Cos

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 the fourth century. Try this simple test, ask one of your JW friends when they say that the Trinity “began”. I noticed the Watchtower broacher on the Trinity was brought up. It is interesting that in that broacher on page seven the Watchtower conveys the idea that "the Trinity was unknown throughout biblical times and several centuries thereafter." (Emphasis mine). That statement implies a fourth century ‘invention” and that statement is incorrect! In fact many things in that Watchtower broacher are incorrect, which, I believe, explains why the Watchtower pulled it from circulation. <><

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 that the reference here is the Old Testament Scriptures which were given to Jews to write and to preserve. You know, I once had a Sabbatarian use Romans 3:1-2 to try to justify the reason for their system of belief revolving around the seventh day Sabbath observance. His argument totally fell apart in the light of the New Testament witness. It seems that you seek to do a similar undertaking by quoting this verse to sure up your stance, yes? I remember an old rhyme that I was taught regarding the two Testaments, and it goes something like this: The New is in the Old Concealed, The Old is in the New Revealed. The New is in the Old Contained, The Old is in the New Explained. You should be able to get where I’m going with this? Anyway, you quote two articles, the first from a Roman Catholic, Lea Sestieri, with whom I have to say I don’t agree, because he makes this comment that in the Old Testament the Holy Spirit “is never presented as a person”. This statement is not quite correct and is disputed by a number of scholars; here also are a few of the many Scriptures which demonstrate otherwise: · 2 Samuel. 23:2, “The {S}pirit of Jehovah spoke through me; His word was on my tongue (NWT emphasis mine); in this verse it is the Holy Spirit who spoke through David to inspire the glorious Psalms which only a self-conscious living Person can do. 1 Kings 22:24, “And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near and struck Micaiah on the cheek, and said, Where did the Spirit of Jehovah pass over from me to speak with you?” Implies dialogue by the fact that Zedekiah had no problem believing that the Spirit spoke to the prophets. Micaiah does not object to this concept, but only to the issue of whether the Spirit had spoken to him or to Zedekiah. In Isaiah 63:10 it clearly shows that the Holy Spirit has emotion; “But they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit”. Only a person can be grieved. E.J. Young comments, “The Spirit is here distinguished as a Person by the fact that He can be grieved.” (Commentary on the Book of Isaiah, Vol. 3, page 482). Nehemiah 9:30 “But many years you had patience with them, and testified against them by your Spirit, by Your prophets. Yet they would not give ear. And you gave them into the hand of the peoples of the lands” Only a person can “testify”. The Hebrew word translated “testified against” means to bear witness, testify, or protest against someone. The word is used of God in Psalms 50:7; 81:8 and also for man in Gen. 43:3; Deut. 8:19 (just to name a few examples). An impersonal force cannot bear witness, testify or protest anything. You also quote from Richard E. Averbeck, who in his study article mentions how the Jews regard the Holy Spirit; note the phrases “Jewish tradition” and the “Jewish view”, and “according to the Rabbis” and with which he does not concurrence. The article by Richard E. Averbeck, I believe, gives a far better account than the one present by Lea Sestieri. In fact I would highly recommend studying Richard E. Averbeck article over the other for detail and clarity. Gone fishing, I’ll be on hiatus for the next few weeks and will not be able to respond to you as my office is being converted into sleeping quarters for my brother-in-law and his wife’s who are coming for a visit, sorry. <><

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. <><

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 still clearly want to align with, that that is when you made the claim that you “can’t be sure of Ellicott’s meaning”. Now regardless of what you were responding to, your claim that Ellicott is “both erudite and articulate” is in clear opposition to your other claim. <><

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 observation, so then if my observation is not correct then so too would be my opinion; therefore the question is whether my observation is correct? Firstly, I have asked that you explain why you accused me of being offensive on one of the posts, but you have repeatedly ignored my request. So, to be fair, if you answer me on this then I will respond to your request, is that a deal? <><

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 know what that looks like? But hey, whatever motive moves you to do what you do is not my concern. <><

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). <><

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. <><

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 erudite and articulate”. No matter how you want to align yourself with some phrase taken out of context and used against the intended meaning of the author, your contradiction is in claiming to not being “sure of Ellicott’s meaning” when also claiming that he is “both erudite and articulate”. You’re welcome. <><

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. <><

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.<><

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 Scripture to try to make out that the last part of Jer.23:24 is figurative, the context should be enough to show that the three rhetorical questions in Jer. 23:23–24 emphasize Jehovah’s presence everywhere because He fills everything. Jehovah’s question in verse 24b, “Do I not fill heaven and earth?” expects a positive answer. How do you respond? Jehovah can and does “fill” everything, and still that is not enough to contain Him (1 Kings 8:27) because God is infinite. <><

