Cos

silly Cos, that verse says the following: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
This verse speaks of the  making disciples in the name of the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit, there is no indication of the Holy Spirit being a person here (and it does not address the question at hand), I said this to you before and in a thread that is solely about this verse and I stated the following via source (FACTThe Scriptural facts show us that Trinitarians are not only disregarding the immediate context, they are imagining their doctrine into the text. Again, cross-references to this verse defeats your claim dead in its tracks. And you seem to somewhat contradict yourself here vs there in this link.
 
We know God is a person, we know Jesus is a person, both of them literal, even Jesus speaks of his Father as a person who has a place of dwelling. The question regarding the Holy Spirit is all on you, since you claim that the Holy Spirit is a Person and God, literally.
Look at the question, read it and bring forth a verse that pertains to the question.
Show me anywhere in the Greek New Testament (regardless of translation) where the Holy Spirit is recognized as God/a Being/a Person let alone being co-equal with the Father and the Son? Perhaps this so called person's throne as well? You calm the Holy Spirit to be God or a literal being/person, so you must also address - if the Holy Spirit is God, as you claim, why is it the Spirit is ignorant of the day and hour? Granted Jesus himself stated no one knows the day or hour expect the Father in Mark 13:32. Do not use neutered modifiers and what HS is described as because you did this several times already - and failed. You have to point out a clear verse that the Spirit is a Person/Being/God.
At the end of the day, it is one thing to speak ill of a scripture or a passage, but of the Holy Spirit, a correction is demanded.
EDIT: it has come to the conclusion that you cannot prove this by any means, and the fact that the link to thread also furthers my point.
Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not a person, the only people who claim the Holy Spirit is a Person are those who believe in a Triune God, and them alone, yet they cannot prove anything whereas John 14 and 16 being the basis to why the Holy Spirit, a neutered form is modified, as some who do not know their Greek will try to justify this is prove, when Greek Gender forms says otherwise.

Matt. 28:19

Even the U.S. Battleship "Missouri" has a name, and even an affectionate nickname "The Mighty Mo", but is referred to as a "she".
She sat in Tokyo Bay in 1945 and accepted the surrender of the Japanese Empire.
The above single sentence is so complex, yet in common usage as stated, that it disproves your last post in every way possible.

The quote referenced above reads: "In the Bible, God’s holy spirit is identified as God’s power in action. Hence, an accurate translation of the Bible’s Hebrew text refers to God’s spirit as “God’s active force.” (Genesis 1:2) This concept is well supported throughout the Bible.—Micah 3:8; Luke 1:35;Acts 10:38."
Unfortunately, the inadequate and  bludgeoning reference to this quote in the opening remarks of the argument above displays a level of competency that calls into question the entire succeeding discussion. To enter into debate on the matters raised on the basis of the level of spiritual comprehension displayed in this opening gambit would be akin to a surgeon discussing the finer points of a heart transplant procedure with a meat butcher who prefers using a meat cleaver to a scalpel.

Thank you Space Merchant for doing the "heavy lifting" for me ... AND EVERYBODY ELSE !
I have in recent years lost the patience and discipline, and motivation to do it, but still appreciate the TRUTH, expertly proved.
By the way,  as a Space Merchant, any idea where I could buy six metric tons of the powdered orange flavored drink mix TANG ?
( ...arcane joke from the 60's NASA Space Program ... but I like it overly much ...)

