What is the Holy Spirit?
 

With all the recent discussions about spirituality, I want to raise a discussion about what you all believe or think in relation to the Holy Spirit.

I know there is debate in relation to the Holy Trinity.. that is that the Father (God), the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit is either one in the same or three seperate identies. Myself, I think they are all seperate.. but then this makes me wonder about the nature of the Holy Spirit. Is it neutral or does it carry a certain God-like aspect?

I often wonder and think that it is a neutral force that explains life - that brings everything together for me. The reason there are people that believe we are all one, or are of the one higher consciousness - and everything living is a part of that consciousness. In the religious sense I see it as a tool that God can use or did use for creation, and he would probably be the only one that would know how to use this and understand the true nature of it. The Bible however also tells of Satan having reign or control over the earth for a period of time.. would he also use this force for his manipulations.. pull on the strings so to speak.

Can I ask you all your views and thoughts on this?

If you are asking for the Christian response, the Holy Spirit is one of the ways that God manifests (the other two being as Father (creator), and Son (human presence)).

The Spirit is that Grace and Presence of the Almighty that fills us when we ask it to.

I don't believe that the rock or tree or whatever has it's own "spirit", but if it has anything, it would have the Holy Spirit. In other words, it would be the Holy Spirit that permeates us all.

Sorry if this is slightly incoherent. I just got up.

According to Jesus Christ, in the book of John, the Holy Spirits role is to enlighten us, remind us of what Christ taught and to act as a witness of Christ. The Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost) is a spirit, hence the name, which allows him to influence people all over the world.

So it would be an entity as such? Did it not exist before Jesus?

Just really curious because I didn't interpret as such...

Lebell: So in your response, you are thinking or of the belief that it is not a neutral force? It is an extention of the Almighty (or God)?

I'm not after a particular response as such.. I'm after responses from many different perspectives.

No, not neutral and not an extention either, but a full blown manifestation of God.

Ahh, I've not heard that interpretation of the Trinity before.. wow, that is a totally amazing perspective.. thankyou!

frogza has a very good idea...look to John, where the concept is most clearly explained.

i particuarly like the passage where Jesus tells his followers: i will not leave you orphaned. the Holy Spirit is God making God's self known to us continually so that we might beleive that we are God's children, and not left alone in this world.

edit: that's john 14:18, fwiw.

The Holy Spirit is God's active force or power. It is not an entity. God and Jesus are two separate entities.

MoJo

the concept of the Triune God wasnt fathomed or even mentioned by jesus nor his disciples. so i find it hard to swallow the concept of trinity. it wasnt till the 325 years after Jesus, that Constantine introduced such philosophical thoughts into the church via the Nicean Creed and made them part of the dogmas that is the church today.

Im also pretty certain that the word trinity isnt even in the new testament.

Jewish Concept of the One God
"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord." (Deuteronomy 6:4)

Christian Concept of the One God
Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29)

References to the trinity in the bible are vague at best, but this is the closest i could find that has any refrence to the trinity

"There are three witnesses: The Spirit, the water and the blood, and all three give the same testimony" (Epistle of I John 5:7)

so if the concept of trinity was such an integral part of the belief system of christianity, i find it hard to see why it wasnt mentioned more in the Bible.

its all up to your interpretation really.. but to be honest, if Jesus never spoke the trinity in his lifetime, then i very much doubt that these beliefs should be incorporated into christian dogmas as Jesus' teachings. They are moreso, interpolations into christian philosophical thought more than anything else.

thats my thought on it...as for explaining it...i dont think even biblical scholars have a way of explaining it..it's all about 'faith' i guess...

It was always my understanding that the "holy spirit" is supposed to be god's love (for us, jeebus.., jeebus's love for us/god, etc)

I'd like to thank everyone for their responses so far. This is something that I am not taking lightly.. this is very important to me. With the responses so far I have much to think about as this has been my main source of trouble while trying to find my spiritual path.

Lebell's response alone has given me much to think about, because I hadn't been aware of this perspective;
Human presence as opposed to Jesus. I have a lot to chew over...

The main explanation so far, seems to be that the Holy Spirit is in essence, God. I guess I'm asking because I want to be sure that when I ask for guidance I would like to be a little more assured that any information or feelings I get are coming from the right source (if that makes sense).. it might boil down to faith but I would like to be sure.

