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?

[onewithhim]

Claire Evans posted:

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

RESPONSE:
Were you there when he said that or did you just read it somewhere?

One of the places you could have read that claim was in the New Testament which was written 35 -65 years after the events described by non-witnesses.

Perhaps you will also have read the following passages that demonstrate that Jesus did not claim to be God.

“If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.'" (John 14:28).

But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.� (Matthew 24:36).

Actually, God and I are one also, at least we agree on most things. But when He is wrong I correct him!

This is where the trinity concept comes from. Although in heaven, Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit are one, God had three different facets which manifested on earth each having different roles.

When I hold up an egg to you, do you say, "You're holding yolk, albumen and a shell!" No, you say I am holding an egg. Likewise with God. If I pray to the Lord, I pray to the Holy Spirit and Jesus because they are interchangeable. I don't say, "Today I am going to pray to God and then tomorrow I am going to pray to Jesus."

God is the egg. When the shell, albumen and yolk are separated, they are still part of the egg but have separate roles. Egg shells can be used for compost, albumen for making cakes and yellow for making pasta, for example. Likewise, Jesus had the role of the mediator, the Holy Spirit as the Comforter for when He was gone and the Father to whom we must put our trust like Jesus said.

No, God, Jesus are not "interchangeable," and neither is the albumin, shell and yolk of an egg. The yolk isn't of identical make-up as the shell, and so forth. They are DISTINCT forms, though working together for the advantage of the baby chick.

God(the Father/Jehovah) is not also Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is not Jehovah or Jesus. The H.S. is something that extends from the Father as power. Jehovah and Jesus are two distinct individuals, with Jesus always in submission to the Father (God). You would see this if you gave thought to such scriptures as

Isaiah 61:1,2; Luke 4:17-21

Psalm 110

John 14:28

John 17:3

I Corinthians 11:3

John 20:17

[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?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 61 by Claire Evans]

John 1:1 is translated like this in the Emphatic Diaglott and in centuries-old Coptic versions:

"In a beginning was the word and the word was with the god and a god was the word."




No connection with Jehovah's Witnesses when they were written.

Your confusion is that the issue of translating Greek into English. Unlike English, it does not have an indefinite article, which is "a".

See example:

"In the material immediately following, we will examine the difference between HOW English and Greek use their respective articles to assign the notion of grammatical "definiteness" or "indefiniteness" to associated nouns.

English first...

Notice the subtle shades of meaning generated by use of these articles in the sentences below as they express grammatical "definiteness" and "indefiniteness" with regard to the man and the woman being discussed...

AND, to provide a beneficially meaningful dimension to these sentences, imagine that you are in a park in an unfamiliar locale, and you encounter two tourists whom you do not know. One of the tourists is telling the other about an event he witnessed at a picturesque gazebo in the park. With this in mind, imagine that the tourist who witnessed this event tells 4 different one-sentence versions of what he saw...as follows:

"A man married a woman."
Notice what is implied by the indefinite article preceding both man and woman in this sentence: Neither tourist knows the man or the woman. That is, they are indefinite entities. All we know about them is that they are human and of opposite gender.

"The man married a woman."
Now notice what is implied by the definite article preceding man and the indefinite article preceding woman in this sentence: Both tourists know the man. They don't necessarily know him well, but they know who he is, e.g., the man in the room down the hall at their hotel. Thus, the man becomes a definite entity. He has a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. They recognize him! On the other hand, neither tourist knows the woman. She is still an indefinite entity.

"A man married the woman."
In this example, we have the exact opposite of the previous example: Neither tourist knows the man. HE is now the indefinite entity...and now both tourists know the woman. SHE is the definite entity. She has a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. They recognize her! (e.g., from the hotel, etc...)

"The man married the woman."
And finally, notice what is implied by the definite article preceding both man and woman in this sentence: Both tourists know the man and woman. Both are now definite entities with a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. The tourists recognize them! (e.g., from the hotel, etc...)


Regarding the 4 examples above, there is absolutely nothing foreign or mystical about their meaning. They simply illustrate HOW the English language uses its definite and indefinite articles to express notions of "definiteness" and "indefiniteness."

We are going to look at the Greek translation remembering that there is no indefinite article.



