The Holy Spirit

[Cos]

20 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

 You are still presuming, and now it seems indulging in some mentalism it appears? 

"whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, whatever things are righteous, whatever things are chaste, whatever things are lovable, whatever things are well-spoken-of, whatever things are virtuous, and whatever things are praiseworthy, continue considering these things." Ph 4:8

 

Gone fishing,

 

You claim you wanted to know my “analysis technique” on a passage that has nothing to do with the thread, and you even emphasized certain portions of the passage; for what reason did you emphasize those portion if you want to know my “analysis technique” on the passage? <><

[Evacuated]

6 hours ago, Cos said:

You claim you wanted to know my “analysis technique” on a passage

I don't understand this statement really, but I think you are referring to my earlier response explaining that I wanted to apply your analysis technique, (demonstrated in some passages you quoted from John's gospel), to the passage in Proverbs 8.

I have demonstrated the application of your analysis technique on the passage in Proverbs 8 in that earlier post. What it indicates is clearly visible in that post, so my curiosity, (the reason for asking), is satisfied on that count. 

You have also shared your view on the passage (quoted earlier) in Proverbs 8 as being allegorical, poetic, and having no connection with this thread. Thank you for that also.

I think this statement from Isaiah 40:13 is definitely relevant to any discussion on Holy Spirit:

"Who has taken the measurements of the spirit of Jehovah, and who can instruct him as his adviser?"

And also this reassuring encouragement at Luke 11:13:

"Therefore, if you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will the Father in heaven give holy spirit to those asking him!"
 

[Cos]

On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 3:02 PM, Gone Fishing said:

I don't understand this statement really, but I think you are referring to my earlier response explaining that I wanted to apply your analysis technique, (demonstrated in some passages you quoted from John's gospel), to the passage in Proverbs 8.

I have demonstrated the application of your analysis technique on the passage in Proverbs 8 in that earlier post. What it indicates is clearly visible in that post, so my curiosity, (the reason for asking), is satisfied on that count. 

You have also shared your view on the passage (quoted earlier) in Proverbs 8 as being allegorical, poetic, and having no connection with this thread. Thank you for that also.

I think this statement from Isaiah 40:13 is definitely relevant to any discussion on Holy Spirit:

"Who has taken the measurements of the spirit of Jehovah, and who can instruct him as his adviser?"

And also this reassuring encouragement at Luke 11:13:

"Therefore, if you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will the Father in heaven give holy spirit to those asking him!"
 

Gone fishing,

 

You claimed that it was “pure presumption” on my part when I said that you just do what every other JW does when confronted with the clear text that goes against your belief system and that is by appealing to Proverbs.

 

I’m sorry to say but once again you contradict yourself…

 

Now you allege that you were “demonstrating” what you call my “analysis technique” to the passage of Proverbs…now that’s exactly what I said you were doing. But you were asserting otherwise.

 

By the way, make sure you understand a passage of Scripture before you quote them; I will contend that the pronouns ‘him” and “his” in Isa. 40:13 are referring to the Spirit Himself! <><

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, Cos said:

presumption” on my part

Is to assert that you know what my belief system is, what my reasons for applying your technique to Proverbs 8 are, and also what my understanding of Proverbs 8 actually is. Also, you have amply demonstrated that you do not  understand what I believe Jehovah's Holy Spirit and power actually are as well in an earlier post. So unfortunately, yes, "pure presumption" on your part. But don't take offense. None was meant.

On 9/10/2017 at 1:46 AM, Cos said:

You claim you wanted to know my “analysis technique” on a passage

I still do not understand what this statement actually means in connection with what I said. Must be my understanding of the grammar at fault.

4 hours ago, Cos said:

Now you allege that you were “demonstrating” what you call my “analysis technique” to the passage of Proverbs…now that’s exactly what I said you were doing. But you were asserting otherwise.

You really have lost me here I'm afraid.

4 hours ago, Cos said:

I will contend that the pronouns ‘him” and “his” in Isa. 40:13 are referring to the Spirit Himself!

Interesting.

