Witnessing to JWs MP3s

[dizzle]

Pastor Gene Cook recorded a real life witnessing encounter with a JW who came to his house, and then had another encounter on the radio.

They are here free for a limited time:

http://www.unchainedradio.com/nuke/index.php

[Tsmith]

Pastor Gene Cook recorded a real life witnessing encounter with a JW who came to his house, and then had another encounter on the radio.

They are here free for a limited time:

http://www.unchainedradio.com/nuke/index.php

It is interesting that Mr. Cook makes a number of critical errors, including saying that in the NT the holy spirit is never called an "it". Additionally, I found this posted on the website scripturaltruths, which I found very interesting.

"Mr. Cook makes a critical error in his exegesis of John 5:23.

First and foremost he does not address why Jesus is honored just as the Father is, which is a point seriously damaging to his position.

Mr. Cook argues that this text proves that Jesus is God, but what he fails to note is that this honor is inheritly lacking from the son. Notice in reading verse 23 it states "that" or "so that". This is translated from the Greek word hINA. When this is used with a subjunctive, it is known as a purpose-result clause.

In other words, what is stated prior is done for the purpose of making what is stated after occur, or that what is stated prior is done and thereby results in what is stated after.

Considering this, one can see why this is damaging to a Trinitarian. Jesus is not honored as the Father is because Jesus is a person of the Triune God along with the Father, but he is done so because the Father has given judgment to the son.

Now Mr. Cook equates "honor" with worship, but where does the text speak of worship? Honor often denotes the placing of a value upon one, and such would fit the text. Essentially, because the Father has given judgement to the Son, we must value the Son as we value the Father, for the Son will be the one judging us all. The issue of judgment has nothing to do with divine worship.

Further, listening to Mr. Cook we find that he argues that the holy spirit is never called an "it", when this is most untrue and the neuter pronoun is repeatedly used for the holy spirit. Additionally, he appeals to activities of the spirit and personal verbs being used of it, completely failing to note that such was common within Jewish literature."

[dizzle]

Last night Pastor Gene did a followup specifically on points of Greek grammar. I do not know if the MP3 is up yet - I will check. I didn't get a chance to hear it live.

[Tsmith]

Last night Pastor Gene did a followup specifically on points of Greek grammar. I do not know if the MP3 is up yet - I will check. I didn't get a chance to hear it live.


How could he have done that? I believe he himself admitted that he doesn't know Greek. I guess he is talking about something he doesn't know.. so who knows if its correct!

[dizzle]

Do you ever listen to something first? Or is your huffing and puffing just for show?

[Tsmith]

Do you ever listen to something first? Or is your huffing and puffing just for show?


I heard the audio several days ago where he spoke with SOTB, and in that discussion I am 99.9% certain he said that he does not know Greek, so if he does not know Greek, how is he going to address the points?

No huffing and puffing, just the facts.

[dizzle]

I am speaking of the audio that is not even up yet, and only happened last night that you already pronounced inaccurate. Care to share your crystal ball? You could make a fortune on the lottery.

[Tsmith]

I am speaking of the audio that is not even up yet, and only happened last night that you already pronounced inaccurate. Care to share your crystal ball? You could make a fortune on the lottery.


Perhaps you should revisit what I wrote. I questioned how it could be accurate in light of him not knowing the language. It is a valid question to ask. I'd be happy to review his discussion point-by-point for accuracy when it comes online though.

[Sparko]

And TSMITH, can you tell us what your credentials in Greek are?


==
And man, that second JW guy on the MP3 is completely rude! He does nothing to help his point with such a rude attitude. He would not let Gene speak at all, and kept interupting him and would not let Gene get a word in edgewise.


Did everyone catch how SOTB completely made Gene's point regarding the Holy Spirit having a will and 1 Cor 12:11?

SOTB said that the will mentioned in that verse refer's to the God's will and not the Holy Spirit's will?

11 But all these operations the one and the same spirit performs, making a distribution to each one respectively just as it wills. (NWT)

Well if it is God's will then why does it say "it?" God is not an it. But the JW's say the HS is an it a force. Well here they assign the word 'will' as a possession of 'it' which refers to what? The Holy Spirit.

So the NWT actually made Gene's point better than the KJV which says 'he wills' - If the JW's were smart in their scripture tampering they would have left this verse alone and then they could argue that 'his' refers back to God and therefore it is God's will and not the Holy Spirit's. But they don't. They changed it to 'it wills' clearly showing it is the HS that does the willing.

The Holy Spirit has a will.

[Tsmith]

And TSMITH, can you tell us what your credentials in Greek are?


==
And man, that second JW guy on the MP3 is completely rude! He does nothing to help his point with such a rude attitude. He would not let Gene speak at all, and kept interupting him and would not let Gene get a word in edgewise.


Did everyone catch how SOTB completely made Gene's point regarding the Holy Spirit having a will and 1 Cor 12:11?

SOTB said that the will mentioned in that verse refer's to the God's will and not the Holy Spirit's will?

11 But all these operations the one and the same spirit performs, making a distribution to each one respectively just as it wills. (NWT)

Well if it is God's will then why does it say "it?" God is not an it. But the JW's say the HS is an it a force. Well here they assign the word 'will' as a possession of 'it' which refers to what? The Holy Spirit.

So the NWT actually made Gene's point better than the KJV which says 'he wills' - If the JW's were smart in their scripture tampering they would have left this verse alone and then they could argue that 'his' refers back to God and therefore it is God's will and not the Holy Spirit's. But they don't. They changed it to 'it wills' clearly showing it is the HS that does the willing.

The Holy Spirit has a will.

I have studied both at seminary and on my own.

The apocryphal gospel of James speaks of the day of the Lord willing too. Is it a person? How about the wind, where it John 3 it chooses where it blows?

[dizzle]

The MP3 is up now

[Tsmith]

The following article seems to deal well with the issues raised in the MP3.

http://www.scripturaltruths.com/doctrines/holyspirit/ (http://www.scripturaltruths.com/doctrines/holyspirit/)


Argument by web link alone is a violation of TWeb's decorum. If you want to include a web link, that you used as a source for your substantive argument, you may.

Thanks

[Tsmith]

Since my web link was removed for no real reason, I submit the following in response.

It is often claimed by professed Christians that the understanding of God is a later revelation to Christians, beginning in the New Testament. It is claimed that the Jews did not have the full revelation of who God was, and so that is how Trinitarianism developed. Yet, statements such as this contradict Jesus' own words.

John 4:22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is of the Jews.

Jesus explained; that as a Jew, his people worshipped what they knew. They knew who God was. To him, God's identity was not to be a later revelation to the Church.

In light of this, to understand the holy spirit, we must first understand how this one was understood by the Jewish people. But before we do this, we must answer a key question: What is the holy spirit?

He, She or It?
To understand the holy spirit, we must first make a consider of the gender issue. The Hebrew word for spirit, RUACH is feminine, while the Greek noun PNEUMA is neuter. Yet, often we find the holy spirit called a "he", why?
Often, this is simply based on the pre-conceived notion of the translator. For example, the NASB references the holy spirit as a "he" in Acts 11:15, yet there is no grammatical basis for such. In Biblical Greek, the gender of the pronoun is typically determined by the noun, with a pronoun provided matching the gender of the noun. Further, Greek verbs are often translated to include an English pronoun. So, for example, with the noun PNEUMA being neuter, the neuter pronoun AUTO is applied to the holy spirit. This is the natural way of rendering the text, though there is far and away no hard and fast rule on the matter. In this particular instance, due to the ambiguity of the text, if the New Testament authors had desired to express the holy spirit as a person, they could have used the masculine pronoun AUTOS. They did not.

Thus, when it comes to the holy spirit, when considering that PNEUMA is a neuter noun that is used with neuter pronouns, we would translate the pronouns not as “he”, but as "it". This is with exception perhaps to when the holy spirit is called a Comforter, as the Greek noun here, PARAKLHTOS, is masculine. With this, the masculine pronoun EKIENOS is used. This, however, does not indicate a male gender of the holy spirit overall, but this noun is simply describing what the holy spirit will do.

This fact is highlighted by Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary. He writes1: “Thus, contrary to the supposition that the proximity of PNUEMA to EKEINOS in John 14:26 and 15:26 demonstrates the Spirit’s personality, because the PNEUMA is appositional, it becomes irrelevant to the gender of the pronoun… The fact that PNEUMA and not PARAKLHTOS is the appositive renders the philological argument in these two texts void.”

In other words, there is no significance in the use of the masculine noun and pronoun with the holy spirit, when it is called comforter. This is because the PARAKLHTOS is simultaneously called PNEUMA, which is a neuter, thus rendering void any significance possibly found from the masculine noun and pronoun.

In light of this, we find it worth noting that a number of translations, including the KJV, though normally referencing the holy spirit as a he, take note of the grammar in Romans 8:26, rendering this one with the term "itself".

All things considered, we may find significance in the fact that the New Testament authors did not use the masculine pronoun with the neuter noun. While this can be dismissed as simply following the grammatical gender of the noun, we do note a number of instances where the NT authors do follow the natural gender, providing a pronoun of the personal gender rather than following the gender of the noun (Joh. 6:9; Acts 8:5; Ph. 10).

In the Hebrew Scriptures
As we previously highlighted, understanding the holy spirit must begin in the Hebrew scriptures. This is where God revealed himself to the Jewish people (Joh. 4:22), and it is the basis for the New Testament.
To gather an understanding of this, let us start with a consideration of what is noted in Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary2: "In the OT the spirit of the Lord (ruah yhwh; LXX, to pneuma kyriou) is generally an expression for God's power, the extension of himself whereby he carries out many of his mighty deeds (e.g., 1 Kings 8:12; Judg. 14:6ff; 1 Sam. 11:6) . . . . The OT does not contain an idea of a semi-independent divine entity, the Holy Spirit. Rather, we find special expressions of God's activity with and through men."

Thus, we accept the definition of the holy spirit as explained here to be found in the Hebrew scriptures. It is an expression of God's activity with and through men, as an extension of God himself (not his own essence, but his activity).

Isaiah 44:3 For I will pour water on a thirsty place, and floods on the dry ground. I will pour My Spirit on your seed, and My blessing on your offspring.

We here find Jehovah's spirit compared with water. He will pour out water and pour out his spirit. While we do find scripture speaking of men pouring themselves out, we note that these cases are of men performing an activity (such as death) and are very dissimilar to that of the verse in question. Here we find pouring out used in the sense of distribution, and it is thus compared to the pouring of water. This is certainly not an expression that would fit the idea of one person of a Triune Godhead. In the pouring out of his spirit, blessing result, demonstrating just how this is such an expression of God's activity with men.

Psalm 51:11 Do not cast me out from Your presence, and do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.

Albert Barnes, though a Trinitarian, highlight’s David’s understanding of this in his Notes on the Bible, stating3: "It is not certain that David understood by the phrase “thy Holy Spirit” precisely what is now denoted by it as referring to the third person of the Trinity. The language, as used by him, would denote some influence coming from God producing holiness, “as if” God breathed his own spirit, or his own self, into the soul." Thus, while what is stated does not itself contradict Trinitarianism, the expression used by David does not provide an understanding that is consistent with it. If David did not believe in a Triune God, should we (Joh. 4:22)?

Ezekiel 37:14 And I shall put My Spirit within you, and you shall live; and I will put you on your own land. And you shall know that I, Jehovah, have spoken and have done it, says Jehovah.

Is God's spirit a separate person? Certainly not. Spirit is not a person, spirit is a substance. A person can be a spirit (composed of such as God and angels are), but a person’s spirit is not a person in and of itself, just as a corpse is not a person. The basic meaning of the word spirit (Hebrew: RUACH, Greek: PNEUMA) is breath or wind. With wind, for example, you never actually see it, but you see the effect of it. Thus, he takes this spirit and he places it within the person. It has an effect on them, in this case, causing them to live. It is God’s direct activity with men. We do not see it, but we see the result of it.

Joel 2:28 And it shall be afterward, I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh. And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions.

We again find that the Spirit is being poured out. Again, this not denoting a separate person, but God's own activity with people, resulting in prophesying and visions. He is distributing the spirit to all whom he chooses.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia mentions: "The Spirit of God, therefore, as based upon the idea of the ru¯ah? or breath of man, originally stood for the energy or power of God (Isa_31:3; compare A. B. Davidson, Theology of the Old Testament, 117-18), as contrasted with the weakness of the flesh." God is not to be separated from his power is he? Certainly not. Whatever God’s power is said to do, would God too not be the one doing it? If your hand knocks over a glass, could it not be said that you knocked over the glass? Certainly! Yet your hand is not a person in and of itself.

In light of this, we find it of interest that the Bible speaks of the holy spirit as God’s finger.

Exodus 31:18 Now as soon as he had finished speaking with him on Mount Si'nai he proceeded to give Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone written on by God's finger.

Deuteronomy 9:10 then Jehovah gave me the two tablets of stone written upon with God's finger; and upon them were all the words that Jehovah had spoken with YOU in the mountain out of the middle of the fire in the day of the congregation.

In both of these verses we find that God is performing an activity, here writing, with his finger. Yet his "finger" is not limited to his writing.

Luke 11:20 But if it is by means of God's finger I expel the demons, the kingdom of God has really overtaken YOU.

Jesus here explains that God's finger is the means by which he expels demons. Let us know the parallel account in Matthew.

Matthew 12:28 But if it is by means of God's spirit that I expel the demons, the kingdom of God has really overtaken YOU.

Clearly Matthew and Luke consider God’s spirit and God’s finger to be one and the same, with no problem apparently interchanging the terminology. How fitting for our understanding of the spirit!

Further consider this point, if the holy spirit were simply another person of the Godhead, which Jesus himself is said to be included in, why would Jesus have to use the holy spirit to do such things as expelling demons? Would he himself not be able to do it himself? Certainly he would! Yet, Jesus explains that it is by the holy spirit, God's activity, his power in action, that he does such.

In the New Testament
Having noted the tie in between the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek Scriptures with the holy spirit and God’s finger, what other points of scriptural interest can be found? The following one is most interesting.
Luke 1:35 And answering, the angel said to her, The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, and for this reason that Holy One being born of you will be called Son of God.

In this scripture we note that the holy spirit and the power of the most high are said as being the same thing. Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible notes4: "The Holy Ghost is called the power of the Highest. " Further on this, the ISBE states: “Here ‘Holy Spirit’ and ‘power of the Most High’ are parallel expressions meaning the same thing...” Even more though, if the holy spirit coming upon Mary results in her pregnancy and the holy spirit is a person, would that not make the holy spirit Jesus’ earthly Father, instead of God the Father in heaven? It seemingly would. Unless the holy spirit was simply God’s power or his finger, as we have thus far seen it to be! This would be the Father’s power at work, coming upon Mary, with her thus becoming pregnant.

What of it baptism though? We find scripture speaks of being baptized in the holy spirit. Is this simply a reference to us being baptized “in the name of… the holy spirit” as we are baptized “in the name of Jesus”, or something further?

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water to repentance; but He who is coming after me is stronger than me, of whom I am not able to lift The sandals. He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire,

In this particular verse, people are said to be baptized both in holy spirit and in fire! Now, we certainly would not argue that fire is a person, would we? Therefore, it cannot be said that this verse is simply a reference to “the name of… the holy spirit.” Rather, the baptism in holy spirit is when the holy spirit comes upon us, as a gift from God. This, for example, is what happened at Pentecost. Highly unlikely and illogical would it be for this verse to be simultaneously be speaking of being baptized in someone (the holy spirit) and something (fire). Such an understanding simply lacks basic sense. Here we find baptism in fire and holy spirit. Is fire a person? Certainly not, but rather many commentators view it as the trials we will experience as Christians, others view it as a symbolic purification, while others view it as the judgment that all who do not receive the holy spirit will experience. Whatever the case is, there can be little question that is not a person.

Speaking?
There are a number of cases in the NT where we find that the holy spirit had said something. Many take this to demonstrate that the holy spirit is a person, separate from the Father. However, the characteristics we have seen demonstrated by the holy spirit thus far are not that of a separate person. Is our understanding presented thus far wrong, or are those who argue this point simply in error?
To understand this issue of speaking, we must consider several points. We would need to take note of what we are specifically taught and how what we are taught is reflected in events that transpired.

Jesus provided clear explanations of how the holy spirit would function. For example, he explained to his apostles that when they were being tried, they should not be concerned about what to say, but that the words would be given to them and thus it would not be them speaking, but the holy spirit.

Mark 13:11 But whenever they lead you away, delivering you, do not be anxious beforehand, what you should say, nor meditate. But whatever may be given to you in that hour, speak that. For you are not those speaking, but the Holy Spirit.

When Jesus stated the preceding, was he implying that a mystical voice would be heard in the air or that a person would suddenly appear for them and speak? Certainly not. The meaning is explained in the following verse.

John 14:26 but the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things and shall remind you of all things that I said to you.

What is meant by this text is that the holy spirit would give to them, in their mind, what they should say. The word here translated “remind” is UPOMIMNHSKW, which literally means to bring back to ones mind, or to put into ones mind (Thayer, Liddell-Scott). There would be no mystical voice, nor would there be any person appearing. Simply put, his disciples would not have to worry about what they should say, for the words would be given to them by the holy spirit, and those words are what would come out of their mouth.

1 Corinthians 2:13 Which things we also speak, not in words taught in human wisdom, but in Words taught of the Holy Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things.

Yes, the holy spirit brings things to mind, it says things to us, not by verbally communication, but by bringing things to our minds. It is thus of interest that when scripture speaks of the holy spirit saying something, the Greek word used is LEGW (literally, "I said", though used in the third person). It should be understood that this word does not always denote literal speaking. As Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words5 explains, it “chiefly denotes "to say, speak, affirm," whether of actual speech, e.g., Mat_11:17, or of unspoken thought, e.g., Mat_3:9, or of a message in writing, e.g., 2Co_8:8. “

Key is that actual verbal communication is not required, as we already saw that this was not an operation of the holy spirit that Jesus taught. When the holy spirit would speak, it would be brining thoughts to our minds, reminders. Matthew 3:9, 9:21; Luke 3:8; 7:39, 49

Further, LEGW can also be used of things written:

Galatians 4:30 But what says the Scripture? "Cast out the slave woman and her son, for in no way shall the son of the slave woman inherit with the son of the free woman."

1 Timothy 5:18 For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox treading out grain," and, the laborer is worthy of his pay.

1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women be silent in the assemblies, for it is not allowed to them to speak, but to be in subjection, as also the Law says.

Certainly Scripture and the Law are not actually speaking audibly, but they are communicating with us, by our reading the words and thinking on them. In his writing of Acts, Luke was extremely careful to distinguish the holy spirit saying something with that of an angel. He did this, in a single context, by explaining that an angel actually spoke words, while the holy spirit simply "said" something.

Acts 8:26 But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, Rise up and go along south on the highway going down to Jerusalem to Gaza. This is a deserted place.
TSmith, back-to-back posts to get arount the 24k character limit are not allowed. Furthermore, articles are not to be posted in their entirety except in an opening post (and even then copyright laws must be respected), and must be properly referenced in any case. In case you missed it in the notice above, moderation complaints must be taken to PM or the Locker Room.

[Tsmith]

Anything to silence the truth it seems, even when I wrote it!

[Sheepdog]

The apocryphal gospel of James speaks of the day of the Lord willing too. Is it a person?

it's probably apocryphal for a good reason, too.

How about the wind, where it John 3 it chooses where it blows?

i've always taken the wind in John 3 is figurative of the Spirit (I'm no greek geek, but i recall the word for Spirit can also mean wind or breath, or something like that. so perhaps it's a play on words).

Perhaps you should revisit what I wrote. I questioned how it could be accurate in light of him not knowing the language. It is a valid question to ask. I'd be happy to review his discussion point-by-point for accuracy when it comes online though.

in the one they are talking about, Gene interviews someone who DOES know the Greek. see that's what we do in Christian circles, if we lack knowledge on something, we seek to learn from someone who has that knowledge.

Anything to silence the truth it seems, even when I wrote it!

technically, your last post should be moderated for talking back to a Moderator. Why don't you, instead, private message One Bad Pig, and bring it to his attention that you wrote the article? You still can't post back-to-back, but if he's feeling charitable maybe he will restore the first part.

making a big paranoid fuss about it will only get you marginalized. seriously.

[Tsmith]

Having clarified that I wrote what I posted, I have agreed with the moderators to post portions of the article and then link the rest.

The key point of the matter is this. Mr. Cook and his guest attempt to argue from the Greek that the holy spirit is actually called a "he". This is only partly true, because while the holy spirit is called a he, it is for grammatical reasons, not to imply that the holy spirit is a person. The following portion of my text deals with this point.

To understand the holy spirit, we must first make a consider of the gender issue. The Hebrew word for spirit, RUACH is feminine, while the Greek noun PNEUMA is neuter. Yet, often we find the holy spirit called a "he", why?
Often, this is simply based on the pre-conceived notion of the translator. For example, the NASB references the holy spirit as a "he" in Acts 11:15, yet there is no grammatical basis for such. In Biblical Greek, the gender of the pronoun is typically determined by the noun, with a pronoun provided matching the gender of the noun. Further, Greek verbs are often translated to include an English pronoun. So, for example, with the noun PNEUMA being neuter, the neuter pronoun AUTO is applied to the holy spirit. This is the natural way of rendering the text, though there is far and away no hard and fast rule on the matter. In this particular instance, due to the ambiguity of the text, if the New Testament authors had desired to express the holy spirit as a person, they could have used the masculine pronoun AUTOS. They did not.

Thus, when it comes to the holy spirit, when considering that PNEUMA is a neuter noun that is used with neuter pronouns, we would translate the pronouns not as “he”, but as "it". This is with exception perhaps to when the holy spirit is called a Comforter, as the Greek noun here, PARAKLHTOS, is masculine. With this, the masculine pronoun EKIENOS is used. This, however, does not indicate a male gender of the holy spirit overall, but this noun is simply describing what the holy spirit will do.

This fact is highlighted by Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary. He writes1: “Thus, contrary to the supposition that the proximity of PNUEMA to EKEINOS in John 14:26 and 15:26 demonstrates the Spirit’s personality, because the PNEUMA is appositional, it becomes irrelevant to the gender of the pronoun… The fact that PNEUMA and not PARAKLHTOS is the appositive renders the philological argument in these two texts void.”

In other words, there is no significance in the use of the masculine noun and pronoun with the holy spirit, when it is called comforter. This is because the PARAKLHTOS is simultaneously called PNEUMA, which is a neuter, thus rendering void any significance possibly found from the masculine noun and pronoun.

In light of this, we find it worth noting that a number of translations, including the KJV, though normally referencing the holy spirit as a he, take note of the grammar in Romans 8:26, rendering this one with the term "itself".

All things considered, we may find significance in the fact that the New Testament authors did not use the masculine pronoun with the neuter noun. While this can be dismissed as simply following the grammatical gender of the noun, we do note a number of instances where the NT authors do follow the natural gender, providing a pronoun of the personal gender rather than following the gender of the noun (Joh. 6:9; Acts 8:5; Ph. 10).

The rest of the article can be found at http://www.scripturaltruths.com/doctrines/holyspirit/

[Tsmith]

it's probably apocryphal for a good reason, too.

This does not deal with the grammar. The point remains that it is common for impersonal things to be personified in ancient Hebrew literature, and this word is one of the words used in such a personification.


i've always taken the wind in John 3 is figurative of the Spirit (I'm no greek geek, but i recall the word for Spirit can also mean wind or breath, or something like that. so perhaps it's a play on words).

The spirit blows where it chooses? That would only show the spirit not to be a person too! In fact though, the verse is obviously speaking of the wind you encounter outside, daily.

in the one they are talking about, Gene interviews someone who DOES know the Greek. see that's what we do in Christian circles, if we lack knowledge on something, we seek to learn from someone who has that knowledge.

The problem is that the person he talks to does not really even know what he is talking about. He concludes that the holy spirit is being called a he because the holy spirit is a person, when in fact it is purely a grammatical factor, much like wisdom being called a "she" in Proverbs.

[exaJeet]

I heard the audio several days ago where he spoke with SOTB, and in that discussion I am 99.9% certain he said that he does not know Greek, so if he does not know Greek, how is he going to address the points?
No huffing and puffing, just the facts.

I have studied Greek for many years and I have also discussed greek stuff with SOTB for several years. SOTB does NOT know greek... he has merely memorized a few phrases and grammatical terms.

Why would SOTB attempt to initiate a debate with Gene Scott on Greek stuff when SOTB himself doesnt even know greek?

Oh yeah, I heard the MP3 discussion mentioined above and honestly speaking, SOTB embarassed himself!

hmmmmm....

mark.

[Tsmith]

I have studied Greek for many years and I have also discussed greek stuff with SOTB for several years. SOTB does NOT know greek... he has merely memorized a few phrases and grammatical terms.

Why would SOTB attempt to initiate a debate with Gene Scott on Greek stuff when SOTB himself doesnt even know greek?

