Posted on 02/05/2007 10:35:59 AM PST by MichaelTheeArchAngel
Historical proofs as to the way the trinitarian doctrine effected the pure doctrine of the disciples. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics: As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism.
Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28: "The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form changed by the [Catholic] church."
The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275: "It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the exact words of Jesus, but a later liturgical addition."
The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."
Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015: "The Trinity is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs, The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch in (AD 180), (The term Trinity) is not found in Scripture." "The chief Trinitarian text in the New Testament is the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19.This late post-resurrection saying, is not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the New Testament, it has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion. Eusebius,s text ("in my name" rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit."
The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge: "Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61.Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed." page 435.
The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states: "It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus."
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says: "Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula is foreign to the mouth of Jesus."
New Revised Standard Version: In regards to Matthew 28:19. "Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity."
James Moffett's New Testament Translation: In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: "It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus." Acts 1:5.
Tom Harpur: Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his "For Christ's sake," page 103 informs us of these facts: "All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the evidence available that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") baptism was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone. It is argued that the verse originally read "baptizing them in My Name" and then was changed to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published: "The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal addition."
The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723: Dr. Peake makes it clear that: "The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal addition. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-"into My Name."
Theology of the New Testament: By R. Bultmann, 1951, page 133 under Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church and the Sacraments. The historical fact that the verse Matthew 28:19 was altered is openly confesses to very plainly. "As to the rite of baptism, it was normally consummated as a bath in which the one receiving baptism completely submerged, and if possible in flowing water as the allusions of Acts 8:36, Heb. 10:22, Barn. 11:11 permit us to gather, and as Did. 7:1-3 specifically says. According to the last passage, [the apocryphal Catholic Didache] suffices in case of the need if water is three times poured on the head. The one baptizing names over the one being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ," later changed to the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit."
Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church: By Dr. Stuart G. Hall 1992, pages 20 and 21. Professor Stuart G. Hall was the former Chair of Ecclesiastical History at King's College, London England. Dr. Hall makes the factual statement that Catholic Trinitarian Baptism was not the original form of Christian Baptism, rather the original was Jesus name baptism. "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," although those words were not used, as they later are, as a formula. Not all baptisms fitted this rule." Dr Hall further, states: "More common and perhaps more ancient was the simple, "In the name of the Lord Jesus or, Jesus Christ." This practice was known among Marcionites and Orthodox; it is certainly the subject of controversy in Rome and Africa about 254, as the anonymous tract De rebaptismate ("On rebaptism") shows."
The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles Volume 1, Prolegomena 1: The Jewish Gentile, and Christian Backgrounds by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake 1979 version pages 335-337. "There is little doubt as to the sacramental nature of baptism by the middle of the first century in the circles represented by the Pauline Epistles, and it is indisputable in the second century. The problem is whether it can in this (Trinitarian) form be traced back to Jesus, and if not what light is thrown upon its history by the analysis of the synoptic Gospels and Acts.
The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5: The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. "The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord." Also we find. "Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the trine form? Had Christ given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer trine formula was a later development."
A History of The Christian Church: 1953 by Williston Walker former Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale University. On page 95 we see the historical facts again declared. "With the early disciples generally baptism was "in the name of Jesus Christ." There is no mention of baptism in the name of the Trinity in the New Testament, except in the command attributed to Christ in Matthew 28:19. That text is early, (but not the original) however. It underlies the Apostles' Creed, and the practice recorded (*or interpolated) in the Teaching, (or the Didache) and by Justin. The Christian leaders of the third century retained the recognition of the earlier form, and, in Rome at least, baptism in the name of Christ was deemed valid, if irregular, certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen (254-257)."
Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts. "The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius: Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you." That "Name" is Jesus.
At my age and station in life, "serious research papers" (whatever that may mean) are of little interest to me.
I wouldn't likely cite it in a journal article offered for peer review ... but I wouldn't likely cite Encyclopaedia Britannica, either. Still, both are useful resources.
Which word is that?
Incidentally, "mystery" does not mean "things Catholics believe, even though they make no sense."
There are other words that describe believing what makes no sense and contradicts the Bible.
In the New Testament, the word 'mystery' has specific meaning and refers to something very special and it isn't 3 n 1 or anything like that.
God is in Christ. And Christ is in the believer. Doesn't that make the believer God, too?
I am in open defiance of, and reject what you say. I do not reject what the Bible says.
" God is invisible"
No, Eagle eye is invisible.
" Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:"
Jesus.
" God is spirit"
I am spirit.
" John 4:24, "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."
John 4:19
"Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem."
Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."
The woman said, "I know that Messiah is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us."
Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he."
Oh, look! Isaiah identifies God as the Messiah.
