Is There A Part, or Portion, of The Holy Spirit?
-
Depiction of the Christian Holy Spirit as a dove, by Gian Lorenzo Bernini, in the apse of Saint Peter’s Basilica
.jpg)
It is often said that the holy Spirit is “the third person of the Trinity”, the three-in-one Godhead. Can it be, however, that there can be a part of the holy Spirit, only “a portion” of the holy Spirit? Yes, this is exactly what the scriptures themselves indicate, as we will see from the following scriptures:
“The LORD then came down in the cloud and spoke to him. Taking some of the spirit that was on Moses, he bestowed it on the seventy elders; and as the spirit came to rest on them, they prophesied but did not continue”—Numbers 11:25 NAB
“And it shall be after these things, I will pour out of my spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy”—Joel 2:28 NETS
“Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union?”—Malachi 2:15 ESV
“For the one whom God sent speaks the words of God. He does not ration his gift of the Spirit“—John 3:34 NAB
“‘It will come to pass in the last days’, God says, ‘that I will pour out a portion of my spirit upon all flesh'”—Acts 2:17 NAB
“The blessing of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the participation in the holy Spirit be with you all”—2 Corinthians 13:14 AAT
“Renewal in the Holy Spirit which he has so generously poured over us through Jesus Christ our Saviour”—Titus 3:6 NJB
“He has given us a share in his Spirit“—1 John 4:13 NJB
The phraseology, “some of the spirit”, “a portion of”, “pour out of”, “his gift of”, “participation in”, “a share in”, all combine to indicate that the holy Spirit is not a person. Of course, it is true that the apostle Paul twice referred to himself figuratively as “being poured out like a drink offering” (Philippians 2:17 NIV; 2 Timothy 4:6 NIV), and the holy Spirit is, at times, personified in the Bible. However, the fact remains that the holy Spirit, is frequently referred to in terms which indicate it is not a person.
Yes, the scriptures prove that there is a part, or portion of, the holy Spirit which we can receive, indicating the holy Spirit is not a person.
8 thoughts on “Is There A Part, or Portion, of The Holy Spirit?”
BA1: It is often said that the holy Spirit is “the third person of the Trinity”, the three-in-one Godhead.
GW1: Yes, this is the assertion of most Christians, but there is no good evidence for the existence of the Holy Spirit.
BA1: Can it be, however, that there can be a part of the holy Spirit, only “a portion” of the holy Spirit? Yes, this is exactly what the scriptures themselves indicate, as we will see from the following scriptures:
GW1: All spirits are hypothetical supernatural persons or intelligent agents. Things like that are likely to have parts or portions, if they did exist. However, there is no good evidence that they do exist.
BA1: “The LORD then came down in the cloud and spoke to him. Taking some of the spirit that was on Moses, he bestowed it on the seventy elders; and as the spirit came to rest on them, they prophesied but did not continue”—Numbers 11:25 NAB
GW1: Yes, if God did exist (he doesn’t), he could certainly split any spirit into parts or portions. He would have that power, but would he ever do it?
BA1: “And it shall be after these things, I will pour out of my spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy”—Joel 2:28 NETS
GW1: This is a poor analogy, comparing a spirit to a liquid. Spirits are hypothetical intelligent agents.
BA1: “Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union?”—Malachi 2:15 ESV
GW1: This seems to be referring to the Holy Spirit. If God did exist, he probably wouldn’t split the Holy Spirit into parts. He would probably retain the Holy Spirit as one independent but compliant intelligent agent under his supervision.
BA1: “For the one whom God sent speaks the words of God. He does not ration his gift of the Spirit”—John 3:34 NAB
GW1: If God did exist, he would not send anyone to speak for him. He would speak for himself. Again, there is no good evidence that the Holy Spirit even exists.
BA1: “‘It will come to pass in the last days’, God says, ‘that I will pour out a portion of my spirit upon all flesh'”—Acts 2:17 NAB
GW1: Again, the analogy of the Holy Spirit to a liquid is poor. If God did exist, there would be no “last days” when he would speak to us. Instead, he would speak to us regularly, all at the same time! That is what an all powerful and perfectly moral creator would do.
