I would. Not just any atheist, but your book, sure.
Well that’s kind of you to say. The proof is in the pudding of course. What I have in mind is a book that traces the idea of the Holy Spirit from the breath of God that stirs the primordial chaos and animates the human being all the way to the Third Person of the Trinity. Many books exist that focus on various points of this process but I have not encountered one that would function as a biography, so to speak. I’m probably not qualified but such a book cries out to be written.
One book that I suspected must exist I have found. Two actually, both written by Cambridge don, Christopher Stead. One, about the impact of Greek philosophy on Judaism and early Christianity, and the second, about the influence of Greek philosophy on the formation of specific Christian doctrines.
Sorry, this is off topic. More to follow in due course, in its proper place.
One thing more. This hypothetical “biography” of the Holy Spirit must also survey the various Christian communities (many ultimately deemed heretical) who focused primarily on the HS as their primary path to the divine, sometimes even eclipsing Christ!
This would include groups such as the ante-Nicene Montanists all the way to modern Pentecostal/Charismatic movements. Interestingly this tendency was marked within the early monastic movement and was heavily influential on later forms of Christian Mysticism. It was also a domain wherein the idea of the Divine Feminine survived in Christianity, eclipsed later by, but influential on, Marian devotion.
the filioque debate…
Yep. The problem is to explain it without getting bogged down in it. Has there ever been an argument so fundamental and yet so utterly trivial? The best use of the episode is to highlight the various assumptions behind it. As a crack in a supposedly seamless wall of explication it reveals the “biography” of the HS entire. In fact, that might be the point to actual begin the book, with that controversy. And then go back and trace the threads that intertwined to form a knot at that point.
We begin to see why this book doesn’t exist. How could it be written and not be 800 pages?
Not so trivial when you see it as an implicit yet fundamental expression of the ultimate authority of the papacy, the vicar of Christ, over any working of the Spirit in the church.
Well certainly it was important politically. I guess I’m more interested in the idea of the HS than the ends to which the idea was applied.
Or was it not an attempt to kill the Holy Spirit?
If you consider the various points of view on all sides you can see that they recapitulate what at that point were very old arguments about the HS.
Perhaps we should break this off into a new thread…
Tempting but premature, perhaps. Right now I’m hip deep in John. I’ll know when I’m ready. Right now I’m still at the stage where I am more interested in what other people think. But thanks for the thought.
Stephen you should do it.
One thing I find interesting about the HS is the various affective roles he plays.
I mean, the Son is easy, he is Jesus–he became man and lived a human life so it is easy to relate to him affectively.
The Father ends up often effectively and devotionally equated to “God” simply–the unoriginate creator (see the first line of the Nicene Creed).
The Holy Spirit is this weird third. In some versions of Christianity (like Pentecostalism) he becomes an empty vessel into which one can pour all sorts of things. In other versions, he becomes little more than a name–stuff is attributed to him (in the technical, theological sense of the term), but he doesn’t even get a human name.
I wonder how much of the difference just boils down to how active we think God is in the contemporary world?
Ok before we go any further perhaps this series of posts about the Holy Spirit should be moved to a dedicated thread to free this one back up for its original purpose. I’ve been interested in the subject for a long time and am happy to discuss it although I am not yet prepared to take Robert’s suggestion. Meaning it shouldn’t turn into a forum for just me. At least not yet. 
In the meantime, since Robert asked, and for others interested in the influence of Greek philosophy on the doctrines of the early church –
** you do not have permission to see this link **
From the blurb: This book, which is written for nonspecialist readers, provides a concise conspectus of the emergence of philosophy among the Greeks, an account of its continuance in early Christian times, and its influence on early Christian thought, especially in formulating the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
From the blurb: The studies in this second collection by Professor Stead, which includes three pieces hitherto unpublished, investigate in detail the philosophical basis and legitimacy of important statements of early Christian doctrine, focusing on the writings of Arius, Athanasius and Augustine.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
There’s no blurb but this one traces the idea of Ousia/Substantia from Aristotle (and his precursors) to Nicaea (and its successors).
The conscientious Seeker after Truth will no doubt be more than willing to plunk down Big Bucks to a rapacious academic press. Those of us whose faith is tainted somewhat might be tempted to seek ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
As a one-time Pentecostal, who still feels there is absolutely no sane reason why anyone should demote (promote, I get) the Holy Spirit, I’m really looking forward to this thread.
I’m fascinated by the ruach. Earlier in the year I read ** you do not have permission to see this link **which focuses on its use in rabbinic literature.
Once experienced, I daresay it is impossible to forget that ** you do not have permission to see this link **
If they really wanted a Trinity, they should have also said that the Father proceeds from the Holy Spirit and the Son, and the Son proceeds from the Holy Spirit and the Father. The Holy Spirit would need to have been mentioned first in those last two dogmatic statements because neither the Father nor the Son can be conceived without the other. The Father of whom? The Son of whom? Only the Holy Spirit is genuinely mysterious enough of a foundation for some kind of divine Trinity. And that’s just an abstract consideration, not yet any kind of biography.
Indeed.
I see from a quick look at the linked dissertation, Ms. Danon considers the ruach as a metonym for God.
I want to say, the ruach would be a creative force emanating from what in the Kabbalah would be the ‘godhead‘, or ‘infinite eternal‘. In the Kabbalah the godhead would be the En-sof, which is the hidden root of the sefiroth tree. As a Christian concept, I suppose that could be the ‘Father’.