Isaiah 63:1-5
Who is this coming from Edom,
from Bozrah, with his garments stained crimson?
Who is this, robed in splendor,
striding forward in the greatness of his strength?
"It is I, speaking in righteousness,
mighty to save."
Why are your garments red,
like those of one treading the winepress?
"I have trodden the winepress alone;
from the nations no one was with me.
I trampled them in my anger
and trod them down in my wrath;
their blood spattered my garments,
and I stained all my clothing.
For the day of vengeance was in my heart,
and the year of my redemption has come.
I looked, but there was no one to help,
I was appalled that no one gave support;
so my own arm worked salvation for me,
and my own wrath sustained me.
" God is not a man"
John 1:1-5
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
"Num 23:19 God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"
You're calling God a sinner. Let's see...
Hebrews 4:15
"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin."
Maybe since Paul's, just a man, and thus a sinner, he lied here right?
"Matthew 3:17
"And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.""
Maybe God was pleased, because Jesus didn't sin that much, or just was never caught in sin? Maybe Abraham thought the same thing? John 8:56, "Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."
Re: God is His own mediator, and His own right hand man. That's clear in the Bible, as I pointed out.
"Sorry, the Bible simply says you're wrong on that.
Not the least bit wrong. From Isaiah 63:5, "my own arm worked salvation for me!"
"1Ti 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"
Oh look! There's more! 1 Tim 2:5,
"For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time."
The man Christ Jesus, the Messiah, God's own arm, worked salvation. From Isaiah 63:1, "It is I, speaking in righteousness, mighty to save." Maybe Jesus was just a talking arm?
I gave the Hebrew and the translation of the Hebrews, the Jews. They are not KJV translators, and Strong's doesn't apply!
I'm afraid you guys could see justification for your doctrines in a grilled cheese sandwich. Nothing I have posted would support a three headed Janus god being the One True God.
If I were Trinitarian I could see that in just about every verse.
Christian commentators who are looking for trinitarian allusions in the Jewish Scriptures translate part of Isaiah "The Lord God and His Spirit have sent me." However, a proper rendering of the verse reads: And now the Lord God has sent me, and His spirit." The last two Hebrew words in this verse are shelachani ve-rucho ("He has sent me, and His spirit"), with "me, and His spirit" being the direct objects of "sent." Even though a definite direct object is usually preceded by the participle 'et, this grammatical rule is frequently not observed in the Bible, e.g., Exodus 15:9; Judges 5:12; Psalms 9:5, 20:3-4, 45:4. In fact, 'et rarely occurs in the poetic parts of the Bible. Thus, the meaning of the verse is that God has sent Isaiah accompanied by His prophetic spirit. There is no mention of the third member of the Trinity doctrine. Instead, Isaiah affirms that God, who has placed within him the power of prophecy, sent him.
The spirit is always at the disposal of God to bestow upon whomever He chooses, as stated in Numbers 11:17, 25, 29; Isaiah 42:1, 44:3; Joel 3:1. If this spirit referred to the third member of a coequal tri-unity god, how could it be ordered about at the discretion of the other members of this group? We see that the Jewish Scriptures teach that "spirit" does not refer to the third person of a tri-unity god. Thus God says to Moses, "And I will take of the spirit which is upon you, and I will put it upon them. . . . And He took of the spirit which was upon him, and He put it upon the seventy men, the elders, and it came to pass, when the spirit rested upon them, that they prophesied. . . . And Moses said . . . 'would that all the Lord's people were prophets, that the Lord would put His spirit upon them'" (Numbers 1:17, 25, 29).
Such a condition makes it obviously impossible to consider the spirit as being an associate of God, let alone coequal with Him.
I see you've missed the mothership.
The Holy Spirit is not a person. Many folks "do believe" that the Holy Spirit of God is a separate entity.....and the reason for this doctrinal error is actually quite simple. The Spirit "does things"! [1 Corinthians 12:11][Acts 2:24][1 Peter 3:18][Hebrews 13:20] and [Romans 1:4]. The Spirit participated in creation [Genesis 1:2,26,27], made Job [Job 33:4]....but does this mean it is a person?
If it does, then "Wisdom" is also a person; [Proverbs 8:12,15 and 9:1-3]. Now....nobody actually believes wisdom is a person....but the scriptures plainly show it doing things. ...performing "works"....with human like qualities. The Holy Spirit of God also performs works but teaching that it is a separate person is as silly as believing that wisdom would be a separate person.
