“How is the Holy Spirit different from God the Father and Jesus the Son?”
The Creed of Saint Athanasius (still used in Lutheran services) defines how the three are alike and gives one way they are different:
“The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created but begotten. The
Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
Judith said
“How is the Holy Spirit different from God the Father and Jesus the Son?”The Creed of Saint Athanasius (still used in Lutheran services) defines how the three are alike and gives one way they are different:
“The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created but begotten. The
Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
I’m afraid that like a lot of confessions of faith this ultimately appears to be word salad. It seems to be saying something but not really saying anything. The next step is to define what “begotten” means and then you’re off to the races. From a contemporary perspective it all seems ephemeral and meaningless but it’s staggering and depressing to think how much blood has been spilt over this kind of thing.
But I will admit I have become fascinated by the figure of the Holy Spirit.
What did the Holy Spirit mean to the early Christians? How did the Holy Spirit become God? Who is doing that research?
Stephen said
Judith said
“How is the Holy Spirit different from God the Father and Jesus the Son?”The Creed of Saint Athanasius (still used in Lutheran services) defines how the three are alike and gives one way they are different:
“The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created but begotten. The
Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
I’m afraid that like a lot of confessions of faith this ultimately appears to be word salad. It seems to be saying something but not really saying anything. The next step is to define what “begotten” means and then you’re off to the races. From a contemporary perspective it all seems ephemeral and meaningless but it’s staggering and depressing to think how much blood has been spilt over this kind of thing.
But I will admit I have become fascinated by the figure of the Holy Spirit.
What did the Holy Spirit mean to the early Christians? How did the Holy Spirit become God? Who is doing that research?
Stephen, you are right. The creed leaves one’s mind jumbled when merely saying it. However, if memorized and then said dozens of times and with concentration (as when taking a long brisk walk alone), eventually it can be understood in a similar way as we understand a paradox. For example, a table is a stationary object when not being moved by someone or something. However, it also can be seen as being in constant movement because of its atoms.
The creed defines God, the Son and the Holy Ghost as one but different. It takes understanding it to comprehend it in the same way we come to understand a paradox.
Judith said
Stephen said
Judith said
“How is the Holy Spirit different from God the Father and Jesus the Son?”The Creed of Saint Athanasius (still used in Lutheran services) defines how the three are alike and gives one way they are different:
“The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created but begotten. The
Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
I’m afraid that like a lot of confessions of faith this ultimately appears to be word salad. It seems to be saying something but not really saying anything. The next step is to define what “begotten” means and then you’re off to the races. From a contemporary perspective it all seems ephemeral and meaningless but it’s staggering and depressing to think how much blood has been spilt over this kind of thing.
But I will admit I have become fascinated by the figure of the Holy Spirit.
What did the Holy Spirit mean to the early Christians? How did the Holy Spirit become God? Who is doing that research?
Stephen, you are right. The creed leaves one’s mind jumbled when merely saying it. However, if memorized and then said dozens of times and with concentration (as when taking a long brisk walk alone), eventually it can be understood in a similar way as we understand a paradox. For example, a table is a stationary object when not being moved by someone or something. However, it also can be seen as being in constant movement because of its atoms.
The creed defines God, the Son and the Holy Ghost as one but different. It takes understanding it to comprehend it in the same way we come to understand a paradox.
Not sure that however many times I said that it would make any sense. To my small mind, and talking to Christians of different persuasions over the years, the three in one might be described thus: the Father is the ineffable and unimaginable creator of all things; Jesus is the personification of God, who allows us to comprehend Him and His nature to a degree; the Holy Spirit is God entering me and communicating His wishes to me and who guides me through this vale of tears.
It still seems like a theological compromise and a doctrinal muddle to me. It is strange how differently Therevada Buddhism developed. Here one can to choose to take whatever one wishes from its belief system and reject the rest. There is no compunction to accept all or nothing. There is no ‘Anti-Buddha,’ worshipped by those with a different view to the group. There is no systematic violence and intolerance perpetuated by those from a different Buddhist interpretation (no Sunni v Shia or Protestant v Catholic). It also has nothing to say about God – it is utterly agnostic about whether such a being exists.
People tend to think more on the level of sentiment than on that of conceptual clarity.
In terms of motivation, nothing needs to be consistent or sensible. Whether thr Holy Spirit is simply another name for God, a modality or hypostatic phenomena is unimportant
HS may simply be a way of talking about passages like “and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.” Better yet passages describing Jesus’ conception particularly given the whole Virgin birth scenario. It would be interesting to see what words the expression Holy Spirit replaced in these texts.
