Is the Holy Spirit just an aspect of God?

[polonius]

In Catholic dogma, when did the Holy Spirit become a "person" of the Trinity such as the Father and Son?

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 135 by Claire Evans]

You are not a simpleton or an ignoramus. It's quite a complicated subject. There are definite articles; just no indefinite articles like "a". But that's just Greek.

Thanks for that assurance, and for giving me something to consider.

However, I am still hoping for an answer from someone on the following concerning the word order of the phrase being debated here:

Anyone can see the Greek order is "God was the Word", and that the Interlinear translates it accordingly, unlike so many translations.

Why did John write it that way?

Why do all translations, other that the Concordant version, not follow the Greek and its Interlinear order?

Checkpoint, if you truly want to know about John 1:1c and the use and non-use of the article ho, carefully examine this:

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... 1c-a.html

Ask about anything you don't understand in that study.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 135 by Claire Evans]

You are not a simpleton or an ignoramus. It's quite a complicated subject. There are definite articles; just no indefinite articles like "a". But that's just Greek.

Thanks for that assurance, and for giving me something to consider.

However, I am still hoping for an answer from someone on the following concerning the word order of the phrase being debated here:

Anyone can see the Greek order is "God was the Word", and that the Interlinear translates it accordingly, unlike so many translations.

Why did John write it that way?

Why do all translations, other that the Concordant version, not follow the Greek and its Interlinear order?

Checkpoint, if you truly want to know about John 1:1c and the use and non-use of the article ho, carefully examine this:

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... 1c-a.html

Ask about anything you don't understand in that study.

My posts have not been about "the use and non-use of the article", but about "
"the word order of the phrase being debated here" on this thread.

I am still waiting.....for an answer....

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 135 by Claire Evans]

You are not a simpleton or an ignoramus. It's quite a complicated subject. There are definite articles; just no indefinite articles like "a". But that's just Greek.

Thanks for that assurance, and for giving me something to consider.

However, I am still hoping for an answer from someone on the following concerning the word order of the phrase being debated here:

Anyone can see the Greek order is "God was the Word", and that the Interlinear translates it accordingly, unlike so many translations.

Why did John write it that way?

Why do all translations, other that the Concordant version, not follow the Greek and its Interlinear order?

Checkpoint, if you truly want to know about John 1:1c and the use and non-use of the article ho, carefully examine this:

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... 1c-a.html

Ask about anything you don't understand in that study.

My posts have not been about "the use and non-use of the article", but about "
"the word order of the phrase being debated here" on this thread.

I am still waiting.....for an answer....

It's all there. I guess you are determined to ignore post 128 and the link to my personal study of John 1:1c (includes word order and definite article use - even why 'in beginning' in John 1:1 doesn't have the article but it may be honestly understood.)

Such a shame. Someone offers you the answers on a platter, and you won't even take the effort to examine it. Horse to water.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 135 by Claire Evans]

You are not a simpleton or an ignoramus. It's quite a complicated subject. There are definite articles; just no indefinite articles like "a". But that's just Greek.

Thanks for that assurance, and for giving me something to consider.

However, I am still hoping for an answer from someone on the following concerning the word order of the phrase being debated here:

Anyone can see the Greek order is "God was the Word", and that the Interlinear translates it accordingly, unlike so many translations.

Why did John write it that way?

Why do all translations, other that the Concordant version, not follow the Greek and its Interlinear order?

Checkpoint, if you truly want to know about John 1:1c and the use and non-use of the article ho, carefully examine this:

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... 1c-a.html

Ask about anything you don't understand in that study.

My posts have not been about "the use and non-use of the article", but about "
"the word order of the phrase being debated here" on this thread.

I am still waiting.....for an answer....

It's all there. I guess you are determined to ignore post 128 and the link to my personal study of John 1:1c (includes word order and definite article use - even why 'in beginning' in John 1:1 doesn't have the article but it may be honestly understood.)

Such a shame. Someone offers you the answers on a platter, and you won't even take the effort to examine it. Horse to water.

Hold on there, tigger2; I suggest you have written me off a little too quickly.

You see, I am taking your point, and thus intend to search further into what you have linked to until I am able to find said portion and give it due consideration.

I won't be into drinking any kool-aid but rather any water of life that may be there.

Whatever, I appreciate your responses to me here.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 136 by Claire Evans]

Coming as the Son makes God more loving. He came in a very vulnerable state. He came to identity Himself with us, something He could not do if He only sent the Son.

You lost me with that.

"Coming as the Son" rather than "if He had only sent the Son"??

Help!

I know, the trinity concept is difficult to understand.

Now if one believes that Jesus is not God incarnate, then they believe Jesus is a creation of God and separate. They are not the same being. That means God sent Jesus to do all the hard work and ultimately suffer death and hell. If that was the case, then the Father has no dominion over evil, only Jesus. And Jesus exorcised demons in the Father's name. If I had a son and sent him to do things where he suffered, can I take any credit for any heroic thing my son did? No, he did it, not me.

If Jesus had never suffered what Jesus went through, how could He identify with us?

