Mark Clarke

Are you feeling better? I've been praying for you.

Or on "He's So Fine" - even if they're about your sweet lord and you weren't conscious of the similarities. The law takes a dim view of that.

The rejection of the Trinity is the same thing as one of TWI's doctrines, one which they happened to get right. But many of their other ones, and many of their practices, I do not condone. I hadn't really wanted to get into an argument about the Trinity anyway. I wanted to show that TWI's definition of the holy spirit was not Scriptural.

ljn698, I'm not so sure. What with the internet making information about what really goes on available like it never was when he was alive, I think there would be more confrontation and more of the dirt out in the open, like it did with LCM. Perhaps there would not be as many who turn away, but I think there would be some, and not a few.

You misunderstand me. My questions were not seeking answers or looking for understanding. They were rhetorical questions designed to engage in a discussion, and perhaps afford you an opportunity to explain passages of Scripture from your point of view. I have, in fact, questioned God and found His answers in His Word. I didn't tell Him who He is, He told all of us. But sadly, what you say is true. "We can ALL read the same verse of scripture and see differing things depending on our knowledge and own understanding." This is why we must search the Scriptures. We cannot take someone's word on it without checking it out for ourselves like the Bereans, because so many people see and teach different things from the Bible. Yes, the goal is to have a relationship with God and His Son, but we must get there by understanding, first, the words that His Son spoke, and second, the other words about him that other men of God wrote, which are recorded in the Bible. The only way to find the Trinity in the Bible is to have it in your mind to start with. When I approach the Scriptures without those pre-conceived glasses, I find a beautiful story of God promising Abraham offspring, land, and many blessings for the whole world. I find Him telling Moses that He would raise up a prophet from among Moses' brethren, whose words would be God's own words, and whom we must hear. I find Him promising David that a descendant of his would sit on his throne, and his reign would be forever. I find promise after promise of a Messiah who would be a man, but also the Son of God (not God Himself in human form). I find that man in the person of Jesus, the Christ, the Messiah, who proclaimed the good news that the Kingdom was at hand, and who gave his very life on the cross for us to be able to enter that Kingdom. I find him living in our hearts by way of the holy spirit, and being able to strengthen us and encourage us in a way he never could while on earth. And I find the promise of a glorious future in paradise on a renewed earth. But none of these things suggests anything of three persons in one God. It's just not in there. Truly, God is to be glorified. And we do that by giving honor to His Son as the Lord and King (Phil. 2:11). You said, "to be a Christian you must confess Jesus as Lord? No?" That's correct. We confess Jesus as Lord. That doesn't mean we must confess him as God the Son. Again, you misunderstand me. I wasn't asking how the holy spirit confirms the truth in our hearts. But there are many people who believe many different things about God, yet are all equally convinced that the holy spirit has revealed the truth in their hearts. The way not to be deceived is to compare what the spirit reveals to you with what the spirit has revealed to the men who wrote by inspiration of the same spirit. The Spirit and the Word work together to establish the truth. In all of those responses, you never did respond to any of my points. That's your privilege. You say you once believed as I do (that the Trinity was false), yet now you believe in the Trinity. Did you in fact search the Scriptures to come to that conclusion? And also, why is it such a big deal to you that I suggest most Christians may be wrong? Weren't most of them wrong before the Protestant Reformation? Don't you think the devil is capable of deceiving that many people? He is called the Deceiver and the Father of Lies. But that's why God gave us the Bible - so that we could recover the truth in spite of all the error that exists. This is why we are told to "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (I Thes. 5:21) and to "believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (I John 4:1). You're right that we must seek HIM, not just head knowledge, but our seeking of Him must begin with the knowledge of Himself that He has given us. I believe I have done this, and have shown what I believe the Bible teaches. P.S. - I agree with Mark Driscoll's point. It is serious and there are many false teachers. That's why we need to demonstrate from the Bible that our doctrine is sound. The Trinity is not a sound Biblical doctrine but was developed more than two hundred years after Christ.

Just caught this; I hadn't noticed that it started with a question - "What is this?" This wasn't in Are the Dead Alive Now?, but Jesus Christ is Not God. In that book, it stated that the Council of Nicea was held in what is now Nice, France. This of course is incorrect. Nicea was in Bithynia, a Roman province in Asia Minor, which is modern day Turkey. I think I remember hearing that it was corrected in later editions of JCNG, but there wasn't a lot of attention called to it.

Did you hear the one about the cannibal who passed his brother in the woods?

