-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Any Binitarians out there?
- Thread starter Mojo
- Start date
We're not talking about separating the Holy Spirit from the Godhead. Even the Binitarian view is that the Spirit is fully God - it is the power coming from God. The Spirit is just considered not to be a separate "person" with a separate will. Even in this view, blasphemy of the Spirit is blasphemy of God. If anything this actually elevates the Spirit by considering the Spirit fully part of the Father Himself, or rather does not denigrate the Spirit in any way. At worst, it fails to recognise that the Spirit has an individual will, and that would be a minor error if it is an error.
Remember when Yeshua was about to be taken up to heaven, He did not say "I will send a comforter", but rather, "I will pray the father, and he shall give you another comforter". This indicates that Yeshua does not have direct authority over the Spirit - but the Father does. If the Spirit does have a will, this is used purely to do the Father's direct wishes, so the effect is the same as if the Spirit has no will and purely follows the will of the Father.
Remember when Yeshua was about to be taken up to heaven, He did not say "I will send a comforter", but rather, "I will pray the father, and he shall give you another comforter". This indicates that Yeshua does not have direct authority over the Spirit - but the Father does. If the Spirit does have a will, this is used purely to do the Father's direct wishes, so the effect is the same as if the Spirit has no will and purely follows the will of the Father.
I stumbled across another verse today that mentions all three members of the Godhead. The context is a prophecy of Christ's return to Earth, and the events surrounding Armageddon.
Zechariah 12:10. I will pour on the house of David, and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they will look to me whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son, and will grieve bitterly for him, as one grieves for his firstborn.
You see God (the Father) pouring His Spirit into the world -- whether His force, or a third person, there is at least a role distinction between pourer and poured. And of course, the Son who was pierced.
Zechariah 12:10. I will pour on the house of David, and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they will look to me whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son, and will grieve bitterly for him, as one grieves for his firstborn.
You see God (the Father) pouring His Spirit into the world -- whether His force, or a third person, there is at least a role distinction between pourer and poured. And of course, the Son who was pierced.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
I mentioned this earlier, but this whole debate presupposes that we can use words like "person" to mean whatever we want them to mean.
Meanwhile, people can believe whatever they want to believe about this. Nowhere in scripture is the doctrine of the trinity plainly taught as doctrine about the nature of God, let alone lifted up to "by this all men will know you are my disciples, by your confession of orthodox dogma".
Anybody who has parsed out the difference between what the bible teaches about marriage and what our culture teaches about marriage ought to recognize the similarities. In the absence of plain teaching, proof texts that are indirectly supportive are selected to 'prove' the case. What matters is where you go from there. When belief in a particular statement about things we can't possibly ultimately determine is held up as a test of who's truly a Christian, there's a problem.
The question is not how much you think you know about ballistics. The question is whether you can hit your target at 300 yards.
I mentioned this earlier, but this whole debate presupposes that we can use words like "person" to mean whatever we want them to mean.
Meanwhile, people can believe whatever they want to believe about this. Nowhere in scripture is the doctrine of the trinity plainly taught as doctrine about the nature of God, let alone lifted up to "by this all men will know you are my disciples, by your confession of orthodox dogma".
Anybody who has parsed out the difference between what the bible teaches about marriage and what our culture teaches about marriage ought to recognize the similarities. In the absence of plain teaching, proof texts that are indirectly supportive are selected to 'prove' the case. What matters is where you go from there. When belief in a particular statement about things we can't possibly ultimately determine is held up as a test of who's truly a Christian, there's a problem.
The question is not how much you think you know about ballistics. The question is whether you can hit your target at 300 yards.
This is so right.
It's why I asked originally if anyone would bring it up in general conversation at a house of worship. If you're like me, you've realized most people in churches don't usually ask these questions. Either because asking questions isn't part of what they do, or because they've become James Christians and focus on living out the faith they profess.
