Cos

Matt. 28:19

The Scriptures present the Holy Spirit as a Person so many times, yet some dismiss those Scriptures as “personification” and then foolishly ask where in Scripture does it say that the Holy Spirit is a Person…this is typically irrational double talk based solely on an assumption that these passages are personification. I will say again that it is exegetically problematic to claim that the Holy Spirit is a power when there are many passages of Scripture where all that needs to be done is substitute “power” for “Spirit” to see the absurdity of such an idea. <><

It is exegetically problematic to claim that the Holy Spirit is a power when there are many passages of Scripture where all that needs to be done is substitute “power” for “Spirit” to see the absurdity of such an idea. Instead, the apostle Paul confirms for us that the Holy Spirit is a real Person by declaring that the Spirit possesses a mind (Romans 8:27). “But He that searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is...” The Greek word in this verse translated “mind” is φρονημα (phronéma). The word appears 4 times in the NT, and in these other 3 passages (all in Romans 8) the word is only applied to persons. Let’s take a look at what some dictionaries and Lexicons have to say about the meaning of φρονημα (phronéma). Abbot-Smith Manual Greek Lexicon of the NT; “ φρόνημα, -τος, τό that which is in the mind, the thought: Rom 8:6-7; Rom 8:27.” E.W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance of the English and Greek Testament; “φρόνημα what one has in mind, what one thinks and feels; hence, mind, thought, feeling, will; knowledge or wisdom, as being the product of the mind” Mounce Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament “φρόνημα phronēma frame of thought, will, aspirations” A Manual Greek lexicon of the New Testament has; “φρόνημα that which is in the mind, the thought” Hastings New Testament Dictionary, phronema denotes “thoughts and purposes”. Vines Dictionary; Noun,5427,phronema denotes "what one has in the mind, the thought" (the content of the process expressed in phroneo, "to have in mind, to think"); or "an object of thought…" Dodson Greek-English Lexicon; “ φρόνημα, ατος, τό Noun, Neuter thought, purpose” Strong’s Greek Dictionary; φρόνημα phronēma, fron'-ay-mah From 5427 (mental) inclination or purpose:--(be, + be carnally, + be spiritually) mind(-ed). THAYER'S GREEK LEXICON 5427: φρόνημα φρόνημα, φρονηματος, τό (φρονέω, which see), what one has in mind, the thoughts and purposes (A. V. mind): Romans 8:6f, 27. (Hesychius φρόνημα. βούλημα, θέλημα. In various other senses also from Aeschylus down.) NAS Exhaustive Concordance; Word Origin from phroneó Definition the thought (that which is in the mind) Edward Robinson, A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament; “φρόνημα what one has in mind, what one thinks and feels;' hence, mind, thought.” Samuel G. Green Vocabulary definition in, “Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament, has, “φρονημα, thought, regard” W. J. HICKIE, Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament; “φρόνημα τό, thought, mind.” Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, " way of thinking, mind(-set), aim, aspiration, striving.” The Watchtower’s own Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures has “minding” as the translation for phronéma at Romans 8:27. All other Interlinear I consulted all had “mind” as the translation of phronéma. Interesting how the Watchtower tries to cover how the word phronéma is understood in the NWT. In Romans 8:6-7 the NWT has the word “minding” at the other three places where phronéma appears but not in Romans 8:27, note how the word in Romans 8:6-7 clearly indicates the mindfulness or thought patterns of persons; worldly (fleshly) ones in contrast to those persons who are near to God. We also note in Romans 8:27 that there is a distinction between the first Person “who searches the hearts” and “knows” the thoughts of this other Person who in turn is pleading on behalf of the saints. <><

Some ask silly questions like, “where in scripture does it say that the Holy Spirit is a Person”? This same question can be asked of the Father, where in the Scriptures does it say that the Father is a Person? Now just because Scripture does not actually say that the Father is a Person, we can still know that He is because of certain contributing factors. Regardless, some think that because the Holy Spirit has the personal pronoun ascribed to Him that this is just personification, just as Jerusalem is personified in some passages. Personification is a rhetorical figure of speech in which inanimate objects or abstractions are endowed with personal qualities. Personification are found throughout the Scriptures, But in all these examples we know by way of human experience that they are not really persons. Not so with the Holy Spirit for this idea is assumed. No one can know the Holy Spirit is a thing (and not a person) the way we can know the city of Jerusalem is not a person by human experience. We can prove something is personification by finding a Bible verse that outright state that it is not a person but a thing. We can do this with sin, death, hills, wisdom, stars Jerusalem, etc. When a passage that ascribes personal characteristics or action to a thing cannot be interpreted literally, then the passage is using personification. Personification is an example of poetic license: saying something that ordinary logic tells us is impossible. If this ordinary signal is absent, it stands to reason that the passage is not using personification. For example, death does not literally rule as king, nor does sin literally rule as king, a martyr’s blood does not literally cry out from the ground. Tongues do not literally strut. Rivers do not literally clap their hands. Light and truth are not literal travel guides to a sacred site. Money is not a literal god. When we turn to the Scriptures that describe the Person and work of the Holy Spirit, however, this ordinary signal is absent. There is nothing in these descriptions of the Holy Spirit that cannot be true of an actual spiritual being. For example: “If I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you” (John16:7); “The Spirit intercedes for us” (Rom.8:26); “The Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God” (1Cor.2:10). None of these passages states any personal characteristic or action that is impossible for a spiritual entity to possess or to perform. The usual signpost that says “personification” is absent. There is nothing in these passages that puts them into the company of valleys that sing (Ps.65:13) and stones that cry out (Hab.2:11) except the assumed idea. There is a second principle that also comes into play: does personification fit the context? When we try to interpret the descriptions of the Holy Spirit as mere figures of speech, the attempt fails. The contexts of the passages do not fit the premise that the Holy Spirit is not a person. <><

