Possessive Case: "HIS" Holy Spirit Is Not Another Divine Being

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

May 26th, 2013, 7:07 pm #11

Anonymous
(no login)
74.179.244.182
Re: Possessive Case: "HIS" Holy Spirit Is Not Another Divine Being
May 25 2013, 9:28 PM


Just remember that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not bound by man-made "grammatical rules." They are who they are, regardless of man's vain and feeble attempts to categorize and cage them grammatically.
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Even translations of the Greek New Testament should be bound by "grammatical rules." There are many instances in which the gender must be assigned as the subject of a clause in order to complete the meaning of a statement, such as by any of the following pronouns (he, she, it, etc.).

A good example (among many) is found in John 1:32. "And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and [___________] abode upon him."

Inconsistent as translators and translations may be, that passage is translated correctly in that the pronoun "it" preceding the word completes the meaning of the passage. Oops!!! The translator referred to "the Spirit" as an "it."

Inconsistent as translators and translations may be, here's another passage that is translated correctly in Romans 8:16. "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God."

There are other passages with the same grammatical structure.

Translations beginning in the 1500s have been influenced by the Trinity Doctrine made official by the Nicene Creed (Roman Catholic Church, the emperor and the papacy) in the 4th century. Translators identified the 3rd PERSON HOLY SPIRIT as God based on the Trinity Creed -- and used, in a number of instances, the pronoun "HE" to assign a masculine gender to the spirit of God which is holy.

I have researched that there are times when translators forget about God's holy spirit being masculine. This is not a complete list of passages, but they certainly validate (without the influence of the Trinity Creed) that God's holy spirit is not another Divine Being:[/color]
  • [color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times](But this spake he of the Spirit, WHICH they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) [John 7:39][/color]

    </li>
  • [color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times]Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit WHICH is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. (I Cor. 2:12)[/color]

    </li>
  • [color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times]For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, WHICH ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (II Cor. 11:4)[/color]

    </li>
  • [color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times]And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit WHICH he hath given us. (I John 3:24)[/color]
    </li>
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]If God's holy spirit were a separate Divine Being, these and other passages would not have used the word "which," but rather "Who" or "Whom." Trinitarians would erroneously identify as follows:

[/color]
  • [color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times]... the Spirit, WHOM they that believe on him should receive[/color]
    </li>
  • [color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times]... the spirit WHO is of God[/color]
    </li>
  • [color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times]... spirit, WHOM ye have not received[/color]
    </li>
  • [color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times]... the Spirit WHOM he hath given us[/color]
    </li>
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Thanks to grammatical rules. There are times when passages dealing with "the spirit of the Lord" are correctly translated; there are times when they are not. "WHICH" and "IT" and "ITSELF" are correct.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

May 26th, 2013, 7:30 pm #12

I agree with the Bible in referring to the Father and Son as "He." I also agree with the Bible in referring to the Holy Spirit as "He." I know of no mainstream translation that refers to the Holy Spirit as "it"; instead, translations call the Holy Spirit "He," regardless of the fact that the Holy Spirit is not a "third person." Since we know that neither the Father nor the Son are persons, yet each is referred to as "He" in the Bible, then it is only proper and consistent to keep referring to the Holy Spirit as "He."

If, however, you feel strongly that the Holy Spirit is an "it," then perhaps you could persuade one of the more progressive Bible publishers, like Zondervan, to publish a Bible that refers to the Holy Spirit as "it."
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]I really appreciate your dialogue.

You have a point if we leave and/or accept translations alone as they are or if we have no concerns about proper or improper translations.

Please review my response to another message you posted -- it is regarding translations of the Greek New Testament. ((I have made a research/study a few years ago in which I listed:

(1) passages which used "he" or "him" in reference to "God's holy spirit" [oops! there's that ownership again]; also,

(2) passages which used "it" or "itself" or "which" in reference to "the holy spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ" [oops! there's that "owned" vs. "owner" again].

Somehow I misplaced my study notes.))[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

May 26th, 2013, 7:51 pm #13

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Even translations of the Greek New Testament should be bound by "grammatical rules." There are many instances in which the gender must be assigned as the subject of a clause in order to complete the meaning of a statement, such as by any of the following pronouns (he, she, it, etc.).

A good example (among many) is found in John 1:32. "And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and [___________] abode upon him."

Inconsistent as translators and translations may be, that passage is translated correctly in that the pronoun "it" preceding the word completes the meaning of the passage. Oops!!! The translator referred to "the Spirit" as an "it."

Inconsistent as translators and translations may be, here's another passage that is translated correctly in Romans 8:16. "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God."

