The Problem with 2 Peter 1:1

[Marymog]

The only problem with that assertion is that God’s spirit was never seen as a person or a deity in OT.....it emanated from their deity, but was not of itself a personage. That came later when the church had fused Jesus and his Father and then added the Holy Spirit to make up their trinity god.

Numbers 11:16-17 indicates that the spirit of God was the exercise of his power, giving humans the ability to do things that they could not accomplish on their own. Even Jesus needed the Holy Spirit to perform miracles. It was bestowed on him at his baptism. He in turn gave then the ability to perform miracles by the mention of his name.

When Moses was finding the the Israelites difficult to deal with on his own.....
“...the Lord said to Moses, “Bring me seventy men from among the elders of Israel whom you know to be elders and leaders of the people. Bring them to the tent of meeting, and have them stand there with yourself. I will come down and speak to you there. I will take some of the Spirit that is upon you and put it upon them. They will carry the burden of the people with you, so that you do not have to carry it alone.” (NCB)

If the Holy Spirit was a person, how would that make sense? How can you take some of a person and divide it up equally among 70 men? However if the Holy Spirit was the exercise of God’s power, the means that he uses to accomplish his will, then that to me makes more sense.

In “church” records there is no mention of a trinity until the end of the second century. How is that possible if it was believed by the Jewish disciples of Jesus? No Jew would have accepted that their Messiah was God incarnate....that would have been blasphemy. Jesus never claimed to be God...not once. All he ever said was that he was “the son of God”. How does being God’s son make him God?


The unity of purpose is clearly stated between God and his son, but the mention of the Holy Spirit, when speaking of Yahweh and Jesus, is more often than not, missing. Why is this equal part of God not mentioned?

John 17:1-5....in prayer to his Father Jesus’ words tell us what leads to eternal life....
“After saying this, Jesus raised his eyes to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, so that your Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to all those you have given him. And eternal life is this: to know you, the only true God, and the one you have sent, Jesus Christ. “I have glorified you on earth by completing the work that you entrusted to me. So now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” (NCB)

I do not see any equality expressed here.....the Son is deferring to his Father as the one who will glorify his son, restoring him to his glorious position in heaven as he had before he came to the earth.
No mention is made of the Holy Spirit at all.

The apostles too never mentioned the Holy Spirit as part of God.
1 Corinthians 8:5-6...
Indeed, even though there are so-called gods in heaven and on earth—and there are in fact many gods and many lords— for us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things are and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and through whom we exist.” (NCB)

I see no mention of a trinity at all....in fact just the opposite. With no direct statement as to there being a three in one “godhead”, all the church had was ambiguous verses into which it wove a pagan concept. Abrahamic religions have no trinity.....Abraham was as close to God as a mere mortal man could become, and yet he did not know such a God. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

I find no evidence of a trinity at all in the scriptures......nor do I see a need to accept that God had to send himself as a human to rescue his children. The ransom price was set...no more, no less....so for God to come to earth and offer his life was not only impossible (he is immortal and cannot die) but the overpayment would have been ridiculous! Like using 100 trillion cans of bug spray to kill one mosquito. All Jesus needed to be was 100% human to offer his life as an equivalent of Adam, to redeem us. If Jesus didn’t die, then the ransom is not paid and we are still doomed in our sins.

That is how the Bible instructs me.....

Thanks Jane for that well thought out and articulate defense of 'how the Bible instructs you'.

In general you are right that in the OT the Spirit was not "seen as a person or a deity". They saw the Spirit as a quality belonging to God or one of his attributes.

• Genesis 1:2 "a wind from God sweeping over the water" [7]
• 1 Samuel 16:13 "and the spirit of the LORD gripped David from that day on."
• Psalm 143:10 "Let Your gracious spirit lead me on level ground."
• Isaiah 42:1 "Behold My servant, I will support him, My chosen one, whom My soul desires; I have placed My spirit upon him, he shall promulgate justice to the nations."
• Isaiah 44:3 "So will I pour My spirit on your offspring, My blessing upon your posterity."
• Joel 2:28 "I will pour out My spirit on all flesh; Your sons and daughters shall prophesy."

However, the Holy Spirit is referred to in personal terms by our Lord throughout the New Testament: And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, who the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.....But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father.....Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convince the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment; of sin"

Furthermore St. Paul tells us “no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God”!

Hebrews 3:7 has the Holy Spirit SAYING something: Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says,

Notice in Hebrews 10:15 the Holy Spirit is synonymous with God himself: And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us, for after saying,

So clearly The Holy Spirit is personal. He convinces of sin, teaches the truth, speaks, declares things that are to come, and comprehends the thoughts of God. Those texts leave no doubt as to the personhood of the Holy Spirit.

