ARE ONLY SMART PEOPLE SAVED?

[amigo de christo]

View attachment 33110

Just a friendly reminder to all . DONT VOTE FOR them .

 

[Randy Kluth]

Not at all....not at all. Language translations are just that, not changing the theology or adding theological words that are not in the scriptures by name or definitions. Then you have theological clichés that preset the minds so that it skews the meaning for reader as they read the scriptures.

Language translations are not just word for word translations, although that is sometimes the intent and the effort. Ideas are conveyed differently from one language to another, and there are idiosyncrasies in each language, making that difficult.

In the history of the Trinity there were differences between how the Greeks expressed things and how the West expressed things. Being able to convey the Hebrew concept of Divine Salvation to a people steeped in Greek Philosophy required much more than a simple translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. There had to be an undoing of false philosophical constraints claiming we cannot know God. And there had to be posed its opposite, that we can indeed have fellowship with a transcendent Deity.

And there was much difficulty in expressing a Person of the Trinity as compared to the Person of God. One is defined locally, in a finite way, as extending via revelation from an Infinite Source. The other is defined in a strictly transcendent way, though referred to using the finite language of Man.

One cannot have a strictly Transcendent God and hope to be saved by Him and be in fellowship with Him. Neither can one have a relationship with God only by relating to a strictly human being named Jesus, who was not really God. One who is strictly Man cannot also be the Infinite God. So Jesus had to be stated that he was both God and Man to a culture that had viewed God as either beyond reach or largely just a glorified Man like the Greek gods.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I already gave you the reason.....again the word trinity is not in the scriptures.

My Spanish translation doesn't have any words in the Greek version of the New Testament! As I said, when words are translated into other languages, they have to change form and convey the same concepts in a different culture and language. When Jesus said to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit it may be legitimate to say the he commanded his apostles to baptize in the name of the Trinity. The concept it the same. It was just further developed later, when Roman culture addressed this from their own cultural background.

I have over a hundred scriptural examples of why the one God formula is false.

I have as many examples that that is false--your examples. The one God formula is fundamental to doctrinally-orthodox Christianity. 3 persons and one substance.

Boils down to different presence and different minds, and different positions.
Give and receives.
God the Father loves His Son....God the Son loves His Father.....it does not talk about God loving Himself.

All that was proven in the creeds which opposed modalism.

 

[Randy Kluth]

When they come to your front door and tell you that you have to believe this or we are going to burn you and your wife and kids at the stake. The perception changes.

No, you have to put yourself into the context of a State with a State Religion. Sedition in the name of "religious conscience" is sometimes a front for revolution. Sometimes it likely was. Only justice can decide.

 

[Randy Kluth]

That is not bibleical that is your personal interpretation..

No, that is fact. Greek philosophy created a barrier between transcendent Deity and the Material World. God Himself had to state that He was positively above His Material Creation. The Greeks sometimes rendered their "gods" fickle human representations, far less than any sense of a transcendent Deity.

So in the presentation of a truly Infinite God, the Romans had to understand how God can relate to Jesus, the Man. That's why Arianism developed, to overly-humanize Jesus, to make him less than the transcendent God. That's why Trinitarianism had to develop, to prove that not only could God become a Man, but we can also meet with this Transcendent Deity.

 

[Grailhunter]

Why do I need a starting point? I already outlined for you a brief history of denominations. I don't count denominations like individual churches. I count them from an historical point of view, as a basic philosophy of church structure, relation to the state, relation to the universal Church, and relation to a particular systematic theology.

This is a lot of words that do not mean anything.....except they are Christian, I never said they weren't. My point was that the Protestants went back to to the Bible to look for the truth....which was an honest effort.....but they could not agree on the meaning of the scriptures so the Protestants denominations began to multiply, then fracture from each other. Back then the average Christian did not have a good understanding of Latin or Koine Greek, or ancient history, or the culture during those early years. So they were kind of behind the 8 ball, lack of knowledge and assuming things that were not true. And yes you can count them with the understanding that they split for various reasons and some are near duplicate and some are named after their regions, but that is not to say that some had differences. But you cannot say because they are Christian that they are one church.

 

[Grailhunter]

No, you have to put yourself into the context of a State with a State Religion. Sedition in the name of "religious conscience" is sometimes a front for revolution. Sometimes it likely was. Only justice can decide.

This has nothing to do with what I am talking about. The Catholic Church came up with false beliefs and enforced them upon pain of death, excommunication, and or persecution.

 

[Grailhunter]

No, that is fact. Greek philosophy created a barrier between transcendent Deity and the Material World. God Himself had to state that He was positively above His Material Creation. The Greeks sometimes rendered their "gods" fickle human representations, far less than any sense of a transcendent Deity.

So in the presentation of a truly Infinite God, the Romans had to understand how God can relate to Jesus, the Man. That's why Arianism developed, to overly-humanize Jesus, to make him less than the transcendent God. That's why Trinitarianism had to develop, to prove that not only could God become a Man, but we can also meet with this Transcendent Deity.

Well the Greek-Romans were as they where but we are talking about Christians.

The ecumenical councils were commanded by Emperor Constantine to bring unity to Christianity....
The one God Trinity was formulated to stop the unresolvable arguments within Christianity and to shutdown Gnosticism.
Some of the Gnostics believed that the Old Testament God was evil or crazy. So He could not be the Father of Christ.
Others sited the fact that there seem to be so many difference between Yahweh and Yeshua.
Then a lot of Christians believed in a hierarchy between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Then some Christians believed that the Holy Spirit was not a God at all but the Spirit of Yahweh or Yeshua.
Some believed that Yeshua was human during His ministry and became a God when He was resurrected.
And there were other disagreements.
But all arguments were silenced if they were the same person.
No early Christian is sited as believing that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were crucified.
For one early Christians....Gentile Christians knew is was a Pagan norm for their gods to have 3 aspects. So the one God formula seemed too Pagan.

No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian in the sense of believing that the one God is tripersonal, containing equally divine “persons”, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The one God formula was definitely not popular.....even after the Catholic Church forced it on people upon the threat of death.

 

[Zachariah]

Are only smart people saved?

That is a resounding NO!
Hang on to your hats! This is going to be an adventure in perceptions.
Some might think that you need to be knowledgeable to be saved?
Some might say that you have to understand the scriptures to be saved?
I could say that I have heard it all, but I am sure that I have not.

From the other end of this perception I have had people say to me that you cannot be spiritual if you are educated or knowledgeable of the scriptures ….How does that work?

Are Christian colleges anti-spiritual, so if you know the scriptures, the ancient languages, cultures, and history, you cannot understand the spiritual?

Most of this is about people that are not knowledgeable and are self conscience about their lack of understanding, trying to edify themselves….A lot of times unnecessarily.

I was a gifted child and spent my life in formal schooling of one sort or another researching Christianity and as a child I decided to make it my purpose to find the truth about Christianity. I believe God gave me my talents and skills and opportunities to find the truth….but my mom being Catholic and my dad being Southern Baptist and the ensuing debates might have been a factor. LOL

I don’t think that I was even a teenager before I realized that most had missed the point.

SALVATION IS NOT ABOUT HIGH EDUCATION, OR EVEN DEEP BIBLICAL STUDY OR UNDERSTANDING!!! IT IS NOT EVEN ABOUT BEING RIGHT!!! AND SURPRISINGLY ENOUGH IT IS NOT ABOUT THE BIBLE. YOU MAY FIND THIS SHOCKING?!

As it is the details of the scriptures are why the church fractured into thousands of pieces. Not that the scriptures are at fault but because, for various reasons, a lot of people could not agree on the meaning of them. And the insistence on being right caused strife and animosity within Christianity.

At this point we have become so use to people believing different things that the evil beliefs are tolerated. Can you imagine some one coming up to Peter or Paul and telling them that Christ was not a God or the Son of God and that Hell did not exist? What do you think they would say? Then you have the whole robot Christian thing!

So anyway, how much do you need to know to be saved or to be a “good Christian?” Do you need to read the Bible to be saved? Do you need to study the Bible to be saved? Do you need the Bible at all to be saved? The answer to these questions is absolutely not. And I can prove it!

The truth is, in the beginning the scriptures were not available and then went on to be withheld from Christians… For the Protestants the Bible became a great focus…you know the terms….Bible only, sola scriptura, fundamentalists. They are actually concepts that are misleading. But still after being feed so many false beliefs from the Catholic Church, Christians were hungry for God’s Word….the scriptures….a chance to determine the truth for themselves. Almost like a defense mechanism the Protestants tried to rely only on the Bible, and by doing so cut out most of Christian history.

You cannot blame them! Centuries of corruption and abuse and false beliefs generated by the Catholic Church! Ironically even though they were looking for the truth the Protestants accepted some of the false beliefs of the Catholics like…. the one God formula for the Trinity and Original Sin and that females were not equal members in Christianity….these false beliefs went on to cause other false beliefs, false theological clichés that skewed the meaning of the scriptures, caused inaccurate perceptions, and wrongful applications of Christianity which went on to cause a lot of misery and suffering and even deaths.

So we have the Bible, and it is a good thing to read, a good thing to study, but still the truth is, it is not a requirement for salvation. And one should always keep in mind that you are reading an ancient text from a modern perspective and most have a head full of false beliefs that filter and skew the meaning of the scriptures as they read them. What good is the Bible if you are trying to teach it?

So as it was, the first bound book….the first bound Bibles are known as the 50 Bibles of Constantine, circa 350~ AD. Hand written in Latin and illustrated and decorated and the Catholic Church took them and chained most of them to the pulpit(s). Physically and figuratively. The Catholic Church did not want the public to have Bibles of their own and persecuted anyone that tried to translate them into native languages and get them out to the public. The Catholic Church wanted people to believe what the Catholic Church told them to believe….

The primary false belief being that the Catholic Church was the only Christian authority on earth and it controlled salvation and anyone that preach something different than what the Catholic Church preached were heretics. Of course that means that the Catholic Church believed that all Protestants were heretics! LOL

So at this point Christians are not being told the truth, so in general there are no knowledgeable Christians because the truth is not available to them. I am saying this as a whole….Regional churches had copies of some of the New Testament texts and may have read them to there congregations…but if they preached something different than the Catholic Church, they were labeled heretics and persecuted. But still people were being saved, even if they had never seen a Bible.

So now I am going back to the biblical era…..Christ and the Apostles preached the good news…the Gospels….how to be saved, people were being baptized and being saved, but they were not handing out Bibles or texts, people are believing and learning how to be saved by word of mouth.

Of course the New Testament had not been written yet, so no one is studying the New Testament scriptures….But thousands are being saved without ever seeing New Testament writings. They are being told to believe in Christ as Lord and Savior and to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:18-20). And this was enough to save them, tens of thousands of them. Were they knowledgeable Christians by our modern standards? No. Were the scriptures available for them to read and study at home? No.

As time went on some of the Apostles wrote letters and epistles to the churches and they could read them to their congregations, but they were not handing out texts either. But some were writing down what they heard, maybe favorite scriptures or something they heard….I saw a small pamphlet in a museum that was a few small pages bound by a single metal ring. Just rough wording, no chapters or verse numbers….that does not occur until much later. But people were being saved, by tens of thousands.

And moving forward, this was the way it was….Not all churches had the same texts and they were preaching from them and reading them to their congregations. Some of these texts did not make it into the Canon. Knowledgeable Christian and literate Christians being few and far in between….but still Christianity went on for centuries and for centuries people were being saved….without Bibles.

So the bottom line from all this is that being saved is one thing and it only takes that basic truth. That truth is believing in Christ as Lord and Savior and being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As the umpire would say SAFE! Also the old Apostle’s Creed is a good guideline.

From there what else is to know about Christ and the Apostles and Christianity … well that is where the Bible comes in….but even with that people are taught false beliefs that skew the meaning of the scriptures but usually they are still saved….they may get the details wrong….but the truth they did receive saves them. But if you seek Christian knowledge and understanding, that is all up to you….But you were saved from the start. So you do not have to be smart, or educated, or knowledgeable to be saved or a good Christian. Love God and each other and be good and do good…..the Johnny Appleseed of Truth.

The world view of what "smart" is has nothing to do with spiritual maturity and wholistic intelligence. Wisdom comes from an alignment with Truth and morality not intellectual knowledge.

 

[Grailhunter]

The world view of what "smart" is has nothing to do with spiritual maturity and wholistic intelligence. Wisdom comes from an alignment with Truth and morality not intellectual knowledge.

The point of the post was not to analyze the term smart.....it is actually vague, all encompassing and a matter of perspective. But if you would like to....continue.

 

[Zachariah]

The point of the post was not to analyze the term smart.....it is actually vague, all encompassing and a matter of perspective. But if you would like to....continue.

Well the current word view of what "smart" means is purely interlect. The left side of our neocortex is analytical and is seen as "interlect", maths, science, literal thinking. The right side of our neocortex is God type thinking, creativity etc. Only when both of these are in balance true intelligence is achieved. Nikola Tesla is a prime example of being a balanced intelligent individual. He unified interlect and creativity and manifested alot of the technology we take for granted these days.

I would see the word "smart" to be left brain interlect. Well thats how its generally perceived these days in my undersranding.

Hope that helps.

 

[Grailhunter]

Well the current word view of what "smart" means is purely interlect. The left side of our neocortex is analytical and is seen as "interlect", maths, science, literal thinking. The right side of our neocortex is God type thinking, creativity etc. Only when both of these are in balance true intelligence is achieved. Nikola Tesla is a prime example of being a balanced intelligent individual. He unified interlect and creativity and manifested alot of the technology we take for granted these days.

I would see the word "smart" to be left brain interlect. Well thats how its generally perceived these days in my undersranding.

Hope that helps.

That is very interesting and I agree that it has to do with the balance of the brain.
And to achieve the higher levels of intelligence-intellect balance is the start.
Now I can tell you about genius because I have been accused of it......I was considered a gifted child.....
But I am only above average and I know this because I worked with people that were documented geniuses.
My profession dealt with quantum science and nuclear weapons and so on a so forth.
Geniuses are actually a different topic. They have problems and I have great stories about that.

The next level we would talk about is the efficiency of the brain.
The information the brain has.
The ability to process and reason that information.
The ability to imagine what could be and the imagination to believe what cannot be seen.
Imaging is the talent of creativity. To imagine and in some cases to fashion it physically.
Strangely enough this is what religion and quantum science have in common.
The experience to assess all of that and apply in a useful manner.

And everything in between.

But still it has a perspective.....Why learn morality from the Bible? LOL The simple and obvious answer for someone that is "smart" is that morality can prevent you from making the same mistakes that people have been making from the beginning of time. The morality of God is not taught to us to prevent us from having fun.....morality is there to prevent us from hurting ourselves and others.

 

[Ritajanice]

True wisdom can only come from God....not from oneself......

Proverbs 2:6-8

Contemporary English Version

​

6 All wisdom comes from the Lord,
and so do common sense
and understanding.
7 God gives helpful advice[a]
to everyone who obeys him
and protects those
who live as they should.
8 God sees that justice is done,
and he watches over everyone
who is faithful to him.

 

[Randy Kluth]

This is a lot of words that do not mean anything.....except they are Christian, I never said they weren't. My point was that the Protestants went back to to the Bible to look for the truth....which was an honest effort.....but they could not agree on the meaning of the scriptures so the Protestants denominations began to multiply, then fracture from each other. Back then the average Christian did not have a good understanding of Latin or Koine Greek, or ancient history, or the culture during those early years. So they were kind of behind the 8 ball, lack of knowledge and assuming things that were not true. And yes you can count them with the understanding that they split for various reasons and some are near duplicate and some are named after their regions, but that is not to say that some had differences. But you cannot say because they are Christian that they are one church.

Yes, I can say that all those who hold to the creeds are one universal Church of Christ. That's what the Bible says, "one faith, on baptism."

 

[Randy Kluth]

Well the Greek-Romans were as they where but we are talking about Christians.

The ecumenical councils were commanded by Emperor Constantine to bring unity to Christianity....
The one God Trinity was formulated to stop the unresolvable arguments within Christianity and to shutdown Gnosticism.
Some of the Gnostics believed that the Old Testament God was evil or crazy. So He could not be the Father of Christ.
Others sited the fact that there seem to be so many difference between Yahweh and Yeshua.
Then a lot of Christians believed in a hierarchy between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Then some Christians believed that the Holy Spirit was not a God at all but the Spirit of Yahweh or Yeshua.
And there were other disagreements.
But all argument were silenced if they were the same person.
No early Christian is sited as believing that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were crucified.
For one early Christians....Gentile Christians knew is was a Pagan norm for their gods to have 3 aspects. So the one God formula seemed too Pagan.

No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian in the sense of believing that the one God is tripersonal, containing equally divine “persons”, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The one God formula was definitely not popular.....even after the Catholic Church forced it on people upon the threat of death.

I don't agree. Even if the language of the Trinity was not fully developed in the beginning, the belief was there. Constantine did not call for councils to end unresolvable theological problems. He called councils to resolve them.

I have no idea what you otherwise wish to prove, except that people disagree at times. It definitely does not prove that Christianity was unable to find a strong measure of unity of doctrine.

Belief that Jesus was divine existed from the start. Belief that the Father and the Son had a relationship with one another was there from the start. Belief that the Holy Spirit was the Spirit of God was always there. You're proving nothing in this regard.

 

[Grailhunter]

Yes, I can say that all those who hold to the creeds are one universal Church of Christ. That's what the Bible says, "one faith, on baptism."

Whatever

 

[Zachariah]

That is very interesting and I agree that it has to do with the balance of the brain.
And to achieve the higher levels of intelligence-intellect balance is the start.
Now I can tell you about genius because I have been accused of it......I was considered a gifted child.....
But I am only above average and I know this because I worked with people that were documented geniuses.
My profession dealt with quantum science and nuclear weapons and so on a so forth.
Geniuses are actually a different topic. They have problems and I have great stories about that.

The next level we would talk about is the efficiency of the brain.
The information the brain has.
The ability to process and reason that information.
The ability to imagine what could be and the imagination to believe what cannot be seen.
Imaging is the talent of creativity. To imagine and in some cases to fashion it physically.
Strangely enough this is what religion and quantum science have in common.
The experience to assess all of that and apply in a useful manner.

And everything in between.

But still it has a perspective.....Why learn morality from the Bible? LOL The simple and obvious answer for someone that is "smart" is that morality can prevent you from making the same mistakes that people have been making from the beginning of time. The morality of God is not taught to us to prevent us from having fun.....morality is there to prevent us from hurting ourselves and others.

Very true. The laws of morality are what give us freedom. It is directly linked to our freedom. The more immoral people are on a whole, the more enslaved we become. The more moral, the more free we become. The world is devolving because Truth and morality have been lost. How do we fight for and keep our enherent rights when we no longer know what they are? Such is the current human condition.

 

[Grailhunter]

I don't agree. Even if the language of the Trinity was not fully developed in the beginning, the belief was there. Constantine did not call for councils to end unresolvable theological problems. He called councils to resolve them.

No he was looking for unity, that was the Roman way. One emperor, one empire, one religion.
So from the beginning the Catholic Church was about one faith and persecuted all others.

I have no idea what you otherwise wish to prove, except that people disagree at times. It definitely does not prove that Christianity was unable to find a strong measure of unity of doctrine.

The post is about the simplicity of salvation.
The fracturing of the Church is just history and it is all about strong enough disagreement that they were starting different denominations.
For example if you get into the history of the puritans you will find that they were not tolerant of other Protestant denominations.
In fact if you get into the history of the American Colonies you will find that a lot of them were not tolerant of each other. If you get into the history of Roger Williams who advocated religious tolerance you will see the problems they were having in the colonies.

Belief that Jesus was divine existed from the start. Belief that the Father and the Son had a relationship with one another was there from the start. Belief that the Holy Spirit was the Spirit of God was always there. You're proving nothing in this regard.

I did not say that there were issues with people believing Yeshua was a God. (By the way, no persons or places or things that had a J in them in the scriptures. The letter J came out in 1400 AD it is Yahweh, Yeshua, Yob, Yacob, Yoseph, Yericho, etc)

Of course Yahweh and Yeshua had a relationship....they were Father and Son.

The Holy Spirit was always considered a separate being.....that is why it is called Trinity. I do not know how you missed this.

 

[Randy Kluth]

No he was looking for unity, that was the Roman way. One emperor, one empire, one religion.
So from the beginning the Catholic Church was about one faith and persecuted all others.