But similar to those of us who have come to understand about polygyny is that orthodoxy camps are what tend to drive many folks. They are preoccupied with litmus tests rather than Berean study of the Word. Heaven forbid that a doctrine they hold has holes or is not as set in stone as they thought.
A pastor friend of mine felt so out of place traveling to the Holy Land with a group of interdenominational pastors from different parts of the world because the Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, and Presbyterians were downing alcohol and smoking. He wasn't used to seeing pastors do this. Was it unbiblical or uncultural?
Most of us accept trinitarianism with its loosely based "proof" verses because it's all we've been taught. Is binitarianism the true way? Not a lot of proof verses there either. I will know when I die, but it's still fun to stretch my brain BEFORE I die.
We know the Spirit is somehow and in some way separate from the Son. In some form or fashion we have three entities, forms, manifestations what have you.
I think for most people that's where they should stop.
But we're BF members......it's so hard for us to stop. We were the kids in the back of class always asking the teacher "why not?" And never being satisfied with. "Because, it just is !"
I hear you. Love the mental aerobics of it all.
Wow I forgot to click "send emails", didn't realize how interesting this thread had gotten haha.
I don't have a bone to pick in this; just thought looking at an actual critical text might be interesting.
For anyone interested, I'm uploading a photo from my "Biblia Sacra Ultriusque Testamenti - Editio Hebraica et Graeca" from Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
It's a critical Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic text with the critical apparatus.
I took a photo of the page where the verses in question start (but didn't do the 2nd page since for space issue).
If you look near the bottom of the Greek text you'll see verse 7 is very short, then there is that little partially angled bracket sign as a superscript; this tells us that the scholars who assembled the critical text based on extant witnesses did not include something, but if you want to see what was left out of this critical edition, and the witnesses which include (what was left out), look down at the apparatus (bottom of the photo right side you'll see bold 7/8 that's for verse 7 and 8. The text above has a special bracket matching the one in the text.
You need to be logged in to your account to see this image in a usable size.
This is the Nestle Aland 27 text (my UBS doesn't have the apparatus, but that critical edition also does not include the contested verse part 'in heaven,father, etc'.
The verse left out("ourano,'o pateyr,'o logos.kai to 'agiou pneuma kai autoi oi treis en esin...." heaven, the father, the word, ...3 in 1... etc.) These are the witnesses to that left out part:
The little 'vg' means 'vulgate' so you can see most witnesses are from a few Latin vulgate fragments not Graece (Greek). The superscript 'mss' means "just 1 manuscript has this variant reading" then reading will follow. Near the very bottom the little 'txt' means "the following support the text chosen in the NA critical text".
rell (lowest left-most word) means reliqui "the rest of the manuscript tradition support the 'txt', choice made by this critical edition.It includes also the MR (Majority text, including Byzantine Koine text). If I left out meanings of anything please ask, just starting the new week here...2:30am
I don't have a bone to pick in this; just thought looking at an actual critical text might be interesting.
For anyone interested, I'm uploading a photo from my "Biblia Sacra Ultriusque Testamenti - Editio Hebraica et Graeca" from Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
It's a critical Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic text with the critical apparatus.
I took a photo of the page where the verses in question start (but didn't do the 2nd page since for space issue).
If you look near the bottom of the Greek text you'll see verse 7 is very short, then there is that little partially angled bracket sign as a superscript; this tells us that the scholars who assembled the critical text based on extant witnesses did not include something, but if you want to see what was left out of this critical edition, and the witnesses which include (what was left out), look down at the apparatus (bottom of the photo right side you'll see bold 7/8 that's for verse 7 and 8. The text above has a special bracket matching the one in the text.
You need to be logged in to your account to see this image in a usable size.
This is the Nestle Aland 27 text (my UBS doesn't have the apparatus, but that critical edition also does not include the contested verse part 'in heaven,father, etc'.
