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]

bjs wrote:

"Throughout Christian history there have always been those who reject the divinity of the Holy Spirit/Christ. This has always remained a fringe or minority opinion."

That is incorrect.

[The Trinity Doctrine] is not ... directly and immediately the word of God. - (p. 304) The formulation One God in three persons was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian Dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers [those very first Christians who had known and been taught by the Apostles and their disciples], there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective. - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967.

From the beginning, when Christianity was still a sect of Judaism, until the 4th century when the vast majority of Bishops at the Nicene Council (325 A.D.) were forced by the power of the Emperor Constantine to deny their concept of a single-person God (or face extreme persecution) Christians did not consider Jesus (or the nameless holy spirit) as being equally God with the Father.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... part.html

[Claire Evans]

I believe it was in 381 A.D. at The First Council of Constantinople. Although it was officially accepted at this time, many refused to accept it.

RESPONSE: Excellent! As best I can tell, you are absolutely correct.

Follow-on question, when was Jesus first claimed to be divine himself in addition to being the Messiah? What effect did this change have on the early Christians?

Actually Jesus Himself said He was divine.

John 8:56"59

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.

57 You are not yet fifty years old, they said to him, and you have seen Abraham!

58 Very truly I tell you, Jesus answered, before Abraham was born, I am! 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

[polonius]

I believe it was in 381 A.D. at The First Council of Constantinople. Although it was officially accepted at this time, many refused to accept it.

RESPONSE: Excellent! As best I can tell, you are absolutely correct.

Follow-on question, when was Jesus first claimed to be divine himself in addition to being the Messiah? What effect did this change have on the early Christians?

Actually Jesus Himself said He was divine.

John 8:56"59

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.

57 You are not yet fifty years old, they said to him, and you have seen Abraham!

58 Very truly I tell you, Jesus answered, before Abraham was born, I am! 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

RESPONSE: Did you ever notice that the seven "I am" claims only appear in John's gospel written about 95 AD and not in Matthew, Mark, or Luke?

About when did the claim (not found in the Old Testament) that Messiah himself was divine first appear? The answer, about 85 AD.

What was the Jewish response to this claim? The answer, the Jewish daily prayer called the Benedictions labeled Christians as apostates ("minim") and expelled them from their synagogues.

The Jewish pray (that Jesus quoted in the NT), "Hear O Isreal. The Lord is One!"

When did the Holy Spirit officially become part of the Trinity? Answer 381 AD

[tigger2]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

Claire Evans wrote:

Actually Jesus Himself said He was divine.

John 8:56"59

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.

57 You are not yet fifty years old, they said to him, and you have seen Abraham!

58 Very truly I tell you, Jesus answered, before Abraham was born, I am! 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

This old attempt at proof for Jesus 'divinity' has almost nothing going for it and should have been abandoned ages ago.

1. It is admitted even by some Trinitarian scholars and translators that the present tense ego eimi ('I am') can be rendered "I was" or "I have been." This would be preferable when we understand that Jesus is being asked how a man of his age could have seen Abraham. After all, in English we would understand that a man trying to say he was that old would say, 'Before Abraham came into existence, I was (or 'I existed,' 'have been,' etc.)

2. But even if we insist on the literal "I am' here, it is still not evidence of being God. The reason is that Exodus 3:14 (which Trinitarians try to compare with John 8:58) actually uses the Hebrew word ehyeh ("I will be") not "I am." Cf. Exodus 3:12.

3. Furthermore, if God had used this as a name for himself, Jews and Christians would have never used it for themselves also. And yet ego eimi ('I am') is a common usage for everyone in both New and Old testament (Septuagint).

John 9:9 is a good example where the ex-blind man identifies himself by saying ego eimi.

For much more on this subject see my file on 'I Am' here:

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... rt-1.html

[polonius]

I believe it was in 381 A.D. at The First Council of Constantinople. Although it was officially accepted at this time, many refused to accept it.

RESPONSE: Excellent! As best I can tell, you are absolutely correct.

