Hi everyone,
I told Jim I was not going to get into a discussion about the Holy Spirit again with him and in a way, I am not. He already knows my personal views as we must have covered hundreds of posts back and forth on the issue. But I would like to address one thing that is wrong with this post he made. Because it has been bothering me all day.
Jim,
You start off by asking if anyone can solve this quote? then you go on and say, well if you try to solve it, I will only let you give this kind of evidence which I find as satisfactory. these are not your exact words but are pretty close. This is very unfair to everyone else and is not opening up the issue for discussion at all. Because you are stacking the evidence in your favor - by limiting the evidence that someone can give.
secondly, you will never get an adequate response that will make you satisfied. This is why - because you want proof from a language expert as to why the early bible writers used the first person when speaking about the holy spirit. There is no way to get this information and that is the point that you are not getting. A language expert is not even the right one to ask about this.
You would have to ask NOT a language expert from today, but one of the bible writers themselves. Becuase the early bible writers were not literary masters of the english language and probably would not understand what it means to write in the first person. Do you understand this? Modern man has made up terms such as "first person" and he did so to explain a type of writing style. But you cannot conclusively prove that this is how the bible writers felt unless you ask them yourself. By writing in the first person, they may or may not have been trying to make a particular point about the holy spirit. It does not matter what a language expert of today says. You have to ask a man of faith, who has expereinced the Holy Spirit first hand, just what he meant by the description he gave and why he spoke in the first person.
sometimes we make things more complicated then they are. The bible writers could simply have been trying to describe a very difficult concept, (holy spirit) and wrote that it spoke in the first person to emphasis that it is real and not just a figment of their imagination. It could be just that simple. Many times when people write and try to explain difficult concepts, they use language that will help people grasp the concept. But after over 2,000 years to go back and try to figure out exactly why they wrote in a particular style, is impossible.
And the concept of the trinity could have been the early church fathers way of explaining a hard concept about the nature of God, Jesus and holy spirit. They are linked together in a sense. Believers are linked to God and Christ by the indwelling of the holy spirt. But most people will never understand the true nature of the holy spirit unless THEY experience the indwelling of it.
to me, the verse you quoted when I read it in context was just showing that a prophet most likely was interpreting what God wanted as he revealed it to the prophet by his holy spirit. Because it was a prophet that was speaking and not the holy spirit itself. To you, the holy spirit himself was speaking. Either one could be correct. Or, maybe we are both wrong.
I don't understand why you don't just put it to rest already. You have argued this point on several threads already about whether the holy spirit speaks on his or its own or not. Or whether the spirit should be personafied or is a personal thing. All these concepts are human made. Just like with faith in God, you have to experience it to get it. Same with holy spirit. You have to experience it to get it.
I could tell you about my personal experince with holy spirit, but then again, it would not meet your outlined criteria of proof.
Why not just accept that some believe the holy spirit is a person and some do not? And move on to other more important things.
Anyway, have a good night.
