[Hope12]

Hello Wang,

I appreciate your polite response and also I truly respect you right to your opinion. Yes, we do disagree on the Trinity teaching, however, I am sure there are other things we do agree on. I look forward to further communication and always welcome other's opinions.

Take care,
Hope12

[JoeCanada76]

The point is Hope, Even though everybody here is sharing their opinion. Your not supposed to give bad comments for a belief. That is exactly what you did. You gave me a disagree for what I shared as my point and belief and what did you do with it? You gave me a disagree with a comment about how I believe in more then one God which is untrue.

You try to act all innocent but your not, If you truly appreciated my opinion like the rest you would have disagreed in a post but not give me a bad comment and at the same time twist my words around. That is the point I was trying to make.

Yes, You did start it but I was not the smart one and I should have stayed out of it because I know how you can get, examples of you on other websites.

Best wishes

[Starman]

BWT, the doctrine of the Trinity has been documented to have been accepted as far back as 200 A.D.

If so then why this?

The Encyclopedia Americana 1956

"Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian (believing in one God). The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."

The New Catholic Encyclopedia 1967

"The formulation 'one God in three persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century."


The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism 1995

". . . scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the trinity as such in either the Old Testament or the New Testament."


Dictionary of The Bible 1995 John L. Mckenzie

"The trinity of God is defined by the church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief."


HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE TRINITY

[Wangdoodle]

Here is part of the document from which I referred.

Tertullian, Against Praxeas, (A.D. 213).
"In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or oikonomia, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her--being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas."

[Fr_Chuck]

The main thing is that since there are verses that show there is a trinity, there has to be, the other verses that speak of each separate are also true, since each have a entire being separate. But these separate things are still one and the same.

If you don't understand it, great, we can't, because man has limited being and limited understanding now and a lot less 2000 and 4000 years ago and could only write from how they understand life.

And of course in the Old Testement, the idea of one God is all they had, since Christ was merely a promise and they did not understand.
Now that he has come, we still can't understand since we want it to fit things the way mans laws of science says it has to be.
We have to understand that God and his power is far beyond anything we could dream, so if the bible only says once there is a trinity, then there has to be one, no question about it. If you don't accept that, then you are not accepting Gods word. The fact they also name each separate is great also, since it means that each part of God has its own relationship with us.

As for as the Chistian church, Trinity is part of the majority of all, and is part of basic Christian doctrine. But it was not fully accepted, and the teaching came from some of the early church Councils. There Bishops and leaders from all the major churches meet and worked out the basics for Christian teachings.

[Starman]

Here is part of the document from which I referred.

Tertullian, Against Praxeas, (A.D. 213).
"In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or oikonomia, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her--being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas."

Yes, I understood your original post and was not challenging its accuracy. By the time you refer to there certainly had to be indications that the Trinity doctrine was in existence. My question was in reference to the comments made by these biblical scholars. If indeed the case for the Trinity doctrine's existence from the outset of Christianity is as clear-cut as you describe, then why would these respected publications make such statements?


Fra Chuck

The Nicene Council's decision to adopt this concept was strongly influenced by Emperor Constantine and his prime directive was Imperial Roman unity not doctrinal accuracy.
To claim that rejection of this council's sudden decision to formalize the Trinity belief
Due in large measure to the influence of a Sun Worshipping emperor constitutes rejection of God's Word is naïve at best and ludicrous at worst. The Council of Trent added the apocryphal books, does that make them inspired as well? If one Catholic Church council decision is to be taken as sacrosanct because it was a Catholic Church council decision, then you are obligated to take all CC Council decisions as such and judging by the historical record, I sincerely doubt that you would feel comfortable holding to that criterion.

Were the Early Christians Catholics?


Historical Doctrinal Continuity Problem

As Christians we agree that the Hebrews were entrusted with the sacred writings of God and received inspired illumination via God's holy spirit. Yet, they were not Trinitarians. In short, they were not worshipping the Christian God. That seems rather strange since Christians accept that they were God's chosen people entrusted with his sacred writings.

The Trinity

Is it basic because you understand it as so?


It's comforting to think that such is the case but the premise is defective from a cogent reasoning perspective and unfortunately makes the conclusion false.

Appeal to Majority


Also, bandwaggon, or the appeal to majority or popularity of a belief, is fallacious reasoning. Why? Because majority doesn't guarantee accuracy. For example, the majority of scientists are atheists and they are dead wrong. The majority once thought the Earth was flat. Neither does the convening of said majority in order to formulate and officially sanction a popular idea centuries after Jesus died automatically make such conclusions irrefutably true. It only indicates popularity of belief and majority.

