Is the Holy Spirit a person?

[goldenrule]

Abba is currently defined as “Father” in English, but in the Aramaic language of Jesus times, it was defined as Heavenly Parent. God is Spirit and Holy Spirit is Spirit, and neither are either just male or female, but both have female as well as male qualities. AB=male, BA=female, combined “ABBA”, "Our Heavenly Parent, or the trinity of three in One.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Abba is currently defined as “Father” in English, but in the Aramaic language of Jesus times, it was defined as Heavenly Parent. God is Spirit and Holy Spirit is Spirit, and neither are either just male or female, but both have female as well as male qualities. AB=male, BA=female, combined “ABBA”, "Our Heavenly Parent, or the trinity of three in One.

You’re going to have to so me some really credible research to back this up. It also is completely off topic in this thread. Please start a new one if you want to discuss this more fully.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

You’re going to have to so me some really credible research to back this up. It also is completely off topic in this thread. Please start a new one if you want to discuss this more fully.

How is this off topic?

Anyway, Isn’t the Trinity defined as "Three Divine Persons in one God? "

Some biblical scholars (Christian) believe it was the Holy Spirit that appeared to Moses as the “Burning Bush.” Through that He spoke to Moses.

In the Creed we say, “…We believe in the Holy Spirit…He has spoken through the prophets…” In Genesis, God said, :…let Us make man in Our image and likeness…"

Maybe, we will one day understand the meaning of “person.”

 

[toaslan]

The Holy Spirit is a person, as it has a distinct personality of it’s own…the true definition of “ABBA” …is defined as Our Heavenly Parent(s) in the ancient Hebrew…The Hebrew word for Holy Spirit is “Yah Ruah”, which means Wind or Moving Spirit, and in that original language is a feminine word.

I agree that God is neither masculine nor feminine, is both, and transcendently so. BUT–

Goldenrule, you seem bent on using “inclusive” language–to the point that you are willing to use “it” when referring to the Holy Spirit. This we cannot do, because “it” denominates a thing, not a person. We do well to stay in the mainstream, not only of the great literature of Western Civilization, but also of our own great Catholic Tradition: all the apostles, fathers, doctors and popes down to the present use the masculine for the pronoun for all Three Persons. They expect the faithful to understand by this no attempt to attribute either sexed body parts, or sexuality as we experience it, to God: rather, other related things are being conveyed. And, of course, nothing derogatory to women is part of what is being thus conveyed. (St. Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica, explains why “He” can be preferred to “She” in referring to God.)
If you wish to press the merits of “inclusive” language, I would be inclined to follow you to another thread.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

How is this off topic?

Anyway, Isn’t the Trinity defined as "Three Divine Persons in one God? "

Certainly, I can see how a discussion of the Trinity is on topic. It is the discussion of the term “Abba” in a thread about the Holy Spirit that seems off-topic, as least to me…

 

[toaslan]

Abba is currently defined as “Father” in English, but in the Aramaic language of Jesus times, it was defined as Heavenly Parent…AB=male, BA=female, combined “ABBA”, "Our Heavenly Parent, or the trinity of three in One.

I, in addition to Grace Seeker, would need goldenrule to back up the above. I believe it is incorrect; but to pursue it will take the thread away from whether or not the Holy Spirit is a person, into whether or not He is a person of gender; and whether it is well to use the masculine pronoun of this Person.

 

[fellowChristian]

American Heritage **Dictionary **- Cite This Source **per·son ** (pûr’sən) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
   **2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance. **3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
2. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner’s person.
3. Physique and general appearance.
4. Law A human or organization with legal rights and duties.
   **7. Christianity Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them. **8. Grammar
5. Any of three groups of pronoun forms with corresponding verb inflections that distinguish the speaker (first person), the individual addressed (second person), and the individual or thing spoken of (third person).
   Any of the different forms or inflections expressing these distinctions.
   A character or role, as in a play; a guise: “Well, in her person, I say I will not have you” (Shakespeare).

[Middle English, from Old French persone, from **Latin persōna, mask, role, person, probably from Etruscan phersu, mask.]

Usage Note: The word person has found widespread use in recent decades as a gender-neutral alternative to man in the names of occupational and social roles, such as businessperson, chairperson, spokesperson, and layperson. In addition, a variety of entirely new, more inclusive phrases have arisen to compete with or supplant -man compounds. Now we often hear first-year student instead of freshman and letter carrier instead of mailman. In other cases, a clipped form, such as chair for chairman, or a phrase, such as member of the clergy for clergyman, has found widespread use as a neutral alternative. Reflecting this trend, new standards of official usage for occupational titles have been established by the U.S. Department of Labor and other government agencies; for instance, in official contexts, terms such as firefighter and police officer are now generally used in place of fireman and policeman. See Usage Note at man.