With that said you quoted passages that DO NOT point to the personhood of The Spirit and that fit what you believe. But you left out passages that DO point to the personhood of The Spirit. I choose to read the entire Bible in CONTEXT.....that is how the Bible instructs me.

Which leads me to the most important question: Why do you accept the Jewish interpretation of who or what the Holy Spirit is and reject the Christian interpretation?

Mary

 

[PinSeeker]

The only problem with that assertion is that God’s spirit was never seen as a person or a deity in OT...

LOL! Maybe you can talk to Moses about that ~ if you meet him. He will surely tell you that we see the Holy Spirit's person and deity even from the very beginning, when "the earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep... and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." So the Father expressed His will (with all the "let-there-bes" :) ~ and the Holy Spirit executed the Father's will. And all this was done with Jesus present, as John 1 makes clear, and through Jesus, and nothing was made that was made without Jesus.

...the church had fused Jesus and his Father and then added the Holy Spirit to make up their trinity god.

LOL! Oh, my.

Numbers 11:16-17 indicates that the spirit of God was the exercise of his power... If the Holy Spirit was a person, how would that make sense? How can you take some of a person and divide it up equally among 70 men? However if the Holy Spirit was the exercise of God’s power, the means that he uses to accomplish his will, then that to me makes more sense.

Sure, He gives His Spirit to men and uses Him (the Spirit) to accomplish His (the Father's) will. Do you suppose Ezekiel, in chapters 11 and 36 of his prophecy, believed differently than Moses here in Numbers, when he said (quoting the Father, actually), "I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules" (36:27)? I realize you're focus on "tak(ing) some of the Spirit that is on (Moses) and put it on (the seventy Israelite elders)" in Numbers 11:17, but you should understand that in the same context as Paul when he talks about spiritual gifts in Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12, especially regarding faith, that individual Christians receive these gifts according to the measure of faith that God has assigned: (Romans 12:3), and are "empowered by one and the same Spirit, Who apportions to each one individually as (the Father) wills." Obviously, not all receive the same portion of these spiritual gifts. Not "parts of the Spirit," as if the Spirit Himself is somehow "divided up," but the strength of the different gifts of the Spirit apportioned differently in individuals. And this is, obviously, by God's will and for the common good.

John 17:1-5...

Well, I'm glad you included verse five there, where Jesus, in His prayer, praying with absolute confidence, says "So now, Father, glorify Me in YHour presence with the glory I had with You before the world began." If you can't see equality in that, then... my goodness. Plus, I'll just throw in :) that here we see clearly again Jesus's eternality ~ as opposed to His having been created and thus being a part of creation itself. Same for the rest of your post.

I find no evidence of a trinity at all in the scriptures...

Again, as Simon and Garfunkel sang (first in 1968, but echoing through the years since), "Still a man hears (sees also) what he wants to hear (see) and disregards the rest."

...nor do I see a need to accept that God had to send himself as a human to rescue his children.

I would suggest (again) taking a fresh look at God's covenant with Abram (later Abraham) in Genesis 15, where He caused Abram to fall into a deep sleep and He took both ends of the covenant ~ His and Abram's ~ upon Himself. And ultimately, because Abram and his progeny failed to keep the covenant perfectly, paid the wages that were properly Abram's and his progeny's ~ death ~ on his and our behalf.

All Jesus needed to be was 100% human to offer his life as an equivalent of Adam, to redeem us.

Well, sure, but if He were not also 100% God, His sacrifice would have been utterly ineffectual.

If Jesus didn’t die, then the ransom is not paid and we are still doomed in our sins.

Agreed. Thanks be to God.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

In general you are right that in the OT the Spirit was not "seen as a person or a deity".

No, they absolutely knew that the Spirit was a Person. We see that in Acts, when the apostles had to preach that Jesus was God's Christ. They knew intimately that God was at least a duality (the Father and the Spirit).

They saw the Spirit as a quality belonging to God or one of his attributes.

No, see above. I'll take your examples here:

• Genesis 1:2 "the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters"
• 1 Samuel 16:13 "and the spirit of the LORD gripped David from that day on." Yes, the Spirit convicted David from that point on.
• Psalm 143:10 "Let Your gracious spirit lead me on level ground." Yes, by the Father's will and the actual work/leading of the Spirit.
• Isaiah 42:1 "Behold My servant, I will support him, My chosen one, whom My soul desires; I have placed My spirit upon him, he shall promulgate justice to the nations." Again, the Father's will, and the Spirit's work in the ones He chooses.
• Isaiah 44:3 "So will I pour My spirit on your offspring, My blessing upon your posterity." Same as above.
• Joel 2:28 "I will pour out My spirit on all flesh; Your sons and daughters shall prophesy." Same as above.

...the Holy Spirit is referred to in personal terms by our Lord throughout the New Testament...

Absolutely! But the Old Testament too. See above.

Grace and peace to you, Mary.

 

[ScottA]

2 Peter 1:1 is often used to support the trinity.
“Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:”

Here is the problem.

Granville Sharp made a rule in 1798. Sharp's Rule says, in effect, that when two or more words (nouns) in the original Greek NT text are joined by the word "and," they all refer to the same person if the word "the" comes before the first noun and not before the other nouns.

Many respected NT experts and translators have rejected Sharp's Rule. For example: G. B. Winer; J. H. Moulton; C. F. D. Moule; Dr. James Moffatt (see Titus 2:13; and 1 Tim. 5:21); Dr. William Barclay (2 Thess. 1:12); and Roman Catholic scholar Karl Rahner (2 Peter 1:1).

Notice these translations of 2 Peter 1:1.
KJV - “through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"
ASV - "in the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ"
RSV footnote - “of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ”
Weymouth - “through the righteousness of our God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ."
NWT “through the righteousness of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ”

The most frequently used “Sharp’s Rule” verse is Titus 2:13. These translations also reject the made up rule and do not support the trinity.
KJV - “of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
Moffatt - "of the Glory of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus,"
NABRE - "of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ,"
NLV - "of our great God and the One Who saves, Christ Jesus."
RSV footnote - “of the great God and our Savior”
CJB - "of our great God and the appearing of our Deliverer, Yeshua the Messiah."
GNV - "of that mighty God, and of our Savior Jesus Christ."
Phillips - "of the Great God and of Jesus Christ our saviour.
Coverdale - “of ye greate God and of oure Sauioure Iesu Christ.”
Wycliffe - “of the greet God, and of oure sauyour Jhesu Crist;”
Tyndale - “ye myghty god and of oure savioure Iesu Christ.”
Mace- “of the supreme God, and of our saviour Jesus Christ,”
Noyes - “of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ;”
Riverside - “of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus,”
NWT - "of the great God and of our Savior, Jesus Christ,"

What is your point?

It is not any of these translators or Sharp who cause one to understand in his own language--those languages that God himself has caused to be confused--it is only by the Spirit.

Why do you make issue of confusion?

 

[Marymog]

No, they absolutely knew that the Spirit was a Person. We see that in Acts, when the apostles had to preach that Jesus was God's Christ. They knew intimately that God was at least a duality (the Father and the Spirit).


No, see above. I'll take your examples here:

• Genesis 1:2 "the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters"
• 1 Samuel 16:13 "and the spirit of the LORD gripped David from that day on." Yes, the Spirit convicted David from that point on.
• Psalm 143:10 "Let Your gracious spirit lead me on level ground." Yes, by the Father's will and the actual work/leading of the Spirit.
• Isaiah 42:1 "Behold My servant, I will support him, My chosen one, whom My soul desires; I have placed My spirit upon him, he shall promulgate justice to the nations." Again, the Father's will, and the Spirit's work in the ones He chooses.
• Isaiah 44:3 "So will I pour My spirit on your offspring, My blessing upon your posterity." Same as above.
• Joel 2:28 "I will pour out My spirit on all flesh; Your sons and daughters shall prophesy." Same as above.

Absolutely! But the Old Testament too. See above.

Grace and peace to you, Mary.

Thanks PinSeeker,

I said "in general" that is what they believed because I can't find any hard evidence in the OT that they considered the Holy Spirit as it's own separate entity. As stated in my post there is hard evidence in the NT. What I did find in my research that there are variations of a similar term "spirit of God". It appears in various places in the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew noun ruacḥ (רוח‎) can refer to "breath", "wind", or some invisible moving force ("spirit"). The term ruach haqodesh is found frequently in talmudic and midrashic literature. In some cases it signifies prophetic inspiration, while in others it is used as a hypostatization or a metonym for God. The rabbinical understanding of the Holy Spirit has a certain degree of personification, but it remains, "a quality belonging to God, one of his attributes". The idea of God as a duality or trinity is considered shituf (or "not purely monotheistic").

I believe in the NT that Christ clarified that the Spirit is a separate entity or has it's own personage.

I think you and I are on the same page on this matter and @Aunty Jane would be the person you would want to debate with....not me.

Holy Spirit in Judaism (slife.org)

 

[Scott Downey]

Thanks PinSeeker,

I said "in general" that is what they believed because I can't find any hard evidence in the OT that they considered the Holy Spirit as it's own separate entity. As stated in my post there is hard evidence in the NT. What I did find in my research that there are variations of a similar term "spirit of God". It appears in various places in the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew noun ruacḥ (רוח‎) can refer to "breath", "wind", or some invisible moving force ("spirit"). The term ruach haqodesh is found frequently in talmudic and midrashic literature. In some cases it signifies prophetic inspiration, while in others it is used as a hypostatization or a metonym for God. The rabbinical understanding of the Holy Spirit has a certain degree of personification, but it remains, "a quality belonging to God, one of his attributes". The idea of God as a duality or trinity is considered shituf (or "not purely monotheistic").

