Question - Holy Spirit as an omniscient being (Matt. 24:36)

[Light Fox]

While I tend towards hesitating to provoke any more Trinity arguments on this forum, I do have a particular verse that I would like to know the explanation of Trinitarians on.

Please let me clarify something here and now: I am looking for an explanation of this Bible verse. I am not looking for collections of quotes from Ellen White using words of contested meaning, or "all the other evidence" that supposedly supports the doctrine. I merely would like a reasonable, logical Biblical answer for this particular passage.

That said, the verse is this one:

"But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." (Matthew 24:36, KJV)

Now, this is not just an "argument from silence" in that the Spirit is for some reason not mentioned. The verse specifically says that none know the day or the hour (the word "man" was a translator's addition) except for the Father only.

Further, the words "none" and "only" mean exactly in Greek what they imply in English.

[quote name="Strong's Lexicon; "no (man)", oudeis G3762"]No one, nothing

[Dr. Waite]

YOU STATE: " How can the Holy Spirit be an omniscient, Divine intelligence given this definitively exclusive statement? "

THE ANSWER IS OBVIOUS - THE HOLY SPIRIT GOD BEING CREATED BY THE TRINITARIAN DOCTRINE TEACHERS HAS NO PLAIN "THUS SAITH THE LORD" IN ITS SUPPORT.

CHRISTIANS WHO ADHERE TO 'SOLA SCRIPTURA' CANNOT ACCEPT THE FALSE HOLY SPIRIT GOD BEING CREATED BY THE TRINITARIAN DOCTRINE TEACHERS

[John317]

"But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." (Matthew 24:36, KJV)

...There are, then, two major questions I would like to know the Trinitarian explanation for:

1) Why is the Spirit not even considered a "contender" in this passage? It obviously is speaking beyond the pale of humanity as "no [man]" would indicate, because Christ refers to "no, not the angels of heaven."

2) How do you explain Christ saying that the Father only knows this information? It cannot be explained via "God" meaning the Father and Spirit, because the word "God" does not appear in the passage at all. It specifically names the Father and says that He alone knows this. How can the Holy Spirit be an omniscient, Divine intelligence given this definitively exclusive statement?

1 Cor. 2:10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

The Spirit of God knows the things of God. Here the Spirit of God is the Holy Spirit (v. 13). "God" and "the Spirit of God," therefore, are not one and same Person. The Holy Spirit searches all thing, even the deep things of God.

The Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Godhead, whereas the Father is the first Person of the Godhead, and Christ is the second Person.

Does the Holy Spirit know what will happen in the future?

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Notice that the Holy Spirit "speaks explicitly" (NASV) or "speaks distinctly."

What does the Holy Spirit say to us distinctly? He tells us what will happen near the time when Christ returns, long after the time of Paul.

Notice also that it was the Spirit who told Paul that he would suffer in Jerusalem and that there would be a famine.

Acts 21:11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver [him] into the hands of the Gentiles.

11:28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.

2:10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

So when we put together everything the Bible says about the Holy Spirit, it becomes obvious that the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit knows the things of God and knows the future.

It makes it obvious also that the Holy Spirit is an intelligent, divine Person with a will and the ability to speak, etc.

Therefore, in view of these clear statement of Holy Scripture, we may conclude that when Jesus said in Matt. 24: 36 that no man or even any of the angels knows the hour and the day of Christ's return, Jesus is not including the Godhead. He is including created beings, such as humans and angels. Jesus was both human and deity, but in this passage He is talking from the viewpoint of his humanity, not His deity. Similarly when Christ talks about being hungry or thirsty or when he was sleepy, it wasn't God who was hungry or thirsty or sleepy; it was the man who was hungry, etc. Deity, of course, does not need to eat, drink, or sleep.

[John317]

Having already shown from the Bible in the previous post what Christ was saying in Matt. 24: 36, I will now present clear evidence from the Spirit of prophecy for those who believe that Ellen G. White was inspired by God.

Do you believe in the prophetic ministry of Ellen White? She agrees with the Bible that the Holy Spirit is Omniscient:

Quote:

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, powers infinite and omniscient, receive those who truly enter into covenant relation with God. They are present at every baptism, to receive the candidates who have renounced the world and have received Christ into the soul temple. These candidates have entered into the family of God, and their names are inscribed in the Lamb's book of life. {AG 143.5}

NOTICE that Ellen G. White says here that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are powers infinite and omniscient and that they receive those who truly enter into covenant with God. She also says that the Trinity is present at every baptism, to receive the candidates who have renounced the world and have received Christ into the soul temple.

It is obvious that she is speaking of all three holiest persons of heaven, is it not?

What say you? Does Ellen White contradict the Bible in the above quote?

