Posted on 01/12/2014 7:49:32 PM PST by restornu
The Apostle Paul admonished young Timothy, "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;" (1 Timothy 4:1)
The Greek word that was translated into English as "depart from" is aphistemi (Strong's G868) pronounced ä-fe'-sta-me meaning ...
1) to make stand off, cause to withdraw, to remove a) to excite to revolt 2) to stand off, to stand aloof a) to go away, to depart from anyone b) to desert, withdraw from one c) to fall away, become faithless d) to shun, flee from e) to cease to vex one f) to withdraw one's self from, to fall away g) to keep one's self from, absent one's self from
Some use this portion of Scripture to accuse those of us who embrace the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine, as opposed to the Holy Trinity, as being the ones who are being described above. However, what should be determined is who said and did what ... and when did they say and do it. First off, we know the "foot print followers" of our Lord Jesus Christ had it right! If anybody has ever had it right, they had it right. And, no where do we find where they were authorized to come up with anything other than what Jesus gave them. By the way, Jesus did NOT leave them with a bunch of pages with a lot of blanks on them, which would have to be filled out a couple centuries later, either. Therefore, what they embraced and taught was "first". Any thing other than that came along later, period!
Brother Paul being as bold and blunt as he was, put it this way ... But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)
Again, the Apostle Paul admonished Timothy, "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Timothy 4:2-4 The Greek word that was translated into English as "endure" is anecho (Strong's G430) pronounced ä-ne'-kho meaning ...
1) to hold up 2) to hold one's self erect and firm 3) to sustain, to bear, to endure
Many are taught, firmly believe and will adamantly defend a position, that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity comes straight from the pages of the Bible, itself. When, in fact, the word "Holy" is the only part that can be found in the Bible. The word "Trinity" can't be found in a single solitary Scripture in the entire King James Version of the Holy Bible. Neither did anyone in the entire King James Version of the Holy Bible ever refer to God or the Godhead with these words, "One God in three persons", as multitudes do today.
With such a widely accepted belief, and millions just going with the flow, the crowd has to be right, right? Well, let's see what Jesus had to say in Matthew 7:13-14 ... "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
Folks, it's time for a "gut level" reality check. According to the greatest Teacher ever to walk upon Planet Earth, when it comes to spiritual matters ... THE CROWD IS WRONG!
Not one single solitary person in the entire Bible ever used the following terms ...
"One God in three persons", "God the Son", "God the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit) "The Holy Trinity"
So, how and when did the doctrine of the Holy Trinity come into existence? And, why is it so widely accepted, today? Those two questions are certainly valid ones, and deserve serious examination and consideration.
Encyclopedia International, 1975 Edition, Vol.18, p.226 - The doctrine of the "Trinity" did not form part of the apostles' preaching, as this is reported in the New Testament.
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967 Edition, Vol.13, p.1021 - The first use of the Latin word "trinitas" (trinity) with reference to God, is found in Tertullian's writings (about 213 A.D.) He was the first to use the term "persons" (plural) in a Trinitarian context.
Encyclopedia Americana, 1957 Edition, Vol.27, p.69 - The word "Trinity" is not in Scripture. The term "persons" (plural) is not applied in Scripture to the Trinity.
World Book Encyclopedia, 1975 Edition, Vol. T, p.363 - Belief in Father, Son and Holy Ghost was first defined by the earliest general council of churches. This was the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.
New International Encyclopedia, Vol.22, p.476 - The Catholic faith is this: We worship one God in Trinity, but there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost. The Glory equal - the Majesty co-eternal. The doctrine is not found in its fully developed form in the Scriptures. Modern theology does not seek to find it in the Old Testament. At the time of the Reformation the Protestant Church took aver the doctrine of the Trinity without serious examination.
