Hebrew:
H7307
????
ru?ach
roo’-akh
From H7306; wind; by resemblance breath, that is, a sensible (or even violent) exhalation; figuratively life, anger, unsubstantiality; by extension a region of the sky; by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions): – air, anger, blast, breath, X cool, courage, mind, X quarter, X side, spirit ([-ual]), tempest, X vain, ([whirl-]) wind (-y).

Greek:
G4151
???????
pneuma
pnyoo’-mah
From G4154; a current of air, that is, breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively a spirit, that is, (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, daemon, or (divine) God, Christ’s spirit, the Holy spirit: – ghost, life, spirit (-ual, -ually), mind. Compare G5590.

I want a fairly clear definition of a “spirit” before we can fully understand the nature of God. Yea, right. A sincere misunderstanding of the Trinity is not a redemptive deal breaker as long as Christ is part of the Godhead.

Compare say, Genesis 1:2, 45:27, Psalm 77:3, Joel 2:28, John 4:24 just as a few examples, and the word is the same and the contex the same when referencing the Spirit of God and the spirit of man, and yet we don’t call ourselves a duality of persons when we say “My spirit is downcast today.”

Regading the Matthew command to baptise in the three names, note the name the apostles actually baptised in: only Jesus. His is the only name we are given! YHWH/Father is a title, not a name, and “the Spirit” is a description.

In saying all of this however, I know I am wrong about it since it is far too ethereal to formalise to some doctrine, and as evidenced by the apostles writings, they didn’t even think of it in the terms we attempt to categorise it into.

The Son is begotten of the Father. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

With this I agree 100%.

I don’t see how the stretch of logic is mine though with respect to the letters.

The reason I mention the stretch here is only because you said that the intro to the letters (where the Father and Son are mentioned without fail) are no different from the conclusion of the letters (where various people are mentioned).

To me, if Paul (or the others) believed in the Trinity in some form, they would ensure that the Holy Spirit would have been included in their greetings.

John would have done this also, but he says things like:

Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from Jesus Christ the Father’s Son, in truth and love.

Surely, they wouldn’t have disqualified the Holy Spirit in these greetings if they believed in the Spirit’s personage.

All that passage indicates to me in Cor. 12–since it mentions “the Lord” too–is the intertwined reality of the Trinity. There has always been a “first place” given to the Father even within Trinitarian thought.

The passage mentions all three.

In the creed we express it as:

The Son is begotten of the Father. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

It’s mysterious. We don’t know “how” it works. It just is.

I don’t see how the stretch of logic is mine though with respect to the letters.

I’m not willing to build a theological argument out of the rhetorical forms of 1st c. epistolary.

Your “greetings argument” just doesn’t hold water to me.

But I’m willing to think about it again.

Well, like Neil said, you can’t really answer the “why” of something that’s not there.

So why do you think that it is missing? (that’s the question: how do you reason this out?) Does it strike you as a little odd, if for nothing else but the consistency through each and every epistle?

Before looking at this verse, take a look a little earlier in v 3:

Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.

Notice how the “Spirit of God” and the “Holy Spirit” are used interchangeably (really, one and the same).

Also, in v 6:

…and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone.

Who is empowering? It is God, through His Spirit. I believe that is why Paul can say in v 11:

All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

There is really no difference between v 6 and v 11.

The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.

I’m not saying that you’re a heretic or anything, Paul, but I just have a hard time seeing where you’re coming from on this. Of course, no one can say the fully understand the Godhead, or maybe not even a little bit. But to me, the Trinitarian models do seem to make sense.

I think when start looking at the social Trinity conceptions of Moltmann and others, it starts making even more sense.

Phil, how would you personally answer the question about the omission of the Holy Spirit in every epistles’ opening (Paul, James, Peter, John) or the omission of the Holy Spirit in Rev 21/22?

Well, like Neil said, you can’t really answer the “why” of something that’s not there.

I’d say there are plenty of times when Paul does refer to the Holy Spirit in personal terms, though. Take Romans 5:5, for example:

And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.

The fact that he says “whom” rather than “which” seems to indicate he’s thinking of it as a personal entity.

As far as Revelation, I would say that any description of a spirit as visible would have seemed quite odd to first century readers. By definition, a spirit is an invisible, ephemeral thing. It’s actually be more accurate to think of it as the wind – you only see it by it’s effects.

I just don’t see how the greetings in letters indicate anything other than Paul’s singular concern to bear witness about Christ. I’ll grant they are christological, but again I still can’t see how they are indicative of his theology proper.

The fact that Paul – along with James, Peter, John & Jude – saw no reason to mention the Holy Spirit (as a person) speaks more deeply about their understanding.

I want to emphasize that this is not simply an argument of omission, but I think, simply demonstrates their way of thinking. Paul is careful to give abundant glory to the Father and Son at every turn.

The only reason he would not see the need to also include the Holy Spirit might be because he didn’t see it as a person, but rather the power of both the Father and Son.

I would simply encourage an open reading on these points… I am open to learning as well.