Traditional Christianity teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons, coequal, coeternal, of the same substance, and all fully divine. The Holy Spirit is the same being referred to in the New Testament as God's Spirit (e.g., 1 Corinthians 2:11, Ephesians 4:30) and as Christ's Spirit (e.g., Galatians 4:6, Philippians 1:19, 1 Peter 1:11), and in one place with both titles (Romans 8:9). My understanding of the Jehovah's Witnesses is that they believe God the Father to be fully divine and eternal, but Jesus Christ is his first creation, gifted with semi-divinity. What do they teach about the Holy Spirit? A good answer will address, directly or by clear implication, whether or not the Holy Spirit is: - eternal - eternally/ontologically distinct from God the Father - ontologically divine - a person - one and the same as the Spirit of Christ A good answer will address anything else that a standard JW articulation of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit would address and will use Watchtower sources.

Duplicate of [LDS](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/24058/22319) but from Catholic perspective Bible verses: Isaiah 43:10 >Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me. Isaiah 44:6 >'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me. Isaiah 44:8 >Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none. Isaiah 45:5 >I am Yahweh, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. Isaiah 45:14 >Surely, God is with you, and there is none else, No other God. Isaiah 45:18 >I am Yahweh, and there is none else. Isaiah 45:21 >Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me. Isaiah 46:9 >I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me From what I've been reading Catholic catechisms seem to sometimes align with LDS beliefs (at least first reading). CCC 460 >460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature": "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "**For the Son of God became man so that we might become God**." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that **he, made man, might make men gods**." I believe this quotes On the Incarnation, by Athanasius (pg 60) >He, indeed, assumed humanity that **we might become God**. He manifested Himself by means of a body in order that we might perceive the Mind of the unseen Father. He endured shame from men that we might inherit immortality Is immortality the only way man might be gods in Catholic tradition/belief or is there some other meaning/interpretation that I'm missing? There are other footnotes in the CCC but they don't seem to be working, is there another text that expounds on what this is saying?

In related form to a previous question on the basis *for* the Trinity, what is the Biblical basis for disbelief of the doctrine? Not all Christians (and perhaps not all branches of Christendom) hold to a Trinitarian view - how are those views justified from the Bible? Specifically, what verses do non-Trinitarians cite to support their views / contradict the doctrine of the Trinity?

According to the a Wikipedia article on Catharism (a Gnostic Christian movement in the 12th to 14th centuries): > The idea of two Gods or principles, one being good and the other evil, was central to Cathar beliefs. The good God was the God of the New Testament and the creator of the spiritual realm, contrasted with the evil Old Testament God—the creator of the physical world whom many Cathars, and particularly their persecutors, identified as Satan. I find the statement about the Old Testament God being identified as Satan to be really surprising. How was this explained? I'm especially interested how references to Satan were handled (e.g. the book of Job) and how any "good" actions from God were interpreted. One point I would like clarification on is that modern Christians (say, Catholics) generally consider Satan a powerful being, but not a god. What was it in Cathar theology that "elevated" Satan to the level of an evil God? Was he just the most powerful evil being they knew of and so he must be the same Old Testament God that they viewed as evil? It's kind of a long shot in that this information may not exist, but I would love to know how they viewed God having Old Testament heroes of faith, like Enoch, Moses, and Elijah, not taste death. I figure having a soul be released without having to die would be very interesting to them.