So you want to believe that Constantine was wanting to kill people who didn't accept his "compromise?" I rather think he wanted to get down to the brass tacks of what Christian Doctrine should really be, and not be wishy washy about it.

Yes, being plain and obvious is what I believe he was after, in order to give no excuse or ambiguity to the matters. But I just think we're looking at things from different sides of the coin. Yes, Constantine probably was not invested in Christianity enough to be interested in anything more than formulating a "Peace Doctrine."

The post is about the simplicity of salvation.

If it had been just about the "simplicity of Salvation," I would've agreed with you. But you made it about denouncing the Doctrine of the Trinity and about the history of developing a Systematic Theology or List of Fundamentals for Christians. That's where we disagree.

The Theology is critically important, to me. But yes, Salvation itself is relatively simple to understand. We receive Christ in our heart so that all we think or do reflects the Christ living within us, spiritually. We reproduce Christ in our works.

The fracturing of the Church is just history and it is all about strong enough disagreement that they were starting different denominations.
For example if you get into the history of the puritans you will find that they were not tolerant of other Protestant denominations.

Yes, but I think that's an oversimplification, designed to criticize denominations as "divisive." Often, the denomination merely wanted to establish its own identity in a different region, so that political lines were drawn.

There was a problem with both Church and State in constantly tending to overreach. The Catholic Church wanted to assert its authority over *all Christians.* And the States sometimes tried to establish control not just over Christianity within its own political realm but also over the distant headquarters of the Church at Rome.

Boundaries had to be drawn, and the theology was as much as about asserting the rights of autonomy as it was about arguing points of theology. It's sometimes hard to know whether the theology was more important than the political position indicated by the right to form one's own theology.

In fact if you get into the history of the American Colonies you will find that a lot of them were not tolerant of each other. If you get into the history of Roger Williams who advocated religious tolerance you will see the problems they were having in the colonies.

Roger Williams took the conventional Separatist line that the idea of a Theocracy was hopeless. Of course, he was right in the sense that at some point it would become hopeless. That didn't mean that theocracies had failed in the past or that they couldn't work again. A fallen Christian State cannot, apart from a major revival or awakening, return to a reasonably good Christian State.

I did not say that there were issues with people believing Yeshua was a God. (By the way, no persons or places or things that had a J in them in the scriptures. The letter J came out in 1400 AD it is Yahweh, Yeshua, Yob, Yacob, Yoseph, Yericho, etc)

Yes, transliteration issues.

Of course Yahweh and Yeshua had a relationship....they were Father and Son.

The Holy Spirit was always considered a separate being.....that is why it is called Trinity. I do not know how you missed this.

That's what I mean about translating words into different cultural understandings. Some would say that the Holy Spirit cannot be a separate "being" because that implies he is distinct from the "being" of Deity. And that would be absurd since the Holy Spirit is the Sprit of God.

So you're using the word "being" to imply a distinct *person,* which explains the difficulty the Early Church had in explaining how God was "one Being in 3 Persons." One substance and three Persons of the Deity. I would say "one source of revelation and three expressions constituting distinct divine Persons."

 

[amigo de christo]

No he was looking for unity, that was the Roman way. One emperor, one empire, one religion.
So from the beginning the Catholic Church was about one faith and persecuted all others.


The post is about the simplicity of salvation.
The fracturing of the Church is just history and it is all about strong enough disagreement that they were starting different denominations.
For example if you get into the history of the puritans you will find that they were not tolerant of other Protestant denominations.
In fact if you get into the history of the American Colonies you will find that a lot of them were not tolerant of each other. If you get into the history of Roger Williams who advocated religious tolerance you will see the problems they were having in the colonies.


I did not say that there were issues with people believing Yeshua was a God. (By the way, no persons or places or things that had a J in them in the scriptures. The letter J came out in 1400 AD it is Yahweh, Yeshua, Yob, Yacob, Yoseph, Yericho, etc)

Of course Yahweh and Yeshua had a relationship....they were Father and Son.

The Holy Spirit was always considered a separate being.....that is why it is called Trinity. I do not know how you missed this.

And its exactly what they are doing TODAY . ONE UNITY , ONE WORLD , ONE EMPIRE , ONE ALL INCLUSIVE RELIGOIN .
AND ITS ALL UNDER THE DRAGON too .