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 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?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 116 by Claire Evans]

Your argument for using a definite article where none appears in the original Greek text is ludicrous. You say that to say "a god" is too impersonal. Too impersonal for what? Too impersonal to be attributed to "the" God? Well, that is exactly the point for John writing "a god"---that is, without the definite article. That particular "god" does not refer to "the" God, because they are two different individuals. The one with the definite article is SUPERIOR to the one without the definite article. The one with the definite article is the one and only true God. The other "god" mentioned is not.

It is "too impersonal" to translate the verse the way it is meant to be translated from the Greek? Only to those biased enough to change the meaning of the verse!!

[onewithhim]

To keep trying to reason with a person that is oblivious to conclusions drawn from logical thinking is an exercise in futility. I leave her to her own comprehension devices, which leave the realm of lucidity.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 61 by Claire Evans]

You didn't answer the question. You said that Jesus had to have been God to have existed before Abraham. I said WHY? Angels existed before Abraham and none of them are God. So why would Jesus have to be God to have existed before Abraham?

But Jesus wasn't claimed to have been around in the beginning like the angels in Genesis. Is Jesus mentioned in Genesis? And the angels were never claimed to have been creators of the world like Jesus was.

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.

This Colossians passage does not say Jesus is or was God Himself.

What Paul wrote elsewhere tells us who God is and is not.

1 Corinthians 8:

4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,� and that “there is no God but one.�

5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods� and many “lords�—

6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Paul was not making a distinction between Jesus and God.

"Lord" referring to Jesus is translated as kyrios. Normally it would refer to a master but the context is different based on the Septuagint. The Jews knew the Lord as Adonai which when translated into Greek was Kyrios. Thus the early Christians who could speak where familiar with the Septuagint and would have understand Adonai has Lord Jesus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrios

And furthermore, how could God create the world through Jesus?

You contradict yourself and remain unaware that you have done so. You refer to Colossians 1:15 to show that Jesus created all things, and when someone apprised you of the fact that Paul didn't refer to Jesus as God you have no reply and skip over to I Corinthians 8. But that doesn't show that Jesus is God either! It clearly and explicitly states that there is one God, THE FATHER out of whom all things are. Not Jesus Christ. (Paul was indeed making a distinction between God and Christ!)






It goes on to say that Jesus is Lord and THROUGH him all things came into existence. But you don't understand just how God created through Jesus. It's pretty simple. Jesus had permission from the Father, God, to create. Jesus then used his Father's power to create everything. God's power enabled Jesus to create, and therefore God created through Jesus. Without that power from the Father, Jesus could not have created anything.

Saying Jesus was created contradicts John 17:5

And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.�

Did not God first create when the world came into existence?

We have more scriptures saying Jesus is God:

But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions� (Hebrews 1:8–9).

2 Thessalonians 2:4
who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God (θεον) or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God (θεου) in the temple of God (θεον), showing himself that he is God (θεος).

You are saying that Jesus is a proxy. If Jesus is not God, did God not feel the pain of the world and the full extent of sin? Was it only Jesus who suffered? Did He use Jesus to suffer death so that He could escape it?

Why does God need a Son to create when He can do it Himself? The Son was only needed for this world. It was the only way for God to enter the world to come in the flesh.

And yes, Jesus was around in Genesis. You are just too superficial to have learned that.

Please refrain from snarky comments. I'd like to know where Jesus was mentioned in Genesis.

Most of the places where "kyrios" appears in the N.T., it is a reference to the Father, God, not Jesus. There are places where Jesus is referred to as "Lord," and it is downright confusing and difficult to know which Lord is being spoken about. There ate TWO INDIVIDUALS that are called "Lord," and the clerics and copyists who took the Divine Name (YHWH) out of the N.T. and substituted "Kyrios" did a huge disservice to the world. They just made understanding the scriptures extremely difficult, especially to the simple-minded.

We cannot just say they did a huge disservice. We cannot say that Jesus was merely a master.

There are clearly instances where it is obvious that Jesus is referred to kyrios as God.




1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. (NASB)

Now to say there is one Lord, as espoused in the OT, it is reasonable to refer to Jesus as Kyrios meaning Adonai.

[Checkpoint]

To keep trying to reason with a person that is oblivious to conclusions drawn from logical thinking is an exercise in futility. I leave her to her own comprehension devices, which leave the realm of lucidity.

