>TOU PATROS KAI TOU hUIOU KAI TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS and the role as
>PARAKLHTOS in John 14-16. This evidence is in no way conclusive and is also
>compatible with the view that P h. is non-personal. This last view has a
But, while it is not an ironcald rule, is it not usually more likely that
*ALLOS* refers to "other of the same kind" and *hETEROS* "other of a
different kind"? Therefore, does this not suggest that the P.h. was most
likely intended to be viewed as the same kind of *PARAKLHTOS* as Christ
(i.e. personal)?
>readers. Along the same lines I would perhaps give this wooden translation
>of Luke 2:25: "and spirit, holy was upon him", and then have a footnote.
If you were going to go arch-literal, though, shouldn't you put it, "and
spirit was holy upon him"? Or is there a syntactical something I'm
missing? (All too possible!)
Nick---
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
"There is as much dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem."
(Booker T. Washington)