The verse left out("ourano,'o pateyr,'o logos.kai to 'agiou pneuma kai autoi oi treis en esin...." heaven, the father, the word, ...3 in 1... etc.) These are the witnesses to that left out part:
The little 'vg' means 'vulgate' so you can see most witnesses are from a few Latin vulgate fragments not Graece (Greek). The superscript 'mss' means "just 1 manuscript has this variant reading" then reading will follow. Near the very bottom the little 'txt' means "the following support the text chosen in the NA critical text".
rell (lowest left-most word) means reliqui "the rest of the manuscript tradition support the 'txt', choice made by this critical edition.It includes also the MR (Majority text, including Byzantine Koine text). If I left out meanings of anything please ask, just starting the new week here...2:30am
Last edited:
So what does that mean?
Means that there is a great likelihood that the part about
"...in the heaven, the Father, the word, and the holy spirit, and these 3 are 1 and these 3 are testifying en the Earth..."
is not in the autografia (original writings).
There is an entire field known as "textual criticism" filled by devoted,scholarly believers and it doesn't mean the criticize the bible; it means they are searching, comparing, merging, the thousands of pieces of the bible we find to try to reconstruct the bible as perfectly as possible in the assumed "original" Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek. This is where Muslims attack the bible as corrupted (intentionally) not realizing their own small holy writ is a total mess textually.
Don't worry, the bible is the most attested book of antiquity. We have very good "witnesses" meaning manuscripts or fragments of manuscripts.
The dead sea scrolls, for example, are now included as witnesses in the critical Hebrew bible known as BHQ (Biblia Hebraica Quinta).
Sometimes when people first learn about textual criticism of the bible it can be jarring since many pastors erroneously pass down the idea that "every single letter is exactly as it was originally written down" and when that foundation gets challenged it can be a crisis of faith.
In actuality G-d chose mankind to preserve His word and we have done a better job preserving these books of the bible in various languages than in most other ancient literary works.
So scholars collect and compare document "witnesses"; and it's not a pure numbers game. You may have 1 document weighted more heavily than 100 other documents due to it's age. Other factors are if we find numerous ancient translations like into Syriac (Peshitta) and Coptic (Egyptian Christians) and other languages but those ancient translations agree and we only have a small number of "witnesses" in the original language, we may choose to still opt for that variant reading. Critical texts are great because they inform the reader.
They let us know "hey, this is what else is out there among the thousands of pieces of ancient bibles we found but we decided to not include that semi colon here for this reason...". Usually it's less significant issues than the one we've been discussing here where it seems an entire sentence+ may not have been in the "original" Greek.
So the critical texts (both Nestle Aland and UBS) both support @FollowingHim 's position in that they choose to leave out that extra sentence in their reconstructions of the "original" Greek text. Some of the "witnesses" listed by @VivaVeritas76 are those texts listed in the critical apparatus I showed the photo of (the part at the bottom of the original language bible that explains what's missing and why).
VV76 could still be correct in his position that the extra sentence belongs in the text; the decision making process in the field of textual criticism is not a hard science like Chemistry. It is reasoned, and sincere, but can still make a wrong choice about what to include and what not to include. What's good is that the information is provided for the reader to make an informed choice and be led by the pneuma/spirit/wind of G-d as @andrew mentioned.
The sentence in question, if it is truly inspired, makes it hard for any one to doubt the trinity because it's almost spelled out for us clearly: Yeshua is the logos/word, Father, and the hagiou pneumia (holy wind, distinct spirit, etc) ... the "3 are 1" that line tells us.
If, however, the critical versions of the text (NA as I showed, and UBS) are correct, then that line isn't there. This doesn't mean the trinity concept is not true; it simply means folks need to find support elsewhere in scripture for that concept.
(I explained more than you asked for because I thought someone else reading who didn't ask may want the summary). 1 more thing. Textual criticism is present for ANY book of antiquity since papyrus just doesn't last so long. Homer's works, Plato, etc. so this is a normal way to try to decide what was original and what was erroneously added through the ages.
