The Trinity

[Doveaman]

We must have spirit to exist, it is impossible to exist without a spirit, that is like living without breathing, but that doesn't mean that the spirit is the conscious mind.

It may not be the conscious mind, but it enables the conscious mind.

Adam as a body made from dust did not have a conscious mind, but he became a living soul with a conscious mind after the spirit was breathed into him.

Where do you get that the Holy Spirit is two?

The Father and the Son are two existing as one Spirit, one Holy Spirit:

God is Spirit - John 4:24.

The Lord is the Spirit - 2 Cor 3:17.

I and My Father are one. - John 10:30.

It is one of the three, just as your spirit is one of your three components. You spirit is not two in soul and body.

Adam's soul was one soul consisting of a spirit and a body. The spirit and the body are two existing as one soul. The Father and the Son are two existing as one Spirit.

 

[LutheranMafia]

Adam's soul was one soul consisting of a spirit and a body. The spirit and the body are two existing as one soul. The Father and the Son are two existing as one Spirit.

The soul is all inclusive, it is everything about you throughout all time. It is your own personal alpha and omega. So in a sense you are correct, but I think you are missing the point. The soul can operate independently of the spirit and the conscious mind. That is what makes it a third person, rather than simply a superset of spirit and body. If anything, it is the soul that is two, but even that is not correct. The soul is more than just the combination of spirit and body.

 

[LutheranMafia]

Hi,
I checked Joshua 11:11 and it is 'nephesh' (soul) in that verse, not 'neshama'. 'Neshama' is breath as in Genesis 2:7 (breath of God).

Neshama is breath in Joshua 11:11 too. BlueLetterBible.org acts very confusingly when searching on neshama and souls.

As to Isaiah 57:16 the word souls there is translated from neshama.

 

[Mikecpking]

Neshama is breath in Joshua 11:11 too. BlueLetterBible.org acts very confusingly when searching on neshama and souls.

As to Isaiah 57:16 the word souls there is translated from neshama.

Isaiah 57:16 (New International Version)


16 I will not accuse forever,
nor will I always be angry,
for then the spirit of man would grow faint before me—
the breath of man that I have created.

Nesamah is 'breath. in this verse.

 

[LutheranMafia]

Apparently it depends on the version:

Isaiah 57:16 (King James Version)
16 For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth: for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made.

Isaiah 57:16 (American Standard Version)
16 For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth; for the spirit would faint before me, and the souls that I have made.

Isaiah 57:16 (New Living Translation)
16 For I will not fight against you forever;
I will not always be angry.
If I were, all people would pass away—
all the souls I have made.

Isaiah 57:16 (Amplified Bible)
16 For I will not contend forever, neither will I be angry always, for [if I did stay angry] the spirit [of man] would faint and be consumed before Me, and [My purpose in] creating the souls of men would be frustrated.

 

[Mikecpking]

Apparently it depends on the version:

Isaiah 57:16 (King James Version)
16 For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth: for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made.

Isaiah 57:16 (American Standard Version)
16 For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth; for the spirit would faint before me, and the souls that I have made.

Isaiah 57:16 (New Living Translation)
16 For I will not fight against you forever;
I will not always be angry.
If I were, all people would pass away—
all the souls I have made.

Isaiah 57:16 (Amplified Bible)
16 For I will not contend forever, neither will I be angry always, for [if I did stay angry] the spirit [of man] would faint and be consumed before Me, and [My purpose in] creating the souls of men would be frustrated.

Then it is upto the translator.

One must go back to the Hebrew root words rather than impose our own definitions of what a soul or spirit is and understand these then, from a Hebrew perspective.

 

[LutheranMafia]

It is an interesting verse, with such varied interpreation it points to complex nuances in the original. It is like the opposite of what neshama usually means as an exhalation, instead it is an inhalation and destruction of souls.

 

[Doveaman]

And I set my tabernacle among you: and my soul shall not abhor you.
Leviticus 26:11

So God has nephesh too. Interesting!

Maybe God is nephesh, since nephesh refers to a living being.

Adam became nephesh as he became a living being.

Perhaps God as nephesh refers to all that God consist of as a living being (Father and Son existing as one Holy Spirit being).

Perhaps Adam as nephesh refers to all that Adam consist of as a living being (spirit and body existing as one physical human being).

 

[LutheranMafia]

I don't think that the nephesh/ruach dichotomy is the same as the psyche (soul) / pnuema (spirit) dichotomy. The psyche refers to something very rarefied, the soul as we understand it today. Nephesh is very visceral, it is not like the soul as we think of it today. It is much more like the hamingja of Celtic and Germanic religious beliefs. Something that is passed down from generation to generation, and something that lower life forms can have, which is most definitely not the case for the psyche. Only highly evolved beings like humans can have a psyche.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

This thread is a good example of why a basic theology course should be required at every church.

Some helpful definition of terms:

Ousia. This Greek word was translated into the Latin Substantia, where we get Substance. Ousia refers to a thing's thing-ness or what-ness. It is the essence, the substance, the nature, the fundamental what of a thing. Being. God is one Ousia, God is one Thing, one Substance or Nature or Essence. Hear O Israel, the LORD your God, the LORD is one.

Hypostasis. This Greek word is a bit trickier, but basically it was translated into Latin as Persona, where we get Person. It's also translated as Subsistence. In the technical language of Trinitarian thought Hypostasis refers to a fundamental reality, the underlying-ness; the word is literally a compound of hypo ("under") and stasis ("to stand"). God is Three Hypostases. The Father is the Father, not the Son nor the Holy Spirit. The Son is the Son, not the Holy Spirit nor the Father. The Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit, not the Father nor the Son. This is the Father's Father-ness, the Son's Son-ness, and the Spirit's Spirit-ness. Or think of it this way" the reality of the Father is that He is the Father of the Son; the reality of the Son is that He is the Son of the Father; the reality of the Spirit is that He is the Spirit of the Father and the Son.

Ousia describes God's God-ness. Hypostasis describes the Father's Father-ness, the Son's Son-ness and the Spirit's Spirit-ness.

The Three share one, eternal, undivided Ousia: God. The Father is the one, eternal and undivided God. The Son is the one, eternal and undivided God. The Holy Spirit is the one, eternal and undivided God.

What the Father is, so is the Son and the Holy Spirit.
What the Son is, so is the Spirit and the Father.
What the Spirit is, so is the Father and the Son.

The Father is unbegotten and not proceeding.
The Son is begotten but not proceeding.
The Spirit is proceeding but not begotten.

Another term: Homoousios. For a more detailed look at the controversy surrounding this word which led to the Council of Nicea, Google it. It's worth it. Here's what it means: "the same ousia" that is "the same being"; homo ("same") + ousia ("being").

The Father, "before all ages" has begotten His Son. The Son is homoousios with the Father, the Son is the same Being, the same Substance, the same Ousia with the Father. The Son is "begotten, not made". The Son is "God of God". The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father [and the Son] (depending on which side of the whole Filioque debate you fall on), is "one with the Father and the Son" and "is to be worshiped and glorified".

The Three Hypostases are distinctbut not separatefrom each other.

Distinct: "Readily distinguishable from all others; discrete." Source

Separate: "To set or keep apart; disunite." Source

These are not "parts", God is undivided, un-partitioned, un-separated. One, Whole, Complete, Perfect.

These are distinct. The Father's Father-ness is distinct from the Son's Son-ness, and so forth. As already stated: the Father is the Father of the Son (that's why He is called the Father); the Son is the Son of the Father (that's why He is called the Son); and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son (that's why He is called the Holy Spirit).

I'm going to end this here, I'm rather tired. It would have been nice to touch also upon the concept of Perichoresis here in this post.

What I will do is leave a link to a totally awesome explanation of the Trinity that was given at the Eleventh Council of Toledo (a local Spanish council from the 7th century).

Link is found here: click me!

I hope this made sense and has been at least partly helpful.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[LutheranMafia]

The Three Hypostases are distinct but not separate from each other.

Distinct: "Readily distinguishable from all others; discrete." Source

Separate: "To set or keep apart; disunite." Source

Separate and distinct are synonyms in the thesaurus. Also, the phrase Qodesh Ruach means the "set-apart spirit of God". The word apart is used in the defintion of separate, not in the definition of distinct.

These are not "parts", God is undivided, un-partitioned, un-separated. One, Whole, Complete, Perfect.

And yet they are distinct persons. Why are persons not parts? You wouldn't object if I called body, spirit and soul separate parts of a human, even though they are clearly part of one being and not separate beings.

The only way, in my mind, to resolve the seeming contradiction that person and being are also synonymous, is to consider the divided and yet united nature of body, spirit and soul. They are separate minds that are united in a single identity.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

And yet they are distinct persons. Why are persons not parts? You wouldn't object if I called body, spirit and soul separate parts of a human, even though they are clearly part of one being and not separate beings.

The only way, in my mind, to resolve the seeming contradiction that person and being are also synonymous, is to consider the divided and yet united nature of body, spirit and soul. They are separate minds that are united in a single identity.

I don't believe that the "spirit, soul and body" are three parts of the human person. And they certainly aren't "separate minds". I only have one mind.

I'm one person, one creature. I have one mind.

The Trinity and the human person are non-analogous.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Doveaman]

The Trinity and the human person are non-analogous.

