Search related sites

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

HS (End Notes)


The following is an alternate (perhaps easier to understand) explanation taken from the HSGEND study paper:

Are you familiar with a language (like Spanish) which puts different endings on the same word to show number and gender? In Spanish, for example, words and names that are literally applied to persons have endings that show those persons’ sex. For example, el muchacho is “the boy,” but la muchacha is “the girl”! But impersonal things are also given genders. For example, “the table” is la mesa (feminine) whereas “the hat” is el sombrero (masculine).

The languages used by the inspired Bible writers do the same thing. In OT Hebrew they had only feminine and masculine endings for their words (La Sor, Vol. 2, p.75), whereas in NT Greek they had masculine, feminine, and neuter endings (p. 23, Machen).

In Hebrew, if the writers were referring to an adult person and using a noun that literally (not figuratively) describes that person, they always used the word ending that corresponded to the actual sex of that person: “Father” (masc. ending); “son” (masc.); “wife” (fem.); “God” (masc.); “Messiah” (masc.), etc. This is especially true of all personal names: “Moses,” “Sarah,” “Abraham,” etc.

If, however, they were speaking literally about a non-personal thing, they would use either masculine or feminine endings on those literal names and words (like in the Spanish examples above). Thus, “wisdom” is feminine in Hebrew and “day” is masculine. And if the Hebrew writers used one of these words (non-personal thing) to figuratively describe a person, they would usually not change the gender of that word. In other words, when a person is literally called a “king” it is always a word with a masculine ending because it applies literally to him as a person. But if a person is figuratively called a “Rock” or a “wall,” etc., the original gender of the word that is used for that thing will still be applied to that man or woman.

So if a woman were figuratively called “a rock” (masculine ending), it could read like this in the Hebrew: “Hannah (fem. ending) was a rock (masc. ending), and he (masc. pronoun referring to “rock”) was immovable.” Or, we could see: “The Messiah (masc.) is Wisdom (fem. ending), and she (fem. pronoun) was created by God in the beginning.” When we see such things in the original language we know that an impersonal thing is being used figuratively to describe a person in some respect.

It is very similar in NT Greek. When a word is literally applied to an adult person (“man,” “woman,” “husband,” “bride,” etc.) telling what he or she literally is, then the gender must match with that person’s actual gender. And, again, this is especially true of personal names: “John,” “Mary,” “Jesus,” etc.

But if it is a word or name literally applied to a thing, then it may be masculine, feminine, or neuter. (Of course if it is neuter, there is no doubt that it is an impersonal thing.)

Thus, as in Hebrew, “wisdom” is always feminine even though it is literally a thing. We know it’s a thing, but since both the OT Hebrew and NT Greek happen to call it “wisdom” with a feminine ending and use feminine pronouns (“she,” “her,” “herself”) with it, we can’t prove grammatically that it is a thing and not a person.

However, “day” is masculine in the Hebrew (and uses masculine pronouns and articles) and feminine in the Greek (where it, of course, uses feminine pronouns and articles)! This makes it grammatically obvious (when we examine both the Old and the New Testaments) that “day” cannot be a person.

And, of course, whenever we find a word in NT Greek that is neuter (Hebrew doesn’t use a neuter form - LaSor, p. 75), it is already grammatically defined as a non-personal thing (infants and young children are sometimes excepted).

Let’s take as an example those who are already known to be heavenly spirit persons. God and the pre-existent person who became Jesus on earth are both clearly and often shown in the form of men in both the Old and New Testaments. They both have literal personal names (“Jesus” and “Jehovah”) and descriptive titles (“Father” and “Son”) which are masculine in both the Old and New Testaments. They both always have masculine pronouns applied to them in both the Old and New Testaments. Thus they are grammatically (and obviously) shown to be persons.

The other heavenly spirit persons are the angels. Some theologians (Christian and Jewish) say that these are not really persons, but simply the personified influences, energies, etc. from God used to accomplish his purpose. This may seem a possibility, but grammatically we should know better.

The angels, like God and the heavenly Christ, are always represented as masculine persons. Even if in reality they are genderless, they are nevertheless always given a gender by the inspired writers to show us that they really are persons. When they come to earth and take on a physical form, it is in the form of a man in both the Hebrew and Greek inspired writings. Their personal names (e.g., “Michael” and “Gabriel”) are masculine in both the Hebrew and Greek writings. (Just having a literal personal name shows they are persons. A personal name was extremely important to the Hebrews during Bible times.) And all their literal titles/descriptions (e.g., “angel,” “cherub,” “seraph,” etc.) have masculine endings in both biblical Greek and Hebrew. All pronouns used for the angels in both Hebrew and Greek are always masculine: “he,” “him,” “his,” “himself. There can be no doubt grammatically that the inspired Bible writers intended for us to know that angels are truly persons!

But let’s suppose, as an example, that someone who didn’t know the ancient Hebrew understanding of the often personified “name of God” began to believe that it had been “revealed” to him that it is actually another person of the “Godhead”! A few of the many scriptures he might use as evidence are:
“I had pity for my holy Name.” - Ezek. 36:21.
“to bring your sons from far away, ... to the name of Jehovah your God and to the Holy One
of Israel” - Is. 60:9, KJIIV (and the literal text of The Interlinear Bible, Baker Book House).
“God has caused his name to dwell there.” - Ezra 6:12.
“the place where your name dwells on earth” - Ps. 74:7 - KJIIV.
“incense shall be offered to my name.” - Malachi 1:11
“and sing to thy name” - Ro. 15:9, RSV.

But if this individual to whom the “mystery” of “The Name of God” has been revealed had actually analyzed the grammar of both the Old and New Testaments, he should have known that the “Holy Name of God” was a holy thing not a person!

You see, although often personified, “The Name (of God)” is never literally seen in the Bible as a person (masc. or fem.). And the literal name of “the Holy Name” is masculine in the Hebrew all right, but it is neuter in the New Testament Greek! (And being neuter in the inspired New Testament language is enough, by itself, to prove that it is not a person, but a thing.) So, although masculine pronouns (“he,” “him,” “his,” etc.) are used for “The Holy Name” at times in Hebrew, neuter pronouns (“it,” “itself,” “which”) are used for this same word in the original New Testament Greek! We know grammatically, therefore, that, unlike real spirit persons, (God, Christ, and the holy angels), “the Holy Name” is merely a personalized thing!

So what about the often personified “Holy Spirit”? Is it truly a person? Do the inspired Bible writers actually use masculine pronouns to describe it? As with “Holy Name” it is never shown in the form of a person! Often it is described as a thing (e.g., being poured out or given out in portions). Only once is it (perhaps) manifested as a living creature: a “dove” not a person!

If it is a person (especially such an extremely important person as God), it should be known by a personal name like the other persons of the “Godhead”: “Jesus” (the Son) and “Jehovah” (the Father). The ancient Hebrews (and God Himself) laid great stress on the extreme importance of their personal names. For example, to die and have one’s name forgotten (or despised) was the worst fate of all for the ancient Hebrews. So what is the Holy Spirit’s personal name?

Either its name is not revealed (which tells us it is not a person - and certainly not God - but a thing), or its personal name is “Holy Spirit”!

And what frequently used literal title or description is applied to the Holy Spirit? Well, all I can find is “Holy Spirit” (never “Patriarch,” “Uncle,” “Mother,” etc. which would fit with the “relational” titles of the other two members of the trinity)! So, strangely, perhaps that is its “personal” name and its literal descriptive title as well.

But notice: Even though many trinitarian Bibles use the pronoun “he” to describe the Holy Spirit, the actual Old Testament Hebrew language of the inspired writers uses a feminine ending for “Holy Spirit” (whether it’s ‘her’ “personal” name or her literal title or both)! And they actually used feminine pronouns (“she,” “her,” “herself”) to describe “her”! So grammatically we know that to these inspired OT writers the Holy Spirit was either a thing or a female person! See Judges 3:10; 6:34; 1 Sam. 10:6; 11:6; and Is. 11:2 in the trinitarian The NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament by Zondervan. It shows the literal use of feminine pronouns for the literally feminine “Holy Spirit” in the original Hebrew!