[John317]

While I tend towards hesitating to provoke any more Trinity arguments on this forum, ...

I don't consider them arguments, especially when it comes to the Holy Spirit. I don't believe the Holy Spirit is in discussions motived by wrong motives or where the participants aren't interested in learning truth. I will exchange posts and thoughts about the Trinity, but I do it as an informal conversation, not a debate or an argument.

If and when it gets "personal," it's really better not to have them.

[Light Fox]

Hi John,

Thank you, at least, for the portion of your several replies that dealt with the topic I requested. While I am aware that you do not consider your general manner of presentation on this and various other Trinity-related threads to be akin to debate or argument, I respectfully and firmly disagree. I rarely feel that you are attempting to "discuss" with me as opposed to attempting to "win a show" for the readership.

Notwithstanding, here is what I am seeing you saying in the reply:

You are saying that based on 1 Corinthians 2, the Spirit also searches and knows the things of the Father. You say that The Holy Spirit and the Father are both the "first person of the Godhead," but that "God" and "The Holy Spirit" are not the same person.

To be perfectly clear, I really don't know what your point is on this, and some of what you said seems contradictory. It sounds like you are saying that the Spirit is the Father but is not the Father; or that the Father is not "God?" I'm wondering if there might have been a typo in the list of persons. Please clarify on that.

Anyway, as far as I can piece it together, you are saying that (numbering notwithstanding) the Spirit knows everything that the Father does, because it is the Spirit of God. But that's rather the point. If the Spirit of God knows what the Father knows because it is His Spirit, just as the spirit of man knows what is of man because it is his spirit (see verse 11), then we're still at square one with this verse in Matthew that says the Father only - not the Father + 1.

There's no issue if the Spirit of God is a "power," as your provided quote says, because God's Spirit as His presence would never be reckoned different from him in a count of beings who know something, just as "the spirit of man" would never be reckoned different from a man in such a count.

What your interpretation essentially does is take the words of Christ that "no one knows but the Father only" and change them to "Well, not only, and not no one - there's one other person who wasn't mentioned who does know." I'm not comfortable with outright reversing two portions of a Scripture to make an idea fit.

The fact that the Spirit searches the deep things of God, and yet is excluded by the plain words of that verse, is perhaps the strongest evidence possible that there's a serious issue with the idea of the Spirit being, as I originally asked, "an omniscient, Divine intelligence." Basically, if the Spirit does indeed know the things of God, how could Christ accurately say "none but the Father only" know the time, unless the Spirit is not, in fact, an independent being with it's own omniscience - and could not be reckoned as one to itself in terms of knowledge?

Now, I did see you attempt to address this at the end of the post, by saying that Christ was "not including the Godhead" in the equation. I do not see how you can come to that conclusion, given He explicitly named "The Father only." He could just as easily have said "None but the Father and the Holy Spirit alone," or "None but the Godhead alone." He did not. By naming the Father specifically, Christ explicitly brought the Godhead into the equation, and by naming the Father specifically as the only one who knew, He explicitly excluded all other potential options.

Is that statement true, or is it not? Was or was not the Father the only one who knew the day and the hour?

Now, 1 Cor. 2 indeed tells us that God's Spirit, by virtue of being His Spirit, knows the deep things of God. So this seems to leave me with two choices:

Either the Spirit of God is similar to the Spirit of Man as 1 Cor says, and not a separate intelligence with it's own knowledge,

Or the verse in Matthew is wrong, and the Father was not, in fact, the only one who knew the day and the hour. Either Christ mis-spoke and meant to say "Godhead" instead of "Father," or... I really don't know of another option there. I guess you could speculate that the verse was tampered with somehow?

In conclusion, I'm really not seeing how you've addressed the question itself. Proving that the Spirit knows the things the Father knows only further cements the issue, as we're now faced with the choice of the Spirit not being reckonable as a separate individual, or Christ being in error in His statement.

Speculating that the verse was not including the Godhead also does little to clarify it, since Christ explicitly named the Son as not knowing, and the Father ALONE as knowing. "Only" is an exclusive statement, and to say "It just means the Father in opposition to created beings" begs not only the question of Christ not being a created being, but still why Christ would say "the Father" and not "The Father and the Spirit" or "The Godhead." This isn't just an issue of which way would have been "better..." In your view, it's outright inaccurate that the Father only knew this information. There was another person - the only member of the Godhead not mentioned in the verse - who did know, and who would make "only" a falsehood.

If anyone has anything further on this, please let me know. For the moment, I'm really not seeing how what's been presented answers my question as opposed to just making it even more questionable.

[John317]

...You are saying that based on 1 Corinthians 2, the Spirit also searches and knows the things of the Father. You say that The Holy Spirit and the Father are both the "first person of the Godhead," but that "God" and "The Holy Spirit" are not the same person.

