Is The Holy Spirit a Separate Person?

Is the Holy Spirit a third member of the trinitarian godhead adopted in 381 A.D?

Was it considered to be a third person, coequal with the Father and the Son in a particular trinity?

While we in the Continuing Church of God believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, does that make it coequal to them or a separate person?

What was the position of the majority of those who professed Christ before the late fourth century Councils?

This article will provide a brief scriptural overview and show what first, second, fourth and even 21st century writers understood on this subject.

Plus it will look at mistranslations and other falsehoods that many 'experts' have foisted off on the public.

If you want to know the truth about the Holy Spirit, please carefully and prayerfully study what is written here--and if you wish, verify in your own Bible that the scriptures teach what this article states, and you can also verify the historical and other citations.

New Testament (First Century) Writers Realized God's Duality

To better realize what is true, consider the following, the first of which is from Jesus:

Which as it turns out, resulted in early Christians NOT believing what the majority who profess Christ in the 21st century believe about the Holy Spirit.

Sadly, most have listened to men who have misled them about the truth of many matters, including the Holy Spirit.

There is enough in the Bible to teach us what we need to know about the Holy Spirit.

In the New Testament, in what some of called the earliest 'beginning in the Bible,' the Apostle John begins by making a statement about the duality of God, as he wrote:

Thus, the Word was God and was with God. And the Word, Jesus, is a lot like God the Father:

It should also be pointed out that John never refers to the Holy Spirit as God in any of his inspired writings.

Note that only the Father and Son truly know each other (as well as others that Jesus will reveal to)--which shows, for example, that a claimed Holy Spirit person, which is not mentioned, could not.

Hence, it should be clear that, according to Jesus' words, obviously the Holy Spirit is NOT a coequal member of a Greco-Roman God in 'three persons' trinity. But Jesus' words are consistent with the binitarian view of the Godhead (see also Binitarianism: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning).

The Apostle Paul mentions the Father and Jesus in every introduction of every book he wrote (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 1:3; Ephesians 1:2; Philippians 1:2; Colossians 1:2; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:2; 1 Timothy 1:2; 2 Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:1; Philemon 1:3; Hebrews 1:1-2), but he never mentions the Holy Spirit--this is known as a binitarian position.

If the Holy Spirit was a coequal member of the trinity, could this possibly be blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:28-29) (see also What is the Unpardonable Sin?)?

Like Paul, the Apostle Peter also made the duality of God clear in the introduction of his two books (1 Peter 1:3; 2 Peter 1:2), where he too left out the Holy Spirit.

Peter confirmed that he knew that Jesus was part of the God Family when he said to Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). Peter also helped to confirm that the Holy Spirit is not a person when in Acts 2:17-18, he quotes Joel about God pouring out His Spirit.

Perhaps it should be mentioned here that the reason that the Bible teaches, "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19) is that through being begotten by the Holy Spirit through baptism (Luke 3:16), we will ultimately be born in the family of God.

Before going further, remember that Jude was inspired to write that Christians are "to contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).

The Greco-Roman doctrine on the Holy Spirit took centuries to be embraced--it was NOT part of the original faith.

The truth is that it was not until the third and fourth centuries that the trinitarian view of the Holy Spirit gained much acceptance among the Greco-Romans. The Catholic Encyclopedia admits:

Even then it took Imperial might to enforce the trinitarian view of the Holy Spirit. Notice the following from one of Emperor Theodosius’ edicts which demonstrates that:

Perhaps it should be pointed out that the apostles had all been dead for hundreds of years before the position was agreed upon in 381 A.D.

Which, of course, shows that the Catholic "sacred tradition" on that did not come from the Bible nor the original apostles.

While we in the Continuing Church of God do believe in the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19), we do not believe that the Holy Spirit is the third triune person as a council in 381 declared.

But most ecumenists take the triune position, despite the Bible and the records of early church history. Ecumenists do not want people to believe scripture over human traditions.

Let me also add a seventh point. Scholars realize that the primary portion of scripture that many have pointed to as proof of the trinity--1 John 5:7-8-- is a fraud.

Although the NIV gets 1 John 5:7-8 right, in the KJV and NKJV 1 John 5:7-8 includes words not in the original text.

In other words the words "in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth" which the NKJV shows are not inspired and are not supposed to be in the Bible--for more details see Did the True Church Ever Teach a Trinity?

The Bible does not support the Holy Spirit as a third person of a divine trinity.

In the The Second Century Heretics Introduced Trinitarian Concepts

There are three views of the Holy Spirit I have found among those who professed Christ in the second century. Probably the one most commonly accepted was written by the famous heretics Valentinus and Montanus in the early to mid 2nd century (note that Valentinus and the Montanists are considered to be heretics by Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Protestant, and Church of God adherents).

According to Roman Catholic sources, a trinitarian view was apparently voiced by the heretic Montanus and developed by a famous Gnostic heretic named Valentinus in the mid-2nd Century.

This is one of the first references to a trinitarian view of the Godhead (the other earliest one was from the heretic Valentinus--it is unclear which was first). The paraclete is a term used to signify the Holy Spirit (it is from the Greek term parakletos).

Eusebius records (Eusebius. Church History, Book V, Chapters 18-19) that church leaders in Asia Minor and Antioch, such as Apollonius of Ephesus, that Serapion of Antioch, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, and Thraseas of Eumenia opposed the Montanist heresies (Apollinaris of Hierapolis and Thraseas of Eumenia were Quartodecimans, as Apollonius likely was). However, Roman Bishops would not renounce the Montanist heresy until sometime in the third century, after Rome accepted certain Montanus beliefs (see Montanists in The Catholic Encyclopedia)!

A one-time 4th century Catholic bishop named Marcellus of Ancyra wrote about Valentinus' writings, which appears to be discussing perhaps the earliest citation about the Holy Spirit extant (other than scriptural references or references that make no specific claims):

Hence, the idea of the Holy Spirit as one of three hypostasis, while it did appear in the 2nd century, was developed by a heretic, who adopted it from pagan teachings.

Regarding the heretic Valentinus, the Roman Catholic historian Irenaeus (c. 180 A.D.) noted that Polycarp had to go to Rome to stop people from listening to his teachings:

Notice that Irenaeus clearly is teaching that the Father and Son disperse the Holy Spirit as each of them wills, and that the spirit is the wisdom of God. Thus he is teaching that the Father and Son have separate wills and that they disperse the Holy Spirit. You do not disperse a separate person.

Notice, also in the late second century, an apologist named Athenagoras wrote the following:

Thus, Athenagoras explained that the Father and the Son are God, have a onesness of power and spirit, and that the Holy Spirit is the effluence of God. He never called the Holy Spirit God. And he stated that both, the Father and the Son (the term in English refers to two), are both God and distinct--this is a binitarian view. As are his two assertions that the Holy Spirit is an effluence. According to the dictionary an effluence is "a substance that flows out from something"--an effluence is not a person.

Where did the idea that the Holy Spirit was God come from? Well, believe it or not, in addition to the earlier heretics, two later heretics were involved who built on the "hypostasis" concept of Valentinus.