Thanks again for your responses so far..

As an atheism-leaning agnostic, I'll throw some light on this from a different angle. I believe that many things are explained in different ways and labelled differently by those of different schools of thought. I feel that what theists describe ase the "Holy Spirit" is a state of self-actualization. For those who believe in a supreme being, it can be through the fulrillment of your own spiritual needs and getting as close as humanly possible to God. For those who practice Eastern religions, it can be achieved through the triumph of self-control over negative instincts and emotions. For an atheist, it can be achieved by becoming the best person you can be. In all cases, it represents the pinnacle of human achievement and the resulting state of mind in which we feel complete.

Well John Steinbeck's character Jim Casy (Grapes of Wrath) said that the holy spirit is that which makes us human. The good and bad in us is all part of the same essence that we all are a part of, as if we share a singularly large soul.

That is a definition in what I believe, in this collective spirit. This spirit that we tap into is all of that which makes up man, animals, nature, etc, however I do not go as so far to say that that is what is holy about it. What makes this the holy spirit is when we choose to work for bettering the lives of others around us, promoting this connection we share. Evil done onto others separates them and that should not be our actions in life.

K, I've been chewing like mad.. if the Holy Spirit is likened to God, or self-actualisation, or even the collective spirit, how can we be assured that these things are 'ultimately' higher?

In a religious sense, how do we perceive the Holy Spirit, and know that it is the Holy Spirit and not something else?, a trick of Satan's.. pulling the wool over our eyes.. he is apparently a very sneaky bugger...

When we persue self-actualisation, how can we be sure that our actions are pure or of high regard? We ourselves probably have very many flaws that we may never be aware of, or get the chance to explore in our life time. How do we know that this self-exploration is not in fact self-trickery or delusion?

I can see the sense in a collective spirit. A life energy inherant in all of us, with good and bad potential, of which we can choose to express either higher ideals or lesser ideals. Depression and sickness often go hand in hand with a downward spiraling set of aspects that makes 'seeing the light' more difficult with each perpetuation. But again, is this actually a good path? Can we be left on our own with this ideal? I wonder just how many of us have the capacity to tackle this on our own.. are we being satanistic when we take this path?

This may be ultimately be a personal choice, but how do others deal with this sort of questioning? Do they question it like I do? Does anyone else agonise over this, and if so how have you handled it? What did you do?

How do I make the distinction whether or not my choices are evil or of the wrong path? I ask if my choices have removed the choices of others. If I have forced my decision and those actions remove the rights of another, then I have gone too far. Yes there are conditions to this state because I believe in justice. If one does evil by inflicting terrible actions onto others, then one should not have the rights and freedoms we are granted. Whether or not these "evil" people can be rehabilitated is entirely up to the person.

Discerning the correctness of one's spiritual path is not a new question.

For me, if it something is done in selfless love, then I am pretty sure it is the Holy Spirit.

But I believe that the struggle and soul searching is part of the journey as well.

How do we know that we are following the right path? How do we know when we are in love? I'd say the answer to both questions are very similar. It's an instinctive thing, somewhere, deep down, past all the desire for love, or spiritual centredness, or a feeling of connection, somewhere in the pit of our belly, we know if something is right or not. It's just so hard to listen to that voice embedded deep down inside there.

We wonder whether it's telling us one thing, or is it perhaps trying to say entirely the opposite? I think all we can do is listen, and hope for those few times of clarity, when we hear it clearly without distractions. Does the Holy Spirit create those moments of clarity? Or is it the voice we hear at those times? Is it ultimately our own voice, or the voice of something other? And do even the ideas of self and other make any sense during these moments?

I've got my own views, but I'm still not sure I know how to explain exactly what they are.

Seeker asks if the Holy Spirit existed before Christ was incarnated; the answer (at least, the traditional Christian answer) is that, like Christ and the Father, he existed eternally. Genesis say "In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and void and the Spirit of God moved across the waters."

As far as the question about whether or not the Trinity is taught by scripture; well, no, not explicitly. For that reason, I'm very suspicious about people who try to give a whole lot of content to the doctrine of the Trinity and then pronounce anathemas on those who have a slightly different picture. Like the whole filioque argument. But scripture teaches very clearly that God is one, that Jesus is God, that the Holy Spirit is God, and that the Father is God. If there's any way to resolve that besides either Trinitarianism or Pantheism, I'd like to hear it.