The Holy Spirit is the third person of Godhead, of course. So, no, I am not saying the Holy Spirit and the Father are one and the same person.

The Spirit of God knows the things of God. Here the Spirit of God is the Holy Spirit (v. 13). "God" and "the Spirit of God," therefore, are not one and same Person. The Holy Spirit searches all thing, even the deep things of God.

The Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Godhead, whereas the Father is the first Person of the Godhead, and Christ is the second Person.

If we were talking to each other in person and I mentioned the Holy Spirit as the "first person of the Godhead," wouldn't you say something like, "You mean third person, don't you?"?

Would you assume that even though I am saying the Holy Spirit and the Father are not one and the same person, that I am saying they are both the first person of the Godhead?

I hope not.

Of course that was a "typo." :-)

[John317]

To be perfectly clear, I really don't know what your point is on this, and some of what you said seems contradictory. It sounds like you are saying that the Spirit is the Father but is not the Father; or that the Father is not "God?" I'm wondering if there might have been a typo in the list of persons. Please clarify on that.

Yes, of course that was a typo. I am sure you would know that The Holy Spirit is not the first person of the Godhead.

Again, I haven't said that the Holy Spirit is the Father. On the contrary, I said they are not one and the same person.

It may sound "contradictory" to you but probably only because you didn't conclude that I made a typo.

Apart from the typo, what, if anything, seemed contradictory to you?

[John317]

...

Anyway, as far as I can piece it together, you are saying that (numbering notwithstanding) the Spirit knows everything that the Father does, because it is the Spirit of God. But that's rather the point. If the Spirit of God knows what the Father knows because it is His Spirit, just as the spirit of man knows what is of man because it is his spirit (see verse 11), then we're still at square one with this verse in Matthew that says the Father only - not the Father + 1.

There's no issue if the Spirit of God is a "power," as your provided quote says, because God's Spirit as His presence would never be reckoned different from him in a count of beings who know something, just as "the spirit of man" would never be reckoned different from a man in such a count.

The spirit of man is not a separate and distinct person from the man, however.

On the other hand, the Bible is clear that the Holy Spirit, or the Spirit of God, is seperate and distinct from the Father. They are not one and the same divine Being. See, for instance, Matt. 3: 16, 17.

The Spirit of God is not a "power." The Holy Spirit has power, but the Spirit is not simply a power or influence.

Please quote where I said the Spirit of God is a "power".

[John317]

There's no issue if the Spirit of God is a "power," as your provided quote says, because God's Spirit as His presence would never be reckoned different from him in a count of beings who know something, just as "the spirit of man" would never be reckoned different from a man in such a count.

The Holy Spirit is God's presence in the sense that when the Holy Spirit is with us, it is the same as the FAther and Christ being with us, even though they are not personally with us. Of course, as I'm sure you know, the Holy Spirit is the fullness of the Godhead. He is God as much as the Father is God and as much as Christ is God.

The Holy Spirit is Christ's representative. Christ cannot be personally with all of his followers at the same time, since He is a glorified man and limited voluntarily to a human body. Phil. 2: 7, 8; 1 Tim. 2: 5. He is the God-man, forever a human being, our elder Brother. That was why the Father sent the Holy Spirit to be with us.

Jesus explained this in John 14 and 16.

There's a huge difference between the "spirit of man" and "the Spirit of God."

Can you not see the difference as the Bible describes it?

Matt. 28: 19 makes it very clear that the FAther, and the Son, and and the Holy Spirit are not 2 but 3 different persons. There is no way that sentence is referring to less than 3 distinct persons. The Greek structure of the sentence requires 3 persons, yet one name. What is that "name"?

[John317]

...

What your interpretation essentially does is take the words of Christ that "no one knows but the Father only" and change them to "Well, not only, and not no one - there's one other person who wasn't mentioned who does know." I'm not comfortable with outright reversing two portions of a Scripture to make an idea fit.

The fact that the Spirit searches the deep things of God, and yet is excluded by the plain words of that verse, is perhaps the strongest evidence possible that there's a serious issue with the idea of the Spirit being, as I originally asked, "an omniscient, Divine intelligence." Basically, if the Spirit does indeed know the things of God, how could Christ accurately say "none but the Father only" know the time, unless the Spirit is not, in fact, an independent being with it's own omniscience - and could not be reckoned as one to itself in terms of knowledge?

Your problem, it seems to me, is that you are refusing to accept the clear meaning of 1 Cor. 2: 10-14 and are insisting on understanding Jesus to mean something that is not required by Matt. 24: 36. It isn't necessary to understand Jesus to be saying the Holy Spirit is ignorant of what is going to happen in the future.