To be fair, if some monk added that extra part he may have been duplicating a damaged text and relied on his memory at that part; not necessarily trying to win a trinitarian debate.
This should affect choices we make in choosing a translation though since many of the older translations did not have available the sheer number of witnesses we have today.
King Jimmy for example while an excellent translation and often true to the original languages, did not investigate even the Peshitta Aramaic and only had access to 7 Greek manuscripts (I think 7, it's less than 10 whatever it was) in their harmonized form from Erasmus.
At the least, it's a good reason to use more than 1 translation when studying.
Last edited:
But we're BF members......it's so hard for us to stop. We were the kids in the back of class always asking the teacher "why not?" And never being satisfied with. "Because, it just is !"
I hear you. Love the mental aerobics of it all.
I can so relate to this! I love that verse that says "Come let us reason together," and I am certain there is no substitute for knowing what you believe, and why you believe it.
I agree that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is a serious subject, but how can we take care to not do it, if we don't even know what it is?
I've been thinking about this discussion here. The following are just thoughts and musings. I'm not claiming anything more.
Maybe coming at the subject of the Holy Spirit (set apart Spirit) more from the perspective of what it does, (active purpose) more then who it is, (label and define) would shed more light on what blasphemy of the Holy Spirit might be. Jesus referred to it as another comforter, but also said that by its power we could know the truth of all things. The fruits of the spirit are listed also, for us to consider, and I think most would agree that Holy Spirit moves man in a direction that desires to serve YHWH, and seeks to do His will.
This is inner intent, and motivation. A believer might need Holy Spirit himself, to accurately discern what spirit was motivating another.
Jesus also said He came to destroy the works of the devil, and here most are going to picture another persona, maybe one with horns and a tail, but if you substitute the meaning of the word devil, it says that Jesus came to destroy the works of the false accuser, traducer, slanderer. When we take an accusing roll with a fellow believer, judging his actions from our limited perspective and knowledge, we could easily misjudge, or wrongly ascribe his actions to evil intent, or unholy spirit. What would most people think if their neighbor shared his intent to go and kill his only son as a sacrifice to God? Now don't cheat and picture Abraham, picture your neighbor!
Of course that is an extreme example, but the point is that if one is motivated by Holy Spirit to do something, we might want to be careful about our own judgment of that other believer's motives.
"Who are you to judge another man's servant? To his own master he stands or falls"
At the other side of the spectrum (and reading the definition of blaspheme this might be worth considering further, sacrilege is using something holy in the wrong manner) are people who claim holy motives, when it is highly doubtful. Like Brigham Young claiming the Holy Spirit revealed to him, that he was the only man on earth who could get a woman he was wooing into the celestial kingdom (after a long unsuccessful courtship before claiming superior spiritual knowlege).
I often just take a lot in, and ponder a lot, and read definitions. It doesn't hurt to take time when studying things out.
I am just a simple man.
Not Trinitarian, Binitatarian, nor Unitarian.
My Bible tells me simply that Yahushua is the son of YHWH and that a being exists that is known as the Holy Spirit.
But it also says that there are seven spirits of YHWH that no one can account for.
Revelation 3:1 (KJV)
And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.
4:5 (KJV)
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 (KJV)
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.
Not Trinitarian, Binitatarian, nor Unitarian.
My Bible tells me simply that Yahushua is the son of YHWH and that a being exists that is known as the Holy Spirit.
But it also says that there are seven spirits of YHWH that no one can account for.
Revelation 3:1 (KJV)
And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.
4:5 (KJV)
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 (KJV)
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.
****** WARNING: this post contains the name of G-d, if you print this out, please show proper respect (no trash, floor, etc) **********
You remind me of Bill Oreilly (I like Bill) ... "I'm just a simple man" he says, then destroys the liberal guest's positions with ease
OK so ... is "Yahushua" supposed to be the Biblical Hebrew "Yehoshua" (English: Joshua)?