BA1: “The blessing of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the participation in the holy Spirit be with you all”—2 Corinthians 13:14 AAT
GW1: This implies the traditional Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity – a team of three persons working together for common goals. Jesus probably existed, God definitely does not exist, and the Holy Spirit very likely does not exist.
BA1: “Renewal in the Holy Spirit which he has so generously poured over us through Jesus Christ our Saviour”—Titus 3:6 NJB
GW1: God would never make a human person, Jesus, a savior. If God did exist, he would implement perfect justice for all, not “saving” anyone from the consequences of their actions, both positive and negative.
BA1: “He has given us a share in his Spirit”—1 John 4:13 NJB
GW1: God would be the supervisor of the Holy Spirit, if either existed.
BA1: The phraseology, “some of the spirit”, “a portion of”, “pour out of”, “his gift of”, “participation in”, “a share in”, all combine to indicate that the holy Spirit is not a person.
GW1: You are cherry picking. There are other Bible verses which imply that the Holy Spirit is a person, and has sometimes been referred to as a counselor. The analogy of a liquid is poor.
BA1: Of course, it is true that the apostle Paul twice referred to himself figuratively as “being poured out like a drink offering” (Philippians 2:17 NIV; 2 Timothy 4:6 NIV), and the holy Spirit is, at times, personified in the Bible. However, the fact remains that the holy Spirit, is frequently referred to in terms which indicate it is not a person.
GW1: Different verses imply that the Holy Spirit is a person and is not a person. If God did exist, however, he would not use intermediaries or messengers. He would do his own communication and work. After all, he would be all powerful and perfectly moral.
BA1: Yes, the scriptures prove that there is a part, or portion of, the holy Spirit which we can receive, indicating the holy Spirit is not a person.
GW1: False. No such thing has been proven. You are just engaged in cherry picking or biased sampling of verses. In the end, it doesn’t matter since God does not exist and the Holy Spirit probably does not exist. Jesus is the only person in the Trinity who actually existed, and he was just a man.
GW—BA1: “The blessing of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the participation in the holy Spirit be with you all”—2 Corinthians 13:14 AAT
GW1: This implies the traditional Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity – a team of three persons working together for common goals.
BA— No, that is not exactly what the standard Trinity doctrine asserts. The Trinity doctrine claims that God the Father, Jesus his Son, and the holy spirit, are all three equal eternal persons. The following are some of the scriptures from 2 Corinthians that prove otherwise:
“The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever”—11:31 NIV. “The Father” is said to be Jesus’ “God.” That makes him superior to Jesus, and eliminates the equality claim of the Trinity doctrine! This means the Trinity doctrine is contradicted by 2 Corinthians.
“He was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God’s power”—13:4 NIV. Yes, Jesus actually “died” (1 Corinthians 15:3). On the other hand, “Yahweh . . . God . . . never dies” (Habakkuk 1:12 NJB). So, according to the scriptures, Jesus cannot be Almighty God.
“May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all”—13:14 NIV. Trinitarians refer to this verse as “one of the clearest Trinitarian passages in the New Testament” (NAB footnote) and one of their “proofs” that “the faith of the New Testament is an implicitly Trinitarian faith” (The Forgotten Trinity, pages 163,164). However, there is no presentation of the Trinity in this verse. There is no verse, including this one, anywhere in the Bible that articulates that God, Jesus, and the holy Spirit equal “one God.” Actually, a careful reading of this verse contradicts the Trinity doctrine. God, Jesus and the holy Spirit are presented as entirely separate and distinct entities. “The fellowship of the holy Spirit” doesn’t mean it’s a person. It is a “common sharing in the Spirit” by Christians who have a “supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 2:1 NIV; 1:19 NJKV; KJV). “Supply of” and “common sharing” are strong evidences the Spirit is not a person.
GW—BA1: “The blessing of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the participation in the holy Spirit be with you all”—2 Corinthians 13:14 AAT
GW1: This implies the traditional Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity – a team of three persons working together for common goals.
BA— No, that is not exactly what the standard Trinity doctrine asserts. The Trinity doctrine claims that God the Father, Jesus his Son, and the holy spirit, are all three equal eternal persons.
GW: I disagree. God the Father is not equal to, but superior to, the other two persons in team Trinity. For example, Jesus said that only God was good.
BA: The following are some of the scriptures from 2 Corinthians that prove otherwise: “The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever”—11:31 NIV. “The Father” is said to be Jesus’ “God.” That makes him superior to Jesus, and eliminates the equality claim of the Trinity doctrine! This means the Trinity doctrine is contradicted by 2 Corinthians.
GW: I agree that God is superior to the other two, according to a proper interpretation of the Bible.
BA: “He was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God’s power”—13:4 NIV. Yes, Jesus actually “died” (1 Corinthians 15:3). On the other hand, “Yahweh . . . God . . . never dies” (Habakkuk 1:12 NJB). So, according to the scriptures, Jesus cannot be Almighty God.
GW: Yes, I agree. As I have said many times, Jesus and God are two different persons, even different kinds of persons.
BA: “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all”—13:14 NIV. Trinitarians refer to this verse as “one of the clearest Trinitarian passages in the New Testament” (NAB footnote) and one of their “proofs” that “the faith of the New Testament is an implicitly Trinitarian faith” (The Forgotten Trinity, pages 163,164).
GW: I think they are correct about this – three persons.
BA: However, there is no presentation of the Trinity in this verse. There is no verse, including this one, anywhere in the Bible that articulates that God, Jesus, and the holy Spirit equal “one God.”
GW: The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, but the concept is implied there. Analogously, the term “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution, but it is implied in the First Amendment. You must use rational interpretation to understand these concepts.
BA: Actually, a careful reading of this verse contradicts the Trinity doctrine. God, Jesus and the holy Spirit are presented as entirely separate and distinct entities.
GW: No, that supports the Trinity idea. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are considered to be three separate persons, but working together as a team under the direction of God, the team captain. This is the only interpretation of Trinity which makes any sense.
BA: “The fellowship of the holy Spirit” doesn’t mean it’s a person.
GW: It implies a person. We can have a fellowship with any real person. The problem is that God and the Holy Spirit are not real persons.
BA: It is a “common sharing in the Spirit” by Christians who have a “supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 2:1 NIV; 1:19 NJKV; KJV). “Supply of” and “common sharing” are strong evidences the Spirit is not a person.
GW: You are cherry picking. There are other verses which imply personhood. If God did exist, there would be no confusion, disagreement, or misinterpretation about this issue. God would do his own communication and work. He would not need or use Jesus or a Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not exist as a person, a liquid, a commodity, or any other thing. It doesn’t exist at all, just like God. But Jesus did exist.
GW: I disagree. God the Father is not equal to, but superior to, the other two persons in team Trinity. For example, Jesus said that only God was good.
BA— You are correct in saying that God is superior to Jesus. However, your Trinity definition is in conflict with the “commonly expressed” false doctrine of the Trinity. See below:
“First published Thu Jul 23, 2009; substantive revision Fri Nov 20, 2020
A Trinity doctrine is commonly expressed as the statement that the one God exists as or in three equally divine “Persons”, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Every term in this statement (God, exists, as or in, equally divine, Person) has been variously understood. The guiding principle has been the creedal declaration that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of the New Testament are consubstantial (i.e. the same in substance or essence, Greek: homoousios). Because this shared substance or essence is a divine one, this is understood to imply that all three named individuals are divine, and equally so. Yet the three in some sense “are” the one God of the Bible.
After its formulation and imperial enforcement towards the end of the fourth century, this sort of Christian theology reigned more or less unchallenged. But before this, and again in post-Reformation modernity, the origin, meaning, and justification of trinitarian doctrine has been repeatedly disputed. These debates are discussed in supplementary documents to this entry. One aspect of these debates concerns the self-consistency of trinitarian theology. If there are three who are equally divine, isn’t that to say there are at least three gods? Yet the tradition asserts exactly one god. Is the tradition, then, incoherent, and so self-refuting? Since the revival of analytic philosophy of religion in the 1960s, many Christian philosophers have pursued what is now called analytic theology, in which religious doctrines are given formulations which are precise, and it is hoped self-consistent and otherwise defensible.”—Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
GW—BA: It is a “common sharing in the Spirit” by Christians who have a “supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 2:1 NIV; 1:19 NJKV; KJV). “Supply of” and “common sharing” are strong evidences the Spirit is not a person.
GW: You are cherry picking. There are other verses which imply personhood. If God did exist, there would be no confusion, disagreement, or misinterpretation about this issue. God would do his own communication and work. He would not need or use Jesus or a Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not exist as a person, a liquid, a commodity, or any other thing. It doesn’t exist at all, just like God. But Jesus did exist.
BA—Water, blood, sin, death, rivers, flesh, the body, and others are all personified in a few places in the Bible. However, personification doesn’t equate to personhood.
BA—In another context you insisted that the pericope of John 7:53-8:11 was part of the Bible. You should know that this spurious account was not added until about six centuries after the Bible was completed.
The vast majority of Christians, including Pastors, do not know, and are totally unaware, in fact, that the account of the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53-8:11 was not part of the original Bible! Many people just “know”, in their “hearts”, they think, that Jesus really said these words, since they’ve heard this story all of their lives, and sermonized in churches. The phrase at John 8:7 is often used to let others know not to take sin too seriously, and not to “judge” others. It is often quoted by those who want to excuse their own deliberate sin, which they know the Bible condemns. This account violates the principles at Proverbs 30:5,6 and Revelation 22:18 (quoted above). Why?
The vast majority of Christians are unaware that the account of the woman caught in adultery is not part of the original Bible!
“The story of the woman caught in adultery is a later insertion here, missing from all early Greek manuscripts . . . There are many non-Johannine features in the language, and there are also many doubtful readings within the passage”—New American Bible (NAB) note on John 7:53-8:11
The evidence against this account is extensive and wide-ranging. It is omitted by a truly diverse group of ancient Greek manuscripts, and is missing from all the early Greek manuscripts, such as Codex Siniaticus (4th century), Codex Vaticanus (4th century), Codex Alexandrinus (5th century), Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (5th century), Codex Washingtonius (5th century), Codex Borgianus, including the very important P66, P75, plus L, N, T, 0141, 33, 157, 565, 1241, 1333, 1424, and many, many others. Some other manuscripts that do contain it mark it off with asterisks or obeli. In manuscript 225 it’s after John 7:36, but in others it’s after 7:44. In f13 it’s after Luke 21:38. The missing manuscript evidence alone is more than enough proof that the passage is a fake! But there is even more, much more. When a text “moves around” in manuscripts, like this account does, it is strong evidence of its later origin, and efforts by scribes to put it where it seems to “fit”. The manuscript evidence alone is 100% against this text being original.
The syntax, vocabulary and style of writing in these 12 verses is very different from the rest of John’s writings, which is another clue as to the suspicious nature of the passage. Then there is the fact that, when these 12 verses are removed from the text, as modern translations are increasingly doing, the flow of the text from John 7:52 to 8:12 fits perfectly. The story is completely foreign to John’s account of the events regarding Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem (John 7:45-8:20) by interrupting the flow of the text.
Then, there is the problem with the story itself. Since adultery cannot be committed alone, the question arises, “Where was the man, her partner, in the act?” Jesus, being no dummy, would likely have called attention to this fact, if this account was genuine. There is no indication of any repentance on the part of this woman, or any hint of her attitude, in this account. Contrast this with the repentant attitude of the sinful woman at Luke 7:36-50, that Jesus encountered.
The account of the woman caught in adultery in the pericope of John 7:53-8:11 is justified by many, even in the scholarly community, as being the recording of an actual historical event in the life of Jesus, even though it has no genuine Biblical support. The adulterous woman story is used as much as any of the legitimate Biblical accounts, often with sincere ignorance, to support the Biblical teaching of being merciful. However, the Bible has more than enough true, genuine scriptures about mercy without these 12 spurious verses (Exodus 34:6,7; Matthew 5:7; 18:21-35; Luke 10:25-37; James 3:13). Despite the claims of many “scholars,” this story has all the earmarks of fiction. It is not a historical account
Aside from the account’s Biblical illegitimacy, a much worse, and even more serious problem is that the adulterous woman account is often used to excuse sinful actions. One justification for using this story is that Jesus is supposedly more merciful than Yahweh of the Old Testament. While Jesus definitely highlighted God’s mercy, he did not soft-pedal sin. For example, Jesus said, “Whoever blasphemes against the holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin” (Mark 3:29 NAB). He also foretold, “The Spirit will come and show the people of this world the truth about sin” (John 16:8 CEV). However, the woman caught in adultery story does not,”show people of this world the truth about sin.”
Christians under the New Covenant are no more excused from sin than they were under the Old Law Covenant. “Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 12:28,29 NIV). The punishment for serious sins, such as adultery, may have seemed to be more immediate under the Old Covenant, but make no mistake, it was no less serious than it is under the New Covenant. So the claim that God in the Old Testament was stricter, meaner, and more rigid, in dealing with our sins than the merciful, loving, forgiving Jesus in the New Testament is absolutely false. The story at John 7:53-8:11 has helped to fuel this myth. God does not change (Malachi 3:6). To use this account, even in a sincere way, is a mistaken misrepresentation of God, Jesus and the Bible itself. “Anyone who rejects the law of Moses died without pity on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Do you not think that a much worse punishment is the one who who has contempt for the Son of God, considers unclean the covenant blood by which he was consecrated, and insults the spirit of grace” (Hebrews 10:28,29 NAB).
The sin-excusing Jesus in the pericope of John 7:53-8:11 is, in fact, “a different Jesus” (2 Corinthians 11:4 NLT) who preaches “a different gospel” (Galatians 1:6 NAB). The Bible teaches us who the real Jesus is, “the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. As his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit–just as it has taught you, remain in him” (1 John 2:27 NIV). By comparing the Biblical Jesus to the “counterfeit” Jesus portrayed in John 7:53-8:11, we can see the difference, and reject it.
The Bible, from beginning to the end, warns several times about ‘adding anything to the words of God’ (Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:5,6; Revelation 22:18,19). Obviously, this principle was flagrantly violated with the woman caught in adultery story, and this spurious addition was put into the popularly famous KJV at John 7:53-8:11, and there were also additions to other places in the Bible. But such tamperings and additions have been uncovered by the discovery of numerous ancient, more accurate Biblical manuscripts, and also by modern Biblical textual scholarship methods to arrive at the original Biblical text. Spurious additions have now been eliminated from the text of the most current Greek Master Texts, and the modern translations that are based on them. God said He would preserve His word – and he has! “The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord endures forever” (2 Peter 1:24,25 NIV). Satan tried to corrupt the Biblical text, but his corruptions have been not only been exposed, but also weeded out in the more accurate translations! We would do well not to bring them back in, for example, by using this spurious account of the woman caught in adultery in any kind of legitimate way, as though it was part of “All Scripture [that] is inspired by God” (2 Timothy 3:16).
BA—In another context you insisted that the pericope of John 7:53-8:11 was part of the Bible. You should know that this spurious account was not added until about six centuries after the Bible was completed.
GW: Evidence?
BA: The vast majority of Christians, including Pastors, do not know, and are totally unaware, in fact, that the account of the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53-8:11 was not part of the original Bible! Many people just “know”, in their “hearts”, they think, that Jesus really said these words, since they’ve heard this story all of their lives, and sermonized in churches. The phrase at John 8:7 is often used to let others know not to take sin too seriously, and not to “judge” others. It is often quoted by those who want to excuse their own deliberate sin, which they know the Bible condemns. This account violates the principles at Proverbs 30:5,6 and Revelation 22:18 (quoted above). Why?
GW: If Jesus said it, then it means that he could not be a messenger of God because God would not forgive the sin of adultery. In fact, God would not forgive any wrong doing at all. He would implement perfect justice, even for you and me.
BA: The vast majority of Christians are unaware that the account of the woman caught in adultery is not part of the original Bible!
GW: Evidence that it is not part of the original Bible?
BA: “The story of the woman caught in adultery is a later insertion here, missing from all early Greek manuscripts . . . There are many non-Johannine features in the language, and there are also many doubtful readings within the passage”—New American Bible (NAB) note on John 7:53-8:11
GW: Ok, this is one opinion, but still it does not identify an earlier manuscript from which the passage was missing.
BA: The evidence against this account is extensive and wide-ranging. It is omitted by a truly diverse group of ancient Greek manuscripts, and is missing from all the early Greek manuscripts, such as Codex Siniaticus (4th century), Codex Vaticanus (4th century), Codex Alexandrinus (5th century), Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (5th century), Codex Washingtonius (5th century), Codex Borgianus, including the very important P66, P75, plus L, N, T, 0141, 33, 157, 565, 1241, 1333, 1424, and many, many others. Some other manuscripts that do contain it mark it off with asterisks or obeli. In manuscript 225 it’s after John 7:36, but in others it’s after 7:44. In f13 it’s after Luke 21:38. The missing manuscript evidence alone is more than enough proof that the passage is a fake! But there is even more, much more. When a text “moves around” in manuscripts, like this account does, it is strong evidence of its later origin, and efforts by scribes to put it where it seems to “fit”. The manuscript evidence alone is 100% against this text being original.
GW: Ok, this is convincing.
BA: The syntax, vocabulary and style of writing in these 12 verses is very different from the rest of John’s writings, which is another clue as to the suspicious nature of the passage. Then there is the fact that, when these 12 verses are removed from the text, as modern translations are increasingly doing, the flow of the text from John 7:52 to 8:12 fits perfectly. The story is completely foreign to John’s account of the events regarding Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem (John 7:45-8:20) by interrupting the flow of the text.
GW: This is supportive evidence for the conclusion.
BA: Then, there is the problem with the story itself. Since adultery cannot be committed alone, the question arises, “Where was the man, her partner, in the act?” Jesus, being no dummy, would likely have called attention to this fact, if this account was genuine. There is no indication of any repentance on the part of this woman, or any hint of her attitude, in this account. Contrast this with the repentant attitude of the sinful woman at Luke 7:36-50, that Jesus encountered.
GW: So, if Jesus was presented with an adulterous woman, how do you think he would respond?
BA: The account of the woman caught in adultery in the pericope of John 7:53-8:11 is justified by many, even in the scholarly community, as being the recording of an actual historical event in the life of Jesus, even though it has no genuine Biblical support. The adulterous woman story is used as much as any of the legitimate Biblical accounts, often with sincere ignorance, to support the Biblical teaching of being merciful. However, the Bible has more than enough true, genuine scriptures about mercy without these 12 spurious verses (Exodus 34:6,7; Matthew 5:7; 18:21-35; Luke 10:25-37; James 3:13). Despite the claims of many “scholars,” this story has all the earmarks of fiction. It is not a historical account
GW: If God did exist (he doesn’t), he would not be merciful with respect to wrong doing, e.g. adultery. He would implement perfect justice which means that he would punish all sins in proportion to their severity.
BA: Aside from the account’s Biblical illegitimacy, a much worse, and even more serious problem is that the adulterous woman account is often used to excuse sinful actions.
GW: Yes, I agree. Adultery consists of breaking an important promise. It is far more common for men to initiate adultery than for women.
BA: One justification for using this story is that Jesus is supposedly more merciful than Yahweh of the Old Testament. While Jesus definitely highlighted God’s mercy, he did not soft-pedal sin. For example, Jesus said, “Whoever blasphemes against the holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin” (Mark 3:29 NAB).
GW: If Jesus said this, then it indicates that he was not a legitimate messenger for God (if God did exist). First, the Holy Spirit does not exist. Second, blasphemy would not be a sin. Thirdly, if it were a sin, it would not be unforgiveable, if God forgave sins. And lastly, if God did exist, there would be no forgiven sins.
BA: He also foretold, “The Spirit will come and show the people of this world the truth about sin” (John 16:8 CEV). However, the woman caught in adultery story does not,”show people of this world the truth about sin.”
GW: Yes, if God did exist, he would regularly speak to all persons at the same time, and whenever he did, then part of his lecture would consist of the presentation of Correct Universal Ethics for Persons. He would give us the rules and the consequences of compliance and noncompliance. I have been saying this for months.
BA: Christians under the New Covenant are no more excused from sin than they were under the Old Law Covenant.
GW: If God did exist, there would not be two covenants. There would be only one covenant – consistently, regularly, and clearly presented to all persons at the same time by God. Review my Argument #4 for more details on this.
BA: “Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 12:28,29 NIV).
GW: The law of Moses was hardly Correct Universal Ethics for Persons. Not even close.
BA: The punishment for serious sins, such as adultery, may have seemed to be more immediate under the Old Covenant, but make no mistake, it was no less serious than it is under the New Covenant.
GW: I believe that according to the OT, the community was supposed to impose the death penalty on adulterers. Of course, this is ridiculous. The penalty is too harsh.
BA: So the claim that God in the Old Testament was stricter, meaner, and more rigid, in dealing with our sins than the merciful, loving, forgiving Jesus in the New Testament is absolutely false.
GW: I disagree. Jesus was alleged to be more lenient and more forgiving than the God described in the OT. This is especially true with implementation of the death penalty.
BA: The story at John 7:53-8:11 has helped to fuel this myth. God does not change (Malachi 3:6). To use this account, even in a sincere way, is a mistaken misrepresentation of God, Jesus and the Bible itself. “Anyone who rejects the law of Moses died without pity on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Do you not think that a much worse punishment is the one who who has contempt for the Son of God, considers unclean the covenant blood by which he was consecrated, and insults the spirit of grace” (Hebrews 10:28,29 NAB).
GW: If God did exist, he would not punish insults of him.
BA: The sin-excusing Jesus in the pericope of John 7:53-8:11 is, in fact, “a different Jesus” (2 Corinthians 11:4 NLT) who preaches “a different gospel” (Galatians 1:6 NAB). The Bible teaches us who the real Jesus is, “the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. As his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit–just as it has taught you, remain in him” (1 John 2:27 NIV). By comparing the Biblical Jesus to the “counterfeit” Jesus portrayed in John 7:53-8:11, we can see the difference, and reject it.
GW: Jesus was not a messenger of God or a divine figure himself. He was just a man. Keep in mind that if God did exist, he would not use intermediaries, emissaries, or messengers. God could and would do his own work.
BA: The Bible, from beginning to the end, warns several times about ‘adding anything to the words of God’ (Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:5,6; Revelation 22:18,19). Obviously, this principle was flagrantly violated with the woman caught in adultery story, and this spurious addition was put into the popularly famous KJV at John 7:53-8:11, and there were also additions to other places in the Bible.
GW: Yes, Bart Ehrman has identified many additions.
BA: But such tamperings and additions have been uncovered by the discovery of numerous ancient, more accurate Biblical manuscripts, and also by modern Biblical textual scholarship methods to arrive at the original Biblical text. Spurious additions have now been eliminated from the text of the most current Greek Master Texts, and the modern translations that are based on them.