Let's say you heard Jesus utter those words. Would you ask Him, "Jesus, do you mean to say that the Holy Spirit is also ignorant of when you're returning?"

If you said this, I am sure Jesus would say what He said another time: "Why do I even talk to you?"

One of the main rules of hermeneutics is that we allow the plain verses to explain the verses that are not as plain, not the other way around. It wouldn't make sense to allow obscure statements to explain the clear ones, would it?

You need to think of how many verses in the Bible make it clear that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person from the FAther. So why would you allow one obscure statement to lead you to jettison all those clear statements? That is what it seems to me you are doing.

Which is the best evidence about the Holy Spirit--the verse in Matt. 24: 36 or the verses in 1 Cor. 2: 10-12; Matt. 28: 19; 2 Cor. 13: 14; Matt. 3: 16, 17?

When 1 Tim. 3: 16 says that "He [God] was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit," what is it talking about?

If the Holy Spirit is the Father, it should make sense to substitute "Father" in place of "Spirit" and "Holy Spirit" in every instance, don't you agree? But when we do that in most verses it doesn't make any sense. Have you tried it?

What do you think?

[John317]

...There's no issue if the Spirit of God is a "power," as your provided quote says...

Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is a "power"?

Does it make good biblical sense when we read a text like Luke 4: 14, where it says, "Then Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee..."

If the Spirit is a power, the above verse could read, "Then Jesus returned in the power of the power to Galilee..."

It's self-evident that it would be nonsense to say such a thing, doesn't it? I'm sure you can see this.

Therefore the Holy Spirit is not a "power." All the evidence of the Bible points to the Holy Spirit as a divine Person distinct from the Father and the Son, although they work very closely together in everything they do. They cooperate for the salvation of the human family, just as they did in the creation of the world.

[Light Fox]

John,

As I am writing this, I see that you have made six replies to my last post. Two of those posts consisted of your taking issue with my not assuming that you had made a typo, despite my asking plainly if you had, in fact, done so.

Another two of those posts consisted of you first asking me to show you where you said the Holy Spirit was a power, the other going into an argument about why the Holy Spirit is not merely a power. Without getting into the semantics of it, the quote I was referenced was the one you provided from Ellen White on the last page, which used the term "three powers."

Another of the posts consisted of a fairly basic explanation of the most commonly understood elements of the Holy Spirit, with the implication that I see no difference whatsoever between said Spirit and the spirit of man. I certainly hope the absurdity of that is clear to anyone who has read anything I've said or written thusfar. Given that you've seen what I've said in other threads, I cannot imagine you with any honesty believing that this was what I was saying - or that the Holy Spirit is "only" a power, for that matter.

Finally, the last of your posts did precisely what I stated in the opening post I hoped people would avoid - appealing to the "other stack of evidence" to ignore a fairly simple and straight-forward passage that seems to speak contrary to your view. Frankly, I do not find the statement "none knoweth [...] but the Father only" to be unclear in the slightest.

I should note that you also felt at liberty to conclude that were I to ask Christ about the intent of His statement, He would reply "Why do I even talk to you."

The more that I prayerfully consider this interaction, where it has gone, and where it appears to be going, the more I am inclined to say "with what judgment ye mete, it shall be meted unto you."

"Why do I even talk to you" are not the words of my Savior and Friend. They are the words of someone who is frustrated at a disagreement with their dogma. I have noted with some disappointment that this "trinity" issue appears to be your primary focus. I have seen multiple threads you have opened under different names and angles solely to address this matter; and various others not opened by you that you have sought to dominate in a like manner.

I am not willing to be drawn into yet another of your lengthy, multiple-page debates. I have seen them go to over 50 pages. I do not believe, based on what I have seen of your conduct and manner of reasoning here and elsewhere, that you are actually interested in listening to or considering my viewpoints as anything more than heresy to be repudiated. As such I see no value in, as you put it, "talking to you" on these matters. So long as you believe you have all the truth on the matter and no need to re-examine it, you will inevitably be a "debater."

I opened this thread with another purpose in mind entirely - to see if there was a satisfactory answer to account for this verse in Matthew. Derails aside, the basic answer from you appears to be this:

No, the Father was not the only one who knew the day or the hour.

Other verses indicate to the Trinitarian viewpoint that the Spirit is a being in the same sense as the Father and Son, and thus those are the ones relied upon.

The conclusion is that the Spirit was simply left out of the equation altogether for the purpose of Christ's statement, and that the words "The Father Only" do not mean what they say in the absolute sense, but in a limited sense - "limited" in that it refers to angels, the Son, the Father, humanity... literally every form of intelligent life in the universe except for the Holy Spirit.

The reason why Christ specified the Father specifically is unknown, as is why the Spirit was the only intelligent being not mentioned. It is not considered to be important, however, with the decision being to stay with the "larger body" of quotes.

Now, I would have preferred it had you just said this (or the appropriate similar summary) to begin with. Instead you chose to present a small bible study, and make a showmanship effort of it with statements such as this:

Having already shown from the Bible in the previous post what Christ was saying in Matt. 24: 36, I will now present clear evidence from the Spirit of prophecy for those who believe that Ellen G. White was inspired by God.

John, it would be for the sake of showmanship and poetic irony were I to conclude by saying "Why do I even talk to you?" but I find that I simply do not have it in my heart to utter those words. They do not come from the Spirit that this thread was opened to discuss.

Instead I simply tell you this: I am finished talking to you on this subject. I have no interest in the pride-feeding phenomenon of internet debate. If you ever have a question on my beliefs that you would like my assistance with, I will be happy to assist. (If you are inclined to scoff at such a notion, perhaps you can begin to understand why I find no sanctifying value in these "discussions")

Should I post a question asking for input on the topic of the Spirit, please understand that so long as your answers continue to merely present arguments to convince other readers, my question is not directed at you. I would appreciate if you would honor that.

[John317]

...Or the verse in Matthew is wrong, and the Father was not, in fact, the only one who knew the day and the hour. Either Christ mis-spoke and meant to say "Godhead" instead of "Father," or... I really don't know of another option there. I guess you could speculate that the verse was tampered with somehow?

The best and most accurate reading of Matt. 24: 36 is, "But about that day and hour no [man] knows, no, not the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but my Father only."

The verse is not wrong.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the verse was tampered with, although there are many Greek texts of this verse that differ.

We can be satisfied that Jesus did not misspeak.

The only conclusions we may reasonably draw from this are:

Jesus is saying, as in Acts 1: 7,8, that it was not for the men to know the hour and the minute of God's establishment of the Kingdom. God has put those matters in His own hands.

Notice Acts 1: 8: "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you..."

Can we substitute "Father" in place of "Holy Spirit"? "You shall receive power when the Father has come upon you..."?

If you compare John 14 and 16, you will see that it says the Holy Spirit is "another comforter of the same kind" as Jesus. It isn't the same person as Jesus, but it is Christ's personal representative.

[Truth Files]

Response to the OP:

Jesus is a complex being, one who is both God and man by His human manifestation; the only being in the universe with these characteristics; all interconnected [God, 7 fold Holy Spirit, and human] .... He is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and pre-cognizant; and has always existed in His timeless unending creation

He is the Lion of the tribe of Judah, an Israelite by His humanity [Revelation 5:5] .... He is the Messiah and King of the nation of Israel and Jerusalem is His city [Micah 4:1-3; 5:5-8; Joel 3:16-21; Zechariah 14:1-11]

And He does know the time of His coming intervention [His hour [time] of trial and judgment] .... He is just not willing to reveal it to men [Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32-37; Acts 1:6-7]

John

1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

14:4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.

14:5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?

14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Revelation

1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

1:4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

1:12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;

1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

1:14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

1:15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter [the time of His coming hour [time] of trial and judgment .... and beyond];

4:5 And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.

5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

[John317]

.. In conclusion, I'm really not seeing how you've addressed the question itself. Proving that the Spirit knows the things the Father knows only further cements the issue, as we're now faced with the choice of the Spirit not being reckonable as a separate individual, or Christ being in error in His statement.

You are forcing Jesus to say something he's not saying. His intention in this verse is obviously not to give a lecture on the Godhead. His purpose, rather, is to make His disciples to understand that it is not for them to know exactly when Christ was to return and set up His kingdom. He's saying that he can't tell them and neither can any of the angels. The Father has put the timing of the establishment of the kingdom in His own hands.

1 Cor. 2: 10 tells us that the Holy Spirit searches the deep things of God and reveals these deep things to believers. It is obvious that the Holy Spirit knows what God the Father knows, and God the Father knows what the Holy Spirit knows. This is very plain in the Bible.

In 1 Cor. 2: 13, it tells us that the Holy Spirit teaches us the things of God. Only a person teaches. It is not saying the Father teaches but the Spirit teaches.

Now you suggest that the Spirit of God is like the spirit of man. But in this you error. The spirit of man is man's private thoughts, desires, intentions, and plans, all of which are known only to the man himself. No one can know these things unless the man wants to reveal them.

But notice that the spirit of man is not a separate and distinct person apart from the man. Is this true of God also? Is the Spirit of God merely God's thoughts and intentions and plans and desires? Of course not. The Holy Spirit is proved to be a distinct Being many times in the Scriptures. Jesus calls Him "another Comforter [of the same kind]." What kind of Comforter is Christ? He is a person, and therefore the other Comforter will be a person.

Quote:

Speculating that the verse was not including the Godhead also does little to clarify it, since Christ explicitly named the Son as not knowing, and the Father ALONE as knowing.

Yes, Christ wanted his disciples to know that He couldn't tell them when the kingdom of God would be established on earth. He wanted them to know that the Father had put the times and the seasons in His own authority.

On this subject, the Seventh-day Adventist Commentary says, "Being a member of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit knows all things. He is not in any sense ignorant of anything. He searches, not in order to discover something He did not previously know, but to bring the things of God to the remembrance of His people and to guide them in their investigation of truth. (John 16: 13, 14)

"This passage (1 Cor. 2: 10, 11) shows that the Holy Spirit is not an impersonal force. Searching is an attribnute of personality involving both thought and action. The Spirit knows and understands all the profound plans and counsels of God. Here is clear evidence of omnicience, and hence of divinity."

Originally Posted By: Qinael

.. "Only" is an exclusive statement, and to say "It just means the Father in opposition to created beings" begs not only the question of Christ not being a created being, but still why Christ would say "the Father" and not "The Father and the Spirit" or "The Godhead."

How does this verse "beg the question" of Christ being a created being. Do you believe He is a created being? The verse is a reference to Christ as a man, not as God. He lived on earth as a man, not as God Almighty. He was God but He lived the life of a human being with all the limitations of men, such as a lack of knowledge. Remember that Christ depended completely on His Father, the Holy Spirit, and the angels, for all his wisdom and knowledge.

You ask why would Christ say "the Father" instead of "the Father AND the Spirit" or "the Godhead."

The simple truth is that Christ never used that kind of language. So why would He use it in this instance? It is irrational to base one's understanding of what Christ taught on the omission of certain words at particular times. The fact that He didn't use the language the way you think He should have is no reason to believe He taught that the Holy Spirit is merely a power.

Remember the fact that in Matt. 28: 19, Christ said, "Baptize them in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." These are clearly three Persons and not two. Would you say, "Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Father"? Of course not.

As I said earlier, the rules of Greek grammar in the case of Matt. 28: 19 prove that it is speaking of three distinct intelligent persons. This is supported by many verses in the Bible.

Matt. 4: 1 says that Christ was led into the wilderness by the Holy Spirit. Do you think that was the Father? No. If it was the FAther, it would say the Father.

The fact that Christ did not say what you think He should have said-- or what you think He would have said if the Holy Spirit were an intelligent Being distinct from the Father--- is a poor argument for supporting your view that the Holy Spirit is not the third Person of the Godhead. No one knows why Christ used the exact words that He used. We know that He was God manifest in the flesh and that He came here to teach us the truth. He probably could have used some different words at times but He chose to use the words He spoke. We shouldn't second-guess why he spoke as he did. It doesn't help us learn what He taught.

Originally Posted By: Qinael

.. This isn't just an issue of which way would have been "better..." In your view, it's outright inaccurate that the Father only knew this information. There was another person - the only member of the Godhead not mentioned in the verse - who did know, and who would make "only" a falsehood.

Do you really believe it was the objective of Christ to give a comprehensive list of all the persons in the universe who know when God's kingdom will be established?

I can only conclude that someone who believes as you do must be awfully desperate to find a reason to believe the Holy Spirit is not the third Person of the Godhead.

[John317]

...Another two of those posts consisted of you first asking me to show you where you said the Holy Spirit was a power, the other going into an argument about why the Holy Spirit is not merely a power. Without getting into the semantics of it, the quote I was referenced was the one you provided from Ellen White on the last page, which used the term "three powers."

Here's the quote:

Originally Posted By: Ellen G. White

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, powers infinite and omniscient, receive those who truly enter into covenant relation with God. They are present at every baptism, to receive the candidates who have renounced the world and have received Christ into the soul temple. These candidates have entered into the family of God, and their names are inscribed in the Lamb's book of life. {AG 143.5}

Note that Ellen White here is saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are powers infinite and omniscient.

Notice also that they are persons, because she also says that all three of these infinite, omniscient powers receive human beings. She also says these three persons are present at every baptism and that they receive teh candidates.

What all this means is that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are infinite and omniscient, and they are distinct persons. Obviously Ellen White did not believe or teach that the Holy Spirit was the same person as the Father.

If the Father and the Holy Spirit are the same person, why does Ellen White show a distinction between them by calling them "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost"? If they are the same person, she would say "the Father, the Son, and the Father," which of course would be nonsense. The Holy Spirit has a distinct personality apart from the Father and Christ.

[John317]

Response to the OP:

Jesus is a complex being, one who is both God and man by His human manifestation; the only being in the universe with these characteristics; all interconnected [God, 7 fold Holy Spirit, and human] .... He is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and pre-cognizant; and has always existed in His timeless unending creation

Excellent, Truth Files. We're in 100% agreement! :-)

[John317]

Another of the posts consisted of a fairly basic explanation of the most commonly understood elements of the Holy Spirit, with the implication that I see no difference whatsoever between said Spirit and the spirit of man. I certainly hope the absurdity of that is clear to anyone who has read anything I've said or written thusfar. Given that you've seen what I've said in other threads, I cannot imagine you with any honesty believing that this was what I was saying - or that the Holy Spirit is "only" a power, for that matter.

I don't know exactly what your beliefs are in regard to the Holy Spirit or the Trinity. To my knowledge, I haven't ever seen a clear explanation of your understanding of the Godhead.

Do you believe the Holy Spirit has a distinct personality and is not the Father?

I have not read many, if any, of your other posts on the threads, that I can recall. At least none stand out in my memory.

Would you like to explain what you believe?

I believe the doctrine of the Trinity just as it is stated in the SDA Fundamental Beliefs #5.

You're assuming too much when you say that I am well aware of your beliefs. Maybe you think I should be but I'm not. Sometime when I have time I will read some of your posts in other discussion.

[John317]

....Finally, the last of your posts did precisely what I stated in the opening post I hoped people would avoid - appealing to the "other stack of evidence" to ignore a fairly simple and straight-forward passage that seems to speak contrary to your view. Frankly, I do not find the statement "none knoweth [...] but the Father only" to be unclear in the slightest.

If you are drawing a conclusion on the basis of an interpretation as you are in Matt. 24: 36, and if your conclusion is contrary to the plain language of many other verses, common sense should tell you that your interpretation must be in error.

For instance, suppose my interpretation of 1 Cor. 14: 35 is that women must be silent under all circumstances in the churches and not teach or talk.

But then I notice other parts of the Bible that clearly allow for women to speak in church. See 1 Cor. 11: 5, 15.

Would I be right to keep to my view of 1 Cor. 14: 35 that it teaches women cannot speak in church under any conditions when the Bible gives plenty of evidence that I am wrong in that conclusion?

I think the answer is self-evident.

But that is what it seems to me you are doing. You are claiming that Matt. 24: 36 teaches something that is plainly contradicted by many verses in the Bible.

Originally Posted By: Qinael

I should note that you also felt at liberty to conclude that were I to ask Christ about the intent of His statement, He would reply "Why do I even talk to you."

Sure. Why shouldn't I feel at liberty to express my belief that it wouldn't be appropriate to ask him such a question. The answer should be obvious, so why ask it?

I'm conveying to you the inappropriateness of the question, given everything that the Bible teaches on the topic.

[Pastor_Chick]

[Referring to Qinael] I can only conclude that someone who believes as you do must be awfully desperate to find a reason to believe the Holy Spirit is not the third Person of the Godhead.

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. (KJV)

know, v.

to be cognizant or aware of

on·ly, adv.

without others or anything further; alone; solely; exclusively

But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. (NASB)

1. no one knows (universal beings)

2. not even the angels (heavenly beings)

3. nor the Son (the God-man on earth)

4. the Father alone

om·nis·cient, adj.

having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.

The ONLY reasonable interpretation of this verse is that the Father was the only ONE in the universe that had omniscience at the time Christ spoke these words.

John,

It would not be difficult to "conclude that someone who believes [and argues] as you do must be awfully desperate to find a [way to prove] the Holy Spirit is ... the third [rational and omniscient] Person of the Godhead."

[John317]

The more that I prayerfully consider this interaction, where it has gone, and where it appears to be going, the more I am inclined to say "with what judgment ye mete, it shall be meted unto you."

"Why do I even talk to you" are not the words of my Savior and Friend. They are the words of someone who is frustrated at a disagreement with their dogma.

No, I'm not frustrated. I enjoy discussing these things with you and with anyone who is interesting in talking about them. I'm far from frustrated.

You completely misunderstand my reason for saying that Jesus might answer, "why do I even talk to you?" I'm saying I could imagine Christ saying those words in response to people asking Him if He meant that the Holy Spirit is ignorant of when Christ will return for the Church.

It is similar to the question Jesus asked in John 8: 43, "Why do you not understand what I say?"

Perhaps he would say this to you if you asked him if His words meant the Holy Spirit doesn't know when Jesus would return. Again, my point is that it wouldn't make sense to ask Jesus such a question because of his statement that only the Father knows the day and the hour of Christ's return.

I believe Jesus would tell you that His point in saying those words is that it's the Father's secret and no one can reveal it except Him.

I am not saying it is what I am feeling or thinking. Far from it. I love the Forum and exchanging beliefs and ideas with people. I never tire of it, and I never avoid anyone. I write in response to every question and every paragraph. I take people seriously and I don't stop taking them seriously just because they say things I disagree with. I have no trouble being friends and friendly with people who disagree with me.

But no, you are totally wrong about my attitude and my feelings about writing on the forum. Not sure how you are getting all your ideas but that's ok. I want you to just feel free to express yourself, as long as you don't make personal attacks, that is. :-)

Quote:

I have noted with some disappointment that this "trinity" issue appears to be your primary focus. I have seen multiple threads you have opened under different names and angles solely to address this matter; and various others not opened by you that you have sought to dominate in a like manner.

I'm sorry if it disappoints you. Why would the fact that I enjoy writing and exchanging posts concerning the Trinity or the Godhead be a disappointment to you? I don't care what you write about or how many posts you write about any particular topic. It is really the business of members to decide how many posts or what topics they write. I have written Twenty-six thousand and nine hundred and four posts on the Forum, and only a small percentage of those posts are about the Trinity. I often write on many other topics, but yes, I do enjoy studying and talking with people-- and posting-- about the Godhead, the nature of Christ, etc.

You are also at liberty to post and begin discussions, and I'm glad you're doing it. Looks like you're getting the hang of it pretty well. Keep it up. :-)

[John317]

...

I am not willing to be drawn into yet another of your lengthy, multiple-page debates. I have seen them go to over 50 pages. I do not believe, based on what I have seen of your conduct and manner of reasoning here and elsewhere, that you are actually interested in listening to or considering my viewpoints as anything more than heresy to be repudiated. As such I see no value in, as you put it, "talking to you" on these matters. So long as you believe you have all the truth on the matter and no need to re-examine it, you will inevitably be a "debater."

OK.

Originally Posted By: Qinael

I opened this thread with another purpose in mind entirely - to see if there was a satisfactory answer to account for this verse in Matthew.

And there certainly is. It is not that hard to understand. I think you're making a bigger thing out of it than it really is.

Is it because you think it's a text that prove a favorite point with you-- that the Holy Spirit and the Father are actually the same person? (I'm still not sure of exactly what you believe on this topic.) But in any case, the verse doesn't show what you are trying to get out of it.

Originally Posted By: Qinael

Derails aside, the basic answer from you appears to be this:

No, the Father was not the only one who knew the day or the hour.

Other verses indicate to the Trinitarian viewpoint that the Spirit is a being in the same sense as the Father and Son, and thus those are the ones relied upon.

Yes, you're actually right here. Those are clear verses whereas Matt. 24: 36 requires you to draw doubtful inferences.

What is clearer? Compare:

1) No one knows the day or the hour, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Or:

10 Verses that show the three persons of the heavenly trio, and show the Holy Spirit is a person and personality distinct from the Father and Christ:

2) Go baptize in the NAME of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

3) The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, [be] with you all.

4) John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

5) 1 Cor 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

12:5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

6)Eph. 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

7) Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

8) Isaiah 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there [am] I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.

9) Luke 3:21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,

3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

10) John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

11) 1 Cor. 16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show [it] unto you.

16:15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show [it] unto you.

When you compare these verses, can there be any doubt as to which ones clearly teach the truth about the Godhead? I can't see how anyone would think Matt. 24: 36 is clearest doctrinally when it comes to teaching about the Godhead. After all, the Godhead is not even the topic of Matt. 24: 36, whereas it obviously is in the 10 verses above. They show the Holy Spirit as a distinct person.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

[Referring to Qinael] I can only conclude that someone who believes as you do must be awfully desperate to find a reason to believe the Holy Spirit is not the third Person of the Godhead.

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. (KJV)

[

Could you please repond to post#463154 just before this message?

Do you believe the Holy Spirit is the third Person of the eternal Godhead? I'm not sure where you stand on this topic.

[John317]

...

The conclusion is that the Spirit was simply left out of the equation altogether for the purpose of Christ's statement,

Well, yes, it is certainly true that the Holy Spirit does not occur in that one verse. But then how many times does Jesus refer to both the Father and the Spirit in the same sentence? Not many times outside of John 14 & 16. So it is not unsual for Jesus to mention the Father without also mentioning the Holy Spirit. In fact, it is typical.

The way you write about Matt. 24: 36, one would think you don't have any better verse than this one in terms of proving your theory of the Godhead.

Is that true? Is this the best verse you know of to support your idea? If you know of any verses that are much better, why are you wasting your time on this one? I call it "wasting time," because it doesn't wash.

I've read a lot of books from different viewpoints of the Godhead, and talked to a lot of people about the topic, and I've never seen anyone try to use that verse as you have.