I was finishing up a read through of the Hebrew Bible when I came across this gem: Zechariah 14:6-9 (NASB) > On that day there will be no light; the luminaries will die out. 7 For it will be a unique day which is known to the Lord, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at the time of evening there will be light. 8 And on that day living waters will flow out of Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea; it will be in summer as well as in winter. > > 9 And the Lord will be King over all the earth; on that day the Lord will be the only one, and His name the only one. This passage posses a logical contradiction for those that would assert that Jesus is LORD (YHWH). First, in v7 it says that this unique day is known to the LORD, to YHWH. Yet Christ himself makes it clear that he himself does not know when this day is, nor anyone else, but only the Father knows it. Matthew 24:36 (NASB) > “But about that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. Furthermore, in v9 it says that God alone will be King over all the earth; there won't be any other kings. Paul tells us that in the end, Christ himself will subjected to the Father - ie, there is an end to Christ's reign as king. 1 Corinthians 15:26-28 (NASB) > The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27 For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is clear that this excludes the Father who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. This is consistent with what the prophets said concerning the throne of David. Psalm 89:29 (NASB) > So I will establish his descendants forever, And his throne as the days of heaven. Isaiah 65:17 (NASB) > “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind. So then, since Christ neither knows the day which is known to the LORD, to YHWH, and since his reign will end when God creates the new heavens and the new earth, then logically Christ cannot be YHWH. Rather, the only one who can be identified as YHWH given these restrictions is the Father. -------- **QUESTION**: How do Trinitarians address these two major conflicts? How can Christ be said to be YHWH when he does not know the day nor the hour when YHWH does know it? And if Christ's reign on the throne of David ends with the new creation, reversing the sin of Israel when they demanded a human king, then how can Christ be YHWH who is King over all - and at the end, the only king ?

The following has been quoted from a Biblical Unitarian Source >Contrary to the assumption that Christ must be God for redemption to be accomplished, we find, upon a closer scrutiny, that the opposite must be the case—that unless he was a man, Jesus could not have redeemed mankind. God’s “infinite” (we prefer a less mathematical and more biblical term like “immortal”) nature actually precluded Him from being our redeemer, because God cannot die. He therefore sent a man equipped for the task, one who could die for our sins and then be raised from the dead to vanquish death forever. This is the clear testimony of Scripture. >Romans 5:15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one MAN [Adam], how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one MAN, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! >If it were a major tenet of Christianity that redemption had to be accomplished by God Himself, then this section of Romans would have been the perfect place to say it. But just when Scripture could settle the argument once and for all, it says that redemption had to be accomplished by a man. The theological imaginings of “learned men” that only God could redeem mankind are rendered null and void by the clear voice of God Himself speaking through Scripture: a man had to do the job. Not just any man, but a sinless man, a man born of a virgin—THE MAN, Jesus, now The Man exalted to the position of “Lord” at God’s right hand. How would Trinitarians counter this argument ? ------------------------------------------------------------ >πολλω μαλλον η χαρις του θεου και η δωρεα εν χαριτι τη του ενος ανθρωπου ιησου χριστου εις τους πολλους επερισσευσεν [Romans 5:15 TR Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir and Scrivener all identical] ------------------------------

I looked at the [*Wikipedia* page on the St. Thomas Christians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Thomas_Christians) , the oldest school of Indian Christians who follow the teachings of St. Thomas the Apostle, who had travelled to India to preach. However, I couldn’t find what their beliefs *were* from that page. Were they Trinitarian or Unitarian? Are there any academic references (books, papers) that discuss their religious beliefs on the nature of God, Jesus, etc?

> Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: **Who**, being in the form of God, **thought** it not robbery to be equal with God: - Philippians 2:5-6 Various translations render "*hegeomai*" as thought, consider, regard, count, esteem, deem, reckon, and even a strange "take advantage" (which I think is outside the box). All of these rightly represent a function of mind, as the object in question (equality with God) is perceived and rationally, accurately considered. For comparison, the exact same word in the exact same form appears in 1 Timothy 1:12 (he counted) and Hebrews 11:11 (she judged). Indeed, we are exhorted to have the same mind in us as was in Christ Jesus when He, Christ Jesus, thought (*hegeomai*) it not robbery to be equal with God **when** He was in the form of God. Following that consideration he "took upon him the form of a servant". The condescension follows after and flows from the consideration in the text of v. 6-8 just as the exaltation of v. 9 follows after and flows from the condescension. There are those who declare that, prior to his birth, Jesus did not exist with person-hood and that, if he existed in some form, he existed as "an idea in the mind of God". Biblical Unitarians are one such group. However this verse declares that, prior to his birth in Nazareth, Christ Jesus displayed function of mind. He considered, thought, reckoned, esteemed, or counted. Additionally, having considered he then acted by "making himself of no reputation" and "took the form of a servant" in accordance with his reckoning. It is crystal clear from the verse in question that it is the "who" which "thought" and equally clear that the "who" is Christ Jesus prior to his birth in Nazareth. The who, "being in the form of God", is prior to "in the form of a servant" and "made in the likeness of men" as evidenced by the conjunctive "but" separating the *hegeomai* of equality with God, which took place when in the form of God, and the actions of making himself of no reputation, etc. which result from the *hegeomai*. If the latter activity can be understood as Jesus' birth in Nazareth (and indeed it must if he did not pre-exist his birth), then it is prior to his birth in Nazareth when he considered. From those who deny a pre-incarnate "person" of Christ; Who or what performed "*hegeomai*", that function of personal, rational mind?

