The Holy Spirit

[Cos]

On ‎11‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 11:21 PM, Gone Fishing said:

Another habit, your stereo-typical prefix "all JWs" this or that, has an offensive effect also.

Gone fishing,

 

Let me try to get my head around this, I said that when you see the word “fill” you “automatically apply the Watchtower teaching” and you got offended because you take from that comment that I’m stereo-typing you as a JW, which you are, so that offends you, why?

 

To tell you the truth I can’t see how that would cause you offence, but I will try and remember that you are overly sensitive to when I refer to your interpretive method as characteristic of how the Watchtower teaches. <><

[Cos]

On ‎11‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 9:05 PM, Gone Fishing said:

Anyway, I am looking forward to your opinion

Gone fishing,

 

In John 4:22 Jesus is telling the Samaritan woman that salvation comes from the Jews in that the Messiah is from the tribe of Judah, that is, from the Jewish people (Romans 9:5), and as a result (verse 23) the true worshippers will worship properly.

 

There are a few variations regarding the view on the passage of Romans 3:1-2, for example some take the passage to refer to God’s promises to the Jews, others to the promises of salvation through the Messiah which they say is implied by their unbelief in verse 3, but without getting to technical let’s just say that the reference here is the Old Testament Scriptures which were given to Jews to write and to preserve.  

 

You know, I once had a Sabbatarian use Romans 3:1-2 to try to justify the reason for their system of belief revolving around the seventh day Sabbath observance. His argument totally fell apart in the light of the New Testament witness. It seems that you seek to do a similar undertaking by quoting this verse to sure up your stance, yes?

 

I remember an old rhyme that I was taught regarding the two Testaments, and it goes something like this:

 

The New is in the Old Concealed,

The Old is in the New Revealed.

 

The New is in the Old Contained,

The Old is in the New Explained.

 

You should be able to get where I’m going with this?

 

Anyway, you quote two articles, the first from a Roman Catholic, Lea Sestieri, with whom I have to say I don’t agree, because he makes this comment that in the Old Testament the Holy Spirit “is never presented as a person”. This statement is not quite correct and is disputed by a number of scholars; here also are a few of the many Scriptures which demonstrate otherwise:

 

·         2  Samuel. 23:2, “The {S}pirit of Jehovah spoke through me; His word was on my tongue (NWT emphasis mine); in this verse it is the Holy Spirit who spoke through David to inspire the glorious Psalms which only a self-conscious living Person can do.

 

1 Kings 22:24,  “And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near and struck Micaiah on the cheek, and said, Where did the Spirit of Jehovah pass over from me to speak with you?” Implies dialogue by the fact that Zedekiah had no problem believing that the Spirit spoke to the prophets. Micaiah does not object to this concept, but only to the issue of whether the Spirit had spoken to him or to Zedekiah.

 

In Isaiah 63:10 it clearly shows that the Holy Spirit has emotion; “But they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit”. Only a person can be grieved. E.J. Young comments, “The Spirit is here distinguished as a Person by the fact that He can be grieved.” (Commentary on the Book of Isaiah, Vol. 3, page 482).

 

Nehemiah 9:30 “But many years you had patience with them, and testified against them by your Spirit, by Your prophets. Yet they would not give ear. And you gave them into the hand of the peoples of the lands” Only a person can “testify”. The Hebrew word translated “testified against” means to bear witness, testify, or protest against someone. The word is used of God in Psalms 50:7; 81:8 and also for man in Gen. 43:3; Deut. 8:19 (just to name a few examples). An impersonal force cannot bear witness, testify or protest anything.

 

You also quote from Richard E. Averbeck, who in his study article mentions how the Jews regard the Holy Spirit; note the phrases “Jewish tradition” and the “Jewish view”, and “according to the Rabbis” and with which he does not concurrence. The article by Richard E. Averbeck, I believe, gives a far better account than the one present by Lea Sestieri. In fact I would highly recommend studying Richard E. Averbeck article over the other for detail and clarity.

 

Gone fishing, I’ll be on hiatus for the next few weeks and will not be able to respond to you as my office is being converted into sleeping quarters for my brother-in-law and his wife’s who are coming for a visit, sorry. <><

 

[Evacuated]

37 minutes ago, Cos said:

your claim that Ellicott is “both erudite and articulate” is in clear opposition to your other claim

Which has been clearly demonstrated as your opinion, not based on fact.

43 minutes ago, Cos said:

To tell you the truth I can’t see how that would cause you offence,

stereotype: A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.

I have no problem with being referred to as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I do object, mildly, to being stereotyped in any form. However, references such "knee-jerk", "automatic" I find have the potential to be intellectually insulting, patronising, and offensive, regardless of the context. But, don't misunderstand, whilst I find them offensive in nature, I am not actually offended personally to any great extent. I have heard far worse even from those who claim to be guided by Christ.

30 minutes ago, Cos said:

The article by Richard E. Averbeck, I believe, gives a far better account than the one present by Lea Sestieri.

Well, I'll have to leave it there Cos. I can see that supporters of the Trinity have differing views on their belief. I find live discussion on the subject infinitely more useful though, not least because it is less prone to misunderstanding. There is no shortage of participants in this regard so, like you, I have other priorities and will be giving more attention to them.  

This has been a useful exchange and I am infinitely better equipped to understand the Trinitarian perspective.

Thanks for the time and input.

Regards 

S.D.G. 

 

[Cos]

If the Holy Spirit were only a power/force or attribute as is claimed, then sin against God would automatically be sin against the Holy Spirit also...but... the Spirit can be sinned against separate from the Father, that is, apart from the Father! The Holy Spirit may be distinctly blasphemed, or be the immediate object of that sin, which is inexpiable. Sorry to say that without any Biblical evidence, to suppose, that this Holy Spirit is not a Person is for men to dream while they seem to be awake. <><

[Evacuated]

10 hours ago, Cos said:

the Spirit can be sinned against separate from the Father, that is, apart from the Father!

There is good reasoning in this comment, but faulty logic. Surely, although distinct, sinning against God's spirit is of necessity a sin against God Himself? Why would it carry a heavier judgement? Because the spirit is a separate person? This is not a logical step or inevitable conclusion. 

Given that Jehovah's spirit is His personal, active force,  to sin against it is, in other words, to sin against the active and present person of God Himself. The claim of the religionists when actually witnessing the operation of God's spirit in empowering Jesus  to perform miracles was to declare that these were performed with the assistance of Satan. (Matt.12:22-32). They did not deny the miracle, but slandered the source of Jesus' power to act. This was described as sin against the holy sprit and, as such, unforgivable.

A person may sin against God in an indirect manner, through ignorance, or weakness, by damaging or misusing His property for example. There is a way such sin can be forgiven. But to openly sin against the active manifestation of the presence of God, evident in pouring out of holy spirit, this is akin to following the example of Satan in his defiant challenge in the presence of God as recorded at Job Chapters 1 and 2.

It is worth noting that this is a sin that only God can determine as having occurred. But it is also imperative to note that true enlightenment from the word of God, which is also a manifestation of God's spirit (Heb.4:12), if rejected, can also be a precursor to sinning against GOD'S SPIRIT:

"For it is impossible concerning those who have once been enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and become sharers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the coming age,  and having fallen away, to renew them again to repentance, because they have crucified again for themselves the Son of God and held him up to contempt.." Heb 6:4-6 (LEB)

 

[Cos]

Hi Gone fishing,

 

I hope this post finds you well.

 

On ‎12‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 5:15 PM, Gone Fishing said:

There is good reasoning in this comment, but faulty logic. 

That would be only for someone who does not recognize the fact that the Holy Spirit is a Person. Let me briefly explain.

 

In Jesus’ dialogue with the Pharisees in Matt. 12, Mark 3, we note that the Spirit is expressly distinguished here from the Son, as one person from another. They are both spoken of with respect to the same things in the same manner; and the things mentioned are spoken concerning them in the same sense. But this is not all.

 

You see when the Pharisees blasphemed by saying that Jesus cast out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, they intended a person; and so they expressed this by his name, nature, and office.

 

Our Lord replies that He cast out demons by the Holy Spirit — a divine person, who is in contrast to the person of the Devil. Notice carefully this fact on how, in the discourse, the Holy Spirit is used in contrast to the "unclean spirit" (Mark 3:30) i.e. Satan the Devil (Matt. 12:26). If the "unclean spirit" here is a person, then the Holy Spirit is a person.

 

Logically if the Holy Spirit is not a Person then Jesus should have said that He cast the demons out by the Father.

 

Jesus then immediately adds His instruction and caution to this, that they should take heed how they blasphemed that Holy Spirit, by assigning His works to the prince of demons, one person contrast with another person.

 

Blasphemy against the Spirit directly manifests both what and who He is. It is especially such a unique blasphemy in the fact that it can’t be forgiven.

 

The Son may be blasphemed as to his distinct person as it says here — and upon that, it is added that the Holy Spirit also may be distinctly blasphemed, or be the immediate object of that sin, again one person and another person.

 

This example coupled with others give evidence of the personality of the Holy Spirit. To think of acting or reacting to an influence in this ways is incongruous.

 

It is impossible to blaspheme or sin against anything but a person. Were He not a person, then the Holy Spirit could not be sinned against.

 

Certainly the fact that the Holy Spirit can be grieved, resisted, insulted and blasphemed give evidence to His personality along with the fact that He has a mind and will, that He speaks to, and loves believers, these are just some of the many scriptural evidence that confirm that the Holy Spirit is a Person as opposed to no evidence to deny this.

