Does 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 disprove the doctrine of the Trinity?
The text is here quoted from the English Standard Version.
1 Corinthians 8:4-6 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "an idol has no real existence," and that "there is no God but one." For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth--as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"-- yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
By non-Trinitatrians this statement by the apostle Paul is often taken as the absolute proof against the doctrine of the Trinity, believing the 1 Corinthians 8:6 teaches that
o Jesus is not God
o Christ received his existence from the Father, the source of "all things"
o Because the Holy Spirit is not mentioned, the Spirit is not a distinct person and not as such part of a trinitarian Godhead
This understanding of the text must be rejected for a number of reasons.
o It would set the text in clear opposition to those texts which explicitly mention Jesus as God (theos) as well as the many texts which identify Jesus with Yahweh of the Old Testament.
o The text does not speak about the Father as the source of the Son.
o The text excludes Jesus Christ from the "all things" of which the Father is the source. As "all things" came "through him" and "exist" "through him", Christ cannot be included in these "all things" which all are "from" "the Father".
o It should further be noted the text does not refer to Jesus as "Son". It does not speak about the internal relationship between Father and Son and does hint of any subordination of the Son to the Father.
o If the text is meant to say that Jesus is not God (theos), it is also meant to say that the Father is not our Lord (kyrios).
o Such understanding would likewise conflict with a huge number of other New Testament texts (the list is overwhelming, e.g., Matt 11:35; 12:37; Luke 1:6, 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, 25, 46, 58; Revelation 1:8; 4:8, 11:17; 15:13; 21:22 and many, many more).
o By using the term "Lord" (kyrios) about Jesus, the New Testament is using the word which throughout the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible was a designation of Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament (cf. Luke 2:14). By receiving that name, Jesus is identified as Yahweh. The title or name is thus used also here to describe the oneness of the Father and Jesus.
o When looking at the theology of New Testament as a whole, the lack of mentioning of the Holy Spirit has to be seen in light of the many texts where the Holy Spirit is understood as a distinct person and mentioned in line with the Father and the Son.
o In the specific context, any mention of the Spirit would add little to the point of the text. The contexts underlines that eating meat dedicated to one of the many gods of the pagan pantheon would in itself mean nothing as these gods have no existence anyway. Only God exists. We know this only true God in Jesus. To make that point there is no need to speak also about the Holy Spirit. If there were an intentional lack of mentioning the Spirit, it would imply that the Holy Spirit does not exist-which of course would be non-sense. In short, the Holy Spirit is not the issue and does not need mentioning to make the point necessary in the context of meat dedicated to idols.
Further, 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 actually underlines the oneness of Jesus with God by including him in the Jewish Shema', the core Old Testament text on the oneness of God in Deuteronomy 6:4.
o This text states that "The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!"
o Paul confesses that there is "one God", the Father, and also "one Lord", Jesus Christ.
o The name used for "Lord" by Paul is "kurios", the word also used to translate the Hebrew Yahweh, (rendered "Lord" in most English translations) from the Hebrew Bible into Greek.
o By inserting "Jesus Christ" into this formula as the "one Lord", Paul has emphasized that the "oneness" of the Shema' is relational and contains at least two distinct persons, "the Father" and "Jesus Christ."
1 Timothy 6:16 tells us that God alone has immortality. How is it then possible for Jesus to have immortality, too?
When the Bible speaks about God, it does not per definition exclude Jesus Christ, and we often see that the title given to God belong to Christ as well. That helps us to understand how Jesus is also included when God is mentioned in this text. 1 Timothy 6:13-16 reads, "In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time-- God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen (NIV)."
When you read this text, you notice that the immortal God carries the title "King of kings and Lord of lords". When the last book of the Bible describes the Second Coming of Jesus, this is exactly who Jesus is, "On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS (Revelation 19:16, NIV)."
Immortality belongs to Jesus by nature because he is God.
Son by Inheritance?
It is often claimed that Jesus according to Hebrews 1:4 is the Son of God by "inheritance", and that he, consequently, was not eternal, yet of the same nature as the Father. "Inheritance" presupposes a beginning. Is that the right understanding of this text?
Let us remember that behind the last part of the question lies the presupposition that the nature of God the Father is some kind of quasi-physical entity which can emanate from him to become the Son, or that Jesus is the literal son "begotten" of the Father with the implications of a physical procreation. But God is not like humans, and God the Father is not a father exactly like human beings are father. He has, to give one example, never been a son which all humans father have.
But let us move to the text in Hebrews. This is how the first verses in Hebrews read,
In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs. (NIV, Hebrews 1:1-4)
There are many interesting aspects of this texts, but we here simply will note that Jesus us called "Son", and that "he has inherited" "a name". What does the author refer to?
