Cos

Space merchant, I will keep this response short because a long post is difficult for some to read. I only touched on the Hebrew word echad in my other post and how the basic meaning is “united” from the root “to unify”, which apparently is only “half correct”. Consider this, if the Bible writers, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote that God is multi-personal, as is claimed by most Bible believing Christians, then we would expect to find that these authors would write about God in such a way as to indicate this to their readers, right? There are some nine different Hebrew words, which at times are translated as the word “one” (also there are many variants of these nine). Now, the question that comes to mind if the Unitarian claims are correct, is which of these nine words would they apply to God to indicate that God is a moneity, not a plurality? Out of the nine Hebrew words only one would indicate that God is one solitary person. And if that word is applied to God in the Bible, then I and all Bible believing Christians would not have a leg to stand on. The word is yachiyd (Strong’s #3173), and means an absolute or solitary one. It is even translated “solitary” in Psalm 68:6, and refers to someone who is absolutely alone. This is its general meaning throughout Scripture (see Ps. 25:16; 68:6; Prov. 4:3; Jer. 6:26; Amos 8:10; etc.). A Arian/Unitarian should naturally expect to find that the word yachiyd be applied to God in the Bible, at least once... On the other hand, Bible believing Christians would not expect to find yachiyd applied to God because we believe that there are three Persons within the Godhead. And so, when we turn to the Bible, what do we find? Scripture never applies yachiyd to God, and never describes God as a solitary person. On the other hand, if the writers of Scripture under inspiration of the Holy Spirit believed God to be multi-personal, then we would expect to find that they would apply the word echad to God because this would mean that God is “one” in a composite sense. And as a matter of fact, echad is the only available Hebrew word they could use to express this reality. So when we open the Bible, what do we find? We find that echad is applied to God. He is “one” in the sense of a composite unity. This is central to the Biblical concept of God. The use of echad in Duet. 6:4 is exactly what Bible believing Christians expect to find in the Bible because it is the only way in the Hebrew language to indicate to the reader that God is a composite unity of Persons and not just a solitary person (for confirmation see Zech 2:5-11 which is an example of this). Like it or not, there are no other words in the Hebrew language by which such a thought could be expressed. It is interesting to note also that the Greek word heis performs the same function as the Hebrew echad. Bible believing Christians everywhere, following the teachings of Jesus (John 10:30, Matt. 28:19) believe, without a doubt, that while there is only one God, numerically speaking, yet, within this one God, there exists more than one person. This is the fundamental principle underlying the doctrine of the Trinity. I want to look at John 17: 3 as this seems to be the preferred go to verse of Arian/Unitarians in an attempt to deny the Deity of Christ and the Trinity. Look, similar language to John 17:3 appears in Jude 4, where the more reliable Greek texts read that Jesus is “our only Master and Lord”. Here the same adjective “only” appears in the same grammatical position (attributive). So if we were to use the line of interpretation that you do for John 17:3, then Jude 4 restricts the Master and Lord to one person, Jesus Christ. How can Jesus be our only Master and Lord when the Father is also our Lord and Master? Or put another way, how can the Father be our Master and Lord if Jesus is, as Jude 4 says, our ONLY Master and Lord? The same reasoning being applied by you to John 17:3 would deny that any other Person other than Jesus Christ could be our “Master and Lord” according to Jude 4! Do you apply the same exegetical principles to Jude 4 as you demand in John 17:3? If not why not? Now, what then is the correct understanding of the language in John 17:3? Jesus says, that they might know you…and me. Imagine that… we might know a creature and that our eternal life depends on it! We need to know God to have life and that includes our knowing Jesus Christ, the one who had made Himself to occupy a lower POSITION than the angels in order to pay the toll. And by looking at Jude 4 might help you to see how superficial some are when reading John 17:3. Only by understanding Jesus Christ as an ultimate and equal member of the eternal Godhead can we rightfully say that He's our ONLY Master and Lord. See how easily the Trinity accommodates this? Without the Trinity the passage appears to be an outright contradiction to Scripture elsewhere. Jesus states emphatically that eternal life is this: Knowing the Father in an intimate way as well as His Son. Salvation depends on knowing both! The Son is one with the Father. The Son is God in every sense the Father is (John 1:1) and is confessed as Lord and God (John 20:28). It would be strange, indeed, a created being, sent to reveal the Father, would equate knowing Himself with knowing the Father, in the context of salvation. Unless, of course, He is essentially equal as the one true God, who alone grants life eternal to those who believe in Him. I will look at and respond to your other long post at a later date. <><

The apostle Paul confirms for us that the Holy Spirit is a real Person by declaring that the Holy Spirit possesses a mind (Romans 8:27). “But He that searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is...” The Greek word in this verse translated “mind” is φρονημα (phronéma). The word appears 4 times in the NT, and in these other 3 passages (all in Romans 8) the word is only applied to persons. Let’s take a look at what some dictionaries and Lexicons have to say about and how they define “phronéma”. Abbot-Smith Manual Greek Lexicon of the NT; “ φρόνημα, -τος, τό that which is in the mind, the thought: Rom 8:6-7; Rom 8:27.” E.W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance of the English and Greek Testament; “φρόνημα what one has in mind, what one thinks and feels; hence, mind, thought, feeling, will; knowledge or wisdom, as being the product of the mind” Mounce Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament “φρόνημα phronēma frame of thought, will, aspirations” A Manual Greek lexicon of the New Testament has; “φρόνημα that which is in the mind, the thought” Hastings New Testament Dictionary, phronema denotes “thoughts and purposes”. Vines Dictionary; Noun,5427,phronema denotes "what one has in the mind, the thought" (the content of the process expressed in phroneo, "to have in mind, to think"); or "an object of thought…" Dodson Greek-English Lexicon; “ φρόνημα, ατος, τό Noun, Neuter thought, purpose” Strong’s Greek Dictionary φρόνημα phronēma, fron'-ay-mah From 5427 (mental) inclination or purpose:--(be, + be carnally, + be spiritually) mind(-ed). THAYER'S GREEK LEXICON 5427: φρόνημα φρόνημα, φρονηματος, τό (φρονέω, which see), what one has in mind, the thoughts and purposes (A. V. mind): Romans 8:6f, 27. (Hesychius φρόνημα. βούλημα, θέλημα. In various other senses also from Aeschylus down.) Strong's Electronic Concordance; phronéma: the thought (that which is in the mind) Original Word: φρόνημα, ατος, τό Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter Transliteration: phronéma Phonetic Spelling: (fron'-ay-mah) Short Definition: thought, purpose Definition: thought, purpose, aspirations. NAS Exhaustive Concordance Word Origin from phroneó Definition the thought (that which is in the mind) Edward Robinson, A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament. “φρόνημα what one has in mind, what one thinks and feels;' hence, mind, thought.” Samuel G. Green Vocabulary definition in, “Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament, has, “φρονημα, thought, regard” W. J. HICKIE, Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament, “φρόνημα τό, thought, mind.” Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, " way of thinking, mind(-set), aim, aspiration, striving.” The Watchtower’s own Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures has “minding” as the translation for phronéma at Romans 8:27. All other Interlinear I consulted all had “mind” as the translation of phronéma. Interesting how the Watchtower tries to cover how the word phronéma is understood in the NWT. In Romans 8:6-7 the NWT has the word “minding” at the other three places where phronéma appears but not in Romans 8:27, note how the word in Romans 8:6-7 clearly indicates the mindfulness or thought patterns of persons; worldly (fleshly) ones in contrast to those persons who are near to God. We also note in Romans 8:27 that there is a distinction between the first Person “who searches the hearts” and “knows” the thoughts of this other Person who in turn is pleading on behalf of the saints. <><

