Cos

Otto I’m sorry but this makes no sense, and how can a “force” possess authority? Are the evil spirits you refer to here person? <><

Gone fishing, As I said, my intention is not to cause offence, but you were condescending in your reply simple because you didn’t like what I said. I understand that a lot of people go by an alias here, but others don’t (genuine or not), and I address them respectfully, and for this I am mocked yet I never said anything until your condescending reply which was uncalled for. If you had noticed I did qualify my comments, with a bracketed statement. In the shot time I’ve been on this forum I’ve noticed a lot of people disrespect others, and there is no excuse for that. I am not Roman Catholic, so I cannot speak for their methods or terminologies, what I do know is that their system of belief is quite complex, so it’s not surprising that a “questioning youth” would be hard pressed to grasp what they are going on about. Having said that, there must be some who do grasp their system, after all, there is a lot of practicing Roman Catholics. Maybe you had a teacher who was unsuitable for role, I don’t know. You stated three questions that you say you asked your religious teacher, and where he replied “We do not understand this in human terms”. This to me confirms that he was not suitable because he just dismissed your questions with a nonspecific response. The Bible does supply the answers and does so in reasonable and understandable terms. I don’t get this; you say you had no understanding of Jesus’ teaching about the Holy Spirit, because the problem was due to you not seeing a actual Bible till you were in your 20’s…and that’s when you read Genesis 1:2 so you wanted to know more, but that does not explain why the change in your “understanding of Jesus’ teaching on this matter.” What part of the Bible made you change your understanding which you say you did not? As has been shown in Scripture, (even the Scriptures you cite) dynamei is identified as power in action. So when you couple the JW idea about the Holy Spirit in sentences with dynamei (power in action) it makes the JW concept on the Holy Spirit redundant. <><

Gone fishing, It is not my intention to cause offence for I have always tried to used respect towards everybody – unlike some who will mock my use of the term “mister” when I address someone by addressing me “Mr. Cos” (you included). But, even thought Cos is not my surname, I have said nothing in response to this very demeaning and insulting way that this is done. I understand that a lot of people go by an alias here, but others don’t, and I address them respectfully, for this I am mocked. So please don’t be condescending. I’ve had JW’s use this in trying to dismiss the Trinity. One of my dictionaries has “is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence”. I’ve never heard of a religious teacher opting to use the expression to explain the Trinity. But as I was not present can you tell me how he/she used the expression to answer you? And, by the way, I’d be more than happy to answer any of those questions that you say you asked your religious teacher. Yes you keep saying this, but what factor made you change your “understanding of Jesus’ teaching on this matter”? I agree Jehovah’s power (dynamei) will not “cease”. I was pointing to this mistaken idea you have about the Holy Spirit being “active force” or “power in action”, take for example the words in Acts 10:38 "anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power" when you guys read this then it must go along these lines, "anointing with power in action and power in action". <><

Hi Gone fishing, That’s a shame for it is a very interesting study; nonetheless as the passage in question is as you claim based on “one’s understanding of Scripture” I can’t help but think that it was just another "knee jerk" reaction (for lack of a better term) appealing to that passage in response to me question? Please, Gone fishing, can you show me where in John Gospel when Jesus explains about the coming of the Holy Spirit that makes you now “understand” that Jesus was not referring to a person but instead to a mystical “force” of some kind? This idea of “power in action”, which you identify with “force” is the meanings given for dynamei (or dunamis). A Critical Lexicon and Concordance of the English and Greek Testament states that δύναμις (dynamei) is “not merely power capable of action, but, power in action” Also when you looking up the word δύναμις (dynamei Strong 1411) this word signifies “force”, see Strong’s Dictionary. In fact Paul mostly uses the word δύναμις (dynamei) for divine force in action. (Rom 1:16. 9:22, 1 Cor. 4:20 etc). Abbot-Smith Manual Greek Lexicon of the NT lists among the meanings for δύναμις “of power in action” Thayer’s Greek Lexicon says that δύναμις is also that “which a person or thing exerts and puts forth" Therefore, in Luke 1:35 where it says “power of the Most High” is this “power” (dynamei) in action as it “overshadows Mary? Is action ascribed to “power of the Most High” in Luke 1:35? Either the “power of the Most High” is in action, or it’s not? Also, is dynamei (power) in Acts 10:38, as in Luke 1:35, in action? <><