Oh yeah, I heard the MP3 discussion mentioined above and honestly speaking, SOTB embarassed himself!

hmmmmm....

mark.

With regards to SOTB's dealings with the Greek, I can find nothing he said that strikes me as wrong. Now he did state that the masculine pronoun is not used for the holy spirit, which is in reality only partially true. It is used, but it is only used because a masculine noun is appositional to PNEUMA, and so it carries no theological weight. Thus, he is correct in that the holy spirit is not refered to as a he in a personal sense, only in a grammatical sense.

I do not agree with everything stated by SOTB, but he certainly did not embarress himself any more than Mr. Cook did. I found Mr. Cook's statement on God's will particularly interesting. He stated that because a possessive pronoun was used with it, it was not a distinct person. Perhaps he is not aware that the holy spirit is also called God's spirit?

[exaJeet]

With regards to SOTB's dealings with the Greek, I can find nothing he said that strikes me as wrong. Now he did state that the masculine pronoun is not used for the holy spirit, which is in reality only partially true. It is used, but it is only used because a masculine noun is appositional to PNEUMA, and so it carries no theological weight. Thus, he is correct in that the holy spirit is not refered to as a he in a personal sense, only in a grammatical sense.

I do not agree with everything stated by SOTB, but he certainly did not embarress himself any more than Mr. Cook did. I found Mr. Cook's statement on God's will particularly interesting. He stated that because a possessive pronoun was used with it, it was not a distinct person. Perhaps he is not aware that the holy spirit is also called God's spirit?


Dave (or should I say, Tsmith) wrote,
"...which is in reality only partially true." When it comes to grammer, something either occurs or doesn't occur... it doesn't "partially" occur... it isn't "partially true" or "partially false". It blatantly appears that you are just trying to smooth over his mistakes.

By the way, SOTB did in fact embarass himself, not just by what he said, but by his extreme anger and argumentative manner of discussion. How so did Mr. Cook embarass himself? Please tell me.

Dave wrote, "I do not agree with everything stated by SOTB"... interesting... two JWs that disagree on a core Watchtower doctrine... I wonder which one agrees with the Watchtower and which one doesn't.


Blessings...
exaJeet.

[Tsmith]

Dave (or should I say, Tsmith) wrote,
"...which is in reality only partially true." When it comes to grammer, something either occurs or doesn't occur... it doesn't "partially" occur... it isn't "partially true" or "partially false". It blatantly appears that you are just trying to smooth over his mistakes.

By the way, SOTB did in fact embarass himself, not just by what he said, but by his extreme anger and argumentative manner of discussion. How so did Mr. Cook embarass himself? Please tell me.

Dave wrote, "I do not agree with everything stated by SOTB"... interesting... two JWs that disagree on a core Watchtower doctrine... I wonder which one agrees with the Watchtower and which one doesn't.


Blessings...
exaJeet.

Dave?

Umm ok.

My statement of what he said being partially true was based on the circumstances surrounding what he said. The holy spirit is not identified as a male, as the pronoun provided for PNEUMA is neuter. Only when the masculine noun is used does the masculine pronoun come up, which is a grammatically issue and has no bearing on the natural gender of the holy spirit.

Mr. Cook embarressed himself 1) by claiming the holy spirit is always called a he. This is simply a false statement. He embrassed himself by claiming that God's will is not a distinct person of God because it it said to be "God's will", while arguing that the holy spirit is a person even though it is said to be "God's spirit".

I am certain I heard several other mistakes on his part, but I'd have to listen through again, so I won't speak on those as I would not want to misrepresent Mr. Cook.

[exaJeet]

Dave?

Umm ok.

My statement of what he said being partially true was based on the circumstances surrounding what he said. The holy spirit is not identified as a male, as the pronoun provided for PNEUMA is neuter. Only when the masculine noun is used does the masculine pronoun come up, which is a grammatically issue and has no bearing on the natural gender of the holy spirit.

Mr. Cook embarressed himself 1) by claiming the holy spirit is always called a he. This is simply a false statement. He embrassed himself by claiming that God's will is not a distinct person of God because it it said to be "God's will", while arguing that the holy spirit is a person even though it is said to be "God's spirit".

I am certain I heard several other mistakes on his part, but I'd have to listen through again, so I won't speak on those as I would not want to misrepresent Mr. Cook.

Dave,
Listen to the next installment on the unchainedradio.com website where SOTB's false statements are disected and corrected. You may learn some stuff about Greek. The 5/17 edition of "The Narrow Mind" talkshow is what you want to hear.

SOTB has merely memorized a few greek phrases, words and grammatical terms, and you KNOW it.

By the way, Dave, what are YOUR credentials for your supposed knowledge of greek (I saw you stated them vaguely above, please elaborate)?

thanks,
exaJeet.

[Tsmith]

Dave,
Listen to the next installment on the unchainedradio.com website where SOTB's false statements are disected and corrected. You may learn some stuff about Greek. The 5/17 edition of "The Narrow Mind" talkshow is what you want to hear.

SOTB has merely memorized a few greek phrases, words and grammatical terms, and you KNOW it.

By the way, Dave, what are YOUR credentials for your supposed knowledge of greek (I saw you stated them vaguely above, please elaborate)?

thanks,
exaJeet.

Are you naming me now? LOL. Ok, I'm Dave I guess.

I listened to the second installment and that is what my post was directed at. The guest speaker really doesn't know Greek at all, because his argument based on the masculine pronoun does not consider that the neuter noun is used appositionally with the masculine noun and that the masculine pronoun's antecedent is that masculine noun. It is because of this that no theological argument can be made from the text.

As for SOTB's knowledge of Greek, I have never actually asked him how much he has studied, nor have I discussed the language extensively with him. As for my own studies, as I have stated, I have studied both on my own extensively, and at seminary.

[Shadow Phoenix]

I'd be interested in hearing Dave's credentials as well. I've studied enough to recognize basically that masculine pronouns are used for the Holy Spirit in passages like John 14. There's no need to explain them away. I can't help but wonder if this is starting to argue from a circle. A plain reading of the text would lead one to the belief that the Holy Spirit is a person.

We also have the other passages such as the Spirit searching the deep things of God in 1 Cor. 2 and the Holy Spirit speaking in Acts 13. However, seeing as it's been shown that SOTB was wrong on a simple point, why should I trust him on a larger one? Overall, the kind of organization that tells me I must deny what is plainly in the text and has been plainly seen for centuries, is not one I want to place my eternity with.

In Christ,
ApologiaNick

[Tsmith]

I'd be interested in hearing Dave's credentials as well. I've studied enough to recognize basically that masculine pronouns are used for the Holy Spirit in passages like John 14. There's no need to explain them away. I can't help but wonder if this is starting to argue from a circle. A plain reading of the text would lead one to the belief that the Holy Spirit is a person.

Nick,

Obviously you have not studied sufficiently, because the appositional rendering does no such thing. Nobody is "explaining them away", but rather just taking the grammar for it what it. Simple apposition, where the the gender of the pronoun is the same as the noun.


We also have the other passages such as the Spirit searching the deep things of God in 1 Cor. 2 and the Holy Spirit speaking in Acts 13. However, seeing as it's been shown that SOTB was wrong on a simple point, why should I trust him on a larger one? Overall, the kind of organization that tells me I must deny what is plainly in the text and has been plainly seen for centuries, is not one I want to place my eternity with.

In Christ,
ApologiaNick


For the holy spirit speaking, there is no such thing. The verb LALEW is never applied to the holy spirit directly outside of speaking through a person. The noun LEGW is used, which can convey the simply meaning of thought. The holy spirit tells us things by bringing these things to our minds. There is never an indication of a vocalization except when it comes through a person.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Nick,

Obviously you have not studied sufficiently, because the appositional rendering does no such thing. Nobody is "explaining them away", but rather just taking the grammar for it what it. Simple apposition, where the the gender of the pronoun is the same as the noun. {/QUOTE}



Hi Dave. I'd love to hear you try to explain what you just said. My guess is you're counting on my being ignorant. What John 14:26 says is "But when he, the comforter, the spirit of holiness (Holy Spirit) the one the Father sent in my name, he will teach you al things and will put in your mind all that I said to you.


[QUOTE=Tsmith]For the holy spirit speaking, there is no such thing. The verb LALEW is never applied to the holy spirit directly outside of speaking through a person. The noun LEGW is used, which can convey the simply meaning of thought. The holy spirit tells us things by bringing these things to our minds. There is never an indication of a vocalization except when it comes through a person.

And also, LEGW isn't a noun from what I've seen. Instead, the word eipen is used which is the aorist tense of said. Interestingly, that word for said is also used by Jesus in John 14:26. To say it's never an indication of vocalization except when it comes through a person is circular reasoning. You're presuming the Holy Spirit isn't a person when you approach the text instead of simply reading it and saying "Ah. The Holy Spirit said."

[Tsmith]

And also, LEGW isn't a noun from what I've seen. Instead, the word eipen is used which is the aorist tense of said. Interestingly, that word for said is also used by Jesus in John 14:26. To say it's never an indication of vocalization except when it comes through a person is circular reasoning. You're presuming the Holy Spirit isn't a person when you approach the text instead of simply reading it and saying "Ah. The Holy Spirit said."

EIPEN is a form of LEGW. I am not assuming anything, but you are, for you are using this as a proof. I'm simply pointing out that it does not prove anything. Yes the spirit said, but how did the spirit say? Was it by vocalization? The text never indicates that a voice was suddenly heard as is the case when God speaks from heaven. Was it by producing a thought in their minds? Was it by causing a person to say something? There are numerous possibilities, and so we can gain nothing theologically from this.

Looks as though your "quotes" were not setup right. Almost missed this.

You also said Hi Dave. I'd love to hear you try to explain what you just said. My guess is you're counting on my being ignorant. What John 14:26 says is "But when he, the comforter, the spirit of holiness (Holy Spirit) the one the Father sent in my name, he will teach you al things and will put in your mind all that I said to you.

The antecedent to the pronoun EKEINOS is the noun PARAKLHTOS, which is masculine. Because the noun is masculine, the pronoun must be masculine. This is a case of simple grammatical gender, and has nothing to do with the natural gender of that one.

[Shadow Phoenix]

EIPEN is a form of LEGW. I am not assuming anything, but you are, for you are using this as a proof. I'm simply pointing out that it does not prove anything. Yes the spirit said, but how did the spirit say? Was it by vocalization? The text never indicates that a voice was suddenly heard as is the case when God speaks from heaven. Was it by producing a thought in their minds? Was it by causing a person to say something? There are numerous possibilities, and so we can gain nothing theologically from this.

Looks as though your "quotes" were not setup right. Almost missed this.

You also said

The antecedent to the pronoun EKEINOS is the noun PARAKLHTOS, which is masculine. Because the noun is masculine, the pronoun must be masculine. This is a case of simple grammatical gender, and has nothing to do with the natural gender of that one.

I think I'll just stick with just replying to it all at once since I'm not familiar enough with computers to really learn quoting yet and let's not turn this into a discussion on that.

Well first off, you still spoke of LEGW as a noun. That kind of makes me question your Greek knowledge right there. First off, while I'll grant that it doesn't say how it was said, it does not follow that this is some esoteric meaning that can't be easily understood from the text. Whatever method he used, the Holy Spirit clearly had thoughts that he conveyed to them. I see no reason to say "Well it's not vocalization." What reason is there for assuming such?

Second off, as to John 14:26, the word EKEINOS is mascluine, and the word PARAKLHTOS is masculine, which is used to explain the Holy Spirit, yet the Holy Spirit somehow isn't masculine. You wouldn't be doing some Eisegesis in here now would ya Davey?

And please, look up the word "LEGW." It's a verb. :-)

[Tsmith]

I think I'll just stick with just replying to it all at once since I'm not familiar enough with computers to really learn quoting yet and let's not turn this into a discussion on that.

Well first off, you still spoke of LEGW as a noun. That kind of makes me question your Greek knowledge right there. First off, while I'll grant that it doesn't say how it was said, it does not follow that this is some esoteric meaning that can't be easily understood from the text. Whatever method he used, the Holy Spirit clearly had thoughts that he conveyed to them. I see no reason to say "Well it's not vocalization." What reason is there for assuming such?

Second off, as to John 14:26, the word EKEINOS is mascluine, and the word PARAKLHTOS is masculine, which is used to explain the Holy Spirit, yet the Holy Spirit somehow isn't masculine. You wouldn't be doing some Eisegesis in here now would ya Davey?

And please, look up the word "LEGW." It's a verb. :-)

Yes, LEGW is a verb, I know that. But in this thread I've been typing noun and pronoun so much, I've already caught myself typing the wrong one for each, I just didn't catch myself here.

My reason for assuming that there is no vocalization is because it is never indicated. There is a verb for speaking, at times used. When God is said to speak from heaven, there is an indication of such.

The masculine noun used to describe the holy spirit is only available in a masculine form. It describes a position based on function. There are no theological implications of this. If you were to read into this, you would be performing the eisegesis.

And my name isn't Davey.

[exaJeet]

Are you naming me now? LOL. Ok, I'm Dave I guess.


Dave, you blew your cover.....

Lets see.... at first you found something (earlier in this thread) "posted on the website scripturaltruths, which (you) found very interesting."

Then you tried to post a link to that same site and got reprimanded by the moderator (followed by a brief stint of pouting..... I believe you said, "Anything to silence the truth it seems, even when I wrote it!").

And you revealed that it was actually YOU who wrote the article ("Having clarified that I wrote what I posted, I have agreed with the moderators to post portions of the article and then link the rest.")

Dave, you know that the scripturaltruths website is your own (JW) website.... you even posted it as your own homepage under the name Tsmith as a Theologyweb user!!!

For those who are wondering, Dave is from paltalk (maqhths_kuriou) and uses a few different names also.

Anyhow, back to the issue at hand, dave....


The guest speaker really doesn't know Greek at all...


Dave, I have studied Greek for almost 14 years and have also discussed greek with you on paltalk.... they guy on the MP3 at unchainedradio.com knows greek FAR better than you do... and far better than SOTW also.


Blessings...
exaJeet.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Yes, LEGW is a verb, I know that. But in this thread I've been typing noun and pronoun so much, I've already caught myself typing the wrong one for each, I just didn't catch myself here.

My reason for assuming that there is no vocalization is because it is never indicated. There is a verb for speaking, at times used. When God is said to speak from heaven, there is an indication of such.

The masculine noun used to describe the holy spirit is only available in a masculine form. It describes a position based on function. There are no theological implications of this. If you were to read into this, you would be performing the eisegesis.

And my name isn't Davey.

Actually, there is a good reason. It's just called reading the text. The text says "Said" and it presents the Holy Spirit as one party and the church at Antioch as the other and the conveying of information with words. It doesn't need to be "clearly indicated." A simple reading would show as much.

And we do know it's you Dave. It's just called checking the homepage link. Something simple.

[Tsmith]

Dave, you blew your cover.....

Lets see.... at first you found something (earlier in this thread) "posted on the website scripturaltruths, which (you) found very interesting."

Then you tried to post a link to that same site and got reprimanded by the moderator (followed by a brief stint of pouting..... I believe you said, "Anything to silence the truth it seems, even when I wrote it!").

And you revealed that it was actually YOU who wrote the article ("Having clarified that I wrote what I posted, I have agreed with the moderators to post portions of the article and then link the rest.")

Dave, you know that the scripturaltruths website is your own (JW) website.... you even posted it as your own homepage under the name Tsmith as a Theologyweb user!!!

For those who are wondering, Dave is from paltalk (maqhths_kuriou) and uses a few different names also.

Anyhow, back to the issue at hand, dave....




Dave, I have studied Greek for almost 14 years and have also discussed greek with you on paltalk.... they guy on the MP3 at unchainedradio.com knows greek FAR better than you do... and far better than SOTW also.


Blessings...
exaJeet.

Exajeet. There is a phrase you may have heard of before. It is known as a contributing editor.

Having said that, would you care to address the points I have raised, or will you simply ignore them?

[Tsmith]

Actually, there is a good reason. It's just called reading the text. The text says "Said" and it presents the Holy Spirit as one party and the church at Antioch as the other and the conveying of information with words. It doesn't need to be "clearly indicated." A simple reading would show as much.

And we do know it's you Dave. It's just called checking the homepage link. Something simple.

Nick,

The problem is you are reading a translations, not what the authors originally wrote. You are depending on the interpretation of the translators for your understanding of the text. This is a significant exegetical error, for you are not coming to the text free of theology, but you are working within the theological confines of your translators.

The word "said" is used in various ways throughout the Greek language. As I have highlighted, it can convey simple thinking. The holy spirit has said stuff through other people, and also said stuff by inspiring them to say it.

[exaJeet]

Exajeet. There is a phrase you may have heard of before. It is known as a contributing editor.

Having said that, would you care to address the points I have raised, or will you simply ignore them?

Dave, there is a phrase that I wonder if you have heard.... "Your cover is blown!" ROFL


exaJeet.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Nick,

The problem is you are reading a translations, not what the authors originally wrote. You are depending on the interpretation of the translators for your understanding of the text. This is a significant exegetical error, for you are not coming to the text free of theology, but you are working within the theological confines of your translators.

The word "said" is used in various ways throughout the Greek language. As I have highlighted, it can convey simple thinking. The holy spirit has said stuff through other people, and also said stuff by inspiring them to say it.

Hi Dave. (Since we all know that's you.) Thanks for making a great assumption on your part. Actually, all I have with me is my Greek NT on this verse. I see the word for said and it clearly means said. I'd question your saying it could be used various other ways, but why should I assume that for this passage? When I see eipon, unless there are other reasons in the text itself, I should take it to mean said.

Also, that was a nice dodge of John 14:26! Very well handled!

[Tsmith]

Dave, there is a phrase that I wonder if you have heard.... "Your cover is blown!" ROFL


exaJeet.


If you say so.

Now exajeet, would you like to discuss the use of the masculine pronoun for the spirit?

[Slayer-2004]

It is interesting that Mr. Cook makes a number of critical errors

More like it is what should be expected of unchainedradio . At Ex-C we got a visit from some of their members ... they were at least 10 times more innacurate with their data then the worst apologist on this site .

[Tsmith]

Hi Dave. (Since we all know that's you.) Thanks for making a great assumption on your part. Actually, all I have with me is my Greek NT on this verse. I see the word for said and it clearly means said. I'd question your saying it could be used various other ways, but why should I assume that for this passage? When I see eipon, unless there are other reasons in the text itself, I should take it to mean said.

Also, that was a nice dodge of John 14:26! Very well handled!


A dodge? If a dodge, then why don't you address the points I have presented? Or is it that you cannot?

As for the holy spirit saying, I never said take it as anything other than LEGW. After all, that is the word used, is it not? Yet, what sense is LEGW carrying here? The word carries different notions, and which of these is applicable to this particular text? You are attempting to force a specific meaning of the spirit speaking, when the verb for speak is not present and there is nothing to indicate that a divine voice mystically was heard.

[Shadow Phoenix]

A dodge? If a dodge, then why don't you address the points I have presented? Or is it that you cannot?

As for the holy spirit saying, I never said take it as anything other than LEGW. After all, that is the word used, is it not? Yet, what sense is LEGW carrying here? The word carries different notions, and which of these is applicable to this particular text? You are attempting to force a specific meaning of the spirit speaking, when the verb for speak is not present and there is nothing to indicate that a divine voice mystically was heard.

Actually Dave, I posted last from what I saw on John 14:26.

Anyhow, Why not accept the most basic reading? "Said." Furthermore, I do see a reason within the text. The people there are in the plural. Sorry Dave but subjective experiences aren't shared such as dreams and hallucinations. Now come on Dave. Anyone reading this text as is would think the Holy Spirit spoke wouldn't they?

And your cover is blown Dave. :-)

[Tsmith]

Actually Dave, I posted last from what I saw on John 14:26.

Anyhow, Why not accept the most basic reading? "Said." Furthermore, I do see a reason within the text. The people there are in the plural. Sorry Dave but subjective experiences aren't shared such as dreams and hallucinations. Now come on Dave. Anyone reading this text as is would think the Holy Spirit spoke wouldn't they?

And your cover is blown Dave. :-)

Nick,

Let me give you another example.

Hebrews 3:7 Because of this, even as the Holy Spirit says, "Today, if you hear His voice,

Who said "Today, if you hear his voice"?

According to the punctuation of the NASB at Psalms 95, it is none other than David. Now how can David have been the ones that said these words, and yet the holy spirit said it? Because David spoke them under inspiration.

The people in the text are indeed in the plural, but what does that have to do with anything? Are you going to argue that because the verb is singular there is some implication? An example of a plural group with a singular verb is also found in Luke 7:6.

I am certainly not claiming that there was some type of dream. Again though, as I said, there was no person of the holy spirit present in the scene, there was nothing to indicate that a voice was heard from heaven. Where did this saying come from? The burden of proof is on you to answer this.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Nick,

Let me give you another example.

Hebrews 3:7 Because of this, even as the Holy Spirit says, "Today, if you hear His voice,

Who said "Today, if you hear his voice"?

According to the punctuation of the NASB at Psalms 95, it is none other than David. Now how can David have been the ones that said these words, and yet the holy spirit said it? Because David spoke them under inspiration.

The people in the text are indeed in the plural, but what does that have to do with anything? Are you going to argue that because the verb is singular there is some implication? An example of a plural group with a singular verb is also found in Luke 7:6.

I am certainly not claiming that there was some type of dream. Again though, as I said, there was no person of the holy spirit present in the scene, there was nothing to indicate that a voice was heard from heaven. Where did this saying come from? The burden of proof is on you to answer this.

Simple Dave. The Holy Spirit spoke by the mouth of David such as in Acts 1:16. Guess what! Both of these have a Scripture quote also. Do you see a Scripture Quote in Acts 13:2? I don't.

Also, I still appreciate the dodge of John 14:26. I haven't seen that much dodging since I played dodgeball in Middle School really. Btw, tell your friend you told about this convo that I enjoyed talking with him about John 14:26 as well.

And again, I will ask, why should anyone NOT accept the plain reading as is of the text?

[Tsmith]

Simple Dave. The Holy Spirit spoke by the mouth of David such as in Acts 1:16. Guess what! Both of these have a Scripture quote also. Do you see a Scripture Quote in Acts 13:2? I don't.

There does not need to be a quote. Again, HOW does the holy spirit say this? The holy spirit is not there as a person. A mystical voice is not heard from heaven. The text indicates nothing unusual, so how does the holy spirit say this? I have presented you with two simple and clear options that are consistent both with the grammar of the passage and what the Bible relates on the operation of the holy spirit. 1) It speaks through a person. 2) It brings the thought to their mind.

You have given me no evidence of any other view that should be taken. Remember, YOU are the one using this as a proof text, so the burden of proof is upon you to support your supposition.


Also, I still appreciate the dodge of John 14:26. I haven't seen that much dodging since I played dodgeball in Middle School really. Btw, tell your friend you told about this convo that I enjoyed talking with him about John 14:26 as well.

And again, I will ask, why should anyone NOT accept the plain reading as is of the text?

This is truly amazing. You simply will not engage my point. You just make this empty claim of dodging, because you simply lack an answer for the argument I have put forth. Since you won't engage me, let me quote Daniel Wallace for you.

“Thus, contrary to the supposition that the proximity of PNUEMA to EKEINOS in John 14:26 and 15:26 demonstrates the Spirit’s personality, because the PNEUMA is appositional, it becomes irrelevant to the gender of the pronoun… The fact that PNEUMA and not PARAKLHTOS is the appositive renders the philological argument in these two texts void.”

Thus, according to him, your argument is "void". Guess you just don't want to accept the truth.

[Tsmith]

btw Nick, I enjoyed our other conversation.

[Shadow Phoenix]

There does not need to be a quote. Again, HOW does the holy spirit say this? The holy spirit is not there as a person. A mystical voice is not heard from heaven. The text indicates nothing unusual, so how does the holy spirit say this? I have presented you with two simple and clear options that are consistent both with the grammar of the passage and what the Bible relates on the operation of the holy spirit. 1) It speaks through a person. 2) It brings the thought to their mind.

You have given me no evidence of any other view that should be taken. Remember, YOU are the one using this as a proof text, so the burden of proof is upon you to support your supposition.




This is truly amazing. You simply will not engage my point. You just make this empty claim of dodging, because you simply lack an answer for the argument I have put forth. Since you won't engage me, let me quote Daniel Wallace for you.

“Thus, contrary to the supposition that the proximity of PNUEMA to EKEINOS in John 14:26 and 15:26 demonstrates the Spirit’s personality, because the PNEUMA is appositional, it becomes irrelevant to the gender of the pronoun… The fact that PNEUMA and not PARAKLHTOS is the appositive renders the philological argument in these two texts void.”

Thus, according to him, your argument is "void". Guess you just don't want to accept the truth.

Actually Dave, the evidence I have is the plain reading of the text. When your view goes against the plain reading, you must supply the evidence. Also, since this has been the church's view of the Holy Spirit for centuries, you're speaking against what has been believed and you still must supply the evidence.

