The Holy Spirit

[Space Merchant]

@Gone Away Indeed, we must not add to His Word.

Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32, Proverbs 30:5, 6, John 10:35, Revelations 22:18, 19 

And most certainly His Word does not create confusion, 1 Corinthians 14:33.

[Cos]

Here is an illogical argument; there is “one spirit in the Bible seeking equality with God”. Yet, his so called “assistants” are adding to Scripture BUT NOT to promote this spirit person! This is just another irrational claim made so that the “personification” supporter’s arguments will appear more tenable, since they have nothing else!

 

And so with nothing to uphold their claim, they will appeal to an accidental inclusion, that which scholars agree was probably a margin note that a later scribe mistakenly considered to be the original text thus making its way into the passage, against the intentional adding to Scripture, for example the NWT adds “Jehovah” (and much more) to the NT in excess of 200 times without any manuscript support. <><

[Evacuated]

1 hour ago, Cos said:

This is just another irrational claim

Claims of irrationality have always been levelled against witnesses who have experienced Gods great gift. "And we are witnesses of these matters, and so is the holy spirit, which God has given to those obeying him as ruler" Acts 5:29.

Compare: " “He has gone out of his mind." "Mark 5:21

                   " “You are going out of your mind, Paul!" " Acts 26:24

1 hour ago, Cos said:

the intentional adding to Scripture, for example the NWT adds “Jehovah” (and much more) to the NT

 If you believe that Jesus would have followed the superstitious and insulting pattern set by religious leaders in Israel of excluding God's personal name from His own word, then I feel you may well be spiritually floundering in human tradition.

For example, to think that Jesus would have quoted from Ps.110:1and intentionally ommit to include his Father's personal name beggars the imagination, and indeed is an affront to the "Faithful and True Witness"!

Why, even The Catholic Living Bible (with Impramatur) includes a pronouncable version of the holy name of the True God at this verse, "Jehovah said to my Lord the Messenger, "Rule as my regent - I will subdue your enemies and make them bow low before you." Ps.110:1. Was this an addition to the text?

Then, sadly, they acquiesce to the weight of religious traditionalism and, with red letters, render Jesus's use of this verse as "God said to my Lord, sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet." Matt.23:44.

No, the restoration of God's name in a pronouncable and specific form is to do justice to the text, and to follow in the pattern of someone of far more worth than scholars with their inconsistency , someone who stated in prayer to his heavenly Father "I have made your name known" John 17:26.

(I have included this response to your reference to NWT restoration here as you raised it here, but, with respect, I think the discussion around the inclusion of God's name in Scripture belongs elsewhere as a topic.)

[Space Merchant]

@Gone Away Usually when people want to take a shot at anyone, even at JWs, they will bring up God's name and the New Testament. Clearly such ones has never heard of anything outside of the 1245, it is the same situation dealing with those who want to react negatively to the name of God's Son.

 

Other times such ones will say that Jesus/Yeshua is Jehovah/Yahweh, which is another annoying situation on its own.

[Cos]

Some certainly have a high opinion of themselves, when exposed how illogical their claims are, they desperately TRY to link the irrationality of the claim with what was leveled at Jesus and Paul.

 

With that type of self-righteous attitude I think this person believes that he can say and do anything, and in his own eyes, be justified no matter how absurd. He is only fooling himself and those gullible enough to follow suit.

 

The excuses for adding “Jehovah” more than 200 times without any manuscript support exposes the typical double standard trait of JWs. <><

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, Cos said:

adding “Jehovah” more than 200 times

A 200x restoration of the sacred name of God to His own word pales against the stealthy, deliberate, and culpable removal of that same name more than 7000 times by a collection of scheming and pharisaical thieves of worship and their supporters. No matter what mealy-mouthed reasoning they might cling to, based on their  self-awarded, so-called scholarly recognition, it is difficult to see how they will escape the withering condemnation of the true assessor: "I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!" Matt.7:23.

4 hours ago, Cos said:

I think

This is a truthful and worthy preface for all your postings on this particular subject.

Notwithstanding, I hope that Paul's words have some application here: "Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. For I bear witness that they possess an enthusiasm for God, but it is an unenlightened enthusiasm" Rom.10:1-2.

?

[Space Merchant]

@Cos Buddy, I wish it was nonsense or mere opinion, but everything said and mention is with hermeneutics, a thing Trinitarians do not like at all, mainly when it reveals what certain verses mean in context, example, an exegesis on John 10:30, but with use of hermeneutics and context we can see John 10:16, or perhaps what Jesus said in response several verses from 30, and what he met that points directly to John 17 verses and even beyond the four gospel accounts.

 

If we are speaking about attitudes, it is known by view towards you already, mainly with how you welcomed me here after being exposed as slandering against your own word, I rather not remind you or repost what was on full display, therefore, keep in mind as to what you said before I made many response towards you, that my friend, is being hypocritical.

Like I said, no one is going to believe the young virgin Mary had relations with a Spirit being granted she herself said the following in Matthew 1:24, 25, Luke 1:34 (see Isaiah 7:14) when her and Joseph had not even had a child at the time. No one is going to believe that a Spirit appeared to more than 3,000 people (remember when I kept directing you to Acts 1 and 2?), when we clearly see that that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was taking place, no being in sight, granted key witnesses who were there who are also the same ones who bore witness about God, the one who sent Jesus. Like I said, it would be understandable if what you believe is indeed obvious in the Bible, yet this belief causes confusion and conflict in both the Old and New Testament, hence the absurdities. That being said, every verse that Trinitarians have used over the years have been exposed by means of sheer hermeneutics and utter context of said verses, even the false verses and the forged ones Trinitarians love to use, or that of the 1245, the JC and or TR, its been exposed already, if we are to take into account that God knows the day and hour, and then call Jesus God and then go about calling the so called Holy Spirit, a person, a God, then you have a problem of whose who who knows what and the like, and it does not stop there only. Let's not forget your clear confusion about Greek Language Forms, only to use your own information against yourself to further prove what I have been saying this whole time.

 

As for God's name, it is obvious you are a 1245er who has no idea of the Septuagint.

[Space Merchant]

@Gone Away Trinitarians are oblivious to the Septuagint and the source of that even has God's name on it. @Cos problem is with the JWs, but ironically, he is not aware of even Trinitarians who made an attempt to use and or restore the name Yahweh/Jehovah into the scriptures themselves, despite trying to erroneously say and or compare Jesus to God the Father, some of them even calling Jesus Jehovah, when clearly both the Father and the Son are different from each other, despite both being Lords, one clearly has higher authority than the other.

 

The hypocrisy is when Trinitarians also attack Muslims to say hat God's name is in the New Testament, which is the case in the majority of the EU, mainly the UK, but here we see a defective Trinitarian doing loop-de-loops on his own kind.

[Cos]

Some have clearly revealed a typical double standard in the face of illogical claims. Frankly I have no problem with using the divine name in Scripture, but this is all about adding what does not have manuscript support. And then there is the hermeneutic (method of Bible interpretation) argument; but proper hermeneutics is NOT the practice that Scripture may be interpreted in such a way as to suggest that one passage corrects or even militates against another as proposed. This type of Bible interpretation is to be expected because, like it or not, that’s the only way they can make what the Bible says ‘fit” their brand of theology. <><

[Space Merchant]

6 hours ago, Cos said:

Some have clearly revealed a typical double standard in the face of illogical claims. Frankly I have no problem with using the divine name in Scripture, but this is all about adding what does not have manuscript support. And then there is the hermeneutic (method of Bible interpretation) argument; but proper hermeneutics is NOT the practice that Scripture may be interpreted in such a way as to suggest that one passage corrects or even militates against another as proposed. This type of Bible interpretation is to be expected because, like it or not, that’s the only way they can make what the Bible says ‘fit” their brand of theology. <><

There is no double standard, mainly if one is aware of what is present outside of the 1245 and of course, it is no problem to any man, regardless of faith background to use God's personal name in scripture and or professing it, mainly if you take into account how sacred the Jews held the name of Hashem (God), for there is a reason as to WHY they made YHWH Adonai.

As for manuscripts, it is no surprise you are not aware of what has been in connection with the Septuagint, something of which that has been pulled up with vast information, evidence and other form of connection, something of which will take up 2-3 pages should I post said information -  in a sense, from 5 years of research and study, I can literally drop a book on you to that response of yours, and the hypocrisy here is you only make mention of the Jehovah's Witnesses in this regard, yet you do not attack your own for restoring said name because JWs and others have done it, in fact, Trinitarians have stronghold on the internet in this regard, mainly after being called out in the past for the removal of the name for more than 2,519+ times in the OT in the KJV/NKJV (excluding the recent KJV with the restored name).

It's called hermeneutics, a method or theory of interpretation, furthermore, the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, when it comes to the Bible and or literary texts, it has nothing to do with argument, rather, it has more to do with accepting biblical context of said passages, seeing the connection and coming to the most accurate conclusion possible, example, you brought up 1 Peter 1:1-2 to support your belief, yet with little bit of hermeneutics, anyone can see the context of what Peter was conveying and bring up verse 3, which in turn, destroys the very claim you have made mention of such verse. hermeneutics is the bane of existence to those who practice a false doctrine that is not of the early Church, this goes for Trinitarians, Modalist, Gnostics, Calvanist, and or any individual and or group that follows something that the Bible does not teach, this goes for any and every claim you make about the Holy Spirit as well as dozens upon dozens of verses of which you make a reference to, it has already been dealt with, the very reason why I made mention to a number of passages here and elsewhere, in addition to twisting what those before us have written.

And no, it is not the only way of biblical interpretation. You are a Trinitarian, the only thing you have in common with Non-Trinitarian is the forms of biblical study and theology, the fact you made no mention to the others because hermeneutics regarding passages of the Bible, only shows that you also lack in this domain, the irony is, I made mention to the other methods as well, I put hermeneutics first in respects of the passages and the context such passages profess, but to the very core of such study, never ever one such as myself apply man-made understanding of a passage, for we are to heed the understanding of the passages in full context as the Bible reveals to us, example, if the Bible says God is not like us men, we should hold to what the Bible says, not turn around and say God suddenly changed his mind and became a man, God Almighty who is incorruptible being able to taste death when the Bible says he cannot, things of that nature, the very reason why people are critical of truth, context, passages, cross-references and a strong conclusion that is of the Bible and not of mere man understanding.

 That being said, it does not really take hermeneutics to realize Greek Language Forms, I mean, that should be obvious, mainly when we take into account the speaker and what the speaker is talking about, etc.

[Evacuated]

6 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

example, if the Bible says God is not like us men, we should hold to what the Bible says, not turn around and say God suddenly changed his mind and became a man, God Almighty who is incorruptible being able to taste death when the Bible says he cannot, things of that nature, the very reason why people are critical of truth, context, passages, cross-references and a strong conclusion that is of the Bible and not of mere man understanding.

There is a very interesting line of reasoning here which appears to be based on expressions such as: 

• "God is not a human male" Nu.23:19 (NET Bible);
• "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." Is.55:9; 
• "O my God, my Holy One, you do not die" Hab.1:12;
• "Furthermore, many will follow their brazen conduct, and because of them the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively." 2Pet.2:2

I wonder how many who promote  false sectarian doctorine about our Creator Jehovah realise that He sees their conduct in the light of the Greek word aselgia.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

1.)  God cannot die.

2.) If Jesus did not actually and really die, his sacrifice was NOT a sacrifice .... merely a REALLY bad weekend.

3.) Therefore, to rational  people ... Jesus CANNOT be God ... or .... if Jesus was God, who CANNOT die .... he did not redeem anybody from anything, as he DID NOT REALLY DIE, then no REAL sacrifice of his life was ever made.

Pick ONE.

You cannot have it BOTH ways.

 

Period.