GW: I think this is a good development. However, still the Bible is not the word of God, even if God did exist, which he doesn’t. Even in the original text, there are errors, falsehoods, inconsistencies, contradictions, and moral depravity, certainly uncharacteristic of God, if he did exist.
BA: God said He would preserve His word – and he has!
GW: Obviously, he did not! If he existed, he allowed additions and deviations to be in the Bible for decades or centuries.
BA: “The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord endures forever” (2 Peter 1:24,25 NIV).
GW: It would, if God did exist. He would regularly speak to all persons at the same time and he would deliver printed or electronic copies of his speeches to everyone who requested one. See my Argument #4 for more details.
BA: Satan tried to corrupt the Biblical text, but his corruptions have been not only been exposed, but also weeded out in the more accurate translations!
GW: Belief in Satan is just a superstition. If God did exist, he would not create Satan or allow him to continue to exist. God would not be stupid.
BA: We would do well not to bring them back in, for example, by using this spurious account of the woman caught in adultery in any kind of legitimate way, as though it was part of “All Scripture [that] is inspired by God” (2 Timothy 3:16).
GW: At the present time I am now convinced that the passage was a later addition. There are many others. Check with Bart.
BA: The evidence against this account is extensive and wide-ranging. It is omitted by a truly diverse group of ancient Greek manuscripts, and is missing from all the early Greek manuscripts, such as Codex Siniaticus (4th century), Codex Vaticanus (4th century), Codex Alexandrinus (5th century), Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (5th century), Codex Washingtonius (5th century), Codex Borgianus, including the very important P66, P75, plus L, N, T, 0141, 33, 157, 565, 1241, 1333, 1424, and many, many others. Some other manuscripts that do contain it mark it off with asterisks or obeli. In manuscript 225 it’s after John 7:36, but in others it’s after 7:44. In f13 it’s after Luke 21:38. The missing manuscript evidence alone is more than enough proof that the passage is a fake! But there is even more, much more. When a text “moves around” in manuscripts, like this account does, it is strong evidence of its later origin, and efforts by scribes to put it where it seems to “fit”. The manuscript evidence alone is 100% against this text being original.
GW: Ok, this is convincing.
BA: The syntax, vocabulary and style of writing in these 12 verses is very different from the rest of John’s writings, which is another clue as to the suspicious nature of the passage. Then there is the fact that, when these 12 verses are removed from the text, as modern translations are increasingly doing, the flow of the text from John 7:52 to 8:12 fits perfectly. The story is completely foreign to John’s account of the events regarding Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem (John 7:45-8:20) by interrupting the flow of the text.
GW: This is supportive evidence for the conclusion.
BA—Glad to help.
BA: The Bible, from beginning to the end, warns several times about ‘adding anything to the words of God’ (Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:5,6; Revelation 22:18,19). Obviously, this principle was flagrantly violated with the woman caught in adultery story, and this spurious addition was put into the popularly famous KJV at John 7:53-8:11, and there were also additions to other places in the Bible.
GW: Yes, Bart Ehrman has identified many additions.
BA—This free public information.
BA: But such tamperings and additions have been uncovered by the discovery of numerous ancient, more accurate Biblical manuscripts, and also by modern Biblical textual scholarship methods to arrive at the original Biblical text. Spurious additions have now been eliminated from the text of the most current Greek Master Texts, and the modern translations that are based on them.
GW: I think this is a good development.
BA–Ye, it is!
GW—Even in the original text, there are errors, falsehoods, inconsistencies, contradictions, and moral depravity, certainly uncharacteristic of God, if he did exist.
BA—None have ever been proven.
GW: At the present time I am now convinced that the passage was a later addition.
BA–Great! Glad to help.
GW—There are many others. Check with Bart.
BA—The additions are publicly available without Bart.
They have now been eliminated in many modern translations, and footnoted in many.
I think we are now in agreement on the issue at hand. However, Bart Ehrman is my “go to” guy when it comes to the New Testament. He is an expert, one of the world’s best.