TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

First, look at what this passage really has to say, by noting the context which it says it is addressing:

“Have this in your mind, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, didn’t consider it robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, yes, the death of the cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him, and gave to him the name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, those on earth, and those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. So then, my beloved, even as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (Philippians 2:5–12)

This passage begins by telling us how we are to think: “Have this in your mind.” The main topic of the passage, according to the passage, is our attitude regarding our position before God. The passage uses Christ as an example for us to help us understand what is to be in our minds. The apostle reiterates that purpose in the conclusion in verse 12. This he begins by saying, “So then…”, which, in the Greek, is a conjunction, coordinating and inferential, linking the next passage as a parallel thought with the one previous. By this phrase, he links all that was said about what was in “the mind of Christ” to what he says next. “So then…as you have always obeyed…now…work out your own salvation…” (Philippians 2:12). To paraphrase, it is primarily saying to us, “here’s how you are to think of yourself: the way Christ thought of himself.”

Obviously, none of us consciously remembers being in heaven and thinking, “Being as I am God, I am going to become a human in order to show how submissive to God I can be.” But that false statement is exactly what some Trinitarians want us to believe Christ was thinking. Actually, the inherently stated purpose of the passage, how we are to think of ourselves, refutes the Trinitarian interpretation.

The next thing it says is that Jesus found himself “in the form of God.” What it does not say is, “Jesus Christ being God…” Thus, Trinitarians attempt to force it to mean something that it refutes. Trinitarians assume that Jesus Christ was always God, and therefore, in their view, the passage means “Jesus Christ is God.” But, because it specifically is about Jesus the anointed one, it is saying, “…Anointed (gifted) Jesus who in form of God,” therefore it is first denying from him inherent deity by first designating the one being spoken of as the anointed/gifted one. Trinitarians have to first impose a completely bogus meaning to the word “Christ” in order to ignore who the Bible is referring to.

Next, remember that whatever Jesus was thinking is also what we are to think of ourselves. If we force an interpretation on this phrase that means Jesus was a coequal and co-substantial (same-substance) being with God the Father, then the verse is admonishing us to think of ourselves as coequal and co-substantial beings with God the Father. But the passage is not saying that. It says Jesus was thinking this while being “in the form of” God. It does not say that he was thinking this simply “as” God. There are perfectly good biblical reasons why Jesus could think of himself as being in the form of God without jumping to Trinitarian conclusions.

The best context for interpreting what is meant by Jesus “being in the form of God” is Jesus’ own interpretation. For Jesus, it would have meant in the context of the Jews, who stood in judgment and authority when they stood as representatives of God’s law.

“The Jews answered him, ‘We don’t stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy: because you, being a man, make yourself God.’
“Jesus answered them, ‘Isn’t it written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods?’ If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture can’t be broken), do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God?’ If I don’t do the works of my Father, don’t believe me. But if I do them, though you don’t believe me, believe the works; that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.’” (John 10:24–38)

It is incredulous to me how many people claim that these Jews clearly understood what Jesus was saying of himself. Is it not ever so clear that Jesus was correcting them in their confusion and their jumping to false conclusions? Here the Jews asked Jesus to tell them plainly who he was. Jesus said he had told them, but they didn’t believe him. So it wasn’t that he didn’t plainly tell them, it’s that they didn’t believe what he had said about himself. Apparently, some people just don’t want to hear what Jesus says in explanation of himself.

Jesus said that he had told them who he was. Five chapters previously the Jews had taken up stones to kill Jesus because he had both broken the Sabbath and made himself equal to God. Here is Jesus’ explanation of himself to the Jews wherein, as he said, he had told them plainly who he was:

“Jesus therefore answered them, ‘Most assuredly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things He does, these the Son also does likewise. For the Father has affection for the Son, and shows him all things that He Himself does. He will show him greater works than these, that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom he desires. For the Father judges no one, but He has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who doesn’t honor the Son doesn’t honor the Father who sent him.’” (John 5:19–23)

Here, in saying he could do nothing of himself, Jesus refuted, in the clearest of terms, the Jew’s false conclusion that he was equal to God. An all-powerful God could not claim to have no personal power. But Jesus just did just that. He didn’t say he was limited insofar as his human nature was concerned; he was referring, absolutely clearly, to “himself.” Yet people won’t believe this, even though it is what Jesus says of himself. Instead, Jesus attributed all deity that he manifested upon the Father that was working in and through him.