 

[SFH]

The Holy Bible refers to The Holy Spirit as a He. The Holy Spirit is a He simply because The Holy Spirit is masculine spirit. The Holy Spirit is, but not limited to, the following: a molder and sculpter into that which inherits eternal life…(a retainer of the saved)…a disciplinarian…a Divine Spirit that has a personality, however, The Holy Spirit is not a person.

You may believe that the Holy Spirit is not a person, but that is not the Catholic Church’s teaching. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Divine Persons in one Being. By person, we Catholics mean “who” something is. If I ask you “who are you,” you might say, “I’m John.” Who you are distinguishes you from other human beings. By being, we Catholics mean “what” something is. If I ask you “what are you,” you might say, “I am a man.”

Although there is a relational distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (i.e., the Father is not the Son because the Son is begotton, the Holy Spirit is not the Son because the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), they are only one God. We cannot comprehend this mystery, but it is a dogma of Catholic Faith none the less.

The suggestion that the Holy Spirit is not a person is not part of the Catholic Faith (indeed, it is an old heresy that was condemned by the Catholic Church over 600 years ago).

 

[Grace_Seeker]

You may believe that the Holy Spirit is not a person, but that is not the Catholic Church’s teaching. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Divine Persons in one Being. By person, we Catholics mean “who” something is. If I ask you “who are you,” you might say, “I’m John.” Who you are distinguishes you from other human beings. By being, we Catholics mean “what” something is. If I ask you “what are you,” you might say, “I am a man.”

Although there is a relational distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (i.e., the Father is not the Son because the Son is begotton, the Holy Spirit is not the Son because the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), they are only one God. We cannot comprehend this mystery, but it is a dogma of Catholic Faith none the less.

The suggestion that the Holy Spirit is not a person is not part of the Catholic Faith (indeed, it is an old heresy that was condemned by the Catholic Church over 600 years ago).

Very well said. Though, if I may, I believe you may have meant to say that it was an old heresy that was condemned by the Church over 1600 years ago.

And it is not only a heresy to the Catholic church; it is a heresy to all the churches of Jesus Christ. Indeed historically one of the keys to determining whether a group that calls itself Christian truly is Christian or not has been not only their view of Christ, but their view with regard to the Holy Spirit as well. Now, if postwrite had said that the Holy Spirit is not a human being (instead of not a person) then I would be in agreement with him. But most definitely, the Holy Spirit is viewed as more than just an amorphorous idea or emination from the being of God; in scripture the Holy Spirit is a person, one of the three persons of the God-head.

 

[mchium]

The Holy Bible refers to The Holy Spirit as a He. The Holy Spirit is a He simply because The Holy Spirit is masculine spirit. The Holy Spirit is, but not limited to, the following: a molder and sculpter into that which inherits eternal life…(a retainer of the saved)…a disciplinarian…a Divine Spirit that has a personality, however, The Holy Spirit is not a person.

You also can’t have a ‘masculine’ spirit. Spirits do not have a sex.

 

[mchium]

Hi
I agree with you that “Holy Spirit” is not a person. A person having a separate personality ie endowed with a will or discretion to do or not to do a thing.
Holy Spirit or angels do what they are asked to do by GodAllahYHWH, not a vice versa. So truly speaking it is a misunderstanding of my friends that Holy Spirit is a person.
This is my view others could differ with me but with reason and arguments, no compulsion.
Thanks
The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of Muhammad’sIslam and PromisedMessiahImamMahdi’sIslam is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking only peaceful.
GodAllahYHWH is All-Knowing and All-Wise; one should invariably give Claim and Reason on all important issues from one’s Revealed Book; one shouldn’t try putting one’s own words into God’s mouth.

Of course the Holy Spirit is a person. The Holy Spirit is GOD - not an angel. Angels are created beings - created by God - and ARE NOT God. God stands outside His creation; He has no cause. Angels are part of creation and have a contingent existence (they depend on God for their existence).

The Holy Trinity is three (3) PERSONS in ONE GOD. The Trinity consists of the 3 persons; Father, Son & Holy Spirit. You are confusing ‘person’ with incarnation and/or physical body.

The faith you espouse may not profess belief in the Trinity OR in three persons in one God, but that doesn’t mean you have that particular belief right in your explanation. You have it wrong.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

You also can’t have a ‘masculine’ spirit. Spirits do not have a sex.

Were not eunuchs still masculine?

