Is this heresy?

W2L said:

I got many different kinds of replies. Exactly what post did i miss? I was busy looking for answers to my questions but instead got a lot of stuff about the creed.

Click to expand...

You should have read several posts about the Holy Trinity. I can see now that I'm wasting my time in this thread, so I'm done.

W2L said:

Are you saying the scriptures i posted are heresy?

Click to expand...

Of course not.

Most of the early Christians say that the 1 Cor passage is equating the Holy Spirit with being Lord ... because He is Divine. He is sometimes referred to as "the Spirit of the Lord".

As to the prophecy passage, we have to be careful. It also talks about Him being a governor of nations, which the disciples expected Him to take up that mantle - but He did not. Prophecy sometimes speaks in an unclear manner.

Rather, look to the more clear passages - such as the baptism of Christ. A voice spoke from heaven, saying, "This is My beloved Son" while at the same time the Spirit was seen visibly descending. That is the first clear showing forth of the Holy Trinity to mankind. But the Persons are mentioned repeatedly in the New Testament, and the early Church established by Christ through His teaching to His Apostles, as well as the teaching of the Holy Spirit to them directly at and after Pentecost, held those teachings and passed them down to us.

I hope that helps.

There is nothing that says in the Greek grammar of the construction, that the words, "ὁ δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν", cannot be understood as "Now the Spirit is the Lord". It is to be noted from the context, that the subject is the Holy Spirit, and not the Father or the Lord Jesus Christ. In verse 18 Paul says, "καθάπερ ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύματος", which is, "even as from the Lord the Spirit", which is a clear reference to the Deity of the Holy Spirit.

The distinction (not separation) of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Jesus, is very clear in the Bible. In Isaiah 48:16, the Speaker is YHWH (see ver, 12, etc), which is the Lord Jesus Christ. He says, "The Lord God hath sent Me and His Spirit". So, here we have the Speaker, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is also YHWH, being sent by "YHWH", as is the Holy Spirit. Clearly there is a distinction between them. The New Testament clearly says that God the Father sent the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

In John 16:28, Jesus says, "I came forth from the Father". The English word "from" is the Greek preposition "παρά", which literally means "from beside", which shows that the Father and Jesus Christ are distinct Persons. They cannot be one and the same Person. Also, when speaking of the Coming of the Holy Spirit, Jesus says, "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" (John 15:26). Here, like in 16:28, the Greek "παρά", in relation to the Father, which shows "distinction". Note here that Jesus Himself is also the Sender of the Holy Spirit, while in John 14:26, it is the Father Who is the Sender. Thus showing the Deity of both Persons. Jesus also says that the Holy Spirit is "Another Comforter" (John 14:16), and uses the Greek "ἄλλος", which denotes, "Another like Myself", again showing a "distinction" in Persons. In the classic text often misunderstood by some, John 10:30, Jesus says, "ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν", "I and the Father, one We are". by "ἕν" (one), Jesus is showing the "essential unity" of Himself and the Father, and by "ἐσμεν", (We are), their "distinction", because the word is masculine and plural in number, which cannot refer to "One Person".

In Isaiah 9:6, Jesus is called, "‛ad 'âb", commonly translated as "The everlasting Father". Some see in this that Jesus Christ is also God the Father, and argue that the Two are One Person. The Hebrew "'âb" (father), also has the meaning, "originator, protector, ruler, chief" (see Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew-English Lexicon). Interestingly, the Greek version of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, renders the Hebrew, "pateer tou mellontos aioonos", literally, "Father of the coming age", which is how the Latin Vulgate has it, "the Father of the world to come".

There is nothing in Isaiah 9:6 to even suggest that Jesus is the "same Person", as God the Father.

W2L said:

THe bible says that the Lord is the Spirit. 2 Corinthians 3:17 Whats that mean?

Isaiah says that a child will be born, and His name will be called eternal Father and mighty God. Isaiah 9:6 WHo is that child and who is the eternal Father?

Click to expand...

On 2 Cor, see vs 6, and the contrast between Moses and the Lord in 15 and 16. He’s talking about the letter vs the spirit. Paul usually speaks of Christ and the holy Sprit as distinct. He means something like Christ gives us the spirit of the law. Remember that in NT Greek there was no distinction between lower case and capitals, so using a capital here may be misleading.

