Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Why I think A John did not consider Holy Spirit to be a person

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why I think A John did not consider Holy Spirit to be a person

    He wrote both the Revelation and the Gospel of John. So letís inspect .

    Revelation 13:14:


    καὶ πλανᾷ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς διὰ τὰ σημεῖα ἃ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ποιῆσαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θηρίου, λέγων τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ποιῆσαι εἰκόνα τῷ θηρίῳ, ὃς ἔχει τὴν πληγὴν τῆς μαχαίρης καὶ ἔζησεν.

    The beast is a personality/a person, so the apostle uses a masculine relative pronoun to refer to him via ad sensum.

    John 14:17:


    τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὁ κόσμος οὐ δύναται λαβεῖν, ὅτι οὐ θεωρεῖ αὐτὸ οὐδὲ γινώσκει∑ ὑμεῖς γινώσκετε αὐτό, ὅτι παρ' ὑμῖν μένει καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ἐστίν.

    The apostle does not refer to Holy Spirit with a masculine relative pronoun via ad sensum. Nor even with reference to the personal pronouns.

  • #2
    Originally posted by John Milton View Post
    He wrote both the Revelation and the Gospel of John. So let’s inspect .

    Revelation 13:14:


    καὶ πλανᾷ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς διὰ τὰ σημεῖα ἃ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ποιῆσαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θηρίου, λέγων τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ποιῆσαι εἰκόνα τῷ θηρίῳ, ὃς ἔχει τὴν πληγὴν τῆς μαχαίρης καὶ ἔζησεν.

    The beast is a personality/a person, so the apostle uses a masculine relative pronoun to refer to him via ad sensum.

    John 14:17:


    τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὁ κόσμος οὐ δύναται λαβεῖν, ὅτι οὐ θεωρεῖ αὐτὸ οὐδὲ γινώσκει∑ ὑμεῖς γινώσκετε αὐτό, ὅτι παρ' ὑμῖν μένει καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ἐστίν.

    The apostle does not refer to Holy Spirit with a masculine relative pronoun via ad sensum. Nor even with reference to the personal pronouns.
    I'm not an english major...but in Acts 5:3 Lukes tells us you can lie to the Holy Spirit. Doesn't that make the Holy Spirit a person?

    But Peter said, ďAnanias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by CrowCross View Post

      I'm not an english major...but in Acts 5:3 Lukes tells us you can lie to the Holy Spirit. Doesn't that make the Holy Spirit a person?

      But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land?
      No, here the Holy Spirit is a circumlocution for God himself (i.e. the Father). I started a thread on this very issue here not too long ago.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by John Milton View Post

        No, here the Holy Spirit is a circumlocution for God himself (i.e. the Father). I started a thread on this very issue here not too long ago.
        I didn't know you could lie to a circumlocution.

        I didn't know you could grieve a circumlocution. Eph 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

        I could go on, but, the bible demonstrates the Holy Spirit is a "person"

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by CrowCross View Post
          I could go on, but, the bible demonstrates the Holy Spirit is a "person"
          Indeed, if Jesus was one paraclete (παράκλητος) and the Holy Spirit was another paraclete, how can there be doubt that Jesus conceived of the Holy Spirit as a person? A rock cannot be a paraclete, nor can a dog. A paraclete is a person, and the Holy Spirit is a paraclete.
          I have permission to post on the Biblical Languages forum, as per email correspondence with Diane S.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Jameson View Post

            Indeed, if Jesus was one paraclete (παράκλητος) and the Holy Spirit was another paraclete, how can there be doubt that Jesus conceived of the Holy Spirit as a person? A rock cannot be a paraclete, nor can a dog. A paraclete is a person, and the Holy Spirit is a paraclete.
            Indeed. But such an explanation won't work with those who believe that the statement πνεῦμα is never referred to with a masculine pronoun is the same thing as saying that the Holy Spirit is never referred to with a masculine pronoun. You already know they only acknowledge evidence that they think agrees with them.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
              those who believe that the statement πνεῦμα is never referred to with a masculine pronoun.
              This is not John's belief, although it is mine. However, I do not see it very relevant to the "Personhood" discussion. The grammatical "facts on the ground" only eliminate one argument that the grammar itself impels personhood. One could still accept Holy Spirit personhood on a doctrinal-interpretative level.

              John (wrongly) thinks that pneuma is referred to with a masculine pronoun a couple of times in Mark when it represents a devil spirit, in our famous constructio ad sensum theory, but not when pneuma is part of a reference to the Holy Spirit. Thus, he offers an evidence from silence, that since the Holy Spirit is not given the same treatment as the devil spirit, this is evidence that the Holy Spirit does not have the personhood element ascribed to the devil spirit.

              Hey, I didn't come up with this stuff, I'm just explaining it clear as possible. As I reject the idea that pneuma is ever given a masculine grammar anywhere in the New Testament.

              And I am not sure how John dances around the short (corrupt) text of the earthly witnesses, but for some consistency is not a real concern. Daniel Wallace had to face the same issue, and did a little dance, and John presumably joins him in the two-step.
              Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-20-19, 01:36 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jameson View Post
                Indeed, if Jesus was one paraclete (παράκλητος) and the Holy Spirit was another paraclete, how can there be doubt that Jesus conceived of the Holy Spirit as a person? A rock cannot be a paraclete, nor can a dog. A paraclete is a person, and the Holy Spirit is a paraclete]
                This is a facile argument.

