Cos

Gone fishing, I’m curious here, when you study the Scriptures and you come to a passage which mentions the Holy Spirit, do you interpreted the JW idea of “power in action/active force” for the Holy Spirit as you read the passage? Let me ask you another little question; why doesn’t the WT change all the passages where the Spirit is mentioned to “active force” as they do in Genesis 1:2? Do you think that maybe if they did then the passages would be illogical and that is why they don’t? Here are a couple of examples: “thus says (active force)” Acts 21:11 “But they themselves rebelled and made his (active force) feel hurt” Isa. 63:10 I utilize a number of Bible versions. At the moment I doing a lot of read from the LEB so according to my Logos software, for the Holy Spirit 94 results, for spirit (in general) 604 results (which would include the 94). But I don’t see what relevance this has.<><

Gone fishing, Your premise is based on an argument from silence. A number of individuals are not “stated” as persons in Scripture, but we know – or at least can tell – that they are persons by certain characteristic that indicate this. Jesus’ account of the Holy Spirit in John’s Gospel (and elsewhere in Scripture) authenticates this. Probable as many times as is mentioned in your version of the Bible. <><

Mr. Harley First you claimed one thing and then another, after that you just dismissed it all as “silly stuff”. I offered to maintain dialogue with you, giving you the opportunity to express why you would say the Scriptures presented to you is “silly stuff”. I did the same with Gone fishing, I tried to keep the dialogue going; because only through continual and meaningful dialogue can a real consensus be reached…think about it. <><

Mr. Harley, Regardless of your attempt to ridicule my offer, which I’m sure others of like mind would find amusing, it still stands, in fact, why don’t you actually find out for yourself or is it possibly that the reason you “shy” away from the matter is because you are unsure of your own beliefs? <><

Gone fishing, Acts 21:11 is exactly what I would expect to find in the Scriptures, whereas others, it would seem, need to make pretext to deny what the verse says. Then allow me tell you about the real Holy Spirit of the Bible, the one who Jesus declared to His disciples, the one who can be blasphemed, the one who loves believers and guides them into all truth…interested? <><

Gone fishing, Denial won’t make this truth go away, the phrase “thus says” is found throughout the Scriptures and is always attributed to actual persons; “Thus says the Holy Spirit” (Acts 21:11). The Holy Spirit is a Person; He is not an impersonal force or power; remember from that simple exercise of substituting your idea in passages where the Holy Spirit is mentioned, how exegetically problematic that is to your whole position. <><

Gone fishing, “Thus says the Holy Spirit” (Acts 21:11), “thus says” is a phrase found throughout the Scriptures and the phrase is always attributed to actual persons. And here is another observation, the fact that in Acts 21:11 this was a prophetic message given to Agabus is sure proof of the foreknowledge of the Person from who the message came. <><

Many places in the Bible the Holy Spirit is said to speak. In Acts 21, Paul is on his way to Jerusalem, but the prophet Agabus bound Paul’s feet and hands with his own belt, saying, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles’” (Acts 21:11). Notice, in this instance that the Spirit is speaking and Agabus is the prophetic messenger. <><

Mr. Harley, If you ever want to know the truth of Scripture (what you refer to as “silly stuff”) I’d be more than happy to engage your queries. <><

Mr. Harley, First you made the comment that the only evidence for supported of the Trinity was 1 John 5:7, but now you say the Scriptural evidence “is laughably small”. First it was only one, now it is a small amount, how much Scriptural evidence is require? What, the twisted “truth” from a magazine!? That would explain why you probably “shy” away from meaningful dialogue as there is no Scriptural truth that comes from that peddled magazine. <><

Some like to blame Trinitarians for all that is wrong in the world. They will ignore the continual rise of false political idealism to blame Trinitarians for wars and such. But this kind of self-righteous attitude does not disprove that God is Triune. <><

Mr. Smith Have you read Gordon Fee’s book “God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul”? Or is it just the cover that you like? Unless you didn’t know Gordon D. Fee is a Trinitarian, in fact throughout his book Gordon makes reference to the personality of the Holy Spirit. On page 827 he says “'Paul expresses his experience of God in a fundamentally Trinitarian way…” and on page 830 he goes on to say that the personhood of the Spirit is confirmed implicitly by the scarcity of impersonal images and in a number of passages where the Spirit is presented as personal subject e.g. searching, knowing, teaching, dwelling, crying out, leading, bearing witness, desiring, interceding, helping, strengthening, grieving. <><

Otto, In the Bible, can spirit also refer to a person? <><

Mr. Harley, What is “flimsy” about Matt. 28:19 please show why you would say that? Please also note that this is not an isolated example. You entered in on a conversation with a comment (which is your prerogative) directed to me but then you don’t like when I comment back. I made an observation and mentioned it, what’s so wrong with that? I could ask why you make that silly comment in the first place? <><

Mr. Smith, I am not, nor have I ever been, a JW; and I certainly do not pretend to be one. Your claim is again incorrect, for no Bible renders the term as you have. In fact the subjective genitive of the sentence is love (αγαπης), “the love OF the Spirit”. Trying to claim as you do that the two phases mean the same is not plausible. <><

Mr. Harley, Or do you mean…you hope?