 

[mchium]

Hi
As angels (Holy Spirit including) have no will of there own, they are not persons, nevertheless they cannot do anything except good, as per scheme of life by GodAllahYHWH.

Satan/Devil was never an angel, he also has no will of his own, devil is also not a person. Satan has been created by GodAllahYHWH as he has created angles. Devil cannot do anything except evil, as per scheme of life by GodAllahYHWH.
This is my opinion, others could differ with me with rational and reasonable arguments only.
Thanks
Please don’t mind. I have given some concepts from Quran, just for comparison to bridge the gaps between Christians and Muslims for peace and unity.

You might like to read
alislam.org/books/
Introduction to the Study of The Holy Quran (English)
The Official Website of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community

Your post reflects the beliefs of Islam. This is a Catholic forum and, therefore, a Christian one - and so the doctrine of the Trinity explained to you here is the Christian doctrine - and it is what it is. You may differ, according to your faith, but try to understand what we are explaining.

You also, after explaining your teachings/Quran (Islam ) on this issue, you then say it’s your ‘opinion’ and others may differ. If what you are explaining is what is taught by Islam, then these things are not not your opinion, but the doctrines of the Muslim faith, correct?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Paarsurrey isn’t a Muslim either. He is Ahmadi. A unique sect of its own understanding rejected by Sunni and Shi’a alike.

Were not eunuchs still masculine?

And eunuchs also had a sex, even though they couldn’t have sex. The Spirit is not a sexual being. That doesn’t mean it was not a person.

 

[mchium]

The Holy Spirit is most definitely NOT an angel. The Holy Spirit is himself God.

Those who are objecting to the concept of person would be correct in objecting to the idea of individuality. The Holy Spirit is not a seperate individual anymore than the Father and the Son are separate individuals. They are not; they are one being. But the Holy Spirit is a different persona if you will of that one being.

Be careful here…this is not correct. The HS is most definitely an individual, as are the Father & the Son. The Trinity is a profound mystery (we can understand it but not all of it and not completely) and the HS is the most often erred ‘Person’ of the Trinity to explain. The quote below is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which has much more of value and clarity on the HS, but was too lengthy to share here.

The thing to remember is that the 3 Persons share the same divine nature (the Godhead). They are not (as you seemed to imply in your post) simply 3 different manifestations of the same Person - kind of like your dad is a businessman, a father and a husband. He’s just one person, one man, with one nature, but he manifests as 3 (or even more) ‘types’ of person as defined by what he does or how he relates to a given individual.

This is a common error and is, indeed, and error.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia: (bolding mine)

"The Holy Ghost is the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity.

• Though really distinct, as a Person, from the Father and the Son, He is consubstantial with Them; being God like Them, He possesses with Them one and the same Divine Essence or nature.
• He proceeds, not by way of generation, but by way of spiration, from the Father and the Son together, as from a single principle."

 

[mchium]

Were not eunuchs still masculine?

Eunuchs were physical people/bodies. The HS is a ‘pure’ spirit. He has no body; hence, no sex. Pure spirits or, more to the point re the HS, God, (except for Jesus’ incarnate body) is pure spirit. He has no sex, no eyes, no hands, no teeth, no body. Bodies have a sex assigned them; pure spirits do not.

Eunuch comparisons are apples and oranges since Eunuchs are not pure spirits

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Be careful here…this is not correct. The HS is most definitely an individual, as are the Father & the Son. The Trinity is a profound mystery (we can understand it but not all of it and not completely) and the HS is the most often erred ‘Person’ of the Trinity to explain. The quote below is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which has much more of value and clarity on the HS, but was too lengthy to share here.

The thing to remember is that the 3 Persons share the same divine nature (the Godhead). They are not (as you seemed to imply in your post) simply 3 different manifestations of the same Person - kind of like your dad is a businessman, a father and a husband. He’s just one person, one man, with one nature, but he manifests as 3 (or even more) ‘types’ of person as defined by what he does or how he relates to a given individual.

This is a common error and is, indeed, and error.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia: (bolding mine)

"The Holy Ghost is the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity.

• Though really distinct, as a Person, from the Father and the Son, He is consubstantial with Them; being God like Them, He possesses with Them one and the same Divine Essence or nature.
• He proceeds, not by way of generation, but by way of spiration, from the Father and the Son together, as from a single principle."

