The Holy Spirit

[Mark Clarke]

Under "More Blatant PFAL Errors" I pointed out, among other things, how VPW's distinction between "holy spirit IN" in the NT and "holy spirit UPON" in the OT was not a Biblical concept. I've been thinking about how most of us were told that VP's "specialty" or "field of expertise" was the holy spirit field. Besides the fact that he took most of his Receiving the Holy Spirit Today from the works of others, especially Stiles and Leonard, I maintain that the ideas he presented were not even accurate Biblically.

The following are excerpts from the article about the Holy Spirit on my website. (The full article can be seen here.) I'll post them in small chunks for easier reading. First of all, in PFAL tradition, I deal with "What It Is Not."

There has been much misunderstanding about the holy spirit. The King James and some other versions of the Bible most often use the phrase "Holy Ghost" but the word "ghost" carries different connotations today, and most Christians generally prefer "Holy Spirit." Most of mainstream Christendom believes that the holy spirit is a person, specifically the third person of the Trinity. I deal with the Trinity in relation to Who is Messiah in a Closer Look article. Historically the belief in the holy spirit as the third person was even later that the belief that Jesus was God. The deity of Christ became official doctrine in 325, while the holy spirit was not established as the third person of the Trinity until 381.

Most Christians think of the holy spirit as a person, partly because it is used with personal pronouns, such as "He," "Him" and "Who" in most English Bibles. The words "he" and "him" are used because the Greek pronouns are masculine in gender. Greek, like many other languages, assigns gender to many inanimate objects, so the use of a masculine pronoun does not automatically make the noun a person. Since we don't assign gender to inanimate objects in English, the masculine pronouns would be translated as "it" unless it was assumed that a person is referred to. Even in the King James Version, Romans 8:16 refers to "the spirit itself." And the word translated "who" can also be translated "which," as it is in a number of verses referring to "the spirit."

Grammar aside, the Bible nowhere presents the holy spirit as a person. For one thing, it is never given a proper name. God's proper name is given as Yahweh, and His Son's name is Jesus. But the holy spirit is simply called the holy spirit. The epistles frequently include greetings from the Father and the Son. However, never do they give greetings "from the Holy Spirit." Why would this be so if the holy spirit were a co-equal, co-eternal person?

Jesus instructed his disciples to pray to the Father, and to do it in his name. He told them to ask God to send His holy spirit. Never are we told to pray to the holy spirit, and "ask him to come into our hearts" as many do today. The spirit is poured forth by Jesus (Acts 2:33), and we are baptized in it (Acts 1:5). One cannot pour forth a person, or be baptized in a person. The spirit is described as the spirit of God or the spirit of Christ. Furthermore, Matthew 11:27 says that no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son. Matthew 24:36 says that no man knows the hour of Christ's return, not even the Son, but only the Father. John wrote in his first epistle that a person is antichrist if he denies the Father and the Son (I John 2:22-23). In his second epistle he wrote, "He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son" (II John 9). If the holy spirit is a third co-equal person, why is there no mention of him in verses like these?

I believe VPW had it right when he taught that the holy spirit is not the Third Person of the Trinity. But I think what he said it was, is just as incorrect. I'll continue in the next post.

[Mark Clarke]

Continuing with "What it is Not" regarding the holy spirit, this excerpt deals with some of the inconsistencies in TWI's doctrine about it.

The words "holy spirit" are generally capitalized in most writing, since they are understood to mean a person. The ministry with which I was involved believed that the holy spirit was not the third person of the Trinity, but they had an equally erroneous definition. They taught that The Holy Spirit (with capital letters and the definite article) is simply another name for God, while holy spirit (with lower case letters and no "the") was God's gift that He gave on Pentecost. Like the Trinitarian definition, this view of the holy spirit is read into Scriptures rather than being derived from them. Capitalizing "holy" and "spirit" or "ghost" in the English is a relatively recent device, which was not used in the earliest English translations. There was no capitalization in the Greek or Hebrew texts, so basing a difference in meaning on whether it is capitalized or not is forcing an interpretation on the Scriptures which has no foundation. In actuality it doesn't make much difference whether the phrase is capitalized, and even other Biblical Unitarians (those who believe God is one person and not a trinity) vary as to whether they capitalize it or not. Personally I choose not to capitalize holy spirit to emphasize that it is not a person, but this is a matter of choice, not of doctrine.

