22 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

insignificant

ɪnsɪɡˈnɪfɪk(ə)nt/

adjective

1. too small or unimportant to be worth consideration.

"the sum required was insignificant compared with military spending"

synonyms:unimportant, of minor importance, of no importance, of little importance, of little import, trivial, trifling, footling, negligible, inconsequential, of little consequence, of no consequence, of no account, of no moment, inconsiderable, not worth mentioning, not worth speaking of, nugatory, meagre, paltry, scanty, petty, insubstantial, unsubstantial, flimsy, frivolous, pointless, worthless, irrelevant, immaterial, peripheral, extraneous, non-essential; 

2. meaningless.

"insignificant yet enchanting phrases"

The point of reference has no relevance to the assertions made.

By the same token, nowhere does the WT "support" the actions or speech of the Devil. To claim otherwise is "preposterous".

In fact, Jesus faced similar stupid assertions from religionists in his day:

(Matthew 12:24)

"the Pharisees said: “This fellow does not expel the demons except by means of Be·elʹze·bub, the ruler of the demons.”

and dealt with them graciously:

(Matthew 12:25-28) 

"Knowing their thoughts, he said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself comes to ruin, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.  In the same way, if Satan expels Satan, he has become divided against himself; how, then, will his kingdom stand?  Moreover, if I expel the demons by means of Be·elʹze·bub, by whom do your sons expel them? This is why they will be your judges.  But if it is by means of God’s spirit that I expel the demons, the Kingdom of God has really overtaken you."
 

Gone fishing,

The Watchtower DO support the utterance of demons, they acknowledge this by citing for support of their own teaching, an occultist!

Gone Fishing, I thought you were a bit more astute, but it seems not, the Jews FALSELY accused Jesus of being in league with the Devil, how is that the same as the Watchtower agreeing with demon inspired teachings?

Answer this simple question; did the Watchtower use the renderings of Johannes Greber’s NT to support their own renderings of NT passages? Yes or no?

The Bible firmly condemns any alliance with occult teachings! <><

23 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

To you...

To you....

But to me it is not strange, and makes perfect sense.

By your method of exposition in bolding the personal pronouns and italicising certain verbs,  you emphasize your view that the Holy Spirit is a separate person "distinct" from the Father and "distinct" from Jesus it would seem?

Using the same method, how do you see wisdom?:

"Is not wisdom calling out? Is not discernment raising its voice?  On the heights along the road, It takes its position at the crossroads. Next to the gates leading into the city, at the entrances of the doorways, it keeps crying out loudly:  “To you, O people, I am calling; I raise my voice to everyone.  You inexperienced ones, learn shrewdness; you stupid ones, acquire an understanding heart.   Listen, for what I say is important, My lips speak what is right;  For my mouth softly utters truth, and my lips detest what is wicked. All the sayings of my mouth are righteous. None of them are twisted or crooked.  They are all straightforward to the discerning and right to those who have found knowledge. Take my discipline instead of silver, and knowledge rather than the finest gold, for wisdom is better than corals; all other desirable things cannot compare to it. I, wisdom, dwell together with shrewdness; I have found knowledge and thinking ability. The fear of Jehovah means the hating of bad. I hate self-exaltation and pride and the evil way and perverse speech.  I possess good advice and practical wisdom; understanding and power are mine. By me kings keep reigning, and high officials decree righteousness. By me princes keep ruling, and nobles judge in righteousness.  I love those loving me, and those seeking me will find me. Riches and glory are with me, lasting wealth and righteousness. My fruitage is better than gold, even refined gold, and what I produce is better than the finest silver. I walk in the path of righteousness, in the middle of the pathways of justice; I give a rich inheritance to those who love me, and I fill up their storehouses." Pro.8:1-21

Gone fishing,

You asked me for my perspective of the Holy Spirit and I provided that for you from the very scripture passages you referred to.

Now it is clear to me that you only take those passages in John’s Gospel to be a personification, as does Otto.

That is not describing for me what your idea of the Holy Spirit is. Please describe your idea of the Holy Spirit.

Sadly you know JW’s want it both ways with wisdom in the Book of Proverbs; you would have it merely personified to help you explain away the passages in John’s Gospel because they go against  your teaching about the Holy Spirit, but then also make wisdom an actual person to try and verify your idea that Christ was a created person.

Proverbs is written in poetic and allegorical form, there is nothing in John’s Gospel to indicate that such is the case.

It is that simple.

Just to remind you, can you please describe your idea of the Holy Spirit? <><

11 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

I would add that probably you know really how insignificant this reference is in support of your claim of:

There is as much credibilty and relevance in this claim as there would be in suggesting  that Luke the Gospel writer relied on an occult source for the words recorded at, for example, Luke 4:9-11. I can't be bothered to cite other examples in Scripture as the claim is so preposterous.

Gone Fishing,

Why do you think that this is “insignificant” in the context of the thread?

Is it true? Yes!

Luke 4 records Jesus’ interaction with the Devil, but nowhere in that discourse does Luke “support” the actions or speech of the Devil. So it is preposterous for you to say that that is similar!

Does the Watchtower agree with the occultist teachings? Yes.

Why does 1 Tim. 4:1 speak out against demon inspired teaching if it’s insignificant? Because this is what is to happen and is happening!

