Jew here. I understand what the Father and the Son are, but what is the Holy Spirit...

Jew here. I understand what the Father and the Son are, but what is the Holy Spirit? I read the Wikipedia article on it and I still don't understand.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=2wZud4MT3uw
youtube.com/watch?v=7Yge64B3lhs
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c3a8.htm
thedidache.com
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

It's some retarded bullshit that they had literal wars over in the late Roman Empire/Early Middle Ages. There's nothing to understand.

/thread

The holy spirit as I understand it is the feeling of Christ, the feeling that swells up inside of your chest when you read the scripture, that makes your eyes water.

>image

Hate fucking protestants so much.

op has been making threads about the trinity for years
move along

shekhinah

Jew here. How come Christians believe that God can be killed? isn't that heresy?

It's a spirit that takes possession of your body and gives you superpowers, mostly it just guides you towards the faith but it can also give you the strength needed to overcome big obstacles in life, or the wisdom to make the right decision in difficult times...etc

For example Papal infallibility is because the Pope is supposed to be guided by the Holy Spirit when speaking on matters of faith.

Jesus can be killed. Jesus is just one of the three persons of God.

Jesus chose to let himself be killed.

go to bed

omnipotence of God (integral)
and it should be structured as
God(integral)= god'+god"+god'" where one of these aspects is used for sacrifice
not a christian inb4

>Jesus chose to let himself be killed.

Yeah so why blame us for killing him? very paradoxical.

He turned the other cheek and achieved eternal salvation in the Kingdom of Heaven

Holy Spirit is the third person of God, he is shown as a little bird, tongue of fire, light coming from a cloud etc. He dwells in all Christians and was sent by God the Son and God the Father. From Catechism:

The Church, a communion living in the faith of the apostles which she transmits, is the place where we know the Holy Spirit:
- in the Scriptures he inspired;
- in the Tradition, to which the Church Fathers are always timely witnesses;
- in the Church's Magisterium, which he assists;
- in the sacramental liturgy, through its words and symbols, in which the Holy Spirit puts us into communion with Christ;
- in prayer, wherein he intercedes for us;
- in the charisms and ministries by which the Church is built up;
- in the signs of apostolic and missionary life;
- in the witness of saints through whom he manifests his holiness and continues the work of salvation.

The holy Spirit is the part of God inside every living being, your conscience, the voice in your head that helps you decide what's right and wrong

>Yeah so why blame us for killing him?
Dunno. That's not mainstream thing anymore though. It would be like saying Americans killed Abraham Lincoln.

Who knows the Jewidh cults voodoo.

That's the Father's love for the Christ and humanity and the whole of everything.

It's basically God itself hence it can't be describe by defined words.

Just praise cheesus and you are saved

faith itself
it's a bit to metaphysical for me, but as far as I can tell it's the the "power" that resides within the comunity and manifests itself in the church (as in a gathering of the people, not the building services are made)

we both know that's just a made up excuse to hate on jews
sometimes jewish comunities didn't do anything wrong but it still was convenient to expell them and take their property/assets

nowadays we don't need a reason to hate on jews, so it's not even an issue

On the cross he said "Father forgave them they don't know what they are doing".

>how would jews feel if messiah were killed by own people?
later non jewish proselytism turned it on new level

Because humanity collectively chose to kill him and save Barabbas, instead.

The idea is, Jesus died because humanity is composed of sinners. But that's OK because Jesus chose to forgive us.

Only Protestants believe that heresy. In real Christianity, you must be a good person to be saved.

>we both know that's just a made up excuse to hate on jews
christianity is a schism in judaic community

not really, the messianic/orthodox is a more realistic divide. Christians completely reject jewish law, the old testement is there so we understand what people (namely jesus) believed at the time and also because it has some sick tales.

it also makes little sense since judaism is deeply ethinic, and most christians would not qualify as levantines or their descendants.

Like anything in the abrahamic religions it's a little useless detail brought to life by one specific scribe or one mistranslation that got extremely convoluted with time and means absolutely nothing.

first christians exactly believed they're fulfill jewish law (here was no other way)
same is in evangelical words of christ

That's literally the argument we muslims have to Christians


Also what's the point of Jesus dying on the cross for our sins when God revived him after 3 days?

What was the point of all that

If you're actually interested in an answer, this is the wrong site to be looking for it.

some kind of dove

can i also personalize a part of me, pretty please? i was made after the god's image after all so i can have a personalized part of me too, like my ability to think will be called, say, kitty, and my ability to move will be called, say, anya...

the wrong board actually, it's for /lit/, maybe /his/

I heard Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet, though?

Yeah but we don't believe he died on the cross

I have no fucking clue.

No, that's still the wrong place. This whole site is cancer.

>Also what's the point of Jesus dying on the cross for our sins when God revived him after 3 days?
its a difference of views between muslims and christians
for christians Jesus is a God(the son) and it is not a God revived him after 3 days but it is he can not die even if his body were damaged
basically it is the one of miracles among others but resurrection is a main point separating him from other mirale-makers
immortality is a proof of divinity

i'm skipping aspect of death/redemption which i'm understand very poorly

So then how did he die?

He went through immense pain on the cross and was killed.
The Resurrection was to completely prove to the apostles that he was the true Son of God.

>if his body were damaged
if his body were dead - would be more correct i think

Because God became man and was born as Jesus. By nature, man is not invincible.

can't le upvote this enough!!!!
It's the arm of God that actually does the work in the world. I think the old term 'Holy Ghost' is better, because it emphasises that it is a 'person', like the Father and the Son, whereas a lot of people imagine it as some magic wind or something.

He didn't

He flew into the skies and he will fome back when the day of judgment is near

not like other people didn't do resurrections though, illya (ok, elijah) definitely did, also elisha, also paul and peter too

Like that's more believable than him dying and getting resurrected.

The Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost is the third person of the trinity. He's generally viewed as the councilor, helper/paraclete, the person who initially draws people towards God during conversion, who strengthens and inspires faith, the person who guides us towards and reveals God's truth, etc.

In all honesty the Holy Spirit is probably the least well understood member of the Trinity, even by Christians.

Here's are a couple of nice hymns dedicated to the Holy Spirit:
youtube.com/watch?v=2wZud4MT3uw

youtube.com/watch?v=7Yge64B3lhs

Wars were never fought regarding the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Debates were had very early on, but by the Middle Ages the doctrine was very well established.

Christ was killed in his humanity but not his divinity.

Read Cur Deus Homo

Because God is an absolute being and unable to truly forgive. After all, how can you feel forgiveness if you are omniscience and already know everything that will happen in advance.
So God became flesh, to be able to forgive, as only a human could.

>illya
"flew into the skies" like here didn't he?
>paul and peter
>resurrection
never heard
make me even checked wiki

did you take it from memory or can provide some sources

Also, the Catechism of the Catholic Church has useful information for a starter

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c3a8.htm

>paul and peter
There is no traditional belief of Ss Peter and Paul having risen from the dead.

I had no idea. Thank you.

Humans are born in sin, Jesus died to redeem them. Jews refused his sacrifice.

The Holy Spirit is the 3rd Person of The Holy Trinity. He is The Creator of life, and eternally proceeds from The Father. Through Him, The Son was incarnate in The Theotokos and became man. He dwells in the church forever.

The Easternbro is correct

Basically a ghost that's made up of PURE concentrated goodness. Like it's supposed to show up every time someone gets baptized so that it anoints the person in goodness that marks the start of a new life. Like when you're born.

Christ was crucified and resurrected so that humanity may return to the union with God it held before the fall. Death was the punishment God put upon humanity. With the resurrection, Christ conquered death and freed man to be able to have eternal life.
Also Christ only suffered a bodily death, his divine nature still lived.

Boi you had best not be preaching some penal substitution nonsense

the trinity is just nonsense that the church fathers came up with because they had a hard time justifying treating jesus as if her were a god while at the same time respecting the commandment to worship no other gods besides the one true god. The church would've been way better and more consistent if they hadn't made up the trinity stuff.

Trinitarianism was around from the very beginning, stop memeing.

how is Christianity more believable than any other fiction ?

Because its claims are true

no it's not

no u
/thread

no u

It's a convoluted mental gymnastic to explain the story of John the Baptist without disqualifying the divinity of the gospels.

...

how can an abstract concept be "believable". Christianity defines customs, traditions, and ethics for how one should live their life. The stories are just stories, some happened, some didn't. Don't let some sola fide/scriptura loser tell you otherwise.

cuckstianity btfoed by my nice digits

>The stories are just stories, some happened
this alone disqualifies as a book of a supposedly omnipotent creature.
>customs, traditions, and ethics for how one should live their life.
i can get those from chrisianty and some other sources with being christian or a part of any relegion .

if you really are a jew then the Holy Spirit is the same as the Huach Ha Kodesh

>Ruach

Is it true that the bible says that if the father has sons and daughters , only the sons get inheritance. wtf ?

Most of the times woman were meant to get married not being independent wymon. Sometimes just one son had the inheritance, usually the oldest one.

shit, so islam is actually more progressive than Christianity in inheritance

>this alone disqualifies as a book of a supposedly omnipotent creature.
well no shit, the bible was obviously written by hundreds of different humans. half of the books are named after their human authors, which is why you should ignore pr*testants with their "sola scriptura" crap.

well the Bible is a broad answer. Christianity doesn't really follow the Bible. If you ask on the stories of the old testament, you saw cases of what I just described, but it isn't commanded per say, it's just show how the culture was and how people lived back then.

Christianity doesn't follow Old Testament Laws that have only ever applied to Jews like with dietary restrictions and specific punishments for specific sins.

the punishment for specific sins can't be applied today because there isn't a temple and they were meant for the ancient nation of Israel as a theocracy. Were you on Sup Forums yesterday?

They don't and have never applied to non-Jews anyway.

the holy spirit is (you)

You didn't answer my question faggot

No, I rarely browse Christianity threads on Sup Forums, too many people larping as fundamentalist protestants and sedevacantists

>Were you on Sup Forums yesterday?
why would someone EVER be on Sup Forums

Want to have a chat? why are you not to keep the law, when breaking the law is the meaning of sin. Meaning when you break the law, you sin.

1 John 3-4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

The whole the law are only applied to Jews is b.s even when they scaped from Egypt and created the nation of Israel many mistrayim came with them. It was also told that the foreigners who came to Israel adapted and kept YHWH's Commandments so saying ONLY the jews kept the law is nonsense. The Jews kept the Law because they were the only people who believed in YHWH

every now and then there are good threads and it's pretty reliable to get the first news out when there's a habbening desu

Early on during the council of Jerusalem the Apostles came to the conclusion that these sorts of laws did not apply to non-Jews. The Jews themselves never applied the vast majority of their laws to gentiles. Christians certainly to follow "the law", but it isn't the same, it's perfected. Christ himself affirms this when he prohibits divorce or when he dismisses specific dietary laws.

I'm ORDODOX, so I did not intend to.

He doesn't dismiss any dietary laws, you're absolutely insane. God doesn't change, He is the same today, tomorrow and yesterday. Eating pork has always been an ABOMINATION. Please show me on the Bible about this council of Jerusalem where it is that I can't really find it.

>sola scriptura
Get off this Christian board, heretic.
Protestantism of the Church is protestantism of Christ Almighty.

i have said "did ressurections", not "resurrected themselves"

all of those resurrected dead, it's in the bible

just like the jews have the talmud and a bunch of man made b.s laws and superstitions so does '''the church fathers''''' you and the catholics are all the same

Good lad

In Matthew 15 when Christ says "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."
This would be a pretty shocking statement to a first century Jew (and it was).

>Please show me on the Bible about this council of Jerusalem

A good chunk of the Acts of the Apostles

>God doesn't change, He is the same today, tomorrow and yesterday.

You're right, but the perfection of the (still completely good) old law was always planned. I'm not advocating any sort of process theology.

>"Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Get the full context

>Matthew 15:19-20 "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. 20 "These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man."

That's a statement which was already addressed on Mathew 7 regarding MAN MADE LAWS like rabbinical judaism or Catholicism

Look at Mathew 7

Mark 7:4-7 When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches. 5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?" 6 He answered and said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 7 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'

DONT EAT ABOMINATION those are lies, just by coincidence all those animals are toxic bad for you a science has proved it.

The Jews didn't follow the Talmud when Jesus was alive. Remember the Pharisees and Sadducees? They were the priesthood of Judaism, in whom religious authority was vested, and by whom religious punishments were carried out.
In 70 A.D., decades after Christ's Ascension, the Roman Empire destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem, and the Jewish priesthood was destroyed. After that point, scripture was the only thing the Jewish people had to go by, so they organised a canon of scripture. That's why there are now competing sects and interpretations of Judaism, and different traditions – just like Protestantism.

Consider that Jesus, the Apostles, and the Jews who first became Christians knew nothing other than a centralised religious authority. There was no concept of 'sola scriptura' Christianity, because the 'scriptura' didn't exist. Jesus gave authority, in person, to the apostles, with Peter at the head. The apostles knew Jesus personally, and set up a system of geographical Churches with bishops leading them. There was no such thing as personal interpretation, because they were all just going by what the apostles had personally experienced, and taught their successors.
There is no reason that this model should ever be abolished, just because the Gospels and apostles' teachings were written down eventually. The apostolic Churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox) hold faithfully to the model that Jesus' apostles set up to serve the faithful for all of time.

Read the Didache, and Early Christian catechism: thedidache.com

Yes I know exactly who the Pharisees were, hence why I'm dictating against following man made doctrines which are scriptural, like not obeying the commandment to keep the Sabbath holy.


>Mark 7:4-7 When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches. 5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?" 6 He answered and said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 7 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'

Whether you say there are reform, '''conservative''' orthodox, whatever it might be the only sacred word is the TANAKH plus NT, it is doable to read and get your own interpretation without having to follow man made doctrines.

Not to get into a scripture-quiting contest, but only a little later in Mark there's:

14 And calling again the multitude unto him, he said to them: Hear ye me all, and understand.
15 There is nothing from without a man that entering into him, can defile him. But the things which come from a man, those are they that defile a man.
16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
17 And when he was come into the house from the multitude, his disciples asked him the parable.
18 And he saith to them: So are you also without knowledge? understand you not that every thing from without, entering into a man cannot defile him:
19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but goeth into the belly, and goeth out into the privy, purging all meats?

Not to mention that in the entirety of Christian tradition there is never anything forbidding certain foods. Simply because something isn't explicitly stated in sacred scripture does not mean that it's "man-made"

The Oriental Orthodox (Copts, Armenians, Syriac Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, etc.) and the Church of the Easter also have real apostolic succession.

>The Oriental Orthodox (Copts, Armenians, Syriac Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, etc.) and the Church of the Easter also have real apostolic succession.
I knew there were some Oriental Orthodox, but I couldn't remember enough to name them all. Thanks, God bless.

that's fine, but the context is clearly speaking of the eating with "unwashed hands." Therefore, it is clear that Yahweh's perfect law was not changed here.

Even so, all "foods" are clean because shellfish and pork aren't food to begin with. Yahushua was not being criticized for eating pork, He was being criticized for eating without washing his hands according to the "tradition of the elders." They believed his hands were defiled, so everything he ate was also defiled. But failing to wash your hands did not defile His hands or the food he was eating. So Yahushua declared to them that the food was not defiled by eating with unwashed hands. Then He gave a "parable." We know his statement, "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man." .........it was a parable and not intended to be taken literally because His disciples later "asked him concerning the parable."

Then He gave an explanation of the parable:

>Mark 7:20-23 And He said, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. 21 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 "thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. 23 "All these evil things come from within and defile a man."

To confirm He was not speaking of unclean meats not defiling a man, consider the parallel of Yahushua's saying here in the book of Matthew where the same story is told:

>Matthew 15:19-20 "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. 20 "These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man."

So it was the evil coming out of the heart that defiled a man, not eating with unwashed hands. Yahushua spoke nothing of eating pork chops here, nor would He have ever approved of anyone breaking Yahweh's commandments

There are also some St. Thomas Christians in India who are part of the Oriental Orthodox, though some are Eastern Catholics.

It's a mistake to compare Protestants in general to fundamentalist evangelicals, the early Reformers had a healthy respect for the Church Fathers, and mainstream Protestant groups don't dismiss everything that is extra-biblical the same way that evangelicals often do.