The Trinity and Mistranslations of Theophilus

The trinity is a doctrine that was not originally taught by the Christian Church. According to Roman Catholic sources, it was originally developed by a famous Gnostic heretic named Valentinus in the mid-2nd century.

Valentinus is the earliest known professing Christian writer to make clear trinitarian claims (though he, himself, did not come up with the term trinity, Tertullian seemingly did). It also should be noted that Valentinus was denounced by Polycarp of Asia Minor, when Polycarp visited Rome as a heretic (Irenaeus. Adversus Haeres. Book III, Chapter 3, Verse 4) and is considered to have been a heretic by Roman Catholics, Orthodox, most Protestants, and those in the Churches of God.

The position of most Roman Catholic scholars is that the term 'trinity' (from the Latin trinitas) was developed 85 years after the last book of the Bible was written as The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

It should be understood, that claims of certain Catholic scholars to the contrary, that Theophilus of Antioch did not teach the trinity or that the Holy Spirit was a person (though Tertullian, who became a Montanist did--the leaders of the churches in Asia Minor and Antioch opposed the Montanists--who taught a type of trinity--before the Romans ever did). It was not until Tertullian (over 100 years since the Book of Revelation was written) that professing Christian writers suggested the concept of the trinity as now understood.

It is mistranslated because trinity is NOT a Greek word. Thus, the proper translation would be:

Now the trinitarian may argue that this is just a semantics issue and that Theophilus is actually still talking about the trinity. Well, he is not as the third part is what Theophilus is teaching that man becomes. And that is what Theophilus is teaching--that now man is a fourth, but will become part of God, a third part, when humans become God's offspring! And that he seems to see this as the wisdom of God's plan. This seems to support a binitarian view.

Lest anyone suggest that I am reading something into Theophilus that he does not mean, he verifies what I concluded when he wrote:

We are to be God's offspring! We are to be God in the family of God. Paul verified that when he wrote:

Lest anyone suggest that I am further reading something into Theophilus of Antioch's writings that he does not mean, he verifies what I concluded when he wrote:

Theophilus did not teach that the Holy Spirit was, or somehow was, one of three persons in any trinity. He verified that when he taught the following about the Spirit of God:

It is not totally clear from his writings how Theophilus viewed the Holy Spirit, though life-giving breath may be close. The above writings suggest that it is a manifestation of the power of God, as opposed to a specific person--in no place does he suggest that the Holy Spirit is a separate person. Nor when he mentioned threeness did he speak of the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, even trinitarian scholars who believe that Theophilus's writings do support the trinity will admit that the Greek expression used cannot clearly be used about the Holy Spirit, though they seem to wish to overlook that. Note the following admission:

That admission is also outrageous. σοφια (sophia) means wisdom, not spirit.

The term "spirit" or "Holy Spirit" is not even in the improperly translated versions of Theophilus' To Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter XV.

So basically an honest reading of Theophilus' writings are that he NEVER wrote that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were the three persons of the trinity. He wrote that there is a threeness associated with God that includes the Son and the Wisdom of God's offspring.

Others in Antioch and Asia Minor Were Binitarian

Around 108 A.D., Ignatius of Antioch referred to the Father as God and Jesus as God (see Binitarian article) , but not the Holy Spirit. Actually, here is what he taught about the Holy Spirit:

Referring to the Holy Spirit as it and a rope suggests that it is a manifestation of the power of God and not a person.

Also, Polycarp (famous bishop of Smyrna and disciple of the Apostle John) specifically called the Father God and Jesus God (see Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians), he never referred to the Holy Spirit that way. Here is the only extant direct quote from Polycarp that clearly mentions the Holy Spirit:

Furthermore, Melito of Sardis was a leader who Polycrates claimed to be faithful to the teachings he learned from the Apostle John and Polycarp. And here is what Melito (whom Catholics and others consider to be a saint) wrote:

This clearly shows that Melito considered Christ to be God, as well as the Father. There is no indication in any of the surviving writings of Melito that he considered that the Holy Spirit was also God. His writings, like those of Ignatius and Polycarp, suggest that the Holy Spirit was simply a manifestation of the power of God as he wrote:

Since God had the written the ten commandments Himself (Exodus 31:18), this shows that Melito only considered the Holy Spirit to be the power of God, not a separate person.

An other view, seems to be that the Holy Spirit was either the Father or the Son, but not a separate person. Although the following from The Catholic Encyclopedia makes trinitarian claims, it is consistent with that view:

I would like to add here that the word "spirit" is also feminine in Hebrew. Hence, Bardesan was not the only one who did not believe that the Holy Spirit was a third male member of any trinity.

Thus, there were three ideas about the Holy Spirit found in the second century. The first, by the heretic Valentinus, who apparently considered that the Holy Spirit was one of three hypostases (hypostasis literally mean under stable, or foundation, it did not mean person in 2nd century Greek). The second idea, that which was written by Melito of Sardis is that the Holy Spirit is something that God uses (or as Athenagoras noted, flows from God). And the third that the Holy Spirit could be the Father or the Son.

It is important to note that there are no quotes from Asia Minor Christians in the second century that state that the Holy Spirit is a person or the third person of the trinity.

Furthermore, consider that some in the second century did know the original apostles and had been taught by them. Additionally, those in the second century understood koine Greek better than people in the later centuries did.

Because those in the second century would have a better understanding of the original New Testament text than we have now. They did not face translation and grammatical errors. The fact that they did NOT teach a Greco-Roman trinity shows that they falt-out did not believe that the New Testament taught it.

In the late 3rd through early 4th century, there was a church leader known as Lucian of Antioch. Lucian was not in communion with the succession of at least three Greco-Roman bishops of Antioch, had a school based on literal biblical interpretation, “savoured of Judaism,” and was “Semi-Arian” (binitarian) (Newman JH, Cardinal. The Arians of the Fourth Century. Longmans, Green, & Co., New York, 1908, pp. 5, 9, 277, 406). His reported creed was NOT trinitarian as he did not hold the Holy Spirit to be a third person in a trinity (more on creeds can be found in the article
What Was the Original Apostles' Creed?).

The Holy Spirit and Rome in The Second and Third Century

Other than the heretics Montanus and Valentinus, there are a few early references to the Holy Spirit that were made by writers in Rome.

Yet, none of them indicate that the Holy Spirit is the third person of a trinity--the ones that I have located basically say that the Holy Spirit is Christ.

The first may be in what has been called "the oldest complete Christian sermon that has survived" (Holmes M.W. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, 2nd ed. Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 2004, p. 102)--outside those in the Bible--sometimes erroneously referred to as Second Letter of Clement. It was given perhaps with a year or so of John's death (though others have suggested that perhaps the Roman Bishop Soter wrote it c. 170, ibid, p103), says the following:

Thus, what is perhaps the oldest preserved sermon (which can be found in its entirety at Ancient "Christian" Sermon) indicates that the Holy Spirit essentially is or is from Christ.

