The Trinity Doctrine

[david]

“The time is sure to come when, far from being content with sound teaching, people will be avid for the latest novelty and collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes; and then, instead of listening to the truth, they will turn to myths.”—2 Timothy 4:3, 4, Catholic Jerusalem Bible.

One of those myths was the Trinity teaching. It is actually a pagan doctrine masquerading as a Christian one. Encyclopedias accurately state that the trinity doctrine “developed gradually over several centuries” and was “not solidly established” until the 4th century.
(The New Encyclopædia Britannica; New Catholic Encyclopedia)
It was promoted by Satan to deceive people, to make God confusing and mysterious to them.
The Athanasian Creed (in English) says that its members are “incomprehensible.” Teachers of the doctrine often state that it is a “mystery.”
Obviously such a Trinitarian God is not the one that Jesus had in mind when he said: “We worship what we know.” (John 4:22, RS)

You’ll notice that none of the trinitarian arguments below prove anything in themselves. Many of them stand on the other points for support, and these points in turn stand on the first point for support. But in and of themselves, all these Trinitarian arguments are very week.

1. The word “God” is applied to Jesus.
Yes, and it’s applied to Israelite judges, the angels, Moses, etc as well.
If this in itself proves that Jesus is Jehovah, then does that mean that “Moses” is Jehovah, or that Satan is Jehovah? No, it doesn’t. So then, it appears that this word being applied to Jesus is not enough to prove in itself that Jesus is God Almighty. The “if Jesus isn’t Jehovah, then he must be a false god” belief must also mean that if Moses isn’t Jehovah, then he must be a false god. Of course, something is wrong with their thinking here. They fail to consider what the word “God” means. They fail to notice that “Jehovah” is distinguished greatly, specifically being called “God” several thousand times, without question. They fail to answer why the “holy spirit” isn’t called “God” or why “Jesus” isn’t called “God” several thousand times, but only a few compared to thousands. Of course, they then will say: Well, Jesus isn’t called “God” several thousands of times because Jehovah is Jesus and hence, Jesus is being called God several thousands of times. More circular reasoning.

2. Jesus is “worshipped.”
The word in your Bible that is translated “worship” (proskyneo) could just as easily be translated in other ways, as that word certainly and without question has a number of meanings. Mark 15:19 is one scripture that makes it clear that this word can not always be translated as “worship” even though some Bibles do have the word “worship” there. Jesus stated that his Father alone is to have sacred service rendered to him. (Mat 4:10; John 4:23,24) The primary reason for saying that this word is to be translated as “worship” with reference to Jesus is that they believe he is “God Almighty,” hence using point #1 to support point #2. My problem, is that point #2 is then in turn used to support point #1. Hence, they seem to both be standing on nothing. A mystery indeed!

3. You need three to make a trinity, so the holy spirit must also be a person, God, and therefore must be worshiped.
Of course, whereas Jehovah is specifically called “God” thousands of times, nowhere is the holy spirit specifically or clearly called “God.” Nor is it ever clearly seen to be worshiped. Many make the circular fallacious claim that since God is worshiped, and since the holy spirit “is” God, then the holy spirit is to be worshiped.
Regarding this The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits that there are scriptures where the holy spirit is: “God’s spirit as a creative FORCE.” Even more astounding, it admits: “The MAJORITY of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God’s spirit as SOMETHING, NOT SOMEONE; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God.” (1967, Vol. XIII, p. 575) It also reports: “The Apologists [Greek Christian writers of the second century] spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally.”—Vol. XIV, p. 296. (caps added)
Where the fourth century “Christians” closer to the truth or were the second century Christians?

4. Jesus and his Father are “one.” (John 10:30)
Yes, and at John 17:21, 22, Jesus prayed regarding his followers: “That they may all be one,” and he added, “that they may be one even as we are one.” He used the same Greek word (hen) for “one” in all these instances.
Obviously, Jesus’ disciples do not all become part of the Trinity. But they do come to share a oneness of purpose with the Father and the Son, the same sort of oneness that unites God and Christ.

5. “My Lord and my God.” (John 20:28) There is no objection to Thomas’ referring to Jesus this way. Such would be in harmony with the fact that Jesus, in his prehuman existence, certainly was a god, that is, a powerful, divine person. And he certainly has been that since his death and resurrection to heavenly life. Jesus even quoted from the Psalms to show that powerful humans were addressed as “gods.” (Psalm 82:1-6; John 10:34, 35) The apostle Paul noted that there were “many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords.’” (1 Corinthians 8:5) Even Satan is called “the god of this system of things.”(2 Corinthians 4:4) If such can be referred to as “gods,” surely Jesus can be. Thomas was saying that Jesus was a divine, powerful one. But he was not saying that Jesus was Jehovah, which is why Thomas said, “my” God and not “the” God. Just three verses later, at John 20:31, the Bible states: “But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.” All doubt as to what Thomas may have meant is dispelled here. The Bible writer John clearly says that Jesus is the Son of God, not almighty God himself.

[Tim2]

Concerning the authority of the Son:

1. The eternal Son, the Word, is God (John 1:1), and as such is Almighty, omnipotent, eternal, and sovereign over all things. Thus, He has all authority over everything, because He is God, the same God as the Father and the Spirit, and equal in power and authority. But we know that the Son is begotten of the Father (John 1:18), and hence the Father is the source of the Son and all of the Son's attributes. So in this sense the eternal Son does receive His Godhead from the Father, but is still equal to the Father (John 5:18, Philippians 2:6).

2. When the Word became a man, that man, although He possessed in Himself all the fullness of deity (Colossians 2:9), He also possessed the legal constraints on a man, for He was born under the Law (Galatians 4:4). So this man needs a legal right to exert the dominion and rule over creation that God intended for man to have (Genesis 1:28). And this man's legal right to dominion is found in His obedience (Philippians 2:9) and because of His appointment as the seed of David according to the covenantal promise in the Scriptures (Genesis 3:15, 2 Samuel 7:13, Daniel 7:14, John 5:27).

Thus, the person Jesus is both inherently God and possessor of all authority (Philippians 2:6) and the man whom God appointed (Acts 17:31).

Concerning the comprehensibility of the Persons of the Trinity:

David, can you comprehend the Father? Please, tell us about Him, if you comprehend Him. God is revealed through the Son by the Spirit as taught in the word. Do you claim that you can thus comprehend God?

Nick,

The Trinity is stated plainly in Scripture. You insist that all truth be contained in one “Scripture,” by this apparently meaning something less than all of Scripture. Well then you statement prevents us from knowing all of Scripture, for you refuse to know anything beyond what is contained in “one Scripture.” In contrast, the church for 2000 years has seen and understood the plain teaching of Scripture that the Father is God (John 17:3), the Son is God (John 1:1), and the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:4), yet they are not three Gods but one God (Deuteronomy 4:35, 6:4, Matthew 28:19, John 10:30). Stop ignoring these verses and inventing doctrines, (the Word ceases to be God, Jesus is just a vessel for God, the Spirit is just a part of God, etc) and believe the truth.

Tim

Tim

[NickHassan]

Hi Tim2,
You have already told us it is
PROPOSEd
it is
PRETTY clear
and you need
INFERENCE to hold it together
so any building on that foundation has got to be very unstable.

[Not3in1]

Hey, Tim2, I'm curious – whatever caused you to stop believing in the Trinity for a time?

[Tim2]

David,

I'm trying to find out about this “New Catholic Encyclopedia.” I've learned that it's published by the faculty of the Catholic University of America, which is under the authority of the Vatican (now is the time for everyone to shout, “Come out of her, rar rar rar!”), and hence, must teach the doctrine of the Catholic Church, which concerning the Trinity is contained in the Athanasian Creed. I can't tell based on your quotations whether the NCE is conforming to this doctrine. Do you know where we can read its text in full? But I offer the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is explicit in its affirmation of the Athanasian creed, and offers this explanation of the Holy Spirit: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm

As for your other points, they are basically: “God” doesn't mean God, “One” doesn't mean one, and “Worship” doesn't mean worship.

Starting with worship, your argument is basically: assume whenever proskyneo is applied to the Father it means worship. And assume whenever it is applied to the Son it does not mean worship. Well since you have no reason for this, other than that you refuse to believe the Son is God, there's not much I can do to convince you that worship means worship.

Concerning oneness, it certainly does, at the least, suggest that the Son is God, for Deuteronomy 6:4 says, “YHWH is one,” and when the Jews heard Jesus say, “The Father and I are one,” they thought He was quoting Deuteronomy 6:4 (as opposed to that other OT verse where it talks about those gods and God being one), and said, “You, a mere man, make yourself God.” You think they said, “You make yourself a god.” How does this follow from Jesus and the Father being one? What god, exactly, is declared in the Bible to be one with the Father?

Concerning John 17:1ff, it is obvious that Jesus' disciples are not God, but Jesus holds forth the unity of the persons of the Godhead as the goal for the unity of the persons of His church, which is His body, and all members are one spirit with the Lord. It is consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity for Jesus to have prayed, that just as the three persons of the Trinity are one God, so may His many brothers be one church, one body, and one spirit with Him.

Finally, concerning these other gods, they just don't compare to Jesus. The gods whom you too eagerly cite in 1 Corinthians 8:5 are distinguished from Jesus in the very next verse. These “powerful” humans, to whom again you ascribe too much power, for Jesus said only that the word of God came to them (and He is the Word of God), die like men (Psalm 82:7), whereas Jesus is alive forevermore (Revelation 1:18). I suppose you could make some comparison between Satan being qualified as the theos of this age and Jesus being the Theos over all, but actually no, being God over all is no qualification at all, so there is no comparison. Jesus is called God without qualification in John 1:1. He was in the beginning, He was with God, and all things came into being through Him. But all things are through God (Romans 11:36). And all things are for (eis) Christ (Colossians 1:16). But all things are for God (Romans 11:36).

