[Boxjobox]

This is kind of a simplified church history as I see it. Paul set up a great self sustaining system of believers meeting together under what seems to me to be a very active participation of the Holy Spirit. As strange views and odd teachings began to appear, those holding them lost the Spirit and the simplicity Paul gave. Luke seems to convey a pretty good Linear understanding of this. As you point out, along comes a gospel of John- no background leading up to this, no understanding of who the writing was directed to, different accounts and language than Luke’s, and really, where was John during the time Paul was getting worked over in spreading the gospel? I mean if we had churches raised by John and spoken about and we could look into their functioning and problems like we do with Paul’s there would be a better picture for us to understand where this John writing was coming from. When the “bible” was finally compiled and hierarchy of the church was really developed, someone had to justify the use of the John gospel and try to reconcile it with the Paul line. Also, there was obvious divisions of thought which Constantine was not going to put up with. So the big hats got together and hammered out the creed Nicene. It seems that they ignored Jesus saying the Father was the only true God and Paul saying there was but one God, the Father. I would say, way before the big fish hat counsel, any sign of a participating Holy Spirit was long gone, and the thought of the Spirit was left to scriptural phrases. I still find it amusing in modern Christianity people singing “ Holy Spirit you are welcome here, come and fill the atmosphere”. Does anyone think the Holy Spirit will witness to the whole trinity farce?