TRINITY IS A FALSE TEACHING.

[Elin]

I wrote: "Also, when we write about the Holy Spirit, we usually write 'it' rather than 'he.'"

I do not think I am wrong about my experience.

You gave a generic response to a question not addressed to you.

And "we" being Christians, I think you are wrong about indicating it was the common experience among Christians.

Specifically, some people believe it's an impersonal thing. Is that clear now?

When asking who the Holy Spirit is, what is the relevance of what "some people believe"?

Isn't what is stated in the word of God what matters?

[/quote]I hope you do not take the cheap shot at this point, but I suspect you will.[/quote]
You mean the cheap shot following?

[uote]Concerning your copy-pasted list,[/quote]
And you know it is a copy-pasted list, how?

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

Who do you call " simpletons " ?
The poor ignorant ones of us who don't know " NT Greek " or " textual criticism " ?

Knowledge is incommensurately good indeed, but humility in knowledge is infinitely much better ! Don't you think so ?

Is that what I said? Not at all. Don't take me out of context, I'd very much appreciate it. The point being: Just because this is an internet forum, don't assume everyone is a simpleton.

 

[st_sebastian]

It seems you are very new here, but just in case you didn't already know, the forums are not always so full of simpletons. Occasionally, you'll spot a few of us who know what we're talking about, or have actually studied NT Greek, or textual criticism to some degree. It just so happens you stumbled into what I would consider, my territory. Think of it this way. You're the pitcher, I'm the batter, and you just threw me a home run.

No. You're not understanding. I wasn't commenting on the Greek use of the neuter. Furthermore, I wasn't saying that these teachings were correct - I was saying that other people held them. Never said they were correct, never said that I agreed with them. You're taking part in an argument that I'm not part of.

So when you're strutting around about your home runs, please keep in mind we're not even playing the game. You might want to challenge some of the people I'm talking about, but I do not share their beliefs. I merely try to understand why they might have them.

Let me give you an example. I say: "Some people believe that the derivative of the product is the product of the derivatives. You can tell, because the way they write their calculations." You respond: "I consider this to be my territory. Here's a copy-paste. You just threw me a home-run!" Now, can you understand why that's not appropriate?

 

[Elin]

GOD the Father is not a person either.

John 4.24 Jesus said to the woman at the well:
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

"Him" is a pronoun of "person."

 

[Kerry]

Hmmm this reminds me of somebody.

 

[PennEd]

You have no scriptures to prove it for Jesus never claimed to be God. Only people claimed that Jesus is God but not Jesus. You are the one that needs to repent.

How can someone claim to be a Christian, yet deny Jesus is God?

Matthew 22: 41-46


So while the Pharisees were together, Jesus asked them a question. Jesus said, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" The Pharisees answered, "The Christ is the Son of David." Then Jesus said to the Pharisees, "Then why did David call him 'Lord'? David was speaking by the power of the {Holy} Spirit. David said, 'The Lord (God) said to my Lord (Christ): Sit by me at my right side, and I will put your enemies under your control.' David calls the Christ 'Lord.' So how can he be David's son?" None of the Pharisees could answer Jesus' question. And after that day no person was brave enough to ask Jesus any more questions {to try to trick him}. (ERV) Full Text























So while the Pharisees were together, Jesus asked them a question. Jesus said, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" The Pharisees answered, "The Christ is the Son of David." Then Jesus said to the Pharisees, "Then why did David call him 'Lord'? David was speaking by the power of the {Holy} Spirit. David said, 'The Lord (God) said to my Lord (Christ): Sit by me at my right side, and I will put your enemies under your control.' David calls the Christ 'Lord.' So how can he be David's son?" None of the Pharisees could answer Jesus' question. And after that day no person was brave enough to ask Jesus any more questions {to try to trick him}. (ERV) Full Text

 

[Kerry]

How can you read John 1 and say he is not?

 

[Kerry]

I may know or maybe not know. But I think I know you. Grace.

 

[st_sebastian]

You gave a generic response to a question not addressed to you. And "we" being Christians, I think you are wrong about indicating it was the common experience among Christians.

It's my experience. I commented on it. You told me I was wrong. I am not - this is my experience. Now, this is the part you're not getting - I never said their usage was correct. I said that this is the usual usage among the people I know personally, even evident in posts in this thread.

You went out of your way to bold around the "personally." I know that you're the type of person who will go out of his/her way to pick a fight when none exists, if you spend a little time understanding what the person has taken care to write.

When asking who the Holy Spirit is, what is the relevance of what "some people believe"? Isn't what is stated in the word of God what matters?

Because, in that question, we're obviously discussing alternative views of the Holy Spirit. The question was - if it's not God, who is it? Satan? That opens the door to other beliefs, which I began to discuss. I did not say they were correct, so attempts to refute me, as if I hold them, are misguided. Feel free to refute, but don't pretend I hold the beliefs.

And you know it is a copy-pasted list, how?

You're absolutely right. I lack certain empirical knowledge that it was copy-pasted, just like we don't know the sun will rise tomorrow. But even if it's not copy-pasted, it's still misguided, delivered to the wrong person, and in some cases nonsensical.

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

No. You're not understanding. I wasn't commenting on the Greek use of the neuter. Furthermore, I wasn't saying that these teachings were correct - I was saying that other people held them. Never said they were correct, never said that I agreed with them. You're taking part in an argument that I'm not part of.

So when you're strutting around about your home runs, please keep in mind we're not even playing the game. You might want to challenge some of the people I'm talking about, but I do not share their beliefs. I merely try to understand why they might have them.

Let me give you an example. I say: "Some people believe that the derivative of the product is the product of the derivatives. You can tell, because the way they write their calculations." You respond: "I consider this to be my territory. Here's a copy-paste. You just threw me a home-run!" Now, can you understand why that's not appropriate?

I understand exactly what you're saying, but you obviously do not understand what I'm saying. You want to talk about English neuters? That's fine. But the real argument is not about English neuters. The real argument is much deeper and much more involved. While the Unitarians are playing baseball with the Trinitarians, you're playing an entirely different game altogether. Get with the program.

 

[Elin]

I wrote: "Also, when we write about the Holy Spirit, we usually write 'it' rather than 'he.'"

I do not think I am wrong about my experience.

You gave a generic response to a question not addressed to you.

And "we" being Christians, I think you are wrong about indicating it was the common experience among Christians.

Specifically, some people believe it's an impersonal thing. Is that clear now?

When asking who the Holy Spirit is, what is the relevance of what "some people believe"?

Isn't what is stated in the word of God what matters?

I hope you do not take the cheap shot at this point, but I suspect you will.

You mean the cheap shot following?

Concerning your copy-pasted list,

And you know it is a copy-pasted list, how?

 

[st_sebastian]

But the real argument is not about English neuters.

That's because - and I hope you realize this now - I wasn't making an argument. You might have had arguments with people elsewhere that use some of these words, but if your wife offers you a "grilled" cheese at home, do you slap her because your boss "grilled" you at work? Obviously not. You're able to realize that massive overlaps in vocabulary don't mean you're having the same conversation everywhere.

I was saying that the majority of people in my experience refer to the Holy Spirit as "it," in English. I went back through my memory and no one I know personally calls the Spirit a "he," only "it." I gave plenty of qualifiers, though, so if anybody had counterexamples in their own experience they wouldn't be peeved.

Now, that kind of language (using "it" in English) either #1) is a symptom of people thinking of the Holy Spirit as impersonal or #2) leads to people thinking of the Holy Spirit as impersonal. I find that interesting, especially since someone was asking if the Holy Spirit wasn't God or Satan, what might it be?

The real argument is much deeper and much more involved. While the Unitarians are playing baseball with the Trinitarians, you're playing an entirely different game altogether. Get with the program.

What I was talking about, what you responded to, had nothing to do with the neuter in Greek. I get it. You've had arguments with Unitarians that sound like this. But you're not having that conversation now, with me. You saw the word "it," got confused, and started refuting an idea I wasn't putting forward. And then you started strutting about how this was your ballgame.

