Return to Answer

The Evidence

• 1. There is that which is 'sent'.
• 2. That which is 'sent' has a function - advocate/paraclete
• 3. That which is 'sent' is 'sent' by the Father
• 4. That which is 'sent' is described as 'holy'
• 5. That which is 'sent' is 'sent' in a name. By that name is the sending.
• 6. That which is 'sent' is 'Spirit'.
• 7. Jesus said that 'God' is 'Spirit'. John 4:24

The Conclusion

The only possible, logical, conclusion is that this is a person.

And with no other clarification, such as the suggestion, anywhere in scripture, that this is an angelic being, one has to conclude that since this (otherwise undesignated person) is sent by the Divine Person of the Father in the name of the Son, and that this person (in and of himself) is holy and has the function of being (in and of himself) an advocate/paraclete and is sent in the name of the Son : one's only conclusion is that this is God, the Holy Spirit.

I can see no other, possible, logical conclusion from these simple words.

The wording used by Jesus cannot accommodate to the concept of a 'force' or 'attribute' or 'aspect'.

One cannot send a part of oneself, in the name of another person, to carry out a function, independently of oneself. Words, language, logic cannot be adjusted to express such a concept. Because such a thing does not exist.

The words, the language, convey the concept of 'Person'.

Therefore, one Person, sends another Person who is holy and who has a function ; and sends that Person in the name of another Person.

Three concepts are conveyed in these words. These concepts are expressed in wording which implies, alludes to, and conveys - 'Person'.

The unity of person, elsewhere expressed in scripture, can be seen in this verse, also. But that was not the question. Only the fact of person was, here, under discussion.

The Evidence

• 1. There is that which is 'sent'.
• 2. That which is 'sent' has a function - advocate/paraclete
• 3. That which is 'sent' is 'sent' by the Father
• 4. That which is 'sent' is described as 'holy'
• 5. That which is 'sent' is 'sent' in a name. By that name is the sending.
• 6. That which is 'sent' is 'Spirit'.
• 7. Jesus said that 'God' is 'Spirit'. John 4:24

The Conclusion

The only possible, logical, conclusion is that this is a person.

And with no other clarification, such as the suggestion, anywhere in scripture, that this is an angelic being, one has to conclude that since this (otherwise undesignated person) is sent by the Divine Person of the Father in the name of the Son, and that this person (in and of himself) is holy and has the function of being (in and of himself) an advocate/paraclete and is sent in the name of the Son : one's only conclusion is that this is God, the Holy Spirit.

I can see no other, possible, logical conclusion from these simple words.

The wording used by Jesus cannot accommodate to the concept of a 'force' or 'attribute' or 'aspect'.

One cannot send a part of oneself, in the name of another person, to carry out a function, independently of oneself. Words, language, logic cannot be adjusted to express such a concept. Because such a thing does not exist.

The words, the language, convey the concept of 'Person'.

Therefore, one Person, sends another Person who is holy and who has a function ; and sends that Person in the name of another Person.

Three concepts are conveyed in these words. These concepts are expressed in wording which implies, alludes to, and conveys - 'Person'.

The unity of person, elsewhere expressed in scripture, can be seen in this verse, also. But that was not the question. Only the fact of person was, here, under discussion.

The Evidence

• 1. There is that which is 'sent'.
• 2. That which is 'sent' has a function - advocate/paraclete
• 3. That which is 'sent' is 'sent' by the Father
• 4. That which is 'sent' is described as 'holy'
• 5. That which is 'sent' is 'sent' in a name. By that name is the sending.
• 6. That which is 'sent' is 'Spirit'.
• 7. Jesus said that 'God' is 'Spirit'. John 4:24

The Conclusion

The only possible, logical, conclusion is that this is a person.

And with no other clarification, such as the suggestion, anywhere in scripture, that this is an angelic being, one has to conclude that since this (otherwise undesignated person) is sent by the Divine Person of the Father in the name of the Son, and that this person (in and of himself) is holy and has the function of being (in and of himself) an advocate/paraclete and is sent in the name of the Son : one's only conclusion is that this is God, the Holy Spirit.

I can see no other, possible, logical conclusion from these simple words.

The wording used by Jesus cannot accommodate to the concept of a 'force' or 'attribute' or 'aspect'.

One cannot send a part of oneself, in the name of another person, to carry out a function, independently of oneself. Words, language, logic cannot be adjusted to express such a concept. Because such a thing does not exist.

The words, the language, convey the concept of 'Person'.