The "Son" is here seen as the decisive revelation of God as the exact representation of God. Jesus is what God is like. It is in him we know God as a person, and all previous revelations by God in history was but a foretaste of God coming to us in Jesus. All God's revelations is to be understood in light of Jesus.
With this emphasis on the divinity of Jesus, which is the main message of the first chapter of Hebrews, we are able to look at the concept of inheritance.
There is no doubt that "inheritance" presupposes a beginning, but even more, it assumes "death". You only inherit when someone has died! So, does this refer to a beginning of the Son back in eternity when he was "begotten" by the Father? Did someone die back then?
Or does it refer to the results of the death on the cross which gave Jesus the right to take over the kingdom and share it with his elects?
The answer is evident. Hebrews here speaks about the incarnation, the atonement, and its results. The words make it abundantly clear, he "provided purification for sins" on the cross, "he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven", that is, he was accepted into the position as priestly king, and he became far superior to the angels, because he "inherited" a better "name".
You may ask, what name? Name in biblical times could mean authority, as we also today can talk about someone speaking in "the name of someone", that is with his/her authority. In Philippians 2:4-11 the apostle Paul describes Jesus as fully God, who became fully human and died for us, and who subsequently has been exalted above all. His sacrifice was approved, the salvation of believers is eternally secured. Paul teaches about the exaltation of Jesus after his death on the cross by telling about his name, "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth."
He received authority to rule because of his sacrifice on Calvary.
So, also in Hebrews 1:4 the inheritance of Jesus is a result of the incarnation and atonement on the cross. The text does not refer to any "beginning" of the Son back in the beginning of time.
Further it should be added that through the Epistle to Hebrews the exaltation of Jesus consistently refers to his new role as High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary (see Hebrews 8:1 and 10:12). Entering heaven after his death and resurrection, all heavenly powers were made subject to him (cf. 1 Peter 3:22). His ascension is like an enthronement of the Davidic king (as in Hebrews 1:5, cf. Psalm 2:7). The exaltation of Jesus to the role of High Priest in heaven is expressed in Hebrews 5:5 by quoting Psalm 2:7, "So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father" (NIV). From this us it is evident that the phrase, "today I become your Father/begotten you" is a technical term. It is an idiomatic expression for enthronement or installment in the role as priestly king.
When Jesus tells in John 8:42 that he "proceedeth" from the Father, does that imply that he had a beginning and was created sometime back before everything else?
The statement in John 8:42 is quite simply a reference to the incarnation. It tells about Jesus leaving the Father in Heaven to become a human being. It is true that throughout history the text has often been read as a philocophical statement independent of the history of salvation, but the wording and the context speaks about the incarnation.
Here is the text in different translations,
Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me (KJV).
Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now I am here. I did not come on my own, but he sent me (NRV).
Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me (NIV).
Note that these translations all agree. King James Version uses the word "proceed" while more recent translations say "come", Jesus came to this earth. That change is only due to the fact that "proceed" is less used today and feels older.
The meaning is well expressed by the sentence, "I came from God, and here I am." It does not refer to any origin of Jesus back before the creation of heaven and earth, but simply to the fact that he was in heaven with the Father, and that he came to earth as a human being to atone for our sins and save us.
Does Proverbs 8:22 Teach that Jesus Had a Beginning?
Proverbs 8:22-31 is a first of all a poem about the wisdom of God. Many interpreters throughout history have identified it in a secondary sense as a reference also to Christ. It just as little teaches that there was a time when Christ was not, as it teaches that there was a time when God was stupid, that is when God had no "wisdom."
We should note that this text is poetical, and that its primary meaning is to talk about "wisdom" (Hebrew "chokmah"). The meaning in the context of the poem is obvious. Whatever God has ever created, he created with "wisdom". To claim that the text tells there was a time when God had no such "wisdom", and that God's wisdom had a beginning, would evidently be absurd.
Nevertheless, this is exactly how a number of anti-Trinitarians want us to understand the text. Trinitarians on the contrary believe that there never was a time when God was stupid-and that there never was a time when Christ did not exist.
What does "born of God" mean in 1 John 5:18? Does it refer to Jesus as a "literal" son of God the Father?
There is no reason to understand the words in 1 John 5:18 any different from other texts about Jesus as the Son. This is a title given him as the unique representative of God. It does not indicate that he had a beginning more than it implies that God the Father had intercourse with a women to beget him.
Here is the text (NIV), "We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the one who was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him."
New Living Translation is one of the better paraphrases and puts it this way, "We know that those who have become part of God's family do not make a practice of sinning, for God's Son holds them securely, and the evil one cannot get his hands on them."
The phrase "born of God" simply means "Son of God," in this case a clear reference to Jesus Christ.
When Colossians 1:15 call Jesus the "firstborn", does that mean that Jesus was a created being, or had a beginning?
According to the following verse, Colossians 1:16, all things were created by Jesus. Therefore, he cannot himself be a created being. To be created implies that there was a point in time before which you were not. Jesus, therefore, has no beginning.
We need to understand that the Bible at times use the term "firstborn" in a special way as a title. David was literally the youngest, yet he is called the "firstborn" (Psalm 89:20, 27), a title for the exalted king as the parallel in these verses show. The "firstborn" was the leader of a group or a tribe, the priest of the family, and received twice the inheritance of his brothers. Sometimes, the idea of literally being born first played no role. The patriarch Jacob (Genesis 26:25-26 and Exodus 4:22). And Ephraim (Genesis 41:50-52 and Jeremiah 31:9) were not born first, but are nevertheless called the "firstborn". Jesus is called the "firstborn" because he holds the exalted position, and therefore the title, of the Davidid king. He is the Messiah, the King of Kings, ruler of all creation.
Is there any basis for the Jehovah's Witnesses translation of John 1:1 as speaking about the "Word" as "a god"?
The clear answer is no. Here is the biblical text, and this is one of the rare examples where the vast majority of translations have exactly the same wording (such as KJV, NAS, ESV, NIV, RSV, and more).
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)
The reason given by JW's and sympathizers is that the word for "god" ("theos") in the last of the three sentences has no article in Greek, and that it therefore should or could be translated as indefinite. This argument holds no grammatical validity. Determination is not in Greek indicated by the presence of the article only.
This is evident from, for instance, the following sentences in the same context where the Greek word "theos" does not have an article neither, nevertheless obviously is determinate.
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John (ESV, John 1:6).
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God (John 1:12).
No one has ever seen God (John 1:18).
We would not say that John was sent from "a god", that we become children of "a god," or that the meaning of John 1:18a is that no one has ever seen "a god".
In dealing with this issue, scholars usually refer to Colwell's rule to explain the Greek grammar. Colwell's rule has four components" (1) in nominal sentences with the verb "to be" (Greek "einai"), (2) a definite predicate noun (3) will usually drop its article when preceding the verb, (4) but the subject, if definite, will retain its article.
In the case of John 1:1c, this grammatical is applied as follows. (1) The sentence is a nominal sentence with the verb "einai", "to be". (2) The definite predicate noun is "theos", and (3) as it precedes the verb (the word order is "theos/predicate noun, verb, subject), it is still determinate, though (4) the suject which follows, "logos"/word, retains its article.
Recent competent scholarship has, however, pointed out that Colwell's rule really is unnecessary because the syntactically prominent word order, placing the predicate noun first in the sentence in John 1:1c, in itself confirms the determination, affirming beyond doubt what have always been the proper conclusion translation have concluded, so Mark Beatty, "Colwell's Rule is No Longer Needed", paper presented at the annual meetings of Society of Biblical Meetings in Boston, November 22, 2008.
But let us reflect just a little more. What would the indeterminate "a god" claimed by JW's indicate but a belief in several gods? That is simply unbiblical.
Could it, however, as some sould suggest, simply mean that the word was divine. Many of arguments above apply to such theory as well. We do not translate John 1:6 with "there was a man sent from divine, and his name was John!" But more than that, if John had wished to say "divine" and thus imply a qualitative meaning, he simply could have used the adjective "theios" which is not unknown in the New Testament (used in 2 Peter 1:3-4) and has exactly that meaning. He did not.
The reason is evident. The meaning is evident. John 1:1c means, "and the Word was God." None less.
In Revelation 3:14 Jesus is called the "beginning of creation". Does that mean that Jesus was the first work of God's creation?
The Greek word translated beginning ("arche"), can be translated "beginning", "origin, "first cause", or "ruler". The Father himself is called the "beginning" in Revelation 21:6. The same title is used for Jesus in Revelation 22:13. So, Jesus is not the first created, but he is himself the creator.
More Biblical Questions to the issue of the Trinity
How can Jesus be the mediator between God and man, as said by Paul in 1 Timothy 2:5, if he is God? Does not a mediator have to be a neutral part?
Romans 8:26-27: What is meant by calling the Spirit for "intercessor'?
Jesus - the Mediator
How can Jesus be the mediator between God and man, as said by Paul in 1 Timothy 2:5, if he is God? A mediator has to be a neutral part?
