How does “Hear, O Israel, YAHWEH, our God, is one” prove that YAHWEH is three persons

[Eli G]

Is the Holy Spirit spoken of as a person in the NT, according to your definition of person? Did Jesus speak of the Holy Spirit as a different "personage" from the Father?

No. The holy spirit is not a person (John 16:12-14).

In the NT the great majority of the times that the holy spirit is referred to with a personal pronoun, the neuter is used. Sometimes it is personified, like fever is in Luke 4:39 or the winds and sea in Mark 4:39.

 

[Windwalker]

No. The holy spirit is not a person (John 16:12-14).

In the NT the great majority of the times that the holy spirit is referred to with a personal pronoun, the neuter is used. Sometimes it is personified, like fever is in Luke 4:39 or the winds and sea in Mark 4:39.

In the same vein then, when God is personified as a "person", isn't that itself also a figure of speech, a metaphor, and not actually what God is? In other words the "person" of God is not to be taken literally, just a fever, the wind, and the sea aren't persons either?

 

[Eli G]

In the same vein then, when God is personified as a "person", isn't that itself also a figure of speech, a metaphor, and not actually what God is? In other words the "person" of God is not to be taken literally, just a fever, the wind, and the sea aren't persons either?

What do you think?

 

[Soapy]

In the same vein then, when God is personified as a "person", isn't that itself also a figure of speech, a metaphor, and not actually what God is? In other words the "person" of God is not to be taken literally, just a fever, the wind, and the sea aren't persons either?

‘God’ is a Deity, a worshipped Being. The word is a TITLE applied to the worshipped Deity of the worshipped.

Hence, a carved statue that is worshipped is a GOD.

In Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, there is only ONE GOD, one worshipped Deity, and the habit is therefore to drop any need for identification since one God is the only God and no need to even say ‘The’ God (since ‘The’ would imply a need for identification from another: The God of the Sea; the God of the Weather; the god of the fertility….!)

No, ‘GOD’ itself is not a ‘person’, per se. ‘God’ is the TITLE of a person: specifically to Christian’s and Jews and Muslims, the God of Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac. That deity is THE PERSON whom we CALL (by title) God.

The title means: one who is Most high, greatest, almighty, most judgeful (highest authority to do so), etc, Superlatives adjectives like:

• A judge in his courtroom is GOD of that courtroom
• A Principal in his school is God of that school
• A Father is God of his household
• A lion is God of the animals

All these and more are titled as ‘God’ OF THEIR RESPECTIVE arena. Our deity is ‘GOD’ of ALL ARENAS.

But because we only have one God we simply call him ‘GOD’ so as to avoid using his NAME: ‘YHWH’.
Other religions have no problem using the NAME(s) of their ‘God(s)’…hence the situation has become confused because we use the title of our only deity as a name for Him!!!

Point of order:

• The NAME of the Son is ‘JESUS’
• The TITLE of the Son is [The] ‘CHRIST’
• The NAME of our only God is ‘YHWH’
• The TITLE of our only Deity is ‘[The] God [of Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac’

A Title does not necessarily convey Personage.

Holy Spirit… rightly, ‘The spirit of God, the spirit that is holy’, is not a person since it is the PROPERTY of a person: YHWH.

Your HAND is not a person since it is a PROPERTY of yourself.

 

[Soapy]

So when scripture speaks of the Son in those terms, and the Holy Spirit in those terms, doesn't this suggest that there is individual "personhood" to these? And with that in mind, can't you see how the Trinity is describing just that as "persons"?

BTW, as a footnote, with the above definition of person as one with self-identification, and an open will, I think we can conclude that a fetus is not yet a person in this sense. A child does not truly become a person until they are able to self identify and exert will. In the womb, those don't seem to apply. Just saying.

The scriptures does not speak of the spirit of God as a person.

An offspring of a sentient Being is itself a sentient Being. The biology is not an issue. The seed of a tree contains the whereWithAll to become a tree. The foetus of a human Being contains all the elements to become a living Being in the manner of its parent. Definitions of type you ask about are not a matter of concern at this level - these are issues for legality - not dictionary.