Follow-on question, when was Jesus first claimed to be divine himself in addition to being the Messiah? What effect did this change have on the early Christians?

Actually Jesus Himself said He was divine.

John 8:56"59

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.

57 You are not yet fifty years old, they said to him, and you have seen Abraham!

58 Very truly I tell you, Jesus answered, before Abraham was born, I am! 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

RESPONSE: Jewish Christians, contrary to their Jewish orthodoxy at the time, came to believe Jesus was divine in about 85 AD. What followed was the Jewish 18 Benedictions, the 12th of which labeled the Christians as apostates ("minim"). They were expelled from Jewish synagogues. John's gospel written about 95 AD reports this.

Only his Gospel has the 7 "I am.." saying which do not occur in any of the scripture written earlier. He also reports that only Thomas referred to Jesus
as 'My God." Of course, this was 65 years after the fact.

If you look up Acts you will find that Peter is still referring to Jesus as a man (through whom God (not by Jesus' power) worked signs. And God raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus did not "rise" by his own power.


When you read scripture read with attention to detail.

[Claire Evans]

RESPONSE: Did you ever notice that the seven "I am" claims only appear in John's gospel written about 95 AD and not in Matthew, Mark, or Luke?

Luke, Matthew and Mark were not concerned with the mystical aspects of Jesus. Mark did not mention the birth of Jesus. Some gospels omit thing according to the relevance to the readers.

About when did the claim (not found in the Old Testament) that Messiah himself was divine first appear? The answer, about 85 AD.

The messiah in the OT was never expected to be divine and that is why they rejected Jesus. The prophecy was also that the messiah would liberate Israel which Jesus did not. Clearly the messiah prophecised was not Jesus.

What was the Jewish response to this claim? The answer, the Jewish daily prayer called the Benedictions labeled Christians as apostates ("minim") and expelled them from their synagogues.

Obviously. They couldn't have anyone threaten their religion.

The Jewish pray (that Jesus quoted in the NT), "Hear O Isreal. The Lord is One!"

Jesus said He was one with the Father.

"I will send the Spirit of truth" for he lives with and will be in you" I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you". (John 14:17-18, 20)

It clearly demonstrates the Son and Father are three different aspects of one God.

When did the Holy Spirit officially become part of the Trinity? Answer 381 AD

Galatians 4:6 ...'And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.'

2 Corinthians 3:17 ...'Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.'

Jesus is the Holy Spirit.

John 14:16-20 ...'And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.'

Clearly the Holy Spirit, God and Jesus dwell in the believers. They are interchangeable.

These scriptures were written before 381 AD.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

Claire Evans wrote:

Actually Jesus Himself said He was divine.

John 8:56"59

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.

57 You are not yet fifty years old, they said to him, and you have seen Abraham!

58 Very truly I tell you, Jesus answered, before Abraham was born, I am! 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

This old attempt at proof for Jesus 'divinity' has almost nothing going for it and should have been abandoned ages ago.

1. It is admitted even by some Trinitarian scholars and translators that the present tense ego eimi ('I am') can be rendered "I was" or "I have been." This would be preferable when we understand that Jesus is being asked how a man of his age could have seen Abraham. After all, in English we would understand that a man trying to say he was that old would say, 'Before Abraham came into existence, I was (or 'I existed,' 'have been,' etc.)

It has to do with context regarding what meaning of "ego imi" is in a particular sentence and how it is appropriate when translated.

"An example of this is John 14:9 where Jesus says, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me . . . " In this verse, "Have I been" is originally the Greek present tense 'ego eimi'; but here, Jesus was answering the statement in verse 8, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Since in English it is awkward to say, "I am with you so long, and you still don't know me . . . ,?" it is then rendered as, "Have I been with you so long, and you have not come to know me . . . ?" The translation of the Greek present into the English perfect tense is perfectly justifiable here because it doesn't make sense in English..."

https://carm.org/john-858-and-1030-33-i-am

We know that the people knew exactly what Jesus was meaning. "I AM" is referred to as God and thus claiming He is God. That is why they were so angered. "I AM" is a title in this case. They wanted to put Jesus to death and death was the punishment for blasphemy.