The next (and perhaps first) reference from Rome, is The Letter of the Romans to the Corinthians which is commonly called First Clement, states:

Notice that while God and Christ are declared to live, this is not the case of the Holy Spirit--the Holy Spirit was not considered to be a separate but equal member of the Godhead in the extant accepted writings of the Roman Church in the second century (the Roman Church correctly considers Valentinus and Montanus to have been heretics, thus it does not accept their writings as "Christian").

The Muratorian Canon claims that The Shepherd of Hermas was written by Hermas the brother of Pius, who it considered to have been the bishop of Rome at the time of its writing. It contains such statements about the Holy Spirit such as:

Hence, other than the views of the heretics Valentinus and Montanus, it appears that the Roman writers considered that the Holy Spirit was either the Son or a power from above.

If the doctrine of the trinity is so critical to being a "Christian" than why did not even the Roman bishops misunderstand it so much?

Could it have been because the true Church was never Sabellian nor trinitarian? If the doctrine of the trinity was true from the beginning (which it was not), why do Protestant scholars feel the need to credit Sabellianism (and two corrupt Roman bishops, for details please see articles on Callistus and Zephyrinus) for insisting that the Holy Spirit is God? The simple truth is that the early true Church never considered that the Holy Spirit was God or that God was some type of trinity.

Notice that Sabellianism was condemned from the start in Asia Minor, then decades later in Rome according to Roman Catholic scholars:

It should also be noted that The Catholic Encyclopedia claims that Hippolytus is a Catholic saint and was “the most important theologian…of the Roman Church in the pre-Constantinian era” (Kirsch, Johann Peter. “St. Hippolytus of Rome.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910)

It should be pointed out that the Church of Rome's most important pre-Constantinian theologian was a "ditheist" (see Hippolytus of Rome). He did not teach that the Holy Spirit was the third person of a divine trinity.

The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that in the 4th century Ditheism was still an issue with "even the Eastern moderates" (Chapman J. Transcribed by Thomas J. Bress. Photinus. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XII. Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company). Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

Dr. Arius was a fourth century teacher from Alexandria who held to the belief that God the Father was supreme in authority to Jesus, and that the Holy Spirit was not the third member of the Godhead. However, he did hold at least one belief that binitarians did not hold--he believed that Jesus had a beginning, while binitarians do not accept that. Regarding Arius, here is what The Catholic Encyclopedia records:

And while true Christians will understand that Christ is God and accepts the Son being under the authority of God the Father, we do not accept that He had a beginning (see Hebrews 7:3). Perhaps, I should add what Herbert W. Armstrong wrote about Arius:

Herbert Armstrong is essentially stating that Dr. Arius' understanding was imperfect--and that would be at least on the point of Jesus at one time not existing. Many people know that there was a great debate at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Although he did not wish to go to this meeting, Emperor Constantine summoned and forced Dr. Arius to attend the pagan Emperor's council. According to historical accounts, the attendees at this council were split into three factions:

Trinitarians were NOT the majority at Nicea as the historians Henry Bettenson and Chris Mauder admit:

So, the above account claims that 90% of Greco-Roman bishops did NOT support the trinity--they thus did NOT believe that the Holy Spirit was the third co-equal member of the Godhead. The idea that the trinity was a fundamental part of even the Greco-Roman faith simply does not agree with the facts.

Emperor Constantine was familiar with a trinitarian viewpoint as he had practiced Mithraism, which had a type of triad/trinity leading it (see Do You Practice Mithraism?). After an impassioned speech by Athanasius, Emperor Constantine arose. And since he was the Emperor (plus he was dressed as a golden "angel"; Feldmeth N. Early Christianity. CD Lecture. Fuller Theological Seminary, c. 2003), his standing was noticed by the bulk of the attendees who correctly interpreted the Emperor as now supporting Athanasius. Athanasius of Alexandria was the big supporter of the trinity and his speech moved Constantine. Because of Athanasius' speech and the Emperor's approval, the bulk of the attendees decided to come up with a statement on the Godhead that the Arians could not support.

This to a degree solved the Emperor's immediate concern about unity of his version of Christianity, and pretty much drove the Arians out.

Because of Athanasius' speech and the Emperor's approval, the bulk of the attendees decided to agree with a statement that the Arians could not support. This solved the Emperor's concern about unity of his version of Christianity, and pretty much drove the Arians out. But even some of the strongest supporters of Athanasius' position, such as Marcion of Ancyra, actually did not believe in the trinity as now taught (that is why this paper used the term "Proto-Trinitarians" above).

Thus a pagan emperor proposed, and militarily imposed, a doctrine on his own. And this did not come from the Bible into the world's largest churches, but from a pagan (Constantine still honored the pagan sun deities after his supposed conversion to Christianity and was not even baptized into the world's church until his death bed--and even then he insisted upon being buried in a grave dedicated to a pagan deity). More on hoomousis is in the article: Did the True Church Ever Teach a Trinity?

Notice that it is admitted that the New Testament and the original apostles did NOT understand the "mystery of the Trinity" even though this is supposedly is the "most basic of Christian doctrines." It should be noted that it took a non-baptized person in the 4th century to push for it and partially define it--that person was he unbaptized sun-worshiping Emperor Constantine whose then current religion had a trinity of sorts when he pushed for this (see also Do You Practice Mithraism?). Emperor Constantine did not possess God's Holy Spirit, but instead his mind had "been blinded by the god of this world" (2 Corinthians 4:4, NJB).

It should be noted that the trinity as now taught was not completely adopted until many decades after this 325 A.D. the Council of Nicea. It was not even the necessary position of the bishops of Rome or Constantinople in the middle of the fourth century.

Before going further, let me add that the term 'Arian' in the religious (non-racial) sense came from the followers of Arius. Those who accepted his views on the Godhead were first called Arians and his views known as Arianism. In time, those did not accept the trinity were called "Semi-Arians." In time, that changed to binitarians. Whereas those that accepted the trinity, we later called trinitarians. A combination of the word for three and Arius.

Pneumatomachi or "Semi-Arians" of the Fourth Century

Did you know that the majority of those who profess Christ until sometime in the fourth century did not believe in the trinity. The majority in Asia Minor, Jerusalem, Antioch, and other areas of "the East" where labeled as Semi-Arians.

Did most of the Greek Orthodox accept or deny that the Holy Spirit was the third divine person in a trinity?

The expression "the East" refers to the area also known as Asia Minor. It was always at least as important as Rome among those that professed Christ for the previous centuries (as well as for many later centuries)--and notice that MOST of those living there WERE Semi-Arian--including Macedonius, who is in the list of successors of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (the primary "see", if you will, within the Eastern Orthodox faith). But the Orthodox (who like to claim that theirs is the original church and that it did not change) do not seem to realize that their leaders and members WERE NOT trinitarian until the late 4th century.

Although later Roman Catholic writers have had many definitions of those that they called Pneumatomachi or "Semi-Arians" (most of which disagree with the Church of God position), one that somewhat defines the view held in the early church would possibly be this one written by Epiphanius in the mid-4th Century,

According to The Catholic Encylopedia, at least one 4th century Pope acknowledged soundness of the faith of the Pneumatomachi:

Even the Orthodox bishop Macedonius of Constantinople in the fourth century held to some form of Semi-Arian view (Forget J. Transcribed by W.S. French, Jr. Holy Ghost. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII. Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

Thus, into the middle of the fourth century, the two major leaders of the Greco-Roman churches endorsed Semi-Arian, non-trinitarian positions. How then can the Greco-Romans and Protestants claim then that the trinity was the original view of the church? It is a historical fact that it was NOT.

