Why Three Persons, not four?

[catholicsuffer]

catholicsuffer:
Indeed I do have the same view of the Spirit as did Saint Paul. 1 Corinthians 2:10 "This God has revealed to us through the Spirit.

Now, there is two ways to read that but only one is correct. Your arguments seems to be that the Spirit is God Spirit in that it is one and the same as God buy never separated.

Dan:
No, that is not my argument. My argument is that Paul is using an illustration of the Spirit of God to show how one can understand spiritual things. In order for this illustration to make its point it is necessary to understand that the Spirit of God is to God what the spirit of man is to man. The context has to do with knowledge and how to obtain it. There is nothing in this context of the separation of the spirit of man from the man.

NAB 1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written: “What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and what has not entered the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love him,” 10 this God has revealed to us through the Spirit.For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God. 11 **Among human beings, who knows what pertains to a person except the spirit of the person that is within? ** Similarly, no one knows what pertains to God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms

catholicsuffer:
Whereas, I read it as saying that it is the Spirit of God in that it is one and the same as God but also Separate. Just as your spirit will separate from your body one day,

Dan:
My argument and Paul’s argument has nothing to do with whether or not the spirit can leave the body. Whether or not it can leave the body is immaterial. The comparison of the Spirit of God as being the same thing to God as the spirit of man is to man is what Paul explicitly teaches. In both cases, the spirit is not a second person.

catholicsuffer:
however your spirit lives in a corrupt body which is only the temple but the Holy Spirit is a Spirit which is not housed in a body but is of another Spirit which is Both God and Son . This mystery is the same as when Jesus says that when you have seen the son you also have seen the Father. So, we have three spirits not two and this is called the Trinity. As Saint Paul goes on to say, this Spirit is from God so we may understand things from him. Note if the spirit was one and only one–that is God then Saint Paul would not keep saying the Spirit but just God. In that he keeps mentioning the Spirit then obviously he is meaning two different Spirits which one is of another.

Dan:
Three spirits is not the Trinity. The Trinity is three persons in one being.

O.K. Thanks for the correction.

quote
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.
unquote

Source: newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

Guess I always thought of things in Heaven as Spirits and not persons but as I said, I am not a theologian, but also as I said it is due to my experiences that I believe in what the Catholic Church teaches, not because I am a learned man. In other words, it is the Holy Spirit which led me beyond doubt that the Catholic Church is the True Church of Christ.

You are correct it is not in the bible, I think Christianity is about the Catholic Church as a whole which includes the bible and tradition and not just the bible.

quote:
In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (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 (To Autolycus II.15).
unquote

Source:newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

The above link goes on to give "Proof of doctrine from Scripture:. Some interesting reading.
The best supportive passage of Three persons is Matthew 28:18.

 

[Benadam]

You express your faith that these three exist. I concur, but that is not the Trinity.

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that the Father does all things through the Son by means of the holy spirit, but we do not teach they are the same being. No bible writer teaches that concept as a biblical teaching…

The bible describes three entities that can claim to have always been and be uncreated. The Creator, the Word, and the Spirit that hovered over the deep. If there were four then that fourth entity ( for lack of a better term) would also be able to claim to be one in being with God.

1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. 2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the *spirit *of God moved over the waters. 3 And God said: Be light made. And light was made.

The reference to God’s spirit is a wasted descriptor and even confusing without some factor to give purpos to the distinction. God created and God moved would have expressed as well or better otherwise. So the spirit of God and God can claim to have always been. God the Creator who we call the Father and God the mover who we call the Spirit.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God
Existence that claims to have already been in the beginning of all that is, it follows it always was.

 

[Dan_Parker]

The bible describes three entities that can claim to have always been and be uncreated. The Creator, the Word, and the Spirit that hovered over the deep. If there were four then that fourth entity ( for lack of a better term) would also be able to claim to be one in being with God.

1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. 2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the *spirit *of God moved over the waters. 3 And God said: Be light made. And light was made.

