kilroy@mimsy.UUCP (Nancy's Sweetie) (09/25/89)
I've been watching the comments on both sides of the Holy Spirit discussion (and wondering just what the HS thinks of all this bantering), and it may be that I missed a part of it, but I thought that the basis behind the JW position was that the original Greek required It-hood for the HS. But when I read this from Jack King: >I still contend that the holy spirit is an 'it', and not a 'he', but, >alas, I must conclude that this can neither be proved nor disproved from >the Greek. I started wondering if I've misunderstood earlier articles (it wouldn't be the first time). My questions: 1) If your belief that the HS is not an it doesn't come from the original Greek, on what is it based? 2) What distinguishes a `person' from an `it' in your theology? 3) Much of the language about the HS in the Scriptures is metaphorical (God does not have a large Holy Spirit Pitcher that he uses to pour out the Spirit -- uh, well, I don't think he does), so how do you decide which of the metaphors *do* give data you can use in your categories from question (2), and which metaphors *don't* give you useful information? (Or, perhaps, "how do you know which metaphors you can disregard?") kilroy@mimsy.umd.edu Darren F. Provine ...uunet!mimsy!kilroy "More words count less." -- Lao Tsu, _Tao Te Ching_ [This is not meant as a criticism of the preceeding, with which I generally agree. However some of the discussion of JW issues seems to take for granted that to say the HS is a person or even that he is personal is equivalent to accepting the Trinity. It is not obvious to me that this is right. Trinitarian doctrine says that there are three hypostases. Hypostasis is translated "person", but that translation is in my opinion somewhat misleading. I generally use the term "entity", which is closer to the abstractness of the Greek. The term "person" in modern English implies such things as personality and being personal. Personality in its full sense seems to be fairly modern. I think the current concept of a "personal God" also has some implications to it that are modern. I'm not sure it is right to associate these concepts with the use of "person" in the Trinity. Augustine had a model of the Trinity in which it is not entirely clear that the Holy Spirit is really "a person" in the modern sense. It seems to come across as the mutual love between the Father and Son. Of course love is personal, but it is not clear that it is a person. I would suggest that even if one wants to avoid the Trinity, it might be reasonable to think of the Holy Spirit as personal. Even if the Holy Spirit is thought of as simply God's presence with us, ultimately experience of any aspect of God, i.e. his presence, his power, etc., is going to be experience of God himself, and that is an encounter with a person (modern sense). I can easily see this leading to the concept that one should think of the Holy Spirit as being "he" or "she", without necessarily invoking the whole theological apparatus of the Trinity. --clh]
randall@thor.sandiego.ncr.com (09/29/89)
A comment about the Holy Spirit being a person or it...
2 quotes paraphrased from Acts in the New Testament:
Peter and Ananias - Peter replied "You have lied to the Holy
Spirit..."
When Paul and Barnabas were ministering to the Lord, The Holy
Spirit said "Separate unto me Paul and Barnarbas to the ministry
whereunto I have called them"
It is apparent from these 2 verses that a person is involved,
not an impersonal force or influence.
- Randall
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Randall L. Rathbun | INTERNET - Randall.Rathbun@SanDiego.NCR.COM
NCR E & M - San Diego | UUCP - {backbone}!ncr-sd!thor!randall
16550 W Bernardo Drive | TELE # - (USA) (619) 485-2997 or 2358
San Diego, CA 92127 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------