Actually, I studied this a LONG time ago, but didn't care much... King James of England  (..who had the power of arbitrary life and death...) guided the translators, and it was assumed the King knew everything (by those who never saw him drunk ...), so when the translators came up to him they asked all kinds of questions .... and he replied giving them "New Light" ( Remember... at his coronation he was said to be chosen by God to rule England...), about spirits, ghosts, demons, the divine right of kings, and other political subjects, and they asked him what a particular word meant ... and what was really a kind of water buffalo or something like that (I forget...) King James  advised the translators , in his "divinely inspired wisdom" that the word in question was "Unicorn".
I am a Barbarian with a chain-saw theology, but JW Insider can probably give you a better answer, as his theology is "scalpel based".
Where the rubber meets the road is the fact that in the English KJV, the Unicorn shows up NINE TIMES.
That is why when you read ANY Bible ... you have to test everything to see if it makes common sense ... because Bible Translation is an ART.  It is NOT an exact science, especially when translating idiomatic expressions from one language to another, as different languages have completely different patterns of ideas, and ways of expressing things.
Translation is an ART ... and being good at it is a very rare skill in a world full of pretenders who THINK they know how to do it well ... and get paid very well to do it very poorly.
If you already BELIEVE the "Holy Ghost" is a person, or God is a Trinity ... when you read to translate ... THAT IS WHAT YOU WILL SEE.  
THIS IS HOW GREAT ERROR BECOMES THE NORM FOR ALL SUBSEQUENT READERS.
You MUST base your theology on plain old every day common sense, using what you know is actually real for patterns and examples ... not playing with millions of words.
.
 

Folks,

 

The Scriptures show that Jesus claimed other prerogatives of God as well. Jesus even made direct claims. We note, in examining the Gospels, that the claims become more explicit in the latter stages of His ministry. In the beginning He allowed the people to draw inferences about Him from the power of His moral teaching and His miracles. In the later portions, however, the focus is much more upon Himself.

 

In Matthew 25:31-46 He speaks of judging the world. He will sit on His glorious throne and divide the sheep from the goats. The power of judging the spiritual condition and assigning the eternal destiny of all people belongs to Him.

 

Certainly this is something which only God can exercise.

 

The authority which Jesus claimed and exercised is also clearly seen with respect to the Sabbath.

 

The sacredness of the Sabbath had been established by God (Exod. 20:8-11). Only God could abrogate or modify this regulation. Yet consider what happened when Jesus’ disciples picked heads of grain on the Sabbath, and the Pharisees objected that the Sabbath regulations (at least their version of them) were being violated.

 

Jesus responded by pointing out that David had violated one of the laws by eating of the bread reserved for the priests. Then, turning directly to the situation at hand, Jesus asserted: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath; so the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27-28). He was clearly claiming the right to redefine the status of the Sabbath, a right which belongs only to God. <><

One of the most striking features of the teachings of Jesus is that He was constantly talking about Himself. And to enter into the Kingdom depends on how we respond to Him personally; He even called the Kingdom of God “my Kingdom”.

 

This self teaching of Jesus is one of the first things that set Jesus apart from the other religious teachers of the world. Jesus points people to Himself saying “I am the truth; follow me” No other founder of the world religions would dare say such a thing and expect to be taken seriously.

 

The personal pronouns that Jesus uses force us to pay attention.

 

"I am the bread of life…” (John 6:35)

 

"I am the light of the world…" (John 8:12)

 

"I am the resurrection and the life…”  (John 11:25)

 

The great question on Jesus’ teachings about Himself leads to Him asking, “Who do you say that I am?” (Matt. 16:15).

 

Jesus had such a strong opinion of Himself, it is not surprise that he should call people to Himself, “Come to me” and “Follow me”.

 

Jesus offered Himself as someone in whom His contemporaries should put their faith in and to whom they should offer their love to. People are to believe in God – Jesus urged them that to have eternal life people are to believe in Him (John 3:36).

 

So when we look at the biblical evidence for the true Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ one cannot help noticing Jesus’ own self-consciousness witness of Himself, in other words, His self-understanding…what did Jesus think and believe about Himself?

 

Let’s have a look at what Jesus says about Himself and whether what He says reflects a consciousness of being Deity?

 

Keep in mind that what follows is NOT an exhaustive study, but just a brief expose of the topic.

 

In Mark 2:5-10 we read: “When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven.’ Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, ‘Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?’  Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, ‘Why are you thinking these things?  Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'?  But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins....’"

 

When the paralytic was lowered through the roof by his four friends, Jesus did not respond with a comment about the man’s physical condition or his need of healing. Rather, his initial comment was, “your sins are forgiven”. The reaction of the scribes indicates the meaning they attached to his words: "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

 

What we have is a strong statement of divine authority, and the context shows that it was a blasphemous assertion IF HE WAS NOT GOD! Notice that He does not answer their charges with a "Hold on now! I am not claiming to be God! I am claiming something less!"--not at all!

