Is the Holy Spirit ever worshiped in Scripture?

[Kilk1]

Hello! Since the Holy Spirit is God, are there passages in the Bible where He is shown to be worshiped? If so, what passages could be shown as examples? Thank you!

 

[Daniel9v9]

Yes, the Holy Spirit is worshipped in the Scriptures themselves, but it may not be particularly obvious!

The first thing we can recognise is that the Holy Spirit is called God in Genesis 1:2, Matthew 28:19-20, and Acts 5:3-4. And when we read in Isaiah and Revelation the worship of God as "Holy, holy, holy", we should understand that to be both high and perfect adoration of God and trinitarian worship. The Holy Spirit is included in this worship. We can know this, because there is only one God: YHWH, and our Lord Jesus Christ is anointed with the Holy Spirit, and one with the Father, and He has graciously given us the gift of Baptism into the name (singular) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God.

So whenever God is worshipped, He is worshipped in Trinity, as one God. We cannot worship God the Father only, or Jesus only, or the Holy Spirit only, for there is only one God, and in Christ, the whole fullness of the deity dwells bodily. He is YHWH in flesh. So we can pray to and worship the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, for by doing so, we worship the one true God.

EDIT: Maybe to add to this one more thing — there's a reason why the Holy Spirit is somewhat silent throughout the Scriptures. Our Lord tells us in John 15:26 that the Holy Spirit has come to testify about Jesus. So the Holy Spirit always draws us to the Son. He grants us repentance and faith in the person and works of Jesus Christ.

Blessings!

 

[disciple Clint]

Hello! Since the Holy Spirit is God, are there passages in the Bible where He is shown to be worshiped? If so, what passages could be shown as examples? Thank you!

Should We Worship the Holy Spirit?

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

No, nowhere in the OT or NT do we encounter verses where the (Holy) Spirit independently is spoken to, prayed to, or worshipped. The Holy Spirit (the Hebrew 'ruach' also means 'breath' or 'wind') is the Spirit of GOD (who himself is a spirit).

Also notice how Paul commonly starts his letters with a personal reference to God (= the Father) and Jesus, but not the Holy Spirit. E.g.:

Romans 1:7

To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.​

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

Yes, the Holy Spirit is worshipped in the Scriptures themselves, but it may not be particularly obvious!

The first thing we can recognise is that the Holy Spirit is called God in Genesis 1:2, Matthew 28:19-20, and Acts 5:3-4. And when we read in Isaiah and Revelation the worship of God as "Holy, holy, holy", we should understand that to be both high and perfect adoration of God and trinitarian worship. The Holy Spirit is included in this worship. We can know this, because there is only one God: YHWH, and our Lord Jesus Christ is anointed with the Holy Spirit, and one with the Father, and He has graciously given us the gift of Baptism into the name (singular) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God.

Rather than reading the Trinity retrospectively back into the 'Holy, Holy, Holy'; we can also look at Revelations 4:8 for a possible more direct explanation of this phrase:

Revelations 4:8

“Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty,
who was and is and is to come!”​

So whenever God is worshipped, He is worshipped in Trinity, as one God. We cannot worship God the Father only, or Jesus only, or the Holy Spirit only, for there is only one God, and in Christ, the whole fullness of the deity dwells bodily. He is YHWH in flesh. So we can pray to and worship the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, for by doing so, we worship the one true God.

Here (probably following the 6th century 'Athanasian' creed) you define the one true God = the Trinity; yet the Nicene creed (325 CE) says:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.​

And Jesus himself says:

John 17:3

And this is eternal life, that they may know You (=the Father), the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent,​

And Paul says writes:

1 Corinthians 8:6

... yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, ...​

1 Thessalonians 1:9-10

.. to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven ..​

The texts speak for themselves really I think.

 

[Daniel9v9]

Rather than reading the Trinity retrospectively back into the 'Holy, Holy, Holy'; we can also look at Revelations 4:8 for a possible more direct explanation of this phrase:

Revelations 4:8

“Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty,
who was and is and is to come!”​

Here (probably following the 6th century 'Athanasian' creed) you define the one true God = the Trinity; yet the Nicene creed (325 CE) says:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.​

And Jesus himself says:

John 17:3

And this is eternal life, that they may know You (=the Father), the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent,​

And Paul says writes:

1 Corinthians 8:6

... yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, ...​

1 Thessalonians 1:9-10

.. to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven ..​

The texts speak for themselves really I think.

I regret to say I think you may have missed a lot of important and fundamental Scripture. Am I right to understand that you’re saying that the Holy Spirit is not God? That He is not a person in the one triune God-head? Do you deny the Trinity? Apologies if I’m not understanding you correctly.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

I regret to say I think you may have missed a lot of important and fundamental Scripture. Am I right to understand that you’re saying that the Holy Spirit is not God? That He is not a person in the one triune God-head? Do you deny the Trinity? Apologies if I’m not understanding you correctly.

Always willing to look at verses I may have missed or misinterpreted .. I've studied scriptures a lot on these matters and just humbly feel obliged to respond preferably with answers straight from the Biblical texts rather than a creed formulated almost 500 years after the NT era. The verses mentioned above + the early Nicene creed allow for fairly direct interpretation; and simply head-on collide with the much later 6th century creedal formulation. It's important we recognise and acknowledge that.

Normally I'm very hesitant to really go beyond terminology found in the Biblical texts; that's why I'm not a fan of the term 'Trinity'. Although I could subscribe to it with the understanding of e.g. Tertullian (2nd century CE), but obviously not the 6th creed retrospectively ascribed to Athanasius (who passed away in the 4th century).

GOD is a spirit, and the Holy Spirit is GOD's spirit = the spirit Jesus received from GOD:

Acts 2:33 (ESV)

Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.​

Based on purely the English language of the 21st century, we have to object against calling GOD the Father and the Holy Spirit 'persons', because any English dictionary defines a 'person' as a 'human being'. Only Jesus the Son of GOD is a person in that sense; GOD the Father and the Holy Spirit obviously are not (because both are spirits). To keep using the term 'persons' for those two prolongates theological confusion.

That might leave the question whether the Holy Spirit (or GOD's Spirit) is a separate being from GOD himself? I'm not so sure yet, and I am reluctant to make a call on that. I just observe that in all the letters and writing of the Apostles, the Holy Spirit is never explicitly addressed, prayed to or worshipped. That in itself is an important starting point. See e.g.

On top of that - if one studies the developmental history of the Trinity creeds - we can observe the original Nicene creed (325 CE) does not contain a reference to the Holy Spirit as being worshipped independently, but we do see that pop up in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed (381 CE), a significant change.

1 Corinthians 2:10-12 (ESV)

.. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.​

From this passage we might conclude we can't really make a sharp distinction between a person and the spirit of that person; or: GOD (a spirit) and the Spirit who is from GOD. I'm just trying to interpret Paul's writing carefully here.

I do realise quite a number of verses exist that use the words 'he/it' to refer to the Holy Spirit, but on the other hand, there are also a lot of verses where the word 'the' is omitted (so the text says '.. holy spirit' instead of 'the holy spirit').

When the Holy Spirit speaks/acts, YHWH himself speaks/acts, there is no distinction. See e.g. Hebrews 10:15-16 quoting Jeremiah 31:33. In Jeremiah YHWH is speaking, yet Hebrews says about the quotation that 'the Holy Spirit testifies'.

This contribution from John Piper is a worthwhile read: Does It Matter Which Person of the Trinity We Pray To?

 

[Daniel9v9]

Always willing to look at verses I may have missed or misinterpreted .. I've studied scriptures a lot on these matters and just humbly feel obliged to respond preferably with answers straight from the Biblical texts rather than a creed formulated almost 500 years after the NT era. The verses mentioned above + the early Nicene creed allow for fairly direct interpretation; and simply head-on collide with the much later 6th century creedal formulation. It's important we recognise and acknowledge that.

Normally I'm very hesitant to really go beyond terminology found in the Biblical texts; that's why I'm not a fan of the term 'Trinity'. Although I could subscribe to it with the understanding of e.g. Tertullian (2nd century CE), but obviously not the 6th creed retrospectively ascribed to Athanasius (who passed away in the 4th century).

GOD is a spirit, and the Holy Spirit is GOD's spirit = the spirit Jesus received from GOD:

Acts 2:33 (ESV)

Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.​

Based on purely the English language of the 21st century, we have to object against calling GOD the Father and the Holy Spirit 'persons', because any English dictionary defines a 'person' as a 'human being'. Only Jesus the Son of GOD is a person in that sense; GOD the Father and the Holy Spirit obviously are not (because both are spirits). To keep using the term 'persons' for those two prolongates theological confusion.

That might leave the question whether the Holy Spirit (or GOD's Spirit) is a separate being from GOD himself? I'm not so sure yet, and I am reluctant to make a call on that. I just observe that in all the letters and writing of the Apostles, the Holy Spirit is never explicitly addressed, prayed to or worshipped. That in itself is an important starting point. See e.g.

On top of that - if one studies the developmental history of the Trinity creeds - we can observe the original Nicene creed (325 CE) does not contain a reference to the Holy Spirit as being worshipped independently, but we do see that pop up in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed (381 CE), a significant change.

1 Corinthians 2:10-12 (ESV)

.. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.​

From this passage we might conclude we can't really make a sharp distinction between a person and the spirit of that person; or: GOD (a spirit) and the Spirit who is from GOD. I'm just trying to interpret Paul's writing carefully here.

I do realise quite a number of verses exist that use the words 'he/it' to refer to the Holy Spirit, but on the other hand, there are also a lot of verses where the word 'the' is omitted (so the text says '.. holy spirit' instead of 'the holy spirit').

When the Holy Spirit speaks/acts, YHWH himself speaks/acts, there is no distinction. See e.g. Hebrews 10:15-16 quoting Jeremiah 31:33. In Jeremiah YHWH is speaking, yet Hebrews says about the quotation that 'the Holy Spirit testifies'.

This contribution from John Piper is a worthwhile read: Does It Matter Which Person of the Trinity We Pray To?

I’m sorry to say there is a lot of confusion here. Maybe as a starting point:

(1) Do you believe that Jesus is God? In other words, do you believe Jesus to be YHWH in flesh?

(2) Why do you think our Lord instituted Baptism into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

I’m sorry to say there is a lot of confusion here. Maybe as a starting point:

(1) Do you believe that Jesus is God? In other words, do you believe Jesus to be YHWH in flesh?

(2) Why do you think our Lord instituted Baptism into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

Before moving into new questions; what exactly does cause confusion in my post? Let's do it step-by-step What in my writing is unclear? I do my very best to be as unambiguous as possible, so if my writing elicits confusion it's important to clear that up first !

 

[Daniel9v9]

Before moving into new questions; what exactly does cause confusion in my post? Let's do it step-by-step What in my writing is unclear? I do my very best to be as unambiguous as possible, so if my writing elicits confusion it's important to clear that up first !

Sure. It’s not your writing that’s confusing, but your understanding of church history, creeds, and use of terminology. This is why I’m very interested in understanding if we can agree on a more fundamental level, starting with the two natures of Christ and His institution and gift of Baptism.

