a deceptive master.

I didn't mean to imply either in the example I gave.