The 2 statements below are from Witness Lee: 1. **God is four-in-one.** 2. **The Body of Christ is four-in-one.** The Father, the Son, the Spirit and the Body of Christ. There is no participation in God's essence/Godhead, only in His energies/economy by believers. Are these **two statements** orthodox, heterodox, or heresy? #### Witness Lee Quotations: - The Central Line of the Divine Revelation - Message 9: >"According to Ephesians 4:4-6, the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body are all one. This is the oneness of the Body. It is altogether proper to say that the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body are four-in-one. The Triune God is three, yet He now has a fourth part, a counterpart. However, only the first three are worthy of our worship. The Triune God and His counterpart are now four-in-one." - The Central Line of the Divine Revelation - Message 11: >"The Body of Christ, the church, is four-in-one: the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body. However, only the first three are worthy of our worship; the fourth, the Body, should not be deified as an object of worship." - A Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing - Chapter 15: >"The Triune God and the church are four-in-one. Because the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all one with the Body of Christ, we may say that the Triune God is now the “four-in-one God.” These four are the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body. The three of the Divine Trinity cannot be confused or separated, and the four-in-one also cannot be separated or confused." #### Possible Biblical Basis: John 14:20 (NIV): > On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. John 14:23 (NIV): > Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. John 17:21 (NIV): > that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 1 Corinthians 6:19 (NIV): > Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; Ephesians 3:17 (NIV): > so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, Ephesians 4:4-6 (NIV): > 4There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. #### Arguments For: - https://conversantfaith.com/2025/06/12/four-in-one-witness-lee-and-trinitarian-ecclesiology/ : > "Witness Lee’s claim that the Body of Christ is “a four-in-one organic entity” belongs within this broad and venerable stream: a distinctive, but not discordant, contribution to the tradition of Trinitarian ecclesiology." - https://www.equip.org/articles/addressing-the-open-letters-concerns-on-the-nature-of-humanity-part-3-of-a-reassessment-of-the-local-church-movement-of-watchman-nee-and-witness-lee/ : > "On first blush a skeptic might legitimately ask, “How could believers not partake in the Godhead if they partake in God’s life and nature?” The answer, however, becomes clear when Lee is read in his own context and allowed to define his own terms. When Lee refers to the “processed God,” he is clearly speaking about the economic Trinity. It is this Trinity that becomes in a sense “four-in-one.” There is no change in the essential or ontological Trinity (what Lee is here calling the Godhead) with the deification of believers any more than there was a change in the ontological Trinity with the incarnation of Christ. According to the LC, in the outworking of God’s economy or plan of salvation, there is a process that includes progressive steps in which God the Father is embodied in the Son in incarnation, Christ is realized as the Spirit in resurrection, and ultimately the Triune God is expressed in the glorified church; but in His essential nature or Godhead, the Lord remains forever unchanged." #### Arguments Against: - https://normangeisler.com/a-response-to-cri-local-church/ : > "To illustrate the absurdity of the LC position, one final citation from Witness Lee is necessary. He wrote: “Because the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all one with the Body of Christ, we may say that the Triune God is now the ‘four-in-one’ God. These four are the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body. The Three of the Divine Trinity cannot be confused or separated, and the four-in-one also cannot be separated or confused.” (Lee , A Deeper Study, 203-204). No amount of hermeneutical gyrations can untangle this theological absurdity. Clearly, Lee does not hold the orthodox view of the Trinity which allows no creature or creatures to be one with the members of the Trinity in the same sense that the Body of Christ (the Church) is one with God. Defending such a view is both senseless and useless." - https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/scotty-smith/trinity-no-4th-member/ : > "You are the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End, and everything in between. Hallelujah, many times over. As our God, you are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—perfect Trinity. And you’re not looking to turn a Trio into a Quartet. We matter, but only you are the point."

Jesus taught the woman of Samaria that "God is spirit" . The answer to the Penny Catechism Q17. *What is God?* is **God is the supreme Spirit**, *who alone exists of himself, and is infinite in all perfections.* As the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Spirit is God and consubstantial with the Father and the Son. A diagram as one below is sometimes used to explain the mystery of the Blessed Trinity. This is where it gets confusing for me. If each of the persons is God, then from the foregoing we can say > The Holy Spirit is the supreme Spirit. Since the Father and the son are each also the supreme Spirit but not the Holy Spirit, what is "spirit" in the Holy Spirit and how is it different from "spirit" in the supreme Spirit? Catholic perspective preferred but any others welcome from Christians who believe in the Blessed Trinity.

For those who believe that God is outside of time, is Jesus also outside of time? On the one hand Jesus existed in time on Earth during His incarnation and perhaps as the Word of God in the Old Testament. >But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God - Heb.10:12. **Conclusion** The answers below agree that yes, Jesus' spiritual self is outside of time. His physical body was within time.

What is a good analogy for God being outside of time but not completely controlling it? We have heard the analogy of God being on the bank of the river of time. Revelation Lad wrote about God looking down on the solar system and seeing us experience day and night without His experiencing them (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/111175/102058) . I have a different analogy. I read that if one wants comments on a write-up, they should post it as the answer to a question, making up an appropriate question, if necessary. When I ask a question, the system says, "Answer your own question – share your knowledge, Q&A-style". So, please comment on my answer. **Conclusion** Rather than my analogy, I prefer Mimi's analogy that God can travel back and forth through time. Thus God can - 1. Know the future without controlling it. 2. Change the future in response to our prayers. 3. Change the past (although I am not aware of His having done this). **Comments** 1. This does not represent my personal beliefs, only a simple way of understanding one set of beliefs. 2. This does not appear to be a salvation issue. Those of us with a proper relationship with Jesus should end up in the New Jerusalem, regardless of whether we believe that a. God doesn't completely know the future, b. God completely knows the future but doesn't completely control it, or c. God completely knows the future because He completely controls it. 3. Googling a definition of absolute sovereignty got me the following: >absolutism political system Also known as: absolute monarchy, autocracy Written and fact-checked by The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica Last Updated: Oct. 11, 2025 •Article History Britannica AI Icon Britannica AI Ask Anything >absolutism, the political doctrine and practice of unlimited centralized authority and **absolute sovereignty**, as vested especially in a monarch or dictator. The essence of an absolutist system is that the ruling power is not subject to regularized challenge or check by any other agency, be it judicial, legislative, religious, economic, or electoral. King Louis XIV (1643–1715) of France furnished the most familiar assertion of absolutism when he said, “L’état, c’est moi” (“I am the state”). Absolutism has existed in various forms in all parts of the world, including in Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler and in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. Please notice that the definition requires only that the rule be unchecked. It says nothing about how much control the ruler chooses to apply. Each of the three groups listed in comment 2 tends to agree that God has absolute sovereignty, that He can do and have done whatever He chooses, and no one can interfere. Using "absolute sovereignty" such that it applies to only one of the three groups in comment 2 is unfair and misleading.

When you read Numbers 25 and then view the middle east through that lens….. the actions of the middle east don’t feel as extreme. I definitely do not agree with the extremes of the middle east culture, but I am also shocked and dismayed at the extremes of what are written in Numbers 25. Yet God said…. > 4 ……. “Take all the leaders of the people and execute[b] them in broad daylight before the LORD so that his burning anger may turn away > from Israel.” > > 7 …….Aaron the priest, saw this, he got up from the assembly, took a > spear in his hand, 8 followed the Israelite man into the tent,[c] and > drove it through both the Israelite man and the woman—through her > belly. > > 11 …….Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the Israelites > because he was zealous among them with my zeal,[d] so that I did not > destroy the Israelites in my zeal.* > > 17 “Attack the Midianites and strike them dead. 18 For they attacked > you with the treachery that they used against you in the Peor > incident. How do I as a Christian, defend this to a nonbeliever (or someone who questions Christianity). “This” being the fact that the God I serve, directed this….condoned this….. and rewarded this.

Why can't God exist as One when there's no point of Him existing in 3 forms that too after death of Jesus. Why is Trinity necessary as it gets confusing everytime you try to pray to God. Furthermore, there are many questions (Look at them ) than answers when it comes to Jesus calling God as one at many places in the Bible. My question is if God can manifest in 3 forms, there is a higher chance of him existing in more than 3 forms? Isn't it. Why stop at 3? So it would have been much better if God existed as one in all respects for there would be no contradictions. If God is Sufficient in all Respects, then What's the need of Holy Spirit Or Jesus to exist. What's their role in running the affairs of this Universe. Ain't God as one, sufficient?

Both holiness and righteousness are used to describe God. Additionally, we as Christians are called to be holy and righteous as well. These are two distinct words, so they must have distinct meanings. So, my question is what distinguishes holiness from righteousness? > **You shall be holy to me, for I the Lord am holy** and have separated you > from the peoples, that you should be mine. Leviticus 20:26 ESV > > 14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your > former ignorance, 15 but as **he who called you is holy**, **you also be > holy** in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “**You shall be holy**, > for **I am holy**.” 1 Peter 1:14-16 ESV > > You are witnesses, and God also, how **holy and righteous** and blameless > was our conduct toward you believers. 1 Thessalonians 2:10 ESV > > But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have > heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 > to put off your old self,[f] which belongs to your former manner of > life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in > the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after > the likeness of God in true **righteousness and holiness.** Ephesians > 4:20-24 ESV

Does the cause-effect and begotten doctrine of the Eastern and Roman Catholic Church imply a division or multiplication in the nature of God? Unitarian God (Father) begets or caused into effect the second person- Son, who is subordinate to the Father. I am not using *Subordinate* in the sense of having a lesser divine and different substance/essence than the Father, but when they say "begotten not made", and that the Father alone is uncaused seem to imply that the Father begot the Son like a living creature begets its offspring. The offspring of God is not created from outside substance (like man from dust) but literally *derived, generated, caused or begotten* from the Father's divine nature, and he is equally divine. The Son is lesser in rank by the virtue of "generation", and the Spirit "proceeds". The words begotten and proceed are used, but seem to imply causation and generation. As though the Monarch, Unitarian God generated the (co-divine persons) Son and the Spirit, transforming into Multipersonal or the Trinity. The topics on "begotten, not made " and the "Monarchy of the Father " doctrine and the doctrines of "eternal generation", "eternal sonship" and "eternally begotten" generated this question. The language and these phrases in their creeds have resulted in confusion and debate; One might even say that such a literal generation of the divine persons undermines the doctrine of Immutability or the unchangeable nature of God. > Eastern Orthodox - Wiki > > According to the Eastern Orthodox view, the **Son is derived from the > Father who alone is without cause or origin.** This is not > subordinationism, and the same doctrine is asserted by western > theologians such as Augustine. In this view, the Son is co-eternal > with the Father or even in terms of the co-equal uncreated nature shared by the Father and Son. However, this view is sometimes > misunderstood as a form of subordinationism by Western Christians, who also asserts the same view even when not using the technical term i.e. > Monarchy of the Father. Western view is often viewed by the Eastern > Church as being close to Modalism. > > **Catholics** > > The Catholic Church also believes that the Son is > begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit is proceeding from the > Father through and from the Son. Catholic theologian John Hardon > wrote that subordinationism "denies that the second and third persons > are consubstantial with the Father. Therefore it denies their true divinity." Arius "made a formal heresy of" subordinationism. > > The International Theological Commission wrote that "many Christian > theologians borrowed from Hellenism the notion of a secondary god > (deuteros theos), or of an intermediate god, or even of a demiurge." > Subordinationism was "latent in some of the Apologists and in > Origen." The Son was, for Arius, in "an intermediate position > between the Father and the creatures." Nicaea I "defined that the Son > is consubstantial (*homoousios*) with the Father. In so doing, the > Church both repudiated the Arian compromise with Hellenism and deeply > altered the shape of Greek, especially Platonist and neo-Platonist, > metaphysics. In a manner of speaking, it demythicized Hellenism and > effected a Christian purification of it. In the act of dismissing the > notion of an intermediate being, the Church recognized only two modes > of being: uncreated (nonmade) and created."

What are the Biblical arguments used by those who teach that God does not know every detail of the future? I've seen three answers as to whether God knows every detail of the future. - 1. "God knows every detail of the future, including things that He hasn't planned". 2. "God knows every detail of the future because He plans every detail of the future". 3. "While God could control every detail of the future, He does not, and sometimes things happen that He does not expect to happen". A complete response should discuss all three. **Conclusion** I accepted Kristopher's answer as it best answered the question. I awarded the 200 point bounty to Andrew Shanks as his answer and comments were most helpful in refining my answer, which was the goal of the bounty.

I asked, "What is the Boethian solution?" One answer was - >The Boethian solution refers to a philosophical argument, most famously detailed in Boethius's *The Consolation of Philosophy*, that resolves the problem of divine foreknowledge and human free will. Boethius argues that God is eternal, existing outside of time, and thus perceives all of time—past, present, and future—at once, much like a person outside of a train can see the entire track at once. For God, there is no "fore"-knowledge but an "eternal present" where all events are simply "present" to Him, not predetermined by His knowledge. Therefore, an event happening does not occur because God foresaw it, but rather God simply sees it happening in His eternal present, a fact that does not remove human freedom. The answer added - >This theory contradicts the scriptural concepts which Paul expresses, namely ; foreknowledge, predestination and election. How does God's being outside of time contradict foreknowledge, predestination and election?

Why were ousia and hypostasis synonymous in the Nicene Creed? ---- In the original 325 A.D. Nicene Creed, an anathema is included which has ousia and hypostasis as synonymous. In this case, the Trinity is one hypostasis ( = homoousios). >And in the Holy Spirit. But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a ***different hypostasis or substance*** (ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσιάς) or created, or is subject to alteration or change these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes. Source: https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/creed_of_nicaea_325.htm It seems also the meaning of υποστασις in Hebrews 1:3. >He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his ***nature*** (υποστασις) (ESV). The ASV has "substance". However, in later centuries hypostasis began referring to the "person", not the "nature" or "being" of the Trinity. **Why did such change in definition occur?** It would be helpful to address the semantical development of υποστασις on how it changed from "substance" (nature/essence) to "person". >The Church confesses is that God is three Persons (hypostasis) in one Essence (ousia). Source: https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/exploringthedepthsofthedivine.wordpress.com/2015/08/12/god-as-trinity-orthodox-trinitarianism/amp/

I was reading *What is the Trinity* by R.C. Sproul, where he writes on page 18: > One of the most striking things that I encountered during my graduate work in the 1960s was the evidence that was emerging from the work of theological anthropologists and sociologists who were examining the religious views of various primitive tribes in the world. They were finding that while animism was outwardly prevalent in those cultures, the people frequently spoke about a god on the other side of the mountain or a god who was distantly removed from them. In other words, they had a concept of a high god who was not at the center of their daily religious practices. This god was like the unknown god of the Greeks, a god with whom they were not in contact but who nevertheless was there. This is extremely interesting. I am not very familiar with the study of anthropology. What examples of this are there around the world?

How did Job have a conversation with God before Christ was incarnated, and the coming of the Holy Spirit? What ***form*** did Job recognize as being God who was talking to him?

I heard it many times from some Christians and even preachers that God created us to worship and praise Him. I think this idea came from the fact that Psalms contain many phrases like *"Praise the Lord"* and many words related to worship. I'm still not convinced with verses from Psalms that the **main purpose** of creating us was to praise and worship God. The purpose of creating human, as I see from Genesis 1:28 is to *multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.* Is there any verses from the Bible that clearly indicates we were created mainly to praise and worship God?

I fell down a rabbit hole regarding Origen, and Wikipedia notes this interesting event that caught my eye: > In 399, the Origenist crisis reached Egypt.[1] Theophilus of > Alexandria was sympathetic to the supporters of Origen[1] and the > church historian, Sozomen, records that he had openly preached the > Origenist teaching that God was incorporeal. In his Festal Letter > of 399, he denounced those who believed that God had a literal, > human-like body, calling them illiterate "simple ones". A > large mob of Alexandrian monks who regarded God as anthropomorphic > rioted in the streets. According to the church historian Socrates > Scholasticus, in order to prevent a riot, Theophilus made a sudden > about-face and began denouncing Origen. In the year 400, > Theophilus summoned a council in Alexandria, which condemned Origen > and all his followers as heretics for having taught that God was > incorporeal, **which they decreed contradicted the only true and > orthodox position, which was that God had a literal, physical body > resembling that of a human**.[a] Was "God is corporeal" the orthodox position in the early church, and if yes, how long? As far as I understand, modern day christians for the most part regard God as incorporeal, right?

Jesus' most important commandment is the following: >Jesus answered him, *“The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, YHWH our Elohim, YHWH is 1. And you shall love YHWH your Elohim with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment."* Those who reject the triune theory do so because we interpret the scriptures to show a clear distinction between the person of YHWH (the 1 God), and His only begotten, the Son of God. The most well known words of Jesus are recorded in John 3:16. This is only 1 simple example of Jesus making a distinction between himself and God. John 3:16 >For **God** so loved the world that **He** gave ***His** only begotten Son*, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. Throughout scripture this theme holds very consistent and can be shown with countless verses. There are too many to list them all. ***What are the BEST scriptures to support the interpretation that Jesus is not the same person as God (YHWH), but rather the Son of God and a completely separate person?*** -- Note: In the context of this question, verses that make a distinction between YHWH and Jesus would be greater support than verses that make a distinction between the Father and Jesus (even though we know the Father is YHWH according to this perspective).