The reference to God’s spirit is a wasted descriptor and even confusing without some factor to give purpos to the distinction. God created and God moved would have expressed as well or better otherwise. So the spirit of God and God can claim to have always been. God the Creator who we call the Father and God the mover who we call the Spirit.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God
Existence that claims to have already been in the beginning of all that is, it follows it always was.

Dan:
In order for John 1:1 to teach that the Word already was, it would need to say “Before the beginning the Word was.” The preposition there is EN (in) and not PRO (before).

The Greek there is HN, the imperfect of the to-be verb, EANAI. You can see that this form has an inceptive sense in the prologue by looking at verse 10 where the syntax parallels John 1:1:

**EN **TWi KOSMWi **HN **= He **was **in the world. We know that he was not always in the world. In the context of this prologue he came down to the world when he became flesh.

Now look at John 1:1
**EN **ARXH **HN **hO LOGOS = In the Beginning **was **the Word.

Note the similarity?

Thus a consistent interpretation would lend support to the view that in John 1:1 the beginning is the beginning of the Word. (compare Rev 3:14)

 

[Benadam]

Dan:
In order for John 1:1 to teach that the Word already was, it would need to say “Before the beginning the Word was.” The preposition there is EN (in) and not PRO (before).

The Greek there is HN, the imperfect of the to-be verb, EANAI. You can see that this form has an inceptive sense in the prologue by looking at verse 10 where the syntax parallels John 1:1:

**EN **TWi KOSMWi **HN **= He **was **in the world. We know that he was not always in the world. In the context of this prologue he came down to the world when he became flesh.

Now look at John 1:1
**EN **ARXH **HN **hO LOGOS = In the Beginning **was **the Word.

Note the similarity?

Thus a consistent interpretation would lend support to the view that in John 1:1 the beginning is the beginning of the Word. (compare Rev 3:14)

I do see the similarity. I think.

example; in the world was the Word.
or, the Word was in the beginning.

I still don’t understand how that changes the meaning. The word ‘beginning’ isn’t referencing the Word. The word 'beginning is referencing a state and the word ‘was’ is referencing presence that is distinct from the beginning. JUst as the word ‘world’ references a state and the word ‘was’ references a presence that is distinct from the world. World describes a state termed by it’s nature and the word 'beginning is a state termed by it’s action. The world is obviously not attached to the Word as a descriptor. Doesn’t it follow that the word 'beginning is not a desriptor attached to the Word?

 

[catholicsuffer]

Dan:

Thus a consistent interpretation would lend support to the view that in John 1:1 the beginning is the beginning of the Word. (compare Rev 3:14)

Dan, I cut and paste this from the New Advent dot org site:
Quote:

14 And to the angel of the church of Laodicea write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, who is the beginning of the creation of God:

The Amen… that is, the true one, the Truth itself; the Word and Son of God. The beginning… he arche, that is, the principle, the source, and the efficient cause of the whole creation.

Unquote

I am understanding this as saying that Jesus is the direct cause of Creation not that he is being created. How are you interpreting this passage?

 

[Dan_Parker]

I do see the similarity. I think.

example; in the world was the Word.
or, the Word was in the beginning.

I still don’t understand how that changes the meaning. The word ‘beginning’ isn’t referencing the Word. The word 'beginning is referencing a state and the word ‘was’ is referencing presence that is distinct from the beginning. JUst as the word ‘world’ references a state and the word ‘was’ references a presence that is distinct from the world. World describes a state termed by it’s nature and the word 'beginning is a state termed by it’s action. The world is obviously not attached to the Word as a descriptor. Doesn’t it follow that the word 'beginning is not a desriptor attached to the Word?

If one takes the word HN (was) as inceptive, then it has the sense of coming into existence. So for example:

Jn 1:1 In the beginning the Word came to be and the Word came to be with God…
Jn 1:10 He came to be in the World…

Grammatically, no, the word ARXH (Beginning) is not a description of the Word. However the immediate context of John 1:1-4 and harmonization with Revelation 3:14 as well as Proverbs 8:22-30 makes a strong case for this.