But I digress. Your argument that Jesus is another god besides YHWH who is our Lord and through whom all things are created and in whom all things hold together, and who is before all things, and who is the first and the last, who is the Rock, who distinguishes himself from the humans to whom the word of God (himself) came, who is comparable to Satan and the many gods and lords, is absolute polytheism and a blatant violation of the first commandment. There is no God besides YHWH. Isaiah 44:6. Your entire religion is based upon a god besides YHWH. Your religion is “YHWH plus.” Come to your senses. There is no God besides YHWH. The shalt worship YHWH your God, and serve Him only.

Tim

[Tim2]

Not3,

I was raised Roman Catholic and hence had the Trinity taught to me very well, the most important of doctrines. I remember knowing it very well as a child. But I was too young to study the Scriptures on my own, and for many years abandoned all faith. When I returned to faith, I quickly left the Catholic church, seeing as it was not following the Scriptures on many other important areas of doctrine. But the protestant churches I attended did not teach the Trinity as thoroughly as the Catholics, regrettably. So I was left to my own understanding. Based entirely on the letters of Paul, where Jesus is subordinated to God by reason of His humanity, I concluded that Jesus was in some sense inferior to the Father. I also realized that Trinity wasn't stated explicitly in the Bible, so to the degree that I accepted the equality of the persons, I saw no reason why they should be one Being. This was because I did not read the Old Testament well enough to know that YHWH is one and only YHWH is God.

But after enough reading of John I noticed 5:18, and believed that Jesus is equal to the Father, but I still rejected oneness because that oneness appears to apply to believers too in John 17. But when I read Deuteronomy 4:35 and all the verses in the OT that emphasize the oneness ane exclusiveness of YHWH, I repented and confessed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God. I then studied the ecumenical creeds and church history, as well as Berkhof's Systematic Theology, and was taught by a Sunday School teacher at my church.

Sorry to ramble.

Tim

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Tim2 @ April 23 2007,18:03)

David, I'm trying to find out about this “New Catholic Encyclopedia.”  I've learned that it's published by the faculty of the Catholic University of America, which is under the authority of the Vatican (now is the time for everyone to shout, “Come out of her, rar rar rar!”), and hence, must teach the doctrine of the Catholic Church, which concerning the Trinity is contained in the Athanasian Creed.  I can't tell based on your quotations whether the NCE is conforming to this doctrine.  Do you know where we can read its text in full?  But I offer the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is explicit in its affirmation of the Athanasian creed, and offers this explanation of the Holy Spirit:  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm As for your other points, they are basically:  “God” doesn't mean God, “One” doesn't mean one, and “Worship” doesn't mean worship.   Starting with worship, your argument is basically:  assume whenever proskyneo is applied to the Father it means worship.  And assume whenever it is applied to the Son it does not mean worship.  Well since you have no reason for this, other than that you refuse to believe the Son is God, there's not much I can do to convince you that worship means worship. Concerning oneness, it certainly does, at the least, suggest that the Son is God, for Deuteronomy 6:4 says, “YHWH is one,” and when the Jews heard Jesus say, “The Father and I are one,” they thought He was quoting Deuteronomy 6:4 (as opposed to that other OT verse where it talks about those gods and God being one), and said, “You, a mere man, make yourself God.”  You think they said, “You make yourself a god.”  How does this follow from Jesus and the Father being one?  What god, exactly, is declared in the Bible to be one with the Father?   Concerning John 17:1ff, it is obvious that Jesus' disciples are not God, but Jesus holds forth the unity of the persons of the Godhead as the goal for the unity of the persons of His church, which is His body, and all members are one spirit with the Lord.  It is consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity for Jesus to have prayed, that just as the three persons of the Trinity are one God, so may His many brothers be one church, one body, and one spirit with Him. Finally, concerning these other gods, they just don't compare to Jesus.  The gods whom you too eagerly cite in 1 Corinthians 8:5 are distinguished from Jesus in the very next verse.  These “powerful” humans, to whom again you ascribe too much power, for Jesus said only that the word of God came to them (and He is the Word of God), die like men (Psalm 82:7), whereas Jesus is alive forevermore (Revelation 1:18).  I suppose you could make some comparison between Satan being qualified as the theos of this age and Jesus being the Theos over all, but actually no, being God over all is no qualification at all, so there is no comparison.  Jesus is called God without qualification in John 1:1.  He was in the beginning, He was with God, and all things came into being through Him.  But all things are through God (Romans 11:36).  And all things are for (eis) Christ (Colossians 1:16).  But all things are for God (Romans 11:36).   But I digress.  Your argument that Jesus is another god besides YHWH who is our Lord and through whom all things are created and in whom all things hold together, and who is before all things, and who is the first and the last, who is the Rock, who distinguishes himself from the humans to whom the word of God (himself) came, who is comparable to Satan and the many gods and lords, is absolute polytheism and a blatant violation of the first commandment.  There is no God besides YHWH.  Isaiah 44:6.  Your entire religion is based upon a god besides YHWH.  Your religion is “YHWH plus.”  Come to your senses.  There is no God besides YHWH.  The shalt worship YHWH your God, and serve Him only. Tim

That's impressive writing Tim2.

[david]

Quote

Do you know where we can read its text in full? But I offer the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is explicit in its affirmation of the Athanasian creed, and offers this explanation of the Holy Spirit: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm

I'm sure you can find it on the web somewhere. That's where I did. I don't seem to have links to those encyclopedia's, but I'll give you the quotes in full. While I realize that the Catholic church for example is not any source of ultimate truth, they definitely do hold to the trinity belief, without question. I quote them because even though they believe in the trinity, they must admit some things:

