John 16:12-15. Huh?

[Homer]

So if Jesus promised His presence is He present as an "it", that is, some form of energy or force? And are we baptized into an "it"? We need an explanation of "into the name" which refers to the personal.

[darinhouston]

Jesus says the Father will send 'another', the sense of this statement implies just that; 'another', not Him not the Father.
The same for verse 25, the father is sending 'someone', you don’t send yourself. And He, or it, is sent in Jesus name, so Jesus is not sending himself in his own name;
John 14:16 "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you. John 14:25 "These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. 26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

I'm sure Paidion could illuminate, but I wouldn't put too much weight on "another." Just checking Strongs really quick, the term rendered "another" is used 24 times to refer not to "another" but to "one."

[Paidion]

Paul wrote:
...this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. (2 Corinthians 3:18)

This sentence states as clearly as possible that the Lord (Jesus) IS the Spirit.
jriccitelli, it seems to be true that the Greek word "αλλος" indeed means "other" or "another". I have no problem with affirming that the holy spirit is a different entity from that of the Father and the Son. But that doesn't imply that the spirit is a different Person.

Homer, never my life have I maintained or believed that the holy spirit is only a force. When I ceased believing in the Trinity, I inferred from Jesus' words that the Spirit (I'm okay with the capital S) is the very persons of the Father and the Son who make Their dwelling with the disciples of Christ.

Jesus promised He would personally be present "where two or three are gathered in my name". I believe His presence is personal in the Holy Spirit:

This sounds like something that I might write. Since Jesus IS the Spirit, then surely Jesus' personal presence is with the two or three. Yes, that personal presence IS the Spirit.

[steve7150]

If the Holy Spirit is a person would'nt he be the Father of Jesus?








Can anyone answer this please, i have no preference either way but if the Holy Spirit has personhood isn't he Jesus father? Also we read about the relationship between the Father and the Son and the Son and the Father but the Holy Spirit seems to be missing in these types of verses.

[jriccitelli]

I let someone borrow my interlinear, that is why I wrote "the sense of this statement' implies another".
I do not see Allon translated 'one' more often (? KJV?) I cannot seem to check this with what I have, but even if it was, its inclusion in the sentence seems to define the subject as one, the same as, but not the same one. Why would the word Allon be in the text at all if not to make some distinction between Jesus and the noun Parakleton?
Jesus certainly seems to be making a distinction here , why does He say in 16:13 "He will not speak on His own authority" and "whatever He hears He will speak", this cannot be referring to the Father for the Father is the authority, and the Father is not the one hearing, they are the Fathers Words (According to Jesus)
And it doesn’t make sense for Jesus to be saying "Whatever I hear myself speak I will speak"

Also in verse 16:7 Jesus says I will send Him to you, is Jesus sending the Father? Is Jesus sending Himself?
It also doesn't make sense for Jesus to divide Himself into two Spirits, I will send My personality?
My other point was that; if you say Jesus is (the) Spirit and the Father is (the) Spirit then they are the same 'person', they would be if Jesus had not made the distinction.
If Jesus said I am the 'Father' that would be fine, but His speech implies there is also a distinction.
Just because both (or all three) are God, and both (or all three) are Spirit does not have to be taken to 'mean that He is the same divine Individual as the spirit' (Paidion on Tue Nov 08), otherwise Jesus and the Father would be the same individual.

7150, I dont think anything is implied as such by Luke 1:35, the over shadowing of the Most High would be the incarnation of 'Jesus' directly into the womb, the Holy Spirit filled Elizabeths womb also, as the Spirit filled Samson and David.

I still have many things to say, but you cannot bear them now...

[RICHinCHRIST]

If the Holy Spirit is a person would'nt he be the Father of Jesus?

Can anyone answer this please, i have no preference either way but if the Holy Spirit has personhood isn't he Jesus father? Also we read about the relationship between the Father and the Son and the Son and the Father but the Holy Spirit seems to be missing in these types of verses.

I've also thought about this. I don't know the answer. Matthew 1:20 seems to infer that the Holy Spirit is Jesus' Father (at least in the reproductive sense):


However, Luke's similar language might give us more insight:

Here, it's said that the Holy Spirit will "come upon" Mary for the Incarnation. Perhaps, then, we shouldn't think of the Holy Spirit as the "father" in a familial sense, but rather we should see the Holy Spirit as the Father's agent of bringing about the miracle of the Incarnation. Then, the Holy Spirit would just be the emissary of the Father's conception within Mary.

I've also had trouble distinguishing between the Father and the Holy Spirit based on John 4:23-24

Here, Jesus says the Father is said to be a "Spirit". What is the difference between the Father's Spirit and the Holy Spirit? I honestly do not know. I still believe in the Trinity (due to other verses on the Holy Spirit's distinctiveness), but also have trouble reconciling this.

[steve7150]

John 4:23
"But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 "God [is] Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (NKJV)
Here, Jesus says the Father is said to be a "Spirit". What is the difference between the Father's Spirit and the Holy Spirit? I honestly do not know. I still believe in the Trinity (due to other verses on the Holy Spirit's distinctiveness), but also have trouble reconciling this.
RICHinCHRIST




Rich,
Thanks for your response. In John 4.23 , John says "God is Spirit" not really the Father's Spirit, so if God is Spirit, what is the distinction from the Holy Spirit?
In Luke 1.35 it says "the Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Highest will overshadow you" , so it sounds like the Holy Spirit is "the power of the Highest" rather then an agent. I'm a trinitarian but more from going with the flow then really thinking it through.

[RICHinCHRIST]

Rich,
Thanks for your response. In John 4.24 , John says "God is Spirit" not really the Father's Spirit, so if God is Spirit, what is the distinction from the Holy Spirit?

Verse 24 says "God is Spirit". But Jesus speaks of the Father in verse 23. He says that the Father is seeking people to worship Him in a certain context. Then Jesus says, "God is Spirit, and those who worship must worship in spirit and in truth". I think it is quite clear that the Father whom Jesus is referring to in verse 23 is God who is referred to in verse 24. I don't see why we should separate the two and think that Jesus is making an altogether different theological statement in verse 24. It seems He is just continuing His flow of thought into verse 24 and elaborating how the Father is to be worshipped. I do resonate with your question though. Even if this is the Spirit of the Father... what makes Him different than the Holy Spirit? Or even of the Spirit of Christ(Romans 8:9, 1 Peter 1:11)?

Jesus often speaks of the Father as God in the gospel of John (or even the apostle John speaks this way as a narrator). Many times He refers to the Father as being the "only God" there is. I don't completely understand why Jesus sometimes spoke this way of the Father if the Trinity is what He personally was thinking of. The following passages, whenever I read them, always make me scratch my head:


(which, in context, He is speaking specifically of the Father)

In Luke 1.35 it says "the Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Highest will overshadow you" , so it sounds like the Holy Spirit is "the power of the Highest" rather then an agent. I'm a trinitarian but more from going with the flow then really thinking it through.

There is no doubt that the Holy Spirit is 'the power of the Highest'. But the passage in no way makes a specific interpretation unambiguous. One can interpret that phrase as being the power of the Father Himself, or as the power of The Trinity as a whole, or as the Holy Spirit being a distinct third Person. This is what makes the doctrine of the Trinity so difficult, especially the doctrine of the personhood of the Holy Spirit (as being distinct from the Father and the Son). Paidion's view seems to be completely viable as far as I can tell, due to the ambiguity of the passages in question. The one passage which I thought taught the distinct Personhood of the Holy Spirit (as being separate from the Father and the Son) I now question. I used to read John 14-16 and it seemed so clear that the Holy Spirit was a distinctly different Person than the Father and the Son. Specifically I thought of John 14:26

Here, the Father is sending the Spirit. He is being sent in Christ's name in order to do things that only a Person would do (remind you of something). This always seemed to teach the Trinity in a single verse for me. However, as the theology of the Holy Spirit develops in this discourse, there is some other language which might point elsewhere it would seem.

Now we must systematize this verse with the previous one mentioned. Here it says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. One might think this means that the Spirit is just an extension of the Father himself. Also, in 14:26 it said the Father sent the Spirit. However, notice also that in this verse, Jesus is the one sending the Spirit from the Father. In this sense, the Spirit could also be 'proceeding from' Christ since the Spirit is just an extension of Christ Himself. Therefore we might conclude: The Father must send the Spirit to Jesus, and then Jesus sends the Spirit to the disciples. I don't see this as a relay race between the Father and Jesus. They're not just passing the Spirit along like a basketball. I see this language as being descriptive of the deep fellowship between the Father and the Son. The Father and the Son share the same Spirit, since they are one with one another. They are simply passing their Spirit along to the disciples. This would seem to make sense of why the epistles oftentimes speak of the Spirit of Christ or of God. (This may seem strangely similar to Paidion's view. I had actually thought these things before hearing his opinions)

However, the ambiguity remains because this doesn't necessarily prove or disprove the personality of the Holy Spirit. One could interpret these passages either way. It was kind of startling, though, when I first realized that one of the passages that I felt strongly spoke to me of the personality of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity may not necessarily be the only way to understand the nature of God. I'm anxious to hear if there are any other verses which clearly prove the Personhood of the Holy Spirit (as being distinct from the Father and the Son), since it has been a long time since I have studied the Trinity in-depth.

