The Triune Man

[Doveaman]

Joh 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In the beginning God’s Word was expressed, and God’s Word was expressed by God, and God’s Word was the expression of God.

3 Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.

All things were made through the word of God’s Son.

The will of the Father is expressed through the word of the Son, and the word of the Son is fulfilled through the work of the Holy Spirit, so that the will of the Father and the work of the Holy Spirit is accomplished through the word of the Son.

1 Cor 12: 12 Just as the body, though one, has many members, but all its members form one body, so it is with Christ.

Just as God, though one being, consists of three members, but all the three members form one being, so it is with God.

Rom 12: 4 For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5 so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to one another.

For just as God is one being consisting of three members, and these three members do not all have the same function, so as God, these three members form one being, and each member belongs to one another.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the three members of the one divine being called God, but all the three members do not have the same function.

The Father functions as God’s mind expressing God’s will, the Son functions as God’s mouth speaking God’s word, and the Holy Spirit functions as God’s hand doing God’s work.

God’s will is expressed through the mind of the Father, God’s word is expressed through the mouth of the Son, and God’s work is expressed through the hand of the Holy Spirit.

Gen 1: 26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness

Man is created in God’s image and likeness to express himself similarly to how God functions.

Man expresses himself through the will of his mind, through the word of his mouth, and through the work of his hand, just as God expresses Himself through the will of the Father, through the word of the Son, and through the work of the Holy Spirit.

The word of the mouth and the work of the hand follows the will of the mind as an innate, inherent response within Man, a response that is without question or hesitation.

Likewise, the word of the Son and the work of the Holy Spirit follows the will of the Father as an innate, inherent response within God, a response that is without question or hesitation.

And just as the will of the mind, the word of the mouth, and the work of the hand exist and function in unison as one human being called Man, even so the will of the Father, the word of the Son, and the work of the Holy Spirit exist and function in unison as one divine being called God.

Man, therefore, is created in God's triune image and likeness in regards to Man's functional expressions which are similar to God's.

 

[The Liturgist]

In the beginning God’s Word was expressed, and God’s Word was expressed by God, and God’s Word was the expression of God.

John 1:1 is specifically referring to Jesus Christ, who is the Only Begotten Son and Word of God, the incarnate Logos.

I quite like my friend @Xeno.of.athens ’s view on this.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

In the beginning God’s Word was expressed, and God’s Word was expressed by God, and God’s Word was the expression of God.

That's rather confusing. You know that if it is God's word then it is by definition expressed because words are expressions from the one who speaks them. If you've tried to produce John 1:1 in your post then I say you failed badly. Far better is the usual translation, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Take a look at John 1:18 too.

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.​

(John 1:18 LSB)

The Word explains the Father, he (the Word) is the Father's self-revelation.

 

[Doveaman]

That's rather confusing.

Not to me.

You know that if it is God's word then it is by definition expressed because words are expressions from the one who speaks them.

Yes, Jesus is the expression of God’s Word.

If you've tried to produce John 1:1 in your post then I say you failed badly.

I disagree.

Far better is the usual translation, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Far better is to explain what the usual translation means so we can make sense of it.

Take a look at John 1:18 too.

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.​

(John 1:18 LSB)

Jesus not only explained God. Jesus Himself is God.
Jesus is God’s Word and God’s Word is God.
He who has seen God's Word (the Son) has seen God the Father.

Joh 14: 7 If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him…9 He who has seen Me has seen the Father

The Word explains the Father, he (the Word) is the Father's self-revelation.

I agree…God the Father explained Himself through His Word the Son.

Joh 14: 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.

It was God the Father speaking through His Word the Son revealing Himself through His Word the Son.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Not to me.

Yes, Jesus is the expression of God’s Word.

I disagree.

Far better is to explain what the usual translation means so we can make sense of it.

Jesus not only explained God. Jesus Himself is God.
Jesus is God’s Word and God’s Word is God.
He who has seen God's Word (the Son) has seen God the Father.

Joh 14: 7 If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him…9 He who has seen Me has seen the Father


I agree…God the Father explained Himself through His Word the Son.

Joh 14: 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.

It was God the Father speaking through His Word the Son revealing Himself through His Word the Son.

I like some of your post, mainly the parts near the end of it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Not to me.

Yes, Jesus is the expression of God’s Word.

Jesus is God's Word. The Divine Word is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

I disagree.

Far better is to explain what the usual translation means so we can make sense of it.

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
In [the] beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God

οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν
This One was in [the] beginning with God

πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν
Everything by this One was made and without this One not anything made was made

In the beginning was God and His Word, and God's Word was Himself also God. There are two called God here, God [the Father] and His Word [the Son]. Through the Word all things were made by God, without the Word nothing came to be, nothing was made.

The way God created all things is through His Son, His Word. And this very Word, His own and only-begotten Son, became human in the womb of the Virgin Mary, this is Jesus Christ we are talking about.

Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας
And the Word became flesh and tabernacled in our midst and we saw this One's glory, [the] glory of the only-begotten of [the] Father, full of grace and truth

This is Jesus we are talking about, the Word became flesh, made human, born of the Virgin Mary, He is the only-begotten, the One whom the apostles lived with, walked with, spoke with, learned from, they heard His teachings, they saw His works, they ate at the same table, they beheld the miracles, they saw Him betrayed, they saw Him die, they thought everything was over--and then they saw Him raised, and they saw Him ascended into the heavens. With their own eyes they behold God in the flesh, the very Word and Son of the Father, the One through whom all things were made. They beheld the One by whom and through whom all things exist, they gazed upon the Almighty clothed with human flesh, who wore the garment of mortality, they witnessed the Impassible and Deathless One suffer and die, and then they saw Him destroy and defeat the power of death and bring freedom to the sons and daughters of Adam. And He gave them the right to be children of God

Jesus not only explained God. Jesus Himself is God.
Jesus is God’s Word and God’s Word is God.

Yes, that's very correct.

He who has seen God's Word (the Son) has seen God the Father.

Joh 14: 7 If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him…9 He who has seen Me has seen the Father


I agree…God the Father explained Himself through His Word the Son.

Joh 14: 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.

It was God the Father speaking through His Word the Son revealing Himself through His Word the Son.

Yes, that's very correct.

You are correct here, but your first post, and your statement in this post about Jesus being the expression of God's Word is off kilter; the rest is very good.

Jesus is the Word of God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

If I were to try really hard to make the John 1.1 use of Word clearly distinct from "Bible" then I'd write the verse this way:

In the beginning was the spoken Word, and the spoken Word was with God, and the spoken Word was God.​

with italics indicating a translator supplied word.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

The Word explains the Father, he (the Word) is the Father's self-revelation.

Or as one apocrypha writer generally described it (I forget which one),

only God is capable of knowing the fullness and totality of what He Is and consists of.

Therefore any good description is best served by wrapping itself tightly in a Great Mystery

And I'm good with that. Positions that claim capture of the entirety of God are really heretic alerts

I get a kick out of determinists (I am one fwiw) who claim only God is Sovereign and then proceed to claim what that Sovereignty is and consists of who are really running a logical snake eating tail exercise

Likewise, if we adhere to sound Trinity doctrine (I do) but would feel compelled to cut out the tongues of those who disagree we probably missed the points altogether

 

[The Liturgist]

only God is capable of knowing the fullness and totality of what He Is and consists of.

This is actually found even in the Masoretic canon used by Baptists and Reformed Protestants and Evangelicals, in the context of divine inscrutability, and was historically a pervasive belief among the Early Church Fathers, never being seriously challenged in the East except by Barlaam, who tried to dispute with St. Gregory Palamas, an Eastern Orthodox scholar, over the legitimacy of the practices of monks known as Hesychasts, a debate which revolved around the unknowability of God in His essence. In the West, unfortunately, Scholastic theology in Roman Catholicism partially, but not entirely, de-emphasized divine inscrutability with its stress on the idea of Absolute Divine Simplicity and the idea of God as Actus Purus, which are philosophical ideas of largely Aristotelian origin which are in my view superfluous, since God in His fullness is not something we must intellectually comprehend according to Scripture, but rather, God has revealed Himself by creating us in His image and then Himself becoming a man when our sin distorted the divine image in order to shepherd us back into His loving embrace.

What frustrates me is how many Christians, even though they believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation on an intellectual level, tend to treat Jesus Christ and God as though they are separate, seldom if ever referring to Jesus Christ as God or referring to the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God - this error is known as Nestorianism, while introduced by a bishop of Constantinople who claimed to believe in the Nicene Creed, and it caused terrible schisms in the fifth century some of which have never been entirely resolved.

Rather I think our faith must be actively incarnational and actively Trinitarian: recognizing that Jesus Christ, his Father, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons who are coequal, coeternal, uncreated and united in perfect love sharing in the unoriginate divine essence of the Father from which the Son was begotten before all ages and from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds, revealing Christ to us as Christ reveals the Father, and that the Trinity, this eternal family of pure and incorruptible love is the model for how we ought to live our lives with our fellow human beings.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

This is actually found even in the Masoretic canon used by Baptists and Reformed Protestants and Evangelicals, in the context of divine inscrutability, and was historically a pervasive belief among the Early Church Fathers, never being seriously challenged in the East except by Barlaam, who tried to dispute with St. Gregory Palamas, an Eastern Orthodox scholar, over the legitimacy of the practices of monks known as Hesychasts, a debate which revolved around the unknowability of God in His essence. In the West, unfortunately, Scholastic theology in Roman Catholicism partially, but not entirely, de-emphasized divine inscrutability with its stress on the idea of Absolute Divine Simplicity and the idea of God as Actus Purus, which are philosophical ideas of largely Aristotelian origin which are in my view superfluous, since God in His fullness is not something we must intellectually comprehend according to Scripture, but rather, God has revealed Himself by creating us in His image and then Himself becoming a man when our sin distorted the divine image in order to shepherd us back into His loving embrace.

What frustrates me is how many Christians, even though they believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation on an intellectual level, tend to treat Jesus Christ and God as though they are separate, seldom if ever referring to Jesus Christ as God or referring to the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God - this error is known as Nestorianism, while introduced by a bishop of Constantinople who claimed to believe in the Nicene Creed, and it caused terrible schisms in the fifth century some of which have never been entirely resolved.

Rather I think our faith must be actively incarnational and actively Trinitarian: recognizing that Jesus Christ, his Father, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons who are coequal, coeternal, uncreated and united in perfect love sharing in the unoriginate divine essence of the Father from which the Son was begotten before all ages and from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds, revealing Christ to us as Christ reveals the Father, and that the Trinity, this eternal family of pure and incorruptible love is the model for how we ought to live our lives with our fellow human beings.

I sincerely appreciate a well thought out post

Thank you!

 

[Doveaman]

Jesus is God's Word.

And God's Word is Jesus.

The Divine Word is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

The Divine Word is also the Word of God, and God speaks to us through His Divine Word.

The way God created all things is through His Son, His Word.

God's will is expressed through God's Word, and God's Spirit creates according to God's Word, therefore all things are created by God through His Word, His Son.

And this very Word, His own and only-begotten Son, became human in the womb of the Virgin Mary, this is Jesus Christ we are talking about.

Jesus was God in the flesh, the visible manifestation of the Father's will and Spirit's work in human form.

Joh 14: 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.

It was the Father working through the Son by the power of the Holy Spirit in human form.

You are correct here, but your first post, and your statement in this post about Jesus being the expression of God's Word is off kilter; the rest is very good.

God expresses Himself through His Word, and we come to know God through His Word. Therefore, Jesus is the expression of God’s Word because we come to know God through Jesus.

Jesus is the Word of God.

And the Word of God is Jesus.