We read in Scripture that the Holy Spirit has a will, and He decides which gifts to give believers: “But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills (kathōs bouletai).” (1 Cor. 12:11) The Greek word βουλεται (translated “will”) is the present indicative of βούλομαι and grammatically is referring to the Holy Spirit. The present tense of the word in this verse “emphasizes the habitual or repeated action. He gives not according to the merit or wishes of men but according to his own will.” (Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament p.429) “The Present Indicative is used to express customary actions and general truths” (Syntax of Moods and Tenses of New Testament). Here are how some Dictionaries and Lexicons explain the meaning of this word. Strongs Greek Dictionary; G1014 βούλομαι boulomai Middle voice of a primary verb; to “will”, that is, (reflexively) be willing: - be disposed, minded, intend, list (be, of own) will (-ing). Compare G2309. Thayer's Greek Lexicon; 1014: βούλομαι …to will, wish; to will deliberately, have a purpose, be minded: …of the will electing or choosing between two or more things… Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament; βαύλομαι, to will, wish, desire, purpose, be minded, of the will making choice between alternatives Dodson Greek-English Lexicon, G1014, βούλομαι, Verb I will, intend, desire Strong's Electronic Concordance; boulomai: to will Original Word: βούλομαι Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: boulomai Phonetic Spelling: (boo'-lom-ahee) Short Definition: I will, intend, desire Definition: I will, intend, desire, wish. Vines Dictionary; Verb,1014,boulomai "to wish, to will deliberately," expresses more strongly than thelo (No. 6) the deliberate exercise of the will Hastings New Testament Dictionary; When we turn to βούλομαι we find that the verb is always used of man, except in Luk 22:42, Heb 6:17 (the only case where the word occurs in Heb.), 2Pe 3:9, and Jam 1:18 Mat 11:27, 1Co 12:11… The verb thus denotes plan and settled deliberate purpose How can a mindless power make decisions? The word βούλομαι appears in the Bible 34 times and used only for persons. The Holy Spirit is a Person. For in 1 Cor 12:11 He acts as a person; distributes favors, confers gifts as He wills. It would be absurd to say a “power” bestows favors, and distributes the various gifts. Here is a clear proof of the personality of the Spirit, who is not only distinguished from His gifts, and the distribution of them, which is a personal act described to Him; but this is said to be done according to THE WILL of the Holy Spirit, which shows an intelligent person, capable of choosing and willing. The NWT has for boulomai “it wills”. Yet how can a thing, an active force, a mindless power, have will? It is also quite clear that poetical personification, as some imagine when it comes to the Holy Spirit, would be quite out of place here because of the personal deeds attributed to the Holy Spirit in the context. <><

The Scriptures tell us that in the last days there will be a falling away of the truth; “Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1) True Christianity will decrease (but not cease) and false teachings will increase…sadly some seem to rejoice in this… Some like to blame Trinitarians for all that is wrong in the world. They will ignore the continual rise of false political idealism to blame Trinitarians for wars. But this kind of self-righteous attitude does not disprove the fact that God is Triune. <><