[jriccitelli]

You might think that 'Jesus is the FATHER', if not for the distinction verses.
When Jesus says "If you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father" do you now doubt that He is a separate person?
I would have no problem believing Jesus is the Father that is except that Jesus Himself makes a definite distinction.
Does that now contradict the fact that there is only one God?
Yes, that is unless God, whatever He is, actually has two persons within Himself. I would argue against God being two persons except for the fact that Jesus makes a distinction.
Jesus purposefully seems to make that distinction in regards to the Holy Spirit also. The distinction is being made by Jesus for some purpose, why, I guess to make a distinction.

Because Jesus is the Lord, because Jesus is the Rock, because Jesus says I Am, will you then say well 'Jesus is the Father’?
No, because Jesus does not say 'I am the Father', neither does the Father say 'I am Jesus'. Neither does Jesus say 'I am the Holy Spirit', neither does Jesus say 'the Holy Spirit is the Father', neither does any writer say 'Jesus is the Holy Spirit'.
It seems these distinct titles are always kept separate from one another, when any writer could have easily joined them. I figure the reason why they could not join them is that it would not be true.
You can join Jesus with; Lord, Savior, Husband, Shepherd, Spirit, Rock, Beginning and end, etc. but the names 'The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit do not seem to be combined. (As far as I can tell)

There must be a reason.

[RICHinCHRIST]

You might think that 'Jesus is the FATHER', if not for the distinction verses.
When Jesus says "If you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father" do you now doubt that He is a separate person?
I would have no problem believing Jesus is the Father that is except that Jesus Himself makes a definite distinction.
Does that now contradict the fact that there is only one God?
Yes, that is unless God, whatever He is, actually has two persons within Himself. I would argue against God being two persons except for the fact that Jesus makes a distinction.
Jesus purposefully seems to make that distinction in regards to the Holy Spirit also. The distinction is being made by Jesus for some purpose, why, I guess to make a distinction.

Because Jesus is the Lord, because Jesus is the Rock, because Jesus says I Am, will you then say well 'Jesus is the Father’?
No, because Jesus does not say 'I am the Father', neither does the Father say 'I am Jesus'. Neither does Jesus say 'I am the Holy Spirit', neither does Jesus say 'the Holy Spirit is the Father', neither does any writer say 'Jesus is the Holy Spirit'.
It seems these distinct titles are always kept separate from one another, when any writer could have easily joined them. I figure the reason why they could not join them is that it would not be true.
You can join Jesus with; Lord, Savior, Husband, Shepherd, Spirit, Rock, Beginning and end, etc. but the names 'The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit do not seem to be combined. (As far as I can tell)

There must be a reason.

Good points. I tend to agree with you. However, I don't see necessarily why it can be proven that a different view might not be equally viable. As I mentioned in those verses from the Upper Room Discourse, it seems that Jesus often speaks of Himself as an extension of the Father (yet distinct), and the Spirit as an extension of Himself (Jesus). This could be interpreted in two ways:

1) The Trinity-The Father, The Son, and The Spirit, are three different persons, but equally one God
2) The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct but the Spirit is simply an extension of both the Father and the Son.

Jriccitelli, you said:

Jesus does not say 'I am the Father', neither does the Father say 'I am Jesus'. Neither does Jesus say 'I am the Holy Spirit', neither does Jesus say 'the Holy Spirit is the Father', neither does any writer say 'Jesus is the Holy Spirit'.

Jesus does not say He is the Father or vice versa, I agree. Sabellianism seems to be a stretch. Neither does Jesus say the words, "I am the Holy Spirit", this is true. But the apostles often spoke of the Holy Spirit as "the Spirit of Christ" (Rom. 8:9, 1 Peter 1:11). Jesus Himself even said, speaking of the Holy Spirit: "I will come to you" (John 14:18). So Jesus seemed to identify Himself in that verse as the Holy Spirit:

He seemed to infer that He was going to be present in the Comforter. Whether the Spirit is a distinct personality or not, I don't think can be proven by Scripture unambiguously. I'm open to both ideas, but I personally lean toward the Trinity. The reason why I do is because I think Jesus was an extension of the Father, yet He was a separate Person. I don't see why the Spirit, being an extension of Christ, could not be a distinct Person also. I admit, though, that I cannot prove this from Scripture (since verses even proving the divinity of the Holy Spirit are few and far between). And honestly, it doesn't really matter much to me. My relationship with God will not change over whether I know everything about the specific nature of the Trinity.