h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Gif

The Arian and Trinitarian viewpoints are completely at odds. Yes, the Arians articulated the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Where they differ so greatly from the Trinitarians is their belief that the Son was a created being. Trinitarians insist on the eternality of the God-head which the Arians denied. The Holy Spirit was deemed by some Arians to be simply the essence of the Father; or a force, rather than an actual person. This is a belief still commonly held today.

Romans 8:11 (my reference) states that the Spirit raised Jesus Christ --the " Spirit " is generally understood to be the Holy Spirit. He is alternately referred to in the NT as the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of God etc. etc. Another Scripture relating to His role in the Resurrection is 1 Pet. 3:18.

Cheers

Rick

royalrcrompton would you like to visit our room at the back here?

The BARTENDER Serves The HOLY A

Arbuthnot 2:73.5, part IV

Hi Rick,

Romans 8:11 says:
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

It *does not* say:
But if the Spirit that raised up Jesus from the dead...

In other words, the phrase 'him that raised up Jesus from the dead' means 'God', so this text is talking about the spirit of God, i.e. the Holy Ghost. You are saying that 'him that raised up Jesus from the dead' means 'the spirit of God', which gives us the meaningless phrase 'But if the spirit of the spirit of God dwell in you...'

Sorry, I've tried to be clear and explain that step-by-step by substituting individual words, but I have a feeling that my 'clarity' has become confusing



1 Peter, on the other hand, I will grant you. You can make a case from comparing 1 Peter to the other verses you cited - all written by separate authors and never meant to be viewed together, remember - and thus claim scriptural support for the idea that Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost are all responsible for raising Jesus from the dead. But that is hardly the same as having a verse that says 'the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and these three are one', is it?

And yes, Arianism was at odds with a movement called Trinitarianism, but the dispute was not over the existence of the Trinity, on which they both agreed. I still don't think it has any relevance.

Gif

Effers

<>

You are being offensive.

Mikey2

Hi Gif

re : " the Spirit of him..." I am afraid I can't grasp what you are attempting to say or prove.

The Holy Spirit is indeed, the Spirit of God -- no argument there! Again, He may be referred to by many titles as Scripture shows-- one of them being the Spirit of him (taken naturally to mean " God" ).

That the verses I have cited have less force than a single verse is debatable. But they collectively demonstrate the unity of the God-head -- something that the early Church fathers clearly saw and thus drew their conclusions concerning the Trinitarian Nature of God.

I find your second last sentence confusing. If the Arians were opposed to Trinitarianism, how can you say that they believed in the existence of the Trinity? The Trinity (as understood by the early Church fathers and which forms the basis of Christian orthodoxy) means a " three in one existence." That is what the Arians opposed. They deemed both Christ and the Holy Spirit created beings which, of course, would place them in a subordinate position to God. The weight of Scripture clearly refutes that notion.

Without the Deity of Jesus Christ and the Deity of the Holy Spirit, there could have been no fulfillment of the law (necessary for the death of a sinless substitute), no redemption for sinful men, and no resurrection. The entire Gospel of grace would otherwise, come crashing down. The Gospel is not by works but by faith in Christ's blood through God's grace (Rom. 3:19-28 ; Eph. 2:8,9 ; Titus 3:5 )

Regards

Rick

The , Giggles And Mutters, 'I Wish To Myself Those Two Would Learn How To Hold Their Spirits!', Gulps Down The , Splutters And Coughs For A Bit, Glares At The Bartender, Tninks For A Bit, Then Staggers Over To The Table Under Which The Sumerian, The Scots-Person, And The SON Sit, Apparently Engaged In Friendly Drunken Banter.

The Tries To Kick The SON, (But Fails Because, You Know, The Hasn't Any Feet )

"Jesus Christ", Says The , "That Smart-Alec Water Into Wine Trick Is Getting Real Old!"


Rick "Billy-Bob" Smith 3:0.02

~~~~~

And with that, the Yakstop vanishes in a puff of string theory, perhaps never to return, perhaps to re-appear in an alternate universe.

Who knows?

>You are being offensive<

Sorry Mikey. It's known as Effer's gallows humour.

The idea that it's fun to see someone "writhe in agony for a few moments whilst there's still blood enough left in their body" is abhorrent, and hardly constitutes humour.

Effers

<>

That's ok

Mikey2

Hi Rick,

'If the Arians were opposed to Trinitarianism, how can you say that they believed in the existence of the Trinity?'

Yes, I agree that this is confusing. The group the Arians disagreed with called themselves 'Trinitarians', but their disagreement with the Arians was not over the existence of Trinity.

Perhaps a helpful analogy might be found in US politics; Republicans are not opposed to democracy, even though they are against the Democratic Party. The Arians did not oppose a three-in-one existence; but they did oppose a group called the Trinitarians. I don't know whether they believed that Jesus was 'lesser' than the other parts of the Trinity because He only came into existence at the Nativity, and I doubt that enough Arian writings survive to tell whether they believed that.


'The Gospel is not by works but by faith in Christ's blood through God's grace'

Don't even get me started on this! The early church was plainly divided on this. James in particular is quite explicit that 'faith without works is dead'. He appears to be arguing with pseudo-Paul using the specific example of Rahab (cf James 2:21-25 with Hebrews 11:31). I'm told that Martin Luther offered his doctoral hat and cape to anyone who could legitimately reconcile this contradiction.

Gif

I know Revelation is only an allegorical story...but what's the reader meant to think about the gory punishments meted out the unsaved? Do the Lamb and the holy angels enjoy watching them being tortured with fire and brimstone? Do they bring ?

Hi Ed,

Yes, the same thing had occurred to me, by analogy to Effers' controversial comments. Is John less offensive than Effers if Christians think he is literally correct?

(This is an open question, not a rhetorical one)

Gif

Er, does anybody here believe Effers was being literally correct?

OK, to clarify, my question was:

If the difference between John and Effers is that some people think John is literally correct, is John less offensive than Effers?

Gif

If John is literally correct, then he's not really offensive. If I describe the more gory parts of trench wars, I guess it won't be in general considered as offensive either (disgusting though it may be).

It also depends in context: addressing a bunch of Disneyland visitors telling them the horrors of WWI might be considered as borderline bad taste (and I won't mention which side of the borderline).

And it appears I didn't answer your question.

I don't know which one is more offensive. We're more used to Revelation, probably.

OKay. Sorry for my over the top humour. It genuinely was meant as 'ribbing' of course. But I went too far. That's common with me

The lion sleeps tonight?