Satan is the Lord of Lies, but the simple answer is to pray to God and he will respond. You may need to search yourself for worldly deception but if you have a relationship with God then when he commands you, you will know.

Well, you don't need to! Those following the self-actualization path are attempting to reach a supreme state of worldly accomplishment searching for the "state of mind in which we feel complete" as MrSelfDestruct put it (appropriate name btw). As you might already see, self-trickery or delusion is the ultimate goal as a person would come up with their own idea of "the pinnacle of human achievement" and when achieving it then believe that they are such a super person.

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."

Congratulations, you have self-actualized!

Reducing God to a "collective spirit" destroys the idea of an overriding ethic, making your query "Is this a good path?" unanswerable. From a Christian standpoint it could be considered inspired by Satan because it tends to imply that man can become divine on their own.

You are not alone in your questioning, and I hope that you never stop because it is how you grow. In the end you will need to trust that you are talking to God, but when God talks to you I suspect you will know it.

If God and Jesus are the same entity, who did Jesus pray to when he was on earth?

MoJo

God and Jesus are not the same entity, but Jesus followed God's will perfectly and in that sense was God's hand on Earth. Jesus would often refer to his father meaning God, and Jesus is called the son of God.

This is not classical Christian understanding.

But the answer to the post this replies to is that this is part of the mystery of the Holy Trinity.

Jesus IS God, but is NOT God the Father. Yet God is one.

Thank you all for your input. I can see that this is something that I will never have any solid proof or knowing.. just sometimes it feels so important and pressing.. at other times I trust, but I always question.

Your responses have helped, and I am greatful for them.
A heartfelt thankyou to you all.

i dont think that such an integral part of any particular religions' dogma should be a 'mystery'..ok some parts of religions and faiths are based on 'trust and faith', but a concept so important as the trinity is confusing to say the least.

dont get me wrong, im not knocking the religion, but im yet to find one good explanation for it... if theres anyone that could explain it to be, id be more than hapy to lend an ear.

which brings me back to the original question by Seeker.. what is the holy ghost, and what is thr trinity?

Perhaps it would be helpful to add that the concept of the "Trinity" arose from how people (Christians specifically) have experienced God.

They have experienced Him in the three major ways mentioned.

On a more personal note, it also leaves open to me the question of whether or not there are other experiences of God that can be so identified. For example, the ancient notion of Sophia, or God's wisdom.

Huh???????

Yeah, now you're getting it :)

This is one way i've come to think about it: Considering the limited capability of the human form, God cannot fully manifest himself in it. So while Jesus was/is God, his body could not support the entirety of God at one time. He can, however download and access anything he needs into the form, just not all at one time. So Jesus could draw on the vast knowledge and power of "himself" (God) and use what he needed when he needed it. A reasonable example of this would be Rommie from the TV show Andromeda. Rommie is the Avatar of the ship Andromeda. She is an android but she is the ship, but seperate from the ship's intelligence in key ways. She can access any part of the ship, from memory, tactical data, and can control physical aspects of the ship like open doors. However she is not fully Andromeda, because the entirety of what Andromeda is (memory storage capability, form, function, etc all in one) Rommie is not capable of being/experiencing at any one singular instance. In this way she is her own being, but still the warship Andromeda.

It may be a corny reference, but it seems to fit the bill pretty well. Jesus is the avatar of God, thus he is God.

Clearer?

And if Rommie was Jesus

I'd so wack off to Jesus

Actually I can really see how that works... thanks ObieX!

ObieX..lol.. r u for real? tell me ure joking..please..cos i just had a good chuckle when read that. just like god just went high tech! and i thought the church was never going update it 2000 year old system to a new operating system. maybe youve just done that for them...

on a serious note...