There's nobody in the masoretic text with that name, "Yahushua". I can post screen shots from facsimilies of the Leningrad Codex (baseline for most Hebrew bibles today) which has the vowels in it; in the Hebrew bible we find יְהוֹשֻׁעַ "Yehoshua" (Joshua) and the shorter form יֵשׁוּעַ "Yeshua" and this is the name given to Yeshua HaMashiach (Literally: Salvation the Anointed One).
I'm keeping this short for now since if this is going to become a topic on it's own, it probably deserves it's own thread.
I'm sure you love Elohiym brother, so this is not a crack at you. There is just so much misinformation in the various "sacred namers" movements today that their pseudo-scholars and self-printed bible versions (edits of existing versions) try to add "Yah" to everything and the Master doesn't need us to do that for Him. We can acknowledge His name in many ways, HalleluYah ! ! הללו-יה
Last edited:
So is it at all relevant that we have all Three of the Godhead present in a physical way at Christ's baptism? The Father speaks, the Spirit comes in the form of a dove and of course Christ is there. All three, all physically present (obviously I'm counting the Father's voice). So how does this impact the debate?
I was going to post this earlier but just haven't gotten a chance to do so.
In Isaiah 11:1&2 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;
Six spirits making up the generalized word spirit. 1)Spirit of Wisdom 2) Spirit of Understanding 3) Spirit of Counsel
4) Spirit of Might 5) Spirit of Knowledge 6) Spirit of Fear of the Lord.
The manifestation of these spirits can be found explained in 1 Cor. 12:7-11 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; (#1)†; to another the word of knowledge (#5) by the same Spirit; To another faith (#6)by the same Spirit; †; to another the gifts of healing (#4) by the same Spirit;
To another the working of miracles;(#4) †; to another prophecy;(#2) †; to another discerning of spirits; (#3)†; to another divers kinds of tongues;(#2,5)†; to another the interpretation of tongues: (#2,5) But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
The influence of these six "Spirits" results in the fruits of the Spirit. Galatians 5:22,23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
I like to think of the 7 Spirits of God as like a menorah. Jesus Christ the Son is the central figure "in the midst of the candlesticks" as in Rev. 1. The six named spirits of God are the branches coming out of the rod of the stem of Jesse.
(Not sure if this analogy is correct or proveable, I just find it interesting that in Rev. 5 when the 7 spirits are mentioned, there is not a mention of the Lion of the Tribe of Judah.)
The following chapter (of John 16:7) has this statement also. "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. "
Just a clarification, I wasn't saying that I thought it was the only verse, just my personal favorite. I tend to favor it as being included in the original due to the wording as well as grammatical reasons. Granted, if it were "added", I would think that a clever pseudographical writer would have attempted to use the same phrasing as John, i.e. The Word, but from what I have read in other pseudographical works that have been attributed to that era, they virtually always give themselves away by later phraseology such as, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit or Ghost.
I also have issues with accepting many of the Greek manuscripts after 100 AD-ish due to the influence of Gnosticism as well as several other isms that crept into the Greek churches that were often dealt with by the Latin speaking apologist as well as several African apologist.
Also, as I understand it the "Majority Text" is hardly that, being compiled and compared from only about 1/10th of the available docs that comprise the Majority Texts making it a very misleading name.
Hey it's not legalism, it's linguistics.
I just thought maybe you didn't know that there never was a Hebrew name like that...ever.
Sorry if you didn't want to know; but there may be others reading who do want to know how to say Yeshua's name.
Regarding legalism I never corrected anyone here for saying Jesus.
We have different denominations etc. but saying "Jesus" isn't a forced, pseudo-Hebraic contortion with the traditional English "Jesus" as there is with Yahushua.
******trigger alert - next section contains satirical element and is meant in good fun, smile, and laugh with me*******
I'm just going to call the Messiah "Jabba" from now on.
Don't be legalistic and show me a better way guys OK?
*********End of satirical section********
Last edited: