I'll try to answer your questions.
1. My point was that the Spirit has specific conversations attributed to him, beyond just crying out.
As an illustration of an impersonal thing being spoken of as doing things a person does, please note the following extract from the Bible:
"Wisdom has built her house, she has hewn her seven pillars, she has prepared the feast, mixed the wine, and also set the table. She has sent out her maids to announce on the heights of the town, 'Let the simple enter here'; to those devoid of sense she says, 'Come, eat my food and drink the wine that I have mixed; give up simpleness and live, walk in the way of understanding.'" - Proverbs 9:1-6 (Tanahk - JPS
In Hebrews 12:24, the "blood of the sprinkling" is said to "speak". Also, Luke 19:40 recounts an occasion when Jesus said that stones could "cry out". When the 'Holy Spirit' is said to speak, that does not make 'it' a person any more than 'lips' are that "speak in all sincerity" (Job 33:3 - NJB
). For instance we do not count a mouth and tongue as having a literal personality, they simply constitute a system by which speech is produced.
In line with the basic meaning of 'spirit' (Greek = 'pnuema') as being 'breath' or 'wind', it is interesting the method in which Jesus gave 'Holy Spirit' to his disciples in this account:
"When he [Jesus
] had said this, he breathed (Greek = 'emphusao' = 'to puff'
) on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit.'" - John 20:22 (NRSV
2. Are you, therefore, casting doubt on Pratten's translation of Athenagorus?
Let's say I'm not convinced that Athenagorus meant 'he', 'himself', etc with reference to the 'Holy Spirit'. Unfortunately, I cannot put the translator's English text to the test because I do not have a copy of the original Greek. That means that I cannot see for myself the 'gender' of the Greek pronouns. If Athenagorus (and I don't see any reason why he should not have) used proper grammar, then the pronouns attributed to the 'Holy Spirit' would have been neuter (e.g. 'it'), since the gender of 'spirit' (Greek = 'pneuma'
) is neuter. If this is the case, then a literal translation of the relevant underlying Greek pronouns would be 'it'/'itself', and not 'he'/'himself'. So, in this case the translator would have to make a decision whether the 'it' refered to a person or a thing. Obviously, Pratten being a church official (I assume that from the title Reverend), and a supporter of the trinity doctrine would decide in favour of its being a person. In that case he would obviously make the decision to translate the pronouns as masculine, since rendering them as neuter would contradict his theological belief regarding the 'Holy Spirit'. If I am casting doubt on Pratten's translation it is not doubt about the main text or his competence as a translator, only his choice of how to render pronouns in this particular case. If you feel I haven't answered this question in a way that leaves no doubt as to my view, then please let me know and I will attempt to explain again using an illustration.
3. I was refering to Origen, who you quoted, not the bible. You didn't address this.
I thought I did address the word 'autotheos', and gave my understanding of the word based on Greek definition. I explained the difference between a self-existing 'god' (i.e. 'autotheos' - no predecessor to produce 'him') and a 'god' who is generated from another (i.e. 'monogenes theos'). It was my assumption that you wanted to know my definition of the word 'autotheos', but maybe you wanted to know my take on Origen's arguments. If that is so, then I would have to repeat what I tried to communicate earlier that my interest in Origen's statements concerning John 1:1c was based upon his understanding of Koine Greek. His theology is another matter. Maybe you could be more specific as to what opinions you would like me to express regarding Origen's works.