[Wangdoodle]

By the time church councils formally declared the Trinity to be a valid doctrine the idea of the Trinity was not novel. Early Christians taught and believed in the Trinity. Yet, this teaching was not condemned as heresy, in fact, it was later formally approved and declared valid. It is worthy to note that formal declarations of doctrine will often happen after a large challenge to a held truth is made. Then, the church will act to formally define and declare held beliefs to be valid. Since the Trinity's validation there has been no incontrovertible reason to declare it invalid. It stands: A Christian truth.

[Starman]

Instead of saying "Abracadabra Lo and behold!" , why not present some solid evidence indicating such a belief existed during Christianity's first century in order to refute the sources below which say otherwise?

The Encyclopedia Americana 1956

"Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian (believing in one God). The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."

The New Catholic Encyclopedia 1967

"The formulation 'one God in three persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century."


The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism 1995

". . . scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the trinity as such in either the Old Testament or the New Testament."

Did the True Church Ever Teach a Trinity?'



It was a totally alien concept to the nation of Israel, the people God had chosen to reveal his truths and continues to be a stumbling block because they find no evidence of such a concept in OT.

BTW
It wasn't novel by that time but neither was it universally accepted. If it had been universally accepted then there would not have been a controversy.


Excerpt

Many early Christians were very concerned that the developing doctrine of the Trinity was a departure from monotheism. Some Christians clearly saw it as polytheistic heresy. It had been bitterly debated until it was settled by Constantine's coercion and edict at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Even with that pronouncement of the Nicene Creed, the theological pendulum swung back and forth until later in the century, as different Roman church officials went in and out of power. Those who were on the losing side at any given time were banished, and some even lost their lives over the issue.

The Trinity

[JonLR92]

The real question is why are you looking for something to be wrong with the Bible or the Holy Trinity? Either you believe it or not. Either you are lost or saved.

[Starman]

Actually, the Apostles Creed preceded the Nicene Council Creed and the Apostles' Creed was Unittarian. So the heresy, if we are to go by which preceded which, would have to be the latter that deviated from the former.



Excerpt
The Apostles' or Unitarian Creed was the creed used during the first two centuries AD. It was not written by the Apostles, though it bears their name:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

And in Jesus Christ, his only son our Lord: who was conceived by the holy ghost (spirit), born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell (the grave); the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God, the Father Almighty: From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:

I believe in the holy ghost (spirit); the holy catholic (general) Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine

[Starman]

the real question is why are you looking for something to be wrong with the Bible or the Holy Trinity? either you believe it or not. either you are lost or saved.

First, this is a discussion forum where questions are asked, answered, and sometimes discussed extensively. A question was asked on this forum and I responded. There is nothing unusual about this nor does it constitute a breaking of forum rules.

Second, nowhere in the Bible does it say that if I don't share your faith in the Nicene Council's decision to invalidate the Apostles' Creed that preceded it, that I am not saved. That is totally YOUR idea.

[JonLR92]

I have no idea what you said but I can asure you the only way to be saved is to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and to live a life he would be proud of.

[Wangdoodle]

Instead of saying "Abracadabra Lo and behold!" , why not present some solid evidence indicating such a belief existed during Christianity's first century in order to refute the sources below which say otherwise?

From Catholic Encyclopedia, Newadvent.org

The doctrine of the Trinity is formally taught in every class of ecclesiastical writing. From among the apologists we may note Justin, "Apol." I, vi; Athenagoras, "Legat: pro Christ.", n. 12. The latter tells us that Christians "are conducted to the future life by this one thing alone, that they know God and His Logos, what is the oneness of the Son with the Father, what the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these three, the Spirit, the Son, and the Father, and their distinction in unity." It would be impossible to be more explicit. And we may be sure that an apologist, writing for pagans, would weigh well the words in which he dealt with this doctrine.

Amongst polemical writers we may refer to Irenaeus, "Adv. haer.", I, xxii, IV, xx, 1-6. In these passages he rejects the Gnostic figment that the world was created by aeons who had emanated from God, but were not consubstantial with Him, and teaches the consubstantiality of the Word and the Spirit by Whom God created all things.
Yet further evidence regarding the Church's doctrine is furnished by a comparison of her teaching with that of heretical sects.

The controversy with the Sabellians in the third century proves conclusively that she would tolerate no deviation from Trinitarian doctrine. Noetus of Smyrna, the originator of the error, was condemned by a local synod, about A.D. 200. Sabellius, who propagated the same heresy at Rome c. A.D. 220, was excommunicated by St. Callistus.

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom ("Ad. Autol.", II, 15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian ("De pud." c. xxi). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:
There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P. G. X, 986).

[Starman]

i have no idea what you said but i can asure you the only way to be saved is to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and to live a life he would be proud of.

And you equate not agreeing with the Catholic Nicene Council as a rejection of Jesus, of not living a Christian life and of eternal damnation. Fortunately that concept isn't a biblical teaching. I would also like to humbly remind you that the only one qualified to determine whether you or I or anyone else is or isn't going to gain eternal life is God via Jesus Christ whom he has appointed judge. So I would seriously recommend that you try not to wield an authority which has never been given you due to your lack of qualification for it.