There are a number of Christians (groups that believe in Christ and name themselves "Christian") who don't believe in the Trinity. Many of these are broadly considered Christians. Muslims are non-Trinitarians, but they believe in Jesus and claim that they follow his teachings. Why won't Muslims be considered Muslims and Christians at the same time in the sight of God?

John said the Word was with God and was God (John 1:1), and the Word became flesh (John 1:14)—Jesus. Jesus said "Before Abraham was I AM" (John 8:58)—Jesus' claim to be YHVH. Jesus acknowledged the Father to be God. However YHVH says there are no other gods beside Him (Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 5:7; Deuteronomy 4:35; Deuteronomy 4:39). Trinitarianism is a solution to this. How do non-trinitarians resolve the clear indications that both the Father and Jesus are God?

This question is addressed to people of trinitarian sects. If Jesus is part of a trinity, why are there so many examples of Him referring to Himself as something distinct from God? Some examples are Him on the cross saying "My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?" and when He refers to God as greater than Himself when speaking to the twelve prior to being taken into custody. There are more that I've noticed but these two come to mind first. Furthermore, Jesus is repeatedly said to sit at the right hand of the Father. Doesn't the phrase "sit at the right hand" imply that the Son is not equal to the Father? I'm aware of there being counter-examples such as Him saying that He and the Father are one and of course, chapter one of John ("the Word was God"). Admitting these counter-examples support trinitarianism, how do Trinitarians explain the way Jesus speaks of God as if He is something distinct from God? Am I the only one who gets the impression that He speaks in this way? The way I see it right now is that Jesus is the Father's proxy. All authority was given to Him to execute the Father's will. He was created by the Father (I've heard some say that He was "begotten, not made", but He is referred to as Firstborn of Creation) as God's self-expression or image (Col. 1:15). In this sense, He is a functional equivalent to the Father, but in another sense, He is not essentially equivalent because He came from the Father. Is this the same way Trinitarians see it?

John 1:14 is generally used to say that "God" became "flesh" based on the understanding that "the Word" addressed in John 1:1 refers to God. However, other texts of Scripture appear at variance with this interpretation. The texts which help clarify the basis of this question are shown below. I seek a non-Trinitarian explanations for how these texts might be shown to agree with each other and not be found in contradiction. | Text (KJV) | Typical Assumption | Opposed by? | |---|---|---| | In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1) | "the Word" = God | And the Word was made flesh . . . and we beheld his glory . . . . (vs. 14) **VERSUS** No man hath seen God at any time . . . . (vs. 18) | | And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14) | God became a man (Jesus) | God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: . . . . (Numbers 23:19; cf. 1 Samuel 15:29) **AND** For I am the LORD, I change not;. . . . (Malachi 3:6)| How do various Christian faith traditions (Unitarians, Jehovahs Witnesses, etc.) that believe in Jesus, reverence sacred scriptures, but don't believe the in Trinity as understood by the various Ecumenical Councils refute the syllogism: - If the Word is God and the Word became Flesh (in Jesus), why is the Jesus not God? using scripture?

The Nicene and Dedication Councils were attended by more or less the same people and were only 16 years apart (325 vs 341) but resulted in opposing creeds. The Nicene Creed is pro-Sabellian but the Dedication Creed is anti-Sabellian. What made the difference? More or less the same people ---------------------------- The Dedication Council was a Council of the Eastern Church and the Nicene Council was almost exclusively Eastern: > At Nicaea, the delegates were “drawn almost entirely from the eastern > half of the empire” (LA, 19). > > “Very few Western bishops took the trouble to attend the Council (of > Nicaea). The Eastern Church was always the pioneer and leader in > theological movements in the early Church. It is well known that > Hilary, for instance, never really understood the Arian Controversy > till he reached the East as a result of being exiled. The Westerners > at the Council represented a tiny minority.” (RH, 170) > > The Nicene Council “was overwhelmingly Eastern, and only represented > the Western Church in a meagre way.” (RH, 156) The Nicene Creed is pro-Sabellian. ---------------------------------- > “If we are to take the creed N at its face value, the theology of > Eustathius and Marcellus was the theology which triumphed at Nicaea. > That creed admits the possibility of only one ousia and one > hypostasis. This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men.” > (RH, 235) [Eustathius and Marcellus were the two main Sabellians > who attended in Nicene Council.] > > “The Creed of Nicaea of 325 … ultimately confounded the confusion > because its use of the words ousia and hypostasis was so ambiguous as > to suggest that the Fathers of Nicaea had fallen into Sabellianism, a > view recognized as a heresy even at that period.” (Hanson’s Lecture ) > > “In the controversies which erupted over Eustathius of Antioch and > Marcellus after Nicaea, both thought their theologies faithful to > Nicaea—and they had good grounds for so assuming. Both were > influential at the council, and Nicaea’s lapidary formulations were > never intended to rule out their theological idiosyncrasies.” (LA, 99) > > After Nicaea, the Creed was associated “with the theology of Marcellus > of Ancyra. … The language of that creed seemed to offer no > prophylactic (prevention) against Marcellan doctrine, and increasingly > came to be seen as implying such doctrine.” (LA, 96, 97) > > “To many the creed seemed strongly to favour the unitarian tendency > among these existing trajectories.” (LA, 431) [Ayres uses the term > “unitarian” to refer to Sabellianism. For example: “A great deal of > controversy was caused in the years after the council by some > supporters of Nicaea whose theology had strongly unitarian tendencies. > Chief among these was Marcellus of Ancyra.” (LA, 431)) > > “Simonetti estimates the Nicene Council as a temporary alliance for > the defeat of Arianism between the tradition of Alexandria led by > Alexander and ‘Asiatic’ circles (i.e. Eustathius, Marcellus) whose > thought was at the opposite pole to that of Arius. … Alexander … > accepted virtual Sabellianism in order to ensure the defeat of > Arianism. … The ‘Asiatics’ … were able to include in N a hint of > opposition to the three hypostases theory.” (RH, 171) > > It is not “an openly Sabellian creed.” “It is going too far to say > that N is a clearly Sabellian document. … It is exceeding the evidence > to represent the Council as a total victory for the anti-Origenist > opponents of the doctrine of three hypostases. It was more like a > drawn battle.” (RH, 172) Ayres says that his conclusions are close to > Hanson’s in this regard (LA, 92). > > The Dedication Creed of 431 “represents the nearest approach we can > make to discovering the views of the ordinary educated Eastern bishop > who was no admirer of the extreme views of Arius but who had been > shocked and disturbed by **the apparent Sabellianism of Nicaea**.” (RH, > 290) The Dedication Creed is anti-Seballian. --------------------------------------- While Sabellianism asserts only one single hypostasis, meaning one single rational capacity or mind, the Dedication Creed explicitly asserts that the trinity is “three in hypostasis but one in agreement (συμφωνία)” (LA, 118). “One in agreement” indicates the existence of three distinct ‘Minds’. > The Dedication Creed’s “chief bête noire [the thing that it > particularly dislikes] is Sabellianism, the denial of a distinction > between the three within the Godhead.” (RH, 287) > > The Dedication creed is “strongly anti-Sabellian.” (RH, 287) > > “The creed has a clear anti-Sabellian and anti-Marcellan thrust.” (LA, > 119) LA = Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004 RH = Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988

Essentially the opposite of [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/82780/50422) : 1. What is the earliest recorded post-NT instance of a clear and unambiguous **denial** of the personhood of the Holy Spirit? When was it claimed for the first time that the Holy Spirit is *not* a Person, distinct from the Father and the Son, in the history of Christianity? 2. When did this belief reach widespread acceptance among Christians for the first time, if ever?

If I am not mistaken (but do correct me if I am), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate beings, i.e. three separate Gods. What Scripture passages do Latter-day Saints use to refute the “three persons in one God” view of trinitarianism?

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).

