This is a good question, one which is covered in YY, but perhaps not in the context of this specific quote. While an entire book dedicated to this subject could not do it justice, at the risk of providing too little information, let me share some relevant thoughts with you.

First, the Renewed Covenant is based on the Old Covenant and cannot be understood outside of that context. It is therefore wrong to ascribe an attribute to the Spirit specifically, or to Yahweh and His plan, based upon the RC alone. There are very few things I could share with you that are more important than this. By way of example, Yahushua answered most every question He was asked by referencing the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. If we want to know Yahweh and understand His Word and plan of salvation, it is an example we must follow.

Second, in Hebrew, the Spirit is qodesh, which means “set apart and cleansing.” These are extraordinarily important concepts. All things important to Yahweh are “set apart and clean.” When you come to understand what that means in relationship to God, then you will know who the Spirit is, and what She does, how She does it, and more fully appreciate Her relationship to Yah.

In this light, to really understand a Hebrew word as it was used in the context of the culture and time, one has to study. You can’t simply open your Strong’s and expect to understand. All roots and derivatives must be examined—and that takes hours. And since the vocalization was done by Rabbis in the 11th century, all consonant equivalents must by analyzed, too, and that’s a very laborious (albeit enjoyable) process. Then for good measure, one has to review how Yahweh uses the word in other verses. Fortunately for us, He usually defines His terms in their first use. Personally, the first time I come across a critical term or name, it is not uncommon for me to invest a day studying it using some fifty scholastic tools, and then examining Yah’s use of the word or name in many other passages.

Third, in every RC citation of an Old Covenant passage, of which there are hundreds, hagios replaces qodesh. Therefore, we know the intended meaning is the same.

Forth, the OC is much more reliable than the RC for many reasons. Hebrew is Yahweh’s chosen language of revelation. God did not write or speak Greek. The RC Greek is already a translation. None of the conversations it records were spoken in Greek. And many Hebrew names and titles cannot be written in Greek as the alphabet lacks the letter sounds to transliterate them. So you have to be especially careful when dealing with names and titles. But fortunately, this isn’t a problem since every important concept and name is explained accurately in the Hebrew OC and 99% of the Greek RC is simply a confirmation of it. We never have to guess.

Fifth, all seven divine names and titles in all of the 70 pre-Constantine MSS of the RC are represented by placeholders. They are never written out. Spirit is a good example. You won’t find pneuma in any first, second, or third century manuscript. And yet you cited it as if it were there. It’s not in the originals. Religious men put it there.

Sixth, English Bible translations of the RC are based on the Textus Receptus. If you can handle revolting religious news, buy a book on the history of its creation. It isn’t even remotely accurate. To say that it’s a joke, would be too kind. Fortunately, we have seventy first, second, and third century manuscripts available to us. Unfortunately, English translations, and the Textus Receptus, don’t use them. To benefit from them, you have to buy a copy of them and then learn Greek.

Seventh, most all of the popular lexicon tools were created after the KJV and thus serve to support it. If they didn’t, no one would buy them. So they are filled with errors, small and large, reflecting the errant nature of the KJV. There are hundreds of examples of this cited in YY. In the case of hagios, a religious term has replaced a common word. In doing so, the meaning is lost, as is the Spirit’s identity and nature. A great, albeit sinister, example of this is “cross.” It’s a pagan term with no Scriptural basis whatsoever. But you’ll find “cross” listed in your Strong’s, along with the correct term—just as with hagios.

The primary purpose of YY is to undue the damage the religion of Christianity has done to Yah’s message. Christians view Scripture backwards and don’t understand its foundation. Theirs is a straw house on Babylon’s sand.

Calling the Spirit “holy” is a consequence of this. The concept of being set apart is a foundational theme in the OC. Yahweh’s people, His family, the Sabbath, the Miqra, the Temple, the Spirit, and the Messiyah are all “set apart.” And as I’ve said, when you understand the concept of set apart, the relationship between these things, and their relationship to God, all make sense. In this regard, holy has no value.

YY

Tiffany,

There were original text in Hebrew the people spoke and recorded in Hebrew and scribes translated them into Greek for the Greek speaking people. But they were burned and destroyed for the sake of keeping what would become the Massoretic text in a viable controlled form. The scribes destroyed all known Hebrew RC. But I believe soon some will be found, that the truth may be spoke and read.

It is just another cover-up of the things that set you apart and free.

FF

Tiffany, I too found that the concept of the Ruach Qodesh ("Holy Spirit") being a feminine noun in Hebrew explained lots of things---it tied up a thousand loose ends. As far as the word "holy" is concerned, I disagree with YY in method, though not in principle. I for one think "Holy" is a word worth saving. Yes, there is a terrible problem with the word now, for most people think it means "good" or "perfect," and of course, it means no such thing. but Qodesh means something more majestic than merely being set apart. As YY pointed out, it has the connotation of cleansing. There are also undertones of consecreation, dedication, setting aside for a specific purpose. When used of Yahweh, it has the underlying meaning of uniqueness, of having no peers, no competitors. Merely replacing Holy with "set apart," then, is in my mind, inadequate. But can I come up with something better in less than twenty syllables? I only wish I could...

kp

Well, nearly every single early Church Father that mentions Matthew notes that Matthew originally wrote it in Hebrew. the ECF Origen said he wrote it in Aramaic, but the rest say it was hebrew.

Irenaeus (180 CE) says this concerning it: Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect - Against Heresis 3:1

Papias (150 CE) also say this: Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able - Quote by Eusibius in Ecclesiastical History 3:39

Eusibius also records that Celement of Alexandria (150 - 212 CE) asserts that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews in Hebrew which was then translated by Luke and published amongst the Greeks: In the work called Hypotyposes, to sum up the matter briefly, he [Clement of Alexandria] has given us abridged accounts of
all the canonical Scriptures,... the Epistle to the Hebrews he asserts was written by Paul, to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew tongue; but that it was carefully translated by Luke, and published among the Greeks - Eusibius in Ecclesiastical History 6:14:2

There's also a few other mentions of Paul writing his letters in Hebrew.

This was Swalchy btw - forgot to sign in like an idiot.

Thanks Swalchy,
Very interesting. I didn't know Irenaeus used placeholders as well. Is that the one you would suggest I read first? Thanks for telling me to save Ignatius until I have run out of reading material LOL.