" anqrwpoV egamhse gunaika
man married woman
Notice what is implied to a Greek speaker by the LACK OF Greek definite articles preceding anqrwpoV and gunaika: Neither tourist knows the man or the woman. That is, they are indefinite entities. All we know about them is that they are human and of opposite gender.

o anqrwpoV egamhse gunaika
the man married woman
Now, notice what is implied to a Greek speaker by the Greek definite article preceding anqrwpoV and the LACK OF the Greek definite article preceding gunaika: Both tourists know the man. They don't necessarily know him well, but they know who he is, e.g., the man in the room down the hall at their hotel. Thus, the man becomes a definite entity. He has a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. They recognize him! On the other hand, neither tourist knows the woman. She is still an indefinite entity.

anqrwpoV egamhse thn gunaika
man married the woman
In this example, we have the exact opposite of the previous example: Neither tourist knows the man. HE is now the indefinite entity...and now both tourists know the woman. SHE is the definite entity. She has a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. They recognize her! (e.g., from the hotel, etc...)

o anqrwpoV egamhse thn gunaika
the man married the woman
And finally, notice what is implied by the Greek definite articles preceding anqrwpoV and gunaika in this sentence: Both tourists know the man and woman. Both are now definite entities with a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. The tourists recognize them! (e.g., from the hotel, etc...)

At this point the reader should see clearly that, inasmuch as Greek does NOT have an INDEFINITE article, it can, nevertheless, perfectly express the notion of "indefiniteness" by simply NOT using its DEFINITE article! This mechanism is very typical of Greek's many elegant efficiencies of expression."

But it doesn't seem aesthetic when translated into English.

Referring to segment three:

"Note that, because we are dealing with actual Greek along with a word-for-word literal English translation to express the equivalent Greek thought, the only articles we see high-lighted are DEFINITE articles.

AND, we notice immediately that, because we are experiencing literal Greek thought here, we see (from an English perspective) at least two aesthetic irregularities which will require fixing with our linguistic "glue:"

The 1st irregularity:
"in beginning" sounds a little strange to an English speaker.

The 2nd irregularity:
"with the god" also sounds a little strange to an English speaker.

The translator must, therefore, apply his linguistic "glue" to these two irregularities such that they may sound aesthetically proper to the English speaker. AND he must bear in mind his sterling rule of conduct as well: Accuracy of critical meaning must NOT be compromised...

So what did the Apostle John mean when he said "en arch?" (that is, "in beginning")

He was thinking in Greek, therefore we may assume that he was thinking of an indefinite "beginning" because he did NOT use the Greek definite article here. Based on what we learned earlier, the translator would, therefore, put the little red "a" before "beginning." to convey accurately what John (thinking in Greek!) meant, e.g., "in a beginning."

But that STILL sounds strange to an English speaker! However, if the translator puts the DEFINITE article "the" before "beginning," then it sounds correct. (e.g., "in the beginning")

But this is NOT what John said or meant!

So... If the translator leaves the "the" there for aesthetic purposes, will it compromise critical meaning?

Surprisingly enough, NOT REALLY! This is because the difference in meaning can be shifted semantically in English to mean what John said anyway.

Thus, even though a very subtle difference in meaning is conveyed now to an English speaker, (a meaning which John did not really intend) it is, nevertheless, aesthetically sound, AND the difference in meaning is not really critical - it can be compensated for semantically. Therefore, the translator may apply his "glue" here (depicted in red) and we end up with a satisfactory phrase in English: "in the beginning."

In order to fully appreciate this, please refer to this link:


http://www.greeknewtestamentaudio.com/john11.htm

Always take into account translation issues!

It is not "my confusion." You are the one who is confused and apparently unable to understand the nuances of the topic of translating from Greek to English. There are no indefinite articles ("a" or "an") in Greek. The only way you can understand what or who is the ONLY person or thing being referred to is the DEFINITE article "the." If something has NO article, then it is not the same as the person or thing that has the definite article "the." So how was John supposed to present the Father, God, and the Word, an important individual but NOT God, in the same sentence?

The sentence word-for-word, translated from the Greek, is: in [no article] beginning was the word and the word was with [the] god and [no article] god was the word.

Obviously the two "gods" are not the same. The first has the definite article, the second has no article. The rules of grammar for translating Greek to English are that when there is no article, an English article must be placed in the sentence to make it readable to an English reader. Therefore the "god" which has no article would be a god, and the reader would be able understand just what the second "god" actually was. It is distinct from "the" god (which in English we capitalize, though the Greeks do not).

Unfortunately your sources do not understand the rules of Greek grammar when translating into English, or, probably, they have not explained John 1:1 clearly to the reader so that we could understand just what John was talking about.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 80 by onewithhim]

Sorry, but I cannot let this pass.

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

Jesus is not part of God's creation.

He is the only-begotten of the Father.

That is how and when God became his Father and he "became flesh".

John 1:14

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of The only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

[Benoni]

[Replying to post 61 by Claire Evans]

John 1:1 is translated like this in the Emphatic Diaglott and in centuries-old Coptic versions:

"In a beginning was the word and the word was with the god and a god was the word."




No connection with Jehovah's Witnesses when they were written.

Your confusion is that the issue of translating Greek into English. Unlike English, it does not have an indefinite article, which is "a".

See example:

"In the material immediately following, we will examine the difference between HOW English and Greek use their respective articles to assign the notion of grammatical "definiteness" or "indefiniteness" to associated nouns.