The Rev.John Skinner D.D.. edited an alternative view on this verse in his 1898 commentary on Isaiah ( Vol II):

"the spirit of the Lord] denotes here the organ of the Divine intelligence (see 1 Corinthians 2:11). This is more likely than that the spirit is personified and then endowed with intelligence. The idea, however, does not appear to be found elsewhere in the O.T. The Spirit of God is ordinarily mentioned as the life-giving principle emanating from Jehovah, which pervades and sustains the world, and endows select men with extraordinary powers and virtues.

or being … him] Better, perhaps: and was the man of His counsel who taught Him. “His” and “Him” refer of course to Jehovah, not the Spirit."

He seemed to explain it quite well there.

[Cos]

19 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Is to assert that you know what my belief system is, what my reasons for applying your technique to Proverbs 8 are, and also what my understanding of Proverbs 8 actually is. Also, you have amply demonstrated that you do not  understand what I believe Jehovah's Holy Spirit and power actually are as well in an earlier post. So unfortunately, yes, "pure presumption" on your part. But don't take offense. None was meant.

I still do not understand what this statement actually means in connection with what I said. Must be my understanding of the grammar at fault.

You really have lost me here I'm afraid.

Interesting.

The Rev.John Skinner D.D.. edited an alternative view on this verse in his 1898 commentary on Isaiah ( Vol II):

"the spirit of the Lord] denotes here the organ of the Divine intelligence (see 1 Corinthians 2:11). This is more likely than that the spirit is personified and then endowed with intelligence. The idea, however, does not appear to be found elsewhere in the O.T. The Spirit of God is ordinarily mentioned as the life-giving principle emanating from Jehovah, which pervades and sustains the world, and endows select men with extraordinary powers and virtues.

or being … him] Better, perhaps: and was the man of His counsel who taught Him. “His” and “Him” refer of course to Jehovah, not the Spirit."

He seemed to explain it quite well there.

Gone fishing,

 

You say one thing then say something else, contradicting what you originally said.

 

I knew why you appealed to the passage in Proverbs and told you as much, you said its “pure presumption”, but then later you admit that it was for that very reason.

 

You also bring up phrases and then you say that you don’t understand what they “actually mean”. Either you are faking your ignorance or you have some really bad memory problems.

 

You quoted from John Skinner, I’ll quote from the renowned Kiel and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament; 

“The Spirit of Jehovah” is the Spirit which moved upon the waters at the creation, and by which chaos was reduced to order.”

 

And from the Jewish Targums; "who hath directed the Holy Spirit…”

 

Scholars’ can and do have different opinions, as for me, I have studied this verse and will maintain what I originally said. <><

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, Cos said:

maintain what I originally said

Your choice

3 hours ago, Cos said:

I knew why you appealed to the passage in Proverbs and told you as much, you said its “pure presumption”, but then later you admit that it was for that very reason.

???

3 hours ago, Cos said:

you say that you don’t understand what they “actually mean”

I don't understand what you actually mean. Your grammar mystifies me.

3 hours ago, Cos said:

who hath directed the Holy Spirit

Who indeed?

John 20:22 "After saying this he blew on them and said to them: “Receive holy spirit."

John 14:25 "the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name"

3 hours ago, Cos said:

“The Spirit of Jehovah” is the Spirit which moved upon the waters at the creation, and by which chaos was reduced to order.

The same one.

[Cos]

17 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Your choice

???

I don't understand what you actually mean. Your grammar mystifies me.

Who indeed?

John 20:22 "After saying this he blew on them and said to them: “Receive holy spirit."

John 14:25 "the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name"

The same one.

Gone fishing,

If it’s any conciliation…your contradictions still don’t come close to the many contradictions of the Watchtower Society! <><

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, Cos said:

If it’s any conciliation…your contradictions still don’t come close to the many contradictions of the Watchtower Society!

These comments still don't make real sense to me as I am still as mystified by your logic as by the doctorine you seem to promote. 

Oh, I just thought, maybe English is not your first language. Apologies if that is the case.

Anyway, the thread has been of some value as @Otto providied some useful encyclopedia quotes regarding Holy Spirit. I pull them together below for easy reference.

This was a good one:

the Encyclopedia Britannica Micropaedia, 1985 ed., Vol. 6, p. 22 :

"The Hebrew word ruah (usually translated `spirit') is often found in texts referring to the free and unhindered activity of God, .... There was, however, no explicit belief in a separate divine person in Biblical Judaism; in fact, the New Testament itself is not entirely clear in this regard"

This one I didn't know:

The Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 269, 1976:

"In the OT the Holy Spirit means a divine power..."

And this one which clarifies the difference between Jehovah's power and Jehovah's spirit:

Insight on the Scriptures, 1988, Vol. 2, p.1020:

Distinguished from “power.” Ruʹach and pneuʹma,therefore, when used with reference to God’s holy spirit, refer to God’s invisible active force by which he accomplishes his divine purpose and will. It is “holy” because it is from Him, not of an earthly source, and is free from all corruption as “the spirit of holiness.” (Ro 1:4) It is not Jehovah’s “power,” for this English word more correctly translates other terms in the original languages (Heb., koʹach; Gr.,dyʹna·mis). Ruʹach and pneuʹma are used in close association or even in parallel with these terms signifying “power,” which shows that there is an inherent connection between them and yet a definite distinction. (Mic 3:8; Zec 4:6; Lu 1:17, 35;Ac 10:38) “Power” is basically the ability or capacity to act or do things and it can be latent, dormant, or inactively resident in someone or something. “Force,” on the other hand, more specifically describes energy projected and exertedon persons or things, and may be defined as “an influence that produces or tends to produce motion, or change of motion.” “Power” might be likened to the energy stored in a battery, while “force” could be compared to the electric current flowing from such battery. “Force,” then, more accurately represents the sense of the Hebrew and Greek terms as relating to God’s spirit, and this is borne out by a consideration of the Scriptures.

 

[Cos]

23 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

These comments still don't make real sense to me as I am still as mystified by your logic as by the doctorine you seem to promote. 

Oh, I just thought, maybe English is not your first language. Apologies if that is the case.

Anyway, the thread has been of some value as @Otto providied some useful encyclopedia quotes regarding Holy Spirit. I pull them together below for easy reference.

This was a good one:

the Encyclopedia Britannica Micropaedia, 1985 ed., Vol. 6, p. 22 :

"The Hebrew word ruah (usually translated `spirit') is often found in texts referring to the free and unhindered activity of God, .... There was, however, no explicit belief in a separate divine person in Biblical Judaism; in fact, the New Testament itself is not entirely clear in this regard"

This one I didn't know:

The Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 269, 1976:

"In the OT the Holy Spirit means a divine power..."

And this one which clarifies the difference between Jehovah's power and Jehovah's spirit:

Insight on the Scriptures, 1988, Vol. 2, p.1020:

Distinguished from “power.” Ruʹach and pneuʹma,therefore, when used with reference to God’s holy spirit, refer to God’s invisible active force by which he accomplishes his divine purpose and will. It is “holy” because it is from Him, not of an earthly source, and is free from all corruption as “the spirit of holiness.” (Ro 1:4) It is not Jehovah’s “power,” for this English word more correctly translates other terms in the original languages (Heb., koʹach; Gr.,dyʹna·mis). Ruʹach and pneuʹma are used in close association or even in parallel with these terms signifying “power,” which shows that there is an inherent connection between them and yet a definite distinction. (Mic 3:8; Zec 4:6; Lu 1:17, 35;Ac 10:38) “Power” is basically the ability or capacity to act or do things and it can be latent, dormant, or inactively resident in someone or something. “Force,” on the other hand, more specifically describes energy projected and exertedon persons or things, and may be defined as “an influence that produces or tends to produce motion, or change of motion.” “Power” might be likened to the energy stored in a battery, while “force” could be compared to the electric current flowing from such battery. “Force,” then, more accurately represents the sense of the Hebrew and Greek terms as relating to God’s spirit, and this is borne out by a consideration of the Scriptures.

 

Gone fishing,

 

Let’s examine how you contradict.

 

Here is what I said on Friday the 8^th of Sept.

“Now it is clear to me that you only take those passages in John’s Gospel to be a personification, as does Otto.”

 

Your response on Friday the 8^th of Sept

“Your clarity is very easily assumed?”

 

“I only applied the technique you demonstrated with regard to Jesus words about Holy Spirit to another passage of scripture  and asked you to share your view or opinion. I don't recall I said anything about what my understanding of Proverbs 8 is as it is not the topic under discussion. I was more interested in the application of your technique to that passage and what you felt it might reveal.”

 

Then on Saturday the 9th of Sept. I said;

“you then asked me what I thought about the poetic passage in Proverbs as though that’s the ‘sense’ you understand John Gospel.”

 

On Sunday the 10th of Sept. you said

“This is a pure presumption on your part I'm afraid”

  

I said on Sunday the 10th of Sept.

“Please, if it is “pure presumption” explain the reason you brought the passage up?”

  

You then said on Sunday the 10th of Sept. ,

“I wanted to know what you thought of it and what the analysis technique which you applied to the passage in John would reveal if utilised with regard to the inspired passage in Proverbs.”

 

NOTE; this is where you applied the phrase that you later claim to not know what it means!

 

Then again on Sunday the 10th of Sept. I said,

“Come on…the passage from Proverbs had nothing to do with the context of the thread. You and I know full well why you brought it up; you even emphasized certain portions indicating your intention.”

 

You then said on Sunday the 10th of Sept.

“You are still presuming, and now it seems indulging in some mentalism it appears?

 

I said Sunday the 10th of Sept

“You claim you wanted to know my “analysis technique” on a passage that has nothing to do with the thread, and you even emphasized certain portions of the passage; for what reason did you emphasize those portion if you want to know my “analysis technique” on the passage?”

  

You then said, and here is the contradiction,

“I have demonstrated the application of your analysis technique on the passage in Proverbs 8 in that earlier post.”

  

Do you see your contradiction? First it was that you want me to share my “view or opinion…and what [ I ] felt it might reveal” But here you say that you already “demonstrated” my so called “analysis technique” on the passage of Proverbs “in the earlier post” which is what I said you were doing all along!

 

Now quoting encyclopedia’s out of context by leaving portion out seems to be a favorite ploy by the Watchtower, JW’s and others. Sadly now it seam that Otto is not joining in anymore, although I hope he still paying attention.  

 

Anyway, let me point out to you, as I point out to Otto, one of the many Watchtowers contradictions:

 

In the Watchtower publication “Insight on the Scriptures” they say that the Holy Spirit “It is not Jehovah’s ‘power’”.

 

Yet on the Watchtower web page they say;

“In the Bible, God’s holy spirit is identified as God’s power in action.” https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102006245

 

We have on the one hand, a Watchtower article that says that your idea of holy spirit “IS NOT Jehovah’s power”.

 

Then in another article the Watchtower says that your idea of holy spirit “IS IDENTIFIED AS” Jehovah’s “power in action”.

 

One place they say “is not” Jehovah’s power and another they say “is identified as” Jehovah’s "power". Contradiction! <><

[Evacuated]

Hi Cos

Only 2 things in response this time. 

1.

1 hour ago, Cos said:

You claim you wanted to know my “analysis technique” on a passage

I still do not understand what this means. so do not know how I could contradict it.

What I said on 10th September is that "I wanted to know what .........the analysis technique which you applied to the passage in John would reveal" if utilised with regard to the inspired passage in Proverbs. This is very specific, and refers to the method you demonstrated in highlighting certain verbs and pronouns.. I certainly did not express a desire to know your analysis technique, whatever that means.

And the application of this feature of your technique I thought is what I demonstrated, by highlighting various verbs and personal pronouns in the passage of Proverbs 8 in the same manner in which you had done so in the passage of John.

You responded by stating your opinion (in essence)  that the inspired description of wisdom in Proverbs 8 is poetic and allegorical, whereas the words of John 14-16 regarding holy spirit are biographical, regardless of what the application of your analysis technique might reveal. You have also stated your opinion that the passage in Proverbs 8 has no relevance to the discussion on the nature of the Holy Spirit. That conclusion in itself demonstrates your analysis technique to encompass far more than the highlighting of certain words in a passage of scripture does it not? Correct me if I am wrong.

Regarding the brouhaha on my imagined"contradiction", this is where I have to throw up my hands and say "I really do not see what relevance this has to the subject under discussion."

2. 

1 hour ago, Cos said:

One place they say “is not” Jehovah’s power and another they say “is identified as” Jehovah’s "power". Contradiction!

Power = Power in action? Maybe to you, but not the same thing in my understanding. Power is potential.  Power in action is something else, the demonstration of that potential. They are different, hence, only your selective phrasing above is a contradiction.

[Cos]

21 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Hi Cos

Only 2 things in response this time. 

1.

I still do not understand what this means. so do not know how I could contradict it.

What I said on 10th September is that "I wanted to know what .........the analysis technique which you applied to the passage in John would reveal" if utilised with regard to the inspired passage in Proverbs. This is very specific, and refers to the method you demonstrated in highlighting certain verbs and pronouns.. I certainly did not express a desire to know your analysis technique, whatever that means.

And the application of this feature of your technique I thought is what I demonstrated, by highlighting various verbs and personal pronouns in the passage of Proverbs 8 in the same manner in which you had done so in the passage of John.

You responded by stating your opinion (in essence)  that the inspired description of wisdom in Proverbs 8 is poetic and allegorical, whereas the words of John 14-16 regarding holy spirit are biographical, regardless of what the application of your analysis technique might reveal. You have also stated your opinion that the passage in Proverbs 8 has no relevance to the discussion on the nature of the Holy Spirit. That conclusion in itself demonstrates your analysis technique to encompass far more than the highlighting of certain words in a passage of scripture does it not? Correct me if I am wrong.

Regarding the brouhaha on my imagined"contradiction", this is where I have to throw up my hands and say "I really do not see what relevance this has to the subject under discussion."

 

 

Gone fishing,

 

I told you that I knew why you appealed to the passage in Proverbs; it is the “go to”, the knee jerk reaction, that JW’s appeal to when confronted with the passage on the Holy Spirit in John’s Gospel.

 

Your denial that that was not your intent was contradicted by you when you later admitted that it was for that purpose that you appealed to Proverbs. You can call it what you like but it is the truth, like it or not.

 

21 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Power = Power in action? Maybe to you, but not the same thing in my understanding. Power is potential.  Power in action is something else, the demonstration of that potential. They are different, hence, only your selective phrasing above is a contradiction.

 

Are you say that the phrasing from the Watchtower where they say that the Holy Spirit is “not Jehovah’s ‘power’”, but elsewhere where they say that the Holy Spirit is “identified as God’s power”, that that is not a contradiction?

 

I just want to make sure that this is exactly what you are saying, because as the example above and from the other thread demonstrate you tend do say one thing and then say the opposite later. So bear with me as I just want to make sure that this is what you are saying. <><

[Evacuated]

6 hours ago, Cos said:

I told you that I knew why you appealed to the passage in Proverbs; it is the “go to”, the knee jerk reaction, that JW’s appeal to when confronted with the passage on the Holy Spirit in John’s Gospel.

Mr Cos. I have your view on these two passages of scripture. I don't believe I have actually stated my view. So, in view of the tone of your responses, I will leave you to surmise on what that might be. There is scriptural precedence for this.

6 hours ago, Cos said:

Are you say that the phrasing from the Watchtower where they say that the Holy Spirit is “not Jehovah’s ‘power’”, but elsewhere where they say that the Holy Spirit is “identified as God’s power”, that that is not a contradiction?

 

I just want to make sure that this is exactly what you are saying, because as the example above and from the other thread demonstrate you tend do say one thing and then say the opposite later. So bear with me as I just want to make sure that this is what you are saying.

Last try on this one Mr Cos. My understanding of the WT view of Holy Spirit is summed up below:

"It would not be quite accurate to say that the holy spirit is God’s power. This is because power can be latent, or inactively resident, in someone or something, such as power stored in a charged but unused battery. The Scriptures, however, present God’s spirit in the context of being in motion, somewhat like the electric current that flows from a battery in use. (Genesis 1:2) Hence, God’s holy spirit is his projected energy, his active force."