Not arguing here, Sirguessalot, just wondering what you make of Matt. 1:18 & 20 and Luke 1:35 which speak of the Holy Spirit conceiving a child in Mary's womb. Would that not indicate the masculine role of the Holy Spirit, while the human Mary is the mother? Matt. 1: 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. Luke 1: 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Here's a question: If the Holy Spirit is a separate person from the Father, which one is the father of Jesus? Many passages refer to God the Father of the Lord Jesus. But some refer to Jesus being conceived by the Holy Spirit. This makes perfect sense if you understand the Holy Spirit as God's power in operation. But if the Holy Spirit is a person, how could he be the one that conceived Jesus? Wouldn't that make him the father? Then what of God the Father? I believe most Trinitarians would say that God is the Father of Jesus, and not any one person of the Trinity. But if they all have an equal part, then God the Son, i.e. Jesus, must be his own father as well. See the confusion gendered by this doctrine which is nowhere presented in the Bible?

Not every sense of the word if you believe what the Bible says. Matthew and Luke both tell us that Jesus was conceived by the holy spirit (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:35) and many passages refer to him as the Son of God. But as for the genealogies, which are important to his claim to be the Messiah, the King, there is some discussion. It's been noticed by many that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are different. Matthew 1:16 says "Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus." Luke 3:23 on the other hand says, "Jesus... being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli..." Some skeptics claim it's another discrepancy that proves the Bible is full of errors and can't be trusted. Others have suggested different explanations. VPW taught that the word "husband" in Matthew 1:16 was the Greek word aner which means a male of full age, and should have been translated as "father" rather than husband. (It is translated husband as well as man, sir, and fellow, but nowhere translated "husband.") In Aramaic it is the word gavra which literally means "mighty man" and according to VPW could mean "husband" or "father" depending on the context. It was his contention that Matthew 1:16 was saying that Jacob was the father of a different Joseph, who was the father of Mary, not her husband. This would make 14 generations from Babylon to Christ, which would otherwise not add up, according to VP. Bullinger, on the other hand, had a different take. It's all laid out in appendix 99 of the Companion Bible. Matthew's claim that Jacob is the father of Mary's husband is upheld, while in Luke, Joseph is legally considered "of" Heli ("the son" is in italics), Heli being his father-in-law (Mary's father). The generations in Matthew are counted differently by Bullinger too. The first 14 are from Abraham to David; the second 14 begin with David again and go to Josias; then the third 14 go from Jechonias through Joseph to Jesus. I used to wonder why David was counted twice, but it fits the summary in v.17, which says, "from Abraham to David are 14..." and then "from David to the carrying away to Babylon are 14..." and "from the carrying away to Babylon to Christ are 14..." Most theologians agree that the genealogies are different because Jesus was a descendant of David both physically through his mother, and legally through his foster father. But which genealogy is Mary's and which is Joseph's seems to be the subject of some debate. If you Google "Jesus genealogies" you will find many explanations for apparent discrepancies in the genealogies. Most of them seem to favor the theory that Joseph was considered a "son" to Heli, his father-in-law, and so the Luke record presents the genealogy through Mary, while Matthew presents it through Joseph. One source I read mentions that there is a passage in the Jewish Talmud that refers to "Mary, the daughter of Heli..." which would corroborate this. The most interesting thing about it to me is that rather than this issue being proof of error in the Bible, there are actually several possible explanations. Which one is right is not as big a deal as the fact that most of them are plausible.

I remember him having more of a heart for people back in those days. Sad he's pushing Chr!$ G33r's organization now.

From the website, Christian Monotheism

Anybody can edit a Wikipedia article. That's the cool thing about it - everyone's knowledge can be pooled together, theoretically. Of course that also means that anything you read there must be taken with a grain of salt, since you never know for sure whether the writer(s) are accurate. To edit this piece, you'd probably need to be able to provide some kind of documentation for the designation being earlier.

"And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass." --Genesis 41:32

That's true. The Wikipedia entry for The Way International had no mention of them, although they listed all other past trustees. I edited the page to include them. :) That's the beauty of Wikipedia.

Abi, As I'm sure you know, the Shekhina is not exactly the same concept as the Spirit of God. Do any of the Midrash or Rabbinical sources have a different understanding of the Spirit (ruach) of God from what I posted today in the Holy Spirit thread? Note, what I posted is not how most Christians perceive the Holy Spirit. From what reading I've done I got the impression that what I described there is closer to the Jewish understanding of God's spirit than to the traditional Christian view. Weren't/aren't there some very strict sects that followed only the Torah and not the Talmud? At the time of Christ, weren't there some who adhered to the Tanakh but not the Rabbinical interpretations of it?

