Trinity.

[jriccitelli]

‘… because Jesus in the form of the Spirit is not the same as Jesus in the flesh who is speaking to his disciples. So the Spirit is "another helper’ (Paidion)

Now it sounds like you have two different Jesus’s. There is Only One Jesus. There is not another Jesus besides Jesus.
You already have two Yahwehs, two Lords, two Saviors, and two Gods, and you naturally have to continue down this path because this is path the alternatives lead to. You will have two Creators, two that are the Judge, two that are Love, two that are Light, two Kings, two Rocks, two Truths, two I Ams, two Alpha and Omegas, two Words, three Comforters, and three Spirits, etc.

There is Only One Spirit, yet They communicate with each other, and Jesus has made these known, and He has revealed Them to us.

You are stuck on the anthropomorphic terms God needed to use to describe His being to us humans. God does this throughout scripture. But God is not human (God is not anthropos). Assuming that God fits into our understanding of a 'person' is not possible, or logical. It is almost impossible for humans to even grasp what 'our' person/soul consists of. A soul/person cannot be measured, held, seen or even described well enough, even to start assuming God has to conform to 'our' definition of a soul or person, is leaving good hermeneutics behind us (and consistent references to two objects as one).

I don’t like really want to use the term person(s) to define God, as the term must naturally be tied down to our own limited finite understanding of the greatness, vastness and unlimited dimensions of God. Yet we are limited to the term, as it is all we have. God never defines ‘person’ or describes Himself as thus, but God has told us a number of definite and sure things: God is One / there is Only One God / There is one Spirit / One Lord / He and the Father are One / The Holy Spirit is God, etc. and the yet the Three talk of each other, and talk to each other.

This would seem to beg the question, yet God has 'already' answered the question: God is One / there are no other Gods / and I am He.

Our Galaxy is only one of hundreds of billions of other Galaxies and what not (It would take approx.90,000 years at the speed of light to cross our own Galaxy, and then you have the distance to the next galaxy and so forth), and only God knows what is beyond all that, and yet God spans this entire Universe and Creation!!? And we can’t understand how God can be three people in One God? I think we need to step back and consider what ‘God’ really is (He is certainly beyond words or concepts). God has done what He could to describe Himself in anthropomorphic terms, that's all we have, but restricting God to a finite understanding of ‘person’ seems a bit earthbound.

‘No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him’ I think what we have is enough to say ‘He and the Father are One, and there is One Spirit’.

[TheEditor]

You are stuck on the anthropomorphic terms God needed to use to describe His being to us humans. God does this throughout scripture. But God is not human, and God is not anthropos.

This raises an interesting question; If it is indeed true (and I believe it is) what you stated above, then could it not follow that any usage of the term "He" with reference to the holy spirit needn't require "personhood" of same?

Regards, Brenden.

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[Jose]

For anyone interested, below is a link to an article that explains why a non-trinitarian does not believe the Holy Spirit to be a third self conscience being. This is not exhaustive, but it is a good place to start.

http://www.biblicaltruthseekers.co.uk/w ... IRIT-2.pdf

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[Paidion]

Does God really need an extra word to talk about his presence and power as a personal entity, which knows, grieves, wills, can be blasphemed, teaches, dwells, guides, loves, or is sent?

He may not NEED an extra word, but it comes in rather handy in explaining Himself to us intellectually-limited humans. For you and me, our personalities or "spirits" are confined to our bodies. So we don't need an extra word for our personality. But since the Father and the Son can extend their personality anywhere in the Universe, and especially into the hearts of the faithful, it's a way to refer to this extended personality in contrast to their basic personality which resides in heaven.

However, sometimes God and his Son do not use the word "spirit" to refer to this extension. For example, Jesus says that He and the Father will come and make their dwelling with the disciples after his departure from this life. How do they do that, if not through their extended spirit? Jesus is still in his resurrected body, and I haven't heard in the news of his appearing to any one as He did immediately after his resurrection.

And then there's the passage you quoted (though in a different translation) in which Jesus promises his disciples another Advocate who will continue with them permanently. He then indicates that Advocate to be the Spirit. He then says that HE HIMSELF will not leave them forlorn. He will return to them.

If you love me, keep my commandments; and I will entreat the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to continue with you forever; even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world can not receive, because it neither sees him, nor knows him; but you shall know him, because he will abide with you, and be in you. I will not leave you forlorn; I will return to you. (John 14:15-18 Living Oracles)

Jesus was talking to his disciples. If He did not leave them forlorn, how did He return to them, if not through his spirit? True, He did return to them in his resurrected body, but He ascended again. If He did not leave them forlorn, but remained with them, how did He do that if not through his spirit? He talked about his return to them and not leaving them forlorn in the same breath as He talked about sending the advocate.

[Paidion]

This article seems full of inconsistencies and contradictions...

I read the article, and didn't find it so. I think at least some of it supports the concept that the spirit of God is not a third divine Individual.

Here are a few ways in which I differ from the author:

1. I have no problem with capitalizing "the Holy Spirit", for surely the spirit of God—his extended personality—IS God. It is written that God Himself is spirit.

2. The author affirms that the spirit of God is personal, and I agree. Yet he emphasizes that the spirit is the "power of God", and this almost sounds impersonal at times.
Though, of course, according to the NT, the spirit of God is both the persons of the Father and the Son as well as their power.

3. The author claims that the spirit of God is not omnipresent. I don't know why he says that. Isn't that how God is omnipresent? Through his spirit?