In addition, the article "the" is used sometimes and not others, and does not define a distinction as I was taught. One can introduce the subject as "holy spirit" and then refer back to it as

the

holy spirit. In grammar this is called anaphoric use of the article. In the same way I could say an angel appears, and then refer to him as

the

angel. There are a number of verses where the definite article is used, but clearly referring to the gift and not to God, while Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:35 state that Jesus Christ was conceived by "holy spirit" (no article in the Greek). The idea that "The Holy Spirit" means God and "holy spirit" means His gift has no Biblical foundation.

There are some other cases where the article appears in English but not in Greek, such as Matthew 3:11, as well as all the other verses in which John's baptism is contrasted with baptism "with [the] Holy Ghost." John the baptist being "filled with [the] Holy Ghost from his mother's womb" is another example, as well as several references to being filled with [the] holy spirit in Acts. In these cases it is true that the Greek reads "filled with holy spirit" (no article) and the word "the" is added in English. However there are a number of instances where the article does appear in the Greek, but it is plainly referring to the gift of holy spirit, not to God Himself. For example, when Jesus was baptized, it says that "the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him" (Luke 3:22). The Greek uses definite articles before

both

words, i.e., "

the

holy

the

spirit." This form was supposed to indicate God the Giver according to my former belief system, but it is clearly not God Himself Who descended in bodily shape like a dove. Likewise, John 14:26 specifically refers to God's gift, but uses the double article: "But the Comforter, which is

the

Holy

the

Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." Use of the definite article when it is referring to God's gift can also be seen in Acts 10:44, 47; 11:15; 15:8; 19:6 as well as Ephesians 1:13 (literally, "sealed with

the

holy

the

spirit of promise") and I Thessalonians 4:8 (literally, "...God, who hath also given unto us his

the

holy

the

Spirit." Notice the double use of "the" along with the pronoun "his").

John 7:39 uses both "the spirit" and "holy ghost" (no article) referring to the same thing. "But this spake he of

the

Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for ... Holy Ghost [KJV has "the Holy Ghost," but there is no article in the Greek] was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified." And you can see the same gift referred to, both with and without the article, in Acts 8:17-19, "Then laid they their hands on them, and they received ... Holy Ghost [no "the"]. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands

the

Holy

the

Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive ... Holy Ghost" [no "the"]. So you can see that "holy spirit" and "

the

holy spirit" are interchangeable; there is no difference in meaning between the two phrases.

According to the doctrine I used to hold to, the gift of holy spirit was the "incorruptible seed" which gave me eternal life. It also included the God-given ability to walk in power. It was given by God, but once He gave it to me it was part of me, and I could do with it as I chose. Thus the emphasis was on "me" and "my" spirit, instead of on "God" and "His" spirit. There were said to be a number of different "usages" of the word

pneuma

, the Greek word for spirit. Interestingly, hardly anyone in that organization ever looked at how the Hebrew word for spirit,

ruach

, was used in the Old Testament. If they had, perhaps a simpler, more straightforward understanding of the Spirit of God would have been seen.

More to come...

[Mister P-Mosh]

Upon looking at the historical record, I've come to the idea that the holy ghost might be a representation of Asherah, who the ancient Israelites believed was the wife of the god El and later the god YHWH, both of which are inspirations for the Christian god.

[Mark Clarke]

Upon looking at the historical record, I've come to the idea that the holy ghost might be a representation of Asherah, who the ancient Israelites believed was the wife of the god El and later the god YHWH, both of which are inspirations for the Christian god.

What historical record would that be?

[Abigail]

That is an interesting and valid point, PMosh. Within Judaism, even today, there is recognition given to a female aspect to God, which some see as simply that - an aspect. Others see this female aspect as a separate diety. Still others worship this female aspect, without relealizing they are even doing it. Part of the weekly sabbath service is to welcome in this "sabbath diety" that is understood in the feminine.

Some Rabbi's have speculated that this is a carry over from pagan cultures. Others speculate that this femine spirit/diety/aspect has been a part of Judaism since the beginning. Interestingly, little is taught or spoken of it outside of the more ultra-orthodox sects, though I have heard bits and pieces of it among the reconstructionist sect as well.