In fact this statement is followed immediately by a reference to the spirit of the lord, which distinguishes between Christ and the Spirit he sends.

W2L said:

THe bible says that the Lord is the Spirit. 2 Corinthians 3:17 Whats that mean?

Click to expand...

The bible says that Jesus is Lord. It says that God is a Spirit, and it says that God was manifested in the flesh. As who? As the son, Jesus, the Lord... therefore, the Lord is that Spirit.

W2L said:

Isaiah says that a child will be born, and His name will be called eternal Father and mighty God. Isaiah 9:6 WHo is that child and who is the eternal Father?

Click to expand...

The child is the son, God manifested in the flesh. The Father is the eternal Spirit, that same one God. People define this as three in one... I believe we are not fully capable in fallen human flesh to adequately describe the spiritual being of the one who created us.

Ken Rank said:

The bible says that Jesus is Lord. It says that God is a Spirit, and it says that God was manifested in the flesh. As who? As the son, Jesus, the Lord... therefore, the Lord is that Spirit.



The child is the son, God manifested in the flesh. The Father is the eternal Spirit, that same one God. People define this as three in one... I believe we are not fully capable in fallen human flesh to adequately describe the spiritual being of the one who created us.

Click to expand...

are you Unitarian or Oneness?

TheBibleIsTruth said:

are you Unitarian or Oneness?

Click to expand...

Neither... I just shared Scripture.

God is a Spirit (John 4:24). God was manifested in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). So I simply ask, "When was God manifested in the flesh? What manifestation was Paul speaking of?" And the answer is simple... as the Son.

Now, we are expected to submit to Jesus as Lord (Romans 10:9), there is one Lord (Ephesians 4:5) and the Lord is that Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17).

It's just Scripture.

TheBibleIsTruth said:

In Isaiah 9:6, Jesus is called, "‛ad 'âb", commonly translated as "The everlasting Father". Some see in this that Jesus Christ is also God the Father, and argue that the Two are One Person. The Hebrew "'âb" (father), also has the meaning, "originator, protector, ruler, chief" (see Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew-English Lexicon). Interestingly, the Greek version of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, renders the Hebrew, "pateer tou mellontos aioonos", literally, "Father of the coming age", which is how the Latin Vulgate has it, "the Father of the world to come".

Click to expand...

The good thing is you're digging. The bad thing is, it is clear you don't read Hebrew yet. You should take classes though, I think you would be good at it. I know you don't know because you said the verse says "ad ab." It doesn't, it says, "avi-ad" ( אֲבִיעַד ). That is the downside of using Strong's and BDB in eSword and other programs like it. The Hebrew is in it's root form in the dictionaries when it is generally in another form in the verses.

Anyway, in general, when the beit begins a word is carries the B sound, when within a word is sounds like a V. So as written, it is literally, "Father eternal," or "Father forever," or "Father of continuous existence," and so forth.

I won't say any more. I have already been banned on here once on this topic. It's a shame because I have a question I can ask I know you can't answer and maintain your current position.

But, this also isn't a big issue anyway. We are fallen humans who arrogantly believe they can define the being of the spirit that created us?

Ken Rank said:

Neither... I just shared Scripture.

God is a Spirit (John 4:24). God was manifested in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). So I simply ask, "When was God manifested in the flesh? What manifestation was Paul speaking of?" And the answer is simple... as the Son.

Now, we are expected to submit to Jesus as Lord (Romans 10:9), there is one Lord (Ephesians 4:5) and the Lord is that Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17).

It's just Scripture.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I hope I did not offend you? OK, firstly, some English versions do not give an accurate rendering of the Hebrew or Greek. So, when Jesus says, "πνεῦμα ὁ θεός", the literal way to translate this would be "God is spirit", i.e., not a physical Being, where the nature and not the personality of God is meant. there is no "is" in the Greek. The context shows that Jesus is speaking of the Father only.

In 1 Timothy 3:16, "God was manifest in the flesh" is the equivalent of John 1:1, and 1:14, "and the Word was God...the Word became flesh...". Both refer to the Person of the Lord Jesus, Who alone was "manifest in the flesh". God the Father and Holy Spirit, never became Incarnate.