 

[Windwalker]

What do you think?

Yes, I believe "person" is a metaphor, a way to describe that which is indescribable, a way to put words to what is beyond words, a way to define what is undefinable. In other words they are not literal definitions of what God literally is, but ways of understanding the Divine reality from a human perspective.

That then understood, the Trinity, as a theological formulation, is not a literal definition of God as three literal entities or "gods". It is understood there is only one God, or a singular Divine Reality. But that one God can be expressed as three distinct "persons", as that is how it appears in the NT writings. It's not three gods, but one God in three basic distinctions of being, which can be understood from the human point of view as "persons", anthropomorphically speaking.

Do you believe God is a literal person, outside of creation, outside of yourself, just as human people are outside of each other in physical bodies? Do you believe God has a physical body that can be described literally as outside of the universe? If so, then where does this God live? Is there somewhere outside of Infinity? Do you believe there is an "outside of" God? I am interested in hearing your thoughts to those questions, if you would?

 

[Eli G]

Yes, I believe "person" is a metaphor, a way to describe that which is indescribable, a way to put words to what is beyond words, a way to define what is undefinable. In other words they are not literal definitions of what God literally is, but ways of understanding the Divine reality from a human perspective.

That then understood, the Trinity, as a theological formulation, is not a literal definition of God as three literal entities or "gods". It is understood there is only one God, or a singular Divine Reality. But that one God can be expressed as three distinct "persons", as that is how it appears in the NT writings. It's not three gods, but one God in three basic distinctions of being, which can be understood from the human point of view as "persons", anthropomorphically speaking.

Do you believe God is a literal person, outside of creation, outside of yourself, just as human people are outside of each other in physical bodies? Do you believe God has a physical body that can be described literally as outside of the universe? If so, then where does this God live? Is there somewhere outside of Infinity? Do you believe there is an "outside of" God? I am interested in hearing your thoughts to those questions, if you would?

So, do you think nobody sees a person in heaven who is God?

Dan. 7:13,14; Rev. 4:3

 

[Windwalker]

‘God’ is a Deity, a worshipped Being. The word is a TITLE applied to the worshipped Deity of the worshipped.

What is a deity? Isn't that itself taking the Infinite Divine Reality and putting it into a form? A deity form? So theologically speaking, "person" applied to the Divine, is as much a device of the mind about the Infinite, as a deity form is, isn't it?

In other words "God", as a deity form, or "The Deity" form if you prefer, is not literal, in that that is what God literally is, but it is a way to put a "Face" upon that which is wholly beyond defining or comprehension. Would you agree with that?

Another way to express that is as the difference between God and Godhead. Generally speaking, when I refer to God, I am pointing to "Godhead", the Divine Reality, and not a specific deity form. God is another word for the "nameless" one, or that which cannot be defined or "named", in other words. (Naming something defines it as a thing, and God is beyond such limitations)

Hence, a carved statue that is worshipped is a GOD

I agree. It's the localization of the Infinite into a form, be that in a form carved in wood or stone, or a form carved and defined in the mind through theological terms. A mental form of God, is as much an idol as one carved out of stone is. It's not the material that they are carved out of, wood or stone, or thoughts and idea and concepts, but the fact we limit God with these material or mental objects as defining what God actually is, that is the problem.

In Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, there is only ONE GOD, one worshipped Deity, and the habit is therefore to drop any need for identification since one God is the only God and no need to even say ‘The’ God (since ‘The’ would imply a need for identification from another: The God of the Sea; the God of the Weather; the god of the fertility….!)

I agree, but we should not then just simply ball up all these local gods into a single god form, and then call that God. That is simply "a god" as well, if we see it as a literal definition of what God is, "The God of all Creation", is still simply seeing God in terms of gods, as independent entities acting upon the world, from outside of it. Make sense?

No, ‘GOD’ itself is not a ‘person’, per se. ‘God’ is the TITLE of a person: specifically to Christian’s and Jews and Muslims, the God of Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac. That deity is THE PERSON whom we CALL (by title) God.

