3 Comments
User's avatar
Virgin Monk Boy's avatar

There's a fascinating irony in Christianity's struggle to define the Holy Spirit. The earliest language was about God's breath, presence, and transformative activity within human beings. Centuries later, theologians were arguing over the precise relationships within the Godhead. The theological questions aren't meaningless, but I wonder what happens when defining the Spirit becomes more important than learning to live in its presence. After all, knowing exactly where the Holy Spirit proceeds from tells us remarkably little about whether we've become more loving, merciful, or conscious of God.

David Walker Sanchez's avatar

“In the Syriac-speaking churches of the East, the word for “spirit” was grammatically feminine, so the Spirit was often spoken of as a woman.”

Scandalous, blasphemous heresy! I would be clutching pearls right now, but my breast is heaving too and fro so hard it’s impossible to catch them!

Fred Curry's avatar

"English Quakers in the 1600s trusted an inner light over the Bible itself" and "Theodosius, ... backed the side that wanted the Spirit’s divinity written into the creed". Has any expert discussed why these things happened?

I always found the 'Holy Spirit' kind of useless until you explained it's function. So when I prayed (at the age of about 5-6) to God, because I had not sold a single donut in the entire neighborhood (I think it was the first time I remember being really frustrated, but I'm positive it wasn't) and the nice lady who answered the next door bought 3(!) donuts and pastries, that I realize prayers can sometime be answered, that was the HS? Good to know.