Jesus was also in the form of God as the rightful heir of King David’s throne, the human Son of David (but I’m not going to go into that here).

There is yet one other biblical context through which the passage could be interpreted.

This biblical concept conforms to the two already provided while adding a little more depth of understanding. When God made man He made man in His image, and in doing so, God gave man dominion, which means rule and domination over the rest of creation.

“God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion…’ God created man in His own image. In God’s image He created him…” (Genesis 1:26–27)

In the book of Romans, Paul taught, “that to whom you present yourselves as servants to obedience, his servants you are whom you obey; whether of sin to death, or of obedience to righteousness” (Romans 6:16). God had given Adam and Eve dominion over all things, including over the serpent, when He created them. When Adam and Eve submitted to the serpent, they gave up their God-given dominion to the serpent. That is, they turned God’s divine order of authority upside down. On the other hand, Jesus never relinquished his God-given dominion to anyone. Rather, Jesus took responsibility for it and acted upon it in a righteous manner. This is the whole point of the passage in Philippians. Jesus’ attitude in finding himself in the form of God was that he didn’t think it was stealing from God to wield that authority. After all, it was God who gave him all authority. But he still recognized that the true God, the Father, still had authority over him.

Adam, on the other hand, seems to have held a different attitude than Jesus. In his mind, having dominion meant he could ignore God’s laws. This attitude enabled him to act contrary to God, using his own opinions (though they were really the serpent’s opinions). Jesus’ attitude was completely opposite Adam’s. Jesus, as the second Adam, humbled himself to God’s will. This is the opposite of what the worldly mind thinks “being in the form of God” should mean. Whereas the worldly mind thinks, “If I’m in control, I’m going to do things my way,” Jesus had the better way. He determined not to make himself a reputation. Instead, he made himself a servant to God and mankind. It was just this kind of thinking that God foresaw and foreordained in Jesus. It was that kind of thinking that God loved Jesus for. And it was that attitude for which God exalted him. Thus, Philippians continues by saying, in verse 9, “Therefore God also highly exalted him.”

We see, then, that Paul was simply reiterating biblical teachings in Philippians. Jesus’ thinking of himself in the form of God is how we should expect Christ to think of himself as the second Adam. As the second Adam, he was created with the same dominion as the first Adam.

“So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’ The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However that which is spiritual isn’t first, but that which is natural, then that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, made of dust. The second man is50 from heaven.” (1 Corinthians 15:45–47)

The idea of Christ as second Adam aligns perfectly with the proclamation that God explicitly made Jesus Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). There are no biblical grounds for interpreting Philippians in a way that assigns Jesus preexistent deity. To interpret the passage as if the word “form” was not there and imply it means Jesus simply was “being…God” would be to tamper with the Bible.

There is, then, no reason to believe this wasn’t the type of “form of God” that Paul had in mind in Philippians 2:6. The main purpose of the passage is to teach us how we are to think. Trinitarians jump to the conclusion, like the Jews did in John 10 above, that this passage is primarily meant to explain Christ’s pre-human God-Person choosing to be incarnated. That idea has no real parallel to the way we could realistically think of ourselves.

Now, in this light, let’s look at how Philippians 2:5–12 could be loosely paraphrased in Trinitarian terms. Or, perhaps I should say, how it should have been written were it meant to support the Trinity doctrine.

“Here’s how you’re supposed to think, like Jesus, who, was actually God, but then he emptied himself of a few of his divine abilities and thus pretended to be a human for a little while, because, as we all know he didn’t really stop being God. Then, because he was so good at being human, he (after all, He’s God as much as the other persons of the Trinity are God) highly exalted himself above every other human. Therefore we are to obey him, like he obeyed himself (since all the members of the coequal Trinity act inseparably), so God can glorify us also.” (Philippians 2:5–12, Tom’s Trinitarian paraphrase)

In case it isn’t glaringly obvious, my point is that the Trinitarian interpretation of Philippians hardly paints a picture either of a humble deity or of a truly human being exalted because he humbled himself. In short, Trinitarianism makes a complete mockery not only of the passage itself, but also of Jesus’ true and actual humility and submission to God’s will.

Perhaps an analogy will better explain the point. Here is a parable of how a Trinitarian conception of Philippians 2:5–9 would look in another scene:

“Once upon a time an accomplished and professional architect named Frank Lloyd Wright (not his real name) jumped into a sandbox with a bunch of four-year-olds. Upon getting into the box, he claimed he was just like them. After all, he had left all his drafting tools and CAD programs at the office. Then he proceeded to build the most marvelous sandcastle any of them had ever seen. Finally, after having compared his masterful achievement to the meager accomplishments of the four-year-olds, he proclaimed himself master architect over them all. And for that we should all hold him in wonder and awe for what a great job he did in the sandbox of the four-year-olds.”