I don't think I'd say God is a title. That's a little too literal for me. I see God more as just a word that expresses the Transcendent and Immanent Reality in a single word. It's the word "Good", actually. And that word "Good", or "God" from the Anglo Saxon for 'good', is an apt description of the Absolute or the Divine Reality. "God is Love", or Good. So "Good" is the Absolute Reality, the Ground of Being, the Source, the All, etc. Those are all words expressing the same thing, pointing to the same Reality, which for simplicity sake, we call "God". It is all "Good".

The title means: one who is Most high, greatest, almighty, most judgeful (highest authority to do so), etc, Superlatives adjectives like:

• A judge in his courtroom is GOD of that courtroom
• A Principal in his school is God of that school
• A Father is God of his household
• A lion is God of the animals

All these and more are titled as ‘God’ OF THEIR RESPECTIVE arena. Our deity is ‘GOD’ of ALL ARENAS.

This is a view of God as a Political force. I think that's a highly anthropomorphic view of God originating with human political leaders in history. God is beyond mere politics, though the expressions of God in the Bible, use that as a reference point to its audience of its day and time, that would have spoke of God that way.

For us today the whole "King" reference is a bit lost, as we did not grow up in a monarchical political system, at least not here in the United States. "King" or "ruler" doesn't communicate what it would have to those who grew up in a culture of that sort of political system. It's a bit of an outdated term for God, in other words.

In other words, God is not literally "a king", anymore than God is literally a "he". Anything that we name God with, a title, a personal name, a personal pronoun, etc, is simply a mental object, a device for our minds to try to contain the Divine Reality within, like a statue carved out of words instead of stone.

Holy Spirit… rightly, ‘The spirit of God, the spirit that is holy’, is not a person since it is the PROPERTY of a person: YHWH.

Your HAND is not a person since it is a PROPERTY of yourself.

My point is, the writers of the the NT, did speak of the Holy Spirit in terms of a person. It's the language they chose to use to describe it.

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and remind you of all that I said to you."

"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, namely, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, He will testify about Me, and [l]you are testifying as well, because you have been with Me from the beginning."
​

Right there alone, you have three distinct "persons" being expressed in that language with personal pronouns. So that is all the Trinity is, is a way to say these "persons" are ultimately that One Divine Reality, not three divine realities. It's all antrophomoropic language, not literal definitions of what God is, anymore that God is a deity form that has a personal name like Bob or Steve, Jehovah, or Ishtar, or a literal gender identification as a "he" is. Those are all mental devices, not literally what God is. Same thing with the Trinity.

 

[Eli G]

It is true, sometimes the holy spirit is mentioned as a person in the NT, but only sometimes because most of the time IT IS NOT. Therefore, a deeper investigation must be done based on ALL that the Scripture says about it, and not just some things.

Have you done a deep research on this?

Actually, I'm not sure I quite understand how you do think: you don't consider God as a person and the holy spirit you do?

 

[Windwalker]

So, do you think nobody sees a person in heaven who is God?

Correct. "No man has seen God at anytime". "God is Spirit". Does Spirit have a body? God is Infinite. Does the Infinite have a body? If so, then how can that still be Infinite? Can you answer that?

Dan. 7:13,14; Rev. 4:3

Those are visions. Symbolical forms for the mind. It's just simply ways for the mind to put a "face" upon something completely beyond comprehension or definition. These are not what God literally is, with seven eyes, and seven horns, etc. God can also be seen in the eyes of child, as well as the lilies of the field. That doesn't mean God is baby eyes or tulips.

 

[Eli G]

Correct. "No man has seen God at anytime". "God is Spirit". Does Spirit have a body?


Those are visions. Symbolical forms for the mind. Not what God literally is, with seven eyes, and seven horns, etc.

Well, I was not talking about humans seeing God ... According to what we learn in the Bible there are many other persons in heaven: billions of spirits angels, etc.

Do you think they can see God there? (Heb. 12:22-24).

 

[Windwalker]

Well, I was not talking about humans seeing God ... According to what we learn in the Bible there are many other persons in heaven: billions of spirits angels, etc.

Do you think they can see God there? (Heb. 12:22-24).

No. These are visions of the mind, not a literal place and literal buildings.