Why play down the fact that the Watchtower is in accord with demonic teachings?

The Watchtower's occult links are true. <><

21 hours ago, Otto said:

The holy spirit is Gods and belongs to him therefore it will always be associated with God as no one else as his holy spirit jesus is never referred to as holy spirit but as using God's Holy Spirit.

 

How can the Holy Spirit be in equilibrium with Jesus and God as you stayed when a person can sin against God and Jesus but not sin against the Holy Spirit I also think that you would know the name for the Holy Spirit if it were a person the Bible but after all personified sin and wisdom and speaks about things as though they have gender

Otto,

My wife, in the marital relationship, belongs to me and I belong to her (1 Cor. 7:4) yet we are distinct persons. I belong to God, and if you are a true follower of the Lord Jesus then you too would belong to God also, yet distinct persons nonetheless, so your “belong” idea does not mean what you assume.

You really should read Matthew 12:31, you can only blasphemy a Person, and to blasphemy the Holy Spirit significantly is to sin against Him. <><

18 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Which of course is true of every human that has ever lived.

However, this doesn't exclude mistaken notions of which you appear to have provided an example:   "the words in Acts 10:38 "anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power" makes the idea that the Holy Spirit is a mere "force" or "attribute" as redundant,  "anointing with power and power"(?)"  Did you speak this of your own originality? Or were you taught?

Anyway, the best description of Holy Spirit as I have been taught is provided by Jesus who said:

(John 14:16, 17) And I will ask the Father and he will give you another helper to be with you forever,  the spirit of the truth, which the world cannot receive, because it neither sees it nor knows it. You know it, because it remains with you and is in you.
(John 14:26) But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach you all things and bring back to your minds all the things I told you.
(John 15:26) When the helper comes that I will send you from the Father, the spirit of the truth, which comes from the Father, that one will bear witness about me;
(John 16:13, 14) However, when that one comes, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own initiative, but what he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things to come.  That one will glorify me, because he will receive from what is mine and will declare it to you.

What about you? Please describe your idea of the Holy Spirit.

 

Gone Fishing,

The Holy Spirit is, as the Scriptures you quoted explain, a Person, clearly distinct from the Father (not a subspecies of metaphor as has been claimed) and distinct from Jesus. To quote from one of your passages you cite;

John 16:13-14 “…he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own initiative, but what he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things to come…he will receive from what is mine and will declare it to you.”

Throughout these passages that you quoted from John's Gospel, Jesus ascribes the same or similar personal actions to the Holy Spirit as He does to the disciples and even Himself (e.g., I will go/He will come; I have things to say/He will speak). It would be very strange to ascribe these personal actions in the same way and in the same statement to real persons and then to a thing.

John 12:49 “because I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to tell and what to speak." (NWT)

John 16:13 “However, when that one arrives, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his OWN IMPULSE, but what things he HEARS he will SPEAK, and he will declare to you the things coming.” (NWT)

In the dialogue Jesus compared the Holy Spirit to Himself, the comparison of one person to another. It makes no sense doing so if the Holy Spirit is not a person.

Notice if you will John15:26–27;

“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. And you also will bear witness…”

Note how Jesus says the Spirit will “bear witness” just as the disciples will bear witness (“you also…”). Jesus regards the Spirit as being just as much a person as each of the disciples, and speaks of them in the same terms. much more can be said but time is short and I want to respond to another person.  <><

On ‎9‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 1:07 AM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Cos:

You have already proved by your own words in the Archive Topic "Demonism and the Watchtower", that you are completely clueless as to what constitutes proof, or reason, or logic .. and it's possibly only because you do not understand what is generally referred to a "figures of speech".

When you hear on the News that North Korea tested a hydrogen bomb ... no they didn't. The MILITARY of North Korea tested a hydrogen bomb (if true).

If the news says "The White House today said that this action will NOT be tolerated !'"  The building itself did not actually say anything at all.  The building is recognized as a symbol of the will of the President and his administration.,

In the scriptures giving personification to a force as a person ... like Reddy Kilowatt, or the HOLY SPIRIT, is what is known as a "Metonymy".  It's a subset of a "Synecdoche", which is a subset of a "Metaphor" 

After all ... what's a meta phor?  *coff"*

This is what Wikipedia has to say about that: (bold type added by me)

" Synecdoche is a rhetorical trope and a type of figurative speech similar to metonymy, a figure of speech in which a term that denotes one thing is used to refer to a related thing. Indeed, synecdoche is sometimes considered a subclass of metonymy. It is more distantly related to other figures of speech, such as metaphor.^[6]

More rigorously, metonymy and synecdoche can be considered subspecies of metaphor, intending metaphor as a type of conceptual substitution (as Quintilian does in Institutio oratoria Book VIII). In Lanham's Handlist of Rhetorical Terms,^[7] the three terms have somewhat restrictive definitions, arguably in tune with a certain interpretation of their etymologies from Greek:

• Metaphor: changing a word from its literal meaning to one not properly applicable but analogous to it; assertion of identity rather than likeness, as with simile.
• Metonymy: substitution of cause for effect, proper name for one of its qualities, etc.

Classification

Synecdoche is often used as a type of personification by attaching a human aspect to a nonhuman thing. It is used in reference to political relations, including "having a footing", to mean a country or organization is in a position to act, or "the wrong hands", to describe opposing groups, usually in the context of military power.