Do you see how superfluous it would be for the architect to claim greatness by this stunt? He neither proved anything in the sandbox, nor changed anything. He just made himself a buffoon for pretending to be something much less than he was. Then he exalted himself for overcoming what was never an obstacle for him. He was never challenged by surpassing the abilities of those far inferior to him. This is why the Trinitarian dogma makes an utter sham out of Jesus’ life. In truth, Jesus lived his life as a fully human being with all the attendant limitations. For that he was exalted by God.

Continued in Part Two

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Part Two

Now let’s re-imagine the parable the other way. This time we’ll see the same parable in a way that reflects what Philippians 2 is really saying.

“Once upon a time there was a four-year-old boy named Jesus. He jumped into a sandbox to play with some friends and ended up building a sandcastle. It turned out far superior than any grown and accomplished architect had ever been able to do. And how did he manage that? Well, he listened exactly to the instructions of the Chief Architect of the Inter-Galactic Architect’s Association. If you can imagine it, this was a much greater architect than even F.L. Wright. The Architect instructed him in every move and every step he made. The only real difference Jesus had from the others was the humble resolve to yield to the Chief Architect’s guidance. So then because of his utter submission to the Architect’s will and direction, little four-year-old Jesus built that sandcastle into a thing of beauty. Not only was it structurally marvelous, it was also a beautiful work of art. For being humble enough to listen and follow instructions from a true authority, the Chief Architect made him the lead architect over all. The reward included a place at the Architect’s company right at his own desk. But, even though both the Architect and the boy told everyone exactly how he did it, everyone still said he either used magic or had cheated, and the Chief Architect really had done it all for him.”

Now, how hard is that to understand and accept?

Comparing the two parables makes it easy to see what the Trinitarian Jesus really looks like. They picture a Jesus who wasn’t truly made like us in all things. They picture a Jesus who could never really have separated himself from deity to become as human as the Bible describes him. In their view of the incarnation, the Trinitarians have a god who had to pretend to be something he’s not (human). And the reason he pretended to be something he’s not was to show us what we are supposed to be like. But how can we be something we’re not, in imitation of him, when he had to be something he’s not in order to show us what to be? That’s what they are saying when they say he was a man but was fully aware of his eternal deific self-awareness at the same time. When any one of us can claim we are fully aware of our eternal self-awareness of deity, then there might be some truth in claiming Jesus was made just like us. The Trinity is full of contradictions like this. It is also full of shell games like this. They say they believe in his full humanity, but then claim he still kept his deific self-awareness.

The humanity of the Trinitarian Jesus, at best, can only influence reactions from his God-Person. His humanity is only external to his person; it is not the source of his person. In this way, the Trinitarian view of Jesus actually portrays an inhuman or other-than-human model. In Trinitarianism, Jesus is the sum of an inner God-Person joined to an impersonal human nature. The human nature does not supply personality at all. That personal inner deity that Trinitarians insist on is what we would also need to have the mind of the Trinitarian Christ. This is not the simple Jesus of the Bible. And, as most Christians know, that is not what Christianity teaches. Rather, that is precisely what the occult teaches. Thus, the Trinitarian model of Christ is ultimately the anti-Christian model of Christ.

Today’s Gnostics argue that their claim to the Trinity is older than so-called orthodox Christians. Where so-called orthodox Christians have been developing their Trinity, Gnostics were always Trinitarian. As you read the quote below, notice how the Gnostic gospels change the meaning of Jesus’ “you are gods” statement. In the Bible, God called them gods unto whom the word of God came. But the Gnostics turn this into their own personal, inherent, and immanent deity. They literally are gods! Thus, the Gnostic view of their God-man is a model for their view of themselves as also deific. From this we can see the Gnostic origin of the “dual nature” doctrine that the Trinitarians adopted.