So which came first, the chicken or the egg? Was this feminine aspect/diety borrowed from pagan religions or was it there since "in the beginning" and passed along to the pagan cultures?

[Twinky]

Interesting, Mark, and I look forward to more to come.

What are you using to refer to and research "the" holy "the" spirit (or not) - are you checking in an interlinear, or are you using some other source(s)?

[Mister P-Mosh]

What historical record would that be?

Basically that the ancient Israelites and Caananites believed in Asherah as the wife or consort of their god, and in the Gospel of St. Thomas (which is a biblical text that has been excluded from the "official" bible that the Counsel of Nicea agreed upon) quoted Jesus referring to God as his father and the Holy Spirit as his mother. She is mentioned in other ways in various gnostic texts too, and there are references to her in a negative way in I think Deuteronomy and one other book of the bible that I forgot. However, there are potential other references to her in Proverbs as "Lady Wisdom" that may shed some light on that topic from within the bible itself.

Basically, if you really want to learn more about Asherah, your best bet is to talk to Jewish people. As you can see, Abigail is also aware of the recognition of Asherah. As an atheist, it's nothing more to me than understanding ancient religions and history. I don't care too much about it, but I was intrigued when I heard about it as one of the reasons I left TWI was because I found them to be too misogynistic. If I found evidence that their god had a wife that was also worshiped by the ancient Israelites, I could make some TWI-heads explode.

[sirguessalot]

for what its worth...Shekinah is another historical expression of feminine divine

also, i just bumped an old thread of mine on Body, Soul and Spirit that seems to relate to this one

and as ive mentioned before...vpw/pfal/twi and ilk certainly suffers from over-masculization of jewish and christian wisdom, history, doctrine and practice

removing the feminine nature of spirit leads to all the things warned against in Romans...

...all competition and striving and violence...no cooperation and surrender and peace

where even woman are forced to behave and think and interpret in these kinds of masculine-only modes

and it seems this has been going on so long...we are like fish who do not know how wet we are

[cman]

And the Spirit of God

moved upon the face of the waters.

Spirit of God, in the original Hebrew, is ruah Elohim. Ruah, the

word meaning “Spirit,” is a feminine noun. Elohim is a grammati-

cal feminine plural form of God.

In both the Hebrew and Aramaic language the word spirit is in the feminine gender but in the Greek language it is neuter. It is the Greek neuter word, pnuema, that was employed by the ancient Septuagint translators of the Hebrew Old Testament when they translated the feminine ruach into Greek. The authors who wrote in Greek were limited in expressing the Holy Spirit in the feminine by the constraints of the language. In addition, signposts directing one to the feminine nature of the Holy Spirit may have been removed or altered. Bart Ehrman, writes in his book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, that from his comparative analysis, the Orthodox Church altered the texts to counter various beliefs considered heresies.

Where then do we go for direct textual evidence that the Holy Spirit was, in the origins of Christianity, considered feminine? We go to the existing Greek minuscules copied in the early part of the last millennium to find only circumstantial evidence. Likewise, as we go to the earlier copied Greek uncials, the Byzantine copies, the eastern Syriac Pedangta, and the Old Latin we find some peripheral corroboration. Then when we go to the earlier copied Old Syriac that predates the Pedangta we find a pearl of great price. In the most ancient of the rare Old Syriac copies, the Siniatic Palimpsest, from the 4th or 5th century, found in the Covenant of St. Catherine in the Sinia by Mrs. Anes Lewis and transcribed by Syriac Professor R.L. Bensly of Cambridge University in 1892, the words of Jesus in John 14:26 read:

But She -the Spirit - the Paraclete whom He-will-send to you- my Father - in my name - She will teach you every-thing; She will remind you of that which I have told you.

And God said, Let us make man in our own image after our likeness…. Gen1:26

The Hebrew word for God in this verse is elohiym. It is in the plural so the pronouns us, and our are properly supplied. Any thing more than one is plural. In the next verse the Hebrew word for God is also elohiym. In this next verse, the pronoun translated as his is also plural and should be translated their. The image of their own, in which elohiym created man, was male and female. These Gods or elohiym were and are two; male and female- the Father and the Holy Spirit. They made mankind in the likeness of themselves.

