Let's Talk About the Holy Spirit

Deeje · Aug 27, 2016

ashkat1` said:
What a coincidence! All I'm seeing from you here is a lot of empty whining and attacks on the Christian church.

I have not once attacked the "Christian Church". I have attacked Christendom and her incredibly weak foundations. Not the same thing at all. (Matthew 7:24-27)

Not one decent rebuttal from you, either.

Ah, so you admit it then? LOL

You are obviously not used to people disagreeing with you.....pity, it's actually character building.

Any scriptures used to promote the trinity have all been dealt with, so that just leaves us with personal choice as to our acceptance of the evidence in the Bible.
If there is not one direct statement from either Christ or his Father to the effect that there is even two heads on Christendom's god (let alone three) and if it took several centuries to finally make it part of official church doctrine, then perhaps it is a later addition by those whom Jesus called "weeds"? The evidence points in that direction to me, but of course, it is up to you to decide what to believe....

I made up my mind a long time ago....seems like you have too. That's what its all about.

Deeje · Aug 27, 2016

ashkat1` said:
For the record, the JDubs are viewed as heretical by the Christian religion because they, like the Pharisees, vehemently deny the Deity of Christ, which is clearly established in the NT.

So you are going to tell me what I believe now? We accept that Jesus is the divine son of God...which is all he ever called himself. Prove me wrong and furnish a direct statement where Jesus admits to being the equal of his Father in any way.

Jesus and his apostles were viewed as a heretical sect by the Jews too...we are in good company....hated by those who supposedly worship the same God. (John 15:18-21)

I have yet to see Deeje or any other JDub adequately address the biblical witness here.

That could have something to do with the fact that you have only been here five minutes.

It is interesting to note the Watchtower Society has issued its own issue of the Bible, the New World Translation, done by anonymous translators. Strange, every other edition has known, specified translators. I can't help but wonder what they are trying to hide.

I will pit the NWT against any Bible you nominate. We do not make this translation available for anyone to take personal credit for any of it. Not hiding, just not 'big noting', which you seem to love. Pity

Need to know about the NWT see here...
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/appendix-a/bible-translation/

Anyhow, my point is that the JDubs are so determined to deny the Deity of Christ that their edition deliberately mistranslates the prologue to John. Instead of stating correctly "the Word was God," they mistranslate the phrase to read "the Word was a God."

When we carefully examine the meanings of the words, a very different picture emerges as to the identity and character of "The Word".

John 1:1 in the Mounce Interlinear.....
In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos.

So "in the beginning" is a starting point, but the starting point of what? Since God is eternal, he had no beginning. So this must be the beginning of creation. So the Word (logos) was "with God" at the beginning of creation. Other scripture goes further and fills in more detail.

Colossians 1:15, 16 says of the pre-human Jesus....

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him."

Revelation 3:14 Jesus calls himself, "the beginning of God's creation".

Jesus had a beginning and so did the rest of creation.

Next we have to determine what "theos" means in Greek.
According to Strongs, the primary meaning of "theos" is....

"a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities" So it is any "mighty one" who can be deemed to be powerful in some capacity. It also says..."whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way

God's representative or viceregent

of magistrates and judges"

So theos does not refer only to the Almighty.

At 2 Cor 4:4, satan is called "theos".

We can also see the definite article (the) in relation to the first "pros · ho theos" but not the second. (just theos) The way to distinguish THE God from other divine persons was to use the definite article because there is no indefinite article ("a" or "an") So if you had a room full of men named Brad Pitt and the celebrity was among them...only one would be "THE" Brad Pitt. Same with God, because the divine name was lost, the only way to distinguish the true God from any other god-like ones was to use the definite article. In John 1:1 the definite article is used in relation to God, but is not used of "the Word".....therefore some translations render John 1:1 "the Word was divine". It was "the Word" who became flesh, not "THE God".

That breaks the rules of Greek grammar and is totally incorrect.

Some would like to think so, but all rules have exceptions.

Furthermore, it makes one wonder how many gods they believe in. If the Father is one God and then Christ is another, it seems they believe in two gods, are polytheistic, and have violated the strict monotheism of the Bible. Of course, in their own delusional way of thinking, they are the one and only true church and everyone else is all wrong.

Now I am laughing out loud again. We have two gods and we are polytheistic yet you have three and are not polytheistic because you squeezed them all into one head?
Good grief!