 

[Eli G]

No.

Why not if the Bible says something diferent? (Job 1:6; 2:1).

 

[Soapy]

What is a deity? Isn't that itself taking the Infinite Divine Reality and putting it into a form? A deity form? So theologically speaking, "person" applied to the Divine, is as much a device of the mind about the Infinite, as a deity form is, isn't it?

In other words "God", as a deity form, or "The Deity" form if you prefer, is not literal, in that that is what God literally is, but it is a way to put a "Face" upon that which is wholly beyond defining or comprehension. Would you agree with that?

Another way to express that is as the difference between God and Godhead. Generally speaking, when I refer to God, I am pointing to "Godhead", the Divine Reality, and not a specific deity form. God is another word for the "nameless" one, or that which cannot be defined or "named", in other words. (Naming something defines it as a thing, and God is beyond such limitations)


I agree. It's the localization of the Infinite into a form, be that in a form carved in wood or stone, or a form carved and defined in the mind through theological terms. A mental form of God, is as much an idol as one carved out of stone is. It's not the material that they are carved out of, wood or stone, or thoughts and idea and concepts, but the fact we limit God with these material or mental objects as defining what God actually is, that is the problem.


I agree, but we should not then just simply ball up all these local gods into a single god form, and then call that God. That is simply "a god" as well, if we see it as a literal definition of what God is, "The God of all Creation", is still simply seeing God in terms of gods, as independent entities acting upon the world, from outside of it. Make sense?


I don't think I'd say God is a title. That's a little too literal for me. I see God more as just a word that expresses the Transcendent and Immanent Reality in a single word. It's the word "Good", actually. And that word "Good", or "God" from the Anglo Saxon for 'good', is an apt description of the Absolute or the Divine Reality. "God is Love", or Good. So "Good" is the Absolute Reality, the Ground of Being, the Source, the All, etc. Those are all words expressing the same thing, pointing to the same Reality, which for simplicity sake, we call "God". It is all "Good".


This is a view of God as a Political force. I think that's a highly anthropomorphic view of God originating with human political leaders in history. God is beyond mere politics, though the expressions of God in the Bible, use that as a reference point to its audience of its day and time, that would have spoke of God that way.

For us today the whole "King" reference is a bit lost, as we did not grow up in a monarchical political system, at least not here in the United States. "King" or "ruler" doesn't communicate what it would have to those who grew up in a culture of that sort of political system. It's a bit of an outdated term for God, in other words.

In other words, God is not literally "a king", anymore than God is literally a "he". Anything that we name God with, a title, a personal name, a personal pronoun, etc, is simply a mental object, a device for our minds to try to contain the Divine Reality within, like a statue carved out of words instead of stone.


My point is, the writers of the the NT, did speak of the Holy Spirit in terms of a person. It's the language they chose to use to describe it.

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and remind you of all that I said to you."

"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, namely, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, He will testify about Me, and [l]you are testifying as well, because you have been with Me from the beginning."
​

Right there alone, you have three distinct "persons" being expressed in that language with personal pronouns. So that is all the Trinity is, is a way to say these "persons" are ultimately that One Divine Reality, not three divine realities. It's all antrophomoropic language, not literal definitions of what God is, anymore that God is a deity form that has a personal name like Bob or Steve, Jehovah, or Ishtar, or a literal gender identification as a "he" is. Those are all mental devices, not literally what God is. Same thing with the Trinity.

The spirit of God is a GIFT from the Father. Jesus states that he will send [onwards] the gift the Father promised for the believers. This point is lost if you did not read beforehand that God said he would send his spirit as a gift to them… if you didn’t see that then you see what Trinitarians see: that Jesus himself is sending the spirit of God… and that is not the case. The spirit of God is the force that allows ‘miraculous’ events to take place. Jesus did no ‘miracles’ before he received the gift of the Holy Spirit from God at his baptism. It is Trinitarians who personify the spirit of God as a male entity since it signifies power (power is associated with maleness; gentleness is associated with femaleness). You must agree that the Greek text does not specify a gender and therefore it is the translator who claims the male personification; the translation could (and should) have read: ‘It’. Afterall, ‘Wisdom’ is personified as a ‘She’… but Wisdom is not a person. Wisdom is gentle, not forceful… a feminine word!! Yet Wisdom, truly, is a neutered noun.

