Data Errors: Holy Spirit tagging

Text tagged in ESV/NABRE:

1. "Spirit of the Lord"

person:Holy Spirit in 2 Chron 18:23 (where "Lord" is not tagged as God)

person:Holy Spirit in Is 11:2 (where "Lord" is not tagged as God). "Spirit" = Holy Spirit in rest of verse.

"Spirit" is not tagged but "of the Lord" is tagged as God in Is 61:1 (compare to Is 11.2 ).

person:Holy Spirit in Lk 4:18 (where "Lord" is also tagged as God) --> citing Is 61.1.

Then "Spirit of the Lord" NOT INTERSECTS person:"Holy Spirit" 18x in the OT i.e. they intersect God, whilst other instances are tagged for both God and Holy Spirit.

I understand the sensibilities of some regarding "Holy Spirit" in the OT, but the phrase is tagged "Holy Spirit" in Gen1:1 - notwithstanding the translation provided by NABRE ("mighty wind") and NRSV ("wind from God"). I think it more important to understand that the same Person is referred to in the NT i.e. the (holy) Spirit of God** and that we should have consistency in naming that Person.

** Mt 3:16, 10.20, 12.28, Ro 8:9,14, 1 Cor 2:11-12, 2:14, 6:11, 7:40, 2 Cor 3:3, Eph 4:30, 1 Pe 1:11*, 4:!4, 1 Jn 4:2). Note 1 Pe 1:11.

2. "Me"

"A man", "Bearer of Good News" 3x in Is 61.1

"Suffering servant" 3x in Lk 4.18 ---> citing Is 61.1.

3. sense:"spirit (God)"

It is used with "Spirit of the Lord" 23x, but is not used with the phrase 54x when the BSL states it refers to Israel?

But why is it restricted to the OT? Yet another inconsistency.

4. sense:"spirit" is used with person:"Holy Spirit" in OT/NT?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

MJ. Smith

I think it more important to understand that the same Person is referred to in the NT i.e. the (holy) Spirit of God**

And I think that is a theological bias There is no textual evidence or interpretative history to justify this theological interpretation - nothing to indicate a separate person. And even the concept of "person" as Dave is using it is a traditional, post-Biblical understanding that has never been universally accepted - think Paulicians, Bogomils, and Cathars (or unitarians if you want modern).

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271860#Comment_1271860

I think it more important to understand that the same Person is referred to in the NT i.e. the (holy) Spirit of God**

And I think that is a theological bias There is no textual evidence or interpretative history to justify this theological interpretation - nothing to indicate a separate person. And even the concept of "person" as Dave is using it is a traditional, post-Biblical understanding that has never been universally accepted - think Paulicians, Bogomils, and Cathars (or unitarians if you want modern).

Welll now little lady.... I think I understand you and I beg to disagree. Take a look at Acts 5:3-4, Notice that Ananias was accused of lying to the Holy Spirit which Peter says he also lied to God... which implies the Holy Spirit is equal to God and part of the Godhead (which is talked about in Rom 1:20 and Col 2:9). Also look at 1Jo 5:7 Which talks about all three parts of the Godhead... The Father, the Word (Jesus per Joh 1:14) and the Holy Spirit.

The bible also shows the Holy Spirit has personal traits - Act 13:2, Joh 16:8. So the person of the Holy Spirit is as real as God Himself.

I know we "shouldn't" get into theological debates and you have personally chastised me for doing so several times.... but if you're going to spout things the bible does not support...then I will take the hit and refute it. If you want to debate this issue... I would graciously accept the invitation... just not here on Logos forums....

Now, is there a chance I misunderstood?

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271862#Comment_1271862

Hi xnman

Welll now little lady....

I know MJ commented on this when you referred to her in this way before. I would really appreciate it if you did not do this - it comes across, to me, as "speaking down" to someone. And I'm not suggesting at all you meant it in that way, just how it comes across at least to me.

I think I understand you and I beg to disagree

I think the point MJ is making is different. She is saying nothing about our understanding of the Trinity - certainly as discussed in the New Testament - but is raising questions about whether the personhood of the Spirit was recognised in the Old Testament writings and context. And, if not, as some would hold, then applying tagging to the Holy Spirit in those verses could be seen as unhelpful.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271864#Comment_1271864

Hi xnman

Welll now little lady....

I know MJ commented on this when you referred to her in this way before. I would really appreciate it if you did not do this - it comes across, to me, as "speaking down" to someone. And I'm not suggesting at all you meant it in that way, just how it comes across at least to me.

I think I understand you and I beg to disagree

I think the point MJ is making is different. She is saying nothing about our understanding of the Trinity - certainly as discussed in the New Testament - but is raising questions about whether the personhood of the Spirit was recognised in the Old Testament writings and context. And, if not, as some would hold, then applying tagging to the Holy Spirit in those verses could be seen as unhelpful.

If that be the case.... then I completely misunderstood and spoke in haste and ask MJ to forgive me. And I was not trying to talk down to anyone... I think of myself as not being high enough to talk down to anyone.... Sometimes in messages, words can give off an attitude that we don't mean to give.... I'll try to be more careful with that.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271862#Comment_1271862

Welll now little lady..

My son has just virtually socked you in the face for disrespect.

And please respond to what I actually said. I did NOT say that the Holy Spirit was not explicitly referenced in the New Testament nor did I say that the Holy Spirit was not implicitly referenced in the Old Testament when read through the light of the cross (think Schmemann). It is the concept of "person" as used in the definition of the Trinity that is an understanding that took two to four centuries to work out if you read church history. I did not "spout" anything that the Bible does not support. You chose to misread it as such. One thing I and my siblings always appreciated about our upbringing in the independent Church of Christ was it teaching us to think clearly and precisely when talking about scripture. I have always tried to retain this.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271860#Comment_1271860

And I think that is a theological bias There is no textual evidence or interpretative history to justify this theological interpretation - nothing to indicate a separate person. And even the concept of "person" as Dave is using it is a traditional, post-Biblical understanding that has never been universally accepted - think Paulicians, Bogomils, and Cathars (or unitarians if you want modern).

I do apologize. But the above is what I responded to. I will try to never use the term "little lady" again... but, in my heart, I did not mean any dis-respect with it.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271869#Comment_1271869

apology accepted

but please also don't misrepresent what I say in ways that make me look like an idjit.

Perhaps another example will make my point clearer. What would you think of having all the mentions of "the angel of the Lord" being tagged as "Jesus Christ?" There are mainstream scholars who take the archangel Raphael/Angel of the Lord to be the pre-incarnate Jesus. They make a strong case that, while I don't agree with it, I also wouldn't challenge. However, I wouldn't want my Logos tagged Jesus because of the preincarnate Jesus interpretation.

Another caveat, in my original response I did not explicitly state I was using the Hebrew Old Testament canon because I knew that is what Dave was using. In the deuterocanonical texts there are hints of a developing idea of a Triune God. But I still don't want my OT coded based on hints of a later doctrine.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271860#Comment_1271860

I think it more important to understand that the same Person is referred to in the NT i.e. the (holy) Spirit of God**

And I think that is a theological bias There is no textual evidence or interpretative history to justify this theological interpretation - nothing to indicate a separate person.

I think you overstate your case with terms like "theological bias" as "Person" is sufficiently understood by Christianity, and "Holy Spirit" is used in the OT. I think that consistency of tagging is more important as the case for identification was made by the Jewish authors of the NT and the OT.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271860#Comment_1271860

And I think that is a theological bias There is no textual evidence or interpretative history to justify this theological interpretation - nothing to indicate a separate person.

What does that mean? Edit: What is the separate person?

And even the concept of "person" as Dave is using it is a traditional, post-Biblical understanding that has never been universally accepted - think Paulicians, Bogomils, and Cathars (or unitarians if you want modern).

And what does that mean? Edit: What is the "person" you talk about?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271871#Comment_1271871

as the case for identification was made by the Jewish authors of the NT and the OT.

Can you give me some examples of Jewish authors in the Old Testament? I am open to correction, but the earliest hints I've seen are in the deuterocanonicals.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271874#Comment_1271874

as the case for identification was made by the Jewish authors of the NT and the OT.

Can you give me some examples of Jewish authors in the Old Testament? I am open to correction, but the earliest hints I've seen are in the deuterocanonicals.

I agree with you. But Joel's usage gets picked by Peter, as an example. And quickly disposed of, until the Montanists. Even in the NT, the 'spirit' tagging demands later doctrinal overlays. Not just the OT.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271872#Comment_1271872

What does that mean? Edit: What is the separate person?

I'm not sure how to answer because I don't understand what question you are really asking. I think of the basic definition of the Trinity as being 3 persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) of one nature/being (Godhead) - usually with the 3 persons defined relationally. However, in our normal usage 1 person = 1 being but to preserve monotheism we need 3 persons = 1 being. So we need to adjust our definition of "person". I need to know how you understand the Trinity differently in order to answer in any meaningful way. I know my natural vocabulary would be meaningless to you. This is, I believe, an evangelical point of view on personhood.

[quote]

B. The Trinity of Persons

The term “person” as used here is a translation of the Greek word hypostasis, and it must be carefully distinguished from the modern use of the word person as applicable to the whole of the being. When we speak of God as a Person, we are in reality using the modern term to express the nature of the one substance; when we speak of “persons” in the trinitarian sense, we are referring to the Hypostases or distinctions within that one substance. It is easy for confusion to arise from the use of a word in different senses or connotations, and we need to guard carefully a proper definition of these terms. The Church has always maintained that there is something more than an “economic” trinity of manifestations, such as Sabellianism teaches. It teaches that the Trinity not only expresses God’s outward relation to man, but also His inner relation to Himself; and, therefore, that there is an “essential” as well as an “economic” Trinity.

Wakefield makes the following statement on the foregoing topic: “The term person signifies in ordinary language an intelligent being. Two or more persons, therefore, in the strict philosophical sense, would be two or more distinct intelligent beings. If the term person were so applied to the Trinity in the Godhead, a plurality of gods would follow; while if taken in what has been called a political sense, personality would be no more than a relation arising out of office. Personality in God is, therefore, not to be understood in either of the above senses if we pay respect to the testimony of Scripture. God is one being. But, He is more than one being in three relations, for personal acts, such as we ascribe to distinct persons, and which most unequivocally characterize personality, are ascribed to each person of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Scripture is, therefore, that the persons are not separate, but distinct, and that they are so united as to be but one God. In other words, that the divine nature exists under the personal distinction of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and that these three have equally, and in common with one another, the nature and perfections of supreme divinity” (Wakefield, Chr. Theol., pp. 178–179. See also W. N. Clarke, Outline of Chr. Theol., pp. 161–181).

H. Orton Wiley and Paul T. Culbertson, Introduction to Christian Theology (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1946), 124–125.

Look up the Sabellians for a group that denied three persons in favor of simple modes of action.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271877#Comment_1271877

But Joel's usage gets picked by Peter, as an example. And quickly disposed of

Ah, yes, I'd forgotten this. Sometimes on the forums it feels as if you and I are the only literalists on the planet ... and I'm Catholic!!!

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271881#Comment_1271881

Why is there no popcorn emoji? [:(]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271889#Comment_1271889

Why is there no popcorn emoji?

The problem is solely in Faithlife's censoring of our freedom of visual expression*

* translation: they didn't put the option in the forums when the emoji was officially recognized.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271879#Comment_1271879

What does that mean? Edit: What is the separate person?

I'm not sure how to answer because I don't understand what question you are really asking. I think of the basic definition of the Trinity as being 3 persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) of one nature/being (Godhead) - usually with the 3 persons defined relationally. However, in our normal usage 1 person = 1 being but to preserve monotheism we need 3 persons = 1 being. So we need to adjust our definition of "person". I need to know how you understand the Trinity differently in order to answer in any meaningful way. I know my natural vocabulary would be meaningless to you. This is, I believe, an evangelical point of view on personhood.

Thanks for answering.....

I believe there is a Godhead of three persons, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, which is called the Trinity, for lack of better terms. I would also state that when "person" is used in reference to the Godhead... then the context of the passage in which it's used would determine which "person" it is referring to.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271895#Comment_1271895

I would also state that when "person" is used in reference to the Godhead.

And I would say using "person" rather than "persons" in reference to the Godhead is such sloppy thinking as to require I ask the author to explain what they could possibly mean.[*-)] I expect Godhead to mean Godhead often with an emphasis on essence. And, yes, I am deliberately ignoring the essence/energies argument on the knowability of God.

Wolfgang Schneider

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271896#Comment_1271896

Hmn ... how is it that this thread now seemingly has more theological exchange than Logos software related matter? [;)]

Dave's original post was regarding tagging difficulties in Bible resources with perceived problems arising from that for the utilization of the search function in Logos. MJ replied - in my view, correctly - that this tagging matter in question (person Holy Spirit, etc) was rather a theological issue than a textual one. The further development of the exchange seems ample proof MJ's observation to be very much on point.

I note that some types of tagging are indeed an interpretation / theology matter and will of necessity lead to the problems, controversies and difficulties seen here in this matter. Of course, there are other tagging types involving more straight forward textual matters which can be very helpful (morph info, places, people, etc)

For me, the great value in the software's search function for Bibles is that it enables many straight text related functionalities and capabilities which then equip me in a rather short time with data and information for me then to do the work to evaluate, ascertain and arrive at what I would consider and believe to be the correct interpretation and understanding of a text passage.