What a shock! Wallace! Just what your "Friend" wanted me to read awhile ago also! I was so utterly surprised! Dave. I don't respond to a quote until I get a page number. I'd like to get to look up the whole thing myself and see what he says altogether.

[Tsmith]

Actually Dave, the evidence I have is the plain reading of the text. When your view goes against the plain reading, you must supply the evidence. Also, since this has been the church's view of the Holy Spirit for centuries, you're speaking against what has been believed and you still must supply the evidence.

You simply will not address the points I have raised, will you? Are you incapable? Perhaps you are not aware of this point also, but John Gill in his commentary on Joshua 24:27 states that it is "frequent in Scripture, by which inanimate creatures are represented as hearing, seeing, and speaking..." Could this also be true of the holy spirit? Hmmmm.

What a shock! Wallace! Just what your "Friend" wanted me to read awhile ago also! I was so utterly surprised! Dave. I don't respond to a quote until I get a page number. I'd like to get to look up the whole thing myself and see what he says altogether.

Feel free to get the whole article. It is from Bulletin for Biblical Research 13.1, Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit. Let me give you Wallace's conclusion too while I'm at it.

"In sum, I have sought to demonstrate in this paper that the grammatical basis for the Holy Spirit's personality is lacking in the NT..."

Btw, don't forget to look up those other verses on the holy spirit. You know which I'm talking about.

[Shadow Phoenix]

You simply will not address the points I have raised, will you? Are you incapable? Perhaps you are not aware of this point also, but John Gill in his commentary on Joshua 24:27 states that it is "frequent in Scripture, by which inanimate creatures are represented as hearing, seeing, and speaking..." Could this also be true of the holy spirit? Hmmmm.



Feel free to get the whole article. It is from Bulletin for Biblical Research 13.1, Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit. Let me give you Wallace's conclusion too while I'm at it.

"In sum, I have sought to demonstrate in this paper that the grammatical basis for the Holy Spirit's personality is lacking in the NT..."

Btw, don't forget to look up those other verses on the holy spirit. You know which I'm talking about.

Again, I'm going to ask the same question. You're asking "Well why couldn't it be such and such?" That tells me you're trying to avoid the clear reading of the text. The text says "said" and it has the conveying of thoughts. Joshua 24:27 has no conveyance of thoughts in it from the stone. As for the post by Wallace, I'll be glad to look it up tomorrow. Chances are I'll sign off shortly after this post.

[Tsmith]

Again, I'm going to ask the same question. You're asking "Well why couldn't it be such and such?" That tells me you're trying to avoid the clear reading of the text. The text says "said" and it has the conveying of thoughts. Joshua 24:27 has no conveyance of thoughts in it from the stone. As for the post by Wallace, I'll be glad to look it up tomorrow. Chances are I'll sign off shortly after this post.

That is a complete strawman. I have not said "Well why couldn't it be such and such". Rather, I'm asking, why must it be speaking? You are claiming it must be and using it as a proof text, the burden is on you.

I did not say Joshua speaks of the stone thinking, but that does not address the point I raised through Gill. Gill states that impersonal things are often spoken of as speaking. The holy spirit is spoken of as speaking, I believe the holy spirit to be impersonal. Why is this so difficult for you?

The entire point of my position is not IF the holy spirit said something, for the text states nothing short of that, but rather it is a matter of HOW the holy spirit said it. This is the point you refuse to address. I have asked you, if you believe it is by vocalizing speach from itself (himself), then prove it.

The point is that you cannot use this as a proof text. What is stated can convey a number of meanings, and the text itself is ambiguous as to that meaning. Who or what the holy spirit is can only be determined elsewhere, and by that we can get a better idea of how the holy spirit said this.

[Shadow Phoenix]

That is a complete strawman. I have not said "Well why couldn't it be such and such". Rather, I'm asking, why must it be speaking? You are claiming it must be and using it as a proof text, the burden is on you.

I did not say Joshua speaks of the stone thinking, but that does not address the point I raised through Gill. Gill states that impersonal things are often spoken of as speaking. The holy spirit is spoken of as speaking, I believe the holy spirit to be impersonal. Why is this so difficult for you?

The entire point of my position is not IF the holy spirit said something, for the text states nothing short of that, but rather it is a matter of HOW the holy spirit said it. This is the point you refuse to address. I have asked you, if you believe it is by vocalizing speach from itself (himself), then prove it.

The point is that you cannot use this as a proof text. What is stated can convey a number of meanings, and the text itself is ambiguous as to that meaning. Who or what the holy spirit is can only be determined elsewhere, and by that we can get a better idea of how the holy spirit said this.

"I did not ask why it must be such and such but why it must be speaking?" Thanks for just stating what I'd stated in my own words. Why should I assume it's speaking? Let me state the plain answer. The text reads "THE HOLY SPIRIT SAID! Notice that last word. S-A-I-D.

Also, the rock has no thoughts to convey. The Holy Spirit does. (Quite enough to show personality.) This isn't an ambiguous text. It's a clear text. The only way someone could question it is if they came with the presupposition that the Holy Spirit is not a person.

This is so amazing. "You cannot use this as a prooftext." Could it be becuase this text does show the Holy Spirit speaking by clear biblical hermeneutics. Remember, when reading a passage, the clearest reading is to be preferred before secondary readings. Now why when I read "The Holy Spirit SAID" should I not think the Holy Spirit SAID?

[Tsmith]

"I did not ask why it must be such and such but why it must be speaking?" Thanks for just stating what I'd stated in my own words. Why should I assume it's speaking? Let me state the plain answer. The text reads "THE HOLY SPIRIT SAID! Notice that last word. S-A-I-D.

Also, the rock has no thoughts to convey. The Holy Spirit does. (Quite enough to show personality.) This isn't an ambiguous text. It's a clear text. The only way someone could question it is if they came with the presupposition that the Holy Spirit is not a person.

This is so amazing. "You cannot use this as a prooftext." Could it be becuase this text does show the Holy Spirit speaking by clear biblical hermeneutics. Remember, when reading a passage, the clearest reading is to be preferred before secondary readings. Now why when I read "The Holy Spirit SAID" should I not think the Holy Spirit SAID?


Nick, the Bible also says "the law says". Is the law a person? It also says "the scripture says". Is scripture a person? Again, the question is HOW did the holy spirit say it? Was it through a person? Perhaps by causing the thoughts to come to their mind? HOW is the question. Unless you can address how, you cannot use this as a proof text, because it proves nothing.

Now, would you care to address the point? I have no problem what so ever saying the holy spirit said something, as theologically the holy spirit says things in many ways. None of those things ever make it a person.

You refuse to define your terms. You cannot define HOW the holy spirit said it. Without that, you have nothing. If the text said "the holy spirit spoke" and then provided a sentence, or if it said "and a voice was heard and the holy spirit said" as when God speaks from heaven. There were numerous ways to overcome the ambiguity of the text, yet Luke feel a need to make it seem that the spirit is a person.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Nick, the Bible also says "the law says". Is the law a person? It also says "the scripture says". Is scripture a person? Again, the question is HOW did the holy spirit say it? Was it through a person? Perhaps by causing the thoughts to come to their mind? HOW is the question. Unless you can address how, you cannot use this as a proof text, because it proves nothing.

Now, would you care to address the point? I have no problem what so ever saying the holy spirit said something, as theologically the holy spirit says things in many ways. None of those things ever make it a person.

You refuse to define your terms. You cannot define HOW the holy spirit said it. Without that, you have nothing. If the text said "the holy spirit spoke" and then provided a sentence, or if it said "and a voice was heard and the holy spirit said" as when God speaks from heaven. There were numerous ways to overcome the ambiguity of the text, yet Luke feel a need to make it seem that the spirit is a person.

The text isn't at all ambiguous. One rule of biblical hermeneutics is unless there are other mitigating factors, you accept the clearest reading of the text. The clearest reading is that the Holy Spirit spoke. There are words spoken concerning the intent of a will. (Yes. The Holy Spirit wills also) The people hear, and the people respond. Personally, I still say the how is irrelevant though I would say it would most likely be vocalization. Why? It's the clearest reading. The only way I would walk away from this text assuming otherwise is if I came with the earlier belief that the Holy Spirit is not a person.

The text is clear. Luke didn't go in-depth, because he didn't need to. The church read this text for centuries and realized that the Holy Spirit spoke and that the Holy Spirit is a person.

[Shadow Phoenix]

btw, I just did a word search in Blue Letter Bible for the word "said" as used in Acts 13:2. The word "said" is not used to speak of the law. The only rare possiblities of differences are

John 8 where the Scripture is spoken of in generalities.

The Wisdom of God in another place. (Wait. JWs tell me that's Jesus so that's a person.)

The body parts in 1 Cor. 12

Other than that, it's ALWAYS a person. In fact, the same kind of language is used in Acts 11:12 of the Holy Spirit. The Law is never told to speak although Moses is often quoted as saying, the law itself never is. Moses is a person who can speak after all. Might want to look that word up sometime.

[Tsmith]

The text isn't at all ambiguous. One rule of biblical hermeneutics is unless there are other mitigating factors, you accept the clearest reading of the text. The clearest reading is that the Holy Spirit spoke. There are words spoken concerning the intent of a will. (Yes. The Holy Spirit wills also) The people hear, and the people respond. Personally, I still say the how is irrelevant though I would say it would most likely be vocalization. Why? It's the clearest reading. The only way I would walk away from this text assuming otherwise is if I came with the earlier belief that the Holy Spirit is not a person.

The text is clear. Luke didn't go in-depth, because he didn't need to. The church read this text for centuries and realized that the Holy Spirit spoke and that the Holy Spirit is a person.

Nick,

If Luke wanted to articulate clearly that the holy spirit was speaking, he has a verb for it, and it is not the verb he used. Why didn't he say the holy spirit spoke? The verb is LALEW. There is nothing to indicate your exegesis of the text is correct. You must assume a priori that the holy spirit is a person to conclude what you are arguing for. Now granted, I assume a priori that the holy spirit is not a person. However, either view comes to the text and finds no issue with what is stated. The text is ambiguous in that theologically it shows nothing. If it is not ambiguous, why am I find no theological issue with it? You are attempting to argue something just to argue it seems. I agree, the holy spirit said something. The issue is HOW the holy spirit said it.

As for your use of Blue Letter Bible, clearly you simply do not know Greek. The text of 1 Corinthians 14:34 says LEGEI, which is "said". So yes the law does say things. Same word used for the holy spirit.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Nick,

If Luke wanted to articulate clearly that the holy spirit was speaking, he has a verb for it, and it is not the verb he used. Why didn't he say the holy spirit spoke? The verb is LALEW. There is nothing to indicate your exegesis of the text is correct. You must assume a priori that the holy spirit is a person to conclude what you are arguing for. Now granted, I assume a priori that the holy spirit is not a person. However, either view comes to the text and finds no issue with what is stated. The text is ambiguous in that theologically it shows nothing. If it is not ambiguous, why am I find no theological issue with it? You are attempting to argue something just to argue it seems. I agree, the holy spirit said something. The issue is HOW the holy spirit said it.

As for your use of Blue Letter Bible, clearly you simply do not know Greek. The text of 1 Corinthians 14:34 says LEGEI, which is "said". So yes the law does say things. Same word used for the holy spirit.

I hate to disappoint you but just because a tense doesn't show up in a wordsearch that I do looking from the original word in Strong's itself, that does not show that I don't know Greek. I suppose by this standard, the only ones that know Greek are those who have supposedly remembered the whole of the NT in Greek.

Now looking at the references from Luke, it's clear that it refers to people speaking each time this is used. Why didn't he use lalew? Why should he have to? Saying "said" is just as much enough. Every other time when Luke uses the word eipon in his writings, we seem to get the impression that it's verbalization.

Personally, this is just grasping at any straw to avoid the obvious. The Holy Spirit is a person, he has thoughts that he wishes to convey, and he expresses those thoughts in giving orders. He also addresses himself in the first person. Anyone else just reading this text would think that the Holy Spirit is a person.

Keep grasping. I'm sure there will be several other straws found

[Tsmith]

I hate to disappoint you but just because a tense doesn't show up in a wordsearch that I do looking from the original word in Strong's itself, that does not show that I don't know Greek. I suppose by this standard, the only ones that know Greek are those who have supposedly remembered the whole of the NT in Greek.

What it shows Nick, is that when you look at the Greek of a passage do not recognize the word as being there, you do not know the language. It is there, plain as day, but to you it is not. You must not know the language. For me, I didn't even have to read, I just skimmed and there it was.



Now looking at the references from Luke, it's clear that it refers to people speaking each time this is used. Why didn't he use lalew? Why should he have to? Saying "said" is just as much enough. Every other time when Luke uses the word eipon in his writings, we seem to get the impression that it's verbalization.

Luke did make use LALEW.

Acts 8:26 But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, Rise up and go along south on the highway going down to Jerusalem to Gaza. This is a deserted place.

Luke also uses LEGW for impersonal things. It didn't take me long to find an example, Luke 2:24. I could have kept going to look for more, but I only needed one to prove your statement wrong.


Personally, this is just grasping at any straw to avoid the obvious. The Holy Spirit is a person, he has thoughts that he wishes to convey, and he expresses those thoughts in giving orders. He also addresses himself in the first person. Anyone else just reading this text would think that the Holy Spirit is a person.

Keep grasping. I'm sure there will be several other straws found

You can no more make use of "the holy spirit said" to prove it is a person than one could use "the law said" to do the same. As I have explained to you, the word LEGW carries a number of different meanings, and it by no means demands the subject of the verb to be a person. Law is not a person, neither is the holy spirit. You have entirely failed in your argument, for you are the one attempting to make a proof, not me. You have not substantiated that this is even anything less than a personification!

[Shadow Phoenix]

What it shows Nick, is that when you look at the Greek of a passage do not recognize the word as being there, you do not know the language. It is there, plain as day, but to you it is not. You must not know the language. For me, I didn't even have to read, I just skimmed and there it was.




Luke did make use LALEW.

Acts 8:26 But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, Rise up and go along south on the highway going down to Jerusalem to Gaza. This is a deserted place.

Luke also uses LEGW for impersonal things. It didn't take me long to find an example, Luke 2:24. I could have kept going to look for more, but I only needed one to prove your statement wrong.



You can no more make use of "the holy spirit said" to prove it is a person than one could use "the law said" to do the same. As I have explained to you, the word LEGW carries a number of different meanings, and it by no means demands the subject of the verb to be a person. Law is not a person, neither is the holy spirit. You have entirely failed in your argument, for you are the one attempting to make a proof, not me. You have not substantiated that this is even anything less than a personification!

Excuse me. I decided to not read the whole Bible in Greek first. Geez. What a stretch. I don't know the language. (Mind you, this is the one who told me legw was a noun also and kept saying he was switching between verb and noun and pronoun even though that hadn't happened a bit in this dialogue.)

The rule of hermeneutics is that you approach the text and let the text shape your theology instead of the other way. Not only does the Spirit speak, but the Spirit speaks in the first person. Take this to the average churchgoer and see if they'll say the Holy Spirit is speaking as a person or not. The church has always held to this doctrine. What reason should I look at this text and think that it's saying anything other than the Holy Spirit being a person?

[Tsmith]

Excuse me. I decided to not read the whole Bible in Greek first. Geez. What a stretch. I don't know the language. (Mind you, this is the one who told me legw was a noun also and kept saying he was switching between verb and noun and pronoun even though that hadn't happened a bit in this dialogue.)

The rule of hermeneutics is that you approach the text and let the text shape your theology instead of the other way. Not only does the Spirit speak, but the Spirit speaks in the first person. Take this to the average churchgoer and see if they'll say the Holy Spirit is speaking as a person or not. The church has always held to this doctrine. What reason should I look at this text and think that it's saying anything other than the Holy Spirit being a person?


You're not excused. I made an honest typo. I typed the wrong word. I would have done the same in English, and anybody reading this thread can clearly gather such. There has been extensive discussion of nouns and pronouns in this thread. Discussing whether the spirit is called a he or an it.

My approach to scripture is not to assume anything. I've demonstrated that "said" is used in various ways for people and things. It is not uncommon to personify things in Jewish literature. This is why Wallace, in his article, highlights the point that Trinitarians use personal verbs to describe the holy spirit when in fact this is common in Jewish literature, which the Bible is part of. I'll point this out to you. The spirit NEVER converses with somebody. God converses with people, Jesus does.. the holy spirit NEVER does. Nobody ever says anything TO the spirit, the spirit is only said to "say" things, whatever way those things are said. So when you look at this text you should no more assume it is a person than you would assume the law is a person.

The church has not always agreed on what the spirit is. In fact, there has been significant debate on this matter. You might want to do a bit of study before you come back to this thread. How many plainly wrong statements will you make?

[Shadow Phoenix]

There is an assumption though. The question is "Why should I not accept the meaning of said that ends with a quote being attributed to someone in the first person?" The only reason to reject it is to come with other factors already presupposed by itself. Each exegesis of a text starts with the text itself. If you start with this text and read that the Holy Spirit said and then have a quote with first person terms, the natural belief would be to assume personhood of the Holy Spirit. Then you bring in other verses that speak about the Holy Spirit.

Meanwhile, the Holy Spirit would not be conversed to as Christians pray to the Father in Christian thought. To the Father, through the Son, by the Holy Spirit.

The personhood has been accepted and for centuries onward. Even Arius accepted the personhood of the Holy Spirit. It's the contrary belief that needs to explain why the reigning one was wrong.

I also enjoy the constant lock-step mention of Wallace now. Interesting that supposedly Wallace is right on this point as is nearly every Greek scholar the WT quotes, but when they disagree, they're suddenly wrong. I'd personally love to see the strict terminology of this article explained myself as in what every quote means. Chances are, it couldn't be done. Have I read it myself? Nope. Haven't found it on here yet, but I'd love to see all this Greek in here explained since the JW apologists claim to know it so well.

[Tsmith]

There is an assumption though. The question is "Why should I not accept the meaning of said that ends with a quote being attributed to someone in the first person?" The only reason to reject it is to come with other factors already presupposed by itself. Each exegesis of a text starts with the text itself. If you start with this text and read that the Holy Spirit said and then have a quote with first person terms, the natural belief would be to assume personhood of the Holy Spirit. Then you bring in other verses that speak about the Holy Spirit.

Meanwhile, the Holy Spirit would not be conversed to as Christians pray to the Father in Christian thought. To the Father, through the Son, by the Holy Spirit.

The personhood has been accepted and for centuries onward. Even Arius accepted the personhood of the Holy Spirit. It's the contrary belief that needs to explain why the reigning one was wrong.

I also enjoy the constant lock-step mention of Wallace now. Interesting that supposedly Wallace is right on this point as is nearly every Greek scholar the WT quotes, but when they disagree, they're suddenly wrong. I'd personally love to see the strict terminology of this article explained myself as in what every quote means. Chances are, it couldn't be done. Have I read it myself? Nope. Haven't found it on here yet, but I'd love to see all this Greek in here explained since the JW apologists claim to know it so well.

Nick,

It comes down to WHO is reading it I guess. Is it you or an early Jewish reader? An early Jewish reader, who already did not view the holy spirit as a distinct person, because that is not a part of their theology, would have no problem with this passage. Such personifications were common within Jewish literature and this would be no different. Your entire argument falls apart when you fail to keep it within the historical context of the mindset of the 1st century reader. This is just as important as keeping a text within the context of a chapter.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Nick,

It comes down to WHO is reading it I guess. Is it you or an early Jewish reader? An early Jewish reader, who already did not view the holy spirit as a distinct person, because that is not a part of their theology, would have no problem with this passage. Such personifications were common within Jewish literature and this would be no different. Your entire argument falls apart when you fail to keep it within the historical context of the mindset of the 1st century reader. This is just as important as keeping a text within the context of a chapter.

Personifications were common. Yes. But what we have to have is a way personifications can definitely be identified. If one is reading this text, for instance, two questions can come to mind.

Who is doing the choosing?

Who are the chosen ones set apart for?

Also, I'd like to know exactly what works you've read on the period known as 2nd temple Judaism that would show how they would or would not read the text.

[Tsmith]

Personifications were common. Yes. But what we have to have is a way personifications can definitely be identified. If one is reading this text, for instance, two questions can come to mind.

Who is doing the choosing?

Who are the chosen ones set apart for?

Also, I'd like to know exactly what works you've read on the period known as 2nd temple Judaism that would show how they would or would not read the text.


I've read their own writings, hence my comments. There are numerous personifications in Jewish writings. This is not uncommon. One good way of identifying if it is a personification is to identify whether or not those doing the writing consider that one to be a person. Being that the Bible, including the NT is Jewish literature, did Jewish thought make the holy spirit out to be a distinct person? The answer of course is no.

[Shadow Phoenix]

I've read their own writings, hence my comments. There are numerous personifications in Jewish writings. This is not uncommon. One good way of identifying if it is a personification is to identify whether or not those doing the writing consider that one to be a person. Being that the Bible, including the NT is Jewish literature, did Jewish thought make the holy spirit out to be a distinct person? The answer of course is no.

You're arguing in a circle. I was also looking for specific titles, but I guess those won't come about. Also, the two questions asked weren't answered.

Who is doing the choosing?

Who are they being set apart for?

I'd need specific references that would indicate the Jews definitely did not see the Holy Spirit as a person. Also, considering that John Gill was quoted earlier since he's presumably an authority on the matters of personification, I have his thoughts on Acts 13:2.

Acts 13:2

As they ministered to the Lord…
That is, the five prophets and teachers before mentioned; and whose ministry lay in preaching the Gospel, teaching the people the doctrines of it, and expounding prophecies, and also in prayer; to which latter the Syriac version restrains their ministry, rendering it, "as they prayed to God"; but the phrase seems to be more extensive: "and fasted"; which the Jews were much used to, and the believing ones had not yet left it off; their custom was to fast on Mondays and Thursdays: (See Gill on Luke 18:12). Whether it was on one of those days, that these men were ministering and fasting, is not certain; but this we may be sure of, it was not on the Jewish sabbath, for on that day they never fasted; very likely that this was a fast appointed and fixed among themselves, on some particular occasion; it may be on account of the famine, which was at this time, (Acts 11:28) .

The Holy Ghost said;
either with an articulate voice, or by an internal impulse, upon the minds of three of the prophets:

separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have
called them;
the work which the Holy Ghost had appointed, and called them to before this, was to go and preach the Gospel among the Gentiles, distinct from the Jews, of which we read in the latter part of this chapter; and now he would have them be separated from their brethren, as Aaron and his sons were from theirs, and be sent forth from hence directly, upon that work: this shows the Spirit to be a person, since speaking and commanding in an authoritative way, and calling to a work, are ascribed unto him; and that he is a divine person, and truly God, and equal with God, since calling to a sacred office is attributed to him; and a separation to it is ordered for himself, for his service, honour, and glory; he does not say separate them to the Lord, or to God, but to me.

[Tsmith]

You're arguing in a circle. I was also looking for specific titles, but I guess those won't come about. Also, the two questions asked weren't answered.

Who is doing the choosing?

Who are they being set apart for?


The answer is God, as he is the source of the activity of the holy spirit. The holy spirit is personified in the first person. Notice what your own quote of Gill says about how the holy spirit communicated. "or by an internal impulse, upon the minds of three of the prophets." This is exactly for what I've been arguing!


I'd need specific references that would indicate the Jews definitely did not see the Holy Spirit as a person.

Wow. You honestly believe that Israel believed the holy spirit to be a person? Let us see what the OT teaches on the holy spirit and what they believed.

Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary: "The OT does not contain an idea of a semi-independent divine entity, the Holy Spirit. Rather, we find special expressions of God's activity with and through men"

Albert Barnes: "It is not certain that David understood by the phrase “thy Holy Spirit” precisely what is now denoted by it as referring to the third person of the Trinity. The language, as used by him, would denote some influence coming from God producing holiness, “as if” God breathed his own spirit, or his own self, into the soul."

ISBE: "The Spirit of God, therefore, as based upon the idea of the ru¯ah? or breath of man, originally stood for the energy or power of God (Isa_31:3; compare A. B. Davidson, Theology of the Old Testament, 117-18), as contrasted with the weakness of the flesh."

These are not Trinitarian interpretations, but rather comments on how the OT and those in ancient Israel understood the holy spirit.

As for the rest of Gill's commentary, it was an interesting read.

[Shadow Phoenix]

The answer is God, as he is the source of the activity of the holy spirit. The holy spirit is personified in the first person. Notice what your own quote of Gill says about how the holy spirit communicated. "or by an internal impulse, upon the minds of three of the prophets." This is exactly for what I've been arguing!



Wow. You honestly believe that Israel believed the holy spirit to be a person? Let us see what the OT teaches on the holy spirit and what they believed.

Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary: "The OT does not contain an idea of a semi-independent divine entity, the Holy Spirit. Rather, we find special expressions of God's activity with and through men"

Albert Barnes: "It is not certain that David understood by the phrase “thy Holy Spirit” precisely what is now denoted by it as referring to the third person of the Trinity. The language, as used by him, would denote some influence coming from God producing holiness, “as if” God breathed his own spirit, or his own self, into the soul."

ISBE: "The Spirit of God, therefore, as based upon the idea of the ru¯ah? or breath of man, originally stood for the energy or power of God (Isa_31:3; compare A. B. Davidson, Theology of the Old Testament, 117-18), as contrasted with the weakness of the flesh."

These are not Trinitarian interpretations, but rather comments on how the OT and those in ancient Israel understood the holy spirit.

As for the rest of Gill's commentary, it was an interesting read.

First off, the text doesn't say God. That's reading into the text. When the Holy Spirit says me, then why not think it's for the Holy Spirit.

Secondly, where in these books can these references be found? It makes them easier to check and easier to show that they're actually owned or checked on.

Lastly, I asked for quotes from Jews. Not from views on Jews from later on. Show the Jewish quotes such as from Wisdom literature.

[Tsmith]

First off, the text doesn't say God. That's reading into the text. When the Holy Spirit says me, then why not think it's for the Holy Spirit.

Secondly, where in these books can these references be found? It makes them easier to check and easier to show that they're actually owned or checked on.

Lastly, I asked for quotes from Jews. Not from views on Jews from later on. Show the Jewish quotes such as from Wisdom literature.


If the holy spirit is a part of God, and I believe it is, when the holy spirit is said to will something, it is the same thing as saying God willed it.

Albert Barnes is commenting on Psalms 51:11, Elwell's is under the topic of "holy spirit" and, off the top of my head, the same is true for the ISBE. I do have these, but at present not the time to go pull up page numbers.

As for Jewish sources, do you want personifications? Here are a few.

Wisdom 1:3 For perverse thoughts separate men from God, and when his power is tested, it convicts the foolish;

Wisdom 1:16 But ungodly men by their words and deeds summoned death; considering him a friend, they pined away, and they made a covenant with him, because they are fit to belong to his party.

Wisdom 4:1 Better than this is childlessness with virtue, for in the memory of virtue is immortality, because it is known both by God and by men. 2 When it is present, men imitate it, and they long for it when it has gone; and throughout all time it marches crowned in triumph, victor in the contest for prizes that are undefiled.

If you are looking for quotes that say something like "we believe the holy spirit to be..." you are not going to find them. However, I've yet to find a scholar that states that the early Jews believed the holy spirit to be a distinct person. It is well accepted that they were not Trinitarian.

[Shadow Phoenix]

If the holy spirit is a part of God, and I believe it is, when the holy spirit is said to will something, it is the same thing as saying God willed it.

Albert Barnes is commenting on Psalms 51:11, Elwell's is under the topic of "holy spirit" and, off the top of my head, the same is true for the ISBE. I do have these, but at present not the time to go pull up page numbers.

As for Jewish sources, do you want personifications? Here are a few.

Wisdom 1:3 For perverse thoughts separate men from God, and when his power is tested, it convicts the foolish;

Wisdom 1:16 But ungodly men by their words and deeds summoned death; considering him a friend, they pined away, and they made a covenant with him, because they are fit to belong to his party.

Wisdom 4:1 Better than this is childlessness with virtue, for in the memory of virtue is immortality, because it is known both by God and by men. 2 When it is present, men imitate it, and they long for it when it has gone; and throughout all time it marches crowned in triumph, victor in the contest for prizes that are undefiled.

If you are looking for quotes that say something like "we believe the holy spirit to be..." you are not going to find them. However, I've yet to find a scholar that states that the early Jews believed the holy spirit to be a distinct person. It is well accepted that they were not Trinitarian.

Again, you're not answering what I asked. While sources were given, I didn't ask for evidence from the Wisdom literature that personifications were used. I asked for evidence that stated their views of the Holy Spirit.

Also, I have a huge problem with something being a part of God. (Which is also a problem when I read "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" and realize that the WT is misrepresenting my view right off when they talk about parts of God.) If God has parts, he can be taken apart. If God can be taken apart, God can decompose. If that is true, he can cease to exist. Got a problem with that terminology also.

Now can you pull up views from Wisdom Literature since you say you know it well enough to show how they viewed the Holy Spirit?

[Tsmith]

Again, you're not answering what I asked. While sources were given, I didn't ask for evidence from the Wisdom literature that personifications were used. I asked for evidence that stated their views of the Holy Spirit.

Also, I have a huge problem with something being a part of God. (Which is also a problem when I read "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" and realize that the WT is misrepresenting my view right off when they talk about parts of God.) If God has parts, he can be taken apart. If God can be taken apart, God can decompose. If that is true, he can cease to exist. Got a problem with that terminology also.

Now can you pull up views from Wisdom Literature since you say you know it well enough to show how they viewed the Holy Spirit?

When did I say anything about using wisdom literature to show what they believe the holy spirit to be? Here is a good one though, showing it not to be a person of God, but belonging to God.

Wisdom 9:17 And who could ever have known your will, had you not given Wisdom and sent your holy Spirit from above?

[Shadow Phoenix]

When did I say anything about using wisdom literature to show what they believe the holy spirit to be? Here is a good one though, showing it not to be a person of God, but belonging to God.

Wisdom 9:17 And who could ever have known your will, had you not given Wisdom and sent your holy Spirit from above?

Alright. Let's see how these can be seen on both possible grounds I can think of.

A:Since the Holy SPirit is sent, he can't be a person.

How about all the favorite verse of JWs, John 17:3, to believe in Jesus Christ who God has sent in that verse? Thus, the Son is sent and is still a person.

B:Wisdom isn't a person.

Yet this is what I keep hearing over and over from JWs. In Proverbs 8, Jesus is wisdom. The NT teaches that Jesus is the wisdom of God and still a person and if that's true, and he's teamed with the Holy SPirit, that's actually arguing for my view.

Give me another verse from the Wisdom literature supposedly showing your view.

[Tsmith]

Alright. Let's see how these can be seen on both possible grounds I can think of.

A:Since the Holy SPirit is sent, he can't be a person.

How about all the favorite verse of JWs, John 17:3, to believe in Jesus Christ who God has sent in that verse? Thus, the Son is sent and is still a person.

B:Wisdom isn't a person.

Yet this is what I keep hearing over and over from JWs. In Proverbs 8, Jesus is wisdom. The NT teaches that Jesus is the wisdom of God and still a person and if that's true, and he's teamed with the Holy SPirit, that's actually arguing for my view.

Give me another verse from the Wisdom literature supposedly showing your view.

Now where did I make that argument? I didn't! Of course a person can be sent. However, that has nothing to do with my position.

If you listened to Mr. Cook's radio show he mentioned that God's will is not a person of God because it has a possessive pronoun. In that case, it says "his will". Here, the same is true. It says "your holy spirit". See the pronoun "your" there. It is showing that God possesses the holy spirit, not that he is the holy spirit or that the holy spirit is a distinct person of the being of God.

Now you err in assuming that simply because wisdom is spoken of that it is speaking of Jesus. When God here is spoken of as giving wisdom he is not speaking of giving Jesus, but giving the attribute and quality of wisdom. Jesus personifies wisdom, he is not a simple attribute that God gives.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Now where did I make that argument? I didn't! Of course a person can be sent. However, that has nothing to do with my position.

If you listened to Mr. Cook's radio show he mentioned that God's will is not a person of God because it has a possessive pronoun. In that case, it says "his will". Here, the same is true. It says "your holy spirit". See the pronoun "your" there. It is showing that God possesses the holy spirit, not that he is the holy spirit or that the holy spirit is a distinct person of the being of God.

Now you err in assuming that simply because wisdom is spoken of that it is speaking of Jesus. When God here is spoken of as giving wisdom he is not speaking of giving Jesus, but giving the attribute and quality of wisdom. Jesus personifies wisdom, he is not a simple attribute that God gives.

The Father sends his Son as well. The genitive is used of the Son just as it is of the Spirit. Your point?

[Tsmith]

The Father sends his Son as well. The genitive is used of the Son just as it is of the Spirit. Your point?


Again, where did I bring up sending? You keep raising this point as if it is a basis for my argument.

Yes, the genitive is used of the Son too, which should tell you something. The son therefore isn't God, but belongs to God, and is thus GOD's son, and in the same way it is GOD's holy spirit. The difference though is that "son" is a personal noun, holy spirit is not (actually holy is an adjective describing the type of spirit, but when you say "your spirit" it is just like saying "your will", neither are persons). The holy spirit is something belonging to God, the son is somebody belonging to God.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Again, where did I bring up sending? You keep raising this point as if it is a basis for my argument.

Yes, the genitive is used of the Son too, which should tell you something. The son therefore isn't God, but belongs to God, and is thus GOD's son, and in the same way it is GOD's holy spirit. The difference though is that "son" is a personal noun, holy spirit is not (actually holy is an adjective describing the type of spirit, but when you say "your spirit" it is just like saying "your will", neither are persons). The holy spirit is something belonging to God, the son is somebody belonging to God.

Actually, I don't see that demonstrated at all unless it can be shown that God is unipersonal. I simply see more an argument with the beliefs decided a priori and now everything has to fit around those beliefs. For instance, if we talk about evil spirits, are we to assume right off that these are active forces or could they be personal?

btw, Trinitarians have agreed that the Son is in the bosom of the Father. It's not an objection to us. Just a straw man.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Hello Tsmith,

may I make some observations? I am a Trinitarian. I can see what you are saying, but I have problems with your exegesis and use of sources.

Nick pointed out "the Holy Spirit said" while you counter with "the law says" (page 4 of this thread) - obviously the law is not a person but our position is that the Holy Spirit interacts with believers (Acts 13:2-4, the Spirit calls, the believers pray, the Spirit sends) whereas the law is unable to do so. Hence our position that the Spirit is a person.

Now for your sources: the three works you've cited, ISBE, Elwell and Barnes are all evangelical - they do not support your position theologically, which suggests to me taking phrases out of their intended context. I accept that the Jews of the OT probably didnt view the Holy Spirit as a person, but I also allow for progressive revelation (i.e. that the New Testament adds to/extends the Old) - Barnes allows for this as well. Elwell defines the Spirit as an extension of God himself, and specifically states the personality of the Spirit was developed during the inter-testamental period due to Wisdom theology (perhaps why Nick mentioned this) and that Jesus "developed the idea of the Holy Spirit as a personality (e.g., John 15:26; 16:7ff.), specifically as God working in the church."

Here is the context of the quote you gave:

"The phrase "Holy Spirit" appears in two contexts in the OT, but is qualified both times as God's holy Spirit (Ps. 51:11; Isa. 63:10-11, 14), such that it is clear that God himself is the referent, not the Holy Spirit which is encountered in the NT. The OT does not contain an idea of a semi-independent divine entity, the Holy Spirit."

So your sources do not sustain your claim; would you like to respond please? (BTW I do not own Elwell, I relied on this page as my source; please correct me if this is incorrectly presenting it - http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/holyspir.htm)

Hi Nick :smile:
from Punkish

[Tsmith]

Actually, I don't see that demonstrated at all unless it can be shown that God is unipersonal. I simply see more an argument with the beliefs decided a priori and now everything has to fit around those beliefs. For instance, if we talk about evil spirits, are we to assume right off that these are active forces or could they be personal?

btw, Trinitarians have agreed that the Son is in the bosom of the Father. It's not an objection to us. Just a straw man.

Easily.

Hebrews 9:24 shows this. It speaks of the person/presence (depending on how you translate it) of God as being singular, and it is definite showing there to be just one.

When we talk about evil spirits we are discussing beings. However, when God speaks of "his spirit" we are not talking about a being, but something belonging to God.

[Tsmith]

Hello Tsmith,

may I make some observations? I am a Trinitarian. I can see what you are saying, but I have problems with your exegesis and use of sources.

Nick pointed out "the Holy Spirit said" while you counter with "the law says" (page 4 of this thread) - obviously the law is not a person but our position is that the Holy Spirit interacts with believers (Acts 13:2-4, the Spirit calls, the believers pray, the Spirit sends) whereas the law is unable to do so. Hence our position that the Spirit is a person.

If you look carefully, there is no interaction with the holy spirit. Nobody ever has a conversation with the spirit, nobody ever says anything TO the spirit. It is all a one way thing, just as with the law.


Now for your sources: the three works you've cited, ISBE, Elwell and Barnes are all evangelical - they do not support your position theologically, which suggests to me taking phrases out of their intended context.

The quotes were not out of their context. The sources were cited not as what THEIR views of the holy spirit are, but as what the OT view of the holy spirit is and of the OT authors. The citations for this purpose are entirely accurate.


I accept that the Jews of the OT probably didnt view the Holy Spirit as a person, but I also allow for progressive revelation (i.e. that the New Testament adds to/extends the Old) - Barnes allows for this as well. Elwell defines the Spirit as an extension of God himself, and specifically states the personality of the Spirit was developed during the inter-testamental period due to Wisdom theology (perhaps why Nick mentioned this) and that Jesus "developed the idea of the Holy Spirit as a personality (e.g., John 15:26; 16:7ff.), specifically as God working in the church."

John 15:26 and 16:7 do nothing to show a personality for the spirit. The masculine pronouns are a grammatical requirement and have no theological import.


Here is the context of the quote you gave:

"The phrase "Holy Spirit" appears in two contexts in the OT, but is qualified both times as God's holy Spirit (Ps. 51:11; Isa. 63:10-11, 14), such that it is clear that God himself is the referent, not the Holy Spirit which is encountered in the NT. The OT does not contain an idea of a semi-independent divine entity, the Holy Spirit."

So your sources do not sustain your claim; would you like to respond please? (BTW I do not own Elwell, I relied on this page as my source; please correct me if this is incorrectly presenting it - http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/holyspir.htm)

Hi Nick :smile:
from Punkish

The sources DO sustain my claim. The holy spirit is not a distinct person of a Triune God in the OT. On the point of God himself being the referent, if this is where you are making issue, this is obvious in my opinion, as it is the "extension of God" so if the holy spirit is doing something, it must be equated with God doing it.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Easily.

Hebrews 9:24 shows this. It speaks of the person/presence (depending on how you translate it) of God as being singular, and it is definite showing there to be just one.

When we talk about evil spirits we are discussing beings. However, when God speaks of "his spirit" we are not talking about a being, but something belonging to God.

Actually, even the KIT translates it as face. Presence is what I've usually seen in Bibles. The word can mean person granted, but why should I take it to mean person instead of the most natural meaning of face? Furthermore, I would expect God to be singular. We believe in one God.

By the way, angels are spoken of as spirits also belonging to God. Does that make them non-persons?

[Tsmith]

Actually, even the KIT translates it as face. Presence is what I've usually seen in Bibles. The word can mean person granted, but why should I take it to mean person instead of the most natural meaning of face? Furthermore, I would expect God to be singular. We believe in one God.

By the way, angels are spoken of as spirits also belonging to God. Does that make them non-persons?


It doesn't matter how you wish to translate it, the meaning is still there and the fact remains that it is definite, singular. You asked for the text, so there you go.

Yes, angels are spoken of as spirits, but the difference is that you are not arguing for angels to be God! Angels belong to God, so they are not God, the holy spirit belongs to God, so it is not God. The holy spirit belongs to God and is demonstratably his way of carrying out activity.

[Sparko]

If you look carefully, there is no interaction with the holy spirit. Nobody ever has a conversation with the spirit, nobody ever says anything TO the spirit. It is all a one way thing, just as with the law.


Acts 5:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=5&verse=3&version=31&context=verse)
Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?

Matthew 12:32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=12&verse=32&version=31&context=verse)
Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

[Shadow Phoenix]

It doesn't matter how you wish to translate it, the meaning is still there and the fact remains that it is definite, singular. You asked for the text, so there you go.

Yes, angels are spoken of as spirits, but the difference is that you are not arguing for angels to be God! Angels belong to God, so they are not God, the holy spirit belongs to God, so it is not God. The holy spirit belongs to God and is demonstratably his way of carrying out activity.

Only a problem if you assume God is unipersonal. Personally, I'm just arguing that the Holy Spirit is a person now. Not that he's God just yet. Let's look at some other terms as well.

The devil and all his angels in Matthew 25:41. The angels belong to Satan but yet can still be considered persons.

Hebrews 1:14. Angels are spoken of as spirits which are NEUTER but are still considered persons. (Hence, angels can be neuter and be persons both.)

Furthermore, even God is Spirit but who would say that God is neuter and thus not a person?

And as for Hebrews 9:24, what should I expect it to say? Should I expect it to be plural? Of course it's going to be singular. My question is why should I read person in there instead of the other terms that are much more prominent like presence or face?

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Tsmith> If you look carefully, there is no interaction with the holy spirit. Nobody ever has a conversation with the spirit, nobody ever says anything TO the spirit. It is all a one way thing, just as with the law.

No, interaction is defined as 'mutual or reciprocal action' - the Spirit calls, the believers pray, the Spirit sends. This is reciprocal action, is it not? Conversation isnt necessary I don't think. Where do you find this sort of thing in any personification? When Cain is condemned, you don't find Abel's blood rejoicing do you? :smile:

[Tsmith]

Only a problem if you assume God is unipersonal. Personally, I'm just arguing that the Holy Spirit is a person now. Not that he's God just yet. Let's look at some other terms as well.

The devil and all his angels in Matthew 25:41. The angels belong to Satan but yet can still be considered persons.

Hebrews 1:14. Angels are spoken of as spirits which are NEUTER but are still considered persons. (Hence, angels can be neuter and be persons both.)

Furthermore, even God is Spirit but who would say that God is neuter and thus not a person?

The difference is that the text speaks of WHAT they are, not WHO they are.


And as for Hebrews 9:24, what should I expect it to say? Should I expect it to be plural? Of course it's going to be singular. My question is why should I read person in there instead of the other terms that are much more prominent like presence or face?

However you chose to read it you are still stuck with the difficulty. The being "God" has only a single presence, a single face or a single person. It doesn't matter. The article is really what is the kicker for you in that text.

[Tsmith]

Tsmith> If you look carefully, there is no interaction with the holy spirit. Nobody ever has a conversation with the spirit, nobody ever says anything TO the spirit. It is all a one way thing, just as with the law.

No, interaction is defined as 'mutual or reciprocal action' - the Spirit calls, the believers pray, the Spirit sends. This is reciprocal action, is it not? Conversation isnt necessary I don't think. Where do you find this sort of thing in any personification? When Cain is condemned, you don't find Abel's blood rejoicing do you? :smile:


They do not pray to the holy spirit, the holy spirit is sent, it does not send itself. The holy spirit says stuff, but nobody ever says anything back.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Tsmith> They do not pray to the holy spirit, the holy spirit is sent, it does not send itself. The holy spirit says stuff, but nobody ever says anything back.

Prayer to the Spirit isnt required in my view, neither is conversation. I also agree that the Spirit isnt self-sent. But none of this answers my point: please show me interaction from a personification. Otherwise, I see no reason to change my mind.

[Tsmith]

Tsmith> They do not pray to the holy spirit, the holy spirit is sent, it does not send itself. The holy spirit says stuff, but nobody ever says anything back.

Prayer to the Spirit isnt required in my view, neither is conversation. I also agree that the Spirit isnt self-sent. But none of this answers my point: please show me interaction from a personification. Otherwise, I see no reason to change my mind.

I have shown you the example of the law saying something. I have also argued soundly that the holy spirit saying something does not demand the same thing as saying the holy spirit spoke. The position being argued for is that the texts serves as a proof text, where I have argued that it does no such thing. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon those wishing to use this as a proof text.

[Shadow Phoenix]

The difference is that the text speaks of WHAT they are, not WHO they are.



However you chose to read it you are still stuck with the difficulty. The being "God" has only a single presence, a single face or a single person. It doesn't matter. The article is really what is the kicker for you in that text.

Um. Is that supposed to be a problem. Of course it's singular. Again, why should I read person instead of face? Of course it matters how I translate it! The word has multiple meanings. Why should I choose person instead of presence? Looking at the actions going on and Jewish tradition of forgiveness, presence would be the best word.

Keep trying to fit that square peg into that round hole.

[Tsmith]

Um. Is that supposed to be a problem. Of course it's singular. Again, why should I read person instead of face? Of course it matters how I translate it! The word has multiple meanings. Why should I choose person instead of presence? Looking at the actions going on and Jewish tradition of forgiveness, presence would be the best word.

Keep trying to fit that square peg into that round hole.


Now you are simply avoiding what I am writing. As I stated, it does not matter how you translate it, whatever it is, it is singular AND definite, which means "God" only has one of those, where Trinitarianism demands three.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

okey dokey - tsmith you havent grasped my argument goes beyond simply "the Spirit says things therefore ...", hence your responses are not adequate: the law saying something is not interaction! Have you a text where the law says, people obey it and the law on top of that responds to them because of their action?

Also, it isnt a proof text - I cant prove the personality of the Spirit in one text! Well, it might lend credence to it but I'm ultimately after "is it true?" - and that requires two witnesses. I offer Acts 5:3-4 as my second witness. The church led by the Spirit had been giving their possessions for the believers use (Acts 4:32-37), Ananias & Sapphira do something else as if it is the same thing, the Spirit responds by terminating their life. (Also note Peter's charge: lying TO the Spirit, now maybe you would say that isn't speech - as action against the Spirit it still doesnt make sense that a non-person would 'know' there was such a counter-move performed...thanks JohnSparks for the verse)

I do not think you can find personifications performing these kinds of interaction, but you can try :smile:

[Shadow Phoenix]

Now you are simply avoiding what I am writing. As I stated, it does not matter how you translate it, whatever it is, it is singular AND definite, which means "God" only has one of those, where Trinitarianism demands three.

Wow. What a misunderstanding of my worldview. Please tell me where you get this idea that it requires three from?

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Tsmith> it is singular AND definite, which means "God" only has one of those, where Trinitarianism demands three.

Sorry..can't let this go. No it doesn't, Trinitarianism is defined as three centres of consciousness in God's being: not three faces!

[Tsmith]

Tsmith> it is singular AND definite, which means "God" only has one of those, where Trinitarianism demands three.

Sorry..can't let this go. No it doesn't, Trinitarianism is defined as three centres of consciousness in God's being: not three faces!


The text is not speaking of a literal face as in what you touch when you lift your hand to your nose. This much is obvious. The translation most commonly provided is presence, and Trinitarianism demands three presences, one for each person. However, the text in question speaks of God possessing but a single presence, not multiple ones.

[Tsmith]

Wow. What a misunderstanding of my worldview. Please tell me where you get this idea that it requires three from?


The very definition of the doctrine, with three persons in one being. Therefore, there must be three proswpons.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Tsmith, where does Trinitarianism demand three presences?

[Tsmith]

okey dokey - tsmith you havent grasped my argument goes beyond simply "the Spirit says things therefore ...", hence your responses are not adequate: the law saying something is not interaction! Have you a text where the law says, people obey it and the law on top of that responds to them because of their action?

Also, it isnt a proof text - I cant prove the personality of the Spirit in one text! Well, it might lend credence to it but I'm ultimately after "is it true?" - and that requires two witnesses. I offer Acts 5:3-4 as my second witness. The church led by the Spirit had been giving their possessions for the believers use (Acts 4:32-37), Ananias & Sapphira do something else as if it is the same thing, the Spirit responds by terminating their life. (Also note Peter's charge: lying TO the Spirit, now maybe you would say that isn't speech - as action against the Spirit it still doesnt make sense that a non-person would 'know' there was such a counter-move performed...thanks JohnSparks for the verse)

I do not think you can find personifications performing these kinds of interaction, but you can try :smile:

The text does nothing for you. The spirit is not identified as the one killing them. The spirit is not even spoken to here as a person, but it it within the apostles whom he spoke to. They lied to the spirit in that the spirit revealed to them the truth. So this is very much a personification. The parallel here between the spirit and God is no different than the parallel between Sampson's strength and God in Judges 16:19,20.

[Tsmith]

Tsmith, where does Trinitarianism demand three presences?

If you have three persons, you have three presences. Unless you are a modalism. Modalism would teach a single presence for God. You'll notice that Jesus is found in contrast to that presence of God in Hebrews 9 as well, showing that he does not partake of it, but gained access to it.

[Shadow Phoenix]

The very definition of the doctrine, with three persons in one being. Therefore, there must be three proswpons.

I want to ask Punkish's question. It's the same as mine. Who told you Trinitarianism demands that?

[Tsmith]

I want to ask Punkish's question. It's the same as mine. Who told you Trinitarianism demands that?

The very definition of the doctrine does as much.

[Shadow Phoenix]

The very definition of the doctrine does as much.

It does? Then go through the doctrine and define the words and show us how it demands that.

[Tsmith]

It does? Then go through the doctrine and define the words and show us how it demands that.