Furthermore, the inspired NT Greek writers used a different gender when they wrote about the HS! This is enough to prove it is not a person. But even more importantly this different gender for “Holy Spirit” (and its pronouns) is the neuter gender. This proves grammatically, all by itself, that Holy Spirit simply is not a person! Any good lexicon that shows the gender of words will show that “Spirit” is neuter in NT Greek. Also see John 14:17 in the trinitarian interlinear New Testament, The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English, 1980:

“the Spirit of truth which [ - neut. - p. 173, Machen] the world cannot receive, because it beholds not it [the Spirit] nor knows [it]; ye know it [the Spirit]”!

The New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., 1970, (Roman Catholic), like so many other trinitarian Bibles, used “him” at John 14:17, but it at least provided this footnote for it: “The Greek word for ‘Spirit’ is neuter, and while we [trinitarian NAB writers] use personal pronouns in English (‘he,’ ‘his,’ ‘him’), most Greek MSS [ancient NT Greek Manuscripts] employ IT.”

Then, when this trinitarian Bible was later revised, John 14:17 was actually changed to: “the Spirit of truth, which [neuter, ] the world cannot accept, because it [the world] neither sees nor knows it [the Spirit]. But you know it [the Spirit], because it remains with you” - NAB, 1991 ed. (also AT). The only place that “he” (masc.) can be properly used in connection with the Holy Spirit is when the masculine noun paraclete (“helper”/“advocate”) was used, and then the masculine pronouns must be used in the Greek to agree grammatically with paraclete regardless of what person (male or female) or thing that masculine noun is representing.

We also find that the neuter pronoun αὐτὸ (“it/itself”) and the neuter article τὸ (“the” - neuter) are applied to the Holy Spirit at Ro. 8:16 and 1 Cor. 12:4, 8, 11. - see the actual Greek text in the interlinear since some trinitarian interlinears even mistranslate this in the word-for-word sections. Machen explains this on pp. 34 and 47 of his New Testament Greek for Beginners. Strangely, the very trinitarian King James Version itself (also the revised NAB; AT; Darby; & Webster) translates this honestly at Ro. 8:16 (“the Spirit itself beareth witness”)!

The Holy Spirit clearly is not a person (its “personal name” is even neuter), but a holy thing which God uses to fulfill his purposes.

2. For information about the gender of words that are sometimes used to figuratively describe persons see the study paper concerning “Beginning,” “Wisdom,” and “Firstborn” (BWF).

3. Fortunately, the English language still has its pronouns reflecting gender (as did the entire language at one time).

For example, we always have agreement in gender for persons just as the Biblical languages do:

"My brother parks his car in my garage. He wants me to call him if it won't start." Or, "The saleswoman gave her word that she used the product herself."

We don't say, "My brother parks its car in my garage. It wants me to call it if it won't start." Or, "The saleswoman gave its word that it used the product itself."

Persons reflect the gender of the pronouns which refer to them.


4. It is important to understand that only the third person definite article, personal pronoun, and relative pronoun in the singular nominative and accusative cases show a distinction between masculine and neuter gender.

For example, the definite article (“the” in English) in the third person genitive singular is tou for masculine gender and it is also tou for neuter gender. But the article in the third person nominative singular is ho () for masculine and to for neuter.

So, to be sure of the gender intended by the writer in the original NT Greek (“he” or “it”) we must see the article in the nominative or accusative cases (to in both cases for neuter - p. 34, Machen), or we must see the personal pronoun in the nominative or accusative cases (auto in both cases for neuter - Machen, p. 47), or we must see the relative pronoun in the nominative or accusative case ( in both cases for neuter - Machen, pp. 173, 174). (The mentioned in the paragraph above for the masculine article is distinguished from the just mentioned for the relative pronoun by apostrophe-like marks written above them in the Greek. Many typewriters couldn’t reproduce them properly, but there is a single c-shaped mark above the masculine article [] and two similar marks [ &] above the neuter relative pronoun [ ].

Otherwise, if the personal pronoun, relative pronoun, or article is in a different case (genitive or dative), we cannot distinguish its intended gender (masculine or neuter) unless we already know the gender of the noun to which it refers.

(The distinction between masculine and neuter in the reflexive pronoun eautou [“of himself”/ “of itself”] - is clear only in the accusative case: eauton, masculine [“himself”] and eauto, neuter [“itself”]. - Machen, p. 154. The same word is used in the other cases for both masc. and neuter)

The same principles hold true when translating a Greek verb into English. For example, akouei in John 16:13, by itself, can be translated “he hears,” “she hears,” orit hears.” If we can tell that a masculine noun referring to a person (remember, many masculine and feminine nouns in NT Greek also refer to things) is definitely the subject of that verb, then we can be sure that akouei should be translated “he hears.”

5. I have been told by one who is familiar with a few European languages that this holds true there also. That is, neuter nouns, pronouns, etc. are used for younger children. She specifically stated that German is one of these languages.

6. Noted trinitarian scholar and NT translator, Dr. William Barclay, in his "The Daily Study Bible Series" shows how this word was often used by the Jews [and the Gospel of John, NT scholars agree, was written to Hellenic [Greek-speaking] Jews]:

First Dr. Barclay tells that the world-famed Jewish scholar Philo wrote in his works (in the early first century - before John’s writings): “…when Joseph forgave them for the wrong that they had done him, he said, ‘I offer you an amnesty for all that you did to me; you need no other parakletos’ (Life of Joseph 40).” [emphasis added].

This is especially significant since much of John’s terminology echoes that of Philo, showing his familiarity with that noted Hellenic Jewish school.

Dr. Barclay continued:

"The Jews especially adopted the word [parakletos] .... the Rabbis had this saying about what would happen in the day of God's judgment: 'The man who keeps one commandment of the Law has gotten to himself one parakletos; the man who breaks one commandment of the Law has gotten to himself one accuser.' They said, 'If a man is summoned to court on a capital charge, he needs powerful parakletoi (the plural of the word) to save him; repentance and good works are his parakletoi in the judgment of God.' 'All righteousness and mercy which an Israelite does in this world are great peace and great parakletoi between him and his father in heaven.' They said that the sin-offering is a man's parakletos before God." - p. 37, The Letters of John and Jude, The Westminster Press, 1976.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ("Little Kittel") says much the same on p. 782. It includes "conversion," "good works," "God's love," "intercessions," and the "adornment of the high priests garment" as parakletos.

Obviously things could be called paracletes.



7. Thayer gives the pronoun “who” (or “he” in some Bibles) in 1 Cor 1:8 as an example of this:

“[‘Who’] refers to a more remote noun in 1 Co. i.8, where the antecedent of ὃς is not the nearest noun [‘Jesus Christ’], but [‘God’] in 1 Co. I.4” - #3739, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House, 1984.


8. For comparison we can see that the antecedent for “him” in John 6:8 is probably not “Philip” (6:7 and 6:5), but “Jesus” (earlier in 6:5). And “him” in John 11:16 probably refers to the antecedent “Jesus” (11:14) and not to “Lazarus” even though “Lazarus” is found closer to it (whereas the “he/him” found at Jn 11:17 obviously does not refer to Jesus nor even Thomas in the previous verse). Also see John 13:2 (note that AT, NIV, GNB, and Beck even add the word “Jesus” to clear up the ambiguity).

So we find the pronouns in John 14:17 actually referring to “the Spirit” as their antecedent, and, therefore, they are the neuter auto (“it”) and (“which”)! Most trinitarian Bibles ignore this truth, however, and translate them as “him” anyway. I find it very ironic that The NIV Study Bible translates John 14:17 as “the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him [ - neuter], because it neither sees him [αὐτὸ - neuter] nor knows him. But you know him [αὐτὸ - neuter], for he lives with you and will be in you.”

To top off the irony, the NIVSB has this footnote for Jn 14:17 - “the Spirit of truth. In essence and in action the Spirit is characterized by truth. He brings people to the truth of God. All three persons of the Trinity are linked with truth.” But the inescapable truth is that ‘Holy Spirit’ is neuter and its pronouns are neuter in the original Holy-Spirit-guided writings of the New Testament. And the translation of the very scripture that this footnote “explains” has lied against the “Spirit of truth” by rendering “it” as “him” three times! Surely “the Spirit of truth” has not brought these trinitarian translators “to the truth of God” nor has it brought any trinitarians to the “truth of God”!

It is important that we read, analyze, and meditate on this scripture (Jn 14:15-17) very carefully. Then do the same with Jn 4:23, 24 and Jn 17:3.

When we know the truth about pronouns and their antecedents, we are prepared for trinitarian “evidence” in both the OT and the NT Bible languages. In Micah 2:7, for example (“Is the Spirit of Jehovah angry [or ‘limited’ - KJIIV]; does he do such things?”), the masculine pronoun certainly refers to “Jehovah,” not “the Spirit” as a few trinitarian apologists insist. Grammar tells us, for instance, that the feminine pronoun would have to be used in the Hebrew if “Spirit” were the antecedent. Since the masculine pronoun was used, it must refer to “Jehovah.” Also no trinitarian translation would pass up such an opportunity if the trinitarian translators thought there was any chance that the Spirit was really being called “he”! But these trinitarian Bibles translate it so that the Spirit is definitely not being called “he,” but Jehovah himself is: NRSV, NEB, REB, NJB, NAB, GNB, BBE, ETRV, Byington, Moffatt, Beck, Darby. E.g., “Is the LORD’s [Jehovah’s] patience exhausted? Are these his doings?” - NRSV.

9. Daniel B. Wallace, among the most trinity-biased scholars whose works I have examined, has made an amazing admission concerning the “paraclete statements.” In discussing gender agreement in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Wallace writes:

John 15:26 .... The use of ἐκεῖνος [‘that one,’ masc. is rendered ‘he’ in most translations] here is frequently regarded by students of the NT to be an affirmation of the personality of the Spirit. Such an approach is based on the assumption that the antecedent of ἐκεῖνος is πνεῦμα [‘Spirit’]: ‘The masculine pronoun ἐκεῖνος is used in John 14:26 and 16:13-14 to refer to the neuter noun πνεῦμα to emphasize the personality of the Holy Spirit.’ [Wallace’s footnote here refers this quote to Young, Intermediate Greek, 78, and others similar. He further says: ‘The view is especially popular among theologians, not infrequently becoming the mainstay in their argument for the personality of the Spirit.’]

But this is erroneous,” Wallace continues. “In all these Johannine passages, πνεῦμα is appositional to a masculine noun [‘paraclete,’ παράκλητος]. The gender of ἐκεῖνος [‘that one,' masculine] thus has nothing to do with the natural gender of πνεῦμα The antecedent of ἐκεῖνος , in each case, is παράκλητος [paraclete], not πνεῦμα. John 14:26 reads παράκλητος τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, [‘which,’ neuter] πέμψει πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι μου, ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα (‘the Comforter, the Holy Spirit whom the Father sends in my name, that one will teach you all things’). πνεῦμα [‘Spirit’] not only is appositional παράκλητος, but the relative pronoun [ - ‘which’] that follows it is neuter! This hardly assists the grammatical argument for the Spirit’s personality. In John 16:13-14 the immediate context is deceptive: ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς ἐν τὴ ἀλήθεια πᾶσὴ· [….] ἐκεῖνος ἐμὲ δοξάσει (‘whenever that one comes - the Spirit of truth - he will guide you in all truth .... he will glorify me’). The ἐκεῖνος reaches back to v 7, where παράκλητος is mentioned. [Wallace’s note: ‘Although translations of v 13 such as that of the NRSV may be misleading as to what the subject of the sentence is (“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you...”), their objective is not to be a handbook for Greek students.’] Thus, since παράκλητος is masculine, so is the pronoun. Although one might argue that the Spirit’s personality is in view in these passages, the view must be based on the nature of a παράκλητος and the things said about the Comforter, not on any supposed grammatical subtleties. Indeed, it is difficult to find any text in which πνεῦμα is grammatically referred to with the masculine gender.*” - pp. 331-332.


* Wallace’s note: “... three other passages are occasionally used for this [misapplication of gender interpretation to “prove” the HS is masculine]: Eph 1:14; 2 Thess 2:6-7; and 1 John 5:7, All of these have problems. In Eph 1:14 ὃς [‘he’] ἐστιν ἀρραβὼν refers back to τῷ πνεύματι (v 13), but the masculine relative pronoun [ὃς] is easily explained without resorting to seeing theological motifs. [Wallace further explains on p. 338 that ‘the reading ὃς ... is doubtful on text-critical grounds.’ In fact, both the Westcott & Hort and the United Bible Societies’ New Testament texts chose (‘which’) for this passage. The trinitarian scholars of the UBS said they chose ‘which’ because of ‘superior external attestation.’ This simply means that, in spite of their trinitarian preference, these scholars chose to use in their UBS text because the very best of the oldest NT Greek manuscripts originally had ‘which.’] In 2 Thess 2:6-7 πνεῦμα is nowhere mentioned .... First John 5:7 [in modern translations, e.g. RSV, NIV, NASB, etc.] is perhaps the most plausible of the passages enlisted. The masculine participle in τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες refers to τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (v 8), all neuter nouns. Some see this as an oblique reference to the Spirit’s personality ..., but the fact that the author has personified water and blood, turning them into witnesses along with the Spirit, may be enough to account for the masculine gender.” - p. 332, Zondervan, 1996.

So we find even trinitarian Daniel B. Wallace, known for his detailed defenses of the trinity, admitting that the grammatical use of gender agreement does not show that “the Holy Spirit is referred to as a Person in the masculine gender throughout the New Testament” as so many trinitarian apologists insist! In fact, the HS was never referred to as a Person in the masculine gender anywhere in the NT or the OT!

10. A trinitarian correspondent, a minister, told me that these were not properly translated with “she.” I checked them by comparing them with many uses of “and she …” and “and he …” and discovered what every Hebrew scholar probably learns very early in his studies. The suffixes and prefixes to the basic word give us the information we need. For example,

Numbers 11:26 in all texts, speaking of the Spirit, uses the word nuach (Nun, Het) for ‘rested’ and it has the prefix Waw (‘and’) and the prefix Tau (‘she’) which altogether literally means “and she rested.” [“and he rested” would be Waw Yod Nun Het.]

Judges 3:10 in all texts, including the one the KJV was translated from, speaking of the Spirit, uses the word hayah (hay yod) for ‘came’ and has the prefix waw (‘and’) and the prefix tau (‘she) which, altogether, literally means “and she came.”

Judges 6:34 in all texts, speaking of the Spirit, uses labash (Lamed, Beth, Shin) for “came” and has the feminine ending hay (-ah) which, altogether, labashah, means “she came.”

1 Sam. 10:6 in all texts, speaking of the Spirit, uses tsalach (Tzade, Lamed, Heth) for ‘come’ and has the prefix Waw (‘and’) and the suffix Hay (-ah), the feminine ending, which, altogether, means “and she will come.”

1 Sam. 11:6 in all texts, speaking of the Spirit, uses tsalach (Tzade, Lamed, Heth) for ‘come’ and has the prefix Waw (‘and’) and the prefix Tau (‘she) which, altogether, means “and she came.”

Something else that can be discovered merely by looking at the Hebrew text (if you refuse to believe serious Hebrew scholars): Numbers 11:26 in all texts, speaking of the Spirit, uses the word nuach (Nun, Het) for ‘rested’ and it has the prefix Waw (‘and’) and the prefix Tau (‘she) which altogether literally means “and she rested.” [“and he rested” would be Waw Yod Nun Het.]