English first...

Notice the subtle shades of meaning generated by use of these articles in the sentences below as they express grammatical "definiteness" and "indefiniteness" with regard to the man and the woman being discussed...

AND, to provide a beneficially meaningful dimension to these sentences, imagine that you are in a park in an unfamiliar locale, and you encounter two tourists whom you do not know. One of the tourists is telling the other about an event he witnessed at a picturesque gazebo in the park. With this in mind, imagine that the tourist who witnessed this event tells 4 different one-sentence versions of what he saw...as follows:

"A man married a woman."
Notice what is implied by the indefinite article preceding both man and woman in this sentence: Neither tourist knows the man or the woman. That is, they are indefinite entities. All we know about them is that they are human and of opposite gender.

"The man married a woman."
Now notice what is implied by the definite article preceding man and the indefinite article preceding woman in this sentence: Both tourists know the man. They don't necessarily know him well, but they know who he is, e.g., the man in the room down the hall at their hotel. Thus, the man becomes a definite entity. He has a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. They recognize him! On the other hand, neither tourist knows the woman. She is still an indefinite entity.

"A man married the woman."
In this example, we have the exact opposite of the previous example: Neither tourist knows the man. HE is now the indefinite entity...and now both tourists know the woman. SHE is the definite entity. She has a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. They recognize her! (e.g., from the hotel, etc...)

"The man married the woman."
And finally, notice what is implied by the definite article preceding both man and woman in this sentence: Both tourists know the man and woman. Both are now definite entities with a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. The tourists recognize them! (e.g., from the hotel, etc...)


Regarding the 4 examples above, there is absolutely nothing foreign or mystical about their meaning. They simply illustrate HOW the English language uses its definite and indefinite articles to express notions of "definiteness" and "indefiniteness."

We are going to look at the Greek translation remembering that there is no indefinite article.



" anqrwpoV egamhse gunaika
man married woman
Notice what is implied to a Greek speaker by the LACK OF Greek definite articles preceding anqrwpoV and gunaika: Neither tourist knows the man or the woman. That is, they are indefinite entities. All we know about them is that they are human and of opposite gender.

o anqrwpoV egamhse gunaika
the man married woman
Now, notice what is implied to a Greek speaker by the Greek definite article preceding anqrwpoV and the LACK OF the Greek definite article preceding gunaika: Both tourists know the man. They don't necessarily know him well, but they know who he is, e.g., the man in the room down the hall at their hotel. Thus, the man becomes a definite entity. He has a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. They recognize him! On the other hand, neither tourist knows the woman. She is still an indefinite entity.

anqrwpoV egamhse thn gunaika
man married the woman
In this example, we have the exact opposite of the previous example: Neither tourist knows the man. HE is now the indefinite entity...and now both tourists know the woman. SHE is the definite entity. She has a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. They recognize her! (e.g., from the hotel, etc...)

o anqrwpoV egamhse thn gunaika
the man married the woman
And finally, notice what is implied by the Greek definite articles preceding anqrwpoV and gunaika in this sentence: Both tourists know the man and woman. Both are now definite entities with a prior contextual place in the minds of the tourists. The tourists recognize them! (e.g., from the hotel, etc...)

At this point the reader should see clearly that, inasmuch as Greek does NOT have an INDEFINITE article, it can, nevertheless, perfectly express the notion of "indefiniteness" by simply NOT using its DEFINITE article! This mechanism is very typical of Greek's many elegant efficiencies of expression."

But it doesn't seem aesthetic when translated into English.

Referring to segment three:

"Note that, because we are dealing with actual Greek along with a word-for-word literal English translation to express the equivalent Greek thought, the only articles we see high-lighted are DEFINITE articles.

AND, we notice immediately that, because we are experiencing literal Greek thought here, we see (from an English perspective) at least two aesthetic irregularities which will require fixing with our linguistic "glue:"

The 1st irregularity:
"in beginning" sounds a little strange to an English speaker.

The 2nd irregularity:
"with the god" also sounds a little strange to an English speaker.

The translator must, therefore, apply his linguistic "glue" to these two irregularities such that they may sound aesthetically proper to the English speaker. AND he must bear in mind his sterling rule of conduct as well: Accuracy of critical meaning must NOT be compromised...

So what did the Apostle John mean when he said "en arch?" (that is, "in beginning")

He was thinking in Greek, therefore we may assume that he was thinking of an indefinite "beginning" because he did NOT use the Greek definite article here. Based on what we learned earlier, the translator would, therefore, put the little red "a" before "beginning." to convey accurately what John (thinking in Greek!) meant, e.g., "in a beginning."

But that STILL sounds strange to an English speaker! However, if the translator puts the DEFINITE article "the" before "beginning," then it sounds correct. (e.g., "in the beginning")

But this is NOT what John said or meant!

So... If the translator leaves the "the" there for aesthetic purposes, will it compromise critical meaning?

Surprisingly enough, NOT REALLY! This is because the difference in meaning can be shifted semantically in English to mean what John said anyway.

Thus, even though a very subtle difference in meaning is conveyed now to an English speaker, (a meaning which John did not really intend) it is, nevertheless, aesthetically sound, AND the difference in meaning is not really critical - it can be compensated for semantically. Therefore, the translator may apply his "glue" here (depicted in red) and we end up with a satisfactory phrase in English: "in the beginning."

In order to fully appreciate this, please refer to this link:


http://www.greeknewtestamentaudio.com/john11.htm

Always take into account translation issues!

It is not "my confusion." You are the one who is confused and apparently unable to understand the nuances of the topic of translating from Greek to English. There are no indefinite articles ("a" or "an") in Greek. The only way you can understand what or who is the ONLY person or thing being referred to is the DEFINITE article "the." If something has NO article, then it is not the same as the person or thing that has the definite article "the." So how was John supposed to present the Father, God, and the Word, an important individual but NOT God, in the same sentence?

The sentence word-for-word, translated from the Greek, is: in [no article] beginning was the word and the word was with [the] god and [no article] god was the word.

Obviously the two "gods" are not the same. The first has the definite article, the second has no article. The rules of grammar for translating Greek to English are that when there is no article, an English article must be placed in the sentence to make it readable to an English reader. Therefore the "god" which has no article would be a god, and the reader would be able understand just what the second "god" actually was. It is distinct from "the" god (which in English we capitalize, though the Greeks do not).

Unfortunately your sources do not understand the rules of Greek grammar when translating into English, or, probably, they have not explained John 1:1 clearly to the reader so that we could understand just what John was talking about.

Talk about killing God's Word with the letter of some dead scholar. There is no second god. Jesus is God. It is his blood that will reverse the sin of Adam. No use posting scripture to you i have learned this far too many times you either ignore it or twist it.

[Benoni]

This is why JW do not get it.


John 4:7There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink.
8(For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.)
9Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.
10Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
11The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?
12Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?
13Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
14But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
15The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.
16Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.
17The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:
18For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.
19The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
20Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
21Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
25The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.
26Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.
27And upon this came his disciples, and marvelled that he talked with the woman: yet no man said, What seekest thou? or, Why talkest thou with her?
28The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men,
29Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?
30Then they went out of the city, and came unto him.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 84 by Benoni]

4:19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

You have quoted one of the parallel examples to John 1:1c.

The Greek reads 'prophet are you' (π�οφήτης εἶ σύ). Notice that 'prophet' is without the article and comes before the verb just like theos in Jn 1:1c. Furthermore, trinitarian scholars Daniel B. Wallace and Philip Harner both list John 4:19 as one of the examples which are parallel to John 1:1c.

And yet it is translated in trinitarian Bibles as 'a prophet.' This is exactly how John 1:1c (theos hn ho logos - god was the word) should be translated ('the Word was a god.')

[Benoni]

[Replying to post 84 by Benoni]

4:19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

You have quoted one of the parallel examples to John 1:1c.

The Greek reads 'prophet are you' (π�οφήτης εἶ σύ). Notice that 'prophet' is without the article and comes before the verb just like theos in Jn 1:1c. Furthermore, trinitarian scholars Daniel B. Wallace and Philip Harner both list John 4:19 as one of the examples which are parallel to John 1:1c.

And yet it is translated in trinitarian Bibles as 'a prophet.' This is exactly how John 1:1c (theos hn ho logos - god was the word) should be translated ('the Word was a god.')

First of all I am not a Trinitarian and there are many translations of the Bible to a point where if you do not trust God's Spirit as scripture does show us good luck witht he translations. Far to many bias scholars.

Second point I bold verse 24 which was my main point. Jesus is God. God is one.

[polonius]

[Replying to Benoni]

Benoni posted

Second point I bold verse 24 which was my main point. Jesus is God. God is one.

RESPONSE:
There is a problem with your claim. If two things are “one� they can’t have any differences.

(Philosophers might put it that homology yields to identity.)

In short, if they are “one� or identical, neither can possess or lack something that the other has.

Lets see: The Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten and proceeds from the Father, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. (Eastern Orthodox might challenge that last statement).

Whatever the case, logically the persons of the Trinity are not co-equal.

So either Jesus isn't God, or God isn't "One".

[Benoni]

[Replying to post 87 by polonius.advice]

1 Corinthians 2:
14But the natural, nonspiritual man does not accept or welcome or admit into his heart the gifts and teachings and revelations of the Spirit of God, for they are folly (meaningless nonsense) to him; and he is incapable of knowing them [of progressively recognizing, understanding, and becoming better acquainted with them] because they are spiritually discerned and estimated and appreciated