"Considering the limited capability of the human form, God cannot fully manifest himself in it"

if god is infinite in wisdom, power, knowledge etc etc etc..then he has no boundaries and hence does not need to have jesus as his 'avatar'. jesus was an intemediary, but in no way was he the supreme being. he was a man of flesh and blood. i cannot deny his existance nor his work nor that it came from god, but for god to manifest himself in a human and essentially limit himself and his power in a human, i could not understand why. he is all powerful and limitless after all...

as for experiencing god, i think that if the experience of god was the case, then we'd have a lot more than trinity. god experience what they percieve as god in different ways.. some of those ppl that claim to experience god in certain ways are often called, quirks, heretics and satanists by structured religions. but the experience of the trinity was not incorporated into teachings of the church until 325 years AD.. what happens to all the 'believers' who were born and died after the death of jesus.. are they not saved because they didnt affirm the trinity?

Up until that time they were fine, but because the church changed the rules those are the rules that now stick. That whatever you hold true on earth i'll hold true in heaven deal. So while before that time it wasn't required, after that time it was because thats the way they made it on earth, so thats the way it is in heaven.

ok, understood, but did the 'pope' exist at that time? gods 'vanguard' on earth? and if he wasnt, who has the authority to preside over such important matters pertaining to the church. surely not a pagan ruler turn pseudo-christian?

i was under the impression that only the pope could change the laws of the church. when did the papacy officially begin, and who had that authority at the time in 325AD. and on the subject on infallibility, can the pope make mistakes? if so, say we had a maniac pope who did bad things, does that not lead to staining the name of god since, god theoretically stamps a seal on the popes judgements?

sorry, im not trying to be difficult, im not a christian, but im just curious.

Yep there was a pope that was appointed by Jesus himself (Peter). The name of the second pope was a guy named Linus.

Here's a list i found, with names and dates. If you go to the page and click on each name they will each have a biography.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

This one is a little more complicated. I'm not exactly positive on everything that is needed for the pope to speak infallably, even after reading the page im about to link, and having been through 14 1/2 years of catholic schooling LOL. The reason I'm confused is because there's a few different types of infallibility in different aspects of the church, so its a pain in the butt to explain and remember it all. The page im gonna link goes on forever trying to explain it. :p

But here you go if you want to look it up, its from that same page: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

I would post the quote from it but the page is really REALLY long, with off-shoot links to explain further the terms they use (like terms in Latin, and just regular words in the english language you would just never encounter any other time hehe). If you don't trust the link let me know and i'll post the stuff. I didnt get any pop-ups or anything.

NP, i get to make some use out of all those years of schooling and uniform wearing. :p

dlishguy,

A few things to add on the subject,

As much as the Roman Catholic church would have you believe otherwise, the Pope only has authority over the Roman Catholic church and not any other Christian denominations. Peter was certainly tapped by Jesus and most believe that he went to Rome where he ended up being martyred, but he didn't set up a church and pick a successor, so the whole "lineage" of the Papacy really doesn't mean much.

The truth is there are three branches of Christianity that could legitimately claim "leadership", the Coptic Christians, the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, but only the Roman Catholic church tries to. This happened not by any appointment, but because Rome was the most important western city at the time and bishops from other cities tended to defer to Rome's bishop. But it was many years before the Bishop of Rome decided that he was the "leader" of all the church, (which surprised and irritated the other two branches that existed at the time).

As the years passed, other schisms occurred in the west, starting with the Anglicans. It is important to know that several of these different groups have Bishops that are in the "apostolic succession". This means that they were confirmed Bishops by Bishops that were confirmed by Bishops that were confirmed by...etc, as far back as anyone can recount. Therefore, even the Pope grudgingly admits that they are real and legit Bishops.

As to the Pope speaking infallably, this is done VERY rarely. Called "ex cathedra" (latin for "from the chair"), the last time was when one of them (sorry don't recall which) pronounced on the virginity of Mary. Speaking 'ex cathedra' is relatively new and many popes don't ever do so, but Pope John XXIII was so concerned about pope's being fallable that he said that he would never speak ex cathedra.

In the past there were indeed some very 'evil' popes. For a while there were even two popes, one in Avignon (sp?) and one in Rome who were battling for control of the church. They made all sorts of condemnations against each other, so I occassionally wonder which ones God "held true in Heaven".

Sorry for the length of the post, but I thought some other readers might be interested in some Roman Church history.

Why is there a need for the trinity? Why does "God" want us to believe in 3 aspects of him? What's the point of it?

the best answer i have heard for this is to think about the Trinity as history rather than concept. God at a point in time creates the world, and then enters human history to redeem that world, and then indwells in the world as our history continues to unfold. Thus, Creator, Christ, Spirit...
This may not sound all that different than simply asserting the trinity, but focus in on the time markers, and perhaps it makes a little more sense. The God that is unified in nature and will is expereinced in radically different ways across time because of these specific histories of encounter.