Lastly, the concept may have simply been an undefined and only specified when people started trying to nail it down by asking well what does that mean and if there’s only one god, yada, yada, yada?
The Oxford Companion to the Bible says that “There is no distinct term for spirit in the languages of the Bible; the concept was expressed by a metaphorical use of words that mean, literally, wind and breath.… Wind is an invisible, unpredictable, uncontrollable force, which bears down on everything in its path; and people found early that they are exposed influences that affect them like the wind. Breath is a miniature wind, and from the metaphorical use of the term acquired a more precise and positive direction, for breath is essential to life.” There are at least ninety different references in the Bible that people now consider to be references to the Holy Spirit, but I’m reminded of what Bart has said on more than one subject. Different biblical writers have different ideas. I suspect the Holy Wind meant different things to different people, and the Trinity – first conceived by Tertullian around 200 CE – attempts to harmonize these different beliefs.
Lawyerskeptic said
The Oxford Companion to the Bible says that “There is no distinct term for spirit in the languages of the Bible; the concept was expressed by a metaphorical use of words that mean, literally, wind and breath.… Wind is an invisible, unpredictable, uncontrollable force, which bears down on everything in its path; and people found early that they are exposed influences that affect them like the wind. Breath is a miniature wind, and from the metaphorical use of the term acquired a more precise and positive direction, for breath is essential to life.” There are at least ninety different references in the Bible that people now consider to be references to the Holy Spirit, but I’m reminded of what Bart has said on more than one subject. Different biblical writers have different ideas. I suspect the Holy Wind meant different things to different people, and the Trinity – first conceived by Tertullian around 200 CE – attempts to harmonize these different beliefs.
It looks as if the early Christian idea of the Spirit was that it was God’s instrumental power on earth. God does not deal directly with a human, it takes place through an intermediate, that is, the Holy Ghost. This is clear from the birth narratives: Matt 1:20 and Luke 1:35. In Acts, there are numerous examples of Christians telling the word of God by the Holy Ghost.
Lawyerskeptic said
The Oxford Companion to the Bible says that “There is no distinct term for spirit in the languages of the Bible; the concept was expressed by a metaphorical use of words that mean, literally, wind and breath.… Wind is an invisible, unpredictable, uncontrollable force, which bears down on everything in its path; and people found early that they are exposed influences that affect them like the wind. Breath is a miniature wind, and from the metaphorical use of the term acquired a more precise and positive direction, for breath is essential to life.” There are at least ninety different references in the Bible that people now consider to be references to the Holy Spirit, but I’m reminded of what Bart has said on more than one subject. Different biblical writers have different ideas. I suspect the Holy Wind meant different things to different people, and the Trinity – first conceived by Tertullian around 200 CE – attempts to harmonize these different beliefs.
Yea, what he said!
I was actually thinking it might have had to do with either ambiguity of meaning or the substance of debates over god’s nature/physicality etc
gavriel said
Lawyerskeptic said
The Oxford Companion to the Bible says that “There is no distinct term for spirit in the languages of the Bible; the concept was expressed by a metaphorical use of words that mean, literally, wind and breath.… Wind is an invisible, unpredictable, uncontrollable force, which bears down on everything in its path; and people found early that they are exposed influences that affect them like the wind. Breath is a miniature wind, and from the metaphorical use of the term acquired a more precise and positive direction, for breath is essential to life.” There are at least ninety different references in the Bible that people now consider to be references to the Holy Spirit, but I’m reminded of what Bart has said on more than one subject. Different biblical writers have different ideas. I suspect the Holy Wind meant different things to different people, and the Trinity – first conceived by Tertullian around 200 CE – attempts to harmonize these different beliefs.It looks as if the early Christian idea of the Spirit was that it was God’s instrumental power on earth. God does not deal directly with a human, it takes place through an intermediate, that is, the Holy Ghost. This is clear from the birth narratives: Matt 1:20 and Luke 1:35. In Acts, there are numerous examples of Christians telling the word of God by the Holy Ghost.