Therefore, one Person, sends another Person who is holy and who has a function ; and sends that Person in the name of another Person.

Three concepts are conveyed in these words. These concepts are expressed in wording which implies, alludes to, and conveys - 'Person'.

The Evidence

• 1. There is that which is 'sent'.
• 2. That which is 'sent' has a function - advocate/paraclete
• 3. That which is 'sent' is 'sent' by the Father
• 4. That which is 'sent' is described as 'holy'
• 5. That which is 'sent' is 'sent' in a name. By that name is the sending.
• 6. That which is 'sent' is 'Spirit'.
• 7. Jesus said that 'God' is 'Spirit'. John 4:24

The Conclusion

The only possible, logical, conclusion is that this is a person.

And with no other clarification, such as the suggestion, anywhere in scripture, that this is an angelic being, one has to conclude that since this (otherwise undesignated person) is sent by the Divine Person of the Father in the name of the Son, and that this person (in and of himself) is holy and has the function of being (in and of himself) an advocate/paraclete and is sent in the name of the Son : one's only conclusion is that this is God, the Holy Spirit.

I can see no other, possible, logical conclusion from these simple words.

The wording used by Jesus cannot accommodate to the concept of a 'force' or 'attribute' or 'aspect'.

One cannot send a part of oneself, in the name of another person, to carry out a function, independently of oneself. Words, language, logic cannot be adjusted to express such a concept. Because such a thing does not exist.

The words, the language, convey the concept of 'Person'.

Therefore, one Person, sends another Person who is holy and who has a function ; and sends that Person in the name of another Person.

Three concepts are conveyed in these words. These concepts are expressed in wording which implies, alludes to, and conveys - 'Person'.

The unity of person, elsewhere expressed in scripture, can be seen in this verse, also. But that was not the question. Only the fact of person was, here, under discussion.

The Evidence

• 1. There is that which is 'sent'.
• 2. That which is 'sent' has a function - advocate/paraclete
• 3. That which is 'sent' is 'sent' by the Father
• 4. That which is 'sent' is described as 'holy'
• 5. That which is 'sent' is 'sent' in a name. By that name is the sending.
• 6. That which is 'sent' is 'Spirit'.
• 7. Jesus said that 'God' is 'Spirit'. John 4:24

The Conclusion

The only possible, logical, conclusion is that this is a person.

And with no other clarification, such as the suggestion, anywhere, that this is an angelic being, one has to conclude that since this (otherwise undesignated person) is sent by the Divine Person of the Father in the name of the Son, and that this person (in and of himself) is holy and has the function of being (in and of himself) an advocate/paraclete and is sent in the name of the Son : one's only conclusion is that this is God, the Holy Spirit.

I can see no other, possible, logical conclusion from these simple words.

The wording used by Jesus cannot accommodate to the concept of a 'force' or 'attribute' or 'aspect'.

The words, the language, conveys the concept of 'Person'.

Therefore, one Person, sends another Person who is holy and who has a function ; and sends that person in the name of another person.

Three concepts are conveyed in these words. These concepts are expressed in wording which implies, alludes to, and conveys - 'Person'.

The Evidence

• 1. There is that which is 'sent'.
• 2. That which is 'sent' has a function - advocate/paraclete
• 3. That which is 'sent' is 'sent' by the Father
• 4. That which is 'sent' is described as 'holy'
• 5. That which is 'sent' is 'sent' in a name. By that name is the sending.
• 6. That which is 'sent' is 'Spirit'.
• 7. Jesus said that 'God' is 'Spirit'. John 4:24

The Conclusion

The only possible, logical, conclusion is that this is a person.

And with no other clarification, such as the suggestion, anywhere in scripture, that this is an angelic being, one has to conclude that since this (otherwise undesignated person) is sent by the Divine Person of the Father in the name of the Son, and that this person (in and of himself) is holy and has the function of being (in and of himself) an advocate/paraclete and is sent in the name of the Son : one's only conclusion is that this is God, the Holy Spirit.

I can see no other, possible, logical conclusion from these simple words.

The wording used by Jesus cannot accommodate to the concept of a 'force' or 'attribute' or 'aspect'.

One cannot send a part of oneself, in the name of another person, to carry out a function, independently of oneself. Words, language, logic cannot be adjusted to express such a concept. Because such a thing does not exist.

The words, the language, convey the concept of 'Person'.

Therefore, one Person, sends another Person who is holy and who has a function ; and sends that Person in the name of another Person.

Three concepts are conveyed in these words. These concepts are expressed in wording which implies, alludes to, and conveys - 'Person'.