Gone fishing, Maybe you would like to study Rev. 13:6? I’d be willing to go through this with you in more detail if you like? It is quite amusing how quoting exactly from the Watchtower, on what they say regarding the Holy Spirit, is turned around to be my “selective phrasing” that somehow makes the contradiction. Power is power whether it is in use or not. For example the power stored in a battery (potential) is the same power when the battery is in use. Yes or no? You once told me that you wouldn’t have known of the Holy Spirit “had not Jesus explained the matter” in John’s Gospel and that you are “happy with what he said”. Yet it is quite definite from those passages that Jesus does not explain the Holy Spirit as some kind of power! <><

Gone fishing, I think you are referring to Rev. 13:6? “Blaspheme His name”, implies a mocking of God’s character because the blasphemy is directed at a Person. Also the verse does not mean blaspheme of the “residence” but to those persons that reside there. “And he opened his mouth in blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, that is, those who dwell (Greek skēnoō, tabernacle) in heaven” (Rev. 13:6). And so, my question still stands; how can you blasphemy “a force” or a “field of energy” (Matt. 12:31)? Also Gone fishing, my other question to you is still pending an answer; is there a contradiction when in one place the Watchtower say that the Holy Spirit “is not Jehovah’s ‘power’”, yet elsewhere the Watchtower say that the Holy Spirit “is identified as God’s power”? <><

Mr Rook, You don’t appreciate the warning I gave that’s your prerogative; my question is how can you blasphemy “a force” or a “field of energy”? You know, you go on about “common sense truth” but to date you have not provided any, and your excuse for appealing to a Hollywood film to “bend scripture” to support your agenda does not comprise of “reason” or “logic” and certainly NOT “common sense”! All you have done is use worldly terminologies, applied your misguided reasoning to them and then say that that is common sense, more like circular reasoning. I am willing to discuss any Bible teaching with you, but don’t try to excuse your reading back worldly terminology into Bible words or using Hollywood films as some trustworthy “frames of references” because that claim is just plain ridiculous. One more thing I’d like to point you to Isaiah 6:8-10 and Acts 28:25-29.<><

Mr. Rook, The absurdity of your comments is a farce; you read back into Scriptural words using modern worldly terminology in an effort to try and explicate what you can’t even explain rationally, and then you try to justify that ridiculous nonsense by liken your efforts to Hebrew parallelism. In fact you would do well to learn Scripture instead of relying on a Hollywood musical to support your wacky ideas. Better hope that your ridicule of the Holy Spirit is not considered blasphemy (Matt. 12:31)…good luck with that. <><

Mr. Rook, In John 4:24 God is referred to as “pneuma” using your tunnel vision logic this would mean that God is wind. But let’s apply this “wind” idea into practice using the Scriptures and see if it stand the test; “…baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy [wind].” (Matt. 28:19) “David himself said by the Holy [wind]. (Mark 12:36) “And the [wind] said to Philip, ‘Approach and join this chariot.’” (Acts 8:24) “And while they were serving the Lord and fasting, the Holy [wind] said,…” (Acts 13;2) “For it seemed best to the Holy [wind] and to us to place on you no greater burden except these necessary things” (Acts 15:28) “He who searches the heart knows what is in the mind of the [wind], since the [wind] pleads before God for the saints.” (Romans 8:27) “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy [wind] be with all of you” (2 Cor. 13:13) I could go on, but this should be enough to show the absurdity of your position. It is clear that only someone completely unacquainted with Scripture would constantly apply worldly terminology to try and support a faulty idea! So many differing ideas just to avoid the most obvious. <><

Jehovah’s Witnesses deny that the Holy Spirit is a person and don’t like it when they are shown how their reasoning is wrong. I once had a JW contend that because the noun for “spirit” in the Greek Scriptures is “pneuma” which is neuter so the Spirit is rendered as “it” instead of “he”. Let me point out that in Koine Greek there is no necessary connection between grammatical gender and personal gender so it is simply false to say that since the Greek noun “pneuma” is neuter the Spirit must be an “it.” There abound many lines of evidence in the Bible which prove that the Holy Spirit is a person. For example, Jesus said he would send “another” in His place (John 14:16). The word for another is “allos” in Greek and refers to another just like Jesus. It is therefore logical to conclude from this that the Spirit is a person since Jesus is clearly a person. Further, Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as “Parakletos” which requires that He be a person since the functions of “Parakletos” are personal (Jesus is also referred to as “Parakletos” in 1 john 2:1). <><