The Three Persons in the Holy Trinity, are EQUALLY "Almighty God" (Elohim), "Lord" (Yahweh), as "distinct" Persons, but One Divine Being, the Godhead. Bible language is very precise to show "distinctions" between the Three Persons Who are God, yet not "separateness". The Divine Being cannot be "divided". It is the greatest Mystery ever, and taught in the Holy Bible as Truth.

TheBibleIsTruth said:

Thanks, I hope I did not offend you? OK, firstly, some English versions do not give an accurate rendering of the Hebrew or Greek. So, when Jesus says, "πνεῦμα ὁ θεός", the literal way to translate this would be "God is spirit", i.e., not a physical Being, where the nature and not the personality of God is meant. there is no "is" in the Greek. The context shows that Jesus is speaking of the Father only.

In 1 Timothy 3:16, "God was manifest in the flesh" is the equivalent of John 1:1, and 1:14, "and the Word was God...the Word became flesh...". Both refer to the Person of the Lord Jesus, Who alone was "manifest in the flesh". God the Father and Holy Spirit, never became Incarnate.

The Three Persons in the Holy Trinity, are EQUALLY "Almighty God" (Elohim), "Lord" (Yahweh), as "distinct" Persons, but One Divine Being, the Godhead. Bible language is very precise to show "distinctions" between the Three Persons Who are God, yet not "separateness". The Divine Being cannot be "divided". It is the greatest Mystery ever, and taught in the Holy Bible as Truth.

Click to expand...

I am fine with that my friend. I don't use the same terms, I see it a little differently but we really are not in disagreement. In fact, I really believe it is unrealistic for fallen humans who have a 2000 +/- page book that contains VERY LITTLE on the being of the Creator, to all come to the same exact understanding of His being at this time. I think it is more important for us to allow each other to understand Him as we each do and respect that. There is too much division in our one body already.

Blessings.
Ken

Ken Rank said:

The good thing is you're digging. The bad thing is, it is clear you don't read Hebrew yet. You should take classes though, I think you would be good at it. I know you don't know because you said the verse says "ad ab." It doesn't, it says, "avi-ad" ( אֲבִיעַד ). That is the downside of using Strong's and BDB in eSword and other programs like it. The Hebrew is in it's root form in the dictionaries when it is generally in another form in the verses.

Anyway, in general, when the beit begins a word is carries the B sound, when within a word is sounds like a V. So as written, it is literally, "Father eternal," or "Father forever," or "Father of continuous existence," and so forth.

I won't say any more. I have already been banned on here once on this topic. It's a shame because I have a question I can ask I know you can't answer and maintain your current position.

But, this also isn't a big issue anyway. We are fallen humans who arrogantly believe they can define the being of the spirit that created us?

Click to expand...

You are right that I don't do Hebrew, but only Greek, and I know that I come short because I rely on sources that are not always reliable. I like to go back to the original as much as I possibly can, because the English looses much in translation.

However, what BDB says about the Hebrew for "father" is correct, as I have checked this elsewhere.

You say that you have something to ask that I can't answer, but cannot post it here? then send me a message, and I will look at it.

Ken Rank said:

I am fine with that my friend. I don't use the same terms, I see it a little differently but we really are not in disagreement. In fact, I really believe it is unrealistic for fallen humans who have a 2000 +/- page book that contains VERY LITTLE on the being of the Creator, to all come to the same exact understanding of His being at this time. I think it is more important for us to allow each other to understand Him as we each do and respect that. There is too much division in our one body already.

Blessings.
Ken

Click to expand...

Can I ask if you believe the 66 Books of the Holy Bible, to be the Inspired, Infallible Word of God, in the original autographs?

TheBibleIsTruth said:

You are right that I don't do Hebrew, but only Greek, and I know that I come short because I rely on sources that are not always reliable. I like to go back to the original as much as I possibly can, because the English looses much in translation.

However, what BDB says about the Hebrew for "father" is correct, as I have checked this elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Well, at least I come away today knowing I have somebody else to go to with Greek questions. I really am clueless with Greek. My Hebrew is rusty, it has been 5 years since my last class. But I generally still recognize the forms of the words and what those variations do with the meanings.