So, it should be abundantly clear that until the latter part of the 4th century, many (if not most) who professed Christ in Asia Minor and even Rome held to some type of a binitarian view and at least one Pope accepted the denial of the divinity of the Holy Spirit as sound. Have you been taught this before?

In an Imperial decree in 380, Emperor Theodosius declared that the “Catholic Church” was the official religion of the Roman Empire (Theodosian Code XVI.1.2. Cited in Bettenson H, ed., Documents of the Christian Church, London: Oxford University Press, 1943, p. 31).

Theodosius also issued an Imperial decree that said any who would not embrace his definition of the Godhead --which called the Holy Spirit a third member of a trinity--were prohibited to use the term “catholic,” and he also labelled such persons as “foolish madmen” and “heretics” (ibid).

Yes, it is true that prior to Theodosius, the bulk of those who professed Christianity were not trinitarian. Most who attended Emperor Constantine's Council of Nicea were also not trinitarian, yet many do not realize that. According to historical accounts, the attendees at this council were split into three factions:

Trinitarians were NOT the majority at Nicea as the historians Henry Bettenson and Chris Mauder admit:

So, the above account claims that 90% of Greco-Roman bishops did NOT support the trinity at the Council of Nicea. The idea that the trinity was a fundamental part of even the Greco-Roman faith simply does not agree with the facts. Although, Eusebius led the biggest group, he and his side did not truly win--partially because the sun-god honoring Emperor Constantine, who had accepted a Mithraism trinity, liked Athanasius' pitch.

So, there began to be imperial support for a trinity that most who professed Christianity did not accept. Plus, note that Pope Liberius denounced Athanasius, the trinitarian bishop:

A few years later, from 370-380, Demophilus was the Patriarch of Constantinople (List of Patriarchs of Constantinople. Patriarchate of Constantinople, http://patriarchateofconstantinople.com/list-of-patriarchs.html accessed 07/21/21).

Well, in order to get his trinity doctrine more widely accepted, he removed the Patriarch of Constantinople as he would not accept it.

Yes, Theodosius removed Demophilus from being the Patriarch of Constantinople? Why? Because he would NOT accept the Emperor’s trinitarian Nicene Creed--which many who profess Christ now accept--even though it was NOT the original creed and contains changes from the original Christian faith (see also What Was the Original Apostles' Creed? What is the Nicene Creed?).

The 5th century Greco-Roman historian Socrates Scholasticus wrote of Theodosius:

Therefore, consider that: 1) trinitarianism was not the position of the patriarchy of Constantinople in the late fourth century, 2) Arian meant Semi-Arian above (and this happens in other writings), 3) an emperor removed the patriarch Demophilus for not endorsing the Nicene Creed, 4) that political considerations, not theological reasons, looks to have been the reason to push trinitarianism and 5) Theodosius resorted to name-calling against those who held to the original biblical position. Specifically for those he disagreed with his trinitarian position, he stated:

Furthermore, let’s see something written about his actions in 390 A.D. by a contemporary witness and Greco-Roman theologian named Theodoret who reported this about Emperor Theodosius:

Theodosius also had people killed (called Quartodecimans) who retained the biblical date of Passover (Gibbon E. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume III, Chapter XXVII. ca. 1776-1788).

“To the reign of Theodosius belonged the glory or the infamy of establishing Inquisitors of Faith, who seem to have been specially enjoined to look after the crime of the Quartodecimans” (Smith W. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology: Oarses-Zygia. J. Murray, 1890 Item notes: v.3, p. 1064).

The change to trinitarianism was finalized by the Council of Constantinople, which was a council of men convened by Theodosius, in 381 A.D. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

Remember that the apostles had all been dead for hundreds of years before the trinitarian position with the Holy Spirit was agreed upon.

Another in the fourth century, the "Orthodox" Gregory of Nyssa, describes the beliefs of non-trinitarians as follows:

Thus, the early Christians (and even later some who professed Christ) clearly did not believe that the Holy Spirit was a separate person in a trinity.

The Middle Ages and the Filioque

In the Middle Ages there was a split (called "the Great Schism" by many Orthodox) between the Church of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox churches.

One of the major doctrinal issues that caused the schism that resulted in the Eastern Orthodox (sometimes called the Greek, or Greek Orthodox, Church) Church to break from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 A.D. was the so-called ''filioque'' clause added to the original Nicene Creed.

Eastern Orthodox writers (like Timothy Ware), and others, have suggested that this clause is supportive of binitarianism, and thus should not be accepted by the Roman Catholic Church who insisted on this addition to the original Nicene Creed.

The ''filioque'' clause states that the Holy Spirit, "proceeds from the Father and the Son". Most binitarians would agree with that statement (though not certain others) in the Creed.

I would basically agree that the above quote is true and in accordance with history and with scripture. I believe that since Roman Catholics acknowledge that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, that this clearly shows that the Holy Spirit is not a separate divine Being as the Father and the Son are.

And while this was known from the beginning, the Church of Rome still understood part of that from the Middle Ages to present. Notice something else that it somewhat understands, according to the late Cardinal James Gibbons:

Since the Bible never says to pray to the Holy Spirit (only to pray to receive it and/or gifts from it), the Cardinal and others should realize that this is not something that God wants done.

The 21st Century: Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Messianics, and Protestants Teach the Holy Spirit is a Person

Even trinitarian scholars understand that the Holy Spirit is not biblically shown to be clearly a person. Notice the following:

What an astounding admission! The main trinitarian groups admit that the Holy Spirit is simply a procession of a divine force and that it is venerated as a person based upon what scripture does not say.

Those calling themselves 'Messianic Jews' also hold to trinitarianism and the personhood of the Holy Spirit and refer to the Holy Spirit as "He" (Messianic Jewish Alliance of America. Statement of Faith. https://mjaa.org/statement-of-faith-2/ viewed 01/03/18), which is one reason that they have some acceptance by the Catholics and Protestants (see also Messianic Judaism Beliefs Differ from the Continuing Church of God).

Well Protestant scholars normally use a somewhat different logic. Essentially Protestant scholars quote scriptures, say that certain scriptures are proof, and make many assertions that the trinity is true and the Holy Spirit is a person.

Below is a list of verses one text cited to support the view that the Holy Spirit is a person (note that bolding is in the original):

While the above list may look attractive to one who WANTS to believe the Holy Spirit is a person, none of those verses are actually PROOF that the Holy Spirit is a person. Nearly all of them simply show that the Holy Spirit is a manifestation of the power of God. Furthermore, even the above said that that the Bible does not deal with the Holy Spirit being a person.

Well, they are simply referring to aspects of SPIRIT not unique aspects of PERSONHOOD. What the real issue is that those who do not understand that the Holy Spirit is not a person simply do not fully understand what the Bible says about spirit.