The very reason that proswpon is often used to denote a person is because every person is defined as having a proswpon. Now, if every person has a proswpon, and the Trinity is three persons in one being, for there to be three persons there MUST be three proswpons. There can be no other way of looking at it.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Tsmith, so Ananias and Sapphira died of natural causes then? :huh: I'm still waiting for personification/interaction examples: if you don't have any please say so, that's fine. It would mean your counters to my argument lacks force & supporting evidence, though.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Tsmith> The very reason that proswpon is often used to denote a person is because every person is defined as having a proswpon. Now, if every person has a proswpon, and the Trinity is three persons in one being, for there to be three persons there MUST be three proswpons. There can be no other way of looking at it.

Ah, you are in error. "If every person has a proswpon" - sorry but God has said He is not a man (Numbers 23:19), therefore you cannot use man as the starting point for the comparison.

[Tsmith]

Tsmith, so Ananias and Sapphira died of natural causes then? :huh: I'm still waiting for personification/interaction examples: if you don't have any please say so, that's fine. It would mean your counters to my argument lacks force & supporting evidence, though.

I have no examples, which is my very point! The holy spirit does not interact!

[Shadow Phoenix]

The very reason that proswpon is often used to denote a person is because every person is defined as having a proswpon. Now, if every person has a proswpon, and the Trinity is three persons in one being, for there to be three persons there MUST be three proswpons. There can be no other way of looking at it.

We're talking about the face of God here. One word to add to what Punkish said.

"Anthropomorphism"

Now can you go through the doctrine of the Trinity and really define the words?

[Tsmith]

Tsmith> The very reason that proswpon is often used to denote a person is because every person is defined as having a proswpon. Now, if every person has a proswpon, and the Trinity is three persons in one being, for there to be three persons there MUST be three proswpons. There can be no other way of looking at it.

Ah, you are in error. "If every person has a proswpon" - sorry but God has said He is not a man (Numbers 23:19), therefore you cannot use man as the starting point for the comparison.


Nobody is using a man, but rather we are simply using grammar. Grammar would not be used in a false way to describe God.

[Tsmith]

We're talking about the face of God here. One word to add to what Punkish said.

"Anthropomorphism"

Now can you go through the doctrine of the Trinity and really define the words?

Trinitarians will do anything to escape the doom of their doctrine. You asked for it, and you got it. God is a single person, he has a single PROSWPON. No if, ands for buts about it. I would strongly suggest you never ask another person to show you where the Bible defines God as being one person, for this text does that very thing!

The doctrine of the Trinity is three persons within one being. God is that being, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the persons and they are not eachother. Therefore, not being eachother, they must all have a unique presence, a unique face. This is just as the Father and Son are described as having unique wills. Being that God's presence is a single one, and it is the only one, Jesus cannot partake of that being.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Tsmith> I have no examples, which is my very point! The holy spirit does not interact!

Um, so when it says (Acts 13:4) the two of them were sent on their way *by the Holy Spirit* this is not the Spirit's response to the fasting & prayers of verse 3??? (I do not want to see in reply, they did not pray to the Spirit.)

Regarding proswpon, my point stands because you started with "every person" - you aren't beginning with how God defines himself but rather from outside of God..from the creation.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Trinitarians will do anything to escape the doom of their doctrine. You asked for it, and you got it. God is a single person, he has a single PROSWPON. No if, ands for buts about it. I would strongly suggest you never ask another person to show you where the Bible defines God as being one person, for this text does that very thing!

The doctrine of the Trinity is three persons within one being. God is that being, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the persons and they are not eachother. Therefore, not being eachother, they must all have a unique presence, a unique face. This is just as the Father and Son are described as having unique wills. Being that God's presence is a single one, and it is the only one, Jesus cannot partake of that being.

Um. I agree. God has a single Proswpon. As a Trinitarian, that's what I expect actually. I think you don't know what the Trinitarian meaning is of person.

For one thing, you haven't shown that the text should show person. It simply shows presence, which is what we've always said. I really think you're going with an understanding of person not meant by Nicea but more implied by the Watchtower. It's the belief more of three individuals than of three persons.

Try finding out what we really beleive next time

[Tsmith]

Tsmith> I have no examples, which is my very point! The holy spirit does not interact!

Um, so when it says (Acts 13:4) the two of them were sent on their way *by the Holy Spirit* this is not the Spirit's response to the fasting & prayers of verse 3??? (I do not want to see in reply, they did not pray to the Spirit.)

Well they didn't, now did they? Also, the text reads nothing of the holy spirit "responding" as you so claim.


Regarding proswpon, my point stands because you started with "every person" - you aren't beginning with how God defines himself but rather from outside of God..from the creation.

God defines himself through scripture via inspiration. The author of Hebrews wrote this statement about God, and so thus defined God further for us. The Bible would not use terms contrary to their normal meaning to define God.

[Tsmith]

Um. I agree. God has a single Proswpon. As a Trinitarian, that's what I expect actually. I think you don't know what the Trinitarian meaning is of person.

For one thing, you haven't shown that the text should show person. It simply shows presence, which is what we've always said. I really think you're going with an understanding of person not meant by Nicea but more implied by the Watchtower. It's the belief more of three individuals than of three persons.

Try finding out what we really beleive next time


Then you are a modalist, not a Trinitarian. Every INDIVIDUAL must have a proswpon, or they are not an individual. You cannot escape this text. Even with your efforts here you still are faced with the fact that Jesus is placed outside of God's PROSWPON.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Then you are a modalist, not a Trinitarian. Every INDIVIDUAL must have a proswpon, or they are not an individual. You cannot escape this text. Even with your efforts here you still are faced with the fact that Jesus is placed outside of God's PROSWPON.

First off, even looking further at this verse, God would refer to the Father and not the Trinity as Christ does not appear before the Trinity. It was common in the NT. God is often referred to as theos and Jesus as Kurios to avoid Deuterotheism.

Secondly though, even if a passage just talked about the proswpon of God, it would not be a problem. The reason is because I believe in three persons and not three individuals.

I know you may think you're fazing my beliefs, but you're just confirming them. Trinitarians often talk about standing in the presence of God and seeing the face of God. btw, remember that God is Spirit essentially. ;-)

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Just face it tsmith, you'll have to PROSWPON the fact that Trinitarianism doesnt fit the characature you think it is. :rofl: What, the Spirit sends believers off in Acts 13:4 based on no previous reason??

[Tsmith]

First off, even looking further at this verse, God would refer to the Father and not the Trinity as Christ does not appear before the Trinity. It was common in the NT. God is often referred to as theos and Jesus as Kurios to avoid Deuterotheism.

Secondly though, even if a passage just talked about the proswpon of God, it would not be a problem. The reason is because I believe in three persons and not three individuals.

I know you may think you're fazing my beliefs, but you're just confirming them. Trinitarians often talk about standing in the presence of God and seeing the face of God. btw, remember that God is Spirit essentially. ;-)

Now you are performing the fallacy of equivocation in order to further defend yourself. You are redefining "God" to mean "the Father" when in fact that is not what you teach. You do not teach that God is the Father, but you teach that God is the Trinity and the Father is a person of that Triune God.

The text speaks of the PROSWPON of God, so this would mean by definition of that of GOD, not that OF the Father. If they meant the Father as a distinct person, they would have said as much, but instead they simply said "God".

Now, if you have two persons, the Father in heaven and Jesus upon the earth, you have two proswpons. There can be no other way of looking at it. However, again I note to you that God is said to have only one proswpon.

Your doctrine simply does not hold up, no matter how much you attempt to rationalize it. The only way you can defend it is to fall into fallacy such as you have here with equivocation.

[Tsmith]

Just face it tsmith, you'll have to PROSWPON the fact that Trinitarianism doesnt fit the characature you think it is. :rofl: What, the Spirit sends believers off in Acts 13:4 based on no previous reason??


You are performing eisegesis. You are reading various views into the text and then using the text to prove the views you are reading into it. Doesn't work. The text speaks of nothing like you claim. If you read it and take it for only what it says, it is much simpler.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Now you are performing the fallacy of equivocation in order to further defend yourself. You are redefining "God" to mean "the Father" when in fact that is not what you teach. You do not teach that God is the Father, but you teach that God is the Trinity and the Father is a person of that Triune God.

The text speaks of the PROSWPON of God, so this would mean by definition of that of GOD, not that OF the Father. If they meant the Father as a distinct person, they would have said as much, but instead they simply said "God".

Now, if you have two persons, the Father in heaven and Jesus upon the earth, you have two proswpons. There can be no other way of looking at it. However, again I note to you that God is said to have only one proswpon.

Your doctrine simply does not hold up, no matter how much you attempt to rationalize it. The only way you can defend it is to fall into fallacy such as you have here with equivocation.

Wow. Someone's been listening to Greg Stafford. Unfortunately, it's that definition that equivocates. Here's what we teach.

Any person in the Trinity can rightly be referred to as God which Mounce defines as "Possessed of true Godhead."

The whole Trinity can be referred to as God.

How do we know what is being spoken of? Context every time.

As for the use of the incarnation, God is essentially bodiless. See Swinburne's definition of God for instance. But the whole time, the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father. The body of Jesus is not God. It is what is inside of the body that is God. Again, I have no problem here.

Try a real Greek expert on something like the use of Theos. Murray J. Harris's "Jesus as God" for instance.

[Tsmith]

Wow. Someone's been listening to Greg Stafford. Unfortunately, it's that definition that equivocates. Here's what we teach.

Any person in the Trinity can rightly be referred to as God which Mounce defines as "Possessed of true Godhead."

The whole Trinity can be referred to as God.

How do we know what is being spoken of? Context every time.

As for the use of the incarnation, God is essentially bodiless. See Swinburne's definition of God for instance. But the whole time, the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father. The body of Jesus is not God. It is what is inside of the body that is God. Again, I have no problem here.

Try a real Greek expert on something like the use of Theos. Murray J. Harris's "Jesus as God" for instance.

No definition equivocates, but your theology DEMANDS equivocation. That is the only way you can sustain it, and that should throw up a big red flag when you MUST perform a fallacy to maintain a doctrine.

The problem is that you must interpret everything. You must interpret if something is talking about Christ's human nature or divine nature. Instead of just reading "God" as "God" you must read into it which person is being spoken or, or if it is the whole being. This is the core issue of the Trinity. It is a doctrine based on interpretation, not the reading of the text itself.

Now, back to the issue at hand. You asked where God is defined as being a single person. I gave it to you. Then you simply equivocated and redefined "God" to mean a single person of a Triune being, instead of simply "God" in all that God is. So, you have made your position unfalsifiable. No matter what the text plainly states, you simply redefine what the words mean so that you can't be wrong.

And in doing all of this, you have proven your own doctrine false.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Fine, I can ask others who do exegesis to come to the thread and comment on it.

bye for now
Punkish

[Shadow Phoenix]

No definition equivocates, but your theology DEMANDS equivocation. That is the only way you can sustain it, and that should throw up a big red flag when you MUST perform a fallacy to maintain a doctrine.

The problem is that you must interpret everything. You must interpret if something is talking about Christ's human nature or divine nature. Instead of just reading "God" as "God" you must read into it which person is being spoken or, or if it is the whole being. This is the core issue of the Trinity. It is a doctrine based on interpretation, not the reading of the text itself.

Now, back to the issue at hand. You asked where God is defined as being a single person. I gave it to you. Then you simply equivocated and redefined "God" to mean a single person of a Triune being, instead of simply "God" in all that God is. So, you have made your position unfalsifiable. No matter what the text plainly states, you simply redefine what the words mean so that you can't be wrong.

And in doing all of this, you have proven your own doctrine false.

Here's a little tip. Context determines what the word Theos means. When you read that Satan is the theos of this world, do you interpret it as "God the Father of this world?" No. You interpret it as something else. How did I know this didn't refer to the Trinity in its entirety? Because Christ isn't standing before himself.

Proswpon doesn't cut it. You never went to the doctrine itself and defined the words for me. It's just easier to deal with the Watchtower comic book version of the Trinity. (Yes. The first paragraphs even of "Should You Believe The Trinity?" misdefine the Trinity.) Go to the words themselves and tell me what they mean and watch the proswpon arguemnt vanish.

[Tsmith]

Here's a little tip. Context determines what the word Theos means. When you read that Satan is the theos of this world, do you interpret it as "God the Father of this world?" No. You interpret it as something else. How did I know this didn't refer to the Trinity in its entirety? Because Christ isn't standing before himself.

Proswpon doesn't cut it. You never went to the doctrine itself and defined the words for me. It's just easier to deal with the Watchtower comic book version of the Trinity. (Yes. The first paragraphs even of "Should You Believe The Trinity?" misdefine the Trinity.) Go to the words themselves and tell me what they mean and watch the proswpon arguemnt vanish.

Nick,

You are using your theology to change the meaning of the word. When Satan is called God, it is modified by a genitive defining WHAT he is God of. It is because of this modification that we know it is not a reference to God.

Every other time we find it functioning on its own, either semantically as a title or a proper name. In these cases, you redefine it on the fly to suite your needs. This simply does not cut it.

Now, to define the Trinity, you effectively have one being, one essence composed of one substance. This one being has three independant personalities that are not eachother. They are connected in essence, but not connected otherwise. So, they are not some three headed monster, where there is one body. If this were the case, I would agree that they have only one proswpon. However, they are completely distinct from eachother outside of participation in the same being, and so because of this each would demand their own.

You are in a bit of a tough spot. If you redefine God here to simply mean "Father" then this is the proswpon of the Father and not the Son or the Holy Spirit. Therefore, each one would have their own. However, if we take it as simply God as the text says then you are faced with their only being one person. This little troubled spot goes to demonstrate that you don't really care what the text says, but that you are simply going to make things up as you go to defend your theology.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Nick,

You are using your theology to change the meaning of the word. When Satan is called God, it is modified by a genitive defining WHAT he is God of. It is because of this modification that we know it is not a reference to God.

Every other time we find it functioning on its own, either semantically as a title or a proper name. In these cases, you redefine it on the fly to suite your needs. This simply does not cut it.

Now, to define the Trinity, you effectively have one being, one essence composed of one substance. This one being has three independant personalities that are not eachother. They are connected in essence, but not connected otherwise. So, they are not some three headed monster, where there is one body. If this were the case, I would agree that they have only one proswpon. However, they are completely distinct from eachother outside of participation in the same being, and so because of this each would demand their own.

You are in a bit of a tough spot. If you redefine God here to simply mean "Father" then this is the proswpon of the Father and not the Son or the Holy Spirit. Therefore, each one would have their own. However, if we take it as simply God as the text says then you are faced with their only being one person. This little troubled spot goes to demonstrate that you don't really care what the text says, but that you are simply going to make things up as you go to defend your theology.

Wow. Satan knocked God off the throne. Now that's impressive. T. Either way, you knew from the context what was meant by God. Guess what! I did the same thing with Hebrews 9:24. I see Christ in his presence so naturally, this refers to the Father and not the totality of the Trinity.

As for a proper name, I was reviewing your conversation with JP on Col. 1:15. Didn't he already bring this up enough with you as an English Major? I suppose you're the authority on English though as well as on Greek and chances are, if someone showed up claiming it in Mandarin, you'd be an authority there as well.

Now as for your Trinitarian dogma. One question just comes screaming to my mind. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?! They are independent persons? How can this be since he says "The Father is in me and I in the Father"? Hardly independent. How about "In him (Christ) dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily." In fact, if you've seen me enough on PAL, you would have known I stated that a common mistake is to assume that the persons are individuals. I think I even said it earlier in this same forum!

Now here's what you're supposed to do. Take notes this time because it hasn't happened yet. Look up the words persons as the Nicenes meant it and tell me what persons mean there. The argument for God having two faces when the incarnation takes place for instance is laughable. That we believe all of a sudden God morphed and developed a material body? No no. God is not the body of Christ. Maybe you wanted to create a Mighty Morphin Power Monad or something.

Now, if you would like to explain your Trinitarian description (Which did not come from any Trinitarian I've ever seen! Maybe it was still the Watchtower Comic Book!) then please do explain it. I'm used to JWs trying to teach me what I really believe.

Now again, I notice you're also avoiding person. Could the reason for translating that way simply be because the NWT translates it that way? I'm going to remain skeptical of your Greek knowledge (Not like I wasn't already) as I saw from JP that you didn't accept a test from Jaltus. I'll be glad to take a test from him. If I'm wrong, then that's a chance that he can teach me so I can get things right.

Once you define what a person really is, we can go on to proswpon and we can see what happens there. btw, it's cute to say I'm making up as I go along what I have been saying for months. If you haven't heard, it's because you haven't asked.

[Tsmith]

Wow. Satan knocked God off the throne. Now that's impressive. T. Either way, you knew from the context what was meant by God. Guess what! I did the same thing with Hebrews 9:24. I see Christ in his presence so naturally, this refers to the Father and not the totality of the Trinity.

As for a proper name, I was reviewing your conversation with JP on Col. 1:15. Didn't he already bring this up enough with you as an English Major? I suppose you're the authority on English though as well as on Greek and chances are, if someone showed up claiming it in Mandarin, you'd be an authority there as well.

Now as for your Trinitarian dogma. One question just comes screaming to my mind. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?! They are independent persons? How can this be since he says "The Father is in me and I in the Father"? Hardly independent. How about "In him (Christ) dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily." In fact, if you've seen me enough on PAL, you would have known I stated that a common mistake is to assume that the persons are individuals. I think I even said it earlier in this same forum!

Now here's what you're supposed to do. Take notes this time because it hasn't happened yet. Look up the words persons as the Nicenes meant it and tell me what persons mean there. The argument for God having two faces when the incarnation takes place for instance is laughable. That we believe all of a sudden God morphed and developed a material body? No no. God is not the body of Christ. Maybe you wanted to create a Mighty Morphin Power Monad or something.

Now, if you would like to explain your Trinitarian description (Which did not come from any Trinitarian I've ever seen! Maybe it was still the Watchtower Comic Book!) then please do explain it. I'm used to JWs trying to teach me what I really believe.

Now again, I notice you're also avoiding person. Could the reason for translating that way simply be because the NWT translates it that way? I'm going to remain skeptical of your Greek knowledge (Not like I wasn't already) as I saw from JP that you didn't accept a test from Jaltus. I'll be glad to take a test from him. If I'm wrong, then that's a chance that he can teach me so I can get things right.

Once you define what a person really is, we can go on to proswpon and we can see what happens there. btw, it's cute to say I'm making up as I go along what I have been saying for months. If you haven't heard, it's because you haven't asked.


Nick, I guess the disciples aren't independant persons either, for Christ says his disciples are in himself and in God. I guess we're all just one big happy God. Obviously the text has nothing to do with dwelling.

Col 2:9 does nothing to help your position, because the noun there is abstract and is not speaking of a person, but a concept.

I am certainly not claiming that God morphed at your so-called incarnation. I'm claiming what Trinitarians believe! There are three distinct persons in one God. The Father is not the Son or the holy spirit, the son is not the Father or the holy spirit and the holy spirit is not the Father or son, but they are all one God. Each one has a personality and will of their own, independant of the other. You can be present with the Father, but not the Son, present with the holy spirit but not the Father, etc. Though the way you are sounding, it seems that your desperation to defend your doctrine is morphing you slowly into a modalist.

It is because each person is not the other person, that person has a unique presence. If they do not, then in fact they are the same, and you are a modalist!

Oh..and with Hebrews 9:24 you are still stuck, because not only is Christ now distinct from "God" but you also forgot about the holy spirit The text does not read "Father" and in your theology the Father is not God, but a PERSON of God. And again.. no holy spirit.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Nick, I guess the disciples aren't independant persons either, for Christ says his disciples are in himself and in God. I guess we're all just one big happy God. Obviously the text has nothing to do with dwelling.

Col 2:9 does nothing to help your position, because the noun there is abstract and is not speaking of a person, but a concept.

I am certainly not claiming that God morphed at your so-called incarnation. I'm claiming what Trinitarians believe! There are three distinct persons in one God. The Father is not the Son or the holy spirit, the son is not the Father or the holy spirit and the holy spirit is not the Father or son, but they are all one God. Each one has a personality and will of their own, independant of the other. You can be present with the Father, but not the Son, present with the holy spirit but not the Father, etc. Though the way you are sounding, it seems that your desperation to defend your doctrine is morphing you slowly into a modalist.

It is because each person is not the other person, that person has a unique presence. If they do not, then in fact they are the same, and you are a modalist!

Oh..and with Hebrews 9:24 you are still stuck, because not only is Christ now distinct from "God" but you also forgot about the holy spirit The text does not read "Father" and in your theology the Father is not God, but a PERSON of God. And again.. no holy spirit.

Wow. You're also running from a test from Jaltus here as well! I've already had something submitted to him that I am more than happy to have my knowledge tested. anyhoo.....

T. The notion of individualism is a quite new concept. In the days of the ancients, the community was more in view than the individual was. If we are in Christ, then we are our own persons indeed, but we do not have independent existence. As Jesus said "Because I live, you shall live also."

As for Col. 2:9, the Godhead is a quite clear term and the Godhead dwells in Christ yet Christ is not the Godhead. The Arians still don't understand that in Trinitarian theology, Jesus is fully God, but God is not fully Jesus.

And no. You're not saying what Trinitarians believe. You're saying what the Watchtower says Trinitarians believe. For instance, if you do a websearch and find the "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" this is what the first page you'll find online says.

"Is Jesus Christ the Almighty God and part of the Trinity?"

Sorry! No parts in the Trinity! Flag that play! Ya see? Our view isn't being represented properly. You say they exist independently of the other. WHERE DO YOU GET THAT IDEA?! You're confusing persons with individuals, something you have not yet addressed in this forum. Why not consider taking my challenge for the umpteenth time. Look up what the word persons meant to the Niceans and then share it here. Also, give a real quote from a Trinitarian and not the Watchtower Weekly Reader definition.

Yes. Each person is not the other. How could we have a statement such as "I live because of the Father"? with such a belief. In fact, this statement is exactly what I expect as a Trinitarian. I'm really tiring of having to keep telling you what my view is. My guess is if I suddenly brought someone here who was discussing the mating life of sea slugs on the ocean floor who had a PH.D. in Marine Biology and wrote his dissertation on that topic, yet he disagreed with the Watchtower, that he'd have to be taught the truth as well.

And yes, Christ is distinct from the Father. The Holy Spirit's not mentioned? So what. Hebrews is about the superiority of Christ to the other mediators of the day in Alexandria Egypt. That little concept called the wisdom doctrine. There's an underlying logos concept in Hebrews. Ronald Nash has an excellent chapter on this in "The Gospel and the Greeks."

In fact, as a Trinitarian, Hebrews 9:24 is the kind of language I expect.

Now let's see the idea of a test from Jaltus being dodged again as well as the dodge of actually defining what persons are.

[Tsmith]

Wow. You're also running from a test from Jaltus here as well! I've already had something submitted to him that I am more than happy to have my knowledge tested. anyhoo.....

T. The notion of individualism is a quite new concept. In the days of the ancients, the community was more in view than the individual was. If we are in Christ, then we are our own persons indeed, but we do not have independent existence. As Jesus said "Because I live, you shall live also."

As for Col. 2:9, the Godhead is a quite clear term and the Godhead dwells in Christ yet Christ is not the Godhead. The Arians still don't understand that in Trinitarian theology, Jesus is fully God, but God is not fully Jesus.

And no. You're not saying what Trinitarians believe. You're saying what the Watchtower says Trinitarians believe. For instance, if you do a websearch and find the "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" this is what the first page you'll find online says.

"Is Jesus Christ the Almighty God and part of the Trinity?"

Sorry! No parts in the Trinity! Flag that play! Ya see? Our view isn't being represented properly. You say they exist independently of the other. WHERE DO YOU GET THAT IDEA?! You're confusing persons with individuals, something you have not yet addressed in this forum. Why not consider taking my challenge for the umpteenth time. Look up what the word persons meant to the Niceans and then share it here. Also, give a real quote from a Trinitarian and not the Watchtower Weekly Reader definition.

Yes. Each person is not the other. How could we have a statement such as "I live because of the Father"? with such a belief. In fact, this statement is exactly what I expect as a Trinitarian. I'm really tiring of having to keep telling you what my view is. My guess is if I suddenly brought someone here who was discussing the mating life of sea slugs on the ocean floor who had a PH.D. in Marine Biology and wrote his dissertation on that topic, yet he disagreed with the Watchtower, that he'd have to be taught the truth as well.

And yes, Christ is distinct from the Father. The Holy Spirit's not mentioned? So what. Hebrews is about the superiority of Christ to the other mediators of the day in Alexandria Egypt. That little concept called the wisdom doctrine. There's an underlying logos concept in Hebrews. Ronald Nash has an excellent chapter on this in "The Gospel and the Greeks."

In fact, as a Trinitarian, Hebrews 9:24 is the kind of language I expect.

Now let's see the idea of a test from Jaltus being dodged again as well as the dodge of actually defining what persons are.

Why would I take a test from somebody I do not even know to have the ability to accurately perform such a test? How could I trust the reliability of it? Based on statements I have read from Jaltus on this forum, he does not have the knoweldge base to administer it.