TheBibleIsTruth said:

Can I ask if you believe the 66 Books of the Holy Bible, to be the Inspired, Infallible Word of God, in the original autographs?

Click to expand...

Of course... in the original. And I trust the copies we have but make sure to never take just one verse to make a case out of. Which might be why we have these copies... God's way of keeping us from being lazy... we have to verify and have multiple witnesses.

Now I will say I have and still do use extra-biblical books for context. Where the idea came from that the verse before and after is context is beyond me.

Ken Rank said:

Of course... in the original. And I trust the copies we have but make sure to never take just one verse to make a case out of. Which might be why we have these copies... God's way of keeping us from being lazy... we have to verify and have multiple witnesses.

Now I will say I have and still do use extra-biblical books for context. Where the idea came from that the verse before and after is context is beyond me.

Click to expand...

can I ask in which way can these "extra-biblical books" shed any light on what the Inspired Word of God tells us? I assume that you use them as you would a commentary?

TheBibleIsTruth said:

can I ask in which way can these "extra-biblical books" shed any light on what the Inspired Word of God tells us? I assume that you use them as you would a commentary?

Click to expand...

The Targumim, the Talmud, Josephus, etc. Basically as commentary but even more. For example, if a NT writer uses an idiomatic phrase or other abstract form of speech that is unique to Judea or the ancient near east and is lost to us by time and geography, then seeing the same used in other places helps me better grasp the intent. Or, perhaps there are cultural debates happening that are mentioned that we are unaware of. If we are unaware, then when we read we have to fill in the blank with what we understand. For example....

Luke 14:1 Now it happened, as He went into the house of one of the rulers of the Pharisees to eat bread on the Sabbath, that they watched Him closely.

Can you tell me much about this verse? Is there anything deeper that might help me understand the concept of things he might say or do while there? The answer is yes. You see, in that day there were two schools of Pharisaical thought. One was called Beit Hillel (School or House of Hillel) which is where Paul attended by the way. I know that because I know that Gamaliel was Hillel's grandson and that he taught at his grandfather's school. Beit Hillel was known for teaching "the Spirit of the law." Now the second school was known as Beit Shammai, and it was known for teaching "the letter of the law." By the way, the influences of these two schools and them being defined by teaching the spirit or letter of the law... is the basis for Paul's "spirit or letter" points throughout his letters, But I digress.....

Anyway... because of the understanding of what was taught in each of the two schools, we can know that Jesus was eating at Beit Shammai. How do I know? Because of how they tried to set him up...

Luke 14:2 And behold, there was a certain man before Him who had dropsy. (3) And Jesus, answering, spoke to the lawyers (Lawyers... not as in civil law, as in God's law) and Pharisees, saying, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" (4) But they kept silent. And He took him and healed him, and let him go. (5) Then He answered them, saying, "Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?" (6) And they could not answer Him regarding these things.

At Beit Shammai it was taught that no work of ANY KIND would be done on Shabbat. But at Beit Hillel, doing "good" on Shabbat should be expected. So, messiah was at Beit Shammai, the House or School of the sect of Pharisees that received the brunt of all of his rebukes and admonishments. In fact, as a side note... the School of Shammai received ALL of the correction save for on the topic of divorce. When he disagrees with the Pharisees on that one, he is disagreeing with those from Beit Hillel.

So not to be overlooked... Jesus went into the school of Pharisees that resisted him the most "and ate with them." We can learn a lot from that.

Blessings.
Ken

Ken Rank said:

The Targumim, the Talmud, Josephus, etc. Basically as commentary but even more. For example, if a NT writer uses an idiomatic phrase or other abstract form of speech that is unique to Judea or the ancient near east and is lost to us by time and geography, then seeing the same used in other places helps me better grasp the intent. Or, perhaps there are cultural debates happening that are mentioned that we are unaware of. If we are unaware, then when we read we have to fill in the blank with what we understand. For example....

Luke 14:1 Now it happened, as He went into the house of one of the rulers of the Pharisees to eat bread on the Sabbath, that they watched Him closely.