Consider Leviticus 24:16 which says, 'Moreover, the one who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him"

2. But even if we insist on the literal "I am' here, it is still not evidence of being God. The reason is that Exodus 3:14 (which Trinitarians try to compare with John 8:58) actually uses the Hebrew word ehyeh ("I will be") not "I am." Cf. Exodus 3:12.

In the Hebrew translation I have consulted, ehyeh means "I am". It's either.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/exodus/3-14.htm

14 God said to Moshe, "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh [I am/will be what I am/will be]," and added, "Here is what to say to the people of Isra'el: 'Ehyeh [I Am or I Will Be] has sent me to you.'"

3. Furthermore, if God had used this as a name for himself, Jews and Christians would have never used it for themselves also. And yet ego eimi ('I am') is a common usage for everyone in both New and Old testament (Septuagint).

John 9:9 is a good example where the ex-blind man identifies himself by saying ego eimi.

For much more on this subject see my file on 'I Am' here:

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... rt-1.html

In the case of John 9:9. If the scriptures had been written as, "Some claimed that he was. Others said, "No, he only looks like him." But he himself insisted, "I AM the man" then the context has changed.

Nobody accused the beggar of blasphemy.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 17 by Claire Evans]


tigger2 wrote:

This old attempt at proof for Jesus 'divinity' has almost nothing going for it and should have been abandoned ages ago.

1. It is admitted even by some Trinitarian scholars and translators that the present tense ego eimi ('I am') can be rendered "I was" or "I have been." This would be preferable when we understand that Jesus is being asked how a man of his age could have seen Abraham. After all, in English we would understand that a man trying to say he was that old would say, 'Before Abraham came into existence, I was (or 'I existed,' 'have been,' etc.)

Claire wrote:

It has to do with context regarding what meaning of "ego [e]imi" is in a particular sentence and how it is appropriate when translated.

"An example of this is John 14:9 where Jesus says, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me . . . " In this verse, "Have I been" is originally the Greek present tense 'ego eimi'; but here, Jesus was answering the statement in verse 8, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Since in English it is awkward to say, "I am with you so long, and you still don't know me . . . ,?" it is then rendered as, "Have I been with you so long, and you have not come to know me . . . ?" The translation of the Greek present into the English perfect tense is perfectly justifiable here because it doesn't make sense in English..."

Tigger 2: [[ 'I am' makes less sense in 8:58. Jesus was not Identifying himself here and therefore was not using a name, title, or definition of a name. He was simply explaining (since that is what he had been asked) that he existed even before Abraham was born!

For such an often-used 'proof,' we would not expect any trinitarian scholar to use anything but "I Am" at John 8:58. And yet,

These translations (most by trinitarians) render ego eimi at John 8:58 as:

(1) I HAVE BEEN[4] - alternate reading in 1960 thru 1973 reference editions of NASB
(2) I HAVE BEEN - The New Testament, G. R. Noyes
(3) I HAVE BEEN - The Four Gospels According to the Sinaitic Palimpsest, A. S. Lewis
(4) I HAVE ALREADY BEEN - The Unvarnished New Testament
(5) I HAVE EXISTED - The Bible, A New Translation, Dr. James Moffatt
(6) I EXISTED - The New Testament in the Language of Today, 1964 ed., Beck
(7) I EXISTED - An American Translation, Goodspeed
(8) I EXISTED - The New Testament in the Language of the People, Williams
(9) I EXISTED - New Simplified Bible
(10) I WAS IN EXISTENCE - Living Bible
(11) I WAS ALIVE - The Simple English Bible
(12)I WAS - Holy Bible - From the Ancient Eastern Text, Lamsa
(13)I WAS - Youngs Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, 1st ed. (Also see Youngs Concise Critical Commentary, p. 61 of The New Covenant.).
(14) I WAS - The Syriac New Testament, Jas. Murdock
(15) I WAS - H. T. Anderson
(16) I WAS - Twentieth Century New Testament

(Partial list above is from my study link for 'I Am' which you obviously ignored. That's OK, I'm ignoring your link also.) ]]

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 18 by tigger2]

Claire wrote:

We know that the people knew exactly what Jesus was meaning. "I AM" is referred to as God and thus claiming He is God.