The two main types of synecdoche are microcosms and macrocosms. A microcosm is when a part of something is used to refer to the entirety.An example of this would be someone saying that they “need a hand" with a project, when they really need the entire person.   A macrocosm is the opposite, when the entire structure of something is used to refer to a small part^.  An example of this could be referring to "the world", when the speaker really means a certain country or part of the world. The figure of speech is divided into the image (what the speaker uses to refer to something) and the subject (what is being referred to).

This type of reference is quite common in politics. The residence of an executive is often credited for the executive's action. A spokesperson of the Executive Office of the President of the United States is identified in "The White House announced a new plan to reduce hunger." References to the King or Queen of the United Kingdom are made in the same fashion by referring to today's official residence, Buckingham Palace. Worldwide examples include "the Sublime Porte" of the Ottoman Empire, and "the Kremlin" of Russia.

Sonnets and other forms of love poetry frequently use synecdoches to characterize the beloved in terms of individual body parts rather than a coherent whole. This practice is especially common in the Petrarchan sonnet, where the idealised beloved is often described part by part, from head to toe.

It is also popular in advertising. Since synecdoche uses a part to represent a whole, its use requires the audience to make associations and "fill in the gaps", engaging with the ad by thinking about the product. Moreover, catching the attention of an audience with advertising is often referred to by advertisers as "getting eyeballs", another synecdoche. Synecdoche is very common in spoken English, especially in reference to sports. The names of cities are used as shorthand for their sports teams to describe events and their outcomes, such as "Denver won Monday's game", when it would be more accurate that a sports team from the city won the game.^[

Kenneth Burke (1945), an American literary theorist, declared that in rhetoric the four master tropes, or figures of speech, are metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and irony. Burke's primary concern with these four master tropes is not simply their figurative usage but their role in the discovery and description of the truth. He described synecdoche as “part of the whole, whole for the part, container for the contained, sign for the thing signified, material for the thing made… cause for the effect, effect for the cause, genus for the species, species for the genus". In addition, Burke suggests that synecdoche patterns can include reversible pairs such as disease-cure. Burke proclaimed the noblest synecdoche is found in the description of microcosm and macrocosm" since microcosm is related to macrocosm as part to the whole, and either the whole can represent the part or the part can represent the whole".^[15] Burke also compared synecdoche with the concept of "representation", especially in the political sense in which elected representatives stand in pars pro toto for their electorate.

Part referring to whole (pars pro toto)

• Referring to people according to a single characteristic: "the gray beard" representing an older man or "the long hair" representing a hippie
• Referring to a large group of related peoples according to the proper name of one subgroup: Eskimos instead of Native Alaskans; Caucasians instead of Europeans or Whites
• Describing a complete vehicle as "wheels"
• referring to a vehicle's manual transmission by the control handle ("stick shift" or "stick")
• referring to the whole vehicle by the transmission control handle ("can you drive a stick?")
• Referring to people by a particular body part. For example, "head count" or "counting noses"
• Saying "bubbly" to refer to Champagne or any other sparkling wine
• Using "Arabian sands" to refer the Arabian deserts
• Using "ivories" to refer to a piano (particularly in the phrase "tickling the ivories", meaning to play the piano), by a pair of synecdoches: the piano designated by its part, the keys, which in turn were historically made of ivory
• He asked for her hand in marriage.
• Using "boba" to refer to the drink, Bubble tea

General class name used to denote specific member of that or associated class

• Using "the good book" or "The Book" for the Bible ("Bible" itself comes from the Greek word for "book")
• Describing any four-wheel drive vehicle (including long-haul trailers, etc.) as a "truck"
• In the phrase, "He's good people", the word "people" is used to denote a specific instance of people (a single person)
• "The pill" is used to refer to 28-pill packets of the combined oral contraceptive pill, a common birth control method

Specific class name referring to general set of associated things

• "John Hancock" used in the United States, for the signature of any person
• A genericized trademark, for example "Coke" for any variety of cola (or for any variety of soft drink, as in the southern United States), "Band-Aid" for any variety of adhesive bandage, or "Styrofoam" for any product made of expanded polystyrene
• A "Rube Goldberg (or Heath Robinson) contraption" to refer to any machine which seems overly complicated or bizarrely constructed

Referring to material actually or supposedly used to make something

• "brass" for brass instruments, or the shell casings of bullet cartridges
• "cement" for concrete, cement being just the binder in concrete
• "glasses" for spectacles
• "armor" for tanks
• "paper" for a journal article or newspaper
• "pigskin" for an American or Canadian football
• "plastic" for a credit card
• "steel" for a sword
• "strings" for string instruments
• "threads" for clothing
• "tin" for a container made with tin plating

Container is used to refer to its contents

• "barrel" for a barrel of oil
• "keg" for a keg of beer
• "He drank the cup", to refer to his drinking of the cup's contents "

If the "White House" actually started talking .. I suspect people would be running out of all exits ...  but that is the expression.

GET USED TO IT.

Perhaps I am different than most Jehovah's Witnesses ... and although JWs are often represented as a monolithic  group of marching robots, that is not always true ... my guess is more than half would not agree with anything that violated their concept of plain old common sense, even though they would not press any points for fear of being disfellowshipped for apostasy.

Among most people ..... there is truly infinite variety.

I became one of Jehovah's witnesses FIRST ... because it made sense ... it agreed with the real world ... I did not have to stretch my perception of the Universe into a pretzel.  The theology AGREED WITH PLAIN OLD COMMON SENSE.  I did not join because I agreed with them ... but because they agreed with ME.

OK ... now, lets look at the two scriptures you quoted  -  I always like to put it in context with what went before, and what is stated after a cited scripture, to see if someone is trying to lead me up the creek to booger's woods.

Isaiah 6:6-12New American Standard Bible (NASB)

⁶ Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a burning coal in his hand, which he had taken from the altar with tongs. ⁷ He touched my mouth with it and said, “Behold, this has touched your lips; and your iniquity is taken away and your sin is ^[a]forgiven.”

⁸ Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!” ⁹ He said, “Go, and tell this people:

‘Keep on listening, but do not perceive;
Keep on looking, but do not understand.’
¹⁰ “Render the hearts of this people ^[b]insensitive,
Their ears ^[c]dull,
And their eyes ^[d]dim,
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
Hear with their ears,
Understand with their hearts,
And return and be healed.”

¹¹ Then I said, “Lord, how long?” And He answered,

“Until cities are devastated and without inhabitant,
Houses are without people
And the land is utterly desolate,
¹² “The Lord has removed men far away,
And the ^[e]forsaken places are many in the midst of the land."

OK...fine scripture ... but it is only your OPINION that it relates to this discussion. 

Here's a clue for you Cos ... IT DON'T !

Acts 28:23-30New International Version (NIV)

²³ They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. He witnessed to them from morning till evening, explaining about the kingdom of God, and from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets he tried to persuade them about Jesus. ²⁴ Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe. ²⁵ They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: “The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your ancestors when he said through Isaiah the prophet:

²⁶ “‘Go to this people and say,
“You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
    you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.”
²⁷ For this people’s heart has become calloused;
    they hardly hear with their ears,
    and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
    hear with their ears,
    understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’^[a]

²⁸ “Therefore I want you to know that God’s salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!” ^[29] [b]

³⁰ For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him."

From your viewpoint , this is a "worst case scenario" ... here we have another example of a synecdoche ... as the men received what they heard by inspiration due to an UN-NAMED force.

But here is the clincher, which makes the most common sense .... "HOLY SPIRIT" IS NOT A PERSONAL NAME, ANY MORE THAN GAMMA RADIATION HAS A GOOD FRIEND NAMED "WENDY".

It's "something", for sure, but NOT A PERSONAL NAME.

When Jehovah wants to accomplish something fro 30 billion light years away ... there HAS to be a force carrier ... a DIRECTED force carrier, to make things happen at OUR END OF THE UNIVERSE.

If you want to get a tan .. you use UV radiation that comes from the Sun, at this end.

If you want God's blessing, you try to be the recipient of directed "Holy Spirit", at this end.

Casper is a name FOR A SPIRIT, ....... but only The Farce will be with you.

That's why "Casper the Friendly Ghost" was a COMIC BOOK.

ps:  And Casper DID have a friend ... Wendy the Witch.

.

 

Mr Rook,

Your claim is that Bible uses “figurative speech” and/or “subspecies of metaphor” to explain Scriptures that go against your false teaching, this is exactly what I said you JWs do at the start of this thread, and I said it in just a few lines whereas you required, well, many lines (tedious copy and paste).

This opinion you JWs have (and it is just an opinion) fails when reading passages where the Holy Spirit and the Father are mentioned together which show that there is a distinction which exclude the of figures of speech (or “subspecies of metaphor”) idea that you want to force upon certain passages to try and make them fit into your little box of false teachings.

I gave you one example already, here it is again.

Eph. 2:18 "For through Him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit" ["access to the Father by one Father (?)].

Clearly your opinion fails when it takes into account the clear distinction throughout Scripture.

Here is a experiment you can do, why don’t you go through the scriptures and try substituting the Holy Spirit with active force and you will see how passage after passage becomes meaningless and absurd which makes active force a redundant option. <><

On ‎9‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 3:54 AM, Gone Fishing said:

Well this just shows that people may not always understand the language they speak. The basic dictionary definitions of power as a noun are:

"the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way"

or

"the ability or capacity to direct or influence the behaviour of others or the course of events"

This seems to concur reasonably with some of the thought behind related Bible words. e.g. the Hebrew word koʹach is translated “power”; gevu·rahʹ, “mightiness”; and ʽoz, “strength.” The Greek dyʹna·mis is translated both “power” and “powerful works,” as the context makes appropriate.

Patently then, as an attribute of the true God, who alone is Almighty in power, this cannot be synonymous with the Holy Spirit for which different expressions are used both in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures.

Therefore your suggestion that "the words in Acts 10:38 "anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power" makes the idea that the Holy Spirit is a mere "force" or "attribute" as redundant,  "anointing with power and power"(?)" is actually incorrect. These words cannot be construed as meaning an "anointing with power and power". Your attribution of such a concept to the current teaching or beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses is also false.