“One of the common questions we receive as Gnostics is ‘Why do you espouse the doctrine of the Christian Trinity?’ To answer this question we have only to listen to the voices of the early Gnostics themselves…The Gnostic scriptures of the Nag Hammadi collection are filled with Trinitarian expressions of God…We can state quite emphatically that we, as Gnostics, are Trinitarians…
“Whereas the mainstream Church has spent nearly two thousand years developing a dogma of the Trinity, Gnostics have always approached the Trinity as an archetypal symbol and a mystery…
“In the Gospel of John, Jesus proclaims to the multitudes, ‘Ye are gods!’ In the Acts of John he again exclaims, ‘Know ye not that ye are all angels, all archangels, gods and lords, all rulers, all great invisibles; that ye are all, of yourselves and in yourselves in turn, from one mass and one mixture and one substance!’ If we can accept that we are both divine and human, then it is not such a great stretch to conceive of Jesus as an exemplary of that dual nature. God is manifest in the mystery figure of Jesus, as in ourselves…” Steven Marshall, http://www.gnosis.org/ecclesia/homily_Trinity.htm

Anti-Christian Gnostics were the first Trinitarians. They are the ones who first used the pagan “one-substance” doctrine to define Christ—and themselves! It is Gnostic and anti-Christian to have the “mind of Christ” of one-substance, as in Trinitarianism.

Jesus did not say that he viewed himself as deity. Rather, that anti-Christian idea contradicts what Jesus did say. Jesus said that the Father gave him all these things, so that he did nothing of himself. He also said that the Father himself testified to this truth. According to Jesus he did not take anything upon himself. Rather, he said that God gave him everything (John 5:19–23, 36, 12:50, 14:10; Matthew 28:18). Thus, the testimony given by Jesus about himself is hardly of Jesus emptying himself or refusing to lean on his personal inherent deity. Rather, what it states in Philippians is that he found himself in the form of God. That, biblically, is because from birth he was anointed by God to be David’s heir.

The reason Jesus was exalted was just exactly as Philippians 2 said. Finding himself in the form of God, he thought it not robbery to be equal to God, and therefore, he humbled himself as a servant and became obedient to death. That is the sole and explicit reason in this passage and the rest of the Bible for why he, the human, was exalted. Because God planned for him to do this, and because God foresaw that he would indeed accomplish this, God built the world by, for, and through this man, this Jesus.

When we decide to hear Jesus rather than jumping to conclusions, we find Jesus speaking just as plainly as Paul did in Philippians about the reason why God exalted him. Paul’s passage in Philippians was a correct reiteration of what Jesus had said.

“Even as the Father has loved me, I also have loved you. Remain in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and remain in His love.” (John 15:9–10)

Again Jesus said,

“Therefore the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down by myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. I received this commandment from my Father.” (John 10:17–18)

If this is the Trinitarian Jesus, he is, yet again, lying to cover up the Trinitarian gospel. In the Trinitarian gospel, the Father can’t help but love the Son. That is because in the Trinitarian view, the relationship between the Father and Son is not based on the Son’s actions whatsoever. Rather, it is based solely on the theory that they share the same substance, and they supposedly shared their love for all eternity, past and future. There was never a time the Trinitarian Jesus could have not been loved by the Father. The eternal persons of the Trinity loved each other regardless of whether Jesus went to the cross or not. To the contrary, Jesus is telling us here that the Father loves him because he lays down his life. Jesus could never have laid down his life in heaven before creation. So Jesus is either lying or exaggerating to the point of deception. Neither of these would be at all comely for one who calls himself the truth.

On the other hand, the Biblical Jesus preached the whole truth. The biblical Jesus said, “I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me does His works” (John 14:10). That is scriptural truth. That is the Jesus who isn’t supposed to be changed. He is a completely human, self-aware Jesus with the one God the Father dwelling in him. God the Father works through the fully human being as His bodily temple. And for being so submitted to the Father, he was exalted above all.

“7Your divine throne is everlasting; your royal scepter is a scepter of equity. 8You love righteousness and hate wickedness; rightly has God, your God, chosen to anoint you with oil of gladness over all your peers.” Psalm 45:7-8 (Tanakh)

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Nicely done...

I still enjoy the analogy

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Clear as day for those who want to hear what the Bible says rather than impose gnostic ideas by which to interpret it through.

Thank you my friend!

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

I agree... Especially if we start from the beginning of the verse rather than from the mid-point...

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

"Any text without a context is a pretext for a proof-text" -author?

Trinitarians seem all too willing to forget that the "context" of the whole New Testament is the Old Testament; not pagan philosophy or Gnostic dual natures, and trinity, and the like.

