The Holy Spirit

[Cos]

15 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

So for me no issue.

Gone fishing,

 

If that was “no issue” for you why then did you carry on about not know what Ellicott meant?

15 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Just think about your reasons for making these kind of remarks.

I don’t know why you find my linking what you were asserting about Exodus 31:1-5 to the Watchtower teaching on the use of the word “fill” when it comes to the Holy Spirit. I explained to you the reason I did so, why would that be offensive?

15 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Still feel that is the case.

Your rejection “that one cannot be filled literally with another person” is based, not on Scripture, but on your opinion. And you explain away the passages that refute your opinion. Here is another Scriptural example; in Acts 5:3 the Devil is said to have “filled” the heart of Ananias to lie to the Holy Spirit (note, for some reason the NWT did not translate this passage properly, check and see and let me know what you think).

15 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Your quotes are puzzling? Probably you mean Eph 1:23 and 4:10?

Typo error...or more likely, eye to hand fail. So are you saying that these two Scriptures are not literal? The reason I ask is because you cite other passages which certainly indicate that they are literal.

15 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

I said that it is Jer:23:24 that is figurative, not 1Ki. 8:27.

The way you worded your comment gave the impression that you were referring to 1 Kings 8:27 as figurative, anyway why do you think that Jehovah’s rhetorical questions are figurative in Jer. 23:24? Note in the passage the definiteness of Jehovah’s words.

15 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

The use of "pouring" as a metaphor is quite validly done in connection with both Peter and holy spirit,

I’m just saying that the phrase “poured out” can be used for persons as well because you were so adamant that this phrase confirmed for you that the Holy Spirit, in your words “is not a literal person”.

15 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

but only if this alone comprised the evidence.

Please by all means present any further evidence because as I said, so far what you have provided is very superficial. <><

[Evacuated]

32 minutes ago, Cos said:

If that was “no issue”

It is now no issue. You understand my meaning, which you didn't before. Move on!

33 minutes ago, Cos said:

I donÂ’t know why...offensive

Don't worry. I've forgiven you (Compare Luke 23:34). Move on!

36 minutes ago, Cos said:

And you explain away the passages that refute your opinion.

I, like you, am entitled to my opinion. The refutation is only in your opinion, to which you are also entitled. In this case I do not share your opinion of what the Scripture supports or refutes, and you do not share mine. I find the words of the Lord Jesus who said "wisdom is proved righteous by its works" (Matt. 11:19) to be a useful signpost for when opinions differ.

46 minutes ago, Cos said:

Acts 5:3 the Devil is said to have “filled” the heart of Ananias to lie to the Holy Spirit

Certainly this is exactly what happened.

But surely it is clear that Satan was just "filling up" the measure of his usual pattern as exemplified with Eve: "Consequently, the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something desirable to the eyes, yes, the tree was pleasing to look at" (Gen 3:6). How did that fruit become desirable to her in that her heart was "filled" with intent, contrary to Jehovah's requirement?

And then with Judas: "And after the piece of bread, then Satan entered into him" (John 13:27). Did the Devil literally get into him somehow? Or was it that in serving Satan's interest he subjected himself completely to the will of that one? 

Do you beleive that Satan could have a energising force by which he emboldens those who submit to his evil ends? Eph.2:2  speaks of him as "the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit now working in the sons of disobedience".

With regard to Ananias, translators other than NWT reflect an understanding as follows: 

GOD'S WORD® Translation
"Peter asked, "Ananias, why did you let Satan fill you with the idea"

Douay-Rheims Bible
"But Peter said: Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart"

Weymouth New Testament
""Ananias," said Peter, "why has Satan taken possession of your heart"

Albert Barnes has a note on this verse: Filled thine heart - A man's "heart" or "mind" is "full" of a thing when he is "intent on it"; when he is strongly "impelled to it"; or when he is fully occupied with it. The expression here means that he was "strongly impelled" or "excited" by Satan to this crime.

But there is no need to speculate.

Peter himself explained what occurred here at Acts 5:4  "How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart?" If Peter, by divine assistance, was able to read into the heart of Ananias, why did he not reveal that Satan was literally there (if he was)?

Really, in a remarkable similarity to the man Aachan, (Joshua 7:21), Ananias allowed greed to consume him, acting out the process described so well in James 1:14-15. In doing so he exhibited the traits of his "father the Devil", and showed he wanted to "do the desires" of his father, (Comp. John 8:44). He thus demonstrated that Satan had (figuratively) "filled" his heart with wrong desire, as he had done earlier (and since) with Eve, Aachan, Judas, and countless others of his "children" (1John 3:10).

1 hour ago, Cos said:

why do you think that JehovahÂ’s rhetorical questions are figurative in Jer. 23:24

Because of Solomon's inspired words at 1 Kings 8:27:  "Behold, the heavens and the heaven of heavens could not contain you"

1 hour ago, Cos said:

“poured out” can be used for persons as well

Of course it can. But metaphorically.

And as the phrase is also used of things other than persons, it of itself is no arbiter of the nature of that which is "poured out".

1 hour ago, Cos said:

so far what you have provided is very superficial.

In your opinion. To which you are entitled. But, as always in a public forum,  "Sit iudex legentibus".

S.D.G.

 

[Evacuated]

1 hour ago, Cos said:

the Holy Spirit, in your words “is not a literal person”.

That is correct in principle, but not "in my words" literally.

Cos. I am posting separately on this because I am  interested in your opinion on a question if you care to answer. 

Jesus said: "We worship what we know, because salvation is from the Jews." John 4:22.

Paul said: "Therefore, what is the advantage of the Jew, or what is the use of circumcision? Much in every way. For first, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God." Romans 3:1-2.

If this is the case, then why would one of the foremost and oldest advocates of the holy spirit being a person (the Roman Catholic Church) conclude this:

“In Jewish scripture the Holy Spirit is never presented as a person but rather as a divine power capable of transforming the human being and the world” The Commission for Interreligious Dialogue dossier on the Holy Spirit. 

And a more recent champion of the doctorine, Richard E. Averbeck ((B.A. Calvary Bible College, Kansas City. M.Div., Grace Theological Seminary, Ph.D. Annenberg Research Institute (formerly Dropsie College), M.A, biblical counseling from Grace Theological Seminary.) Professor of Old Testament Studies and Biblical Counseling at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1994-). He is also the Director of the Spiritual Formation Forum.) says the following:

“In general, the Jewish view is that “the spirit of God referred to in the Bible alludes to His energy (Isa 40:13; Zech 4:6).” The Holy Spirit in the Hebrew Bible and Its Connections to the New Testament.

[Cos]

21 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

It is now no issue. You understand my meaning, which you didn't before. Move on!

Gone fishing,

 

I have always understood your meaning; it’s was your outrageous allegation that was in total variance with the statement that you made where you considered Ellicott’s comments to be “both erudite and articulate”.

 

21 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

I've forgiven you

You accuse me of being offensive but won’t explain why? Please tell me why you became offended.

 

21 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

this is exactly what happened.

Just another example which depicts the mistake of your claim.

 

21 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

If Peter, by divine assistance, was able to read into the heart of Ananias, why did he not reveal that Satan was literally there (if he was)?

He did in verse 3!

 

21 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Because of Solomon's inspired words at 1 Kings 8:27

What about Jehovah’s own words in Jeremiah 23:24?

 

21 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

In your opinion.

Here is why I say your evidence, in my opinion, is superficial; “poured out” can be used for persons as you acknowledge, as well as non-persons, so this is not a good phrase to base a teaching around. Being “filled” can and is used for persons, but I do understand why you feel the need to dismiss the passages that show this and call them “not literal” and “figurative” as they are detrimental to your whole idea that the Holy Spirit is not a real Person.