 

At the moment I have many matters that require my attention, so I cannot respond to you as quickly as I would like, hopefully you can bear with me on any delay. <><

[Evacuated]

2 hours ago, Cos said:

It is impossible to blaspheme or sin against anything but a person

The scriptures clearly indicate that sinning against something counts as a sin against the one owning or represented by that thing:

• 1Cor 6:18: "whoever practices sexual immorality is sinning against his own body" (The individual whose body is sinned against)
• Lev 4:23:"a sin that he has committed against the commandment" (Jehovah, the one giving the commandment)
• 1 Sam 19:5 "why should you sin against innocent blood" (David, whose innocent blood would have been shed)
• Acts 25:8 "Neither against the Law of the Jews nor against the temple..have I committed any sin." (Jehovah, as it was His law and His temple)
• Lev 5:14 "unintentionally sinning against the holy things of Jehovah" (Jehovah, to whom the offerings were to be made in the manner He prescribed)
• Lev 5:16 "the sin he has committed against the holy place" (Jehovah, whose holy place it is)
• Mark 3:29 "But whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit has no forgiveness" (Jehovah, in that the operation of His active force is attributed to Satan)

Of course, you have correctly defined the underlying reason for the difference in understanding these texts when you said:

2 hours ago, Cos said:

That would be only for someone who does not recognize the fact that the Holy Spirit is a Person

To which, in connection with the alternative understanding you present, the only response can be "That would be only for someone who does not recognize the fact that the Holy Spirit is God's active force"

I am well thank you and I hope your other issues are being resolved satisfactorily.

[Otto]

Therefore a person can sin against anything that isn't a person because if it belongs to God it's the equivalent of sinning against him.... likewise attacking those who belong to him as part of this Earthly visible organization is also an act against God himself

[Cos]

On ‎12‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 10:21 PM, Gone Fishing said:

The scriptures clearly indicate that sinning against something counts as a sin against the one owning or represented by that thing:

 

Gone fishing,

 

In your examples, when put into context they are apparent that a person or persons are intended, even Otto’s questionable input on the non biblical “earthly visible organization” comprise persons.

 

But when it comes to Jesus’ discourse with the Pharisees in Matt. 12, Mark 3 the idea that to sin against the Holy Spirit means someone other than the subject mentioned is an idea that must be read into the passage. 

 

Remember Mark tells us why Jesus charged those scribes with blaspheming against the Holy Spirit: it was because “they had said, ‘He has an unclean spirit’”. And like I said, the coherent understanding (instead of reading something else into the passage) is if the "unclean spirit" is a person, then by contrast, the Holy Spirit is a person.

 

And it is in this that His personality is asserted, for the “unclean spirit” is a person; and if the Holy Spirit were as you claim, then no comparative opposition could be made between Him and this unclean spirit — that is, Satan.

 

Sorry to say, but an idea like yours ignores the context to read something different into the dialogue, this is not the logical acuity for understanding Scripture.

 

On ‎12‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 10:21 PM, Gone Fishing said:

 the Holy Spirit is God's active force

 

On what biblical evidence do you base your assertion?

 

Here again is some of the biblical evidence provided so far which prove that the Holy Spirit is a Person; He can be grieved, resisted, insulted and blasphemed, He speaks with, and loves believers; these are all qualities that prove personality. Your evidence on the other hand is lacking. <><

[Cos]

The Watchtower generated idea that the Holy Spirit is some type of “force/power” is a false manmade teaching that has no biblical backing, but JWs accept this false teaching without any Biblical verification.

 

On the other hand there is so much evidence in the Scriptures which show that the Holy Spirit is a Person. For example, numerous times in the Book of Acts the Holy Spirit is described in language which clearly indicate that The Holy Spirit is a person, who speaks (1:16; 8:29), forbids (1 6:6), thinks good (15:28), appoints (20:28), sends (1 3:4), bears witness (5:32), snatches (8:39), prevents (16:7), and resisted (7:51) just name a few. <><

[Evacuated]

On 12/31/2017 at 9:01 AM, Cos said:

In your examples, when put into context they are apparent that a person or persons are intended,

The point of including themsurely?

On 12/31/2017 at 9:01 AM, Cos said:

Remember Mark tells us why Jesus charged those scribes with blaspheming against the Holy Spirit: it was because “they had said, ‘He has an unclean spirit’”

which Mark records was "Beelzebub", as does Luke 11:19. Luke 11:20 shows that Jesus expelled demons by means of God's "finger" (Ex.8:19; Ex.31:18), not the finger of Beelzebub. The false attribution by the religionists was a sin against "the finger of God" and as such a brazen sin against the personal presence of Jehovah. (Even the Egyptian magicians recognised the "finger of God" which 1stCentury religionists did not).

The listing of personalizations in connection with holy spirirt may substantiate your personal view of it's nature, but is not of itself scriptural evidence of personality, any more than other examples of the same literary device in scripture discussed elsewhere. It appears your belief is core to your argument, not the scriptures, which you apparently present to merely support your belief. ¿<><

[Cos]

On ‎1‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 7:43 PM, Gone Fishing said:

 It appears your belief is core to your argument

Gone fishing,

 

No, Scripture is core to my argument, my belief is the product of what the Scriptures teach and verify.

 

Sadly, it appears that all you have for your belief is the ever shifting and inconsistent teaching of men who hide behind a magazine, with NO Scriptural backing.

 

Can “force/ power” have feelings, a mind and intellect? These are traits of a real Person not a thing…<><