Is the Holy Spirit a person?

[Guest]

Paidion,

Nevetheless, I am at a complete loss to explain why the only begotten God is not omnipotent.

Of course, one could reject the book of Revelation --- as most second-century Christians seem to have done, and maintain that Jesus did become omnicient again after He was raised from death.

But Paidion, if you believe that Jesus was not omniscient when he was on Earth, I don't know why it would bother you that he might not be omniscient now. What difference does it make?

Also, regarding the Alexandrian reading of John 1:18, you might like to read the following commentary from the (staunchly Trinitarian) PFRS site. Particularly interesting (for me) is the section in which the Majoortiy Text reading (only monogenos son) is quoted by several ante-nicene fathers. http://www.pfrs.org/commentary/john1_18.html

[Guest]

But Paidion, if you believe that Jesus was not omniscient when he was on Earth, I don't know why it would bother you that he might not be omniscient now. What difference does it make?

If He is not omnicient now, there would appear to be scriptural inconsistency. I thought I spelled it out in my previous post.

[God's Son] is the exact expression of God's essence... Heb 1:2

If God is omniscient and His Son is not, how can His Son be "the exact expression of God's essence"?

Also, regarding the Alexandrian reading of John 1:18, you might like to read the following commentary from the (staunchly Trinitarian) PFRS site. Particularly interesting (for me) is the section in which the Majoortiy Text reading (only monogenos son) is quoted by several ante-nicene fathers. http://www.pfrs.org/commentary/john1_18.html

I wasn't favourably impressed by the article. The author doesn't seem to honestly give the whole picture. For example, he quoted from an obscure letter which has been ascribed to Ignatius, in support of his belief that it is "only begotten son" in John 1;18, but is considered to by most experts not to have been a genuine writing of Ignatius, as the author himself admits in a footnote. But the author does nor mention that in Ignatius' letter to the Philadelphians, Chapter VI, longer recension, it is written, "If anyone says there is one God, and also confesses Jesus Christ, but thinks the Lord to be a mere man, and not the only-begotten God..., such a one is a serpent, that preaches deceit and error for the destruction of men."

[Guest]

I believe the Spirit is personal, but not a third person.

In biblical anthropology (the doctrine of man/humanity) I am Rick. In one sense I "have" a spirit in me. Yet in another biblical sense I "am" a spirit. My (Rick's) spirit might merge with others' spirits. You know, like how we get in one accord when we pray....

When this happens, say, in a prayer meeting, does this mean: There are "Two" Ricks? No, I don't think so.

To me it is the same thing with God and His Spirit. His presence can be sensed, like in a prayer meeting; He is there by His Spirit. Neither God's presence nor Rick's can be sensed impersonally...am I making any sense? But I probably do agree with you, Paidion, in that I do not feel the Holy Spirit is like a "third God"....


And while I'm not the most "traditional" trinitarian around these days, Paidion; I'm reluctant to drop "person" from Who I believe the Holy Spirit is. Why?

The Holy Spirit is, at least in some ways, like The Shekinah of OT times: An express and forceful manifestation of the presence of God. So when Jesus referred to the (Holy) Spirit of Truth as "He" I think Jesus probably meant it in about the same way as the Shekinah would have been understood. God would still be in His heaven (as in the OT times) yet very really present (on earth) by His Spirit.

I need sleep.........Zzzzzz

[Guest]

If He is not omnicient now, there would appear to be scriptural inconsistency. I thought I spelled it out in my previous post.

[God's Son] is the exact expression of God's essence... Heb 1:2

If God is omniscient and His Son is not, how can His Son be "the exact expression of God's essence"?

Okay, I get you now. So it's not so much the fact of whether or got omniscience back, but the issue of him giving it up in the first place. Yep, that's the single issue that instigated my journey out of trinitarianism. There's only so many mysteries and contradictions I can deal with!

About Mr Warner's article on John 1:18, even minus the Ignatius quote, there are enough early-ish quotes (Iranaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria) of the Majority Text reading to show that the early church did not all read the verse as only begotten God. Having looked at the arguments (in as much detail as I'm able to), I'm a Majority Texter. So John 1:18 is not a problem for me.