Strut on, brother, because you can win every game you play by yourself.

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

You gave a generic response to a question not addressed to you.

And "we" being Christians, I think you are wrong about indicating it was the common experience among Christians.

When asking who the Holy Spirit is, what is the relevance of what "some people believe"?

Isn't what is stated in the word of God what matters?


You mean the cheap shot following?


And you know it is a copy-pasted list, how?

Apparently this individual has a very bad habit. Apparently, everything is "copy-pasted."

 

[Kerry]

54 reasons to know.

 

[Elin]

You're absolutely right. I lack certain empirical knowledge that it was copy-pasted, just like we don't know the sun will rise tomorrow.

The odds that it is not copy-pasted are greater than the odds that the sun will rise tomorrow.

it's still misguided. . .and in some cases nonsensical.

How so for each?

 

[st_sebastian]

Apparently this individual has a very bad habit. Apparently, everything is "copy-pasted."

Let's be clear, I googled the wall of text you sent me. From here:

The word pneuma occurs 379 times in the Greek New Testament. Of these, approximately 258 occurrences are used in reference to the Holy Spirit. (Exact numbers are debatable because in a handful of texts there can be reasonable differences in how the text is understood, but the broad picture remains the same.) In one text God the Father is described as pneuma (“God ispneuma,” John 4:24) and in one text the risen Christ is (“became a life-giving pneuma,” 1 Cor. 15:45). Obviously, God the Father and Jesus Christ are both persons, not impersonal forces or abstract attributes.

Apparently, this article is by Rob Bowman and, unless you wrote it and Bowman stole it or you are Bowman - you don't look old enough to have taught at the Christian Research Institute in 1984, but I could be wrong - then somebody copied-pasted somebody else without attribution.

Even if it's yours, it's still a copy-paste without any reason to be copy-pasted. I wasn't talking about the Greek neuter. I was talking about people's habits in English and what they reveal about how they feel about the Holy Spirit and the possibility that it is impersonal.

 

[Kerry]

54 reasons to know.

but its okay with me.

 

[st_sebastian]

How so for each?

Misguided because you're choosing to ignore this sentence: "With this kind of language, I can understand why people think it's impersonal." This is the entire crux. I am saying that habits in language among the people I know personally (and I'm still boggled you chose to avoid bolding that word in particular) indicate that they think of the Holy Spirit as impersonal.

So, when the person is asking what the Holy Spirit might be, other than God and Satan, I talk about two different historical examples (Islam and Judaism, advocating neither) and then discuss those people who seem to think of the Holy Spirit as impersonal, as revealed by their choice of language (and this is apparently coming as a shock, but not advocating that either).

Nonsensical because you write things like: an "it" doesn't enable. Oh? My stairs enable me to get upstairs. My computer enables me to continue explaining myself ad nauseam in this conversation. An "it" doesn't have an intelligence? I refer to animals all the time who have intelligences. Lesser intelligences? Sure. But intelligences all the same.

(Elsewhere in this thread, not by you, but amusing all the same - I've heard that "it"s don't comfort, which is news to the comforter on my bed.)

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

Let's be clear, I googled the wall of text you sent me. From here:



Apparently, this article is by Rob Bowman and, unless you wrote it and Bowman stole it or you are Bowman - you don't look old enough to have taught at the Christian Research Institute in 1984, but I could be wrong - then somebody copied-pasted somebody else without attribution.

Even if it's yours, it's still a copy-paste without any reason to be copy-pasted. I wasn't talking about the Greek neuter. I was talking about people's habits in English and what they reveal about how they feel about the Holy Spirit and the possibility that it is impersonal.

Actually, the first two sections are from a PDF version of Bowman's book, he has elaborated on it more via his blog. The last portion of that particular post is mine. There is a link in the initial post to the PDF file where the two sections came from. Most of the material came from the Research Institute website, not his own blog.

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

Here it is again.