The older punctuation is reflected in the NJB:
NJB John 1:3 Through him all things came into being, not one thing came into being except through him. 4 What has come into being in him was life, life that was the light of men;

What has come into being in him was life
hO GEGONEN EN AUTWi ZWH HN

This speaks of the beginning of life in the Word, his own life.

Athanasius has a different but related view:

1881 Athan. observes that this formula of the Arians is a mere evasion to escape using the word ‘time.’ vid. also Cyril. Thesaur. iv. pp. 19, 20. Else let them explain,—‘There was,’ what ‘when the Son was not?’ or what was before the Son? since He Himself was before all times and ages, which He created, de Decr. 18, note 5. Thus, if ‘when’ be a word of time, He it is who was ‘when’ He was not, which is absurd. Did they mean, however, that it was the Father who ‘was’ before the Son? This was true, if ‘before’ was taken, not to imply time, but origination or beginning. And in this sense the first verse of S. John’s Gospel may be interpreted ‘In the Beginning,’ or Origin, i.e. in the Father ‘was the Word.’ Thus Athan. himself understands that text, Orat. iv. §1. vid. also Orat. iii. §9; Nyssen. contr. Eunom. iii. p. 106; Cyril. Thesaur. 32. p. 312.

Athanasius (in Four Discourses Against the Arians) sees the beginning as the beginning of the Word but before time. Some patristic scholars hold the view that early theologians taught that the LOGOS was in the Father and then became a person before the creation of the universe.

 

[Benadam]

]NJB John 1:3 Through him all things came into being, not one thing came into being except through him. 4 What has come into being in him was life, life that was the light of men;
What has come into being in him was life
hO GEGONEN EN AUTWi ZWH HN

This speaks of the beginning of life in the Word, his own life.

from the DR
*

3

All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
What are your thoughts on this arrangement ?*

Athanasius has a different but related view:

Athanasius (in Four Discourses Against the Arians) sees the beginning as the beginning of the Word but before time. Some patristic scholars hold the view that early theologians taught that the LOGOS was in the Father and then became a person before the creation of the universe.

This is similar to the view I posted, that you kindly responded to, that began our dialogue

I believe that God has eternally generated Cognition of Himself and that ‘kind’ of Cognition generates what is known. God knowing God. A true Son who in his own person reveals God the Father.

 

[Dan_Parker]

What are your thoughts on this arrangement [from the DR]?

3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

Dan:
That punctuation comes much later as a response to the PNEUMOMACHIANS. If you look in the critical edition of the UBS4 they list the dates of the various Fathers who quoted that verse. Athanasius and those earlier than him quoted the punctuation as found in the NJB. History teaches us why they changed their punctuation of this verse and I strongly prefer the original older punctuation. I also feel it preserves the staircase parallelism better in the passage.

 

[Benadam]

Dan:
That punctuation comes much later as a response to the PNEUMOMACHIANS. If you look in the critical edition of the UBS4 they list the dates of the various Fathers who quoted that verse. Athanasius and those earlier than him quoted the punctuation as found in the NJB. History teaches us why they changed their punctuation of this verse and I strongly prefer the original older punctuation. I also feel it preserves the staircase parallelism better in the passage.

Thank you for educating me Dan. I’m going to reference the resources you mention and attempt a more refined opinion of the points you are communicating to me here.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan, I cut and paste this from the New Advent dot org site:
Quote:

14 And to the angel of the church of Laodicea write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, who is the beginning of the creation of God:

The Amen… that is, the true one, the Truth itself; the Word and Son of God. The beginning… he arche, that is, the principle, the source, and the efficient cause of the whole creation.

Unquote

I am understanding this as saying that Jesus is the direct cause of Creation not that he is being created. How are you interpreting this passage?

I view the term ARXH KTISEWS QEOU (beginning of the creation of God) to be the same phrase as found in Proverbs 8:22 in the Greek Septuagint:

LXE Proverbs 8:22 The Lord made me the** beginning of his ways** for his works.

The Greek is parallel in that the word ARXH is the head noun of a genitive phrase (not merely a possessive). When this occurs that which is represented as the beginning is a part of what follows. This can be demonstrated by comparing the other passages in Scripture with the same syntax.