 

21 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

I am posting separately on this because I am  interested in your opinion on a question if you care to answer. 

Without having the context of these quotes I must refrain from speculating on what they said. Maybe you can scan them like you did for your Challoner Bible so that I could peruse the context? <><

[Evacuated]

1 hour ago, Cos said:

Without having the context of these quotes I must refrain from speculating on what they said. Maybe you can scan them like you did for your Challoner Bible so that I could peruse the context?

Certainly. The links are included for further context.

http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01021998_p-24_en.html

https://bible.org/seriespage/1-holy-spirit-hebrew-bible-and-its-connections-new-testament

1 hour ago, Cos said:

What about Jehovah’s own words in Jeremiah 23:24?

I see Jeremiah's words as inspired as I do those recorded in 1Kings 8:27, and with no contradiction.

1 hour ago, Cos said:

Being “filled” can and is used for persons,

Of course it is. In a metaphorical sense.

1 hour ago, Cos said:

you considered Ellicott’s comments to be “both erudite and articulate”

Still do. Is there a language issue here?

erudite: learned, scholarly, well educated, knowledgeable, well read, widely read, well versed, well informed, lettered, cultured, cultivated, civilized, intellectual.

articulate: eloquent, fluent, communicative, effective, persuasive, coherent, lucid, vivid, expressive.

Doesn't mean I have to agree with his opinion on everything though does it? I mean, I think you are articulate and erudite in your field and in expressing your opinons, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything you say.

[Cos]

15 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

I see Jeremiah's words as inspired as I do those recorded in 1Kings 8:27, and with no contradiction.

Gone fishing,

 

Let me put this to you again, do you agree that when Jehovah says He can “fill” everything there is (Jer. 23:24), and yet that still would not be enough to contain Him (1 Kings 8:27) is because He is infinite?

 

Or do you still make the assumption that Jehovah’s words in Jer. 23:24 are “figurative”? Is it only the last part of verse 24 that you think is “figurative” or do you think the whole of the verse is ‘figurative”, and what about verse 23 is that “figurative” too?

 

15 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Of course it is. In a metaphorical sense.

See my above questions.

 

I ‘d like to remind you that you have accuse me of being offensive but won’t explain why? Please tell me why you became offended.

15 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Still do. Is there a language issue here?

Must be, for I have learnt that when a person is articulate it is because they can communicate the meaning clearly.

 

One dictionary has for the word articulate; “expressed, formulated, or presented with clarity and effectiveness”

 

Another dictionary has, “expressing oneself readily, clearly, and effectively”

 

To say that Ellicott was “both erudite and articulate” and then claim as you did, that you cannot know what he meant is saying one thing and then another, sorry but that is what you were doing.

 

Thanks for the links, I have saved them and I will take a look at them as time allows. <><

[Evacuated]

11 hours ago, Cos said:

Or do you still make the assumption that Jehovah’s words in Jer. 23:24 are “figurative”? Is it only the last part of verse 24 that you think is “figurative” or do you think the whole of the verse is ‘figurative”, and what about verse 23 is that “figurative” too?

Complicated question but:

v 23: Jehovah can draw near to those who draw near to him according to James 4:8. "Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you." No geographical location change is required for this. So in the words of Jeremiah 23:23: "Am I a God from near," I understand this in the sense of Hebrews 4:13 "And no creature is hidden in the sight of him, but all things are naked and laid bare to the eyes of him to whom we must give our account" or Act 17:27 "And indeed he is not far away from each one of us".

v24: Men hide both literally and figuratively from accountability before God. Literally, as did Adam and Eve "And the man* and his wife hid themselves" (Gen 3:8) and figuratively  "The wealth of the rich is ⌊his strong city⌋,* and like a wall, it is high in his imagination." (Pro.18:11). So I would say it refers to any kind of hiding on the part of those to whom these words are addressed.

As regards Jehovahs geographical location in such a matter, I understand this to describe figuratively what Paul mentioned at Hebrews 4:13 above, there is no place in all of creaion that is out of Jehovah's reach. As Solomon said at 1Kings 8:43 of the prayer of a foreigner: "you shall hear in heaven, the place of your dwelling, and act according to all that the foreigner calls to you".

11 hours ago, Cos said:

I have learnt that when a person is articulate it is because they can communicate the meaning clearly.

Entirely agree. I think the problem is the rather absolute connotation you attach to these words. 

But my point is that whilst communicating their meaning clearly, articulate expression of opinions does not require that the hearer agrees with that meaning. He may understand completely that person's position, but not agree with their opinion, no matter how clearly expressed.

We have to remember that, unlike Jehovah whose sayings are clarified "seven times", in the words of men there does not fail to be error. So as stated earlier, the absence of Mr Ellicott allows no room for discussion on his understandings, therefore no possibility of further clarifiication or adjustment to his ideas which remain, for me, expressed in an "erudite and articulate" manner, whether I agree with them or not.

[Cos]

Gone fishing,

 

I‘d like to remind you, AGAIN, that you accused me of being offensive but you still won’t explain why? Please tell me why you became offended.

21 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

whilst communicating their meaning clearly, articulate expression of opinions does not require that the hearer agrees with that meaning.

Your claim was, “I can’t be sure of Ellicott’s meaning”; so this statement then was not factual because now you admit that if the writer is articulate then you do know his/her meaning regardless if you agree or not?

 

21 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

the absence of Mr Ellicott allows no room for discussion on his understandings,

If this is the case then he was not articulate in conveying his meaning, so why do you say that he was?

21 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Complicated question

Not really, although your response is.

 

Instead of jumping all over Scripture to try to make out that the last part of Jer.23:24 is figurative, the context should be enough to show that the three rhetorical questions in Jer. 23:23–24 emphasize Jehovah’s presence everywhere because He fills everything.

 

Jehovah’s question in verse 24b, “Do I not fill heaven and earth?” expects a positive answer. How do you respond?

 

Jehovah can and does “fill” everything, and still that is not enough to contain Him (1 Kings 8:27) because God is infinite. <><

[Evacuated]

43 minutes ago, Cos said:

Your claim was, “I can’t be sure of Ellicott’s meaning”; so this statement then was not factual because now you admit that if the writer is articulate then you do know his/her meaning regardless if you agree or not?

Sorry Cos. I just don't think you understand the meaning of the word or how it can be used in the English language. You may wish to have the last word on this, but I will not be responding to any further discussion on the subject of Mr Charles Ellicott's indisputable articulacy.

1 hour ago, Cos said:

Jehovah can and does “fill” everything, and still that is not enough to contain Him (1 Kings 8:27) because God is infinite

Thank you for explaining your understanding of this passage in such an articulate manner. It is an interesting viewpoint. Not one I share, but interesting nevertheless.

[Cos]

On ‎10‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 3:21 PM, Gone Fishing said:

I just don't think you understand the meaning of the word

Gone fishing,

 

Dictionary definition for articulate; “expressed, formulated, or presented with clarity and effectiveness”

 

Another dictionary has, “expressing oneself readily, clearly, and effectively”

 

According to you Ellicott was “both erudite and articulate”, but then came “I can’t be sure of Ellicott’s meaning”.

 

On ‎10‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 3:21 PM, Gone Fishing said:

Thank you for explaining

You’re welcome.<><

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, Cos said:

I can’t be sure of Ellicott’s meaning

Yes. That has nothing to do with his articulacy.

[Cos]

20 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Yes. That has nothing to do with his articulacy.

Gone fishing

 

Sorry, but maybe you just don’t grasp English; to claim that you considered Ellicott’s comments  “both erudite and articulate” and then say “I can’t be sure of Ellicott’s meaning” is a contradiction. <><