The Holy Spirit

[Otto]

On 22/09/2017 at 10:45, Cos said:

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. <><

As said before but you seem to ignore it...spirit is called such because it produces visible effects...holy spirit gives God sanctioned acts

Wicked spirits give bad effects

 

Wind spirit moves trees.

 

God is a spirit...he gives evidence of his existance by the effects he has although he is unseen...its a word that conveys a concept...in the case of the a holy spirit it is not a 3rd person of a trinity..it is gods power or force or strength...the subtle uses of those words convey slight variations on the idea but never as a person

[TrueTomHarley]

5 hours ago, Cos said:

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.

The difference in whether the star witness is a liar or merely incompetent lies solely in whether he will do jail time or not.

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

[Otto]

22 hours ago, Otto said:

I think possibly the Witnesses reasoning on the noun being neuter was to show that in some places in the King James Version it is rendered it for the Holy Spirit with no personalisation off the top of my head I think John 3 verse 2 in the KJV renders the spirit as an IT that's most probably what he was referring to and you misunderstood him

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.

 

 

Looking at the meaning of ALLOS is as follows...depending on where it.is use...so you need to be more specific...

Other

Similar

another,

all others,

the remainder,

the rest

SO why is it absolutely a person based on it's meaning above another or other does not infer a person in Greek it could be another helper as in a tool to do a job it could infer other from heaven as Jesus was from there... you added your meaning to it and chose the meaning that best suits your ideology... helper comforter with a masculine or feminine or neutral do not have to be people and helper can be something that helps you and a comforter can be something that comfort you my daughter has a blanket so far then nothing upon closer inspection it's proving the Holy Spirit is a person the question is when translate is now the difference between male and female and neuter another examples of things proving a helper or a comforter that are not people why would they immediately consider knowing these things that God's Holy Spirit is a person why not just say it's a tool that is part of him that he uses to do a job and leave the Trinity out of it.

please be more specific with the verse you have in mind which state another and I will comment on it in more detail

[Evacuated]

11 hours ago, Cos said:

I’m a little bewildered here,

 

11 hours ago, Cos said:

you must have had some prior Arian ideas (leanings) long before your 20’s?

Maybe I'm not giving you enough detail for whatever you are trying to ascertain. Here's some context to hopefully clarify things.

As I said, in school I had questions to ask my religious teacher and was fobbed off with those "chatechismal" answers due, as you suggest, to him likely being "unsuitable" to handle such questions. My questions were prompted by a desire to seek information and understanding, not doctrinal controversy. Arian/Athanasian disputes were unknown to me at that time. I never heard anything about such matters until many years later.  I drew no solid conclusions from these encounters, but they had the effect of rather dampening my interest in religion for some years. These matters, particularly RC church related, became very low on my list of priorities. 

When my interest in religious matters rekindled in my 20s, it encompassed more than Christianity. It prompted the attention of active RC relatives who wished to return me to their fold. The topic of the Bible became current in my mind, as they stated it as an authority for their religious persuasions (despite not having a copy of it). Around the same time, a magazine article on Tyndale stimulated my interest and I saw the Bible as a historical enemy of established religion, particularly the RC church. This was due to the vehemence with which they suppressed it. This made it appealling to me. This led to me obtaining a copy of the 1611 King James Version (KJV) which I started to read.

My earlier questions on the relationship between Christ and God resurfaced, not in an anti-trinitarian context, but along with questions about evolution and mankind's origin, is there only one way to God, and anything else of controversy, like the possibility of extra-terrestial life etc. 

In the course of this, one friend provided the Challoner NT (which I still have). He drew attention to the 1Jo.5:7 text as a way of providing scriptural authority for the Catholic church as the original historical champion of the (seemingly) scriptural doctrine of the Trinity, the central tenet of Christianity. The argument was something like 'the Bible says God is triune, the RC church first defined, then defended, and promotes this, therefore the RC church is the true Christian religion.' This challenged me, until I found a marginal note in my KJV saying this text had "been inserted".

After,  I went and checked the rendering of this verse in other versions, I found that it was inconsistently present, which seemed to confirm it's spurious nature. This delighted me at first because it undermined the authority of the RC church and it's dogma. But then I became outraged, because I saw the attack on Tyndale to be from the same source as what I perceived as  interference with Bible text to support something that I now found questionable as a result. I had absolutely no knowledge of Arian controversies at the time, although I had some awareness of the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition and other atrocities.

So, the "non-Trinitarian matters" I was interested by, and that prompted the concern of relatives and some friends, were religious ideas from Hinduism, Buddhism, or anything else that was current at that time. The Trinity for me at that time was a facet of Christianity as I knew it then. I had no idea it was a historically disputed doctorine, or that there could be established, non-trinitarian Christian groups. Actually, perhaps that is what prompted the paranoid response of my religious teacher back in my early teens. That's something I have never considered until now. Anyway, with my acceptance of the RC Church as having any religious authority now defunct, my interest in the Bible as God's Word alive, my questions on Jesus' relationship to his Father remained.

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

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

One thing all trinitarians have in common ... when it comes time to war ... they all meet on the battlefield and slaughter each other.

This was particularly true during WWI when most of the people assembled on the French/German border were trinitarian Catholics, and in a year long battle, killed A MILLION OF EACH OTHER.

that alone DISPROVES THE TRINITY,  ( If you have any common sense at all ) ... and shoots the "horse" it rode in on .... that God's Holy Spirit is supposedly PART of that triune "godhead", and also proves invalid, as ACTUAL Christianity, everything else that they dreamed up, circa 320 A.D. .

And a million word analysis of a million more words will not change that.

[TrueTomHarley]

12 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

that alone DISPROVES THE TRINITY,   If you have any common sense at all

I ever think the key fact is that the Trinity violates common sense. Everyone knows that, but not always the implication.

It means that the burden of proof will always be upon them, not us - as it is with anyone trying to sell someone any bill of goods that flies in the face of reason. Sometimes a thing that goes against common sense turns out to be true. But the threshold of proof required is always high.

At most, they can come up with a handful of verses which, in any other context but the Bible, would be instantly dismissed as 'figure of speech.' They read 'crocodile tears' in a book or magazine, and instantly catch the meaning. They read it in the Bible, and it is proof we are talking crocodiles.

They are firmly convinced but it is not from Scripture. Therefore, it must be from something else - who can say what? But it is not Scripture.

In my experience, if you don't make headway with them in ten minutes, you will make none in ten years.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Playing with words and fixed bayonets have completely different points.

[Cos]

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. <><

[Cos]

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. <><

[Cos]

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

[Cos]

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.” <><

[Cos]

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. <><