In the farewell discourse in the up-stairs room found in John Gospel chapters 14 to 16, Jesus clearly presents the Holy Spirit as a Person performing personal action. He is presented as “another Helper” and as Jesus’ successor, and in many respects, substitute: a force/power/influence of some kind, or anything less personal than Jesus Himself, would necessarily be something or a disappointment. In Scripture we clearly see how the Holy Spirit enjoys both the distinctness from the Father and the Son, as well as the unity with both. The distinction (e.g. the Father sends the Spirit in response to the Son’s intercession) ensures His separate Personality; His unity (e.g. by the Spirit indwelling in the believer, as the Father and the Son indwell the believer) ensures His Deity. We stand in relations to the Holy Spirit which we can uphold only to a person. He is the object of our faith. We believe on the Holy Spirit. This faith we profess in baptism Matt.28:19. We are baptized not only in the name of the Father and of the Son, but also of the Holy Spirit. The very association of the Spirit in such a connection, with the Father and the Son, as they are admitted to be distinct persons, proves that the Spirit also is a Person. Besides the use of the word “into the name”, admits of no other explanation. We stand in the same relation to Him as to the Father and to the Son ; we acknowledge Him to be a Person as distinctly as we acknowledge the Personality of the Son, or of the Father. Accordingly we are exhorted not "to sin against," "not to resist, "not to grieve" the Holy Spirit. He is therefore a Person who can be the object of our acts who can love and be loved. All the elements of personality, namely, intelligence, will, and individual subsistence, are not only involved in all that is thus revealed concerning the relation in which the Spirit stands to us and that which we sustain to Him, but they are all distinctly attributed to Him. The Spirit is said to know, to will, and to act. He searches, or knows all things, even the deep things of God. No man knows the things of God, but the Spirit of God. (1 Cor. 2:10, 12.) He distributes "to every man severally as he will." (1 Cor. 12:11.) If He can be loved, reverenced, and obeyed, or offended and sinned against. He must be a person. <><

First, there is the claim; “The Holy Spirit is not a person, let alone power” Instead what followed was the Sabellian form of teaching (hailed by another as irrefutable proof) that the Father is the Holy Spirit; “there is only ONE Spirit. Jesus teaches that God the Father is Spirit. Since there is only one Spirit, the Holy Spirit, Jesus is telling us WHAT God is. The Holy God is Holy Spirit by nature. That is His divine nature, the Spirit of Truth in which we must walk and worship” But then, like a boat without a rudder, the claim turns completely around and jumps onto that old distorted pretext that the Holy Spirit is “power”. The absurdity of this claim is seen from many passages in Scriptures where the Holy Spirit and power are juxtaposed and frankly make no sense when you substitute the idea of “power” in place of that the Holy Spirit; “for God gave us a {power} not of fear but of power and love and self-control.” 1 Tim 1:7 “And Jesus returned in the power of the {power} to Galilee.” Luke 4:14 “anointing with {power} and power” Acts 10:38 But apparently these examples which show the absurdity of the idea on how the Holy Spirit allegedly is a power “is pretty weak” and the reason given is because I don’t know what this “power” can do and is capable of… And it is because of my supposedly inapt understanding of the Greek that somehow dismisses as irrelevant what the experts on the language actually say. Instead of pointing out any further how what this person says is not very coherent and even the ad hominem insults do not warrant response, so I’ll try another approach… Now it may come as a shock to some that there is a Unitarian group known as the Christadelphians which believe, pretty much, the same as any Arian/Unitarian group regarding the Divine, except they have this other little quirk in that they do not consider the Devil a real person. My stance on this is from the Scriptures, which show without a doubt that the Devil is a real person. So how would you Arian/ Unitarians, who do believe that the Devil is a person, PROVE, from the Scriptures, to these poor deluded souls this fact? <><

The Scriptures (not youtube or some movie) teach that there are three distinct Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and these three Persons are God. The Holy Spirit is a distinct Person to the Father. Some will try and identify the Holy Spirit as the Father but when shown how absurd that is return to that old misused excuse identifying the Holy Spirit as “his power” which is just as absurd, see Acts 10:38 which would read “"anointing with power and power". What about the Greek used by Jesus in the up-stairs room of the Gospel of John with relation to the Holy Spirit. Does this verify that the Holy Spirit is not a person as some claim? John 14:16; 15:26: “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you ANOTHER Helper….When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me.…” “First there are two words in the Greek language for the English word “another”. The first word is “heteros” (Greek ἕτερον), which means “another of a different kind.” The other Greek word “allos” (Greek ἄλλον) means “another of the same kind.” See Robinsons Word Pictures of the New Testament and Vincent’s Word Studies etc. It is this second word “allos” that is used in John 14:16. So Jesus is saying that He will ask the Father to send another Helper of the same kind as Himself. Jesus could have used ἕτερον but instead used ἄλλον which is very significant considering what He goes on to say about the Holy Spirit. In Greek, nouns can be masculine, feminine or neuter and pronouns referring to these nouns are (in most cases, not always) masculine, feminine or neuter. The Greek word for demon is neuter as is the Greek word for child. And we know that demons and children are personal beings. Yet, the Greek text uses neuter personal pronouns to refer to them. We know that the noun pneuma is neuter. As such, the pronouns referring to pneuma are also neuter. Point of fact, pneuma is referred to with autos, a neuter pronoun, in John 4:24: “God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him [Greek autos] must worship with spirit and truth.” (NWT). One certainly wouldn’t argue that God isn’t a Person simply because, following the use of proper grammar, the pronoun referring to Him is neuter, would you? Likewise it would be premature on this basis to argue that the use of neuter pronouns referring to the Holy Spirit demand, as some claim, that the Holy Spirit in not a person. There is only one compelling reason to change from the neuter to the masculine pronoun and that is if the main subject in question is a person. In the dialogue in the upstairs room, does Jesus compare the Holy Spirit to Himself as a Person? Yes He does: John 12:49 “because I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to tell and what to speak." (NWT) John 16:13 “However, when that one arrives, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his OWN IMPULSE, but what things he HEARS he will SPEAK, and he will declare to you the things coming.” In the dialogue Jesus compared the Holy Spirit to Himself, the comparison of one Person to another. It would make no sense doing so if the Holy Spirit were not a person, but some just can’t see this fact. Jesus introduces “another Parakletos” and in the context “another Parakletos” is the explanatory designation for the main and dominant subject, the Holy Spirit. Henry Alford says that "the emphatic use of the pronoun [ekeinos]" is used "to identify the chief subject of the sentence" (Commentary on The Greek Testament). The International Critical Commentary on the New Testament says that, "ἐκεῖνος calls special attention to the Spirit as the subject of the sentence" and that "the repeated application of ἐκεῖνος to the Spirit in these chapters (16:8, 13, 14; 14:26) shows that for John τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας meant more than a mere tendency or influence." Here is a simple question; "another Parakletos" refers to…? Its reasons like this that have the majority of scholars disagreeing with the NWT claim, and why the famous Greek grammarian A.T. Robertson argues that John, “is insisting on the personality of the Holy Spirit when the grammatical gender so easily called for ἐκεῖνος” (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 708-9) Vine’s Dictionary comments on the masculine pronouns applied to the Holy Spirit in John: “The personality of the Spirit is emphasized at the expense of strict grammatical procedure in John 14:26; 15:26; 16:8, 13, 14, where the emphatic pronoun ekeinos, “He,” is used of Him in the masculine, whereas the noun pneuma is neuter in Greek...” W. D. Mounce also argues that in John’s Gospel when Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as the Parakletos that the grammatically masculine form of the Greek pronoun autos is used, but when Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit as Spirit, the masculine form of the demonstrative pronoun ekeinos is used, and that this “grammatical construction indicated the authors intent to convey the personhood of the Holy Spirit” (W. D. Mounce The Morphology of Biblical Greek page 240-242) Charles Hodge explains, “The first argument for the personality of the Holy Spirit is derived from the use of the personal pronouns in relation to Him…. Our Lord says (John xv. 26), “When the Comforter (ὁ παράκλητος) is come whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth (τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας) which (ὅ) proceedeth from the Father, He (ἐκεῖνος) shall testify of me.” The use of the masculine pronoun He instead of it, shows that the Spirit is a person. It may indeed be said that as παράκλητος is masculine, the pronoun referring to it must of course be in the same gender. But as the explanatory words τὸ πνεῦμα intervene, to which the neuter ὅ refers, the following pronoun would naturally be in the neuter, if the subject spoken of, the πνεῦμα, were not a person. In the following chapter (John xvi. 13, 14) there is no ground for this objection. It is there said, “When He (ἐκεῖνος), the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak, and He will show you things to come. He shall glorify me (ἐκεῖνος ἐμὲ δοξάσει): for He shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.” Here there is no possibility of accounting for the use of the personal pronoun He (ἐκεῖνος) on any other ground than the personality of the Spirit.” (Charles Hodges, Systematic Theology, Volume 1, Chapter VIII) Donald Guthrie puts it like this; “The fact that Jesus spoke of another Paraclete shows that the Paraclete must be as personal as Jesus himself. These considerations completely override the neuter gender of the noun pneuma in Greek. Moreover, they are in full agreement with the striking use of the masculine pronoun (ekeinos) of the Spirit in John 16:13 (placed immediately before pneuma) which underlines the personal characteristic of the Spirit. By no stretch of imagination can the teaching in these Paraclete sayings be made to refer to [an] impersonal force.” (New Testament Theology, page 531.) Really, in this sense there is not much to argue about here. Consider, even if the masculine pronoun is due to the preceding noun "Parakletos", the Parakletos is 1) referred to and described as a Person, and 2) is clearly identified as the Spirit (i.e. Parakletos is only an alternative, descriptive name). So either way the Spirit is shown to be a Person since the Parakletos is identified as a person! Also it is of note to consider the writings of the early church, they wrote in Greek and ascribed personal pronouns to the Holy Spirit. Justin Martyr writes, “...use with simplicity the words and expressions which offer themselves, and declare to you whatever the Holy Ghost, WHO descended upon them, chose to teach through them to those who are desirous to learn the true religion.” (Justin’s Hortatory Address to the Greeks, Chapter 35). Ignatius (Ad 35-107), who was a disciple of the apostle John, he writes “But the Holy Spirit does not speak his own things, but those of Christ, and that not from himself, but from the Lord; even as the Lord also announced to us the things that he received from the Father.? (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, Chapter 9). Irenaeus writes “neither do we receive another Holy Spirit, besides Him who is with us, and who cries, “Abba, Father;” (Irenaeus Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 9). We can see that the early Greek speaking church had no problem ascribing personal pronouns to the neuter when it comes to the person of the Holy Spirit. I have kept this brief, for an extended discussion on the above see the following; B. F. Westcott The Gospel According to St. John; A. H. Strong Systematic Theology; H. C. G Moule Veni Creator; E. W. Bullinger Figures of Speech Used in the Bible; R. A. Torrey What the Bible Teaches; D. A. Carson The Gospel According to John. On a side note with any discussion of this nature we need to look at another related text where the Holy Spirit applies the first person possessive pronoun “me” to Himself in Acts 13:2; “…the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for ME (Greek moi) Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." <><

One of the clearest indications of Jesus’ self-understanding is found in connection with His trial and condemnation. When Jesus was condemned to death by the Jewish Sanhedrin, the Jews insisted to Pilate, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God” (John 19:7). Prior to this, the high priest who was the president of the Jewish council, put Christ under oath, Matthew reports the high priest to have said at the trial, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God” (Matt. 26:63). Keep in mind that Jesus knew the sense in which the question was asked (for He had been accused of this before, see John 5:17-18 and John 10:30-39), and He was bound to answer it honestly and truly in the sense in which He knew the high priest meant it. He therefore affirmed under oath, at that council, that He was the Son of God in the high sense the high priest meant, Jesus replied, “You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven” (verse 64) , and for this He was condemned to death. This is as clear a declaration of His Deity. Some will argue that Jesus was speaking satirically, and saying in effect, “You said that, not I.” However, three observations need to be made: (1) Jesus went on to speak of His power and second coming, thus confirming rather than contradicting the charge; (2) Jesus’ answer to the high priest in the parallel account in the Gospel of Mark chapter 14 verses 61-62; (3) Jesus had the ideal opportunity here to correct any misconception which may have been involved. This he did not do. The Jews’ reaction is instructive. When the high priest said, “He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. What is your judgment?” they replied, “He deserves death” (Matt. 26:65-66). The crime according to the Jews was that Jesus claimed what only God has the right to claim, and Jesus did not dispute the charge. According to the Law of Moses, any person who enticed others to idolatry was to be punished with death (Deut. 13:6-8, see also Lev. 24:16). A mere creature, who should claim divine honor to himself, was guilty of this crime, and even though the Romans had taken away from the Jews the power of inflicting this punishment, they still had the right to report to the governor concerning such a person, “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die” (John 19:7). This was their decision as reported to Pilate, concerning Jesus because the Jews considered Him a creature, and if He was not entitled to this claim then their decision was just. So when we read the account in the Bible, the Jews brought two charges against Jesus, one was treason against Caesar, by making Himself a King. To this charge Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you a king” (John 18:37). Jesus answered in the affirmative, but so that they would not convict Him of a crime of which He was not guilty, He explained, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). His reply was satisfactory to the governor, who acquitted Him of the charge (John 18:38). In the other case He not only claimed to be the Son of God in the high sense, yet accompanied the claim with NO explanation. He could have said, I am the Son of God, but not in such a sense as true Deity. But he made no such explanation. If Jesus was not entitled to divine honor, He knew it; and He also knew then that He deserved death for claiming it. To make the claim before the court was to be guilty of the crime. To answer as He did, on oath, if He did not mean to make the claim, was perjury. And to allow the sentence against Him to pass, without any effort to explain, was to be guilty of His own death. Nowhere does Jesus dispute the charge. <><

Strong’s dictionary has for the Hebrew word “echad”, Strong’s number 259; “A numeral from 'achad; properly, united, i.e. One…” My electronic version of Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament has “united” as one of the meaning for the Hebrew word (see pages 28-29 in the hardcopy version). Also the Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible has as the basic meaning for the word as “unity”. BDB also identifies the word as "plural" in meaning. According to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament echad is closely identified with achad “the root meaning to be united” (page 30). Even though some deny the facts, the Hebrew word “echad” can and does have the plural meaning united. <><

