And then I proved it but referring to a Greek interlinear. You said otherwise. Your time to prove me wrong. I am looking forward to anyone who feels like trying to write a new Greek grammar rule that somehow makes an it a he. So far seems no one wants to try to slay that giant for good and obvious reasons.
No writing new rules, but sticking to the ones that exist. First, according to Mounce, the gender of nouns, for the most part, don't indicate the gender of the object. That is, grammatical gender doesn't indicate personal gender. Second, the gender of a noun never changes, so the Holy Spirit cannot be both an "it" in one context and and refer to the Father in another context, as you have stated:
"There is also the understanding that since God the Father is Himself a Holy Spirit that where Holy Spirit is mentioned that it wouldn't be a reference to a third person in a Trinity, but rather another name for the Father."
You have to pick one--"he" or "it." Third, you have argued, incorrectly, that the Father is the true light of John 1:9, but "light" is neuter. So, once again, you are implying that the Father is an "it," or at least an "it" and a "he," but, again, that cannot be the case. Fourth,
logos is masculine, which according to you means the
logos is a "he," and cannot be a mere personification.
Here's my original claim if you want to go for it:
In Greek, the word "spirit" is considered neutral, so it is linked with the neutral pronoun "it." Next, If we translate John 14:17, it would literally say: "The world cannot understand the spirit because it cannot see or know it. However, you know it because it is with you and will be in you." Do you contest this?
If the pronouns in a Greek text are neutral, you should consider why translators use "he" and "him" in some translations. The reason is that translators consider the context and overall meaning of the subject in a language that assigns genders to nouns to determine how the pronouns should be translated into English. Therefore, the context determines how something is translated. In this context, the "spirit of Truth" is a gift and therefore an it. A gift is never a he, i.e., God is not our property.
First, look at verse 16, where
parakletos is masculine, which, according to your reasoning, means the Helper is a he. Again, which is it? Is the Holy Spirit a "he" or an "it"? Second, as I already stated in response to your use of this verse, context matters, which is what you say here. Again, when we look at the context, which includes verse 16, and the meanings of
parakletos--Advocate, Counselor, Comforter, Helper--those are actions of personal agency only. The Holy Spirit is another
parakletos because Jesus is the first (1 John 2:1). And we see many actions of personal agency attributed to the Holy Spirit throughout the NT. I did give many verses in support, but you left them unaddressed.
Third, "spirit,"
ruach, in Hebrew is feminine, but masculine in Aramaic. Which are you going to go with? Jesus said that "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me," which, according to you, shows that the Spirit is neuter. But that is a quote from Isa 61:1, where Spirit is feminine. So, again, which is it?
To sum, then, it is clear that your argument that the Holy Spirit is an "it" is fallacious.
According to scripture God fits the very definition of what a person is therefore He is a person in every sense of the word; a thinking, feeling, person with a will. The KJV and NKJV also refer to God Himself as a person.
Hebrews 1
3Who being the brightness of
his glory, and the express image of
his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Because God is a person. The reason I have seen why people want God to not be a person except for in a very limited and specific sense is because it creates a problem for the trinity. I know, but fortunately we have all of the proof necessary in the Bible that surely that God is a person.
If you want to say that God is a person, fine, it's not a hill to die on and is irrelevant to the truth of the Trinity. God uses singular personal pronouns of himself throughout the OT, because he is the only true God. But he also uses plural personal pronouns of himself, most notable in Gen 1:26-27, where the plural pronouns in verse 26 are equated with the singular ones in verse 27.
However,
if you are going to argue that God "is a person in every sense of the word; a thinking, feeling, person with a will,"
then you
must be consistent and admit that the Holy Spirit is a person also:
Act 13:2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting,
the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”
...
Act 13:4 So,
being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus. (ESV)
Act 15:28 For
it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: (ESV)
Act 16:7 And when they had come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but
the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them. (ESV)
Eph 4:30 And
do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. (ESV)
1Co 12:11 All these are empowered
by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually
as he wills. (ESV)
Heb 10:29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and
has outraged the Spirit of grace? (ESV)
Etc., etc., etc.
According to your reasoning then, the Holy Spirit really is a person.
It absolutely debunks the deity of anyone else who is not the Father.
No, it absolutely does not. Maybe you should try addressing all those verses that you have so far left untouched.
Since the Father is the "only" true God then there is no one or nothing more besides them who are God. The Father is solely and exclusively God. The Father is God and therefore the others aren't. This is very logical and how it would be understood by most people with a casual reading of John 17:1-3.
No. Again, you should really address all those verses you haven't dealt with.
I have been reading the Bible for quite some time now. Cross referencing the Bible against itself does not reveal that Jesus is God. Jesus is a glorified man who is the example of what is attainable for other people who receive God's anointing. Whatever Jesus said or did the Bible says we can also say and do. If we can do anything or have anything Jesus did then he isn't God and we aren't either.
Again, no. Everything reveals that Jesus is God in human flesh, both God and man. There is simply no other rational conclusion that can be drawn from the totality of the revelation of who Jesus is. If Jesus was a glorified man, there is no salvation; none at all. His death was only sufficient for him, we are all lost, and this conversation is moot.
Jesus said he was the I Am, is that something we can say? Jesus said he was from above, that he shared in the glory of the Father before creation. Is that something we can say? Jesus said that all that the Father has is his. Is that something we can say? Jesus said that he was sent by the Father to die for the sins of the world. Is that something we can say?
According to the books and letters of the Bible, there is no such mention of discussion or description of a Trinity in the Bible. If this is something that was standard belief in Judaism and Christianity then they utterly failed to expound on it in any meaningful manner.
No, it's there. The Bible is progressive revelation. There is only so much that God can reveal at once in order for many to comprehend what he is saying. It is no surprise that the distinctness of the three persons and the foundations of the Trinity are mainly given in the NT. It is exactly what we should expect.
The Bible does say God is one, not three.
No, the Bible says there is one God, which is in full agreement with the Trinity. Nowhere does the Bible say that God is one person.
That's a problem for trinitarianism who say God is three, however for Unitarians it's just another gold nugget on the pile of many explicit declarations there is only one God known as the Father, also known as YHWH.
Unitarianism fits perfectly with the Bible.
No, it really doesn't. It makes God dependent on his creation in order to love. So, God cannot
be love, which is rather a huge miss on the part of unitarian views of God. God
is love (1 John 4:8, 16) because there is more than one person to express love to, having lived in an eternal, personal relationship, just as John 1:1-2 states.
