Theology and Experimenting with Photons
The Diminishment of the Holy Spirit
Arianism, Rupertism, and Finally Armstrongism
By Scriptor
“Rupert's theories were later influential on Herbert W. Armstrong, who adopted many of his ideas about church eras and Jewish holy day observance, along with his British Israelist genealogies of western peoples.[2][3] Clarence Orvil Dodd introduced Armstrong to Rupert's ideas.” (Wikipedia, Article on G. G. Rupert)
A Brief History of the Arianist View of the Holy Spirit
The idea of the Holy spirit really bothers some people. Sometimes I think it is because he is sometimes referred to as the Holy Ghost. And the idea of a ghost, a dead person walking around, makes some people cringe. I doubt that this is what influenced the thinking of Arius, an ascetic, North African clergyman, back in about 300 A.D. Who knows why he thought what he did, really. He was a handsome guy that women found charming and he had novel ideas about God. You know the type. Arius conjectured that God was not a Trinity. He seemed to be all right with the Father, but Jesus and the Holy Spirit must have bothered him. He asserted that Jesus was actually a created being and was subordinate to God even though Jesus created all things. Jesus, after all, was begotten. Arius seems to have cast the scriptural ideas of Incarnation and Kenosis aside. This reduced Jesus to a role similar to that of a Demiurge in Gnostic belief. And the Holy Spirit was not a Person but the illuminating and sanctifying power of God. These views developed into the one-off theology of Arianism. Though Arianism was condemned as a heresy beginning about 325 A.D., some people have clung to it down through the centuries.
So, fast forward to the Nineteenth Century and an apocalyptic movement called Millerism. Professor Woodrow Whidden describes the 19th Century Adventist Movement as having “a rather pervasive, Arian, Semi-Arian and legalistic mindset.” Out of this seething cauldron of apocalypticism and dashed expectations came the ideas that influenced G.G. Rupert. Rupert, a man with a long scraggly beard, had some ill-defined relationship with the Church of God Seventh Day and started his own organization called The Remnant of Israel with its own publication and based near Oklahoma City (we might say the WCG “in embryo”). And then later we find Herbert W. Armstrong (HWA), influenced by the theology of the Church of God Seventh Day and Rupertism, holding a belief in a Semi-Arian doctrine of God.
The term “Armstrongism” is a misnomer although its colloquial use is likely to continue. Armstrongism is really a form of Rupertism and HWA was really a disciple of G. G. Rupert. If God withheld the truth for eighteen and a half centuries and then revealed it, he revealed it to Rupert and not HWA. HWA only added some syncretistic touches to this essential body of Rupertist “truth”.
The Personhood of the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is a Person even though he is referred to in scripture with literary metaphors. God is referred to as a Rock in the OT, for instance, but that is not an ontological statement, just a metaphor. The Bible is replete with allegory, replete with metaphor. It is the bane of Biblical literalists who find themselves having to continually make decisions about what is literal and what is figurative, if anything. Wisdom is personified in Proverbs, for instance. Could then the Holy Spirit, described as a sentient being in the New Testament, just be a personification? The answer of course is "No." Here are a couple of reasons why:
1. God is absolute. He spoke the heavens and the earth into existence. He does not need a divine “tractor beam” (q.v., Star Trek) to accomplish things like an artisan reliant on a tool. If he wants the motion of the sun to stop, it will stop. He can make the sun exist or not exist as it pleases him. He does not need to dispatch an energy to a remote location and expend unimaginable numbers of ergs to halt the motion of the sun. He does not need to control reality with the aid of a force; he creates reality. It exists because he exists. This means that all the language in scripture that uses terms from the physical universe (“pour out”, etc.) to speak about the Spirit is allegorical.
2. Another compelling argument supporting the Holy Spirit as a Person is a simple one. There is what are called Triadic Formulae in the New Testament. Matthew 28:18 is an explicit example. The verse mentions Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Why would the NT authors list the Holy Spirit as syntactically equal with the Father and the Son if the Holy Spirit were not a sentient being? From context, the Triads are clearly non-metaphorical. Their description of God is literal and not lyrical – ontological and not liturgical metaphor. While the language used in scripture that portrays the Spirit using physical processes (“poured out”) seems appropriate to the context, the Triadic context is not suited to metaphor. God would not inspire a Triad using Father, Son and Holy Spirit at syntactical and existential parity that consists of two literal Persons plus a mere metaphor. While metaphor is used liberally in scripture, it is intended to illustrate and not confuse.
Some argue against the Personhood of the Holy Spirit by observing that he is not included in passages where he might be expected. Citing scriptures that seem like they should include the Holy Spirit but they do not is an apophatic argument. It is like the glib argument of atheists when they state “I looked for God in the sky and did not see him so he doesn’t exist.” Maybe their Looking Methodology is flawed or presumptive. Moreover, the apophatic arguments do not have the weight of cataphatic arguments. The existence of Triadic Formulae is cataphatic. They are declarative statements of a relationship between three subjects who are syntactically equal because the three subjects are ontologically equal. While the apophatic argument may or may not have cogency (the data is non-determinative), the cataphatic statements most certainly do. Any renunciation of the Personhood of the Holy Spirit must rationally dissolve these cataphatic Triads.
Drawing on Quantum Mechanics
I am not invoking quantum mechanics here to seem impressive. Paul does say there is a role for Natural Theology in this statement: “Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So, they have no excuse for not knowing God.” Some will use this statement to assert that God has a body like a natural man based on a literal interpretation of some OT language. But let us go deeper with Paul’s idea. If God has a body, then he has locality. If he has locality, say at point A in spacetime, then he is not at point B. He must somehow travel the distance between point A and B to arrive at point B. And when he is at point B, he is not at point A. This means that God is bound by distance. It even makes sense that he must ride a cherubim to get from place to place. And the idea that he must use a power or energy or force (aka Holy Spirit of Arius) to remotely manipulate the properties of the distant Cosmos is then plausible.
Let me ruin this Arian view by pointing out that there is something in quantum mechanics called quantum entanglement. Theology must be informed by science. In brief, if two photons (a quantum or particle of light) are entangled, they both react to external forces in a perfectly correlated way without regard to distance. The last four words of that sentence are critical to this understanding. “Without regard to distance.” If a photon is made to react, its entangled photon twin will also react with no delay in time and no matter how distant it is away. So, at some level in reality, the concept of distance does not even exist. Why then would God, who created and now sustains reality, be bound by the concept of distance implicit in a bodily existence – a concept of distance that does not even exist at every level of the Cosmos he has created. So, the idea of God operating the universe at distance through a force or energy called the Holy Spirit fails. God is absolute. He created spacetime and is not bound by it. In his realm, there is no time and there is no space. The model which has God using an energy to control the Cosmos remotely is a peculiar literal interpretation of archaic Hebraisms that are intended for literary purposes.
Coda
The Holy Spirit is a Person. Arius, long ago rejected by the church, was wrong and G.G. Rupert and other Millerites should not have paid any attention to him. The syntax of the Triads seals the Holy Spirit into the God class as a sentient Person. God is not going to be restricted by distance when the photons he created are not. I believe it is time for all Arians and Semi-Arians to reconsider their theology.
If the Holy Spirit were a person, then wouldnt he be the Father of Jesus, and this is what impregnated her?
ReplyDeleteMore mixture of nonsense and some truth (from Krischan?), while trying to overthrow a longheld WCG truth, without a conscientious deliberation and exposition of the Scriptures.
ReplyDeleteIf the Spirit is a person, why is blasphemy against it unforgiveable while it isn't against the Father and the Son, if presumably the three are one (or one God)?
If you can't answer that question suitably, you are like the many who don't know what they are talking about.
@ Tonto
ReplyDeleteYour CoG7, like the ACoGs, makes orthodox-sounding statements to hide heresy:
But Wikipedia 'outs' CoG7th-day as having Arianist roots:
(..the source of HWA/ACoG/CoG7 Arianist/ditheist christological heresies)
see also Ellen White's pre-1980s christology (odd as she was once a Methodist!)
There is no definitive evidence that any such thing as the holy spirit exists. There is no evidence that that the "scriptures" which assert its existence can be trusted. There is no evidence of the divine origin of any such "scriptures" or that they have been accurately preserved or properly separated from fraudulent works. There is no reason to think that a just God would expected anyone to accept any such dubious sources. However, the devil, should he exist, would use just such an unverifiable tool.
ReplyDeleteHow could a fisherman like Peter be saved? He was not a quantum physicist!