If two members of the trinity are intermediaries doesn’t that make two if them inferior?
spiker said
gavriel said
Lawyerskeptic said
The Oxford Companion to the Bible says that “There is no distinct term for spirit in the languages of the Bible; the concept was expressed by a metaphorical use of words that mean, literally, wind and breath.… Wind is an invisible, unpredictable, uncontrollable force, which bears down on everything in its path; and people found early that they are exposed influences that affect them like the wind. Breath is a miniature wind, and from the metaphorical use of the term acquired a more precise and positive direction, for breath is essential to life.” There are at least ninety different references in the Bible that people now consider to be references to the Holy Spirit, but I’m reminded of what Bart has said on more than one subject. Different biblical writers have different ideas. I suspect the Holy Wind meant different things to different people, and the Trinity – first conceived by Tertullian around 200 CE – attempts to harmonize these different beliefs.It looks as if the early Christian idea of the Spirit was that it was God’s instrumental power on earth. God does not deal directly with a human, it takes place through an intermediate, that is, the Holy Ghost. This is clear from the birth narratives: Matt 1:20 and Luke 1:35. In Acts, there are numerous examples of Christians telling the word of God by the Holy Ghost.
If two members of the trinity are intermediaries doesn’t that make two if them inferior?
May be. But the earliest Christians didn’t think that way. They were perhaps united in the view of the Spirit as God’s instrument on earth, and for all I know, this may be derived from an earlier Jewish idea of God always manifesting himself through an intermediary. I may be wrong, but also Jesus subscribed to this idea, cf Mark 3:29, Matt 12:31-32, in which Jesus considers himself inferior to the Holy Ghost. Once Jesus’s followers came to accept him as highly elevated after his death, they inherited the problem of explaining three heavenly entities.
gavriel said May be. But the earliest Christians didn’t think that way. They were perhaps united in the view of the Spirit as God’s instrument on earth, and for all I know, this may be derived from an earlier Jewish idea of God always manifesting himself through an intermediary. I may be wrong, but also Jesus subscribed to this idea, cf Mark 3:29, Matt 12:31-32, in which Jesus considers himself inferior to the Holy Ghost. Once Jesus’s followers came to accept him as highly elevated after his death, they inherited the problem of explaining three heavenly entities.
Thanks Gav. That’s a good point. I recall Ehrman’s discussion in HJBG about “The Angel of the Lord” etc. It’s interesting that one has to read an agnostic to get reliable information about Christianity ( I know that isn’t entirely fair, but what the heck). As to the inherited problem, what interests me most there is the John 5:7 (the 3 that testify verse) imbroglio. Christians often respond to this as a problem of Biblical accuracy. This is to say that they quickly point out that it was taken out. But the more interesting question is why was it insisted upon in the first place. I’m not suggesting a conspiracy, corruption etc.
My understanding is as Erasmus was putting together a publishable manuscript, he was contacted about including either this verse or a more general reference in his manuscript. I think he had concerns about inclusion, but was eventually satisfied and included this verse. The problem is, the verse’s inclusion would have certainly shaped debates and explanations about “three heavenly entities” Consider how easy it might be to do away with objections to to the trinity by simply citing this verse. While the verse was eventually removed, that didn’t alter its affect on these debates. While it has been fairly argued that important Christian doctrines depend on many different things, one still has to wonder why then insist on the verses inclusion? Either the verse is unimportant and doesn’t figure into “the problem of explaining three heavenly entities” or it’s important enough to insist on and therefore worth considering.
something i dont understand about persons in trinity
if the father is a spirit/unseen person, holy ghost is spirit/unseen person and jesus is spirit/unseen person, then 3 ghosts/spirits?
or is there something physical and measurable in the trinity?
why can’t the father get of his high seat and play the role of the son? is there something in his nature which prevents him from acting out incarnation? he clearly is a separate person with separate mind from the son.
Kazibwe Edris said
something i dont understand about persons in trinityif the father is a spirit/unseen person, holy ghost is spirit/unseen person and jesus is spirit/unseen person, then 3 ghosts/spirits?
or is there something physical and measurable in the trinity?
why can’t the father get of his high seat and play the role of the son? is there something in his nature which prevents him from acting out incarnation? he clearly is a separate person with separate mind from the son.
That’s probably not accurate, Kaz. The Father is unseen because, it seems, of choice since he chooses to comunicate with humans through intermediaries. And the son is incarnate
MMahmud said
Didn’t some early Jews/Christians think of the holy spirit as a sort of angel?
I would imagine so. Bible students who did not believe the three-in-one formula (which did not even exist in NT times!) would regard Jesus as the son of God, and the spirit as the inanimate power of God.
The “greatest faith” is attributed to the centurion, a man of authority over servants (Luk 7,8-9), who appreciated that Jesus, having the authority of God, only had to say (or breathe) the word and it would be done.
The OT reveals the servants that do God’s bidding are – the angels (Ps 103:20).
If the Father “sends” one of his servants to do his bidding (John 14:26) an angel is the best choice.
(If Jesus believed the spirit was co-equal, would it not have been more polite to “ask”, rather than “send”?)
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)