1. "These things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. 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. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual." (1 Corithians 2:10-13)
Trinitarians use the fact that the Holy Spirit can know something as proof it's a person. But these texts say that our spirits likewise "know us." Is God's holy spirit not compared to ours within these passages quite readily? Are our "knowing" spirits separate persons within our "very beings" simply because they're personifiable? If not, how could you possibly use such proof that God's is, especially considering the comparison of His with ours?
If even our spirits are personifiable , how much more would the creator of the whole universe's be?
"The occasional personifications which he (Paul) employs do not go beyond the personifications found in the OT and in Judaism."-John L. Mckenzie Bible dictionary p. 883
"When the spirit is the mode of God's presence in the hearts and minds of His people, then there is a good case for personal language."-C.F.D Moule "The Holy Spirit" p.50
"How different is it to speak of the Holy Spirit as guiding and to speak of wisdom as reproving, guarding, and keeping? How different is it to speak of the holy spirit as being grieved and to speak of love as being patient, enduring, not quick to take offense or irritable?"-from essay "What is the Holy Spirit" by Ray Franz
2. A fine example of Hebrew Parallelism is found in Job 33:4:
"The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life."
This concise beautiful passage is saying the same thing in two different simple ways. The breath of the Almighty could apparently be one reliable God-breathed definition of his spirit! Yep, his spirit defining his spirit for us! ;) SO are you going to believe God that his spirit is his "breath" or are you going to believe your tradition that his spirit is the "third person" of his "very being"? What's inspired? This passage or your dogma?
3. Examine also:
"The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35)
Yes, it's another example of Hebrew parallelism where no guessing is needed to come to a concise spirit-derived definition of the Holy Spirit. So, would you be unequivocally comfortable admitting that the Holy Spirit is the "power of the Most High?" Would that be good enough for you? And how is that reconcilable with the spirit supposedly being God's third person?
Another conundrum that should arise for trinitarians when they read Luke 1:35 is how it can be reconciled that the Holy Spirit is Jesus's father yet Jesus always called God the father his father. Wouldn't logic lead us to believe that the one in the supposed triune entity that actually fathered Jesus would be called Jesus's father? Rather, could it be that the Most High Only True God is Jesus's father and impregnated Mary by means of His spirit, or power?
4. Did you know that Spirit is actually a neuter noun, meaning it shouldn't necessarily (at least not technically) be translated as "he" or him" or "who" etc. but rather as "it."
To quote Greek scholar Jason Beduhn (certain portions removed to keep it briefer):
"The Holy Spirit is referred to by a neuter noun in Greek. It is a "which," not a "who." It is an "it" not a "he." To take a word that everywhere else would be translated "which" or "that," and arbitrarily change it to "who" or "whom" when it happens to be used of "the holy spirit," is a kind of special pleading. In other words, it is a biased way to translate. And because this arbitrary change cannot be justified linguistically, it is also inaccurate."-from "Truth in Translation" pp.140-141
Do I agree with every conclusion Beduhn reaches in his book? Nope. I have no personal issue with using personal pronouns for the holy spirit because it is God himself in action and presence!
However, there is inescapable technical truth in Beduhn's statements. If it causes a trinitarian mind to run in the wrong vein because personal pronouns are used of it, then I also need to make apparent the technical admission that translating neuter nouns as personal ones is bias and misleading (especially when accompanied by rampant false indoctrination) to be sure. Bible translators aren't absolutely trustworthy or inspired. Only God, Jesus, and the original spirit-breathed word are!
5. Now to cover a text those who believe God's spirit is God's third person love to use to prove that it is:
"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." (Acts 13:2)
Could it be that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is speaking through others by means of His spirit? That the teachers and prophets are speaking in this text who have the father's spirit? If the father is utilizing his own spirit to speak through others, could it not be said "The Holy Spirit said." Without the father's spirit suddenly becoming a third person in his supposed triune essence? When the holy spirit speaks, it is God speaking, sometimes through others, by means of his holy spirit, again, and quite simply!
6. "The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children." (Romans 8:16)
If God's spirit testifying to ours means God's is a person, then how could ours understand unless it likewise was?