Judges 3:10 in all texts, including the one the KJV was translated from, speaking of the Spirit, uses the word hayah (Hay Yod) for ‘came’ and has the prefix Waw (‘and’) and the prefix Tau (‘she) which, altogether, literally means “and she came.”

To be certain that the prefix Waw = ‘and’ and the second prefix Tau = ‘she’ let’s examine the uses of shoob (shin beth) which means “came again” or “returned.”

1 Sam. 30:12 (speaking of the Spirit): “and she returned” = Waw (and) Tau (she) Shin - Beth (shoob or ‘returned’).

Others (not Spirit-related):
Gen. 8:9 (“and she returned”) = Waw (‘and’) Tau (‘she’) Shin-Beth (shoob or “returned”).

Judges 11:39 (“and she returned”) = Waw (‘and’) Tau (‘she’) Shin-Beth (shoob or “returned”).

2 Sam. 11:4 (“and she returned”) = Waw (‘and’) Tau (‘she’) Shin-Beth (shoob or “returned”).

Exodus 4:20 (“and he returned”) = Waw (‘and’) Yod (‘he’) Shin-Beth (shoob or “returned”).

Numbers 23:6 (“and he returned”) = Waw (‘and’) Yod (‘he’) Shin-Beth (shoob or “returned”).

2 Sam. 19:39 (“and he returned”) = Waw (‘and’) Yod (‘he’) Shin-Beth (shoob or “returned”).

1 Kings 19:21 (“and he returned”) = Waw (‘and’) Yod (‘he’) Shin-Beth (shoob or “returned”).

And just to be doubly certain that the prefix Waw = ‘and’ and the second prefix Tau = “she” really meant what has been said, I checked out a number of uses (not related to the spirit) of “and he said” and of “and she said.” The usage remained true:

Gen. 3:1 “and he said” = amar (‘said’) Aleph, Mem, Reysh. It is prefixed with Waw (‘and’) & Yod (‘he).

Gen. 3:10 “and he said” = amar (‘said’) Aleph, Mem, Reysh. It is prefixed with Waw (‘and’) & Yod (‘he).

Gen. 3:11 “and he said” = amar (‘said’) Aleph, Mem, Reysh. It is prefixed with Waw (‘and’) & Yod (‘he).

Gen. 4:10 “and he said” = amar (‘said’) Aleph, Mem, Reysh. It is prefixed with Waw (‘and’) & Yod (‘he).

Gen. 18:9 “and he said” = amar (‘said’) Aleph, Mem, Reysh. It is prefixed with Waw (‘and’) & Yod (‘he).

Gen. 18:10 “and he said” = amar (‘said’) Aleph, Mem, Reysh. It is prefixed with Waw (‘and’) & Yod (‘he).

Gen. 3:13 “and she said” = amar (“said”) Aleph, Mem, Reysh. It is prefixed with Waw (‘and’) & Tau (‘she’).

Gen. 16:2 “and she said” = amar (“said”) Aleph, Mem, Reysh. It is prefixed with Waw (‘and’) & Tau (‘she’).

Gen. 16:5 “and she said” = amar (“said”) Aleph, Mem, Reysh. It is prefixed with Waw (‘and’) & Tau (‘she’).

Gen. 16:8 “and she said” = amar (“said”) Aleph, Mem, Reysh. It is prefixed with Waw (‘and’) & Tau (‘she’).

Gen. 24:18 “and she said” = amar (“said”) Aleph, Mem, Reysh. It is prefixed with Waw (‘and’) & Tau (‘she’).

Gen. 24:19 “and she said” = amar (“said”) Aleph, Mem, Reysh. It is prefixed with Waw (‘and’) & Tau (‘she’).

Gen. 24:24 “and she said” = amar (“said”) Aleph, Mem, Reysh. It is prefixed with Waw (‘and’) & Tau (‘she’).

Gen. 24:58 “and she said” = amar (“said”) Aleph, Mem, Reysh. It is prefixed with Waw (‘and’) & Tau (‘she’).

I believe it is fair to say that my initial statements concerning “she” being used for the Spirit in the OT are right.

A spirit person (a person with a body of spirit rather than flesh) could be called ‘a spirit’ (see Thayer), but, in these cases, the Bible writer would often violate the gender agreement rule to show that this was a person not a force. Yes, by making the pronouns for it masculine he was saying this is a spirit [person]. This is not the case with “Holy Spirit.” What seems to be involved here is similar to calling Jehovah ‘a rock’ in a figurative sense. The difference is that there could be no confusion here that it was a figurative expression. Using the substance a person is composed of as a term for that person is a similar figurative expression. But is is more likely to be confused with the other more literal meanings of “spirit.”

It would have been the same way if “flesh” had been feminine. But since it was masculine in both Greek and Hebrew anyway, its pronouns probably would have remained masculine anyway. In other words if the usage had been “a flesh stood before them,” meaning a ‘fleshly person,’ and flesh had been feminine, it probably would have used masculine pronouns also. As it is only context (which would have been quite adequate in such a case) would have told us it meant a person not a lump of inanimate flesh.

With spirit being feminine (neuter) in the Hebrew and neuter in the Greek and capable of being used for a spirit (a person composed of the “energy”/”substance” known as ‘spirit’) and for an impersonal force of a similar “energy/substance” (see Thayer’s and other serious scholars) there had to be a way to distinguish them when context might not be not sufficient.

That way appears to be by ascribing masculine pronouns to the feminine or neuter (in the Greek) antecedent “a spirit.”

Notice these examples presented by the same trinitarian correspondent as proof that the neuter “spirit” can obviously be a person:

"1 Kings 22:21 " ‘Then a spirit [feminine gender] came forward and [he, Yod] stood before the Lord, and [he, Yod] said, 'I will persuade him.’  - This spirit has personal qualities. The context shows clearly that it is an angel or spiritual being”. - [But Instead of following the examples of the Holy Spirit where the pronoun prefix is feminine to agree with the feminine “Spirit” here we have a violation of the agreement rule.  I believe this was in order to show that this was a person composed of spirit (a spirit person): ‘And he stood’ (waw yod ….)  ‘and he said’ (waw yod aleph mem reysh)]

"2 Chron. 18:20 "Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and [he] said, I will entice him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith?"  - [“and he said” Waw Yod Aleph Mem. reysh.]

"Job 4:15,16 "Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up: It [He] stood still, but I could not discern the form thereof: an image [was] before mine eyes, [there was] silence, and I heard a voice, [saying]..."  -  [“He stood still”  (Yod Ayin Mem Daleth).]

"Ezek. 1:21 "When those went, [these] went; and when those stood, [these] stood; and when those were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creature [was] in the wheels." - [Not a person but the force or power of the living creature was in the wheels, moving them.]

"Isaiah 48:16 "Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, I [YHWH] was there.  And now the Lord God and His Spirit Have sent Me [Isaiah -see RSV; NAB; GNB punctuation]."  - [Jehovah and his invisible, impersonal, communicating, motivating Force - which is controlled by God Himself.]

[Ezekiel 1:19, 20, speaking about the angels or cherubim who control the movement of God’s chariot, says literally, “and when the living creatures went, the wheels went beside them; and when the living creatures rose from the earth, the wheels rose .... for the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels.” - RSV.  It is clear that this means the controlling power of the cherubim moved the wheels.  In fact the very trinitarian Good News Bible (GNB) paraphrases this to read: “the wheels did exactly what the creatures did, because the creatures controlled them.”]

But the word “spirit” is used for these persons who are composed of spirit is not a literal word or title of personal position as relating to other persons [e.g., “God,: “Lord,” etc.], or  the word or title showing personal relationship to other persons, or (most important) the very personal name by which other persons identify him for them.  They are literally angels, demons, devils, etc.

Again, we have the members of the "Godhead" according to trinitarians: (1)  'God' (masc.); 'the Father' (masc.); and most important: the personal name: Jehovah (masc.); (2) 'The Christ' (masc.) or 'Messiah' (masc.); the 'Son of God' (masc.); and most important: the personal name Jesus (masc.);  (3) The Holy Spirit (neuter in NT language, feminine in OT language) and no personal relational title ("mother" "brother," daughter," etc.) and, (most important) no personal name!  (or if it is a 'personal' name, it is proof that it is not a person since it is neuter in the NT language - and feminine for neuter in Hebrew!)