Can you tell me much about this verse? Is there anything deeper that might help me understand the concept of things he might say or do while there? The answer is yes. You see, in that day there were two schools of Pharisaical thought. One was called Beit Hillel (School or House of Hillel) which is where Paul attended by the way. I know that because I know that Gamaliel was Hillel's grandson and that he taught at his grandfather's school. Beit Hillel was known for teaching "the Spirit of the law." Now the second school was known as Beit Shammai, and it was known for teaching "the letter of the law." By the way, the influences of these two schools and them being defined by teaching the spirit or letter of the law... is the basis for Paul's "spirit or letter" points throughout his letters, But I digress.....

Anyway... because of the understanding of what was taught in each of the two schools, we can know that Jesus was eating at Beit Shammai. How do I know? Because of how they tried to set him up...

Luke 14:2 And behold, there was a certain man before Him who had dropsy. (3) And Jesus, answering, spoke to the lawyers (Lawyers... not as in civil law, as in God's law) and Pharisees, saying, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" (4) But they kept silent. And He took him and healed him, and let him go. (5) Then He answered them, saying, "Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?" (6) And they could not answer Him regarding these things.

At Beit Shammai it was taught that no work of ANY KIND would be done on Shabbat. But at Beit Hillel, doing "good" on Shabbat should be expected. So, messiah was at Beit Shammai, the House or School of the sect of Pharisees that received the brunt of all of his rebukes and admonishments. In fact, as a side note... the School of Shammai received ALL of the correction save for on the topic of divorce. When he disagrees with the Pharisees on that one, he is disagreeing with those from Beit Hillel.

So not to be overlooked... Jesus went into the school of Pharisees that resisted him the most "and ate with them." We can learn a lot from that.

Blessings.
Ken

Click to expand...

Indeed, I can see what you mean, as these works can shed some light on the Teachings of the Bible. But, as long as they do not add, or take away, or change what the Bible says. It won't be a good thing for all Christians to do this, as some could well be misled by things these works say.

TheBibleIsTruth said:

Indeed, I can see what you mean, as these works can shed some light on the Teachings of the Bible. But, as long as they do not add, or take away, or change what the Bible says. It won't be a good thing for all Christians to do this, as some could well be misled by things these works say.

Click to expand...

No, they are just context fillers. We are... well, I am... a 52 year old man living in Kentucky reading in English. But those English words were penned in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek over 2000 years ago by Semites. The paradigm of them (their bias, their perspective) is simply different from mine because we were raised in different cultures. God inspired them to write but the fact that we have 4 gospels that are CLEARLY unique in form tells us that God inspired them but that He allowed them to 'retain their individuality.' As such, we need to understand a little of THAT perspective in order to better see the depths of their points.

Be blessed.
Ken

W2L said:

I posted these same scriptures and questions in another thread and people started talking about heresy. I would like for them to demonstrate how its heresy................Are you saying the scriptures i posted are heresy?

Click to expand...

I'm a little confused here.

Why would anyone say that scriptures themselves are heresy?

I haven't looked at the thread you are talking about. But I suspect that the charge of heresy was concerning your expressed opinion about them.

Exactly what is your opinion about them since you brought it up.

After you give us your opinion - perhaps someone here will call you a heretic as well.

Care to take a crack at it?

It is abundantly clear in Scripture that Jesus is the Son, not the Father, He is distinct from the Father. However the concept of fatherhood can be used in other ways. Jesus is not the Father, but He is the King Messiah. Treating the king as a kind of father of the nation is old and common. Also, remember, that Abraham is also called "father" in Scripture, spiritual fatherhood is not itself necessarily a reference to the Divine Paternity of God the Father. There are spiritual fathers, such as Abraham and the patriarchs, or the Apostles and fathers of the Church (St. Paul himself speaks of himself as a spiritual father to St. Timothy, calling Timothy "my son"). Thus there are different ways of being "father". Jesus Christ is called aviad (father into perpetuity, forever-father, etc) in His kingly, messianic capacity; not in regard to His Divine Hypostasis/Person.

As for the Lord is the Spirit, it means nothing other than that the Holy Spirit is Lord. It does not mean that the Holy Spirit is the Lord Jesus, it simply means that the Holy Spirit is Himself Lord, even as the Father is Lord, and the Son is Lord. We confess, "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life"

-CryptoLutheran