robto

The Spirit of God is right there in Gen 1:1:

"And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."

But it is only rather late in the development of Christianity that the Holy Spirit came to be seen as a definite "person" distinct from God, er, um, not distinct but different, I mean the same but not really, ... IIRC Tertullian suggested something close to the later orthodoxy around 200 AD, but it only became official doctrine with the 4th-century creeds.

lumax

Many things the Catholic Church(i.e. the Pope) created have had great flux. What I mean is there were somethings so sacred if they weren't followed it was considered a sin but now Catholics look at you odd if you do it. Here are a few examples.
*No meat at all on fridays - changed to no meat on fridays during Lent and also Ash Wednesday - exceptions for children, the ill and the elderly
*Veneration of the saints and also if you pray to them they will intercede with God on your behalf so that your prayers will be answered
*The Host(body of Christ) if it falls on the ground during the rite of Communion used to be covered with a special cloth, then after the Mass the Priest would go back say prayers over it and then eat the Host -as it was viewed as desecrated. The spot was cleaned with water from a special consecrated sink(it was also used to clean implements from the Mass). I am unsure if they still have it. Currently my Mother has seen her Parish Priest pick it up, dust it off and bless it and then give it to the person - my thinking is the 5 second rule and kissing it up to God come into play here[/sarcasm]
*Mass used to be said in Latin - that is a huge no-no now

Those are just a few I remember/was told of. Hope I was helpful.

Huon

In greek it is : to pneuma to hagion.
My small greek dictionary says : pneuma : 1 - breath. 2 - life. 3 - vapor. 4 - inspiration, spirit.
I cannot go further. I suspect that "pneuma" was used for religious purposes before christianity.

Clivedurdle

Sorry, I thought Holy Spirit and spirit of god were utterly different ideas.

Is this another case of assumptions? Xian Ikeaism?

Is or is not Holy Spirit a specific xian invention? Did the idea exist before the formulation of the trinity?


If it is a later formulation, why is it in the New Testament?

Civil1z@tion

As far as I know God is a unitary being in Jewish tradition so yes the Holy Spirit would be an xian invention. Furthermore, the Trinity was dropped in Islam. Basically, the idea of a seperate Holy Spirit is one of the doctrinal issues which sets Xianty apart from the other Abrahamic religons.

Clivedurdle

The classic xian message is assumed to be about God sending his son to save mankind. John 3 16.

But it looks as if it is more interesting than that.

At some point two innovations occurred - and it feels like they happened together - the invention of a son of God and the invention of a Holy Spirit.

There are all sorts of interesting philosophical reasons that would lead to the invention of these entities - how exactly do the gods intervene in the world. This looks like a twin track stair way from heaven solution - God has a son, God impregnates a woman through this new fangled Holy Spirit.

Is it all the fault of that sublime story teller called Mark and later riffs by Matthew and Luke, John returning to a more orthodox Greek logos view.

Darklighter

You know, it just hit me... Was Jesus a Nephilum?

RareBird

I have a theory. The trinity may originally not have been an external projection of godhead in three persons--indeed it makes no sense to me as such. I don't know it for a fact but I can imagine that somewhere along the line a human being faced an enormous dilemma. He or she reached deep inside for strength and courage and said: in the name of all there has ever been and all there will ever be, let my decision at the critical hour be right and do honor to the past and future. Now, if one were to express that formula as a solemn invocation people would make when facing great life-direction decisions, one might use figurative language. For instance, instead of calling the past the past, a patriarchal culture might express the past as "the father". Typically then, the future might be characterized as "the son". And between the past and future is the present where the spirit of all is invoked in conscience to make decisions which seek to honor both past and future. As the poetic license begins to lose connection with its originator--in other words people hear of such a solemn invocation and express it without knowing that it is figurative and begin to give it their own literal presumption of what it means. To me it makes a great deal of sense to consider the past, consider the possible future and strive to be the best example of the best spirit in the moment between past and future to do the best thing. A person might say, figuratively, "in the name of the father (the past) and the son (the future), let the spirit of forever live in me now--now that circumstances have chosen me to decide actions which lives and futures depend upon. As time goes on and the expression loses its connection with its origins, it could be misapplied externally to mean three literal figure--a god father, a son of god and some contrived magic dove in between that no one really understand but just accepts. It makes sense to me but usually when I express my insight on this I get treated to some valueless history lesson which doesn't change my intuition. I had one person even reply: you sir, are an idiot. Well, nail me to the cross of I'm wrong. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Solo

You are not making this up, are you Clive ?

Jiri

Clivedurdle

I am quite serious and actually Rarebird's comments feel correct and are a logical extention of how I am thinking.

Rarebird also makes sense in terms of my xian experience - The Father somewhere back then in control, the comforter with us now, the coming son to create a new heaven and earth where the lion will lay down with the lamb.

And Rarebirds view is accepted psychology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_People_Play_(book)

I am not sure why wiki comments that the article does not quote sources when it is summarising the book!:banghead: