Genesis 1:2 (NRSVCE) reads : >the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. The same verse in New King James Version (NKJV)reads: >The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. I wish to know if the term ' a wind from God' as used in NRSVCE implies the Holy Spirit, or does it only mean a creative energy which set the stage for the creation of primordial life in water? What do the teachings of Catholic Church tell about the latter prospect?

In reading the answers to a [recent question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/113053/why-do-some-believers-form-factions-despite-scriptures-warning-against-division) here, the Great Schism was brought up, and consequently the filoque: which added the words to the creed, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father *and the Son*. In researching the filoque, it occurred to this writer that perhaps it was a needless divide. It seems that man is trying to parse and define the undefinable. The bottom line seems to be the understanding of what Jesus meant by "proceeds." >But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. ‭‭John‬ ‭15‬:‭26‬ ‭NKJV‬‬ The commentaries weren't very helpful - the ones that would be, mostly used the Greek which was useless to me. The lexicons give several meanings, as does the English dictionaries. Generally I use all of that plus, most importantly, *context* to try to figure out what a passage means. But the context doesn't help, even considering other passages, and I am still flummoxed. I wonder if we are going beyond Scripture in trying to figure out the nature of the Trinity. In an answer to a similar question, [What does "proceeds" mean to Greek Orthodox?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/53159/what-does-proceeds-mean-to-eastern-orthodox) this was said: >Regarding the precession of the Holy Spirit as well as the pre-eternal begetting of the Son, Gregory of Nazianzus (known as Gregory the Theologian) (329-390) is reputed to have cautioned: >>When was this begetting and this procession? This was before when itself. You have heard that the Spirit proceeds from the Father; do not be curious to know how He proceeds. Oration 20 This made the most sense to me. I wonder if he added being cautious about adding the filoque as well. How am I wrong? Why did the church divide over this? Note: [This commentary](https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/gab/john-15.html) by Gaebelein was somewhat helpful, but still seems presumptuous to me. >In saying: whom I will send, Jesus is necessarily thinking of His approaching reinstatement in the divine condition; and in adding: from the Father, He acknowledges His subordination to the Father, even when He shall have recovered that condition. ...Most of the modern interpreters, Meyer, Luthardt, Weiss, Keil, refer the words: who proceeds from the Father, to the same fact as the preceding words: whom I will send you from the Father, to the sending of the Holy Spirit to the disciples. The attempt is made to escape the charge of tautology by saying that the first clause indicates the relation of the Spirit to Christ, and the second His relation to God ( Keil); as if in this latter were not already contained the from God, which, repeated in the second clause, would form the most idle pleonasm. It must be observed that the second verb differs entirely from the first; ἐκπορεύεσθαι , to proceed from, as a river from its source, is altogether different from to be sent: the ἐκ , out from, which is added here to παρά , from the presence of, also marks a difference. But especially does the change of tense indicate the difference of idea: whom I will send and who proceeds from. He whom Jesus will send (historically, at a given moment) is a divine being, who emanates (essentially, eternally) from the Father. An impartial exegesis cannot, as it seems to me, deny this sense. It is that the historical facts of salvation, to the view of Jesus, rest upon eternal relations, as well with reference to Himself, the Son, as to the Spirit. They are, as it were, the reflections of the Trinitarian relations. As the incarnation of the Son rests upon His eternal generation, so the mission of the Holy Spirit is related to His eternal procession from the very centre of the divine being. The context is not in the least contradictory to this sense, as Weiss thinks; on the contrary, it demands it. What Jesus sends testifies truly for Him only so far as it comes forth from God.

In 1 John 4:1–3, we are instructed to "test the spirits" and are told that "every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God." This passage seems to suggest that verbal confession of Jesus' incarnation is a reliable test for determining whether a spirit is from God. However, in the Gospel accounts — for example, Mark 5:7 and Luke 8:28 — we see the demonic legion that possessed the man in the region of the Gerasenes recognizing Jesus and crying out: “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God?” This shows that demons are capable of identifying and even verbally acknowledging who Jesus is. Given that, how should 1 John 4:1–3 be interpreted? - Can demonic spirits confess Jesus Christ in a way that appears genuine? - Is verbal confession alone a sufficient test of the spirit's origin? - How do we reconcile 1 John’s teaching with the demonic acknowledgment of Jesus in the Gospels? I’m hoping to understand whether this test is meant to be literal, theological, or deeper than just spoken words.

According to Mormon doctrine, Resurrected beings have physical bodies that can only be in one place at one time, which is why the Holy Ghost remains a spirit, so that he can dwell in the hearts of men: > "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son > also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a > personage of Spirit. **Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in > us.**" (D&C 130:22 , *emphasis added*) It appears to me that some form of power or ability is *lost* at the resurrection. An essential power that only spirits have, which resurrected beings do not, hence the necessity of the Holy Ghost remaining a spirit. It seems somewhat paradoxical to me that we would have anything to *lose* at the resurrection–if anyone understands what I'm trying to communicate by phrasing it that way... Obviously the Holy Ghost is going to be resurrected at some point (I feel it's safe to assume so at least), at which point in time he will forfeit the power that makes his role in the Godhead essential, and receive a resurrected body. My question is, what exactly is this power that the Father and Christ cannot wield as resurrected beings? Or where do I err in my pondering or phrasing of my question?

>Though I speak with the tongues of men *and of angels*, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. (1st Corinthians 13:1 KJV) Is there a Greek or Hebrew root wording to signify that the "tongues of angels" are the tongues heard spoken by Pentecostals, Oneness Apostolics, and other types of similar Christians?

Revelation’s visions often put the Son with the Father, but the Holy Spirit is generally absent. For example: Receiving the Book of Revelation -------------------------------- “God” gave the visions of Revelation to “Jesus Christ” and Jesus gave it to His angel to give to John (Rev 1:1). The Holy Spirit is absent from this sequence. There-after, Revelation itself is referred to as “the word of **God** and to the testimony of **Jesus Christ**” (Rev 1:2). Worship ------- Both “Him Who sits on the Throne, and … The Lamb” are praised and worshiped (Rev 5:13-14; 7:10) but the Holy Spirit is never praised or worshiped. In Revelation 4, the Holy Spirit is present in the throne room, described as “before the throne” (Rev 4:5) but the beings in the throne room ignore the Holy Spirit and “give glory and honor and thanks (only) to Him who sits on the throne, to Him who lives forever and ever” (Rev 4:9-10). In Revelation 5, as Jesus enters the throne room, the Holy Spirit departs “sent out into all the earth” (Rev 5:6). Now, while the Holy Spirit was not praised previously, both “Him Who sits on the Throne, and … The Lamb” are praised (Rev 5:13). On the Throne ------------- Jesus sat down with His Father on His throne (Rev 3:21; 12:5) but the Holy Spirit never sits on the throne. Rather, the Holy Spirit is “before His throne” (Rev 1:4; 4:5); apparently subordinate to “God who sits on the throne” (Rev 19:4). God’s People ------------ The saved are described as “first fruits to **God** and to the **Lamb**” (Rev 14:4); “a kingdom, priests to His God (Jesus’ God) and Father” (Rev 1:6); With His blood, Jesus has “made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God” (Rev 5:9-10). No Holy Spirit involvement. Christian Faith ------------------- “The seal of the living God,” which is put on the foreheads of God’s servants (Rev 7:2-3), is “His (the Lamb’s) Name and the Name of His Father” (Rev 14:1). Christian faith is often portrayed as consisting of two parts, referring to God and Jesus; e.g.: - “The word of GOD and the testimony of JESUS” (Rev 1:9; cf. Rev 6:9); - “The commandments of GOD and … faith in JESUS” (Rev 14:12); - “The commandments of GOD and ... the testimony of JESUS” (Rev 12:17); - “Their testimony of JESUS and … the word of GOD” (Rev 20:4). Apparently, faith in the Holy Spirit is not required. Christ’s Victory ---------------- Through Christ’s death, “the kingdom of our GOD and the authority of HIS CHRIST have come” (Rev 12:10). No Holy Spirit. Judgment Day ------------ On Judgment Day, while the saved will stand “before THE THRONE (representing the Father) and before the LAMB” (Rev 7:9), the lost will attempt to hide “from the presence of Him Who sits on the Throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb” (Rev 6:16-17). The saved do not stand before the Holy Spirit and the lost do not hide from the Holy Spirit. On that day, Jesus will tread “the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty” (19:15). The New Earth ------------- On the new earth, “He Who sits on the Throne will spread His tabernacle over them” and “The Lamb … will be their shepherd” (Rev 7:16-17). No Holy Spirit. The “kingdom of the world … (will) become the kingdom of OUR LORD and of HIS CHRIST” (Rev 11:15). “The Lord GOD THE ALMIGHTY and the LAMB are” the temple of the New Jerusalem. (Rev 21:22). “The glory of GOD has illumined it, and its lamp is the LAMB” (Rev 21:23), “A river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of GOD and of the LAMB” (Rev 22:1; cf. Rev 22:3). In other words, only God and the Lamb will sit on the throne; no Holy Spirit. Conclusion ---------- In Revelation 1:4-5, John mentions the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in a triadic passage but that is not part of the visions of Revelation. It is part of John’s own introduction to and context setting for the book. From a Trinitarian perspective, in which the Holy Spirit is a third Person; co-equal with the Father, how does one explain the absence of the Holy Spirit from key moments in the visions of the Book of Revelation?