Space merchant, You post is very long I will try to keep my response shorter in comparison. Also I will not use the “quote window” as it is quite unmanageable when responding to such a long post, what you claims are above anyway. Now, why in Luke 24:52, when after Jesus had departed, the disciples we are told, worshipped Jesus, all you do is dismiss this by saying: “it doesn’t constitute to a religious act in terms of Jesus”. Of course it does for the simple fact that Jesus had separated from them! Why would they “merely bowed down in honor/reverence/obeisance/etc” when He was separated from them? It makes no sense to do “obeisance” after He had departed from them, unless it was a religious act! You say; “nowhere did it say that they were giving exclusive devotion to Jesus in terms of worship” Yes it does. The passage is quite clear the worship was directed to Jesus after He had left them. You claim ignores what the passage says. Also, your claims on the meaning of proskunéō ignores that the word is used in the Bible to designate a religious act of worship (Matt. 4:8-10, 1 Cor. 14:25 etc). Notice that in 1 Cor. 14:25, part of worship includes falling down on one’s face or knees in humility. Where else in the Bible do people show “honor/obeisance/reverence” to a person who had just left and is separated from those doing proskunéō other than to God? You claim that there are many examples of this apart from Luke 24:52...where? You go off on a tangent about worship, and I think you do so to help you cope with the implication of Luke 24:52 where after Jesus had separated Himself from His disciples they then worshiped Him, which constitutes a religious act. That’s the plain and simple fact of the passage. You make one point which I agree with, where you say; “The Bible makes it clear to us to “worship” the One has created everything, Deuteronomy 4:24, Revelation 14:7” To your two Scriptures I’d add also, Rev. 4:11. And you will note that when we read the Scriptures that the Lord Jesus is the very One who created everything for Himself, John 1:1-3, 10; Col. 1:15-18; Heb. 1:2-3, 10-12, He is our Creator. Jesus is, therefore, worthy of the very worship that every creature must give since He is the Creator of all things that exist (Heb. 1:10-12) Can I just say that everyone who follows online debates chooses sides (and champions) based on their theological perceptive. Irenaeus’ Belief Let’s look again at what Irenaeus taught and believe. Your claim, that because Irenaeus says that the Father is the only God that that somehow is detrimental to Trinitarian theology…wrong…what this shows is that you don’t know much about Trinitarian theology. As I stated in my last post, I have no problem with what Irenaeus says, nor do any other Trinitarians, we totally agree with him. Look again at the opening words of the Nicene Creed; “We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty” What Irenaeus says is in complete accord with the Trinity doctrine. Only in your imagination and in a complete misunderstand of the Trinity would you make such a preposterous assertion. You go on and rightly state that Irenaeus’s work “Against Heresies” was to refute the Gnostic idea and what they taught about other gods… it would therefore be ridiculous for Irenaeus to say, in refuting this Gnostic idea, that Jesus is in some way another god. Can you see how absurd that would sound to a Gnostic? Nowhere in the Writings of Irenaeus does he state that Jesus (or the Holy Spirit) are creatures, nowhere, now surely if he were a Unitarian, as you asserted, then he would have said so in his refutation of the Gnostic idea! As I stated in my last post and above, I totally agree with what Irenaeus says. But when I asked you if you do, all you can say is that I probably don’t know the headings of the chapters. You make a big deal about the chapter headings; look the chapter headings were added to give a brief overview of what Irenaeus says in that chapter. You should be more concerned about the actual content instead of the added headings. Now I will ask you again, in your Unitarian perspective, do you agree with what Irenaeus says about Jesus in book 3, chapter 19 that Jesus is “God, and Lord, and King Eternal”? I fully agree with this. You claim that I just “pull portions” from what Irenaeus writes as if doing so were wrong in some way, even thought you recognize that what I said is correct for you acknowledge that “Irenaeus indeed identified the Holy Spirit as a Person”, but it is you who doesn’t agree with Irenaeus on this… so how can you attribute Unitarianism to Irenaeus? You go on to quote something and then append that quotes to another, like in the portion where you tell me to “check this out” it seems that you try to accredit what you stated as all being from the treatise “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching” that’s what it seems you are claiming when you say “check this out”. If you want to read “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching” in full you can do so at this site http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/irenaeus_02_proof.htm And I can guarantee that when you do read this, then you will realize that your claims are once again unfounded and that someone is leading you astray on this. I wonder if you actually read what Irenaeus says, note this following statement he makes about Jesus and the Father “Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living” (Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 5) Is that a Unitarian viewpoint? Is Christ together with the Father THE GOD of the living a teaching of Unitarianism? If that is a Unitarian teaching then I’m Unitarian! Space merchant, it all comes down to this simple test, you are a Unitarian, and I’m not. Therefore if, as you claim, Irenaeus is Unitarian then you’d WOULD have to agree with what he states, not just where he says that the Father is only God, but elsewhere as well and I believe you don’t. I in turn totally and fully agree with what Irenaeus says, BECAUSE what he says is in full accord with the Trinity doctrine. How strange is that when you consider that your claim was that Irenaeus was a Unitarian. I can’t emphasis this enough, if Irenaeus were Unitarian you’d have to agree with him on all count not just one! I do read the context of what Irenaeus writings even if you think that I don’t, I always do, and that’s why I can say without hesitation that I agree with him. Can you do the same? Sometimes I will tend to have many books open when I’m writing, I must have been looking at something else when I said “book 6” of Against Heresies when there is no book 6. I meant book 3, chapter 1. Notice carefully what Irenaeus wrote, “Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord…. For the Spirit designates both of them by the name, of God — both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father…. Of whom He again speaks: The God of gods, the Lord has spoken, and has called the earth. Who is meant by God? He of whom He has said, God shall come openly, our God, and shall not keep silence; that is, the Son… Wherefore, as I have already stated, no other is named as God, or is called Lord, except Him who is God and Lord of all, who also said to Moses, I am that I am… And again, when the Son speaks to Moses…” (Against Heresies book 3, chapter 1) I agree totally with Irenaeus on this, do you? You say that it “surprises” you that I would quote from “Early Christian Doctrine” by J. N. D. Kelly, why? I find Kelly to be quite astute in his book. Also you claim, for some reason, that I missed what Kelly said at the start of page 107. The start of page 107 (after finishing off the last sentence from what he says on page 106) is as follows; “declares Him to us. The Johannine basis of this theology is apparent, and it finds characteristic expression in such statements as, 'The Son reveals the knowledge of the Father through His own manifestation, for the Son's manifestation is the making known of the Father'; and, 'What is invisible in the Son is the Father, and what is visible in the Father is the Son'.” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p 107) What is it that you say I missed which is pertinent to what he says further down on page 107 about Irenaeus? What? You also say “and what he continues on to say about Irenaeus’ belief in page 108-110” On page 108 Kelly discusses Irenaeus’ “economic Trinitarianism” again what have I missed? Page 109 begins a new chapter, and the only time Irenaeus is even mentioned is on page 110 (twice) he is not mentioned on page 109. “Our first task is to consider two theologians who stood more or less directly in the line of the Apologists and Irenaeus, and reflected their influence at many points… The comprehensive term they borrowed from Irenaeus for the latter was 'economy'”(J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p 110) So I’m really scratching my head as to what you claim I missed? You ask this following question, which again shows me that know little about the Trinity doctrine. Here is what you ask; “But going on with JND, do you believe that: The Father, the only God, is a single personage and that the Word, that is the Son and the Spirit that acts through.” First, what do you mean “going on with JND”? Now the question you ask is one in relation with modalism, which is the idea that the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father as well as being the Holy Spirit. This is not the Trinity doctrine. So my answer to your question is no. By the way, I think you will find that when Tertullian became a Montanist it was towards the end of his life, AFTER he had written his great works. Tell me which “scholars” you claim believe otherwise? Let me repeat to you that Tertullian was not a Unitarian as you tried to assert in your previous post. Remember you said, “Document and the writings of Tertullian are Unitarian”. Tertullian’s teachings are in full accord with the doctrine of the Trinity. Just read you own quotes and see for yourself! You say: “So clearly we see that Tertullian, again, shows a clear distinction between The Father and The Son, even stating that the Only God also has a Son. Trinitarians will say that Tertullian didn’t mean that, but unfortunately it is said and done and part of history.” No, Trinitarians do not say any such thing! In the doctrine of the Trinity we hold that the one true God does in fact have a Son who is distinct from the Father, and is true God from true God in essence and substance as Tertullian also states, re-read your own quotes please. Your claim was that the writings of Tertullian are Unitarian. Can you honestly still claim this? I think not. RE-read your own quotes from Tertullian! You say; “Tertullian was the first to directly assert the essential unity of the three “persons”, but his logic and arguments are essentially subordinationist - (see Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, p. 570).” What Phillip Schaff says on page 570 is this: “Otherwise he stands, as already observed, on subordinatian ground, if his comparisons of the trinitarian relation to that of root, stem, and fruit; or fountain, flow, and brook; or sun, ray, and raypoint, be dogmatically pressed.” (History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, p. 570, Phillip Schaff) Note the word “if”. I need to again ask, was Tertullian a Unitarian? Please re-read all of your own quotes and show me from those quotes where Tertullian’s Unitarianism is set forth! I eagerly await your answer. Moving on with your following claims and assertions; let me just say that you create for yourself a false dilemma, in your claim that, because Jesus is subordinate to the Father, then that somehow means he cannot be God. The Trinity doctrine along with the early church writings explains that there are three distinct Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - who together are One God. The Son and the Spirit although distinct are equal to the Father in power and in glory. So, all three Persons within the Godhead are equal in nature, essence, and attributes (omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, holiness, etc.). Now in understanding the doctrine of the Trinity, the Son willingly submits to the Father's authority; in other words He is subordinate, and the Holy Spirit submits to both the Father and the Son. However, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not any less in nature, as each member of the Trinity is of the same substance. You will often hear Christians, even today, refer to the Father as the first Person of the Trinity, the Son as the second and the Holy Spirit as the third Person. That does not mean that they are any less in nature. Let put this in a way that you should be able to understand. Biblically the wife is subordinate to her husband, but is equal in nature because she is made of the same stuff as the man. Jesus’ subordination to the Father is a voluntary one when He came as a man, but that does not detract from or deny His equal Deity, any more than the divine order of the submission of the wife to the husband in the wife/husband relationship detracts from the wife’s essential equality and humanity, or implies her inferiority! I hope that you can grasp this, but maybe not, maybe this is too hard for you to understand…but I will leave this information up for others to read, such as the JWs and in that way they can see that before the fourth century the early church believe the same as I believe today. You have a tendency to pluck quotes from the internet randomly in an effort to try to boast your claims; many times you do not even references the quotes and expecting others to just except the claims regardless of their false assertions. And because you do this that is when contradictions arise; in one of your quotes you allege that the foundation of binitarian was in 325 AD, here is what you quoted; “At Nicea in 325 the Trinity was not formulated. Only the foundation of the Binitarian structure was laid down here.”(quoted by you) But now you admit that binitarianism is a late fourth century invention, see your own quote from Gerhard Pfandl. Then comes the even more absurd claim, which I would venture is another quote and again without any reference, where you say “Modalistic Monarchians allied together with the Semi-Trinitarians to formulate the early 325 Nicene Creed to counter the Arian threat” which denied the divinity of Jesus Christ” This claim is so twisted in its allegations and clearly shows that whoever made it has no knowledge of church history whatsoever. Then MORE quotes without any references…. And then there is your threats regarding Eusebius and church history…really? Look, the only reason I mentioned Eusebius was to show that he knew nothing about Binitarianism since he does not mention it in his church history and that’s because it was a late fourth century invention, which you admit, and which contradicts your previous claim! Then you say this about Eusebius, “Technically he has mention such heresy”. Where does Eusebius mention Binitarianism? Please show where this is done. You then name some of the early church writers and say that they “fought or were against Binitarianism”, again, please show where they do this? You then quote Tertullian and then Hippolytus and Eusebius but do not give the location from where these quotes come from. Just like how you quote Robert M. Grant, but you don’t give the reference to where the quote comes from so that I can look it up. As I mentioned above you just quote randomly from the internet and from discussion forums and not give reference, here you just mention Robert M. Grant without giving the name of the book or article the quote originated from. Here is an example of how to reference a quote; “A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three.” (Hippolytus, Against The Heresy Of One Noetus, section 8) Notice how I gave you, not just who wrote this, but also the book from which it is derived and the general location in that book where the quote can be found, it really is that easy. You should try it MORE often! But be careful because sometimes you might reference something and mistakenly type in a wrong book number or chapter number, but that’s fine just as long as you can amend the error later, when asked, by giving the correct location from where the quote is taken, I won’t hold it against you…unlike some. I’ll take a look and respond to your other post at a later date, which, from a glance, appears just as long. <><