(Note: I chose the KJV for the second passage because it translates the literal Greek word autos as "itself"--the NKJV translates autos non-literally as "Himself" in an apparent attempt to justify an inaccurate position--no wonder Protestants get confused.)

Now no one that I am aware of teaches that the spirit in man is a separate person (nor does anyone teach that the spirit of bondage is a person). But notice that it (and it is an it), works in similar manner to the Spirit of God. The truth of course is that the Holy Spirit simply is NOT A PERSON.

Jesus was the one who spoke and He said that is what the Spirit says. The Spirit was not a separate person from Jesus here.

Here are several more verses which demonstrate that things associated with spirit do not make the spirit a separate person:

Notice that the spirit mentioned in these verses can faint, is anxious, was hardened by pride, can be stirred up, can be formed, can be heeded, can become troubled, has a will, groaned, has strength, can be words, was troubled, was refreshed, was provoked, can be fervent, can serve, can cause a stupor, can judge and be present, can be holy, can be life-giving, was restless, can be cleansed of filthiness, can be gentle, can have the grace of Jesus, can be renewed, can be preserved, and/or can be gentle and kind. However, none of these were referring to the spirit as a separate person--even though these can be considered attributes often associated with a person.

Thus, having a list of attributes does not prove that the Holy Spirit is a separate person or a member of a trinity.

Does Acts 5 or Acts 13 Really Teach That The Holy Spirit Is God?

Since it proceeds from God, it is God's spirit. But just like the spirit in man is not a separate person, neither is the Spirit of God a separate person.

This is why the following verses (which are the ones most frequently cited by trinitarians to supposedly prove that the Holy Spirit is God, thus a third person of their trinity) only show that sin against the Holy Spirit is a sin against God, as opposed to teaching that the Holy Spirit, itself, is a separate God being:

There are two main points about the above. The first is that Ananias did lie to men and the Holy Spirit. The second is that Peter and others in the Bible (Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Micah, etc.) ultimately equate all sin to being sin against God.

Perhaps it may be of interest to note that after David sinned against Uriah the Hittite, he claimed he had only sinned against God (2 Samuel 12:13). Notice the following:

Is the Holy Spirit in Acts 5 the Spirit of the Father, the Spirit of the Lord, or a separate person only called the Holy Spirit? Well, continuing on in Acts 5 we find the answer:

Notice that Peter makes it clear that both Ananias and his wife Sapphira tested "the Spirit of the Lord." This is not some separate being.

Therefore, contrary to the assertion by many trinitarian scholars, Acts 5 is not definitive proof that the Holy Spirit is a separate God or person in any trinity.

While some conclude that the above must mean an audible speech, this is not necessarily the case. The Bible is clear that in the past the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets (cf. 1 Kings 14:18; Hebrews 1:1; 2 Peter 1:20). Also, the word translated as "said" (εîπε) can include concepts other than direct personal speech.

Precisely how this information was conveyed is not completely clear and it is possible that this information came from a prophet who told the Apostles. Hence, to declare Acts 13:2 as proof of personhood for the Holy Spirit is shaky ground at best.

Furthermore, let's look more at Acts 5:32. In 23 translations (including a couple-Youngs and Berean-claiming to be "literal" translations), I checked it was mistranslated. But two translations had it correct:

Notice something by Sean Finnegan in his paper titled The Holy Spirit and Translation Bias: A Smoking Gun of Trinity Mischief:

While Sean Finnegan seems to be a unitarian, his basic view about translation bias towards trinitarianism is correct. Perhaps I should probably mention that someone told me that Dr. Wallace did try to get the neuter gender used for the Holy Spirit when he was involved in a Bible translation project, but that he was overridden. This is even more appalling when it is realized that Dr. Wallace was the senior New Testament editor of the NET Bible.

False tradition triumphed truth--this is not new. Jesus complained about that in His day as well:

Holy Spirit: He, She, or It?

Does the Holy Spirit have a gender?

Is the Holy Spirit a He, She, or It?

Some have wondered, and many have been misled by improper translations in mainly the New Testament.

Many languages, other than English, have “gender” assigned to each noun. The genders (in alphabetical order) are feminine, masculine, and neuter. This designation does not necessarily mean something is feminine or masculine, but the designation clearly is not intended to convey the opposite.

Both Hebrew and Greek have gendered nouns.

As it turns out, in the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for ‘spirit’ (ruwach) as in ‘Spirit of God’ is feminine.

Yet, despite that grammatical fact, some point to that term as proof of a male Holy Spirit. Notice something from Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible:

Gen 1:1-2

The plurality of persons in the Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This plural name of God, in Hebrew, which speaks of him… The Spirit of God was the first mover: He moved upon the face of the waters. (from Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1991 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.)

Thus, seeing the term “he” in biased English commentaries on the Old Testament in no way supports the concept that the Holy Spirit is a male person.

Yes, in the Hebrew scriptures, the terms for “Spirit” used, ruwach or ruah, for example in Genesis 1:2, are feminine (I once confirmed that with a Hebrew scholar personally).

Calling “she” “He” does not change the grammatical facts.

In the KJV New Testament, ‘he’ is sometimes used related to the Greek word for ‘spirit’ (pneuma), even though that word is neuter. The KJV also sometimes correctly translates this as ‘it’:

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (Romans 8:16, KJV)

26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. (Romans 8:26, KJV)

While the Hebrew word for spirit is feminine and the Greek word for spirit is neuter, those designations, of themselves, do not tell us sex or if we would use He, She, or It in English. Because of that, ‘it’ would be a better choice as he or she tend to contradict each other.

The Greek word for “holy” (ἅγιον) as in “πνεῦμα ἅγιον” (e.g. Luke 1:35) is also neuter as Greek adjectives must match the gender of the related noun.

Plus, realize that early Christians simply did NOT believe that the Holy Spirit was a person and was not referred to as “He.” Nor precisely something that was male or female based upon the early writings that are available.

Many have been misled by improper translations of Greek personal pronouns into English.

Evangelical Protestant scholar Dr. Daniel Wallace explained some of this as follows:

Daniel B. Wallace (Dbw2882)

About half a dozen texts in the NT are used in support of the Spirit’s personality on the grounds of gender shift due to constructio ad sensum (“construction according to sense” or, in this case, according to natural as opposed to grammatical gender). That is to say, these passages seem to refer to the Spirit with the masculine gender in spite of the fact that πνεύμα is neuter, and grammatical concord would normally require that any reference to the Spirit also be in the neuter gender. …

Many theologians treat these passages as a primary proof of the Spirit’s personality. …

John 16:7 can be dismissed … Whatever the reason for the masculine participle in v. 7, it is evident that the grammaticization of the Spirit’s personality is not the only, nor even the most plausible, explanation. Since this text also involves serious exegetical problems (i.e., a variety of reasons as to why the masculine participle is used), it cannot be marshaled as unambiguous syntactical proof of the Spirit’s personality. In sum, none of the gender shift passages clearly helps establish the personality of the Holy Spirit.

