Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Vic C.
Member
Re: Holy Ghost
SB, it appears you are arguing just for the sake of argument. I suggest you debate in a more orderly fashion. Consider this another warning.
There is also plenty of 'Spirit' mentioned in the NT as well. Consider it both the writer's and translator's discression. Bout the Holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost are ONE in the same.Squeakybro said:
SB, it appears you are arguing just for the sake of argument. I suggest you debate in a more orderly fashion. Consider this another warning.
D
DM
Guest
Thanks to Free.
Hi Free.
Thanks for your thoughtful answer to that. I liked your 'clear as mud' statement.
Let me ask you another question if I may. What is your take on whether or not the discussion of the Trinity between believers can be considered a "debatable matter"? What I mean is, do you think there's any room to wonder about whether or not Jesus is "coequal" or "coeternal"?
The reason I ask is because I see other areas of doctrine that get treated just as seriously in one sense (for example, classic dispensationalism vs. preterism), but with the exception that - at the end of the day - no one would question whether or not one's salvation were on the line over what they'd concluded.
I'm not saying that one should conclude that Jesus is, or isn't, God in some willy-nilly way that doesn't really matter. I think the issue is very important . . . but, can you tell me if you feel that one's personal salvation is at stake depending on which way they view whether or not Jesus is God?
Thanks so much.
Sincerely,
David Murphy
Hi Free.
Thanks for your thoughtful answer to that. I liked your 'clear as mud' statement.
Let me ask you another question if I may. What is your take on whether or not the discussion of the Trinity between believers can be considered a "debatable matter"? What I mean is, do you think there's any room to wonder about whether or not Jesus is "coequal" or "coeternal"?
The reason I ask is because I see other areas of doctrine that get treated just as seriously in one sense (for example, classic dispensationalism vs. preterism), but with the exception that - at the end of the day - no one would question whether or not one's salvation were on the line over what they'd concluded.
I'm not saying that one should conclude that Jesus is, or isn't, God in some willy-nilly way that doesn't really matter. I think the issue is very important . . . but, can you tell me if you feel that one's personal salvation is at stake depending on which way they view whether or not Jesus is God?
Thanks so much.
Sincerely,
David Murphy
DM,
I am not actually sure where I stand in the matter anymore. I do believe that the Trinity is the correct teaching, as opposed to something like modalism, but whether or not one's salvation hangs in the balance...I don't know. I used to think that if one wasn't Trinitarian they weren't saved, but now I lean towards the necessity of belief in the deity of Christ only, which leads into your next point.
Personally, I do think one's salvation is at stake depending on who they believe Jesus is. The early church fought against Arianism and there are theological and philosphical problems that arise regarding the atonement if one believes Jesus was a creature (in the sense of a created being). Either Jesus was created or he is eternal, there is no middle ground, that I can think of.
Looking at the following verse:
Rom. 10:9, "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
To me, this is saying much more than it initially appears. What does it mean to confess "Jesus as Lord?" The Mormons and JWs confess Jesus as Lord, but their views of Christ differs radically from one another and orthodox Christianity.
You probably know that the Greek word for "Lord," kurios, is used in the both the Septuagint and NT quotations of the OT in place of "Yahweh" or "God." To be fair, kurios is also used of earthly men ("master," "lord"), but again, this goes back to my ealier point that when words are used of Jesus, they take on a much more significant meaning.
I am not actually sure where I stand in the matter anymore. I do believe that the Trinity is the correct teaching, as opposed to something like modalism, but whether or not one's salvation hangs in the balance...I don't know. I used to think that if one wasn't Trinitarian they weren't saved, but now I lean towards the necessity of belief in the deity of Christ only, which leads into your next point.
Personally, I do think one's salvation is at stake depending on who they believe Jesus is. The early church fought against Arianism and there are theological and philosphical problems that arise regarding the atonement if one believes Jesus was a creature (in the sense of a created being). Either Jesus was created or he is eternal, there is no middle ground, that I can think of.
Looking at the following verse:
Rom. 10:9, "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
To me, this is saying much more than it initially appears. What does it mean to confess "Jesus as Lord?" The Mormons and JWs confess Jesus as Lord, but their views of Christ differs radically from one another and orthodox Christianity.
You probably know that the Greek word for "Lord," kurios, is used in the both the Septuagint and NT quotations of the OT in place of "Yahweh" or "God." To be fair, kurios is also used of earthly men ("master," "lord"), but again, this goes back to my ealier point that when words are used of Jesus, they take on a much more significant meaning.