Life Magazine, October 30, 1950, Vol.29, No.18, p.51 - The Catholics made this statement concerning their doctrine of the Trinity, to defend the dogma of the assumption of Mary, in an article written by Graham Greene: "Our opponents sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in Scripture... But the PROTESTANT CHURCHES have themselves accepted such dogmas as THE TRINITY, for which there is NO SUCH PRECISE AUTHORITY in the Gospels"
Many use the human reasoning and logic that the non-Biblical words "trinity", "triune" or "persons" (pertaining to God and/or the Godhead) should be accepted just as the word "rapture" is .... or even the word "sandwich" (for that matter). And, even though "sandwich" is not a Biblical word, I know they're real 'cause I ate one yesterday. So, my point ... or my question ... is, what Biblical words could be used in the place of the words "trinity", "triune" OR "persons" pertaining to God and/or the Godhead? I wouldn't have any trouble at all finding Biblical words to use in the place of "sandwich", "rapture" and "Bible". They are: "bread" and "meat", "caught up" "Word of God" and "book".
Now, if those who embrace the man-made theory of the Trinity can find any words that will do for "truine", "persons" or "trinity" what the words "bread" and "meat", "caught up" "Word of God" and "book" will do for "sandwich" and "rapture", I would love to see them. Unless or until they can, I suggest that they stop adding to or taking from (depending on how you look at it) the Word of God by embracing, as dogmatically held doctrine, theories which aren't specifically mentioned in the Bible ... and without any Biblical words which could serve as a substitute for such.
While the Bible does NOT authorize a belief in three "persons" who jointly form One God. However, the Bible does accurately describes God as the Father in Creation, the Son in Redemption and the Holy Spirit living in the hearts of believers throughout the New Testament Church Age. But, that is three "forms" of God ... three "manifestations" of God ... three "titles" of God ... three "offices/positions" which God holds and ... three "roles" in which God functions ... BUT NOT THREE PERSONS. NOWHERE can it be found in the Bible which says that is that there is one God "in three persons". That's an "add on" that people would do well to just leave off.
I can very accurately be described as a father, son and husband ... or a teacher, student and minister. While I function in more than one capacity and occupy more than one office, and wear a number of different hats, I am still just ONE person. As a matter of fact, I can be in the same room with, and in the presence of, my mother, my wife and my daughters, and I can speak, act and function as a father, son and husband without anybody getting confused as to how many persons I am or who is talking.
English was my worst subject in school, but I do remember a few things. For illustration purposes only, it is not proper to link the singular pronoun "He", which refers to one "person", to verbs like: "see", "hear" and "warn" ... which would look like this ... "He see", "He hear" and "He warn". When using the singular pronoun "He", it is necessary to use the verbs "sees", "hears" and "warns" ... "He SEES", "He HEARS" and "He WARNS". In order to use the verbs "see", "hear" and "warn", you must use a noun or pronoun which is "plural" and identifies "more" than one person like, "People" ... "People see", "People hear" and "People warn". Yet, intelligent people who know this rule, but who have been indoctrinated to believe that there are three "persons" of God, ignore this rule when it comes to the word "GOD" (the Hebrew word Elohim).
**IF** the word "GOD" (Elohim) identifies more than one "person", as the trinitarians insist, the Bible should read like this, "God SEE", "God HEAR" and "God WARN" ... AND IT DOESN'T! The word "GOD" is never linked to a verb like that. Instead, the word "GOD" is ALWAYS linked to verbs just as the word "He" (a singular person) is ... like this, "God SEES", "God HEARS" and "God WARNS". Again, I use these particular words for illustration purposes only, but I hope I have made my point ... and that it's CLEAR.
Men started "reading" things into the Scriptures a couple centuries or so AFTER Jesus ascended back up into Heaven, and after the "foot print followers" of our Lord had passed on. As a result, there has evolved all sorts of religious beliefs and denominations. However, in order to get people to stop and think about a few things, I use the Clark Kent/Superman analogy quite a bit. Jesus said and did some of the things He said and did to set an example for those who witnessed it to follow, as well as for those of us who would read about it 2,000 years later. At any rate, the reason I use Clark Kent/Superman is because people are familiar with the scenario. And, although Clark Kent/Superman is a fictitious character, I contend that the Incarnate Christ was, indeed, the REAL Superman. And, as a result, Jesus often spoke of the Father as if the Father where someone other than Himself who was way off in another galaxy or solar system.
