When was the Holy Spirit born?

Tim Robbins · 19-11-2012 10:10PM #1

Hi,
Excuse my ignorance, when was the Holy Spirit born?

Got always existed, Jesus / God as person born 2000 years ago in human flesh dies around 30 years later and now exists as a spirit.

Any dates on Holy Spirit?

Thanks.

tony81 · 19-11-2012 10:22PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Got always existed, Jesus / God as person born 2000 years ago in human flesh dies around 30 years later and now exists as a spirit.

Incorrect.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Any dates on Holy Spirit?

This might be a good start, at least for the Catholic view.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed#Latin_Rite

(also Wikipedia) God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are "of one being" in that the Son is "begotten" "before all ages" or "eternally" of the Father's own being, from which the Spirit also eternally "proceeds."

Tim Robbins · 19-11-2012 10:57PM

tony81 wrote: »

Incorrect.

This might be a good start, at least for the Catholic view.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed#Latin_Rite

(also Wikipedia) God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are "of one being" in that the Son is "begotten" "before all ages" or "eternally" of the Father's own being, from which the Spirit also eternally "proceeds."

You know something I knew that off by heart when I was young. Said it hundreds of times and I just read it again and it still doesn't answer the question.

tony81 · 19-11-2012 11:00PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You know something I knew that off by heart when I was young. Said it hundreds of times and I just read it again and it still doesn't answer the question.

Perhaps this will help you:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Catechism-Council-Trent-ebook/dp/B0037Z6MIE/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1353366193&sr=1-1

Tim Robbins · 19-11-2012 11:04PM

tony81 wrote: »

Perhaps this will help you:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Catechism-Council-Trent-Classic-Reprint/dp/1440083487

I would prefer to see if there is a simple answer from scripture first.

lmaopml · 19-11-2012 11:49PM

You could look up both the 'Word' and the 'Breath' of God in order to understand the Trinity Tim in any online Bible. Remembering that when we use 'words' to describe God, we're quite limited to descriptions that are part of our own understanding at times, and our own 'senses' too...

The Trinity is not meant to be an 'exact' description or diagram of God whom we are unable to 'fully' understand, and well really shouldn't anyway - quite frankly we're not - we don't, and nobody can. We know only what is revealed about what we call in 'human' terms his 'nature' - but God is Spirit, not human.

We're told that God is 'Love' the 'Creator' of all things, all knowing, all seeing, eternal - from Scripture. The Father is God, Jesus the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God also.

The Holy Spirit is 'Truth', he 'reveals', gives greater 'understanding' and 'wisdom' to discern, understand etc. ( all the gifts of the Spirit, and the charisms as elaborated in Scripture ) the love shared between Father and Son, that makes the Trinity much like a 'family' to our understanding, but ALL one, ALL eternal. Even the concept of eternity is difficult for our puny minds to grasp - we tend to be locked into 'temporal' understanding at times.

Think of a Shamrock, three Persons in one God - no beginning, no end. The Holy Spirit was not 'born' he IS, Always was, and Always will be. Hope that helps somewhat

Fanny Cradock · 19-11-2012 11:58PM

Born?

I would have thought that orthodox Christianity holds to the Trinity as always having been rather thane something that was assembled over time. Read the various creeds out there if you want clarification of what people have thought and till do.

Peregrinus · 20-11-2012 03:38AM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I would prefer to see if there is a simple answer from scripture first.

Well, if you want “a simple answer from scripture” you could do worse than look at the very first lines, Gen 1:1-2:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.”

So, there you have it. The Spirit, however we understand that, was there in the beginning.

And you could also look at the opening lines of the Gospel of John (Jn 1:1-4, 14):

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men . . .

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.”

John is very consciously echoing the opening words of Genesis, and saying that not only was the Spirit a reality from the beginning, but so was the Word. The birth of Jesus was the incarnation - becoming flesh - of the Word, but the Word was eternally pre-existent.

This is challenging stuff, but these are key texts for the Christian understanding of the Trinity. The Father, the Son (or Word) and the Spirit dwell in one another eternally, and the key word here is “eternally”; everything else has a beginning, but God, in any of his Persons, does not.

