The Holy Spirit

[Cos]

22 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Dear dear Cos. you are fond of these rather demeaning responses aren't you? Is this how you were taught?

Gone fishing,

 

It is not my intention to cause offence for I have always tried to used respect towards everybody – unlike some who will mock my use of the term “mister” when I address someone by addressing me “Mr. Cos” (you included). But, even thought Cos is not my surname, I have said nothing in response to this very demeaning and insulting way that this is done.

 

I understand that a lot of people go by an alias here, but others don’t, and I address them respectfully, for this I am mocked. So please don’t be condescending.

 

22 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

"mystical" eh? Now that's a word my Trinitarian religious teacher used in answer to questions I had on the Trinity doctorine at school!

 

I’ve had JW’s use this in trying to dismiss the Trinity. One of my dictionaries has “is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence”. I’ve never heard of a religious teacher opting to use the expression to explain the Trinity. But as I was not present can you tell me how he/she used the expression to answer you?

 

And, by the way, I’d be more than happy to answer any of those questions that you say you asked your religious teacher.

 

22 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

With regard to your request, it is the entire discussion provided by Jesus on the subject. His words for me stand alone without any need for me to amplify or explain.

 

Yes you keep saying this, but what factor made you change your “understanding of Jesus’ teaching on this matter”?

 

22 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

I'm quite happy with your definition. Although I would add that Jehovah's power does not cease to exist when it is not in action.

 

I agree Jehovah’s power (dynamei) will not “cease”. I was pointing to this mistaken idea you have about the Holy Spirit being “active force” or “power in action”, take for example the words in Acts 10:38 "anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power" when you guys read this then it must go along these lines, "anointing with power in action and power in action". <><

[Evacuated]

20 hours ago, Cos said:

Mr. Cos” (you included). But, even thought Cos is not my surname, I have said nothing in response to this very demeaning and insulting way that this is done.

It is done because you often do it. Nobody really knows what names are genuine here. I find it unnatural (Mr),  so use it inconsistently, when I remember. No insult intended, although you seem to assume so. You are very sensitive to your own pain but seem to lack empathy.  Just the inadequacies of electronic communication really. Anyway, it is fairly inconsequential as the subject matter is of more weight than this rather petite etiquette.

20 hours ago, Cos said:

But as I was not present can you tell me how he/she used the expression to answer you?

This particullar male religious teacher was an RC priest. This term was used in answer to any question connected with probing the relationship between God and Christ which, on my part incidentally, had no connection with any other religious persuasion, but was merely a natural product of the learning process, albeit in a Catholic scholastic environment.

Questions such as, Who did Jesus pray to?, Who sent Jesus if he is God?, How could God die? were always met with the response: "it is a mystery. We do not understand this in human terms,  but we accept it because it is God's truth".

You will have to take my word for this, I know, but I have met many over the years who have had a similar experience, so it is not beyond the realms of possibility that you have too. This seems be in harmony with the Catechismal approach which we were all subject to (by rote) at that time: 

28. What do you mean by a mystery? By a mystery I mean a truth which is above reason, but revealed by God.

20 hours ago, Cos said:

what factor made you change your “understanding of Jesus’ teaching on this matter”?

The change was really from ignorance as I don't think I had any understanding of Jesus teaching on the "helper" prior to reading the passages. So there wasn't a change that took place in respect of his teaching.

The RC school teachings generally refered to the "Holy Ghost",  but apart from obvious spectre-like associations, any understanding gleaned from the years of Catholic education bore no resemblance to Bible teaching on the matter. In fact, I never possessed or even saw a complete Bible until my 20s, long after leaving school and any religious affiliations behind. I thought a church "Missal" was the Bible, and apart from a book called The Catholic School Bible by J.Ecker, had little concept of anything else. The staunch Catholic household I grew up in ascribed to the idea that "Sola Scriptura" (the Bible alone) is a false doctrine.  Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the sole authority on religious matters. The church was seen as the interpreter of matters pertaining to God, and it's clergy far better qualified to do so than any lay man, let alone a questioning youth.

