The Holy Spirit

[Cos]

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? <><

[Cos]

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? <><

[TrueTomHarley]

On 9/30/2017 at 4:49 AM, Cos said:

Mr. Harley,

 

See Matt. 28:19,  2 Cor. 13:14

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." 

[TrueTomHarley]

27 minutes ago, Cos said:

Mr. Smith,

 

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

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

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

3 minutes 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.

... that is like pulling the pin on a hand grenade, letting the handle fly off, and putting it between your knees while you count to five on your fingers.

[Cos]

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. <><

[Cos]

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?

[Cos]

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. <><

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, Cos said:

Notice that Jesus says in Matt. 28:19, “into the name” the Greek word ὄνομα (onoma) is singular, one name, three Persons!

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

 

2 hours ago, Cos said:

Or do you mean…you hope?

The internet is inherently the land of the liars and you are silly to take it too seriously. You cannot possibly know who's who. This is not to say that he is. Perhaps I am. Or you.

Some on the internet are geniuses. Some on the internet are absolute morons, but because they can make letters of the alphabet appear onscreen, they are perceived as smart.  I don't put him in either category. I haven't figured him out. He weighs in, more or less, on the side I think is correct. That's enough for me. I don't screen every word.

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

[Otto]

On 03/09/2017 at 06:24, Cos said:

Mr. Rook,
 

I did give you proof, you just don't like it!
 

If the Holy Spirit were not a person but a designation for some sort of attribute of God then we would not find passages where both the Spirit and an influence are co-ordinately named.

 

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"(?)

 

That the Spirit of God is distinct from God the Father (just as the Son is) is seen from passages were you can try to substitute the term "God" or "Father" in place of where the Holy Spirit is present, here is an example;

 

Eph. 2:18 "For through Him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit" ["access to the Father by one Father.?!]

 

More examples can be cited to show the error JW have, but you will more likely dismiss them as you have just done with the above. <><

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

[Cos]

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? <><

[Cos]

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? <><