I believe in the NT that Christ clarified that the Spirit is a separate entity or has it's own personage.

I think you and I are on the same page on this matter and @Aunty Jane would be the person you would want to debate with....not me.

Holy Spirit in Judaism (slife.org)

What about Isaiah 48:16 ?
“Come near to Me, hear this:
I have not spoken in secret from the beginning;
From the time that it was, I was there.
And now the Lord God and His Spirit
Have sent Me.”

Isaiah 63:7-14

God’s Mercy Remembered
7 I will mention the lovingkindnesses of the Lord
And the praises of the Lord,
According to all that the Lord has bestowed on us,
And the great goodness toward the house of Israel,
Which He has bestowed on them according to His mercies,
According to the multitude of His lovingkindnesses.
8 For He said, “Surely they are My people,
Children who will not lie.”
So He became their Savior.
9 In all their affliction He was afflicted,
And the Angel of His Presence saved them;
In His love and in His pity He redeemed them;
And He bore them and carried them
All the days of old.
10 But they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit;
So He turned Himself against them as an enemy,
And He fought against them.

11 Then he remembered the days of old,
Moses and his people, saying:
“Where is He who brought them up out of the sea
With the shepherd of His flock?
Where is He who put His Holy Spirit within them,
12 Who led them by the right hand of Moses,
With His glorious arm,
Dividing the water before them
To make for Himself an everlasting name,
13 Who led them through the deep,
As a horse in the wilderness,
That they might not stumble?”

14 As a beast goes down into the valley,
And the Spirit of the Lord causes him to rest,
So You lead Your people,
To make Yourself a glorious name.

 

[Marymog]

What about Isaiah 48:16 ?
“Come near to Me, hear this:
I have not spoken in secret from the beginning;
From the time that it was, I was there.
And now the Lord God and His Spirit
Have sent Me.”

Isaiah 63:7-14

God’s Mercy Remembered
7 I will mention the lovingkindnesses of the Lord
And the praises of the Lord,
According to all that the Lord has bestowed on us,
And the great goodness toward the house of Israel,
Which He has bestowed on them according to His mercies,
According to the multitude of His lovingkindnesses.
8 For He said, “Surely they are My people,
Children who will not lie.”
So He became their Savior.
9 In all their affliction He was afflicted,
And the Angel of His Presence saved them;
In His love and in His pity He redeemed them;
And He bore them and carried them
All the days of old.
10 But they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit;
So He turned Himself against them as an enemy,
And He fought against them.

11 Then he remembered the days of old,
Moses and his people, saying:
“Where is He who brought them up out of the sea
With the shepherd of His flock?
Where is He who put His Holy Spirit within them,
12 Who led them by the right hand of Moses,
With His glorious arm,
Dividing the water before them
To make for Himself an everlasting name,
13 Who led them through the deep,
As a horse in the wilderness,
That they might not stumble?”

14 As a beast goes down into the valley,
And the Spirit of the Lord causes him to rest,
So You lead Your people,
To make Yourself a glorious name.

Thank you. I wasn't aware of those. I hope @Aunty Jane will take those passages into consideration also.

Respectfully, Mary

 

[ScottA]

How is, "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" the same as, "Jesus is God in the flesh?" The two statements are diametrically opposed to each other.

If words have any meaning, one person can't be a son and their own father at the same time. If so, then it opens up the floodgates to assign any meaning we want to any word. If we do that, the Bible is useless. God refined every word 7 times. There is no indication that God changed the meaning of either "son" or "father."

We all agree on the meaning of words. Why do we change the relationship between a son and a father so as to make them both one person when it comes to the Bible? We would be aghast if we tried that in any other arena of life. We would all scream, "that doesn't make any sense!" What is it about the scriptures that causes us to abandon such an incredible easy concept? It baffles me to no end. But that's just me, :)

God bless you brother!

This is the result of God having confused all language at Babel--which has not been rescinded, except by the Spirit, unto "all truth."

The answer and explanation then...is available, and I, by that same Spirit, can explain. Jesus has given many glimpses into all truth in parable, and I will do the same:

The Father and the Son are as One man who reached His right hand into the waters below the firmament to rescue those who were perishing. On his hand were the words: "I am the right hand of God, like a son of man, lowered among you for your salvation--I am Jesus, take My hand." But those to whom He first reached out, refused Him, and then He left.