The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912

I. THE DOGMA of the Trinity-The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion-the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons the Father the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: “the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.” In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son'. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This the Church teaches is the revelation regarding 'God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system. In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word [tri'as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. He speaks of “the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom” (“Ad. Autol.”, 11, 15, P. G., VI, 1078). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian. … It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence. For this reason it has no place in the Liberal Protestantism of today. The writers of this school contend that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies (cf. e. g. Harnack, “Hist. of Dogma”, tr., IV, i, appendix; idem, “Constitution and Law of the Church”, …) In view of this assertion it is necessary to consider in some detail the evidence afforded by Holy Scripture. Attempts have been made recently to apply the more extreme theories of comparative religion [pagan similarities] to the doctrine of the Trinity, and to account for it by an imaginary law of nature compelling men to group the objects of their worship in threes. … It seems needless to give more than a reference to these extravagant views, which serious thinkers of every school reject as destitute of foundation. II PROOF OF DOCTRINE FROM SCRIPTURE-A. New Testament.-The evidence from the Gospels culminates in the baptismal commission of Matt., xxviii, 20. It is manifest from the narratives of the Evangelists that Christ only made the great truth known to the Twelve step by step. First He taught them to recognize in himself the Eternal Son of God. When His ministry was drawing to a close, He promised that the Father would send another Divine Person, the Holy Spirit, in His place. Finally, after His resurrection, He revealed the [trinity] doctrine in explicit terms, bidding them go and teach all nations, “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 28:19). The force of this passage is decisive. That “the Father” and “the Son” are distinct Persons follows from the terms themselves, which are mutually exclusive. The mention of the Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions “and . . . and”, is evidence that we have here a Third Person co-ordinate with the Father and the Son, and excludes altogether the supposition that the Apostles understood the Holy Spirit not as a distinct Person, but as God viewed in His action on creatures. The phase “in the name” [Greek] affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. Among the Jews and in the Apostolic Church the Divine name was representative of God. He who had a right to use it was invested with vast authority: for he wielded the supernatural powers of Him whose name he employed. It is incredible that the phrase “in the name” should be here employed, were not all the Persons mentioned equally Divine. More over, the use of the singular, “name”, and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are that One Omnipotent God in whom the Apostles believed. Indeed the unity of God is so fundamental a tenet alike of the Hebrew and of the Christian religion, and is affirmed in such countless passages of the Old and New Testaments, that any explanation inconsistent with this doctrine would be altogether inadmissible. The supernatural appearance at the baptism of Christ is often cited as an explicit revelation of Trinitarian doctrine, given at the very commencement of the Ministry. This, it seems to us, is a mistake. The Evangelists it is true, see in it a manifestation of the Three Divine Persons. Yet, apart from Christ's subsequent teaching, the dogmatic meaning of the scene would hardly have been understood. Moreover, the Gospel narratives appear understood to signify that none but Christ and the Baptist were privileged to am the Mystic Dove, and hear the words attesting the Divine sonship of the Messias. Besides these passages there are many others in the Gospels which refer to one or other of the Three Persons in particular, and clearly express the separate – personality and Divinity of each. In regard to the First Person it will not be necessary to give special citations: those which declare that Jesus Christ is God the Son affirm thereby also the separate personality of the Father. The Divinity of Christ is amply attested not merely by St. John, but by the Synoptists. As this point is treated elsewhere (see Jesus Christ), it will be sufficient here to enumerate a few of the more important passages from the Synoptists, in which Christ bears witness to His Divine Nature. (1) He declares that He will come to be the judge of all men (Matt., xxv, 31). In Jewish theology the judgment of the world was a distinctively Divine, and not a Messianic, prerogative. (2) In the parable of the wicked husbandmen, He describes Himself as the son of the householder, while the Prophets, one and all, are represented as the servants (Matt., xxi, 33 sqq.). (3) He is the Lord of Angels, who execute His commands (Matt., xxiv, 31). (4) He proves the confession of Peter when he recognizes Him, not as Messias-a step long since taken by all the Apostles-but explicitly as the Son of God: and He declares the knowledge due to a special revelation from the Father (Matt., xvi, 16 17). (5) Finally, before Caiphas He not merely declares Himself to be the Messias, but in reply to a second and distinct question affirms His claim to be the Son of God. He is instantly declared by the high priest to be guilty of blasphemy, an offence which could not have been attached to the claim to be simply the Messias (Luke, XXI 66-71). St. John’s testimony is yet more explicit than that of the Synoptists. He expressly asserts t
hat the very purpose of his Gospel is to establish the Divinity of Jesus Christ (John, xx 31). In the prologue he identifies Him with the Word, the only begotten of the Father, Who from all eternity exists with God, Who is God (John, i, 1-18). The immanence of the Son in the Father and of the Father in the Son is declared in Christ's words to St. Philip: ” Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?” (xiv, 10), and in other passages no less explicit (xiv, 7; xvi, 15; xvii, 21). The oneness of their power and their action is affirmed: “What things so ever he [the Father] doth, these the Son also doth in like manner” (v, 19. Cf. x, 38); and to the Son no less than to the Father belongs the Divine attribute of conferring life on whom He will (v, 21). Inx, 29, Christ expressly teaches His unity of essence with the Father: “That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all . . . I and the Father are one.” The words, “That which my Father hath given me”, can, having regard to the context, have no other meaning than the Divine Nature, possessed in its fullness by the Son as by the Father. Rationalist critics lay great stress upon the text: “The Father is greater than I” (xiv, 28). They argue that this suffices to establish that the author of the Gospel held subordinationist views, and they expound in this sense certain texts in which the Son declares His dependence on the Father (v, 19; viii, 28). In point of fact the doctrine of the Incarnation involves that, in regard of His Human Nature, the Son should be less than the Father. No argument against Catholic doctrine can, therefore, be drawn from this text. So, too, the passages referring to the dependence of the Son upon the Father do but express what is essential to Trinitarian dogma, viz., that the Father is the supreme source from Whom the Divine Nature and perfections flow to the Son. (On the essential difference between St. John's doctrine as to the Person of Christ and the Logos doctrine of the Alexandrine Philo, to which many Rationalists have attempted to trace it see LOGOS.) In regard to the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the passages which can be cited from the Synoptists as attesting His distinct personality are few. The words of Gabriel (Luke, i, 35), having regard to the use of the term, “the Spirit”, in the Old Testament, to signify God as operative in His creatures, can hardly be said to contain a definite revelation of the doctrine. For the same reason it is dubious whether Christ's warning to the Pharisees as regards blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matt., xii, 31) can be brought forward as proof. But in Luke, 12:12 “The Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same our what you must say” (Matt. 10:20, and Luke, 24:49), His personality is clearly implied. These passages, taken in connexion with Matt., xxviii 19 Postulate the existence of such teaching as we find in the discourses in the Cenacle reported by St. John (xiv-xvi). We have in these chapters the necessary preparation for the baptismal commission. In them the Apostles are instructed not only as to the personality of the Spirit, but as to His office towards the church. His work is to teach