And, ‘God’… the title given to a deity that is worshipped. ‘Deity’, a powerful being… not all powerful beings are worshipped:

• ‘That hero [powerful one] was like a God [worshipped]’

The Holy Spirit … the spirit that is holy. Too much emphasis is put on the ‘Holy’ superlative such that it has become a single term with ‘Spirit’. The Spirit of God IS a holy Spirit… but so overused as ‘Holy Spirit’ that it takes on a life of its own. It is not a self-identifying entity… it is the SPIRIT of our one God (which is by sheer definition, holy as God is holy!!)
The spirit of God has the ability to act autonomously AS AN ENABLER. It ENABLES the receiver to act with extraordinary power in the physical world. A super-computer enables sensational calculations to be carried out by the user… but no one is going to call it a person - even when it is personified: ‘Freda was fantastic - she came up with the solution in record time over the manual method!’

 

[Windwalker]

Why not if the Bible says something diferent? (Job 1:6; 2:1).

As I said, these are metaphors. Does Jesus really have seven eyes and seven horns? As I said, "These are visions of the mind, not a literal place and literal buildings." Do you believe heaven has literal streets made of literal gold, or are these ways of describing something beautiful that is beyond being described?

Do you believe God is Spirit, or does God have a literal body you can look at?

 

[Eli G]

As I said, these are metaphors. (...)

That you said, and I said Bible shows something diferent. I know spiritual heavens are not made of materials like ours, but it does not mean that there are not diferentiated individual and other kind of bodies occupying the spiritual realm, like another kind of dimension ... not like ours but as real as ours.

As for the rest, it sounds like an answering machine with which you know you can't talk, cause it won't understand what you say and will make a nonsensical question back.

Have a good one.

 

[Windwalker]

That you said, and I said Bible shows something diferent. I know spiritual heavens are not made of materials like ours, but it does not mean that there are not diferentiated individual and other kind of bodies occupying the spiritual realm, like another kind of dimension ... not like ours but as real as ours.

You didn't answer my question. Do you believe God has a body?

As for the rest, it sounds like an answering machine with which you know you can't talk, cause it won't understand what you say and will make a nonsensical question back.

I understand that you see these things as literal objects exactly as described. I'm trying to see if you can understand that they are metaphors, and not literal descriptions. Can you understand why I don't see them as literal?

That's why I'm asking you questions. But you aren't answering those questions. It's not that I'm not discussing these things. You aren't addressing my questions. I see God as Spirit, which has no form. So you can't "see" God as if you are looking at a literal person.

God is Infinite, and therefore, cannot be isolated and differentiated from all that exists. Do you believe God is finite? In order to see God as separate from creation, you have to say God is finite. If you can "see" God as a "person", then God is not Infinite, but finite. Do you understand why? This is not a nonsense question. But it is a difficult one to answer if you see God as Infinite.

 

[Eli G]

You didn't answer my question. Do you believe God has a body?


I understand that you see these things as literal objects exactly as described. I'm trying to see if you can understand that they are metaphors, and not literal descriptions. Can you understand why I don't see them as literal?

That's why I'm asking you questions. But you aren't answering those questions. It's not that I'm not discussing these things. You aren't addressing my questions. I see God as Spirit, which has no form. So you can't "see" God as if you are looking at a literal person.

(...)

God is a spirit, as you say. God is seen where angels are. All of them see each other and talk to each other. That is another realm; I already told you that, so you do not have to do the same question.

Jesus was near God in heaven, and have a direct relationship with Him as a real person. GOD is not an abstract thing, but a real person with feelings, and we were created in his image, in the sense that we can reflect his qualities as individual conscious and rational beings.

John 7:28 Then as he was teaching in the temple, Jesus called out: “You know me and you know where I am from. And I have not come of my own initiative, but the One who sent me is real, and you do not know him. 29 I know him, because I am a representative from him, and that One sent me.”