 

Gone Fishing,

The JW’s speak how they have been taught. Did you not see what the watchtower claims? My question to you is, do you understand the language that you speak? Please describe your idea of the Holy Spirit. <><

On ‎9‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 8:16 PM, Otto said:

What is the name of the Holy Spirit.

Otto,

Read Isaiah 6:8-10 and Acts 28:25-29. <><

On ‎9‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 0:34 PM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I rest my case ....

Mr. Rook,

I began to read your very long post in the other thread, which I will address after I have read it completely, so please bear with me.

My oversight in this thread is assuming that you are aware of the occultist, Johannes Greber, but it seems that maybe you are not up to speed on certain issues.

In 1956 the Watchtower warned its readers about Johannes Greber occult practices (see The Watchtower, February 15, 1956, page 110,111).

But then in 1962, knowing full well of Greber’s occult connections they quoted his demon inspired “translation” of the New Testament to support the NWT rendering of certain passages (see the Watchtower September 15, 1962, page 554).

Then again in the book “Aid to Bible Understanding” 1971, p. 1134 and page 1669, they quoted him again with approval.

And again in The Watchtower 1975 October 15 p. 640 Questions From Readers.

Again in The Watchtower 1976 April 15 p. 231 Insight on the News.

I trust that you will check these for yourself, and then you will notice how the Watchtower knowingly cited an OCCULT source to support their false teachings; now read 1 Tim. 4:1. <><

9 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Cos:

Even though we don't know what those names are, Jehovah has even named the stars of the heavens, and knows them all by a personalized, (which really means individual),  name  ....he did NOT give personalized individual  names to  the radiations they emit ...gamma radiation,  x-rays, ultra violet, radio waves, infrared, etc. .... for electricity, Reddy Kilowatt comes to mind as a personalized name that power companies gave to Electricity as an advertising ploy.    before they realized you do not have to advertise electricity.

PEOPLE are silly that way, but we enjoy being amused.

I am going to keep this short, as today I have to work outside all day installing bundles of electrical wiring for my yard underground wiring system , and I don't want to get a sunburn from Fred ultraviolet light, or have a heat stroke from Wanda infrared light, and is rumored that If I am not careful, Reddy Kilowatt will try to kill me.

I am silly THAT way.

Forgive me ... it's silly to name FORCES with personal names as I have just done ( and the electrical companies did)...... that is why Jehovah does not do it.

That is why the HOLY SPIRIT does NOT have a personal name  , it,  like a star, is a FORCE that emanates from God to affect things at the other end ... to accomplish his will at his direction.

It is a DIRECTED force, not light sunlight that illuminates the solar system, and beyond.

So ...ponder this ... why do trillions upon trillions of stars have a personalzed name ...  and the HOLY SPIRIT does not ... only descriptions of WHAT IT DOES!

Answer: (For those in Rio Linda...) IT'S A FORCE.

Of course Casper the friendly farce may condemn me to hell for saying so ... but that would be...... "unfriendly"

MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU, COS.

 

Mr Rook,

You really should read Isaiah 6:8-10 and Acts 28:25-29 it may help you see through your misguided delusion. <><

 

19 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Cos:

What you have stated is OPINION.  You have proved NOTHING, except that you can type.

Both God and Christ have a personal name ... what is the Holy Spirit's name .... Casper?

If so, it must be a FRIENDLY spirit.

YEAH, that's the ticket!

( ... for those in Rio Linda that was intended to be biting sarcasm .... because the Holy Spirit does NOT have a personal name ... and God and Christ do! )

note:  ... descriptions do not count as personal names, no more than a warm blanket does... um .... not being a person...

.

.

Even my seven dogs have personal names ...... in human English .....  I don't know if that is true in Arf.

.

 

Mr. Rook,

Your argument is not a sound one, just because you think the Holy Spirit does not have a personal name like Christ does, is not recourse to assume that this mean the Holy Spirit is not a real person. If this were a valid argument, then, following your line of reasoning, a newborn child is not a person until he/she is named.

In Scripture Spiritual beings are not always named; some evil spirits are rarely named but are identified by their particular character, for example “unclean” and ‘wicked” etc.

The Holy Spirit is identified by His character, which is holiness. The designation “Holy Spirit” is clearly intended as a description of character.

Also, it is interesting to note that the Holy Spirit is identified as YHWH, see Isaiah 6:8-10 and Acts 28:25-29. <><

22 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

I don't see Jehovah's Witnesses or the Bible teaching that "Holy Spirit" and "power" are literally synonymous. Do you?

Gone Fishing,

I have had JW’s describe the Holy Spirit to me as God’s “power”.

Obvious some do think this while you imply you don’t.

I’m curious to know, how you describe your idea of the Holy Spirit?

I believe that the Watchtower identifies the Holy Spirit as “God’s POWER in action” on their web page. Maybe they mean “power” in another sense, you tell me.

“In the Bible, God’s holy spirit is identified as God’s power in action.” https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102006245

Does that surprise you? <><

19 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

It is ?

In this forum the burden of proof is on you.

You have already proved by your own words in the Archive Topic "Demonism and the Watchtower", that you are completely clueless as to what constitutes proof, or reason, or logic, but I am willing to give you another chance at redemption from conviction by your own hand.

PROVE IT!

Mr. Rook,
 

I did give you proof, you just don't like it!
 