11. It is appropriate to note that lightning is speaking here. Lightning is a powerful impersonal force which God can send out to accomplish his will in certain ways: warning, light, motivation, destruction, and even death.

12. The lady oceanographer featured on the television program “Sunday Morning” (CBS), 19 November 1995, referred to her use of an underwater robot as sending her SPIRIT when she couldn’t go down herself. Whether she was aware of it or not, this is a reasonable comparison for Holy Spirit when using examples puny mankind is familiar with. This ‘spirit’ (robot) served as her eyes ranging throughout the depths of the ocean. A comparable example from the Bible may be seen at 2 Chron. 16:9: “For the eyes of [Jehovah] range throughout the entire earth....” - NRSV.


13. Rev. 14:1 in KJV and NKJV omits “his name and” and reads, instead, “having His Father’s name written on their foreheads.”

14.  2 Cor. 13:14 is rendered in such a way as to imply personality for the Holy Spirit (HS) in some trinitarian Bibles. This is done, as in the NASB, for example, by rendering the NT Greek word koinonia as “fellowship of”: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship [koinonia] of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.” - NASB.

However, the word koinonia is well known to be applied to things as well as persons.
KOINONIA (κοινωνία), a having in common (koinos), ... denotes (a) the share one has in anything, ... thus it is used ... of participation in what is derived from the Holy Spirit, 2 Cor. 13:14 (R.V., “communion”); Phil. 2:1; of participation in the sufferings of Christ, Phil. 3:10” - p. 207, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, W. E. Vine (extremely trinitarian), Thomas Nelson Publ.,1983.
κοινωνία, ... fellowship, association, community, communion, joint participation, .... 1. the share which one has in anything, participation; w. gen. of the thing in which he shares: ... 2 Co. xiii. 13 (14) - # 2842, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House, 1977.
koinonia means “participation,” “impartation,” or “fellowship.” It is used with the objective genitive (what is shared), .... e. Believers also share in the Spirit (2 Cor. 13:13).... - pp. 448, 449, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Abridged In One Volume), Kittel and Friedrich (transl. G.W. Bromiley), Eerdmans Publ. (trinitarian), 1985.

This is why Phil. 2:1 is translated in the following manner by trinitarian Bibles:
If our life in Christ means anything to you, if love can persuade at all, or the Spirit that we have in common [koinonia] or any tenderness and sympathy, ... - Jerusalem Bible.
If then there is ... any sharing in [koinonia] the Spirit ... - New Revised Standard Version.
... any sharing of [koinonia] the Spirit ... - New English Bible.
...if we have any common share in [koinonia] the Spirit, ... C. B. Williams
... if we and you have the same [koinonia] Spirit, ... - William F. Beck
... any participation in [koinonia] the Spirit, ... - Revised Standard Version
... any participation in [koinonia] the Spirit, ... - Revised English Bible
... sharing the same [koinonia] Spirit - Living Bible
... sharing [koinonia] the Holy Spirit - New Life Version

Now please examine the following trinitarian translations of 2 Cor. 13:14 (or 13:13 in some Bibles) itself:
The blessing of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the participation in [koinonia] the Holy Spirit be with you all. - An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed)
May you have loving-favor from our Lord Jesus .... May you be joined together [koinonia] by the Holy Spirit. - New Life Version.
The grace (kindness) of the Lord Jesus ... and the fellowship (sharing) [koinonia] of the Holy Spirit be with you all. - Easy-to-Read Version. [The Preface of the ETRV explains that italicized words in parentheses are synonyms for the words they follow.]
The spiritual blessing of the Lord Jesus ... and the common sharing [koinonia] of the Holy Spirit be with you all. - The New Testament in the Language of the People (C. B. Williams).
The grace of the Lord Jesus ... and participation in [koinonia] the Holy Spirit be with you all.” - RSV (using alternate reading from footnote).
The grace of the Lord Jesus ... and the sharing in [koinonia] the Holy Spirit be with all of you. - NRSV (using alternate reading from footnote).
I pray that the Lord Jesus Christ will bless you and be kind to you! May God bless you with his love, and may the Holy Spirit join all your hearts together. – CEV.
May the grace shown by the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love that God has given us, and the sharing of life brought about by the Holy Spirit be with you all. – New International Reader’s Version.

If even such a large number of trinitarian scholars and translators believe the above concerning koinonia and the translation of 2 Cor. 13:14 itself, we simply cannot consider it as acceptable evidence for the personality of the Holy Spirit!

15.  Also analyze 1 Chron. 29:20 (worship God and the king [David] - see THRONE-2) and Acts 6:11 (blasphemy against Moses and God - see Interlinear). And if we still think the relationship of the three in Matt. 28:19 must be one of equality as God, why not examine other scriptures which mention Father, Jesus and spirit? Notice Ephesians 1: 17, 20, for example.

16. There are “very few traces of ‘three’ in the cultus and the religious conceptions of the Israelites .... This relative rarity of a connexion between ‘three’ and religious notions, which prevails in the OT, should not be [supplied] from other sources. The thunder call, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jahweh is our God, Jahweh (the?) one’ (Dt 6:4, cf. Is 41:4 44:6 48:12), drowns the voice of those who refer us to the triads of gods that were adored by the Babylonians, Assyrians (Anu, Bel, and Ea, etc. ...), and other nations of antiquity. .... But the original meaning of the OT text must not be modified to suit either heathen parallels or later stages in its own development.” - pp. 565, 566, A Dictionary of the Bible, Hastings, ed., Hendrickson Publ.

If there were even HINTS of a trinity to be found in Scripture, the one word we would see with religious significance would be “three.” The fact that it is very insignificant in Scripture is enough in itself to refute any idea of a trinity! - see IMAGE (f.n. #8).

17. “It is almost certain that [the term ‘Son of Man’] does not denote Christ’s humanity but rather is a title with far-reaching messianic implications.” - Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 591, Bethany House, 1982. (Emphasis mine.)

Jesus used the term “Son of Man” to describe “his future glory” and to “convey the whole scope of his messianic vocation as he conceived it.” - p. 771, New Bible Dictionary, 2nd ed., Tyndale House, 1984. (Emphasis mine.)

The trinitarian publication by Zondervan, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, wants to restrict the meaning of the “Son of Man” at Matt. 12:32 and Luke 12:10 to the human condition of the Christ, but admits the extreme difficulty of such an interpretation. “The saying about blasphemy and the Son of man (Matt. 12:31 f.; Lk 12:10) is particularly difficult to understand [for trinitarians, that is].” It then proposes that “Son of Man” means the “human” status of the Christ in these two scriptures, but then admits that even this unlikely interpretation is still very difficult since it denies the very context of Luke 12:8 f., “where the Son of man is a glorious figure who could hardly be blasphemed with impunity [if the trinity doctrine were really true].” - p. 628, Vol. 3, 1986 ed. (Emphasis mine.)

NIV Study Bible (1995 ed.), f.n. for Mark 8:31: “Son of Man. Jesus’ most common title for himself, used 81 times in the Gospels and never used by anyone but Jesus. In Dan. 7:13-14 the Son of Man is pictured as a heavenly figure who in the end times is entrusted by God with authority, glory, and sovereign power. That Jesus used ‘Son of Man’ as a Messianic title is evident by his use of it (Mark 8:31) in justaposition to Peter’s use of ‘Christ’ (v. 29). See note on Dan. 7:13.” (Emphasis mine.)

“Son of man: A title ascribed to Jesus in the gospels and signifying his destined role in the conduct of the Final Judgment.... The use of the phrase as the designation of the coming final judge is probably due to Dan. 7:13.... The popular notion that ‘son of man’ indicates Jesus’ humanity as ‘son of God’* does his divinity is quite indefensible. The term, when used as a title [as in Matt. 12:32], as already indicated, properly means a supernatural figure charged with the superlatively great task of destroying evil and acting as a truly cosmic figure.” - pp. 726, 727, An Encyclopedia of Religion, 1945 ed. (Article by trinitarian Bible expert Dr. Morton S. Enslin, Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis in Crozer Theological Seminary.) - (Emphasis mine.)

So we see that when Jesus used the title of “Son of Man” for himself he was including the understanding of his heavenly glorified self. If he is ever to be considered God himself, it certainly would be in his role of “Son of Man”! Therefore, his statement of Matt. 12:32 shows his inferiority to God even in his glorified heavenly state when trinitarians would have to say he is absolutely equal to God!

We should also examine Rev. 14:14-16 where we actually see the “Son of Man” in his heavenly glory carrying out his role in the “Final Judgment”.

“There before me was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was one ‘like a son of man’ [footnotes in NIV; NAB (1970), St. Joseph ed.; and GNB refer this to Daniel 7:13 - also compare Rev. 4:2-5; 5:1-7 with Dan. 7:9, 10, 13, 14] with a crown of gold on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand. Then another angel came out of the temple and called in a loud voice to him who was sitting on the cloud, ‘Take your sickle and reap, because the time to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is ripe.’ So he who was seated on the cloud swung his sickle over the earth, and the earth was harvested.” - NIV.

Most trinitarian scholars admit that this “son of man” seated on the cloud is Jesus Christ in his heavenly glory and that John is clearly referring to the “son of man” found at Daniel 7:13, 14 [who as context shows is certainly not God]. (Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. VI., p. 414; Barclay, The Revelation of John, Vol. 2, p. 116.)

But notice that the “son of man” seated on the cloud and wearing the Gold Crown is taking orders from “another angel” who is relaying God’s commands. The heavenly, glorified, kingly “Son of Man” would not (if he were really God) be taking orders from anyone! Certainly God’s commands would not have to be relayed to him by another angel! Some (even some trinitarian authorities) have interpreted the term “another angel” at Rev. 14:15 to indicate that the Son of Man is also an angel!

“The linguistic usage of Revelation 1:13 and 14:14 reveals affinities to Dan. 7:13. Both passages speak of ‘one like a son of man’ as walking (‘amidst the lampstands’) or ‘sitting’ on the clouds of heaven. Note too how Rev. differs from the Gospels in leaving out the article [“the”]; this is apparently an imitation of the text of Dan. 7:13: the apocalyptic ‘Son of man’ is the figure found already in Dan. 7:13, but now as a glorified ruler and judge. He is in all respects like an angel (Dan. 10:5; cf. Rev. 1:13; 14:15 - ‘another angel’ besides that of 14:14 [the Son of Man]).” - p. 633, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.

At any rate there is never any indication that the heavenly, glorified “Son of Man” is, in any way, equal to God Himself! And there is plenty of evidence that he is not! (Cf. Act 7:55-56.)


* “Son of God: Hebrew religion was strictly monotheistic, and the term ‘Son of God’, as found in the O.T., must not be understood in any literal sense. It has its origin in the Semitic idiom which expresses any intimate relation as one of sonship. As royal ministers are sons of the king, so the angels are sons of God, and this name is likewise given to judges and sovereigns, ruling in God’s name.... Christ is perfectly at one with the WILL of God and is thereby his Son.” - p. 726, An Encyclopedia of Religion, 1945 ed. (Article by trinitarian Bible expert Dr. E. F. Scott, Emeritus Professor of New Testament Criticism, Union Theological Seminary.)

18. We see this same blasphemous disregard (if the trinity doctrine were actually true) for the third person of the trinitarian God (the Holy Spirit) in all areas of the Holy Scriptures. For example, when giving thanks to (or praising or blessing) God, the inspired Bible writers (and Jesus himself) always said “blessed be God” (Lk 1:68) or “praise Jehovah” (Ps. 22:23, 26; 146:1, 2, ASV) or “thank you, Father” (Matt. 11:25; Lk 10:21)!! They never said “blessed be the holy Spirit” or “thank you, Holy Spirit” or “praise the Holy Spirit”! But they did frequently say: “praise the Father;” “blessed be the Father;” etc. (Mt 11:25; Lk 10:21; Jn 11:41; 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; 5:20; Col. 1:3, 12; 3:17; 1 Pet. 1:3, etc.) If the Holy Spirit were really a Person who were God, “he” would not be treated this way! Only if “he” were not a person would such an important thing as HS be ignored in so many scriptures that are intended to bless, thank, praise, etc. God.

(Also note Matt. 24:36 where
‘... no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.’ - NASB.
Here, again, we are being told of the highest persons in all creation and only one is the highest of them all: the Father. The holy spirit is not even mentioned - - - - Why? Because it is not a person. It is merely an extension of the Father, his power, or active force. If ‘he’ were another person who was equally God, it would have been blasphemous to ignore ‘him’ altogether here as has been done by Jesus. Only the correct knowledge of God can explain such things:
Father, .... This is eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.’ - Jn 17:1, 3; NEB.)
Although the Holy Spirit is, in a figurative sense, an extension of God, the Father, Himself and even personified at times, we are still never told to pray to the Holy Spirit, nor do we ever see anyone in the Holy Scriptures praying to the Holy Spirit! Certainly the Bible will tell God’s worshipers exactly to whom they must pray! Jesus commanded: “When you pray, ... pray to your Father.... This is how you should pray: ‘Our Father in heaven ...’” - Matt. 6:6, 9, NIV. And to whom did Jesus himself pray? “Father, .... this is eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” - Jn 17:1, 3, New English Bible.

Besides the obvious statement of exactly who the only True God really is, this scripture (Jn 17:1, 3) tells us that, if we wish to attain eternal life, we must know two persons: (1) the Father (who alone is God and, alone, has the personal name Jehovah) and (2) the Son. If the Holy Spirit were really a person who is God, why is “he” completely ignored in this scripture which concerns all-important knowledge which can lead to eternal life for the Christian? - - “saith Jehovah, .... ye shall call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me” - Jer. 29:11, 12, ASV. “Hear my prayer, O Jehovah” - Ps. 102:1, ASV. “thou, O Jehovah, art our Father” - Is. 63:16, ASV.

A similar concept concerns exactly whom we are commanded to worship. We are never told in the Bible to worship the Holy Spirit, and we never see anyone in the Holy Scriptures worshiping the Holy Spirit! Trinitarians tell us that since men have “worshiped” (proskuneo in NT Greek) Christ that must make him God. That can be shown false by examining the different meanings of proskuneo and how it has even been honorably applied in the Scriptures to godly men (including Jesus, of course) in its secondary sense - see the WORSHIP study paper. Worship in its highest sense, however, is applied in the Bible to only one Person: Jehovah who is the Father alone and God alone! e.g., “Worship Jehovah in holy array” - Ps. 29:2, ASV; “Worship God” - Rev. 22:9 “Jesus said .... ‘true worshipers will worship the Father’” - Jn 4:21, 23. Obviously the Holy Scriptures will tell God’s people exactly whom they must worship as God! That is why so many trinitarians have insisted that Jesus was “worshiped” in the same sense as the Father. But search as you will, and in spite of the frequent personification of the Holy Spirit, you will never find the Holy Spirit being worshiped in any sense of the word!!

We have seen that in all the visions of God reported in the Bible (Ezekiel 1; Daniel 7; Acts 7:55, 56; Rev. 4 & 5; etc.) God is represented as a single person, and sometimes Jesus (the Lamb, the Son of Man, etc.), who is not called God, is even seen approaching God (e.g., Rev. 4:9-5:1, 6, 7; Dan. 7:9, 13). But we never see the “person” of the Holy Spirit in any of these visions! God is Jehovah (the Father only)!

Besides visions of God, we are told about the throne of God in heaven and who sits upon it: “He who conquers, I [Jesus] will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I myself conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.” - Rev. 3:21, RSV. Here we see that just as those victorious Christians who are allowed to sit with Christ on his throne are not equal to Christ in any sense, neither was Jesus who was allowed to sit with the Father on the Father’s throne equal to the Father in any sense! God’s throne is the Father’s throne. Jesus is allowed to sit at the right hand of God until he is ready to subdue his enemies and assume his own (lesser) throne. And those chosen Christians who are faithful to the end may likewise sit with Jesus on his throne for a time. But where is the Holy Spirit? We are never told that the HS has a throne at all, let alone God’s throne! The Father (God alone) has a throne. Jesus has a throne. Some heaven-resurrected Christians have thrones. Why doesn’t the Holy Spirit have a throne? Because persons, not things (usually not even personified things), have thrones!

“Christ Jesus ... is at the right hand of God” - Ro. 8:34, RSV. “Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God” - 1 Peter 3:21, 22, RSV. Obviously “God” here is not three persons. Jesus is not sitting at the right hand of himself (and two others)! So is this (finally) God the Holy Spirit?

“the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory.... accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead, and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places” - Eph. 1:17, 20, RSV. So who is the God that Jesus sits at the right hand of? The Father! (Notice, he is also Jesus’ God! Does anyone ever call another person his God if they are both equal? Only when the other person is far superior is he called “my God,” “his God,” “your God,” etc.! The Father, Jehovah, is Jesus’ God ! - Micah 5:4 [see f.n. in NIVSB]; 1 Cor. 11:3; 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3, 17; 1 Peter 1:3; Rev. 3:12. Jesus is not equally God with the Father, Jehovah, as the trinity doctrine insists!) There is no ‘God the Holy Spirit.’ We never see “him” as a person of any kind (let alone God), and “he” is pointedly ignored in nearly every instance where “God the Holy Spirit” (if there were really such a thing) would have to be praised, acknowledged, worshiped, etc.

So in spite of the fact that in a very few instances we can find the Holy Spirit mentioned along with the Son and the Father, it is significantly absent in most places where, if it were really God Himself it would be mentioned by respectful, inspired Bible writers:
- “But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” - Mark 13:32, NASB.
Why is the Father alone all-knowing? Because He alone is God! Why would the Holy Spirit not be mentioned here when the scripture is listing all the most knowledgeable persons in existence? Because it is not a person and certainly not a person who is God Himself!
- “Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ” - Ro. 1:7, NIV.
Exactly who is God here, and where is the HS?
- “yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things came ... and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came.” - 1 Cor. 8:6, NIV.
Why is the one God for Christians shown to be the Father only? Where is the HS in this list for Christians of the most important persons?
- “Let us give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!” - Eph 1:3, GNB.
Who is the God of the heaven-resurrected Jesus? Why is the HS never given thanks, praise, etc.?
- “always and for everything giving thanks in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God the Father.” - Eph 5:20, RSV.
Exactly who is the God we give thanks to in this scripture? Why is the HS never given thanks, praise, etc.?
- “Now may our God and Father himself, and our Lord Jesus, direct our way to you” - 1 Thess. 3:11, RSV.
Exactly who is our God in this scripture, and where is the HS?
- “to ... the church in Thessalonica who belong to God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” - 2 Thess. 1:1, GNB.
Exactly who is God in this scripture and where is the HS?
- “In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels, I warn you to keep these instructions”- 1 Tim. 5:21, NRSV.
Who is God in this scripture? Where is the HS in this listing of the most important persons?
- “ Grace be unto you, and peace, from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” - Phil. 1:2, KJV.
Who is God here, and where is the HS?
- “All honor to God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” - 1 Peter 1:3, Living Bible.
Who is God in this scripture? Why is the HS never given honor (or blessed)?
- “Our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ” - 1 Jn 1:3, NIV.
But where is the HS here?
- “[Jesus] made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father.” - Rev. 1:6, NIV.
Some of us are servants of other men. In a higher sense we are also servants of Jesus. In a higher sense yet we are also servants of God (Jehovah, the Father). Why are we never servants of the HS in the inspired scriptures? Exactly who is the heaven-resurrected Jesus’ God in this scripture?

19. For example let’s examine Acts 19:1-3:
While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul traveled through Turkey and arrived in Ephesus, where he found [about a dozen] disciples.
[The New American Bible , St. Joseph ed.(1970 ed.) explains in a f.n. for Acts 19:1-4: “...Paul discovers other men at the same religious stage as Apollos...” And we see in Acts 18 that Apollos was a Jew (as were all those who had been baptized by John) who was well-versed in the scriptures and had been instructed in the way of the Lord (18:24, 25).]
“Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” [Paul] asked them.
“No,” they replied, “we don’t know what you mean. What is the Holy Spirit?” [‘Paul finds that they were not informed about the Holy Spirit all.’ - NIVSB f.n. for 19:2.]
“Then what beliefs did you acknowledge at your baptism?” he asked.
And they replied, “What John the Baptist taught.” - Acts 19:1-3, Living Bible, 1971, Tyndale House Publ.

These Jews, instructed in the OT scriptures and in the teachings of John the Baptist, could not possibly be ignorant of exactly who the God of the Jews was! Therefore, if they didn’t know that the Holy Spirit was God, then the Holy Spirit was not considered to be God by the Jews at this time. Nor was the Holy Spirit considered to be God by John the Baptist himself! And Paul didn’t even consider it worthy of comment here to these disciples (where he most certainly would have, if it were true) that the Holy Spirit was actually “God”!

HS (Part 4)


The final bit of eclectic “evidence” some trinitarians resort to for the “personality” and “Godhood” of the spirit is found at Acts 5:3, 4. Here we find a baptized Christian, one who has, therefore, received holy spirit, selling his property and giving some of the money from that sale to the Apostles. Now this man was under no obligation to sell his land or give any of that money to the Apostles. That he did so would have been a fine thing. But this man, Ananias, wanted honor more than he wanted to give charity. So he gave only part of the money from his property to the Apostles. This, too, would have been a fine thing. but he lied to the Apostles, because he wanted even more recognition, and told them he had given them all the money from the sale of his property!

So Peter said,
“Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to [or ‘cheat’ - Mo (or ‘to deceive’ or ‘to play false’ - Thayer, #5574; cf. #5574, Strong’s and Thayer, in Heb. 6:18 as rendered in RSV, NEB, CBW, and The Amplified Bible)] the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? .... How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to [‘played false to’ (‘defrauded’ - Mo)] men but to God.” - RSV.
The “evidence” here is supposed to be that Peter first says that Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit. Then he turns around and says that Ananias lied to God. The supposition being, evidently, that the one lie [or deception] could only be directed to one person. Therefore the Holy Spirit “must” be God!

This type of reasoning is painfully ridiculous at best! Ananias actually lied directly to the Apostles! So this type of “reasoning” applies even more strongly to the Apostles than it does to the Holy Spirit! By using this “evidence” we could say with equal credibility that Peter is saying the Apostles are God when he says “you have not lied to men but to God”!

We can see a similar idea at Mark 9:37 -
“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me [so trinitarian-type ‘evidence’ proves this child is Jesus!]; and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.” - RSV.
So receiving the child is actually receiving the Son and the Father! The child, then, “must” be God Himself (by trinitarian standards of evidence)!

I’m sure the truth of this matter must be apparent to all objective persons. But, for good measure, you might examine such scriptures as Matt. 25:40 and Luke 10:16 and compare them with Acts 5:4. We can also see a similar usage in the rest of Acts 5:3, 4. In 5:3 we see that Satan filled Ananias’ heart to lie. But in 5:4 we find that Ananias himself conceived this thing in his heart. So this trinitarian-type evidence “reveals” another essential “mystery”: Satan is Ananias! Also analyze 1 Thess. 4:2, 6, 8; 1 Cor. 8:12; and James 4:11.

One of Christendom’s favorite trinitarians (and one of the humblest men found in history), St. Francis of Assisi, made an interesting statement that should be compared with Peter’s statement at Acts 5:3, 4. St. Francis said after receiving some clothing from a friend:
“Nothing could be better for me than these. I take them thankfully as your alms. You have given them to God.” - p. 66, Richest of the Poor - The Life of St. Francis of Assisi, Theodore Maynard, 1949.
Isn’t it obvious that, by willfully rebelling against the holy spirit (the motivating force sent by God) by lying to the Apostles, Ananias was also lying to God?

(Another similar statement of this concept is admitted even in the footnote for Acts 5:3 in a highly trinitarian publication of the RSV, the ecumenical study Bible, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1977, Oxford University Press: “The apostles, or perhaps the church, represent the Holy Spirit.”

Obviously, the Apostles receive their authority to represent God on earth through the power of the holy spirit (“in the name of the holy spirit”), so they “represent” not only that authorizing power but also God Himself. Therefore, the attempted deception of the Apostles by Ananias also equals an attempted deception of the Holy Spirit and an attempted deception of God.)

So, since the holy spirit (this impersonal power/force/direction) comes directly (and perfectly) from God himself, then, no matter what one does against that holy spirit, it is always equivalent to doing that very thing against God himself. For example, if I spit in disgust on the letter (the impersonal thing providing direction to me) from the king, it will always be understood as equivalent to my spitting on the king himself. If, on the other hand, I spit on a messenger from the king, it might not be considered such a serious offense if I were merely expressing a dislike for the person of the messenger himself, not his message from the king.

That is why Matthew 12:32 is so important to our understanding of God, Jesus, and the holy spirit. There Jesus says to his disciples, “Anyone who says something against the Son of Man [the heavenly, glorified Jesus][17] can be forgiven; but whoever says something against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven - now or ever.” - Good News Bible (and TEV), cf. Living Bible; also see Luke 12:10. Now if the Son of Man were actually a person who is God himself, this scripture would make no sense. In fact, the highly-esteemed trinitarian reference work The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology admits: “The saying about blasphemy and the Son of man (Matt. 12:31 f.; Lk 12:10) is particularly difficult to understand.” - p. 628, Vol. 3, Zondervan Publ., 1986. This is a powerful understatement!

Anything we spoke against the person of the Son of Man (if he were truly God as trinitarians insist) would have to be against the person of God himself and would have to be equivalent (at least) to speaking against the holy spirit! But if Jesus were not God himself but a different person, someone might speak against him (for something he said or did or the way he looks, etc.) as a person subordinate to God and not be speaking against God.

Therefore, this scripture (and Luke 12:10) shows Jesus is not equal to God and explains that the Father alone (who produces or sends the non-personal force/communication/motivation: holy spirit) is the God we dare not blaspheme. If this were not the proper interpretation, not only would the statement about blasphemies against Christ (equally “God”) being forgiven be nonsensical but the Most High and Only True God, the Father, would be completely ignored and the worst blasphemy would be only that against “God, the Holy Spirit”! This would be completely inconsistent with Jesus’ continual glorification of the Father alone!

One thing we agree with Trinitarians about: The Father is not the Son. The Son is not the Father. They are different persons. Now if the Holy Spirit is a person, as they say, then the HS is not the Father, and the HS is not the Son!

Nevertheless, occasionally we find 2 Cor. 3:17 used as evidence that the Holy Spirit is a person who is God: “The Lord is the Spirit.”

Now it is provable that the Lord Jehovah is the Father, and it is provable that the Lord Jesus is the Son. Therefore, IF the HS is a person, “he” cannot be either Jehovah or Jesus! That is why the noted trinitarian scholar E. F. Scott (in his The Spirit in the N.T.) can understand

Kurios [“Lord”] here [in 2 Cor. 3:17] to be Christ and interpret Paul as denying the personality of the Holy Spirit.” - Word Pictures in the New Testament, A. T. Robertson, Vol. IV, p. 223.

Also the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan Publishing, 1986, tells us:

“It is important to realize that for Paul too the Spirit is a divine power whose impact upon or entrance into a life is discernible by its effects.” and, “It is important for Paul that the Spirit is a shared gift; it is a centripedal force [not a person!] drawing believers together into the one body of Christ. .... They are constituted the one body of Christ by their common participation in the one Spirit.” - Vol. 3, pp. 701, 702.

Therefore to be ‘one’ with the Spirit results in being one with the Lord (whether it refers to Jehovah here, as I believe, or to Jesus as in most trinitarian interpretations. Having the active force of God, the Spirit, figuratively means having the Lord. Or as CBW, AT, and Moffatt translate 2 Cor. 3:17 “The Lord means the Spirit.” Or, as the extremely trinitarian The New American Bible, St. Joseph ed. tells us in a footnote for 2 Cor. 3:13-18 -

“The apostle knows that his work is to result in the permanent presence of Christ among men through the power of the Holy Spirit.”

And Thayer, also tells us:

“But in the truest and highest sense it is said [‘the Lord is the spirit’], he in whom the entire fulness of the Spirit dwells, and from whom that fulness is diffused through the body of Christian believers, 2 Co. iii. 17.... to be filled with the same spirit as Christ and by the bond of that spirit to be intimately united to Christ, 1 Co. vi. 17....” - pp. 522, 523, Baker Book House, 1984 printing.

So we can see that even many trinitarians believe this particular scripture is saying that Jesus is figuratively the Spirit because union with that Spirit means union with Jesus.

Another possibility is shown by this trinitarian translation:

“the Lord [whether Jehovah or Jesus] no doubt is a spirit .... but we ... are changed unto the same similitude, from glory to glory, even of the spirit of the Lord [or ‘just as the spirit comes from the Lord’ - Lamsa].” - 2 Cor. 3:17, 18, Tyndale’s New Testament, 1989, Yale University Press.

Not only do we never find anything approaching a clear statement of the trinity in the entire Bible, but in all the dreams, visions, etc. where we “see” God we never see a three-in-one God represented in any manner, nor do we ever see the “person” of the holy spirit (even though we often see the real spirit persons, the angels and Jesus, in association with that one true God). We nearly always “see” the heavenly spirit persons (God, Christ, angels) represented in human-like form. (E.g., Ezek. 1:5, 26; Acts 7:55.)
“The name [‘angel’] does not denote their nature, but their office as messengers” - p. 38. “As to their nature, they are spirits.... whenever angels appeared to man it was always in a human form.” - p. 39. And, “In...2 Cor. 3:17; 1 Tim. 3:16; 1 Pet. 3:18, it [‘spirit’] designates the divine nature.” - p. 593, Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1982, Bethany House Publ., written by mainstream trinitarian scholars.
So we see God (who is a spirit person) always represented in human form and always as a single person, e.g., Ezek. 1:26 (Ezekiel could have easily represented him as three persons or even one person with three faces—compare Ezek. 1:10 -- but no Bible writer ever does such a thing! (Compare Dan. 7:9, 13) We nearly always see the spirit person of the resurrected Jesus in human form and always as a single person. We always see the individual spirit persons who are messengers (angels) of God as individual persons (and, incidentally, always with masculine, not neuter or feminine, personal names). But we never see the holy spirit as a person (and it is frequently represented as something that can be dealt out in multiple portions) - Acts 2:3, 4.

It is more than just odd that we “see” God (the Father only, Jehovah), we see Christ (the Son only, Jesus) with God, sent from God praying to God, etc., but we never see the neuter “person” of the nameless holy spirit in heaven with God or with the Son!

This could not be if the trinity doctrine were true. The inspired Bible writers simply could not so completely ignore as they have in the Holy Scriptures a person who is God![18]

There is no proper evidence (let alone proof) for the concept of the holy spirit being a person who is God![19]

This certainly should come as no surprise when we understand that the Bible writers all considered the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force sent by God - (see pp. 1-4). When a person rejects that force which God himself has produced and sent, then, of course, he is also rejecting the Most High God. This is why Jesus can equate the Holy Spirit with God and, at the same time (since Jesus is not God), show the superiority of God to himself:

“whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven” - Matt. 12:32, RSV.


For End Notes click here: