Christ IN The Flesh............

[6640]

But EVEN Christ HIMSELF stated that the 'FATHER is GREATER than HE'.

I think it would be helpful if you read some commentaries to better understand what Jesus was saying in John 14:28

Barnes, Albert. "Commentary on John 14". "Barnes' Notes on the New Testament". <http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/view.cgi?book=joh&chapter=014>.
For my Father is greater than I. The object of Jesus here is not to compare his nature with that of the Father, but his condition. Ye would rejoice that I am to leave this state of suffering and humiliation, and resume that glory which I had with the Father before the world was. You ought to rejoice at my exaltation to bliss and glory with the Father (Professor Stuart). The object of this expression is to console the disciples in view of his absence. This he does by saying that if he goes away, the Holy Spirit will descend, and great success will attend the preaching of the gospel, John 16:7-10. In the plan of salvation the Father is represented as giving the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the various blessings of the gospel. As the Appointer, the Giver, the Originator, he may be represented as in office superior to the Son and the Holy Spirit. The discourse has no reference, manifestly, to the nature of Christ, and cannot therefore be adduced to prove that he is not divine. Its whole connection demands that we interpret it as relating solely to the imparting of the blessings connected with redemption, in which the Son is represented all along as having been sent or given, and in this respect as sustaining a relation subordinate to the Father.


Gill, John. "Commentary on John 14:28". "The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible". <http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=joh&chapter=014&verse=028>. 1999.
for my Father is greater than I:
not with respect to the divine nature, which is common to them both, and in which they are both one; and the Son is equal to the Father, having the self-same essence, perfections, and glory: nor with respect to personality, the Son is equally a divine person, as the Father is, though the one is usually called the first, the other the second person; yet this priority is not of nature, which is the same in both; nor of time, for the one did not exist before the other; nor of causality, for the Father is not the cause of the Son's existence; nor of dignity, for the one has not any excellency which is wanting in the other; but of order and manner of operation: these words are to be understood, either with regard to the human nature, in which he was going to the Father, this was prepared for him by the Father, and strengthened and supported by him, and in which he was made a little lower than the angels, and consequently must be in it inferior to his Father; or with regard to his office as Mediator, in which he was the Father's servant, was set up and sent forth by him, acted under him, and in obedience to him, and was now returning to give an account of his work and service; or rather with regard to his present state, which was a state of humiliation: he was attended with many griefs and sorrows, and exposed to many enemies, and about to undergo an accursed death; whereas his Father was in the most perfect happiness and glory, and so in this sense "greater". That is, more blessed and glorious than he; for this is not a comparison of natures, or of persons, but of states and conditions: now he was going to the Father to partake of the same happiness and glory with him, to be glorified with himself, with the same glory he had with him before the foundation of the world; wherefore on this account, his disciples ought to have rejoiced, and not have mourned.

Beza, Theodore. "Commentary on John 14". "The 1599 Geneva Study Bible". <http://www.studylight.org/com/gsb/view.cgi?book=joh&chapter=014>. 1599-1645.
28. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father, for my Father is greater than I--These words, which Arians and Socinians perpetually quote as triumphant evidence against the proper Divinity of Christ, really yield no intelligible sense on their principles. Were a holy man on his deathbed, beholding his friends in tears at the prospect of losing him, to say, "Ye ought rather to joy than weep for me, and would if ye really loved me, "the speech would be quite natural. But if they should ask him, why joy at his departure was more suitable than sorrow, would they not start back with astonishment, if not horror, were he to reply, "Because my Father is greater than I?" Does not this strange speech from Christ's lips, then, presuppose such teaching on His part as would make it extremely difficult for them to think He could gain anything by departing to the Father, and make it necessary for Him to say expressly that there was a sense in which He could do so? Thus, this startling explanation seems plainly intended to correct such misapprehensions as might arise from the emphatic and reiterated teaching of His proper equality with the Father--as if so Exalted a Person were incapable of any accession by transition from this dismal scene to a cloudless heaven and the very bosom of the Father--and by assuring them that this was not the case, to make them forget their own sorrow in His approaching joy.