Tim Robbins · 20-11-2012 10:14AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, if you want “a simple answer from scripture” you could do worse than look at the very first lines, Gen 1:1-2:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.”

So, there you have it. The Spirit, however we understand that, was there in the beginning.

And you could also look at the opening lines of the Gospel of John (Jn 1:1-4, 14):

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men . . .

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.”

John is very consciously echoing the opening words of Genesis, and saying that not only was the Spirit a reality from the beginning, but so was the Word. The birth of Jesus was the incarnation - becoming flesh - of the Word, but the Word was eternally pre-existent.

This is challenging stuff, but these are key texts for the Christian understanding of the Trinity. The Father, the Son (or Word) and the Spirit dwell in one another eternally, and the key word here is “eternally”; everything else has a beginning, but God, in any of his Persons, does not.

Oh ok, so the Holy Spirit is older than Jesus. Thanks.

Benny_Cake · 20-11-2012 10:44AM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Oh ok, so the Holy Spirit is older than Jesus. Thanks.

Did you actually read Peregrinus's reply? The vast majority of Christians identify the Word (or Logos) as the pre-existent Son of God, which became incarnate as Jesus Christ 2000 years ago. Father, Son and Holy Spirit - one God, three persons, co-eternal and consubstantial.

georgieporgy · 20-11-2012 11:01AM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Did you actually read Peregrinus's reply? The vast majority of Christians identify the Word (or Logos) as the pre-existent Son of God, which became incarnate as Jesus Christ 2000 years ago. Father, Son and Holy Spirit - one God, three persons, co-eternal and consubstantial.

To be fair to Tim (he did ask us to excuse his ignorance in the OP) I think he may have meant The Holy Spirit existed prior to the Incarnation of the Word at the birth of Jesus, so is "older than Jesus" in that sense.

Benny_Cake · 20-11-2012 11:05AM

georgieporgy wrote: »

To be fair to Tim (he did ask us to excuse his ignorance in the OP) I think he may have meant The Holy Spirit existed prior to the Incarnation of the Word at the birth of Jesus, so is "older than Jesus" in that sense.

Fair enough point, didn't mean to be sharp with you Tim!

Tim Robbins · 20-11-2012 01:03PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Fair enough point, didn't mean to be sharp with you Tim!

Jesus born 00.
God - never born.
Holy Spirit - never born.
Moses given this information and told us.

Fanny Cradock · 20-11-2012 01:25PM

There is a difference between Jesus eternally existing and Jesus becoming flesh. Read up on the incarnation if you want to know more.

Also, rather than saying "never born" I would think that a term like "uncreated" with be more familiar in theological circles.

Fanny Cradock · 20-11-2012 01:52PM

In addition to the above post, I don't think we know these things because Moses told us. This would be because Moses presumably knew next to nothing about the Trinity.

Tim Robbins · 20-11-2012 04:57PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In addition to the above post, I don't think we know these things because Moses told us. This would be because Moses presumably knew next to nothing about the Trinity.

Exactly.

Just wondering if Christians believe begin at conception, when did Jesus's human life begin if Mary was a virgin?

Fanny Cradock · 20-11-2012 05:35PM

You seem to have answered your own question. Jesus' incarnate life began at conception, just like yours or mine. Before that he neither began nor was he created.

Like I suggested earlier, Classical theology, orthodox Christianity or whatever else you want to appeal to doesn't propose that God suddenly decided to expand and add a couple more parts to himself.

Tim Robbins · 20-11-2012 07:53PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You seem to have answered your own question. Jesus' incarnate life began at conception, just like yours or mine. Before that he neither began nor was he created.

So if conception happened, are you saying there was a sperm cell that met the egg and a normal gestation period - with morning sickness or what?

Seaneh · 20-11-2012 08:09PM

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Tim Robbins · 20-11-2012 08:15PM

Seaneh wrote: »

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I just ask questions. Is that obtuse now?

Benny_Cake · 20-11-2012 08:39PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I just ask questions. Is that obtuse now?