"You worship that which you don't know. We worship that which we know; for salvation is from the Jews." John 4:22

"23But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, confined for the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24So that the law has become our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." Galatians 3:23-25

These two passages alone refute a whole lot of Trinitarian "proof-texting".

manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA

==============================================
What happened to the Holy Spirit?

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

What happened to the spirit is a good question.

What I presume you are really asking is, "what happened to the spirit who was not officially promoted to his own individual personhood until the council of Constantinople in 381 AD, which was held by murderous, politically motivated, philosophically-minded, "clergymen" under the presidency of the Emperor of Rome, who was the legal heir of Satan’s throne on earth? You mean that "Spirit"?

“The Council of Constantinople [381AD] also declared finally the Trinitarian doctrine of the equality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son.” https://www.britannica.com/event/First-Council-of-Constantinople-381

“The biggest change they made to the creed from Nicaea was to extend the article about the Holy Spirit: In 325 the bishops had merely noted, “and [we believe] in the Holy Spirit.” But in 381 they added the wonderful language calling the Spirit “the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.
“That language makes it clear that the Spirit is God, is ranked with the Father and the Son but is another person in distinction from them, and is one of the Trinity. But why didn’t the bishops assembled there use the word “homoousios” to assert the deity of the Spirit? Gregory of Nazianzus, who chaired the council for part of the time, argued that they should do so. But the consensus view was that the deity of the Spirit should be confessed in different terms. The inescapable fact that the Spirit is of one essence with the Father is not stated in those terms here. A longer ending was also added to the creed to make it a more comprehensive statement of faith quite comparable with the Apostle’s Creed.”
http://scriptoriumdaily.com/christ-and-the-spirit-at-constantinople-in-381/

As should be clear, they were still hammering out the doctrine, even in 381 AD!

It is thus, a man-made idol.

Jesus said you would know them by their fruit.

Have you not read this:

"1Dare any of you, having a matter against his neighbor, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? 2Don't you know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3Don't you know that we will judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? 4If then, you have to judge things pertaining to this life, do you set them to judge who are of no account in the assembly? 5I say this to move you to shame. Isn't there even one wise man among you who would be able to decide between his brothers? 6But brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers!
7Therefore it is already altogether a defect in you, that you have lawsuits one with another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? 8No, but [b]you yourselves do wrong[2b], and defraud, and that against your brothers." 1 Corinthians 6:1-8

Not only did the Trinitarians do wrong in going to the secular government (i.e. Constantine) to preside over the judgment of the case between Arius and Athanasius and their two conflicting trinitarian views, but they just happened to allow Satan's legal heir on earth to preside over the councils that determined and defined the Trinity doctrine and established it as a legally binding dogma that naysayers would be excommunicated, exiled, and even put to death for not believing!

How can any right-thinking Christian believe that is or was the way to arrive at biblical truth???

Once the Trinitarian priests had gone to Constantine, they began all manner of injustices against each other. The history of the period is full of scandals. but of course, hopefully at least being embarrassed by them, Trinitarians don't publicize them. But you'd be shocked at how nefarious they were...just like today’s politicians backstabbing and underhanded politics, riots, murders, you name it! And when they are confronted with the evil fruits of the framers of the Trinity doctrine, Trinitarians are dismissive, as if the ends justify the means. No, the amorality of the Trinitarians who defined the doctrine is just more evidence of its amorality. God is the one who determines morality and God's first commandment is that God is one He (not three "them"). Read Richard Rubinstein's book: "When Jesus Became God" for a good education on the complete lack of morals of these degenerates who gave you "the Trinity doctrine". These are the degenerates who elevated the Spirit to a coequal person in the godhead as one of their "crowning achievements".

By their fruits you shall know them!

Beware of people who are more infatuated with the religion men have created than they are of the God they claim to worship and follow.

Or do you mean what is the Biblical Holy Spirit?

Probably one of, but certainly not the only, embarrasing teaching in the Bible to the Trinitarians is the event of Jesus’ birth:

“Joseph, son of David, don't be afraid to take to yourself Mary, your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” Matthew 1:20

“The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.” Luke 1:35

As is obvious to anyone without severe bias toward the trinity, the Father of Jesus can’t be a separate person from the Spirit of God, or God the Father wasn’t the one who actually “fathered” Jesus. Oh, I’m sure they have excuses and explanations, but they are just that, man-made excuses and explanations that make the word of God of no effect.

=================
From Trinity Delusion site:

The Holy Spirit is the Father's Spirit

“And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out MY Spirit upon all flesh.” (Acts 2:17).

“He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through HIS Spirit in the inner man.” (Ephesians 3:16).

“By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of HIS Spirit.” (1 John 4:13).

“Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put MY Spirit upon him.” (Matthew 12:18).

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit OF God the Father

“When they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not worry about how or what you are to speak in your defense, or what you are to say; for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say." (Luke 12:11-12).
“But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say. For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.” (Matthew 10:19-20).

“Just as nobody would say the spirit of Elijah is another person separate from Elijah we should not say the Spirit of God is another person separate from God the Father. Just as nobody would say their own spirit is not themselves but someone else, nobody should say the Holy Spirit of God the Father is another someone else.”

John 4:24 - God is Spirit

“At John 4:24, we read that God is Spirit.

“You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But an hour is coming, and now is, when the True worshipers will worship [b]the Father in Spirit and Truth; for such people [b]the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in Spirit and Truth. (John 4:22-24).

http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/articles/SpiritFather.html
=================

I rarely simply quote from someone else’s site like this, but this is one of those rare times where brother Kel’s info is readily available.

Like I quoted in my last post, we must remember that Christianity began from Judaism. It was not meant to be a "merger" of Jewish thought and pagan philosophy. That is what the Trinity represents. The reason it took the Trinitarian scoundrels up to 381 AD to develop to the point of the Holy Spirit being a complete coequal person is because that concept didn’t exist in either Biblical monotheism (Jewish or Christian) nor in platonism nor even in mythology. Trinitarians are completely guilty on their own of manufacturing their own new “god” to bow down and worship.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Thanks.. I have always understood the Holy Spirit as God's spirit... But I had no idea where the Trinitarian view of it came from.... Probably shouldn't be surprised...

Good information

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

You’re welcome!

It’s by no means benign!

Really, read Rubenstein’s book! Those folks were scoundrels but to Trinitarians they are “heroes of the faith“! Not the true faith though! Today’s Trinitarians don’t even know the likes of who they are defending!

manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA

[quote=TommyRadd]What happened to the spirit is a good question.

What I presume you are really asking is, "what happened to the spirit who was not officially promoted to his own individual personhood until the council of Constantinople in 381 AD, which was held by murderous, politically motivated, philosophically-minded, "clergymen" under the presidency of the Emperor of Rome, who was the legal heir of Satan’s throne on earth? You mean that "Spirit"?

“The Council of Constantinople [381AD] also declared finally the Trinitarian doctrine of the equality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son.” https://www.britannica.com/event/First-Council-of-Constantinople-381

“The biggest change they made to the creed from Nicaea was to extend the article about the Holy Spirit: In 325 the bishops had merely noted, “and [we believe] in the Holy Spirit.” But in 381 they added the wonderful language calling the Spirit “the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.
“That language makes it clear that the Spirit is God, is ranked with the Father and the Son but is another person in distinction from them, and is one of the Trinity. But why didn’t the bishops assembled there use the word “homoousios” to assert the deity of the Spirit? Gregory of Nazianzus, who chaired the council for part of the time, argued that they should do so. But the consensus view was that the deity of the Spirit should be confessed in different terms. The inescapable fact that the Spirit is of one essence with the Father is not stated in those terms here. A longer ending was also added to the creed to make it a more comprehensive statement of faith quite comparable with the Apostle’s Creed.”
http://scriptoriumdaily.com/christ-and-the-spirit-at-constantinople-in-381/

As should be clear, they were still hammering out the doctrine, even in 381 AD!

It is thus, a man-made idol.

Jesus said you would know them by their fruit.

Have you not read this:

"1Dare any of you, having a matter against his neighbor, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? 2Don't you know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3Don't you know that we will judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? 4If then, you have to judge things pertaining to this life, do you set them to judge who are of no account in the assembly? 5I say this to move you to shame. Isn't there even one wise man among you who would be able to decide between his brothers? 6But brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers!
7Therefore it is already altogether a defect in you, that you have lawsuits one with another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? 8No, but [b]you yourselves do wrong[2b], and defraud, and that against your brothers." 1 Corinthians 6:1-8

Not only did the Trinitarians do wrong in going to the secular government (i.e. Constantine) to preside over the judgment of the case between Arius and Athanasius and their two conflicting trinitarian views, but they just happened to allow Satan's legal heir on earth to preside over the councils that determined and defined the Trinity doctrine and established it as a legally binding dogma that naysayers would be excommunicated, exiled, and even put to death for not believing!