Colossians 2:9 is still abstract, no matter how you want to try and look at it, so it does nothing to help you.

Now you state, "we are our own person". Is Jesus not his own person? Is the Father not his own person? If not, then you don't really mean what you say when you say that there are three persons, because they are not truly persons! And again we find ourselves at the core fallacy of the Trinitarian dogma in that it requires its own special language and does not really mean what it says! If you answer yes, then you are again stuck with the problem in that God only has one presence/person/face (however you want to translate it).

Trinitarians don't mean what they say and they don't say what they mean. They almost must have their own language to fit their doctrine, as conventional language does not allow the doctrine to exist.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Why would I take a test from somebody I do not even know to have the ability to accurately perform such a test? How could I trust the reliability of it? Based on statements I have read from Jaltus on this forum, he does not have the knoweldge base to administer it.

Colossians 2:9 is still abstract, no matter how you want to try and look at it, so it does nothing to help you.

Now you state, "we are our own person". Is Jesus not his own person? Is the Father not his own person? If not, then you don't really mean what you say when you say that there are three persons, because they are not truly persons! And again we find ourselves at the core fallacy of the Trinitarian dogma in that it requires its own special language and does not really mean what it says! If you answer yes, then you are again stuck with the problem in that God only has one presence/person/face (however you want to translate it).

Trinitarians don't mean what they say and they don't say what they mean. They almost must have their own language to fit their doctrine, as conventional language does not allow the doctrine to exist.

Translation of a refusal to accept a test from Jaltus for all new readers to TWeb who are looking at this post: If I'm tested by someone who has any credentials whatsoever, I might embarrass myself because I can't handle it.

Furhter implication for anyone else whose reading for the first time of such statement: I'm a JW and as a JW, I am the foremost expert on Greek in the world since no one else gets it right although I will routinely quote them as authorities if it will further my goal.

And now let's look and see what information was uncovered.

The definition of persons is still out. Apparently, you can claim to do research but when asked hard questions, caricatures must be resorted to.

Also, this "Trinitarians don't mean what they say and say what they mean" is a quote from JW apologist Greg Stafford. What's his stand with the WT these days anyhow?

Yes. Each three are their own person. They're just not individuals! They exist within one another and indwell one another.

Now our JW friend here is going to keep pushing proswpon over and over expecting answers to all his questions but will refuse to tell me what was meant by person to the people of Nicea.

The fun continues! Tune in soon for another exciting episode!

[Tsmith]

Translation of a refusal to accept a test from Jaltus for all new readers to TWeb who are looking at this post: If I'm tested by someone who has any credentials whatsoever, I might embarrass myself because I can't handle it.

Furhter implication for anyone else whose reading for the first time of such statement: I'm a JW and as a JW, I am the foremost expert on Greek in the world since no one else gets it right although I will routinely quote them as authorities if it will further my goal.

And now let's look and see what information was uncovered.

The definition of persons is still out. Apparently, you can claim to do research but when asked hard questions, caricatures must be resorted to.

Also, this "Trinitarians don't mean what they say and say what they mean" is a quote from JW apologist Greg Stafford. What's his stand with the WT these days anyhow?

Yes. Each three are their own person. They're just not individuals! They exist within one another and indwell one another.

Now our JW friend here is going to keep pushing proswpon over and over expecting answers to all his questions but will refuse to tell me what was meant by person to the people of Nicea.

The fun continues! Tune in soon for another exciting episode!

Nick,

Your smoke screens get you nowhere. I have engaged Jaltus on Greek matters on this forum and he has shown himself insufficiently educated, to the point of him actually leaving topics we were discussing (i.e John 1:1).

Now, you are asking for a definition, but do you want the real definition of the word, or the made up Trinitarian definition designed to make your theology work?

btw, I didn't get that reference from Greg, so go figure.

[Sparko]

Jaltus is one of the top Admins here at TWEB and he doesn't have time to go into detailed debates with people. His lack of response in the thread after giving you a well deserved spanking on Greek is not to be construed with you having defeated him.

[Tsmith]

Jaltus is one of the top Admins here at TWEB and he doesn't have time to go into detailed debates with people. His lack of response in the thread after giving you a well deserved spanking on Greek is not to be construed with you having defeated him.


The spanking where he would not even address that his point grammatically could only equate the modalism and so he vanished? Yes, he got spanked pretty bad on that one!

[Sparko]

The spanking where he would not even address that his point grammatically could only equate the modalism and so he vanished? Yes, he got spanked pretty bad on that one!


You sure have a selective memory.

He answered your claim
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=956936&postcount=38

and then you still blathered on. He gave you a short reply and said he would try to get back to answer it more in detail later. at which point he most likely got busy and forgot to answer you. Don't take a non answer as someone admitting you were right. He gave you his answer and you didn't like it.

Jaltus has a lot more education in Greek than you do Tsmith. You have told us that you study it informally and don't consider yourself a Greek scholar. Well, Jaltus IS one.

[Tsmith]

You sure have a selective memory.

He answered your claim
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=956936&postcount=38

and then you still blathered on. He gave you a short reply and said he would try to get back to answer it more in detail later. at which point he most likely got busy and forgot to answer you. Don't take a non answer as someone admitting you were right. He gave you his answer and you didn't like it.

Jaltus has a lot more education in Greek than you do Tsmith. You have told us that you study it informally and don't consider yourself a Greek scholar. Well, Jaltus IS one.


I'm not going to get in a spitting match with you, as you do not even know the first thing about the Greek language. I have pointed out to Jaltus that to make the anarthrous QEOS definite, as his position maintains, would be to equate the subject with the object, thus making the Son the Father, to which I have gotten no answer.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Nick,

Your smoke screens get you nowhere. I have engaged Jaltus on Greek matters on this forum and he has shown himself insufficiently educated, to the point of him actually leaving topics we were discussing (i.e John 1:1).

Now, you are asking for a definition, but do you want the real definition of the word, or the made up Trinitarian definition designed to make your theology work?

btw, I didn't get that reference from Greg, so go figure.

Yeah right. I'd believe him and what John Sparks said over you any day of the week. What are your credentials? You say you went to Seminary but you're not sure if Jaltus did. Well why should I believe you? Especially since we know that JWs are allowed to engage in theocratic warfare where lying is acceptable if it furthers the cause of Jehovah. How do I know what you're saying isn't theocratic warfare.

And who determines sufficiently educated. You? Since when are you the standard. Here's the real deal. Julius Mantey says that 99% of the Greek scholars who translate the NT would disagree with you on John 1:1. Even those who don't believe it's the Word of God would! (Yes. There are atheists who can read NT Greek and even translate the Bible.)

Also, Nicea used words that would be understood. The Creed would have been read by the common populace. What you're asking for is actually a version of reader-response criticism where the reader determines the meaning of the word instead of the author's determining the meaning. You can say the Niceans were wrong in what they thought it meant, but at least look up what they meant!

You didn't get it from Greg? Maybe from SOTB then and that's something that Greg Stafford says. Now I've been willing to submit myself to a test from Jaltus. I'll submit myself to one from exajeet who you probably think is also ignorant on Greek even though he's studied it for fourteen years.

You can call it a smokescreen, but that's the way I see it. The more someone defends the Watchtower, the more they get this attitude that everyone else doesn't know what they believe but the Watchtower does. Did you even acknowledge that the Watchtower misrepresented my view or is it okay to do that as long as my view gets torn down?

Look up what the word really means instead of this postmodern talk. I'm ready to have my Greek tested. Are you?

[Jaltus]

Nick,

Your smoke screens get you nowhere. I have engaged Jaltus on Greek matters on this forum and he has shown himself insufficiently educated, to the point of him actually leaving topics we were discussing (i.e John 1:1).

Leaving a topic? I posted on the topic because I was requested. If you feel that you want to tangle with me more about Greek, please tell me which thread you want to engage me in.

Baseless accusations of my "insufficient education" is but spitting in the wind, for it will come back to haunt you. I have yet to see any indication that you are even able to understand my arguments, let alone refute them.

Please, let me know which thread you wish to debate me in, and I will be more than happy to engage you there. When it comes to Greek, I actually AM an authority.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Leaving a topic? I posted on the topic because I was requested. If you feel that you want to tangle with me more about Greek, please tell me which thread you want to engage me in.

Baseless accusations of my "insufficient education" is but spitting in the wind, for it will come back to haunt you. I have yet to see any indication that you are even able to understand my arguments, let alone refute them.

Please, let me know which thread you wish to debate me in, and I will be more than happy to engage you there. When it comes to Greek, I actually AM an authority.

Yo Jaltus! Great to meet you! Punkish has told me about you. I know TSmith is afraid to, but I would love to have you test my Greek knowledge whenever you wish. If I am wrong, I welcome the correction. (Note. I am wrong is a term JWs aren't allowed to use. They're always the teachers and we're always the learners.) Just tell me when and where Jaltus. I'd love to discuss Greek with you.

[Jaltus]

I will post a topic in the Basketball Court.

Click here http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1048210#post1048210

[exaJeet]

(said to JohnSparks) I'm not going to get in a spitting match with you, as you do not even know the first thing about the Greek language.

Tsmith (Dave),

I have debated you on Greek and you were found lacking in substance. I have studied Greek for 14 years under some of the leading scholars in the world and you have merely been memorizing a few Greek words and grammatical phrases for probably a few months now.....maybe a year.

Your arrogance preceeds you.

You are unteachable.... unless it is the Watchtower teaching you.... you really are unteachable!!! Why dont you grow up and admit when you have been spanked. I havent even looked at the discussion with you and Jaltus but I have discussed Greek with Jaltus and with you and, unlike you, Jaltus and I both know the language.... I wish I could say the same about you!!

exaJeet.

[Tsmith]

Tsmith (Dave),

I have debated you on Greek and you were found lacking in substance. I have studied Greek for 14 years under some of the leading scholars in the world and you have merely been memorizing a few Greek words and grammatical phrases for probably a few months now.....maybe a year.

Your arrogance preceeds you.

You are unteachable.... unless it is the Watchtower teaching you.... you really are unteachable!!! Why dont you grow up and admit when you have been spanked. I havent even looked at the discussion with you and Jaltus but I have discussed Greek with Jaltus and with you and, unlike you, Jaltus and I both know the language.... I wish I could say the same about you!!

exaJeet.

This coming from the guy who doesn't know the definition of anarthrous or the meaning of the word eudokew? LOL. You may have studied Greek for 14 years, but from what I've seen you've lost most of it.

[Tsmith]

Yeah right. I'd believe him and what John Sparks said over you any day of the week. What are your credentials? You say you went to Seminary but you're not sure if Jaltus did. Well why should I believe you? Especially since we know that JWs are allowed to engage in theocratic warfare where lying is acceptable if it furthers the cause of Jehovah. How do I know what you're saying isn't theocratic warfare.[/qupte]

Oh PLEASE. JWs do NOT lie. You obviously have NO clue what that TWS stuff is, because you've probably read a bunch of quotes OUT of context and applied them to situations that have NOTHING to do with their real application. Of course though, you are going to believe others over me. You have to, or you will find your theology doomed.

[quote]
And who determines sufficiently educated. You? Since when are you the standard. Here's the real deal. Julius Mantey says that 99% of the Greek scholars who translate the NT would disagree with you on John 1:1. Even those who don't believe it's the Word of God would! (Yes. There are atheists who can read NT Greek and even translate the Bible.)

Yes, and 99% of that 99% do so on purely theological reasons, as grammatically "a god" is 100% allowable and justified.



Also, Nicea used words that would be understood. The Creed would have been read by the common populace. What you're asking for is actually a version of reader-response criticism where the reader determines the meaning of the word instead of the author's determining the meaning. You can say the Niceans were wrong in what they thought it meant, but at least look up what they meant!

You might want to check your history a little bit. Even after the creed the meaning of words in it were highly debated.


You didn't get it from Greg? Maybe from SOTB then and that's something that Greg Stafford says. Now I've been willing to submit myself to a test from Jaltus. I'll submit myself to one from exajeet who you probably think is also ignorant on Greek even though he's studied it for fourteen years.

From what I have observed, he does. I had enough tests when I took Greek, I don't see a need to have one here on paltalk.


You can call it a smokescreen, but that's the way I see it. The more someone defends the Watchtower, the more they get this attitude that everyone else doesn't know what they believe but the Watchtower does. Did you even acknowledge that the Watchtower misrepresented my view or is it okay to do that as long as my view gets torn down?

I actually don't think you really know what you believe. Trinitarians change things on the fly to fit the doctrine whenever they see trouble. I see you doing the same thing with Hebrwes 9:24.


Look up what the word really means instead of this postmodern talk. I'm ready to have my Greek tested. Are you?

Been there, done that. I passed all my tests.

[Tsmith]

Leaving a topic? I posted on the topic because I was requested. If you feel that you want to tangle with me more about Greek, please tell me which thread you want to engage me in.

Baseless accusations of my "insufficient education" is but spitting in the wind, for it will come back to haunt you. I have yet to see any indication that you are even able to understand my arguments, let alone refute them.

Please, let me know which thread you wish to debate me in, and I will be more than happy to engage you there. When it comes to Greek, I actually AM an authority.


The accusation is based on my observation. The issue was with John 1:1 and how you were attempting to equate the subject with the object by arguing that the anarthrous noun should be definite. This is a point that has been established for many, many years now.

[Shadow Phoenix]

[QUOTE=ApologiaNick]Yeah right. I'd believe him and what John Sparks said over you any day of the week. What are your credentials? You say you went to Seminary but you're not sure if Jaltus did. Well why should I believe you? Especially since we know that JWs are allowed to engage in theocratic warfare where lying is acceptable if it furthers the cause of Jehovah. How do I know what you're saying isn't theocratic warfare.[/qupte]

Oh PLEASE. JWs do NOT lie. You obviously have NO clue what that TWS stuff is, because you've probably read a bunch of quotes OUT of context and applied them to situations that have NOTHING to do with their real application. Of course though, you are going to believe others over me. You have to, or you will find your theology doomed.



Yes, and 99% of that 99% do so on purely theological reasons, as grammatically "a god" is 100% allowable and justified.



You might want to check your history a little bit. Even after the creed the meaning of words in it were highly debated.



From what I have observed, he does. I had enough tests when I took Greek, I don't see a need to have one here on paltalk.



I actually don't think you really know what you believe. Trinitarians change things on the fly to fit the doctrine whenever they see trouble. I see you doing the same thing with Hebrwes 9:24.



Been there, done that. I passed all my tests.

Yo ALT! You've been given a chance here to supposedly prove your stuff and you haven't taken it. I've thrown myself to open examination that will be public to everyone and you haven't. We're just supposed to believe that you passed your tests supposedly. Come on. Why should I believe you? In fact, why should I believe you're even telling me the truth about theocratic warfare? You just told me JWs don't lie and then gave me what I should look up about lying.

Now I pointed out that even atheists can translate John 1:1 as "The Word was God." What theological reason do they have for doing so? I'm becoming more and more convinced that if Jesus Christ himself appeared to you and told you that he was God you'd find some way to explain it away.

ALT! Words have meaning! The Nicene words were not made in a vacuum. They had specific meanings. How many times have you told me what they meant? NEVER! How many times have you quoted a Trinitarian for a statement? NEVER! Did you ever admit that the WT even gave a wrong definition of the Trinity? (Could that not count as lying from God's organization?) NO!

ALT. I believe you are as knowledgeable at Greek as I am in Chinese. Personally, after seeing this convo I thank God that I am not a JW. Even if you were right, which you're not, I'm seeing nothing but arrogance and if such arrogance was to be the example of Christ, then I would say "Forget it!"

Anyone on here who you're saying is insufficient I'm sure will be glad to go one-on-one with you in the basketball court here.

For everyone reading this, here's the truth. JWs are actually relativists when it comse to truth. Truth is not what corresponds to reality but what corresponds to the words of the Watchtower. This is why that new light can contradict the old light and all of a sudden be true. If the Watchtower says it, it's true.

ALT. I seriously question your Greek knowledge in every sense of the word. What would it take to convince? Apparently, a Damascus road experience. I pray you get it.

[Tsmith]

[QUOTE=Tsmith]

Yo ALT! You've been given a chance here to supposedly prove your stuff and you haven't taken it. I've thrown myself to open examination that will be public to everyone and you haven't. We're just supposed to believe that you passed your tests supposedly. Come on. Why should I believe you? In fact, why should I believe you're even telling me the truth about theocratic warfare? You just told me JWs don't lie and then gave me what I should look up about lying.


Perhaps because I have nothing to prove!



Now I pointed out that even atheists can translate John 1:1 as "The Word was God." What theological reason do they have for doing so? I'm becoming more and more convinced that if Jesus Christ himself appeared to you and told you that he was God you'd find some way to explain it away.

What purpose do people like Jason Beduhn have in translating it as "a god"?


ALT! Words have meaning! The Nicene words were not made in a vacuum. They had specific meanings. How many times have you told me what they meant? NEVER! How many times have you quoted a Trinitarian for a statement? NEVER! Did you ever admit that the WT even gave a wrong definition of the Trinity? (Could that not count as lying from God's organization?) NO!

Sure the WT has mixed Trinitarianism with Modalism at times, but I don't actually use them in my research for Trinitarian studies.. but I figured that much was obvious. As for the Nicene words, as I pointed out, they debated the meaning of their own words well after it was written!


ALT. I believe you are as knowledgeable at Greek as I am in Chinese. Personally, after seeing this convo I thank God that I am not a JW. Even if you were right, which you're not, I'm seeing nothing but arrogance and if such arrogance was to be the example of Christ, then I would say "Forget it!"

You can believe what you want and call it what you want. Obviouslly you're just missing it all together.


Anyone on here who you're saying is insufficient I'm sure will be glad to go one-on-one with you in the basketball court here.

Exajeet won't do it. He has a reputation for running away. Jaltus has resumed our discussion on John 1:1, in the face of public preasure it seems, so I happily responded.


For everyone reading this, here's the truth. JWs are actually relativists when it comse to truth. Truth is not what corresponds to reality but what corresponds to the words of the Watchtower. This is why that new light can contradict the old light and all of a sudden be true. If the Watchtower says it, it's true.

Right, whatever. Only in your imagination.

ALT. I seriously question your Greek knowledge in every sense of the word. What would it take to convince? Apparently, a Damascus road experience. I pray you get it.

Question away. As I said, I have nothing to prove. When you want a bit of truth, you know where to look.

[Shadow Phoenix]

[QUOTE=ApologiaNick]

Perhaps because I have nothing to prove!



What purpose do people like Jason Beduhn have in translating it as "a god"?



Sure the WT has mixed Trinitarianism with Modalism at times, but I don't actually use them in my research for Trinitarian studies.. but I figured that much was obvious. As for the Nicene words, as I pointed out, they debated the meaning of their own words well after it was written!



You can believe what you want and call it what you want. Obviouslly you're just missing it all together.



Exajeet won't do it. He has a reputation for running away. Jaltus has resumed our discussion on John 1:1, in the face of public preasure it seems, so I happily responded.



Right, whatever. Only in your imagination.



Question away. As I said, I have nothing to prove. When you want a bit of truth, you know where to look.

Yo ALT! Go for it one-on-one with any of them in the basketball court. Go tell all your friends that you're gonna bring the Trinitarians down and watch and see what happens.

ALT. What credentials does BeDuhn have in Greek? Can you name them? It's so amazing that all the WT devotees start quoting him in lockstep. About the same as they all started quoting Wallace in lockstep.

ALT. Considering God's organization got their information wrong, why follow them? Makes me wish I knew your elders so I could show them that you just said the Watchtower got their idea of the Trinity wrong. This just after telling me that JWs don't lie. Well the WT has claimed to be God's organization. Does God have his information wrong? Are we going to say God lies to avoid admitting that the Watchtower does not?

Question all you want. This is exactly the position Watchtowerites take ALT. They are always the teachers and everyone else is just ignorant. Like I said, if we brought an expert here with a PHD in Marine BIology who did a dissertation in mating habits of sea slugs on the ocean floor and the WT disagreed with his view on that, I can't help but imagine you'd suddenly become an expert in that.

Now how many Trinitarians have you quoted to show this belief about independently separated? NONE! NOT ONE!

By the way, here's a simple reason why "a god" is not acceptable. I figured it would be obvious but......


IT'S POLYTHEISM!

Try again ALT

[exaJeet]

This coming from the guy who doesn't know the definition of anarthrous or the meaning of the word eudokew? LOL.

Dave,

Come on.... I am very familiar with what "anarthrous" means. You seem to take what a 17 year old kids says and make it into truth! You were not even involved in that discussion and yet you assume that what was told to you is actually what was said. Jwdefender is just like you... although, believe it or not, he is even worse at Greek than you are. Just like you, he confuses anarthrous, arthrous / articular, definite and indefinite.......

Dont bite off more than you can chew.... you might choke (again).

oh yeah, I have never once had even a single conversation with you about what eudokew means so dont bear false testimony here.


You may have studied Greek for 14 years, but from what I've seen you've lost most of it.


From what I myself have seen and heard from others that have studied Greek, you yourself haven't lost it....... 'cause you never did have it in the first place!!

Dude, wake up!!........ I am starting to think that you are asleep at the keyboard. Perhaps when you eventually do wake up, you will have an ASDF / HJKL imprint in your forehead.

When I read your messages, I can't help but think, "that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard anyone try to argue". But then, you post something even more ridiculous.


thanks for the entertainment....
exaJeet.

[Jaltus]

The accusation is based on my observation. The issue was with John 1:1 and how you were attempting to equate the subject with the object by arguing that the anarthrous noun should be definite. This is a point that has been established for many, many years now.

What point has been established for many years? That I argued something or your accusation? In either event, you have no discernable antecedant to "this" that I can tell.

In any event, you are wrong, and I have taken issue with you in that other thread, where I will continue to reply as time permits. I must say, however, that I am unlikely to reply more than two-three times per week as I am very busy this summer.

[Slayer-2004]

Yes, and 99% of that 99% do so on purely theological reasons, as grammatically "a god" is 100% allowable and justified.
College level communication and writing skills .

Preschool level reasoning .

Phail

[Tsmith]

Dave,

Come on.... I am very familiar with what "anarthrous" means. You seem to take what a 17 year old kids says and make it into truth! You were not even involved in that discussion and yet you assume that what was told to you is actually what was said. Jwdefender is just like you... although, believe it or not, he is even worse at Greek than you are. Just like you, he confuses anarthrous, arthrous / articular, definite and indefinite.......

Dont bite off more than you can chew.... you might choke (again).

oh yeah, I have never once had even a single conversation with you about what eudokew means so dont bear false testimony here.





From what I myself have seen and heard from others that have studied Greek, you yourself haven't lost it....... 'cause you never did have it in the first place!!

Dude, wake up!!........ I am starting to think that you are asleep at the keyboard. Perhaps when you eventually do wake up, you will have an ASDF / HJKL imprint in your forehead.

When I read your messages, I can't help but think, "that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard anyone try to argue". But then, you post something even more ridiculous.


thanks for the entertainment....
exaJeet.


There was indeed a discussion with you and another in a room on the meaning of eudokew, and you claimed it didn't mean what the other party claimed it did. Then the other party threw 2 lexicons (Thayer and BDAG if I recall correctly) that both agreed with that party. You just denied it even though both cited it, turned tail and ran out of the room.

[Tsmith]

[QUOTE=Tsmith]

Yo ALT! Go for it one-on-one with any of them in the basketball court. Go tell all your friends that you're gonna bring the Trinitarians down and watch and see what happens.

ALT. What credentials does BeDuhn have in Greek? Can you name them? It's so amazing that all the WT devotees start quoting him in lockstep. About the same as they all started quoting Wallace in lockstep.

ALT. Considering God's organization got their information wrong, why follow them? Makes me wish I knew your elders so I could show them that you just said the Watchtower got their idea of the Trinity wrong. This just after telling me that JWs don't lie. Well the WT has claimed to be God's organization. Does God have his information wrong? Are we going to say God lies to avoid admitting that the Watchtower does not?

Question all you want. This is exactly the position Watchtowerites take ALT. They are always the teachers and everyone else is just ignorant. Like I said, if we brought an expert here with a PHD in Marine BIology who did a dissertation in mating habits of sea slugs on the ocean floor and the WT disagreed with his view on that, I can't help but imagine you'd suddenly become an expert in that.

Now how many Trinitarians have you quoted to show this belief about independently separated? NONE! NOT ONE!

By the way, here's a simple reason why "a god" is not acceptable. I figured it would be obvious but......


IT'S POLYTHEISM!

Try again ALT

Yeah, right, uh hu. Btw, you clearly do not understand the various uses of the term God (QEOS). It is hardly polytheism. The judges are gods, and the notion that they are called it in irony was refuted by K&D many years ago.

[Shadow Phoenix]

[QUOTE=ApologiaNick]

Yeah, right, uh hu. Btw, you clearly do not understand the various uses of the term God (QEOS). It is hardly polytheism. The judges are gods, and the notion that they are called it in irony was refuted by K&D many years ago.