If you want some reading on the trinity, Jonathan Edwards(not the politician. the theologian from the 1700's) has an interesting essay on it. You may find it hard to understand, the man did go to Yale at 9 years old. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/trinit ... inity.html

And I believe that the understanding that I have offered is MUCH SIMPLER to accept and understand than one in which God is a mere FIGURATIVE entity that is ABLE to BE confined by the limited understanding of MEN.

I'm not sure whether you were saying you believe that(the Italicized part) or whether you were saying I believe that. But I can tell you I most certainly do not. Never try and put a rope around God, the incomprehensibility of his infinitude will have me baffled and in total amazement all of eternity.

 

[Alabaster]

You CAN'T have it BOTH WAYS. Either Christ is The Son, or He is NOT. Either Christ is the Son and NOT the Father or SOMEHOW He is BOTH. This would utterly negate the offerings of SEPARATE IDENTITY COMPLETELY, or there is ANOTHER UNDERSTANDING. And I believe that the understanding that I have offered is MUCH SIMPLER to accept and understand than one in which God is a mere FIGURATIVE entity that is ABLE to BE confined by the limited understanding of MEN.

Jesus is the Word! THAT'S SIMPLE!

John 1:1
In the beginning the Word already existed.
The Word was with God,
and the Word was God.

 

[Imagican]

You CAN'T have it BOTH WAYS. Either Christ is The Son, or He is NOT. Either Christ is the Son and NOT the Father or SOMEHOW He is BOTH. This would utterly negate the offerings of SEPARATE IDENTITY COMPLETELY, or there is ANOTHER UNDERSTANDING. And I believe that the understanding that I have offered is MUCH SIMPLER to accept and understand than one in which God is a mere FIGURATIVE entity that is ABLE to BE confined by the limited understanding of MEN.

Jesus is the Word! THAT'S SIMPLE!

John 1:1
In the beginning the Word already existed.
The Word was with God,
and the Word was God.

That is YOUR offering. I have read that the Word is the Word of God BROUGHT to us by His Son. Christ EVEN STATED that the 'words' that He offered were NOT HIS OWN but GIVEN Him BY The Father.

The Word IS God's COMMUNICATION with mankind. The mystical and philosophical renderings of incomplete interpretation alter NOTHING other than the perception of those that INSIST upon adherance to it. Whereas the TRUTH is that John WELL knew the DIFFERENCE between Father and Son. Between GOD and His Son.

The Word is NOT simply a 'title' as MANY would have it. The Word is JUST THAT: The Word of God as offered through Christ. That those that translated The Word chose to USE a 'capital' W makes NO DIFFERENCE in it's interpretation IF you are ABLE to 'get over it'. Christ BECAME The Word in order to offer communication to man DIRECTLY from God, the Father.

Yet you would opt to 'turn this into a debate over the deity of Christ' rather than directly confront the points that I offered previous concerning the NATURE of Christ 'in the FLESH'.

Was Christ BORN with the abilities to WALK and TALK? Did He STUDY scripture in His adolescent years? Was He BORN 'all knowing'? These are the questions that PERTAIN to the discussion. We can allay the discussion of His 'DEITY' to OTHER threads that deal with subject DIRECTLY.

The BIGGER question is; DID Christ LEARN as He grew in the FLESH? Once there is a solid answer to this, then the discussion is ABLE to move on to more relevant issues concerning His LIFE in The Flesh............

MEC

What YOU offer is NO DIFFERENT than stating that the prophets WERE 'The Word'. Yet we KNOW that these offered NONE of 'their own' but what they were "GIVEN BY GOD" to deliver.

 

[Imagican]

Alabaster,

Commentary CAN be a 'good thing' at times. But to place one's FAITH in the BELIEFS of 'others' is to 'play with the devil'. IS THERE a 'person' on this planet that has a COMPLETE understanding of ALL that is written in The Word? I rest my case.

