Cos

14 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Whatever you can tell me about Holy Spirit that is stated in the Bible, I can read for myself. Therefore I do not require your statement to reveal it (or mine) as it is already there, apparent for all to see. However, your assertion that the Holy Spirit is a person is not apparent to me from the Bible. I cannot read it there. I have only your statement that it is so.

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

14 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

So, I will partially rephrase. How many times are the terms "Holy Spirit"  and "spirit" mentioned in the bible you use?

Interestingly, which version do you prefer to use?

 

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.<><

21 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

It would seem that the only thing you can actually tell me that is not actually stated in the Bible is that is that the Holy Spirit is a person.

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.

21 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

How many times is the term "Holy Spirit" mentioned in the bible you use?

Probable as many times as is mentioned in your version of the Bible. <><

21 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Mr. Cos,

If you ever want to know the truth of everything, I'd be more than happy to share some of my boundless knowledge with you as my precious time permits.

I mean, c'mon! There is such a thing as modesty

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. <><

22 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

This fellow knows a lot! I know because he says he does!

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? <><

18 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Must be wrong because Acts 21:11 is an exception.

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.

18 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Well then, your Holy Spirit is not the same as my holy spirit.

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? <><  

14 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Can't be.

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. <><

19 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

As do the heavens. This is an observation, and is only a proof of what the Bible "says". Nothing more.

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. <><

On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 10:12 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

I was being charitable and allowing the silly stuff you brought up to be included as 'evidence.'

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. <><

12 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

We have already covered the scriptural evidence of a triune God and it is laughably small.

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?

12 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

you find someone else who has also received truth by revelation and it differs from yours.

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. <><

18 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Yes! Isn’t it, it can be frustrating with people that actually know scripture, not just quote it. With all the intelligence here, I have yet to feel “The love of the spirit” with the consensus on “one” simple word, Pneumatology?

 

 

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. <><

22 hours ago, Otto said:

you state...

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"(?)

No the Holy spirit is an ACTIVE dynamic force...power is what the holy spirit gives...holy spirit gives power to accomplish a task.

Ruach means wind or breath in hebrew...that is moving air or force with no visible component.

Wind not moving is air....so the word spirit gives the idea of force moving to give power...people became empowered by spirit.

 

Also spirit can be a mental disposition...like a spirit of love or spirit of fear

Otto,

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

22 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Pretty flimsy 'evidence' upon which to rest one's central doctrine, imo.

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.

22 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Why anyone would debate at length with someone ambiguous is beyond me.

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? <><

11 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Are you a JW?

Mr. Smith,

I am not, nor have I ever been, a JW; and I certainly do not pretend to be one.

11 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

 

 

1.       The spirit of Love

2.       The love of the spirit

 It means the same thing.

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. <><

22 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Sooo....you are trying to figure out Mr. Smith, are you? Good luck on that! He is our secret weapon - I think.

Mr. Harley,

Or do you mean…you hope?

22 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

So. Every time a collection of three is mentioned, we are to infer that they are equal? I think not.

The statement remains: "Imagine: The only direct mention of a Trinity [the 1 John 5:7 insert] is either fraudulent or inept." 

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. <><

5 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

First things first. There are people calling themselves “witnesses” and then, there are witnesses. It’s up to those that enter this forum to decide.

Mr. Smith,

What kind of double talk is that? If you are not a JW then say so, why play charades?

5 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

You are simply using a clandestine word argument to appeal to it.

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.

5 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

That would depend on how you are referring to “the spirit of love”

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”?

5 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

 blaspheme against God’s Holy Spirit. Mark 3:28, 29 Matthew 12:31

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? <><

18 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

COS:

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.

 

Then, this would be a reason for “Paul” to press upon the fulfillment of Isaiah. However, the confusion lies with the knowledge of “Yahweh’s Holy Spirit as an expression of holiness. it symbolizes the holy spirit as a separate “empowerment”, of which was given to Isaiah to receive that that was necessary.

Then, in Acts 28:25 makes that distinction the “Holy Spirit” becomes separate from YHWH as an action, NOT the same as a symbolized being. Therefore, it would contradict that expression of the father, the son, and the holy spirit as being one, Sorry!!!

Since YHWH is one in himself, Jesus is one in himself, and the Holy Spirit is the essence of God’s active force (power), then it all becomes separate, not one singular being. And since the “phrase” Holy Spirit has many connotations of its “empowerment”, it then becomes a non-issue as to the expression.

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? <><

10 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

So are you saying it is possible to have Arian ideas(leanings) without having heard of Arius or his ideas? 

 

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. <><

16 hours ago, Otto said:

so you need to be more specific...

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.” <><

17 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Imagine: The only direct mention of a Trinity is either fraudulent or inept.

Mr. Harley,

See Matt. 28:19,  2 Cor. 13:14

18 hours ago, Otto said:

They are called evil due to their intent...but they are spirit persons..as in breath wind etc...that is you don't see them but you you can see the effects they have....your next comment will be then if they are persons then so is the Holy spirit...matthew 4.3 the poor in SPIRIT..thats pneuma also...but not a person..

Matthew 26.41 the spirit is willing...thats not a person

 

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. <><

20 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

You would challenge that? Do you know what a broad statement is?

"All practicing Roman Catholics do not grasp their systems" would be a broad statement. But "many?" You have a problem with that? Would you concede that some do not understand their systems? 

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. <><

17 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Many "practicing "Roman Catholics (and other religious adherents for that matter) do not grasp their systems.

Gone fishing,

That is quite a broad statement, one that I do not share.

17 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

 

 

This verse was quoted to me early on in an attempt to dissuade me in my interest in non-Trinitarian matters. I still have the highlighted NT that was given to me at the time. 

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. <><