"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one." - 1 John 5:7-8.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one." - 1 John 5:7-8.

Discussion over the illegitimacy of the Comma Johanneum aside, what exactly has that to do with my point that the Trinity and the human person are non-analogous?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Doveaman]

Discussion over the illegitimacy of the Comma Johanneum aside, what exactly has that to do with my point that the Trinity and the human person are non-analogous?

"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one." - 1 John 5:7-8.

God as Trinity bear witness in heaven as Father, Word and Holy Spirit.

Jesus as Human bear witness on earth as Spirit, water and blood.

"There are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one." - 1 John 5:8.

"This is He who came by water and blood — Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth." - 1 John 5:6.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one." - 1 John 5:7-8.

God as Trinity bear witness in heaven as Father, Word and Holy Spirit.

Jesus as Human bear witness on earth as Spirit, water and blood.

"There are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one." - 1 John 5:8.

"This is He who came by water and blood — Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth." - 1 John 5:6.

Which still doesn't address my point that the Trinity is not analogous to the human person. You also seem to be trying to confuse Jesus and the Spirit here.

Jesus isn't the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit isn't Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Doveaman]

Which still doesn't address my point that the Trinity is not analogous to the human person.

My analogy would be:

"The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground (body) and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (spirit), and the man became a living being (human being)." - Gen 2:7.

Man is spirit and body existing as one human being, one physical human being.

God is Father and Son existing as one Spirit being, one Holy Spirit being.

You also seem to be trying to confuse Jesus and the Spirit here.
Jesus isn't the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit isn't Jesus.

I agree the Holy Spirit is not the Father or Son. The Holy Spirit is the Father and Son.

The Holy Spirit is the Father and Son existing as one Spirit being, one Holy Spirit being.

"God is Spirit" - John 4:24.

"The Lord is the Spirit" - 2 Cor 3:17.

"I and the Father are one." - John 10:30.

 

[LutheranMafia]

Discussion over the illegitimacy of the Comma Johanneum aside, what exactly has that to do with my point that the Trinity and the human person are non-analogous?

Lets assume that 1 John 5:7-8 is fabricated, it is still very telling that the Trinity is compared to an earthly triune symmetry. Given such an assumption, it is obvious that in the fabrication they had the clear idea that we are all made in the image of God, so we have three parts just as God has three parts.

1. Hebrews 4:12
   Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow;
2. 1 Thessalonians 5:23
   May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
3. Job 7:11
   I will speak out in the anguish of my spirit, I will complain in the bitterness of my soul.
4. Isaiah 26:9
   My soul yearns for you in the night; in the morning my spirit longs for you.

Failing to understand the triune nature of humans means that one cannot even approach the triune nature of God.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

My analogy would be:

"The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground (body) and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (spirit), and the man became a living being (human being)." - Gen 2:7.

Man is spirit and body existing as one human being, one physical human being.

God is Father and Son existing as one Spirit being, one Holy Spirit being.
I agree the Holy Spirit is not the Father or Son. The Holy Spirit is the Father and Son.

The Holy Spirit is the Father and Son existing as one Spirit being, one Holy Spirit being.

"God is Spirit" - John 4:24.

"The Lord is the Spirit" - 2 Cor 3:17.

"I and the Father are one." - John 10:30.

So you're a Binitarian then? We're talking about the Trinity here, Trinitas, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Three distinct Hypostases; one God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Lets assume that 1 John 5:7-8 is fabricated, it is still very telling that the Trinity is compared to an earthly triune symmetry. Given such an assumption, it is obvious that in the fabrication they had the clear idea that we are all made in the image of God, so we have three parts just as God has three parts.

1. Hebrews 4:12
   Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow;
2. 1 Thessalonians 5:23
   May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
3. Job 7:11
   I will speak out in the anguish of my spirit, I will complain in the bitterness of my soul.
4. Isaiah 26:9
   My soul yearns for you in the night; in the morning my spirit longs for you.

Failing to understand the triune nature of humans means that one cannot even approach the triune nature of God.

That whoever originally wrote the marginal note that became the Comma Johanneum saw some theological point in comparing the Trinity to acts or events in the life of Christ in terms of "bearing witness" seems obvious from the text of the Comma as-is.

What is not clear from the Comma is that the Triune nature of the one God is analogous or in any way whatsoever comparable to a hypothetical tripartite or triune nature of human being.

That said, claiming that one cannot "approach the triune nature of God" without first understanding the "triune nature of humans" is completely and utterly false. Those who framed the theology of the Trinity in the fourth and fifth centuries within the historical context of the Arian and Macedonian controversies did not base their theology upon some notion that man is some sort of miniature trinity.

-CryptoLutheran