them whatsoever He shall hear (xvi 13), to bring back to their minds the teaching of Christ (xiv, 26) to convince the world of sin (xvi, 8). It is evident that, were the Spirit not a Person, Christ could not have spoken of His presence with the Apostles as comparable to His own presence with them (xiv, 16, 17). Again, were He not a Divine Person it could not have been expedient for the Apostles that Christ should leave them, and the Paraclete take His place (xvi, 7). Moreover, notwithstanding the neuter form of the word [Greek], the pronoun used in His regard is the masculine [Greek]. The distinction of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son is involved in the express statements that He proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son (xv, 26; cf. xiv. 16, 26). Nevertheless, He is One with Them: His presence with the Disciples is at the same time the presence of the Son (xiv, 17, 18), while the presence of the Son is the presence of the Father (xiv, 23). In the remaining New Testament writings numerous passages attest how clear and definite was the belief of the Apostolic Church in the three Divine Persons. In certain texts the coordination of Father, Son, and Spirit leaves no possible doubt as to the meaning of the writer. Thus in II Cor, xiii, 13, St. Paul writes: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God and the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all.” Here the construction shows that the Apostle is speaking of three distinct Persons. Moreover, since the names God and Holy Ghost are alike Divine names, it follows that Jesus Christ is also regarded as a Divine Person. So also, in I Con, xii, 4-11: “There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit; and there are diversities of ministries, but the same Lord: and there are diversities of operations, but the same God, who worketh all [of them] in all [persons]”. (Cf. also Eph., iv; 4-6; 1 Pet., i, 2, 3.) But apart from passages such as these, where there is express mention of the Three Persons the teaching of the New Testament regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit is free from all ambiguity. In regard to Christ, the Apostles employ modes of speech which, to men brought up in the Hebrew faith, necessarily signified belief in His Divinity. Such, for instance, is the use 'of the Doxology in reference to Him. The Doxology, “To Him be glory for ever and ever ” (cf. I Par xvi 36 * xxix 11 -Ps. ciii, 3 1; xxviii, 2), is an expression of praise offered to God alone. In the New Testament we find it addressed not alone to God the Father, but to Jesus Christ (II Tim., iv, 18; 11 Pet iii 18- Apoc i,6, Heb., xiii, 20, 21), and to God the Father and to Christ in conjunction -(Apoc v, 13; vii, 10). Not less convincing is the use of the title Lord Kurios. This term represents the Hebrew Adonai, just as God (theos) represents Elohim. The two are equally Divine names (cf. I Con, viii, 4). In the Apostolic writings theos may almost be said to be treated as a proper name of God the Father, and Kurios of the Son (of. e. g. I Cor xii 5 6); in only a few passages do we find kurios used of the Father (I Cor., iii, 5; vii, 17) or theos of Christ. The Apostles from time to time apply to Christ passages of the Old Testament in which kurios is used, e. g., I Cor, x, 9 (Num., xxi, 7), Heb., i, 10-12 (Ps. ci,26-28); and they use Such expressions as “the fear of the Lord ” (Acts, ix 31 * Il Cor v 11 – Eph., v, 21), “call upon the name of the Lord, ” indifferently of God the Father and of Christ (Acts, ii, 21; ix, 14; Rom., x, 13). The profession that “Jesus is the Lord” ([Greek] Rom., x 9 [Greek], I Cor. xii, 3) is the acknowledgment of Jesus as Jahweh (Lebreton, “Origines”, 272 sq.) – The texts in which St. Paul affirms that in Christ dwells the plenitude of the Godhead (Col., ii, 9), that before His incarnation He possessed the essential nature of God (Phil., ii, 6), that He ” is over all things, God blessed for ever” (Rom., ix, 5), tell us nothing that is not implied in many other passages of his Epistles. The doctrine as to the Holy Spirit is equally clear. That His distinct personality was fully recognized is shown by many passages. Thus He reveals His commands to the Church's ministers: ” As they were ministering to the Lord and fasting the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas” (Acts, xiii, 2). He directs the missionary journey of the Apostles: “They attempt to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not” (Acts, xvi, 7; of. Acts, v, 3; xv, 28; Rom., xv, 30). Divine attributes are affirmed of Him. He possesses omniscience and reveals to the Church mysteries known only to God (I Cor., ii,10); it is He who distributes charismata (I Con, xii, 11); He is the giver of supernatural life (11 Con, iii, 6); He dwells in the Church and in the souls of individual men as in His temple (Rom., viii, 9-11; 1 Con, iii, 16, vi, 19). The work of justification and sanctification is attributed to Him (I Con,
vi, 11; Rom., xv, 16), just as in other passages the same operations are attributed to Christ (I Cor. i,2; Gal., ii, 17). To sum up: the various elements of the Trinitarian doctrine are all expressly taught in the New Testament. The Divinity of the Three Persons is asserted or implied in passages too numerous to count. The unity of essence is not merely postulated by the strict monotheism of men nurtured in the religion of Israel ' to whom “subordinate deities” would have been unthinkable; but it is, as we have seen, involved in the baptismal commission of Matt., xxviii, 19, and, in regard to the Father and the Son, expressly asserted in John, x, 38. That the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal is a mere corollary from this. In regard to the Divine processions, the doctrine of the first procession is contained in the very terms Father and Son: the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son is taught in the discourse of the Lord reported by St. John (xiv-xvii) (see HOLY GHOST). B. Old Testament.-The early Fathers were persuaded that indications of the doctrine of the Trinity must exist in the Old Testament and they found such indications in not a few passages. Many of them not merely believed that the Prophets had testified of it, they held that it had been made known even to the Patriarchs. … Some of these, however, admitted that a knowledge of the mystery was granted to the Prophets and Saints of the Old Dispensation … It may be readily conceded that the way is prepared for the revelation in some of the prophecies. The names Emmanuel (Isa., vii, 14) and God the Mighty (Isa ix, 6) affirmed of the Messias make mention of the Divine Nature of the promised deliverer. Yet it seems that the Gospel revelation was needed to render the full meaning of the passages clear. Even these exalted titles did not lead the Jews to recognize that the Saviour to come was to be none other than God Himself. The Septuagint translators do not even venture to render the words God the Mighty literally, but give us, in their place, “'the angel of great counsel”. A still higher stage of preparation is found in the doctrine of the Sapiential books regarding the Divine Wisdom. In Prov., viii, Wisdom appears personified, and in a manner which suggests that the sacred author was not emploring a mere metaphor, but had before his mind a real person (cf. verses 22, 23). Similar teaching occurs in Ecclus., xxiv, in a discourse which Wisdom is declared to utter in “the assembly of the Most High”, i. e. in the presence of the angels. This phrase certainly supposes Wisdom to be conceived as a person. The nature of the personality is left obscure but we are told that the whole earth is Wisdom’s kingdom, that she finds her delight in all the works of God, but that Israel is in a special manner her portion and her inheritance (Ecclus., xxiv, 8-13). In the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon we find a still further advance. Here Wisdom is clearly distinguished from Jehovah: “She is . . . a certain pure emanation of the glory of the almighty God . . . the brightness of eternal light, and the unspotted mirror of God's majesty, and the image of his good ness ” (Wis., vii, 25, 26. Cf. Hebrews i 3) She is moreover, described as “the worker of all things” [Hebrew] , an expression indicating that the creation is in some manner attributable to her. Yet in later Judaism this exalted doctrine suffered eclipse, and seems to have passed into oblivion. Nor indeed can it be said that the passage even though it manifests some knowledge of a second personality in the Godhead, constitutes a revelation of the Trinity. For nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person. Mention is often made of the Spirit of the Lord, but there is nothing to show that the Spirit was viewed as distinct from Jahweh Himself. The term is always employed to signify God considered in His working, whether in the universe or in the soul of man. The matter seems to be correctly summed up by Epiphanius, when he says: “The One Godhead is above all declared by Moses, and the twofold personality (of Father and Son) is strenuously asserted by the Prophets. The Trinity is made known by the Gospel” (“Haer.”, lxxiv., P. G., XLII, 493). (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912, Vol. 15, p 47-49)