I view Rev 3:14 as an allusion to Proverbs 8:22 and also to Colossians 1:15. It is interesting that the NAB renders ARXH as:
NAB Proverbs 8:22 "The LORD begot me, the first-born of his ways, the forerunner of his prodigies of long ago;

In Colossians 1:15 the word firstborn is also the head noun of a genitive phrase and is also found in Scripture always a part of the group in the context:

NAB Colossians 1:15 He is the image (2 )of the invisible God,** the firstborn of all creation**.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Thank you for educating me Dan. I’m going to reference the resources you mention and attempt a more refined opinion of the points you are communicating to me here.

You are welcome. Please also see the NAB notes on this verse.

NAB Notes (Joh 1:3)
<1> [1] What came to be: while the oldest manuscripts have no punctuation here, the corrector of Bodmer Papyrus P75, some manuscripts, and the Ante-Nicene Fathers take this phrase with what follows, as staircase parallelism. Connection with John 1:3 reflects fourth-century anti-Arianism.

 

[catholicsuffer]

I view the term ARXH KTISEWS QEOU (beginning of the creation of God) to be the same phrase as found in Proverbs 8:22 in the Greek Septuagint:

LXE Proverbs 8:22 The Lord made me the** beginning of his ways** for his works.

The Greek is parallel in that the word ARXH is the head noun of a genitive phrase (not merely a possessive). When this occurs that which is represented as the beginning is a part of what follows. This can be demonstrated by comparing the other passages in Scripture with the same syntax.

I view Rev 3:14 as an allusion to Proverbs 8:22 and also to Colossians 1:15. It is interesting that the NAB renders ARXH as:
NAB Proverbs 8:22 "The LORD begot me, the first-born of his ways, the forerunner of his prodigies of long ago;

In Colossians 1:15 the word firstborn is also the head noun of a genitive phrase and is also found in Scripture always a part of the group in the context:

NAB Colossians 1:15 He is the image (2 )of the invisible God,** the firstborn of all creation**.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I see you are a well study man, proving himself worthy. But I must strongly disagree with your use of the word allusion. I think that God is an unchanging God and that the Holy Spirit gives the same answer to Saint John as he had the old prophets and this certainly has been my personal experiences. Guess, I always will disagree with those who claims that Saint John got his writings from the old covenant prophets. I think he had the very same identical visions and prophecies but in the now sense.
Again thank you for taking the time to reply.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I see you are a well study man, proving himself worthy. But I must strongly disagree with your use of the word allusion. I think that God is an unchanging God and that the Holy Spirit gives the same answer to Saint John as he had the old prophets and this certainly has been my personal experiences. Guess, I always will disagree with those who claims that Saint John got his writings from the old covenant prophets. I think he had the very same identical visions and prophecies but in the now sense.
Again thank you for taking the time to reply.

I am not sure if you understand how I use the word allusion. It means that a text has a similar sense and language as a previous inspired text but that it is not a direct quotation. It also has the connotation that the writer and the audience would have made the connection, and perhaps you object to that thought.

However, my reference to an allusion is not part of my proof. My proof is in the grammar and context of those verses.

 

[catholicsuffer]

I am not sure if you understand how I use the word allusion. It means that a text has a similar sense and language as a previous inspired text but that it is not a direct quotation. It also has the connotation that the writer and the audience would have made the connection, and perhaps you object to that thought.

However, my reference to an allusion is not part of my proof. My proof is in the grammar and context of those verses.

No, I did not understand. Thank you for the clarification. And no I would definitely not object to the connotation that the writer and the audience had because that would be the Holy Spirit.

 

[Dougal]

Was god made up of only two people before Jesus was born?
Or did Jesus exist before he was born - in which case his birth was not a real birth?

 

[FCEGM]

Was god made up of only two people before Jesus was born?
Or did Jesus exist before he was born - in which case his birth was not a real birth?

Welcome to CAF, Dougal.