 

[Doveaman]

If I were to try really hard to make the John 1.1 use of Word clearly distinct from "Bible" then I'd write the verse this way:

In the beginning was the spoken Word, and the spoken Word was with God, and the spoken Word was God.​

with italics indicating a translator supplied word.

I agree.

I makes sense that God's spoken Word is with God and that God's spoken Word is God because God is revealed through His Spoken Word.

 

[Doveaman]

The Divine Word is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

It is said that God is one being and that God is three persons.

If God stood before us in visible form, would we see Him as one being standing before us or would we see Him as three persons standing before us?

 

[Paleouss]

Man, therefore, is created in God's triune image and likeness in regards to Man's functional expressions which are similar to God's.

Greetings Doveman. Cold weather here, where I'm at. I hope yours is warmer.

Just thought I would jump on the bandwagon, since I hold to a triune man (one whole expressed biblically and logically three ways).

Within the Scripture, the reference to "my soul" (nepes) as it relates to God is never used interchangeably with "my spirit" (ruah). The specific uses of “my soul” for God are found in Lev 26:30, Gen 27:4, 34:3,49:6; Lev 26:11, 26:30; Isa 42:1; Jer 6:8. These references to God saying "my soul" always presents God as personhood, that is, separate/distinct/other than creation. Like, my soul and your soul. As an aside, this is one way we can deny pantheism.

• “My soul” is the principal of personhood that distinguishes God's soul from your soul.

Conversely, the use of "my spirit" (ruah) within the text when referring to God, only and always, imply relation to others in which God's "spirit" is said to ‘pour out’ (Prov 1:23, Isa 44:3, Eze 39:29) , ‘put upon’ (Isa 42:1, 59:21), ‘pour upon’ (Eze 39:29), ‘put within’(Eze 36:27, 37:14), ‘abide in’ (Gen 6:3).

We never see within the biblical text these terms, ‘put within’, ‘abide in’, ‘put upon’, ‘pour upon’ being used in conjunction with the phrase ‘my soul’ (Heb. nep̄ eš) as it pertains to God. God is never said to pour his soul upon us. Within the biblical text, “my soul”, when used to refer to God, is used as distinct personhood or separateness, and "my spirit" is used in reference to relations and communion with mankind.

• “My spirit” is the principal of life and communion between God and mankind.

This distinction and purposeful use of the biblical text using “my soul” within the Scripture as His own personhood in distinction between each and every other personhood of mankind’... and the purposeful use of “my spirit” in relation to communion and interaction with mankind is also consistently seen in the unique roles of the Trinity (Father, Son, Spirit).

The Trinity. God the Father is the epicenter of praise and worship (Phil 4:20, 2:6; John 8:49-50,12:28, 2:16,17:1-4, Heb 5:5, Matt 5:9-13,7:21). This language is the representation and equivalent of “my soul” in which everything flows from God the Father for He is the source and planner of all things (John 5:19). He sends the Son but the Son never sends the Father (1John 4:9), He pours out His Spirit but the Spirit never pours out the Father. On the other hand, God the Son carries out the plans and will of the Father (John 5:30, 6:38; Heb 10:11); He is Immanuel, “God with us” in body and flesh; He is the divine in the flesh (1Tim 3:16).... and it is said that the Father’s will is accomplished “through” God the Son (John 1:1-14). Additionally, the Holy Spirit reveals the Father’s will (John 15:26-27; 1Cor 2:10; John 16:13;Rom 8:16); but the Father never reveals the Holy Spirit’s will; and the Holy Spirit provides strength and power to carry out the will of the Father (Mic 3:8; Eph 3:16; 2Tim 1:7; Luke 1:17, 1:35, 4:14; Acts 1:8, 10:38; Rom 15:13; 1Cor 5:8; Isa 40:29-31).

Peace to you, brother
Keep seeking God's wisdom as if it were hidden treasure

 

[ViaCrucis]

It is said that God is one being and that God is three persons.