Your belief in 'trinity' or what someone else has 'written about it' does NOT make it so EXCEPT in the minds and hearts of those that CHOOSE to 'believe it'. Christ NOR the apostles taught 'trinity'. Yet those that have been TAUGHT it will INSIST that one MUST understand and accept it to 'follow Christ'. FUNNY, but Christ NOR His apostles EVER taught such a falacy.

WHY do you SUPPOSE that those that 'created trinity' decided to ALTER the name of the family of God? For we were OFFERED the NAME of the combination of Father Son and Spirit in Godhead. But WHY do you suppose that there were those that INSISTED upon changing the NAME given to 'trinity'? And WHERE do YOU suppose that the WORD 'trinity' orgiginated? Answer THESE questions and you will have a DEEPER understanding of the NATURE of 'trinity' and BEGIN to see WHY it was IMPLANTED into Christianity.

Never was there a 'trinity' offered into Chrstianity by Christ or those that HE CHOSE to offer His Word and further understanding. Neither John NOR Paul EVER offered a 'triune God'. This took hundreds of years AFTER the death and ressurection of Christ for Greek and Roman philosophers to 'create' and insert INTO Christianity.

Now, if it was SO important, WHY was it NOT offered to The Church in the BEGINNING? And why did it take GENTILES to introduce this 'doctrine' into Christianity. Why had this 'triune nature' been HIDDEN from God's own people and Christ's APOSTLES?

Your insistance and BELIEF in this doctrine speaks MUCH of it's NATURE. For YOU would INSIST that something that was NEVER offered by those CHOSEN to 'start Christ's Church' is important enough to IGNORE the facts and simply accept what MEN created to appease their itching ears.

We were TOLD NOT TO ACCEPT ANY strange doctrines that were NOT OFFERED BY THE APOSTLES. Yet YOU and others would ignore this warning and BELIEVE in something TOTALLY foreign to that which WAS offered by Christ and His apostles.

SHOW me 'trinity' in The Word. Show me EVEN the 'concept of trinity' in The Word. IMPOSSIBLE. You must ALTER the interpretation of The Word to even make it FIT. You IGNORE much that has been offered to BELIEVE in such a doctrine. You must IGNORE the words offered by Christ AND His apostles in order to ACCEPT this 'concept' as TRUTH.

So, PLEASE, I have NO NEED to read 'someone elses' defense of a doctrine that was NEVER taught by MY Savior or those that He chose to TEACH us. I have read what is availible from supposed 'church fathers' that even the Church that STATES this considered HERETICS up to present works by those that have been DUPED into an unnatural WORSHIP of this 'man-made' concept. I appreciate your offering but I'll humbly PASS on it.

MEC

 

[Scott1]

Wow....Imagican and Alabaster can't seem to agree on such a fundamental part of orthodox Christian belief?

Shocking!

One might be led to believe that the Bible might not be enough to settle this dispute.... what in the world would you do next?

:-D

 

[Imagican]

Fundimental in the 'traditionalists' sense. Just as there are those that believe in a LITERAL 'six day', (24 hour periods), of creation. Some are simply UNABLE to come to TRUTH on their OWN. Trusting in The Spirit to GUIDE their understanding INSTEAD of men and their 'philosophical' ATTEMPTS at 'truth'.

No, I do NOT worship a 'triune' God. I worship The TRUE God, The Father of Jesus Christ. I worship the SAME God that Christ worhiped and have NO NEED for 'man-made' concepts that explain NOTHING other than what THEY can 'create'.

Now Scot, I ask YOU: did Christ LEARN as 'any other human child'? Or, was He BORN with the ability to WALK and TALK? Did He STUDY scripture or was He simply BORN with a COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE of it?

This is what we discuss here. But IF one BELIEVES that Christ IS God Himself, then the entire premiss is 'moot' to begin with. For to BELIEVE that Christ is God would BE to 'believe' that He WAS 'all knowing'. That there was NOTHING for Him to LEARN. That His experience here was ONLY to 'fulfill' that which was NECESSARY to defeat sin.

OBVIOUSLY through what Christ offered and what was 'recorded' in the Gospels, there was MUCH MORE TO IT THAN THAT. He was a TEACHER FIRST, and SAVIOR second. For He HAD to extablish FAITH and understanding in His apostles FIRST and THEN perform that which was required for the completion of His visit.

Now, DID He or DIDN'T He LEARN while here on earth? Simple question and we DO have Enough information offered in scripture to DETERMINE this. It's simply a matter of ACCEPTANCE or DENIAL. Acceptance for the sake of TRUTH or denial for the sake of 'man-made' doctrine.

If we simply TAKE what was offered by Christ and the apostles, there IS NO TRINITY. That was a 'concept' created LONG AFTER the death of Christ and the DEATH of His APOSTLES. And ATTEMPTING to 'describe' the relationship of Christ and His Father OUTSIDE of 'scripture' is NOTHING short of INTERJECTING 'doctrine' that was NEVER offered by EITHER Christ OR His apostles.

MEC

 

[6640]

SHOW me 'trinity' in The Word. Show me EVEN the 'concept of trinity' in The Word. IMPOSSIBLE. You must ALTER the interpretation of The Word to even make it FIT. You IGNORE much that has been offered to BELIEVE in such a doctrine. You must IGNORE the words offered by Christ AND His apostles in order to ACCEPT this 'concept' as TRUTH.

MEC

http://www.dtl.org/trinity/study/scriptural.htm
That site has plenty of scripture references to the trinity. I would also like to send you a link to this website. :D viewtopic.php?f=10&t=11740 let me pull out a few quotes.

There is one true God, eternally existing in three persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

We believe that there is only one God, who is eternal and immutable, and manifests Himself in three distinct Persons; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

We believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah, born of a virgin, totally without sin, God in human flesh, the One Who died on the cross for our sins, was buried, rose again from the dead on the third day, and ascended to the right hand of the Father in heaven, where He now intercedes for us who believe in Him.

 

[Scott1]

Fundimental in the 'traditionalists' sense.

Not sure what that means.... but it is certainly fundamental to the Christian faith... has been since the time of the Apostles.

No, I do NOT worship a 'triune' God. I worship The TRUE God, The Father of Jesus Christ. I worship the SAME God that Christ worhiped and have NO NEED for 'man-made' concepts that explain NOTHING other than what THEY can 'create'.

I worship God the Father as well.... but I'm not sure why, with your beliefs, that you feel the need to include Jesus at all in your worship (I assume you do).... what is God the Father "lacking" that the "man" Jesus has?

Now Scot, I ask YOU: did Christ LEARN as 'any other human child'? Or, was He BORN with the ability to WALK and TALK? Did He STUDY scripture or was He simply BORN with a COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE of it?

Our Church answered these questions some time ago:
The first heresies denied not so much Christ's divinity as his true humanity (Gnostic Docetism). From apostolic times the Christian faith has insisted on the true incarnation of God's Son "come in the flesh".But already in the third century, the Church in a council at Antioch had to affirm against Paul of Samosata that Jesus Christ is Son of God by nature and not by adoption. The first ecumenical council of Nicaea in 325 confessed in its Creed that the Son of God is "begotten, not made, of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father", and condemned Arius, who had affirmed that the Son of God "came to be from things that were not" and that he was "from another substance" than that of the Father.

This is what we discuss here. But IF one BELIEVES that Christ IS God Himself, then the entire premiss is 'moot' to begin with. For to BELIEVE that Christ is God would BE to 'believe' that He WAS 'all knowing'. That there was NOTHING for Him to LEARN.

Apollinarius of Laodicaea asserted that in Christ the divine Word had replaced the soul or spirit. Against this error the Church confessed that the eternal Son also assumed a rational, human soul.
This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, "increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man", and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience. This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking "the form of a slave".

If we simply TAKE what was offered by Christ and the apostles, there IS NO TRINITY. That was a 'concept' created LONG AFTER the death of Christ and the DEATH of His APOSTLES.

You'll have to forgive me if I disagree.... and that's what it comes down to.... your opinion vs. someone else.... and then what?