This is what the "New Catholic Encyclopedia" says: "The OT (Old Testament) clearly does not envisage God's spirit as a person, neither in the strictly philosophical sense, nor in the Semitic sense. God's spirit is simply God's Power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly (Isa. 48:16; 63:11; 32:15).......Very rarely do the OT writers attribute to God's spirit emotions or intellectual activity (Isa. 63:10; Wis.1:3-7). When such expressions are used, THEY ARE MERE FIGURES OF SPEECH that are explained by the fact that the RUAH was regarded also as the seat of intellectual acts and feeling (Gen. 41:8). Neither is there found in the OT or in rabbinical literature the notion that God's spirit is an intermediary being between God and the world. This activity is proper to the angels, although to them is ascribed some of the activity that elsewhere is ascribed to the spirit of God" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 13, p. 574, emphasis theirs).
Is the Holy Spirit of God a person? Obviously not. Can you find a scripture that says The Spirit has a body, eyes, mouth, ears??? No! Some scriptures are said to give the Spirit of God human like qualities, [Ephesians 4:30]. Ah! The Spirit can be grieved....so it must be a person. [Acts 7:51] Stiff necked people resisting the Spirit. [Acts 5:9] Tempting the Spirit. These are some reasons the Trinitarians believe the Spirit is a person. But, does giving human like qualities to something make it a person?
How many times have you called a favorite car or boat "Honey bun"? People give personal qualities to inanimate objects all the time. Even God inspired this kind of language when Moses referred to Cain killing Abel! [Genesis 4:10] The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. Another example; [Psalm 98:8] Let the floods clap their hands. Let the hills be joyful together.
Would we say that the "blood, the flood and the hills" are persons? I can show you scriptures indicating that God and His Son have body parts. You can show me no scripture that says the spirit has the same.
The Greek assigns a masculine gender for the word "Spirit" and we see it referred to as HE, HIM, HIMSELF throughout the New Testament. In the Old Testament the gender is female. Most languages have genders for their nouns so this proves nothing. The Greek "Parakletos" (comforter) has a masculine gender. This does not mean that Parakletos is a person.....only a noun.
Again, let me state.....The concept of a Trinitarian God head is Pagan. It existed long before in the "Babylonian Mystery Religion" and was allowed to enter the early Church from a convenience standpoint. It is not scriptural in any way shape or form. The mere fact that the "Johannine Comma" [1 John 5:7-8] exists should cause those of you disposed to this silliness to reconsider your doctrinal positions.
Glad to see you were able to make it.
Sorry....meant to ping you to # 129.
1Jo 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
Actually, if people would read the Gospel of John while remmebering what he says in the first epistle there would be no debated.
It is not possible for one to confess that Jesus came in the flesh if one actually believes that Jesus is God/also God/Divine/God the Son/man-god, etc.
As I said much earlier, trinity = baalim.
I'm taking my pearls and not putting them in front of you anymore! lol
What is a person?
LOL. God Bless.
In the Greek world, a mystery was that which was revealed to the mystes when he was initiated into an esoteric cult. Paul stood the idea on its head by presenting the Gospel s the PUBLIC mystery, that which had been so patently revealed that refusal to see meant ethical self-blinding wilful ignorance.
A proper discernment of His revealed Word through faith in Christ reveals God, the Holy Spirit indwells each and every believer during the Church Age at the moment of salvation(1 Cor 6:19-20)
1Co 6:19-20
(19) What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
(20) For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
Old Testament believers were never indwelt by the Holy Spirit, rather some had an enduement or empowerment of the Holy Spirit.
God the Holy Spirit makes a sacred building out of the believer's body for the indwelling of God the Son, and God the Father. Denial of the indwelling of God the Holy Spirit denies the object which has been bought with a price by our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus and that which He predestined from eternity past.
We receive six additional gifts by God the Holy Spirit at salvation: efficacious grace, regeneration, sealing, spiritual gifts, filling and baptism.
While God the Holy Spirit indwells every believer in the Church Age, He only controls the soul under the title of 'filling of the Holy Spirit' or 'walking in the Spirit'. Whereas the sanctification process occuring from the human spirit to the mind to the heart and then with volition added to works becomes wisdom, the walking in the Spirit may at times refer to the latter stages of employing the epignosis in the heart to perform good works, whereas the filling of the Holy Spirit is required for the intake of Bible doctrine supernaturally to the human spirit, processing as gnosis in the mind and to the heart where is becomes a categorical chamber ready for employment by the believer's volition when he encounters problems in life.
The believer who fails to give control of his soul to the Holy Spirit falls under the title of 'carnal' or degeneration of the human soul, in his mind and possibly his heart.
When we sin, we lose the filling of the Holy Spirit, but not the indwelling during this Church Age.