When one becomes persuaded of the union of the feminine and masculine, Paul’s revelation opens dramatically as the consummate epic work of the eternal union that brings together sons and daughters as the one new man in Christ of Ephesians.

(copied from the net-sources not cited)

[sirguessalot]

hmm..yeah..ive often asked ...

who is it that comforts a child immediately after birth?

who is it that provides milk to babes?

i recall jesus teaching a scholarly man what he was missing

by pointing to wisdom found in midwifery

i recall paul referring to himself as a nursemaid

[Mark Clarke]

Interesting, Mark, and I look forward to more to come.

What are you using to refer to and research "the" holy "the" spirit (or not) - are you checking in an interlinear, or are you using some other source(s)?

I double checked in an interlinear, but I first noticed these discrepancies in Receiving the Holy Spirit Today itself. The appendix has every occurrence of "spirit" (pneuma) and under each one it indicates whether the article "the" is in the Greek. Yet in that very appendix I noticed some verses that did not fit with the "accepted" pattern. Some with "the" (even with 2 "the's") clearly referred to the gift, not the Giver, and some without "the" referred to God, the Giver. The whole notion of this distinction, in fact, is not derived from anything in the Scriptures themselves, but simply asserted, and then read back into the Bible.

[Abigail]

for what its worth...Shekinah is another historical expression of feminine divine

Thanks, Sir! That was the word I was looking for, but my brain just couldn't find it. I know I did some posts on this subject some time ago. She is the femine aspect of God, thought to dwell within and it is the Shekinah that is welcomed in for the sabbath.

Maybe over the weekend I can post more, depending on where this thread goes.

Cman, you added some great stuff as well. Reading it makes me think of the Roman Catholics .In their own way, they do give recognition to the feminine through Mary.

[Abigail]

If I found evidence that their god had a wife that was also worshiped by the ancient Israelites, I could make some TWI-heads explode.

Well you are pretty right on the money with that one, P-Mosh. There were, at least during various times, Israelites that believed God had a wife and she was also worshipped. The stories are contained within the oral traditions and can be hard to find. Generally one has to be a Yeshiva student to learn them, but the Chassidics are not so stingy about sharing the oral traditions.

I have come across bits and pieces of the stories before. I'll have to see if I can dig some of it up again.

[Mark Clarke]

cman,

One thing we must remember is that many languages, including Hebrew and Greek, assign gender to words without necessarily meaning they are masculine or feminine in nature.

Second, I would take anything Bart Ehrman says with a grain of salt. There have been a number of rebuttals of his claims by equally competent scholars.

Also, while Elohim is plural in form, it most often takes singular pronouns when referring to God. Gen. 1:26 is one of only a few verses where it has a plural one, and they may well be referring to God speaking to His angels. Just because a word has a plural form does not necessarily mean the word is plural. There are a number of other Hebrew words that have a plural ending yet actually are singular. The words for "face" and for "water" are two I can think of off the top of my head. This is a big issue in dealing with Trinitarians who want to claim that Elohim is really plural, implying three in one. But the vast majority of occurrences of Elohim referring to God take singular pronouns and modifiers.

To say that "these Gods or elohim were and are two; male and female" would directly contradict the many verses that speak of God as one, singular person. The only time the word is used to refer to plural entities is when it refers to false heathen gods, and then it takes plural modifiers.

As I get more into this study, I'll show how in the OT the Spirit of God refers to His presence and power at work, rather than a separate person or god.

Edited February 5, 2009 by Mark Clarke

[Abigail]

Consider this, Mark . . .

IF, as some of the Jewish oral traditions suggest, God had a wife and IF (as the Bible says, when a man and woman marry the two shall become as one) then God and his wife would have become as one. If, we are now the bride, then we too shall become one . . .

[Mark Clarke]

Consider this, Mark . . .

IF, as some of the Jewish oral traditions suggest, God had a wife and IF (as the Bible says, when a man and woman marry the two shall become as one) then God and his wife would have become as one. If, we are now the bride, then we too shall become one . . .

I've heard some "new age" type religions talk about God having a wife, and I've heard about pagan religions having a God and a Goddess. What Jewish oral traditions suggest this?

[leafytwiglet]

:unsure: TO me when I see this stuff I realize how very little we (mankind) really know and even less understand.

And how much richer every thing is.