Here is the text of 1 Timothy 2:5, "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (ESV)."
The question assumes that in order to mediate between two parties, you have to belong to a third one. Otherwise you are not neutral. That is true in most human relations. However, if it were true here, there is an obvious problem because Jesus is explicitly described in the text as a "man", a human being. If Jesus cannot both be God and mediator because a mediator has to belong to a third party, how then can Jesus be a man and still be a mediator?
It is necessary to understand what kind of mediation takes place. This is not an ordinary conflict between two humans. Because of sin humankind has been separated from God. Because of sin, humans are themselves unable to re-establish the relationship which was lost. God is the only one able. So he came to earth in Jesus. He did not send another creating being. That would not have solved anything. That would not have brought reconciliation. No, it was God who was in Christ, "reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them" (2 Corinthians 5:19).
In order to reconcile us with God, God came to us in Jesus. He became fully human and died for us on the cross. So, Jesus is today our High Priest and intercessor, our mediator in heaven (see Hebrews 7:25-8:2). As God, he is able to save us, as a man he is able to understand amd sympathize with us (see also Hebrews 4:14-15). He is both God and man.
Jesus is not a third party, trying to change God or persuade him to forgive us. No, God was in Christ.
The Holy Spirit - Another Intercessor?
In Romans 8:26-27 Paul calls the Holy Spirit an intercessor? What does he mean? Is the Holy Spirit identical with Jesus? Or, do we have two intercessors?
Let us quote the text from the Bible, "Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God (Romans 8:26-27, ESV)."
Bible scholars have recognized that Roman families form the background for the way the Spirit is described in Romans 8. The Spirit is like the benefactor who brings the gifts and blessings to the members of God's family. (See Ben Holdsworth, "The Other Intercessor: The Holy Spirit as Familia-Petitioner for the Father's filiusfamilia in Romans 8:26-27" in Andrews University Seminary Studies 42 (2004): 325-346).
What are then the theological and practical consequences of this text? First, the Holy Spirit is not interceding for the sinners in heaven as a priest. That role belongs to Jesus (cf. Hebrews 7:25). The Holy Spirit works with us on earth. His role on earth is parallel to the work by Jesus as our priest in heaven.
Next, the Holy Spirit is not simply translating our feeble or weak prayers, or our selfish prayers, into something perfect, so that I can just go on, knowing that whatever I say, the Spirit will make it right. The Holy Spirit is here to show us Jesus (cf. John 16:13-15), and he comes to our aid in prayer teaches us to pray more and more with the attitude of Jesus. Thus, as Jesus represents us in the heavenly sanctuary, the Spirit works on our hearts and minds on earth.
If Jesus is "the truth", is not then the "Spirit of truth" simply Jesus himself?
Why are there "seven spirits" in John's vision of the throne room in the Book of Revelation?
Is the Holy Spirit a "he" or an "it"?
Jesus spoke about himself in the 3rd person. Did he do so also when mentioning the Holy Spirit?
When Jesus says "I will come to you", does he not thereby say the he and the Spirit is one and the same?
John 15:26 and the Holy Spirit as the "Spirit of Truth": Is He Jesus?
I read in a pamphlet which argued against the Trinity. One of the arguments related to the identity of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit is "the spirit of truth" (John 15:26 and 16:13), does it not then follow that the Spirit is identical with Jesus-after all, he is the "truth" according to John 14:6?
The particular pamphlet in question presupposes what it sets out to prove. Jesus is the "truth", and if we replace the word "truth" with "Jesus", what do we then get in this name for the Holy Spirit? Simply, "The Spirit of Jesus/truth". That would only be a proof that the two are not two, but one person for those who have already presupposed that to be the case.
The evidence from Jesus' description of the Holy Spirit in John 14-16 is clear. The Holy Spirit is mentioned as "He", thus emphasized as a distinct person by use of the Greek pronoun ekeinos in the above texts in 15:26 and 16:13 and many verses in these chapters. Further, the Holy Spirit is said to be "another", that is distinct from Jesus (cf. John 14:16).
Note further that there of course is a close identity between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That is the very nature of the Trinity that there is both identity and distinction. Therefore, Jesus is able to say that when the Holy Spirit is with us, it means that "we (Father and Son) will come to you" (John 14:23).
If that and similar statements about Jesus coming to us through the Holy Spirit (as John 14:11) are to be understood as if the Holy Spirit and Jesus is one and the same person, it also means that the Holy Spirit and the Father is one and the same person. In that case, the Father and the Son must be one and the same person also!
The particular pamphlet argues in a way which in the end will do away with the distinctive personalities of both Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Revelation 1:4: the Holy Spirit as "Seven" Spirits
Why is the Holy Spirit presented in the Book of Revelation as "seven spirits" (Revelation 1:4; 4:5; 5:6). Does that not imply that the Holy Spirit is not a person?
First, the Holy Spirit is described in a more normal way in other texts in the Book of Revelation. He is the One who comes to the seven churches with the messages from Jesus (Revelation 2:7, 11 etc.). In the closing of the book the Spirit repeats his appeal by inviting us to "come" (Revelation 22:17).
Why then, the in any way unusual description of the "seven spirits before" God's throne?
The answer is found in two factors. The first is the visionary aspect of this last book of the Bible. In contrast to both the Father and the Son, it is not easy to portray the Holy Spirit in visual, physical form. So, in the visions given to John, God has chosen the show the Holy Spirit in the form of the seven lamps before the throne. This presentation is closely related to his function as bringing the light of Jesus to the world through the churches. The second factor is use of the number "seven" in the book. As there are seven churches, so there are seven lamps because the Spirit shares the light of Jesus with the world through the medium of the church, and in Revelation the church through its history is represented by the "seven" churches.
So, due to the visionary and symbolic nature of the book, Revelation in portraying the Holy Spirit puts focus on the role and function of the Holy Spirit in the history of salvation.
John 14-16 and Acts 28:25-26: Is the Holy Spirit a "He"?
Trinitarians often use the fact that Jesus mentioned the Holy Spirit as "he" to prove that the Holy Spirit is a person, but is that grammatically valid?
It is true that Jesus in John 14-16 repeatedly emphasized the distinct personhood of the Holy Spirit b y using the pronoun ekeinos, which is the masculine "he" (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:8, 13, 14). As the word for Spirit, "pneuma", is neuter, it has been argued that the choice of the masculine gender for the Spirit indicates its distinct personality.
It needs, hoiwever, to be said that it is possible to see the presendent of the pronoun as the "comforter". In Greek this word is "parakletos" which is masculine.
However, what is unique about the way Jjesus speaks about the Spirit is not so much the gender as the emphasis. In general, the Greel language does not specify the subject of a sentence by a personal pronoun because the form of the verb in itself indicates number and person of a subject. It is only done for emphasis.
Therefore, the unique emphasis by Jesus on the "Holy Spirit"certainly implies that the Holy Spirit is a distinct personality, different from Jesus.
Acts 28:25-26 is another text which was often used at the time of the early church to show that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person. The participle translated in verse 26 as "saying" is in Greek masculine though the precedent in this case definitely is the neuter "pneuma", Spirit. There are, however, in the Byzantine text tradition some manuscripts which use the gender form of the participle though they in general are deemed as fairly late.
Suffice to say, the Holy Spirit is at times described in impersonal terms, in other cases his distinctive personhood is underlined.
Is Jesus Speaking about the Spirit as Himself in 3rd Person?
Jesus spoke about himself in the 3rd person. So why did he not simply mean himself when he mentioning the Holy Spirit as "he"!
It is by some argued that because Jesus spoke about himself in 3rd person when he used the term "the son of man", he likewise referred to himself when he spoke about the Holy Spirit as "he" in John 14-16.
This argument does not hold up for scrutiny. When Jesus spoke about the Spirit in 3rd person in John 14-16, he did it in a context where he at the same time mentioned himself in 1st person. In the following Bible quotes the personal pronouns referring to Jesus in the 1st person and the Spirit in the 3rd person in the same senteces are highlighted in bold,
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever (John 14:16).
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you (John 14:26).
And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me (John 16:8-9).
He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you (John 16:14).
None of these statements by Jesus makes any sense if the Spirit and Jesus were one and the same person.
John 14:18: Is Jesus and the Spirit One and the Same Person?
When Jesus says "I will come to you", does he not thereby say the he and the Spirit is one and the same?
When speaking about the sending of the Holy Spirit as "another comforter" (John 14:16), Jesus continues by saying (John 14:18), that "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you."
While Trinitarians certainly believe there is identity between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they also maintain that there is distinction. That distinction is obvious between, for instance, the Father and the Son. Jesus prayed to his heavenly father. He prayed to another.
A little later in the chapter Jesus further adds that the sending of the Holy Spirit would mean that, "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him (John 14:23)."
So, if it is the purpose of Jesus to say that he and the Spirit is one and the sampe person, he likewise is saying that the Spirit and the Father is the same person, and even further, that the Father and the Son, consequently, must be one and the same person.
Such an interpretation makes no sense and is evidently contrary to the intention of the biblical text.