Is the Holy Spirit just an aspect of God?

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
polonius
Prodigy
Posts: 3904
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:03 pm
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 1 time

Is the Holy Spirit just an aspect of God?

Post #1

Post by polonius »

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

Claire Evans
Guru
Posts: 1153
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2015 3:40 am
Location: South Africa

Post #131

Post by Claire Evans »

JehovahsWitness wrote:
Claire Evans wrote: 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?

Claire Evans
Guru
Posts: 1153
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2015 3:40 am
Location: South Africa

Post #132

Post by Claire Evans »

onewithhim wrote:
Claire Evans wrote:
onewithhim wrote:
Claire Evans wrote:
tigger2 wrote: 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?

Claire Evans
Guru
Posts: 1153
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2015 3:40 am
Location: South Africa

Post #133

Post by Claire Evans »

onewithhim wrote: [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!!
Intimacy really does affect how the usage of the definite and indefinite article is used.
When we refer to a title of intimacy, the indefinite is not needed when translated into English. And that is why in the English translation, neither "the" or "a" is used.

To use the examples again. When translated into English, the title of intimacy, the proper noun, no articles are needed. Remember God is a title of intimacy.

The dog bit Mother.

Do we need an article here? With regards to a title of intimacy, we don't say, "the dog bit the Mother". You don't say, "The dog bit the Claire."

The linguistics are different and the translators keep this in mind.

We also say that Jesus is "the Son" and not "a son". That is because the latter completely loses the intimacy.

Claire Evans
Guru
Posts: 1153
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2015 3:40 am
Location: South Africa

Post #134

Post by Claire Evans »

Checkpoint wrote: [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.

Checkpoint
Prodigy
Posts: 4069
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:07 pm
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Post #135

Post by Checkpoint »

Claire Evans wrote:
Checkpoint wrote: [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.
An interesting verse from a key passage.

In it Paul encapsulates what he is intending to convey with this phrase from verse 18:
that in everything he might be preeminent.
That is the meaning of "firstborn, it is about the position given by God.
Psalm 89:27

27And I will make him the firstborn,
the highest of the kings of the earth.

Checkpoint
Prodigy
Posts: 4069
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:07 pm
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Post #136

Post by Checkpoint »

[Replying to post 132 by Claire Evans]
I believe Jesus is God incarnate.
What exactly do you mean?

Just what is it to be "God incarnate"?

Claire Evans
Guru
Posts: 1153
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2015 3:40 am
Location: South Africa

Post #137

Post by Claire Evans »

Checkpoint wrote:
onewithhim wrote: 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.
Checkpoint wrote: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?


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.

Checkpoint wrote: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?
John 1:1 says that, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

The Greek translation of this is "En arche". "O" is the definite article, which is "the", yet we do not see it here. We know that if there is no definite article, then the indefinite article is usually used (a). So it would be written, "In a beginning was the Word".

That does not sound right in English, so "the" is used instead of "a". But if one is literally going by the definite/indefinite word use, then the translators will put "a".

Now would using "the" instead of "a" compromise the meaning? No, as the English use of the articles can be shifted semantically to demonstrate what John was thinking anyway.

The definite article is used, despite having no "o", which is the definite article in Greek. Why? Because of who John was talking about. God is a Proper noun and thus indicates intimacy. Saying "a god" loses that intimacy. Therefore translators can switch noun status from an indefinite to definite article without compromising the meaning.

Claire Evans
Guru
Posts: 1153
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2015 3:40 am
Location: South Africa

Post #138

Post by Claire Evans »

Checkpoint wrote: [Replying to post 132 by Claire Evans]
I believe Jesus is God incarnate.
What exactly do you mean?

Just what is it to be "God incarnate"?

It means God coming to earth in the flesh. Since the Father is a spirit, He could only come to this earth by coming as one of us. That was the role of the Son. One may ask oneself, why didn't God just come as God and not also as the Son?

He demonstrated how we should have a relationship with the Father through prayer. He could not say to the disciples, "Now pray to Me". Also, if Jesus came in the form of God, He could never have been tempted like us humans do. How could we identify with God then if He never had human qualities?

God could never have taken on the sin of the world in His heavenly state. No sin can be near Him. Yet as the Son, who was human, He could. The whole victory of Christ is that He conquered sin despite talking on the sin of the world. Through Jesus, God could forgive all sin. If He could not, Jesus would have been lost to Satan.

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.

Checkpoint
Prodigy
Posts: 4069
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:07 pm
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Post #139

Post by 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
Prodigy
Posts: 4069
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:07 pm
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Post #140

Post by Checkpoint »

[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!

Post Reply