[Abigail]

I've heard some "new age" type religions talk about God having a wife, and I've heard about pagan religions having a God and a Goddess. What Jewish oral traditions suggest this?

hehhe, I was looking for it as you posted. It may be the weekend before I have the time to find it again. It's been a while since I've looked at this topic.

[cman]

New Age, mostly just start seeing what already is.

Labeling anyone is a waste of time.

I posted info, take it or leave it.

The truth is that each person has masculine and feminine qualities.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

And any opinion about scholars, reminds me of opinions about others as well.

[Mark Clarke]

There have been many views and opinions since ancient times about the nature of the spirit or soul. My purpose for starting this thread is to point out what the Scriptures teach, in contrast to what we were taught in TWI. The ideas expressed by various other sources, ancient or modern, would be a separate topic, outside the scope of what I'm presenting here.

One quick comment though. Cman wrote, "The truth is that each person has masculine and feminine qualities." That's true. What I am demonstrating is that the holy spirit is not a person. There may be "masculine" and "feminine" sides to God's nature, but what traits are masculine and what traits are feminine is based on a lot of generalization and conjecture anyway.

One of the things we were taught involved the concept of man being a three part being of body, soul, and spirit. This was based on one verse that listed those three (I Thes. 5:23) and one which listed three verbs: created, formed, and made (Isaiah 43:7). It was said that each of the three lined up, i.e., the spirit was created, the body was formed, the soul was made. There are a few problems with that, however. First of all, the order cannot be used to line them up, since I Thes. 5:23 has "spirit, soul, and body" while Isaiah 43:7 has "created, formed, and made." Second, the words created, formed and made are all used to describe the heavens and earth in Isaiah 45:18, not just a three part man. And third, the words "created" and "made" are used interchangeably throughout the Old Testament.

The following is from an article about the Gap Theory, but describes the Hebrew words in question:

A great emphasis was placed on the distinction between "created" and "formed" or "made." To create, it was said, means to bring into existence, out of nothing, that which never before existed. The fact that the words "formed" and "made" are used throughout Genesis 1 was supposed to imply that God was fashioning things out of material that already existed, having been created in verse 1. This is a misunderstanding of the word "create." In Hebrew it is the word

bara

. While it is used to describe bringing into existence out of nothing, it is not limited to that meaning, nor is it the only word to be used that way. It is used in Isaiah 65:18 referring to a restored Jerusalem, and it is translated as "cut down" in the sense of clearing out and developing the land, in Joshua 17:15 and 18.

The Hebrew word

asah

is translated "made" but it can be used interchangeably with

bara

, create. Both words are used to describe God's work. Genesis 2:4 reads, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created [

bara

], in the day that the LORD God made [

asah

] the earth and the heavens." In Exodus 20:11 we read, "For in six days the LORD made [

asah

] heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day..." The word

asah

("made") is also used to describe God's act of creation in the following verses: Exodus 20:11; II Kings 19:15; II Chronicles 2:12; Nehemiah 9:6; Psalms 33:6; 96:5; 115:15; 121:2; 124:8; 134:3; 136:5; 146:6; Proverbs 8:26; Ecclesiastes 3:11; Isaiah 37:16; 44:24; 45:12, 18; Jeremiah 10:12; 27:5; 32:17; 51:15.

Interestingly, three words are used referring to the heavens and earth in Isaiah 45:18. "For thus saith the LORD that created [

bara

] the heavens; God himself that formed [

yatsar

] the earth and made [

asah

] it; he hath established it, he created [

bara

] it not in vain, he formed [

yatsar

] it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else." The same three words are used in Isaiah 43:7. "Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created [

bara

] him for my glory, I have formed [

yatsar

] him; yea, I have made [

asah

] him." I was taught that it would not have used three different words unless there were three things being referred to. (Ironically, the same ministry taught about figures of speech in which more than one word referring to the same thing was used for emphasis.)

They said that God formed man's body, made his soul, and created his spirit. However Genesis 1:26 says, "...Let us make [

asah

] man in our image, after our likeness." They said that God's likeness was spirit (which they said was created), yet this verse says God made man in His image. Then verse 27 says, "So God created [

bara

] man in his own image, in the image of God created [

bara

] he him; male and female created [

bara

] he them." Both

asah

and

bara

are used to describe making man in God's image. Plus, He "created" them "male and female," so

bara

can't be used exclusively of the spirit of God in man, as I was taught. As you can see, the words are interchangeable.

