Cos

The contradictions run thick and fast. We had the claim that the passage in Luke 23:46 means that Jesus ceased to exist, but now we have this by @Gone Away that Luke 23:46 is Jesus’ “future life prospects to God as opposed to describing the death state”, Now the person who proposed Luke 23:46 as meaning Jesus ceased to exist, liked this (up voted), even though this proposal by Mr. Joyce’s, contradicts that persons earlier claim! Then @sami who also "up voted" Mr. Joyce’s above comments but then does an about face by going back to the ceased existing nonsense. Scripture shows that when a person dies their spirit does not cease to exist but leaves the body (Psalm 146:4). In Luke 8:55 we read that the spirit of Jairus’ daughter returned to her body and she rose up immediately. <><

I have said from the start that the meaning of the Greek word παρατίθημι is “the keeping of”, @sami brief quote from Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon confirms this although I’m accused of being mistaken (?). The issue is, some claimed that the use of the word παρατίθημι in Luke 23:46 means “yielded up” in the sense of to cease existing. Now, to quote things out of context in order to portray a false idea by the chopped up quotes and then claim, “My usage of The Catholic encyclopedia was for the clarity seen in the preface of their staunch statement in support of monotheism”, clearly shows an ignorance to what was intentionally left out in order to convey that false idea, and also dismisses the alleged reason for doing so. <><

No bible version translates the Greek word παρατίθημι as “yielded up” no matter how some try to twist translations; they just like to build an argument around what is not there. But of course those that read their ideas into Scripture will continue to do so regardless. The meaning of the word παρατίθημι is, “the keeping of”. Now the excuse that the passages that prove the Holy Spirit a Person, that these are just personification fails on many levels, in fact there are so many problems with this ‘blanket” excuse which ignores the context and fails to exegete the passages. Really, how do they know that these passages are personification? Because they have already assumed the Holy Spirit is a power. This is called reasoning in a circle. They need to show that the Holy Spirit is a power before they can even begin talking about supposed personifications. But this is exactly what they cannot do! All they can do is read into certain passages that fake idea. Realistically there are many instances that cannot be explained away as a “personification”. For example, why is it that what we do supposedly generates a “personified” characteristic in a thing? “But they were the ones who rebelled, and they grieved his Holy Spirit.” (Isa. 63:10) “Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God” (Eph. 4:30). Why is it, because of what we do, that that generates a “personified” characteristic in a thing? <><