As a former trinitarian, myself, I understand why those who have been indoctrinated to believe there's two or three of 'em up there believe such, as well as those who interpret ... and try to understand ... the Bible "literally". However, spiritual things are NOT understood with human reasoning and logic. And, Jesus was unlike any one else who has ever walked upon planet Earth. While He possessed the Glory and Power of Deity, He went about as a lowly servant. He had a "human" nature as a result of actually being born of a woman. And, He had a "Divine" nature as a result of Him being God manifested in the flesh. Also, Jesus served as the example ... or the template (so to speak) ... for all Christians to pattern themselves after. And, as a result, He said and did many things for our benefit ... AND to set an example for us to follow. By the way, I am NOT saying Jesus was deceitful, nor that He lied ... far from it. It's just that He could (and did) speak, act and function as any "ordinary" man, at times. And, He also could (and did) speak, act and function as Almighty God, at other times, while here on Earth. Those who have ears to hear, hears what the Spirit saith, and aren't trying to fuel a flawed, man-made, pre-conceived and indoctrinated agenda, will, I believe, come to the understanding as to who Jesus "really" is **IF** they truly hunger and thirst for righteousness. Then, it will be up to them what they do from that point. They can continue on in their traditions and doctrines of men OR they can come out from among them and be ye separate.
Since Isaiah was a MAJOR Messianic Prophet in the Old Testament, my challenge for every "natural" Jew and every professing Christian who believes the man-made theory of the Holy Trinity OR those who believe Jesus was Michael the Archangel or some other inferior subordinate is very simple. I challenge all "natural Jews", all professing Christians who believes the man-made theory of the Holy Trinity, the entire Watchtower Society constituency, the Vatican, and the entire Roman Catholic Church constituency, as well as any and all members and/or associates, past and present, of the various and sundry Protestant denominations, any and all independent Bible students and scholars including the entire constituency of the anything connected to or remotely resembling the Mormon Church ... or anyone else (**IF** I missed anybody) ... to read 11 Chapters in the Book of Isaiah (Chapters 41, 43, 44, 47, 48, 49, 53, 54, 59, 60, and 63) and then provide me with the Scripture(s) they believe supports the belief that the coming (prophesied and promised) MESSIAH would be someone BESIDES Jehovah/God, Himself.
Those of us who embrace the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine understand something very important: The Incarnate Christ was the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last ... God manifest in the flesh. And, these are just a few of the documenting Scriptures I use ... Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 44:6; Isaiah 48:12; Micah 1:2-3; John 1:1-14; John 10:30-33; John 14:6-11; Colossians 2:8-10; 1 Timothy 3:16; Rev. 2:8; Rev. 21:6; and Rev. 22:13.
Yes, the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is a flawed man-made theory, and is NOT "sound doctrine" at all. Therefore, upon learn this, a person should ask themselves this question, "Do I want Truth in its entirety, or do I want man's flawed theories and traditions?" Whatever you decide, it is entirely up to you. In the final analysis of things, you and I will be justified or condemned not by just our faith and beliefs alone, but also by the words we speak AND our deeds. Silence can be interpreted as consent. There are sins of omissions and sins of commission. And, there will be lots of "good" people in hell. Being "good" is NOT good enough. If you doubt or dispute that, read Acts Chapter 10.
A very closely related subject to this is the words that are invoked at baptismal services. The name that was alluded to in Matthew 28:19 is the precious name of Jesus. Quoting Matthew 28:19 does NOT fulfill the Great Commission. Those who knew how it was to be done, invoked the precious name of Jesus in Acts 2:37-41; Acts 8:14-17; Acts 10:44-48; and Acts 19:1-6. Jesus was NOT telling His disciples what to "say" in Matthew 28:19, He was telling them what to "do". And, besides, nobody was baptized in Matthew 28:19. Nobody in the entire Bible was baptized in the "titles" of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. We are admonished in Colossians 3:17 to do whatever we do in "word AND deed", to do it all of it in the "NAME of Jesus". And, besides baptism, here are a couple other places, and direct "quotes", where the "name of Jesus" was invoked in word and deed instead of the "titles" of Father, Son and Holy Ghost ....
Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.
Acts 16:18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.
Not only does the Bible reveal baptism in the name of Jesus, but so does history ...
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951). II, 384, 389: "The formula used was "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the trine name… The earliest form, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion… in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands. To these were added, at various times and places which cannot be safely identified, (a) the trine name (Justin)…"
Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351: "The evidence… suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'"
Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53: "At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898). I, 241: "[One explanation is that] the original form of words was "into the name of Jesus Christ" or 'the Lord Jesus,' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development."
Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947), page 58: "The trinitarian baptismal formula,,, was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ."
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435: "The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus… which still occurs even in the second and third centuries."
Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), page 53: "Persons were baptized at first 'in the name of Jesus Christ' … or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus'… Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.'"
Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473: "It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single-not triple, as was the later creed."
Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365: "The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning… Bapti[sm] into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid."
My advice to you is, if you aren't affiliated with one now, that you find yourself a church which embraces, teaches and preaches the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine and baptizes in the precious name of Jesus ... the name that was alluded to in Matthew 28:19 ... and go there, and see (and feel) the difference for yourself.
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. About the Author:
Encyclopedia Internationa
New Catholic Encyclopedia
The King James Bible
Article Source: http://www.articleseen.com/Article_ The Holy Trinity: Sound Doctrine or a Man-Made Tradition?_77437.aspx
That was pathetically weak. Multiple scriptures refer to the Holy Spirit as separate from either the Father or the Son and in the male gender. You have been shown those scriptures multiple times. Denying them doesn’t change the facts.
DouglasKC is a member of the United Church of God, which is an offshoot of Herbert W. Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God (WCG).
Walter Martin and others were dealing with WCG's scripture-twisting for a long time...and a while back.
I have the 1981 Cults Reference Bible that adds notes to what "slants" various cults would place upon different verses (in paraphrase form)...and then offer a response...this way you get "both sides" of what the interpretation "spin" is:
For John 14:16, the notes read thus:
"WCG says: Trinitarians refer to the use of the personal pronoun he with the Greek word for Comforter in this verse and in other verses of John 14, 15, and 16 to prove the Holy Spirit is a third person of the Trinity. Actually the personal pronoun is used only because the Greek word is masculine, and thus its pronoun must take a masculine gender. The other New Testament writers use the Greek word for spirit or breath which is grammatically neuter and thus is represented by a neuter pronoun."
"Christian Response: The personal masculine pronoun is used with the neuter noun Ghost (Spirit) in John 14:26. Other verses with this construction are John 15:26 and 16:8 and Eph. 1:14. There is personality ascribed to the Holy Spirit when He is compared to Christ as another Comforter. (See also Acts 13:2; 20:23)." (p. 904)
So not only is the personal masculine pronoun used here, but the Holy Spirit is another Comforter like Jesus Christ.
Acts 13:2 is also referenced there...where "me" and "I" is used of the Holy Spirit there...
Here's the KJV: "As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost SAID, Separate ME Barnabus and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." (Acts 13:2)
On p. 83 of the Cults Reference Bible, Martin lists a dozen "Basic Doctrinal Deviations" from orthodox Christianity.
I'll list a portion of them:
1. The key to biblical prophecy is that during the time of Israel's exile ten of the tribes were 'lost' when they migrated across Europe to finally land in England and later in America. This is known as Anglo-Israelism. Today, Manasseh is England, and the company of nations associated with Ephraim is America. After attining great wealth and power, these tribes will be destroyed by a revived Holy Roman Empire comprised of the ten Common Market nations, headed up politically by Germany and religiously by the Roman Catholic Church. England and America will then be taken off into slavery.
5. Old Testament dietary laws and the Ten Commandments are to be followed if one is to achieve salvation.
6. Salvation is future, not present. It is not an act but a process. Justification is merely the wiping away of past sins but does nothing for the sins of the present; the individual is responsible to keep God's law. This is done by faith, but salvation is an ultimate forgiveness and reward that requires lifelong compliance with God's ritual and moral requirements. Only Jesus has achieved salvation. No one is now sure of his salvation.
8. Being born again has nothing to do with a spiritual renewal in one's life. It has to do with a life as spirit beings into which the children of God eventually are born by means of the resurrection.
9. There is no eternal nature of the soul. Man does not have a soul; he is a soul. The soul ceases to exist at death but is re-created in a future resurrection.
11. The Trinity doctrine is pagan. God is a family comprised right now of Jesus and the Father, but eventually will include all who accept God's way of life--they become God. The Holy Spirit is an active, impersonal force.
Bottom line: If you KNOW much of the above to be false, and if you are talking with someone whose spiritual roots exported this to the world, by all means, value them as a person loved by God...but...why would you give them much theological credence to their claims?
Let me recommend a few resources -- which I will cite below -- re: the Personality of the Holy Spirit.
These are good books to add to your library:
* Doctrine Twisting: How Core Biblical Truths are Distorted by H. Wayne House and Gordon Carle (InterVarsity Press, 2003)
* The Complete Book of Bible Answers: Answering the Tough Questions by Ron Rhodes (Harvest House, 1997)
From Doctrine Twisting:
"The Bible...clearly describes the Holy Spirit as a person. Personal pronouns are always used in reference to the Holy Spirit, never neuter (see Jn. 14:17; 15:26; 16:13-14). The Holy Spirit is NEVER referred to as a thing or as a force of God. The Holy Spirit is called a 'witness' (Acts 5:32), and speech is attributed to him (Acts 8:29; 10:19-20; 11:12; 13:2). Attributes that can be possessed only by a personal being are ascribed to the Holy Spirit. He feels love and grief (Is 63:10; Rom. 15:30; Eph. 4:30), has a mind with which to intercede (Rom. 8:27), possesses knowledge (1 Cor. 2:11), can be lied to (Acts 5:3), can be insulted (Heb. 10:29), can teach (John 14:26), can bear witness (John 15:26), can hear (John 16:13), and can make value judgments (Acts 15:28). The Bible also ascribes personal descriptive titles to the Holy Spirit, such as Helper, Comforter and Counselor (John 14:26)." (pp. 116-117)
"He can be lied to, as in the case of Ananias and Sapphire (Acts 5:3-4). Paul warns us about grieving the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30)...One can lie to and grieve only a person. Neither can one blaspheme an impersonal force." (pp. 118-119)
"The Scriptures clearly teach that the Holy Spirit is a person. He is given to the church as Counselor, taking over the role performed by Jesus on earth. Like the Father and the Son, he acts as only a person can do: he speaks, hears, acts, testifies, glorifies, convinces, guides, teaches, punishes, prompts, commands, forbids, desires, intercedes with groanings too profound for human understanding. Like the Father and the Son, he can be personally insulted, lied to, resisted and grieved by sin. When Jesus speaks of the parakletos (counselor, comforter) he always uses the personal pronoun." (pp. 106-107)
From Rhodes:
"The Holy Spirit has a mind. The Holy Spirit's intellect is seen in 1 Corinthians 2:10 where we are told that 'the Spirit searches all things' (cf. Isaiah 11:2; Ephesians 1:17). The Greek word for SEARCH means 'to thoroughly investigate a matter.' WE are also told in 1 Corinthians 2:1 that the Holy Spirit 'knows' the thoughts of God. How can the Spirit 'know' the thoughts of God if the Spirit does not have a mind? A force does not know things. Thought processes require the presence of a mind." (p. 77)
Continuing: "Romans 8:27 tells us that just as the Holy Spirit knows the things of God, so God the Father knows 'what the mind of the Spirit is' (NASB). The word translated MIND in this verse literally means 'way of thinking, mindset, aim, aspiration, striving.' A mere force--electricity, for example--does not have a way of thinking or a mindset." (p. 77)
Continuing: "The Holy Spirit has emotions. In Ephesians 4:30 we are admonished, 'Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God.' Grief is an emotion and is not something that can be experienced by a force. Grief is something one FEELS. The Holy Spirit feels the emotion of grief when believers sin..." (p. 77)
Continuing: "The Holy Spirit has a will. We are told in 1 Corinthians 12:11 that the Holy Spirit distributes spiritual gifts 'to each one individually just as He wills' (NASB). The phrase HE WILLS translates the Greek word BOULETAI, which refers to 'decisions of the will after previous deliberation.' The Holy Spirit makes a sovereign choice regarding what spiritual gifts each respective Christian receives. A force does not have such a will." (p. 77)
Continuing: "...the Holy Spirit is doing many things in Scripture that only a person can do. For example, the Holy Spirit TEACHES believers (John 14:26), He TESTIFIES (John 15:26), He GUIDES believers (Romans 8:14), He COMMISSIONS people to service (Acts 13:4), He ISSUES COMMANDS to believers (Acts 8:29), He RESTRAINS SIN (2 Thessalonians 2:7), He INTERCEDES (prays) for believers (Romans 8:26), and He SPEAKS to people (John 15:26; 2 Peter 1:21). In view of the evidence above, it is beyond doubt that the Holy Spirit is a person and not a 'force.'" (pp. 77-78)
Amazing, simply amazing.
One of THE absolute worst so-called "translations" of the Bible is the Jehovah's Witnesses New World 'Translation' by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society.
It's provoked many to respond to the way it tortures so many of the Biblical texts.
One such book was a 1982 Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing book by Robert H. Countess called The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament.
You see, the JWs have done what the Armstrong cult has done, along with its splinter groups: Depersonalize the Holy Spirit and militate vs. the Trinity.
Since Countess approaches the subject matter from the Greek text, I will simply quote him a bit here:
"Although the noun 'spirit' is of neuter, grammatical gender, there is no justification automatically to register the Holy Spirit as an impersonal influence, no more than to regard the German word for 'girl,' the neuter das Madchen, as indicating a non-feminine, non-masculine entity..."
Picking up a few graphs down: "A critical reader of NWT might have desired an appendix explaining how it can be that this 'invisible active force' does the things ascribed to it in the New Testament. In 1 Corinthians 12:11 it 'wills'; in Mark 13:11 it is seen 'speaking'; in Luke 12:12 and parallel passages it 'will teach'; in John 16:13 it 'will guide' and speak what 'he hears'; in verse 7 it is seen as 'the helper'; in Acts 13:2 it calls missionaries; in 8:29 it gives command to an evangelist; and in Matthew 1:18 it causes conception. That the Holy Spirit is personal may be observed further by Jesus' referring to Him as ἐκεῖνος three times in John 16:7-14. The neuter of this demonstrative is ἐκεῖνο..." (p. 71)
Countess, on p. 72 adds that the Greek word parakletos "literally means 'one called alongside.' It is not abstractly 'the help' or 'the comfort,' but actively and concretely 'the comforter,' and as such can hardly describe an impersonal divine influence."
Also, what's interesting is that DouglasKC earlier on this thread cited Jesus being an Advocate -- referencing 1 John 2:1...
Note that A.H. Strong, in Systematic Theology, Judson Press, p. 323, says: "the name PARAKLETOS, which cannot be translated by 'comfort,' or be taken as the name of any abstract influence. The Comfortor, Instructor, Patron, Guide, Advocate, whom this term brings before us, must be a person. This is evident from its application to Christ in 1 John 2:1 -- 'we have an Advocate (PARAKLETOV) with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous."
The Holy Spirit is as much "Paraclete" as Jesus Himself!
Other verses worth noting with Greek nuances:
In Acts 15:28, the KJV reads "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us..." ... The Greek word here for "seemed" is dokeo -- which means "to think."
How is an impersonal force to be thoughtfully decisive?
Finally, the Holy Spirit IS the inspiration for Scripture itself! Peter confirms this in 2 Peter 1:21...
Now some here would have us believe that God must have done all of this robotically and mechanically...
No. He used REAL people. And REAL PERSONAL DIVINITY was involved in inspiring them!
In the book I cited a few posts ago (House and Carle, Doctrine Twisting) these co-authors cited Ephesians 4:30 a few times and then they begin to close out a chapter with a chilling warning...
But before I cite them, allow me to quote a verse I brought up much earlier in this thread...Isaiah 63:10:
Douglas, why would you not only militate against the very language of the Scriptures, but also place yourself in such spiritual jeopardy of having the Holy Spirit fight against you?
House and Carle, p. 119:
Keep shining that light!!!!
Indeed, well done with these high quality posts Colofornian!
Explain please where Doug KC blasphemed against the Holy Spirit?
You're arguing with the wrong person. I've worked on two major translations.
“One of THE absolute worst so-called “translations” of the Bible is the Jehovah’s Witnesses New World ‘Translation’ by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society. “
What utter unsupported nonsense! An honest examination of the NWT will show it to be a scholarly work of translation.
I didn't accuse him of that...only of treading upon sacred ground where he might be heading in that direction.
Why?
Thomas Nelson Bible Dictionary, entry for "Blasphemy" (1986/1995, p. 220):
Blasphemy defined as...
"the act of..." [either]
"cursing"
"slandering"
"reviling"
"or showing contempt"
"or lack of reverence for God"
So...parallels in this thread?
Douglas has indeed shown a lack of reverence for the divine Holy Spirit, depersonalizing Him, and reducing Him as less personal than even animals are, when the clear Scriptural evidence is the reverse.
Beyond that, God alone knows his heart; so I don't go there (1 Samuel 16:7).
And, btw, Restornu, blasphemy goes beyond blasphemy vs. the Holy Spirit:
For example...
your post #445:
"BTW the Bible was put together by MEN not the Holy Ghost...Now the content of the Books contain the word of God is only as accurate as the scribes translated them, Even Jesus has trouble in his conversations with the scribes and Pharisees and Sadducees."
Along with DouglasKC's post #424, where he cites a Peter reference to "untaught and unstable men" -- implying these men were behind "translating Scriptures":
"I believe there are errors and bias in the translation of scriptures. I believe that things were added to the original inspired scriptures. And I think it's been going on for a long time." (#424)
In Titus 2:5, the word used for maligning the Word of God is the Greek word blasphemeo.
The KJV, the NASB, and many other versions retain this Greek Word about the need to NOT blaspheme/malign God's Word!
“What utter unsupported nonsense! An honest examination of the NWT will show it to be a scholarly work of translation.”
And all this time I thought you were a Catholic! Turns out you were a Jehovah’s Witness?
It was an objective statement and I’ll let you draw whatever conclusions you will from it since I never discuss myself.
“It was an objective statement”
Only if you’re a Jehovah’s Witness who buys their claims. But, do you even know the QUALIFICATIONS or even the NAMES of the translators?
The New World Translation was produced by the New World Bible Translation Committee, formed in 1947. This committee is said to have comprised unnamed members of multinational background.[20] The committee requested that the Watch Tower Society not publish the names of its members,[21][22] stating that they did not want to “advertise themselves but let all the glory go to the Author of the Scriptures, God,”[23] adding that the translation, “should direct the reader... to... Jehovah God”.[24] The publishers believe that “the particulars of [the New World Bible Translation Committee’s members] university or other educational training are not the important thing” and that “the translation testifies to their qualification”.[25] Former high ranking Watch Tower staff have claimed knowledge of the translators’ identities.[26] Walter Martin identified Nathan H. Knorr, Fredrick W. Franz, Albert D. Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel as members of the translation team, writing of them, “The New World Bible translation committee had no known translators with recognized degrees in Greek or Hebrew exegesis or translation... None of these men had any university education except Franz, who left school after two years, never completing even an undergraduate degree. In fact, Frederick W. Franz, then representing the translation committee and later serving as the Watchtower Society’s fourth president, admitted under oath that he could not translate Genesis 2:4 from the Hebrew.” (However, the court transcript indicates that Franz declined to translate text from English back into Hebrew.[27]) Franz had stated that he was familiar with not only Hebrew, but with Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German, and French for the purpose of biblical translation.[28]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures#2013_revision
Dunno about you, but I’d rather not attribute to a bunch of flunkies “scholarly” status.
“and I’ll let you draw whatever conclusions you will from it since I never discuss myself.”
Then I’ll conclude that you are a Jehovah’s Witness, since most normal people aren’t afraid to reveal their religion unless their religion is particularly flaky.
Why do you need relief; Deceived One?
MAny things have been 'explained' to you; but; apparently; you don't get it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.