Is the Holy Spirit a person?

  • Thread starter Thread starter postwriter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In my humble opinion the personal characteristics of the Holy Spirit shown in scripture is the same as the Father’s characteristics. If the Holy Spirit is God’s Spirit then it cannot be separate from God’s person.
Since Romans 8:9 and 1 Peter 1:11 identifies this same spirit as “the Spirit of Christ” and Philippians 1:19 as “the Spirit of Jesus Christ”, does this mean that you hold that the Spirit cannot be separate from Jesus’ person also?

Does this mean that you understand God to be only one person?

And if you understand God (Father, Jesus, and Spirit) to be only one person rather three persons in one being, then how are we to understand the distinctions made between the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Spirit made in 1 Peter 1:2?
To God’s elect…who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood…
 
It is not three divine persons in one being…
It is three divine persons in One God.
 
It is not three divine persons in one being…
It is three divine persons in One God.
Are you implying that the great “I AM” is something other than a being?

I refer you to what the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia has to say with regard to defining “God” – “the proper name of the one Supreme and Infinite Personal Being, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, to whom man owes obedience and worship.” I used the term thusly.
 
Are you implying that the great “I AM” is something other than a being?

I refer you to what the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia has to say with regard to defining “God” – “the proper name of the one Supreme and Infinite Personal Being, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, to whom man owes obedience and worship.” I used the term thusly.
It is, “I Am who Am.” This is God telling Moses that He (God) always was and never had a beginning.

In (John 1) In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us…"

Jseus said, “I and the Father are one.” The Church teaches this as a mystery that we accept with fully understanding.
 
It is, “I Am who Am.” This is God telling Moses that He (God) always was and never had a beginning.

In (John 1) In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us…"

Jseus said, “I and the Father are one.” The Church teaches this as a mystery that we accept with fully understanding.
I am quite familiar with the passage from Exodus. I am also familiar with the fact that it can just as easily be translated as “I will be who I will be.” Thus making your interpretation of what God was telling Moses into a nonsense statement. I am also familiar with the fact that Jesus was himself making an allusion to this passage when he declare “Before Abraham was, I Am.” Given that, I don’t think it too irreverant to speak of God as “the great I AM.” Though you are certainly free to dispute my interpretation as I do yours.

But mostly, I do not understand how your responses are any sort of answer to any of my questions above. To say that Trinity does not speak of three divinge persons in one being but instead of three divine persons in one God, seems to me to be implying that you are implying that God is not a being.

I submit to you that God is indeed a being. Do you deny this?
If so, on what basis?
If not, then what did you mean by your original statement?
 
I am quite familiar with the passage from Exodus. I am also familiar with the fact that it can just as easily be translated as “I will be who I will be.” Thus making your interpretation of what God was telling Moses into a nonsense statement. I am also familiar with the fact that Jesus was himself making an allusion to this passage when he declare “Before Abraham was, I Am.” Given that, I don’t think it too irreverant to speak of God as “the great I AM.” Though you are certainly free to dispute my interpretation as I do yours.

But mostly, I do not understand how your responses are any sort of answer to any of my questions above. To say that Trinity does not speak of three divinge persons in one being but instead of three divine persons in one God, seems to me to be implying that you are implying that God is not a being.

We are going around in circles. You are looking for a definition of a Divine Mystery and no one is equipped to furnish that.

I accept the “Three Divine Persons in One God” explanation.

You want to play a semantic sort of joust; I can’t help you, sorry.

The Trinity is not understood fully by we mortals and it will remain a Mystery while we are in our mortal state.

Believe as you will.
 
You want to play a semantic sort of joust? I can’t help you, sorry.
How am I playing a semantic sort of joust. You are the one who said to me:
It is not three divine persons in one being…
It is three divine persons in One God.
Now if God is not a being, then what exactly do you hold God to be?

That is not asking you to explain a mystery, just asking you to define your terms. I gave you the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia definition, and you don’t seem to like it. In terms of one who simply wants to believe what one wants to believe, I think you might need to look within more than you seem willing to look.
 