ALT. I'll make this real easy for you. Go to a Jew and ask how many gods there are and you'll get the same answer. ONE! The Word was a god teaches belief in two gods. By the way, I love this "You clearly do not understand." It's the proud attitude of Watchtower followers.

And ALT, you have not once defined what the Trinitarians really believe nor have you defined persons. Also, you didn't submit to a test from Jaltus. Now if you're so sure you're right, take the test and when he grades you wrong, tell him why he's wrong. You do know so much about the Greek language after all. Surely you should be able to do that.

Look ALT. I took the test because I don't see myself as blowing smoke. I see JWs don't though because they don't want the world to know they've only memorized a bunch of stuff from John 1:1 and other verses. It's the appearance of knowledge but lacking it entirely.

Basically, the way of reasoning ALT is that we're wrong because we disagree with what the Watchtower says. If the Watchtower says the sky is purple, well the sky is purple and no matter what evidence we present it's automatically false because the Watchtower has spoken. If we say that it isn't, well we don't have our definitions right. After all, Trinitarians don't know what they believe supposedly. Only the Watchtower knows what Trinitarians believe.

ALT. Start quoting some real sources. The reason people like Jaltus and Exajeet and soon to be myself don't jump up and answer everything immediately is because we already have and frankly, it gets annoying when we have to clarify everything a few thousand times.

Now when ya get off yer high horse, tell me how the view was.

[Tsmith]

[QUOTE=Tsmith]

ALT. I'll make this real easy for you. Go to a Jew and ask how many gods there are and you'll get the same answer. ONE! The Word was a god teaches belief in two gods. By the way, I love this "You clearly do not understand." It's the proud attitude of Watchtower followers.

And ALT, you have not once defined what the Trinitarians really believe nor have you defined persons. Also, you didn't submit to a test from Jaltus. Now if you're so sure you're right, take the test and when he grades you wrong, tell him why he's wrong. You do know so much about the Greek language after all. Surely you should be able to do that.

Look ALT. I took the test because I don't see myself as blowing smoke. I see JWs don't though because they don't want the world to know they've only memorized a bunch of stuff from John 1:1 and other verses. It's the appearance of knowledge but lacking it entirely.

Basically, the way of reasoning ALT is that we're wrong because we disagree with what the Watchtower says. If the Watchtower says the sky is purple, well the sky is purple and no matter what evidence we present it's automatically false because the Watchtower has spoken. If we say that it isn't, well we don't have our definitions right. After all, Trinitarians don't know what they believe supposedly. Only the Watchtower knows what Trinitarians believe.

ALT. Start quoting some real sources. The reason people like Jaltus and Exajeet and soon to be myself don't jump up and answer everything immediately is because we already have and frankly, it gets annoying when we have to clarify everything a few thousand times.

Now when ya get off yer high horse, tell me how the view was.

Yeah, right, uh hu.

See QEOS in BDAG, it might help you out a WHOLE lot. You clearly don't understand the word, and instead of acknowledging the various uses of the term, you just talk about me. You are the one on the high horse here, not I.

[Shadow Phoenix]

[QUOTE=ApologiaNick]

Yeah, right, uh hu.

See QEOS in BDAG, it might help you out a WHOLE lot. You clearly don't understand the word, and instead of acknowledging the various uses of the term, you just talk about me. You are the one on the high horse here, not I.

Nah. I'm the one whose been willing to submit to a test to show that I do have some knowledge. Everyone else is just supposed to assume you have it ALT.

I notice you're still dodging the request that you get a real definition of the Trinity. You're quick to go to sources to support your argument, but you won't crack a book when you've been asked over and over to get a real definition of Trinity and persons as was used by the church.

ALT. Let me be clear. THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD! If you disagree, then you are a confessed polytheist.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

tsmith,
QEOS in BDAG (summary)

* The sg. (?) article frequently suggests personal claim on a deity. God, god
* In the Greek- Roman world, the term QEOS primarily refers to a transcendant being who exercises extraordinary control in human affairs or is responsible for unusual benefits, deity, god, goddess
* Some writings in our literature use the word QEOS with reference to Christ (without necessarily equating Christ with the Father, and therefore in harmony with the Shema of Israel Deut 6.4 cp Mark 10:18 and 4a below) though the interpretation of some of the passages is in debate. (example given, factor of performance e.g. saviourhood or extraordinary contribution to society)
Now then, read carefully: in the same section it says, in any event, QEOS certainly refers to Christ as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity in the following passages - and then gives John 1:1 ! HELLO?

please stop citing lexicons when in actual fact they do NOT support your claims at all. (It then goes on to list John 10:34, Exod 7.1 and Ps 83 regarding 'problems raised by this attribution' - that isnt a denial of calling Christ deity however, it is saying in effect, 'how do we resolve this within Jewish monotheism?')

Punkish

[exaJeet]

There was indeed a discussion with you and another in a room on the meaning of eudokew, and you claimed it didn't mean what the other party claimed it did. Then the other party threw 2 lexicons (Thayer and BDAG if I recall correctly) that both agreed with that party. You just denied it even though both cited it, turned tail and ran out of the room.

Where do you get this stuff from????

I have not discussed eudokew with anyone online!!!! Stop bearing false testimony.


:popcorn:


the plot thickens....

By the way,
you sure are entertaining for those of us who ARE educated in Greek grammar....


exaJeet

[Tsmith]

tsmith,
QEOS in BDAG (summary)

* The sg. (?) article frequently suggests personal claim on a deity. God, god
* In the Greek- Roman world, the term QEOS primarily refers to a transcendant being who exercises extraordinary control in human affairs or is responsible for unusual benefits, deity, god, goddess
* Some writings in our literature use the word QEOS with reference to Christ (without necessarily equating Christ with the Father, and therefore in harmony with the Shema of Israel Deut 6.4 cp Mark 10:18 and 4a below) though the interpretation of some of the passages is in debate. (example given, factor of performance e.g. saviourhood or extraordinary contribution to society)
Now then, read carefully: in the same section it says, in any event, QEOS certainly refers to Christ as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity in the following passages - and then gives John 1:1 ! HELLO?

please stop citing lexicons when in actual fact they do NOT support your claims at all. (It then goes on to list John 10:34, Exod 7.1 and Ps 83 regarding 'problems raised by this attribution' - that isnt a denial of calling Christ deity however, it is saying in effect, 'how do we resolve this within Jewish monotheism?')

Punkish

Oh but they do..


"Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: o]j a] para. tou/ qeou/ la,bwn e;cei, tau/ta toi/j evpideome,noij corhgw/n, qeo.j gi,netai tw/n lambana,ntwn one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients (cp. Sb III, 6263, 27f of a mother). Such understanding led to the extension of the mng. of q[eos][god] to pers[ons] who elicit special reverence (cp. pass. under 4 below; a similar development can be observed in the use of se,bomai and cognates).”

[Tsmith]

Where do you get this stuff from????

I have not discussed eudokew with anyone online!!!! Stop bearing false testimony.


:popcorn:


the plot thickens....

By the way,
you sure are entertaining for those of us who ARE educated in Greek grammar....


exaJeet


I watched you do it. I can't help it if you don't remember.

[Jaltus]

I watched you do it. I can't help it if you don't remember.

Out of curosity, how do you know it was him and not someone using the same name? I have seen such a thing happen on Paltalk, for example.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

tsmith,

um, how does this apply to John 1:1, where there is no one around for the Word to be "God" to !

Punkish

[Tsmith]

Out of curosity, how do you know it was him and not someone using the same name? I have seen such a thing happen on Paltalk, for example.


His name is not one you can easily duplicate, as many are on Paltalk... In truth, I don't think it would be possible to make a name like his. To do one, you really need to have an I or an L in your name. Further, it was an extended conversation, and it was one that demonstrated his typical style of arrogance.

[Tsmith]

tsmith,

um, how does this apply to John 1:1, where there is no one around for the Word to be "God" to !

Punkish

The entire LOGOS concept is to be God's mouth piece. How could he be the LOGOS if there was nobody to be the LOGOS to? The whole point is about the time called the beginning, when creation began, he served this function.

[exaJeet]

I watched you do it. I can't help it if you don't remember.

Obviously you watched someone do it... but I can assure you, with God as my witness, it was not me. I have never discussed the word with anyone online!!


wake up..... apparently you dont realize it, but you are getting spanked in several threads on Tweb.


PS. Thanks for the entertainment on this thread and on the thread about the New World Mistranslation (NWmisT)..... your comments really are amusing.


exaJeet.

[Tsmith]

Obviously you watched someone do it... but I can assure you, with God as my witness, it was not me. I have never discussed the word with anyone online!!


wake up..... apparently you dont realize it, but you are getting spanked in several threads on Tweb.


PS. Thanks for the entertainment on this thread and on the thread about the New World Mistranslation (NWmisT)..... your comments really are amusing.


exaJeet.

Maybe this will refresh your memory. It was a discussion on Col 1:19 and 2:9.

As for me getting spanked. I'm not the one getting caught in outright false statements.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

tsmith,
you wrote: (quoting BDAG)
"Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: o]j a] para. tou/ qeou/ la,bwn e;cei, tau/ta toi/j evpideome,noij corhgw/n, qeo.j gi,netai tw/n lambana,ntwn one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients (cp. Sb III, 6263, 27f of a mother). Such understanding led to the extension of the mng. of q[eos][god] to pers[ons] who elicit special reverence (cp. pass. under 4 below; a similar development can be observed in the use of se,bomai and cognates).”

The entire LOGOS concept is to be God's mouth piece. How could he be the LOGOS if there was nobody to be the LOGOS to? The whole point is about the time called the beginning, when creation began, he served this function.

John 1.1 In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God

look at what you are saying tsmith, the tenses in the three statements do not line up. You have a past tense in John, a future tense in your logos post, and current happenings at the time from BDAG (reverence due to things done for society) - in John 1.1 there is no such society for Jesus to be God towards, so I don't see the relevance. Anyway the passage you quoted is discussing debatable issues whereas they do not consider John 1.1 debatable! Try again,

Punkish

[exaJeet]

Maybe this will refresh your memory. It was a discussion on Col 1:19 and 2:9.

Actually, that does remind me of something..... the fact that I have not had an online discussion of Colossians chapter 1 or 2 for probably 5 years..... LOOOONG before I first saw come on to paltalk!!!

I don't doubt your sincerity that you think you saw me have a discussion on this, but I can assure you that it was not me. Why? what was said about Colossians? or is this just your way of changing the topic again?

Perhaps you got spanked on that passage in that discussion also, which is why you think it was me.


As for me getting spanked. I'm not the one getting caught in outright false statements.


Actually, you ARE getting spanked in several threads..... and you appear to have made several false statements.


PS. I have been in Paltalk rooms where someone who has tried to replicate my name came in the room and quickly left when they saw me there. It isnt hard to do.



exaJeet

[Tsmith]

tsmith,
you wrote: (quoting BDAG)
"Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: o]j a] para. tou/ qeou/ la,bwn e;cei, tau/ta toi/j evpideome,noij corhgw/n, qeo.j gi,netai tw/n lambana,ntwn one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients (cp. Sb III, 6263, 27f of a mother). Such understanding led to the extension of the mng. of q[eos][god] to pers[ons] who elicit special reverence (cp. pass. under 4 below; a similar development can be observed in the use of se,bomai and cognates).”

The entire LOGOS concept is to be God's mouth piece. How could he be the LOGOS if there was nobody to be the LOGOS to? The whole point is about the time called the beginning, when creation began, he served this function.

John 1.1 In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God

look at what you are saying tsmith, the tenses in the three statements do not line up. You have a past tense in John, a future tense in your logos post, and current happenings at the time from BDAG (reverence due to things done for society) - in John 1.1 there is no such society for Jesus to be God towards, so I don't see the relevance. Anyway the passage you quoted is discussing debatable issues whereas they do not consider John 1.1 debatable! Try again,

Punkish

Your question also raises the issue of how was God God if he had nobody to be God to. The some application would be true of the LOGOS.

[Tsmith]

Actually, that does remind me of something..... the fact that I have not had an online discussion of Colossians chapter 1 or 2 for probably 5 years..... LOOOONG before I first saw come on to paltalk!!!

I don't doubt your sincerity that you think you saw me have a discussion on this, but I can assure you that it was not me. Why? what was said about Colossians? or is this just your way of changing the topic again?

Perhaps you got spanked on that passage in that discussion also, which is why you think it was me.


Actually, you ARE getting spanked in several threads..... and you appear to have made several false statements.


PS. I have been in Paltalk rooms where someone who has tried to replicate my name came in the room and quickly left when they saw me there. It isnt hard to do.



exaJeet


If I have made false statements, they have not yet been shown as false. Perhaps you would care to do so?

As for the room, it was you and Topscholar and the discussion was whether or not the word carries the notion of choosing, something the lexical glosses define it in no uncertain terms as doing.

[Shadow Phoenix]

You know, if ol' ALT is so sure that Exajeet is clueless, there's a simple way to end this. They can just go to the basketball court and have a one-on-one discussion on Greek. Actually, to be even better, ALT can tell us for sure who he really is and he can arrange a live debate on PALtalk one-on-one sometime between him and exajeet so everyone can see what a great scholar he is.

I submitted myself for testing. You didn't. If you don't have the guts to do that, don't go after people more skilled than you are.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Tsmith> Your question also raises the issue of how was God God if he had nobody to be God to. The some application would be true of the LOGOS.

Chase yourself in a circle. Is this how BDAG defines God? Is God definable solely in terms of representation, or is this a case of reading your theology into BDAG's text?

[Tsmith]

Tsmith> Your question also raises the issue of how was God God if he had nobody to be God to. The some application would be true of the LOGOS.

Chase yourself in a circle. Is this how BDAG defines God? Is God definable solely in terms of representation, or is this a case of reading your theology into BDAG's text?


I fail to see what you are asking. BDAG's text is quite clear. They actually equate the application of QEOS to the use of it in Ex. 7:1.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

In any event, QEOS certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity, in the following NT passages - John 1.1b (with o QEOS 1.1a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition. On the problems raised by such attributions [cp Exodus 7:1, Ps 82:6] (BDAG, on QEOS)

So tsmith wants to define God in terms of problems! :rofl:

[Tsmith]

In any event, QEOS certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity, in the following NT passages - John 1.1b (with o QEOS 1.1a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition. On the problems raised by such attributions [cp Exodus 7:1, Ps 82:6] (BDAG, on QEOS)

So tsmith wants to define God in terms of problems! :rofl:


That quote actually proves very difficult for Trinitarians, as if hO QEOS there is the monotheistic God of the Jews, that means the Father is Jehovah alone, not Jesus.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

tsmith> That quote actually proves very difficult for Trinitarians, as if hO QEOS there is the monotheistic God of the Jews, that means the Father is Jehovah alone, not Jesus.

Excuse me, I don't see "Father" in the text at all, or "Jehovah". Anyway BDAG is saying "Christ manifests the primary characteristics of deity" here, do you agree with this? If not, why use BDAG as your authority?

Next, why do you suppose they cited the second clause of John 1.1 (not the third!) for this statement? (note use of the first clause as well.)

Please explain why hO QEOS excludes Jesus from the Godhead (what, was Thomas incorrect? John 20:28) BTW monotheism does not mean 'one person in the Godhead'

from Punkish

[Shadow Phoenix]

This also leads to another question. Do we define any sort of being by function or by essence? I've heard description by function alone from TSmith thus far.

Would that mean God has to function to be God? (i.e. God has unactualized potential?)

[Tsmith]

tsmith> That quote actually proves very difficult for Trinitarians, as if hO QEOS there is the monotheistic God of the Jews, that means the Father is Jehovah alone, not Jesus.

Excuse me, I don't see "Father" in the text at all, or "Jehovah". Anyway BDAG is saying "Christ manifests the primary characteristics of deity" here, do you agree with this? If not, why use BDAG as your authority?

Next, why do you suppose they cited the second clause of John 1.1 (not the third!) for this statement? (note use of the first clause as well.)

Please explain why hO QEOS excludes Jesus from the Godhead (what, was Thomas incorrect? John 20:28) BTW monotheism does not mean 'one person in the Godhead'

from Punkish

It says that hO QEOS in John 1:1b is the God in for the monotheistic Jew, which here is only the Father. So yes, Jesus is excluded.

As for John 20:28, that is a debated text, but the article is insignificant as it is contextually demanded (by the genitive pronoun- see Moule, Idiom Book).

Yes Jesus does display characteristics of deity, and this is not denied. But the Father is the God of the Jews per John 1:1b, according to the gloss.

[Tsmith]

This also leads to another question. Do we define any sort of being by function or by essence? I've heard description by function alone from TSmith thus far.

Would that mean God has to function to be God? (i.e. God has unactualized potential?)


God is a title, not a substance. Because we believe in one God, we use God as a name, but technically it is a title, and it is a title based on his function.

[Shadow Phoenix]

It says that hO QEOS in John 1:1b is the God in for the monotheistic Jew, which here is only the Father. So yes, Jesus is excluded.

As for John 20:28, that is a debated text, but the article is insignificant as it is contextually demanded (by the genitive pronoun- see Moule, Idiom Book).

Yes Jesus does display characteristics of deity, and this is not denied. But the Father is the God of the Jews per John 1:1b, according to the gloss.

John 20:28 is debated? And John 1:1 isn't? lol. Yet the translation of John 1:1 by the JWs is written in stone but when a passage that has what they've been wanting, Jesus referred to as God with the article shows up, it's debatable!

Dave. Let me tell you how to translate this.

Answered Thomas and said to him, "The Lord of me and the God of me!"

Wow. Very debatable!

[Shadow Phoenix]

God is a title, not a substance. Because we believe in one God, we use God as a name, but technically it is a title, and it is a title based on his function.

That's a nice assertion with zero evidence to back it. How about this. TSmith is a title. Alright. That could be so but there is substance behind the title and the substance is what makes God God. After all, a title is given by another and God has no one else to give him a title. Also, does that mean God was incomplete at one time having no title?

So you define God by what he does and not who he is? Then how come 1 John 4:8 says "God is love" (nature visa a vis the predicate nominative) rather than "God is loving"?

[Jaltus]

God is a title, not a substance. Because we believe in one God, we use God as a name, but technically it is a title, and it is a title based on his function.

God is a title? You just said exactly the opposite when talking to me! I stated that God functioned as a title/name, and you said it did not.

[exaJeet]

...TSmith is a title.... but there is substance behind the title....

I am not convinced..... Well, OK then.... but there isnt much substance behind THAT title!!!


:rasberry:


exaJeet

[Tsmith]

John 20:28 is debated? And John 1:1 isn't? lol. Yet the translation of John 1:1 by the JWs is written in stone but when a passage that has what they've been wanting, Jesus referred to as God with the article shows up, it's debatable!

Dave. Let me tell you how to translate this.

Answered Thomas and said to him, "The Lord of me and the God of me!"

Wow. Very debatable!

John 20:28 is extremely debated. Historically, the only early church references we have (that I have been able to find anyway, please feel free to correct me) it attributed to a glorification of the Father for the resurrection of Christ. Grammatically, there are a number of issue. As I have pointed out, the article finds little if any significance, as it is necessary. Moule dealt with this one in his Idiom Book.

[Tsmith]

God is a title? You just said exactly the opposite when talking to me! I stated that God functioned as a title/name, and you said it did not.

I think there may have perhaps been a miscommunication there then.

[Tsmith]

That's a nice assertion with zero evidence to back it. How about this. TSmith is a title. Alright. That could be so but there is substance behind the title and the substance is what makes God God. After all, a title is given by another and God has no one else to give him a title. Also, does that mean God was incomplete at one time having no title?


If he eternally had purposed to create, then he would have eternally been God.


So you define God by what he does and not who he is? Then how come 1 John 4:8 says "God is love" (nature visa a vis the predicate nominative) rather than "God is loving"?

Because it is a noun and not a verb or adjective?

[Shadow Phoenix]

John 20:28 is extremely debated. Historically, the only early church references we have (that I have been able to find anyway, please feel free to correct me) it attributed to a glorification of the Father for the resurrection of Christ. Grammatically, there are a number of issue. As I have pointed out, the article finds little if any significance, as it is necessary. Moule dealt with this one in his Idiom Book.

Where were you looking?

Actually, I just went to EarlyChristianwritings.com and chose JOhn 20:28 and found four references. I couldn't access them. CCEL seems to be down from my end at least, but I can give partial quotes from ECW.

Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans:

and immediately they believed that He was Christ. Wherefore Thomas also says to Him, "My Lord, and my God."[24]

Tertullian in answer to the Jews:

No king, with Him, finds greater favour, no barbarian lesser joy; no dignities or pedigrees enjoy distinctions of merit; to all He is equal, to all King, to all Judge, to all "God and Lord."[100]

A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity:

Christ alone declared this word out of the consciousness of His divinity; and if, finally, the Apostle Thomas, instructed in all the proofs and conditions of Christ's divinity, says in reply to Christ, "My Lord and my God; "[92]

Same work:

And, "My Lord and my God."[278]

If you went there also, you'd find some interesting references to John 1:1. Seems that early Christians agreed with the Trintiarians. Imagine that.

Dave. The text isn't hotly debated. It's clear as crystal.

[Shadow Phoenix]

If he eternally had purposed to create, then he would have eternally been God.



Because it is a noun and not a verb or adjective?

So God wouldn't be God if he hadn't eternally purposed to create. Therefore, in order to fulfill the requirements of being God, God had to create. Tell me Dave. Who gave God these requirements?

And Dave. It is a noun. It's a predicate nominative. Why not a verb? Because a verb does not show the nature of the one best. The predicate nominative states that God has the nature of love.

[Tsmith]

So God wouldn't be God if he hadn't eternally purposed to create. Therefore, in order to fulfill the requirements of being God, God had to create. Tell me Dave. Who gave God these requirements?

And Dave. It is a noun. It's a predicate nominative. Why not a verb? Because a verb does not show the nature of the one best. The predicate nominative states that God has the nature of love.

Perhaps you should define what you mean by "God" when you say it. We may be working with two entirely different definitions.

And yes, I know it is a noun, I said as much.

[Tsmith]

Where were you looking?

Actually, I just went to EarlyChristianwritings.com and chose JOhn 20:28 and found four references. I couldn't access them. CCEL seems to be down from my end at least, but I can give partial quotes from ECW.

Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans:

and immediately they believed that He was Christ. Wherefore Thomas also says to Him, "My Lord, and my God."[24]

Tertullian in answer to the Jews:

No king, with Him, finds greater favour, no barbarian lesser joy; no dignities or pedigrees enjoy distinctions of merit; to all He is equal, to all King, to all Judge, to all "God and Lord."[100]

A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity:

Christ alone declared this word out of the consciousness of His divinity; and if, finally, the Apostle Thomas, instructed in all the proofs and conditions of Christ's divinity, says in reply to Christ, "My Lord and my God; "[92]

Same work:

And, "My Lord and my God."[278]

If you went there also, you'd find some interesting references to John 1:1. Seems that early Christians agreed with the Trintiarians. Imagine that.

Dave. The text isn't hotly debated. It's clear as crystal.

I find quotations from the text, but only one is an actual interpretation. So you are correct that there is so far one ancient interpretation that attributes this to Christ, but also there are ones that do not.

The text does indeed remain debated, as to whether or not it is an address or not (as it does lack a verb and is not in the vocative case). It can very easily be attributed to God, in praise as a confession of faith (Jesus tells Thomas to start believing, not to identify him, and Thomas replies, "answering" him.).

[Shadow Phoenix]

Perhaps you should define what you mean by "God" when you say it. We may be working with two entirely different definitions.

And yes, I know it is a noun, I said as much.

When I talk about God in the passage of 1 John 4:8, I see it referring to the Trinity here. God in all he is. Theos refers to one who possesses all the attributes of deity fully. Referring to deity overall, one could definitely say even if one disbelieved the existence that the Trinitarian God can safely be called "Deity"

Dave. It's not just a noun though and it's not just a nominative. It's a predicate nominative. It gives far deeper meaning to the text and this one far more to the nature of God. God isn't just loving. He is love by his nature!

[exaJeet]

Perhaps you should define what you mean by "God" when you say it. We may be working with two entirely different definitions.


Dave,

yes, you are working with 2 entirely different definitions of "God".... you are using the Watchtower definition of God and Nick is using a Biblical definition of God!


:rasberry:



exaJeet.

[Tsmith]

When I talk about God in the passage of 1 John 4:8, I see it referring to the Trinity here. God in all he is. Theos refers to one who possesses all the attributes of deity fully. Referring to deity overall, one could definitely say even if one disbelieved the existence that the Trinitarian God can safely be called "Deity"

Dave. It's not just a noun though and it's not just a nominative. It's a predicate nominative. It gives far deeper meaning to the text and this one far more to the nature of God. God isn't just loving. He is love by his nature!


I'm not asking WHO God is, I'm asking what you mean by the word God.