In the life of every believer, the old sin nature, the old man, which is in our body must be overcome by the filling of the Holy Spirit. The use of divine power occurs with the filling of the Holy Spirit and is not operational simply based upon the indwelling. Human ability must be superceded by Divine ability, which makes the understandng and filling of the Holy Spirit an essential component in the spiritual life of every believer.
Without the filling of the Holy Spirit, it is impossible for the believer to fufill the divine plan for the believer in this Church Age. Additionally, whereas we are not defiled from what enters a man, but from what proceeds from us, while we remain filled with the Holy Spirit, we are able to face even the most adverse situation possible and still produce divine god through faith in Christ.
Whereas the indwelling of the Holy Spirit emphasizes the body, the filling of God the Holy Spirit emphasize the believer's soul (mind and heart). (1stCor 3:15-21)
The filling of the Holy Spirit is mandated of each and evry believer, (Eph 5:18) or walking with the Spirit (Gal 5:16) whereas the indwelling is never commanded of man, but instead is independent of man's volition, rather the indwelling of the believer's body is the status quo of God.
THIS IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT POINT FOR EVERY BELIEVER IF THEY SHOULD FACE THE END TIMES AND POSSIBLY BE COMPELLED TO TAKE THE MARK OF THE BEAST. The indwelling of God the Holy Spirit is unique in the Church Age and has never before happened, nor will occur again after the Church Age.
Any and every man might commit the most heinous sins possible, yet still have salvation through faith in Christ and the ministries and indwelling of the Holy Spirit during this Church Age. For the Holy Spirit to be removed from inswelling man at the great Tribulation, something more significant than merely turning away or sin occurs. Those things have already been dealt with by our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus. Vengeance is the Lord's, not ours. Some will go into captivity and some will doe by the sword, but His elect will be saved and the end of the age will not occur until He has gathered up His elect, except for the remnant and two witnesses.
The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a temple in the body. The filling of the Holy Spirit is a triumph of the soul.
The indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the previous old sin nature inherited in man from birth in the body result in tremendous conflict. (Gal 5:17) This issue isn't resolved by morality, which results in appeal in the soul to legalism and loss of filling of the Holy Spirit, rather the emphasis is on remaining in fellowship with God through faith in Christ in our soul, (mind and heart) and combined with our volition to remain in fellowship with Him, thereby allowing God's divine power to overcome all temptation, rather than our volition independent of God.
This is why inculcation of Bible doctrine, faith, in our hearts is so important, so that we may continually have a divine response through faith in Christ ready for any and every situation which thrusts itself upon us. There is no temptation too great than that which may be resisted and He as provided for us in eternity past, by His plan to grace us with logistical providence for every situation we will encounter. Such is the plan of God. We are to remain filled with the Holy Spirit so that we are at His right time and place to fulfill that plan.
Two further issues arise regarding Scriptural lessons on the Holy SPirit. We are commanded not the grieve the Holy Spirit, which is what we do whenever we sin, thereby stepping out of fellowship with Him. This might occur if we are not in truth or if we act independently of Him, i.e. sin. This first stage of carnality is symptomatic of worldly thinking, making good and order out of the chaos of the of our environment and creating an ordered world independent of Him.
The second stage of degeneration in the believer's mind and heart, when out of fellowship, is to quench the Holy Spirit. Whereas grieving the Holy SPirit is simply any type of sin, a stepping away from Him or turning away from Him, loss of fellowship with the Holy Spirit,...the quenching of the Holy Spirit is the next progression of degeneracy resulting in an attack on His plan. (1st Thes 5:19) (it might be noted that many lessons of God the Holy Spirit are provided around the middle of the 5th chapters of many of the epistles,...although not a neccesity it might provide a useful learning tip when searching Scripture).
John 14:23-31 shows us the main objective for this indwelling of the Holy Spirit is his teaching ministry. Be sure to understand the teaching is not merely limited to the mind and heart but also involves the supernatural teaching of the regenerated human spirit which has been bought with a price. Even unbelievers and those who study comparative religion can master thoughts in their mind and heart, but by worldly standards of good, not divine standards. For those who have been raised in a Christian culture, it is very tempting to fall back onto our scarred thinking processes and vocabulary in our heart and not realize when we may have slipped outof fellowship with God the Holy SPirit. For this reason, it is imprtant to keep short accounts and utilize 1stJohn 1:9 frequently, never ceasing in prayer and thinking the mind of Christ.
Anointing or unction of the Holy SPirit also refers to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
The reason you do not understand the Holy Spirit as a person is because your understanding is of man and not revealed to you from His Spirit.
Any believer through faith in Christ may return to Him through 1stJohn 1:9 and remain in fellowship with God through faith in Christ, thereby allowing the Holy Spirit to perform His teaching ministry.
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.