There are other passages with the same grammatical structure.

Translations beginning in the 1500s have been influenced by the Trinity Doctrine made official by the Nicene Creed (Roman Catholic Church, the emperor and the papacy) in the 4th century. Translators identified the 3rd PERSON HOLY SPIRIT as God based on the Trinity Creed -- and used, in a number of instances, the pronoun "HE" to assign a masculine gender to the spirit of God which is holy.

I have researched that there are times when translators forget about God's holy spirit being masculine. This is not a complete list of passages, but they certainly validate (without the influence of the Trinity Creed) that God's holy spirit is not another Divine Being:[/color]
  • [color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times](But this spake he of the Spirit, WHICH they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) [John 7:39][/color]

    </li>
  • [color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times]Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit WHICH is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. (I Cor. 2:12)[/color]

    </li>
  • [color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times]For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, WHICH ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (II Cor. 11:4)[/color]

    </li>
  • [color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times]And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit WHICH he hath given us. (I John 3:24)[/color]
    </li>
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]If God's holy spirit were a separate Divine Being, these and other passages would not have used the word "which," but rather "Who" or "Whom." Trinitarians would erroneously identify as follows:

[/color]
  • [color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times]... the Spirit, WHOM they that believe on him should receive[/color]
    </li>
  • [color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times]... the spirit WHO is of God[/color]
    </li>
  • [color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times]... spirit, WHOM ye have not received[/color]
    </li>
  • [color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times]... the Spirit WHOM he hath given us[/color]
    </li>
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Thanks to grammatical rules. There are times when passages dealing with "the spirit of the Lord" are correctly translated; there are times when they are not. "WHICH" and "IT" and "ITSELF" are correct.[/color]
Tom Moore and Fish Spirit OF fishinessJob 26:13 By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent.

Job 26:1 But Job answered and said,
Job 26:2 How hast thou helped him that is without power? how savest thou the arm that hath no strength?
Job 26:3 How hast thou counselled him that hath no wisdom? and how hast thou plentifully declared the thing as it is?
Job 26:4 To whom hast thou uttered words?
and WHOSE spirit came from thee?

Job 26:5 Dead things are formed from under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof.
Job 26:6 Hell is naked before HIM, and destruction hath no covering.
Job 26:7 HE stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
Job 26:8 HE bindeth up the waters in HIS thick clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them.
Job 26:9 HE holdeth back the face of his throne, and spreadeth HIS cloud upon it.
Job 26:10 HE hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.
Job 26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at HIS reproof.
Job 26:12 HE divideth the sea with HIS power, and by HIS understanding HE smiteth through the proud.
Job 26:13 HIS SPIRIT HE hath garnished the heavens; HIS HAND hath formed the crooked serpent.
Job 26:14 Lo, these are parts of HIS ways: but how little a portion is heard of HIM? but the thunder of HIS power who can understand?

Job 27:1 Moreover Job continued <b>HIS parable, and said, </b>

Notice that the HAND is to God what our hand is to us and that God's Spirit has the same relationship to God as God's Spirit. His Spirit takes the gender of the person. He has the SPIRIT of nastiness is a real PERSON only in the case of posters who are locked up in "father, spirit (mother) and spirit".

HIS is another one of those "spirit OF grammer wickedness" to fool the foolish.
Last edited by Ken.Sublett on May 27th, 2013, 2:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

May 26th, 2013, 8:24 pm #14

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Even translations of the Greek New Testament should be bound by "grammatical rules." There are many instances in which the gender must be assigned as the subject of a clause in order to complete the meaning of a statement, such as by any of the following pronouns (he, she, it, etc.).

A good example (among many) is found in John 1:32. "And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and [___________] abode upon him."

Inconsistent as translators and translations may be, that passage is translated correctly in that the pronoun "it" preceding the word completes the meaning of the passage. Oops!!! The translator referred to "the Spirit" as an "it."

Inconsistent as translators and translations may be, here's another passage that is translated correctly in Romans 8:16. "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God."

There are other passages with the same grammatical structure.

Translations beginning in the 1500s have been influenced by the Trinity Doctrine made official by the Nicene Creed (Roman Catholic Church, the emperor and the papacy) in the 4th century. Translators identified the 3rd PERSON HOLY SPIRIT as God based on the Trinity Creed -- and used, in a number of instances, the pronoun "HE" to assign a masculine gender to the spirit of God which is holy.