How can any right-thinking Christian believe that is or was the way to arrive at biblical truth???

Once the Trinitarian priests had gone to Constantine, they began all manner of injustices against each other. The history of the period is full of scandals. but of course, hopefully at least being embarrassed by them, Trinitarians don't publicize them. But you'd be shocked at how nefarious they were...just like today’s politicians backstabbing and underhanded politics, riots, murders, you name it! And when they are confronted with the evil fruits of the framers of the Trinity doctrine, Trinitarians are dismissive, as if the ends justify the means. No, the amorality of the Trinitarians who defined the doctrine is just more evidence of its amorality. God is the one who determines morality and God's first commandment is that God is one He (not three "them"). Read Richard Rubinstein's book: "When Jesus Became God" for a good education on the complete lack of morals of these degenerates who gave you "the Trinity doctrine". These are the degenerates who elevated the Spirit to a coequal person in the godhead as one of their "crowning achievements".

By their fruits you shall know them!

Beware of people who are more infatuated with the religion men have created than they are of the God they claim to worship and follow.

Or do you mean what is the Biblical Holy Spirit?

Probably one of, but certainly not the only, embarrasing teaching in the Bible to the Trinitarians is the event of Jesus’ birth:

“Joseph, son of David, don't be afraid to take to yourself Mary, your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” Matthew 1:20

“The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.” Luke 1:35

As is obvious to anyone without severe bias toward the trinity, the Father of Jesus can’t be a separate person from the Spirit of God, or God the Father wasn’t the one who actually “fathered” Jesus. Oh, I’m sure they have excuses and explanations, but they are just that, man-made excuses and explanations that make the word of God of no effect.

=================
From Trinity Delusion site:

The Holy Spirit is the Father's Spirit

“And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out MY Spirit upon all flesh.” (Acts 2:17).

“He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through HIS Spirit in the inner man.” (Ephesians 3:16).

“By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of HIS Spirit.” (1 John 4:13).

“Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put MY Spirit upon him.” (Matthew 12:18).

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit OF God the Father

“When they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not worry about how or what you are to speak in your defense, or what you are to say; for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say." (Luke 12:11-12).
“But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say. For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.” (Matthew 10:19-20).

“Just as nobody would say the spirit of Elijah is another person separate from Elijah we should not say the Spirit of God is another person separate from God the Father. Just as nobody would say their own spirit is not themselves but someone else, nobody should say the Holy Spirit of God the Father is another someone else.”

John 4:24 - God is Spirit

“At John 4:24, we read that God is Spirit.

“You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But an hour is coming, and now is, when the True worshipers will worship [b]the Father in Spirit and Truth; for such people [b]the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in Spirit and Truth. (John 4:22-24).

http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/articles/SpiritFather.html
=================

I rarely simply quote from someone else’s site like this, but this is one of those rare times where brother Kel’s info is readily available.

Like I quoted in my last post, we must remember that Christianity began from Judaism. It was not meant to be a "merger" of Jewish thought and pagan philosophy. That is what the Trinity represents. The reason it took the Trinitarian scoundrels up to 381 AD to develop to the point of the Holy Spirit being a complete coequal person is because that concept didn’t exist in either Biblical monotheism (Jewish or Christian) nor in platonism nor even in mythology. Trinitarians are completely guilty on their own of manufacturing their own new “god” to bow down and worship.[/quote]

====================================

Thank you for your consumate answer. My early Episcopal teaching had The Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost as a trinity. It is easy for me to elide to a variation of this where
The Father (God) had two other modes of presenting Himself: As His Son, and also as His Spirit. Each mode has a role to play in bringing men and women to Christ. How this fits within your concepts I cannot imagine, but there are a total of three modes in this idea: God as God, God as Son= Jesus, and God as the Holy Spirit. That is how I think of them. What say you?

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

It sounds like you lean more to Modalistic Monarchianism than Trinity. I was a modalist for some 25 years or so.

Then two things happened. First, I read John 5 and really heard Jesus tell me he could do nothing of himself, twice (verses 19 & 30)! And then, I read Irenaeus say that the antichristians invented the doctrine of dual natures, which he called blasphemous, and said that was the reason John wrote against the antichristians in the first place.

Then I kept studying and found more scriptures and historic evidence confirming what I was seeing.

Here, in my words, is what I consider some of the most profound things I’ve discovered.

God’s power is shown in the fact that He chose one certain man that would be His son, and would be the man He would use to save all who will. And then He set creation in motion anticipating the arrival of His son.