So, when I read Genesis 1:2, I wanted to know more about "the Spirit of God" and it's operation so Jesus's words recorded by John were helpful in that regard.

20 hours ago, Cos said:

take for example the words in Acts 10:38 "anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power" 

I don't fully understand what you are driving at here, but I can see that the text indicates that at his baptism,  Jesus was designated by God as His Messiah (anointed), (Luke 3:21-22). He was empowered at the same time because, subsequent to his baptism, he  "proved to be a prophet powerful in deed and word before God and all the people" (Luke 24:19) by miraculous works,  incomparable teaching and prophesy, all testifying that he had indeed been empowered by His Father. (Compare Luke 8:46; Luke 22:43).

Although I am not sure I understand your little word riddle, I do see that "Holy Spirit" is clearly differentiated from "power" in that passage of Scripture, (Acts 10:38). Is that what you are emphasising? How do you understand it?

[Cos]

15 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

It is done because you often do it. Nobody really knows what names are genuine here.

Gone fishing,

 

As I said, my intention is not to cause offence, but you were condescending in your reply simple because you didn’t like what I said. I understand that a lot of people go by an alias here, but others don’t (genuine or not), and I address them respectfully, and for this I am mocked yet I never said anything until your condescending reply which was uncalled for. If you had noticed I did qualify my comments, with a bracketed statement.  

 

In the shot time I’ve been on this forum I’ve noticed a lot of people disrespect others, and there is no excuse for that.

 

15 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

This particullar male religious teacher was an RC priest. This term was used in answer to any question connected with probing the relationship between God and Christ which, on my part incidentally, had no connection with any other religious persuasion, but was merely a natural product of the learning process, albeit in a Catholic scholastic environment.

 

I am not Roman Catholic, so I cannot speak for their methods or terminologies, what I do know is that their system of belief is quite complex, so it’s not surprising that a “questioning youth” would be hard pressed to grasp what they are going on about. Having said that, there must be some who do grasp their system, after all, there is a lot of practicing Roman Catholics. Maybe you had a teacher who was unsuitable for role, I don’t know.

 

You stated three questions that you say you asked your religious teacher, and where he replied “We do not understand this in human terms”. This to me confirms that he was not suitable because he just dismissed your questions with a nonspecific response. The Bible does supply the answers and does so in reasonable and understandable terms.

 

15 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

The change was really from ignorance as I don't think I had any understanding of Jesus teaching on the "helper" prior to reading the passages. So there wasn't a change that took place in respect of his teaching.

 

I don’t get this; you say you had no understanding of Jesus’ teaching about the Holy Spirit, because the problem was due to you not seeing a actual Bible till you were in your 20’s…and that’s when you read Genesis 1:2 so you wanted to know more, but that does not explain why the change in your “understanding of Jesus’ teaching on this matter.” What part of the Bible made you change your understanding which you say you did not?

 

15 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

I don't fully understand what you are driving at here,

 

As has been shown in Scripture, (even the Scriptures you cite) dynamei is identified as power in action. So when you couple the JW idea about the Holy Spirit in sentences with dynamei (power in action) it makes the JW concept on the Holy Spirit redundant. <><

[Otto]

On 24/09/2017 at 06:04, Cos said:

Mr Rook,

 

You don’t appreciate the warning I gave that’s your prerogative; my question is how can you blasphemy “a force” or a “field of energy”?

 

You know, you go on about “common sense truth” but to date you have not provided any, and your excuse for appealing to a Hollywood film to “bend scripture” to support your agenda does not comprise of “reason” or “logic” and certainly NOT “common sense”!

 

All you have done is use worldly terminologies, applied your misguided reasoning to them and then say that that is common sense, more like circular reasoning.

 

I am willing to discuss any Bible teaching with you, but don’t try to excuse your reading back worldly terminology into Bible words or using Hollywood films as some trustworthy “frames of references” because that claim is just plain ridiculous.

 

One more thing I’d like to point you to Isaiah 6:8-10 and Acts 28:25-29.<><

It's what the holy spirit means to God and the authority it possesses as granted by him that means we can blaspheme it.

 

It's Gods HOLY Spirit no one else.

A spirit ruach is such because the wind produces effect seen by man...evil spirit produces evil effects Gods HOLY Spirit produces HOLY acts from God...blashemed by being denied by man..its not a person.

[Otto]

On 22/09/2017 at 10:45, Cos said:

Mr. Rook,

 

In John 4:24 God is referred to as “pneuma” using your tunnel vision logic this would mean that God is wind.

 

But let’s apply this “wind” idea into practice using the Scriptures and see if it stand the test;

 

“…baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy [wind].” (Matt. 28:19)

 

“David himself said by the Holy [wind]. (Mark 12:36)

 

“And the [wind] said to Philip, ‘Approach and join this chariot.’” (Acts 8:24)

 

“And while they were serving the Lord and fasting, the Holy [wind] said,…” (Acts 13;2)

 

“For it seemed best to the Holy [wind] and to us to place on you no greater burden except these necessary things” (Acts 15:28)

 

“He who searches the heart knows what is in the mind of the [wind], since the [wind] pleads before God for the saints.” (Romans 8:27)

 

“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy [wind] be with all of you” (2 Cor. 13:13)

 

I could go on, but this should be enough to show the absurdity of your position. It is clear that only someone completely unacquainted with Scripture would constantly apply worldly terminology to try and support a faulty idea! So many differing ideas just to avoid the most obvious. <><

Let's just be clear the Hebrew ruach is a female noun in hebrew and associated with God hence considered male as Jah is called ...HE   and considered male when written down...but nothing in hebrew is referred to by male or female words based on their actual gender each object is masculine or feminine for e.g..

The spirit of God..ruach elohim is feminine noun so the shekhinah is female also...

Elohim..el and Adonai are all masculine nouns but the work for animal is hayyah and this is feminine...all animals are female in hebrew but not in reality...some are male...but they are written down as female...a book is seffer and is always male...but clearly the book is no more male than God....who is gender less in reality.

 

Galatians 3.28 states there is neither male nor female...you are all one in christ.

 

The holy spirit in hebrew is male due to God being associated with it although the noun for spirit is female....so according to your reasoning as it's male in Greek...and I will go into that later...then it must be female in hebrew or might it be that the writers conform to grammatical rules and are not indicating gender at all.

 

The HOLY Spirit is not male and neither is Jehovah

[Evacuated]

2 hours ago, Cos said:

you didn’t like what I said.

"Like" does not come into it.

2 hours ago, Cos said:

there must be some who do grasp their system, after all, there is a lot of practicing Roman Catholics.

Many "practicing "Roman Catholics (and other religious adherents for that matter) do not grasp their systems.

2 hours ago, Cos said:

What part of the Bible made you change your understanding which you say you did not?

I think you refer to this statement I made on 26/09.  "Although I shared your view at one time, (not expressed in such detail), I now differ as to my understanding of Jesus' teaching on this matter".

Actually it was not a part of the Bible, hence my confusion in how to answer your question. This verse was quoted to me early on in an attempt to dissuade me in my interest in non-Trinitarian matters. I still have the highlighted NT that was given to me at the time. No need to rehash the history on this, but finding out it was a spurious insertion led me to reject previously held Trinitatarian concepts, (school-sourced), and to accept Jesus teachings on the matter of his relationship with his Father and what the role of the holy spirit is. So it was a bit of a negative effect really in the sense that what did not belong in God's word prompted, at the time, my interest in what did.

 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

 

30 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

finding out it was a spurious insertion led me to reject previously held Trinitatarian concepts, (school-sourced), and to accept Jesus teachings on the matter

Why would such a verse be inserted into Scripture anyway? 

Could it be anything other than a scribe reading and getting madder and madder and madder that his favorite doctrine is nowhere taught in Scripture, save by taking obvious figures of speech literally?

[Otto]

On 20/09/2017 at 12:32, Cos said:

Jehovah’s Witnesses deny that the Holy Spirit is a person and don’t like it when they are shown how their reasoning is wrong. I once had a JW contend that because the noun for “spirit” in the Greek Scriptures is “pneuma” which is neuter so the Spirit is rendered as “it” instead of “he”.

 

Let me point out that in Koine Greek there is no necessary connection between grammatical gender and personal gender so it is simply false to say that since the Greek noun “pneuma” is neuter the Spirit must be an “it.”

 

There abound many lines of evidence in the Bible which prove that the Holy Spirit is a person. For example, Jesus said he would send “another” in His place (John 14:16). The word for another is “allos” in Greek and refers to another just like Jesus. It is therefore logical to conclude from this that the Spirit is a person since Jesus is clearly a person. Further, Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as “Parakletos” which requires that He be a person since the functions of “Parakletos” are personal (Jesus is also referred to as “Parakletos” in 1 john 2:1). <><

I think possibly the Witnesses reasoning on the noun being neuter was to show that in some places in the King James Version it is rendered it for the Holy Spirit with no personalisation off the top of my head I think John 3 verse 2 in the KJV renders the spirit as an IT that's most probably what he was referring to and you misunderstood him

[Cos]

20 hours ago, Otto said:

It's what the holy spirit means to God and the authority it possesses as granted by him that means we can blaspheme it.

Otto

 

I’m sorry but this makes no sense, and how can a “force” possess authority?

 

20 hours ago, Otto said:

A spirit ruach is such because the wind produces effect seen by man...evil spirit produces evil effects Gods HOLY Spirit produces HOLY acts from God...blashemed by being denied by man..its not a person.

 

Are the evil spirits you refer to here person? <><

[Cos]

17 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Many "practicing "Roman Catholics (and other religious adherents for that matter) do not grasp their systems.

Gone fishing,

 

That is quite a broad statement, one that I do not share.

 

17 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

 

 

This verse was quoted to me early on in an attempt to dissuade me in my interest in non-Trinitarian matters. I still have the highlighted NT that was given to me at the time. 

 

I’m a little bewildered here, you have said that you were asking your religious teacher questions which are Arian based, that would have been at a young age pre late teens. And you say also that you didn’t see a complete Bible till you were in your 20’s.

 

Here you say that when you became interested in “non-Trinitarian matters” you were given a Bible with 1 John 5:7 “highlighted” to “dissuade” you “early on”.  That must have been when you were in your 20’s or later, right? The reason I ask is because you must have had some prior Arian ideas (leanings) long before your 20’s?

 

On the issue of 1 John 5:7, I once, long ago, studied this gloss, which is considered by scholars to have been a marginal note that found its way into the text , which is easy enough to happen, without any ill intent as some try to claim. People have always made notes in their Bibles just as most people do today. <><

[TrueTomHarley]

3 hours ago, Cos said:

20 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Many "practicing "Roman Catholics (and other religious adherents for that matter) do not grasp their systems.

Gone fishing,

 

That is quite a broad statement, one that I do not share.

You would challenge that? Do you know what a broad statement is?

"All practicing Roman Catholics do not grasp their systems" would be a broad statement. But "many?" You have a problem with that? Would you concede that some do not understand their systems? 

[Otto]

3 hours ago, Cos said:

Otto

 

I’m sorry but this makes no sense, and how can a “force” possess authority?

 

 

Are the evil spirits you refer to here person? <><

They are called evil due to their intent...but they are spirit persons..as in breath wind etc...that is you don't see them but you you can see the effects they have....your next comment will be then if they are persons then so is the Holy spirit...matthew 4.3 the poor in SPIRIT..thats pneuma also...but not a person..

Matthew 26.41 the spirit is willing...thats not a person

Mark 2.8 and 8..12  jesus sighed in his spirit..not a person

 

Mark 14.38 the spirit is still willing and not a ref to a person.

If you want more examples let me know.

 

The spirit is Jehovah's and only used by him so it has authority built into it...as noone else has it unless given them by him...he gives them authority by his spirit.

 

The power of the spirit is the force behind it which is unlimited..

 

The authority of the spirit is unlimited as there is not greater authority that Jah.

 

What else dont you understand from my comment?