It depends, I'm not really sure what you're expecting to hear. Probably, some theologians have spent time considering whether a sperm cell was involved or how long the gestation period was, but I'd doubt it's central to anyone's faith here. What we have to go on in relation to the birth of Jesus is in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, that might be a good place to start if you're genuinely interested.

J C · 20-11-2012 10:28PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I just ask questions. Is that obtuse now?

In fairness, you have asked a valid question ... and you deserve an answer.
Jesus Christ has existed eternally as the Second Divine Person of God.
He was incarnated i.e. took on a Human body, at the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary, when He was conceived.
It is likely that sperm and egg weren't involved ... He was probably implanted as a Directly Created Divine Human Zygote by the Holy Spirit.

The gestation was the normal 9 months of Human pregnancy ... and He went through all of the stages of Human development from Conception to Adulthood.
... and Mary was the first 'surrogate' Human mother.

Tim Robbins · 20-11-2012 10:54PM

J C wrote: »

In fairness, you have asked a valid question ... and you deserve an answer.
Jesus Christ has existed eternally as the Second Divine Person of God.

Does this mean Holy Spirit was third?

He was incarnated i.e. took on a Human body, at the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary, when He was conceived.
It is likely that sperm and egg weren't involved ... He was probably implanted as a Divine Human Zygote by the Holy Spirit.

The gestation was the normal 9 months of Human pregnancy ... and He went through all of the stages of Human development from Conception to Adulthood.
... and Mary was the first 'surrogate' Human mother.

Ok, so none of Marys's genes would have been in Jesus's DNA.

So if none of Mary's genes or Joseph's genes were in Jesus, would God have used similar genes from the area so that Jesus looked Jewish and Arabic?

And who would have circumcised him?

At what stage would Mary and Josephy have been told that they are not the real parents. Obviously, they would have thought they were at the beginning.

Many thanks.

Peregrinus · 20-11-2012 11:07PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Does this mean Holy Spirit was third?

Yes.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Ok, so none of Marys's genes would have been in Jesus's DNA.

We don't know that.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

So if none of Mary's genes or Joseph's genes were in Jesus, would God have used similar genes from the area so that Jesus looked Jewish and Arabic?

We don't know that either.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

And who would have circumcised him?

A priest or religious official, same as for any other Jewish boy. The event is mentioned in Luke 2:21.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

At what stage would Mary and Joseph have been told that they are not the real parents. Obviously, they would have thought they were at the beginning.

Mary was his real mother. The gospels do not record what he was told about his relationship to Joseph, or when.

Fanny Cradock · 20-11-2012 11:12PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Does this mean Holy Spirit was third?

I would encourage you to actually go off and read up on these beliefs for yourself. Most of your questions to date would have been covered by reading a basic introduction into Christianity.

It is generally a basic statement of belief that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Ok, so none of Marys's genes would have been in Jesus's DNA.

So if none of Mary's genes or Joseph's genes were in Jesus, would God have used similar genes from the area so that Jesus looked Jewish and Arabic?

Who knows, Tim.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

And who would have circumcised him?

I would imagine the local friendly Rabbi would have conducted the bris. As far as I know, and that is not to say much, this ceremony would have been conducted within about 8 days of birth.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

At what stage would Mary and Josephy have been told that they are not the real parents. Obviously, they would have thought they were at the beginning.

Many thanks.

Read the Gospel of Matthew.

Fanny Cradock · 20-11-2012 11:16PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

The event is mentioned in Luke 2:21.

Nice reference.

Doc Farrell · 20-11-2012 11:19PM

I'm struggling to see the connection with the thread title. If a troll from the 21st century met a troll from an east European fairy tale what would their DNA relationship be?

J C · 20-11-2012 11:52PM

Doc Farrell wrote: »

I'm struggling to see the connection with the thread title. If a troll from the 21st century met a troll from an east European fairy tale what would their DNA relationship be?

Are you talking about yourself here Doc?
... and who is the lucky fairy tale character?:):D

J C · 21-11-2012 12:21AM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Does this mean Holy Spirit was third?
Yes

Ok, so none of Marys's genes would have been in Jesus's DNA.
Yes ... Jesus was true God and true Man (the Second Adam) ... and not Half God and half man ... which wouild be the case, if Mary and God were His genetic parents.

So if none of Mary's genes or Joseph's genes were in Jesus, would God have used similar genes from the area so that Jesus looked Jewish and Arabic?
The Holy Spirit Directly Created Jesus the man at the Annunciation. His genetics were perfect ... and unique ... just like the First Adam.

And who would have circumcised him?
A rabbi

At what stage would Mary and Josephy have been told that they are not the real parents. Obviously, they would have thought they were at the beginning.
Mary knew all along ... and Joseph was told in a dream, as he was preparing to divorce her.

Many thanks.
Thanks for your interesting ... and thought-provoking question.

.

philologos · 21-11-2012 07:43AM

The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity. it wasn't born. It's worth adding that Jesus is pre-eminent namely that He existed prior to His earthly birth with the Father. That's why it's referred to as the Incarnation.

Looking at Genesis 1:2 we see the Spirit of God passing over the waters.

Peregrinus · 21-11-2012 07:49AM

philologos wrote: »

The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity. it wasn't born. It's worth adding that Jesus is pre-eminent namely that He existed prior to His earthly birth with the Father. That's why it's referred to as the Incarnation.

I think confusion arises because "Jesus" is the name given to the incarnate Word, and the Word became incarnate at a particular point in human history. We can say, therefore, that before that point there was no Jesus; Jesus was indeed born (and indeed the celebration of the birth of Jesus is one of the major highlights of the Christian year).

But the Word was not born. The Word is eternally preexistent, with the Father and the Spirit.

philologos · 21-11-2012 08:10AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think confusion arises because "Jesus" is the name given to the incarnate Word, and the Word became incarnate at a particular point in human history. We can say, therefore, that before that point there was no Jesus; Jesus was indeed born (and indeed the celebration of the birth of Jesus is one of the major highlights of the Christian year).

But the Word was not born. The Word is eternally preexistent, with the Father and the Spirit.

The Word was incarnated in human flesh. Jesus existed before his birth. That's why He says before Abraham I am prior to the Jews trying to stone Him in John 8. Or this is why Colossians says Jesus was the first born of creation.

The Bible makes clear that The Son was pre-eminent and Jesus does in his own words.

getz · 21-11-2012 08:29AM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Exactly.

Just wondering if Christians believe begin at conception, when did Jesus's human life begin if Mary was a virgin?

early christians did not believe in the virgin birth,mark never even mentioned in his gospel,yet it would have been[if it had happened]the biggest publicity any religion could get,as far as the holy spirit the most accurate writings is in the torah,[first five books of the old testament ] and not the later christain slant on it,

Peregrinus · 21-11-2012 08:36AM

I don't think there's any disagreement between us, Phil. The Second Person of the Trinity, the Word, the Son, is preexistent and eternal, neither born nor made. I think Paul's statement in Col 1:15 that Christ is "the first born of all creation" has to be read in light of John's (later) statement that the Word was with God (and, indeed, was God) in the beginning and that "all things were made through him" - i.e. he is Creator, not created, and therefore can't truly be ranked anywhere "in all creation", because "creation" is a category that does not include the Word. I think Paul's statement in Col 1 is taken as an assertion that Jesus precedes creation.

The name "Jesus" is given to the incarnate Word (by Mary, on the instructions of Gabriel; Luke 1:31). Since the incarnation occurred at a particular point in human history there was a time - in the human perspective - when there was no incarnate Word and, therefore, in that sense of "Jesus", no Jesus.

Monty Burnz · 21-11-2012 08:45AM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Born?

I would have thought that orthodox Christianity holds to the Trinity as always having been rather thane something that was assembled over time. Read the various creeds out there if you want clarification of what people have thought and till do.

He raises an interesting point though - is this outlined clearly anywhere in the scriptures or was this all just agreed by men in smoky rooms?