The explanation went that the spirit was the part of man that allowed him to communicate with God, and when man sinned he lost that spirit and therefore the communication with God. After that man was only body and soul. When a Christian is born again and receives holy spirit, that third part is restored to him once again. This was the theory we all heard in PFAL, but there is nothing like it in the Bible. According to the Hebrew Scriptures, man doesn't so much "have" a soul, but rather "is" a soul, that is, a living being. The following is from an article about the State of the Dead on my web site:

Genesis 2:7 - "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath [

nashamah

] of life [

chai

]; and man became a living [

chai

] soul [

nephesh

]."

So the soul (

nephesh

) is not the "breath of life" that made man alive. Two Hebrew words that are both translated either "breath" or "spirit" are

nashamah

and

ruach

. They are used interchangeably in the English phrase, "breath of life," in the different places where it occurs.

Nashamah

is used in Genesis 2:7 and 7:22, while

ruach

is used in Genesis 6:17 and 7:15. So the "breath of life" is the spirit or life force that makes man and animals alive. God breathed into man's nostrils the spirit of life and man became a living soul. Notice it does not say that God put a soul in man. It says man became a living soul. The word "soul" is

nephesh

in Hebrew and it means simply a conscious being animated by breath life.

Animals are described as "living souls" as well. In Genesis 1:21 and 24, the phrase "living creature" (

chai nephesh

in Hebrew) is literally a living soul. In Genesis 1:20 the phrase "the moving creature that hath life" is translated "swarms of living creatures" in other versions (RSV, NRSV, NASB). Even the New King James Version (NKJV) says, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures." A soul is a living creature. But a soul can also be dead. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die" (Ezekiel 18: 4 and 20). When people died, they would be called dead souls (Leviticus 21:11; Numbers 6:6; 9:6,7,10; 19:11,13; and other places, where the word

nephesh

occurs, although it is translated "body" in most English versions).

There are some cases where it is said that a person "has" soul, but it is in the sense of having life, not in the sense of his soul being a distinct part of him that can be separated. The word soul is also used in a variety of other ways referring to a person's life ("as my soul liveth") or to the person himself ("I said to my soul..." means "I said to myself" or "My soul desires it" means "I myself desire it"). But the thing that must be emphasized here is that the word soul is never used as an entity that is housed in a body and released to live on at death. Such an idea was not a part of Hebrew thinking in Old Testament times.

This is also true of the Greek word

psuche

in its Biblical usage (though not in the secular use of the word).

Psuche

is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word

nephesh

. Nigel Turner writes the following in Christian Words (T&T Clark):

We must concede that the Biblical Greek

psuche

means "physical life" ... Alongside this conception...there appears in Biblical Greek the meaning "person"...the life of man, his will, emotions, and above all, his "self." If a man gained all the world only to lose his

psuche

(soul), it represents a loss of himself--not a part of him. When there were added to the church about 3000

psuchai

(Acts 2:41), whole men were added. The fear coming upon every

psuche

was upon every person (Acts 2:43). Every

psuche

must be subject to the state (Rom. 13:1), and so throughout the New Testament (Acts 3:23; Romans 2:9; I Corinthians 15:45; I Peter 3:20; II Peter 2:14; Revelation 16:3).

Another example that can be added to that list is Revelation 20:4, which refers to "the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus." This does not refer to disembodied souls, as many understand this passage. It simply refers to those persons who had been beheaded, and it is describing them being raised, to live and reign with Christ. Verse 6 refers to this as a resurrection, implying that they were dead, not previously existing in a disembodied state.

We saw from Genesis 2:7 that man became a living soul when he was infused with the breath of life. This breath, or spirit, of life is common to man and animals. (Not to be confused with the spirit of God, which is the same Hebrew word,

ruach

, but identified as God's spirit in the context.) Animals are identified as having the breath or spirit of life in Genesis 7:15. "And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath (

ruach

) of life (

chai

)." Both man and animals have a common fate, according to Ecclesiastes.

