Posted on 03/15/2015 4:13:42 PM PDT by Talisker
When you wrote "you did produce a theory based on the misreading of a brief passage,, clearly that is exactly what YOU did, by not addressing the actual passages of import in my question at all, and then producing your own absurd theory of my creating some sort of new gospel by even asking the question.
And when you wrote (whatever you think the terms of participating ought to be), my "terms of participation" were merely that answer stick to the question, and not make accusations of heresy - which you deliberately and openly violated, while mocking it in the name of being a courageous Christian!
So when you then dare to conclude with here's your opportunity to come to grips with this pattern of behavior and apologize, what can I say but that you appear to be utterly shameless, as well as obsessed with the juvenile trick of blaming your victim of the very techniques you are using.
Again, your answers on this thread are extraordinary. You have utterly, completely violated a very simple and open question. You've used multiple nasty techniques and are obviously highly motivated over a subject you declare to be long settled.
Maybe you live in a world where people crawl at your feet. But in the world where people actually consider your behavior and your words, your have exposed an enormous weakness in standard Biblical interpretation - and an absolutely conscienceless defense of that weakness.
I was deeply struck by reading this passage. I felt, as I said in my original post, that it is very mysterious.
Your astounding, indefensible behavior has proven to me that I am right.
One thing you need to learn, if you haven't already, is that in posting a comment or opiniom on FR, you're quite likely to get a response completely different than you ever imagined, and be prepared to have enough ego strength not to be wounded if the reply doesn't quite go as you expected.
I don't think you have the grounds to assume that you can govern what a responder can or cannot write, as long as he or she is within the guidelines as administered by the forum moderator.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Now look, your comments are rather silly. My responses have not done any of the things you have claimed. They have been directed toward the substance of your propositions. At this point you're postulating even more theories, several of which are now very personal in nature, and unwarranted. I think your online behavior is becoming very irregular and unusual.
Please stick to the issue, which is that you were testing as to whether the parakletos (Comforter) of John 16 is the Holy Spirit or not. You have brought up the concept that it is neither the Holy Spirit nor Jesus the Christ ("Christ" is Greek word for "Messiach" in Hebrew, both of which translated into English is "The Anointed One").
Your theme, or speculation, is that the Messiah to come is not the man Jesus, who has ascended into heaven, to prepare a place for His Own born-again disciples, and intends to return and take them to be with Himself:
"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.
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" (Jn. 14:3 AV).
In this Last Supper discourse, Jesus has said beyond the shadow of a doubt that the manifestation of The Godhead whose Name is "Holy Spirit," or just "Spirit," and Who has the title "Parakletos" or "Comforter" (in our language) are one and the same; and that though "spirit" in the Greek is neuter, The Holy Spirit is referred to as "He" both in this discourse (Jn. 14:26, 15:26) as well as in other places in the Scripture translated into English:
"Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) " (Acts 8:15-16 AV).
The meaning of parakletos is given in Thayer's Lexicon:
-------
Strong's G3875
παράκλητος
paraklētos
Thayer Definition:
1) summoned, called to one’s side, especially called to one’s aid
1a) one who pleads another’s cause before a judge, a pleader, counsel for defense, legal assistant, an advocate
1b) one who pleads another’s cause with one, an intercessor 1b1) of Christ in his exaltation at God’s right hand, pleading with God the Father for the pardon of our sins
1c) in the widest sense, a helper, succourer, aider, assistant
1c1) of the Holy Spirit destined to take the place of Christ with the apostles (after his ascension to the Father), to lead them to a deeper knowledge of the gospel truth, and give them divine strength needed to enable them to undergo trials and persecutions on behalf of the divine kingdom
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: a root word
--------
When Jesus comes, it will be in two stages. In the first stage, He will appear in the clouds, and all those saved in the Age of Grace will arise to meet Him:
"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord" (1Th 4:16-17 AV).
Of course, The Holy Ghost will also be removed from the earthly spere with them. Now where and who is the Messiach you have proposed?
Paul was quite concerned about the Corinthians starting to believe in a false Christ:
"For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
For if he that cometh preacheth another (allos) Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another (heteros) spirit, which ye have not received, or another (heteros) gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him" (2 Cor. 11:2-4 AV; my insertions).
In other words, another Jesus who seems to do everything like the genuine Jesus might be "of the same kind," but he still would be another, not the same Jesus, and therefore a false one, a false "savior," a false Christ. And therefore the spirit behind such preaching is another of a different kind, not the true Holy Spirit; and therefore the gospel of that other Jesus must be a false one, a different one, too. And the thrust of Paul's warning is that though the false gospel might be a smooth and fine-sounding hypothesis, it was not to be tolerated nor preached in that assembly of Christians, for it would just bring in more divisions of spiritually immature members that might be persuaded to follow it.
********
I have to say that the proposition you put up is not rational, when one compares Scripture with Scripture, and not worth further discussion.
WHY does Jesus call the Comforter a “he” that "will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears"? WHY does Jesus say "he will receive what he will make known"? FROM WHOM will he receive this information, if he is already the Holy Spirit?
Because you know what that sounds like? That sounds like someone who is RECEIVING information FROM the Holy Spirit.
After all, the Holy Spirit does not need to receive information from Jesus - right? And Jesus doesn’t need to receive information from the Holy Spirit - right? And neither of them needs to recevie information from God, either. Because ALL THREE ARE THE SAME.
So your "solution" is to merely throw out those passages that don't fit YOUR theories! Because that's what you're not only doing, but proclaiming here as orthodoxy itself!
I called these passage mysterious precisely BECAUSE they seem - directly, unquestioningly - at odds with orthodoxy. But, unlike you, I am not allowed - apparently - to simply throw out the parts of the Bible that don't agree with my so-called "theory" (which consists of simp reading Jesus' plain words). Thus, I asked HOW these specific passages can be reconciled with orthodoxy.
Because you know what the alternative is? The alternative is that these passages are Jesus referring to a DIFFERENT SUBJECT. That Jesus is here referring to someone who will speak and act with the authority of the Holy Spirit because he will be guided BY the Holy Spirit, but he will not be a direct manifestation OF the Holy Spirit, like Jesus is. And the reason that Jesus might be discussing such an issue is because He's trying to make sure this person is not rejected, because IN FACT, his words will be the words of the Holy Spirit speaking through him, as will be his acts. And this alternative is NOT my "theory" - it's what Jesus is describing here very plainly, saying it outright, directly, without any "theory" of mine intervening in ANY way. And so I basically asked if this was acknowledged by orthodoxy in some way, and how that way might be. It's called a QUESTION, and I wasn't interested in anything BUT this question, so I asked that people not do what you did - default to condemnations of heresy for merely asking this question.
But that was obviously too much to ask of you.
Because as far as YOU are concerned, the answer to my question is that orthodoxy simply does NOT acknowledge these plain words - and therefore, somehow, Jesus simply didn't say them. Because your mountain of mocking insults, in which you maintain I am "silly" to even reference, is apparently your actual reply to my question, and in none of them do I read a reconciliation of these issues. For, of course, YOU can't be wrong, and YOU can't not know something, right? That's simply not possible. Because, to YOU, there ARE NO mysteries in Jesus' words - right? So YOUR alternative is to deny the existence and legitimacy of the question itself. To throw out the ACTUAL words of Jesus in the Bible, in preference for a meaning that fits YOUR theory - all while deriding me for a supposed "theory" that doesn't even exist!
You're the one with the theory, not me. And accusing me of what you are doing is simply a cheap trick to try to hide it - whether you do it in Greek or English.
I'm sorry, I can't see but that interacting with you has been anything but a waste of time. You don't want to address the subject, fine - but why come and try to trash the thread and hurl insults and be abusive? Unless, of course, I've put my finger on something that you CAN'T resolve other than by kicking over the table, because this really IS a mysterious passage that makes you EXTEREMELY uncomfortable.
Like I said several times, your behavior here is your real answer - plain as day.
**********
WHY does Jesus call the Comforter a “he” that "will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears"? WHY does Jesus say "he will receive what he will make known"? FROM WHOM will he receive this information, if he is already the Holy Spirit?
********** First, be aware that though Spirit is neuter in the Greek, The Holy Ghost is referred to in the masculine sense in the Bible, as "He," and not as an "It," which would mean as "not a Person" after whose image we are formed. To emphasize this, the God-Man Jesus chose to use the Holy Ghost's title "Comforter," and it is a masculine noun, thus justifying referring to the Holy Spirit as "He" not as "It" when the personal pronoun is used to refer The Holy Ghost.
Secondly, note that at certain times, one of the Personalities of the Godhead can lay aside His preeminence and bring His activity under the direction of another of the equally authoritative Members of the Godhead. Jesus did, at the request of His Father, lay aside His authority and glory to come to earth and serve as obedient, meek, suffering Servant of The Father, even to the point of bearing the full blast of His Righteous Wrath that was due Adam and his get for introducing Sin into a perfect, very good world.
"Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (Jn. 4:34 AV).
"Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God" (Heb 10:7-9a-c AV)
Thirdly, for the Risen Jesus to be given all authority in The Heavens and on Earth, it is by the willing assent and foreknowledge of All the Personalities of the Godhead:
But when Jesus finished His work as The Only Begotten-in-the flesh Obedient Son, He ascended back into Heaven, took up again His prerogatives of Royalty and Gloriousness, and now possesses all authority over Heaven and the Earth, by agreement of all the Godhead:
"For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man" (Jn. 5:26-27 AV).