I am being careful. The problem you are having with my words is that you are thinking of them with modernist understanding. “Person” was NOT synonymous with the concept of “individual” to the ancient Greeks who gave us the language. There are three personas, but not three individuals, because there is just one being. And no, I do NOT mean three different manifestions or showings of oneself. I mean that they are three unique persons, but still of one essence. Just as surely as the fingers of my hand are all unique and distinct from one another, but still all one and the same hand. I can consider them individually, but they cannot actually be individually separated from one another and still be considered to actually be my hand. So, while the Holy Spirit can be discussed individually, he is not an individual being any more than is the Father or the Son, they are three persons of the one individual being. That being is God. The persons are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The relatively modern concept of an individual is not even a part of the discussion.

That idea that you did picked out of the encyclopedia – that the Holy Spirit is cosubstantial with the Father and the Son – is exactly why none of them should be spoken of as individuals in the modern sense of that word. Individual are not just distinct persons, but descreet personages, and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit while being distinct persons, are not descreet personages independent of each other, for they are in fact cosubstantial – i.e. of one substance (not three). To be three descreet personages they would no longer be cosubstantial, but would have three separate individual essences. And I think that you would agree that they do not.

 

[mchium]

I am being careful. The problem you are having with my words is that you are thinking of them with modernist understanding. “Person” was NOT synonymous with the concept of “individual” to the ancient Greeks who gave us the language. There are three personas, but not three individuals, because there is just one being. And no, I do NOT mean three different manifestions or showings of oneself. I mean that they are three unique persons, but still of one essence. Just as surely as the fingers of my hand are all unique and distinct from one another, but still all one and the same hand. I can consider them individually, but they cannot actually be individually separated from one another and still be considered to actually be my hand. So, while the Holy Spirit can be discussed individually, he is not an individual being any more than is the Father or the Son, they are three persons of the one individual being. That being is God. The persons are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The relatively modern concept of an individual is not even a part of the discussion.

That idea that you did picked out of the encyclopedia – that the Holy Spirit is cosubstantial with the Father and the Son – is exactly why none of them should be spoken of as individuals in the modern sense of that word. Individual are not just distinct persons, but descreet personages, and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit while being distinct persons, are not descreet personages independent of each other, for they are in fact cosubstantial – i.e. of one substance (not three). To be three descreet personages they would no longer be cosubstantial, but would have three separate individual essences. And I think that you would agree that they do not.

I think symantics is getting in here too much. And, I do not use modernist language nor am I misled by it or taken someplace that is not doctrinal (in the Catholic sense). To quibble about ‘individual’ vs ‘distinct’ vs ‘person’ is not helpful and is a distinction without a difference.

To say that the 3 persons are consubstantial is not at all the same thing as to say they are NOT individual/distinct or, conversely, to say they are one being. They are one IN NATURE, but are separate, distinct, individual persons and individuals.

You say the fact that I used the word ‘consubstantial’ from the Catholic Encyclopedia is precisely why the 3 persons of the Trinity should not be referred to as individuals. Why not? These terms are entirely different. Consubstantial simply means to be of one essence; one nature. We’ve already established that the 3 persons share one divine nature; the Godhead.

Maybe you are saying that if the 3 persons share one nature or essence, they cannot be individuals but you seemed before to not be saying that. If that IS what you’re saying, then I say that makes no sense and certainly doesn’t follow.

Of course! there are 3 (individual) persons who share ONE essence/nature - that of God. They are all God; the SAME God, but they are 3 distinct and unique/individual persons.

The word ‘person’ refers to an ‘individual’; persons are individual - and the words I (and the encyclopedia) use go back to the Latin and the Greek usage and is not in the least bit modernist. The Church’s teaching/doctrine on the Trinity also goes back a sufficient number of centuries that using her definition is, by definition itself, NOT modernist. The words I am using are the Church’s words; not my own.

There is no other way to say this, so if you disagree, then that’s all it is - a disagreement. As I said, read the entire doctrine of the Trinity, as laid out by the Church and make sure the modernist beam is not in your own eye.

 

[mchium]

Grace Seeker:

One more thing - maybe this will clarify/help. The Catholic Encyclopedia blurb stated that the HS is distinct AS A PERSON (individual) but NOT in essence. …i.e. “Though distinct as a Person, He is one in essence”

Is that where the hang-up is? If so, it remains, then, a disagreement and may be symantics.

There is nothing that violates reason about the fact that 3 individual and unique persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) share one and the same divine essense/nature. Nothing whatsoever.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Paarsurrey isn’t a Muslim either. He is Ahmadi. A unique sect of its own understanding rejected by Sunni and Shi’a alike.

And eunuchs also had a sex, even though they couldn’t have sex. The Spirit is not a sexual being. That doesn’t mean it was not a person.

Would you still refer to a eunuch as “he.?”