Trinity? or Binity?

[Guest]

Are'nt we told something about having fellowship with the Holy Spirit ? How do you have fellowship with an IT ? If the HS is the personalized power of God then Paul could have said to have fellowship with God through His Holy Spirit.

[Guest]

I have never thought the HOLY SPIRIT was an "it"

He shall lead us and guide us in all truth....
He is a comforter
He teaches truth
He shall abide with you
Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God



HE is a person....PTL

[Guest]

Are'nt we told something about having fellowship with the Holy Spirit ? How do you have fellowship with an IT ? If the HS is the personalized power of God then Paul could have said to have fellowship with God through His Holy Spirit.

If Christians are to have fellowship with the Holy Spirit as a third divine Person, then shouldn't there be at least one statement in the New Testament concerning a Christian praying to Him?

I would also ask Trinitarians whether there is any distinction between "the indwelling Christ" and "the indwelling Holy Spirit".

I just did a search of the New Testament in order to find "fellowship" and "spirit" in a single verse. I found only one:

2 Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

Notice first of all, that it doesn't speaking of fellowship with the Holy Spirit, but the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. Secondly, the word translated "fellowship" is "koinonia" the primary meaning of which is "sharing". In the verse quoted above, as I understand it, Paul is wishing the enabling grace of Jesus to be with the Corinthians to empower them to overcome wrongdion and to live in harmony with the purposes of God. He is also wishing the Corinthians to share the Holy Spirit among them. If all participate in the Spirit and follow the leading of Christ within them, then they will be united in God's purposes.

[Guest]

Paidion: Would you kindly give us your exegesis of Colossians 1:15-16?

"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature, For by him were all things created"

Is this verse speaking of Christ ... er ... what is your interpretation?

[Guest]

Paidion: Would you kindly give us your exegesis of Colossians 1:15-16?

"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature, For by him were all things created"

Is this verse speaking of Christ ... er ... what is your interpretation?

It is definitely speaking of Christ, "His beloved Son" from verse 13.

Let's first consider a more literal translation:

Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all created things;
for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

First, the word "create" in Greek and I think, Hebrew too, has a broader meaning than it has in current English.

In English, something created is an entirely different entity than its creator. For example if a man creates a work of art, that work is certainly not human. On the other hand, if a man "begets" a son, the son is a human being like himself.


As many in the fourth century proclaimed, Christ was begotten, not created.

However, the biblical word "create" also seems to include the idea of being begotten. For example, consider Proverbs 8:22

Yahweh created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old.

The second century Christians considered this verse and the verses that follow up to verse 31 to be descriptive of Christ when He was begotten, the first of God's acts, and the subsequent creation of the Universe through Him. Yes, the passage speaks of wisdom, but they considered Him to have been the personification of wisdom.

Many current commentators also teach that this passage is talking about Christ.

Indeed, this may be the source of Paul's words about Christ being the "first-born of all created things." Then after He was "created" (in the broader sense of "create"), the Father created everything else through Him. That is, Christ was the instrument of creation of everything else.

I want to emphasize that I do not believe that Christ was created in the sense that angels were created. He was begotten, came forth out of the Father Himself, and was thus "the image of the invisible God", Another exactly like the Father, the only other Divine Individual, and fully Deity.

[Guest]

Paidion: my complements for taking the time to clarify your view on the subject.

Pro 8:22, does, in fact seem to play an important role in connection with the Arian doctrine. Would you consider yourself an Arianist in one sense? I hope you don't mind that I refer to it as the "Arian" doctrine, because many Godly men on both sides the issue have come to different conclusions.

I use the KJV mainly because it's free (hurray!!!), not neccessarily because of translation excellence, so bear with me here. But I do know how to use my Strong's, etc.

KJV reads this way: "The LORD possessed me in the beginning". And thus the greek may be rendered in the English as “created.”

Barnes (Summary):

"However, Greek translators of the Old Testament seemed to oscillate between the two meanings; and throughout the OT, we find the various renderings ἔκτισε ektise “created” (Septuagint), and ἐκτήσατο ektēsato “possessed” (Aquila). The text with the former word naturally became one of the stock arguments of the Arians, and the other translation was as vehemently defended by the orthodox fathers."

Would you agree that these words seem to be used interchangeably?

[Guest]

Pro 8:22, does, in fact seem to play an important role in connection with the Arian doctrine. Would you consider yourself an Arianist in one sense? I hope you don't mind that I refer to it as the "Arian" doctrine, because many Godly men on both sides the issue have come to different conclusions.

No, I don't consider myself an Arian in any sense. My beliefs concerning the generation (or "begetting") of the Son, the first of God's acts predates Arius and Arians by many years. Indeed, I find it both in the bible, and in second century Christian writers of the Universal Church.
Arius held to some aspects of the teaching of classis Christianity concerning the generation of the Son, but he departed from it in saying that the Son was "created out of nothing", and that "there was a time before the Son existed."

You mention "both sides of the issue." I'm not sure what issue you have in mind, but if it concerns the begetting of the Son, there were at least five "sides" from the second to fifth centuries.

1. The early classic view (mine) --- that Christ was generated or begotten by God as the first of His acts. He is fully Deity, as is the Father. The Holy Spirit is the Persons of the Father and the Son, and dwells within His people.
2. Modalism --- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three different expression of one divine Individual. Jesus became "the Son" after having been born of Mary.
3. Arianism --- Christ was created out of nothing at some point in time. He did not exist prior to that time. Yet, oddly enough, Arius stated in one of his letters that Christ is "fully Deity."
4. Trinitarianism --- the begetting of the Son is an ongoing process. He was always being begotten and always shall be. He, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are three divine Persons.
5. Ebionism --- The Ebionites held that Christ wasn't really divine. But from the time of his baptism, he held a peculiar relation to God in that the fulness of the divine Spirit rested upon him. Ebionism was simply Judaism within the pale of the Christian Church.

Barnes (Summary):

"However, Greek translators of the Old Testament seemed to oscillate between the two meanings; and throughout the OT, we find the various renderings ἔκτισε ektise “created” (Septuagint), and ἐκτήσατο ektēsato “possessed” (Aquila). The text with the former word naturally became one of the stock arguments of the Arians, and the other translation was as vehemently defended by the orthodox fathers."

Would you agree that these words seem to be used interchangeably?

I don't think you mean "used interchangeably." I think you mean "used in two different ways", either wih "created" as the meaning or "possessed".

No, I don't agree that they are. The word "ktizo" (the root form) seems to mean either "create" or "make" in all 13 instances in which is occurs in the New Testament. Here are six you might want to check out:
Matt 17:4, Mark 13:19, I Cor 11:9, Eph 2:15, Col 1:16.

However, the Hebrew word "qanah" used in Prov 8:22 is used to mean "get, acquire, buy, or create" in various OT passages. But I'm inclined to think that "qanah" was not the word used in the original. The Masoretic text from which the KJ was translated goes only as far back as the 12th century. I checked with the translation of "The Dead Sea Bible", but a great deal of the OT is missing including this portion.

[Guest]

Paidion, how do you interpret the following verse from John 15:26

"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning. "