7. Since the Holy Spirit is supposedly a coequal consubstantial member of the Godhead, just as valuable and noteworthy as the other two members, how could it be that you will find no mention of or regard for him in any of the opening salutations within the epistles? Those scripted by Paul and others who modern day trinitarians claim were fellow trinitarians? If the philosophies inherent in the belief are factual, would this not be an inexcusable travesty? How could they in good conscience, and being inspired, continually and repeatedly forget the third person in their Holy God? (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; II Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2; Phil. 1:2; Col. 1:2; 1 Thes. 1:1; II Thes. 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:2; II Tim. 1:2; Titus 1:4; II Pet. 1:2). It's rather always about God our father and the Lord Jesus Christ. They shouldn't be at the forefront while there's an inexcusable neglect to acknowledge the third member in their essence if he is supposedly coequal and consubstantial and the Only True God like the father is!
8. Did you know that Justin Martyr (2nd century ce) taught that the holy spirit "was an influence or a mode of operation of the deity." ? And that it wasn't until the 4th century that The Holy Spirit as God's supposed "third person" became church dogma? Does that sound like Watchtower "new light" to you? It does to me.
9. "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin." (Mark 3:29)
In the world of trinitarianism, this statement in Mark should cause yet another conundrum, an issue of sheer inexplicableness! For how in the world could blasphemy against the third person in God's triune essence be unforgivable, yet there never be a statement of such about blasphemy against the father or the son? Why is he singled out all by his lonely in this capacity? This could only, I repeat and emphasize only, make sense if it's blasphemy against God the father himself since he uses his own spirit to reach and speak to mankind, often, again, through Messiah Jesus.
10. In Psalm 51, David poured out his heart in repentance to Yahweh and begged Him not to remove His spirit from him. Was David begging for God not to remove the third person of a triune God from him? Was David trinitarian? Even trinitarians know he wasn't! So what did he think God's Holy Spirit was?
From Barnes' notes on the OT, Psalms vol.1 p.88:
"It is not certain that David understood by the phrase"Your Holy spirit" precisely what is now denoted by it as referring to the third person of the trinity. The language, as used by him, would denote some influence coming from God producing holiness, as if God breathed His own spirit, or self, into the soul."
Wow, even trinitarian bias commentaries are honest Abes sometimes, but where the heck's the consistency?
Trinitarians use the fact that the Holy Spirit can know something as proof it's a person. But these texts say that our spirits likewise "know us." Is God's holy spirit not compared to ours within these passages quite readily? Are our "knowing" spirits separate persons within our "very beings" simply because they're personifiable? If not, how could you possibly use such proof that God's is, especially considering the comparison of His with ours?
If even our spirits are personifiable , how much more would the creator of the whole universe's be?
"The occasional personifications which he (Paul) employs do not go beyond the personifications found in the OT and in Judaism."-John L. Mckenzie Bible dictionary p. 883
"When the spirit is the mode of God's presence in the hearts and minds of His people, then there is a good case for personal language."-C.F.D Moule "The Holy Spirit" p.50
"How different is it to speak of the Holy Spirit as guiding and to speak of wisdom as reproving, guarding, and keeping? How different is it to speak of the holy spirit as being grieved and to speak of love as being patient, enduring, not quick to take offense or irritable?"-from essay "What is the Holy Spirit" by Ray Franz
2. A fine example of Hebrew Parallelism is found in Job 33:4:
"The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life."
This concise beautiful passage is saying the same thing in two different simple ways. The breath of the Almighty could apparently be one reliable God-breathed definition of his spirit! Yep, his spirit defining his spirit for us! ;) SO are you going to believe God that his spirit is his "breath" or are you going to believe your tradition that his spirit is the "third person" of his "very being"? What's inspired? This passage or your dogma?
3. Examine also:
"The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35)
Yes, it's another example of Hebrew parallelism where no guessing is needed to come to a concise spirit-derived definition of the Holy Spirit. So, would you be unequivocally comfortable admitting that the Holy Spirit is the "power of the Most High?" Would that be good enough for you? And how is that reconcilable with the spirit supposedly being God's third person?
Another conundrum that should arise for trinitarians when they read Luke 1:35 is how it can be reconciled that the Holy Spirit is Jesus's father yet Jesus always called God the father his father. Wouldn't logic lead us to believe that the one in the supposed triune entity that actually fathered Jesus would be called Jesus's father? Rather, could it be that the Most High Only True God is Jesus's father and impregnated Mary by means of His spirit, or power?
4. Did you know that Spirit is actually a neuter noun, meaning it shouldn't necessarily (at least not technically) be translated as "he" or him" or "who" etc. but rather as "it."
To quote Greek scholar Jason Beduhn (certain portions removed to keep it briefer):
"The Holy Spirit is referred to by a neuter noun in Greek. It is a "which," not a "who." It is an "it" not a "he." To take a word that everywhere else would be translated "which" or "that," and arbitrarily change it to "who" or "whom" when it happens to be used of "the holy spirit," is a kind of special pleading. In other words, it is a biased way to translate. And because this arbitrary change cannot be justified linguistically, it is also inaccurate."-from "Truth in Translation" pp.140-141
Do I agree with every conclusion Beduhn reaches in his book? Nope. I have no personal issue with using personal pronouns for the holy spirit because it is God himself in action and presence!
However, there is inescapable technical truth in Beduhn's statements. If it causes a trinitarian mind to run in the wrong vein because personal pronouns are used of it, then I also need to make apparent the technical admission that translating neuter nouns as personal ones is bias and misleading (especially when accompanied by rampant false indoctrination) to be sure. Bible translators aren't absolutely trustworthy or inspired. Only God, Jesus, and the original spirit-breathed word are!
5. Now to cover a text those who believe God's spirit is God's third person love to use to prove that it is:
"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." (Acts 13:2)
Could it be that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is speaking through others by means of His spirit? That the teachers and prophets are speaking in this text who have the father's spirit? If the father is utilizing his own spirit to speak through others, could it not be said "The Holy Spirit said." Without the father's spirit suddenly becoming a third person in his supposed triune essence? When the holy spirit speaks, it is God speaking, sometimes through others, by means of his holy spirit, again, and quite simply!
6. "The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children." (Romans 8:16)
If God's spirit testifying to ours means God's is a person, then how could ours understand unless it likewise was?
7. Since the Holy Spirit is supposedly a coequal consubstantial member of the Godhead, just as valuable and noteworthy as the other two members, how could it be that you will find no mention of or regard for him in any of the opening salutations within the epistles? Those scripted by Paul and others who modern day trinitarians claim were fellow trinitarians? If the philosophies inherent in the belief are factual, would this not be an inexcusable travesty? How could they in good conscience, and being inspired, continually and repeatedly forget the third person in their Holy God? (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; II Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2; Phil. 1:2; Col. 1:2; 1 Thes. 1:1; II Thes. 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:2; II Tim. 1:2; Titus 1:4; II Pet. 1:2). It's rather always about God our father and the Lord Jesus Christ. They shouldn't be at the forefront while there's an inexcusable neglect to acknowledge the third member in their essence if he is supposedly coequal and consubstantial and the Only True God like the father is!
8. Did you know that Justin Martyr (2nd century ce) taught that the holy spirit "was an influence or a mode of operation of the deity." ? And that it wasn't until the 4th century that The Holy Spirit as God's supposed "third person" became church dogma? Does that sound like Watchtower "new light" to you? It does to me.
9. "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin." (Mark 3:29)
In the world of trinitarianism, this statement in Mark should cause yet another conundrum, an issue of sheer inexplicableness! For how in the world could blasphemy against the third person in God's triune essence be unforgivable, yet there never be a statement of such about blasphemy against the father or the son? Why is he singled out all by his lonely in this capacity? This could only, I repeat and emphasize only, make sense if it's blasphemy against God the father himself since he uses his own spirit to reach and speak to mankind, often, again, through Messiah Jesus.
10. In Psalm 51, David poured out his heart in repentance to Yahweh and begged Him not to remove His spirit from him. Was David begging for God not to remove the third person of a triune God from him? Was David trinitarian? Even trinitarians know he wasn't! So what did he think God's Holy Spirit was?
From Barnes' notes on the OT, Psalms vol.1 p.88:
"It is not certain that David understood by the phrase"Your Holy spirit" precisely what is now denoted by it as referring to the third person of the trinity. The language, as used by him, would denote some influence coming from God producing holiness, as if God breathed His own spirit, or self, into the soul."
Wow, even trinitarian bias commentaries are honest Abes sometimes, but where the heck's the consistency?
Comments
Post a Comment