I will address some allegations. Here is two claims; “The Holy Spirit is not a person, let alone power”. The first claim is that the Holy Spirit is not a Person, the second is that the Holy Spirit is not power either. But notice all you JW, the last time I checked the Watchtower website they say that the Holy Spirit is “God’s power”. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102006245 Then we jump into a bit about cross-reference, and I believe the Bible translation used in this case is the NWT, because none of the Bibles translation I looked up cite the verses used here, except the NWT, now if the NWT was used then one of the cross-reference, was missed, namely Heb. 1:9, and in reading it we can clearly understand why. Remember the claims are “the Holy Spirit is not a person, let alone power”, but instead we are told that the Holy Spirit is “God’s very own Spirit”, because “God is a Spirit”… then logically the Holy Spirit must be God. Even though I totally agree that the Holy Spirit IS GOD, the Bible shows that there is a clear distinction within the Divine. The claim continues, “there is only ONE Spirit. Jesus teaches that God the Father is Spirit. Since there is only one Spirit, the Holy Spirit, Jesus is telling us WHAT God is. The Holy God is Holy Spirit by nature. That is His divine nature, the Spirit of Truth in which we must walk and worship.” I will contend that the Father is not the Holy Spirit. The fact that the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father (just as the Son is) can be seen from passages of Scripture were you can substitute the term "God" or "Father" in place of where the Holy Spirit is present, here are some examples; Eph. 2:18, "For through Him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit"; so if the above reckoning be true then this verse would mean, "access to the Father by one Father”. And; Matt. 28:19, “…baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” would mean, “…baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Father”. Clearly the above claim that the Father is the Holy Spirit is an absurdity! This is not an Arian teaching nor do I think it is a Unitarian teaching, but this is more in line with Sabellianism because this is a similar teaching of the Oneness group who also claim God the Father is the “Holy Spirit by nature”. We then move on to the footnote quote from the NWT, but the claims made in the footnote are vastly different to the claim that “The Holy God is Holy Spirit by nature”. And as my understanding of Greek is questioned, I will briefly show how the footnote from the NWT is, I believe, completely wrong. Firstly the assumption is made in the footnote that the Holy Spirit is a “force”, the reason for this assertion is because, they claim, “God’s spirit is often mentioned together with other impersonal forces or things…” And that supposedly supports why they say that the Holy Spirit is a power of some kind. Now this claim does not hold any substance because the Bible regularly associates and connects persons with impersonal things. Using the SAME reasoning employed by the NWT at Matthew 3:11 Ac 6:3, 5; 13:52; 2Co 6:4-8; Eph 5:18 we would have to conclude that because death is not a person in Rom 6:3 so Jesus is not a person because they are mentioned together? Romans 6:3; “Don’t you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death?” Let’s take a look at the many times Jesus, a person, is associated with impersonal things; but these do not argue against HIS PERSONALITY. Jesus refers to Himself as the vine (John 15:1), the door (John 10:17), bread (John 6:35) etc, because these terms are mentioned together with Jesus they do not cancel out His personality. We see in Jeremiah 17:13 that Jehovah in general is identified as water. Do these comparisons disprove the personality of Christ and Jehovah? I think not! As I have briefly shown the argument the NWT footnote uses for their assertion that the Holy Spirit is a thing is not a legitimate reason because when you study the Scriptures you will notice that Persons are often mentioned together with impersonal things. Their faulty premise is the reason that they say Jesus “used a figure of speech called personification” when referring to the Holy Spirit. But why would Jesus do that? In fact WHY would Jesus use the same terms to compare Himself and His disciples to “a force” figuratively? That whole claim by the NWT is absurd for it would make no sense to do so. Throughout this passages from John’s Gospel, Jesus ascribes the same or similar personal actions to the Holy Spirit as He does to the disciples and even Himself (e.g., I will go/He will come; I have things to say/He will speak). It would be very strange to ascribe these personal actions in the same way and in the same statement to real persons and to a thing. John 12:49 “because I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to tell and what to speak." (NWT) John 16:13 “However, when that one arrives, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his OWN IMPULSE, but what things he HEARS he will SPEAK, and he will declare to you the things coming.” (NWT) In the dialogue in the upstairs room, Jesus compared the Holy Spirit to Himself, the comparison of one person to another. It makes no sense doing so if the Holy Spirit is not a person. Notice John15:26–27; “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. And you also will bear witness…” Note how Jesus says the Spirit will “bear witness” just as the disciples will bear witness (“you also…”). Jesus regards the Spirit as being just as much a Person as each of the disciples, and speaks of them in the same terms. <><

Bible believing Christians understand the Hebrew word echad is used in the Old Testament to mean one and one alone. But we acknowledge that this word has two meanings: unified and the singular one (see Strong’s Dictionary and Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament). For Christians the word "echad", used to describe God's oneness in Deut 6:4, is exactly what we would expect to find because it is the only Hebrew word that can denote a unity or unified oneness. The use of echad in Deut. 6:4 is exactly what Trinitarians expect to find in the Bible because it is the only way in the Hebrew language to indicate to the reader that God is a unity of Persons. There are no other words in the Hebrew language by which such an idea could be expressed. Interestingly when Jesus quoted Deut 6:4 in Mark 12:29 and chose the Greek corresponding unifying word "hen" which is the same word used by Jesus in Matt. 19:5, "the two shall become one (hen) flesh. <><