[[No one has referred to God as the "I Am" in the New or OT. Translators (trinitarian in this case) who use names of persons in the Bible, CAPITALIZE them: Yahweh, Jesus, etc. And yet notice how many trinitarian translators have not capitalized 'I am' at John 8:58:

Nearly all the trinitarian Bible translations (24) that I have checked have capitalized the words in question at Ex. 3:14 ("I AM;" or "I Will Be;" or "I Will Become;" etc.) to show their interpretation that this is a title or name of God. However, most of those same translations do not capitalize the words in question at John 8:58 ("I am;" "I was;" or "I have existed;" etc.): KJV; Douay Version; RSV; NRSV; ASV; NIV; NEB; REB; MLB; LB; NLV; The New Testament in the Language of the People (CBW); Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible; Rotherham; Beck; and Byington.

Therefore, the vast majority of trinitarian-translated Bibles obviously show Ex. 3:14 as giving a title or name for God (as properly indicated by the use of capitalization in English), but they do not show the same understanding for John 8:58 (nor Isaiah's uses of "I am" by God)! All those trinitarian scholars above, therefore, are saying (by not capitalizing "am") at Jn 8:58 that Jesus did not claim the same name or exclusive title that God used at Ex. 3:14. - From my ignored study.]]


Claire:

That is why they were so angered. "I AM" is a title in this case. They wanted to put Jesus to death and death was the punishment for blasphemy.

Consider Leviticus 24:16 which says, 'Moreover, the one who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him"

[[ Not only does it not say they were going to stone him for blasphemy as you state (there are a number of other things in the Law which call for stoning), but these Jews of Judea had already decided beforehand to kill Jesus! (John 7:1, 25) They needed no further incentives. Nothing that Jesus said or did at this point would have made any difference to them.

If the Jews had really understood the phrase "I am" (ego eimi) to mean the speaker was claiming to be God and that they should therefore kill him, they would have immediately stoned Jesus at John 8:24 or :28 where he actually did identify himself with the same phrase. (The actual Greek in the ancient Bible manuscripts is identical to John 8:58, ego eimi, but many English Bible translations properly add "he" so that it can be understood as "I am he" in English.) - from my ignored study.]]

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 19 by tigger2]

Claire wrote:

tigger2 wrote:
2. But even if we insist on the literal "I am' here, it is still not evidence of being God. The reason is that Exodus 3:14 (which Trinitarians try to compare with John 8:58) actually uses the Hebrew word ehyeh ("I will be") not "I am." Cf. Exodus 3:12.

Claire:

In the Hebrew translation I have consulted, ehyeh means "I am". It's either.

[[Every other use of ehyeh by Moses is properly rendered as 'I will be'! Not only can 'I will be' be used at Exodus 3:14, but, according to Moses' own use of the word, it should be. - from my ignored study.
cf. http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/books/je ... -am.html ]]


Claire wrote:
tigger2 wrote:

3. Furthermore, if God had used this as a name for himself, Jews and Christians would have never used it for themselves also. And yet ego eimi ('I am') is a common usage for everyone in both New and Old testament (Septuagint).

John 9:9 is a good example where the ex-blind man identifies himself by saying ego eimi.

For much more on this subject see my file on 'I Am' here:

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... rt-1.html

Claire wrote:

In the case of John 9:9. If the scriptures had been written as, "Some claimed that he was. Others said, "No, he only looks like him." But he himself insisted, "I AM the man" then the context has changed.

Nobody accused the beggar of blasphemy.

[[ That's exactly the point! Even though he identified himself as ego eimi ('the man' is an addition to the actual text by a translator) nobody attempted to stone him.

It would be helpful if you would consult a NT Greek text (or Greek-English interlinear) for your information. I can suggest a couple of fairly good online interlinears if you are interested. ]]