Next the One said, "Men do not receive the sons of men even from God, therefore I will send another Helper, My hand in spirit, the Spirit of Truth." But some men being accustom to what is written turned to the word, while others knowing who it was that was first sent to them, longed for Him to come again, and so missed the One in spirit and also turned again to the word rather than to Him who sent it.​

In order to avoid the confusion of all language, we must turn to the Spirit, as it is for this reason that He was sent.

 

[Rich R]

This is the result of God having confused all language at Babel--which has not been rescinded, except by the Spirit, unto "all truth."

The answer and explanation then...is available, and I, by that same Spirit, can explain. Jesus has given many glimpses into all truth in parable, and I will do the same:

The Father and the Son are as One man who reached His right hand into the waters below the firmament to rescue those who were perishing. On his hand were the words: "I am the right hand of God, like a son of man, lowered among you for your salvation--I am Jesus, take My hand." But those to whom He first reached out, refused Him, and then He left.

Next the One said, "Men do not receive the sons of men even from God, therefore I will send another Helper, My hand in spirit, the Spirit of Truth." But some men being accustom to what is written turned to the word, while others knowing who it was that was first sent to them, longed for Him to come again, and so missed the One in spirit and also turned again to the word rather than to Him who sent it.​

In order to avoid the confusion of all language, we must turn to the Spirit, as it is for this reason that He was sent.

Where in the scriptures does the spirit change the meaning of the words "son" and "father?" Normally a son and a father are decidedly different persons.

We must stick with the scriptures and nothing but the scriptures. All explanations of the trinity of necessity must go outside of the scriptures, to Pagan doctrine to be precise.

Babel was talking about multiple languages arising. It does not mean any one language is not precise. If that were the case you would have no idea what I've said. But you do. Words have meaning. I may not understand German words, but I'm pretty good with English words. Good enough anyway that I understand a son can in no wise be his own father.

 

[ScottA]

Where in the scriptures does the spirit change the meaning of the words "son" and "father?" Normally a son and a father are decidedly different persons.

We must stick with the scriptures and nothing but the scriptures. All explanations of the trinity of necessity must go outside of the scriptures, to Pagan doctrine to be precise.

Babel was talking about multiple languages arising. It does not mean any one language is not precise. If that were the case you would have no idea what I've said. But you do. Words have meaning. I may not understand German words, but I'm pretty good with English words. Good enough anyway that I understand a son can in no wise be his own father.

You are looking dimly at the smaller picture.

A son becomes a father when he has children of his own. In the case of Christ, He is the father of those born of the spirit of God whom He has sent.

But, no, even lowly men can be a son, a father, and a person of title able to command without being visibly present. You speak of the so called Trinity--which is the Me, Myself, and I (am) of God.

And no...sticking with the scriptures would be like sticking with a temple made of stone. No, but God first introduced Himself, then in the fullness of time introduced His Son, saying "Follow Him." Then, also in the fullness of time, the Son and the Father being One, also introduced another Helper, the Holy Spirit. Thus, if we stick with the Word alone, we stick to the Son alone and refuse the Spirit, just as Israel refused the Son-- Indeed, to our shame, we have done this already--for millennia.

But the baby steps of coming to know of each of the Three, is only baby talk. God is One God. Meanwhile, all Three have their own face and part.

As for Babel, you error. The context...is "all the earth."

 

[Rich R]

And no...sticking with the scriptures would be like sticking with a temple made of stone. No, but God first introduced Himself, then in the fullness of time introduced His Son, saying "Follow Him." Then, also in the fullness of time, the Son and the Father being One, also introduced another Helper, the Holy Spirit. Thus, if we stick with the Word alone, we stick to the Son alone and refuse the Spirit, just as Israel refused the Son-- Indeed, to our shame, we have done this already--for millennia.

I don't have to outside the scriptures to see holy spirit. I talks about holy spirit quite a bit, but there is no such thing as "God the Holy Spirit" in the scriptures. If we can go outside the scriptures, why not include the Koran, the Urantia, the Baghavad Gita, the Tibetan Book of the Dead to define our rule of faith and practice?

If people want to do that, fine. I won't stop them, but it's not likely at all they would come away with the truth. Actually, it'd be quite impossible.

 

[ScottA]

I don't have to outside the scriptures to see holy spirit. I talks about holy spirit quite a bit, but there is no such thing as "God the Holy Spirit" in the scriptures. If we can go outside the scriptures, why not include the Koran, the Urantia, the Baghavad Gita, the Tibetan Book of the Dead to define our rule of faith and practice?

If people want to do that, fine. I won't stop them, but it's not likely at all they would come away with the truth. Actually, it'd be quite impossible.

You are mincing words and quenching the Spirit.

"He", the "Helper", "the Spirit of Truth"-- But who is "the Truth?" By what you have just said, you deny that Jesus is God also!