I have researched that there are times when translators forget about God's holy spirit being masculine. This is not a complete list of passages, but they certainly validate (without the influence of the Trinity Creed) that God's holy spirit is not another Divine Being:[/color]
  • [color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times](But this spake he of the Spirit, WHICH they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) [John 7:39][/color]

    </li>
  • [color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times]Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit WHICH is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. (I Cor. 2:12)[/color]

    </li>
  • [color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times]For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, WHICH ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (II Cor. 11:4)[/color]

    </li>
  • [color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times]And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit WHICH he hath given us. (I John 3:24)[/color]
    </li>
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]If God's holy spirit were a separate Divine Being, these and other passages would not have used the word "which," but rather "Who" or "Whom." Trinitarians would erroneously identify as follows:

[/color]
  • [color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times]... the Spirit, WHOM they that believe on him should receive[/color]
    </li>
  • [color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times]... the spirit WHO is of God[/color]
    </li>
  • [color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times]... spirit, WHOM ye have not received[/color]
    </li>
  • [color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times]... the Spirit WHOM he hath given us[/color]
    </li>
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Thanks to grammatical rules. There are times when passages dealing with "the spirit of the Lord" are correctly translated; there are times when they are not. "WHICH" and "IT" and "ITSELF" are correct.[/color]
We need to trust the ancient translators to be correct; otherwise, why trust ANYTHING in the Bible they translated? If we say one passage is translated correctly whereas another passage is translated incorrectly, then we give the impression that we accept or reject different passages of translation based only on our personal preferences and biases. That's selective theology. Since the Bible translators gave a masculine pronoun to the Holy Spirit, then to contradict them with "it" says that all the translators were wrong and only the few people today who call the Holy Spirit "it" are right. That line of reasoning is similar to the person who suffers from the delusion that s/he is the only sane person in the world and everybody else is crazy. Therefore, the I-alone-am-right-and-all-the-rest-of-you-are-wrong tactic just doesn't cut the mustard.
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

May 26th, 2013, 10:27 pm #15

Speaking of allegedly "wrong" translations or "spurious" translations, some folks assert that the last 12 verses of Mark are "spurious" and should not even be in the New Testament. Of course, they happen not be believe that baptism is essential for salvation, so they "conveniently" find a way to scratch the final 12 verses of Mark to suit their own preferences. And then some Bible commentaries by denominationalists assert that Acts 2:38 was either "wrongly" translated or that Peter didn't really teach that baptism was a requirement for the forgiveness of sins. Such people assert that, upon accepting Christ as your personal Savior, you are forgiven first, and baptism comes later.

Likewise, people show their personal preferences by asserting that all the Bible translators were "wrong" to refer to the Holy Spirit as "he" instead of "it," despite the fact that those translators consistently referred to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit alike as "he."
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

May 26th, 2013, 10:49 pm #16

We need to trust the ancient translators to be correct; otherwise, why trust ANYTHING in the Bible they translated? If we say one passage is translated correctly whereas another passage is translated incorrectly, then we give the impression that we accept or reject different passages of translation based only on our personal preferences and biases. That's selective theology. Since the Bible translators gave a masculine pronoun to the Holy Spirit, then to contradict them with "it" says that all the translators were wrong and only the few people today who call the Holy Spirit "it" are right. That line of reasoning is similar to the person who suffers from the delusion that s/he is the only sane person in the world and everybody else is crazy. Therefore, the I-alone-am-right-and-all-the-rest-of-you-are-wrong tactic just doesn't cut the mustard.
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Do you mean trust the translation's inconsistency?
[/color]<ol>[*][color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Pointing out the translation's inconsistencies (one time it's a "he"; another time it's an "it") is not an interpretation or a personal preference on my part. There is nothing wrong with pointing that out. When we take note of the inconsistency, then we are interested in some really serious Bible study -- by questioning the motive of the translator.[/color]

</li>[*][color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Translators (1500s to the present) should not be influenced by a particular doctrinal invention, such as the Trinity Creed (3rd PERSON Holy Spirit is God) by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD in which the "Christian Church" [later to become the evolving Roman Catholic Church] and the Roman Emperor Constantine were involved][/color]

</li>[*][color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Translators are not supposed to interpret first and then translate.[/color]

</li>[*][color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Grammatical rules are very important. When a passage, in order to complete its meaning, that needs an article or a pronoun where it is missing in the original Greek text, it is not a matter of the translator's preference by using a "he" instead of an "it." The correct pronoun must be based on the context of the definition of the noun. The word "spirit" is an improper noun. You would not want to identify YOUR "spirit" as a "HE" or "SHE" any more than you would identify YOUR "mind" as a "HE" or "SHE." I don't think I would use the pronoun "he" for my "nose." My nose is an "it" because my nose is not a person.[/color]

</li>[*][color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Selective theology is an entirely different ballgame from proper translation. Selective theology should never influence any translation of the Scripture. This is what's happened in the translation of certain passages of Scripture -- those that deal with God's holy spirit, in particular.[/color]

</li>[*][color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]In the case of designating "the holy spirit of Jesus Christ" a masculine or neuter gender, we cannot have it both ways. It appears that some people are content with being confused -- one moment think of God's Spirit as a "he"; another moment as an "it."[/color]
</li>[/list][color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]I'm sure there are other reasons why proper translation is very significant in helping us understand certain passages of Scripture.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

May 26th, 2013, 11:05 pm #17

Speaking of allegedly "wrong" translations or "spurious" translations, some folks assert that the last 12 verses of Mark are "spurious" and should not even be in the New Testament. Of course, they happen not be believe that baptism is essential for salvation, so they "conveniently" find a way to scratch the final 12 verses of Mark to suit their own preferences. And then some Bible commentaries by denominationalists assert that Acts 2:38 was either "wrongly" translated or that Peter didn't really teach that baptism was a requirement for the forgiveness of sins. Such people assert that, upon accepting Christ as your personal Savior, you are forgiven first, and baptism comes later.

Likewise, people show their personal preferences by asserting that all the Bible translators were "wrong" to refer to the Holy Spirit as "he" instead of "it," despite the fact that those translators consistently referred to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit alike as "he."
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]I essentially agree with your first paragraph. There are also other alleged "additions" [a set of verses] to another book in the New Testament. We can discuss that at some other time -- it is really a different issue.

For now, we are dealing with another issue where the text is already there -- it is not an added text, but it has to do with the definition of the word "spirit"; how it is modified by the adjective "holy"; how "the holy spirit" is "masculine-genderized" by the translator.

I think what would really help in the study of "God's holy spirit" is getting rid of [even temporarily] our preconceived notion that the Trinity Doctrine is scriptural. (In other words, "pretend" that the man-conconcted creed ever existed.) We need to refresh the mind; be open to the study of the passages in context.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

May 26th, 2013, 11:41 pm #18

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Do you mean trust the translation's inconsistency?
[/color]<ol>[*][color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Pointing out the translation's inconsistencies (one time it's a "he"; another time it's an "it") is not an interpretation or a personal preference on my part. There is nothing wrong with pointing that out. When we take note of the inconsistency, then we are interested in some really serious Bible study -- by questioning the motive of the translator.[/color]

</li>[*][color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Translators (1500s to the present) should not be influenced by a particular doctrinal invention, such as the Trinity Creed (3rd PERSON Holy Spirit is God) by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD in which the "Christian Church" [later to become the evolving Roman Catholic Church] and the Roman Emperor Constantine were involved][/color]

</li>[*][color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Translators are not supposed to interpret first and then translate.[/color]

</li>[*][color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Grammatical rules are very important. When a passage, in order to complete its meaning, that needs an article or a pronoun where it is missing in the original Greek text, it is not a matter of the translator's preference by using a "he" instead of an "it." The correct pronoun must be based on the context of the definition of the noun. The word "spirit" is an improper noun. You would not want to identify YOUR "spirit" as a "HE" or "SHE" any more than you would identify YOUR "mind" as a "HE" or "SHE." I don't think I would use the pronoun "he" for my "nose." My nose is an "it" because my nose is not a person.[/color]

</li>[*][color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Selective theology is an entirely different ballgame from proper translation. Selective theology should never influence any translation of the Scripture. This is what's happened in the translation of certain passages of Scripture -- those that deal with God's holy spirit, in particular.[/color]

</li>[*][color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]In the case of designating "the holy spirit of Jesus Christ" a masculine or neuter gender, we cannot have it both ways. It appears that some people are content with being confused -- one moment think of God's Spirit as a "he"; another moment as an "it."[/color]
</li>[/list][color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]I'm sure there are other reasons why proper translation is very significant in helping us understand certain passages of Scripture.[/color]
If a word is never in recorded history the NAME or description of a PERSON (people) and has a very LIMITED literal definition, translation depends on the context. Contrary to the latest course in theology, there is no upper case Spirit in the text.

Aaron is a male: his gender is masculine (mostly). Aaron is the NAME of a person. Aaron is made of body (machine), soul (life) and spirit. His spirit is his mind and it has no gender: it is an IT. If he has a spirit OF nastiness it is the "mental disposition" toward being nasty. That mental disposition is personified as HE. Sally's spirit OF nastiness is a SHE. Sally's spirit or mind is still an it or that. God's MIND is His Spirit: words which are BREATHED out can be nothing else than Spirit or Mind. Jesus of Nazareth who began to be when He was born afterward ARTICULATES the Words of God: Jesus was not the WORDS of God in the beginning. When God SENDS FORTH His Spirit (breath) it does not become another PERSON. That would leave God MINDLESS and that is what theology seeks to prove.