......………….particularly when compared to no Scriptural backing. <><

I’m afraid you have abandoned any sense of reason in an effort to cling to a false idea. How can you maintain the contradictive teaching of the Watchtower without any Scriptural support? You admit Scripture only but you don’t have Scriptural backing…why is that? Anyway stay tuned, I will continue providing Scriptural proof that the Holy Spirit is a real Person who has a will, emotions and intellect. <><

This is a typical response from someone who follows the shifting teachings of a magazine. Scripture demonstrates the distinction and personality of the Holy Spirit from the Father in many places, Matthew 28:19 and 2 Cor. 13:14 are two such examples. <><

The Holy Spirit has a will, and decides which gifts to give believers: “But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.” (1 Cor. 12:11) The Greek word βουλεται (translated “will”) is the present indicative of βούλομαι and grammatically is referring to the Holy Spirit. The present tense of the word in this verse “emphasizes the habitual or repeated action. He gives not according to the merit or wishes of men but according to his own will.” (Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament p429) “The Present Indicative is used to express customary actions and general truths” (Syntax of Moods and Tenses of New Testament) Strongs Greek Dictionary G1014 βούλομαι boulomai boo'-lom-ahee Middle voice of a primary verb; to “will”, that is, (reflexively) be willing: - be disposed, minded, intend, list (be, of own) will (-ing). Compare G2309. Thayer's Greek Lexicon 1014: βούλομαι …to will, wish; to will deliberately, have a purpose, be minded: …of the will electing or choosing between two or more things… Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament βαύλομαι, to will, wish, desire, purpose, be minded, of the will making choice between alternatives Dodson Greek-English Lexicon G1014 βούλομαι Verb I will, intend, desire Strong's Electronic Concordance boulomai: to will Original Word: βούλομαι Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: boulomai Phonetic Spelling: (boo'-lom-ahee) Short Definition: I will, intend, desire Definition: I will, intend, desire, wish. Discovery Bible Word-studies 1014 boúlomai – to plan with full resolve (determination). See 1012 (boulē). 1014 /boúlomai ("resolutely plan") is a strong term that underlines the predetermined (and determined) intention driving the planning (wishing, resolving). In contrast, 2309 (thélō) focuses on the desire ("wishfulness") behind making an offer (cf. TDNT, 1, 629). [While God's "thelō-offers" can be rejected (see 2309 /thélō), His 1014 /boúlomai ("planning") always works out His purpose, especially in conjunction with presetting the physical scenes of history.] Vines Dictionary Verb,1014,boulomai "to wish, to will deliberately," expresses more strongly than thelo (No. 6) the deliberate exercise of the will Hastings New Testament Dictionary When we turn to βούλομαι we find that the verb is always used of man, except in Luk 22:42, Heb 6:17 (the only case where the word occurs in Heb.), 2Pe 3:9, and Jam 1:18 Mat 11:27, 1Co 12:11… The verb thus denotes plan and settled deliberate purpose How can an a mindless active force make decisions? The word βούλομαι appears in the Bible 34 times and used only for persons. The Holy Spirit is a person. For in 1 Cor. 12:11 He acts as a person; distributes favors, confers gifts as He wills. It would be absurd to say a “force” bestows favors, and distributes the various gifts, and raising the dead. Here is a clear and full proof of the personality of the Spirit, who is not only distinguished from His gifts, and the distribution of them, which is a personal act described to Him; but this is said to be done according to THE WILL of the Holy Spirit, which shows an intelligent person, capable of choosing and willing. The NWT has for boulomai “it wills”. Yet how can a thing, an active force, a mindless power, have will? It is also quite clear that poetical personification, as you JWs always imagine when it comes to the Holy Spirit, would be quite out of place here because of the personal deeds attributed to the Holy Spirit in the context. <><