New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965: Trinity in the Bible:

“The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the OT. In the NT the oldest evidence is in the Pauline epistles, especially 2 Cor 13.13, and I Cor 12.4-6. In the Gospels evidence of the Trinity is found explicitly only in the baptismal formula of Mt 28.19. In the Old Testament. The mystery of the Holy Trinity was not revealed to the Chosen People of the OT. On account of the polytheistic religions of Israel's pagan neighbors it was necessary for the teachers of Israel to stress the oneness of God. In many places of the OT, however, expressions are used in which some of the Fathers of the Church saw references or foreshadowings of the Trinity. The personified use of such terms as the *Word of God [Ps 32(33).6] and the *Spirit of God (Is 63.14) is merely by way of poetic license, though it shows that the minds of God's people were being prepared for the concepts that would be involved in the forthcoming revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity. In the New Testament. The revelation of the truth of the triune life of God was first made in the NT, where the earliest references to it are in the Pauline epistles. The doctrine is most easily seen in St. Paul's recurrent use of the terms God, Lord, and Spirit. What makes his use of these terms so significant is that they appear against a strictly monotheistic background.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, “Trinity, in the Bible”, p306)

New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965: Trinity:

1. “It is difficult, in the second half of the 20th century, to offer a clear, objective, and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and theological elaboration of the mystery of the Trinity. Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened
2. . There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma “one God in three Persons” became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought. Herein lies the difficulty. On the one hand, it was the dogmatic formula “one God in three Persons” that would henceforth for more than 15 centuries structure and guide the Trinitarian essence of the Christian message, both in the profession of faith and in theological dialectic. On the other hand, the formula itself does not reflect the immediate consciousness of the period of origins; it was the product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development. But current preoccupation and current emphasis is far less with the subsequent articulations of Christian dogma than with the primitive sources, chiefly the Biblical. It is this contemporary return to the sources that is ultimately responsible for the unsteady silhouette. Thus in present-day theological literature, relatively little is being written on Trinitarian theology as commonly categorized, although a significant number of studies, in various New Testament categories, are devoted either in whole or in part to what might justly be called the elemental Trinitarianism of the period of Christian origins.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity, p295) “Question of Continuity and Elemental Trinitarianism:
3. From what has been seen thus far, the impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a la
te 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true; but it implies an extremely strict interpretation of the key words Trinitarian and dogma. Triadic Consciousness in the Primitive Revelation. The formulation “one God in three Persons” was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective; among the 2d-century Apologists, little more than a focusing of the problem as that of plurality within the unique Godhead. Not before Tertullian and Origen, early in the century following, had an attempt been made to solve the problem once raised by replying to the double question: in what sense is God one, in what sense three? And even then, results had been far from decisive. It is also true that, especially in the first decades of the 20th century, an excessively cautious Roman Catholic apologetics tended to whittle down these dividing lines by demonstrating another way of saying the same thing. “One God in three Persons” was simply a restatement, a legitimately condensed and compact version of the more loosely organized NT teaching. Key texts were cited in support, particularly the well-known mandate put on the lips of Christ in Mt 28.19-“baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” From the vocabulary and grammar of the Greek original, the intention of the hagiographer to communicate singleness of essence in three distinct Persons was easily derived. In the second half of the 20th century, with serious consequences for the ecumenical dialogue, two factors have combined to effect a significant change in attitude. First, NT exegesis is now accepted as having shown that not only the verbal idiom but even the patterns of thought characteristic of the patristic and conciliar development would have been quite foreign to the mind and culture of the NT writers. As Lonergan (De Deo trino 2:7–64) has interpreted the general transcultural phenomenon, but frequently appealing to the as a particular instance, the revealed truth, while remaining the same ultimate truth and mystery, had nevertheless undergone transformation, and this, not merely in verbal or literary expression, but in concept and understanding. Second, as already suggested, a far more candid principle of doctrinal development has been incorporated and is now operative in Roman Catholic historical and systematic theology (see DOCTRINE, DEVELOPMENT OF). Another way of saying the same thing, however, is not the only oversimplified interpretation possible in this matter. If it is clear on one side that the dogma of the Trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, product of 3 centuries' reflection and debate, it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-and hence an elemental Trinitarianism-went back to the period of Christian origins. Contemporary studies on the ancient Christian creeds have done much to bring this out. In a famous monograph, Les Premieres confessions de foi chretiennes, 0. Cullmann argued his thesis of Christocentrism as against Trinitarianism in the NT revelation. Seven years later, in a study (Early Christian Creeds 25-29) destined to become equally well-known, J. N. D. Kelly, whose companion volume on the development of Christian doctrines has been used extensively in the preceding historical survey, contested this thesis. What is of interest at the moment, aside from the fact that neither of these theologians is a Roman Catholic, is that a strictly elemental Trinitarianism is not at issue in the controversy, but presupposed by both parties. Cullmann's point is not at all that there is no inclusion of Father and Spirit in the NT, nor even that a deliberately triadic ground plan is lacking in the quasi-creedal forms incorporated by the sacred writers at least into this literature's later compositions. True, he insists that these triadic formulas are liturgical, and not to be counted among confessions of faith in the stricter sense. But the distinction does not affect elemental Trinitarianism. For Cullmann would not dispute A. W. Wainwright's neat rejoinder (The Trinity in the New Testament, 246) to the effect that the same tripartite forms, even if not strictly confessional, nevertheless demonstrate the primitive community's belief in Father, Son, and Spirit. Cullmann's point is rather that both Father and Spirit are introduced in function, so to speak, of the Son. This is what is most ancient and most prevailing. When the Father is revealed, it is as the Father of His Christ. When the Spirit is revealed, it is as the Spirit of Christ. But the center, the NT center of gravity, is first, last, and always Christ. For Cullmann, then, triadic consciousness throughout the period of origins and as reflected in the entire NT literature is and remains, on closer view, Christological. Kelly, on the other hand, does not see the need for this qualification. Strictly triadic formulas and the triadic frame of mind so clearly mark at least later NT compositions, that the exegete and the historian must recognize a quasi-independent Trinitarianism coexisting with the purer and simpler forms of NT Christology. From the way Kelly speaks, one may see suggested that elemental Trinitarianism is actually more than that. At the level of a priori requirement, the continuity and apostolic authenticity of Trinitarian doctrine would rest securely on simple triadic consciousness. It would not matter, so to speak, if a formally Trinitarian problem arose only in the late 2d or early 3d century. Wainwright (3-14, 237-267), however, asks directly after the question of fact, and concludes that three of the sacred writers-Paul and the author of Hebrews, in part; John, fully-were aware of a Trinitarian problem and at least attempted, though without formalized statement, a Trinitarian solution. The exegetical question cannot be explored here, nor the effect of Ingo Hermann's recent revival (Kyrios und Pneuma) of the problem of spirit in Paul. Where the Johannine writings are concerned, however, Wainwright argues shrewdly that the attempt to express specifically and consistently the relationship of Christ and Spirit to the Godhead is not merely the raw material for a Trinitarian problem, but actual consciousness of such a problem together with a solution that merits to be called a Trinitarian doctrine. The insight, if valid, underscores the care that should be taken to avoid a too neat and simplified view of the continuity that exists between historical development and the primitive revelation. Wainwright does not suggest, however, that John had anticipated the later problem of plurality within unity: in what sense is God one, in what sense yet three? This problem, moreover, leading to the formulation of Trinitarian doctrine in the historically stricter sense, would have been posed by, not in, John's account of relationships. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity, p299-300) TRINITARIAN PROBLEM AS POSED TODAY This article may now return to the contemporary scene in an attempt to pinpoint problem and perspective. The Pastoral Question.
4. There are few teachers of Trinitarian theology in Roman Catholic seminaries who have not been badgered at one time or another by the question, “But how does one preach the Trinity?” And if the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their professors. If “the Trinity” here means Trinitarian theology, the best answer would be that one does not preach it at all -not, it should be added, because the audience is insufficiently prepared, but because the sermon, and especially the Biblical homily, is the place for the word of God, not its theological elaboration. In this strictly pastoral context, and for the far greater part in catechetical instruction as well
, the purpose of theology is to give the preacher's exposition a pedagogical control, but hardly to supply its content. If “the Trinity” means, however, as more often it will, Trinitarian doctrine, particularly the fundamental dogma “one God in three Persons,” what should be said in reply has not always been too clear. The 4th-century articulation of the triadic mystery is at least implicitly the word of God, hence part of the Christian credo. On the other hand, it is not, as already seen, directly and immediately word of God. And today, it is becoming more and more recognized that the direct and immediate word of God, the Biblical message speaking for itself, should be the heart and substance of the communication both in preaching and in catechesis. Up to a point, of course, this has always been the case. Even that famous pastor's manual, the 16th-century Catechism of the Council of Trent referred to in the introduction, had embellished its dogma-based and dogma, orientated presentation of the Trinitarian mystery with a wealth of scriptural quotation. … take up directly and immediately the Biblical revelation and to postpone any explicitly consideration of the dogma to the very end. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity, p304) “To End of 2d Century.
Among the Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome, for instance, writing to the Church of Corinth in the final decade of the 1st century, bears witness to God the Father, to the Son, to the Spirit, and mentions all three together (ch. 58, ch. 46). Some few years later, Ignatius of Antioch portrays in a famous passage (Eph. 9) the Christian's incorporation into the divine temple as becoming one with Christ in the Spirit unto sonship of the Father. Yet, neither Clement nor Ignatius nor any other writer of this most ancient period raises the question that would turn out to be decisive: precisely how are Son and Spirit related to the Godhead? Before the 2d century had run its course, however, this question, and with it the Trinitarian problem, began to take form. It happened quite naturally. With the Apostolic Fathers, Ignatius certainly, the center of gravity in the Christian message had ever been Christ: in this, if 0. Cullmann is correct (The Christology of the New Testament), they did no more than preserve the authentic rhythm of the New Testament. With their successors the great Apologists, however, the proclamation of Christ and the defense of the Christian gospel had first to contend with pagan polytheism. The God of the Christian, like the God of the Israelite, was unequivocally one. Nevertheless, if, as Justin notes (I Apol. 13), Christians worship Christ in the second place and the Spirit in the third place, there is still no inconsistency; for Word and Spirit are not to be separated from the unique Godhead of the Father. But why not? The Apologists at least attempted a reply. For Justin, the Godhead was very clearly a Triad, though it was Theophilus (Ad Autol. 2.15) who first introduced this expression. For Justin, the Word is no less than something numerically other (Dial. 128) in relation to the Father, and also, though more loosely affirmed (e.g., I Apol. 6063), to the Spirit. In the very same passages, however, neither Word nor Spirit, the former more explicitly, are to be separated from the Father, from the being of the Godhead, since both Word and Spirit are God. To explain how this can be, to give at least an incipiently theological account of how the Word can be one with the Father but still other, Justin pictures the preexistent Word as the Father's rational consciousness (I Apol. 46; 2 Apol. 13), as emerging, therefore, from the inferiority of the Godhead while nevertheless remaining inseparable from the Godhead. Tatian employs much the same explanatory machinery (Orat. 5), likewise Theophilus (Ad Autol. 2.10; 2.22). So also does Athenagoras (Legat. 10), who extends the imagery to the third member and speaks of the Spirit here as God's effluence. Irenaeus, writing at the same time, presents a paradox. This great pastor of souls reflects indeed the theological heavy print of his day, but has far less confidence than the Apologists in the mind's ability to explore the Godhead through finite analogies (e.g., Adv. haer. 2.28.6). On the other hand, with a better recognition of the Spirit's role in the economy of salvation, and a rather more emphatic insistence on the co-eternity of the Word with the Father, it may well be, as J. N. D. Kelly suggests (Early Christian Doctrines 107), that Irenaeus's understanding is the most complete, and the most explicitly Trinitarian, before Tertullian. To Eve of Nicaea I. In the last analysis, the 2d century theological achievement was limited. The Trinitarian problem may have been clear: the relation of the Son and (at least nebulously) Spirit to the Godhead. But a Trinitarian solution was still in the future. The Apologists spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally. The emerging thought figure as employed by them to explain at once the unity and otherness of Father and Son was little more than suggestive. The device, in fact, closed only partially with the problem of otherness. The Word existed before all creatures. But the Word came forth within the Godhead as the Father's agent with a view to creation. Is the Word's distinct existence, then, unequivocally eternal? (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity, p296)

