From: Mr. Timothy T. Dickens (MDick39708@gnn.com)
Date: Sat May 25 1996 - 20:50:50 EDT
Dear brother Akbar,
Thank you once again for your swift reply. I sent my message
to you after midnight, and your response was in my box by morning!
Wow that was fast!!! Anyway, getting back to the specifics of this
debate, I intend to answer each point in separate letters, if that
is O.K. with you. Thus, some points I will address now others i
will address later.
In a previous post you said:
(A) As for the Holy Spirit, the word "Holy" has been added.
It is not found in the older mss in some of the verses.
And I responded with:
what passage of John's gospel are you referring to when you
say that the word "Holy" has been added? I have looked
through all the passages I mentioned above a second time, this
times paying careful attention to the critical apparatus which
discusses the various manuscripts. I do not see any
manuscript indicating the word "Holy" has been indicated.
Brother Tim: Mrs. Agnes S. Lewis and Mrs. Bensley discovered
a manuscript from St. Catherine’s monastery on Mt. Sinai.
In this palimpsest Codex Syriacus in John 14:26 the word
mentioned is quite simply "the spirit" and not "the holy spirit".
For further details please read Dr. Maurice Bucaille's book
`The Bible, the Qur'an and Science'.
TTD: I looked through a book by Dr. Bruce Manning Metzger called
'The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and
Restoration' (New York: Oxford 1968). Dr. Metzger mentions Agnes
Lewis and the manuscript to which you are referring. The manuscript
is called Syr(s). There is only one slight problem: The Agnes S.
Lewis manuscript which you are referring to is NOT GREEK, it is
SYRIAC!!! Syriac is a form of Aramaic, the language that Jesus
spoke. The gospel of John was written originally in common everyday
(Koine) Greek! Thus, the use of a Syriac manuscript for the reading
of the Greek in John 14:26 raises serious scholarly questions!!!
>>(B) The term Spirit refers to "The Spirit of Truth".
>Please read carefully the below quoted passage from
>the Anchor Bible Volume 29A Page 1135:
> "Christian tradition has identified this figure
>(Paraclete) as the Holy Spirit, but scholars like Spitta,
>Delefosse, Windisch, Sasse, Bultmann, and Betz have doubted
>whether this identification is true to the original picture
>and have suggested that the Paraclete was once an independent
>salvific figure, later confused with the Holy Spirit."
>So, I am not the only one saying "Paraclete" was a Male Figure.
TTD: I would like to respond to this question a bit later, God
Later I (Tim Dickens) wrote:
O.K. Brother Akbar, here is the evidence for the Holy Spirit
being called the Spirit of Truth. In John's gospel 14:26 the "Holy
Spirit" is called the "Advocate." In John 15:26 the "Advocate is
called the "Spirit of Truth." Notice, the "Holy Spirit" is the
"Advocate" and the "Advocate" is called the "Spirit of Truth."
Thus, the "Holy Spirit" is the "Spirit of Truth."
Brother Tim, I would like to edit the last line of your
TTD: My question to you is why did you edit the last line of my
response? According to the information I listed above, the
following valid syllogism can be offered:
If it is the Holy Spirit(HS), then it is the Advocate(A).
If it is the Advocate(A), then it is the Spirit of truth(ST).
Therefore, If it is the Holy Spirit(HS), then it is the Spirit
of Truth(ST). (HS=ST)
Written in formal logical notation it looks like this. . .,
HS > A
A > ST
HS > ST
This argument is foolproof by a rule of Aristotelian reasoning
called Hypothetical Syllogism. ('>' stands for 'If-then).
Later Brother Akbar, you said:
You have quoted 14:16-17,26;15:26 in your response.
In each of the above verses, John has used the pronoun
"He" and "Him". John has used these pronouns for more than
a dozen times while referring to Paraclete.
The question is why are Christians over
looking this obvious FACT and believe John meant "It"
instead when he did not use that pronoun once???
To say the author did not know the Greek grammar is to say
ignore what is written and adopt what you think
ought to have been written, instead. A dangerous precedent.
Later I said I would respond to you; I will do so now.
In the gospel of Luke 1:35, the angel said to Mary,
The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most
High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will
be called holy, Son of God. (New Revised Standard Version)
Here is an example that demonstrates what you think to be a
'dangerous precedent.' The Greek for 'the child to be born' and
'holy' is neuter in gender AND it is related to the masculine noun
'Son of God.' Here is an example of a masculine noun being
syntactically related to something neuter!
Here is another example, in case I be accused of proof texting
you with only one verse. In the book of Revelation 12:5, the author
And she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule the
nations with a rod of iron, (New Revised Standard Version)
Regarding the words 'male child,' male(arsen) is neuter and
child(Huion) is masculine. Thus, another example setting a
At this point Brother Akbar, I am tired. I will have to reply
to your other fine points of argumentation at a later date.
with much Peace and Love,
Timothy T. Dickens
"No man should bring children into the world who is unwilling to continue their nurture and education." Plato's Crito, Section 45D.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:43 EDT