If God stood before us in visible form, would we see Him as one being standing before us or would we see Him as three persons standing before us?

The only visible form God has is the Incarnate flesh of the Second Person of the Trinity. God did stand before us in visible form: Jesus. And He remains flesh, glorified, and seated in the highest of heights above all thrones, powers, and dominions.

All other speculations are moot.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Doveaman]

The only visible form God has is the Incarnate flesh of the Second Person of the Trinity. God did stand before us in visible form: Jesus. And He remains flesh, glorified, and seated in the highest of heights above all thrones, powers, and dominions.

All other speculations are moot.

Perhaps you misunderstood the question.

Mat 18: 10 “Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven.

The angels can see the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in heaven, and so will we see God when we get to heaven.

When the angels see God in heaven what do they see? When we see God in heaven what will we see?

Will we see God in heaven as one single being standing before us in one single form, or will we see God as three distinct persons standing before us in three distinct forms?

 

[Doveaman]

Greetings Doveman. Cold weather here, where I'm at. I hope yours is warmer.

Yes, it is usually warmer where I am.

Just thought I would jump on the bandwagon, since I hold to a triune man (one whole expressed biblically and logically three ways).

Within the Scripture, the reference to "my soul" (nepes) as it relates to God is never used interchangeably with "my spirit" (ruah). The specific uses of “my soul” for God are found in Lev 26:30, Gen 27:4, 34:3,49:6; Lev 26:11, 26:30; Isa 42:1; Jer 6:8. These references to God saying "my soul" always presents God as personhood, that is, separate/distinct/other than creation. Like, my soul and your soul. As an aside, this is one way we can deny pantheism.

• “My soul” is the principal of personhood that distinguishes God's soul from your soul.

Conversely, the use of "my spirit" (ruah) within the text when referring to God, only and always, imply relation to others in which God's "spirit" is said to ‘pour out’ (Prov 1:23, Isa 44:3, Eze 39:29) , ‘put upon’ (Isa 42:1, 59:21), ‘pour upon’ (Eze 39:29), ‘put within’(Eze 36:27, 37:14), ‘abide in’ (Gen 6:3).

We never see within the biblical text these terms, ‘put within’, ‘abide in’, ‘put upon’, ‘pour upon’ being used in conjunction with the phrase ‘my soul’ (Heb. nep̄ eš) as it pertains to God. God is never said to pour his soul upon us. Within the biblical text, “my soul”, when used to refer to God, is used as distinct personhood or separateness, and "my spirit" is used in reference to relations and communion with mankind.

• “My spirit” is the principal of life and communion between God and mankind.

This distinction and purposeful use of the biblical text using “my soul” within the Scripture as His own personhood in distinction between each and every other personhood of mankind’... and the purposeful use of “my spirit” in relation to communion and interaction with mankind is also consistently seen in the unique roles of the Trinity (Father, Son, Spirit).

I agree with your assessment.

My soul, as a man, in distinct from all other souls of men, but through my spirit, as a man, I can communicate and interact with all other men.

The same is true of God.

1 Cor 2: 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received…the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God

The Trinity.

Yes, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

God the Father is the epicenter of praise and worship (Phil 4:20, 2:6; John 8:49-50,12:28, 2:16,17:1-4, Heb 5:5, Matt 5:9-13,7:21). This language is the representation and equivalent of “my soul” in which everything flows from God the Father for He is the source and planner of all things (John 5:19). He sends the Son but the Son never sends the Father (1John 4:9), He pours out His Spirit but the Spirit never pours out the Father.

I agree.

The plans, goals, and wishes of God are expressed by the will of the Father, which is then spoken by the word of the Son, which is then fulfilled by the work of the Holy Spirit.

Gen 1: 2 And the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

It was the will of the Father who desired the light, and it was the word of the Son who commanded the light, and it was the work of the Holy Spirit who made the light.