New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965: Spirit of God:

SPIRIT OF GOD SPIRIT OF GOD IN THE OT The expressions “the spirit of Yahweh” [Greek] and “the Spirit of God” [Greek] are common in the OT. “His holy spirit” and “Your holy spirit” (in reference to God) are also found. The absolute use, “the spirit” or “spirit,” seldom occurs. In late Judaism it was a practice to avoid use of the divine name by means of circumlocutions. Thus in the Greek versions of the OT there are found such expressions as “divine spirit,” “the holy spirit,” or simply, “holy spirit.” The most common expression in the NT is “the Holy Spirit” [Greek] – “Holy Spirit” [Greek] and simply “the Spirit” [Greek] or “Spirit” [Greek] are also found. God's spirit was originally called “holy” in the same way as His word [Jer 23.9; Ps 104(105).42], His arm [Is 52.10; Ps 97(98).1], and His name (Am 2.7; Ez 36.20) were called holy, because God is by nature holy. “Holy spirit,” therefore, means “divine spirit.” This article treats the spirit of God as it is presented in the OT and Judaism, and in the NT. Consideration is given in each of these sections to the spirit of God as a power and as a Person. The specific implications of the phrase “Spirit of God” must be deduced from the operations ascribed to it in the OT. God's Spirit as a Power. “Spirit of God” is used in the OT to signify “God's breath” (Jb 33.4). Just as the ancient Israelites spoke anthropomorphically of God's arm, hand, and face, so they also spoke of His breath, i.e., His vital power or spirit, which was as active and as efficacious as God Himself. This use has its foundation in the original meaning of the word ruah- “breath” or “wind.” The breath, which was regarded by the ancients as the vital force in man and animals, and the wind, which in Palestine can blow with sudden violence, were looked upon as mysterious, powerful, and terrifying forces. Consequently, it is not surprising that they attributed to the breath or spirit of God the manifestations of extraordinary mysterious powers in man or in nature. A Power Affecting Man's Soul or Mind. Certain individuals manifested occasional extraordinary power (e.g., Jgs 14.6, 19), heroic courage (e.g., Jgs 3.10), or the gift of prophecy (e.g., I Sm 10.6-13). These transitory phenomena were regarded by the Israelites as manifestations of God's spirit. In other cases God's spirit appeared as a permanent force bestowed on individuals because of their office. This was true of the great founders of the nation: Moses (Nm 11.17, 25), Josue (Dt 34.9), David (1 Sm 16.13; 2 Sm 23.2). It was particularly the messianic king upon whom the
spirit would rest (Is 11.2; 42.1). Finally, the spirit of God was the organ that, through the Prophets as intermediaries, constantly delivered Yahweh's orders to His people (Za 7.12; Neh 9.30), and for the same purpose it was imparted also to the sages (Wis 7.7). It is noteworthy that the psychic rather than the moral activity of God's spirit was emphasized. However, there are moral overtones, for by these transitory or permanent gifts God made fit His chosen instruments to establish and preserve His covenant. There is a similar substratum in Acts ch. 1-2. A Life-giving and Creative Power. The concept that the breath of life comes from God is very old (Gn 2.7; 6.3). However, it is only in relatively late texts that one finds God's spirit as the cause of man's normal life and activity (Ez 37.1-14; Jb 27.3; 33.4; 35.14-15). God's spirit as a creative force is more commonly found in poetic passages where it is synonymous with “wind” (Ex 15.8, 10; Jdt 16.17). A Morally Effective Force. According to the OT, the chief characteristic of the future new covenant would be a religious and moral transformation of all mankind. So the Prophets, particularly Isaia (61.1-4; 32.15-20), frequently spoke of God's spirit accomplishing this work in the coming new age. Not only the community, but every individual would be morally recreated by the spirit of God (Is 59.21; Ez 36.25-27). The Psalmist [Ps 50(51).121 prayed that this inner re-creation should be accomplished in his own time; however, as in Wis 1.4-5, this renewal was asked for only the just man. In Ezekiel and in the NT a change from a sinner to a just man was envisaged. In other OT passages, God's spirit is conceived more as a teacher or guide-the source of all intellectual and spiritual gifts-than as an efficacious force [Ps 142(143).10; Neh 9.20; Dn 5.15]. God's Spirit Not Presented as a Person. The OT clearly does not envisage God's spirit as a person, neither in the strictly philosophical sense, nor in the Semitic sense. God's spirit is simply God's power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly (Is 48.16; 63.11; 32.15). Very rarely do the OT writers attribute to God's spirit emotions or intellectual activity (Is 63.10; Wis 1.3-7). When such expressions are used, they are mere figures of speech that are explained by the fact that the [Greek] was regarded also as the seat of intellectual acts and feelings (Gn 41.8). Neither is there found in the OT or in rabbinical literature the notion that God's spirit is an intermediary being between God and the world. This activity is proper to the angels, although to them is ascribed some of the activity that elsewhere is ascribed to the spirit of God. Spirit of God in Judaism. In Judaism God's spirit was generally called “the holy spirit” (without capital letters because no personification is indicated). It was regarded primarily as the divine power that gave the Prophets insight into the future and knowledge of hidden things (Sir 48.24-25), and inspired the writers of sacred books (4 Esdras 14.22-48). To it were ascribed also extraordinary psychic phenomena, such as ecstasy and prophetic vision (Enoch 71.11, 4 Esdras 5.22). God's spirit was frequently the divine power that was granted to the Pious Patriarchs to strengthen them in the exercise of virtue (Testament of Simeon 4.4); it will be poured out on all Israelites at the messianic renewal (Testament of Juda 24.2; Testament of Levi 18.11 ). It was generally thought that the holy spirit belonged to the past, having been withdrawn from Israel at the close of the ministry of Aggai, Zacharia, and Malachia (see 1 Mc 9.27). The sins of Israel were assigned as the cause of this disappearance of the spirit. It was hoped that the messianic age would bring with it prophecy and the renewal of heart. SPIRIT OF GOD IN THE NT As in the OT, so also in the NT, the spirit of God comes down from on high (Mk 1.10). He “falls” Or is “poured out” upon those who believe in Christ (Acts 10.44-45; 11.15), for He is “sent” or “given” by the Father (1 Jn 3.24; Gal 4.6). He “fills” a man (Lk 1.15) and He “dwells” in him (Rom 8.9). God's Spirit as a Power. As a result of the teaching of Christ, the definite personality of the Third Person of the Trinity is clear. However, in most cases, the phrase “spirit of God” reflects the OT notion of “the power of God.” God's Spirit Acting on Man's Soul. In the NT, the holy spirit effects such wonders as the expulsion of devils (Mt 12.28) and a miraculous pregnancy (Mt 1. 18,20; Lk 1.35). He also effects such supernatural phenomena as the *charisms, and the miracle of Pentecost (I Cor 12.4-11; Acts 2.4; 19.6; Lk 1.67). Such manifestations of the spirit, however, are usually transitory. The holy spirit is especially instrumental in the right exercise of certain offices, and in these cases the recipients are permanently endowed with the divine spirit. This is especially true in the case of the Apostles in fulfillment of the promise of Christ (Jn 14.16-17, 26; see also, Acts 1.8: 6.5-11; 1 Cor 12.28). Indeed, by the Apostles, the Holy Spirit governs the Church (Acts 1.8; 13.2; 15.28; 1 Tm 4.14; 2 Tm 1.6). A focal point in Biblical history, given prominence in the summaries of Jesus' work (e.g., Acts 10.36-41), was His baptism. It was then that He was solemnly in-stalled in His office as the “anointed” and “chosen” by the descent of the Holy Spirit (Mt 3.16; Mk 1.10; Lk 3.22; Acts 10.38). (At Christ's baptism, the Holy Spirit was symbolized by a dove.) His work began and remained under the influence of the Holy Spirit (Jn 1.33; Mt 4.1; Mk 1.12; Lk 4.1, 18). All this was in fulfillment of the words of the Prophets and the expectations of His contemporaries (Is 11.2; 42.1; 61.1). God's Spirit as a Sanctifying Power. John the Baptist is presented in the NT as the link between the Old and New Testaments. He prepared a faithful remnant of Israel for the messianic baptism (Mt 3.1 l)-a baptism by the Holy Spirit and fire (baptism by fire meaning a great messianic purification). The messianic baptism brought about the moral and religious recreation of the people of the new covenant that was promised by the Prophets (Ez 36.35-27; Jer 31.31-34). The actual out-pouring of this Holy Spirit at the first Christian Pentecost was a sign for the Apostles that the final days had come (Jl 2.28; Is 44.3; Acts 2.17) and that Jesus, who had bestowed on them power from heaven, was revealing His royal power at the right hand of the Father (Acts 1.8; 2.33). It is especially in the theology of St. Paul and St. John that the possession of the spirit is a sign that the old relationship to God had been abolished and that an entirely new world had been born. The Holy Spirit had not been given previous to Pentecost, for Jesus was not yet glorified (Jn 7.39). But, from the day of Pentecost onward, the Spirit has been active (I Cor 2.12-16), primarily as the one who brings eternal life (I Cor 6.11; Jn 3.5-8). The Spirit is said to be the [Greek] the “pledge,” that guarantees our full inheritance, eternal glory (Eph 1.13; 2 Cor 1.21-22). The new covenant is characterized by this Spirit, not by the letter of the law (2 Cor 3.6). A Christian has the Spirit of Christ (Rom 8.9) and the love of God that is poured forth in his heart by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5.5); God dwells in him (Rom 8.9, 11), and he is led by the Spirit (Rom 8.14). There is such an intimate connection between Christ and the Holy Spirit in the act of sanctification that they can be spoken of interchangeably (cf. I Cor 1.2 and Rom 15.16). There is conferred on man a new life by Baptism (Rom 6.3-11). Man, however, who is flesh and blood, cannot be elevated to this life, unless he is born again from on high of a divine principle, namely, the Spirit (Jn 3.3, 5; Ti 3.5). The Holy Spirit also comes upon the baptized by the laying on of hands (Acts 8.17; 19.6) in order to confer special charismatic gifts (cf. I Tm 4.14). The Spirit of God as a Person. Although the NT concepts of the spirit of God are largely a continua
tion of those of the OT, in the NT there is a gradual revelation that the Spirit of God’s a Person. In the Synoptic Gospels. The majority of NT texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God. When a quasi-personal activity is ascribed to God's spirit, e.g., speaking, hindering, desiring, dwelling (Acts 8.29; 16.7; Rom 8.9), one is not justified in concluding immediately that in these passages God's spirit is regarded as a Person; the same expressions are used also in regard to rhetorically personified things or abstract ideas (see Rom 8.6; 7,17). Thus, the context of the phrase “blasphemy against the spirit” (Mt 12.31; cf. Mt 12.28; Lk 11.20), shows that reference is being made to the power of God. The only passage in the Synoptic Gospels that clearly speaks of the person of the Holy Spirit is the Trinitarian formula in Mt 28.19. In the Acts of the Apostles. In Acts, the use of the words “Holy Spirit,” with or without an article, is rich and abundant. However, again, it is difficult to demonstrate a personality from the texts. The Spirit continues the work of Jesus and is the link between the earthly and heavenly Jesus. The same Spirit that descended upon Jesus at His baptism is given to the Apostles “in parted tongues as of fire” (Acts 2.1-4) and is transmitted beyond these original witnesses to all members of the Church by means of chosen leaders such as Paul, Barnabas, Stephen, and Philip. Reception of this power by the faithful is the principal testimony to the truth of the apostolic preaching. The Spirit is manifested by “tongues,” prophecy, and other unusual phenomena. Emphasis is placed on the role of the Spirit in the spread of the Church (Acts 1.8). The statement in Acts 15.28, “the Holy Spirit and we have decided,” alone seems to imply full personality. In the Pauline Epistles. St. Paul uses the word [spirit]= 146 times. Sometimes it means man's natural spirit, but more often it signifies the divine sanctifying power (2 Cor 3.17-18; Gal 4.6; Phil 1.19). However, the Trinitarian formulas employed by St. Paul (e.g., 2 Cor 13.13), indicate a real personality. In the theology of St. John. St. John's theology of the Holy Spirit is very rich in meaning. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth (Jn 14.17; 15.26; 16.13; cf. I Jn 4.6; 5.6), and “another helper,” the “Paraclete” (Jn 14.16). The Spirit is “another” helper because, after Christ's Ascension, He takes Christ's place in assisting the disciples, in teaching them all that Jesus Himself had not yet told them, in revealing the future to them, in recalling to their minds that which Jesus had taught them, in giving testimony concerning Jesus, and in glorifying Him (14.26; 16.12-16; 15.26; 1 Jn 2.27; 5.6). So clearly does St. John see in the Spirit a person who takes Christ's place in the Church, that he uses a masculine pronoun (Greek) in reference to the Spirit even though [spirit] is neuter in gender ( 16.8, 13-16). Consequently, it is evident that St. John thought of the Holy Spirit as a Person, who is distinct from the Father and the Son, and who, with the glorified Son and the Father, is present and active in the faithful (14.16; 15.26; 16.7). (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Spirit of God, Vol 13, p574-576)