If the Holy Spirit were not a person but a designation for some sort of attribute of God then we would not find passages where both the Spirit and an influence are co-ordinately named.

For example the words in Acts 10:38 "anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power" makes the idea that the Holy Spirit is a mere "force" or "attribute" as redundant,  "anointing with power and power"(?)

That the Spirit of God is distinct from God the Father (just as the Son is) is seen from passages were you can try to substitute the term "God" or "Father" in place of where the Holy Spirit is present, here is an example;

Eph. 2:18 "For through Him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit" ["access to the Father by one Father.?!]

More examples can be cited to show the error JW have, but you will more likely dismiss them as you have just done with the above. <><

On 9/2/2017 at 9:34 PM, The Librarian said:

Jehovah's Witnesses view the Holy Spirit, not as an actual person separate from Jehovah, but as His "energy" or "active force", that he uses to accomplish his will in creation and redemption

 

Yes generally JW's regard the Holy Spirit as an attribute of God, but sadly this is just another error. <><

Just now, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

You seem to be unclear completely clueless on what constitutes proof, reason, and logic.

You have supplied NOTHING for consideration that even PRETENDS to be proof, or reason, or logic.

They used an occultist to uphold their false teachings (1 Tim. 4:1).

Just now, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

COS:

So..please give us some FACTS! 

The ONLY thing you have supplied is an accusation.

The statement you made MAY be true, or it may be false..or partially true, or partially false.

IT IS YOUR BURDEN to prove what you have said,  so that any reasonable person will agree that you are NOT a slander and a liar.

Unless you do provide such proof. those same reasonable persons can dismiss you as being a fool, a slanderer, and a liar  ... because you have ZERO credibility.

Your move.

Johannes Greber...your move!

I find it strange how JWs will sometimes regard the Holy Spirit as an attribute of God; and at other times resolve the passages in which He is spoken of into a roundabout way, or indirect way for God Himself; or, to express both as a figure of speech; to me this shows that JW have no real idea, but will say anything except the obvious.

In establishing the fact that the Holy Spirit is a Person, note when you read Scripture how frequent the Holy Spirit is associated (and distinguished) with two other Persons in equal degree! <><

On ‎1‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 5:14 AM, Alessandro Corona said:

I would suggest, everyone read this. It is written by a former bethelite who was disfellowshipped for calling out Rutherford on the use of spirit healing and Ouija boards, it also goes into detail about how one of the original Awake (golden age) writers was demon possessed and later wrote the finished mystery. 

demonism_and_the_watch_tower.pdf

Rutherford has also been quoted as saying that one of the 24 elders of Revelation revealed to him the identity of the great crowd. Before this he made claims that Russell was leading the watchtower from beyond the veil. Then he later stated that the 1/24 elder who revealed to him the identity of the great crowd was Russell himself, which means the resurrection had to have happened some time before 1935. The fool went as far as to say that even demons tell the truth. I am not making this up, these are Rutherford's words. Russell was also involved in the distribution of a book written by a demon through automatic/angel writing called seola, later renamed to of angels and women. Samuel Herd has even come out and said it was a fantastic novel. So you can see the type of judgment the leadership of bethel really has. 

The Watchtower has maintained a steady relationship with demonism, one just needs to consider how often they cite occult sources to support their doctrines and teachings!

I was speaking with a Jehovah’s Witnesses who mistakenly alleges that at the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century AD is when belief in Christ’s Deity originated.

Folks, the facts are these, the NT explicitly uses the Greek term theos (“God”) in reference to Jesus Christ. Further, there was a consistent application of theos to Jesus Christ long before the 4th century AD!

Christian authors such as Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Melito, Athenagoras, and Irenaeus all spoke of Christ as “God.”

These early Christian writers demonstrate that belief in the deity of Christ did not originate in the fourth century as JW’s mistakenly claim. 

 What happened at Nicaea and after is a continuation of what these early Christians taught on the matter with focused emphasis on terminology and explanatory nuance to safeguard this truth from the ravages of Arianism, which, as history shows, actually was a fourth century invention! <><

On ‎7‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 0:25 PM, Anna said:

1. Not in any of the continents that I know of, i.e North America and Europe. I am not sure about the rest of the world but I doubt it. The copies in North America and Europe are not sold, but contributions towards the world wide work are accepted. I assume this goes for the rest of the world, in which case answers to questions 2-4 are non applicable.

Fun fact: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-widely-read-magazine-in-the-world-is-the-monthly-pub-of-jehovahs-witnesses-2010-9

 

 

Thank you Anna for the reply and link.

Can I ask, is there an obligatory amount of magazines that a JW is required to have for distribution, or is that quantity up to the individual JW?

I have been wondering:

1.    Do JWs buy the “Awake” and “Watchtower” magazines that they are required to distribute?

2.    If so, how many copies of each issue are you required to purchase for distribution?

3.    What is the current price for the “Awake” and “Watchtower” magazines?

4.    What happens if you can’t sell all the copies for that issue? Do you get reimbursed?

On ‎6‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 0:27 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

You are doing that thing again in trying to force an answer to a polar question but never mind.

I haven't got a problem with selective quoting here as the point is to address an interpolation in the King James version. It is hardly necessary really, as the marginal references in the KJ I use indicate this anyway, and I expect this is widely recognised as an example of the doctrinal insecurity that went on at 1 Jn .5:7-8.

