LittleToe:
I read your response to my most recent post. Regarding the quote in Proverbs, it is taken from chapter 9, not chapter 8, which is often used figuratively of Jesus Christ. Since both proverbs (taken in context) were initially written as a warning against foolish behaviour, and encouragement to use wisdom in counteracting such foolishness, it is obvious that the writer was personifying a virtue, not referencing a person.
When I look at the whole (OT as well as NT) of the Bible in reference to God's spirit and the way in which it is referenced in the majority of cases, there is little doubt in my mind that the "Holy Spirit" is synonymous with the power of God in action. In case one might think that "Holy Spirit" and "God's spirit" are two different things, Acts 2:4 and Acts 2:18 use both expression respectively. In both cases, in keeping with other scriptures this "Spirit" is said to be "poured out" (
Greek = 'ekcheo') and the recipients were "filled" (
Greek = 'eplesthesan') with 'it' (
Greek 'pneuma' ['spirit'] is in the neuter gender).
I have already explained the grammatical reasons why the 'helper'/'paraclete' has been translated 'he' - i.e. the Greek word 'parakletos' has the masculine 'gender', but is a general word that can be applied to a 'she' or an 'it' (unlike other Greek words which actually have more than one gender, such as 'brother' and 'sister'). I also explained the reason why the translator of the church father's text used 'he' instead of the grammatically correct 'it' (i.e. interpretation) with reference to the "Holy Spirit".
The subject of Christ's true nature and that of the "Holy Spirit" is a subject that I have spent a lot of time considering, and based on what the scriptures say as a
whole about both in context, I have come to the conclusion that the trinity doctrine is truly the product of imperfect men. In saying this I hope you will not take offense, but I'm being honest here. It is also what I think
plmkrzy said in another thread that at times we have to go on a 'gut' feeling of what seems right. I do not see Jesus Christ as on the same level as angels, for he was the "firstborn of all creation" and is unique in the sense that he was the "
only begotten Son", the only person who was directly produced from God.
I think all we can do is present our reasons why we believe the way we do and hope that fair-minded people, hopefully devoid of bias, will consider these reasons and come to their
own logical conclusions. As you can appreciate, I am extremely wary of organised religion with heirarchical power. It is no secret that the trinity doctrine came from one of the largest of such religious structures, and in my opinion had already deviated a long time before from the simple Christian teachings of the first century. That is why I will not be coerced into accepting something that does not ring true to my understanding of the scriptures.
Therefore, I think it has reached the point in this thread where I must leave it to others to discuss this subject, for I am sure that there are still enough people of both views to contribute more to this thread. I thank you and others for considering my views, and I have read with interest what others have written.
Kind regards.
(Edited to include a missing word and correct 'read' to 'written')Edited by - NewWay on 9 August 2002 17:42:27
Edited by - NewWay on 9 August 2002 17:46:2
