Page 222 - Demo

218therefore, a decisive argument against the hypothesis of their being one and the same person.(a) In (Luke xi. 13), the Holy Spirit is declared a “gift” of God. The contrast between the “good gifts” which are givenbywickedparentsandtheHolySpiritthatisbestowed upon the believers by God entirely excludes the idea of any personality of the Spirit. Can we conscientiously and positively affirm that Jesus Christ (pbuh) , when he made the above contrast, meant to teach his hearers that “God the Father” makes a gift of “God the Holy Spirit” to His earthly “children”? Did he ever insinuate that he believed the third person of the Trinity to be a gift of the first person of the Trinity? Can we conscientiously admit that the Apostles believed this “gift” to be God the Almighty offered by God the Almighty to mortals? The very idea of such a belief makes a Muslim shudder.(b) In 1 cor. ii. 12, this Holy Spirit is described in the neuter gender “the Spirit from God”. St. Paul clearly states that as the Spirit which is in man makes him know the thingsthat appertain to him so the Spirit of God makes a man know the things divine (1 Cor. 11). Consequently, the Holy Spirit here is not God but a divine issue, channel, or medium through which God teaches, enlightens, and inspires those whom He pleases. It is simply an action of God upon human soul and mind. The teacher, the enlightener, and the inspirer is not directly the Spirit but God Himself. I remarked that Philon was a student of Plato’s philosophy. He had never seen Plato, but only learned Plato’s philosophy and became a philosopher and a Platonist. In the same sense, I say Peter the Apostle and ‘Alī the Imām received the Holy Spirit of God and became inspired with the knowledge of God -they became divine. Just as the philosophy of Plato is not the Plato, and the Platonist Philon not the creator of that specific wisdom, so Peter and ‘Alī were not God. They were divine because