Jump to content
The World News Media

Cos

Member
  • Content Count

    275
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cos

  1. Ms Fofana, Thank you for your reply, and I’m sorry that it has taken me a long period to reply, many things have, and still do, occupy my time, but your reply was a “must respond to” which I marked in my calendar. Your language is somewhat strange you use “izz” instead of “is” a few times, please explain why? You say also that in your many years of “churchgoing” you never heard anyone claim that “Jesus IS God”. Can I ask which church you attended during that time? Now, the Jehovah’s Witness I spoke to said that the Trinity began to be taught (invented) in th
  2. Gone fishing, In John 4:22 Jesus is telling the Samaritan woman that salvation comes from the Jews in that the Messiah is from the tribe of Judah, that is, from the Jewish people (Romans 9:5), and as a result (verse 23) the true worshippers will worship properly. There are a few variations regarding the view on the passage of Romans 3:1-2, for example some take the passage to refer to God’s promises to the Jews, others to the promises of salvation through the Messiah which they say is implied by their unbelief in verse 3, but without getting to technical let’s just say
  3. Gone fishing, Let me try to get my head around this, I said that when you see the word “fill” you “automatically apply the Watchtower teaching” and you got offended because you take from that comment that I’m stereo-typing you as a JW, which you are, so that offends you, why? To tell you the truth I can’t see how that would cause you offence, but I will try and remember that you are overly sensitive to when I refer to your interpretive method as characteristic of how the Watchtower teaches. <><
  4. Gone fishing, I only abide by the dictionary definition on how articulate is defined, if you believe it is otherwise then you should write to the dictionaries and take it up with them. Here you go again, Ellicott does not “describe” the Holy Spirit in Gen. 1::2 as “divine operative energy”! To assert, as you do, that “based on what [you] have read” of Ellicott, which would include Gen. 1:2, that Ellicott’s “literary skills of expression” are “both erudite and articulate”, but then to go on to say that where I had differentiated his meaning to your own which you stil
  5. Gone fishing, Dictionaries define “articulate” as the ability to expressing the meaning fluently and coherently, even the Collins English Dictionary you quoted from explains this. “If you describe someone as articulate, you mean that they are able to express their thoughts and ideas easily and well.” (Collins English Dictionary) You said Ellicott is “both erudite and articulate” but then say “I can’t be sure of Ellicott’s meaning”...so I’m sorry to say but the dictionaries are the arbiter on this one. As I said, I base my opinion on my observatio
  6. Cognitionis Sir, if the error “lies with” me, as you accuse, maybe you should ask the person with whom I was in discourse with at the time on whether what Mr. Smith alleges is the correct conclusion, for nowhere do I dispute that “fill” is in the passage of Exodus 31:3 as Mr. Smith contends. Did you not you read what I said? I was responding to what Mr. Smith alleges, what would you have me say, that he was correct in his allegation when he was not? Interestingly how you just joined this forum and then at the same time just jumped in on this conversation...you k
  7. Gone fishing, Your contradiction is a fact, trying to make out that is just my opinion, ignores the dictionary definition. My dear deluded friend, you say one thing and then another, and on top of that you try to deny the meaning of what you said. Like it or not you have contradicted yourself which seems to be a pattern. I don’t say this to offend, it is just an observation of mine (and that definitely is my opinion). <><
  8. Mr. Smith, Do I dispute that “fill” is in the passage of Exodus 31:3? NO! Yet you give the impression that for some reason you think that I did. You are wrong! Please try and read what I say a little more carefully then you might avoid jumping to the wrong conclusion. <><
  9. Gone fishing, Sorry, but it is a contradiction. The contradiction is not whether you “share all his views” or whether you agree or disagree, it is you claiming that his comments are “both erudite and articulate” and then saying “I can’t be sure of Ellicott’s meaning”. The denotation vocabulary related definition for “articulate” in any dictionary, as I have said before, is the ability to express the meaning fluently and coherently; so when you say, “I can’t be sure of Ellicott’s meaning” this is a contradiction to you saying his comments are “both
  10. Gone fishing Sorry, but maybe you just don’t grasp English; to claim that you considered Ellicott’s comments “both erudite and articulate” and then say “I can’t be sure of Ellicott’s meaning” is a contradiction. <><
  11. Gone fishing, Dictionary definition for articulate; “expressed, formulated, or presented with clarity and effectiveness” Another dictionary has, “expressing oneself readily, clearly, and effectively” According to you Ellicott was “both erudite and articulate”, but then came “I can’t be sure of Ellicott’s meaning”. You’re welcome.<><
  12. Gone fishing, I‘d like to remind you, AGAIN, that you accused me of being offensive but you still won’t explain why? Please tell me why you became offended. Your claim was, “I can’t be sure of Ellicott’s meaning”; so this statement then was not factual because now you admit that if the writer is articulate then you do know his/her meaning regardless if you agree or not? If this is the case then he was not articulate in conveying his meaning, so why do you say that he was? Not really, although your response is. Instead of jumping all over
  13. Gone fishing, Let me put this to you again, do you agree that when Jehovah says He can “fill” everything there is (Jer. 23:24), and yet that still would not be enough to contain Him (1 Kings 8:27) is because He is infinite? Or do you still make the assumption that Jehovah’s words in Jer. 23:24 are “figurative”? Is it only the last part of verse 24 that you think is “figurative” or do you think the whole of the verse is ‘figurative”, and what about verse 23 is that “figurative” too? See my above questions. I ‘d like to remind you that you have
  14. Gone fishing, I have always understood your meaning; it’s was your outrageous allegation that was in total variance with the statement that you made where you considered Ellicott’s comments to be “both erudite and articulate”. You accuse me of being offensive but won’t explain why? Please tell me why you became offended. Just another example which depicts the mistake of your claim. He did in verse 3! What about Jehovah’s own words in Jeremiah 23:24? Here is why I say your evidence, in my opinion, is superf
  15. Gone fishing, If that was “no issue” for you why then did you carry on about not know what Ellicott meant? I don’t know why you find my linking what you were asserting about Exodus 31:1-5 to the Watchtower teaching on the use of the word “fill” when it comes to the Holy Spirit. I explained to you the reason I did so, why would that be offensive? Your rejection “that one cannot be filled literally with another person” is based, not on Scripture, but on your opinion. And you explain away the passages that refute your opinion. Here is another Scriptural example; in Ac
  16. Gone fishing, This is the real crux of the issue; you are “delighted” with his “word choice”, which I will remind you, is taken out of context from the way he obviously intended. I’m sorry that you got offended when I mentioned the Watchtowers link to your assertion. I’m just stating how I came to realise what you were claiming…now I am curious to know why that would be offensive. Can you explain? You state that it is your opinion “that one cannot be filled literally with another person” yet we have in Ephesians how our Lord does just that. Maybe you thin
  17. Gone fishing, I went through the passage of Exodus 31:1-5 a number of times, in a number of translations trying to figure how you get the idea that the Holy Spirit in this passage means “operative energy”...then it came to me...when you JW’s see the word “fill” or “filled” you automatically apply the Watchtower teaching found in their publications which claim that because people can be filled with the Holy Spirit, then He can’t be a Person. However the Bible informs us that Jehovah fills “heaven and the earth” Jer. 23:24, and Eph. 4:10 speaks of the Lord Jesus filling
  18. Gone fishing, What can’t you understand? You claimed that Ellicott in his commentary “was both erudite and articulate” in how he expresses his comments, even though you don’t “share” his “opinions”. This is what you said, right? How can you claim to not share his opinion when you now say that there is no way to verify what his opinion was? Ok, I’m sorry, you don’t actually interpret Scripture, how then do you arrive at an idea that lacks any biblical verification... also, you seem to like to quote Scripture, so tell me please why you don't accept what the Scriptures states
  19. Gone fishing, Your welcome, but it’s odd how you said you acknowledge that Ellicott in his commentary “was both erudite and articulate” in how he expresses his comments, but it would seem that that now this is not the case. You must have also interpreted Scripture to arrive at the idea that the Holy Spirit is not a Person; and to which you will accredit this so-called “power in action/active force” as the thing for the “operation in [your] life” this idea is not exegetically possible. <><
  20. Gone fishing, I’m sorry but I totally disagree, to claim that we cannot really know the meaning of anything writing after an author is dead regardless even of the context, is very poor logic. In the three passages you cite, the referent in each is a Person. <><
  21. Gone fishing You are mistaken; we can be “sure”, from the context, exactly what Ellicott meant. I don’t know what you accredit as “operation in [your] life” to mean, but what I do know is that you need biblical verification for that claim to be justifiable. <><
  22. Gone fishing, To quote Ellicott’s commentary and say that you endorse his “excellent choice of words” shows that you somehow want to align his meaning with your own and that plainly is not the case. I will try to remember the next time you quote something to ask you if the authors’ meaning is the same as yours. Surely there must be some biblical verification that supports your view that the “operation in [your] life” is an effect of what you call “power in action/active force” and not something else (1 Thess. 5:21). <><
  23. Gone fishing,  Please try not to be ambiguous when quoting, for some who might be completely naïve and unacquainted with Ellicott, could take what you quote as some sort of endorsement when clearly it is not. You don’t want to be guilty of having someone falsely believe something when it’s not the truth, do you?  I have given you some evidence already demonstrating  that the Holy Spirit is a Person which you just deny without giving a reason, so I’d like to ask on what basis do you arrive at your understanding, or more specifically, what backing do you have for
  24. Gone fishing, Of course you can quote whatever you want to quote; it’s just that the quote from Ellicott’s Commentary come on the heels of where you just said that “passage and context” determines your understanding, then that quote came across as though you were claiming that Ellicott was in some way endorsing the JW idea. So I thought, wow this guy says one thing and then does another, which I stated in my post. The subject matter is related to how the Watchtower wants you to understand the Holy Spirit. They promote the idea of “power in action/active force” which
  25. Gone fishing, It is very misleading to quote three words out of context from Ellicott’s Commentary and then say you find them “appealing” but when put back in context I very much doubt that you really find what is meant “quite appealing”. You had just told me that “passage and context” is something that determines your “understanding” (even though you are referring to biblical situations) but will quote from Ellicott and completely disregard the actual context. Why? I guess the Watchtower wants you to “understand” that the Holy Spirit is some sort of “power in
×
×
  • 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.