D
DM
Guest
Thanks for your thoughts once again.
Hi Free.
Thank you so much for your feedback. I, too, leaned toward thinking at one time that a person HAD to believe in the Trinity in order to be saved. I think that conclusion was largely influenced by what I heard on the radio, in Bible teaching. Of course, there were always the Scirptures used to expound the position, and thus - how could I have concluded otherwise?
However, over time, and definitely by the challenge of a close friend to look more closely at the doctrine . . . I came to the same conclusion as you have. That is to say, "I don't know".
It's very interesting that you brought up Romans 10:9. A very good friend of mine (who is Trinitarian) brought this same verse to my attention after I had basically thrown down the gauntlet and asked him to show me in Scripture where one had to believe that "Jesus is God" in order to be saved.
While he wouldn't put 100% of his opinion toward saying that this verse says just that - it was his most notable conclusion that it probably did.
The whole use of kurios, as you noted, leaves a little bit of a "fudge factor" in there. Especially, when you look at the Septuagint version of Psalm 110:1 as an example of using "kurios". The original Hebrew says, "The LORD [Yhwh] says to my lord [adoni]. . . etc." But the Greek version of that says, "[Kurios] says to my [Kurios]! What's the Greek thinker of that day to conclude?
I try my best to track along the lines of what Peter says about this Lordship of Jesus:
Acts 2:36b "God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
1 Peter 1:17 "For he [Jesus] received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, 'This is My Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.'"
Acts 10:42 "He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he [Jesus] is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead."
I've (hopefully) come to the point of not trying to convince anyone of why they should or shouldn't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather . . .
Acts 10:34b "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right."
And we know that to do what God deems as right is, "To believe in the one he has sent" (cf. John 6:28,29).
Thanks Free.
Peace and JOY in Him.
David Murphy
Hi Free.
Thank you so much for your feedback. I, too, leaned toward thinking at one time that a person HAD to believe in the Trinity in order to be saved. I think that conclusion was largely influenced by what I heard on the radio, in Bible teaching. Of course, there were always the Scirptures used to expound the position, and thus - how could I have concluded otherwise?
However, over time, and definitely by the challenge of a close friend to look more closely at the doctrine . . . I came to the same conclusion as you have. That is to say, "I don't know".
It's very interesting that you brought up Romans 10:9. A very good friend of mine (who is Trinitarian) brought this same verse to my attention after I had basically thrown down the gauntlet and asked him to show me in Scripture where one had to believe that "Jesus is God" in order to be saved.
While he wouldn't put 100% of his opinion toward saying that this verse says just that - it was his most notable conclusion that it probably did.
The whole use of kurios, as you noted, leaves a little bit of a "fudge factor" in there. Especially, when you look at the Septuagint version of Psalm 110:1 as an example of using "kurios". The original Hebrew says, "The LORD [Yhwh] says to my lord [adoni]. . . etc." But the Greek version of that says, "[Kurios] says to my [Kurios]! What's the Greek thinker of that day to conclude?
I try my best to track along the lines of what Peter says about this Lordship of Jesus:
Acts 2:36b "God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
1 Peter 1:17 "For he [Jesus] received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, 'This is My Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.'"
Acts 10:42 "He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he [Jesus] is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead."
I've (hopefully) come to the point of not trying to convince anyone of why they should or shouldn't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather . . .
Acts 10:34b "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right."
And we know that to do what God deems as right is, "To believe in the one he has sent" (cf. John 6:28,29).
Thanks Free.
Peace and JOY in Him.
David Murphy
DM,
Thanks for this discussion; I wish all debates could be this pleasant.
I should clarify that while I do believe the Trinity to be correct, it is only correct insofar as it conveys the idea of the threeness in the oneness of God. Definitions of the Trinity differ from denomination to denomination, person to person, and even East to West. Whose to say which definition is correct, if indeed any of them are?
But at the same time, I must take into account what Christian tradition teaches. There is a reason why tradition teaches that God is triune and everything else is rejected as heresy. What that reason is depends on who you talk to. But the fact that the Trinity has been considered by the vast majority of Christians, for hundreds of years, to be orthodox Christianity must be considered.
So, although there are Scriptures that talk about Jesus receiving his Lordship, honor, and glory from God, there are also Scriptures that imply he is coequal and coeternal with the Father (passages in John 1, Col. 1, Phil. 2, Heb. 1, for instance). Scripture coupled with tradition is why I believe that the Trinity is the most correct of the teachings of the nature of God's existence.
The Trinity does perhaps raise some difficulties, but from what I have studied, it raises far fewer than other doctrines and seems to best fit what Scripture reveals. And as I stated previously, if Jesus isn't God, then that does raise some fairly serious problems concerning the atonement.
Thanks for this discussion; I wish all debates could be this pleasant.
I should clarify that while I do believe the Trinity to be correct, it is only correct insofar as it conveys the idea of the threeness in the oneness of God. Definitions of the Trinity differ from denomination to denomination, person to person, and even East to West. Whose to say which definition is correct, if indeed any of them are?
But at the same time, I must take into account what Christian tradition teaches. There is a reason why tradition teaches that God is triune and everything else is rejected as heresy. What that reason is depends on who you talk to. But the fact that the Trinity has been considered by the vast majority of Christians, for hundreds of years, to be orthodox Christianity must be considered.
So, although there are Scriptures that talk about Jesus receiving his Lordship, honor, and glory from God, there are also Scriptures that imply he is coequal and coeternal with the Father (passages in John 1, Col. 1, Phil. 2, Heb. 1, for instance). Scripture coupled with tradition is why I believe that the Trinity is the most correct of the teachings of the nature of God's existence.
The Trinity does perhaps raise some difficulties, but from what I have studied, it raises far fewer than other doctrines and seems to best fit what Scripture reveals. And as I stated previously, if Jesus isn't God, then that does raise some fairly serious problems concerning the atonement.
B
Bob10
Guest
Father and son are concepts we easily understand. They are persons. We are like them. We are made in their image. Every revelation of God allows us, even encourages us, to think of Him in human terms.
Not so the Holy Spirit. In the first place, the Greek word for it suggests something other than a person. “Spirit†in the Greek is pneuma, from which we derive the word “pneumatic.†The word roughly means air, wind or breath. If you speak Greek, the wind that moves the leaves on your tree is pneuma. One source called the Holy Spirit “the Breath of Jehovah.â€Â
http://www.cemnetwork.com/bcc/bcc2.htm
http://www.cemnetwork.com/bcc/bcc3.htm
http://www.cemnetwork.com/bcc/bcc4.htm
Not so the Holy Spirit. In the first place, the Greek word for it suggests something other than a person. “Spirit†in the Greek is pneuma, from which we derive the word “pneumatic.†The word roughly means air, wind or breath. If you speak Greek, the wind that moves the leaves on your tree is pneuma. One source called the Holy Spirit “the Breath of Jehovah.â€Â
http://www.cemnetwork.com/bcc/bcc2.htm
http://www.cemnetwork.com/bcc/bcc3.htm
http://www.cemnetwork.com/bcc/bcc4.htm
Except that the HS is spoken of in terms indicitave of a person. In Greek, determining the exact meaning of a word depends largely on the context it is used in. Just as the Word, the pre-incarnate Christ, is spoken of in terms that relate personality in John 1, so too, the HS is spoken of in such terms.
D
DM
Guest
Good points.
Hi Free.
I highly respect the way you present your thoughts. A very pleasant discussion indeed.
I'll continue to mull over these thoughts . . . and will look forward to further discussions on this forum.
Peace in Him,
David Murphy
Hi Free.
I highly respect the way you present your thoughts. A very pleasant discussion indeed.
I'll continue to mull over these thoughts . . . and will look forward to further discussions on this forum.
Peace in Him,
David Murphy
B
Bob10
Guest
Free,
If the Holy Spirit were a third person, it would be the father of Jesus, which it is not ----------
"....for that which is conceived in her (Mary) is of the Holy Spirit" - Matt 1: 20.
".....she was found with child OF THE HOLY SPIRIT" - Matt 1: 18.
If the Holy Spirit were a third person, it would be the father of Jesus, which it is not ----------
"....for that which is conceived in her (Mary) is of the Holy Spirit" - Matt 1: 20.
".....she was found with child OF THE HOLY SPIRIT" - Matt 1: 18.
B
Bob10
Guest
The Holy Spirit is the power of God; it's called "the power of the Highest" in Luke 1:35.
I don't know why people insist it is a person.
I don't know why people insist it is a person.
B
Bob10
Guest
According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd edition, article: Spirit of God (all quotes come from this article) ---
"The OT (Old Testament) clearly does not envisage God's spirit as a person, neither in the strictly philosophical sense, nor in the Semitic sense. God's spirit is simply God's Power.
If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly (Isa. 48:16; 63:11; 32:15).......Very rarely do the OT writers attribute to God's spirit emotions or intellectual activity (Isa. 63:10; Wis.1:3-7). When such expressions are used, THEY ARE MERE FIGURES OF SPEECH that are explained by the fact that the RUAH was regarded also as the seat of intellectual acts and feeling (Gen. 41:8).
Neither is there found in the OT or in rabbinical literature the notion that God's spirit is an intermediary being between God and the world. This activity is proper to the angels, although to them is ascribed some of the activity that elsewhere is ascribed to the spirit of God"
THIS ENCYCLOPEDIA FURTHER STATES:
".......the NT (New Testament) concepts of the Spirit of God are largely a continuation of those of the OT.......The majority of NT texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God.
When a quasi-personal activity is ascribed to God's spirit, e.g., speaking, hindering, desiring, dwelling (Acts 8:29; 16:7; Rom.8:9), one is NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONCLUDING immediately that in these passages God's spirit is regarded as a Person; the same expressions are used in regard to rhetorically personified thingsor abstract ideas (see Rom.6:6; 7:17).
Thus the context of the phrase 'blasphemy against the spirit' (Mat.12:31; cf. Mat.12:28; Luke 11:20)shows that reference is being made to the power of God".
"The OT (Old Testament) clearly does not envisage God's spirit as a person, neither in the strictly philosophical sense, nor in the Semitic sense. God's spirit is simply God's Power.
If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly (Isa. 48:16; 63:11; 32:15).......Very rarely do the OT writers attribute to God's spirit emotions or intellectual activity (Isa. 63:10; Wis.1:3-7). When such expressions are used, THEY ARE MERE FIGURES OF SPEECH that are explained by the fact that the RUAH was regarded also as the seat of intellectual acts and feeling (Gen. 41:8).
Neither is there found in the OT or in rabbinical literature the notion that God's spirit is an intermediary being between God and the world. This activity is proper to the angels, although to them is ascribed some of the activity that elsewhere is ascribed to the spirit of God"
THIS ENCYCLOPEDIA FURTHER STATES:
".......the NT (New Testament) concepts of the Spirit of God are largely a continuation of those of the OT.......The majority of NT texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God.
When a quasi-personal activity is ascribed to God's spirit, e.g., speaking, hindering, desiring, dwelling (Acts 8:29; 16:7; Rom.8:9), one is NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONCLUDING immediately that in these passages God's spirit is regarded as a Person; the same expressions are used in regard to rhetorically personified thingsor abstract ideas (see Rom.6:6; 7:17).
Thus the context of the phrase 'blasphemy against the spirit' (Mat.12:31; cf. Mat.12:28; Luke 11:20)shows that reference is being made to the power of God".
Bob,
1. The HS speaks and uses personal pronouns - Acts 10:19-20; 13:2.
2. The HS testifies, guides, speaks, discloses future events, glorifies Christ - John 15:26; 16:13-14.
3. The HS speaks - Acts 8:29; 21:11.
4. The HS helps, intercedes with groans, intercedes for the saints - Rom. 8:26-27 (the very act of intercession demands personality).
5. The HS searches and knows the thoughts of God - 1 Cor. 2:10-11 (only persons know things; forces cannot know anything). This also shows the HS's omniscience since he knows the infinite thoughts of God.
6. The HS sets apart people for work - Acts 20:28 (acts sovereignly).
7. The HS is a witness - Acts 5:32.
8. The HS has a role in love - Rom. 5:5; 15:30 (love, by it's very nature, requires personality).
9. The HS can be blasphemed - Matt. 12:31-32 (words spoken against the HS are placed in parallel with words spoken against the Son of Man; how can a power be blasphemed?).
10. The HS can be insulted - Heb. 10:29.
11. The HS can be grieved - Eph. 4:30 (a power, or force, cannot be grieved).
I could go on, but this should be more than enough to prove the "personhood" of the Holy Spirit.
1. The HS speaks and uses personal pronouns - Acts 10:19-20; 13:2.
2. The HS testifies, guides, speaks, discloses future events, glorifies Christ - John 15:26; 16:13-14.
3. The HS speaks - Acts 8:29; 21:11.
4. The HS helps, intercedes with groans, intercedes for the saints - Rom. 8:26-27 (the very act of intercession demands personality).
5. The HS searches and knows the thoughts of God - 1 Cor. 2:10-11 (only persons know things; forces cannot know anything). This also shows the HS's omniscience since he knows the infinite thoughts of God.
6. The HS sets apart people for work - Acts 20:28 (acts sovereignly).
7. The HS is a witness - Acts 5:32.
8. The HS has a role in love - Rom. 5:5; 15:30 (love, by it's very nature, requires personality).
9. The HS can be blasphemed - Matt. 12:31-32 (words spoken against the HS are placed in parallel with words spoken against the Son of Man; how can a power be blasphemed?).
10. The HS can be insulted - Heb. 10:29.
11. The HS can be grieved - Eph. 4:30 (a power, or force, cannot be grieved).
I could go on, but this should be more than enough to prove the "personhood" of the Holy Spirit.
B
Bob10
Guest
According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd edition, article: Spirit of God ----
"When a quasi-personal activity is ascribed to God's spirit, e.g., speaking, hindering, desiring, dwelling (Acts 8:29; 16:7; Rom.8:9), one is NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONCLUDING immediately that in these passages God's spirit is regarded as a Person; the same expressions are used in regard to rhetorically personified things or abstract ideas" (see Rom.6:6; 7:17).
Even the voice of Abel's blood cried unto the LORD from the ground (Gen 4:10). Blood doesn't have a voice, nor can it speak or cry out.
Bob,
You are going to have to use a lot more than that if you want to discuss the issues. I, too, could post from several sources to prove my position, but I choose to use Scripture and reason to back up my position. All that Encyclopedia shows is that on occasion the Bible does use words for things that obviously have no personhood.
But I have gone much farther beyond anything that Encyclopedia addresses, providing multiple verses to back up what I have said. And some of them are not "quasi-personal activities," they are very personal activities which demand personality.
You are going to have to use a lot more than that if you want to discuss the issues. I, too, could post from several sources to prove my position, but I choose to use Scripture and reason to back up my position. All that Encyclopedia shows is that on occasion the Bible does use words for things that obviously have no personhood.
But I have gone much farther beyond anything that Encyclopedia addresses, providing multiple verses to back up what I have said. And some of them are not "quasi-personal activities," they are very personal activities which demand personality.
B
Bob10
Guest
Free,
Abel's blood spoke, also. That doesn't mean it was a person.
This is from the Bible (Genesis 4:10 / Hebrew 12:24 / Rev 6:10) --
Even the voice of Abel's blood cried unto the LORD from the ground (Gen 4:10). Blood doesn't have a voice, nor can it speak or cry out.
B
Bob10
Guest
about pronouns --
There is absolutely no justification for referring to the term “Holy Spirit†with masculine pronouns, even in Greek. The Greek word pneuma, usually translated “spirit†but also translated “wind†and “breath,†is a grammatically neuter word.
Yet, when the King James or Authorized Version was produced (early in the 1600s), the doctrine of the Trinity had already been accepted for more than 1,000 years. So naturally the translators of that version usually chose personal rather than neutral pronouns when referring to the Holy Spirit in English (see, for example, John 16:1314; Romans 8:26).
Notice, however, that in some passages in the KJV the translators properly used neuter pronouns. Romans 8:16, for example, says: “The Spirit itself (not himself) beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.â€Â
Matthew 10:20 and 1Peter 1:11 are other places in the KJV where the proper neuter pronouns are employed.
http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/whoi ... inity.html
http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBible/ -- type in "spirit"
There is absolutely no justification for referring to the term “Holy Spirit†with masculine pronouns, even in Greek. The Greek word pneuma, usually translated “spirit†but also translated “wind†and “breath,†is a grammatically neuter word.
Yet, when the King James or Authorized Version was produced (early in the 1600s), the doctrine of the Trinity had already been accepted for more than 1,000 years. So naturally the translators of that version usually chose personal rather than neutral pronouns when referring to the Holy Spirit in English (see, for example, John 16:1314; Romans 8:26).
Notice, however, that in some passages in the KJV the translators properly used neuter pronouns. Romans 8:16, for example, says: “The Spirit itself (not himself) beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.â€Â
Matthew 10:20 and 1Peter 1:11 are other places in the KJV where the proper neuter pronouns are employed.
http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/whoi ... inity.html
http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBible/ -- type in "spirit"
Bob,
Yes, about pronouns. That first site you provided is based on poor reasoning and just as the author claims Bible translators are biased in their interpretation, so is she biased against the Trinity which affects her translation.
She completely ignores other Scripture which indicate the Spirit's personality, as do you. See point #1 from my previous post, for starters.
Also:
She provides no good reason as to why these pronouns shouldn't be translated as they are. Also, she ignores what Jesus said in John 14:16, ""I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper [parakletos], that He may be with you forever." The word "another" essentially means "like the first one, but distinct" or "an additional one similar to the first."
This means that Jesus is also a parakletos, and yet I'm sure that she wouldn't translate the pronouns referring to Christ as "it." So why does she argue against "he" or "him" when in referrence to the Holy Spirit as parakletos?
Not only that, the following point she makes contradicts her previous point:
She wants to have it both ways: neuter nouns require neuter pronouns, but masculine pronouns are sometimes grammatically incorrect when referring masculine nouns. How does that work? I do realize that in the Greek, pronouns do not necessarily indicate personality, but that doesn't mean we can pick and choose which way we want to translate pronouns.
If Greek masculine pronouns can be translated as "it," then surely neuter pronouns can be translated as "he."
I really like the following mistake, although it isn't an error in reasoning; it just made me chuckle:
"For example, in French the word livre, meaning “book,†is of the masculine gender and is referred to by a pronoun equivalent to the English “h/u].†"
Yet, she states this: "By the same token, you would never translate a particular French sentence as “I’m looking for my book so I can read her.†"
I could go on about that site, but it really isn't necessary. I think I've proved my point.
Yes, about pronouns. That first site you provided is based on poor reasoning and just as the author claims Bible translators are biased in their interpretation, so is she biased against the Trinity which affects her translation.
She completely ignores other Scripture which indicate the Spirit's personality, as do you. See point #1 from my previous post, for starters.
Also:
She provides no good reason as to why these pronouns shouldn't be translated as they are. Also, she ignores what Jesus said in John 14:16, ""I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper [parakletos], that He may be with you forever." The word "another" essentially means "like the first one, but distinct" or "an additional one similar to the first."
This means that Jesus is also a parakletos, and yet I'm sure that she wouldn't translate the pronouns referring to Christ as "it." So why does she argue against "he" or "him" when in referrence to the Holy Spirit as parakletos?
Not only that, the following point she makes contradicts her previous point:
She wants to have it both ways: neuter nouns require neuter pronouns, but masculine pronouns are sometimes grammatically incorrect when referring masculine nouns. How does that work? I do realize that in the Greek, pronouns do not necessarily indicate personality, but that doesn't mean we can pick and choose which way we want to translate pronouns.
If Greek masculine pronouns can be translated as "it," then surely neuter pronouns can be translated as "he."
I really like the following mistake, although it isn't an error in reasoning; it just made me chuckle:
"For example, in French the word livre, meaning “book,†is of the masculine gender and is referred to by a pronoun equivalent to the English “h/u].†"
Yet, she states this: "By the same token, you would never translate a particular French sentence as “I’m looking for my book so I can read her.†"
I could go on about that site, but it really isn't necessary. I think I've proved my point.
B
Bob10
Guest
Free,
Jesus likewise never spoke of the Holy Spirit as a divine third person. Instead, in numerous passages He spoke only of the relationship between God the Father and Himself (Matthew 26:39; Mark 13:32; 15:34; John 5:18,22; etc.). The Holy Spirit as a person is conspicuously absent from Christ’s teaching in general. Of particular interest in this regard are His many statements about Himself and the Father, especially when He never makes similar statements about Himself and the Holy Spirit.
We should also consider that, in visions of God’s throne recorded in the Bible, although the Father and Christ are seen, the Holy Spirit is never seen (Acts 7:55-56; Daniel 7:9-14; Revelation 4-5; 7:10). Jesus is repeatedly mentioned as being at the right hand of God, but no one is mentioned as being at the Father’s left hand. Nowhere are three divine persons pictured together in the Scriptures.
http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/whoisGod/spirit.html
Agree ------------------------------------------
Jesus likewise never spoke of the Holy Spirit as a divine third person. Instead, in numerous passages He spoke only of the relationship between God the Father and Himself (Matthew 26:39; Mark 13:32; 15:34; John 5:18,22; etc.). The Holy Spirit as a person is conspicuously absent from Christ’s teaching in general. Of particular interest in this regard are His many statements about Himself and the Father, especially when He never makes similar statements about Himself and the Holy Spirit.
We should also consider that, in visions of God’s throne recorded in the Bible, although the Father and Christ are seen, the Holy Spirit is never seen (Acts 7:55-56; Daniel 7:9-14; Revelation 4-5; 7:10). Jesus is repeatedly mentioned as being at the right hand of God, but no one is mentioned as being at the Father’s left hand. Nowhere are three divine persons pictured together in the Scriptures.
http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/whoisGod/spirit.html