James the Persian
Dreptcredincios Crestin
May,
Whilst you're right on the name thing (it's an argument I would normally use against modalists like Oneness Pentecostals), I don't see how it bolsters your cause. If you're saying that we are to baptise by the authority of the Holy Spirit whilst also claiming that this is nothing more than God's active force in the world, then you are saying nothing at all. I may have authority, but how can my actions? In fact, you'd be left with something that would read like 'by the authority of God, the Archangel Michael and God's actions' doesn't make much sense to me.
You'd also have to explain why the Holy Spirit is always referred to using personal language, given titles etc. It is clear from an unbiased reading of the original text that the early Church conceived of the Holy Spirit in entirely Personal terms. There is no place for an impersonal 'Force' in Scripture. It's a long time since i've had a look at the NWT, though, so it could well be that it avoids the issue by use of (almost certainly deliberately) mistranslated Greek.
I'm also intrigued that you mention the Septuagint. I thought that JWs, like most of the post-Reformation denominations eschewed that. Or am I wrong? Do you actually use the deuterocannonical books? If you don't, then it seems odd that you would try to base your argument on Scriptures you do not, in fact, use.
James
Whilst you're right on the name thing (it's an argument I would normally use against modalists like Oneness Pentecostals), I don't see how it bolsters your cause. If you're saying that we are to baptise by the authority of the Holy Spirit whilst also claiming that this is nothing more than God's active force in the world, then you are saying nothing at all. I may have authority, but how can my actions? In fact, you'd be left with something that would read like 'by the authority of God, the Archangel Michael and God's actions' doesn't make much sense to me.
You'd also have to explain why the Holy Spirit is always referred to using personal language, given titles etc. It is clear from an unbiased reading of the original text that the early Church conceived of the Holy Spirit in entirely Personal terms. There is no place for an impersonal 'Force' in Scripture. It's a long time since i've had a look at the NWT, though, so it could well be that it avoids the issue by use of (almost certainly deliberately) mistranslated Greek.
I'm also intrigued that you mention the Septuagint. I thought that JWs, like most of the post-Reformation denominations eschewed that. Or am I wrong? Do you actually use the deuterocannonical books? If you don't, then it seems odd that you would try to base your argument on Scriptures you do not, in fact, use.
James