Porkchop McGee · 21-11-2012 08:53AM

lmaopml wrote: »

You could look up both the 'Word' and the 'Breath' of God in order to understand the Trinity Tim in any online Bible. Remembering that when we use 'words' to describe God, we're quite limited to descriptions that are part of our own understanding at times, and our own 'senses' too...

The Trinity is not meant to be an 'exact' description or diagram of God whom we are unable to 'fully' understand, and well really shouldn't anyway - quite frankly we're not - we don't, and nobody can. We know only what is revealed about what we call in 'human' terms his 'nature' - but God is Spirit, not human.

We're told that God is 'Love' the 'Creator' of all things, all knowing, all seeing, eternal - from Scripture. The Father is God, Jesus the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God also.

The Holy Spirit is 'Truth', he 'reveals', gives greater 'understanding' and 'wisdom' to discern, understand etc. ( all the gifts of the Spirit, and the charisms as elaborated in Scripture ) the love shared between Father and Son, that makes the Trinity much like a 'family' to our understanding, but ALL one, ALL eternal. Even the concept of eternity is difficult for our puny minds to grasp - we tend to be locked into 'temporal' understanding at times.

Think of a Shamrock, three Persons in one God - no beginning, no end. The Holy Spirit was not 'born' he IS, Always was, and Always will be. Hope that helps somewhat

You continually refer to this spirit as 'he', how can something with no physical form have a gender?

getz · 21-11-2012 09:05AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think confusion arises because "Jesus" is the name given to the incarnate Word, and the Word became incarnate at a particular point in human history. We can say, therefore, that before that point there was no Jesus; Jesus was indeed born (and indeed the celebration of the birth of Jesus is one of the major highlights of the Christian year).

But the Word was not born. The Word is eternally preexistent, with the Father and the Spirit.

december the 25th?.luke claims jesus was born when quirinus was a roman official in syria,that was 6 AD,matthew claims jesus was born whilst herod rained ,herod died in 5 BC,jesus could not of been born in dec or jan,luke 2:8 states that shepherds were out watching their flocks by night,no flocks are kept out in winter in israel as the average temp 5 or 6 degrees celsius,early christians did not celebrate christmass and dident know when jesus was born,but early christian fathers noted that only pagan sun worshippers celerbrate on the 25th of december, that changed in the year 323 when constantine started the roman church

Peregrinus · 21-11-2012 09:11AM

getz wrote: »

early christians did not believe in the virgin birth,mark never even mentioned in his gospel,yet it would have been[if it had happened]the biggest publicity any religion could get,as far as the holy spirit the most accurate writings is in the torah,[first five books of the old testament ] and not the later christain slant on it,

It depends on what you mean by “early Christians”. Mark doesn’t mention it but, then, he gives no account at all of the birth of Jesus, and in fact only the sketchiest biographical details; his focus is entirely on an account of Jesus’ public ministry.

Matthew and Luke both affirm the virgin birth with some emphasis and, since their accounts are completely different from one another, we know this is not a point that one took from the other, or both took from a common source. This suggests that, by the time they were writing, a virgin birth tradition was widespread in the Christian movement, and had been for some time. There were certainly first-generation Christians around when Matthew and Luke were being written.

So it’s a pretty early Christian belief, if not perhaps as early as the belief in the resurrection.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

He raises an interesting point though - is this outlined clearly anywhere in the scriptures or was this all just agreed by men in smoky rooms?

Certainly not “in smoky rooms”! It’s thrashed out in a very public way, involving a great many people, over a longish period of time. There’s nothing covert about it, and it’s not a top-down process; quite the reverse.

The beginning of this process is reflected in scripture - we can see the development of Paul’s understanding between his earlier and later letters, and we can also see development between the earliest gospel - Mark - through to the latest - John. But the process continued for a couple of centuries after that before the doctrinal statements that we are now familiar with were articulated.

Porkchop McGee wrote: »

You continually refer to this spirit as 'he', how can something with no physical form have a gender?

The Spirit has no gender. (Neither, for that matter, do the Father or the Word.) It’s just that English lacks a pronoun for a genderless person and, for better or worse, the masculine is the pronoun we tend to use for a person of unspecified gender.