SCRIPTURE shows that the Holy Spirit is a Person, and when the Bible mentions the Holy Spirit we Christians do acknowledge those passages as referring to the third Person of the Trinity which some claim as absurdities. But if the Holy Spirit is not a person but a designation for some sort of power then we would not find passages where both the Spirit and an influence are co-coordinately named. For example the words in Acts 10:38 "anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power" makes the idea that the Holy Spirit is a mere "force" or "attribute" as redundant, "anointing with power and power"(?). That is an absurdity! Naturally we read in John 16:13-14 “…he {the third Person of the Trinity} will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own initiative, but what he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things to come…he will receive from what is mine and will declare it to you.” Throughout this passages from John’s Gospel, Jesus ascribes the same or similar personal actions to the Holy Spirit as He does to the disciples and even Himself (e.g., I will go/He will come; I have things to say/He will speak). It would be very strange to ascribe these personal actions in the same way and in the same statement to real persons and to a thing. John 12:49 “because I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to tell and what to speak." (NWT) John 16:13 “However, when that one arrives, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his OWN IMPULSE, but what things he HEARS he will SPEAK, and he will declare to you the things coming.” (NWT) In the dialogue in the upstairs room, Jesus compared the Holy Spirit to Himself, the comparison of one person to another. It makes no sense doing so if the Holy Spirit is not a person. Notice John15:26–27; “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. And you also will bear witness…” Note how Jesus says the Spirit will “bear witness” just as the disciples will bear witness (“you also…”). Jesus regards the Spirit as being just as much a person as each of the disciples, and speaks of them in the same terms. <><

Mr. Smith, You did not answer my question, either you love Jesus more, or you do not. You even cite Mark 12:30-3, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” We know from Matt. 10:37 and John 21:19 that Jesus does not fall within the second ordinance, therefore there only remains the first. <><

Hello Gone In Mark 12:30-31 we have these words; “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” We know from Matt. 10:37 and John 21:19 that Jesus does not fall within the second ordinance, therefore there only remains the first. But you guys don’t like this fact and do whatever you can to explain away the clear teaching, claiming to look for certain words or phrases ignoring the obvious because you can’t conciliate the fact with that false theological perspective you have. It seems to me that the implication of Jesus ascribing to Himself what was only applicable to God is too much for your theological view, so, without any Scriptural backing for your assertion, you have to explain away the passage by reading into it what you call “the picture presented”. Here is a clear fault in your explanation; nowhere does the inspired writer even allude to anything resembling your claim for the account…nowhere, it must totally be read into the passage. I address this in an above post. If I’m wrong...then that surely should be reason enough. Please do. <><

For me one of the clearest indications of Jesus’ self-understanding is found in connection with His trial and condemnation. When Jesus was condemned to death by the Jewish Sanhedrin, the Jews insisted to Pilate, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God” (John 19:7). Prior to this, the high priest who was the president of the Jewish council, put Christ under oath, Matthew reports the high priest to have said at the trial, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God” (Matt. 26:63). Keep in mind that Jesus knew the sense in which the question was asked (for He had been accused of this before, see John 5:17-18 and John 10:30-39), and He was bound to answer it honestly and truly in the sense in which He knew the high priest meant it. He therefore affirmed under oath, at that council, that He was the Son of God in the high sense the priest meant, Jesus replied, “You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven” (verse 64) , and for this He was condemned to death. This is as clear a declaration of His Deity. Some will argue that Jesus was speaking satirically, and saying in effect, “You said that, not I.” However, three observations need to be made: (1) Jesus went on to speak of His power and second coming, thus confirming rather than contradicting the charge; (2) Jesus’ answer to the high priest in the parallel account in the Gospel of Mark chapter 14 verses 61-62; (3) Jesus had the ideal opportunity here to correct any misconception which may have been involved. This he did not do. The Jews’ reaction is instructive. When the high priest said, “He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. What is your judgment?” they replied, “He deserves death” (Matt. 26:65-66). The crime according to the Jews was that Jesus claimed what only God has the right to claim, and Jesus did not dispute the charge. According to the Law of Moses, any person who enticed others to idolatry was to be punished with death (Deut. 13:6-8, see also Lev. 24:16). A mere creature, who should claim divine honor to himself, was guilty of this crime, and even though the Romans had taken away from the Jews the power of inflicting this punishment, they still had the right to report to the governor concerning such a person, “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die” (John 19:7). This was their decision as reported to Pilate, concerning Jesus because the Jews considered Him a creature, and if He was not entitled to this claim then their decision was just. So when we read the account in the Bible, the Jews brought two charges against Jesus, one was treason against Caesar, by making Himself a King. To this charge Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you a king” (John 18:37). Jesus answered in the affirmative, but so that they would not convict Him of a crime of which He was not guilty, He explained, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). His reply was satisfactory to the governor, who acquitted Him of the charge (John 18:38). In the other case He not only claimed to be the Son of God in the high sense, yet accompanied the claim with NO explanation. He could have said, I am the Son of God, but not in such a sense as true Deity. But he made no such explanation. If Jesus was not entitled to divine honor, He knew it; and He also knew then that He deserved death for claiming it. To make the claim before the court was to be guilty of the crime. To answer as He did, on oath, if He did not mean to make the claim, was perjury. And to allow the sentence against Him to pass, without any effort to explain, was to be guilty of His own death. Nowhere does Jesus dispute the charge. <><

Personality consists of possessing intellect, emotions, and will. The Holy Spirit has all three. All of these characteristics of personality are repeatedly ascribed to the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures. Yet there are some who, without any Biblical evidence, flatly deny the Personality of the Spirit basing their bias opinion on their own ridiculous claims. These misguided individuals fail to note that the Holy Spirit is endowed with understanding/wisdom, which is the first inseparable trait of an intelligent person: “for the (S)pirit searches into all things, even the deep things of God” (1 Cor. 2:10 NWT). Now to “search” is an act of understanding. The same word is used by the Lord Jesus in John 5:39, where He says, “search the Scriptures”. The Spirit is not a thing as some erroneous claim because only a real Person with intellect “searches into all things”. Here the command of knowledge and understanding is ascribed to the Holy Spirit. But some whose minds are against the Bible would preposterously credit the attributes in this passage to a thing and then try to argue that this is just some sort of subspecies of metaphor. But why would that be, and what scriptural lesson is learnt from this if it is a metaphor as claimed? <><

Mr. Smith, Jesus’ words are quite clear; our supreme love must be for Him (see also John 21:15) because as you reason, He is the very truth we are to believe in (John 14:6). So my question to you is, do you LOVE HIM more than your immediate family? <><

Hello Gone, It’s not “the actions of the children”, but the response of Jesus to the Jews that you should be considering. Well, to Matthew 10:37 could be added John 21:15! I believe that they do, but by all means show me. Not at all, the Israelite kingdom was called the “throne of Jehovah” because it was set up by Him, but then later by no fault of God, divided and subsequently ceased to exist, that is not the Kingdom of God spoken of in the Scriptures…the two are not the same. <><

Hello Gone, Jesus said, “My Kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36) while David’s clearly was. In John 14:1 Jesus admonishes His followers to have the same faith in Him as they have in God. He is linking Himself directly with God (see below). The Hebrew word used in the Scriptures that you reference does not have the same denotation. Yes we are to love others even fellow believers, but notice that Jesus requires us to love Him over and above (supremely) even our immediate family (Matt. 10:37). When Jesus triumphantly entered Jerusalem, He was asked by the indignant Jews to silence the children who were praising Him (Matt. 21:16), Jesus defended their praise of Him by appealing to Psalm 8:2, which speaks of children praising God. Jesus justifies the praise of the children by applying to Himself a passage of Scripture applicable only to God. <><

Folks, The Scriptures show that Jesus claimed other prerogatives of God as well. Jesus even made direct claims. We note, in examining the Gospels, that the claims become more explicit in the latter stages of His ministry. In the beginning He allowed the people to draw inferences about Him from the power of His moral teaching and His miracles. In the later portions, however, the focus is much more upon Himself. In Matthew 25:31-46 He speaks of judging the world. He will sit on His glorious throne and divide the sheep from the goats. The power of judging the spiritual condition and assigning the eternal destiny of all people belongs to Him. Certainly this is something which only God can exercise. The authority which Jesus claimed and exercised is also clearly seen with respect to the Sabbath. The sacredness of the Sabbath had been established by God (Exod. 20:8-11). Only God could abrogate or modify this regulation. Yet consider what happened when Jesus’ disciples picked heads of grain on the Sabbath, and the Pharisees objected that the Sabbath regulations (at least their version of them) were being violated. Jesus responded by pointing out that David had violated one of the laws by eating of the bread reserved for the priests. Then, turning directly to the situation at hand, Jesus asserted: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath; so the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27-28). He was clearly claiming the right to redefine the status of the Sabbath, a right which belongs only to God. <><

Hello JW insider, Did the scribes reason correctly is what you are getting at, right? As I told “Gone” the fact is Jesus does not deny their inner thoughts, He nowhere rebuffs what they were thinking, which He could have done. I hope that helps. <><

Mr. Harley Please provide your reasoning for why you say that. I did! <><

Hello Gone, You changed your pseudonym I see, if you don’t mind I’ll just call you “Gone” from now on as it’s a lot easier, OK? Firstly, I’m happy to hear that you are still following along on the other thread, stay tuned as there is much, much more evidence coming. Like the names Jamie or Chris, my name can be applied to both sexes. So is the person calling me a sister correct? For me it really is irrelevant. You know I could also ask, because you hide under your own nom de plume, are you male or female? Does it really matter anyway? Back to business; Jesus come as a man (John 1:14), and in doing so lay aside His former prerogatives (Phil. 2:6-8). This is clear from the Scriptures, Jesus is fully man, and therefore things such as authority must be given to one who is as much man as you and me. This is not in dispute. But you missed the fact that Jesus does not deny the inner thoughts of the scribes, instead He claims that very privilege of God for Himself, and that is what my post is getting at. Remember Jesus called the Kingdom of God “my Kingdom” and tells His contemporaries to put their faith in Him, and to Him they should offer their love. Bold words from someone you say is a creature. <><