As for the Spirit, which was not called "He" until Christ introduced "Him", He has inspired the scriptures. But we [should] know that "the world itself could not contain the books that would be written"-- meaning that just as Jesus said “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now", that having told us also that He would send "Him", "the Spirit of Truth"--rightfully called "Holy", is indeed "outside" the scriptures, but not outside of God and what He has appointed (for our times).

 

[tigger 2]

Quotes: Holy Spirit is a Force from God, Trinitarians Admit

In the Old Testament (OT) it is clear that the inspired Bible writers intended holy spirit (ruah or ruach in Hebrew) to be understood as an invisible, powerful force from God. Even many trinitarian scholars will admit that.

For example, The Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 269, 1976, admits:

"In the OT the Holy Spirit means a divine power..."

And the New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House Publishers, 1984, pp. 1136,1137, says:

"Spirit, Holy Spirit. OT, Heb. ruah 378 times ...; NT, Gk. pneuma 379 times." And "Divine power, where ruah is used to describe ... a supernatural force...." And "At its [the Old Testament's concept of ruah, God's spirit] heart is the experience of a mysterious, awesome power - the mighty invisible force of the wind, the mystery of its vitality, the otherly power that transforms - all ruah, all manifestations of divine energy." And "at this early stage [pre-Christian] of understanding, God's ruah was thought of simply as a supernatural power (under God's authority) exerting force in some direction."

The Encyclopedia Americana tells us:

"The doctrine of the Holy Spirit [as a person who is God] is a distinctly Christian [?] one.... the Spirit of Jehovah [in the OT] is the active divine principle in nature. .... But it is in the New Testament [NT] that we find the bases of the doctrine of the Spirit's personality." And "Yet the early Church did not forthwith attain to a complete doctrine; nor was it, in fact, until after the essential divinity of Jesus had received full ecclesiastical sanction [in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicaea] that the personality of the Spirit was explicitly recognized, and the doctrine of the Trinity formulated." Also, "It is better to regard the Spirit as the agency which, proceeding from the Father and the Son, dwells in the church as the witness and power of the life therein." - Vol. 14, p. 326, 1957 ed.

And the Encyclopedia Britannica Micropaedia, 1985 ed., Vol. 6, p. 22 says:

"The Hebrew word ruah (usually translated `spirit') is often found in texts referring to the free and unhindered activity of God, .... There was, however, no explicit belief in a separate divine person in Biblical Judaism; in fact, the New Testament itself is not entirely clear in this regard....
"The definition that the Holy Spirit was a distinct divine Person equal in substance to the Father and the Son and not subordinate to them came at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381...."

Many historians and Bible scholars (most of them trinitarians) freely admit the above truth. For example: "On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the Spirit as a divine energy or power." - A Catholic Dictionary.

An Encyclopedia of Religion agrees:

"In the New Testament there is no direct suggestion of the Trinity. The Spirit is conceived as an impersonal power by which God effects his will through Christ." - p. 344, Virgilius Ferm, 1945 ed.

Even the trinitarian New Bible Dictionary tells us:

"It is important to realize that for the first Christians the Spirit was thought of in terms of divine power." - p. 1139, Tyndale House Publishers, 1984.

And the respected (and trinitarian) New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology confirms:

"As in earlier Jewish thought, pneuma [`spirit'] denotes that power which man experiences as relating him to the spiritual realm of reality which lies beyond ordinary observation and human control. Within this broad definition pneuma has a fairly wide range of meaning. But by far the most frequent use of pneuma in the NT (more than 250 times) is as a reference to the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, that power which is most immediately of God as to source and nature." - p. 693.

"The Spirit in the earliest Christian Communities and in Acts. `Holy Spirit' denotes supernatural power, altering, working through, directing the believer .... This is nowhere more clearly evident than in Acts where the Spirit is presented as an almost tangible force, visible if not in itself, certainly in its effects. This power of the Spirit manifests itself in three main areas in Luke's account of the early church [Acts]. (a) The Spirit as a transforming power in conversion. [p. 698] .... (b) The Spirit of prophecy. For the first Christians, the Spirit was most characteristically a divine power manifesting itself in inspired utterance. The same power that had inspired David and the prophets in the old age (Acts 1:16; 3:18; 4:25; 28:25) [p. 699] .... (c) The Spirit was evidently experienced as a numinous power pervading the early community ....
"The Spirit in the Pauline Letters. [p. 700] .... It is important to realize that for Paul too the Spirit is a divine power whose impact upon or entrance into a life is discernible by its effects." - pp. 693-701, Vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.

"The emergence of Trinitarian speculations in early church theology led to great difficulties in the article about the Holy Spirit. For the being-as-person of the Holy Spirit, which is evident in the New Testament as divine power ..., could not be clearly grasped.... The Holy Spirit was viewed NOT AS A PERSONAL FIGURE BUT RATHER AS A POWER" - The New Encyclopedia Britannica.

 

[EloyCraft]

But the baby steps of coming to know of each of the Three, is only baby talk. God is One God. Meanwhile, all Three have their own face and part.

But all three are individual intellectual spirits. Three person's with a will of their own
The oneness of an individual rational being can't explain the oneness of God.
The unity of the divine persons is self sustained existence with no beginning or end. The Father knowing Himself generates the Son. The Word can be understood as the cognizance of the Father. God knowing Himself is generative. Only God can know God fully. To love fully one must know fully. The Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father. The interchange of knowledge and love spirates the third divine person. He is the water that wells up and out like a river

As for the Spirit, which was not called "He" until Christ introduced "Him", He has inspired the scriptures.

When God is known in person one is three.

 

[tigger 2]

“The emergence of Trinitarian speculations in early church theology led to great difficulties in the article about the Holy Spirit. For the being-as-person of the Holy Spirit, which is evident in the New Testament as divine power...could not be clearly grasped.... The Holy Spirit was viewed not as a personal figure but rather as a power” - The New Encyclopedia Britannica.

“The true divinity of the third person [the holy spirit] was asserted...finally by the Council of Constantinople of 381 A. D.” - A Catholic Dictionary.

Yes, the Council of Constantinople (381 A. D.) first officially decreed “the personality of the Holy Spirit”. - Cairns, pp. 142, 145; also see Encyclopedia Britannica, v. 6, p. 22, 1985 ed.

Famed trinitarian Church historian Neander notes in History of Christian Dogma:

“Though Basil of Caesarea wished to teach the divinity [deity] of the holy spirit in his church, he only ventured to introduce it gradually.”

[Basil of Caesarea was a famed late 4th century trinitarian bishop - one of the ‘Three Cappadocians’ who were instrumental in further developing the trinity doctrine to the final form adopted at the council of Constantinople in 381 A. D. - An Encyclopedia of Religion, p. 794; and p. 237, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1990 printing]

There was a very good reason for the reluctance of the early Christians to accept this new doctrine of the Spirit:

“In the N[ew] T[estament] there is no direct suggestion of a doctrine of the Trinity. The spirit is conceived as an IMPERSONAL POWER by which God effects his will through Christ.” - An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm (ed.), 1945, p. 344.

In fact, Gregory of Nazianzus (another of the ‘Three Cappadocians’ whom trinitarian historian Lohse praises as being essential to the final defeat of the Arians at the Council of Constantinople),

“declared that it was the destiny of his time [381 A. D.] to bring to full clarity the mystery which in the New Testament was only dimly intimated.” - p. 64, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Bernard Lohse, Fortress Press, 1985.

Trinitarian Gregory also admitted,

“But of the wise men amongst ourselves [Christians], some have conceived of him as an Activity, some as a Creature, some as God; and some have been uncertain which to call Him, out of reverence for Scripture, they say, as though it did not make the matter clear either way. And therefore they neither worship Him nor treat Him with dishonor, but take up a neutral position, or rather a very miserable one, with respect to Him. And of those who consider Him to be God, some are orthodox in mind only, while others venture to be so with the lips also.” - “The Fifth Theological Oration,” section 5 (page 616, Vol. 7, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, The Master Christian Library, Version 5 (software).

 

[Rich R]

Quotes: Holy Spirit is a Force from God, Trinitarians Admit.

In the Old Testament (OT) it is clear that the inspired Bible writers intended holy spirit (ruah or ruach in Hebrew) to be understood as an invisible, powerful force from God. Even many trinitarian scholars will admit that.

Excellent! It was God's spirit that moved upon the waters to bring our universe into existence.

The word spirit (Hebrew ruwach, Greek pneuma) is used of wind and breath. Neither is visible to our senses, but they sure affect things, such as we can be alive.

All Christians are given holy spirit. We can't see it, but there are nine different ways it can visibly affect things on earth. They are listed in in 1 Cor 12:7-10. Please note that verse 7 does not call any of these gifts. They are called manifestations. Tongues is not a gift. The gift is holy spirit. Tongues (and the other 8 manifestations) are a way we can make the invisible force visible in the material world.

Maybe a bit off the OP, but the poor Holy Spirit gets such little attention as a member of the non-scriptural trinity, I thought I'd throw in my two cents as to what it actually is. It is certainly not a third person of the trinity. Sometimes it can refer to God who is both holy and spirit and other times it is used of the gift He gives us. Context will usually determine the exact usage.

 

[Jim B]

The Holy Spirit is most often preceded by "the" as in "The Holy Spirit". For example, John 14:26, "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and will cause you to remember everything I said to you." And is a part of the Trinity: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" Matthew 28:19

The Holy Spirit is not an adjective; it is a proper name of one third of the Trinity. "The" is a demonstrative pronoun.