Peregrinus · 21-11-2012 09:13AM

getz wrote: »

december the 25th?.luke claims jesus was born when quirinus was a roman official in syria,that was 6 AD,matthew claims jesus was born whilst herod rained ,herod died in 5 BC,jesus could not of been born in dec or jan,luke 2:8 states that shepherds were out watching their flocks by night,no flocks are kept out in winter in israel as the average temp 5 or 6 degrees celsius,early christians did not celebrate christmass and dident know when jesus was born,but early christian fathers noted that only pagan sun worshippers celerbrate on the 25th of december, that changed in the year 323 when constantine started the roman church

I never mentioned 25 December. We have no idea what time of the year Jesus was born. We celebrate his birth on 25 December, but not out of any belief that this was the date of his birth.

philologos · 21-11-2012 09:14AM

getz wrote: »

december the 25th?.luke claims jesus was born when quirinus was a roman official in syria,that was 6 AD,matthew claims jesus was born whilst herod rained ,herod died in 5 BC,jesus could not of been born in dec or jan,luke 2:8 states that shepherds were out watching their flocks by night,no flocks are kept out in winter in israel as the average temp 5 or 6 degrees celsius,early christians did not celebrate christmass and dident know when jesus was born,but early christian fathers noted that only pagan sun worshippers celerbrate on the 25th of december, that changed in the year 323 when constantine started the roman church

The Bible doesn't tell us what time of year Jesus was born, it probably wasn't the 25th. I wouldhope most would know that the 25th was a pagan festival taken over by Christians. It doesn't bother me that much. It's a good opportunity to explain the gospel to others.

philologos · 21-11-2012 09:17AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think there's any disagreement between us, Phil. The Second Person of the Trinity, the Word, the Son, is preexistent and eternal, neither born nor made. I think Paul's statement in Col 1:15 that Christ is "the first born of all creation" has to be read in light of John's (later) statement that the Word was with God (and, indeed, was God) in the beginning and that "all things were made through him" - i.e. he is Creator, not created, and therefore can't truly be ranked anywhere "in all creation", because "creation" is a category that does not include the Word. I think Paul's statement in Col 1 is taken as an assertion that Jesus precedes creation.

The name "Jesus" is given to the incarnate Word (by Mary, on the instructions of Gabriel; Luke 1:31). Since the incarnation occurred at a particular point in human history there was a time - in the human perspective - when there was no incarnate Word and, therefore, in that sense of "Jesus", no Jesus.

That's unnecessarily confusing. Jesus did exist but He didn't receive that name until Gabriel told Mary that's true. (His name Yehoshua means YHWH saves).

Jesus did exist before His birth, but it's correct to say that He wasn't named until the announcement of His birth.

Monty Burnz · 21-11-2012 09:28AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Certainly not “in smoky rooms”! It’s thrashed out in a very public way, involving a great many people, over a longish period of time. There’s nothing covert about it, and it’s not a top-down process; quite the reverse.

The beginning of this process is reflected in scripture - we can see the development of Paul’s understanding between his earlier and later letters, and we can also see development between the earliest gospel - Mark - through to the latest - John. But the process continued for a couple of centuries after that before the doctrinal statements that we are now familiar with were articulated.

Thanks for the reply, but reading between the lines it seems pretty clear that (if you are correct) this doctrine is not clearly outlined in scripture.

getz · 21-11-2012 10:03AM

philologos wrote: »

That's unnecessarily confusing. Jesus did exist but He didn't receive that name until Gabriel told Mary that's true. (His name Yehoshua means YHWH saves).

Jesus did exist before His birth, but it's correct to say that He wasn't named until the announcement of His birth.

the jesus divine pre-existance did not appear untill the 10th decade in the gospel of john,

Peregrinus · 21-11-2012 10:19AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Thanks for the reply, but reading between the lines it seems pretty clear that (if you are correct) this doctrine is not clearly outlined in scripture.

The Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons and the Unitarians (among others) would all agree with you!