ReplyDelete12:23 said "More mixture of nonsense and some truth "
ReplyDeleteI think that perfectly sums up Armstrongism. It surreptitiously used Christian catchphrases to cover up the deep heresies it was teaching. Looks at the mess it has left us with Pack, Thiel, and Flurry. Armstrognites can't suitably reason why its two separate gods is superior to the Holy Trinity. Its fun watching them try though.
It does take much effort to look up that the pronouns used to refer the Holy Spirit are because of Christ referring to this power as a Comforter.
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic Church warns those who try to understand the Trinity would go mad in effort. That’s because is a false concept and illogical. You sir are deceived and are a follower of the crowd over their cliff.
It would be hard to overstate the influence that Greenberry G. Rupert's ideas had on Herbert W. Armstrong - yet most Armstrongites have never even heard his name! More evidence that Armstrong was a sociopathic narcissist who simply could not bring himself to give credit to anyone else for the things which he espoused. No, it was specially revealed to him by God Almighty - ignore those men behind the curtain!
ReplyDeleteTonto said, "If the Holy Spirit were a person, then wouldn't he be the Father of Jesus, and this is what impregnated her?" My question: Didn't God create all things by Jesus Christ? (see Ephesians 3:9, John 1:1-3, I Corinthians 8:6, Colossians 1:15-17, Hebrews 1:2) Does the fact that God created all things through Jesus Christ negate the father's role as Creator?
Why is the "pneuma" (original Greek for Spirit) designated in the New Testament as "Holy" - isn't that designation reserved for God? Doesn't Scripture indicate that the Holy Spirit speaks, teaches and reveals things? (Mark 13:11, Luke 2:26, Luke 12:12, John 14:26) Didn't Christ call the Holy Spirit the "Comforter"? (John 14:26) Didn't Ananias and his wife lie to the Holy Spirit? (Acts 5) How does God dwell in us? (John 14:23, I Corinthians 3:16, Ephesians 2:22, II Timothy 1:14)
Did high-school-dropout-herbie think he was smarter than the academics Constantine assembled??
ReplyDeleteTo the contrary, high-school-dropout-herbie proved to be an easy mark for dingbat conspiracy theories like British-Israelism & Pyramidology!
“Yes, God is correctly defined as being “spirit.” But He also is described as having a body. How can we bring these two terms into compatibility? That is what we need to look at in the Scripture. By the way, it is quite easy to do so.”——-
ReplyDeleteA very good explanation showing how easy it is has the title The bodily composition of God. Look it up.
Really interesting article and Lonnie's comments mirror my thoughts exactly. Funny, I was just thinking about this subject this morning. Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit, who is God, eternally, ontologically, of like substance in the One Triune God. Jesus said in Acts 5:4, that they had lied not to men but to God.
ReplyDeleteIn the passages about the unpardonable sin in Mark 3:28-30, Jesus says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, it is the unpardonable sin. Men cannot blaspheme other humans. Only God can be blasphemed. So by His very words, and by definition, Jesus Himself calls the Holy Spirit God in these passages. I was meditating on these verses this am and I wondered if Jesus was warning people that heresies would come along denying the Trinity. You cannot escape the many, many passages that clearly reveal the One Triune God, but there would be some who would vehemently deny that. I can't however, understand the incredible vehemence this subject engenders. While it is most certainly a topic of enormous importance, the tempers seem to get the better of some when a disagreement arises. I hope we can all disagree respectfully, if disagree we must!
If the Holy Spirit chose to interact with another woman the way it did with Mary, would this create another Son?
ReplyDeleteBe careful how you answer this, as a "Yes" answer will negate the idea of a closed Trinity, while a "No" answer will negate the entire premise of a Trinity. Unless you want to take the Roman Catholic approach and require that God first pre-qualify a sinless super-being mother (as they say Mary was). But if God has the power to do this, and if such a being is the Mother of God (as the Catholics say), then God can have two mommies!
Answers to Miller's questions: Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. By the Holy Spirit.
ReplyDeleteIs the spirit in man (Eccl 3:21) a being? No. Neither is the Holy Spirit but is spirit (oh dear, what English word shall I use to describe?) essence? Power? ??
Jesus is referred to as the Son of man, the Son of God, but never as the son of the Holy Spirit.
Would man be able to speak, reason, talk without his human spirit?
Not losing sleep over this, I'll just wait and see.
ReplyDeleteIt may be a misnomer to call it "Armstrongism", but the vast majority of participants here on Banned learned of this particular package from the Armstrongs.
ReplyDeleteWe had a difficult time about twenty five years ago, with the emerging internet forums, sites and blogs, finding a somewhat civil label for it, one that everyone would recognize, and from most of our perspectives, a name which would indicate that it was only something from a man. HWA and his lackeys had always been very meticulous in their choices of descriptives, preferring "God's Church", and painting themselves as "God's ministers, and their basic package of gnosticism as "the Truth". More hyperbolic and slanted language does not exist. Calling it "Armstrongism" was an excellent corrective move.
Still, even a relatively innocuous catch-all term such as "Armstrongism" was enough to send stalwarts into apoplectic seizure. And then a funny thing happened. When Rod Meredith announced that one of his lieutenants (Bryce Clark, iirc?) had left, Rod said that the man wanted to start his own branch of Armstrongism. Oh, the irony of that announcement! A leading proponent of Armstrongism using it as a pejorative on his emerging competitor!!! Shortly thereafter, a visiting minister who came to chat with us explained that the purpose of the group he leads was to reform Armstrongism. That would make ol' Herbie roll over in his grave!
It's been quite some time since anyone here has complained that Armstrongism is a slur, or has even taken us to task over the portmandeau "COGlodyte". Basically, people have resorted to quoting scripture, and using logic to make their points. No more flaming! So, it would appear that our discussions, while highly polarized, have evolved. Come to think of it, the term "evolve" even has a bad connotation for some folks. But, there's no doubt about the fact that our discussions are now more civilized!
As bad as Herb and his followers are, they have not spent hundreds of years fighting and killing each other like the orthodox churches have.
ReplyDeleteAnd all that killing was done while "following the Holy Spirit" who, so the "scripture" says, leads His Church into all truth and good works.
12:23
ReplyDelete"If the Spirit is a person, why is blasphemy against it unforgiveable while it isn't against the Father and the Son, if presumably the three are one (or one God)?"
What you are asserting is that a difference in spiritual protocol means a difference in Personhood. That is a hypothesis you would have to support. A difference in protocol might just be a difference in protocol with no implications about Personhood. But let us go on.
The standard response to your question would require that you understand that the three Persons of the Trinity are different in economy but not different in ontology. That is, they may have different roles and activities yet be the same in existential properties. The Holy Spirit has a different economy from the Father and the Son and that means blaspheming him requires that the blasphemer must be punished and the punishment may not be foregone by appealing to the sacrifice of Jesus. How the economy of the Holy Spirit differs is not detailed in the words of Jesus. I think most reasonable minds would observe that the Holy Spirit represents the very Way that one must live in. And to blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to recognize the Spirit's divinity and transforming activity in human life yet treat it with derision. As such it is a particularly noisome form of unrepentance.
Scriptor
4:11
ReplyDelete"Is the spirit in man (Eccl 3:21) a being?"
This is akin to saying, "Are the mechanical devices in my vehicle a car?"
Well, err, yes. They are what makes your car, a car. The view in the Late Second Temple Period was that humans were comprised of psuche, sarx and pneuma. The first two were perishable and were an animating principle and flesh, respectively. Pneuma was the spirit that gave mentation and intellection and could be carried forward into eternity.
Scriptor
2:52
ReplyDeleteWhat does "The Bodily Composition of God" refer to? A book? An article? I would like to look at it. God does not have a body in his essence. He may appear bodily. For instance, he wrestled with Jacob. It took a body to do that. This is called a Theophany. It is a presentation layer, if you will.
When people say that God has a body they almost always mean a human-like body. In other words, 'God has a nose' by this line of reasoning. Why would he have a nose in his essence? If he possessed a nose in his essence from eternity, why was it there? Did he have to back into a function for it? It is obvious that a nose was something God created so that certain of his creatures could breathe a gaseous atmosphere. What you are doing is making God to be like one of his creatures - a step in the direction of idolatry. Read this:
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2021/11/the-transcendence-of-god-and.html
Scriptor
God is absolute.
ReplyDeleteThis heresey has previously been refuted on this site.
God has a nose because the Bible says he has a nose.