You have very weird , non-Scriptural theology.

 

[charity]

2 Peter 1:1 is often used to support the trinity.
“Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:”

Here is the problem.

Granville Sharp made a rule in 1798. Sharp's Rule says, in effect, that when two or more words (nouns) in the original Greek NT text are joined by the word "and," they all refer to the same person if the word "the" comes before the first noun and not before the other nouns.

Many respected NT experts and translators have rejected Sharp's Rule. For example: G. B. Winer; J. H. Moulton; C. F. D. Moule; Dr. James Moffatt (see Titus 2:13; and 1 Tim. 5:21); Dr. William Barclay (2 Thess. 1:12); and Roman Catholic scholar Karl Rahner (2 Peter 1:1).

Notice these translations of 2 Peter 1:1.
KJV - “through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"
ASV - "in the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ"
RSV footnote - “of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ”
Weymouth - “through the righteousness of our God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ."
NWT “through the righteousness of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ”

The most frequently used “Sharp’s Rule” verse is Titus 2:13. These translations also reject the made up rule and do not support the trinity.
KJV - “of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
Moffatt - "of the Glory of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus,"
NABRE - "of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ,"
NLV - "of our great God and the One Who saves, Christ Jesus."
RSV footnote - “of the great God and our Savior”
CJB - "of our great God and the appearing of our Deliverer, Yeshua the Messiah."
GNV - "of that mighty God, and of our Savior Jesus Christ."
Phillips - "of the Great God and of Jesus Christ our saviour.
Coverdale - “of ye greate God and of oure Sauioure Iesu Christ.”
Wycliffe - “of the greet God, and of oure sauyour Jhesu Crist;”
Tyndale - “ye myghty god and of oure savioure Iesu Christ.”
Mace- “of the supreme God, and of our saviour Jesus Christ,”
Noyes - “of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ;”
Riverside - “of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus,”
NWT - "of the great God and of our Savior, Jesus Christ,"

'Simon Peter, a Servant and an Apostle of Jesus Christ,
to them that have obtained like precious faith with us
through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
(2 Peter 1:1)

Hello there, @DavidB,

If you extend your consideration from verse one to those that follow, you will see reference to The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, to our Saviour Jesus Christ, also to the Divine power and new nature which we have in Christ Jesus: so in this opening chapter of Peter's epistle the working of God is seen in three ways, through God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. It is fatal to emphasise one verse above the context of the chapter, or book, within which it comes. This is our God. Praise His Name!

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Rich R]

The Holy Spirit is most often preceded by "the" as in "The Holy Spirit". For example, John 14:26, "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and will cause you to remember everything I said to you." And is a part of the Trinity: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" Matthew 28:19

The Holy Spirit is not an adjective; it is a proper name of one third of the Trinity. "The" is a demonstrative pronoun.

You have very weird , non-Scriptural theology.

One thing to be aware of is that English translations often insert "the" where it is not in the Greek texts. It doesn't make things easy for the student of God's word, but a good English-Greek Interlinear Bible can be very useful.

But the presence or absence of "the" is still not the defining factor. Context is the surest way to determine if God is speaking about Himself or the gift He gives to us.

It is also important to realize the God did not capitalize words. The capitals are all present or not depending on the translators. Yet another complication, but as I said above, context is usually the key. There are some places where I'm not sure if it's talking about God or His gift, but little by little they may reveal themselves to me as I continue to study.

God bless

 

[tigger 2]

The Holy Spirit is most often preceded by "the" as in "The Holy Spirit". For example, John 14:26, "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and will cause you to remember everything I said to you." And is a part of the Trinity: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" Matthew 28:19

The Holy Spirit is not an adjective; it is a proper name of one third of the Trinity. "The" is a demonstrative pronoun.

You have very weird , non-Scriptural theology.

.....................................................
You tell us: The Holy Spirit is most often preceded by "the" as in "The Holy Spirit". For example, John 14:26, "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom [neuter: o, ‘which’] the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and will cause you to remember everything I said to you." And is a part of the Trinity: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" Matthew 28:19

The Holy Spirit is not an adjective; it is a proper name [it is a descriptive neuter noun] of one third of the Trinity. "The" is a demonstrative pronoun. [‘The’ is not a pronoun at all, but is a neuter definite article to.]

You have very weird , non-Scriptural theology.
.....................................................................
All those who are in heaven are described as masculine and have the masculine gender in their names and literal descriptions in both OT and NT. The HS is described as neuter in gender (not a person) in the NT and feminine in gender in the OT. Since the Hebrew had no neuter gender, they often used feminine for things.

Your non-scriptural theology is weird.