The nature of the Holy Spirit

[Rahab]

How many thrones are there in heaven?

[JoeMo]

According to Rev. 4, there are 25 thrones in heaven.

" At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it.  And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and ruby. A rainbow that shone like an emerald encircled the throne.  Surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty-four elders. (Rev. 4:2-4)

Do I get a prize for answering correctly? 

[JoeMo]

How many brownie points does it take to get a Stan Jensen wobble-head?

[8thdaypriest]

3 hours ago, Rahab said:

How many thrones are there in heaven?

Rahab,  we are just laughing because this thread has often taken some nasty turns.  We are not laughing at you. 

The other beings who sit on thrones - the 24 elders - are NOT WORSHIPED.  Only two beings are worshiped and glorified.

Revelation 5:13 "And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying: "Blessing and honor and glory and power be to Him who sits on the throne, And to the Lamb, forever and ever!"

Revelation 7:10 "and crying out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!""

 

[Rahab]

no problem

there are only 2 great thrones in heaven

let's see if this one gets some laughter

How many stacks of shew bread are there on the shew bread table?

[B/W Photodude]

25 minutes ago, Rahab said:

there are only 2 great thrones in heaven

How many stacks of shew bread are there on the shew bread table?

There are only two thrones described, however, there are many things in heaven not disclosed to us. The mother of James and John asked that they be able to sit on the right and left hand of God, and likely there is another throne not described that sits on the left hand of the Father. Remember, the Holy Spirit does not talk about himself, and neither do the other two (Father and Son) tell more than they need to tell. Assuming that we know everything, while going on sketchy information, is a dangerous path to take!

The number of the stacks on the shewbread table is irrelevant. As there were twelve loaves, a single stack of twelve would get somewhat inclined to fall over! Being bread and Jesus is the Bread of Life, they all refer to Jesus anyway.

Not understanding all this is one of the results of the fact that we get few Sanctuary messages and sermons in church these days. Ask around and see if you can find anyone who has heard a sermon on the Sanctuary at anytime in recent memory! This is all very sad as the Sanctuary message is a message that of all Christian faiths that exist today, only SDAs lay any claim to it. And equally sad is the fact that many SDAs don't even believe in the "cleansing of the sanctuary" message anymore

[Rahab]

1 hour ago, Rahab said:

How many stacks of shew bread are there on the shew bread table?

Exo 25:24  And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, and make thereto a crown of gold round about. 
Exo 25:25  And thou shalt make unto it a border of an hand breadth round about, and thou shalt make a golden crown to the border thereof round about. 
Exo 25:26  And thou shalt make for it four rings of gold, and put the rings in the four corners that are on the four feet thereof. 
Exo 25:27  Over against the border shall the rings be for places of the staves to bear the table. 
Exo 25:28  And thou shalt make the staves of shittim wood, and overlay them with gold, that the table may be borne with them. 
Exo 25:29  And thou shalt make the dishes thereof, and spoons thereof, and covers thereof, and bowls thereof, to cover withal: of pure gold shalt thou make them. 
Exo 25:30  And thou shalt set upon the table shewbread before me alway. 
 

Think about how many different combinations one could have for stacking the shew bread.  

[8thdaypriest]

13 hours ago, Rahab said:

no problem

there are only 2 great thrones in heaven

let's see if this one gets some laughter

How many stacks of shew bread are there on the shew bread table?

I would say the 2 stacks, sat on ONE THRONE -the table, covered with gold, with a crown like edge.  Christ shares His Father's throne. 

Revelation 7:10 and crying out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!"

Revelation 12:5 She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne. (Rev 12:5 NKJ)

Revelation 22:3 "And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him."

Revelation 22:1 "And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb."

 

Revelation 3:21 "To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. (Rev 3:21 NKJ)

I believe Christ's throne will be on earth, during the 8th millennium (some would say the 7th millennium) and the Father's throne is currently in Heaven.

[8thdaypriest]

 Mark 16:19 So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.

It was forbidden for anyone to sit in the Temple, except the King who was "the Son of David".   Here Jesus sits at the right hand of God. 

[8thdaypriest]

The Covenant was also written on TWO stone tablets.  Why not one?  But the Covenant was placed in ONE Ark - which had a throne like top.   

And God created TWO great lights to rule the heavens.  The "greater light" ruled the day, and "the lesser light" ruled the night.  Interesting because "night" settled upon this world when sin entered, and the Son of God - "the lesser light" - became the Mediator to rule this earth, to share His reflected light, until "the day" could be restored. 

And God created TWO sexes - which together "create" beings in their own image.  The husband is "head" of the wife, just as God the Father is "head of Christ". 

 

[B/W Photodude]

One interesting verse in 2 Timothy 3:7 - Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

[Rahab]

Two stacks is correct...  this is not a new topic referring to the OT sanctuary but reference to the throne and two stacks in homage to 

the Father and the Son who are to be worshipped.

one could have one stack, 3 stacks, 4 stacks, 6 stacks, etc. but there are only 2 stacks

and if you think this is nothing, think about every detail in the old sanctuary...  when was it frivolous or not important that everything be done exactly the way God wanted it to be

[Rahab]

another interesting point to share

the baptism of Jesus and note the whole Godhead is present a great study for sure:

John 1:32  And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. [Holy Spirit is NOT a dove...like a dove, as a dove]

.....Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him,....

Luke 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. 
 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 6/28/2017 at 11:39 AM, B/W Photodude said:

One interesting verse in 2 Timothy 3:7 - Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

That whole passage is interesting in context.  Your verse is found in Paul's description of those "having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power."  In contrast to that, in the next paragraph (2 Tim. 3:10-17) Paul commends Timothy for some things:

• following Paul's own example in various aspects of life
• continuing in what he had learned since he was a baby from scripture (Old Testament)

Paul then prescribes the whole Old Testament as the antidote to the problems mentioned previously.

Quote

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.   (2 Tim 3:14-17)

In direct relation to the trinitarian doctrine we should notice that the man of God can be complete and wise with only the Scriptures that existed when Timothy was a baby (the Old Testament) along with Paul's testimony about Messiah and the example of Paul's lifestyle.  Neither Paul nor the Old Testament ever used the trinitarian vocabulary of "trinity", "God the Holy Spirit", "triune", "third member of the Godhead", "three-in-one", etc. etc.  Notice that Paul attributes the inspiration of the Scriptures to God's breath.  As a child learning from the Old Testament from his Jewish mother, Timothy would never have been exposed to the concept of "trinity" (except perhaps in relation to the pagan gods), yet Paul urges Timothy to continue in what he had learned from childhood.

[JoeMo]

 

4 hours ago, Rahab said:

And note the whole Godhead is present a great study for sure:

John 1:32  And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. [Holy Spirit is NOT a dove...like a dove, as a dove]

A tornado can come down like a serpent or a funnel; and rain can come down like cats and dogs, as well. 

Can you answer the following question from a previous post?

On 6/26/2017 at 6:19 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

The fact that the Holy Spirit was the active agent responsible for the pregnancy of Mary presents a significant problem for the trinitarian doctrine.  If the Holy Spirit is a separate personality that acts separately from God the Father then who would "God the Father" be the father of, since the New Testament is clear that it was the Holy Spirit that actually fathered Jesus?  Why would "the Father" be called "the Father" if there existed a separate "third person of the Godhead" that was actually responsible for fathering Jesus?

[Rahab]

2 Peter 1:17  For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 
 

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, Rahab said:

2 Peter 1:17  For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 
 

John 8:18 "I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me."

"I" would be one, and "the Father" would be two. 

If "God is Spirit", and God is "our Father", and the Father is "the only true God" (John 17:3), THEN I would conclude that God the Father IS the Holy Spirit.  

He poured Himself INTO His Son Jesus, which enabled Jesus to dwell in us.  In this way, God "has sent forth the spirit of His Son into our hearts". 

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. (1Co 8:6 NKJ)

[8thdaypriest]

In many of the pagan cultures of the Ancient Middle East, we can find tri-une Gods.  Three highest God's. 

This was certainly true of Egypt.  In ancient Egypt the priests actually ate wafers with IHS cut into them, for Isis, Horus, and Sept. 

Which is most interesting, considering that Lucifer sought to insert himself into the godhead - "to be like God" . 

Father - Son - and Lucifer = THREE

[Ron Amnsn]

2 hours ago, Rahab said:

2 Peter 1:17  For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 
 

That sounds like Peter attributed the "such a voice" to God the Father rather than to the Holy Spirit.

 

3 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

This is a good point. The voice that spoke to Jesus here was not Jesus. He did not speak to Himself. The text is plain, it was The Holy Spirit who spoke to Christ at his baptism.

Not so.  The text says the voice came from heaven.  It didn't say the voice came from the dove.

[Ron Amnsn]

3 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

First of all. The Holy Spirit does not act "separate" from God.

Wanderer, the trinitarians on this thread have been using texts that describe the actions of the Holy Spirit supposedly acting on its own to "prove" that the Holy Spirit is a distinct personality or person separate from the Father and Jesus.  Are you now rebutting those claims?

[Ron Amnsn]

6 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Its a really nice trick question, however the question is very misleading in several ways. Whenever I see a pronouncement such as the question at hand, I automatically question the motive of the question. Is it sound exegesis, or is it unsound eisegesis?

First of all. The Holy Spirit does not act "separate" from God. Second, The Holy Spirit had some role in the Incarnation of Christ, part of which was Mary's pregnancy. This is a matter that the question pretends to understand, when infact, the Bible does not give us an understanding thereof. Scripture simply makes the declaration of the fact. There is nowhere that scripture tells us that The Holy Spirit was the "Father" of Jesus. The roles of the Spirit and the father appear to be distinct from one another, regarding the Incarnation, yet the two are God, and so they can have the same measure of deity, yet distinct roles in the incarnation. The scripture only declares the facts, rather than trying to prove the facts, which this so called "question" tries to say it can do.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. (Mathew 1:18)

While The Spirit had a role in the Incarnation; scripture plainly declares Jesus as "the Son of God," (Luke 1:35). but nowhere does it say The Spirit was "the father" of Jesus. For more context, I enclose the pertinent text:

The Father, and The Spirit appear to have some involvement in the Incarnation; there is no further explanation given, and nothing further should be presumed by anti-trinitarion  riddles and  thaumaturgy questions.

You have criticized the question and called it names, but your various assertions have only confirmed that the question is valid, even though you don't happen to like the question because it exposes a flaw in the man-made trinitarian theories that you somehow deem to be flawless, even though the Bible itself doesn't teach the trinity doctrine or make any claim that the trinity doctrine is flawless.  

I take it from what you said that you do actually believe that the actions of the Holy Spirit in the conception of Jesus should be considered as part of the fatherhood of "God the Father" as the people living at the time would have understood all of the actions of the Holy Spirit to be the actions of God himself.

It's true that the New Testament does not say exactly that "the Spirit was the Father of Jesus".  In the historical context in which the New Testament was written such a statement would have been considered very, very odd because the holy breath or wind was considered to be a part of God's own person just as His face was a part of God's own person.  Such a statement would have been much like saying that "the Holy Face (of God) was the father of Jesus".  However, the New Testament does say in Matthew chapter 1 that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Spirit and it uses the same Greek root word that is used 39 times in the genealogy of Joseph (verses 2-16) to say that "Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob", etc.  Where verse 20 says, "for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost," the word translated as "conceived" lliterally means "begotten" and is the same Greek word used 39 times earlier in the same chapter to show the relationship between fathers and sons.  Of course, you could argue that the people back then were too stupid to make the connection.

But then, you asserted something very similar earlier today when you claimed that:

6 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

The text is plain, it was The Holy Spirit who spoke to Christ at his baptism.

And what words did you attribute to the Holy Spirit? "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."  So, if the Holy Spirit spoke audibly to Jesus claiming Jesus as his own "beloved Son", would that not be very, very similar to saying directly that the Holy Spirit is the father of Jesus?

To be clear, because I believe that the Holy Spirit is an integral part of the Father (his holy breath) rather than a separate personality, I don't believe that anything written in the New Testament even remotely threatens the fatherhood of the Father in any way, unless you try to distinguish the Holy Spirit as a separate personality or person from the Father.  Also, the New Testament speaks of the Spirit of Christ, which may be distinguishing in some way between the "breath" or Spirit of the Son and the "breath" (or Spirit) of the Father, and both of these may be referred to in various contexts as the holy "breath" or Holy Spirit.

 

[JoeMo]

5 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Its a really nice trick question, however the question is very misleading in several ways. Whenever I see a pronouncement such as the question at hand, I automatically question the motive of the question. Is it sound exegesis, or is it unsound eisegesis?

 

5 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

The Father, and The Spirit appear to have some involvement in the Incarnation; there is no further explanation given, and nothing further should be presumed by anti-trinitarion  riddles and  thaumaturgy questions.

Do I detect just the smallest hint of hostility here, or is it just passion?  I'll assume the latter.  If it is the former, I'll admit to sounding somewhat snarky; and I apologize.  Believe me; I have agonized over this issue for more than 40 years; and have felt strongly about both sides of the issue.  In my tenure with the JW's, I even doubted that Jesus was God.  I'm over that, for sure.

I doubt very much if - after this much dialogue - either of us will convince the other.  At the risk of sounding blasphemous, I don't think its a salvational issue.  As I've said before, God is far beyond our understanding. Whatever I believe now, if I get to the Kingdom and Jesus tells me He believes in a Trinity, it will be AMAZING how quickly I will see and understand His point of view; and I will BELIEVE!

I like talking to you Wanderer.  I'll be out of pocket for a week in the wilds on New Mexico.  I'll be back in a week.

Blessings to all.

[8thdaypriest]

Those of us who hold minority or unpopular viewpoints (at least here on CA), tend to be a little "sensitive" to criticism. I include myself.  I'm working on my sensitivity. 

We all realize that how you read or understand a text, can be highly dependent upon your current understanding.  If one believes that "the Holy Spirit" is a third being who can act independently of God the Father and Christ the Son, then he will "see" that third being all through the NT. 

And if one believes that "the Spirit" is God the Father, or some aspect of Him (like His breath, or His extended presence) then that is what she will "see". 

That means most texts cannot be "proof texts". 

Take John 14:21 for instance.

"He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him."

Non-Trinitarians see only Jesus (the speaker) and God His Father in this text.  Jesus is the one who will "manifest" Himself.

Trinitarians "see" the Holy Spirit also, because they believe that Jesus is still only human, and cannot be omnipresent to "manifest" Himself, without the help of another divine being - the Holy Spirit,  "Who" comes to us - manifesting as Jesus.  Trinitarians believe "the Spirit of His Son" is not actually Jesus (or some aspect of Jesus), but rather is the third divine being - "Who" comes to us representing Jesus.

I have a hard time with that understanding, because it puts God between man and Christ, rather than just Christ between God and man.    

[8thdaypriest]

Joe,  I envy your trip "in the wilds of New Mexico".  Doubt I could still breathe at that altitude.

[8thdaypriest]

22 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

That sounds like Peter attributed the "such a voice" to God the Father rather than to the Holy Spirit.

 

Not so.  The text says the voice came from heaven.  It didn't say the voice came from the dove.

During the OT, kings and priests were "anointed" with sacred oil from the Tabernacle.  It represented the Holy Spirit - did it not?

Luke 4:18 "The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed;"  

If the One who anointed Jesus was the same One who "sent" Jesus - then the being Who anointed Jesus was "the Father".  I posted a dozen verses wherein Jesus said God His Father "sent" Him.  Never once, did Jesus ever say - The Holy Spirit sent me.  

The "He" of "He has anointed Me" would be God the Father.  The Father anointed Jesus with His own Spirit.  And rather than pouring sacred oil over the head of Jesus, the Father poured the spirit in the form of a dove, while pronouncing the words "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased".  He did not say - in whom we are well pleased.   (The "sacred oil" of the Temple, in the days of Herod and the corrupt priesthood, would not have been very "sacred".) 

The fact remains that God the Father anointed Jesus, and then Jesus anointed/baptized His disciples with that spirit. ("He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."  Mark 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16)

It reminds me of the laying on of hands.  Why actually touch the person to be healed, or commissioned, or otherwise prayed for?   It is because the Spirit flows through the anointing person, into the anointed person.  The anointing person acts as a channel for the Spirit of God. 

Did Jesus not do the same?  When the woman with the issue of blood was healed, Jesus said, "Who touched me?"  "Someone did touch me, because I felt power go out of me." (Luk 8:46 CJB)  And Jesus credited the Father for those miracles.  "The Father who dwells in Me, does the works" (John 14:10). 

Some want to say it was not really God the Father who dwelt in Jesus.  Rather it was another divine being call The Holy Spirit.  But Jesus never said anything like that.  He credited His Father. 

It all leads me to say that God the Father IS the Holy Spirit, and The Holy Spirit IS God our Father.  You cannot separate the two.  Jesus was begotten of/by The Holy Spirit.  Therefore Jesus' Father was The Holy Spirit.  One divine being who is everywhere, while at the same time manifesting as a glorious Being sitting on a throne - in Heaven.   

Jesus was/is the channel for that same Spirit in our world.  The Spirit OF Christ is the spirit OF God the Father - which came upon Jesus when He was anointed at His baptism, and came upon Him in greater force when He was glorified. 

"The spirit of Elijah"  (2 Kings 2:15), which became also "the spirit of Elisha", we understand to be the Spirit OF the LORD, which came upon these two men.  They became channels for that spirit.    

Why could not Jesus also have become a channel for the Spirit of His Father?  The "spirit OF Christ" we would understand to be the spirit OF God the Father, flowing through His Son.