Before going further in Dr. Wallace’s work, let us see two translations of John 16:7 that do NOT make the gender error, using the term “him,” that most other translations into English commit:

7 But I tell you I am going to do what is best for you. This is why I am going away. The Holy Spirit cannot come to help you until I leave. But after I am gone, I will send the Spirit to you.
(Contemporary English Version)

7 But I am telling you the truth. It is profitable for you that I go away because if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you. However, if I go, I will send it to you. (A Faithful Version)

Now, back to Dr. Wallace, he wrote:

There is no text in the NT that clearly or even probably affirms the personality of the Holy Spirit through the route of Greek grammar. …

Evangelical defenses of various doctrines occasionally are poorly founded. We sometimes claim things to be true because we want them to be true, without doing the exhaustive spadework needed to support our conclusions. …

In sum, I have sought to demonstrate in this paper that the grammatical basis for the Holy Spirit’s personality is lacking in the NT, yet this is frequently, if not usually, the first line of defense of that doctrine by many evangelical writers. But if grammar cannot legitimately be used to support the Spirit’s personality, then perhaps we need to reexamine the rest of our basis for this theological commitment. (Wallace D. Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit. Bulletin for Biblical Research 13.1 (2003) 97-125)

John 15:26 … The use of ἐκεἲνος {that one} here is frequently regarded by students of the NT to be an affirmation of the personality of the Holy Spirit. … 42 …

But this is erroneous. In all these Johannine passages, πνεύμα {spirit} is appositional to a masculine noun. The gender of ἐκεἲνος has nothing to do with the natural gender ending of πνεύμα. …

42 The view is especially popular among theologians, not infrequently becoming their mainstay for their argument for the personality of the Holy Spirit … (Wallace D. Greek Grammar. Harper Collins, 1996, pp. 331-332).

Yes, many rely of false information to promote the trinitarian personhood of the Holy Spirit.

An Eastern Orthodox priest and scholar, Dr. Laurent Cleenewerck, wrote:

Greek manuscripts do not have any capitalization. Hence, the introduction of capitalized forms is arbitrary … (as in ‘a holy spirit’ without capitalization) (Cleenewerck L. EOB: The Eastern/Greek Orthodox New Testament, p. 33).

So, capitalization does not make the Holy Spirit a person. Dr. Laurent Cleenewerck also wrote:

The first thing to notice is that both pneuma and ruah also convey the meaning “breath” or “wind,” which explains the subtle nuances of such passages as Genesis 1:2; John 3:8 or James 2:26. On this basis we could say that pneuma and ruah are used as a reference to an unseen causal agent whose effects are visible.

The Greek… pneuma is neuter, which is why it is never spoken of with personal pronouns … an unbiased translation requires the use of of the conjunction “that/which” instead of “who/whom.” (Cleenewerck, p. 34).

Yet, although Dr. Cleenewerck was the editor of EOB: The Eastern/Greek Orthodox New Testament that particular translation uses “who” in Matthew 10:20 and John 6:63 (to cite two examples), “whom” in John 15:26, and masculine personal pronouns “he” and "him" in John 14:17, related to pneuma as the Holy Spirit. Yes, that translation has intentionally violated the appropriate grammatical rules according to its editor!

The fact is that there should NOT be personal pronouns—especially male ones—in English language translations of scripture associated with the Holy Spirit.

Ambassador College once published the following:

Somebody is going to ask: "What about the fact that John uses the personal pronoun 'he' when referring to the Holy Spirit or Comforter in the 14th, 15th and 16th chapters of his Gospel?" … in the Greek language, the gender of a word has nothing whatever to do with whether the thing designated is really masculine or feminine in the human sense at all. lf it did — what a contradiction in the Bible itself! For in the Old Testament the Hebrew word for spirit — ruach — is usually feminine, and only rarely in a masculine form. Gender in language is really nothing more than a convenient grammatical tool. In the 14th, 15th and 16th chapters of John, the English pronoun "he" is definitely used in connection with the word "Comforter" — but not for theological or spiritual reasons.

Grammatically, all pronouns in Greek must agree in gender with the word they refer to — or in other words, with the term that the pronoun replaces. The Greek word parakletos ("comforter" in English) has masculine gender; hence the translators' use of the personal pronoun "he" for the Greek pronouns ekeinos and autos. "It" would have been a far better rendering into the English language (Just What Is The Holy Spirit? Ambassador College Production, 1983)

Former WCG minister Fred Coulter, who translated the New Testament into the English language from Greek, wrote:

Following are five key verses in the Gospel of John that have been incorrectly translated in the King James Version:

1) John 14:17, KJV: “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” “The Spirit of truth” is translated from the Greek phrase το πν∈υµα της αληθ∈ιας to pneuma tees aleetheias—literally, “the Spirit of the truth.” This noun phrase is in the neuter gender. The pronoun “whom” is translated from the neuter relative pronoun ο, and should accordingly be translated“which.” If the Greek text were expressing the masculine gender, the masculine relative pronoun ος would have been used instead of the neuter relative pronoun ο.

The three personal pronouns translated “him” are incorrectly translated into the masculine gender from the Greek neuter personal pronoun αυτο auto, which is properly translated “it.” If “the Spirit” were a person rather than the power of God, the verse would read ο πν∈υµατος, rather than the neuter το πν∈υµα. However, there is no such masculine noun anywhere in the Greek New Testament. If there were such a masculine gender noun, the masculine pronoun αυτος autos would be used instead of the neuter pronoun αυτο auto. Translators who know and understand the rules of Greek grammar do not mistake the neuter pronoun αυτο auto for the masculine pronoun αυτος. Thus, the translation of the neuter pronoun αυτο in John 14:17 into the masculine personal pronoun “him” is completely incorrect. The neuter pronoun αυτο is used twice in this verse: “because it [the world] perceives it [αυτο auto] not, nor knows it [αυτος auto].”

The KJV translation of John 14:17 also violates another rule of Greek grammar. In the Greek text, a noun that serves as the subject of a verse often governs a number of verbs. In John 14:17, the noun phrase το πν∈υµα της αληθ∈ιας to pneuma tees aleetheias, meaning “the Spirit of the truth,” is the subject. Since the noun pneuma is neuter in gender, the subjects of all verbs that it governs should be translated in the neuter gender. In John 14:17, two third person verbs are governed by this noun. In the first instance, the translators have incorrectly translated the third person verb µ∈ν∈ι menei as “he dwelleth,” rather than “it dwelleth.” In the second instance, the subject of the verb ∈σται estai, “[it] shall be,” was not translated, making it appear that “he” is the subject of both Greek verbs.

A correct translation of John 14:17 should read: “Even the Spirit of the truth, which ο the world cannot receive because it perceives it [αυτο auto] not, nor knows it [αυτο auto]; but you know it [αυτο auto] because it dwells [verb µ∈ν∈ι menei] with you, and shall be [verb ∈σται estai] within you.”

2) John 15:26, KJV: “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.”

The word “which,” referring to “the Spirit of truth,” is correctly translated from the neuter pronoun ο. In John 14:17, the translators of the KJV had incorrectly rendered this neuter pronoun as “whom.” However, in John 15:26, they have correctly rendered the neuter relative pronoun ο as “which.”