Jesus’ regalness is shown in the fact that he lived as a man from cradle to grave always living in his Father’s will. It doesn’t sound too hard until you realize not only that everyone else has failed, but that so many have tried and still fail, myself included! Every time I stumble and fall makes Jesus that much more worthy to me to be my lord!

And here’s something I never really understood as an Incarnationist: God calls things that are not as though they were because He dwells in eternity, not time. When we have faith in Him, like Abraham did, we join with God in His foreknowledge of the future that God has planned. This is why Hebrews 11 says Abraham and other saints of faith, looked for a city whose builder and maker is God. This is why “faith” is so important to God as a fruit of the spirit: because that kind of faith is how we emulate God’s trait of foreknowledge.

To me, that’s just mind blowing!

All incarnation theories pervert this in one way or another.

Mostly they make Jesus’ overcoming into a sham, because if he was God incarnate then he never could have been tempted in all things like us. If he was God incarnate then his whole life was merely self-fulfilled prophecy.

The opposite of “faith” isn’t “legalism” as some want to think. The opposite is actually humanism: when mankind decides to do things their way rather than God’s way. When Abraham went in to Hagar and begat Ishmael, that was a “type” of humanism, which the Bible calls “of the flesh”.

These are the only two “ways”, “faith” or “humanism”.

I hope this makes sense.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

I loved it

Did you get my PM?

manning5 Loc: Richmond, VA

=========================================

Well I have no idea what Modalistic Monarchianism is all about, but it sounds interesting. I will have to look that up. My problem seems to be too simplistic a view of these matters. If MM means thatGod can organize things to suit His purposes, and can simultaneously be anything He wants to be, and Man has little understanding of His ways in all things, I can believe that. He is Omni-this,that, and the other. I do believe He can operate in ways we would see as contradictions, or logical impossibilities.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Well, miracles are a form of logical impossibilities.

But saying God can operate in ways we would see as contradictions is too often used as a lead in to say God can do or can be something He has specifically spoken against.

If God’s first commandment in time was don’t eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, “could” that mean He really meant eating of it would make people as gods?

If God’s first commandment in importance is “the Lord our God is one Lord and you shall worship HIM with all your heart...” “could” that mean God really meant He was a “three them” and we are to understand Him in a way He commanded us against? What kind of a God would that be?

He could only be understood as meaning the opposite of what He said in both instances if we use the same faulty reasoning in both instances. We clearly see the disobedience in the first example, so why is it so hard to see the same disobedience in the second one? It’s simply because the first one wasn’t our own personal temptation like the latter one is...for some of us.

So we learn, people have this tendency to excuse or justify plain old disobedience, based on God’s Omni-this or that, instead of accepting where the responsibility really lies: in a heart of disbelief.

Remember, the scripture says we can know God:

“For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse.” Romans 1:20

"You are my witnesses," says Yahweh, "And my servant whom I have chosen; that you may know and believe me, and understand that I am he. Before me there was no God formed, neither will there be after me.“ Isaiah 43:10

“10But to us, God revealed them through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the things of a man, except the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so, no one knows the things of God, except God's Spirit. 12But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might know the things that were freely given to us by God. 13Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things.” 1 Corinthians 2:10-13

Here’s one of the ways to test the spirit in people:

“If any man thinks himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him recognize the things which I write to you, that they are the commandment of the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 14:37

The things the apostles wrote are commandments, not suggestions, as if they are open for discussion and negation like the devil did in the Garden, or the Pharisees did with the law, or the Trinitarians did through their councils and creeds.

“5The Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why don't your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with unwashed hands?"
6He answered them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7But in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'
8"For you set aside the commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and you do many other such things."
9He said to them, "Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.” Mark 7:5-12

If God viewed the Israelite’s traditions of men, that made His commandments of none effect, as empty and useless as far as worshiping Him goes, why do people think He’ll give them a pass on their own traditions (I.e. Trinity or modalism or whatever)?

“For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a law-breaker” Galatians 2:18

Does God break His own law?

Does God lie in order to teach us truth? It is impossible for God to lie.

Did God renounce traditions of men that negate His commandments so we would learn to multiply and depend on traditions of men rather than His commandments? Or otherwise?

It seems to me the “otherwise” is the “simple” version, and the “God can be or do anything He wants even if it sounds like He’s lying” isn’t so simple, after all, in truth.

“Brethren, be not children in understanding: yet in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.” 1 Corinthians 14:20