A Catholic Dictionary, William E. Addis & Thomas Arnold, 1960

TRINITY, HOLY. The mystery of the Trinity consists in this, that God, being numerically and individually one, exists in three Persons, or, in other words, that the Divine essence, which is one and the same in the strictest and most absolute sense, exists in three Persons, really distinct from each other, and yet each really identical with the same Divine essence. The Father is unbegotten, the Son begotten, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and Son. Each Person is really distinct from the other, each is the true, eternal God, and yet there, is only one God. We can understand how three individual men are distinct from each other and yet possess humanity in common. The unity of the three Divine Persons is, altogether different. When we speak of them as one God, we mean not only that each is God, but that each is one and the, same God, and herein is the mystery, incomprehensible to any created intelligence. The word Trinity (tri’as) first occurs in Theophilus of Antioch (” Ad Autol.” ii. 15, PG, vi-1078 ; of. Tertullian ” De Pud.” 21, PL, ii. 1026), who wrote about 180, but the doctrine, which the word expresses appears in the New Testament and has its roots in the Old Testament. The Doctrine in the Old Testament.- (a) Catholics, from the Fathers downwards, full of faith in the Holy Trinity, and knowing that the author of the New Testament is also the author of the Old, have naturally been prepared to find traces of the doctrine in the ancient Scriptures, and have often satisfied themselves that such traces exist in cases where scholarship proves the possibility or even the correctness of another interpretation. In what follows, we have, kept constantly in view the least an adversary must admit, the least which grammatical and historical considerations require us to see in any particular text. Passages there an, quoted by the Fathers, in which God speaks of Himself in the plural Such are Gen. i. 26, iii. 22, xi. 7; Is. vi. 8-In the first two the Fathers generally see aft allusion to the Trinity, most of them do so in the third, a few only in the fourth, which is, generally understood as addressed to the seraphim who am mentioned in the context (references in Petavius, ” De Trin.” 1!. 7). Let us take the first passage from Genesis, the strongest, as Petavius thinks, among them all. And God said, Let us make man in our image.” The New Testament gives no exposition of the words. The oldest explanation is found in Philo, and adopted in the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan, which paraphrases the words thus: “Jehovah said to the angels, ministering before Him, who were created on the second day of the creation of the world, “Let us make man in our image.”' This view has met with the approval of some modern scholars, but there is no mention of angels in the context, and the notion of angelic agency in creation is Babylonian and Persian, but not Biblical. Another very popular view in modem times is that God uses the plural, just as kings do, as a mark of dignity (the so-called “plural of majesty”), but it is only late in Jewish history that such a form of speech occurs, and then it is used by Persian and Greek rulers (Esdr. iv. 18; 1 Mace. x. 19). Nor can the plural be regarded as merely indicating the way in which God summons Himself to energy, for the use of the language is against this (Gen. ii. 18; Is. xxxiii. 10). The most recent explanation is that of Dillmann (ad loc.), who thinks that God, in the solemn moment of man's creation, addresses Himself as the complex of Divine energies and powers. Akin to the arguments drawn from the above texts is that from the fact that the Hebrew word for God is plural, while it is usually construed with a singular verb. The real origin of this plural form is obscure, but anyhow Petavius most rightly refuses to see in it any allusion to a plurality of Divine Persons. The word for a human master is also often plural, and the same plural form of the word God with a singular verb is used of Dagon (Jud. xvi. 23). Lastly, under this head we may mention the “Holy, holy, holy” of Is. vi., the triple blessing in Num. vi. 24. and the apparent distinction between God and God in Gen. xix. 24: ” And Jehovah rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur and fire from Jehovah from the heavens.” The first two places may only allow that three, like seven and ten, was a favourite (of. Jer. viii 4) and perhaps a sacred number among the Hebrews; in Gen. xix. 24, the repetition of the words “from Jehovah ” is perhaps merely an old and emphatic equivalent for “from Himself.” Its meaning is much the same as that of the words which follow it -viz. from “the heavens,” … In a few passages the Old Testament ascribes Divine attributes to the Messiah, and this, as the
Messiah is sent by and is distinct from God (the Father), implies a duality of Persons in God. Some places often adduced, although their true sense and reference to our Lord are certain to us from the light of the New Testament, are scarcely conclusive in and by themselves. The Trinity in the New Testament.-The absolute unity of God was and is the great article of Israel's faith, and it is asserted with equal emphasis throughout the New Testament (Rom. xvi. 27 ; I Tim. vi. 15 seq. ; John xvii. 3). If, then, the New Testament towhee the real, distinct, and divine personality of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, this comes to teaching the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. 1. The Son or Word of God-The first three Gospels and the Acts describe Jesus as the ” Son of God,” a title which primarily implies this Messianic office. Because He is the Christ, death cannot bind Him (Acts ii. 24) ; He is “the, prince of life ” (iii. 15). After. His resurrection, He “receives all power in heaven and earth ” (Mt. xxviii. 18). Nowhere, however, is His pre-existence, much less His eternal generation, asserted in terms, but Christ in the Synoptic Gospels certainly claims attributes which can hardly be less than divine (see, particularly, Mt. xi. 27). In the earlier Epistles of St. Paul, his pre-existence is clearly affirmed. Through Him are all things” (I Cor. viii. 6) He is the image of God ” (2 Cor. iv. 4) He is the Lord ” (I Cor. xii. 3 ; Rom. x. 9) ; He is absolutely sinless (2 Cor. v. 21) He is ” the Spirit ” (2 Cor. iii. 17)-i.e. the Holy Spirit is His Spirit, the living principle of His working and indwelling. In Rom. 9:5, as commonly translated, we have the strongest statement of Christ's divinity in St. Paul, and, indeed, in the N.T. ; ” Whose are the Fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is the God over all blessed for ever, Amen.” We cannot enter on a discussion of the rendering here. In any case, the text cannot be conclusively urged, against an opponent. There is no reason in grammar or in the context which forbids us to translate ” God who is over all, be blessed for ever, Amen”—& doxology suddenly introduced, but quite in St. Paul's manner (Gal. 1. 5; of Rom. i. 25 ; 2 Cor. xi. 31). In the Apocalypse we find the term Logos ” peculiar in the N.T. to the Johannic writings (xix. 13, ” Word of God; ” not, however, J %or, as in the Gospel). He is the ” beginning of the creation of God ” (iii. 14), though this phrase seem to imply priority in dignity rather than in existence.' He is ” Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end ” (xxi. 6), the same phrase which Is used (1. 11) of the Almighty.” in the Epistle to the Hebrews the “Logos ” is not used as a personal name, but the ideas prominent in the Book of Wisdom recur here, are applied to Christ, and united to the doctrine of his generation as the Son of God before the world was made. Thus, Wisdom (vii. 26) is the “effulgence [Greek] of eternal light,” ” the unstained mirror of the working of God,” and “the image of his goodness ” ; and so (Heb. i.) the Son is the ” effulgence ” [Greek] of God's glory, “the stamp ” or expressed image of ” his sub-stance.” As Wisdom is the ” artificer of all things ” (Wisd. vii. 21), so through the Son all things were made, and He upholds all things by the ” word of his power ” [Greek]. Not only is the Son, because Son, raised above the angels, but lie is addressed as God (v. 8), and the description of God's. majesty (Ps. cii. 26-28) is applied to Him. Somewhat similar is the aspect which the doctrine assumes in the later Pauline Epistles, particularly in that to the Colossians, in which Christ is ” the centre of the universe, of the, spiritual and corporeal world ” (the words are Hilgenfeld's). … The divinity and distinct existence of the Word am most clearly taught in St. John's Gospel. The Word (absolutely only in i. I and i. 14) existed before all time ; ” in the beginning,” before things were made, He was. This existence was a personal one, for the Word is no more attribute, like the, reason or wisdom of God, but was [Greek] in active communication with God. (For the force of [Greek] compare Mk. vi. 3, ix. 19 ; Mt. xiii. 56, xxvi. 55 -1 1 Cor. xvi. 6; Gal. i. 18, iv. 18.) As the spoken word is distinct from him who utters it, so was the Word distinct from God the, Father [Greek]. Yet in nature or essence He is one with the Father-” the Word was God” (theos); ” all things came into being through Him,” and this without any exception, And the continuance of things, no less than their origin, depends on Him-“That which was made was life in Him.” As He Is the Word or perfect expression of God the Father's being before creation, so, after It, He is the source of all spiritual illumination (1. 9) ; and lastly, He ” became flesh and tabernacled among us,” replacing the partial revelations of the past by one which was full and perfect. He in Son an well as Word, but His sonship is different from that which is common to believers. He is Son in the strict sense, with the same nature as Me Father; whence He is ” the only-begotten from the Father … .. the only-begotten Son ” (or, perhaps, ” the only-begotten God ” ; so Westcott and Hort, i. 14, iii. 16, 18; see also I Jn. iv. 9). He and the Father ” are one ” (x. 30) ; to have seen Him is to have seen the Father (xiv. 9). All that had been previously revealed in the Bible, all the results of extra-biblical speculation in the Jewish Church, are here combined-the “Word” of the Hebrew Bible and of the Targams; the [Greek] or ” reason ” of Philo, the creative Wisdom of Proverbs and the Deutero-Canonical books. And the Bible, in one of its latest books, is the exposition of an idea which can be traced back to the words with which the Bible, as we have it, begins: ” In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and God said, Lot there be light, and there was light.” 2. The Spirit of God.-On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the Spirit as a divine energy or power particularly in the heart of man. The Spirit rests on Christ, and is a power within Him distinct from. Himself (Mt. iii. 16, xii. 28; Lk. iv. 1-14; Jn. i. 32), having first caused His miraculous conception (Lk. i., &c.) The Spirit is imparted to Christ's disciples, the citizens of the Messianic kingdom, and is their guide (I Pet. i. 12 ; Acts ii. 4 Beg., xv. 28 ; of. v. 2). This divine Spirit is clearly distinguished from the Spirit or conscience of man (Rom. viii 16), and the authority of the Spirit is identified with that of God Himself (Mt. xii. 31 ; Acts v. 3, 9 ; I Cor. U 16 ; but of. Exod. xvi 8 ; 1 Thess. iv. 8). But is a personal existence clearly attributed to the Spirit? No doubt, all through the N.T. his action is described as personal. He speaks (Mk. xiii 11 ; Acts viii. 29), bears witness (Rom. viii. 16; 1 Jn. v. 6), searches (I Cor. ii. 10), decides (Acts xv. 28), helps and intercedes (Rom. viii. 26), apportions the gifts of grace (1 Cor. xii. 11). Most of these places furnish no cogent proof of personality. The spirit of God and Christ (Gal. iv. 6) may be said to do what He operates through man ; and again, we must not forget that the N.T. personifies mere attributes such as love (I Cor. xiii. 4), and sin (Rom. vii. 11), nay, even abstract and lifeless things, such as the law (Rom. iii. 19), the water and the blood (1 Jn. v. 8). However, if we look well to the passage above quoted from St. Paul (I Cor. xii. 11) we find that the Spirit is distinguished from 'the gate of the Spirit, and that personal action is predicated of Him: “All these things one and the same Spirit worketh, dividing to each separately, as He [the Spirit] wills” Poetical personification would be quite out of place here, and Meyer rightly treats the words as decisive. In the fourth Gospel, however, this personal existence is stated more fully and plainly (oh. xiv.). Even the author of the article on the Trinity in Sohenkel's “Dictionary of the Bible” (Bibel-Lexicon,” art. Dreieinigkeit), though he writes to show that the doctrine of the Trinity is not Bibli