 

The reaction of the Jews shows that they interpreted Jesus’ words that He was exercising the prerogative that belong to God alone (see Isa, 43:25). Here was an excellent opportunity for Jesus to correct the scribes if they had misunderstood the significance of His words. Note that He did not. In fact His response is highly enlightening for He goes on to claims that He has that prerogative of God, notice also how Jesus knew their thoughts; only God can know the thoughts of men (Acts 15:8; 2 Chron. 6:29; 1 Kings 8:38). More can be said but I’ll leave that for another time. <><
 
 
 
 
 

Mr. Rook,

 

I doubt that because your argument coupled with your "common sense” shows that you are ignorant of the Scriptures, and proves that you just follow the false, man made ideas of a magazine, this is brought out by juxtaposing your silly argument on how the KJV translates!
 
Prove that you read your Bible by providing me with Scriptural evidence for your idea that the Holy Spirit is some sort of power/force, if you can't, then that shows you are NOT reading the Bible but relying on man made teachings. <>< 

So ... what is the Holy Spirit's personal name?
Jehovah God has a name and title .... Jehovah the Almighty God.
Jesus has a name and title ... Jesus the Christ
Holy Spirit is a title.
What is the Holy Spirit's personal name?
Casper?
 

For James Thomas Rook, Jr.:
More on quote-mining:
In 1978 evolutionary zoologist Richard Lewontin wrote a Scientific American article "Adaptation" ( https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwju752x5vHYAhVC-mMKHbJhBG0QFggpMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdynamics.org%2F~altenber%2FLIBRARY%2FREPRINTS%2FLewontin_Adaptation.1978.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2ZNdeinrKEjSk8hpWf9RcZ ). On the first page he wrote:
<< The manifest fit between organisms and their environment is a major outcome of evolution. . .
The theory about the history of life that is now generally accepted, the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection, is meant to explain two different aspects of the appearance of the living world: diversity and fitness. . . By the time Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859 it was widely (if not universally) held that species had evolved from one another, but no plausible mechanism for such evolution had been proposed. Darwin's solution to the problem was that small heritable variations among individuals within a species become the basis of large differences between species. . .
Life forms are more than simply multiple and diverse, however. Organisms fit remarkably well into the external world in which they live. They have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed to enable each organism to appropriate the world around it for its own life.
It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment, much more than the great diversity of forms, that was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer. Darwin realized that if a naturalistic theory of evolution was to be successful, it would have to explain the apparent perfection of organisms and not simply their variation. . .
These "organs of extreme perfection" were only the most extreme case of a more general phenomenon: adaptation. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection was meant to solve both the problem of the origin of diversity and the problem of the origin of adaptation at one stroke. Perfect organs were a difficulty of the theory not in that natural selection could not account for them but rather in that they were its most rigorous test, since on the face of it they seemed the best intuitive demonstration that a divine artificer was at work. >>
A couple of years later the young-earth creationist author Gary Parker wrote an article in a creationist publication where he referenced Lewontin's Scientific American article:
<< As Harvard's Richard Lewontin recently summarized it, organisms ". . . appear to have been carefully and artfully designed." He calls the "perfection of organisms" both a challenge to Darwinism and, on a more positive note, "the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer." >>
My question is: Did Parker fairly quote Lewontin, or did he quote-mine Lewontin?
Please explain your answer.
AlanF

James Thomas Rook Jr. said:
 
 
Exactly.
You got it.
You'll note that nowhere in my original post did I state that JWs accept evolution. Rather, I asked leading questions that IMPLIED that something that is false is true. I also used the phrase "frank admissions" to describe the misquotes. Guess who I'm imitating here?
I think it has real pedagogical value. At least, it does for honest people.
Your above three points are very good, and your post shows proper righteous indignation at what appears to be blatant misrepresentation.
Exactly.
RationalWiki describes quote-mining ( https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining ):
<< Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize. It's a way of lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists in an attempt to discredit evolution.
Quote mining is an informal fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity, in that it removes context that is necessary to understand the mined quote. >>
Now I'd like you to comment on this claim:
<< . . . as long as you quote or cite the source then if you find a comment that supports your argument even though the author of that reference may have an entirely different viewpoint then it is a legitimate academic practice to use that point accordingly. It is fair game as long as you cite or reference the source . . . >>
I think you'll appreciate this: With the help of my wife I posted the same stuff on Simon Green's board:
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5959384749309952/do-jehovahs-witnesses-accept-evolution
What do you think of the responses?
AlanF

Of course the watchtower believes in evolution, their doctrines are constantly changing into something else. Their latest evolution produced a scary 2 headed elephant looking thing called the overlapping generations.

AlanF:
You are now doing what you in earlier posts on evolution castigated, and for which I just gave you an "upvote" ... quote mining.
I hope the REAL purpose of your post is to teach the fallacy of quote mining as representing truth ... and NOT asserting the quotes you gave as being truth.
If that is true, then your post has real value ... otherwise ... on the face of it ( using the criteria I posted above...) ... it was designed to deceive.
Quote miners shovel through tons of gold bearing earth, to find crap.

But the earth IS flat! The Bible says so, and here's one of thousands of YouTube videos that prove it:
http://www.flatearthclues.com/video_listing/flat-earth-proof-by-jeranism/
As for these quotes, they simply repeat what the Watch Tower stated. So they are correct.
AlanF

Fair enough?

I tell you what AlanF, since you have done THAT much research, it is clear one of two, possibly three  things:
1.) You are onto something, and we have all missed it, or
2.) You are deliberately lying, and making this stuff up completely out of context, which means you are dishonest, evil, and can be completely disregarded, or
3.) some third scenario that is worse than number two, that I have not discerned.
Since you have ALREADY done the research, why not, for a change,  give some credibility to your posting by showing the full quote in context.
By that I mean several paragraphs BEFORE the listed quote, and several paragraphs AFTER the listed quote.
Further, instead of shorthand, spell out "Watchtower and Awake, etc. in your citations.
I for one, would certainly entertain anything you have to say, if it does not on the face of it the same appearance of the factual statements that Chancellor Hitler was a vegetarian, a dog lover, and loved his mother, and niece, and made his nation into an industrial powerhouse.....which taken out of context makes him appear a fine person.
AS it stands, what you say MAY be true, in context, but the probability is approximately the same  with what you have posted so far, as the probability that the Earth is flat, which without PROOF, can be instantly dismissed without any further investigation whatsoever.

Do Jehovah's Witnesses Accept Evolution?
Some people claim that JWs reject the Theory of Evolution in favor of the Bible's creation account in Genesis.
But is that really true?
Note these frank admissions in Watch Tower publications:
"Scientists have proved evolution to be true." -- Answers to 10 Questions Young People Ask (2016) p. 27
"Evolution is a fact." -- Answers to 10 Questions Young People Ask Work, Volume 2 (2016) p. 27; W13 10/15 p. 11; “Bearing Thorough Witness” About God’s Kingdom (2009) p. 141; G 9/06 p. 22; W04 10/1 p. 10; g90 1/22 pp. 8-10; g87 7/22 p. 10; Life - How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? (1985) pp. 26, 180, 181; G74 9/22 p. 26
"Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun." -- G 9/06 p. 13; Was Life Created? (2010) p. 18
"Evolution is as much a fact as the existence of gravity." -- Life - How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? (1985) p. 181
"Evolution is a fact; God is a myth." G90 1/22 p.11
"Evolution is a fact. It no longer needs to be proved. No competent scientist doubts it. All educated people believe it. Only the ignorant reject it." G87 1/22 p. 10
"There’s no question that evolution is a fact. We see examples of it every day. No responsible person questions it. It’s as much a fact as gravity and atoms!" -- G74 9/22 p. 17
"The Bible is a myth" and "evolution is true". -- W75 7/15 p. 443; W71 1/15 p. 48; G70 4/22 p. 3
"The theory of evolution is true". -- The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking (2010) p. 9
AlanF

How is this not equivalent to passing the plate?  
Why would there be a need for an ATM, or many,  at an event like this? There is no food to be purchased or items to buy that I am aware of. 

They started out with a $3,500 carry-over but by the end of the day they were short $25,000. The speaker eloquently beseeched the audience to go the ATM machines and give their generous contribution or at least their widow's mite. After the sessions were over, our friend who attended walked from one end of the assembly hall and then to the other end and noticed long lines up to both machines with people who couldn't wait to run up their credit cards. Later in the car, even his hard-core JW wife mentioned that she wondered how it cost that much for a one-day assembly in a building that was fully paid for.
I'm guessing maybe a paedophile lawsuit happened during the interval.
 

It is sometimes interesting how some sincere witnesses will disagree with the men they follow.

I have made an article explaining how to do a biblical search and I did not insult or offend anyone.
You have started to say that I am an apostate, a deceiver, one who wants to put "confusion", a false prophet, deceptive etc. etc.
All right.
This shows how deep your knowledge of the Bible and how deep is your love for God - Matthew 5:11; 12:36, 37;
I'm also used to this and I expect a lot more for the future - John 16: 1, 2
P.S. But was not I the presumptuous? Are not you that you understand everything?

Dear AllenSmith,
you will surely have noticed that I use the translator (with many errors) because my english is poor.
So if I misunderstand a question or the purpose of a question, you will understand the reason.
Regarding the meaning of the article, I speak of personal experience (and not presumption). I know very well that with many of my brothers, who have many good qualities, you can not talk about doctrines, you can not challenge an "official truth" because otherwise you are automatically a murmur or apostate.
It's not a novelty that we can not recapture a doctrine so we're not talking about science fiction.
Continue to apply the scriptures to whomever you want. It is not my problem. You will not be judging

Dear AllenSmith,
If you want to push me to say "The Governing Body" then say "Then you are an apostate!" I assure you that this is not the point.
If I follow any person who has authority (true or supposed) above the Bible, then I am an idolater - Matthew 23: 8
If, on the other hand, there is someone who is able to enter the subject without taking a political position, let's see what the article is about to be published.
The article has highlighted the correct (right, right) method of doing a biblical search.
Who has the authority to determine whether a doctrine is correct or wrong?
Only the Bible - Matthew 4: 4, 7; John 17:17
The Son of God, every time he taught or responded to his adversaries, never forgot his own wisdom, but always mentioned the Scriptures - Matthew 15: 3-9
How can we make the Bible, and only the Bible, speak when we need to understand a doctrine or teaching?
We have to search the subject in all the scriptures that speak (and also read the context, obviously).
To do this, Concordance is very useful (as seen in the picture).
By doing this you will find that some doctrines are correct and some are wrong.
Those who really love the Bible will respect the Bible.
Those who love their religion, more than the Bible, will pretend nothing and find all "justifications" to continue in error.
Is the article intended to be a rebellion to religion or to create another religion?
Absolutely not because this is the people of God.
However, although this is the people of God this does not mean that there are both doctrinal and organizational errors.
If we read the warnings to the congregations reported in Revelation, we see that false teachings and bad people can enter into the people of God - Revelation 2: 1, 8, 12, 18; 3: 1, 7, 14 (see also 2 Timothy 2: 20-22)
He who examines the congregations will put things into place (even with severe discipline) so we look forward to him, without creating divisions.
But this does not mean that we do not have to study the Bible personally.
It does not mean that we do not have to understand what the Bible really teaches (though we find that some things taught are wrong) and does not mean that we do not have to act according to knowledge acquired according to conscience.
Studying the Bible is a duty of every Christian.
So, for some who understood the article, the encouragement is to study the Bible with the only truly neutral and accurate help: the Bible itself.
When the discipline comes (and it will come) no one thinks to say "I could not know. I was so taught in this way" because judgment will be individual on each of us.
Each of us has a Bible and has the ability to understand it, asking for help from God.
The reaction that someone has been commenting on this article should make us realize that some of us have become idolatrous.
Someone has put their own religion above the Word of God.
When it is not possible to discuss a doctrine (or anything else) even in the face of biblical evidence, it is evident that some people have been placed above the Word of God - Matthew 15: 6
This is one of the reasons (not the only one) for which God will punish his own people.
Individually, though, each of us can be protected from calamity.
I hope that each of you can evaluate this article carefully and personally ascertain what the will of God is for us.