Since I was a new Christian at the ripe old age of 9,now 65 years ago, the doctrine of The Trinity has bothered me. There are Scriptural hints at the doctrine, but they seem rather fuzzy to me.The Holy Spirit seemed a dark entity perhaps in a black hood in my childhood.

There is no doubt about God's being a Spirit - John 4:24. And we have Jesus' statement "I and my Father are One." That almost got Him stoned.

My prayers are always to God, in the Name of Jesus. I recall once in late childhood that my Baptist pastor directly addressed The Holy Spirit in prayer.(He baptized me, he married us, but he won't be present for my next church event. He died in his 90s.)

What are your concepts of each of the personalities of The Trinity, as relating to The Trinity?

Well JawgeFromJawga, I have no problem with the Trinity, as they are, God the Father, Glod the Son and God the HS. I don't see it wrong to believe in the Trinity or not. Does it hurt us to believe or not to believe? I don't think so. Besides I believe there are matters that we will never know until we get to heaven. And that doesn't bother me either. I've never thought it was anything to dwell upon. Does it help or hinder our salvation?

I don't think it has anything to do with salvation. Unfortunately, untold numbers of people have been burned, hanged, or simply excommunicated for their belief or lack of belief in The Trinity.

Jawge

Do not burn, hang, or torture anyone over any spiritual issue! That's my thought. But on the Trinity it makes a great dif to me that the LORD our Lord is one LORD and that there are three persons, not because of the fact that there are three, but because of WHO God is, as I get to know God it matters to me that all that is involved in God is in God. Does this make any sense to you or am I as usual stumbling over my own tongue!?

We only need to recognize what the Bible says about God. We don't need to know all the details or else God would have revealed them to us. What does the Bible say about God? That the Father is a personal God; that Christ is God; and that the Holy Spirit is God, and that these three divine Persons are one God--- not one in person but One in nature, character, and purpose.

Leaving off the word "trinity" as the traditional doctrine (which I believe you are referring to ) always reminds me of some kind of 3-headed something...

What are my concepts of each of the Personalities? Absolute humility. The Father gives all the glory to the Son and stays in the background. The Holy Spirit, Who inspires the scriptures, gives little recognition to Himself, directing all attention to the Father and Son. The Son continually points us to the Father, ever seeking to vindicate His character, and to the HS as our great Comforter and Teacher.

Well; you can't go wrong there.

I believe that they are all so united, so One, that if you address one; you address them all. God understands what we mean.

No stumbling. Ya done good. Your thinking is emotionally helpful, but does not help me intellectually. (Not being an intellectual giant to begin with.)Thanks for that.

Some may have noticed that I usually capitalize references to Jesus (He, Him, His, etc.) Jesus is my God, not "a" God, as one group would interpret John 1: 1 and 2.

Still, what does it all mean, "meaning" being mostly an intellectual type facility?

Agape,

George

Well, OKAY. Somewhat more intellectual. Every little bit helps. I shall still separate The Father and The Son in my prayers, to The Father, in the Name of Jesus Christ.

Agape,

George

Jesus tells us to pray to the Father, in his, Jesus' name.

Great, Teresa! A buncha behavioral characteristics, which we could classify with the psychological. Largely emotional, with your concept of "Absolute humility". Don't misunderstand me: the emotions are an aspect of our minds. (A mind is the sum total of energy directed by or influencing a conscious state.)

Yeah. Perhaps in the dark recesses of my mind, "trinity" did conjure up visions of a three headed deity sort of like a Hindu concept.

Again, helpful. All helpful. Like the six blind men describing an elephant. Trunk is like a hose, tusk is like a spear, leg is like a tree, tail is like a rope, body is like a wall, ear is like a matt. They were all correct.

Agape.

You left off excommunication. Throw out all the bums who don't see things exactly as we do. Shun 'em! Give 'em the ole cold shoulder! Silence them in every way possible - they may have something something truthful to say that would shake the very foundations of our concepts.

Thank God Adventists and Baptists don't have a formal system of shunning.

Agape

JawgeFromJawja wrote:

“My prayers are always to God, in the Name of Jesus.”

I found 99 references to the “name of Jesus” in the New Testament. Everything was done in said name. Not only that, but there is not a single instance of anyone being baptized with the Trinitarian formula in the NT.

Eusebius, who had access to older manuscripts than the ones in existence today, did some extensive research and concluded that the original reading of Matthew 28:19 had only the name of Jesus. There are nearly 20 quotations of said passage by Eusebius where the triune name does not appear.

History records the burning of entire libraries by Trinitarians and there was a concerted effort to burn older manuscripts. All this tends to support the theory that Matthew 28:19 was fraudulently modified in order to provide a support for the pagan Trinity doctrine which was borrowed from paganism.

Notice that an early reference to baptism does not include the threefold name. Peter in his sermon did not say that his hearers needed to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but simply the name of Jesus.” If the text found in Matthew 28:19 is genuine, we should find at least one example of baptism performed with said Trinitarian formula.

“Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” [Acts 2:38]

Hecate, for one, was 3-headed, but generally speaking pagan trios were part of the larger polytheism.

I think the traditional "trinity" concept was a unique product developed by pagan Greek philosophers turned Christian. An attempt to explain the unexplainable with Greek philosophy. As I understand it anyway.

But I don't think this is where Jawge is quite wanting to go. Maybe he would like us to think about the character traits of Father, Son and HS. If I am right, I hope we "get into it". We don't spend enough time thinking about them that way other than to say, "God is love".

-----

In that light, since you bring up "name"...name is another word for character. What is the character of the Trio?

----
Am I close Jawge, or not quite?

[quote=teresaq(sda)In that light, since you bring up "name"...name is another word for character. What is the character of the Trio?

[/quote]

How can we talk abodut the character of the "Trio" if we don't have a trio, but rather a duo?

Nic Samojluk, that was a superb use of Scripture and history to shed light on the topic of The Trinity. Your post was illuminating of Scriptural Truth rather than religious doctrine.

Agape

http://clubadventist.com/forum/images/icons/default/thumbs_up.gif
Yes, great, Teresa! Thanks.

You can have whatever you want. I believe in the Trio. LOL

Ummmm, that's a, period, end of subject, statement.

I have seen our teaching about the Godhead change in my lifetime. I am not sure whether it has really changed, or that in my moving about the country I came across different local teachings.

Early on, back when I was in Primary Sabbath School (yes, the little kids listen!), we were taught that there is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, but that they weren't really three separate beings, but they weren't really one either. It was all so confusing. We were told that God was such a complex personality that we probably would not be able to understand the three-in-one concept this side of heaven. I believe that is true. We keep trying to put a handle on it, but I think a combination of the mystery of God, and some fiddling with translations has made it hard to understand.

More recently it is commonly taught that the Godhead are three separate beings, all with the same purpose. That is easy for us to understand. No problem there. I am not sure I agree with it completely.

These verses are intriguing:

John 14:16
And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever—

John 16:7
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

Why was the Comforter going to be given only after Jesus left? Some say that this prove Jesus WAS the Holy Spirit, but in these verses, Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit in the third person.

Anyway, back to JJ's question - the character of the "trio" is love; God is focused on our salvation. That is the name given Jesus (before the Greek transliteration came into common usage) -- Yahshua -- God our Savior, or Salvation. What a wonderful name!

LD

I agree 100% LD. Not only that, if we do believe that Christ enter the MHP in 1844, than how can he be the HS at the same time?

"we were taught that there is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, but that they weren't really three separate beings, but they weren't really one either. It was all so confusing."

It is reassuring to find others who are or were confused. This statement about The Trinity is the most confusing of all.
--- Jawge


"We were told that God was such a complex personality that we probably would not be able to understand the three-in-one concept this side of heaven."

As far as this explanation (or lack of explanation) for an abstruse doctrine,I have always thought that it was a cop-out for a null doctrine. After all,anyone sufficiently computer savvy to be on Club Adventist is smart enough to understand any conceivable relationship related to space/time, and probably most energy relationships, not to mention psychology, which seems to me the closest discipline related to Three Personalities in One and One Personality in Three.
--- Jawge

Thoughtful post, LynnDel!

And this topic could use a lot of thought.

LynnDel wrote:

“These verses are intriguing:

John 14:16
And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever—

John 16:7
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

Why was the Comforter going to be given only after Jesus left? Some say that this prove Jesus WAS the Holy Spirit, but in these verses, Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit in the third person.”

Try reading the John 14 passage without the Trinitarian glasses.

16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Notice that Jesus affirms that the disciples already know him, because he lives with them, and that he will come back to them. Jesus is talking about himself who was living with the disciples. He promised to come back to them but in an physically invisible form.

And you should not be surprised that Jesus used the third person to refer to himself. He used the third person more than once when talking about himself. Here are two examples, and there are more:

"I am He who testifies about Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies about Me." [John 8:18]

25The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”
26Then Jesus declared, “I who speak to you am he.”

pkrause wrote:

“I agree 100% LD. Not only that, if we do believe that Christ enter the MHP in 1844, than how can he be the HS at the same time?”

That’s a big “If.” Have you read the following text? It is talking about past teense in the first century. Jesus was sitting at the right hand of the throne of God—not in 1844 but following his ascension.

"Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” [Rev. 12:2]

Is there a place in heaven more holy than God's throne? Isn't God's throne the "Most Holy" place in heaven?

Let's not confuse correct English with the use of the third person. :) What translation did you use to be able to find it stated in such a way?The Father does not sit on His throne in the Most Holy Place 24-7 for billions and billions of years. According to the bible He tends to move around. He came down on Mt Sinai. He will live with us on the new earth...no mention of a throne then. I don't think we can get too hung up on this "throne" business. God uses human language to communicate with us...but we can see only so dimly.

I just found this thread. There were two of my professors who made similar explanations which has helped me a lot. The first was my professor at Atlantic Union College, John Wood McCaull, and the second my professor over in Israel Dr. Jim Fleming who was a professor at Hebrew University www.biblicalresources.net and www.explorationsinantiquity.com

Dr. Fleming said that one of his coluges from Hebrew University, a Jewish Rabbi who is the world's leading scholar on second temple Judiasm, had discovered that the doctrine of the trinity was actually taught by the Rabbis in the second temple, that it was designed to explain Old Testament Consepts into western Greek though. That it was divided between Christians and Jews in the split of 135 AD where the church began emphesising the threeness and Jews the oneness. Fleming discribed it as picturing a mountain where you cannot see the top because the top is covered over by clouds. We cannot see what is above the clouds, but we can expirence what is above the clouds by expirencing what is revealed below the cloud. The cloud represents the infinite, what is outside of time and space, which our finite minds can not comprehend. (now getting a litte into Wood-McCaull) Since finite minds can not comprehend the infinite if God did not self reveal himself to us we would not know that God exists. So God is not only infinite, outside of time and space, but has revealed himself inside of time and space.

Now there are three things we need to know about God. First we need to know that he is alpowerful and creator, much greater than we can understand, so we have God the Father, God as power, the great unapproachable light, the deep darkness, where angels need to viel their faces.

But if this was all we had of God, God would be very scary, and we would have been prone to worship God out of fear rather than faith. That would be sin and it would sepperate us from the life sourse thus kill us. So this revelation of God was necessary but insufficient.

We needed to also know that God is our friend, one of us. One we can be close to. Thus we have the revelation of God the Son. Appearing to the angels as another angel. Appearing to people in the Old Testament, usually as another human, it is safe to assume from the evidence that he appeared to the beings on the other planets as one of them, until he took on one last form that he will keep through out the rest of eternity, that of the human Jesus.

If God only reveiled himself in Jesus, we would know that God is loving and our friend, but what would make him so special, why are his vews better than ours? The closeness and friendlyness of God is necessary but insufficient, So we need to know that this close friend of ours is still the one great all knowing power who sits on the throne, that he is indeed God.

Now these two views are both necessary and need to be ballanced out by each other, either one being insufficient by itself. But even these two are insufficient because we are both objective and subjective.

Wood-McCaull gives a story about a convention for criminal lawyers. As the keynote speaker started his speach someone came in and shot the speaker to death infront of all the other lawyers and judges there. The police came to investigate the murder and took statements from all the lawyers and judges who were eye witnesses to this murder. The next evening the man who was to have been the keynote speaker the night before, the man they saw murdered came on the platform and gave a lecture about eyewitnesses, pointing out how the "murder" was carefully coriographed, what actually happened and how did these eyewitnesses interpet what happened.

We have to objective revelation of God the Father and God the Son, but we need God to reveal himself as working with our subjective expirence, thus we have God the Holy Spirit.

If we only had the Holy Spirit, it would only be God working with our subjective expirence with nothing objective that we could compare our expirence to, and we'd be like eastern religions or a church board meeting where everyone with conflecting views argue that they are moved by the spirit to their convictions. We need to have the two objective revelations and the Holy Spirit to help us notice things about these objective revelations to apply it to our subjective expirence.

God as Power, God as loving Friend and God working not only out there but intamately with our expirence and working with us personally are both necessary and together suffienct. Now notice I did not say complete. God is infinite, there is much more to God than the trinity. And God did not want to confuse us with the trinity but needed to reveal himself in these three forms.

Back to the mountain illustration, while we cannot penetrate what is above the cloud (and unlike the mountain which is smaller than what is below the cloud, in the case of God what is above the mountain is infinately bigger than what we see below the mountain) the trinity are like three slopes to the mountain. Or maybe another illustration would be someone outside of a glass of water. Where the inside of the glass of water is time and space, and you have someone outside the glass of water but sticks three fingers into the waster to communicate with life in the glass of water teaching different aspects about himself.

Thus we have the one infinite God who is outside of time, space and our ability to comprehend who wanted to bridge that incomrehensivle gap by not only remaining outside of time and space but also revealed himself inside of time and space in three revelations that were necessary for us to know but which by them selves or only two of these would insufficient, but the three reveations of God are necessary and sufficient.

Part of what confuses us, is that we are not thinking in consepts of the infinite and the revelations to the finite, but have come to think that the trinity is all there is to God. Fleming says that the idea that we have a rope with three strands is confusing to us because we think this rope is all there is. Rather there a vast unknown out there, as above the cloud that we cannot comprehend, but we can relate through it's three slopes, the three fingers in our glass of water.

We tend to think like "These three fingers are somehow the same person" without realizing that this one person is outside of this glass and the three fingers are only part of him in his mannor of communicating with us.

I hope this helps.

Kevin H wrote:

“Thus we have the one infinite God who is outside of time, space and our ability to comprehend who wanted to bridge that incomprehensible gap by not only remaining outside of time and space but also revealed himself inside of time and space in three revelations that were necessary for us to know but which by them selves or only two of these would insufficient, but the three revelations of God are necessary and sufficient.”

How can God be outside of time and space? Time and space are simply mental constructs we use to show the relationship between matter and the sequence of events. If God is outside of time, for example, are you saying that there is no sequence for God’s acts and thoughts?

God has no need of a chair to sit on. Nevertheless, he reveals himself to us in a laguage we can understand.

A big "If" - "if we do believe that Christ enter (sic) the MHP in 1844".
Most of US CHRISTIANS and a very significant fraction of Adventist CHRISTIANS do not believe Christ entered the "MHP" in 1844. The periodic schisms in the SDA Church have practically always at least partly included disagreement about the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment and the very existence of a Heavenly Sanctuary. So for most Christians, and very many Adventists (most of 'em saved Christians, as in all other brands of people designating themselves "Christians"), whether Jesus entered the Most Holy Place in 1844 has no bearing on the doctrine of The Trinity. Most importantly, such belief has no bearing on personal salvation.

For the vast majority of Christians, be they Adventist, Baptist, Methodist, Mennonite, other "Protestants",those Christians unjustly judged as "Babylonians", Catholics, various Eastern Orthodox groups;the "IJ" ( I usually abhor abbreviations )has no relevance to salvation or to any other Biblical truth.

The only Biblical truth that matters is belief in the atoning death of our Lord Jesus Christ as the perfect and complete remedy for sin and guilt.

Belief in confusing, changing, diaphanous doctrines, including the poorly defined "doctrine" of The Trinity, and the well defined but non-scriptural doctrines such as the investigative judgment, has been the source of all too much verbal and even physical contention. Such worthless contention has served to undermine the message of The Gospel, authored by The Prince of Peace Himself.