.... because we believe in these Scriptures (to only name a few):
Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:5; Luke 5:20; 7:48 - Jesus forgives sins. Only God can forgive sins.

Seems pretty clear to us.... but again... the Lord wouldn't just leave us with no way to settle our disputes.... the Lord is not the author of confusion, right?

And as far as your contention that it was "LONG AFTER" I have to disagree as well:

“We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin." Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians, 7 (A.D. 110).

"For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God." Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 121 (A.D. 155).

Remember that Ignatius was made a Bishop by the APOSTLE PETER.... do you think maybe... just MAYBE.... they might know better than you?

 

[Vic C.]

Despite the rants MEC, we believe what we believe and we formulated it FROM Scripture and have outlined the various text for you and other many times! You all refuse to believe for whatever reason. :-?

Now simply put, the statement of this site, it owner and it's Staff are such:

There is one true God, eternally existing in three persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Our ToS states that continually teaching that with deviates from our ToS and what we consider the Basic Tenets of our Faith is considered a hostile act. I think "we've" reached that point now. Scott is correct; we can't seem to agree on a basic fundamental part of orthodox Christian belief. I add that is also a Reformed Orthodox belief as well.

Also, instead of posting and posting... you could have ended the argument on the previous page with one single verse.

Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

You need to use more Scripture and less commentary.

 

[Vic C.]

I appreciate it 6640... I was in the process of composing, but got called away.

The Staff will handle this now. ;-)

 

[Alabaster]

All I can say now is that we must wrap our heads around the fact that God became flesh...He LIMITED Himself! Jesus, in love, SUBMITTED Himself to the Father so that we could witness such great love and submission and know that we can also have such a relationship with the Father!

What a great sacrifice God made for us! For us to be exposed to an argument about this subjection, this burden Jesus placed upon Himself on our behalf is the most hurtful thing to Him I have seen in a long while.

 

[Scott1]

What a great sacrifice God made for us! For us to be exposed to an argument about this subjection, this burden Jesus placed upon Himself on our behalf is the most hurtful thing to Him I have seen in a long while.

Amen! The Creed is essential to understanding what it means to actually be a Christian...

... And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man;...

... and I'm often confused why anyone would profess to be a Christian who thought Jesus was just a mortal man....????

 

[Alabaster]

What a great sacrifice God made for us! For us to be exposed to an argument about this subjection, this burden Jesus placed upon Himself on our behalf is the most hurtful thing to Him I have seen in a long while.

Amen! The Creed is essential to understanding what it means to actually be a Christian...

... And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man;...

... and I'm often confused why anyone would profess to be a Christian who thought Jesus was just a mortal man....????

 

[6640]

I think we've finally come to a conclusion on this topic. The scriptures are clear on this issue. We always run in to problems when we try and intelectualize God by putting him in the small box that is our mind. God contains time, space, and matter. It's like throwing a bucket out into the ocean. While the bucket may fill with water, the ocean still contains the bucket. There are some things so incomprehensible that we can only get a grasp of them through our relationship with Jesus Christ. words are not always adequate to describe.

 

[Scott1]

There are some things so incomprehensible that we can only get a grasp of them through our relationship with Jesus Christ. words are not always adequate to describe.

Very well said.... sometimes we just have to put our trust in concepts we don't understand.

 

[Alabaster]

I think we've finally come to a conclusion on this topic. The scriptures are clear on this issue. We always run in to problems when we try and intelectualize God by putting him in the small box that is our mind. God contains time, space, and matter. It's like throwing a bucket out into the ocean. While the bucket may fill with water, the ocean still contains the bucket. There are some things so incomprehensible that we can only get a grasp of them through our relationship with Jesus Christ. words are not always adequate to describe.

Excellent!

 

[stovebolts]

I've been away for a bit, but I can say that this is a good thread. The only addition I could make may be some words of St. Augustine from his book, "On Christian Doctrine".

Enjoy :D

Seeing, then, that man fell through pride, He restored him through humility. We were ensnared by the wisdom of the serpent: we are set free by the foolishness of God. Moreover, just as the former was called wisdom, but was in reality the folly of those who despised God, so the latter is called foolishness, but is true wisdom in those who overcome the devil. We used our immortality so badly as to incur the penalty of death: Christ used His mortality so well as to restore us to life. The disease was brought in through a woman's corrupted soul: the remedy came through a woman's virgin body. To the same class of opposite remedies it belongs, that our vices are cured by the example of His virtues. On the other hand, the following are, as it were, bandages made in the same shape as the limbs and wounds to which they are applied: He was born of a woman to deliver us who fell through a woman: He came as a man to save us who are men, as a mortal to save us who are mortals, by death to save us who were dead. And those who can follow out the matter more fully, who are not hurried on by the necessity of carrying out a set undertaking, will find many other points of instruction in considering the remedies, whether opposites or likes, employed in the medicine of Christianity.

Almost forgot, MEC, this one's for you :D

The true objects of enjoyment, then, are the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, who are at the same time the Trinity, one Being, supreme above all, and common to all who enjoy Him, if He is an object, and not rather the cause of all objects, or indeed even if He is the cause of all. For it is not easy to find a name that will suitably express so great excellence, unless it is better to speak in this way: The Trinity, one God, of whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things. Thus the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and each of these by Himself, is God, and at the same time they are all one God; and each of them by Himself is a complete substance, and yet they are all one substance. The Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit; the Son is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son: but the Father is only Father, the Son is only Son, and the Holy Spirit is only Holy Spirit. To all three belong the same eternity, the same unchangeableness, the same majesty, the same power. In the Father is unity, in the Son equality, in the Holy Spirit the harmony of unity and equality; and these three attributes are all one because of the Father, all equal because of the Son, and all harmonious because of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Imagican]

In this THREE in ONE God, What PART does the Father PLAY? And HOW do you FIGURE that The Spirit is ANYTHING other than The Spirit of God. NOT a SEPARATE entity, simply the MEANS by which He has interacted with humanity?

My point in these questions is this: Did Christ SUBMIT Himself to the Father in ANY WAY that was NOT voluntary? And WHEN did Christ submit Himself? Is Christ TOTALLY EQUAL with The Father?

MEC

 

[Rick W]

Reminder:

Despite the rants MEC, we believe what we believe and we formulated it FROM Scripture and have outlined the various text for you and other many times! You all refuse to believe for whatever reason. :-?

Now simply put, the statement of this site, it owner and it's Staff are such:

There is one true God, eternally existing in three persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Our ToS states that continually teaching that with deviates from our ToS and what we consider the Basic Tenets of our Faith is considered a hostile act. I think "we've" reached that point now. Scott is correct; we can't seem to agree on a basic fundamental part of orthodox Christian belief. I add that is also a Reformed Orthodox belief as well.

"I think "we've" reached that point now."

 

[Scott1]

In this THREE in ONE God, What PART does the Father PLAY?

"It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."
Lateran Council IV (1215)

And HOW do you FIGURE that The Spirit is ANYTHING other than The Spirit of God. NOT a SEPARATE entiry, simply the MEANS by which He has interacted with humanity?

A few things about why we believe what we do:

Job 33:4 - "The Spirit of God made me and the breath of the Almighty has given me life." Only God is the creator of life.

Matt. 12:31; Luke 12:10 - Jesus says blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Only God can be blasphemed.

John 4:24 - God is a spirit (the Holy Spirit) and they who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. Only God is worshiped.

Luke 12:12 - the Holy Spirit will teach you in that hour what you ought to say. He (the Holy Spirit) teaches the faithful.

John 14:17 - the world neither sees Him or knows Him ("Him" is referring to the Holy Spirit). You know Him for He dwells with you.

John 14:26 - the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all I have said to you.

John 15:26 - the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness to me. He = the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a person, not a thing.

CCC #245 The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father." By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as "the source and origin of the whole divinity". But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with the Son's origin: "The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and also of the same nature. . . Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,. . . but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son." The Creed of the Church from the Council of Constantinople confesses: "With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified."

Hope that at least helps you understand what and why we believe.