|
Post by Parker on Jun 13, 2023 8:52:11 GMT -8
I just heard about this today for the first time. According to Binitarianism the Holy Spirit is actually just another name for Jesus. I can't make any judgment calls Because I haven't studied up on this, but this part causes me to be rather leery of Binitarianism: "that Jesus is simply the Holy Spirit incarnate." With regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, it may be freely admitted that no trace is found in the Bible of Binitarianism. The Spirit, who is regarded as the Spirit of Jesus as well as of God, has definite personal qualities and activities ascribed to Him. Romans 8:29 Romans 8:39 Romans 10:19 Romans 11:12 Romans 13:2 Romans 15:28 Romans 16:6 Romans 19:2 Romans 20:23 Romans 20:28 Romans 21:11 The New Testament, teaches that the one true God exists as three Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The Bible also teaches that it was the Son who became incarnate, not the Father or the Spirit. Thus, Binitarianism is not biblical.
|
|
|
Post by civic on Jun 13, 2023 9:34:50 GMT -8
I just heard about this today for the first time. According to Binitarianism the Holy Spirit is actually just another name for Jesus. I can't make any judgment calls Because I haven't studied up on this, but this part causes me to be rather leery of Binitarianism: "that Jesus is simply the Holy Spirit incarnate." With regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, it may be freely admitted that no trace is found in the Bible of Binitarianism. The Spirit, who is regarded as the Spirit of Jesus as well as of God, has definite personal qualities and activities ascribed to Him. Romans 8:29 Romans 8:39 Romans 10:19 Romans 11:12 Romans 13:2 Romans 15:28 Romans 16:6 Romans 19:2 Romans 20:23 Romans 20:28 Romans 21:11 The New Testament, teaches that the one true God exists as three Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The Bible also teaches that it was the Son who became incarnate, not the Father or the Spirit. Thus, Binitarianism is not biblical. Exactly it was the Son/Word who became Incarnate which proves its in error.
|
|