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 accuse me of being offensive but won’t explain why? Please tell me why you became offended. Must be, for I have learnt that when a person is articulate it is because they can communicate the meaning clearly. One dictionary has for the word articulate; “expressed, formulated, or presented with clarity and effectiveness” Another dictionary has, “expressing oneself readily, clearly, and effectively” To say that Ellicott was “both erudite and articulate” and then claim as you did, that you cannot know what he meant is saying one thing and then another, sorry but that is what you were doing. Thanks for the links, I have saved them and I will take a look at them as time allows. <><

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 superficial; “poured out” can be used for persons as you acknowledge, as well as non-persons, so this is not a good phrase to base a teaching around. Being “filled” can and is used for persons, but I do understand why you feel the need to dismiss the passages that show this and call them “not literal” and “figurative” as they are detrimental to your whole idea that the Holy Spirit is not a real Person. Without having the context of these quotes I must refrain from speculating on what they said. Maybe you can scan them like you did for your Challoner Bible so that I could peruse the context? <><

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 Acts 5:3 the Devil is said to have “filled” the heart of Ananias to lie to the Holy Spirit (note, for some reason the NWT did not translate this passage properly, check and see and let me know what you think). Typo error...or more likely, eye to hand fail. So are you saying that these two Scriptures are not literal? The reason I ask is because you cite other passages which certainly indicate that they are literal. The way you worded your comment gave the impression that you were referring to 1 Kings 8:27 as figurative, anyway why do you think that Jehovah’s rhetorical questions are figurative in Jer. 23:24? Note in the passage the definiteness of Jehovah’s words. I’m just saying that the phrase “poured out” can be used for persons as well because you were so adamant that this phrase confirmed for you that the Holy Spirit, in your words “is not a literal person”. Please by all means present any further evidence because as I said, so far what you have provided is very superficial. <><

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 think that Eph 1:12 and 4:10 are not literal? If you do, can you show why? I would like to note also that there is no contradiction between Jeremiah 23:24 and 1 Kings 8:27. If you think that Solomon meant his prayer to be understood figuratively that is your opinion, and not one that I share, so please expand on why you say this. What then becomes even more strange is how you later say, “It is a fact that ‘the heaven of the heavens cannot contain’ Jehovah.” First you say that 1 Kings 8:27 “can only be figurative” but then you say “it is a fact”? Do you want to explain why you say one thing and then another? Anyway, please notice the nature of the rhetorical questions that Jehovah is making in Jer. 23: 23-24 which confirms the point I made earlier, real Persons can “fill” everything without that impinging on their personhood. I appreciate you showing how the word “fill” in used differently in diverse contexts, but you then go on to say that “it is not the criteria to judge whether that which fills is a person or not” even though you do conclude on this for the Holy Spirit in Ex. 31:1-5. You move on to Acts 2:17 were it says that the Holy Spirit is “poured out” and that to you shows how the Spirit is not a person. If this were valid evidence then the apostle Paul would not be a person either, because he wrote about himself, “I am being poured out…” (Phil 2:17) and “…I am already being poured out…” (2 Tim 4:6). Your line of reasoning with regard to the Holy Spirit being “poured forth” can hardly be used as proof against the Holy Spirits personality. I hope that you can see this? I can tell that you are an intelligent person, but I have to say that so far your evidence is very superficial, sorry. <><

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 all things. Ephesians 1:23 speaks of the Lord as the one who “fills all in all”. The simple fact that our Lord can fill all things does not mean He is not a Person, does it? God the Father and the Lord Jesus are Person and the Scriptures say that they "fill" everything, then why can not the Holy Spirit have this same ability? Notice also how in Exodus 31:1-5 Jehovah speaks of the Spirit of God as distinct to Himself, you will find that throughout the Scriptures. Nothing in the passage even hints that the Spirit is “power in action/active force” or as you like to coin the phrase “operative energy”, that idea you have to read into the passage. I’m sorry to say but you claim one thing about Ellicott, how you consider his comments “both erudite and articulate” only when it comes down to what he says which you like and want to align yourself with, but when it comes down to the things you don’t like about his “opinions” you say that you can’t understand nor verify his meaning because he is dead and can’t ask him, even though the context of his work is very clear as to what he means. Instead of just taking the little bit you like out of context, to align yourself with, why don’t you read why he say what he does? <><

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 regarding the Holy Spirit? <><

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. <><

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. <><

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. <><

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). <><

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 your understanding that the Holy Spirit is “power in action/active force”? <><

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 JW’s adhere to even though, as we have seen, that idea in Scripture is not exegetically possible. <><

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 action/active force” but not actually use those very words throughout their translation, even though that is what they say is meant; this all comes across as not being very transparent with the translation approach as it does not really convey the “thought” of what they claim is being expressed. <><