Ecclesiastes 3:

19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath [

ruach

]; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

21 Who knoweth the spirit [

ruach

] of man that goeth upward, and the spirit [

ruach

] of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

Verse 21 is sometimes misread as a description of man going to heaven when he dies. Chapter 12, verse 7 is similarly misread.

Ecclesiastes 12:

7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit [

ruach

] shall return unto God who gave it.

Does this verse say that man goes to heaven when he dies? Proper understanding of this verse depends on understanding the definition of spirit. It is not referring to man's consciousness, nor is it speaking of his soul (in the sense of his life). It is the "breath of life," the life force that makes him alive. Remember that God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul. That life force was added to a body and it became a living creature. Death can be seen as the reverse of this process. When a soul dies, the breath is gone ("he took his last breath"). The body returns to the earth, and the life force returns to God who gave it. But this life force is not man's consciousness. If it were, then all living creatures would be said to go to God at death, whether saved or unsaved. This would even contradict the other fundamental doctrines of those who profess to believe in conscious life for believers in heaven after death.

TWI's understanding of body, soul, and spirit was foundational to understanding both the nature of man, and the idea that man lost one part (spirit) when he sinned, and regains it as "his" holy spirit at the new birth. Since the definitions of soul and spirit were not Biblical, a whole new rethinking of the new birth and the Holy Spirit field is necessary. In the next post I'll demonstrate what I believe is the Bible's definition of God's Holy Spirit.

Edited February 5, 2009 by Mark Clarke

[Abigail]

There have been many views and opinions since ancient times about the nature of the spirit or soul. My purpose for starting this thread is to point out what the Scriptures teach, in contrast to what we were taught in TWI. The ideas expressed by various other sources, ancient or modern, would be a separate topic, outside the scope of what I'm presenting here.

Out of respect for Mark's purpose in started this thread, I am wondering of SirG, Cman, and Mr. P-Mosh would have any objection to me cutting and pasting the posts on the female aspects of God and moving them to SirG's resurrected thread on body, soul, and spirit??

[cman]

ok with me Abi...

[Mister P-Mosh]

Out of respect for Mark's purpose in started this thread, I am wondering of SirG, Cman, and Mr. P-Mosh would have any objection to me cutting and pasting the posts on the female aspects of God and moving them to SirG's resurrected thread on body, soul, and spirit??

Works for me as well.

[geisha779]

The following are excerpts from the article about the Holy Spirit on my website. (The full article can be seen here.)

There has been much misunderstanding about the holy spirit.

Says who? You? And you are? Who? Your point of reference being. . . what?. . . . your understanding? PFAL? "Most CHRISTIANS???" Is your point of reference the bible? Or is it what you believe the bible has to say? What is your point of reference for saying there has been much misunderstanding?

Most Christians think of the holy spirit as a person, partly because it is used with personal pronouns, such as "He," "Him" and "Who" in most English Bibles.

Okay, PARTLY. . . what is the rest? Why else do they understand the Holy Spirit as a unique CHARACTER of God?

Grammar aside, the Bible nowhere presents the holy spirit as a person. For one thing, it is never given a proper name. God's proper name is given as Yahweh, and His Son's name is Jesus. But the holy spirit is simply called the holy spirit.

That would be a name. . . no? You just called Him something. .

THE Holy Spirit

The epistles frequently include greetings from the Father and the Son. However, never do they give greetings "from the Holy Spirit." Why would this be so if the holy spirit were a co-equal, co-eternal person?

And this means what? So, therefore He is not who Christians understand Him to be?

Jesus instructed his disciples to pray to the Father, and to do it in his name. He told them to ask God to send His holy spirit. Never are we told to pray to the holy spirit, and "ask him to come into our hearts" as many do today. The spirit is poured forth by Jesus (Acts 2:33), and we are baptized in it (Acts 1:5). One cannot pour forth a person, or be baptized in a person. The spirit is described as the spirit of God or the spirit of Christ. Furthermore, Matthew 11:27 says that no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son. Matthew 24:36 says that no man knows the hour of Christ's return, not even the Son, but only the Father. John wrote in his first epistle that a person is antichrist if he denies the Father and the Son (I John 2:22-23). In his second epistle he wrote, "He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son" (II John 9). If the holy spirit is a third co-equal person, why is there no mention of him in verses like these?

