The Trinity and Light

[Paidion]

Hi Dizerner,

That is a really interesting study you made concerning the possible femininity of the Holy Spirit.
I have never studied Hebrew, and the Acts of Thomas are considered to be a gnostic writing. The gnostics definitely believed the Holy Spirit to be female. Of course, I don't see it this way since I believe the Holy Spirit to be the very Persons of the Father and the Son extended to wherever They wish to be. Jesus said that He and the Father would dwell with His apostles. How would They do that? Was it not by means of the Spirit which They both shared?

Many claim the Holy Spirit to be the impersonal force of God to accomplish what God decides to do. But the words of John 16:13 seems to show the Holy Spirit to be personal:

ὁταν δε ἐλθη ἐκεινος το πνευμα της ἀληθειας ὁδηγησει ὑμας εἰς την ἀληθειαν πασαν

Now when that one comes, the spirit of reality, he will guide you into all reality.

We cannot derive personality from “ὁδηγησει” (he will guide), for it can also be correctly translated “it will guide”.

The clincher is the word “ἐκεινος” (that one). It is in the MASCULINE gender, whereas the word “πνευμα” (spirit) is in the NEUTER gender. If John had considered the spirit to be non-personal, then he would have used the neuter form “ἐκεινο” to agree with its antecedent “πνευμα”. In Greek, a pronoun must agree with its antecedent in gender.

I checked my book of transcripts of all existing New Testament Greek manuscripts before the year 300 A.D. and found that the text occurs in the ancient manuscript papyrus 66, and yes, the demonstrative pronoun is “ἐκεινος” (masculine) and not “ἐκεινο” (neuter).

However, some people do not think that “πνευμα” IS the antecedent. They think the antecedent is “παρακλητος” (paraclete—encourager) which occurs back in Chapter 15, verse 26, and that is a masculine noun. The paraclete is, of course, the spirit of God. I am now beginning to think that the people who make this claim, are right.

[dizerner]

I don't think any of the Trinity has gender (pre-incarnation), but the idea is the Spirit has some feminine qualities. That book of Thomas was not quoted as an authority but a reference for the time period and how people thought of spirit.

[21centpilgrim]

the Father has a name, the Son has a name, so why is there no name for the Holy Spirit?

Genuine question for those who affirm the trinity.
thanks

[dizerner]

the Father has a name, the Son has a name, so why is there no name for the Holy Spirit?

Genuine question for those who affirm the trinity.
thanks

Do you have a high view of the inspiration of Scripture? I only ask because it is crystal clear the Holy Spirit does have a name.

19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, (Mat 28:19 NAS)

The Old Testament also says of God that "Holy is his name." Thus there seems to be no problem with just the name "Holy Spirit," as the Spirit in humility glorifies the Father and the Son (John 16:14 & co).

[Jose]

Do you have a high view of the inspiration of Scripture? I only ask because it is crystal clear the Holy Spirit does have a name.

19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, (Mat 28:19 NAS)

The Old Testament also says of God that "Holy is his name." Thus there seems to be no problem with just the name "Holy Spirit," as the Spirit in humility glorifies the Father and the Son (John 16:14 & co).

The father's proper name is "Yahweh"
The son's proper name is "Jesus"
So what is the spirit's name, "Holy?"
For example, could John the baptist just as easily have said "I saw Holy descending?"

[dizerner]

The father's proper name is "Yahweh"
The son's proper name is "Jesus"
So what is the spirit's name, "Holy?"
For example, could John the baptist just as easily have said "I saw Holy descending?"

Well we generally say "Holy One," adding in the pronoun that's often assumed in the original tongues. For example in the Bible saints are just called "holies" (and God is many times too in the singular). We wouldn't say that in the English tongue. However, my point was not to say the Holy Spirit's name is "Holy," I think I made it pretty clear when i said "the name 'Holy Spirit'" indicating that "Holy Spirit" is the name. Rather that Holy is a proper descriptor for a Divine Name. Rather than "one" God chose to use the word "spirit" to express the essence of the third Person.

[Jose]

Well we generally say "Holy One," adding in the pronoun that's often assumed in the original tongues. For example in the Bible saints are just called "holies" (and God is many times too in the singular). We wouldn't say that in the English tongue. However, my point was not to say the Holy Spirit's name is "Holy," I think I made it pretty clear when i said "the name 'Holy Spirit'" indicating that "Holy Spirit" is the name. Rather that Holy is a proper descriptor for a Divine Name. Rather than "one" God chose to use the word "spirit" to express the essence of the third Person.

Well, calling saints holies or calling the Spirit holy is not to address them by their names. "Holy Spirit" is not a name and I think it's a mistake to think so.
God IS wholly spirit, and I don't see the need for him to express that specifically about a third person. I don't know of any passage where God refers to the essence of a third person within himself.

[dizerner]

Well, calling saints holies or calling the Spirit holy is not to address them by their names. "Holy Spirit" is not a name and I think it's a mistake to think so. God IS wholly spirit, and I don't see the need for him to express that specifically about a third person. I don't know of any passage where God refers to the essence of a third person within himself.