                If I say that Jesus Christ is a revelation to the Christian believer, and the pure and perfect Bible is another revelation, surely that does not give the Bible all the attributes of Jesus Christ, such as personhood.

                Originally posted by CrowCross View Post
                I didn't know you could lie to a circumlocution.I didn't know you could grieve a circumlocution. Eph 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
                It looks like John recently read an article about circumlocution, so that is now the nail for his hammer.

                I'm trying to steer him to subordinate clauses and parentheticals in grammar parsing, which is generally equivalent in a literal English like the AV and the Greek text.
                Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-20-19, 01:41 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                  This is not John's belief, although it is mine. John (wrongly) thinks that pneuma is referred to with a masculine pronoun a couple of times in Mark when it represents a devil spirit, in our famous constructio ad sensum theory, but not when pneuma is part of a reference to the Holy Spirit.

                  And I am not sure how he dances around the short (corrupt) text of the earthly witnesses, but for some consistency is not a real concern.
                  You can't shorten what I said in the manner you have without changing the meaning of my statement. If JM doesn't believe both parts of the statement that I wrote, then my comment clearly doesn't apply to him. If you believe that those two statements mean the same thing, you are are a member of the group that I was addressing. If you don't, then it doesn't apply to you either. This isn't hard to understand.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
                    . If JM doesn't believe both parts of the statement that I wrote, then my comment clearly doesn't apply to him.
                    It was his thread, and the first part of your comment t part did not apply to John, so your comment did not apply to John.

                    If you want my take:

                    Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
                    ...such an explanation won't work with those who believe that the statement πνεῦμα is never referred to with a masculine pronoun is the same thing as saying that the Holy Spirit is never referred to with a masculine pronoun.
                    Grammatically, that makes sense, since the Holy Spirit is a subset of the pneuma. I know you get diverted into the equivalence of the Comforter and the Holy Spirit and thus you would like to transfer over the masculine pronoun, but that is neither here .. nor there.

                    In addition, I explained the problem with Jameson's logic, while you agreed, "Indeed.." with what he wrote.
                    Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-20-19, 03:10 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                      In addition, I explained the problem with Jameson's logic, while you agreed, "Indeed.." with what he wrote.
                      Oh... that's your point...
                      I have permission to post on the Biblical Languages forum, as per email correspondence with Diane S.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jameson View Post

                        Indeed, if Jesus was one paraclete (παράκλητος) and the Holy Spirit was another paraclete, how can there be doubt that Jesus conceived of the Holy Spirit as a person? A rock cannot be a paraclete, nor can a dog. A paraclete is a person, and the Holy Spirit is a paraclete.
                        If that rock or dog starting counselling or rebuking selected individuals by God’s will it surely would become a παράκλητος of/from God. Would consider Balaamís donkey to be a person when it spoke or attribute the personality to the One who caused it to speak ? Silliness.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                          It was his thread, and the first part of your comment t part did not apply to John, so your comment did not apply to John.
                          I never explicitly stated that what I said applied to JM. I was making a statement about a class of people, and did not place any specific individual in that class. You seem unable to understand this, but it is your problem not mine. Additionally, I wasn't responding to JM as should have been clear when I quoted Jameson.



                          If you want my take: Grammatically, that makes sense, since the Holy Spirit is a subset of the pneuma. I know you get diverted into the equivalence of the Comforter and the Holy Spirit and thus you would like to transfer over the masculine pronoun, but that is neither here .. nor there.
                          I really don't care if you respond or not, but what you said is interesting. It shows that you are aware of the flaws in your argument but choose to ignore rather than address them.


                          In addition, I explained the problem with Jameson's logic, while you agreed, "Indeed.." with what he wrote.
                          Do you know of a passage where the term παράκλητος refers to something other than a "person?" (I am using the term loosely here to refer to any personal entity.) I will tell you before you look that I am unaware of the word being used in a way that doesn't refer to a person. If you wish to be consistent in applying your logic about πνεῦμα, you should produce an example of that type of usage or be willing to admit that παράκλητος is only used with personal referents. Good luck.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Jameson View Post
                            Oh... that's your point...
                            Here, above:

                            Originally posted by Jameson View Post
                            Indeed, if Jesus was one paraclete (παράκλητος) and the Holy Spirit was another paraclete, how can there be doubt that Jesus conceived of the Holy Spirit as a person? A rock cannot be a paraclete, nor can a dog. A paraclete is a person, and the Holy Spirit is a paraclete.
                            Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                            If I say that Jesus Christ is a revelation to the Christian believer, and the pure and perfect Bible is another revelation, surely that does not give the Bible all the attributes of Jesus Christ, such as personhood.
                            Your logic was flawed, and I showed why, by analogy.

                            And I thought you might appreciate the interaction, iron sharpeneth.

                            There may be good arguments for the Holy Spirit being a person, but not the one you gave above. John Milton's engaging Balaam's donkey is also in the ballpark.
                            Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-20-19, 07:20 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
                              Do you know of a passage where the term παράκλητος refers to something other than a "person?"
                              You are reversing the burden of evidence and proof.

                              It is the person who claims the Comforter is a person who has to explain what they mean, and why.

                              And I do not see scripture using the terminology of God-persons, so some extrapolation would be necessary.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X