Our friend sami, whose other comments were shown to be, well, wrong, goes into a long winded accusation to try to maintain the false idea. Once again sami quotes passages where the idea that the Holy Spirit is a power must be read into them, What is more disturbing is the quoting out of context of some works, here is an example, the quote from the New Catholic Encyclopedia; “The OT [Old Testament] clearly does not envisage God’s spirit as a person . . . God’s spirit is simply God’s power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly . . . The majority of NT [New Testament] texts reveal God’s spirit as some thing , not some one ; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God” Below is what the Encyclopedia actually says and more importantly, what was left out; “…’Holy Spirit,’ therefore, means ‘Divine Spirit’. This article treats the spirit of God as it is presented in the OT and Judaism, and in the NT. Consideration is given in each of these sections to the spirit of God as a power and as a Person... God's Spirit Not Presented as a Person. The OT clearly does not envisage God's spirit as a person, neither in the strictly philosophical sense, nor in the Semitic sense. God's spirit is simply God's power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly (Is 48.16; 63.11; 32.15). Very rarely do the OT writers attribute to God's spirit emotions or intellectual activity (Is 63.10; Wis 1.3-7). ... As a result of the teaching of Christ, the definite personality of the Third Person of the Trinity is clear. However, in most cases, the phrase "spirit of God" reflects the OT notion of "the power of God." ... The Spirit of God as a Person. Although the NT concepts of the spirit of God are largely a continuation of those of the OT, in the NT there is a gradual revelation that the Spirit of God's a Person… In the Synoptic Gospels…The majority of NT texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God… The only passage in the Synoptic Gospels that clearly speaks of the person of the Holy Spirit is the Trinitarian formula in Mt 28.19. ... The statement in Acts 15.28, "the Holy Spirit and we have decided," alone seems to imply full personality. ... However, the Trinitarian formulas employed by St. Paul (e.g., 2 Cor 13.13), indicate a real personality. ... So clearly does St. John see in the Spirit a person who takes Christ's place in the Church, that he uses a masculine pronoun (Greek) in reference to the Spirit even though [spirit] is neuter in gender ( 16.8, 13-16). Consequently, it is evident that St. John thought of the Holy Spirit as a Person, who is distinct from the Father and the Son, and who, with the glorified Son and the Father, is present and active in the faithful (14.16; 15.26; 16.7).” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Spirit of God, Vol 13, p574-576) As you can see, the (copy and paste) quote by sami deliberately and deceptively is selective on what the Catholic encyclopedia says, and ignores the fact that it clearly does states that the Bible outright teaches the personality of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. So when the whole article is read in context, yes the Holy Spirit is associated with God's power, but is often attributed clear personality. In another post our friend focuses on many quotes from a wide variety of sources. But before I address these our friend’s gives a brief short history in the introduction prior to all the quotes which is false. As can be shown, the early Christians before the fourth century referred to Jesus as God, here are a few of the many examples. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 50–117): “Consequently all magic and every kind of spell were dissolved, the ignorance so characteristic of wickedness vanished, and the ancient kingdom was abolished when God appeared in human form to bring the newness of eternal life.” (Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 19.3) Justin Martyr (100–165): And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said. (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 128) Tertullian (155-220) "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, ONE essence, not one Person” (Against Praxeas, chapter 25). None of the above Christians were expelled from the Christian Church like Noetus who taught heresy. And even if you don’t fully agree with what these Christians taught it would be nonsense to claim that the Deity of Christ was not taught until the fourth century. Anyway, to keep this brief, which some don’t do, let me say that the majority of quotes which sami provides are taken out of context and chopped up to portray a false idea just like the above from the Catholic encyclopedia. The others fall into the category of self-quotes, that is, quoting from those who are Arian/Unitarian in the first place. <><

Why would Jesus “yield up”, what was about to cease existing, into the hands of His father (Luke 23:46)? What is more revealing is the fact that the Greek word παρατίθημι is never translated “yield up” or “yielded up” nor does the word mean such a thing the word means “the keeping of”. Here once again is blatant reading into the Scriptures what is not there to try to make something say what it doesn’t. The sheer nonsense can be seen by asking why would Jesus παρατίθημι, what was to cease existing, into the hands of His Father. Steven PRAYED “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit”. But according to some Jesus was asked to “receive” what ceased existing! This type of irrational nonsense is typical of those that constantly read into Scripture their false view such as when they read into Zechariah 4:6, Micah 3:8 2, Tim. 1:7, Luke 4:14, Acts 1:8, Acts 10:38 and think that these say that the Holy Spirit is not a Person. No matter how irrational and contradictive are the claims made, the typical response is “this has already been addressed” as can be seen by the continual jumping to other post which are claimed as “more in-depth”, when they are only a “more” incoherent tirade. Good luck to anyone trying to find any semblance to reason in them. <><

Here is another claim, “most translations incorrectly translate ekeinos as ‘He.’” The NWT translation at John 2:21 has; “But he (Greek ekeinos) was talking about the temple of his body”. If “spirit” [pneuma] means “an impersonal force” as claimed by sami, WHY then are actual persons also deemed pneuma in Scripture? The only blatant departure from the rules is reading a false premise in to bible text and then constructing straw man arguments to try and maintain that false premise.<><

Jesus died on the cross, but that does not mean He ceased to exist. What Jesus says in Luke 23:46, “into your hands I commit my spirit” means, in fact, that even though His body died His spirit continued existing. This can be seen from the stoning of Stephen. “And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit’” (Acts 7:59). This verse virtually makes no sense if you interpret that Stephen ceased to exist at the moment of his death. Why would Stephen pray to Jesus to “receive” what was about to cease existing? Then there is the claim that “Jesus himself slept in Hades”. This claim ignores many Scriptures. Anyway let’s look at this; sleeping is NOT the cessation of personal existence as some seem to assume. Death is compared to sleep because the person “sleeping” is not aware of the physical realm. Anyway none of what the claimant says shows that death means the person ceases to exist. Now, I am being accused of ignoring what actually is not stated. I hold that nowhere in Scripture does it say “the Holy Spirit is a power” or “the Holy Spirit is the power of God”. Nowhere! Every passage where the idea the Holy Spirit is a power must be read in into them. First one that I supposedly ignored, Zechariah 4:6 “He then said to me: ‘This is the word of Jehovah to Zerubbabel: ‘“Not by force, nor by power, but by my Spirit,” says Jehovah of armies.’” Now I don’t see in this passage where it says the Holy Spirit is a power, unless one reads that idea into the verse, in fact just substitute the word “Spirit” with the word “power” and you will see how absurd such an idea actually is! Next is Micah 3:8, again the idea must be read into the verse, in fact being filled “with power BY the Spirit” shows that “power’ and the “Spirit” are NOT synonymous. 2 Tim. 1:7 again is reading into the passage that “a spirit” is supposedly the “the Spirit”. Here “a spirit” is the proper temperament and character formed in Paul and Timothy. Simple test; “for God gave us a power not of fear but of power…” once again an absurd idea read into 2 Tim 1:7. It is claimed Luke 4:14 “records” that Jesus “began His ministry in the power of the {power}” Once again this demonstrates the absurdity of the idea that is being read into the passage of Luke 4:14. Next claim is that Luke 1:35 “identifies the Holy Spirit with the power that is of the Highest” Let’s note that this verse is NOT saying that the Holy Spirit is synonymous with the “power”, that idea must be read into the verse. FACT; Luke 1:35 is not saying “The Holy Spirit is the power of the Highest”. In Romans 1:16 the Scriptures are called the power of God; “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation…” but everyone knows that they are not used interchangeably synonymous in this verse but are two distinct things: "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God." Matt. 22:29. The Scriptures were the source of the Jews doctrinal misunderstandings and God's power would raise all men from the dead at the second coming. To demand that Scriptures and God's power are interchangeably synonymous in Matt. 22:29 is just as wrong as claiming the Holy Spirit and power are interchangeably synonymous in Luke 1:35. Acts 1:8 is another text I supposedly ignored; again one must read into this passage the idea that ‘power” and “the Holy Spirit” are interchangeably synonymous when the two are not. As can be seen these verses, which I supposedly ignored, must have the idea that the Holy Spirit is a “power” read into them. Nowhere in Scripture does it say “the Holy Spirit is a power” or “the Holy Spirit is the power of God” unless one reads that idea into a passage or text. <><

Jesus died on the cross but that does not mean He ceased to exist. The idea that at death Jesus ceased to exist has no scriptural backing, it must be read into the meaning of what death is. Take for example on how some read Eccl 9:5, 10 and falsely concluding that the dead are conscious of nothing. Yet here Solomon was stating the way things appear “under the sun”, that is, from the human perspective alone (see Eccl. 1:2-3, 18). Now the claim that “support” has been “supplied” for the idea that the Holy Spirit is a power is rather lacking. Nowhere in Scripture does it say “the Holy Spirit is a power” or “the Holy Spirit is the power of God”. Nowhere! The only passages that have been allegedly “supplied”, to date, are those passages where that idea must be read into them. None actually say what is claim. Search through the Scriptures and nowhere is this idea forthcoming, nowhere. So to establish my point, show where in Scriptures it says “the Holy Spirit is a power” or “the Holy Spirit is the power of God”? In fact there are a number of passages that show how absurd this idea actually is, Acts 10:38 for example, which would read “anointing with power and power”. <><

There is no mistake; Christ did not cease to exist when He was executed on the cross. The “ransom sacrifice” as some like to call it was by the shedding of His blood. The idea that death means you cease to exist is another clear example of how some will read into Scripture what has no biblical support. Just as when they say the Holy Spirit is not a Person but a “power” with no biblical support. And then regardless of any rationality will claim that all the many times the Scriptures demonstrate the fact that the Holy Spirit is a Person, they say that these are personifications. Some as usual go into a long incoherent tirade and avoid (play down) what Jesus says to maintain a false idea that is read into the Scriptures, and then they will later go on to claim that that “has already been addressed”. <><

Looking at the latest series of post, one prevailing view, which one person was so adamant about that he felt the need to end his comments with the word “PERIOD” as if that makes what he says more prominent? When scoffers challenge the Deity of Christ they complain that Christ died on the cross, so that proves that He isn’t God. Of course, these objectors usually introduce a problem of their own, defining death as annihilation. They believe that when someone dies, they cease to exist. What does the Bible teach that death is? It is not annihilation; it is separation. When Christ died, He did not cease existing. His body went into the grave, and His soul went into the compartment of departed spirits (compare Luke 16:19-31; Sheol (or Hades) contained two compartments, one of these was known as Abraham’s Bosom or paradise, the abode of the faithful dead, the other being tartarus for the wicked). Remember also how He told the repentant thief, "Today you shall be with Me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Jesus promised the repentant thief that he would be in this place, the place where the faithful dead go. Scripture also tells us that when Christ ascended to heaven He took with Him the compartment of sheol where the faithful dead stayed in wait (Eph 4:8-9). Death is a separation. It is a separation of the body from the spirit. It is a separation from this world to the next. A point that emphasizes this very truth is that Jesus claimed that He will raise Himself when the three days were up (John 2:19-22). Also it is interesting to note that the Scriptures says that believers won’t die (John 6:50), but we all know that they still do. If Habakkuk 1:12 did read, “you do not die” it is clearly an idiom saying, you God are immortal and will exist forever. <><

Some have clearly revealed a typical double standard in the face of illogical claims. Frankly I have no problem with using the divine name in Scripture, but this is all about adding what does not have manuscript support. And then there is the hermeneutic (method of Bible interpretation) argument; but proper hermeneutics is NOT the practice that Scripture may be interpreted in such a way as to suggest that one passage corrects or even militates against another as proposed. This type of Bible interpretation is to be expected because, like it or not, that’s the only way they can make what the Bible says ‘fit” their brand of theology. <><

Some certainly have a high opinion of themselves, when exposed how illogical their claims are, they desperately TRY to link the irrationality of the claim with what was leveled at Jesus and Paul. With that type of self-righteous attitude I think this person believes that he can say and do anything, and in his own eyes, be justified no matter how absurd. He is only fooling himself and those gullible enough to follow suit. The excuses for adding “Jehovah” more than 200 times without any manuscript support exposes the typical double standard trait of JWs. <><

Here is an illogical argument; there is “one spirit in the Bible seeking equality with God”. Yet, his so called “assistants” are adding to Scripture BUT NOT to promote this spirit person! This is just another irrational claim made so that the “personification” supporter’s arguments will appear more tenable, since they have nothing else! And so with nothing to uphold their claim, they will appeal to an accidental inclusion, that which scholars agree was probably a margin note that a later scribe mistakenly considered to be the original text thus making its way into the passage, against the intentional adding to Scripture, for example the NWT adds “Jehovah” (and much more) to the NT in excess of 200 times without any manuscript support. <><

The argument, in the face of the multitude of Scriptural evidence which declare that the Holy Spirit is a person, is that these are mere personifications. It has been shown here that there are many reasons for why this personification idea is scripturally irrational. Because the word translated “spirit” (pneuma, πνεῦμα) is also very often and naturally referring to persons in Scripture then only an inept author would attribute personhood to the Holy Spirit without being clear that personhood was not meant to be literally ascribed. Therefore those who argue for personification do so solely on their theological perspective without any Scriptural backing! <><

Some THINK that they “address” what is said but they don’t, instead they go on long and incoherent tirade’s which make no sense, and don’t “address” what is stated…they only imagine they do. So what if various Unitarians have varied teachings…so what? The point I made about Christadelpians is valid, but this fact is skirted and then, what they teach, is imagined as being “addressed”, a totally preposterous claim. This example typifies the imagined “already been addressed” response that is being repeatedly employed. <><