TWI taught (based largely on Bullinger) that there were different meanings for the phrase "holy spirit" and for the word "spirit" by itself. This is true, but as I said in a previous post, TWI rarely if ever dealt with the Hebrew word and how it is used in the Old Testament, even though Bullinger did. The words for "spirit" in both Greek and Hebrew do have a number of different meanings, but all relate to the basic idea of an invisible force or influence. In the excerpts from articles I posted last time, I talked about the difference between soul and spirit, and the Hebrew words used for each. To continue from my Holy Spirit article: ...We saw that the breath (or spirit) of life is the unseen force that makes man a living soul. The word ruach can also be used to refer to literal breath, as well as literal wind, or it can mean the "spirit of man" (Ecclesiastes 3:21; Zechariah 12:1) which is used interchangeably with "soul" and basically means one's self. For example, When Job says "I will speak in the anguish of my spirit; I will complain in the bitterness of my soul" (Job 7:11), they are both ways of referring to the anguish in the inner depths of his being. It is also parallel to the word "heart." For example, Psalm 77:6 - "I call to remembrance my song in the night: I commune with mine own heart: and my spirit made diligent search." Also Psalm 143:4, "Therefore is my spirit overwhelmed within me; my heart within me is desolate." (See also Exodus 35:21; Deuteronomy 2:30; Psalm 34:18; 51:10,17 and others). Just as the spirit of man refers to the man's inner self, or his heart, in a similar manner God's inner self or heart is called the spirit of God, or the spirit of the Lord. For example, in Genesis 6:3 God says, "My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh." Isaiah 63:10 refers to rebellion "grieving God's spirit." To say "my spirit shall not always strive" is equivalent to saying "I will not always strive." To say rebellion grieves God's spirit is another way of saying that it grieves God. The spirit of God, being an extension of God's heart and mind, has the same qualities of God. But this does not make it a separate person. Paul's explanation in I Corinthians 2 clarifies this, by comparing the spirit of God with the spirit of man. I Corinthians 2: 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit. For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so no man knoweth the things of God, but the Spirit of God. So the spirit of God is not a separate person from God, any more than my spirit is a separate person from me. God's spirit also refers to His presence. Psalm 51:10 (referenced above) refers to man's spirit, and in the next verse, David linked God's spirit with His presence: "Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me" (Psalm 51:11). Psalm 139:7 also connects God's spirit with his presence. "Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?" The very first occurance of spirit, in fact, illustrates that God was present in His creation. Genesis 1:2 reads, "...the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." The spirit of God has been called an "impersonal force" by some, mainly as a response to the Trinitarian belief that it is a person. However, this may not be the best word to use. It is more than an abstract power, since it is the operational presence and power of God. It is His heart and personality as communicated to His creation. Alan Richardson, in his Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1958, p. 120), desribes the holy spirit like this: To ask whether in the New Testament the spirit is a person in the modern sense of the word would be like asking whether the spirit of Elijah is a person. The Spirit of God is of course personal; it is God's dunamis [power] in action. But the Holy Spirit is not a person, existing independently of God; it is a way of speaking about God's personally acting in history, or of the Risen Christ's personally acting in the life and witness of the Church. The New Testament (and indeed patristic thought generally) nowhere represents the Spirit, any more than the wisdom of God, as having independent personality. While the vast majority of references to the holy spirit can be seen to fit this definition, there are some verses which speak of the holy spirit in terms which could seem to be referring to a person. Jesus refers to speaking against the holy spirit in Matthew 12:31-32. Ephesians 4:30 speaks of grieving the holy spirit, and the spirit is said to speak in Revelation 2:17; 14:13; and 22:17. Throughout Acts, the spirit speaks, moves, and guides the believers as well. It is verses like these that Trinitarians use to prove that the holy spirit is a person. They are also why Bullinger, Wierwille and others thought that one "usage" of the term "holy spirit" must be a name or title for God Himself. But the holy spirit, being the power and presence of God, is an extention of Himself. So all of His characteristics, all of His actions, all of His words and will, are attributed to His spirit. Thus, to speak against the holy spirit is to speak against God, especially with reference to His working in the peoples' presence (which is the context of the Lord's warning about blaspheming against the holy spirit). When God speaks through His holy spirit, it is said that the spirit speaks. In the same way you could say that a person's voice speaks words, and it is understood that you mean that it is the person who is speaking. But nowhere does the Bible speak of "God the Holy Spirit" whether in the Trinitarian sense or in the sense that it is a name or title for God. Acts 5:3-4 is often used to prove that the holy spirit is God. Ananias is said to have lied to the holy spirit in verse 3, and it is equated with lying to God in verse 4. The holy spirit refers to the power and authority of God, which in this instance was invested in Peter. Just as "grieving the holy spirit" is another way of saying "grieving God," saying he "lied to the holy spirit" is another way of saying he lied to God. This is showing the connection between God and His spirit which was working in Peter and the other apostles. To lie to the apostles who speak for God is equivalent to lying to God, as Paul says, "He therefore that despiseth this, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us His Holy Spirit" (I Thessalonians 4:8). This is similar to the statement by Moses in Exodus 16:8, that "your murmurings are not against us, but against the LORD." This did not make Moses and Aaron God, any more than the apostles were God when they spoke on His behalf. But the holy spirit, as well as those in whom God's spirit worked, represented God. When Ananias lied to the apostles, he lied to God's holy spirit working in and through them, and therefore he lied to God. Those who speak on God's behalf are said to have God's spirit working and speaking through them. Throughout the Scriptures, God's spirit is closely associated with His Word, and His words. When I speak words which reflect my mind and heart, I am communicating my spirit. Likewise, God's Word communicates His spirit. II Samuel 23: 2 The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue. Job 26: 2 How hast thou helped him that is without power? how savest thou the arm that hath no strength? 3 How hast thou counselled him that hath no wisdom? and how hast thou plentifully declared the thing as it is? 4 To whom hast thou uttered words? and whose spirit came from thee? Proverbs 1: 23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I [wisdom] will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you. John 3: 34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. John 6: 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. My spirit is communicated by words which are spoken, and speaking literally involves breath. In the same way, God's breath (the same word ruach that is translated "spirit") is associated with His Word. He created all things by His breath, or His Word, according to Psalm 33:6 - "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." The breath of God is one way the Scriptures refer to His power being exercised (Exodus 15:8; Job 4:9; 37:10). God breathed life into man (Genesis 2:7; Job 27:3; 33:4), and His Word (which is "God breathed" according to II Timothy 3:16) is living and powerful (Hebrews 4:12). God's breath or spirit communicates His Word and exercises His almighty power. I realize this is a lot to take in all at once. But it is not just something I made up. Many recognized Bible reference books concur, and this definition is what one sees when one approaches the Scriptures without preconceived ideas. The holy spirit takes on added significance in the New Testament, especially when we start to see references to the Spirit of Christ. More on that next time.