One in Being with the Father

Since most Catholics are not acquainted with Greek philosophy and did not really know what the word “consubstantial” meant, the decision was made to translate the Latin consubstantialis (Greek: homoousios) by the English expression “one in Being” with the Father. The hope was that this expression would more clearly convey to all the faithful the orthodox belief of the Church concerning the relationship of Jesus to his Father.
In the third and fourth centuries one of the principle theological concerns was to define the exact relationship of Jesus the Son to the Father. The Arians said that the Son or Word was the first creature that God created — the noblest of all, but still a creature. This idea is not in accord with traditional Christian belief. It conflicted also with Scripture, for Jesus had said, “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10:30; 14:9-10). So it was a question of whether or not Jesus was fully divine. Is Jesus God in the same sense in which the Father is God?

There was much discussion about the question. Some of the early Fathers said that Jesus was “of one substance” with the Father. Some of the Greek Fathers, notably St. Athanasius, said that he was “consubstantial” (homoousios) with the Father. This was one of the questions that led to the calling of the first ecumenical council at the city of Nicea, near Constantinople, in the year 325 A.D. The bishops at that council rejected the Arian contention that the Word of God (Jesus) is the first creature of the Father. They proclaimed instead that the Catholic belief holds that the Son is fully equal to the Father. They said that he is “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made.” Each of these expressions has its own particular meaning which we explained previously. The council them summarized all of these statements in the key expression, that was to become the test of orthodoxy, by adding that **Jesus is “one in Being (consubstantial) with the Father”. **

We are dealing here with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. In this matter it is always important to remember that there is only one God who is tri-personal — Father, Son and Holy Spirit. By saying that Jesus is “one in Being with the Father”, the Church is asserting that Jesus is fully God, just as the Father is. Both share in the one divine nature or substance. Jesus proceeds from the Father but he retains the same being as the Father. Jesus is not a separate being from the Father, as is the case among creatures when a man and a woman generate a son. The son has the same specific nature as his parents, but he is a separate, independent being. Not so in the divine inner life. The Son is and exists by the same identical being as the Father does. This key idea was proclaimed by the first Council of Nicea and is now found in the Nicene Creed which has been prayed by the Church since that time. Some of the bishops at the Council of Nicea had difficulty with the expression “consubstantial” (homoousios) because it does not occur in the New Testament. The problem was resolved when they finally agreed that, even though the word itself is Greek in origin, the idea expressed by it is implied in the words of Jesus in the Gospels (see Jn 14:9-10).

The significance of the expression is that Jesus, who is one of us, is also God himself. This means that God is no longer removed from man. He has come near to us in Jesus of Nazareth. Now we know for sure that God loves us and is approachable.
 
How am I playing a semantic sort of joust. You are the one who said to me:

Now if God is not a being, then what exactly do you hold God to be?

That is not asking you to explain a mystery, just asking you to define your terms. I gave you the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia definition, and you don’t seem to like it. In terms of one who simply wants to believe what one wants to believe, I think you might need to look within more than you seem willing to look.
God is a supernatural spirit infinitely perfect.

He is the creator of all things.
 
God is a supernatural spirit infinitely perfect.

He is the creator of all things.
Which again doesn’t come close to even addressing the question.

You have made a statement:
It is not three divine persons in one being…
It is three divine persons in One God.

I’ve asked you to interpret that to me, define it, differentiate between your two sentences, or explain it in some way that might back up what you are saying, and yet you keep posting other comments instead. Even if all the rest of your statements are true, they don’t answer the question I am asking of you, namely, " How is saying that the Trinity consists of three person in one being wrong?"

I suggest you read what Thistle wrote above. I do not believe your first statement, “it is not three divine person in one being,” is in harmony with the Catholic faith.
 
Runandsew and SyCarl have done well in showing the deity and personality of the Holy Spirit. May I add the trinitarian passages where all three members are mentioned together (Matthew 28:19,20; I Cor. 12:4-6; II Cor. 13:14; Ephesians 4:4-6; I Peter 1:2; Jude 20-21).Once we understand God the Father and God the Son to be fully God, then the trinitarian expressions assume the deity of the Spirit for they show that the Holy Spirit is classified on an equal level with the Father and Son. We baptize in all three names, etc.
I Corinthians 2:10,11 argues for the Spirits diety and personhood by portraying him as one who fully comprehends God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top