Jesus taught that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven after the Pharisees and Sadducees claimed he was using the power of Beelzebub-the prince of demons to heal. In this response, Jesus is not only acknowledging that the power to heal sources from a distinct entity called the Holy Ghost but also distinguishes himself from the later by acknowledging that he is not that entity but the son of man. *Mathew 12:31* >He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters. 31Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the one to come. Does the statement above show the healing power sourced from the Holy Spirit?

I am look for more insight. I have seen many interpretation of scripture but not one that completely explains what my question is.

During a Bible discussion for seekers last week, one of them asked a question that led me to ponder this questions. As I understand it, the body of Moses (not Elijah since he never died) should still have been in the grave at the time of the Transfiguration of Jesus--and would be pretty decomposed at that point. However, his spirit (and probably souls) would have been in Paradise at that time--still separated from his body until the resurrection at the last day. > And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James, and John his > brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 And he was > transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his > clothes became white as light. 3 And behold, there appeared to them > Moses and Elijah, talking with him. Matthew 17:1-3 ESV If that is true, then what exactly did Peter, James and John see on the Mount of Transfiguration? Did they see the spirit of Moses? Can our spirits be seen with physical eyes? Were the disciples perhaps allowed to see spiritual things as Elisha appears to have done in 2 Kings 6? > When the servant of the man of God rose early in the morning and went > out, behold, an army with horses and chariots was all around the city. > And the servant said, “Alas, my master! What shall we do?” He said, > “Do not be afraid, for those who are with us are more than those who > are with them.” Then Elisha prayed and said, “O Lord, please open > his eyes that he may see.” So the Lord opened the eyes of the young > man, and he saw, and behold, the mountain was full of horses and > chariots of fire all around Elisha. 2 Kings 6:15-17 ESV As a side note, the rich man and Lazarus presumably "saw" each other as well. I'm looking for the Protestant understanding of this.

It was brought up in a comment to an answer1 that the Holy Ghost as a personage of spirit contradicts the Church of LDS doctrine that a body is required for godhood. How does the LDS church reconcile these contradicting beliefs. 1 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/103687/22319

I am just confused about the Holy Trinity, Jesus said that the Spirit is God, however how can the Holy Spirit be God if it is also said that the Holy Spirit created God? Wouldn’t that mean that there was nothing and then instantly both God and the Holy Spirit just happened? Such as there isn’t and then there is, or another way to put that would be there’s nothing and then there’s something. Because I can’t see how/why Jesus would say that the Spirit is God when also the Bible says that the Holy Spirit created God. So how can God create himself before even being created?

Some Protestants adhere to the Westminster Confession of faith. This quotation "our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts." How does the Holy Spirit bear witness to our hearts the infallible truth and divine authority of the Bible? How would one describe and discern that experience? How would one experience such a witness? Thank you.

> Elder Mark E. Petersen (1900–1984) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained that the physical body and our spirit are similar in appearance: “Every one of us is a spirit, and our spirit occupies a body of flesh and bone. The spirit is the real person. Our spirit resembles our body, or rather our body was ‘tailored’ to fit our spirit. The spirit bears the image and likeness of God, and the body, if normal, is in the image and likeness of the spirit” (The Way of the Master , 124; see also 1 Nephi 11:11). From this, the spirits of those who have dies _should_ look like the individual as they lived; however, it is also taught that our spirits were adults _before_ this life began. As I understand it, this earth is also the world which is inhabited by those who have died. Assuming that ghosts are those spirits of those who currently do not have a body (either due to death or as one of Satan's host), why would ghosts ever appear as children?

Related Holy Ghost revealing truth privately and personally in an absolute and unmistakable manner In recent posts I have seen many statements that seem to indicate spiritual experience as secondary/lesser/untrusted sources of truth: >Truth must be determined by something not so much apart from a personal subjective experience but in addition to it. That brings us to the realm of empirical evidence and rational thought.1 >the Bible warns against emotional 'feelings' and 'spiritual experiences' that are not utterly rooted in following the Jesus of the Bible ... I am a sceptic when it comes to people enthusing about an experience they had after prayer...Especially if it ... does not square with what my Bible tells me Jesus Christ is.2 >any personal private revelation which contradicts something that has already been written or does not deepen understanding of who Jesus is and what Jesus does (according to what is already written) is to be held as highly suspect at best.3 >However, they may acknowledge varying degrees of clarity in these revelations, and the possibility of deception (as in false dreams, false visions, or false prophecies), which is why discernment of spirits is an important subject matter.4 From Wikipedia of discerning spirits 5: >Judgment of discernment can be made in two ways. The first is by a charism or spiritual gift, held as divinely granted to certain individuals for the discerning of spirits by intuition (1 Corinthians 12:10). The second way to discern spirits is by reflection and **theological study. This second method is by acquired human knowledge** While my own opinions are closer to the fourth statement, what is the biblical basis that spiritual experiences are the first step in conversion (are to be trusted)? Is anything else necessary in knowing Jesus is the Christ (Savior of man), is theological study necessary? Is anything else more important to conversion/following Jesus than feelings/heart/faith (is data, reasoning, evidence, etc)? Bonus: How does one discern that which is good/evil (deceiving spirits and false prophets vs truth)? ***** I do realize these statements include caveats such as ...are not utterly rooted in following the Jesus of the Bible and ...which contradicts something that has already been written or does not deepen understanding of who Jesus..(according to what is already written) but both of these emphasize relying on one's understanding of the written word of which there are many interpretations. We know the bible doesn't contain everything (Jesus' teenage years, John 20:30 to quickly name a few as this is laying quick basis). As many parts of the bible were written after they happened things could have been missed or changed in the mind (not nefariously/purpose). This isn't to say the bible isn't important or doesn't contain truth (I am asking for biblical basis to answer this question), just that relying on it as singular/primary source has inherent flaws 1 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/100625/22319 2 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/100617/22319 3 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/100652/22319 4 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/100647/22319 5 Gen 3:22 , 1 king 3:9 , Isa 5:20 , Eze 44:23 , John 1:9 , 1 Cor 2:14 , 1 Cor 12:10 , 1 John 4:2,6

According to the [2020 PhilPapers Survey results](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/5010?target_group=) , when asked about their stance on *Consciousness: identity theory, eliminativism, functionalism, dualism, or panpsychism?*, only 20.98% leaned towards or accepted [mind-body dualism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism) . The remaining respondents were distributed among [functionalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_(philosophy_of_mind)) (32.28%), [identity theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_physicalism) (12.64%), [panpsychism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism) (8.54%), [eliminativism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism) (5.51%), agnostic/undecided (12.31%), a combination of views (6.79%), and an alternative view (5.85%). The Christian belief in the existence of human spirits or souls appears to resonate most closely with the concept of mind-body dualism. Based on the survey results, this suggests that roughly up to ~20% of philosophers might find the notion of spirits or souls plausible. Conversely, a significant portion of philosophers (50.43%) subscribe to [materialist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism) or [physicalist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism) perspectives such as functionalism, identity theory, or eliminativism. Panpsychism (8.54%), on the other hand, posits that *"the mind is a fundamental feature of the world which exists throughout the universe,"* aligning more closely with certain Eastern religious traditions like *Advaita Vedānta* and *Buddha-nature* ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism#Religious_or_mystical_ontologies)) . While the Bible explicitly states that humans are more than physical bodies, by possessing spirits or souls, citing verses from the Bible to ~80% of non-dualist philosophers is unlikely to be a convincing or compelling argument. Thus, are there arguments beyond biblical references that Christians employ in apologetics to defend their belief in the existence of spirits or souls?

According to LDS doctrine, why are we created as spirits before we can receive a body? On earth, all creatures are born with the same bodies as their parents. In the preexistence, why are the children of God born/created out of different matter (spirits) than our heavenly parents? Our Father in Heaven is a physical being. If we are literal offspring of our Father in Heaven, then why aren't we born in the pre-earth life with a physical body, the same as our Father in Heaven?

Recently I heard from my devout religious acquaintance that, according to Christian (Catholic) faith, a cloned individual wouldn't actually be a person. She explained that a human being consists of a body and a soul (it's the philosophy of St Thomas, the conception is derived form Aristotle, I suppose). As the flesh can be created by scientists, only God can grant something (somebody) with a soul. As cloning is — according to her — an artificial way of creating a man, you can't divide the spirit like you can split the cells. So I’m asking you a question: Is this really part of Catholic ethics? I understand that the Church is against cloning, but this is the first time I’ve heard that the “effect” of it is, so to say, punished. The same could apply to *in vitro* conception, but I suppose cloning could be taken as a more radical version of this.

The short prayer Anima Christi starts like this: "Soul of Christ, sanctify me". We rarely come across the concept of the Soul of Christ in the Gospels. One such instance is in John 12, where we see a poignant response from Jesus to the request of some Greeks to meet him: John 12:23, 24, 27, 28 NIV >**23** Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. **24** Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. ... **27** Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. **28** Father, glorify your name. What are the attributes of the Soul of Christ?

At Matt 3: 11 we see John the Baptist speaking of Jesus: “I baptize you with water for repentance, but one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. " I wish to know if Baptism by the Holy Spirit and Baptism by Fire are two different things, given that the Holy Spirit himself would later appear in the form of fire at Pentacost (Acts 2:3) . How does the Catholic Church interpret the statement of the Baptist ?

In Jn 3:8, we see Jesus equating those born of the Holy Spirit to the wind which blows where it likes. No one knows where the wind comes from and where it goes to. Jesus was referring to the place of origin of the wind and it's final destination , and not just the directions ( east/west etc..) it blows from and goes to. We know that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father. Origin of the people born of the Spirit is also known , whereas their destination is not predictable. So, was Jesus actually referring to the Gifts of the Spirit, say Gift of the Gab, Gift of Healing etc...those born of the Spirit may receive ? No one can foresee when the Gifts are given and taken back. My question therefore is: Is there a larger interpretation of John 3:8 with reference to Gifts of the Holy Spirit ? Inputs from Trinitarians are solicited.