Hello Mr. Joyce,

My apology for this late response.

The true church throughout the centuries has always said that Stephen, while being put to death prayed to Jesus. (for example see Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book 3 Chapter 12; Tertullian, part 3 Book 6 “Patience” chapter 14, etc).

A “polar question” or not, the fact remains that JW’s, on the other hand have flip flop on this matter.

Stephen did… (The Watchtower March 1, 1922 p. 78) (The Watchtower February 1, 1959 p. 96)

Stephen didn’t… (Aid to Bible Understanding 1971 p. 1329)

Stephen did… (The Watchtower June 1, 1980 p. 18)

Stephen didn’t… (The Watchtower December 15, 1994 p. 24)

Stephen did…  (Awake! February 22, 1999 p. 4)

Stephen didn’t…  (The Watchtower May 15, 2008 p. 31)

I’m sure that sooner or later the Watchtower will again flip the other way on this issue which highlights the real “doctrinal insecurity” of the JW religion, whereas the true church for the last 2000 years has maintained the same unwavering truth!

Stephen was a Jew and knew only to pray to God and in Acts he prays to Jesus, why, because Jesus is God just as the Father is God. <><

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Wow! That wasn't handled very well in 1959 was it?.

Although, to be fair, the dictionary does state on the term "pray":     adverb formalarchaic     1. used as a preface to polite requests or instructions. "ladies and gentlemen, pray be seated"

Anyway, there's a clearer explanation now, published in the Watchtower a bit later than the '94 reference:

*** w05 1/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
Does Stephen’s exclamation at Acts 7:59 indicate that prayers should be directed to Jesus?

Acts 7:59 says: “They went on casting stones at Stephen as he made appeal and said: ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.’” Those words have raised questions in the mind of some, since the Bible says that Jehovah is the “Hearer of Prayer.” (Psalm 65:2) Did Stephen really pray to Jesus? Would this indicate that Jesus is the same as Jehovah?

The King James Version says that Stephen was “calling upon God.” Understandably, then, many draw the conclusion reached by Bible commentator Matthew Henry, who said: “Stephen here prays to Christ, and so must we.” However, that viewpoint is erroneous. Why?
Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament makes this honest admission: “The word God is not in the original, and should not have been in the translation. It is in none of the ancient [manuscripts] or versions.” How did the word “God” come to be inserted into that verse? Scholar Abiel Abbot Livermore called this “an instance of the sectarian biases of the translators.” Most modern translations, therefore, eliminate this spurious reference to God.

Nevertheless, many versions do say that Stephen “prayed” to Jesus. And the footnote in the New World Translation shows that the term “made appeal” can also mean “invocation; prayer.” Would that not indicate that Jesus is Almighty God? No. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words explains that in this setting, the original Greek word, e·pi·ka·leʹo, means: “To call upon, invoke; . . . to appeal to an authority.” Paul used this same word when he declared: “I appeal to Caesar!” (Acts 25:11) Appropriately, then, The New English Bible says that Stephen “called out” to Jesus.

What prompted Stephen to make such an appeal? According to Acts 7:55, 56, Stephen, “being full of holy spirit, gazed into heaven and caught sight of God’s glory and of Jesus standing at God’s right hand.” Normally, Stephen would have addressed his requests to Jehovah in the name of Jesus. But seeing the resurrected Jesus in vision, Stephen apparently felt free to appeal to him directly, saying: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Stephen knew that Jesus had been given authority to raise the dead. (John 5:27-29) He therefore asked Jesus to safeguard his spirit, or life force, until the day when Jesus would raise him to immortal life in the heavens.

Does Stephen’s brief utterance set a precedent for praying to Jesus? Not at all. For one thing, Stephen clearly distinguished Jesus from Jehovah, for the account says that he saw Jesus “standing at God’s right hand.” Also, these circumstances were exceptional. The only other case of such an utterance being directed to Jesus is that of the apostle John, who similarly addressed Jesus directly when he saw Him in vision.—Revelation 22:16, 20.

Although Christians today properly direct all their prayers to Jehovah God, they too have unshakable faith that Jesus is “the resurrection and the life.” (John 11:25) As it did Stephen, so faith in Jesus’ ability to raise his followers from the dead can help and sustain us in times of trial.
 

Hello Mr Joyce,

Your response from the viewpoint of the Watchtower Society has to now be “no” (another flip flop), although they do agree that Stephen did; but in so answering they make some interesting claims that are not altogether true.

First they make a statement that:

“Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament makes this honest admission: ‘The word God is not in the original, and should not have been in the translation. It is in none of the ancient [manuscripts] or versions.'”