ReplyDeleteAlso feathers.
Delete6:06
ReplyDelete"As bad as Herb and his followers are, they have not spent hundreds of years fighting and killing each other like the orthodox churches have."
This issue has been addressed many times. There are genuine Christians and nominal Christians. Jesus is living his life in the former and the latter are just people with a moniker. Trying to interpret history by lumping both these classes together is too crude to be useful and can only mislead. HWA's denomination must be compared to the Invisible Body of Christ not the broad scope that includes anybody who stands up and says they are Christian. Since we cannot sort those people out easily, it is best to compare HWA's denomination simply to the NT.
Scriptor
Would man be able to speak, reason, talk without his human spirit?
ReplyDeleteWhere is the evidence that people can reason?
"The word Trinity is not found in the Bible, and though used by Tertullian in the last decade of the 2nd century, it did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century... it is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible..." (R. A. Finlayson, "Trinity", NBD, p.1221).
ReplyDelete“The closest we get are formulations such as Matthew 28:19, where Jesus commands his disciples to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"...” (Douglas Moo, Romans, NIVAC, p.255).
The “breath” of God
Ge 1:2b And the spirit [ruah] of God [’elohim] moved upon the face of the waters.
Ge 1:3a And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Ps 33:6a By the word of the LORD were the heavens made [‘asah];
Ps 33:6b and all the host of them by the breath [ruah] of his mouth.
Job 33:4a The spirit [ruah] of God [’el] hath made [‘asah] me, and
Job 33:4b the breath [neshamah] of the Almighty hath given me life.
Ps 104:30a Thou sendest forth thy spirit [ruah], they are created [bara’]:
Ps 104:30b and thou renewest the face of the earth.
Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created [bara’] the heaven and the earth.
Ge 2:2a And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made [‘asah];
“The words God said mark off the stages of creation, conveying that God created by the word. God’s words were not empty, for the Spirit, who was present over the waters, empowered God’s words, bringing into being what God had spoken... The wording of Psalm 33:6, 9 support this claim” “By the word of Yahweh were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth ... For he spoke, and it, came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm. The parallel in this psalm between “word” and “breath” (v.6) communicates that God’s Spirit was the energy powering God’s word” (John E. Hartley, Genesis, NIBC, p.44).
Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath [neshamah] of life; and man became a living soul.
"This "breath of life" is not the air in general, but God's own living breath. God shares this divine "breath of life" with the human and with animals (see 7:22, which adds ruah). The result for both human beings and animals is a "living being" (nepes hayya; 2:7, 19; 1:20-30; 9:12-16)" (Terence E. Fretheim, The Book of Genesis, NIB, Vol.1, p.350).
Job 33:4a The spirit [ruah] of God [’el] hath made [‘asah] me, and
Job 33:4b the breath [neshamah] of the Almighty hath given me life.
“Even though the NIV capitalizes “Spirit,” the parallel with “breath” suggests otherwise. Humans are viewed as invigorated by the breath of God. If this were to be viewed as a reference to the Holy Spirit, it would suggest that every human has been granted the presence of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the Israelites knew nothing of the Trinity and would not have used “the Spirit of God” for the third person of the Trinity. In the Old Testament the “spirit of God” is understood as an extension of the power of God... This statement that the spirit “has made me” is parallel to the statement that God’s breath “gives me life”...” (John H. Walton, Job, NIVAC, pp.354).
“It is true that some interpreters have preferred capitalized reading of Spirit and considered it a (veiled) reference to the Holy Spirit. Trinitarian theology would not be what Elihu would have had in mind, nor would it be something comprehended by Job or the Israelite audience, whatever we might decide the role of the Holy Spirit to be. If we contend for biblical authority, we must retain the linkage of the author's understanding. Elihu's statement has more to say about his understanding of the human nature than about the divine nature” (John H. Walton, Job, NIVAC, pp.352).
"In the Old Testament the Spirit is a term for God's outgoing energy, creative and sustaining (cf. Job 33;4; Ps 104:30)" (Derek Kidner, Genesis, TOTC, p.49).
Part 2
ReplyDelete“Elihu’s understanding of the divine spirit is nonpersonal; that is, God’s spirit is never articulated in trinitarian terms in which the Spirit is a distinct person of the godhead. As in the rest of the Old Testament, the spirit is an extension of God’s power, presence and authority. It is viewed as part of God’s person, but not as a distinct person” (John H. Walton, Job, NIVAC, p.376).
“In Israelite thinking the spirit (whether described as God's or human's) is a vitalizing energy rather than a component part” (John H. Walton, Job, NIVAC, pp.353).
Ge 1:2b And the spirit [ruah] of God [’elohim] moved upon the face of the waters.
Ge 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 2:7 And God formed the man of dust of the earth, and breathed [emphusao] upon his face the breath of life, and the man became a living soul. (LXX).
Jn 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed [emphusao] [on them], and saith unto them, Receive [the] Holy [neuter] Ghost [neuter]:
“Having commissioned them, Jesus bestowed on them the equipment they would need for the discharge of their commission. He breathed and said “Receive the Holy Spirit”...” (Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, Revised, NICNT, p.747).
“... having “breathed,” Jesus added, “Receive Holy Spirit” (v.22b), and for this reason it is customary to translate the text, “he breathed on them,” presumably conferring on them the Spirit with his very breath, much as God in the beginning, having “formed the man from the earth, breathed in his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul” (Gen 2:7, LXX).
Jn 14:26a But the Comforter [masculine], the Holy [neuter] Ghost [neuter], whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things
Jn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter [masculine], that he may abide with you for ever;
Jn 14:17 the Spirit [neuter] of truth;
Jn 15:26 But when the Comforter [masculine] is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit [neuter] of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
Jn 16:13a Howbeit when he, the Spirit [neuter] of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth...
“... the notion of the Spirit as an empowerment, as that which can be “breathed” on the disciples from Jesus’ mouth, seems inconsistent with that of the Spirit as Advocate (or “another Advocate”), a divine person who will teach his disciples after Jesus’ departure, leading them into all truth (see 14:16-17, 26, 15:26; 16:7, 13). The masculine “Advocate,” implying personality, is repeated linked to the neuter “Spirit,” either “the Holy Spirit” (14:26) or “the Spirit of truth (14:16; 15:26; 16:13).
Jn 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit [neuter] descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
Jn 1:33b ... Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit [neuter] descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with Holy [neuter] Ghost [neuter]
Jn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and Spirit [neuter], he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Jn 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit [neuter] is spirit [neuter].
Jn 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit [neuter[.
Jn 3:34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit [neuter] by measure unto him.
Jn 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit [neuter] and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
Jn 4:24 God [is] Spirit [neuter]: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit [neuter] and in truth.
Part 3
ReplyDeleteJn 6:63 It is the spirit [neuter] that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they are] spirit [neuter], and they are life.
Jn 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit [neuter], which they that believe on him should receive: for [the] Holy Spirit was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
“Here [Jn 20:22], as in the first half of the Gospel (1:32-33; 3:5, 6, 8, 34; 4:23-24; 6:63; 7:39), only the neuter “Spirt” is used (without even the definite article!), leaving little room for the Spirit’s personality... In the Gospel itself, a variety of expressions have been used for the Advocate’s coming: “I will ask the Father, and he will give you...” (14:16); “the Father will send in my name” (14:26); “whom I will send to you from the Father” (15:26); “if I go, I will send him to you” (16:17). None of these quite match the present scene in which “Holy Spirit” comes on the disciples as breath from Jesus’ mouth.
Jn 1:33b ... Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with [the] Holy [neuter] Spirit.
Jn 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed [on them], and saith unto them, Receive [the] Holy Spirit:
“The description here is better attuned to the promise John received that Jesus would baptize “in Holy Spirit” - as here without the definite article (1:33) - or to the experience of being “born of water and Sprit” as the qualification for entering the kingdom of God (see 3:5-6). In short, the accent is on “Life,” even as Jesus is alive (14:19), not on a new personal Companion to be with them forever and lead them into all truth. And yet, this is the only “Spirit” that comes on the disciples within this Gospel...” (J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, NICNT, pp.1010-1011).
Jn 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Jn 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
“Throughout this Gospel Jesus has been described as the One who was sent by God (e.g., 4:34; 5:23; 6:38). Now with his work completed, his final task is to commission his followers as he was commissioned by the Father. Thus as Jesus was God’s special representative (or agent) in the world, so too his disciples become Jesus’s agents, working in the world and witnessing to the reality of God and the truth of Jesus’ words.
“But in this Gospel one feature of Jesus’ commission in his empowering. God not only sent his Son but also empowered him with the Spirit. For example, in Jesus’ baptism the central event (from John’s view) was not the water baptism itself, but the anointing in the Spirit that came to Jesus. Our first introduction of Jesus came from the prophetic words of John the Baptist, whom God had told, “The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit” (1:33).
“This image is reinforced in many ways. In 3:34 Jesus is known as the one person whom God has given the Spirit without measure (cf. 6:27). Above all, Jesus is described as the One in whom the Spirit flows like a living spring, a source of life and refreshment and renewal that will be offered following his glorification (4:15; 7:37-39; 19:30, 34). Therefore to be commissioned (20:21) to advance the work of God as God’s agent, means being empowered as Jesus was empowered - obtaining the Spirit, just as Jesus was anointed and as Jesus promised.
Jn 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for [the] Holy Spirit was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
Jn 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed [on them], and saith unto them, Receive [the] Holy Spirit:
Part 4
ReplyDelete"Thus John 20:22 becomes the climax to the entire Gospel. The Spirit - suggested throughout his public ministry, promised in the Upper Room, and symbolized at the cross - is now given to the disciples in a proactive and personal way. Jesus breathes (on them) and says, "Receive [the] Holy Spirit." John 20:22 fulfills the word given at the Feast of Tabernacles, where Jesus' offer of living waters referred to the Holy Spirit, which could not be distributed until Jesus was glorified (7:39). Now the hour of glorification has reached its climax. Jesus is departing, and he places the Spirit that is within him in their lives" (Gary M. Burge, John, NIVAC, pp.558-59).
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Ge 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Jn 19:41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
Jn 20:15b She [Miriam], supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him...
Jn 20:17 Jesus saith unto her ... go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Jn 20:18 Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.
Jn 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week ... came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
“... his arrival comes with a gift. He breathes on them, giving them “Holy Spirit.” This “master of the garden” now breathes into his followers, transforming their lives, and we cannot doubt that John finds echoes here of God’s creative work in Genesis 2. In that ancient story another garden saw divine breath enter a man and life enter the world. Now a new gardener, God’s Son, does the same.
[From the text Adam was “put” in the garden; Eve was “made” in the garden. But. “The use of the waw-consecutive here suggests the garden was “planted after man was formed. A pluperfect sense, “had planted” ... though possible is unlikely” (Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, WBC, p.61). (See John Sailhamer in the EBC for more detail].
[Ge 2:9a And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground... (NIV). They do not appear ex nihilo or grow overnight from sapling to towering trees” (Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 1-17, NICNT, p.162)].
[There is no new gardener per se. The OT is written from the “first cause” perspective so that God as first cause was the gardener; but with NT revelation it is to be assumed that Jesus Christ was the gardener as “second cause” - God was the gardener through Jesus Christ].
1Jn 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.
Jn 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
2Co 5:19a To wit, that God [“first cause”] was in Christ [“second cause”], reconciling the world unto himself
[God is “first cause,” so that when Christ “will come unto” a person through His spirit, God also is said to abode with the person - this principal of agency was pervasive in the ancient Near East].
“In 1 John 4:13 John writes that one feature of our assurance in Christ is the gift of the Spirit. “By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his own Spirit” (RSV, italics added). This is no impersonal spirit; this is no ambiguous inspiration from God. This is Jesus himself indwelling his disciples, taking up residence promised in 14:23. Jesus desires intimacy with and his followers, but the vehicle of that intimacy will now be experienced through the agency of the Holy Spirit.
Part 5
ReplyDelete“The reason that the work of the Spirit in John 14-16 is so highly personal is that this Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus - his own Spirit - that is now poured out at the hour of glorification. The intimacy of the garden scene is now satisfied. Mary’s yearnings are met. Jesus will be with her in a way she could not formerly comprehend. [See “‘Clinging’ in the Garden” below].
Col 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is CHRIST IN YOU, the hope of glory:
“The careful union of Christ and Spirit in John makes an important theological point. Discipleship is defined not only by belief in Jesus but by the indwelling of the Son through the Spirit... To receive Christ is to obtain the Spirit; to be filled by the Holy Spirit is to experience the living presence of Jesus within. Christian transformation is Christ at work within us, bringing about his glory in our Spirit-led renewal (Col 1:27)” (Gary M. Burge, John, NIVAC, p.575).
Mt 28:20b and, lo, I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS, even unto the end of the world. Amen
“Although each of the Gospels reflects its own particular outlook on the Spirit, their pneumatologies are in way or another a corollary of the OT understanding of the Spirit as the creative and restoration of the power of God. This restoration, accomplished by the Spirit-endowed Jesus, will bring about a renwe3ed and cleansed community (Spirit-and-fire baptism in the Synoptics; the cleansing as anticipated in Ezek 36-37 in John). Hence, in the Synoptics, to resist Jesus’ restoring and liberating work is to blaspheme the Spirit. Within this eschatological framework, Luke among the Synoptics, places most weight of the Spirit and links it with his social-ethical concern and his emphasis on prayer.
“In all four Gospels the Spirit is further related in some way to God’s creative and powerful word, which is able to transform realities (prophetic speech in the Synoptic Gospels; the life-giving and cleansing word in John).
“Both Luke (seeing Luke-Acts as a two-volume work) and John accentuate most the future role of the Spirit in the disciples’ lives as the continuation of Jesus’ presence in and his ministry through them” (M. Wenk, “Holy Spirit,” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, p.393).
Ge 2:7 And the LORD God [as “first cause” but Jesus as “second cause] formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Jn 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive the Holy Spirit:
Just as God's spirit empowers Jesus, Jesus' spirit empowers the disciples. Creation was God’s ‘baby’ given to the Word/Son. Jesus created man, died for man, and gives life to man through His spirit. Jesus, after doing the hard yards, does not share this with a ‘third person’ of a so called Trinity.
Ex 25:8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell [shaken] among them.
Jn 1:14 And THE WORD was made flesh, and dwelt [skenoo] among us, (and we beheld his glory [doxa], the glory [doxa] as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
“The verb skenoo (GK 5012) means ‘to live in a tent [skene; Gk 5008]” i.e., to take a temporary abode. The term would call to mind the wilderness trek of Israel during which time God took up his abode in the tabernacle, or Tent of Meeting. During the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry, his followers recognized in him the very presence of God. He was the shekinah glory, the visible expression of the glory of God. He was, as the writer of Hebrews puts it, “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (Heb 1:3)...” (Robert H. Mounce, John, EBC, Revised, Vol.10, p.373).
Part 6
ReplyDelete“The evangelist is saying that the Word becoming flesh and living among us is like God ‘encamping’ among the tribes of Israel... As the glory of God was once present in the tabernacle, so it was now present in the Word made flesh...” (Colin G. Kruse, John, Revised, TOTC, p.63)
“The Shekinah” is the “nearest Jewish equivalent to the Holy Spirit... The glory of God (kabod in the Heb. Bible, doxa in LXX and NT) is another name for the Shekinah... Thunder, lightning and cloud may be outward concomitants of God’s glory (Ex 19:16; 24:14ff.; Ps 29; 97; Eze 1:4); or it may be specially associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 40:34-38) or with the Temple (Ezk 43:2, 4)...” (R. A. Stewart. “Shekinah,” NBD, 2nd ed. pp.1101-02).
The next two sections capture the inaugurations of the ‘tabernacle’ and ‘temple’ administration of the OC and the inauguration of the ‘tabernacle’ administration of the NC. The private manifestations precede the ‘public’ administrations of God’s presence through Jesus Christ - manifestations of Christ’s spirit indicating Christ’s presence.
Non-Public Dwellings/Appearances
Ex 40:35 And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode thereon, and THE GLORY OF THE LORD FILLED THE TABERNACLE.
2Ch 5:14 So that the priests could not stand to minister by reason of the cloud: for THE GLORY OF THE LORD had FILLED THE HOUSE OF GOD.
Jn 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed [on them], and saith unto them, Receive [the] HOLY SPIRIT:
Public Dwellings/Appearances
Lev 9:23 And Moses and Aaron went into the tabernacle of the congregation, and came out, and blessed the people: and THE GLORY OF THE LORD appeared unto all the people.
2Ch 7:3 And when all the children of Israel saw how the fire came down, and THE GLORY OF THE LORD upon the house, they bowed themselves with their faces to the ground upon the pavement, and worshipped, and praised the LORD...