I appreciate all the posts on this topic of The Trinity,but at the same time confess that I am more confused than ever.

God's Spirit is indicating to me that the doctrine of The Trinity is not a matter relevant to Salvation, and indeed, not an important spiritual matter at all.

Agape

The issues of the Great Controversy are all based on the trinity. The three beasts of Revelation 12 and 13 are the ellements of the trinity but either working independent of each other, or cooperating for their own selfish purposes rather than the self sacrificing love righteousness by faith relationship that unifies the trinity

The trinity found in Rev. 12 and 13 are led by the devil and his angels. The alleged Trinity in heaven is a doctrine borrowed from paganism. The Devil has a great interest in the preservation of such unchristian doctrine since, according to Ellen White, he once occupied the third position of honor in heaven.

My question: If Ellen was right, then did the Holy Spirit occupy the fourth position of honor in heaven prior to the fall of Lucifer?

God is limited by the language. To think that we understand God by the limitations of the human language in addition to the limitations of our fallen nature seems scary to me.
Isa 55:8 For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

This shows that you need to study out the trinity more, that you don't understand it. Jesus and God the Father are the objective manisfestations of the infinite God. Thus they would be seen as the first and second, and then the leader of the created beings would have the third position. The Holy Spirit is in a different situation since He is God's manisfestation and leading the Subjective aspect of our lives. Thus would not be out there in the first or second position.

Nic, you probably understand The Trinity doctrine as well as anybody. Anybody who truly understood it would be able to provide a definition in far less than 72 thousand words without relying on metaphors, analogies, and symbolism.

What used to really scare me as a child was the fear that I would inadvertently blaspheme The Holy Spirit. What is that unforgivable sin? Many thoughts on that sin abound.

Now I'm gonna study The Trinity the proper way, with prayer and a rigorous search of Scripture, the beginning aid being Nave's Topical as found in e-Sword.

By the way, is there anybody here who does not have e-Sword or an equivalent program? You can even download into it for free a huge amount of indexed writing from Mrs. White. E-Sword or equivalent programs are absolutely essential for efficient Bible study.

Agape

JawgeFromJawja wrote:

“What used to really scare me as a child was the fear that I would inadvertently blaspheme The Holy Spirit.”

Were you aware that the unpardonable sin was originally cited in reference to the sin against the angel of the Lord?

20“See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. 21Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him. [Exodus 23]

My view is that the Holy Spirit is the invisible presence of God either directly or through any agency he chooses to manifest himself, be it Jesus, the angel Gabriel, or any of his many angels.

Naves combined with e-Sword rocks! Oh, how sweet it is! In the short time since my previous post, I have already looked up and recorded the following from Naves' Topical via e-Sword. All of them do not seem that relevant. You decide:


Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Isa 6:3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

Isa 6:8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.

Isa 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;
Isa 11:3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:

Isa 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

Mat 12:18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.

Isa 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.


Isa 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
Isa 61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
Isa 61:3 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.


Luk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Luk 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.


Isa 63:9 In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.
Isa 63:10 But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them.

Wow! I'm already sub-orbital.

More later.

Agape

Thanks again, Nic. I did not recall that verse. Interesting, for the command in that verse is do not rebel against the angel. Of course, Israel rebelled repeatedly, usually being soundly punished, but throughout the Old Testament was subsequently forgiven.

So, apparently God forgives, at least that sort of rebellion against his Spirit imbued agent, here an angel; even though the agent could not forgive rebellion.

Agape

One of the key passages connected with the Holy Spirit is found in the Gospel of John Chapter 14, where we find the reference to the promise of the Holy Spirit by Jesus.

16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

In order to correctly understand what Jesus was talking about we need to pay attention to the word “abide” found in verse 17, which the translator rendered as “lives,” but can also mean “to stay,” “abide” or “remain,” according to the Greek Lexicon.

17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

He abides μένει menei 3306
to stay, abide, remain a prim. verb[Greek Lexicon]

Notice that said Spirit of truth presently “lives” with the disciples, but will in the future “be” in them. The question is: Who was living with them?

Of course, it was Jesus. He was physically living with them, but in the future would live in them.

This interpretation is supported in verse 18 where Jesus clearly states that he would not leave them orphans, but would come back to them, this time not in physical form but rather spiritual.

18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. [John 14]

This interpretation agrees with other passages of Scripture. In the same chapter, verse 23 we find the declaration that this spiritual abiding will include not only Jesus but God the Father as well.

23Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. [Id]

Our abode μονὴν monēn 3438
an abiding, an abode from menó[G.L.]


Also, notice that this abiding is mutual: It is Jesus who abides in us, but we also abide in him.

“Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.” [John 15:4]

Abide μείνατε meinate 3306
to stay, abide, remain[G.L.]

It is also important to note that such mutual abiding is accomplished with the inclusion of the words his disciples heard spoken by Jesus; and again, the emphasis is on a mutual abiding. The words Jesus spoke abide in us and we abide both in the “Son” and in God the “Father.”

This idea of mutual abiding is repeated in the first epistle of John:

“What you have heard from the beginning must abide in you. If what you have heard from the beginning abides in you, you will also abide in the Son and in the Father.” [1 John 2:24]

abides μείνῃ meinē 3306
to stay, abide, remain a prim. verb[G.L.]

This is echoed in the Gospel of John where the abiding includes the keeping of God’s Commandments:

“If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.” [John 15:10]

you will abide μενεῖτε meneite 3306
to stay, abide, remain a prim. verb[G.L.]

and abide μένω menō 3306
to stay, abide, remain a prim. verb[G.L.]

This idea of spiritual abiding in Jesus is repeated in John 15:

“If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.” [John 15:7]

you abide μείνητε meinēte 3306
to stay, abide, remain a prim. verb

abide μείνῃ meinē 3306
to stay, abide, remain a prim. verb[G.L.]

And the sign of this mutual abiding is the gift of Jesus’ Spirit. But notice that, according to the Greek Lexicon, the term “Spirit” can also be translated as “wind.”

“By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.” [John 4:13]

that we abide μένομεν menomen 3306
to stay, abide, remain a prim. verb[G.L.]

us of His Spirit. πνεύματος pneumatos 4151
wind, spirit from [G.L.]

Which leads us to Genesis, the first instance where the term “Spirit” appears in the Bible, and which has different connotations, including “breath,” “wind,” and “spirit.”

“Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.” [Gen. 1:2]

and the Spirit וְר֣וּחַ ve•ru•ach 7307
breath, wind, spirit from an unused word[G.L.]

Said “ruach” Hebrew term can also be translated as “presence,” as evidenced in a passage found in the book of Psalms:

"Where can I go from your Ruach?
Or where can I flee from your Presence?" [Psalm 139:7]

“In the Hebrew Bible the word ruach occurs nearly 400 times. Its base meaning is "moving air" — whether in the form of breath, a breeze, or violent storm winds.”


“That which is begotten of the flesh is flesh; and that which is begotten of pneuma is pneuma.... The pneuma blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going. So is every one who is begotten of the pneuma” (Jn 3:6,8).

“When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive holy pneuma."” (Jn 20:22)

“By the Word of the LORD the heavens were made,
And by the Ruach of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)

"Ruach is another way of describing God's presence because when he comes near human beings and speaks to them, his Breath and spoken words convey his Presence."

Where can I go from your Ruach?
Or where can I flee from your Panim? (Psalm 139:7)

“God's Ruach or Presence is simply himself. Just as a person's spirit is themself (1 Cor 2:11), God's Ruach is God. His Spirit is not another personality or being.”

http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/spirit/ruachpneuma.html

From this we can conclude that, if God’s Spirit is a separate being and third person of the Trinity, then we need to also affirm the Catholic theory that our human spirit, to which there is ample reference in the Bible, does also possess a separate existence from our physical one.

Adventists do not believe that our soul is independent from the body, and do not accept the survival of the soul after death, so why have Adventists embraced said Catholic dogma?

NO, it is not essential to have. I study just fine without all of the fancy software, mainly because I like actual books. I do use the computer, as you can see, and I do study the Bible.