Mark, the word person is simply used to describe. . . . just like the word trinity is a word we use to describe the nature of God. Did you ever stop to ask yourself WHY pronouns to describe are used in translation? Ever? Is it because what is revealed to "MOST" Christians and described and understood is wrong? That is a mighty big tide to be bucking. . . have you ever considered WHY you want so badly to buck it?

I believe VPW had it right when he taught that the holy spirit is not the Third Person of the Trinity. But I think what he said it was, is just as incorrect. I'll continue in the next post.

So, you have moved on from a cult leaders understanding. . . and fixed it? Consider this, VP and others who hold similar beliefs are actually outside the church. VP came from the church. . . understood the nature of God. . . it wasn't until he LEFT the church. .. . got booted. . . that he came up with this stuff. He came out from among those in the church. . . . but he was not ever of them. Do you know what it is that distingushes VP from the church? His understanding of the nature of God.

Mark, I like you. . . and although my tone may exhibit a bit of frustration, it is never anything against you. In fact, I thought about this all day yesterday, and I talked it to death with hubby. I backspaced several posts. . . I know you cannot hear me or understand me when I say this to you. . . but I really desire you to. With all my heart. So please just mindfully consider. . . .

What you have written. . . is not what Christians believe. Your understanding changes the very nature of God. It takes it out of the realm of a common faith. It turns it into a different faith. Does that make sense? It is no different than someone who does not claim Christianity telling me the nature of God. Your understanding is not common with MOST Christians. You don't share a common salvation.

Which is why. . . ex-way people have such a DIFFICULT time with church. . . an often vampireish reaction to the Cross. . . and issues with the way people worship. It is why ABC had a hard time with being accredited. It is why we have splinter groups. It is because it is another faith. Why would one go to a church that holds differing beliefs than yours. Because you label yourself a Christian?

I will be flayed alive for this. . . so be it. It is the same thing they fought about in the first centuries of the church. Gnosticism.

Now, to turn your logic back on you. . . . you said to me in another thread. . . that God was able to preserve His word and handle the devil. Good for you. . .you believe God is able. Given the same logic which refuted Mike's claim that the original intent was lost. Is God not able to, in His providence, preserve for His people an understanding of His nature? Would He do this within the church? Where His people dwell. Most Christians?

We had it wrong. We were on the outside looking in. We were trying to redefine God and His nature. . . .We were telling them they "misunderstood".

We were not welcome because of these very teachings. They infect and they cling and those not grounded and strong in their faith are protected in the church by those who are. It is why we have creeds. . . it is why we have teachings. . . it is HOW we define cults. . . it is why we don't accredit bible colleges who deny the triune nature of God.

It is why many can no longer find a haven or home outside of the cults. . . it isn't there.

If you believe one way. . . . that God is different than I believe. . . . I fall into the "Most" category. . . Do we share a common faith? No, we don't.

God's whole plan was to redeem man to Himself. . . . He gives them hundreds of years of Prophecies about how to recognize the redeemer, everything points to Jesus. . . Jonah, Moses, Joseph, Job, David, Isaiah. . . . EVERYTHING! Then John comes along. . . the final prophet, who goes into explicit visual DETAIL about who the redeemer would be. . . the spirit Himself comes along to testify. . . a voice from HEAVEN comes out, and they still rejected who He is. . . . it takes the Holy Spirit to lead people. . . to Jesus.

"Therefore I am informing you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit."

The purpose of the Holy Spirit is to point people to Jesus. He helps people recognize who Jesus is, and He confirms it.

It is not secret, hidden, or misunderstood knowledge. . . . or an enlightened training in classical greek. . . . NOW God can truly say man is without excuse.

If you have a different belief of the Holy Spirit. . . stands to reason you are not going to recognize as "Most" Christians do. . . that Jesus is God.

Instead of trying to understand and humble ourselves to what "Most" Christians know about God. . . including Bullinger. . . we just invent an new religion to support our own way.

[RumRunner]

OK Abi - I gotta post this - hopefully taken only as sick humor. Of COURSE I believe God is female...She opened her mouth and said let there be light and it all went downhill from there.

Out of respect for Mark's purpose in started this thread, I am wondering of SirG, Cman, and Mr. P-Mosh would have any objection to me cutting and pasting the posts on the female aspects of God and moving them to SirG's resurrected thread on body, soul, and spirit??