Jump to content
The World News Media

Cos

Member
  • Content Count

    275
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Cos

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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 becau
  5. 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
  6. 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.<><
  7. 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 t
  8. 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
  9. 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 personi
  10. 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
  11. 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 Bib
  12. 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. <><
  13. 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, ag
  14. 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 per
  15. 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. <><
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.