4. Like Dizerner, I also had a problem with his saying that you cannot drink a person. I had thought of the same thing as Dizerner about eating the body of Christ and drinking his blood. In addition, I would ask, if the spirit is personal as the author affirms, are you not drinking the persons of the Father and the Son? But if the spirit is merely the power of God, how can you drink power? Well, maybe there are people here on earth who drink power—those who attempt to dominate others.

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

You Wrote:

...surely the spirit of God—his extended personality—IS God. It is written that God Himself is spirit.

The author affirms that the spirit of God is personal, and I agree.

You affirm that the Spirit is both God and is personal. Do you believe the Spirit communicates with the Father, as Jesus did while here on earth, or is there no communication between the Spirit and the father?

[TheEditor]

Hi Dizerner,

Thanks for the questions. At the outset I will say this; I was raised as an Arian, and as such, when I read passages regarding the Holy Spirit, it is easy for me to read these as personification. I will admit that there are a few passages that seem to stretch the principle of personification almost to the breaking point. At the same time, I have tried to read these passges afresh to see to what degree my own creedal spectacles may be checkering my thinking.

You can do an excercise, I tried it, and it yielded some amusing results. If you search the NT for the term "holy spirit" (of course the expressions "spirit of God" and some others could also be chosen) and then put this text in your choice of WP, and find and replace "holy sprit" with a proper name, let's say "Jim", many of the verses read incredibly awkardly. The same doesn't seem to be the case when you replace terms such as "son of God" or "son of man" or "Christ" or "the Father" with words like "Jesus" or "Yahweh". It would seem if the holy spirit is a Person, then using a proper name would read reasonbly well.

A few read okay, such as Acts 1:8 "But you will receive power when the [Jim] arrives upon you and you will be witnesses of me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the most distant part of the earth.

Or, Acts 2:4 "and they all became filled with [Jim] and started to speak with different tongues, just as [Jim] was granting them to make utterance."

But many are just painful; 1 Corinthians 12:3 Therefore I would have you know that nobody when speaking by God’s [Jim] says: “Jesus is accursed!” and nobody can say: “Jesus is Lord!” except by [Jim].

(2 Corinthians 6:3-8) In no way are we giving any cause for stumbling, that our ministry might not be found fault with; but in every way we recommend ourselves as God’s ministers, by the endurance of much, by tribulations, by cases of need, by difficulties, by beatings, by prisons, by disorders, by labors, by sleepless nights, by times without food, by purity, by knowledge, by long-suffering, by kindness, by [Jim], by love free from hypocrisy, by truthful speech, by God’s power; through the weapons of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, through glory and dishonor, through bad report and good report.

This last one is an interesting passage, in that Jim (the Holy Spirit) is sandwiched in amongst a large number of "things".

Ephesians 1:13-14 You were sealed with the promised [Jim], which is a token in advance of our inheritance.

Ephesians 3:16 to the end that he may grant you according to the riches of his glory to be made mighty in the man you are inside with power through his [Jim]

1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 For we know, brothers loved by God, his choosing of you because the good news we preach did not turn up among you with speech alone but also with power and with [Jim] and strong conviction.

Another example where the holy spirit is in between to impersonal "things".

Titus 3:5-6 and through the making of us new by [Jim]. This [Jim] he poured out richly upon us through Jesus Christ our Savior.

Hebrews 2:4 while God joined in bearing witness with signs as well as portents and various powerful works and with distributions of [Jim] according to his will.

In all passages I see that God assigns, pours out, distributes, etc. according to His will.


But, leaving that aside, my personal take (at this point) is that, for lack of a better word, the Holy Spirit is "divine stuff"; both the power of God as well as His mind on matters; His disposition--a vital and active one that effects His servants. To me, the Scriptures read more fluidly with this take on identifying the Holy Spirit then if we attribute the Spirit the kind of Personhood that we give the Father and the Son. As far as the few places where we actually find Father, Son and Holy Spirit mentioned in order in the same verse; well, we also find the Father, the Son and the Holy angels in the same verse, without mention of the Spirit at all. Yet, we don't shove the angels into a "godhead". Plus, there are a number of times the Holy Spirit is absent when the Father and Son are mentioned. Again, I don't have all the answers, but I can't pretend problems don't exist. I used to do that....back when I had all the answers.

Regards, Brenden.

[Homer]

Hi Brenden,

You wrote:

You can do an excercise, I tried it, and it yielded some amusing results. If you search the NT for the term "holy spirit" (of course the expressions "spirit of God" and some others could also be chosen) and then put this text in your choice of WP, and find and replace "holy sprit" with a proper name, let's say "Jim", many of the verses read incredibly awkardly. The same doesn't seem to be the case when you replace terms such as "son of God" or "son of man" or "Christ" or "the Father" with words like "Jesus" or "Yahweh". It would seem if the holy spirit is a Person, then using a proper name would read reasonbly well.

I spent just a few minutes on an idea (getting near bedtime), but if you look at the numerous places where "Holy Spirit" is used my impression (albeit cursory), is that substituting "it" for the Spirit is even more problematic. But what if someone else personal is substituted, such as Jesus? If we drop the article, which may not be in the Greek anyway, it seems to work, although to do the exercise we need to block out of our minds that there is another Jesus.

Another thought: we say "the Sherriff", which is a designation for an office, all the while realizing there is a person in the office.