[Is 1:18]

Quote (david @ April 23 2007,20:31)

I'm sure you can find it on the web somewhere.  That's where I did.  I don't seem to have links to those encyclopedia's, but I'll give you the quotes in full.  While I realize that the Catholic church for example is not any source of ultimate truth, they definitely do hold to the trinity belief, without question.  I quote them because even though they believe in the trinity, they must admit some things:

So strange that the Catholics are perhaps the most derided denomination on this forum, and yet their literature is quite frequently appealed to when it suits…..

Either they have credibility or they don't. Which is it David?

[david]

Quote

As for your other points, they are basically: “God” doesn't mean God, “One” doesn't mean one, and “Worship” doesn't mean worship.

Ah, so you've chosen to be ridiculous. Interesting strategy. Of course, this is absurd. “one” means one. But notice how it is used in scripture. “Just as” Jehovah and Jesus are one (in that same way) Jesus and his followers are one.

If you are still confused as to what it means or how Jesus and Jehovah are one, they are one exactly as, or even as Jesus and his followers are one.
So please don't ever even attempt to use that scripture again. It's absurd in light of the explanation that John himself states later.

Quote

Starting with worship, your argument is basically: assume whenever proskyneo is applied to the Father it means worship. And assume whenever it is applied to the Son it does not mean worship. Well since you have no reason for this, other than that you refuse to believe the Son is God, there's not much I can do to convince you that worship means worship.

Again, ridiculously absurd. Why would you have to convince me that “worship means worship.” Obviously it does. The word in question is proskyneo. And we know for a fact that it doesn't always mean worship.

If it doesn't mean worship in relation to the Father, then it doesn't mean worship for anyone. Worshipping the Father is not really in question, by anyone, unless you are questioning this. ARe you?
The question is whether that word “proskyneo” means “worship” with reference to Jesus. Since Jesus directed worship to “his God” and Father, it seems we should follow our exemplar and do the same.

Quote

Concerning oneness, it certainly does, at the least, suggest that the Son is God, for Deuteronomy 6:4 says, “YHWH is one,” and when the Jews heard Jesus say, “The Father and I are one,” they thought He was quoting Deuteronomy 6:4

I'm not sure why they would think that. Did they also think that when Jesus said that he and his followers were one, “even as” Jesus and his Father are one?

JOHN 17:21-22
“in order that they may all be one [Lit “one thing”], JUST AS YOU, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, in order that the world may believe that you sent me forth. Also, I have given them the glory that you have given me, IN ORDER THAT THEY MAY BE ONE JUST AS WE ARE ONE.”

how would Jesus followers be “one.” “Just as we (Jehovah and Jesus) are one.” That is how they would be one. Just as those two are one. In the same way.
So, if it's obvious that this doesn't mean that Jesus' followers are not God or not part of a trinity then it should equally be obvious that this scripture in question in no way supports what you believe in any sense, at all, to the slightest degree. The scripture explains precisely what is in questin and it is absolutely astoundingly clear. If you continue to use this scripture to support your beliefs, I would consider it highly dishonest and I would perhaps think that you are purposefully misleading people, or just blind to the actual words.

Quote

It is consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity for Jesus to have prayed, that just as the three persons of the Trinity are one God, so may His many brothers be one church, one body, and one spirit with Him.

NIV
“that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, THAT THEY MAY BE ONE AS WE ARE ONE.”

(They are one in the same way that Jehovah and Jesus are one. This is what the scripture says.)

NASB
that they may all be one; (A)even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, (B)so that the world may believe that ©You sent Me. The (A)glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that THEY MAY BE ONE, JUST AS WE ARE ONE;”

check whatever Bible you want. They all say the same, give the same thought.
“just as” Jesus and his Father are one, Jesus followers are one.

If you are stating that Jesus and his Father are one (meaning the same “one” literally) then I guess Jesus followers are one “just as” those are, in the same way. Of course, this is wrong.

Quote

Come to your senses. There is no God besides YHWH. The shalt worship YHWH your God, and serve Him only.

Yes, I (unlike you) only do “worship YHWH.” And yes, the Bible says there is no God besides Jehovah. When we actually have some clue as to what the word “God” means, then it actually isn't a contradiction to say there is only one true God, and for the Bible to at the same time actually truly acknowledge that others are rightly called “gods” and they are, which you can't deny. I have no contradiction here. I understand the word. You close your eyes to those other references. You understand that it says there is only one true God. Yet you can't acknowledge those scriptures that speak of the angels being called “gods” etc. To acknowledge the entire Bible and include these scriptures in your belief system would absolutely destroy your trinity belief. Please open your eyes to the whole Bible and attempt to understand what the word “god” means.

[david]

Quote

Do you claim that you can thus comprehend God?

“We worship what we know.”–The earliest Christians.

Many other people worship a “mystery,” that is “incomprehensible.”

[david]

Quote

but I still rejected oneness because that oneness appears to apply to believers too in John 17.

It doesn't appear to. It does. And more importantly, it does “just as” it does with the Father and Son. (KJV, NASB, NIV, etc)
All the bible's I check say at John 17:21,22 that “just as” the Father and Son are one, so Jesus followers are one.

Therefore, this helps us to understand in what sense Jehovah and Jesus are one. Because we know they are “one” “just as” Jesus followers are one.

You may say that Jesus and Jehovah are part of one trinity, just as Jesus followers are part of one congregation.

Yet, if Jesus followers are “one” meaning that they are…what, united in purpose, etc, then wouldn't this be the sense that Jehovah and Jesus are “one.”?
After all, they are one Just As his followers are one. Right?

This scripture seems to have been a pivotal scripture for you. So I imagine you have a very good reason for beleiving that it means something other than what it actually simply says. Please explain.

david

[Is 1:18]

David, does this passage describe worship exclusively reserved for God?:

Revelation 5:11-14
11Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands, 12saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing.” 13And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, “To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.” 14And the four living creatures kept saying, “Amen ” And the elders fell down and worshiped.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (david @ April 23 2007,20:59)

Quote Do you claim that you can thus comprehend God? “We worship what we know.”–The earliest Christians. Many other people worship a “mystery,” that is “incomprehensible.”

David, do you know everything about God?

Is there nothing about YHWH that is incompresensible to you?

Do you even understand human ontology, David?

Exactly how does the human soul and spirit interface?

Precisely what is a human “spirit”?

Fill us in……

[david]

JOHN 19:10-11
“Hence Pilate said to him: “Are you not speaking to me? Do you not know I have authority to release you and I have authority to impale you?” Jesus answered him: “You would have no authority at all against me unless it had been granted to you from above.

JOHN 5:27
“And he [The Father] has given him [Jesus] authority to do judging…”
(See John 5:22)

JOHN 17:2
““Father, the hour has come; glorify your son, that your son may glorify you, according as you have given him authority over all flesh,”

ROMANS 13:1
“there is no authority except by God;”

It seems that God who gave Jesus his authority (mat 28:19) is the ultimate source of authority and that there is no real authority except by God.

I am again forced to wonder how equal their authority is or would have been if Jehovah gave it to him, or how equal it was before Jehovah gave it to him. If he was fully God, fully man, I still don't understand why he needed to be given anything.

[Is 1:18]

Because he “emptied” Himself David (Phil 2:6).

[david]

Quote

David, do you know everything about God? Is there nothing about YHWH that is incompresensible to you? Do you even understand human ontology, David? Exactly how does the human soul and spirit interface? Precisely what is a human “spirit”?

I've already explained precisely what the human spirit is, in either the spirit thread or maybe the “soul” thread. I believe there are pages of an explanation there.
There is a difference between being able to understand something, as Jehovah wants us to come to know him and invites us to do so, and the illogical, mystery that is incomprehensible and paradoxical and contrary to everything we understand common sense to be.

We worship what we know, even as the early Christians did. Many worship what no one can know, an incomprehesible mystery, that is beyond human understanding.

[david]

Quote

Because he “emptied” Himself David (Phil 2:6).

Of what, his God…ness?

If he was fully God, while on earth, then why would he have to be given authority and power?
The word “god” strongly implies power.
I know he obvioulsy had a degree of power and authority while on the earth, but he had to be given all authority and power.

[Is 1:18]

David, i'm having trouble understanding how the human soul and spirit interface, it's somewhat mysterious to me, can you elucidate it for me?

[david]

What does this passage actually say?

What doesn't it say?

And why are your texts on your side always so ambiguous?

[Author]

Posts