If they see each other and communicate with each other, it is obvious that they are distinguished from each other, differentiated from each other, and therefore have some kind of figure in their own realm.

 

[Eli G]

Bahai movement has nothing to do with the Bible. The beliefs of this group deny absolutely everything that has to do with the spiritual realm, with the idea that none of that exists, only humans, and that nothing the Bible says is literal, but metaphorical, so according to them there was neither Eve, nor was there Adam, nor will there be God's intervention to restore order on earth, nor anything at all. These people believe that the solution of matters is exclusively in the hands of humans, who are the only ones who exist.

They will negate everything, not because they have proof of anything, but because they are negationist and actually non-believers, like any other. They just follow their human leader. It is a political-philosophical thing, and that's why they don't mind any religion at all, but try to unify all of them ... It would be nice, if not cause that is not God's purpose. God's servants must worship in the way He aproves, not the way we invent. RIGHT?

 

[Windwalker]

The spirit of God is a GIFT from the Father. Jesus states that he will send [onwards] the gift the Father promised for the believers. This point is lost if you did not read beforehand that God said he would send his spirit as a gift to them… if you didn’t see that then you see what Trinitarians see: that Jesus himself is sending the spirit of God… and that is not the case.

It doesn't really matter who is sending what. The point is, you see a distinction being made between the Father and the Son and the Spirit in this type of language the author of the gospel is using. That's all the Trinitarian formulation is about. Why is this distinction between Father and Spirit being made? Why do you see this relationship being spoken about?

The spirit of God is the force that allows ‘miraculous’ events to take place. Jesus did no ‘miracles’ before he received the gift of the Holy Spirit from God at his baptism.

I don't think I'd leap to he wasn't capable of miracles before the sign of the dove upon him at his baptism. I don't think I've ever heard that suggested by anyone before. In fact, that first miracle of the water to wine, was before Jesus wanted to actually start showing those signs. He wasn't ready yet. That's why the delay beforehand, not because he wasn't able to.

Correct my understanding here. You subscribe to a more modalistic theology, correct? That there is one God in three modes or manifestations, ie, "The Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and the Holy Spirit in emanation or the church", correct? In other words Jesus was God in the flesh, but just not another "person" in a trinity, correct? If so, then clearly Jesus was capable of miracles before John's baptism, since he was God in the flesh, after all.

It is Trinitarians who personify the spirit of God as a male entity since it signifies power (power is associated with maleness; gentleness is associated with femaleness).

I don't think that assumption is true. I believe Trinitarian theologians throughout the ages have seen the Holy Spirit as feminine. I think this is an assumption on your part about masculine and power, etc. But realistically speaking, God is neither male nor female, masculine nor feminine, but both and neither.

If God created humans as male and female, masculine and feminine (which both qualities exist within each of the genders), and we are created in the image of God, then both masculine and feminine are aspects of nature of God. God is both Father, and Mother, depending on how we relate ourselves to the Divine. Right?

You must agree that the Greek text does not specify a gender and therefore it is the translator who claims the male personification; the translation could (and should) have read: ‘It’. Afterall, ‘Wisdom’ is personified as a ‘She’… but Wisdom is not a person. Wisdom is gentle, not forceful… a feminine word!! Yet Wisdom, truly, is a neutered noun.

It doesn't matter what gender or if if it is an "it". It is still spoken of as a distinct "something" in relation to the Divine nature. And that's what the Trinitarian formulation is looking at, in order to try to explain this, while maintaining all three as that one, singular God of the Bible.

And, ‘God’… the title given to a deity that is worshipped. ‘Deity’, a powerful being… not all powerful beings are worshipped:

• ‘That hero [powerful one] was like a God [worshipped]’

I really don't agree with you that "God" is a title. King is a title. Father is a title. But "spirit" is not a title. God is not a title. Person is not a title. Human is not a title. Angel is not a title. You see? It's a word to say what it is we are talking about as opposed to cats, dogs, people, angels, airplanes, etc. God is a word for the Absolute, for Ultimate Reality. And that you may see that Ultimate Reality as personal, is perfectly fine. When I say God, I'm not saying mister or sir, which are titles.