Thinking about the gospel of John, the ‘son’ is the Logos. In Kabbalah, the Torah (f) is an organism. God looked into the Torah upon proceeding to create. But the Torah does not precede God, Torah precedes creation. I like the gospel of John because I think the feminine element would already be contained in the creative emanation ruach because it emanates from the complete one. In John, the Holy Spirit is inspirational [?] in character, imparting its power to the son; and being inspirational, leaves the door open for any one else to similarly receive that inspirational power, which is what we see in the Upper Room.
Anyway, I thought I’d throw in 2 cents worth!
Thank you! You are correcting my understanding, Robert!
My rudimentary sketch following Schloem’s description does show the root as the en sof or ‘inner man’, or, perhaps as you’ve described it, beyond generic limitation, watery darkness, infinitely deep and chaotic. Could we say the undulating sanctuary of the unconsciousness? . . . and consciousness?
The second sefirah is the ‘seed of life’ (m) and the third sefirah is the ‘shekinah’ (f).
Shekinah is identified with the Torah (f) as it is revealed to men. To follow Torah is to clothe the Shekinah in radiant garments.
Roughly.
the unlimited, infinitely deep and chaotic, watery darkness that precedes even the first divine breath, inhaling and billowing, the silent breathing in before God can even speak the first word, the divine light that emanates from it, the אור אין סוף. The primeval dawn can only begin to scatter outward from an infinitely deep darkness.
Loved the above.
BJH1960 said
the unlimited, infinitely deep and chaotic, watery darkness that precedes even the first divine breath, inhaling and billowing, the silent breathing in before God can even speak the first word, the divine light that emanates from it, the אור אין סוף. The primeval dawn can only begin to scatter outward from an infinitely deep darkness.
Loved the above.
Yes. I do too. I want to strike out Could we say the undulating sanctuary of the unconsciousness? . . . and consciousness? from my reply. (Geez, strikeout is red ink.) It’s not really applicable to this discussion quite and I’m a little fuzzy on it. No thread drift intended.
I can see where I’m going to enjoy this thread. Already off to a good start.
Any discussion of the ruach hakodesh/pneuma hagion/Holy Spirit must begin with what I’ve already decided will be the epigraph of my hypothetical book. From T S Eliot’s ** you do not have permission to see this link ** (lines 359-365). It nicely encapsulates the ambiguity and mystery inherent in the figure.
Who is the third who walks always beside you?
When I count, there are only you and I together
But when I look ahead up the white road
There is always another one walking beside you
Gliding wrapt in a brown mantle, hooded
I do not know whether a man or a woman
—But who is that on the other side of you?
_____
the unlimited, infinitely deep and chaotic, watery darkness that precedes even the first divine breath, inhaling and billowing, the silent breathing in before God can even speak the first word, the divine light that emanates from it, the אור אין סוף. The primeval dawn can only begin to scatter outward from an infinitely deep darkness.
Not to get all crass and materialistic and atheist-y but doesn’t this sound like a poetic description of the fetal experience of the amniotic fluid and the sudden burst of light at birth? The fetus slowly comes to consciousness in a watery darkness to the beat of its mother’s heart and the rush of her breath. As adults we experience breath and heartbeat from the “outside” but surely deep in our psyche survives the memory of the “inside”, when the uterine wall made up our whole world!
_____
One thing I’ve always found annoying about modern English Bible translations is the insistence on always translating pneuma hagion as a proper noun when there are places where it seems, in context, clearly meant more impersonally. There is a big difference between the Holy Spirit as the Third Person of the Trinity and a “spirit of holiness” or even the “spirit of God”. This is like translating doulos as servant rather than slave! Ha! Who would do that? (Other than the NRSVE?) Someone’s theological bias is showing.
Examples?
Luke 1:35: The pneuma hagion will come upon you, and the dynamis of the Most High will overshadow you.
There seems to be a parallel being drawn here between pneuma hagion and dynamis presenting both not as persons but as aspects of God. This parallel also reoccurs in Acts 1:8. But then we find Matthew 10:20 and most interestingly of all, 1 Peter 1:11. Are the “spirit of the father” and the the “spirit of Christ” to be distinguished from the Holy Spirit? Then why not do that consistently?
Of course the publishers know which side of the bread the butter is on. If they modified it they would never hear the end of it. Godless Liberals!
If they really wanted a Trinity, they should have also said that the Father proceeds from the Holy Spirit and the Son, and the Son proceeds from the Holy Spirit and the Father. The Holy Spirit would need to have been mentioned first in those last two dogmatic statements because neither the Father nor the Son can be conceived without the other. The Father of whom? The Son of whom? Only the Holy Spirit is genuinely mysterious enough of a foundation for some kind of divine Trinity. And that’s just an abstract consideration, not yet any kind of biography.
You could come to the conclusion that neither side in the filioque wars were strictly Nicene in their viewpoint. When I say “recapitulate what at that point were very old arguments” I mean in one sense they’re still fighting the Arian war. Arianism had specific characteristics that distinguished it as a viewpoint but it was a variation of the dominant Christology of the second and third centuries which was a form of Subordinationism. As long as Christ is “firstborn of all creation” he is still subordinate to the Father. There’s no pressure to deal with the Holy Spirit yet, in the way the Nicene position forced you to. As long as the Son is subordinate the spirit can comfortably retain his/her/its aspect as an active emanation of God. Nicaea forced the issue by having the Holy Spirit be a person sharing the substance of the Father and the Son. And yet even then the HS seems an afterthought, destined to blow up in their faces down the line.
Who wants to write a book about the Trinity? To explain the HS you almost have to do that first. The center of gravity was always the Father and the Son. The HS always kind of got in the way.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)