True, but not the whole truth, because the full quote from Barnes is as follows:

“The word God is not in the original, and should not have been in the translation. It is in none of the ancient mss. or versions. It should have been rendered, “They stoned Stephen, invoking, or calling upon, and saying, Lord Jesus,” etc. That is, he was engaged “in prayer” to the Lord Jesus. The word is used to express “prayer” in the following, among other places: 2Co_1:23, “I call God to witness”; 1Pe_1:17, “And if ye call on the Father,” etc.; Act_2:21, “whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord,” etc.; Act_9:14; Act_22:16; Rom_10:12-14. This was, therefore, an act of worship; a solemn invocation of the Lord Jesus, in the most interesting circumstances in which a man can be placed – in his dying moments. And this shows that it is right to worship the Lord Jesus, and to pray to him.” (emphasis mine)

If they accept Barnes on the fact that God should not be in the text they should also accept Barnes when he informs us that Stephen is praying to the Lord Jesus and that Scripture indicates we can do it too. But no, they simply take the first part and ignore the rest. They then talk about the Greek word used:

“Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words explains that in this setting the original Greek word, epikaleo, means: ‘To call upon, invoke; … to appeal to a authority.”

But words have been missed out from the Vine’s quote which put a different light on the issue:

“in the Middle Voice, to call upon for oneself (i.e., on one’s behalf), Acts 7:59”

Clearly Stephen called upon, invoked, prayed to the Lord Jesus. The Society, albeit seemingly reluctantly admit this was happening but want to show that you cannot do it today.

“Does Stephen’s brief utterance set a precedent for praying to Jesus? Not at all. For one thing, Stephen clearly distinguished Jesus from Jehovah, for the account says that he saw Jesus “standing at God’s right hand.'”

What this has to do with praying to Jesus I am not sure. We Christians make a distinction between  God the Son and God the Father but we can still pray to Jesus in His own right.

Next they say:

“Also, these circumstances were exceptional. The only other case of such an utterance being directed to Jesus is that of the apostle John, who similarly addressed Jesus directly when he saw Him in vision. – Revelation 22:16,20”

No clear reason is given as to why, if Stephen prayed to Jesus and it was accepted, and John prayed to Jesus and it was accepted, you and I cannot pray to Jesus and it will be accepted!

They end the article with this:

“Although Christians today direct, all their prayers to Jehovah God, they too have unshakable faith that Jesus is “the resurrection and the life.”

This refers back to an earlier paragraph where they stated:

“He therefore asked Jesus to safeguard his spirit, or life force, until the day when Jesus would raise him to immortal life in the heavens.”

Not according to other parts of the New Testament where the same Greek word, δέχομαι, is used.

"whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time." (Acts 3:21)

Heaven actually received Him and Jesus was in heaven.

"So when He came to Galilee, the Galileans received Him, having seen all the things that He did in Jerusalem at the feast; for they themselves also went to the feast." (John 4:45)

The Galileans actually received Jesus and He was in Galilee.

"Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet." (Matt 10:14)

They were literally received into the home and stayed there.

"By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed (literally received) the spies in peace." (Heb 11:31)

Rahab actually received the spies into her home.

"They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!'" (Acts 7:59)

Stephen was asking Jesus to actually receive his spirit and so he would be with Jesus in heaven; nothing to do with safeguarding for a future day.

There is nothing to stop us praying to Jesus, indeed the teaching is that we should be praying just as Stephen did. <><

Did Stephen pray to Jesus? Acts 7:59

The Watchtower has said, “Every prayer is a form of worship.” (The Watchtower, December 15, 1994, p. 23)

The Watchtower, February 1, 1959 page 96 in the section ‘Questions from Readers’ says, “the PRAYER offered by Stephen when he was being martyred is recorded at Acts 7:59, 60….”

The Watchtower admits that this was a prayer!

Stephen prayed to Jesus. Stephen therefore actually worshipped Jesus! <><

In a systematic biblical examination on the Deity of the Lord Jesus scholars look at three major contributing factors;

1.    Jesus’ names and titles which establish that He is God.

2.    Jesus’ attributes (the things that only God can do) validate He is God.

3.    Jesus’ abilities (the things that Jesus has done) confirm He is God.

There is more evidence about Jesus being God than there is that the Father is God. Is that not interesting? There are only a few passages that actually call the Father God.

Concerning the Deity of Jesus Christ, we have direct statements. This is what certain cultic groups say is not found in the Bible.

Jesus’ names and titles. This is an important and interesting study (recommended for all) about the names and titles that were given to Jesus, for example, in Matthew 1:21 it says that His name shall be called Yehoshua (Hebrew for Jesus), which means “Yahweh is salvation.”

Some of you will read that and say, in a nice way, “Well wait a minute. You could call somebody “Jesus” today (as some were named in Biblical times) and it is just a testimony to the fact that Yahweh (Jehovah) will save. It’s not saying that Jesus is Yahweh.”

Well only when on its own while ignoring the rest of the verse would this line of reasoning be valid, but we have a multitude of examples that show that the opposite is the case. So instead please read carefully what the verse actually says, note the specific personal pronouns that all refer to the one to be born.

“She will give birth to a son, and you are to name HIM Jesus, for HE (Greek αὐτὸς) will save HIS people from their sins” (Matt 1:21 NWT emphasis mine)

We note here that the word  αὐτὸς is emphatic; and rightly so “For it is He that (he is the one who) shall save his people from their sins.”

In this case the one to be born is being identified by His name. Who, in the eternal purpose He is, really and absolutely, in Himself; the very substance of His being, God the Saviour – God who saves, Immanuel (Matt 1:23).

I have been very, very brief here, maybe to brief, however I do hope to stimulate further interest, so may the Holy Spirit, who on this day set the church alight, bring you to the knowledge that salvation is by the Lord Jesus. <><