On the other hand, God the Son carries out the plans and will of the Father (John 5:30, 6:38; Heb 10:11); He is Immanuel, “God with us” in body and flesh; He is the divine in the flesh (1Tim 3:16).... and it is said that the Father’s will is accomplished “through” God the Son (John 1:1-14). Additionally, the Holy Spirit reveals the Father’s will (John 15:26-27; 1Cor 2:10; John 16:13;Rom 8:16); but the Father never reveals the Holy Spirit’s will;

Again, I agree.

The Holy Spirit does not express His own will, He only expresses the will of the Father in accordance with the word of the Son.

Joh 16: 13 When He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak

The will the Father is carried out through the work of the Holy Spirit in accordance with the word of the Son.

and the Holy Spirit provides strength and power to carry out the will of the Father (Mic 3:8; Eph 3:16; 2Tim 1:7; Luke 1:17, 1:35, 4:14; Acts 1:8, 10:38; Rom 15:13; 1Cor 5:8; Isa 40:29-31).

The above is also true.

Joh 16: 14 He (the Spirit) will glorify Me (the Son), for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.

It would appear as if the Father and Son share all things in common, and the Holy Spirit is the divine Messenger of the Godhead.

The will of the Father is expressed through the word of the Son which is then revealed to us through the work of the Holy Spirit, so that divine revelation from the Father and Son is given to us through the work of the Holy Spirit, the divine Messenger of the Godhead.

Mat 11: 27 “All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.

The word of the Son reveals the will of the Father through the work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Paleouss]

Yes, it is usually warmer where I am.

Good morning Doveaman. Sounds like a blessing having warm weather.

It would appear that we are in 99.9% agreement with respect to the triune nature of God and mankind as a reflection of this fact.

One thing you wrote does peek my curiosity, however. You wrote...

My soul, as a man, in distinct from all other souls of men, but through my spirit, as a man, I can communicate and interact with all other men.

(Underline is mine). The verse you give as proof text is 1 Corinthians 2:11 (below).

(1Co 2:11 NKJV) 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.

I suppose in the first part of the verse, one might conclude that there are two possible options of meaning. The first, (#1) what man knows of other men, is known through his own spirit in him. The second, (#2) what man knows of himself or is knowable about himself, introspectively, is known through his own spirit in him.

Meaning #2 becomes what the author intends by the author saying, "Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God" (1Cor 2:11). So the second part of the verse basically says, only the Spirit of God knows God.

So if we take what appears to be the clear meaning of the second part, that is that, only the Spirit of God can know God. Then it would seem to follow that the first part of the verse means #2, or, what man knows of himself or is knowable about himself, introspectively, is only known through his own spirit in him. This verse pairs well with Prov 20:27, I think.

My point is that it is true that...

• The human spirit is (a) the principal of life and (b) communion between God and mankind.

Scripture tells us we should "worship is spirit" (John 4:24). And I think 1Cor 2:11 supports the (b) assertion. However, it is fuzzy to me the claim that you wrote which was, "through my spirit, as a man, I can communicate and interact with all other men."

This seems to assert that "communion" also means person to person, or human to human, interaction. This fact is not clear to me or that any verses suggest it. Now I do concede that the spirit in man is also life (Gen 2:7, Job 34:14, Ecc 12:7, Job 33:14) and for this very fact, mankind would not be able to interact with each other if it were not present within us (we would return to dust).

It seems a simple logical progression to say that if mankind is required to "worship in spirit" (John 4:24) and we can only "know the things that have been freely given to us by God" (1Cor 2:12) through the Spirit of God... then connection or communion between God and man is spiritual in nature and requires a spiritual conduit of some kind.

It's just not clear to me that the human to human is the same. That is, I'm not sure that the spirit in mankind is the conduit by which physical communication is possible. The communication of man to man being physical and the communication of God to man being spiritual.

Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure.

 

[Paleouss]

The only visible form God has is the Incarnate flesh of the Second Person of the Trinity. God did stand before us in visible form: Jesus. And He remains flesh, glorified, and seated in the highest of heights above all thrones, powers, and dominions.