I have no comment on your exchange, as such.

Yet the heat it has generated drew my curiosity, so I thought to take my own look at the Interliear for myself.

What I am about to observe may earn me responses that I am a simpleton or am ignorant, or worse, but here goes anyway.

No definite article? It seems so, but then, why not?

How can we determine this if we use translations that rewrite the order of the relevant words that are in the Greek?

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?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 61 by Claire Evans]

You didn't answer the question. You said that Jesus had to have been God to have existed before Abraham. I said WHY? Angels existed before Abraham and none of them are God. So why would Jesus have to be God to have existed before Abraham?

But Jesus wasn't claimed to have been around in the beginning like the angels in Genesis. Is Jesus mentioned in Genesis? And the angels were never claimed to have been creators of the world like Jesus was.

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.

This Colossians passage does not say Jesus is or was God Himself.

What Paul wrote elsewhere tells us who God is and is not.

1 Corinthians 8:

4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,� and that “there is no God but one.�

5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods� and many “lords�—

6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Paul was not making a distinction between Jesus and God.

"Lord" referring to Jesus is translated as kyrios. Normally it would refer to a master but the context is different based on the Septuagint. The Jews knew the Lord as Adonai which when translated into Greek was Kyrios. Thus the early Christians who could speak where familiar with the Septuagint and would have understand Adonai has Lord Jesus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrios

And furthermore, how could God create the world through Jesus?

You contradict yourself and remain unaware that you have done so. You refer to Colossians 1:15 to show that Jesus created all things, and when someone apprised you of the fact that Paul didn't refer to Jesus as God you have no reply and skip over to I Corinthians 8. But that doesn't show that Jesus is God either! It clearly and explicitly states that there is one God, THE FATHER out of whom all things are. Not Jesus Christ. (Paul was indeed making a distinction between God and Christ!)






It goes on to say that Jesus is Lord and THROUGH him all things came into existence. But you don't understand just how God created through Jesus. It's pretty simple. Jesus had permission from the Father, God, to create. Jesus then used his Father's power to create everything. God's power enabled Jesus to create, and therefore God created through Jesus. Without that power from the Father, Jesus could not have created anything.

Saying Jesus was created contradicts John 17:5

And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.�

Did not God first create when the world came into existence?

We have more scriptures saying Jesus is God:

But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions� (Hebrews 1:8–9).

2 Thessalonians 2:4
who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God (θεον) or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God (θεου) in the temple of God (θεον), showing himself that he is God (θεος).

You are saying that Jesus is a proxy. If Jesus is not God, did God not feel the pain of the world and the full extent of sin? Was it only Jesus who suffered? Did He use Jesus to suffer death so that He could escape it?

Why does God need a Son to create when He can do it Himself? The Son was only needed for this world. It was the only way for God to enter the world to come in the flesh.

And yes, Jesus was around in Genesis. You are just too superficial to have learned that.

Please refrain from snarky comments. I'd like to know where Jesus was mentioned in Genesis.

Most of the places where "kyrios" appears in the N.T., it is a reference to the Father, God, not Jesus. There are places where Jesus is referred to as "Lord," and it is downright confusing and difficult to know which Lord is being spoken about. There ate TWO INDIVIDUALS that are called "Lord," and the clerics and copyists who took the Divine Name (YHWH) out of the N.T. and substituted "Kyrios" did a huge disservice to the world. They just made understanding the scriptures extremely difficult, especially to the simple-minded.

We cannot just say they did a huge disservice. We cannot say that Jesus was merely a master.

There are clearly instances where it is obvious that Jesus is referred to kyrios as God.




1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. (NASB)

Now to say there is one Lord, as espoused in the OT, it is reasonable to refer to Jesus as Kyrios meaning Adonai.

No---God did not FIRST create when this planet came into existence, nor the world of mankind alienated from God. God first created untold billions of years ago, and His first creation was His Son, the individual who became Jesus of Nazareth some billions of years later. How does John 17:5 negate that fact?

All of your scriptures that supposedly say that Jesus is God are ambiguous or outright corruptions.