 

[disciple Clint]

Always willing to look at verses I may have missed or misinterpreted .. I've studied scriptures a lot on these matters and just humbly feel obliged to respond preferably with answers straight from the Biblical texts rather than a creed formulated almost 500 years after the NT era. The verses mentioned above + the early Nicene creed allow for fairly direct interpretation; and simply head-on collide with the much later 6th century creedal formulation. It's important we recognise and acknowledge that.

Normally I'm very hesitant to really go beyond terminology found in the Biblical texts; that's why I'm not a fan of the term 'Trinity'. Although I could subscribe to it with the understanding of e.g. Tertullian (2nd century CE), but obviously not the 6th creed retrospectively ascribed to Athanasius (who passed away in the 4th century).

GOD is a spirit, and the Holy Spirit is GOD's spirit = the spirit Jesus received from GOD:

Acts 2:33 (ESV)

Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.​

Based on purely the English language of the 21st century, we have to object against calling GOD the Father and the Holy Spirit 'persons', because any English dictionary defines a 'person' as a 'human being'. Only Jesus the Son of GOD is a person in that sense; GOD the Father and the Holy Spirit obviously are not (because both are spirits). To keep using the term 'persons' for those two prolongates theological confusion.

That might leave the question whether the Holy Spirit (or GOD's Spirit) is a separate being from GOD himself? I'm not so sure yet, and I am reluctant to make a call on that. I just observe that in all the letters and writing of the Apostles, the Holy Spirit is never explicitly addressed, prayed to or worshipped. That in itself is an important starting point. See e.g.

On top of that - if one studies the developmental history of the Trinity creeds - we can observe the original Nicene creed (325 CE) does not contain a reference to the Holy Spirit as being worshipped independently, but we do see that pop up in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed (381 CE), a significant change.

1 Corinthians 2:10-12 (ESV)

.. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.​

From this passage we might conclude we can't really make a sharp distinction between a person and the spirit of that person; or: GOD (a spirit) and the Spirit who is from GOD. I'm just trying to interpret Paul's writing carefully here.

I do realise quite a number of verses exist that use the words 'he/it' to refer to the Holy Spirit, but on the other hand, there are also a lot of verses where the word 'the' is omitted (so the text says '.. holy spirit' instead of 'the holy spirit').

When the Holy Spirit speaks/acts, YHWH himself speaks/acts, there is no distinction. See e.g. Hebrews 10:15-16 quoting Jeremiah 31:33. In Jeremiah YHWH is speaking, yet Hebrews says about the quotation that 'the Holy Spirit testifies'.

This contribution from John Piper is a worthwhile read: Does It Matter Which Person of the Trinity We Pray To?

since you indicate that you are a Reluctant Theologian perhaps you would be interested in what Thomas Aquinas had to say about the Trinity and the Holy Spirit.
The Blessed Trinity
ORIGIN: The question of origin or procession (27). The relations of origin relations of origin (28).
THE PERSONS IN GENERAL: The signification (29) of the word "person". The number (30) of the persons, and what is involved in the number of persons, or is opposed thereto; as diversity, and similitude, and the like (31). Our knowledge (32) of the persons.
FATHER: The person of the Father (33).
SON: The person of the Son, to whom three names are attributed: Son (see 33), the idea of which is gathered from the idea of Father; Word (34) and Image (35).
HOLY GHOST: The person of the Holy Ghost, Who is called three things: Holy Ghost (36), Love (37) and Gift (38).
THE THREE COMPARED: The person in reference to the essence (39), with the relations or properties (40), or to the notional acts (41). The equality and likeness (42) of the persons. Their mission (43).
SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: Prima Pars

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

since you indicate that you are a Reluctant Theologian perhaps you would be interested in what Thomas Aquinas had to say about the Trinity and the Holy Spirit.
The Blessed Trinity
ORIGIN: The question of origin or procession (27). The relations of origin relations of origin (28).
THE PERSONS IN GENERAL: The signification (29) of the word "person". The number (30) of the persons, and what is involved in the number of persons, or is opposed thereto; as diversity, and similitude, and the like (31). Our knowledge (32) of the persons.
FATHER: The person of the Father (33).
SON: The person of the Son, to whom three names are attributed: Son (see 33), the idea of which is gathered from the idea of Father; Word (34) and Image (35).
HOLY GHOST: The person of the Holy Ghost, Who is called three things: Holy Ghost (36), Love (37) and Gift (38).
THE THREE COMPARED: The person in reference to the essence (39), with the relations or properties (40), or to the notional acts (41). The equality and likeness (42) of the persons. Their mission (43).
SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: Prima Pars

As much as I appreciate your gesture to point me to these writings of Thomas Aquinas; he wrote in Latin and is using terms and philosophical constructs not found in the Biblical texts or even unfamiliar to the Jewish authors of the NT writings - it contains a lot of 'developed' theology. E.g. looking at SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The divine persons (Prima Pars, Q. 29) for the definition of 'person', that definition is unworkable in our day and age in 2021. The term 'person' implies a human being - that is how the term is used now in everyday language. And in that sense, only Jesus Christ is a person. For me (and highly likely any new believers from a non-Christian context), calling God the Father or the Holy Spirit 'persons' makes no sense given the English language now.

Numbers 23:19

God (Hebrew 'El') is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind.​

Give this text to any Atheist or Muslim and he would shake his head at why traditionally Christians would call God the Father 'a person' or put the Son of Man (but also Son of GOD) Jesus Christ at the same rank as God the Father.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

Sure. It’s not your writing that’s confusing, but your understanding of church history, creeds, and use of terminology. This is why I’m very interested in understanding if we can agree on a more fundamental level, starting with the two natures of Christ and His institution and gift of Baptism.

Let's go slow .. what can we observe and know on the nature/origin/position of Jesus Christ from NT writings (not exhaustive):

• Son of GOD
• Son of the Most High
  
• Son of Man
• (biological) Son of the virgin Mary
• Servant of GOD
• Messiah of GOD
• Lord/Master
  
• Conceived by the Holy Spirit
• Came down from heaven
• Word of (the) GOD
• Exact imprint of GOD
  
• High Priest
• mediator between GOD and men
  
• the Way, Truth and Life
  
• the Way to the Father
  
• sits at the right hand of GOD
  
• given all power in Heaven and on Earth
• given the name above all other names (='Jesus', but presumably not above 'YHWH' - see Philippians 2:9 and 1 Corinthians 15:27)

Reference verses could be given for all of those points (but that may not be necessary for now); from this I can safely deduce Jesus is fully the son of Mary, so from the same substance, so fully human. Likewise, he is fully the Son of GOD (begotten; not created like Arius contended), so from the same substance as GOD, so fully divine/god/GOD-like (I don't have any other words to express this, but you get the idea).

Now if <b> is said to be son of <a> (if <a> is being used in the identity sense), this by logic also means <b> cannot be <a> him/itself; that is literally impossible. My own son is me-like, but he is not me.

In Luke 1:32 we read:

He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, ..​

Clearly, the phrase 'Most High' is used as unique identifier (only one can be the Most High); when Jesus is called the Son of the 'Most High', he would be 'Most-High'-like, but he cannot be the same being in the identity sense; and no Jew in Jesus' or Luke's audience would have interpreted it this way.

Jews in the 1st century didn't think of the coming Messiah as identical to YHWH, as TNK writings overwhelmingly don't describe the Messiah that way, quite on the contrary. E.g.:

Jeremiah 23:5-6

Behold, the days are coming, declares YHWH, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, ..​

Jeremiah 30:9

But they shall serve YHWH their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them.​

Jeremiah 33:15-16

In those days and at that time I (=YHWH) will cause a righteous Branch to spring up for David, and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: ‘YHWH is our righteousness.’​

Hosea 3:5

Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek YHWH their God, and David their king, and they shall come in fear to the Lord and to his goodness in the latter days.​

I could list many more verses, but you get the idea: YHWH and the Messiah are presented as two quite distinct beings. Maybe the most explicit verse would be:

Isaiah 11:2-3

And the Spirit of YHWH shall rest upon him,
the Spirit of wisdom and understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and might,
the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the YHWH.​

Here we have the Messiah and the Spirit of knowledge and fear of YHWH resting on him; which would be a very unnatural/counter-intuitive reading IF Messiah is YHWH himself in the identity sense.

Yet we also have Zechariah 14:3-4:

Then YHWH will go out and fight against those nations as when he fights on a day of battle. On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives that lies before Jerusalem on the east, ..​

Here we have YHWH, who is a spirit, how is invisible and who no one has seen at anytime (John 1:18, 1 John 4:12) all of sudden presented with feet that stand on the Mount of Olives; presumably this is about Jesus' feet on his return to Earth. How to reconcile these perspectives/positions? How can a spirit (1 John 4:24) have feet?

The answer would be that Jesus does nothing on his own behalf, everything he says/does/creates/judges is because his Father instructs him to do so (John 5:19, John 5:30, John 6:38). He is in everything GOD's delegate and agent; which exactly matches the Biblical/Middle-East semantics of the 'son' title. Jesus literally is GOD's son, but he also acts as GOD's son: his full delegate/agent.

So when Jesus speaks; YHWH speaks, when Jesus feet land on the Mount of Olives, YHWH's feet land, when Jesus judges, YHWH judges, etc..

So when the question is asked: is Jesus YHWH? I would humbly propose to say both:
- yes, in the sense that he 'represents' YHWH; the same way Jesus says 'this is my blood', or that 'the Lord is the Spirit' (2 Corinthians 3:17). Jesus is the exact imprint of GOD, so Jesus and YHWH are conflated.
- no, in the sense that Jesus is a different being identity-wise from YHWH; he is the Son of GOD. The NT writings mention the phrase 'the God of Jesus' seven times. At Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the bystanders quote Psalm 11:9:

.. blessed is he (=Jesus) who comes in the name of YHWH ..​

Enough for now, back to work I hope you can make sense of it. (btw: I am aware of the 'I AM' statements in John, just this post was already lengthy enough)

 

[Daniel9v9]

Let's go slow .. what can we observe and know on the nature/origin/position of Jesus Christ from NT writings (not exhaustive):

• Son of GOD
• Son of the Most High
  
• Son of Man
• (biological) Son of the virgin Mary
• Servant of GOD
• Messiah of GOD
• Lord/Master
  
• Conceived by the Holy Spirit
• Came down from heaven
• Word of (the) GOD
• Exact imprint of GOD
  
• High Priest
• mediator between GOD and men
  
• the Way, Truth and Life
  
• the Way to the Father
  
• sits at the right hand of GOD
  
• given all power in Heaven and on Earth
• given the name above all other names (='Jesus', but presumably not above 'YHWH' - see Philippians 2:9 and 1 Corinthians 15:27)

Reference verses could be given for all of those points (but that may not be necessary for now); from this I can safely deduce Jesus is fully the son of Mary, so from the same substance, so fully human. Likewise, he is fully the Son of GOD (begotten; not created like Arius contended), so from the same substance as GOD, so fully divine/god/GOD-like (I don't have any other words to express this, but you get the idea).

Now if <b> is said to be son of <a> (if <a> is being used in the identity sense), this by logic also means <b> cannot be <a> him/itself; that is literally impossible. My own son is me-like, but he is not me.

In Luke 1:32 we read:

He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, ..​

Clearly, the phrase 'Most High' is used as unique identifier (only one can be the Most High); when Jesus is called the Son of the 'Most High', he would be 'Most-High'-like, but he cannot be the same being in the identity sense; and no Jew in Jesus' or Luke's audience would have interpreted it this way.

Jews in the 1st century didn't think of the coming Messiah as identical to YHWH, as TNK writings overwhelmingly don't describe the Messiah that way, quite on the contrary. E.g.:

Jeremiah 23:5-6

Behold, the days are coming, declares YHWH, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, ..​

Jeremiah 30:9

But they shall serve YHWH their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them.​

Jeremiah 33:15-16

In those days and at that time I (=YHWH) will cause a righteous Branch to spring up for David, and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: ‘YHWH is our righteousness.’​

Hosea 3:5

Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek YHWH their God, and David their king, and they shall come in fear to the Lord and to his goodness in the latter days.​

I could list many more verses, but you get the idea: YHWH and the Messiah are presented as two quite distinct beings. Maybe the most explicit verse would be:

Isaiah 11:2-3

And the Spirit of YHWH shall rest upon him,
the Spirit of wisdom and understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and might,
the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the YHWH.​

Here we have the Messiah and the Spirit of knowledge and fear of YHWH resting on him; which would be a very unnatural/counter-intuitive reading IF Messiah is YHWH himself in the identity sense.

Yet we also have Zechariah 14:3-4:

Then YHWH will go out and fight against those nations as when he fights on a day of battle. On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives that lies before Jerusalem on the east, ..​

Here we have YHWH, who is a spirit, how is invisible and who no one has seen at anytime (John 1:18, 1 John 4:12) all of sudden presented with feet that stand on the Mount of Olives; presumably this is about Jesus' feet on his return to Earth. How to reconcile these perspectives/positions? How can a spirit (1 John 4:24) have feet?

The answer would be that Jesus does nothing on his own behalf, everything he says/does/creates/judges is because his Father instructs him to do so (John 5:19, John 5:30, John 6:38). He is in everything GOD's delegate and agent; which exactly matches the Biblical/Middle-East semantics of the 'son' title. Jesus literally is GOD's son, but he also acts as GOD's son: his full delegate/agent.

So when Jesus speaks; YHWH speaks, when Jesus feet land on the Mount of Olives, YHWH's feet land, when Jesus judges, YHWH judges, etc..

So when the question is asked: is Jesus YHWH? I would humbly propose to say both:
- yes, in the sense that he 'represents' YHWH; the same way Jesus says 'this is my blood', or that 'the Lord is the Spirit' (2 Corinthians 3:17). Jesus is the exact imprint of GOD, so Jesus and YHWH are conflated.
- no, in the sense that Jesus is a different being identity-wise from YHWH; he is the Son of GOD. The NT writings mention the phrase 'the God of Jesus' seven times. At Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the bystanders quote Psalm 11:9:

.. blessed is he (=Jesus) who comes in the name of YHWH ..​

Enough for now, back to work I hope you can make sense of it. (btw: I am aware of the 'I AM' statements in John, just this post was already lengthy enough)

I'm sorry to say that this is incorrect and actually a heretical understanding of our Lord. I'm concerned that what you have explained here is something approaching Adoptionism.

That Jesus is YHWH — God in flesh — is what Scriptures reveal to us, and this is not something we apprehend by reason, but by faith. It's a holy mystery. In other words, from the Scriptures, we learn that Jesus is fully man and fully God, and this is something we receive by faith.

The Bible teaches this:

(1) For starters, let's remember the great Shema: "Hear, O Israel: YHWH our God, YHWH is one." (Deuteronomy 6:4). So, God is one, and the one God is YHWH.

With this in mind, Joel 2:32 reads: "And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD (YHWH) shall be saved." Paul references this verse and applies the word LORD (YHWH) to Christ in Romans 10:9-13. So the way Paul uses "Lord" is not a generic "lord" or "master", but "YHWH" or "GOD".

Paul spoke both Hebrew and Greek (Acts 21-22) — perhaps Aramaic and some Latin too. He wrote his epistles in Greek and would have been familiar with both the Hebrew and Greek OT. In the LXX (the Greek OT) "Kyrios" is used in place of YHWH. So, when Paul referenced Joel 2:32 and applies this "Kyrios" to Jesus, which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew YHWH (which he undoubtedly knew), he is calling Jesus YHWH. In short, although it's not immediately clear in English, he explicitly identifies Jesus as God in flesh in Romans 10:9-13.

This is also in line with what John is saying, that the Word became flesh. John writes: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." Here we see the Son and the Father in the one God-head.

(2) We need to properly distinguish between what we call the humility and the exaltation of Christ. Very quickly, in Christ's humility, Scriptures use the language of the Father being greater than the Son etc. (John 14:28), in Christ's exaltation, Scriptures say that Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega etc. (Revelation 22:13). That is, Christ humbled Himself (Philippians 2:5-7), which is also why He is given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18).

(3) We worship Jesus, and only YHWH is to be worshipped. Thomas rightly confessed in John 20:27-29: "My Lord and my God!" And notice our Lord's reply — He does not deny this confession, but He makes a point of being God in flesh. And it's in this sense Paul writes, that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. (Colossians 1:15). That is, is He God — YHWH — from eternity? Yes. Is He born of a virgin? Yes. He is both man and God, and He is one with the Father. He is not merely GOD-like or an adopted lesser divinity, but GOD in flesh.

That Jesus is God is not a late invention. It is what the Bible teaches, and it's also how the early Church understood it. I can mention two very compelling examples of this. The first is the testimony of Ignatius, martyred sometime between AD 98-117, and may very well have been a disciple of the Apostle John. Ignatius wrote regarding Jesus:

To the Ephesians: "There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord."

And a bit later: "For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God's plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit."

If you read his epistles and those of the other church fathers, you'll find that they use Son of God and God interchangeably, just as the Christian Church does today.

The second example from history I think is worth considering is the heresy of Docetism. The gnostics who held to this heresy promoted the false idea that while Jesus was God, He was not truly man. And it's only later in history that this idea was reversed, that Jesus is man, but not God (cf. Arianism). John condemned proto-gnostics in 1 John 4:2-3, where He writes: "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already." So, already at this point in Church history, Christians were taught to uphold the right doctrine, namely, that Jesus is God in flesh.

There is no shortage of words regarding this, but this is already a very lengthy reply, sorry. I think if you deny the divinity of Christ and reject the trinity, you are of a different faith. If you come out of an anti-trinitarian religion like the Oneness Pentecostal, Mormon, or Jehovah's Witnesses, I would urge you to pray and to be mindful of the roots of your theological system, and not study in complete isolation, but receive God's Word with the Church, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone. I serve as a Bishop in the Lutheran Church, so I'm not completely without qualifications, and I'd be very glad to continue our talks should you be compelled to learn about the truth, joy, mystery, and comfort of our Lord Jesus Christ. But I think if you cannot clearly confess Christ as God in flesh, I'm sad to say I'm not sure how fruitful our debates would be. The Bible overwhelmingly expresses both the divinity and the humanity of Christ, and we should not pit one against the other, or force one over the other. The Christian church, though terribly and shamefully divided, when it comes to the two natures of Christ, we are united. Jesus is YHWH in flesh, according to God's Word.

 

[disciple Clint]

As much as I appreciate your gesture to point me to these writings of Thomas Aquinas; he wrote in Latin and is using terms and philosophical constructs not found in the Biblical texts or even unfamiliar to the Jewish authors of the NT writings - it contains a lot of 'developed' theology. E.g. looking at SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The divine persons (Prima Pars, Q. 29) for the definition of 'person', that definition is unworkable in our day and age in 2021. The term 'person' implies a human being - that is how the term is used now in everyday language. And in that sense, only Jesus Christ is a person. For me (and highly likely any new believers from a non-Christian context), calling God the Father or the Holy Spirit 'persons' makes no sense given the English language now.

Numbers 23:19

God (Hebrew 'El') is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind.​

Give this text to any Atheist or Muslim and he would shake his head at why traditionally Christians would call God the Father 'a person' or put the Son of Man (but also Son of GOD) Jesus Christ at the same rank as God the Father.

I think that the reason you are having some of the problems understanding the Trinity as explained by Thomas Aquinas because you do not understand the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle and how to apply the terms they used.

 

[disciple Clint]

Let's go slow .. what can we observe and know on the nature/origin/position of Jesus Christ from NT writings (not exhaustive):

• Son of GOD
• Son of the Most High
  
• Son of Man
• (biological) Son of the virgin Mary
• Servant of GOD
• Messiah of GOD
• Lord/Master
  
• Conceived by the Holy Spirit
• Came down from heaven
• Word of (the) GOD
• Exact imprint of GOD
  
• High Priest
• mediator between GOD and men
  
• the Way, Truth and Life
  
• the Way to the Father
  
• sits at the right hand of GOD
  
• given all power in Heaven and on Earth
• given the name above all other names (='Jesus', but presumably not above 'YHWH' - see Philippians 2:9 and 1 Corinthians 15:27)

Reference verses could be given for all of those points (but that may not be necessary for now); from this I can safely deduce Jesus is fully the son of Mary, so from the same substance, so fully human. Likewise, he is fully the Son of GOD (begotten; not created like Arius contended), so from the same substance as GOD, so fully divine/god/GOD-like (I don't have any other words to express this, but you get the idea).

Now if <b> is said to be son of <a> (if <a> is being used in the identity sense), this by logic also means <b> cannot be <a> him/itself; that is literally impossible. My own son is me-like, but he is not me.

In Luke 1:32 we read:

He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, ..​

Clearly, the phrase 'Most High' is used as unique identifier (only one can be the Most High); when Jesus is called the Son of the 'Most High', he would be 'Most-High'-like, but he cannot be the same being in the identity sense; and no Jew in Jesus' or Luke's audience would have interpreted it this way.

Jews in the 1st century didn't think of the coming Messiah as identical to YHWH, as TNK writings overwhelmingly don't describe the Messiah that way, quite on the contrary. E.g.:

Jeremiah 23:5-6

Behold, the days are coming, declares YHWH, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, ..​

Jeremiah 30:9

But they shall serve YHWH their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them.​

Jeremiah 33:15-16

In those days and at that time I (=YHWH) will cause a righteous Branch to spring up for David, and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: ‘YHWH is our righteousness.’​

Hosea 3:5

Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek YHWH their God, and David their king, and they shall come in fear to the Lord and to his goodness in the latter days.​

I could list many more verses, but you get the idea: YHWH and the Messiah are presented as two quite distinct beings. Maybe the most explicit verse would be:

Isaiah 11:2-3

And the Spirit of YHWH shall rest upon him,
the Spirit of wisdom and understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and might,
the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the YHWH.​

Here we have the Messiah and the Spirit of knowledge and fear of YHWH resting on him; which would be a very unnatural/counter-intuitive reading IF Messiah is YHWH himself in the identity sense.

Yet we also have Zechariah 14:3-4:

Then YHWH will go out and fight against those nations as when he fights on a day of battle. On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives that lies before Jerusalem on the east, ..​

Here we have YHWH, who is a spirit, how is invisible and who no one has seen at anytime (John 1:18, 1 John 4:12) all of sudden presented with feet that stand on the Mount of Olives; presumably this is about Jesus' feet on his return to Earth. How to reconcile these perspectives/positions? How can a spirit (1 John 4:24) have feet?

The answer would be that Jesus does nothing on his own behalf, everything he says/does/creates/judges is because his Father instructs him to do so (John 5:19, John 5:30, John 6:38). He is in everything GOD's delegate and agent; which exactly matches the Biblical/Middle-East semantics of the 'son' title. Jesus literally is GOD's son, but he also acts as GOD's son: his full delegate/agent.

So when Jesus speaks; YHWH speaks, when Jesus feet land on the Mount of Olives, YHWH's feet land, when Jesus judges, YHWH judges, etc..

So when the question is asked: is Jesus YHWH? I would humbly propose to say both:
- yes, in the sense that he 'represents' YHWH; the same way Jesus says 'this is my blood', or that 'the Lord is the Spirit' (2 Corinthians 3:17). Jesus is the exact imprint of GOD, so Jesus and YHWH are conflated.
- no, in the sense that Jesus is a different being identity-wise from YHWH; he is the Son of GOD. The NT writings mention the phrase 'the God of Jesus' seven times. At Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the bystanders quote Psalm 11:9:

.. blessed is he (=Jesus) who comes in the name of YHWH ..​

Enough for now, back to work I hope you can make sense of it. (btw: I am aware of the 'I AM' statements in John, just this post was already lengthy enough)

let me try to cut to the chase, the reason the Jewish leaders wanted to kill Jesus was because He clearly identified Himself as God. He left no doubt about who or what He is. He is one substance with the Father.

 

[Kilk1]

Let's go slow .. what can we observe and know on the nature/origin/position of Jesus Christ from NT writings (not exhaustive):

• Son of GOD
• Son of the Most High
  
• Son of Man
• (biological) Son of the virgin Mary
• Servant of GOD
• Messiah of GOD
• Lord/Master
  
• Conceived by the Holy Spirit
• Came down from heaven
• Word of (the) GOD
• Exact imprint of GOD
  
• High Priest
• mediator between GOD and men
  
• the Way, Truth and Life
  
• the Way to the Father
  
• sits at the right hand of GOD
  
• given all power in Heaven and on Earth
• given the name above all other names (='Jesus', but presumably not above 'YHWH' - see Philippians 2:9 and 1 Corinthians 15:27)

Reference verses could be given for all of those points (but that may not be necessary for now); from this I can safely deduce Jesus is fully the son of Mary, so from the same substance, so fully human. Likewise, he is fully the Son of GOD (begotten; not created like Arius contended), so from the same substance as GOD, so fully divine/god/GOD-like (I don't have any other words to express this, but you get the idea).

Now if <b> is said to be son of <a> (if <a> is being used in the identity sense), this by logic also means <b> cannot be <a> him/itself; that is literally impossible. My own son is me-like, but he is not me.

In Luke 1:32 we read:

He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, ..​

Clearly, the phrase 'Most High' is used as unique identifier (only one can be the Most High); when Jesus is called the Son of the 'Most High', he would be 'Most-High'-like, but he cannot be the same being in the identity sense; and no Jew in Jesus' or Luke's audience would have interpreted it this way.

Jews in the 1st century didn't think of the coming Messiah as identical to YHWH, as TNK writings overwhelmingly don't describe the Messiah that way, quite on the contrary. E.g.:

Jeremiah 23:5-6

Behold, the days are coming, declares YHWH, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, ..​

Jeremiah 30:9

But they shall serve YHWH their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them.​

Jeremiah 33:15-16

In those days and at that time I (=YHWH) will cause a righteous Branch to spring up for David, and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: ‘YHWH is our righteousness.’​

Hosea 3:5

Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek YHWH their God, and David their king, and they shall come in fear to the Lord and to his goodness in the latter days.​

I could list many more verses, but you get the idea: YHWH and the Messiah are presented as two quite distinct beings. Maybe the most explicit verse would be:

Isaiah 11:2-3

And the Spirit of YHWH shall rest upon him,
the Spirit of wisdom and understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and might,
the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the YHWH.​

Here we have the Messiah and the Spirit of knowledge and fear of YHWH resting on him; which would be a very unnatural/counter-intuitive reading IF Messiah is YHWH himself in the identity sense.

Yet we also have Zechariah 14:3-4:

Then YHWH will go out and fight against those nations as when he fights on a day of battle. On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives that lies before Jerusalem on the east, ..​

Here we have YHWH, who is a spirit, how is invisible and who no one has seen at anytime (John 1:18, 1 John 4:12) all of sudden presented with feet that stand on the Mount of Olives; presumably this is about Jesus' feet on his return to Earth. How to reconcile these perspectives/positions? How can a spirit (1 John 4:24) have feet?

The answer would be that Jesus does nothing on his own behalf, everything he says/does/creates/judges is because his Father instructs him to do so (John 5:19, John 5:30, John 6:38). He is in everything GOD's delegate and agent; which exactly matches the Biblical/Middle-East semantics of the 'son' title. Jesus literally is GOD's son, but he also acts as GOD's son: his full delegate/agent.

So when Jesus speaks; YHWH speaks, when Jesus feet land on the Mount of Olives, YHWH's feet land, when Jesus judges, YHWH judges, etc..