Geisha, My responses are inserted, in red. The following are excerpts from the article about the Holy Spirit on my website. (The full article can be seen here.) There has been much misunderstanding about the holy spirit. Says who? You? And you are? Who? Your point of reference being. . . what?. . . . your understanding? PFAL? "Most CHRISTIANS???" Is your point of reference the bible? Or is it what you believe the bible has to say? What is your point of reference for saying there has been much misunderstanding? My point of reference is the simple fact that many Christians, not just ex-Way, have a different understanding of what the Bible says about the holy spirit. Granted, you may not agree with what others believe, but the fact is that other beliefs do exist. Most Christians think of the holy spirit as a person, partly because it is used with personal pronouns, such as "He," "Him" and "Who" in most English Bibles. Okay, PARTLY. . . what is the rest? Why else do they understand the Holy Spirit as a unique CHARACTER of God? For various reasons which I get into here a bit, and which are dealt with extensively on various other websites. Grammar aside, the Bible nowhere presents the holy spirit as a person. For one thing, it is never given a proper name. God's proper name is given as Yahweh, and His Son's name is Jesus. But the holy spirit is simply called the holy spirit. That would be a name. . . no? You just called Him something. . THE Holy Spirit Using an article, such as "the," is not a name. The Holy Spirit is never addressed as a person, by name, in the Bible. That is, nobody speaks to the Holy Spirit and says something like, "I beseech thee, O Holy Spirit." The epistles frequently include greetings from the Father and the Son. However, never do they give greetings "from the Holy Spirit." Why would this be so if the holy spirit were a co-equal, co-eternal person? And this means what? So, therefore He is not who Christians understand Him to be? That is my point. Can you answer the question of why greetings from the Holy Spirit are not included if "he" is a co-equal, co-eternal person? Jesus instructed his disciples to pray to the Father, and to do it in his name. He told them to ask God to send His holy spirit. Never are we told to pray to the holy spirit, and "ask him to come into our hearts" as many do today. The spirit is poured forth by Jesus (Acts 2:33), and we are baptized in it (Acts 1:5). One cannot pour forth a person, or be baptized in a person. The spirit is described as the spirit of God or the spirit of Christ. Furthermore, Matthew 11:27 says that no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son. Matthew 24:36 says that no man knows the hour of Christ's return, not even the Son, but only the Father. John wrote in his first epistle that a person is antichrist if he denies the Father and the Son (I John 2:22-23). In his second epistle he wrote, "He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son" (II John 9). If the holy spirit is a third co-equal person, why is there no mention of him in verses like these? Mark, the word person is simply used to describe. . . . just like the word trinity is a word we use to describe the nature of God. Did you ever stop to ask yourself WHY pronouns to describe are used in translation? Ever? Is it because what is revealed to "MOST" Christians and described and understood is wrong? That is a mighty big tide to be bucking. . . have you ever considered WHY you want so badly to buck it? First of all, yes I have considered all of this. Please don't assume that I am just flipping this off the top of my head without careful study and consideration. It isn't that I "want so badly to buck it." It is that in studying the Bible I have come to the same conclusions that many before me have come to as well. Second, it's not just the word "person" that I am talking about. The Holy Spirit is never referred to or addressed as a person, nor included in the verses I cited which refer to the Father and the Son. Would "he" not be included if "he" were a co-equal person? I believe VPW had it right when he taught that the holy spirit is not the Third Person of the Trinity. But I think what he said it was, is just as incorrect. I'll continue in the next post. So, you have moved on from a cult leaders understanding. . . and fixed it? Consider this, VP and others who hold similar beliefs are actually outside the church. VP came from the church. . . understood the nature of God. . . it wasn't until he LEFT the church. .. . got booted. . . that he came up with this stuff. He came out from among those in the church. . . . but he was not ever of them. Do you know what it is that distingushes VP from the church? His understanding of the nature of God. I don't claim to have "fixed" anything. I just studied the Bible and read the works of other theologians, and concluded that in many of the things VPW taught he was wrong. But the issue of the trinity, and the fact that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, not God, is not something VPW came up with. Many scholars throughout the history of the church have come to the same conclusions. There was great resistance to the original suggestion that Jesus was God, which was more than two hundred years after the NT was completed. Since then small groups of people have come to similar conclusions by studying the Bible. Mark, I like you. . . and although my tone may exhibit a bit of frustration, it is never anything against you. In fact, I thought about this all day yesterday, and I talked it to death with hubby. I backspaced several posts. . . I know you cannot hear me or understand me when I say this to you. . . but I really desire you to. With all my heart. So please just mindfully consider. . . . What you have written. . . is not what Christians believe. Your understanding changes the very nature of God. It takes it out of the realm of a common faith. It turns it into a different faith. Does that make sense? It is no different than someone who does not claim Christianity telling me the nature of God. Your understanding is not common with MOST Christians. You don't share a common salvation. Which is why. . . ex-way