God is three eternal, infinite Persons (not “people”); one of those Persons, God the Son, became Incarnate as the Man Jesus. His birth was indeed very real.

This post from an earlier thread should help:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5405915&postcount=10

Also, you would find Frank Sheed’s book, Theology for Beginners, extremely helpful in understanding the nature of God and the Incarnation of the Son.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Welcome to CAF, Dougal.

God is three eternal, infinite Persons (not “people”); one of those Persons, God the Son, became Incarnate as the Man Jesus. His birth was indeed very real.

This post from an earlier thread should help:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5405915&postcount=10

Also, you would find Frank Sheed’s book, Theology for Beginners, extremely helpful in understanding the nature of God and the Incarnation of the Son.

I don’t recall if you participated in the earlier parts of this thread which deal with the phrase “in the beginning” in John 1:1 or not. Some of the discussion is in the thread by the name of John 1:1 that was moved to Apologetics. In this thread I quoted Athanasius where he speaks of John 1:1. There is a footnote** [1881] **to that text in this post where the editor of the ANF volume says that in the beginning is a reference to the Son being in the Father. Some other Catholics introduced comments by some early theologians like Theophilus who apparently interpreted this the same way as Athanasius.

Hence my question. Would not there be one person when the Son was in the Father?

===============================================================
1881 Athan. observes that this formula of the Arians is a mere evasion to escape using the word ‘time.’ vid. also Cyril. Thesaur. iv. pp. 19, 20. Else let them explain,—‘There was,’ what ‘when the Son was not?’ or what was before the Son? since He Himself was before all times and ages, which He created, de Decr. 18, note 5. Thus, if ‘when’ be a word of time, He it is who was ‘when’ He was not, which is absurd. Did they mean, however, that it was the Father who ‘was’ before the Son? This was true, if ‘before’ was taken, not to imply time, but origination or beginning. And in this sense the first verse of S. John’s Gospel may be interpreted ‘In the Beginning,’ or Origin, i.e. in the Father ‘was the Word.’ Thus Athan. himself understands that text, Orat. iv. §1. vid. also Orat. iii. §9; Nyssen. contr. Eunom. iii. p. 106; Cyril. Thesaur. 32. p. 312.

 

[FCEGM]

Would not there be one person when the Son was in the Father?

No. And, as the footnote explains, there is no “when” or “not when” in God since God never changes. And if using “when” as regards the origination of the Word this refers to - as has been explained to you previously - the order of origin within the Godhead without there being a priority of time or hierarchical superiority. Thus each of the three Persons is eternally a Person.

 

[Dan_Parker]

No. And, as the footnote explains, there is no “when” or “not when” in God since God never changes. And if using “when” as regards the origination of the Word this refers to - as has been explained to you previously - the order of origin within the Godhead without there being a priority of time or hierarchical superiority. Thus each of the three Persons is eternally a Person.

Two things.

1. A number of Fathers discuss John 1:1 in this context such as Theophilus. Here is a link and quote to what he said. Also note that he used the words “when” and “then” and “at first” which are temporal words. Can you as a Catholic now say that John 1:1a (in the beginning was the Word) means that “at first God was alone and the Word in him”?

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.iv.ii.ii.xxii.html
“You will say, then, to me: ‘You said that God ought not to be contained in a place, and how do you now say that He walked in Paradise?’ Hear what I say. The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person… of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam. For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds,the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought.** But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered… the first-born of all creation**, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,’… showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. **Then **he says, ‘The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence.’ The Word, then, being God, and being naturally… produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place.”(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf0…i.ii.xxii.html) (accessed 9/ 26/ 09)

1. Are you saying that if one does not accept the view of time as taught by Greek philosophy that this would mean that the Son was not a person before he was begotten by the Father? Theophilus said that “at first” God was alone.

 

[Dougal]

Thanks for the reply FCEGM.
However I am not much nearer an answer to the question: "did Jesus exist before he was born and if not was god made up of only two people (or persons if you prefer) prior to this?
Americans use ‘persons’ where English/Irish people use ‘people’ and there is no difference between them in common usage.