Ac 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it FILLED ALL THE HOUSE where they were sitting.
Ac 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
Ac 2:4 And they were all filled with THE HOLY SPIRIT, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Ac 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
Ac 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
"In John 10:19-23 almost all of the main themes of this Gospel are tied together and brought to a climax.
Eze 37:5 Thus saith the Lord to these bones; Behold, I will bring upon you the breath of life:
Eze 37:9b Thus saith the Lord; Come from the four winds, and breathe [emphyseson] upon these dead men, and let them live. (LXX)
Eze 37:14a And I will put my Spirit within you, and ye shall live...
"John reports that Jesus, after having breathed (enephysesen) on the disciples, said to them, "Receive [the] Holy Sprit" (20:22). This clearly alludes to Gen 2:7 and Ezekiel 37:5, 14 (LXX) and thereby places the entire pericope in the context of the Spirit as God's life-giving power, both at creation and in the eschatological re-creation of God's people as God's temple..." (M. Wenk, "Holy Spirit," Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, p.392).
Part 7
ReplyDelete‘Clinging’ in the Garden
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave [proskollao] to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. (LXX).
1Co 7:1b It is good for a man not to touch [haptomai] a woman.
1Co 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
(Gen 3:4 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch [haptomai] it, lest ye die. (LXX)).
Jn 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch [haptomai] me not;
Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined [proskollao] unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
“Among John’s disciples in the first century, bearing the Spirit was one of a number of markers that distinguished Christian discipleship. Yet this was not simply about power. The chief theme of John 20 is the relationship that Jesus desires to have with his followers. The story of Mary underscores the intimacy that should characterize this relationship. The story of the Upper Room underscores that this is a relationship forged by the work of the Spirit. Christian discipleship is a union with Jesus Christ that empowers and transforms, this is mystical, that exceed our rational abilities to understand and quantify...” (Gary M. Burge, John, NIVAC, p.576).
6:52
ReplyDelete"God has a nose because the Bible says he has a nose."
The Bible also says God is a "Rock" and a "Whirlwind" and a "Pillar of Fire."
And I think you might be a troll.
Scriptor
6:50
ReplyDelete"This heresey has previously been refuted on this site."
Bring it. And what is a "heresey"? Is that a new Armstrongist term?
Scriptor
The Bible says God has a nose. Don't take my word for it. Check out the link below. The scriptures are real although the commentary is dubious (as always).
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bible-bridge.com/the-nose-of-the-lord/
If God has no nose, then perhaps Jesus had no body, and did not die on the cross. Perhaps he really was just a phantom.
ReplyDeleteThe story of Mary underscores the intimacy that should characterize this relationship.
ReplyDeleteHow intimate did Jesus actually get with Mary?
Certain persons, who put on an air of scholarship, have asked for citations. So I'll give them one:
ReplyDelete"God is dead" -- Nietzsche.
The Bodily Composition of God, is an article, and a two part audio interview of the author. The subject is also mentioned in the author’s commentary on Ezekiel.
ReplyDeleteYou can find them at askelm.org.
Just search the site and you’ll find them.
You can also google the title.
Thanks for asking Scripto.
1:04
ReplyDeleteJust because you deny the information that others accept as evidence to support their beliefs doesn't make it so. For instance, evolutionists and creationists interpret the same information as evidence to support their own beliefs and worldview--one denying special creation and the other accepting it. Besides, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
Scriptur, re 6:08, your high intellect is your Achilles heel, for the Scripture says, "God chooses the foolish ones to confound the wise" (1 Cor 1:27), and "He that believes on Him shall not be confused." (1 Pet 2:6)
ReplyDeleteMaybe if you stopped using big words without understanding and started using simple words with understanding, as Paul suggested in 1 Cor 14:19, you might not confuse yourself so often when trying to reconcile HWA's teachings with traditional Christianity.
No, you didn't answer Mt 12:31 adequately. Your second paragraph above is more nonsense on top of the nonsense that you have written. You weary the Lord with your words. (Mal 2:17) "A difference in protocol might just be a difference with no implications at all on personhood", you say? Listen, fool, the Godhead cannot be in disagreement over what to forgive if you call them all persons. What? The Spirit won't forgive you but Christ will? Then what did Christ breathe on the disciples when He gave them the Spirit? A double mind? Why do you ask me to support an explicit scripture while you wander off into empty speculation? This reminds me of many doubting Americans who ask, "But what do you mean?" when I just told you what I mean.
They are different in economy but not different in ontology, you say? So the trinity disagrees not only over who to forgive and condemn to death (a small matter to you it seems), they also disagree over how to run the economy of the universe? Sounds like you better seek to please Christ more than the unforgiving Spirit if you think that you know the difference between the two (I speak facetiously), because this sounds like division in the Godhead by your blasphemous rendering couched in lofty and highfalutin speech.
However, you do come down to reasonableness for a short time when you say that the Spirit represents the way by which we should live (if we hope to be saved of course), which contradicts your thesis and condemns you at the same time for not reconciling the Spirit with the other two of the Godhead, insinuating that they differ somewhat when engaging in their glorious enterprises, comparing them to mere men who war because of this.
Be aware that you won't be saved by relying on your own opinions but by resorting to the Scriptures, Mr. Scriptur. Why do you call yourself Scriptur when you don't quote or reason from them adequately or properly? Satan, being highly intelligent, crafty and wily takes easy advantage of your types who put their trust in their own intelligence or money if they have a lot. Look at what happened to Job who had more faith, integrity and righteousness than most of us do. The devil misapplies the Scripture deliberately, such as Ps 91:11-12, in order to goad men into committing suicide, the same scripture, by the way, in which he duped COGWA and LCG heads into confessing that we tempt God by not wearing a mask in church during an epidemic, as though Satan has more power than Christ when we assemble together with Him and the holy angels for worship (Heb 12:22), mistaking disobedience to God with an act of wisdom and faith with tempting God.
Instead of peering into the higher heights of knowledge too high for thee, why not address why the church has disintegrated into a host of competing factions and devise some solutions for it (unless this is too high for you as well), so that the Lord may give you a reward instead of condemnation? For we can do nothing against the truth but for it. (2 Cor 13:8)
11:03
ReplyDeleteI stand by my answer in 6:08. I scanned your response in 11:03 and I don't see anything that rationally challenges 6:08.
Scriptor
9:29
ReplyDeleteOh, yes. Ernest L. Martin. I appreciate some of his viewpoints but I believe he is wrong about this topic. From the article that you cite:
"His body is made up of Spirit. It is made up of spiritual elements. Those elements are as substantial and as material to another spirit being as you, a fleshly being, are tangible and material to another fleshly being."
What ELM states above is a theory of how we might take a metaphor and transform it into something that we know in our physical world. Logically, it presupposes that God has a body and explains how that might be. The question of "Does God have a body?" is further upstream in this train of thought.
I agree with Martin that God can manifest himself in different forms visible to us. These forms are called theophanies. But the question is what is God in his essence. If God were a sphere, why would he be a sphere? Is there something essential and a priori about being a sphere instead of a cube? Gravity operates on matter in our realm and produces spherical planets. Was there some force that operated on God to make him a sphere? And did he consist of something that could hold shape and form? ELM might speculate that there was such a force - a kind of "spirit" gravity operating on "spirit" substance. This is just retroactively superimposing what we are familar with from the created realm on God.
God is good. God has properties in his essence that are real like being "good" but they are spiritual properties. Form is not a spiritual property. It is a property of matter in the created realm. If God had a form in his essence, he wouldn't know why. If you asked him, he would say, "I have just always been that way." Can you imagine having a nose and not knowing what it is and why it is there. We must separate what is spiritual from what is otherwise.
The essential issue is that nobody created God. He is uncreated. We have bodies because we are created to be that way. Nobody created God and gave him two legs so he could walk. God doesn't walk unless he wants to. He created the realm in in which walking is possible and has meaning. I do believe there is a Natural Theology but I also believe that one must carefully separate the uncreated from the created. I am, in that sense, an anti-retrosuperimpositionist to coin a term.
Note: I do believe that there may well be a variety of substances in God's realm that may hold form like material in our realm. They may be substances that do not wear out but are eternally durable. But these are substances that he has made. He is not "made out of" these substances himiself. Maybe the New Heavens and New Earth will be made out of something eternally durable. (The word eternal, as I am using it, is a condition contingent on God. Nothing is self-existent except God himself. Something can be eternal only because he wants its continued existence.)
Scriptor
(Isa 11:1 HRB) And a Shoot goes out from the stump of Jesse, and a Branch (Netzar) will bear fruit out of his roots.
ReplyDelete(Isa 11:2 HRB) And the [7] Spirit of YAHWEH shall rest on Him; He will have the [1] spirit of wisdom and [2] understanding, the [3] spirit of counsel and [4] power, the [5] spirit of knowledge and of the [6] fear of YAHWEH.
Scriptor,
ReplyDeleteYour rebuttal to Martin has little merit. Your answer is nothing more than making the Creator in the image YOU believe he should take,
You assume spirit has no form, except if he decides to change it.
Further, you totally diminish the Bible and the One who inspired it. According to YOUR belief, based on human reasoning of what Yahweh says he is versus what humans say he should be, One easily can infer that therefore he is a liar and a deceiver. In other words he inspired the words describing himself, such as walking in the garden, Adam even heard him, smelling the sacrifices, etc., etc. This must be why you try to negate what the Bible says, because to you, and others, the Bible doesn’t tell the truth. Ergo, atheists, etal, constantly harp about contradictions in the Bible. And, your human reasoning of what Yahweh should be, versus what his inspired book says he IS, leads many to ignore the Bible and what it teaches.
Let’s see, Scriptor, Krischan, Neo, ???, hmmm, same message, hmmmmm, ……….
As for me and my family, we will place the Bible ABOVE ego inspired human reasoning that leads away from truth.
I also notice several are now beginning to oppose your misleading efforts.
Yahweh is not a man that he can lie. I’ll stick with his word and inspired writers.
Thanks, but, no thanks.
6:08, if you can't see it, you are blind.
ReplyDelete36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. (Mt 12:36)
Why do you persist in holding on to your views while rejecting Scripture? You are like a wandering star that can't find its orbit. (Jude 13)
Re whether God has a body or not, Jn 5:37 offers a clue. If His voice was heard, then He must have shape since Christ Himself made the intimation. If this isn't good enough for you, then Jn 4:24 sums it up well, in answer to your question re what God is in essence.
Re spheres and cubes, therein is another great mystery of which you are not worthy of understanding. Yet take note that God's dwelling is in the form of a cube. (Ezek 41:4)
Was there some force that operated on God to make him a sphere, you ask? What kind of a question is that? All forces, powers, laws and constants came from Him. In Him all things are made to consist, set together or constituted, as is stated in Col 1:17. As the first citizen of the universe, all the building blocks were at His disposal. Spirit is energy and can be manipulated whether you can see it humanly or not.
You are all over the map with your comments, not knowing what you talking about, even though you are getting close to understanding the great spiritual mysteries. What is holding you back is your denial of Scripture, your doubting mind, your vain speculations (being puffed up by your knowledge as per 1 Cor 8:1), the Job syndrome, and your unwillingness to listen to others who could benefit you.
"Substances in God's realm that might hold form", you wondered? Haven't you read Heb 9:24 which states that the (material) temple and all its furniture were "figures of the true"? Yes, there are substances in God's realm that can hold form. If Disney animators can do it, so can the Lord.
1:11 and 3:01
ReplyDeleteSuch flowery language. I assume you are experiencing a pleasureable surge of Armstrogist self-righteousness. When you can formulate a well reasoned counterpoint let me know. Until that time you can continue with your foundationless, non-Christian ad hominem attacks so everyone can see what Armstrongists are really like.
Scriptor
“Such flowery language. I assume you are experiencing a pleasureable surge of Armstrogist self-righteousness. When you can formulate a well reasoned counterpoint let me know. Until that time you can continue with your foundationless, non-Christian ad hominem attacks so everyone can see what Armstrongists are really like.
ReplyDeleteScriptor “
Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 4:14:00 PM PDT
———————
So wrote Scriptor.
Speaking of “non-Christian ad hominem” attacks, you just wrote an excellent example of one. You, so far, have given one reasonable proof yet. Just the typical and useless “Armstrongist” response. Don’t Tell anyone I told you this, there is no such thing as an “Armstrongist”. There are only real Bible believers or non-Bible believers. One believes what the book says, the other tries to explain it by human reasoning.
Just because a man named Armstrong quoted lots of verses from the Bible doesn’t make the Bible an Armstrongist book. HWA, just like you and I, had/have lots of human faults. You are assuming too much, and categorizing lots of very fine people with a no boundary limits slander.
Did you actually read Martin’s work, or just see his name and immediately stop. If you read it, then post a real point by point rebuttal without the big theological sounding words that mean nothing but trying to make them your only support. Write to real people in normal speech as did Paul. The Bible says it was written so simple that even children can understand it. It wasn’t written to impress the seminary professor. By the way, I read somewhere that it takes a brilliant mind to turn complicated topics into simple explanations.
Looking forward to the excellent responses coming our way.
Anonymous Sunday, May 28 @ 3:01,
ReplyDeleteWhat we believe about the nature of God does NOT change His reality one iota - whatever that is! Hence, I'm at a loss to understand your venom. I'm very confident that there are a great many things that you can't see - does that make you blind?
Moreover, your Scriptural self-assuredness and arrogance is misplaced on this topic. You cite John 4:24 "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." with no context. Christ was talking to a Samaritan woman about how God would be worshipped in the future. Within the context of those remarks, Christ stated something that was fairly widely accepted amongst both Jews and Samaritans - that God is Spirit. The revelation was in the way that this fact should inform our worship of God.
Nevertheless, as an Armstrongite, I know that you have to be familiar with Christ's conversation with Nicodemus about being born again. In that passage, we read: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." (John 3:6-8) Does the wind have form and shape? Please explain this passage in the light of the one you quoted from the fourth chapter. As for John 5:37, please explain how this Scripture tells us anything about God's form and shape since Christ was clearly saying that they had NEVER seen him!
Sorry, you appear to clearly have a zeal for God, but NOT according to knowledge (Romans 10:2).
5:07
ReplyDeleteSorry, I am not interested in rebutting ELM point by point. I am interested in your well formed counter-points to my essay. So far, nothing has been forthcoming.
You do not know what an ad hominem attack is apparently. In 4:14, I said nothing about you personally. I attacked your argument style. You see, I put out a theological reflection and I have you in my face being nasty in a personal way - very much like some of the Armstrongist ministers I have known in the past. Like I said, keep this up. You can be proud that you tried to shout someone down. And everyone can see how shallow and base Armstrongists actually are.
This is the last time I will respond to your inanity. If you don't know what inanity means, look it up.
Scriptor
Did Jesus have a nose? Wasn't he in the image of his Father?
ReplyDeleteIf God were a trinity he would have said so. God is not the author of confusion.
ReplyDeleteScripto said:
ReplyDeleteSorry, I am not interested in rebutting ELM point by point. I am interested in your well formed counter-points to my essay. So far, nothing has been forthcoming.
—————
Scripto, you obviously don’t have the resources to answer Martin’s work. I posted it specifically to counter your thesis. Since it is a fairly complete rebuttal to your thesis I have no need to go further. It was my response and the ball is now in your court. I would be surprised and pleased if you can rebut his points.
Calling me an Armstrongist is a personal attack on me. You should get your facts before making such false assumptive accusations.
Whether I know what inanity is, or not, has nothing to do with the fact you have nothing to put Martin’s work into the waste bin. Sorry about that. And, you’re implying that I don’t know the word is another personal against me. Thanks, but that doesn’t help your stance.
.”The point of ad hominem is to discredit the opposition in indirect ways.”
“There are two ways of undermining your opponent’s use of authority, either by an ad hominem attack on his specific authorities, or by providing counter- authorities. Further, there are at least six different kinds of ad hominem attacks upon an authority.”
“If your audience is annoyed by NON-STANDARD definitions, then engage in a supplementary ad hominem at once. Either he is a fool who does not know what words mean, or is a scoundrel trying to put one over on everybody.”
Looking forward to your point by point dismantling of Martin’s work. It was my way of responding to you with something already compiled. At my age, and eyesight, it was the fastest way to respond.
You could post one point at a time, and we all could respond, pro or con, before going to the next point.
Ok, let the Bible study begin….
7:50 "If God were a trinity he would have said so."
ReplyDeleteArmstrongism maintains that God is Bi-theistic. If he were Bi-theistic he would have said so.
Scriptor
I gave up on Scriptor after one of his previous articles. He's like Jesuit writers who dazzle with their vocabulary and word smith skills, but they're not interested in truth. It's a waste of time debating with such fraudsters.
ReplyDeleteTo Scripto:
ReplyDeleteI and the Father are one.” (John 10:30, REV)
The above comes from a Bible study app that I'm using called inWORD Bible.
7:42 "Did Jesus have a nose? Wasn't he in the image of his Father?"
ReplyDeleteGod the Father has neither a body nor a nose in his essence. Have a look at:
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2021/11/the-transcendence-of-god-and.html
This leads to the conclusion that the Imago Dei is not referring to physical form but to spiritual nature, mentation and intellection. Much evil has come from believing that God has a body. This is because Armstrongists then deduced that if God has a body then he also has a race. They concluded that he was of the White race and this is the source of the many White Supremacist viewpoints in Armstrongism. Dean Blackwell used to roam the country preaching that Israelites (read as Western Europeans) would rule all the other nations throughout eternity (a misrepresentation of Deut 32:8). The people in the Pews would then conclude that Western Europeans had special inherent racial qualities for "Godly" leadership. A former AC Pasadena student told me that when he was attending AC it was believed that only "Israelites" should be accepted for admission. This was because it was believed then that Gentiles could not profit from an AC education. Blackwell's shtick later fit nicely with this foregoing idea.
There are a couple of ways that God may have a body though not in his essence.
1. Through theophany. He can present himself as he wishes. Even as a flame or whirlwind. God wrestled with Jacob. Obviously God had a body for this event. But it is a theophany - a presentation and not his essence.
2. Jesus became incarnate. He now has a body. Since the three Persons of the Trinity exist as a unity, one my consider that all three have the body of Jesus. The Body is a part of the Trinitarian ontology. I have never seen this idea advanced anywhere and there may be good theological reasons why not. I have not researched it. On the other hand, perhaps the body of Jesus is not a part of the Trinitarian ontology but is a part of the economy of Jesus - something that pertains to his Person alone.
The above are acquired bodily formats and not essential to God's ontology as Armstrongism asserts. One issue here is that God is "made from" some spiritual substance that holds form like matter in our realm. But a simple three-dimensional form doesn't mean much. The idea of a body includes the functioning of various internal parts. God speaks somewhere, I think in the Psalms, of having a heart. If God is dependent on functioning internal organs, then he is contingent and not necessary. He is reliant on the internal organs of his body for life as we are. And then the question arises, "Who gave him these necessary internal organs so he could live?" It is not merely an issue of composition but of function. This argument was formulated by Thomas Aquinas and has been around for centuries. Apparently, the Millerite Arians and Semi-Arians over-looked this.
Scriptor
Nice try 7:10.
ReplyDeleteHowever, you are adding an awful lot based on what humans reason that the Creator should be in their mind.
So, He has a heart. Since He is spirit, that heart will never stop.
So, He has a nose. It will never fall off, or get snuffy. Why? Because He is spirit in substance and essence.
So, He has legs and walks. Because He is spirit they will never get tired.
So, He has arms and hands. All the better so He can give you and others a big hug when He greets us in the kingdom. They can never not hug or hold others from over use since He is spirit.
You can fill in the rest.
8:26
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt that some Christians in the early centuries of the church lived their lives and died believing that God had a body. They took the anthropomorphisms of the OT as literal. God provided that metaphorical picture of himself in the OT. So, if you want to think of God the Father in the terms you have described, why not? But keep in mind that problems can arise.
Arianism and Semi-Arianism would suggest to those approaching God to believe that they can relegate Jesus to a secondary role and concern themselves only with God the Father. Yet Paul states in a letter to Timothy:
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"
The way to God the Father passes through Jesus. He is our mediator. When we pray, we pray in the name of Jesus. Jesus fits all the requirements that you list - he has a nose, arms, legs, etc. So, if you want a God with a body, there is one and it is Jesus. Jesus is the bridge between God and man because Jesus is fully God and fully man.
Dwelling on the idea that God has a body as described in the OT can get out of hand. For instance, Armstrongists decided that God had a racial nature and that if you were to see God, he would appear as a White man (although Jesus was a Jew and the Mizrahi Jews, for the most part unmixed with European peoples, are quite dark and might be described as "people of color"). And from this ensued beliefs of White supremacy. Likewise, they believed that God is actually male even though he describes creating the genders in Genesis. This has led to a patriarchal system with men oppressing women. With humans, if something can get out of hand, it will get out of hand.
These are some of the concerns. There are others. If you like to envision God having a body, remember to keep it in perspective.
Scriptor
3:03
ReplyDeleteThis reply is not an answer to the question. You keep referring to man’s concept that the Bible does not mean what it says. Ergo, what it says is a lie, implied so as to make man superior to Yahweh’s inspired words.
You need to build a foundation from the Bible first that these anthropomorphic words, as you claim, is what the inspired writers meant.
You do know that the original promoters of your thesis were looked down upon by the early Believers?
Also, as is easy to find, why do you keep promoting a teaching that was taught by ancient religions not part of teachings that came down to us through ancient Israel? For example the religions of India which teach the same thing you teach? In essence, you are teaching extra-biblical philosophy which was not finally accepted by the “church” until 325, or so?
I don’t remember being taught the Father was a white person. Please give us the actual quotes from HWA having said that. Be specific I am not interested in your memory or what critics said. Frankly it doesn’t matter what color the Creator appears to be, He is the Creator and color doesn’t make it true or not. That is irrelevant to having a body or not.
Please, let’s have the scriptures that prove your stance. And, tradition or ancient church fathers is not proof of what the Bible teaches.
Verses Sometimes Used to Support the Trinity: 1 John 5:7–8
ReplyDeletePart 1
1 John 5:7–8 (KJV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
1. Some English versions have a shorter rendition of 1 John 5:7 and 8 than the KJV quoted above. The King James Version has words that support the Trinity that most modern versions do not have. How can this be? The reason that there are different translations of this verse is that some Greek texts contain an addition that was not original, and that addition was placed into some English versions, such as the KJV (the words added to some Greek texts are underlined in the quotation above). The note in the NIV Study Bible, which is well known for its ardent belief in the Trinity, says, “...the addition is not found in any Greek manuscript or New Testament [Christian Scriptures] translation prior to the 14th century.”
Most modern versions are translated from Greek texts without the addition. We will quote the NIV: “For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.” We agree with the textual scholars and conclude from the evidence of the Greek texts that the statement that the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit are “one” was added to the Word of God by men, and thus has no weight of
Part 2
ReplyDeletetruth.
There are many Trinitarian scholars who freely admit that the Greek text from which the KJV is translated was adjusted in this verse to support the Trinity. The Greek scholar A. T. Robertson, author of the unparalleled work, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research, and the multi-volumed Word Pictures in the New Testament, writes:
At this point [1 John 5:7] the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus, found in no Greek MS. save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, [No.] 34 of the sixteenth century in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome did not have it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it if a single Greek MS. had it, and 34 was produced with the insertion, as if made to order. Some Latin scribe caught up Cyprian’s exegesis and wrote it on the margin of his text, and so it got into the Vulgate and finally into the Textus Receptus by the stupidity of Erasmus.”44
Robertson shows how this addition entered the text. It was a marginal note. Since all texts were hand-copied, when a scribe, copying a text, accidentally left a word or sentence out of his copy, he would place it in the margin in hopes that the next scribe would copy it back into the text. Unfortunately, scribes occasionally did not make the distinction between what a previous scribe had left out of the last copy and wrote in the margin, and marginal notes that another scribe had written in the margin to help him understand the text. Therefore, some marginal notes got copied into the text as Scripture. Usually these additions are easy to spot because the “new” text will differ from all the other texts. However, there are times when people adore their theology more than the God-breathed original, and they fight for the man-made addition as if it were the original words of God. This has been the case with 1 John 5:7 and 8, and we applaud the honesty of the translators of modern versions who have left it out of their translations.
The famous textual scholar, F. F. Bruce, does not even mention the addition in his commentary on 1 John (The Epistles of John). The International Critical Commentary does not mention it either. The conservative commentator R. C. H. Lenski, in his 12 volume commentary on the New Testament, only mentions that it is proper to leave the addition out. He writes: “The R.V. [Revised Version] is right in not even noting in the margin the interpolation found in the A.V. [KJV].” Henry Alford, author of the The Greek Testament, a Greek New Testament with extensive critical notes and commentary, writes:
...OMITTED BY ALL GREEK MANUSCRIPTS previous to the beginning of the 16th century; ALL the GREEK FATHERS (even when producing texts in support of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity: as e.g., by [abbreviated names of Church “fathers”] Clem Iren Hipp Dion Ath Did Bas Naz Nys Ephih Caes Chr Procl Andr Damasc (EC Thl Euthym);
ALL THE ANCIENT VERSIONS (including the Vulgate (as it came from Jerome, see below) and (though interpolated in the modern editions, the Syriac;
AND MANY LATIN FATHERS (viz. Novat Hil Lucif Ambr Faustin Leo Jer Aug Hesych Bede) [Emphasis his].45
Part 3
ReplyDelete2. With the spurious addition gone, it is clear that there is no reference to the Trinity in 1 John 5:7 and 8. The context is speaking of believing that Jesus is the Son of God (v. 5 and 10). There are three that testify that Jesus is the Son of God: the spirit that Jesus received at his baptism, the water of his baptism and the blood that he shed.
Scripture says, “We accept man’s testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son” (1 John 5:9). This verse is so true! How often people accept man’s testimony and believe what men say, but do not believe what God says. We need to accept the testimony of God that He has given about His Son, and agree with the testimony of the spirit, the water and the blood, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Bibliography
Farley, op. cit., Unitarianism Defined: The Scripture Doctrine of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, pp. 28–33; Morgridge, op. cit., True Believer’s Defence Against Charges Preferred by Trinitarians, pp. 70–87; Sir Isaac Newton, “An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture,” reprinted in 1841 (John Green, 121 Newgate Street, London), pp. 1–58; Norton, op. cit., A Statement of Reasons for Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians, pp. 185 and 186; Op. cit., Racovian Catechism, pp. 39–42; Snedeker, op. cit., Our Heavenly Father Has No Equals, pp. 118–120.
Source: Graeser, Lynn & Schoenheit, One God & One Lord (Indianapolis: Christian Educational Services, 2003).
Footnotes:
A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 1933, reprinted 1960, Vol. 6), pp. 240 and 241). Alford, Greek Testament, p. 503.
The above comes from a Bible study app that I'm using called inWORD Bible.
4:16
ReplyDeleteMy responses to some of your statements:
“You keep referring to man’s concept that the Bible does not mean what it says.”
My guess is that you want me to produce a scripture that says, “These descriptions are anthropomorphisms.” That is disingenuous. You know that no such scripture exists. In the NT it states that God is spirit. He is not corporeal. What the Semi-Arian Armstrongists and Ernest L. Martin (ELM) have done is to make spirit something like matter – something that holds form – a malleable, workable substance. Yet Jesus compared it to the wind: invisible, formless yet real. I believe the ball is in your court to give us an exegesis that indicates that the spirit which God is, in essence, is something that has properties similar to matter.
Just because something is written in the Bible does not mean that it is literal – it may be instead literary. Wisdom is personified as a woman. You will need to demonstrate that the anthropomorphisms in the OT are not anthropomorphisms. I will not require a scripture. I know that none exists. Just a well-reasoned argument.
There may be artifacts in the Heavenly Temple but they may not be spirit as God is spirit. Armstrongists and ELM seem to believe that anything that is not material is the same spirit as God is. This is an unproven hypothesis.
“You do know that the original promoters of your thesis were looked down upon by the early Believers?”
I am not familiar with this. You will have to provide citations. I do know of early Christian leaders who understood that God did not have a body. I can cite these for you.
“…why do you keep promoting a teaching that was taught by ancient religions not part of teachings that came down to us through ancient Israel?”
Jesus stated that God is spirit and then described the characteristics of spirit. Do you believe that Jesus is not a part of the Judeo-Christian Tradition. I find Arianism and Semi-Arianism to be more closely connected to ancient Gnosticism than to orthodox Christianity rather than the Judeo-Christian Tradition. And I know this to be demonstrable.
“I don’t remember being taught the Father was a white person.”
Here it is. Took my about four minutes to find it online:
“So, Adam looked like Jesus Christ. Adam also looked like God the Father…Since Adam looked like Christ and Christ looked like the average Jew, then Adam — the first man — must have resembled the Jew. Adam therefore was a white man as are the Jews! (Herman L. Hoeh, “The Race Question”, Plain Truth Magazine article, 1957)”
There have been several discourteous Semi-Arian Anthropomorphites that have been arguing with me and I stated I would not respond to them any further because of their rudeness and lack of coherent discourse. I decided to respond to you because I am not sure you are one of them.
Scriptor
Scriptor, thanks for replying to my question. However, to be a little picky, here is my original question:
ReplyDeleteI don’t remember being taught the Father was a white person. Please give us the actual quotes from HWA having said that
As you can see, I specifically asked where HWA taught it.
Either way, you seem to carry it beyond a description supposedly of the Father, into white supremacy racism. That is an overreach by you and many others. I was never taught at anytime what you seem to imply.
And, I had a very close relationship with Dr. Hoeh during my college days, and he NEVER implied or suggested that we should practice white supremacy racism with anyone not of the “white” race. If I am correct in thinking that is what you are implying, where did you get that idea from
I know there are posts on the internet claiming that, but they don’t know what they are talking about. Most of that comes from reading a teaching like you quoted and then assuming the worst and then presenting it as fact.
By the way, my 3 part post on the trinity, was just the beginning of laying the foundation for disputing your thesis that only agrees with the religions of the world outside the Bible correct teaching. I can’t promise to get the full info done in a day or two. I will present it as my energy level permits.
I loved and really enjoyed debates like this during our Manor Del Mar Friday night “bull sessions.” Even had several students apologize for arguing with me after they decided to dig in and check my side of the question. Then, they said I was correct. Life has its pleasant surprises.
Follower of the Way
8:32
ReplyDelete"I don’t remember being taught the Father was a white person. Please give us the actual quotes from HWA having said that. As you can see, I specifically asked where HWA taught it."
Maybe I will look. I did not hear him say it out of his own mouth either. I am not sure what the point is. It was stated by Herman Hoeh in a PT article that HWA would have approved. Unless he didn't read the PT - the flagship publication of the WCG during a time (1957) when I feel that HWA probably had a tight grip on everything.
White Supremacy was not something that was mentioned in the WCG as a topic or philosphy so named. It existed as a subtext of many artcles and of policies. I think you would have a difficult time trying to prove that the WCG and its descendants are not White Supremacist in outlook. You might read some of HWA's comments about Blacks in the Autobiography.
I corresponded with Hoeh about this topic in the Nineties. He did not deny that there was such an attitude in the WCG. He just said that the WCG had to adopt various racial policies because the WCG needed to get along with the larger society. Then he sent me a bunch of newspaper clippings about how Blacks were treated back in those days - like I needed that. See my earlier commentns under this same post concerning Dean Blackwell.
Scriptor
Scriptor seems to think that being spirit excludes God from having a body but that is just human reasoning again because the apostle states in 1 Cor 15:44 that there is a spiritual body. It is a simple fact that God can create both natural and spiritual bodies.
ReplyDeleteSince God is eternal He can take whatever shape He chooses. We are talking about a divine being who existed before time. Since God furnished the universe with "furnishings", is it a hard thing for Him to furnish Himself and His heavenly abode also? He can take any form He wants.
John says in 1 Jn 1:5 that God is light which means if you got close enough you would be able to witness the visible shining.
When He intended to make man in "our image", this is a fact that He chose to reveal, i.e. that man resembles Him in form and in intellectual and reasoning powers (for the purpose of forming a relationship with us). Two different words are used here in Genesis, "image" and "likeness".
Angels have bodies too. You didn't see them in the much publicized USS Nimitz UFO incident?
8:59
ReplyDeleteSorry I did not respond sooner. I have not checked this thread for several days.
I am glad you brought these points up. I have tried to emphasize that I am writing about God "in his essence." I believe this may not register on some readers. Hence, the difficulty Armstrongists have in understanding the concept of theophany.
1 Cor 15 speaks of a spiritual body. This is in reference to created, resurrected human beings. This is not an observation aboutg God "in his essence."
God can take whatever form he wants. I agree. This is called a theophany. It is not an observation about God "in his essence."
The term "light" used in 1 John is a metaphor. The Greek term is "phos" as in our word phosphorous. John is contrasting light and darkness as a figure of speech to show us God's perfection. God is not comprised of photons. Photons are a part of the physical, created realm. God said "let there be light" and created light. He was already in exisence when he said this so light is not a part of his essence literally, only allegorically. God is Spirit.
Scriptor