And I did apologies for doing so, but when a person is on a JW forum, and is agreeing with the other JWs on said forum then the chances can be very high that they are also JWs. No I haven’t, all I asked was for you to show me where in the writings of the early church is the Unitarian form of religion mentioned (more on this below). Your assertion about Christians with regard to the Shema is unfounded; what I’ve noticed is how Arian/Unitarians (sorry for grouping you thusly) have seized upon this verse as being supposedly fatal to our Christian doctrine of the Divine Tri-unity. “There, now” is the claim, “nothing could be plainer. God is a moneity, not a plurality. He is one, not three, for Deuteronomy 6:4 says so.” Yet that simply is not the case. The Jewish Publication Society’s commentary shows how the Shema probably had nothing to do with the way you Arian/Unitarians try to use the verse as a prime proof-text that God is an absolute numerical one. "’The LORD is our God, the LORD alone’…For all its familiarity, the precise meaning of the Shema is uncertain and it permits several possible renderings. The present translation indicates that the verse is a description of the proper relationship between YHVH and Israel…This understanding of the Shema is describing a relationship with God, rather than His nature." ([JPS torah], Sarna, Potok (Gen eds)/Tigay on Deut p.76). The JPS commentary goes on to say,” the Shema began as a declaration of allegiance” (p.440). One linguistic tool says for the word “(Echad) = Stg 259…one, i.e., that which is united as one in contrast to separate parts (Ge 2:24; Dt 6:4)” [Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains, Hebrew Old Testament]. And from Strong’s Dictionary confirms that, “259. …echad, ekhawd; a numeral from 258; prop. united, i.e. one; or (as an ordinal) first” “258. …achad, aw-khad; per. A prim. Root; to unify, i.e. (fig.) collect (one's thoughts).” [Stg Dict] So in short when examining the word echad we discover that the basic meaning of the word is “united” from the Hebrew root “to unify.” I am reminded by what one Hebrew professor has said about the word echad how it means the same as used in Psalm 133:1 where it says, “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in echad (unity).” According to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament echad, “is closely identified with yahad “to be united” and with rosh “first, head”…It stresses unity while recognizing diversity within that oneness…the question of diversity within unity has theological implications.” (Vol. 1, page 30). The fact that this person is no long a part of that group and that he seeks to form his own group speaks volumes, it would be interesting in passing would be to know how many have jumped over onto his band-wagon. Another thing which would be interesting to know is does he still read that bogus magazine? From what you say about this former JW, it is clear that you admire him, but the fact that he is no longer a JW, well…. I was just making an observation on what you brought up. The question was asked, and this ex-JW obviously knew the sense the question was ask, but from what you say, he answered in another sense. That’s just double talk, saying one thing but instead meaning another that is not in line with the sense of the question. The Scriptures are clear that Jesus was worshipped, it is a bias assertion to claim otherwise. After Jesus had ascended to heaven His followers worshipped Him (Luke 24:52). This word does not always mean religious homage, but here we note Jesus’ followers offered this worship after Jesus had left them and therefore here constitutes a religious act. This act by the disciples wasn’t simply bowing down this was worship in the religious sense because of the fact that He was no longer there. This is only done for true Deity. Your quote that followed this comment is I believe is from a JW publication is it not? Can I just say (without you taking offense) before moving on how I find it really cumbersome that your quotes on the writings of Irenaeus are in separate windows, to which I have to click to read, if you can please post without being in these windows it makes for better flow when reading. Your quote from Irenaeus is taken out of context as I will show but before doing so lets look at what Irenaeus actually taught and believed. Irenaeus (120-202) "For I have shown from the scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, GOD, AND LORD, AND KING ETERNAL, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth.” (Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 19). I agree completely with this statement by Irenaeus, do you? Irenaeus marks the identification of the Holy Spirit as a person just as the Son is a person when he writes; “the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Word and Wisdom; whom all the angels serve, and to whom they are subject.” (Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 7) Irenaeus establishes the Holy Spirit as a distinct, eternal person alongside the Father and the Logos. “For with Him (the Father) were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit…”(Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 20) Irenaeus certainly believed that Jesus Christ was fully God. Not "a god" as some try to claim. Eternal God. Nowhere does he suggest that Jesus had a different "existence" or essence from God the Father. Irenaeus did, when refuting different manifestations of Modalism, stress that Jesus was a different "person" from the Father, which is consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity. However regarding the essence, he says in Against Heresies book 4 chapter 5; “Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, IS THE GOD of the living, who spoke to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers.” So Christ is aptly termed God with the Father. In a practical sense, Irenaeus believed in the Trinity. Moreover, Irenaeus says that the name of God is applicable to both the Father and the Son. He says in Against Heresies book 3 chapter 6 that: "Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God…For the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name, of God — both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father." I agree with this statement, do you? In Against Heresies book 1 chapter 10, Irenaeus says that the early church’s faith is based on the teachings of the apostles and their disciples and believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and he says, "Christ Jesus is our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King." I say, “Amen!” Do you? “And in what respect will the