Hi JW Insider, I don’t see the connection, just because some JW’s now conclude this about your late president, it’s not correct to group Greber’s practices with what you JWs now believe, remember you said, “Whether this was really "spiritistic" influence from demons is probably about as likely as Woodworth being correct when he thought he was under demonic influence...” I would say you can definitely bank on the fact that it was not your late president in communication with the Watchtower Society after his death, but that’s not to say that something else wasn’t. What you say only confirms that the Watchtower would use any means, no matter what, to promote an idea or theory irrespective of where or who it comes from…that’s not very good stewardship. It is also plausible that they still continue in this manner. There still is the problem with this idea that the Watchtower “lost sight of” the fact about Greber’s occult practices. It seem unimaginable that the then president and the rest of the governing body ALL totally miss this…don’t they even read their own magazine aren’t they supposed to have their fingers on the pulse as is claimed about what’s being put into the magazine and books publish by the Watchtower? You admit to have been privy to a lot of the goings on at Watchtower H.Q. which the average JW would not be aware of, my question is, do you just accept all those things? <><

Mr. Rook, The only “advantage” you may think you have is a figment of your imagination! <><

Hello JW Insider, It is good to speak with you again. At least someone else can see the absurdity of Mr. Ewing’s claim, however, the other JW’s here are not going to like that from you, even Mr. Ewing when speaking of you as an “ex-bethelite” does so with such venom in his tone. I must thank you for a very detailed description of some of the “goings on” in WT H.Q., some of which I have heard about before. Over the many years that the Watchtower quoted Greber for support does constitute a “steady relationship”, there was no other way for me to say it. Also, I can understand, due to your obvious background, how you would think that I exaggerated by using the words “how often”, it’s just a way of saying more than once. Greber mentions that the ‘spirits’ directed him to alter what they said were “many erroneous doctrines that had subsequently crept into the Christian faith” and it was these that he changed under the their guidance. I get the impression that you do not think that the occult is an actual phenomenon? Through my study of the Bible I am convinced that the occult world of demons is quite real and that their continual evil influence should not be dismissed as a “maybe”. There is a problem here. If you are going to quote, and use as support someone else, wouldn’t the credentials of that person be looked into? Or is that something that the writers neglect to do? Surely someone in the writing department was paying attention to what was mentioned in 1956…? And then, what about the proof readers whose job it is to make sure that what goes to printed is acceptable…? I notice that you make some further interesting comments in other posts that I’d like to discuss with you some other time, I’ll have to end this post here as I have other pressing matters that I need to attend to for now. <><

Mr. Rook, To say that I ‘lied” using bold lettering is the same as calling me a liar, or has that type of labeling changed? You do this all the time, I say something which you don’t like and then you accuse me of dishonesty. If what I say to you is “foggy” have you ever thought that maybe it’s you that has “blinkers” on causing you jump to false conclusions? <><

Mr. Ewing, Â I really donÂ’t know what it is you are talking about for you make no sense. My guess is you are irritate because you donÂ’t like it when someone questions your wild ideas and by pointing out the absurdity of them. <><

Mr. Rook, You have already falsely accused me of dishonesty when you doubted that the Watchtower appealed to an occultist for support on their renderings until I showed the proof, but then, to hide your ignominy, you made a most outrageous comment, which I very much doubted, but hey that’s what you needed to do to avoid the implication of the Watchtower Society’s association with an occultist. Now you again falsely accuse me of lying. There is no way that I can verify to your satisfaction that I spoke with this person no matter what I say as you have already made your mind up. One thing, don’t you think that if I lied I would have said something more along the lines like “Yeah, we discussed all about anarthrous predicate nouns …blah blah blah.” But no, none of that was discussed, he told me how he understood the verse and that was all. <><

Mr. Ewing, At least I acknowledge to Mr. Rook my reason and apologized…you on the other hand make excuses and change the allegation to “I was only referring to the ‘mental’ state”. Wow I would have to be a mind reader to have known that that was what you meant, since you specifically said “you or your alter ego Shiwiii”. Google and others, according to you, are in cahoots with “publisher’s” (who are these “publisher’s” you refer to, and who you claim “get the results they wish”?). Now if that were even true, and it’s not, then they could have programmed translate to do both, that is with, and without the period, wow maybe these “publishers” never thought of that! That by the way is me being sarcastic to the claims you make. And you know why this wild theory of yours fails? Because of those of us who have taken the time to learn Latin, maybe that is something you should do. And you not bias? By the way, I do not adhere to “oneness” theology. So you got that wrong as well! As I showed the Sahidic indefinite article is used with nouns. When translated to English this article is not required. You JW’s want to ignore the linguistic of the Coptic so that it fits in with your erroneous rendering, that’s not “sound judgment” now is it? Why didn’t I bring up the Coptic version, because there is no problem with it, only the wild misconception some have! The rest of what you say is a mix of disjointed sentences which would require me to use my powers of mind reading to know what you even mean, the only bit that is a bit coherent is the quotes you use at the end which mean absolutely zilch! <><

Mr. Rook, Originally when you said “native Greek educated person” there was no mention of a “qualifying criteria”. He told me how he understood the verse when he reads it, which is exactly the way I do. <><

Mr. Rook, There is nothing wrong in gauging a person perspective. I remember that you at the start of this thread put forward your own quite readily. <><

Mr. Ewing, You accusation that in some way Shiwiii and I are the same person just proves to me how irrational your judgments are. To date all the things you say are fake and that’s not a mockery, it’s the plain truth! Let me ask you, for what reason do you think I lack “understanding of the Greek Language” are you just making up another false accusation to accommodate with your previous claims? And it would only have been a matter of time till one of you JW’s brought up the Coptic version of John’s Gospel, mistakenly thinking that that this ancient version support’s the JW’s rendering. My interest in this version was initiated when I was first shown the November 2008 Watchtower article “Was the Word ‘God’ or ‘a god’”, where the Watchtower appeals to the rendering in this version of John 1:1 as support of their own rendering. So I started by looking at “The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect” by George Horner, and what I found did not support the Watchtower’s claim. Now the problem is you JW’s narrowly look at John 1:1 and automatically think “aha proof”, while ignoring everything else. What was interesting is that George Horner explains in his critical apparatus for his translation that, “Square brackets imply words used by the Coptic and not required by the English, while curved brackets supply words which are necessary to the English idiom.” Horner translates John 1.1c into English as follows: “. . . and [a] God was the Word.” Unlike English, the Sahidic indefinite article is used with nouns (e.g., water, bread, meat, truth, love, hate). Examples of these can be seen from where the Greek has no article but the Coptic does. “because out of fullness we all of us took [a] life and [a] grace…” (Coptic version John 1:16) “…I am baptizing you in [a] water’’ (Coptic version John 1:26) “That which was begotton out of flesh is [a] flesh…” (Coptic version John 3:5) “…ye say that ye have [a] life for ever in them…” (Coptic version John 5:39) “. . . and immediately came out [a] blood and [a] water.” (Coptic version John 19:34) Many more examples can be cited but this should be sufficient to make my point. None of the words in brackets are necessary in English but are still noted by Horner’s translation. The claims made by the Watchtower and by others who follow their teaching are unfounded and deceptive. <><

Mr. Rook, It has been my experience on this forum that you usually jump in with some pun and/or comment/insult immediately after I have mention something you don’t like. If you did not agree with J.R. Ewing’s bizarre and outrageous allegation then I apologize. As a side note I have asked a native Greek speaking person the question about John 1:1 to see if their understanding on the verse is in line with my study of Koine Greek, what do you think the outcome was...? <><

Mr. Ewing, You like to accuse a lot of people on nothing but your own misguided assumptions. What a load of rubbish, go learn Latin before you make absurd claims! Answer me this, is the Father a divine person? Of course He is! If you can say that the Father is a divine person without that demising His deity, then your employ of Edward Harwood translation is totally void. <><

How dare J.R. Ewing bring Latin into this, oh yes, it was OK then because you JW’s erroneously agreed with him…<><

Gone fishing Why is it that every time the truth is mentioned you JW’s get all defensive and evasive? I’m sorry but it amuses me how you said, when I asked you to explain your idea on the Holy Spirit, you alleged that you didn’t have one, and in so doing, brushed my question aside. But that seems to have all changed. Now it appears that you are “towing the party line” so to speak. That aside, all I’d like to know is, are you asserting that there is no contradiction when in one place the Watchtower say that the Holy Spirit “is not Jehovah’s ‘power’”, yet elsewhere they say that the Holy Spirit “is identified as God’s power”? <><

Hi Shiwiii These sites are in Latin. http://www.maxmet.com/vulgate/Ioannem.html And of course the place where Latin is still used as a language, http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-ioannem_lt.html Hope this aids you with what you seek. <><