Isaiah 6:1, "In the year of King Uzziah's death, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted with the train of His robe filling the temple." This is confirmed by the Apostle John at John 12:41, "These things Isaiah said, because he spoke of Him." At John 12 Jesus is addressing the Jews and John says at John 12:36, "These things Jesus spoke, and He departed and hid Himself from them." Vs37, But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing Him; vs38, that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke, "Lord, who has believed our report? And to has the arm of the Lord been revealed? vs39, For this cause they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, Vs40, "He has blinded their eyes, and He hardened their heart; Lest they see with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, and be converted, and I heal them." The verb Isaiah used for "saw" in Isaiah 6:1 is (ra'ah). In the qal, it refers to the act of seeing in the literal sense, to see with the eyes (as opposed to, for example "machazeh," which is the act or event of an ecstatic "vision.) In referring to this event, John uses the Greek word (eidon), also a verb referring to the act of seeing with the eyes in the natural sense. We know that God the Father is invisible, "whom no man hath seen, nor can see" (1 Timothy 6:16). He is transcendent and lives in unapproachable light (1 Timothy 6:16). But the Son is "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15). Thus the one whom Isaiah "saw" in the literal sense with his eyes is the one whom he explicitly identified as "YHWY", the same one whose glory he saw according to John at John 12:41. Jesus Himself makes this clear at John 12:45, "He who beholds Me beholds the One who sent Me."

The Son only has to exist if Man needed to saved, He is not inherent by any means. Likewise, a similar argument can be made for the Holy Ghost. How, then, can all three Persons of the Trinity be uncreated, inherent in God's nature, yet work out perfectly in order for His plan of grace? I am looking for a trinitarian, Bible-based answer, although Catholic tradition or papal statements may be included as way of explanation.

Jeff Deuble in Christ Before Creeds says (p. 33-34) > The significant controversies about the Messiah that were strongly > contested in the New Testament were: his death by crucifixion, his > resurrection, and his subsequent ascension and glorification. [...] As > you read through the book of Acts you will discover that these are the > three facts that the apostles continue to preach and debate, > especially with Jews (Acts 2:22-36, 3:17-26, 5:29-32, 10:34-43, > 13:26-41, 17:2-4, 17:29-31, 26:19-23). [...] These basic > Christological tenets differed from previous perceptions, so they were > strongly proclaimed and debated from the inception of the church on > the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-36). Yet, he continues > Nowhere is there reference to a debate over Jesus being "fully human > and fully God," or being himself God or on the same level as God. It > doesn't appear at all on the landscape of first-century church > history, whereas it looms large, at center stage in the church history > of the fourth and fifth centuries. > > This silence is remarkable because the early church was strongly > Jewish and the Jews were strongly monotheistic. Any suggestion that > Jesus was *Yahweh*, or a part of *Yahweh*, or even equal to *Yahweh*, > would have been vehemently resisted, would it not? **This silence is > certainly difficult to explain if, as claimed by some, Trinitarian > doctrine existed from the outset, from the earliest days of the > church.** How do those who hold that Trinitarian doctrine existed from the earliest days of the Church respond to the sort of argument Deuble lays out here?

I have heard that over half of Protestants do not believe in an earlier theological conception of the Trinity. I have heard that this is especially true of Evangelicals, and that they consider the older type of belief to be Catholic in nature. In what sense has personal belief in (this older Protestant conception of) the Trinity decreased? Why? Note that I am not asking whether Christians believe in the Trinity (most do), nor about Church doctrine, but about some sort of broad shift in belief. This poll provides an example, though I am not asking for analysis of that poll but rather about what further knowledge people have on this.

Question: If you do not believe the Holy Spirit is a person, then what is it? The Bible includes over 100 verses that mention the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God or just the Spirit. Here are four examples: Genesis 1:1-2 NIV: > In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth > was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and > the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. John 14:26 NIV: > But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my > name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I > have said to you. Matthew 12:32 NIV: > Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but > anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either > in this age or in the age to come. John 16:7-15 NIV: > But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all > the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he > hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me > because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to > you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the > Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

**Introduction** Arius believed that Jesus was a creature, a created god. What did he write about John 1:1? Or if there is no such extant manuscript, how would he interpreted ''the Word was God'' in John 1:1 based on his Christology? > Arius was was a Libyan presbyter and ascetic, and priest in Baucalis > in Alexandria, Egypt. His teachings about the nature of the Godhead in > Christianity, which emphasized God's uniqueness and the Christ's > subordination under the Father,and his opposition to what would become > the dominant Christology, Homoousian Christology, made him a primary > topic of the First Council of Nicaea, which was convened by Emperor > Constantine the Great in 325.'' (Source ). > > In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and > the Word was God. John 1:1 (ESV) ---------- **Question** What was the stance of Arius on the third clause of John 1:1?