Mr. Harley Notice that Jesus says in Matt. 28:19, “into the name” the Greek word ὄνομα (onoma) is singular, one name, three Persons! In 2 Cor. 13:14 we have Paul praying a blessing on the Corinthian church, the verse clearly indicates that three Persons are involved (not two persons and a thing), and the fact that the three are called upon together in the benediction shows that they are equal. If 1 John 5:7 were genuine (which it is not) I’m certain you JW’s would make the claim that it means “unity of purpose” as JW’s do when Jesus says He and the Father are one. <><

Mr. Smith, What kind of double talk is that? If you are not a JW then say so, why play charades? I’m doing nothing of the kind! I’ve been straight forward in what I say and have not used any secretive arguments. What a ridiculous thing for you to say. In Romans 15:30, it is not “the spirit of love” but “the love of the Spirit” (της αγαπης του πνευματος), maybe you can show me which Bible you used to extrapolate the rendering “the spirit of love”? Don’t you mean to blaspheme and insult “the empowerment” or “the power in action”? That is what you are saying the meaning is…isn’t it? <><

Mr. Smith, You say the Holy Spirit is Yahweh’s “expression of holiness”, and that this “expression of holiness” as a “separate ‘empowerment’” “was given to Isaiah to receive that that was necessary” (?). Your use of Yahweh instead of Jehovah shows that maybe you are not a JW. Anyway, that is not the issue; how can “an expression of holiness” be given to Isaiah? You carry this idea further by saying, “in Acts 28:25 makes that distinction the “Holy Spirit” becomes separate from YHWH as an action”. Then comes the twist in your reasoning your jump to the assertion that the Holy Spirit is “not the same as a symbolized being” (I do not say this at all) but it is you who said “Yahweh’s Holy Spirit as an expression of holiness it symbolizes the holy spirit as a separate ‘empowerment’”. That to me is circular reasoning and makes no sense, sorry. The solemnity of Paul’s words in Acts 28 is increased by him indicating that it is the Holy Spirit that spoke by Isaiah the prophet (see also Acts 8:29; 13:2; 21:11). I’d like to ask you a couple of questions if you don’t mind; What capacity of the Holy Spirit is indicated in Rom. 15:30? Heb. 10:29 tells of a fearful sin against the Holy Spirit; What is that sin? <><

Gone fishing, Thanks for giving a more details account of your youth. Muslims claim the Bible was altered; their views are more in line with the Arian way of thinking. I once had an atheist ask “how can you say Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are one God?” When I tried to show this from the Bible, his words were “you can’t trust that!” What I’m trying to get at is when someone is devoid of any contact with the Bible, for whatever reason; yes their way of thinking can be tainted. <><

Otto, John 14:16; ἄλλον παράκλητον allos Parakletos Jesus is also referred to as Parakletos in 1 John 2:1. “Another” like Jesus (John 14:16), is that specific enough for you? Maybe that is not enough, then here is more; in Jesus’ discourse in the upstairs room on the coming of the Holy Spirit He compares the Holy Spirit to Himself as a person over and over again. For example; 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.” <><

Mr. Harley, See Matt. 28:19, 2 Cor. 13:14

Otto, Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is like a person’s disposition? If so then the Holy Spirit is the disposition of Jehovah, and not a force because you also go on and say “the power of the spirit is the force”? I’m totally bemused, one JW says this, and another says that. <><

Mr. Harley, No I don’t have a problem, “many”, as defined in some dictionaries refers to a large and considerable number. I doubt, in the context of the conversation, that many (a large and considerable number) practicing Catholics are ignorant of their belief system. <><

Gone fishing, That is quite a broad statement, one that I do not share. I’m a little bewildered here, you have said that you were asking your religious teacher questions which are Arian based, that would have been at a young age pre late teens. And you say also that you didn’t see a complete Bible till you were in your 20’s. Here you say that when you became interested in “non-Trinitarian matters” you were given a Bible with 1 John 5:7 “highlighted” to “dissuade” you “early on”. That must have been when you were in your 20’s or later, right? The reason I ask is because you must have had some prior Arian ideas (leanings) long before your 20’s? On the issue of 1 John 5:7, I once, long ago, studied this gloss, which is considered by scholars to have been a marginal note that found its way into the text , which is easy enough to happen, without any ill intent as some try to claim. People have always made notes in their Bibles just as most people do today. <><