Solo

It seems to me much more probable that a historical figure connected the psi phenomena of the Spirit to the Danielic Son of Man (not referring to himself) and the immediate coming of God's kingdom. After the death of Jesus, Paul (and perhaps other figures in the Jesus movement) converted the proclaimer into the Proclaimed. Paul radically rejected the idea that God's kingdom existed here on earth and one could enter into it through repentance and an initiatory ordeal (Mt 11:12, Lk 16:16, Acts 8:15-17). He believed that the Spirit - as a way to describe a hyperagitated state - was a manifestation of God, and that the resurrected "body" of Christ was revealed during the visitations.

Jiri

XKV8R

the understanding of the holy spirit as a separate entity in christianity is the result of conflated textual sources. the early church never bothered (nor could they have) to think about various textual sources. the early church councils had to reconcile jesus as a god (against the adoptionists) and as a man (against the gnostics). they did so at nicea by coming up with the 'same substance' argument for jesus and god. but look carefully at the end of the creed. it essentially ends, 'oh yeah, and we also believe in the holy spirit.' that is, even after hundreds of years and nicea, they still didn't know how to reconcile the holy spirit into the equation, they just accepted him (i wish they would have left it this way). later, at constantinople, they factored the holy spirit into the equation, realizing they still didn't know how to reconcile the existence of this 'other' entity (the holy spirit). thus, the trinity (especially the bit about the holy spirit) is contrived - a man made theory that attempted to reconcile the fact that sometimes god was referred to as 'god,' and that sometimes he was referred to as the 'spirit of god'.

however, once the documentary hypothesis (call it what you want) came into play, we had a scientific theory for why god was sometimes referred to in the jahwistic way (god) and sometimes in the elohistic/priestly manner (spirit of god). that is to say, the ancients didn't think to question multiple sources for the name of god, so they eventually saw them as two entities. the spirit of god began to be reflected in jewish apocryphal and pseudepigraphical literature, and ultimately was reflected in the new testament as a separate entity. it still took another 300+ years to hash out a doctrine of the trinity, which admittedly stood on shaky ground all along.

the question is: now that we know about source criticism, what should happen to the doctrine of the trinity? or put it this way: had the early church fathers known about the multiple sources present in the hebrew bible, would we have a trinity today? or still yet: how does one go about undoing years of tradition (the doctrine of the trinity) without being labeled a heretic (or is it even possible)?

No Robots

Your summary is pretty good. :thumbs:

The Trinity can be rendered intelligible as the principle of absolute unity (the Father), the impulse that drives some people toward this principle (the Spirit), and the genius who makes it accessible (the Son).

XKV8R

thanx!

Huon

Still, we have no explanation of the differences between the Spirit, and an angel, which could very well transmit the impulse. Or, there is more than an impulse.

XKV8R

angels would be defined as semi-divine, that is, less than god, but still supernatural. not everyone accepted their existence, namely the sadducees. they understood a more traditional approach in judaism, where god alone is responsible for good, evil, etc. (vs. the latter notion that god is always good, and some other being therefore must be responsible for evil - enter the satan). anywho, i'd argue that the concept of angels developed from polytheistic ideas, and was incorporated into judaism in conjunction with the elohist/priestly (call it what you want) concept of god, where he sent messengers/other beings to communicate on his behalf. in this same vein, i'd argue that the elohist/priestly desire to distance god from the world is also the impetus for their reference to god as the 'spirit of god,' or ruah adonay. over time, the spirit of god, which is obviously holy, became the 'holy spirit of god' and ultimately the holy spirit. thus the same group referred to god as the 'spirit of god' whenever he communicated with humanity and believed in angels or some sort of heavenly court. over time, the 'holy spirit' came to be know as an entirely different entity, which is strange for a monotheisitic religion. 400 years later, christians were still struggling with the idea, and ultimately concocted the concept of the trinity to satisfy both jesus as god and man and the holy spirit as an apparently different entity, yet still god (and all of it as monotheistic). thus, angels remained semi-divine and less than god, while the holy spirit, which was actually just another way to say 'god', remained where it should have been: god, only now it was seen (perhaps mistakenly) as another entity.