A scripture to support Jesus being God incarnate:

Philippians 2:6-8
(6) Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Remember, God can come in any form He likes and in many forms. It seems absurd to us that God can come as the Son while He's is the Father, but we forget this is the supernatural.

Likewise, both Jesus and the Father are also the Holy Spirit.

[onewithhim]

If you had consulted the article, you would have seen which articles are used for a proper name such as God. The translator takes the liberty which article to use for aesthetic purposes, if at all, because any article just improves the aesthetics and not the meaning.

What is this nonsense? The "L'Oreal rule of grammar"? ... Translators (at least competent ones) don't throw words on the page to make pretty (aesthetic) patterns, translation in principle, follows the rules of grammar of both the source and the target languages. I don't speak or read Greek or or ancient Hebrew but I know enough to know the use of an article in these languages (as indeed is the case with English) does have an impact on the meaning of a text. "Aesthetic purposes" indeed!



JW

Take note that they don't make it aesthetic, in order for it to make sense to the English reader, and compromise the meaning in the first place. That is why some use the literal translation, which is "a" and others "the".

Are you a polytheist?

The rules are quite specific as to whether or not to use "the" with a noun. Pay attention, will you?

And you KNOW JW isn't a polytheist! Who IS the polytheist? Could it be the one who calls Jesus God, the Father God and the H.S. God? THREE GODS!!?? You are the polytheist.

[onewithhim]

Claire wrote:

Jesus clearly claimed to be God and the Son. He claimed that He and the Father are one.

John 17:11 (cf. 17:21, 22) - "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are." - KJV.

".... Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are. - NASB.

Lets look at Colossians 1

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

And if Jesus was created, then He could not have claim preexistence as He did when He said He existed before Abraham.

Commentary on John

"That they may be one, as we are."

This clause depends upon the words, “Keep them in Thy name.� They had so far realised the revelation of God that they had known Christ’s whole life to be the utterance of God to their spirits (John 17:6-8). He prays that they may be kept in this knowledge in order that they may so know the Father through Him, as to become themselves one with the Father.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/17-11.htm

They must have the same relationship with God (be one with God) as Jesus did and that only happened when the Holy Spirit came into the world.

How can I put this so you will stop and think?----You say that "if Jesus was created, he could not have claimed pre-existence as he did when he said he existed before Abraham." How do you get that idea? I can't follow you.

Here is the time-line in our discussion: (1) Jesus' creation; (2) all other things created, including angels, and eventually Abraham.

If Jesus was created first, then he could claim pre-existence before Abraham, could he not? Can you answer that?

If Jesus was created first, then where was He? Did He walk around in the Garden of Eden?

That was not my question. I asked, "If Jesus was created first, then he could claim pre-existence before Abraham, couldn't he?" Would you answer that?

Of course, but where was He in Genesis?

THEN ANSWER IT.


.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 98 by Claire Evans]

Excuse me, but I am unable from this post to gather just what you are arguing for, or against.

Please could you briefly summarise what the controversy here is about, and the position you are taking.

Thanks!

To support the argument that Jesus was created first, this verse is used:

Col. 1:15 does NOT say "firstborn OVER all creation. It simply and clearly says he is the firstborn OF all creation.

If "firstborn" was to be taken literally, then Jesus is literally the first born of the dead. How can that be?

It was not meant to be taking literally but "firstborn" is a special status. It is not mean to be seen as creating Jesus.

I believe Jesus is God incarnate.

You are confusing two different ideas here. Two different subjects. Colossians 1:15 SAYS that Jesus is the first to be born of all creation. That is what "first-born" means. FIRST TO BE BORN. It is clear that he was Jehovah's first creation. That also places Jesus as first in position.

The other scripture you bring into the discussion has nothing to do with Jesus' creation as first-born. He was "first-born FROM THE DEAD" many eons after he was first-born of creation.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 140 by Checkpoint]

Imagine......asking questions but unwilling to examine a thorough study by tigger. These "discussions" are getting ridiculous. Tigger has provided an extensive examination of John 1:1c but none here are really interested enough to check it out. Well, Jesus expects us to tell the truth, and that's all we can do. It's as the old adage goes: "You can lead a horse to water...."

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 135 by Claire Evans]

You are not a simpleton or an ignoramus. It's quite a complicated subject. There are definite articles; just no indefinite articles like "a". But that's just Greek.

Thanks for that assurance, and for giving me something to consider.

However, I am still hoping for an answer from someone on the following concerning the word order of the phrase being debated here:

Anyone can see the Greek order is "God was the Word", and that the Interlinear translates it accordingly, unlike so many translations.

Why did John write it that way?

Why do all translations, other that the Concordant version, not follow the Greek and its Interlinear order?

I'm not sure but the meaning has definitely not changed. This I found was really the only things I really understood:

He says “the Word was God,� not “God was the
Word.� The latter would have meant that God and the
Word were the same; it would have pointed to an
identity. But John is leaving open the possibility that
there may be more to “God� than the “Word� (clearly
he thought of the Father as God, and his later
references indicate a similar status for the Spirit). But
he lays it down unequivocally that nothing less than
“God� will do for our understanding of the Word.

https://www.sats.edu.za/userfiles/Baumg ... Final).pdf