So when the question is asked: is Jesus YHWH? I would humbly propose to say both:
- yes, in the sense that he 'represents' YHWH; the same way Jesus says 'this is my blood', or that 'the Lord is the Spirit' (2 Corinthians 3:17). Jesus is the exact imprint of GOD, so Jesus and YHWH are conflated.
- no, in the sense that Jesus is a different being identity-wise from YHWH; he is the Son of GOD. The NT writings mention the phrase 'the God of Jesus' seven times. At Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the bystanders quote Psalm 11:9:

.. blessed is he (=Jesus) who comes in the name of YHWH ..​

Enough for now, back to work I hope you can make sense of it. (btw: I am aware of the 'I AM' statements in John, just this post was already lengthy enough)

Adding to the list of things Jesus is said to be in Scripture, would you agree that in Romans 10:9-14, Jesus is identified as the "LORD" of Joel 2:32 in the Greek Septuagint, who is actually YHWH in the original Hebrew?

 

[GreekOrthodox]

After we see the Spirit being distinguished from the Father and Son, it's noteworthy to also see the Spirit speaking in passages such as Acts of the Apostles 8:29, Acts of the Apostles 10:19, and Acts of the Apostles 13:2.

With all that said, I'd be interested in hearing about the pronouns used to refer to the Holy Spirit. In what passages is the Greek word for "it" used? Also, is the pronoun for "he" used of the Holy Spirit? If so, what example(s) might you show me, for reference? Thanks!

So the examples
13:2 λειτουργούντων δὲ αὐτῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ καὶ νηστευόντων εἶπε τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ῞Αγιον· (Spirit the Holy)
10:19 τοῦ δὲ Πέτρου διενθυμουμένου περὶ τοῦ ὁράματος εἶπεν αὐτῷ τὸ Πνεῦμα (the Spirit)
8:29 εἶπε δὲ τὸ Πνεῦμα τῷ Φιλίππῳ (The Spirit)

5:3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?

IMHO, we don't see a direct example of worship of the Holy Spirit for two reasons. First as Pastor Daniel said, we worship God in Trinity rather than separating the hypostasises. Two, the Spirit does not point to Himself but always directs us to Christ who also points us to the Father. Even with Eastern Orthodox prayers where some prayers do get broken into prayers to each hypostasis, the prayer is to be read as a whole.

All-holy Trinity, have mercy on us. Lord, cleanse us from our sins. Master, pardon our iniquities. Holy One, visit and heal our infirmities for Thy name’s sake.

 

[Kilk1]

So the examples
13:2 λειτουργούντων δὲ αὐτῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ καὶ νηστευόντων εἶπε τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ῞Αγιον· (Spirit the Holy)
10:19 τοῦ δὲ Πέτρου διενθυμουμένου περὶ τοῦ ὁράματος εἶπεν αὐτῷ τὸ Πνεῦμα (the Spirit)
8:29 εἶπε δὲ τὸ Πνεῦμα τῷ Φιλίππῳ (The Spirit)

5:3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?

IMHO, we don't see a direct example of worship of the Holy Spirit for two reasons. First as Pastor Daniel said, we worship God in Trinity rather than separating the hypostasises. Two, the Spirit does not point to Himself but always directs us to Christ who also points us to the Father. Even with Eastern Orthodox prayers where some prayers do get broken into prayers to each hypostasis, the prayer is to be read as a whole.

All-holy Trinity, have mercy on us. Lord, cleanse us from our sins. Master, pardon our iniquities. Holy One, visit and heal our infirmities for Thy name’s sake.

I know a hymn that's sung with three stanzas (not including the chorus):

Father, we love You
We worship and adore You
Glorify Thy Name in all the earth

Jesus, we love You
We worship and adore You
Glorify Thy Name in all the earth

Spirit, we love You
We worship and adore You
Glorify Thy Name in all the earth​

Would you consider this hymn to be acceptable, or does it separate the Three too much?

 

[Hark]

Hello! Since the Holy Spirit is God, are there passages in the Bible where He is shown to be worshiped? If so, what passages could be shown as examples? Thank you!

There are no scripture teaching the practice of worshipping the Holy Spirit with the Father & the Son, but there are scripture testifying to the role of the Holy Spirit as the divine Witness for why He would not lead a believer to testify of Himself in seeking His own glory, but to testify of the Son in seeking His glory.

These are His words for what makes us & the Holy Spirit true witnesses.

John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

John 7:18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

Since that is to be true for us as witnesses, so it is with the Holy Spirit. More proof;

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: 27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

So the Holy Spirit's job is to testify of the Son to glorify the Son thru us and that has to include worship & not just ministry.

Consider this as a judgment over each believer as forewarned by Christ Jesus as applicable towards worship.

John 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: 23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

So the moment any believer stops honoring the Son in worship, they are no longer honoring the Father, even if it is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God of the Triune God, but scripture tells us specifically how the Father wants to be honored and that is by the only way of the Son as the Holy Spirit leads us in worship to do as the Holy Spirit seeks to do thru us. He is a faithful Witness as we should be too.

Believers read this verse many times, applying his to be about Jesus being the only way for salvation, but They need His wisdom to heed His words that He is the only way to come to the Father by in worship, fellowship, & prayer.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me...... 13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

So people praying to the Holy Spirit are not honoring the Son as the only Mediator between God and men. People worshipping the Holy Spirit are not led by the Holy Spirit to do that nor are they heeding the Father's will for how He wishes for us to honor Him only by and that is His Son.

They need His help to see the truth in His words for why they need to narrow the way back to the straight gate in coming to God the Father in worship, fellowship, & prayer by the only way of His Son.