As to not understanding plain English, that's a matter which can't be resolved in this forum but requires perhaps remedial reading and comprehension classes. In any case, it definitely isn't the virtue which you seem to believe it is.

On the other hanbd perhaps it's simply that you aren't meant to understand. That too is a possibility. But as I said before, only God knows for sure and it woud be hubris to assume otherwise.

[Starman]

From Catholic Encyclopedia, Newadvent.org

The doctrine of the Trinity is formally taught in every class of ecclesiastical writing. From among the apologists we may note Justin, "Apol." I, vi; Athenagoras, "Legat: pro Christ.", n. 12. The latter tells us that Christians "are conducted to the future life by this one thing alone, that they know God and His Logos, what is the oneness of the Son with the Father, what the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these three, the Spirit, the Son, and the Father, and their distinction in unity." It would be impossible to be more explicit. And we may be sure that an apologist, writing for pagans, would weigh well the words in which he dealt with this doctrine.

Amongst polemical writers we may refer to Irenaeus, "Adv. haer.", I, xxii, IV, xx, 1-6. In these passages he rejects the Gnostic figment that the world was created by aeons who had emanated from God, but were not consubstantial with Him, and teaches the consubstantiality of the Word and the Spirit by Whom God created all things.
Yet further evidence regarding the Church's doctrine is furnished by a comparison of her teaching with that of heretical sects.

The controversy with the Sabellians in the third century proves conclusively that she would tolerate no deviation from Trinitarian doctrine. Noetus of Smyrna, the originator of the error, was condemned by a local synod, about A.D. 200. Sabellius, who propagated the same heresy at Rome c. A.D. 220, was excommunicated by St. Callistus.

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom ("Ad. Autol.", II, 15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian ("De pud." c. xxi). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:
There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P. G., X, 986).

Thank you for posting the entire article. But it doesn't offer evidence that the Trinity Doctrine was taught during the first century. It merely quotes sources which came much later than that time. Also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the Apostles' Creed which was Unitarian and which Christians accepted as truth during the first two centuries preceded the Nicene Council decision.


Apostles' Creed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:

3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:

4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:

5. The third day he rose again from the dead:

6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:

7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:

8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:

9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:

10. The forgiveness of sins:

1l. The resurrection of the body:

12. And the life everlasting. Amen.


Why you ignore this fact I don't know. Care to explain?


BTW
One thing I would like to clarify is that I am in no way judging anyone who adheres to the Nicene Council decision as either saved or unsaved. That is for God to decide.

[Fr_Chuck]

Well Starman, I have reached my limit of dooming people to hell this week, so I guess you are safe for another week.

But you are right, even at the Nicene convention, it was not 100 percent agreement by the Bishops there, But over discussion, they finally agreed on these. While no one knows what points were taken out, what was added toward the end to reach this agreement, We know it was a discussion.

But also we can see ( and I will pick on all denominations here) that they all by this claim to believe in the universal ( catholic) church, so they are saying that they believe all christians are of the same over all fellowship. But if you discuss this as to doing things together, try to get a baptist and a catholic to do activities together, it just does not happen normally.

But if a person does not accept the full idea of the trinity, but believes on Christ as the Son of God for his salvation, there is no reason to believe he is not saved.

I think we will all find out that the entire concept of the trinity is just beyond mans ability to understand, and that it is more complicated and we try to explain it with our limited knowledge.

It would be like someone from the 1500 trying to explain to someone what a airplane is, just no frame of reference

[Wangdoodle]

Thank you for posting the entire article. But it doesn't offer evidence that the Trinity Doctrine was taught during the first century. It merely quotes sources which came much later than that time. Also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the Apostles' Creed which was Unitarian and which Christians accepted as truth during the first two centuries preceded the Nicene Council decision.

To which I have referred is to show that the “Trinity of God” as Theophilus said, was being taught and not condemned long before the Nicene Creed was formally declared.
I will not challenge the Apostle Creed, for it does not contradict the Holy Trinity, and is a creed that I confess as well.

[Starman]

To which I have referred is to show that the “Trinity of God” as Theophilus said, was being taught and not condemned long before the Nicene Creed was formally declared.
I will not challenge the Apostle Creed, for it does not contradict the Holy Trinity, and is a creed that I confess as well.

Theophilus was not teaching the trinity:

Excerpt

Theophilus might have coined the expression "trinity" but he was by no means a trinitarian since considered the holy spirit a force or power of God and not a person...

... It is not totally clear how Theophilus views the Holy Spirit, though life-giving breath may be close. The above writings suggest that it is the power of God, as opposed to a specific person--in no place does Theophilus suggest that the Holy Spirit is a separate person.. . Theophilus did not teach that the Holy Spirit was, or somehow was, one of three persons in any trinity. He simply did not teach the trinity.