"Spirit" in Hebrew, Greek and Latin means WIND. Words have definitions. Spirit CANNOT and has never been the name of a person. It is specificially limited:

Spiritus
a breathing or gentle blowing of air, a breath, breeze
1. The air: imber et ignis, spiritus et gravis terra
2. The breath of a god, inspiration:
2. Spiritus, personified, a spirit


Jesus makes it clear in Matthew 13 that truth is always HIDDEN in parables to fool the foolish.

Psalms 104:3 Who
<font color="#FFFFFF">.....
layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters:
.....who maketh the clouds his chariot:
.....who walketh upon the wings of the wind [spirit?]
.....[not a person, silly person]
Psalms 104:4 Who maketh his angels spirits;
.....his ministers a flaming fire:


Since there is ONE MEDIATOR between God and Man, the MAN Jesus Christ, to say that God needs ANOTHER PEOPLE instead of His BREATH (Spirit) to communicate with Jesus of Nazareth whom GOD MADE TO BE BOTH LORD AND CHRIST, is according to common sense and John, the MARK of Antichrist and one who God has sent STRONG delusions so they CANNOT read the text when they PRETEND not to read the text as another mark.

</font>
Last edited by Ken.Sublett on May 27th, 2013, 12:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

May 27th, 2013, 12:51 am #19

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]I essentially agree with your first paragraph. There are also other alleged "additions" [a set of verses] to another book in the New Testament. We can discuss that at some other time -- it is really a different issue.

For now, we are dealing with another issue where the text is already there -- it is not an added text, but it has to do with the definition of the word "spirit"; how it is modified by the adjective "holy"; how "the holy spirit" is "masculine-genderized" by the translator.

I think what would really help in the study of "God's holy spirit" is getting rid of [even temporarily] our preconceived notion that the Trinity Doctrine is scriptural. (In other words, "pretend" that the man-conconcted creed ever existed.) We need to refresh the mind; be open to the study of the passages in context.[/color]
If we must necessarily put away "Trinity" because that term does not exist in Scripture, then we must also put away the terms "Bible" and "Holy Bible," because those terms also do not exist in Scripture. Those two latter terms are man-made, yet we would never think of deleting them from our vocabularies, because they are well-accepted terms that do not violate any Scriptural principles. No, we can't use the it-ain't-in-Scripture bit against the "Trinity" unless we want to follow a double standard.

I do not believe calling Father, Son, and Holy Spirit the "Trinity" violates any Scriptural principles, given that we know they are not three physical persons. I also believe that it is unreasonable to reject the term "Trinity" just because the Catholics coined it. Early (Catholic) Church fathers like Chrysostom in the fourth century first referred to the Scriptures as ta biblia (the books) which evolved to "Bible" in English. So, if we reject "Trinity" because of the Catholic influence, then we must also reject "Bible" because of the SAME influence.
Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

May 27th, 2013, 2:09 am #20

When you use human imagination, you get self-inflicted wounds as usual. Historic scholars used TRIAS but they never defined three separated "persons" and described that as HERESY: they would burn such people back them.

Luke 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

[17] et traditus est illi liber prophetae Esaiae et ut revolvit librum invenit locum ubi SCRIPTUM erat

Luke 4:17 kai epedoth aut biblion tou prophtou saiou, kai anoixas to BIBLIONheuren ton topon hou n gegrammenon

biblion or bublion , to,
A.strip of bublos, Thphr.HP4.8.4: hence, paper, document, Hdt.1.123, 3.128, Ar.Av.974, etc.; to b. tou psphismatos IG22.1.61; b. apostasiou notice of divorce, Ev.Matt.19.7.
2. = biblidion, petition to the Government, = Lat. libellus, BGU422 (ii A. D.), POxy.86.16 (iv A. D.), etc.
3. = deltos, tablet, LXX To.7.14.
II. book, Eup.304, Theognet.1.8, Pl.Ap.26d, etc.; mega b. ison t megal kak Call.Fr.359.
2. book as the division of a work, en t prt b. Dsc.2 Praef., Ph.1.329, etc.
3. ta b. place in which books are kept, library, anethkate eis ta b. D.Chr.37.8.
4. ta b. ta hagia the sacred books or Scriptures, LXX 1 Ma.12.9; ta b. tou nomou ib.1.56.

Quote
Like
Share