Please read the definition of "theos" from Strongs (above)....Jesus is a divine being who resembles his Father in every way....he is a representative of his Father, but he is not a different head on his Father's shoulders.

Now do you have something of substance to say or are you just going to play shoot the messenger like a bad politician?

ashkat1` · Aug 27, 2016

Deeje said:
I have not once attacked the "Christian Church". I have attacked Christendom and her incredibly weak foundations. Not the same thing at all. (Matthew 7:24-27)

Ah, so you admit it then? LOL

You are obviously not used to people disagreeing with you.....pity, it's actually character building.

Any scriptures used to promote the trinity have all been dealt with, so that just leaves us with personal choice as to our acceptance of the evidence in the Bible.
If there is not one direct statement from either Christ or his Father to the effect that there is even two heads on Christendom's god (let alone three) and if it took several centuries to finally make it part of official church doctrine, then perhaps it is a later addition by those whom Jesus called "weeds"? The evidence points in that direction to me, but of course, it is up to you to decide what to believe....

I made up my mind a long time ago....seems like you have too. That's what its all about.

You are definitely out to attack the Christian religion and that most certainly does mean the Christian churches. You have yet to deal with any biblical passages related to the Trinity. Your comment about the "two heads" shows you have absolutely no comprehension of what the Trinitarian teachings actually do claim. I presented your earlier with various models of the Trinity , which are very well put together, and asked for your rebuttal, which you have yet to provide. Frankly, I don't think you have bothered to study the subject at all.

ashkat1` · Aug 27, 2016

Deeje said:
So you are going to tell me what I believe now? We accept that Jesus is the divine son of God...which is all he ever called himself. Prove me wrong and furnish a direct statement where Jesus admits to being the equal of his Father in any way.

Jesus and his apostles were viewed as a heretical sect by the Jews too...we are in good company....hated by those who supposedly worship the same God. (John 15:18-21)

That could have something to do with the fact that you have only been here five minutes.

I will pit the NWT against any Bible you nominate. We do not make this translation available for anyone to take personal credit for any of it. Not hiding, just not 'big noting', which you seem to love. Pity

Need to know about the NWT see here...
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/appendix-a/bible-translation/

When we carefully examine the meanings of the words, a very different picture emerges as to the identity and character of "The Word".

John 1:1 in the Mounce Interlinear.....
In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos.

So "in the beginning" is a starting point, but the starting point of what? Since God is eternal, he had no beginning. So this must be the beginning of creation. So the Word (logos) was "with God" at the beginning of creation. Other scripture goes further and fills in more detail.

Colossians 1:15, 16 says of the pre-human Jesus....

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him."

Revelation 3:14 Jesus calls himself, "the beginning of God's creation".

Jesus had a beginning and so did the rest of creation.

Next we have to determine what "theos" means in Greek.
According to Strongs, the primary meaning of "theos" is....

"a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities" So it is any "mighty one" who can be deemed to be powerful in some capacity. It also says..."whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way

God's representative or viceregent

of magistrates and judges"

So theos does not refer only to the Almighty.

At 2 Cor 4:4, satan is called "theos".

We can also see the definite article (the) in relation to the first "pros · ho theos" but not the second. (just theos) The way to distinguish THE God from other divine persons was to use the definite article because there is no indefinite article ("a" or "an") So if you had a room full of men named Brad Pitt and the celebrity was among them...only one would be "THE" Brad Pitt. Same with God, because the divine name was lost, the only way to distinguish the true God from any other god-like ones was to use the definite article. In John 1:1 the definite article is used in relation to God, but is not used of "the Word".....therefore some translations render John 1:1 "the Word was divine". It was "the Word" who became flesh, not "THE God".

Some would like to think so, but all rules have exceptions.

Now I am laughing out loud again. We have two gods and we are polytheistic yet you have three and are not polytheistic because you squeezed them all into one head?
Good grief!

Please read the definition of "theos" from Strongs (above)....Jesus is a divine being who resembles his Father in every way....he is a representative of his Father, but he is not a different head on his Father's shoulders.

Now do you have something of substance to say or are you just going to play shoot the messenger like a bad politician?

The Trinitarian formulations do not claim there are three gods in one head. Where on earth did you come up with that? JDub propaganda probably. So I challenge you to show me one specific reference in the Trinitarian doctrines where that claim is being made? Now go ahead. You made this claim, now you get busy and support it.

savagewind · Aug 27, 2016

ashkat1` said:
The piper cannot do without the music. The piper has to have the music in order to be a piper. You cannot be a piper and not play. Dig? I think that Matt. 28:19 is saying that all believers has a responsibility to share the gospel, the good news, with others, helping them become aware of God's massive love and presence through each miniscule segment of time and space.

That is a burden. Music should not be a burden. What if the piper loses his pipe? Is he still a piper? Does he still want to play?

By the way, it isn't black or white like you seem to think. Of course a disciple is supposed to become a person who others might be happy to live with. If a disciple behaves another way, there is a scripture for that. Mark 9:42

savagewind · Aug 27, 2016

ashkat1` said:
The Trinitarian formulations do not claim there are three gods in one head. Where on earth did you come up with that? JDub propaganda probably. So I challenge you to show me one specific reference in the Trinitarian doctrines where that claim is being made? Now go ahead. You made this claim, now you get busy and support it.

savagewind · Aug 27, 2016

ashkat1` said:
all believers has a responsibility

Would you care to change that word to something else, and the verb, while you are at it?

Responsibility: the state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or of having control over someone; the state or fact of being accountable or to blame for something; the opportunity or ability to act independently and make decisions without authorization.

Deeje · Aug 27, 2016

ashkat1` said:
The Trinitarian formulations do not claim there are three gods in one head. Where on earth did you come up with that?

I can't imagine where I got that idea......was that three gods ?....or three faces on one god?

You do understand that this is where your trinity came from, don't you? The idea wasn't original though...you knew that too...right?

JDub propaganda probably.

A quick Google search and the "propaganda" just popped up.

Here are some pagan trinities......do you think they look familiar?

But I guess you don't see a connection at all, do you?

So I challenge you to show me one specific reference in the Trinitarian doctrines where that claim is being made? Now go ahead. You made this claim, now you get busy and support it.

That is impossible because there is no trinity doctrine in the Bible. The trinity doctrine is Catholic, not Christian.....can you not discern the difference? Roman Catholicism is a product of men, not God. When the blood started to flow, Christ left the building. (Isaiah 1:15)

The Jews have no trinity....and Jesus was Jewish, not Catholic. Out of the three Abrahamic faiths, no one has a trinity except Christendom. If Abraham could be described as "God's friend" (James 2:23; Isaiah 41:8) and he didn't believe that his God was three, don't you think it was horribly remiss of God to keep such a vital truth to himself for thousands of years?

Now...did I make this up? Not one of those images is from any JW publication.

EDIT: Don't know what happened with the original pics I posted...must be some sort of "Mission Impossible" self-destruct mechanism that kicked in overnight.

Does Google do that? On my iPad, one of the pics changed into candles.....very strange. If pics come and go..it's not my fault...OK?

savagewind · Aug 27, 2016

@ashkat1` perhaps it it true that all believers relinquish responsibility. It is written Jesus said, "Let YOUR will be done".

Will you address my point that making disciples is what the JWs do, nobody else does it, but it is written that Jesus commanded it, and that to obey his commands is to love him? John 14:15 John 14:21 John 14:23 John 15:10 1 John 2:3 1 John 5:3 2 John 1:6

Is the commandment to be making disciples true?

How is it possible that all the scholars in the world past and present, accept Jesus commanded the making of disciples but nobody does it........

until the Jehovah's Witnesses?

How is it possible for a human to make a disciple by teaching him, but in the image of Christ, not in the image of the human teacher?

Am I misunderstanding that a disciple is someone made in the image of Christ? Who is able to do that? Me? You? The Jehovah's Witnesses?

Really, let's talk about it!

savagewind · Aug 27, 2016

Anybody, how does one human make another human (Matthew 28:19) in the image of Christ, id est, united with the Holy Spirit? John 17:21 1 Peter 3:8

savagewind · Aug 27, 2016

Isn't it UNscriptural to lean on the understanding that everyone can't be wrong?

james2ko · Aug 27, 2016

Deeje said:
We can also see the definite article (the) in relation to the first "pros · ho theos" but not the second. (just theos) The way to distinguish THE God from other divine persons was to use the definite article because there is no indefinite article ("a" or "an") So if you had a room full of men named Brad Pitt and the celebrity was among them...only one would be "THE" Brad Pitt. Same with God, because the divine name was lost, the only way to distinguish the true God from any other god-like ones was to use the definite article. In John 1:1 the definite article is used in relation to God, but is not used of "the Word".....therefore some translations render John 1:1 "the Word was divine". It was "the Word" who became flesh, not "THE God".

Might want to inform the WT gods to remove this as a valid rebuttal. After a quick search, Jesus is also referred to as "ho theos" in Matthew 1:23; Luke 7:16.

So theos does not refer only to the Almighty. At 2 Cor 4:4, satan is called "theos".

If you believe this passage refers to satan, it actually contradicts your conclusion about the definite article distinguishing between the true and other gods. Satan is also referred to in this passage as "ho theos".

Just a small sample of what you will discover when you study the scriptures for yourself instead of relying on others to study and interpret it for you.

djhwoodwerks · Aug 27, 2016

Deeje said:
We accept that Jesus is the divine son of God...which is all he ever called himself. Prove me wrong and furnish a direct statement where Jesus admits to being the equal of his Father in any way.

All the while you also put Him in the same class as satan - A god, not worthy of worship.

Deeje said:
We accept that Jesus is the divine son of God...which is all he ever called himself

He never directly called Himself the son of God.

Deeje said:
Prove me wrong and furnish a direct statement where Jesus admits to being the equal of his Father in any way.

Jesus is not Michael. Prove me wrong and "furnish one statement where Jesus admits to being" an angel named Michael.

ashkat1` said:
I have yet to see Deeje or any other JDub adequately address the biblical witness here.

Deeje said:
That could have something to do with the fact that you have only been here five minutes.

I've been here for a year, and I haven't seen it yet!

Deeje said:
I will pit the NWT against any Bible you nominate. We do not make this translation available for anyone to take personal credit for any of it. Not hiding, just not 'big noting', which you seem to love. Pity

Really? What if there was no clue to who wrote the original words of the Bible, i.e. Moses, Solomon, John? Assuming "humility", should not be used to hide facts. Wouldn't you agree that, not disclosing facts means you're hiding something?

Shak34 · Aug 27, 2016

ashkat1` said:
For the record, the JDubs are viewed as heretical by the Christian religion because they, like the Pharisees, vehemently deny the Deity of Christ, which is clearly established in the NT. I have yet to see Deeje or any other JDub adequately address the biblical witness here. It is interesting to note the Watchtower Society has issued its own issue of the Bible, the New World Translation, done by anonymous translators. Strange, every other edition has known, specified translators. I can't help but wonder what they are trying to hide. Anyhow, my point is that the JDubs are so determined to deny the Deity of Christ that their edition deliberately mistranslates the prologue to John. Instead of stating correctly "the Word was God," they mistranslate the phrase to read "the Word was a God." That breaks the rules of Greek grammar and is totally incorrect. Furthermore, it makes one wonder how many gods they believe in. If the Father is one God and then Christ is another, it seems they believe in two gods, are polytheistic, and have violated the strict monotheism of the Bible. Of course, in their own delusional way of thinking, they are the one and only true church and everyone else is all wrong.

This in no way pertains to what I was saying. I might have issues with the witnesses but them not believing in the trinity isn't one of them. You are preaching to the wrong choir with this one. As far as them having their own version of the bible, everyone should have more than one version. There are so many out there, KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, etc., none of them exactly the same. It is good to have more than one to compare and contrast IMO.

djhwoodwerks · Aug 27, 2016

Shak34 said:
This in no way pertains to what I was saying. I might have issues with the witnesses but them not believing in the trinity isn't one of them. You are preaching to the wrong choir with this one. As far as them having their own version of the bible, everyone should have more than one version. There are so many out there, KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, etc., none of them exactly the same. It is good to have more than one to compare and contrast IMO.

I agree with that, but where can an average Joe get a NWT? they are not available to the public as every Bible you mentioned above is. One has to be a member of their click to get one. Even in their street ministry, they do not hand out their Bible, only their publications. Members of the watchtower rewrote the Bible and it is only for them. That tells me that, they don't want anyone reading it without their teachings. Why would that be, unless they are hiding something?

ashkat1` · Aug 27, 2016

savagewind said:
That is a burden. Music should not be a burden. What if the piper loses his pipe? Is he still a piper? Does he still want to play?

By the way, it isn't black or white like you seem to think. Of course a disciple is supposed to become a person who others might be happy to live with. If a disciple behaves another way, there is a scripture for that. Mark 9:42

That definitely does not make music a burden. It does make his loss of his pipes a burden or obstacle to his self-actualization as a piper. But, of course, he can probably find another set of pipes. If he can't, well, then he is screwed. I had a trumpet teacher who played in a major symphony. Someone stole his set of trumpets out of his car. Luckily, he contacted a colleague who had an extra. Otherwise, he would have been screwed, totally unable to make the gig and be a player in the orchestra, and, most importantly, get paid. Also, wanting to do or be something is not the same thing as actually doing it. I now play French horn and have had to have some massive dental reconstructive surgery done. As a consequence, I am currently without any teeth. And no, that means I cannot play the horn. I tried, but you need teeth, which are forthcoming. Are my teeth then a burden to me? No, they are simply essential for me to be a player. Same with the piper and his pipes.

I don't follow you when you say it's not black and white as I think. What are you referring to?

ashkat1` · Aug 27, 2016

Shak34 said:
This in no way pertains to what I was saying. I might have issues with the witnesses but them not believing in the trinity isn't one of them. You are preaching to the wrong choir with this one. As far as them having their own version of the bible, everyone should have more than one version. There are so many out there, KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, etc., none of them exactly the same. It is good to have more than one to compare and contrast IMO.

The Trinity might not be an issue for you, but it certainly is for us Christians, especially for Christians theologians such as myself. I can accept some people choose not to believe in the Trinity. However, what I have trouble with the ways the JDubs seriously misrepresent the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Also, I have no problem with people having more than one translation of teh Bible. However, I do have trouble with the official JDub Bible as it represents a serious and deliberate mistranslation of the text in the opening of the Book of John, which is an important biblical reference to the Trinity.

ashkat1` · Aug 27, 2016

savagewind said:
Would you care to change that word to something else, and the verb, while you are at it?

Responsibility: the state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or of having control over someone; the state or fact of being accountable or to blame for something; the opportunity or ability to act independently and make decisions without authorization.

Oops. I t should read all believers have not "has." That is the only thing I would care to change.

ashkat1` · Aug 27, 2016

james2ko said:
Might want to inform the WT gods to remove this as a valid rebuttal. After a quick search, Jesus is also referred to as "ho theos" in Matthew 1:23; Luke 7:16.

If you believe this passage refers to satan, it actually contradicts your conclusion about the definite article distinguishing between the true and other gods. Satan is also referred to in this passage as "ho theos".

Just a small sample of what you will discover when you study the scriptures for yourself instead of relying on others to study and interpret it for you.

Yes, and it is also interesting the way she glosses over the fact the JDubs, in their zeal to distort the Trinity, deliberately mistranslated the prologue to John. Oh, well, our team broke a rule here, but that's OK, as every rule has its exception. Yes, but who says this is the exception? And how convenient it is this somehow proves to be some sort of exception that allows the JDubs to bludgeon Scripture into some how supporting their take on the Trinity.

ashkat1` · Aug 27, 2016

savagewind said:
@ashkat1` perhaps it it true that all believers relinquish responsibility. It is written Jesus said, "Let YOUR will be done".

Will you address my point that making disciples is what the JWs do, nobody else does it, but it is written that Jesus commanded it, and that to obey his commands is to love him? John 14:15 John 14:21 John 14:23 John 15:10 1 John 2:3 1 John 5:3 2 John 1:6

Is the commandment to be making disciples true?

How is it possible that all the scholars in the world past and present, accept Jesus commanded the making of disciples but nobody does it........

until the Jehovah's Witnesses?

How is it possible for a human to make a disciple by teaching him, but in the image of Christ, not in the image of the human teacher?

Am I misunderstanding that a disciple is someone made in the image of Christ? Who is able to do that? Me? You? The Jehovah's Witnesses?

Again, I really don't follow your train of thought here. In the Bible, the term "Disciple" have many meanings. One is someone who professes faith in Jesus Christ. The passage you keep referring to, sometimes called The Great Commission, is simply a commandment to go and share your faith with others, with nonbelievers. So I don't know where you come up with the idea that only the JDubs do something like that. For example, scholars do so by sharing their knowledge of Christ and his teachings.
Also, you are sadly mistaken if you think Christ is encouraging anyone to surrender their responsibility. In the eyes of God, we are all responsible for what we do.

Really, let's talk about it!

Let's Talk About the Holy Spirit

Avid Bible Student

Avid Bible Student

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Avid Bible Student

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member