The descriptive noun “the Comforter” is correctly translated from the masculine Greek noun ο παρακλητος ho parakleetos. While this masculine noun is used to describe a vital function of the Holy Spirit, it does not designate the Holy Spirit, or “the Spirit of the truth,” as a person. A descriptive noun never changes the gender of the principal noun. For example: Jesus said that He is “the true vine” (John 15:1). The Greek word translated “vine” is the feminine noun η αµπιλος he ampilos. The use of this feminine noun to describe Jesus Christ does not change His masculine gender to the feminine gender. In exactly the same way, the use of the masculine noun ο παρακλητος ho parakleetos to describe a function of the Holy Spirit does not alter the fact that the Holy Spirit is neuter. Because the Holy Spirit is neuter in gender—not masculine—there is no basis in the New Testament Greek text for mistranslating and interpreting the Holy Spirit as a person.

Although the Holy Spirit is not a person, it is in accord with Greek grammar to translate the pronoun ον on as “whom” because its antecedent is the masculine descriptive noun ο παρακλητος ho parakleetos, “the Comforter.” However, it is misleading to translate the personal pronoun ον on as “whom” when the principal noun is το πν∈υµα της αληθ∈ιας to pneuma tees aleetheias, which is neuter in gender.

The last part of this verse has been translated: “… he shall testify of me.”” The use of the personal pronoun “he” once again gives the impression that the Holy Spirit is a person. However, that is not the meaning of the Greek text. The word “he” is translated from the Greek word ∈κ∈ινος ekeinos, which means “that” or “that one.” As with the pronoun ον on, the antecedent of ∈κ∈ινος ekeinos is ο παρακλητος ho parakleetos, “the Comforter,” which is a descriptive noun. Although it is masculine in gender, the principal noun is το πν∈υµα της αληθ∈ιας to pneuma tees aleetheias, which is neuter. The gender of the principal noun always takes precedence over the gender of the descriptive noun. Therefore, ∈κ∈ινος ekeinos has been translated “… that one shall bear witness of Me” in order to reflect the true meaning of the Greek text.

The translation of John 15:26 should read: “But when the Comforter has come, which I will send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of the truth, which proceeds from the Father, that one shall bear witness of Me.”

3) John 14:26, KJV: “But the Comforter, which is the Holy 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.” As in John 15:26, the descriptive noun ho parakleetos, “the Comforter,” is used with the principal noun to pneuma, “the Spirit.” In the Greek text, the verse begins with these words: ο δ∈ παρακλητος, το πν∈υµα το αγιον, ο … ho de parakleetos, to pneuma to hagion, o … The noun phrase το πν∈υµα το αγιον to pneuma to hagion, “the Holy Spirit,” is the antecedent of the neuter pronoun ο, which has been incorrectly translated “whom” in the KJV. Since ο is a neuter relative pronoun, it should be translated “which.” If the Greek text contained the masculine pronoun ος, it would be proper to translate it as “whom” to reflect the masculine gender. However, the Greek text uses the neuter form of the pronoun, not the masculine form.

The pronoun “he” in this verse is translated from the Greek ∈κ∈ινος ekeinos and should be translated “that one.”

The following translation of John 14:26 conveys the precise meaning of the Greek text: “But when the Comforter comes, even the Holy Spirit, which the Father will send in My name, that one shall teach you all things, and shall bring to your remembrance everything that I have told you.”

The translators of the KJV have also used the masculine pronoun “he” in verse 16 of this same chapter: “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever” (John 14:16, KJV). As verse 17 shows, “the Comforter” is describing the Holy Spirit, or “the Spirit of truth,” which is translated from to pneuma tees aleetheias, the same noun phrase that is used in John 15:26. Since pneuma is the principal noun, the meaning of the pronoun is governed by its neuter gender, not by the masculine gender of parakleetos, or “Comforter,” which is a descriptive noun. This translation of John 14:16 accurately conveys the meaning of the Greek text: “And I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that it may be with you throughout the age.”

4) John 16:13, KJV: “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.”

All six occurrences of the pronoun “he” in this verse refer to “the Spirit of truth,” which is translated from το πν∈υµα της αληθ∈ιας to pneuma tees aleetheias. Since pneuma is neuter in gender, all six pronouns should accordingly be translated in the neuter gender. The first “he” is an incorrect rendering of the Greek ∈κ∈ινος ekeinos and should be translated “that one.” The remaining five occurrences of “he” are all subjects of verbs that are governed by the neuter noun pneuma and should be translated “it.”

The correct meaning of John 16:13 is reflected in this translation: “However, when that one has come, even the Spirit of the truth, it will lead [verb οδηγησ∈ι odeegeesei] you into all truth because it shall not speak [verb γαγησ∈ι laleesei] from itself, but whatever it shall hear [verb ακ ουση akousee] it shall speak [verb γαγησ∈ι laleesei]. And it shall disclose [verb ανγγ∈λ∈ι anaggelei] to you the things to come.“

5) John 16:14, KJV: “He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.” As in John 16:13, the first “he” is translated from the Greek ∈κ∈ινος ekeinos, meaning “that one.” Since the antecedent of ekeinos is “the Spirit of truth” in verse 13, both the noun and its pronoun are neuter in gender. The second “he,” which is the subject of the verb “shall receive,” is governed by “the Spirit of truth,” or το πν∈υµα της αληθ∈ιας to pneuma tees aleetheias, and should also be translated in the neuter gender. The verb “shall show,” which the translators of the KJV have rendered as a compound verb with “shall receive,” is also governed by “the Spirit of truth,” and should accordingly be translated in the neuter gender.

This translation of John 16:14 correctly follows the Greek text: “That one shall glorify Me because it shall disclose [verb ανγγ∈λ∈ι anaggelei ] to you the things that it receives [verb ληψ∈ται leepsetai] from Me.”

As the New Testament reveals, the Holy Spirit is not a person; rather it is the power of God. All references to the Holy Spirit in the Greek text are in the neuter gender. The use of the descriptive noun “the Comforter,” which is masculine in gender, does not alter the neuter gender of the Holy Spirit.
(Coulter F. A Faithful Version, 2nd edition, Appendix K: Exegesis for the Translation of the Phrase “the Holy Spirit” as Antecedent in John 14, 15 and 16. York Publishing Company, 2011, pp. 1282-1285)

Former WCG minister Rod Reynolds also explains:

Some have been misled by English translations of John 14:16-17, 26, where the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, is referred to by the English pronouns he, him and whom. In the Greek each noun is assigned a gender, which does not necessarily imply sex or personhood. Hamartia, for example, is a feminine noun meaning sin, though sin is neither male nor female. Hamartolos, on the other hand, is a masculine noun that means sinner, though a sinner can be either male or female.

The Greek word for “Comforter” or “Helper” is parakletos, a masculine noun. Where a pronoun is used in the Greek text referring back to parakletos, it follows the gender of its antecedent which is masculine. The Greek word for spirit is pneuma, a neuter noun. Pronouns in the Greek text referring back to pneuma are neuter. Most of the pronouns referring to the Holy Spirit in the original Greek in the verses in question are neuter, since most of them refer to pneuma as the antecedent. These pronouns would be literally translated into English as which or it. Translators have chosen to use he, him and whom, however, in English, because of their preconceived idea that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person within a Trinity.

It’s also true that in John 16:5-15 masculine pronouns are used several times in reference to the parakletos — Comforter or Helper — as would be expected since it’s a masculine word.

Elsewhere neuter pronouns are used in reference to the Holy Spirit. Nothing definitive about the nature of the Holy Spirit can be determined by the gender of pronouns.

While "comforter" is masculine grammatically, that is not proof that the Holy Spirit is male or a person. All verses in the New Testament with the word "spirit" are translations of a neuter noun.

David Bartosiewicz wrote:

There is no text in the NT that clearly or even probably affirms the personality of the Holy Spirit through the route of Greek grammar. The basis for this doctrine must be on other grounds. This does not mean that in the NT the Spirit is a thing, any more than in the OT the Spirit ( רוּחַ —a feminine noun) is a female! Grammatical gender is just that: grammatical. (https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2016/07/dave-bartosiewiczs-binitarian-theology.html)

The grammatical reality is that the Greek noun pneuma (πνεύμα), in all its various forms, is always and only neuter in gender. Likewise, all pronouns that refer to pneuma are always and only can be neuter in gender. If the Holy Spirit were a masculine person, the nouns and pronouns in the Greek text would have to have been written in the masculine gender, as are all the nouns and pronouns that refer to God the Father and Jesus Christ. Yet, as Dr. Wallace, Dr. Cleenewerck, and others have concluded, nowhere in the Greek text of the New Testament is the Holy Spirit ever designated by a noun or pronoun in the masculine gender.

As stated earlier in the Old Testament (the Hebrew scriptures), the terms for “Spirit” used are feminine. Hence to claim the Holy Spirit is a masculine “person” is not consistent with the words God inspired to be written about it.

Now, as alluded to before, most translators have falsely given the Holy Spirit a masculine designation, which is not consistent with the Greek.

Some erroneously claim the New Testament was written in Aramaic/Syriac and not in Greek (for details, check out the article Was the New Testament Written in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic?).

So, for the sake of argument, what about Aramaic-English translations of the New Testament?

Well, sadly, like most biased translators of Greek, the two translations of the Syriac/Aramaic I have seen have both ended up wrong about John 14:17 and John 15:26.

17 “He is The Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it has neither seen him nor known him; but you know him, for he dwells with you and he is in you.” (John 14:17, Aramaic Bible in Plain English)

17 The Spirit of Truth, He who the world is not able to receive because it has not seen Him, nor does it know Him. But you know Him for He dwells with you and He is in you. (John 14:17, Aramaic English New Testament)

26 “But when The Redeemer of the accursed comes, him whom I shall send to you from the presence of my Father, The Spirit of Truth, he who proceeds from the presence of my Father, he shall testify concerning me.” (John 15:26, Aramaic Bible in Plain English)

While one can argue if the word for “Spirit” is masculine or neuter in Aramaic (an Aramaic dictionary says ‘common’ or neuter, whereas the Peshitta translator says ‘masculine,’ but that the gender designation is not relevant–see Roth AG. Aramaic New Testament 5th edition. Netzari Press, 2012, p. 826), the reality is that the Holy Spirit is NOT shown to be a male person in the Bible (and the term for “Spirit” in Hebrew, used throughout the Old Testament, is feminine).

Here are two gender correct translations from the Greek to the English:

17 Even the Spirit of the truth which the world cannot receive because it perceives it not, nor knows it; but you know it because it dwells with you, and shall be within you. (John 14:17, A Faithful Version)

17 “The helper whom I will send to you from the Father will come. This helper, the Spirit of Truth who comes from the Father, will declare the truth about me. (John 15:26, God’s Word Translation)

While it is nice that some translations get at least part of the truth about the Holy Spirit right (whom and who in the GWT should instead be translated as that or which or it), it is sad that many have mistranslated information about the Holy Spirit.

That is part of why most people do not realize the truth about the Holy Spirit.

The grammatically proper conclusion after reviewing the Hebrew and Greek scriptures is that the Holy Spirit is NOT a “he.” And if one wants to assign gender to it, “it,” meaning the neuter gender would make the most sense for Christians.

The Continuing Church of God and the Holy Spirit?

What does the Continuing Church of God Statement of Beliefs teach on the Holy Spirit?

Notice the following:

The Holy Spirit is inherent in the Father and the Son, and emanates from Them throughout the entire universe (1 Kings 8:27; Psalm 139:7; Jeremiah 23:24). God’s entire plan for humankind is based upon love. …

The Holy Spirit is not a separate being in the theological sense and is given to those after those who have properly repented and been baptized (Acts 2:38-39). The early original Christians had what has been called a “binitarian” view of the Godhead. (Statement of Beliefs of the Continuing Church of God)

Hence, there are still those today who hold the teachings of the Bible and early Christian writers about the Holy Spirit. A more detailed article to study would be Did Early Christians Think the Holy Spirit Was A Separate Person in a Trinity?

Concluding Comments on the Holy Spirit

There are no accepted early writings (writings by apostates notwithstanding), prior to the third century, that I have seen that refer to the Holy Spirit as the third person of the Godhead like the 381 Council of Constantinople trinity.

There is no evidence that early Christians taught or believed in a trinity like most who profess Christianity now do.

Early church writers such as Ignatius, Melito, and Polycarp all referred to the Father as God and the Son as God, but never the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was always considered to be the Spirit of God, but was never honored as God.

It was not until the heretics Valentinus and Montanus, in the mid-late 2nd century came up with some idea of three hypostases, that any seemed to suggest that the Holy Spirit was somehow equal to the Father. And Valentinus was denounced by Polycarp, and later by the Roman Church. And Montanus and his followers were first denounced by the Christians in Asia Minor in the second century, but not by the Roman Church until sometime in the third century after it absorbed some of Montanus' teachings.

It took a Roman Emperor, who removed the Patriarch of Constantinople in 380 A.D., to issue an edict to get people to accept the trinity.

Neither Acts chapter 5, nor any other scripture, teaches that the Holy Spirit is the third person of some trinity.

Those who have deeply studied in koine Greek grammar realize that it is not appropriate to use the pronoun 'he' for the Holy Spirit.

Mistranslated scriptures as well as ignorance of aspects of real church, plus the adherence to non-biblical traditions are the reason that many do not know the truth about the Holy Spirit. Many do not want the truth known, but instead cling to unbiblical traditions.

But if you are willing to accept what the Bible teaches, you realize that the Bible does not teach that the Holy Spirit is the third person in a Greco-Roman trinity that many now accept.

The view that the Holy Spirit is spirit and is a manifestation of the power of God is one that is consistent with scripture and the writings of early Christian leaders.

Thiel B. Ph.D. Did Early Christians Think the Holy Spirit Was A Separate Person in a Trinity? www.cogwriter.com (c) 2006/2007/2008/2009/ 2011/2012/2013/2015/2016/2017/2018/2019/2021 /2022 /2024 0914 All rights reserved.

Did Early Christians Think the Holy Spirit Was A Separate Person in a Trinity?