Hebrews 1:8: This verse could very well be translated as: "Your throne is God, forever and ever." Three Bible translations realize this to be a possibility and make a note of it in their footnotes (NRSV, TEV & NWT).

word-for-word rendering of the Greek:

ho thronos sou ho theos eis ton aiona tou aionos
"the throne of you the god until the age of the age"


That could be taken two ways. The way most versions have taken it is the way you have quoted it, and, truthfully, it really cannot stand up to scrutiny. The most PROBABLE rendering is as I said above: "Your throne is God, forever and ever." Saying "the god" is the way the Bible indicates "God"---the definite article makes it specifically the one God. "Until the age of the age" is the typical Biblical way to say "forever and ever." Now the question is: where does the verb "is" go in this sentence to hold it all together in a coherent statement?

In Heb.1:8 we have two nouns in nominative form: "throne" and "God." The verb "is" might go between these two nouns, as it does in dozens of cases of saying "x is y" in the New Testament. If that is so, then the sentence reads: "Your throne is God." Remember---DOZENS of cases in the N.T. use this formula of "x is y." It is probable that "ho theos" means "God" and NOT "O God," another reason being that the same author of the N.T. uses "ho theos" to mean "God" in many other scriptures, and not "O God."

Furthermore, there is no other example in the Bible where the expression "forever" stands alone as a predicate phrase with the verb "to be," as it would if the sentence were read "Your throne is forever." Moreover, there is no other way to say "God is your throne" than the way Heb.1:8 reads. There IS another way to say "Your throne, O God." And secondly, we can say that Jesus, who is the subject being discussed in Heb.1:8, is not called "God" anywhere else in the Epistle to the Hebrews!

To say that "God is your throne" is saying that God is the power behind your throne, or, "God gives you the power and authority." This is undoubtedly what the verse means, because in the very next verse Jesus has a God!! Verse 9 says:

"You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore, GOD, YOUR GOD, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions." (NASB) These two verses contradict one another unless you understand that "God is your throne" is the correct rendering of verse 8.

...

How can you fail to notice that Paul, in I Corinthians 8:6, clearly distinguishes between "God" and the "Lord" Jesus. How can the two be the same? "God" is THE FATHER, and the Lord is Jesus. When "Kyrios" was supplanted in the N.T. where God's name originally appeared, it was a gigantic disservice because now people are confused, like you, as to which "Lord" a scripture is referring. NOT ALL "LORD"S ARE REFERRING TO JESUS.

Now, how in the world can you apply 2 Thess.2:4 to Jesus???? It doesn't refer to him at all.


It would benefit you to reconsider your position.[/b]

[onewithhim]

To keep trying to reason with a person that is oblivious to conclusions drawn from logical thinking is an exercise in futility. I leave her to her own comprehension devices, which leave the realm of lucidity.

I have no comment on your exchange, as such.

Yet the heat it has generated drew my curiosity, so I thought to take my own look at the Interliear for myself.

What I am about to observe may earn me responses that I am a simpleton or am ignorant, or worse, but here goes anyway.

No definite article? It seems so, but then, why not?

How can we determine this if we use translations that rewrite the order of the relevant words that are in the Greek?

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 sorry, I don't understand what you are disagreeing with. I thought that I and others had explained John 1:1 quite thoroughly, and with good logic, reason, and respect for the rules of grammar in translating Greek into English.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 123 by Checkpoint]

Checkpoint, if you truly want to know about John 1:1c, carefully examine this:

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... 11c-a.html

Believe it or not, this is a condensation and simplification of my large personal study of John 1:1c.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 123 by Checkpoint]

Checkpoint, if you truly want to know about John 1:1c, carefully examine this:

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... 11c-a.html

Believe it or not, this is a condensation and simplification of my large personal study of John 1:1c.

Thank you for that.

I have read the beginning and may continue later.

In the meantime, please answer here, briefly but clearly if possible, these questions I asked:

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?

Thanks.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 127 by Checkpoint]

"May continue"??

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?

Word order in NT Greek is basically not important. Unlike modern English, the NT Greek word endings show the part of speech, and, therefore the Greek writers could (and did) use the word order in any way they wished. As for predicate nouns (such as theos in John 1:1c), it is fairly common for them to be at the beginning of the clause. Often, if one nominative noun in a clause with subject and predicate noun (like John 1:1c) has the article and one does not, the one without will be the predicate noun regardless of its place in the clause. This is not always the case so context must also be considered.

If you would finish Part C. of the Seven Lessons, you will see this more clearly. If you will just stick to the lessons through Lesson E, you could be the first ever to discuss this properly with me. I would love to answer any further questions based on the Seven (or Five) Lessons.