Word of God — yea, rather God Himself, since He is the Word — differ from the word of men, if He follows the same order and process of generation?” (Against Heresies 2 chapter 13). Many more examples can be added, now my point is, as can be seen above, his understanding was not Unitarian. If what Irenaeus believed were Unitarian in nature then you would have to agree the things he sates above…I know I do and I’m not a Unitarian! When reading the writings of the early church it is always beneficial to understand their meaning by reading in context, you quote from Against Heresies book 6, chapter 4, but did you not read in chapter 1 of book 6 where Irenaeus says; “Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord…. For the Spirit designates both of them by the name, of God — both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father…. Of whom He again speaks: The God of gods, the Lord has spoken, and has called the earth. Who is meant by God? He of whom He has said, God shall come openly, our God, and shall not keep silence; that is, the Son… Wherefore, as I have already stated, no other is named as God, or is called Lord, except Him who is God and Lord of all, who also said to Moses, I am that I am… And again, when the Son speaks to Moses…” (Against Heresies book 6, chapter 4) Now when read in context the part that you quote is in contrast to the preceding part of the passage that is speaks about false gods. The rest of the quotes you call up from Against Heresies we Christians fully agree with the Father in His own right is our only God and Lord, but as Irenaeus shows (see above) Jesus too is in His right is true God and Lord. One scholar has this to say about Irenaeus' theology; “Naturally the Son is fully divine: 'the Father is God, and the Son is God, for whatever is begotten of God is God'…Thus we have Irenaeus's vision of the Godhead, the most complete, and also most explicitly Trinitarian, to be met with before Tertullian. Its second-century traits stand out clearly, particularly its representation of the Triad by the imagery, not of three coequal persons (this was the analogy to be employed by the post-Nicene fathers), but rather of a single personage, the Father Who is the Godhead itself, with His mind, or rationality, and His wisdom. The motive for this approach, common to all Christian thinkers of this period, was their intense concern for the fundamental tenet of monotheism, but its unavoidable corollary was a certain obscuring of the position of the Son and the Spirit as 'Persons' (to use the jargon of later theology) prior to their generation or emission. Because of its emphasis on the 'economy', this type of thought has been given the label 'economic Trinitarianism'. The description is apt and convenient so long as it is not assumed that Irenaeus's recognition of, and preoccupation with, the Trinity revealed in the 'economy' prevented him from recognizing also the mysterious three-in-oneness of the inner life of the Godhead. The whole point of the great illustrative image which he, like his predecessors, employed, that of a man with his intellectual and spiritual functions, was to bring out, however inadequately, the fact that there are real distinctions in the immanent being of the unique, indivisible Father, and that while these were only fully manifested in the 'economy', they were actually there from all eternity. (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p 107). I don’t think so! You only give a link to a web site here instead is what Tertullian does say; Tertullian (155-220) "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, ONE essence, not one Person” (Against Praxeas, chapter 25). I totally agree do you? Would you say that what Tertullian says here was Unitarian? “All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes THE UNITY INTO A TRINITY, placing in their order THE THREE PERSONS — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: THREE…of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, WILL BE SHOWN AS OUR TREATISE PROCEEDS.” (Against Praxeas chapter 2) That is quite clear right? Read it again, would you say that what Tertullian says here was Unitarian? “Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in the Trinity, and indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith…the distinction OF PERSONS IN THE TRINITY is clearly set forth” (Against Praxeas, chapter 11) “If the number of the Trinity also offends you…With these did He then speak, in the Unity of the Trinity… the following text also He distinguishes among the Persons… I must everywhere hold one only substance in THREE COHERENT AND INSEPARABLE PERSONS” (Against Praxeas, chapter 12) “That there are, however, two Gods or two Lords, is a statement which at no time proceeds out of our mouth: not as if it were untrue that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and each is God” (Against Praxeas, chapter 13) Does any of what Tertullian say above sound anything like Unitarianism? Nooooooooo! You also quote from an article “CATHOLICISM Frequently Asked Questions” which says that initially at the Council of Nicea the formulated doctrine was Binitarian, I disagree with this (as I disagree with a lot of things from Roman Catholics), below is the creed, and as you will clearly see mentions not only the Father and the Son but the Holy Spirit also! We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, By the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered, died and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son Who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified. Who has spoken through the prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. (Nicene Creed Contemporary Version), Eusebius, in his history of the Christian church mentions the heresies which the church faced in the years before his own time (fourth century), in his works there is no mention of Binitarianism none at all Why would he not mention this heresy? He mentions all the others. It’s because this heresy did not appear until the late fourth century. If it were a belief system BEFORE the fourth century then people like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and of course Eusebius, would have referred to it, but there is nothing; just as there is no belief system that even resembles the Unitarian form of religion being mentioned by these early church writers. I think you better because as I have shown above, so far you have not demonstrated anything that is Unitarian in the writings of the early church, see the above again! So your claim that Unitarianism is in the writings of the early church pre fourth century is still lacking. <><