Well there's only one go-to passage for a really strong support of the person-hood of the Spirit. How do you interpret this verse:

26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. (Joh 14:26 NAS)

Do you think, then, this holy spirit is a general "power" or "essence" of God, or do you think it's an extension of the Son's or Father's spiritual presence? Because to me, Christ clearly distinguishes this helper from himself and the father. He gives the name "Holy Spirit" and he gives the title "Helper" (which he also takes, hence the "another.") It is sent from a specific person "the Father" it teaches a specific people "the saints" and it testifies of a specific person "the Son." Do you think it's a generic energy of the universe or what? Because I've never heard a satisfying non-Trinitarian interpretation of this passage.

[Paidion]

Hi Dizerner,
I know you addressed the following to Jose. Nevertheless, I would like to express my thoughts about it.

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. (Joh 14:26 NAS)

Do you think, then, this holy spirit is a general "power" or "essence" of God, or do you think it's an extension of the Son's or Father's spiritual presence? Because to me, Christ clearly distinguishes this helper from himself and the father. He gives the name "Holy Spirit" and he gives the title "Helper" (which he also takes, hence the "another.")

I was wondering how you understand the following promise that Jesus gave in the same talk to His disciples:

“If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him. (John 14:23)

HOW does the Father and the Son make their dwelling with those who love Jesus and does what He said? The Father is in heaven with the Son seated at His right hand. How do they dwell within the Son's disciples if not through their spirit? And if it IS through their spirit, how can their spirit be a separate person? If the spirit IS a separate person, and he is the one who indwells us, why did Jesus say it would be He and the Father who would indwell us?

Now in examining the verse you quoted, I don't see that Christ clearly distinguishes this advocate (helper if you will) from Himself and the Father, though I can see why it could be taken that way if the context including the verse I quoted is not considered.

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. (Joh 14:26 NAS)

First the Father SENDS the spirit in Jesus' name. I think this is a way of saying that the Father extends His spirit which both He and His Son share. Because that spirit is the extension of the Father and the Son, and also because that spirit is ONE, it is appropriate to refer to it as "he" although the grammar allows "it". Again the spirit can TEACH, since it is not a mere force, but the very Persons of the Father and the Son.

[dizerner]

I was wondering how you understand the following promise that Jesus gave in the same talk to His disciples:

“If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him. (John 14:23)

Jesus ascended to the right hand of God and the Father is on the throne in the heavens. But I have an easier solution it seems to me, for getting them into to abide with and in us. Because the Trinity doctrine states, that there is such a union, not of personhood, but of substance, that for the Holy Spirit to indwell us can easily said by extension, to be the Father and the Son dwelling through the Holy Spirit, without the Father or Christ changing their heavenly location. Now I know even you acknowledge the personality of the Spirit in Scripture, such that you can't reduce it to an impersonal force like some cults do. You solve that dilemma by saying it's a combined personality of Father and Son, and that's at least, a more fitting paradigm than an impersonal force. Now many times it is written that the Father raised the Son from death by the Spirit. And here it is written this:

11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you. (Rom 8:11 NAS)

You can say Christ raised himself from the dead if you want (I'm not even sure how you'd handle this). But here, that same Spirit "indwells" the saints. This Spirit as I have shown elsewhere is called "the Spirit of Christ" and the "Spirit of the Father" and also "the Holy Spirit." We run into logical contradictions when we make this Spirit both the Christ's and the Father's personhood or identity, but not if we make this Spirit a third identity in union with the first two. So to have One of the Trinity is to have Them All—easy solution for Trinitarians. The Spirit, the Son and the Father all indwell us, because the Father sent the Son whose work released the Spirit (for more on that see here http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=5086 ).

26 "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me, 27 and you will bear witness also, because you have been with Me from the beginning. (Joh 15:26-27 NAS)

It really would be more natural for Christ to say "we will bear witness to ourselves," rather than give the Spirit it's own personal pronoun, were this Spirit merely an expression for the Father and Son combined in some mystical way. Otherwise the Father is sending himself (we Trinitarians do constantly describe the Father sending Jesus as sending himself, because that's how we understand the deep union of the Trinity—but not ever to the point of erasing personhood or identity.) We have the Father proceeding from the Father, which makes no sense. The Son was described to "proceed" from the Father in eternal generation, and I know you are quite solid on that. Well, we see the Spirit having that same eternal begotten-ness or generation.

and here:

30 "And so, because he was a prophet, and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants upon his throne,
31 he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay.
32 "This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses.
33 "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear.
34 "For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand,
35 Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet."'
36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ-- this Jesus whom you crucified." (Act 2:30-36 NAS)

Here again the name "Holy Spirit" described as a promise (he has many descriptions in Scripture). I don't think we have "received from the Father the promise of the Father." We know that Jesus is made Lord and Christ by the promise of the Holy Spirit being poured out. Do we know that God made Jesus Lord and Christ by the promise of Jesus himself being poured out on Pentecost? But he's in heaven. Sitting at the right hand of his Lord as Lord. Even you realized at one point, I know, that the Biblical witness is so strong about Father and Son, that at times they seem like One Person. Add the Spirit in, and the witness is equally strong that all three labels seem as One Person at times. Do we have to turn to Modalism as many seem to think to stay logically consistent? Not at all, because we can retain personhood and identity, yet still share substance and essence. We are Modalists who believe in persons—which isn't Modalism at all. So the promise of the Son releases the promise of the Spirit, just as the anointing oil was placed on top of the blood in Leviticus. "The priest will then apply some of the oil in his palm over the blood from the guilt offering" — Lev. 14:17.