Will we see God in heaven as one single being standing before us in one single form, or will we see God as three distinct persons standing before us in three distinct forms?

Greetings to both you and yours.

My apologies for commenting on the discourse between both of you, if you find it rude.

It seems to me, Doveaman, that ViaCrucis did understand the questions. If the above quote is the question.

It seems as if ViaCrucis is saying that if the "only visible form God has is the Incarnate flesh of the Second person of the Trinity". Then the only form we will see in heaven is that of Jesus Christ (because the other two do not have form that we can see).

Peace to you both, brothers

 

[Doveaman]

Good morning Doveaman. Sounds like a blessing having warm weather.

It would appear that we are in 99.9% agreement with respect to the triune nature of God and mankind as a reflection of this fact.

One thing you wrote does peek my curiosity, however. You wrote...

(Underline is mine). The verse you give as proof text is 1 Corinthians 2:11 (below).

I suppose in the first part of the verse, one might conclude that there are two possible options of meaning.

Yes, there are.

The first, (#1) what man knows of other men, is known through his own spirit in him.

Correct

The second, (#2) what man knows of himself or is knowable about himself, introspectively, is known through his own spirit in him.

Also correct.

Meaning #2 becomes what the author intends by the author saying, "Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God" (1Cor 2:11). So the second part of the verse basically says, only the Spirit of God knows God.

I agree with your assessment of the author’s intention.

So if we take what appears to be the clear meaning of the second part, that is that, only the Spirit of God can know God. Then it would seem to follow that the first part of the verse means #2, or, what man knows of himself or is knowable about himself, introspectively, is only known through his own spirit in him. This verse pairs well with Prov 20:27, I think.

My point is that it is true that...

• The human spirit is (a) the principal of life and (b) communion between God and mankind.

Scripture tells us we should "worship is spirit" (John 4:24). And I think 1Cor 2:11 supports the (b) assertion. However, it is fuzzy to me the claim that you wrote which was, "through my spirit, as a man, I can communicate and interact with all other men."

This seems to assert that "communion" also means person to person, or human to human, interaction. This fact is not clear to me or that any verses suggest it. Now I do concede that the spirit in man is also life (Gen 2:7, Job 34:14, Ecc 12:7, Job 33:14) and for this very fact, mankind would not be able to interact with each other if it were not present within us (we would return to dust).

It seems a simple logical progression to say that if mankind is required to "worship in spirit" (John 4:24) and we can only "know the things that have been freely given to us by God" (1Cor 2:12) through the Spirit of God... then connection or communion between God and man is spiritual in nature and requires a spiritual conduit of some kind.

It's just not clear to me that the human to human is the same. That is, I'm not sure that the spirit in mankind is the conduit by which physical communication is possible. The communication of man to man being physical and the communication of God to man being spiritual.

The fact that the author compares God’s Spirit with man’s spirit indicates that human communication is not merely physical, but is spiritual at its source.

We communicate through the physical expression of the human body, but the source of that expression is the human spirit. For the body without the spirit is dead (Jam 2:26). Hence, human to human communication is really spiritual and not merely physical.

In addition, all who are born of flesh share the same spirit of the first Adam (the spirit of man), just as all who are born of Christ share the same Spirit of the second Adam (the Spirit of God). And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly Man (1 Cor 15:49).

It is the one human spirit of man which we all received through the first Adam that enables us to communicate with man.
And it is the one divine Spirit of God which we all receive through the second Adam that enables us to communicate with God.

Like you said earlier, we are pretty much in agreement, but I am of the view that we can extract more spiritual truths from a scriptural verse that goes beyond what the author intended.

My claim that through my spirit as a man I can communicate and interact with all other men is my personal extraction from 1 Cor 2:11 that goes beyond what the author intended.

In addition: What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us (1 Cor 2:12).

All that we receive from God through divine communication is known and understood through the Spirit of God.
Likewise, all that we receive from man through human communication is known and understood through the spirit of man.
Because "there is a spirit in man, the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding (Job 32:8). "