The Holy Spirit

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Even though the authoress died at 103 years, the effect of that 1965 book made its way into a movie ("Back to School", 1986) with Rodney Dangerfield, as a multi-millionaire who very late in life went back to college with his son ... the only way he could get in was with suitcases full of money, and paying for a new building..

With a suitcase full of money, I highly suspect you could get a COMPLETE BETHEL TOUR ... any morning you showed up.

 

... REALLY.

 

.

 

[Cos]

18 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

But we cannot change the fact that the writings of dead men will only ever be open to interpretation, as those men are not alive to verify our understanding of their words.

Gone fishing,

 

I’m sorry but I totally disagree, to claim that we cannot really know the meaning of anything writing after an author is dead regardless even of the context, is very poor logic.

 

18 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

I would cite the words of the apostle Paul

 

In the three passages you cite, the referent in each is a Person. <><

[TrueTomHarley]

17 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

With a suitcase full of money, I highly suspect you could get a COMPLETE BETHEL TOUR ... any morning you showed up.... REALLY.

Yes, I have no doubt that you really highly suspect that.

[Evacuated]

4 hours ago, Cos said:

I’m sorry but I totally disagree, to claim that we cannot really know the meaning of anything writing after an author is dead regardless even of the context, is very poor logic.

Fine. You believe interpretation of a dead man's writings does not require verification for certainty. Thank you for your opinion.

4 hours ago, Cos said:

In the three passages you cite, the referent in each is a Person.

However you chose to interpret the scriptures I cited, it doesn't change the fact that I see and credit the fruitage of the spirit as an evidence of the spirit's operation in my life. 

[Cos]

14 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

You believe interpretation of a dead man's writings does not require verification for certainty. Thank you for your opinion.

Gone fishing,

 

Your welcome, but it’s odd how you said you acknowledge that Ellicott in his commentary “was both erudite and articulate” in how he expresses his comments, but it would seem that that now this is not the case.

 

14 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

However you chose to interpret the scriptures I cited, it doesn't change the fact that I see and credit the fruitage of the spirit as an evidence of the spirit's operation in my life. 

You must have also interpreted Scripture to arrive at the idea that the Holy Spirit is not a Person; and to which you will accredit this so-called “power in action/active force” as the thing for the “operation in [your] life” this idea is not exegetically possible. <><

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, Cos said:

Your welcome, but it’s odd how you said you acknowledge that Ellicott in his commentary “was both erudite and articulate” in how he expresses his comments, but it would seem that that now this is not the case.

?????

3 hours ago, Cos said:

You must have also interpreted Scripture to arrive at the idea that the Holy Spirit is not a Person; and to which you will accredit this so-called “power in action/active force” as the thing for the “operation in [your] life” this idea is not exegetically possible.

Ah yes. Thanks for your view on what I must have done. 

But compare the inspired words  “With human beings this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Matt 19:26

[Cos]

10 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

?????

Gone fishing,

 

What can’t you understand? You claimed that Ellicott in his commentary “was both erudite and articulate” in how he expresses his comments, even though you don’t “share” his “opinions”. This is what you said, right? How can you claim to not share his opinion when you now say that there is no way to verify what his opinion was?

10 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Ah yes. Thanks for your view on what I must have done. 

Ok, I’m sorry, you don’t actually interpret Scripture, how then do you arrive at an idea that lacks any biblical verification... also, you seem to like to quote Scripture, so tell me please why you don't accept what the Scriptures states regarding the Holy Spirit? <><

[Evacuated]

7 hours ago, Cos said:

You claimed that Ellicott in his commentary “was both erudite and articulate” in how he expresses his comments, even though you donÂ’t “share” his “opinions”. This is what you said, right? How can you claim to not share his opinion when you now say that there is no way to verify what his opinion was?

Hi Cos.

My opinion of Ellcott, as I can can glean from those of his writings that I have looked at,  is that he was both erudite and articulate. That opinion is probably held by others, but not necessarily by all. Therefore, one can not have an absolute measure of the man, particularly as he is dead, but even if he was alive, one's opinion of an individual is always subject to change because of the nature of a man.

 I am sure Ellicott himself had many opinions on many matters of which I am unaware. Therefore, to conclude that my assessment of what I have read of his works cannot be valid because I have stated that his view of matters cannot be verified with absolute certainty due to his absence, is not logical.

An opinion is just a judgement on a matter which may or may not have an absolute basis in fact or knowledge. I am at liberty to form many opinions on just about anything I wish. In time these opinions may be verified and retained, they may be invalidated and discarded, however, until such time as either happen to my satisfaction,  they remain, quite rightly, my opinions. If it is so that my opinion of some of Ellicott's views is that he was wrong, this does not change my opinion that he at the same time is both erudite and articulate. Or that in other matters, he expressed himself in a manner I find particularly appropriate, as in the case of his applying the phrase , "Divine operative energy" to the expression "Spirit of God" in Gen.1:2.   However, I retain my opinion that it is not possible for me to verify with absolute certainty what his views were because he is not at liberty to comment on my understanding of them being, as he is, dead.

I think that this discussion on Ellicott's description of God's spirit has been exhausted now Cos, so moving on:

8 hours ago, Cos said:

tell me please why you don't accept what the Scriptures states regarding the Holy Spirit?

Cos. I would not even have heard that the holy spirit exists if it wasn't for the Scriptures. You do make some sweeping statements don't you?

The Scriptures make it clear to me that the Holy Spirit is Jehovah's operative energy. Every Scriptural reference that I have seen confirms this. My favourite reference (at the moment) is at Exodus 31:1-5:

"And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,  "See, I have called by name Bezalel the son of Uri the son of Hur, from the tribe of Judah. And I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with wisdom and with skill and with knowledge and with every kind of craftsmanship, to devise designs, to work with gold and with silver and with bronze, and in stonecutting for setting and in cutting wood, for doing every kind of craftsmanship."

Interestingly, a colleague of Charles Ellicott, Henry Donald Maurice Spence-Jones, (in his joint-edited Pulpit Commentary),  refers to the holy spirit in this text and describes it thus: "The Holy Spirit is the medium of communication whereby God the Father bestows all gifts upon us". I find that quite well expressed, (in my opinion, of course).  

[Cos]

On ‎10‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 3:12 PM, Gone Fishing said:

The Scriptures make it clear to me that the Holy Spirit is Jehovah's operative energy. Every Scriptural reference that I have seen confirms this. My favourite reference (at the moment) is at Exodus 31:1-5:

Gone fishing,

 

I went through the passage of Exodus 31:1-5 a number of times, in a number of translations trying to figure how you get the idea that the Holy Spirit in this passage means “operative energy”...then it came to me...when you JW’s see the word “fill” or “filled” you automatically apply the Watchtower teaching found in their publications which claim that because people can be filled with the Holy Spirit, then He can’t be a Person.

 

However the Bible informs us that Jehovah fills “heaven and the earth” Jer. 23:24, and Eph. 4:10 speaks of the Lord Jesus filling all things. Ephesians 1:23 speaks of the Lord as the one who “fills all in all”.

 

The simple fact that our Lord can fill all things does not mean He is not a Person, does it?

 

God the Father and the Lord Jesus are Person and the Scriptures say that they "fill" everything, then why can not the Holy Spirit have this same ability?

 

Notice also how in Exodus 31:1-5 Jehovah speaks of the Spirit of God as distinct to Himself, you will find that throughout the Scriptures.

 

Nothing in the passage even hints that the Spirit is “power in action/active force” or as you like to coin the phrase “operative energy”, that idea you have to read into the passage.

On ‎10‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 3:12 PM, Gone Fishing said:

However, I retain my opinion that it is not possible for me to verify with absolute certainty what his views were because he is not at liberty to comment on my understanding of them being, as he is, dead.

I’m sorry to say but you claim one thing about Ellicott, how you consider his comments “both erudite and articulate” only when it comes down to what he says which you like and want to align yourself with, but when it comes down to the things you don’t like about his “opinions” you say that you can’t understand nor verify his meaning because he is dead and can’t ask him, even though the context of his work is very clear as to what he means.

 

Instead of just taking the little bit you like out of context, to align yourself with, why don’t you read why he say what he does? <><

[Evacuated]

5 hours ago, Cos said:

“both erudite and articulate”

Charles Ellicott was always this in his commentary. I put no limitation on this relating to the content of what he says. He was both erudite and articulate in expressing opinions I do not share as well as those I do share. Just to be crystal clear, in connection with his phrase "divine operative energy",  it is his word choice I am delighted by, not his opinion. I am happy to credit his excellent vocabulary.

5 hours ago, Cos said:

automatically apply the Watchtower teaching

Thank you for spending the time to consider Ex 31:5.

Your remark, as quoted above, is unecessary and, quite frankly, offensive. This is the second time I have asked you to drop the Watchtower litany. However, on to the subject matter.

My opinion is that one cannot be filled literally with another person.

Phrases related to the word "fill" are used in scripture in a number of ways as far as I can see. Examples follow. 

Your example at Jer.23:24 regarding Jehovah is excellent. As this must be balanced against 1Ki.8:27 which states "Behold, the heavens and the heaven of heavens could not contain you", it can only be figurative. 

Elsewhere, the word is used in a descriptive way of qualities both good and bad, for example Ph.1:11: "having been filled with the fruit of righteousness", or Acts 13:45: "But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy.  When such qualities dominate a persons character, they can be said to be filled with them.

It can be used literally of physical things , for example, John 12:3: "And the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment." Also Is.13:21: "their houses will be full of howling creatures", (probably owls) . 

But, of itself, it is not the criteria to judge whether that which fills is a person or not. If that were the case, then the fact that Bezalel was filled with wisdom, skill, knowledge, and every kind of craftmanship would make wisdom, skill, knowledge, and craftmanship, persons, would it not?

It is a fact that "the heaven of the heavens cannot contain" Jehovah. It is also a fact that the holy spirit is most clearly apportioned according to need and circumstance. This is exemplified in the case of Bezalel, and again later at Pentecost 36CE, when it is stated at Acts 2:17 that the miraculous manifestations at that time were due to Jehovah having "poured out of His spirit" (KJV and others). Commentators (regardless of persuasion) have suggested that this reference means that  " he [God] will bestow large measures of spiritual influences"." (Albert Barnes), "in contrast with the mere drops of all preceding time." (James-Faussett -Brown); "before the Spirit was given in lesser measures, and comparatively but by drops, here a little, and there a little; now more largely, even to overflow." (Matthew Poole).

So in light of the above, my considered opinion at this point is that the holy spirit  is not a literal person, but is "divine operative energy" at the behest and control of Jehovah, the Sovereign Lord of the Universe.

Ps 104:30: "You send forth your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground."

[Cos]

19 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Just to be crystal clear, in connection with his phrase "divine operative energy",  it is his word choice I am delighted by, not his opinion.

Gone fishing,

 

This is the real crux of the issue; you are “delighted” with his “word choice”, which I will remind you, is taken out of context from the way he obviously intended.

 

19 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Your remark, as quoted above, is unecessary and, quite frankly, offensive. This is the second time I have asked you to drop the Watchtower litany. However, on to the subject matter.

I’m sorry that you got offended when I mentioned the Watchtowers link to your assertion. I’m just stating how I came to realise what you were claiming…now I am curious to know why that would be offensive. Can you explain?

 

You state that it is your opinion “that one cannot be filled literally with another person” yet we have in Ephesians how our Lord does just that. Maybe you think that Eph 1:12 and 4:10 are not literal? If you do, can you show why?

 

I would like to note also that there is no contradiction between Jeremiah 23:24 and 1 Kings 8:27. If you think that Solomon meant his prayer to be understood figuratively that is your opinion, and not one that I share, so please expand on why you say this.

 

What then becomes even more strange is how you later say, “It is a fact that ‘the heaven of the heavens cannot contain’ Jehovah.” First you say that 1 Kings 8:27 “can only be figurative” but then you say “it is a fact”? Do you want to explain why you say one thing and then another?