Peregrinus · 21-11-2012 10:20AM

getz wrote: »

the jesus divine pre-existance did not appear untill the 10th decade in the gospel of john,

Well, Philologos has already pointed to Col 1:15, which is much earlier than John, and which fairly clearly points to pre-existence, if not explicitly to divine pre-existence. So it's not as if John simply plucked it out of the air.

Porkchop McGee · 21-11-2012 10:27AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Spirit has no gender. (Neither, for that matter, do the Father or the Word.) It’s just that English lacks a pronoun for a genderless person and, for better or worse, the masculine is the pronoun we tend to use for a person of unspecified gender.

It.

How can a spirit be classified as a person, what traits of personality does this non-physical form possess?

Peregrinus · 21-11-2012 11:05AM

Porkchop McGee wrote: »

It.

You can use “it” for the Spirit if you want. For that matter, you can use “it” for the Father and the Son, and defend the usage on logical and grammatical grounds.

But the fact that a particular usage is logical and grammatical doesn’t mean that it’s also idiomatic. We could use “it” for persons of unspecified or indeterminate gender in English, but the fact is that we mostly don’t.

Porkchop McGee wrote: »

How can a spirit be classified as a person, what traits of personality does this non-physical form possess?

Excellent question. Top of the class! Gold star for you.

The limitations of human language and human experience being what they are, all our language about God is analogical. Thus describing the persons of the Trinity as “persons”, and talking of them as such, is not a perfect representation of the ineffable reality. It’s just the best we can do.

Our warrant for using “personhood” language in this context is scriptural, and in particular gospel-based. For example, here is Jesus, talking about the Spirit (Jn 16:13-14):

“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.”

Never mind what this means, for the moment. It’s cryptic stuff, I agree, especially when presented devoid of any context. For present purposes it’s enough to note that this kind of language attributes personhood qualities and characteristics to the Spirit, and that sets the context in which Christians use “personhood” language to talk about the Trinity.

getz · 21-11-2012 11:23AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, Philologos has already pointed to Col 1:15, which is much earlier than John, and which fairly clearly points to pre-existence, if not explicitly to divine pre-existence. So it's not as if John simply plucked it out of the air.

gospel of john 10th decade AD,the concept of jesus divine pre-existance,to the early jewish /christian to be the bibical masshigha he would have to be born of man and woman ,not the virgin of the pagon religions,pushing virgin births to jews would not work, paul said jesus was born of a woman under law,[that would mean a normal marriage] the virgin story first written by mathew some 45 years AD,and was repeated in the late 9th or early 10th decade by luke, ,then in /2nd century it was claimed she was a virgin mother/then a permanent virgin,at that stage it became necessory to transform the bibically mentioned brothers and sistors/then a postpartum virgin//19th century the virgin was declared to be immaculately conceived/20 century mary was proclaimed to have bodily accended into heaven,this doctrine was based on the fact that no one knew her place of burial, you can see just where this is going

Peregrinus · 21-11-2012 11:31AM

getz wrote: »

gospel of john 10th decade AD,the concept of jesus divine pre-existance,to the early jewish /christian to be the bibical masshigha he would have to be born of man and woman ,not the virgin of the pagon religions,pushing virgin births to jews would not work, paul said jesus was born of a woman under law,[that would mean a normal marriage] the virgin story first written by mathew some 45 years AD,and was repeated in the late 9th or early 10th decade by luke, ,then in /2nd century it was claimed she was a virgin mother/then a permanent virgin,at that stage it became necessory to transform the bibically mentioned brothers and sistors/then a postpartum virgin//19th century the virgin was declared to be immaculately conceived/20 century mary was proclaimed to have bodily accended into heaven,this doctrine was based on the fact that no one knew her place of burial, you can see just where this is going

Is your keyboard lacking a full stop?

getz · 21-11-2012 11:50AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Is your keyboard lacking a full stop?

upset you,have i ?

Fanny Cradock · 21-11-2012 01:17PM

getz wrote: »

upset you,have i ?

I find your posts difficult enough to understand at the best of times but this is doubly the case when you fail to use punctuation.

For example, it looks to me as if you are suggesting that the Gospel of Luke was written in the 10th Century? Am I understanding you correctly?

When was the Holy Spirit born?

Comments