people have such a DIFFICULT time with church. . . an often vampireish reaction to the Cross. . . and issues with the way people worship. It is why ABC had a hard time with being accredited. It is why we have splinter groups. It is because it is another faith. Why would one go to a church that holds differing beliefs than yours. Because you label yourself a Christian? I agree this is not what most Christians believe. Yes it is a "different faith," if you will. But just consider the possibility that there has been error taught in the church - wouldn't you want to know the truth? We know that much of what the Roman Catholic Church taught was disagreed with in a big way by the Protestant Reformation. There was at that time a smaller group who felt that the Reformers didn't go far enough, and who saw the error of the Trinity. Some, like Michael Servetus, were murdered because they dared to believe what the Bible says rather than what the Church said. I will be flayed alive for this. . . so be it. It is the same thing they fought about in the first centuries of the church. Gnosticism. Actually, it was gnostic ideas that led to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. Now, to turn your logic back on you. . . . you said to me in another thread. . . that God was able to preserve His word and handle the devil. Good for you. . .you believe God is able. Given the same logic which refuted Mike's claim that the original intent was lost. Is God not able to, in His providence, preserve for His people an understanding of His nature? Would He do this within the church? Where His people dwell. Most Christians? Is He able? Absolutely, and He has. That's why those who reject the Trinity can prove their position from the Bible. Would He do it in the Church? That would depend on whether the leaders in the Church were open to considering what the Bible actually said rather than adhering to Church traditions. We had it wrong. We were on the outside looking in. We were trying to redefine God and His nature. . . .We were telling them they "misunderstood". We were not welcome because of these very teachings. They infect and they cling and those not grounded and strong in their faith are protected in the church by those who are. It is why we have creeds. . . it is why we have teachings. . . it is HOW we define cults. . . it is why we don't accredit bible colleges who deny the triune nature of God. You confuse those who hold different beliefs with those who are not grounded and strong in their beliefs. There have been many who have been strong in their faith and have done work for the Lord, even though they reject the Trinity as unbiblical. Please don't lump all Biblical Unitarians with The Way. That was one organization who happened to share the belief that the Trinity was wrong. There have been many others, although they remain in the minority. The number of people who believe in something does not prove that it is right. It is why many can no longer find a haven or home outside of the cults. . . it isn't there. If you believe one way. . . . that God is different than I believe. . . . I fall into the "Most" category. . . Do we share a common faith? No, we don't. But we do share other beliefs, such as the integrity of the Bible. Why not let it speak for itself rather than appealing to what "the majority" believes? Have you looked into other non-Trinitarian sources besides the Way and its offshoots? You might be surprised. God's whole plan was to redeem man to Himself. . . . He gives them hundreds of years of Prophecies about how to recognize the redeemer, everything points to Jesus. . . Jonah, Moses, Joseph, Job, David, Isaiah. . . . EVERYTHING! Agreed. And none of them ever said the Messiah would be God in human form. He would be the Son of God as well as a descendant of David. Then John comes along. . . the final prophet, who goes into explicit visual DETAIL about who the redeemer would be. . . Agreed again. And he said he wrote his gospel, "that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" (John 20:31). the spirit Himself comes along to testify. . . a voice from HEAVEN comes out, Which says, this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased... and they still rejected who He is. . . . it takes the Holy Spirit to lead people. . . to Jesus. Agreed. "Therefore I am informing you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit." Agreed. But what is it to speak by the Holy Spirit? That is what I intend to demonstrate in this discussion. The purpose of the Holy Spirit is to point people to Jesus. He helps people recognize who Jesus is, and He confirms it. Agreed. But how do we know whether what we think we believe is confirmed by the Holy Spirit? It must line up with what the Scriptures say. The Spirit and the Word work together. It is not secret, hidden, or misunderstood knowledge. . . . or an enlightened training in classical greek. . . . NOW God can truly say man is without excuse. If you have a different belief of the Holy Spirit. . . stands to reason you are not going to recognize as "Most" Christians do. . . that Jesus is God. Agreed. The question is, does the Bible confirm what "most" Christians believe? Instead of trying to understand and humble ourselves to what "Most" Christians know about God. . . including Bullinger. . . we just invent an new religion to support our own way. I would say, rather, that instead of trying to understand what "most" Christians know about God, I have endeavored to see what the Bible teaches. Far from being a new religion, the idea that God is one person goes back to Moses. Jesus confirmed the Shema - "Hear O Israel, the LORD our God is One." He claimed to be the only begotten Son of God, not God. The arguments I mentioned here against the Holy Spirit being a person are in addition to the many arguments against the Trinity as a whole. That has been debated in many other threads. If you feel you can prove the Trinity from the Bible, not from Church tradition, we could start another thread, if you like. In this thread my goal is to prove from the Bible that God's holy spirit is His presence and power in action, which is what I believe the Bible teaches.

Neither of the two people pictured at the top of that web page is the Johnny Townsend that was on the Board of Trustees. I haven't heard about what happened to him or Ricardo Caballero (except that Ricardo returned to Argentina).

Realizing that "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" are synonymous is just the beginning. The whole definition of Kingdom of God was completely missed in TWI, but is also missed in many other mainstream churches. More and more people, however are starting to get it. For an excellent video presentation on this, click on the following link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=85...96916&hl=en

Earlier I responded to the claim that preaching the same gospel as Jesus would be a step backward. I offered a challenge: Anybody else want to take a stab at it? Does the Bible state anywhere that Jesus' gospel was ended (or "held in abeyance" as we heard in PFAL) and replaced by a new gospel? If so, what do we do with Matt. 24:14? "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." For an excellent video presentation on this, go to the following link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=85...96916&hl=en

I don't claim to understand everything that is in the Scriptures. But since PFAL claimed to derive its understanding from the Bible, I wanted to demonstrate that the definitions of these terms that we were taught do not match the definitions used in the Bible. Also, I realize there were and are other groups of Jews who have different beliefs, but in the Holy Spirit thread I am only dealing with that which is presented in the Hebrew Scriptures, aka the Old Testament. (I will later be dealing with the New Testament as well.) The authority of other sources which may contradict the Bible comes down to a matter of who or what do you trust. Since I know several of you don't consider the Bible authoritative, you can see how getting into that debate would be fruitless.

Please refer to the Holy Spirit thread to see how the Hebrew Scriptures define those terms.

The classic notion of our triune nature is also not part of Hebrew thinking. Over in the Holy Spirit thread, I demonstrated that according to the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament) man is a living being, or soul, consisting of a body that is animated by the "breath of life."

There have been many views and opinions since ancient times about the nature of the spirit or soul. My purpose for starting this thread is to point out what the Scriptures teach, in contrast to what we were taught in TWI. The ideas expressed by various other sources, ancient or modern, would be a separate topic, outside the scope of what I'm presenting here. One quick comment though. Cman wrote, "The truth is that each person has masculine and feminine qualities." That's true. What I am demonstrating is that the holy spirit is not a person. There may be "masculine" and "feminine" sides to God's nature, but what traits are masculine and what traits are feminine is based on a lot of generalization and conjecture anyway. One of the things we were taught involved the concept of man being a three part being of body, soul, and spirit. This was based on one verse that listed those three (I Thes. 5:23) and one which listed three verbs: created, formed, and made (Isaiah 43:7). It was said that each of the three lined up, i.e., the spirit was created, the body was formed, the soul was made. There are a few problems with that, however. First of all, the order cannot be used to line them up, since I Thes. 5:23 has "spirit, soul, and body" while Isaiah 43:7 has "created, formed, and made." Second, the words created, formed and made are all used to describe the heavens and earth in Isaiah 45:18, not just a three part man. And third, the words "created" and "made" are used interchangeably throughout the Old Testament. The following is from an article about the Gap Theory, but describes the Hebrew words in question: A great emphasis was placed on the distinction between "created" and "formed" or "made." To create, it was said, means to bring into existence, out of nothing, that which never before existed. The fact that the words "formed" and "made" are used throughout Genesis 1 was supposed to imply that God was fashioning things out of material that already existed, having been created in verse 1. This is a misunderstanding of the word "create." In Hebrew it is the word bara. While it is used to describe bringing into existence out of nothing, it is not limited to that meaning, nor is it the only word to be used that way. It is used in Isaiah 65:18 referring to a restored Jerusalem, and it is translated as "cut down" in the sense of clearing out and developing the land, in Joshua 17:15 and 18. The Hebrew word asah is translated "made" but it can be used interchangeably with bara, create. Both words are used to describe God's work. Genesis 2:4 reads, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created [bara], in the day that the LORD God made [asah] the earth and the heavens." In Exodus 20:11 we read, "For in six days the LORD made [asah] heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day..." The word asah ("made") is also used to describe God's act of creation in the following verses: Exodus 20:11; II Kings 19:15; II Chronicles 2:12; Nehemiah 9:6; Psalms 33:6; 96:5; 115:15; 121:2; 124:8; 134:3; 136:5; 146:6; Proverbs 8:26; Ecclesiastes 3:11; Isaiah 37:16; 44:24; 45:12, 18; Jeremiah 10:12; 27:5; 32:17; 51:15. Interestingly, three words are used referring to the heavens and earth in Isaiah 45:18. "For thus saith the LORD that created [bara] the heavens; God himself that formed [yatsar] the earth and made [asah] it; he hath established it, he created [bara] it not in vain, he formed [yatsar] it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else." The same three words are used in Isaiah 43:7. "Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created [bara] him for my glory, I have formed [yatsar] him; yea, I have made [asah] him." I was taught that it would not have used three different words unless there were three things being referred to. (Ironically, the same ministry taught about figures of speech in which more than one word referring to the same thing was used for emphasis.) They said that God formed man's body, made his soul, and created his spirit. However Genesis 1:26 says, "...Let us make [asah] man in our image, after our likeness." They said that God's likeness was spirit (which they said was created), yet this verse says God made man in His image. Then verse 27 says, "So God created [bara] man in his own image, in the image of God created [bara] he him; male and female created [bara] he them." Both asah and bara are used to describe making man in God's image. Plus, He "created" them "male and female," so bara can't be used exclusively of the spirit of God in man, as I was taught. As you can see, the words are interchangeable. The explanation went that the spirit was the part of man that allowed him to communicate with God, and when man sinned he lost that spirit and therefore the communication with God. After that man was only body and soul. When a Christian is born again and receives holy spirit, that third part is restored to him once again. This was the theory we all heard in PFAL, but there is nothing like it in the Bible. According to the Hebrew Scriptures, man doesn't so much "have" a soul, but rather "is" a soul, that is, a living being. The following is from an article about the State of the Dead on my web site: Genesis 2:7 - "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath [nashamah] of life [chai]; and man became a living [chai] soul [nephesh]." So the soul (nephesh) is not the "breath of life" that made man alive. Two Hebrew words that are both translated either "breath" or "spirit" are nashamah and ruach. They are used interchangeably in the English phrase, "breath of life," in the different places where it occurs. Nashamah is used in Genesis 2:7 and 7:22, while ruach is used in Genesis 6:17 and 7:15. So the "breath of life" is the spirit or life force that makes man and animals alive. God breathed into man's nostrils the spirit of life and man became a living soul. Notice it does not say that God put a soul in man. It says man became a living soul. The word "soul" is nephesh in Hebrew and it means simply a conscious being animated by breath life. Animals are described as "living souls" as well. In Genesis 1:21 and 24, the phrase "living creature" (chai nephesh in Hebrew) is literally a living soul. In Genesis 1:20 the phrase "the moving creature that hath life" is translated "swarms of living creatures" in other versions (RSV, NRSV, NASB). Even the New King James Version (NKJV) says, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures." A soul is a living creature. But a soul can also be dead. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die" (Ezekiel 18: 4 and 20). When people died, they would be called dead souls (Leviticus 21:11; Numbers 6:6; 9:6,7,10; 19:11,13; and other places, where the word nephesh occurs, although it is translated "body" in most English versions). There are some cases where it is said that a person "has" soul, but it is in the sense of having life, not in the sense of his soul being a distinct part of him that can be separated. The word soul is also used in a variety of other ways referring to a person's life ("as my soul liveth") or to the person himself ("I said to my soul..." means "I said to myself" or "My soul desires it" means "I myself desire it"). But the thing that must be emphasized here is that the word soul is never used as an entity that is housed in a body and released to live on at death. Such an idea was not a part of Hebrew thinking in Old Testament times. This is also true of the Greek word psuche in its Biblical usage (though not in the secular use of the word). Psuche is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word nephesh. Nigel Turner writes the following in Christian Words (T&T Clark): We must concede that the Biblical Greek psuche means "physical life" ... Alongside this conception...there appears in Biblical Greek the meaning "person"...the life of man, his will, emotions, and above all, his "self." If a man gained all the world only to lose his psuche (soul), it represents a loss of himself--not a part of him. When there were added to the church about 3000 psuchai (Acts 2:41), whole men were added. The fear coming upon every psuche was upon every person (Acts 2:43). Every psuche must be subject to the state (Rom. 13:1), and so throughout the New Testament (Acts 3:23; Romans 2:9; I Corinthians 15:45; I Peter 3:20; II Peter 2:14; Revelation 16:3). Another example that can be added to that list is Revelation 20:4, which refers to "the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus." This does not refer to disembodied souls, as many understand this passage. It simply refers to those persons who had been beheaded, and it is describing them being raised, to live and reign with Christ. Verse 6 refers to this as a resurrection, implying that they were dead, not previously existing in a disembodied state. We saw from Genesis 2:7 that man became a living soul when he was infused with the breath of life. This breath, or spirit, of life is common to man and animals. (Not to be confused with the spirit of God, which is the same Hebrew word, ruach, but identified as God's spirit in the context.) Animals are identified as having the breath or spirit of life in Genesis 7:15. "And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath (ruach) of life (chai)." Both man and animals have a common fate, according to Ecclesiastes. Ecclesiastes 3: 19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath [ruach]; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. 20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. 21 Who knoweth the spirit [ruach] of man that goeth upward, and the spirit [ruach] of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? Verse 21 is sometimes misread as a description of man going to heaven when he dies. Chapter 12, verse 7 is similarly misread. Ecclesiastes 12: 7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit [ruach] shall return unto God who gave it. Does this verse say that man goes to heaven when he dies? Proper understanding of this verse depends on understanding the definition of spirit. It is not referring to man's consciousness, nor is it speaking of his soul (in the sense of his life). It is the "breath of life," the life force that makes him alive. Remember that God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul. That life force was added to a body and it became a living creature. Death can be seen as the reverse of this process. When a soul dies, the breath is gone ("he took his last breath"). The body returns to the earth, and the life force returns to God who gave it. But this life force is not man's consciousness. If it were, then all living creatures would be said to go to God at death, whether saved or unsaved. This would even contradict the other fundamental doctrines of those who profess to believe in conscious life for believers in heaven after death. TWI's understanding of body, soul, and spirit was foundational to understanding both the nature of man, and the idea that man lost one part (spirit) when he sinned, and regains it as "his" holy spirit at the new birth. Since the definitions of soul and spirit were not Biblical, a whole new rethinking of the new birth and the Holy Spirit field is necessary. In the next post I'll demonstrate what I believe is the Bible's definition of God's Holy Spirit.