 

Anyway, please notice the nature of the rhetorical questions that Jehovah is making in Jer. 23: 23-24 which confirms the point I made earlier, real Persons can “fill” everything without that impinging on their personhood.

 

I appreciate you showing how the word “fill” in used differently in diverse contexts, but you then go on to say that “it is not the criteria to judge whether that which fills is a person or not” even though you do conclude on this for the Holy Spirit in Ex. 31:1-5.

 

You move on to Acts 2:17 were it says that the Holy Spirit is “poured out” and that to you shows how the Spirit is not a person. If this were valid evidence then the apostle Paul would not be a person either, because he wrote about himself, “I am being poured out…” (Phil 2:17) and “…I am already being poured out…” (2 Tim 4:6). Your line of reasoning with regard to the Holy Spirit being “poured forth” can hardly be used as proof against the Holy Spirits personality. I hope that you can see this? I can tell that you are an intelligent person, but I have to say that so far your evidence is very superficial, sorry. <><

 

[Evacuated]

7 hours ago, Cos said:

This is the real crux of the issue; you are “delighted” with his “word choice”, which I will remind you, is taken out of context from the way he obviously intended.

So for me no issue. It was for you, as you did not understand, but now you do. That is good.

7 hours ago, Cos said:

I’m sorry that you got offended when I mentioned the Watchtowers link to your assertion. I’m just stating how I came to realise what you were claiming…now I am curious to know why that would be offensive. Can you explain?

Apology accepted, but I'll let you work this one out for yourself. Just think about your reasons for making these kind of remarks.

7 hours ago, Cos said:

You state that it is your opinion “that one cannot be filled literally with another person” yet we have in Ephesians how our Lord does just that. Maybe you think that Eph 1:12 and 4:10 are not literal? If you do, can you show why?

Still feel that is the case.

Your quotes are puzzling? Probably you mean Eph 1:23 and 4:10? Assuming that, for me they allign with 2 Cor. 1:20 "For as many as are the promises of God, in him they are "yes"; therefore also through him is the "amen" to the glory of God through us." and eventually with 1Cor.15:28 "But whenever all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subjected* to the one who subjected all things to him, in order that God may be all in all."

7 hours ago, Cos said:

I would like to note also that there is no contradiction between Jeremiah 23:24 and 1 Kings 8:27.

We agree on this then. But just to correct a possible misunderstanding on your part,  I said that it is Jer:23:24 that is figurative, not 1Ki. 8:27. So that would render invalid your later assertion that I contradicted myself by quoting Solomon's words as a fact.

8 hours ago, Cos said:

real Persons can “fill” everything

This is just not reasonable in a literal sense. And as I said clearly, the term fill (and related words), of themselves,  are not the criteria to judge whether that which fills is a person or not. That holds for my understanding of the operation of God's Spirit on Bezalel.

The use of "pouring" as a metaphor is quite validly done in connection with both Peter and holy spirit, and , for that matter, blessings as promised at Malachi 3:10.

8 hours ago, Cos said:

Your line of reasoning with regard to the Holy Spirit being “poured forth” can hardly be used as proof against the Holy Spirits personality.

There is some merit in this point I will agree, but only if this alone comprised the evidence.

However with regard to this particular example, neither can the fact that the metaphor is validly used regarding the apostle Paul being "poured out" be used as proof for the holy spirit being a person in view of Malachi 3:10.

In fact, Paul's choice of the metaphor in Ph.2:17 needs to be completed: "But even if I am being poured out as a drink offering..." and the result of this 2Cor.2:15 "But I will spend and be expended most gladly for your lives." So in Paul's case he was likening himself to the sacrificial drink offering, completely poured out or expended on the altar of Jehovah's will, and in the service of his brothers. This referred to his willingness to give completely or be poured out until exhausted.

This bears no resemblance to the use of the metaphor in connection with Jehovah's holy spirit which is limitless and can never be exhausted.

The fact remains that I can perfectly understand how God "pours out of his spirit" to accomplish His will by whatever means He chooses, including the empowerment of creatures to accomplish His will. Numerous quoted scriptures have established this.