See below for a more precise definition of the question. Two Views among Evangelicals ---------------------------- Ted Peters says that if anything, contemporary mainline Protestant and Roman Catholic trinitarian thinking is “antisubordinationist.” (God as Trinity (Louisville: Westminster, 1993), p. 45.) But Kevin Giles , in an article in The Academic Journal of CBE International, stated: > “Paradoxically … many evangelical theologians have been moving in the > opposite direction. Since the 1980s, evangelicals wishing to uphold > the idea male headship … have been arguing that the Son is eternally > subordinated to the Father.” > > "Conservative evangelicals who speak of the eternal subordination of > the Son quote in support Paul’s assertion that God the Father is the > “head of Christ” just as “man is the head of woman” (1 Cor 11:3), and > the texts that speak of the Son being “sent” by the Father (John 4:34, > 5:30 etc.), and obeying the Father (Rom 5:18-19; Heb 5:8). Giles, on the other hand, claims that the Bible writers present the Son as equal with the Father: > “They frequently associated the Father, Son, and Spirit together, > **implying their equality** (cf. Matt 28:19; 1 Cor 12:4-6; 2 Cor 13:13; > Eph 4:4-6; etc.), and on occasions spoke of Jesus as Theos (John 1:1, > 20:28; Rom 9:5; Heb 1:8), calling him “the Lord” (the title for Yahweh > used in the Greek OT) some two hundred times.” Can the Bible answer this question? ----------------------------------- However, Giles implies that this debate, whether the Son is subordinate to the Father or not, cannot be resolved from the Bible alone and that we must rely on “tradition:” > “If there were no way to settle this debate over the interpretation of > the Bible we would have a stalemate. Each side could simply go on > quoting their proof texts and **no resolution would be possible**. But > this is not the case. Evangelicals … are in complete agreement that > “tradition”—understood as how the scriptures have been understood by > the best of theologians across the centuries—is a good guide to the > proper interpretation of scripture: it is a secondary authority.” Gotquestions , another conservative protestant site, claims that the Bible is able to provide the answer. Using language that is similar to the Athanasian Creed, it states: > **The Bible teaches** that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that > the Holy Spirit is God. **The Bible also teaches** that there is only one > God. The Question ------------ (a) The Trinity doctrine teaches that the Son is equal with the Father. What are the main texts and principles in the New Testament that are used to prove the equality of the Son to the Father and how do non-trinitarians show that these texts do not prove equality? (b) The Trinity doctrine teaches that the Person of the Son is ontologically equal but functionally subordinate to the Father. What are the main texts and principles in the New Testament that support eternal functional subordination and how would non-trinitarians show that eternal functional subordination is inconsistent with the Trinity doctrine? Eternal Subordination --------------------- As Giles indicated: > “All accept that the Son was for a limited period (temporally) > subordinated in the incarnation. What is in dispute is whether or not > the Son is subordinated in the eternal or immanent Trinity in his > being/nature/person and/or work/operation/function.” So, I am particularly interested in indications that the Son was subordinate to the Father before He “became flesh” and after His ascension. Role vs Being Subordination --------------------------- Giles distinguishes between “eternal subordination in role/function” and “subordination in person or being,” but also states that, if the Son, in “eternity” is subordinate in His “role/function,” then He is also subordinate in His “being:” > “Most speak only of an eternal subordination in role/function for the > Son. However, some evangelicals honestly admit that eternal role > subordination by necessity implies subordination in person or being.” In note 4 of his article, Giles states that this distinction ”is entirely novel. It has no historical antecedents. Previously the argument has been eternal subordination in being/nature/essence and work/operation/function are two sides of one coin.” Furthermore, the Bible does not explain the relationship between the Father and Son in terms of substance or being. Nevertheless, since no Trinitarian will be convinced by an answer that avoids this Trinitarian defense, the answer must address the distinction between Role and Being Subordination. Catholic Christians ------------------- Perhaps this is not a question that will interest Catholic Christians, since they rely on tradition to a greater extent. On the other hand, for that same reason, compared to protestants that are subject to the demands of Sola Scriptura, Catholic Christians sometimes can afford to be more honest with respect to the meaning of the Biblical text.

According to Trinitarians, is the Holy Spirit quenched and grieved by those who deny His personhood and Christ's deity? If so, would that mean that people who do not believe in the deity of Christ and the personhood of the Holy Spirit **cannot** possibly experience the fullness of the Spirit, because the Holy Spirit will never fill someone who is permanently grieving and quenching Him? **Note**: an interesting article discussing what it means to grieve and quench the Holy Spirit is the following: https://www.gotquestions.org/grieve-quench-Holy-Spirit.html .