The other good asnwer i've heard is relational trinitarianism...that God is unified and unifying, but is also fundamentally relational, and does not exist isolation. From God's very nature as relational, we draw our pattern for human love.

ok..understood..but how does that explain 'trinitarianism' ie. father , son holy spirit? im just having trouble relating it back the concept of the trinity

I think that's probably where things get a little fuzzier. i personally do not tend to identify the Triune God as "Father" "Son and "Holy Spirit" I'll use the last title, but generally eschew the first two in favor of gender inclusive language.

Why those three is a question that i think is best answered by the pattern of revelation that we have recieved...God has created, redeemed, and dwelt among us.

There is also a transactional explanation....that God the Father is offended by our sin, and can only expunge it as God the Son, and that the resulting exchange produces God the Spirit. Kathryn Tanner has some great work on that subject, and is a talented theologian....i disagree with her in that i think that this retains too much of Anslem's debt theology, and that it is a limited good theology, one that assumes that there is only so much good to go around, and that it must be allocated justly.

so, i tend to stick with the historical explanation, and use relational trinitarianism as sort of a backup to that.

I don't want to be throwing too much out here, but I have been reading, researching and going over everything. I just want to put it out here, can anybody see any relation to the holy spirit as being very similar to the concepts introduced in the thread A philosophical investigation into the nature and role of intelligence in the cosmos http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...t=intelligence

I do not want to upset those of you that have a purely religious faith or belief, I think it is a valid aspect to explore. I can see how this inherent force/will/consciousness can relate to Arts theory of the nature and role of intelligence in the universe. I was just wondering how others perceive this, or if in fact you think I am speculating on concepts that are all wrong?

Thanks..

Who knows?

The only way we know the divine is by our interaction with it. It can't be reproduced in a laboratory and can only be haltingly conveyed to each other through imperfect language.

I know many who feel that "God" is somehow a manifestation or outgrowth of the Universe itself while others, like myself, feel that God must have an extracuricular nature.

But again, who really knows?

I think the biggest danger when talking about such things is believing that we finite, flesh and blood creatures can fully understand the divine while we are on this plane of existance.

The best we can do is to grasp the elephant's leg and proclaim him to be like a great tree.

I agree totally Lebell...

I find it all very interesting and exciting. It is a mystery, the search and the questioning adds so much to my life. It is the reason I stive, question, and look for all the 'higher' ideals in my life.

Ultimately, if we were to ever 'know', it could take away from the experience. I think I have just realised the meaning and beauty of 'faith'. :)

Thankyou...

well simply put.. the holy spirit is your inner voice. that tells you dont do that. the unpardonable sin.. blasphemy against the holy spirit simply means pushing away or willing away the holy spirit.. i.e. you no longer listen to that voice.

the holy spirit fills a person bringing them into attunment with God's commands and instructions.

Since I won't be the first long post in the thread, here goes. The 5th century Pseudo-Athanasian Creed declares (in part):

***

[II] And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
So are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
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 Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

Now that you've pondered the above, it is worth noting that the key part of this is the line:

The distinction is between person and substance. One substance, three persons. Before people start sounding off on consistency, both "person" and "substance" have highly technical meanings in philosophy. Specifically, a "person" is an "individual substance of a rational nature." Now please hold all charges of circularity until after I'm done.

A "substance" is something not easily defined, and has many meanings. Substance as contrasted with person can be understood in terms of essence. Basically it is an inquiry into "What is God?"

"Individiual substance" as used in the definition of person has a different meaning, specifically, the idea of assumptibility is excluded, but it is included in "substance" above. When we're talking about persons, we're talking about 'identity' answering the question "Who is God?"

My understanding of the triolgy, for lack of a better term, deals more with perspective. I am a husband, a father, a brother, a son, a mentor, etc. etc. etc. This does not in any way mean that I am several people. I am to those as they perceive me and know me. I think that God is the same way. his physical manifestation on this earth was flesh and known as Emanuel or Jesus. His will, in a non-physical form, is known as the holy spirit.

I hope this helps.