Re: Holy Spirit in Islam and in New Teatament Thinking, Tim's reply

Date: Sun May 26 1996 - 22:22:25 EDT

At 08:50 PM 5/25/96, Mr. Timothy T. Dickens wrote:
>Dear brother Akbar,
> 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.
>You replied:
>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!!!
AM: Dear Tim: I have given the name of an OLDER Manuscript. The fact
that the manuscript is in Syriac does not change the actuality of the
matter that the translator who could have easily translated the
word "Holy" did not. He probably did not see the word "Holy" in
the original Greek MSS from which he did the translation.
>>>(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
AM: I hope to hear from you soon.

>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."
> You wrote:
> Brother Tim, I would like to edit the last line of your
> response.
>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).
AM: You objected to my editing.
BUT, you yourself in the above "formal logical notation"
have written (admitted) "A > ST".
And, that's all I have been saying.
>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!
AM: In my NASB it reads; "and for that reason the holy offspring
shall be called the Son of God."

The term "Holy" (meaning sacred, divine), in this passage
is an adjective.
Whereas the term "Holy Spirit" is an entity.
The 3rd Person of the Trinity.
You are confusing one with the other.
        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
>'dangerous precedent.'
AM: "male child" is a phrase. In Greek it is used for
male child/son of a man or an animal.
The phrase as such is masculine.
What the women in question brought forth would
take the pronoun "he". If the "male child" was called "it"
I would tend to agree with your reasoning.
Please read the text.

With warm regards and prayers


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:43 EDT