Gone fishing, This is really very simple, my “opinion” as you say, is easily validated by the simple fact that you have no Scriptural backing for your position. Maybe for you, but certainty is via the Scriptures only, not from the pages of a bogus magazine which blinds the minds of its adherents. ¿ ~~><>

Gone fishing, No, Scripture is core to my argument, my belief is the product of what the Scriptures teach and verify. Sadly, it appears that all you have for your belief is the ever shifting and inconsistent teaching of men who hide behind a magazine, with NO Scriptural backing. Can “force/ power” have feelings, a mind and intellect? These are traits of a real Person not a thing…<><

Space merchant, What’s ironic is this JW you mention (now an ex-JW) did not even quote from the NWT, because in Hebrews 1:6 the JW version does not have the word “worship” but “obeisance”. Anyway, I’m sorry but time does not permit me to watch you tube videos as I have many other matters to attend to. However, I’m still interested in you showing me from the writings of the early church (pre fourth century) where the Unitarian form of religion is mentioned. We know that these writers wrote to combat all forms of heresies that the early church faced, so if your believe system were present pre fourth century as you assert, and not an invention of some later date, then it is in these writings that will verify this. <><

The Watchtower generated idea that the Holy Spirit is some type of “force/power” is a false manmade teaching that has no biblical backing, but JWs accept this false teaching without any Biblical verification. On the other hand there is so much evidence in the Scriptures which show that the Holy Spirit is a Person. For example, numerous times in the Book of Acts the Holy Spirit is described in language which clearly indicate that The Holy Spirit is a person, who speaks (1:16; 8:29), forbids (1 6:6), thinks good (15:28), appoints (20:28), sends (1 3:4), bears witness (5:32), snatches (8:39), prevents (16:7), and resisted (7:51) just name a few. <><

Space merchant, I don’t think "the JW had the upper hand", because according to JWs in their many publications they claim that Jesus can’t be worshipped so he was answering contra to what JWs believe and teach, no wonder that person in the debate is no longer a JW! I don’t think it is my position to look up Unitarian history to try to verify your claim, you instead should be showing where the Unitarian form of religion is mentioned in the writings of the early church before the fourth century to back your claim. <><

Ms DeeDee, I’m not disputing that people can have a relationship with God, I’m saying that they did long before the JW religion came onto the scene. <><

Ms DeeDee, It is amusing how you guys only quote those passages that show Jesus is fully man and there stop, thinking you have proved He is not God. The Bible shows many times that Jesus is worshipped! JWs claim Jesus is Michael the archangel, now note please how Michael the archangel does not have the authority to rebuke Satan. We see in Jude 9 that Michael must bridle his tongue, so to speak, before the foe of man. We read, “But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’” (Jude 9). In contrast Jesus rebuked the devil to his face (Matt 4:10). Since Michael could not rebuke the devil in his own authority and Jesus could (and did), then Jesus and Michael cannot be the same person! <><

Ms DeeDee, This is what the early church taught and believed, which is the same as Christians believe today, no 1900 years gap as your religion would have. <><

Space merchant, Please show me from the writings of the early church (pre fourth century), which were penned to combat all the heresies that the early church faced, where is the Unitarian form of religion mentioned? <><

Ms DeeDee, The ridicules part is 1900 years gap in-between when this supposedly happened! <><

Ms DeeDee, Well you are no longer “a pagan” as you say so that oath is null and void. <><

Ms DeeDee, I didn’t say it was from the Bible. I’m demonstrating how the first Christian up until now understand and believe the same. And please Jesus is speaking from the position of His humanity in John 14:28 as is quite clear. Jesus came as a man, fully man in every way, that’s why He could say, “for my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), Jesus is here speaking from His position of manhood. Note carefully what Jesus specifically said, “The Father is greater than I,” not, “The Father is better than I.” The word “greater” is used to point to the Father’s greater position (in heaven), and has nothing to do with nature. Had the word “better” (Greek kreitton) been used, then this would indicate that the Father has a better nature than Jesus, and that Jesus was less in nature, but this word is not used. To put it in a way that even you should be able to understand. The Queen of England is in a higher position than the rest of us. Therefore the Queen is greater than the rest of us. But, she is still just a human being, and therefore, not better than the rest of us. Jesus’ use of the word “greater” points to the Father being higher in position only. During the time that Jesus walked among us, He functioned in the world of humanity, so therefore the Father was higher (greater) in position than Him. <><

Ms DeeDee, Maybe you have been fed false information or you made this all up?

Ms DeeDee, With a gap of some 1900 years in-between...come on that’s just plain ridiculous. <><

You do share the same ideas or similar and that’s what I’m getting at Historically the idea that you both share regarding the person of Jesus originated in the fourth century not before. Arianism is a term to describe those who espouse this similar view, because as you have said, there are many such groups. I suggest you read the writings of Christians, who lived BEFORE the fourth century and see what they taught and believed about Jesus and the Holy Spirit, then you will see that what they taught and believed is the same as that is believed by Christians for the last 2000 years. Let me sum this for you. The early church, from the first century onwards, always agreed that there were three in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in complete accord with the later creeds (which were formulated to combat the false ideas). If one examines carefully and with all honesty the writings of the early church their language and theology bear forth their understanding of the Triune God long before and in complete harmony with the 4th century formulated creeds. I finish off here with a quote from Ignatius AD 30 - 107; “There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honor.”(The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians, chapter 2). <><

Ms DeeDee, Which “pagan gods and goddess” were these? <><

Ms DeeDee, 2000 years ago Jesus said His church would NEVER cease to exist...so where has the JWs form of religion being for so long? <><