Theophilus of Antioch


BTW

The Apostle's Creed was used for the purpose of declaring one's faith during baptism. If the Trinitarian doctrine was as prominent as you say during that three-century pre- Nicene-Council period, then its inclusion in the Apostles' Creed would have been deemed essential.

[Wangdoodle]

Below is a link to the entire work of Tertullian Against Praxeas (213 A.D.) This is a clear defense of the Trinity. Take note of the phrases that are used to suggest this is not a new teaching.

“But this conception of theirs has been, in fact, already confuted in what we have previously advanced”

“But the tares of Praxeas had then everywhere shaken out their seed, which having lain hid for some while, with its vitality concealed under a mask, has now broken out with fresh life. But again shall it be rooted up…”

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Praxeas (Tertullian)

[Starman]

Tertullian's trinity was not identical to the Nicene Council Trinity. But even if it had been, that still would not be proof that it is a first century Christian teaching since his ideas took form much later. Actually, the Catholic Church accuses Tertullian of not teaching the Nicene Council concept correctly and even accuses him of laying the groundwork for heresy. Later Tertullian lashed out at the church and became a member of a heretical sect. Not finding solace there he founded his own heretical sect. Hardly a person I would trust with my spiritual enlightenment. What really impresses me is how he began to write against the church with more vehemence than he had done against what he had perceived as its opposers. That's a complete turnaround of biblical proportions!

Excerpt:

Tertullian

Ecclesiastical writer in the second and third centuries, b. probably about 160 at Carthage...

It was after the year 206 that he joined the Montanist sect, and he seems to have definitively separated from the Church about 211 (Harnack) or 213 (Monceaux).After writing more virulently against the Church than even against heathen and persecutors, he separated from the Montanists and founded a sect of his own.[/b]




Here is some background on the sect that Tertullian decided was better than the Catholic Church and its teachings:

Montanus was a recent convert when he first began to prophesy in the village of Ardabau in Phrygia. He is said by Jerome to have been previously a priest of Cybele; but this is perhaps a later invention intended to connect his ecstasies with the dervish-like behavior of the priests and devotees of the "great goddess." The same prophetic gift was believed to have descended also upon his two companions, the prophetesses Maximilla and Prisca or Priscilla. Their headquarters were in the village of Pepuza. The anonymous opponent of the sect describes the method of prophecy (Eusebius, V, xvii, 2-3): first the prophet appears distraught with terror (en parekstasei), then follows quiet (adeia kai aphobia, fearlessness); beginning by studied vacancy of thought or passivity of intellect (ekousios amathia), [b]he is seized by an uncontrollable madness (akousios mania psyches). The prophets did not speak as messengers of God: "Thus saith the Lord," but described themselves as possessed by God and spoke in His Person. "I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete,"


Then we have the Catholic Church's less than flattering opinion about Tertullian's quasi Trinitarian ideas:

His Trinitarian teaching is inconsistent, being an amalgamation of the Roman doctrine with that of St. Justin Martyr. Tertullian has the true formula for the Holy Trinity, tres Personae, una Substantia. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are numerically distinct, and each is God; they are of one substance, one state, and one power. So far the doctrine is accurately Nicene. But by the side of this appears the Greek view which was one day to develop into Arianism: that the unity is to be sought not in the Essence


CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tertullian


Early Trinitarian Ideas were not Nicene Council Ideas

Trinitarians also deny any form of subordination of one person to another in power or eternality. However, they often say God the Father is the head of the trinity, God the Son is begotten by the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father or Son or both. Again, they insist there is no contradiction, because our finite minds simply cannot comprehend the fulness of meaning described by these relationships.

We find, however, that throughout history prominent Trinitarians have interpreted their own doctrine in a way that subordinates Jesus Christ or makes him inferior. Tertullian, the first prominent exponent of Trinitarianism, taught that the Son was subordinate to the Father and that the trinity is not eternal. [77] He taught that the Son did not exist as a separate person in the beginning, but was begotten by the Father to accomplish the creation of the world. Furthermore, Tertullian held that the distinction of persons would cease in the future. Origen, the first great proponent of Trinitarianism in the East, also saw the Son as subordinate to the Father in existence and he even maintained that prayer should be addressed to the Father alone. [78] Both men meant the deity of Christ when they used the term Son. It can, therefore, be said that trinitarianism began as a doctrine that subordinated Jesus to God.

Chapter 11

It is also wise to keep in mind that the first Nicene Council doctrinal conclusions did not proclaim the holy spirit as co-eternalor and coequal with God. The decision to officially promote the holy spirit to that privileged position was reached much later at another council.

Here is an interesting article on the subject:
Booklet > Who Is God? > The Holy Spirit: Not a Personal Being