"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth" (Mt. 28:18 AV).
"Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church" (Eph. 1:20-22)
From this one may certainly know that by declaration of the Will of The Father, and by agreement of the Holy Spirit--and one may also say before The Beginning--The Holy Ghost at least in this world is willingly submitted to the authority of Jesus and was sent from Heaven into the world by order of The Christ to accomplish His, Jesus', Will concerning His Church. The Holy Spirit, the Comforter and Teacher was to receive and apply verbally through the New Testament prophets whatsoever The Christ wants Him to receive and pass on--nothing more, nothing less.
The Holy Spirit is not the Head of the Church or the churches, Jesus is. And the desired of the Holy Spirit is to Glorify the Lord, Jesus Christ and not Himself.
Eph 1:23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
At the end of time, He will deliver the Kingdom over to His Father:
"Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet" (1 Cor. 15:24-25).
Fourthly, Jesus The Messiah, the Christ, The Anointed One (Ps. 2:2) is a Counselor, and Advocate, a Paraklaytos:
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" (Isa 9:6 AV).
"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another (allos, another of the same kind) Comforter (paraklaytos), that he may abide with you for ever;" (Jn. 14:16 AV)
"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate (paraklaytos) with the Father, (Who is) Jesus Christ the righteous: " (1 Jn. 2:1 AV)
************
The upshot of this is that Jesus is a Comforter, and the Holy Spirit, The Spirit of Truth, is another Comforter of the same kind as Jesus. By virtue of the work done by Jesus on the Cross and resurrection,
He has all authority of which by agreement He has the right to send the Holy Ghost to Earth as The Paraklayte to and for the members of His Church, to receive from Him and give to them the Word of Truth, while Jesus remains in Heaven at the right hand of The Father as our Paraklayte Advocate there to make intercession for us.
Jesus was prophesied, born, died, was resurrected, and is the Messiah, the Anointed King of the Kingdom of The God. There is no other Messiah.
This is the Gospel, and there is no other Gospel. Any other messiah proposed or claiming to be a messiah for the Jews is a false messiah, of a false gospel, and is not to be given a place on any platform preaching or confessing the Christ of the Bible.
I hope that is clear to you and all who may be reading this, as to my position on it.
Secondly, and once again, what I asked was: WHY does Jesus call the Comforter a “he” that "will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears"? WHY does Jesus say "he will receive what he will make known"? FROM WHOM will he receive this information, if he is already the Holy Spirit?
Your substantive reply, such as it’s been and such as it is, is reduced - in your own words - to the following:
...at certain times, one of the Personalities of the Godhead can lay aside His preeminence and bring His activity under the direction of another of the equally authoritative Members of the Godhead. Jesus did, at the request of His Father, lay aside His authority and glory to come to earth and serve as obedient, meek, suffering Servant of The Father... "Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (Jn. 4:34 AV).
Your statement, as you have said it, is obviously true in and of itself. However, it still doesn’t address my question, because there is a significant difference that Jesus made - twice - in the statements I quoted from John 16:7-15. And that difference is a lack of knowledge.
Jesus willingly put aside his power, when He came to Earth and allowed Himself to be crucified. But He did not put aside His knowledge, nor His authority. He just didn’t enforce anything. He spoke with the full knowledge of God, and with the full authority of God, and He made it known that He was well aware of who He was, why He was here, and what He was doing.
That, of course, directly corresponds to your contention that “one of the Personalities of the Godhead can lay aside His preeminence and bring His activity under the direction of another of the equally authoritative Members of the Godhead” - somewhat. For even though Jesus did “submit” to the will of the Father, He was also that same Father - and He knew it.
In other words, what Jesus did was an act. He genuinely suffered, He genuinely took on sin, but He never forgot who He was and what He was doing. Even at the very end, when one could surmise that His suffering was at its greatest point and He cried out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?,” He showed He never lost awareness of what He was doing, by immediately following that cry of anguish with: “It is finished.”
In other words, “it” was His reference to the act by which He allowed Himself to reach that point of absolute lost agony, in order to spare the world of reaching that point - and He knew all along that that was what He was doing.
But that’s not the process He refers to in the quotes I referenced. In fact, Jesus - to my mind - goes out of His way in order to make the point that that is not what He’s talking about.
The first example is John 16:13-14, when Jesus says, concerning this “Comforter” that He will send after He leaves: “he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall take of mine, and shall declare [it] unto you.”
Another translation, perhaps clearer in modern English without losing the point, is:
“He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. ”
You see, this “he” Jesus is talking about does not know things of himself. He speaks only what he “hears” from God. Therefore, without receiving that information from God, he has nothing to say.
That is not the same as Jesus voluntarily relinquishing His power during His mission to Earth. Jesus knew who He was and what He was doing the whole time He was here. He did not lack anything - He agreed not to use it. And that’s the difference - even powerless, Jesus had ALL His power, He just didn’t use it.
He confirms this when He says in Matthew 26:53-54: “Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? [But if I do that,] How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?" Jesus is clearly saying that He HAS the authority to invoke those angels and use them IF He wants to, but He chooses not to of His own free will.
In contrast with that freedom and power however, Jesus is talking here about someone who does not know, and therefore does not have, and so must receive information and power from God that will flow him. Through him – not OF him.
The second qute makes this even more specific. In John 16:15 Jesus says: “All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he taketh of mine, and shall declare it unto you.”
Alternatively, “All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said he will receive from me what he will make known to you.”
This second quote clarifies my point - which is, I believe, what Jesus was doing - clarifying His point. I’m just pointing it out what He said. And that is that Jesus is acknowledging that He is different from the one to whom he is referring, by comparing the two directly. Jesus says, “All that belongs to the Father is mine.” In other words, there is no difference between Him and His Father - he needs not ask for anything from the Father, because He already has it. That’s because He is one of the Trinity.
So, AS one of the Trinity, when He said (above) “Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?,” since Jesus is one WITH the Father, He is referenceing the part of Himself that has not voluntarily put down His power. He’s basically saying He can take those angels out of storage and use them if He wants - “storage” being the part of HIM that never put His power aside in the first place - i.e. the Father.
But note the deliberate difference He makes from that equivalence, when He then states, “That is why” - in other words, “compare this equivalence with what He’s now about to say” - which is: “he will receive from me what he will make known to you.” The difference is stark - this “he” must receive his knowledge from Jesus, while Jesus need receive nothing from the Father because He already has it. Because if this he was the same as Jesus or the Holy Spirit, he would just “request” what he wants from the Father - just like Jesus did.
But note that this “he” doesn’t request anything. He doesn’t have the authority to request it. Rather, Jesus alone claims ALL authority, both to decide what he should receive, and to give it to him. All of that comes from Jesus as Jesus’ decision - not this “he” who Jesus will send.
So in the first association, Jesus is acknowledging Himself and the Father as two parts of the Trinity. In the following sentence, however, which Jesus deliberately links for comparison purposes - Jesus is contrasting that Trinity relationship with someone who is not a part of the Trinity because he does not already have for himself what Jesus and the Father have together as One.
Like I said, I don’t believe this is “my” theory - I think this is the point Jesus Himself is clearly, deliberately and carefully making in these passages. And that’s why I raised this question in the first place - to find out how orthodoxy (of whatever kind) deals with these passages.
Because it seems to me Jesus is talking about a different subject here, and that perhaps when the Bible was translated in the early days of its assembly, this passage was deliberately made confusing by equovicating it with similiar terms used elsewhere in a different way - as you have so amply pointed out. This passage appears to have been hidden in plain sight by its “misfiling” in the Bible, through its positioning and its use of common terminology to reference a different purpose.
You argue that because similiar words are used differently elsewhere, they should be applied equaly here. But it seems to me Jesus is specifically saying not to make that mistake, that He is talking about something different here and those other applications don’t apply to His conditional statements in this case.
And remember, these passages aren’t heresy - they are spoken by Jesus Himself. On the other hand, I find it fascinating that at the beginning of this section of the Bible - John 16:1-3 reads: “All this I have told you so that you will not fall away. They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me.”
And what have you done over my study of this passage? You have indeed “put me out of the synagogue”! That’s exactly what it means to tell someone - as you told me - they are “making a new gospel” and are anaethema and damned and heretical. And people who talk as you have towards me on this thread have indeed, historically, felt that killing for such reasons “are offering a service to God.”
But Jesus explains this as well, when He says, “They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me.”
How did you put it? “I hope that is clear to you and all who may be reading this, as to my position on it.”
You wrote, ”I am sorry that you have been so disappointed that your topic did not achieve much wider response...”
Thanks for your deep concern for my well being. But dry your eyes, because I assure you, the readership of this thread is far beyond what you imagine. And as far as the written responses are concerned, yours suffice - you are legion.
I decided to give a last (and this is the last) remark...
As have I. This thread has fulfilled its purpose - admirably.
In other words, Jesus is saying - right there - that this is a DIFFERENT SUBJECT than what the Disciples had received up until then. Something Jesus held back from them, deliberately, until He was about to be crucified.
I call that a special teaching about a different subject - to be interpreted in a differnt way, according to Jesus' specific instructions.
Just as I've done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.