PS.: Concerning the terms "spirit, holy spirit" ... why not take the time and put in the effort to go through each passage where the term(s) are used and from the context (!) evaluate and determine to who or what the word(s) refer thereby taking personal responsibility for what we each believe?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271925#Comment_1271925

Hmn ... how is it that this thread now seemingly has more theological exchange than Logos software related matter?

You are correct in calling me out on this. Sometimes my teach-a-broader-perspective gets the better of me and I answer questions I shouldn't - even though my comments have been misrepresented. [:$]

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271926#Comment_1271926

At this point.... I'll just concede. I hope I've learned not to speak against Logos Search ever again. My persistence overpowers me sometimes.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271928#Comment_1271928

I hope I've learned not to speak against Logos Search ever again.

Please feel free to speak against the Logos Search - most of us do at times. Just be careful to be accurate in your description of your problem - then we can confirm that it is a problem and ask for a correction OR we can correct your misunderstanding and it will be instantly fixed.

1Cor10 31

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271926#Comment_1271926

ok, I'm not debating, just asking for a resource where a "person" is clearly defined. It should define a person has having x, y, z....characteristics. And, then, how each person of the Godhead checks off against all these pre-identified characteristics, thereby confirming the doctrine of Trinity.

I have a read a bunch of stuff here and here from a bunch of Systematic Theology resources, but not in a very organized manner. As researchers (in the financial economics side), we start with clear and precise definitions of terms so that everyone is on the same page. What I find truly lacking in what I've read thus far is the clear definition of what it means to define a living being as a person. Hence, my questions above.

Thanks.

Thank you

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272389#Comment_1272389

ok, I'm not debating, just asking for a resource where a "person" is clearly defined. It should define a person has having x, y, z....characteristics. And, then, how each person of the Godhead checks off against all these pre-identified characteristics, thereby confirming the doctrine of Trinity.

I have a read a bunch of stuff here and here from a bunch of Systematic Theology resources, but not in a very organized manner. As researchers (in the financial economics side), we start with clear and precise definitions of terms so that everyone is on the same page. What I find truly lacking in what I've read thus far is the clear definition of what it means to define a living being as a person. Hence, my questions above.

There's a good section titled "WHAT IS A PERSON?" (followed by one called "MODERN DIFFICULTIES WITH THE TERM 'PERSON') in God Is Love: A Biblical and Systematic Theology by Gerald Bray.

I found this by searching for "what is a person" throughout my library. You might find other resources that way. Other possible search phrases are "defining a person" or "definition of a person". Combining these all in one search could be done using "what is a person" OR "defining a person" OR "definition of a person". You'd have to skim through the results for ones that looked helpful.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1271981#Comment_1271981

I hope I've learned not to speak against Logos Search ever again.

Please feel free to speak against the Logos Search - most of us do at times. Just be careful to be accurate in your description of your problem - then we can confirm that it is a problem and ask for a correction OR we can correct your misunderstanding and it will be instantly fixed.

I'll just concede. Too much of an argument and not enough time for me. Either someone else will pick up the baton or it'll be what it'll be. Enough said.

1Cor10 31

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1272393#Comment_1272393

1Cor10 31">
ok, I'm not debating, just asking for a resource where a "person" is clearly defined. It should define a person has having x, y, z....characteristics. And, then, how each person of the Godhead checks off against all these pre-identified characteristics, thereby confirming the doctrine of Trinity.

I have a read a bunch of stuff here and here from a bunch of Systematic Theology resources, but not in a very organized manner. As researchers (in the financial economics side), we start with clear and precise definitions of terms so that everyone is on the same page. What I find truly lacking in what I've read thus far is the clear definition of what it means to define a living being as a person. Hence, my questions above.

There's a good section titled "WHAT IS A PERSON?" (followed by one called "MODERN DIFFICULTIES WITH THE TERM 'PERSON') in God Is Love: A Biblical and Systematic Theology by Gerald Bray.

I found this by searching for "what is a person" throughout my library. You might find other resources that way. Other possible search phrases are "defining a person" or "definition of a person". Combining these all in one search could be done using "what is a person" OR "defining a person" OR "definition of a person". You'd have to skim through the results for ones that looked helpful.

Thanks a lot Rosie. I never thought about searching like the way you've suggested. One more learning for me.

I don't have the book by Gerald Bray. But the search yielded "Theology and Sanity" by Frank Sheed. I started reading. I like that he is logical. Most of his "therefore"s and "since"es make sense. I'm happy I discovered this author, in general.

Thank you again.