[Shadow Phoenix]

I'm not asking WHO God is, I'm asking what you mean by the word God.

Sigh........

That they may know you, the only true God........

Dave. This is it really. What I mean by the Word God is who he is. God is who he is and that cannot be changed. You might as well ask the question Ravi Zacharias said he would have hated to see on his questionnaire after the question "God is perfect. Explain." The next harder question would be to define God and give two examples.

What I mean by the word GOd is who he is. I cannot separate the two. He is the awesome being that has three persons in his essence going beyond my comprehension. He is the being of love within himself and that love poured out in abundance on his creation with grace flowing for sinners in need.

His love, his grace, his mercy, his wisdom, his power, his justice, all of them, all of them, are contained fully bodily in the person of Christ.

Who I mean by God is the one I am devoted to.

You didn't ask for a sermon, but you got one. Why? Because this time, it really pricked my own heart. To say what you mean by God and not who he is is definitely to be asking the wrong question.

This is eternal life.....

That they may know you......

Do you have eternal life?

[exaJeet]

I'm not asking WHO God is, I'm asking what you mean by the word God.

Tsmith.....

:bonk:

sigh...
exaJeet.

[Tsmith]

Sigh........

That they may know you, the only true God........

Dave. This is it really. What I mean by the Word God is who he is. God is who he is and that cannot be changed. You might as well ask the question Ravi Zacharias said he would have hated to see on his questionnaire after the question "God is perfect. Explain." The next harder question would be to define God and give two examples.

What I mean by the word GOd is who he is. I cannot separate the two. He is the awesome being that has three persons in his essence going beyond my comprehension. He is the being of love within himself and that love poured out in abundance on his creation with grace flowing for sinners in need.

His love, his grace, his mercy, his wisdom, his power, his justice, all of them, all of them, are contained fully bodily in the person of Christ.

Who I mean by God is the one I am devoted to.

You didn't ask for a sermon, but you got one. Why? Because this time, it really pricked my own heart. To say what you mean by God and not who he is is definitely to be asking the wrong question.

This is eternal life.....

That they may know you......

Do you have eternal life?

You are using "God" as a proper name. Think linguistics. Define the word, not a being.

[Shadow Phoenix]

You are using "God" as a proper name. Think linguistics. Define the word, not a being.

Amazing......

Actually, I'm not. I just know that to be told one isn't asking who he is is dreadful. That's what this whole thing is about. Who God is.

I will not give any answer other than what I gave for my God is totally unique and I cannot put him in a category with any other.

Do you have eternal life?

[Tsmith]

Amazing......

Actually, I'm not. I just know that to be told one isn't asking who he is is dreadful. That's what this whole thing is about. Who God is.

I will not give any answer other than what I gave for my God is totally unique and I cannot put him in a category with any other.

Do you have eternal life?


I'm asking you to define a word. This is not very complicated. Define the word "God", do not tell me what the being you call God is.

[Shadow Phoenix]

I'm asking you to define a word. This is not very complicated. Define the word "God", do not tell me what the being you call God is.

Ya know T, there is a big difference between taking in knowledge of the only true God and knowing the only true God.

The only way anyone else can be addressed as a god is functionally. Satan is the "god" of this world in that he's the one the world serves. (A functional purpose.) There is only one who is God by nature though. (Galatians 4:8)

What really concerns me is this dichotomy I see of separating God from who he is. It reduces this whole thing to nothing more but an intellectual exercise where you try to get the correct answer on the quiz. I notice you don't answer my question I've been asking.

Do you have eternal life?

[exaJeet]

God is a title? You just said exactly the opposite when talking to me! I stated that God functioned as a title/name, and you said it did not.


Uh oh, Tsmith (Dave) caught in another lie.

Is he getting spanked in this thread also.


:popcorn:


:highfive:



exaJeet.

[dizzle]

Pastor Gene commented further on his interactions this evening. The MP3 will likely be up by tomorrow.

[Tsmith]

Ya know T, there is a big difference between taking in knowledge of the only true God and knowing the only true God.

The only way anyone else can be addressed as a god is functionally. Satan is the "god" of this world in that he's the one the world serves. (A functional purpose.) There is only one who is God by nature though. (Galatians 4:8)

What really concerns me is this dichotomy I see of separating God from who he is. It reduces this whole thing to nothing more but an intellectual exercise where you try to get the correct answer on the quiz. I notice you don't answer my question I've been asking.

Do you have eternal life?


Is there a reason you will not answer my question? I believe it is because if you do your position based on the application of the word "God" will fall apart.

[Tsmith]

Uh oh, Tsmith (Dave) caught in another lie.

Is he getting spanked in this thread also.


:popcorn:


:highfive:



exaJeet.


When you signed up for cheer leading did they give you a skirt? You really do not know how to make a valuable contribution do you?

[Shadow Phoenix]

When you signed up for cheer leading did they give you a skirt? You really do not know how to make a valuable contribution do you?

Sigh.....

T. Here's what it is.

Do you have eternal life?

[Tsmith]

Sigh.....

T. Here's what it is.

Do you have eternal life?


Physically or spiritually? Spiritually, yes, but I may die physically if Christ does not first return. But that does not answer my question.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

tsmith,

quick repeat question: BDAG says Christ "manifests primary characteristics of deity". What are these characteristics please and do you agree on the *primary* point, or is it okay just to drop this because your theology doesn't support it? Also do you agree BDAG is right to list John 20:28 under this claim - not part of its list of debatable passages!

thanks, Punkish

[Tsmith]

tsmith,

quick repeat question: BDAG says Christ "manifests primary characteristics of deity". What are these characteristics please and do you agree on the *primary* point, or is it okay just to drop this because your theology doesn't support it? Also do you agree BDAG is right to list John 20:28 under this claim - not part of its list of debatable passages!

thanks, Punkish


He manifested many, do I really need to make a list though? I have no problem with the word "primary", further I have no problem in applying John 20:28 to Christ, however I do not believe that is should be.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Physically or spiritually? Spiritually, yes, but I may die physically if Christ does not first return. But that does not answer my question.

Of course not physically, but spiritually, does this not mean that your spiritual life will never at any point in time end?

Also, I did answer your question. You just haven't seen it yet.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

tsmith> He manifested many, do I really need to make a list though?

Yes, please. I'd like to see what primary characteristics of deity you think the bible says Jesus manifested. BTW BDAG also lists Titus 2.13 here, do you agree with this?

[Tsmith]

tsmith> He manifested many, do I really need to make a list though?

Yes, please. I'd like to see what primary characteristics of deity you think the bible says Jesus manifested. BTW BDAG also lists Titus 2.13 here, do you agree with this?


Christ's characteristics of deity are found in what he has received from the Father.

Giving everlasting life - authority from the father
judgment - authority from the Father


No, I do not agree with BDAG on their application of MEGAS QEOS in Titus 2:13, as I have already made clear. Do I have a theological issue if it is? No, but I don't see it here.

[Tsmith]

Of course not physically, but spiritually, does this not mean that your spiritual life will never at any point in time end?

Also, I did answer your question. You just haven't seen it yet.


No, you really haven't. I know where you THINK you did, but in reality you did not and likely will not.

What does the word QEOS mean?

[Shadow Phoenix]

No, you really haven't. I know where you THINK you did, but in reality you did not and likely will not.

What does the word QEOS mean?

Sigh. I did. It doesn't fit the Watchtower definition, but I did.

Now that's interesting. BDAG is an authority, but then it disagrees with you and you discount it. Alright. Tell me what it says and I'll just determine whether it's accurate or not based on whether I agree or not.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

tsmith> Christ's characteristics of deity are found in what he has received from the Father.

No, if it is received how is it a primary characteristic? Anyway, if you disagree with BDAG why are you using it as an authority?

Punkish
EDIT: omitted a word by mistake

[Tsmith]

tsmith> Christ's characteristics of deity are found in what he has received from the Father.

No, if it is received how is it a primary characteristic? Anyway, if you disagree with BDAG why are you using it as an authority?

Punkish
EDIT: omitted a word by mistake

Because they are not attributed to him! And I use it for the same way Trinitarians use it when it also says things they disagree with?

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Aha. Tsmith, BDAG doesnt say that Christ's characteristics of deity are received, does it?

[Shadow Phoenix]

*Marks BDAG off of his wishlist.

Dang. And all this time I thought it was a good and accurate authority. Apparently not.....

[Tsmith]

Aha. Tsmith, BDAG doesnt say that Christ's characteristics of deity are received, does it?

It doesn't say they aren't either, does it?

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

oh please. this sort of question doesn't follow evidence. when BDAG says "On the problems raised by such attribution" e.g. John 1.1b, in calling Christ QEOS, it is evident BDAG does not agree with you.

[Shadow Phoenix]

It doesn't say they aren't either, does it?

hmmm. It doesn't say aliens from another planet beamed him with the powers.

Arguments from silence are just that. Silence.

[Tsmith]

oh please. this sort of question doesn't follow evidence. when BDAG says "On the problems raised by such attribution" e.g. John 1.1b, in calling Christ QEOS, it is evident BDAG does not agree with you.


You must not be reading very carefully. The "problems" are how Christ is called QEOS when the Father is called QEOS as the monotheistic God of the Jews. So he references John 10:34 as an answer to that problem, which agrees with me, as the judges are called gods. On the use of the Logos, it references Philo, which is even more damaging to your position! But then, what do they are the characteristics of deity that Christ displays?

"In Mosaic and Gr-Rom. traditions the fundamental semantic component in the understanding of deity is the factor of performance, namely saviorhood or extraordinary contributions to one’s society."

This is exactly MY position! Not that Christ was the Almighty, but that he was a god in this very sense!

[Tsmith]

hmmm. It doesn't say aliens from another planet beamed him with the powers.

Arguments from silence are just that. Silence.


My argument from silence was in response to his argument from silence. It is always good to read before speaking, not that I'm always perfect at following my own advice, granted.

[Shadow Phoenix]

You must not be reading very carefully. The "problems" are how Christ is called QEOS when the Father is called QEOS as the monotheistic God of the Jews. So he references John 10:34 as an answer to that problem, which agrees with me, as the judges are called gods. On the use of the Logos, it references Philo, which is even more damaging to your position! But then, what do they are the characteristics of deity that Christ displays?

"In Mosaic and Gr-Rom. traditions the fundamental semantic component in the understanding of deity is the factor of performance, namely saviorhood or extraordinary contributions to one’s society."

This is exactly MY position! Not that Christ was the Almighty, but that he was a god in this very sense!

Hmmm. Assumption of unipersonalism anyone?

The concept of monotheism as one person in the Godhead was not a concept at the time of Christ. The Jews were more open and even the concept of Metatron rose up after the time of Christ. This might be a good time to check out Bauckham's "God Crucified" on the beliefs of God in Second Temple Judaism.

[Shadow Phoenix]

My argument from silence was in response to his argument from silence. It is always good to read before speaking, not that I'm always perfect at following my own advice, granted.

Actually, Punkish's was based on an implication that BDAG didn't make but you did.

Anyhow, I'm finding this interesting.

Tsmith:BDAG is an authority. Look at what it says about QEOS
Punkish:It disagrees with you here.
TSmith:BDAG is wrong then.

BDAG is no longer the authority here then. TSmith is. ANd don't you think TSmith the writers knew that the Jews were monotheists when they made these statements? So who gives you the authority to stand over BDAG? Upon what basis should I accept that what you say is right and BDAG is wrong when chances are the writers knew a lot more than any of us here?

[Tsmith]

Actually, Punkish's was based on an implication that BDAG didn't make but you did.

Anyhow, I'm finding this interesting.

Tsmith:BDAG is an authority. Look at what it says about QEOS
Punkish:It disagrees with you here.
TSmith:BDAG is wrong then.

BDAG is no longer the authority here then. TSmith is. ANd don't you think TSmith the writers knew that the Jews were monotheists when they made these statements? So who gives you the authority to stand over BDAG? Upon what basis should I accept that what you say is right and BDAG is wrong when chances are the writers knew a lot more than any of us here?

I didn't make it, the Bible does. BDAG provides a definition, and the Bible speaks of God giving these things to Christ (such as the authority to give life). BDAG is silent on HOW Christ displays these. He asked how, I answered.

So then I take it you agree with them at Rev 3:14 probably means first-created? :-p

BDAG is an authority. But being an authority doesn't make you right every time.

[Shadow Phoenix]

I didn't make it, the Bible does. BDAG provides a definition, and the Bible speaks of God giving these things to Christ (such as the authority to give life). BDAG is silent on HOW Christ displays these. He asked how, I answered.

So then I take it you agree with them at Rev 3:14 probably means first-created? :-p

BDAG is an authority. But being an authority doesn't make you right every time.

First off, I never presented BDAG to make my case, though I'd have to look at REv. 3:14 myself sometime.

However, that's not the point. The point is that going to authorities seems useless because you'll tell us to check them and then when they disagree with you, you discredit them. I'll ask again, why are you in the position to be an authority where you can tell us which is wrong and which is not?

[Tsmith]

First off, I never presented BDAG to make my case, though I'd have to look at REv. 3:14 myself sometime.

However, that's not the point. The point is that going to authorities seems useless because you'll tell us to check them and then when they disagree with you, you discredit them. I'll ask again, why are you in the position to be an authority where you can tell us which is wrong and which is not?


I do not act as an authority, simply saying if something is right or wrong, I demonstrate why I argue for a position I take.

[Shadow Phoenix]

I do not act as an authority, simply saying if something is right or wrong, I demonstrate why I argue for a position I take.

Ah but you are acting as an authority. You are telling us that BDAG is wrong in one place and right in another. In essence, you are standing over BDAG in their area of specialty. Now why should I trust your opinion over BDAG? Surely BDAG isn't ignorant of Jewish beliefs after all.

[Tsmith]

Ah but you are acting as an authority. You are telling us that BDAG is wrong in one place and right in another. In essence, you are standing over BDAG in their area of specialty. Now why should I trust your opinion over BDAG? Surely BDAG isn't ignorant of Jewish beliefs after all.


Why does BDAG say certain things different than BAG? Who was Danker to say Bower wasn't quite correct on things? There are points of evidence, and those points of evidence must be considered. I do not use BDAG in an effort to appeal to authority, which is a argumentative fallacy, but I use it simply to show that my position is not unique to myself. If BDAG does not agree with me, fine. There are others who do. I have my reasons for believing what I believe about various texts, and simply saying "who are you to question it" is not a sufficient answer.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Why does BDAG say certain things different than BAG? Who was Danker to say Bower wasn't quite correct on things? There are points of evidence, and those points of evidence must be considered. I do not use BDAG in an effort to appeal to authority, which is a argumentative fallacy, but I use it simply to show that my position is not unique to myself. If BDAG does not agree with me, fine. There are others who do. I have my reasons for believing what I believe about various texts, and simply saying "who are you to question it" is not a sufficient answer.

It's not a fallacy so long as the authority is valid, though it is the weakest of the evidences which the ancients agreed upon.

But then, this simply means for us that any belief is alright insofar as one other person holds that view. With all the media today, any view is acceptable.

By the way, BDAG doesn't consider John 20:28 extremely debated and there were other references in the ANF as shown earlier. It seems the quoting is simply selective.

[Tsmith]

It's not a fallacy so long as the authority is valid, though it is the weakest of the evidences which the ancients agreed upon.

But then, this simply means for us that any belief is alright insofar as one other person holds that view. With all the media today, any view is acceptable.

By the way, BDAG doesn't consider John 20:28 extremely debated and there were other references in the ANF as shown earlier. It seems the quoting is simply selective.


Simply because an authority is valid does not mean an authority is correct. Authorities commonly disagree with eachother.

I never claimed BDAG said John 20:28 is extremely debated, but that does not change that it is. Thus far I have seen only a single reference where John 20:28's statement of QEOS MOU is attributed towards an identification of Jesus. I've seen one as well in the early church where the opposite is true as well. Grammatically, it is a big question, and not one that has yet to be settled, though based purely on the statistical use of KURIOS/KURIE in the NT, it would not likely be considered an address to Jesus.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

tsmith> Who was Danker to say Bower wasn't quite correct on things?

wow if you can't get the primary contributor's name right (Bauer) why should we trust you on theological interpretation?

[Tsmith]

tsmith> Who was Danker to say Bower wasn't quite correct on things?

wow if you can't get the primary contributor's name right (Bauer) why should we trust you on theological interpretation?

Funny thing is that I've typed that name on numerous occasions. Oh well. I wasn't aware that good spelling was required for good interpretation. You really should look at yourself and your theological positions if you are forced to make that type of an argument.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

:rofl: Bauer's name is given on the front cover of the 2000 edition, see here

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0226039331.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

The point is, this is indisputable. Interpretation can be disputed. If you can be shown to be trustworthy with indisputable things, then trust in interpretation is likely to follow.

[Tsmith]

Yeah.. uh hu.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Simply because an authority is valid does not mean an authority is correct. Authorities commonly disagree with eachother.

I never claimed BDAG said John 20:28 is extremely debated, but that does not change that it is. Thus far I have seen only a single reference where John 20:28's statement of QEOS MOU is attributed towards an identification of Jesus. I've seen one as well in the early church where the opposite is true as well. Grammatically, it is a big question, and not one that has yet to be settled, though based purely on the statistical use of KURIOS/KURIE in the NT, it would not likely be considered an address to Jesus.

Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans

And I know that He was possessed of a body not only in His being born and crucified, but I also know that He was so after His resurrection, and believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, "Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit."21 "For a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have."22 And He says to Thomas, "Reach hither thy finger into the print of the nails, and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into My side; "23 and immediately they believed that He was Christ. Wherefore Thomas also says to Him, "My Lord, and my God."24 And on this account also did they despise death, for it were too little to say, indignities and stripes. Nor was this all; but also after He had shown Himself to them, that He had risen indeed, and not in appearance only, He both ate and drank with them during forty entire days. And thus was He, with the flesh, received up in their sight unto Him that sent Him, being with that same flesh to come again, accompanied by glory and power. For, say the [holy] oracles, "This same Jesus, who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come, in like manner as ye have seen Him go unto heaven."25 But if they say that He will come at the end of the world without a body, how shall those "see Him that pierced Him,"26 and when they recognise Him, "mourn for themselves? "27 For incorporeal beings have neither form nor figure, nor the aspect28 of an animal possessed of shape, because their nature is in itself simple.

Note: Ignatius is supposed to be one of the ones most closely connected with the apostles.

Tertullian---An answer to the Jews:

But Christ's Name is extending everywhere, believed everywhere, worshipped by all the above-enumerated nations, reigning everywhere, adored everywhere, conferred equally everywhere upon all. No king, with Him, finds greater favour, no barbarian lesser joy; no dignities or pedigrees enjoy distinctions of merit; to all He is equal, to all King, to all Judge, to all "God and Lord."100 Nor would you hesitate to believe what we asseverate, since you see it taking place.

A Treatise of Novation Concerning the Trinity:

Christ alone declared this word out of the consciousness of His divinity; and if, finally, the Apostle Thomas, instructed in all the proofs and conditions of Christ's divinity, says in reply to Christ, "My Lord and my God; "92 and if, besides, the Apostle Paul says, "Whose are the fathers, and of whom Christ came according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for evermore,"93 writing in his epistles; and if the same apostle declares that he was ordained "an apostle not by men, nor of man, but by Jesus Christ; "94 and if the same contends that he learned the Gospel not from men or by man, but received it from Jesus Christ, reasonably Christ is God. Therefore, in this respect, one of two things must needs be established. For since it is evident that all things were made by Christ, He is either before all things, since all things were by Him, and so He is justly God; or because He is man He is subsequent to all things, and justly nothing was made by Him.

And again from the same source:

But even as we hold, and read, and believe this, thus we ought to pass over no portion of the heavenly Scriptures, since indeed also we ought by no means to reject those marks of Christ's divinity which are laid down in the Scriptures, that we may not, by corrupting the authority of the Scriptures, be held to have corrupted the integrity of our holy faith. And let us therefore believe this, since it is most faithful that Jesus Christ the Son of God is our Lord and God; because "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. The same was in the beginning with God."276 And, "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt in us."277 And, "My Lord and my God."278 And, "Whose are the fathers, and of whom according to the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for evermore."279 What, then, shall we say? Does Scripture set before us two Gods? How, then, does it say that "God is one? "Or is not Christ God also? How, then, is it said to Christ," My Lord and my God? "Unless, therefore, we hold all this with fitting veneration and lawful argument, we shall reasonably be thought to have furnished a scandal to the heretics, not assuredly by the fault of the heavenly Scriptures, which never deceive; but by the presumption of human error, whereby they have chosen to be heretics. And in the first place, we must turn the attack against them who undertake to make against us the charge of saying that there are two Gods. It is written, and they cannot deny it, that "there is one Lord."280 What, then, do they think of Christ?-that He is Lord, or that He is not Lord at all? But they do not doubt absolutely that He is Lord; therefore, if their reasoning be true, here are already two Lords. How, then, is it true according to the Scriptures, there is one Lord? And Christ is called the "one Master."281 Nevertheless we read that the Apostle Paul also is a master.282 Then, according to this, our Master is not one, for from these things we conclude that there are two masters. How, then, according to the Scriptures, is "one our Master, even Christ? "In the Scriptures there is one "called good, even God; "but in the same Scriptures Christ is also asserted to be good. There is not, then, if they rightly conclude, one good, but even two good. How, then, according to the scriptural faith, is there said to be only one good? But if they do not think that it can by any means interfere with the truth that there is one Lord, that Christ also is Lord, nor with the truth that one is our. Master, that Paul also is our master, or with the truth that one is good, that Christ also is called good; on the same reasoning, let them understand that, from the fact that God is one, no obstruction arises to the truth that Christ also is declared to be God.

Note:

At times, I have avoided the whole section simply for sake of brevity but have included just enough context. If you wish to check the writings yourself, go to earlychristianwritings.com, find the gospel of John, then go to chapter 20 and verse 28.

Not one reference is to anyone but Christ. All state the same thing unequivocally. Christ is the God of the universe.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Yeah.. uh hu.

Punkish> The evidence says this....

Tsmith> :eek:

:lol:

This is precisely the reason why Christians should witness to JWs, because their apologetic is inadequate; it is not rooted in the application of truth. I shall spend one more post answering tsmith's selective citations from BDAG, and then I want to discuss other issues, such as the spiritual resurrection of Jesus, faith and works, Abaddon, and other wonderful twists and turns the Watchtower presents its readers.

[Tsmith]

Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans

And I know that He was possessed of a body not only in His being born and crucified, but I also know that He was so after His resurrection, and believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, "Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit."21 "For a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have."22 And He says to Thomas, "Reach hither thy finger into the print of the nails, and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into My side; "23 and immediately they believed that He was Christ. Wherefore Thomas also says to Him, "My Lord, and my God."24 And on this account also did they despise death, for it were too little to say, indignities and stripes. Nor was this all; but also after He had shown Himself to them, that He had risen indeed, and not in appearance only, He both ate and drank with them during forty entire days. And thus was He, with the flesh, received up in their sight unto Him that sent Him, being with that same flesh to come again, accompanied by glory and power. For, say the [holy] oracles, "This same Jesus, who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come, in like manner as ye have seen Him go unto heaven."25 But if they say that He will come at the end of the world without a body, how shall those "see Him that pierced Him,"26 and when they recognise Him, "mourn for themselves? "27 For incorporeal beings have neither form nor figure, nor the aspect28 of an animal possessed of shape, because their nature is in itself simple.

Note: Ignatius is supposed to be one of the ones most closely connected with the apostles.

Tertullian---An answer to the Jews:

But Christ's Name is extending everywhere, believed everywhere, worshipped by all the above-enumerated nations, reigning everywhere, adored everywhere, conferred equally everywhere upon all. No king, with Him, finds greater favour, no barbarian lesser joy; no dignities or pedigrees enjoy distinctions of merit; to all He is equal, to all King, to all Judge, to all "God and Lord."100 Nor would you hesitate to believe what we asseverate, since you see it taking place.

A Treatise of Novation Concerning the Trinity:

Christ alone declared this word out of the consciousness of His divinity; and if, finally, the Apostle Thomas, instructed in all the proofs and conditions of Christ's divinity, says in reply to Christ, "My Lord and my God; "92 and if, besides, the Apostle Paul says, "Whose are the fathers, and of whom Christ came according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for evermore,"93 writing in his epistles; and if the same apostle declares that he was ordained "an apostle not by men, nor of man, but by Jesus Christ; "94 and if the same contends that he learned the Gospel not from men or by man, but received it from Jesus Christ, reasonably Christ is God. Therefore, in this respect, one of two things must needs be established. For since it is evident that all things were made by Christ, He is either before all things, since all things were by Him, and so He is justly God; or because He is man He is subsequent to all things, and justly nothing was made by Him.

And again from the same source:

But even as we hold, and read, and believe this, thus we ought to pass over no portion of the heavenly Scriptures, since indeed also we ought by no means to reject those marks of Christ's divinity which are laid down in the Scriptures, that we may not, by corrupting the authority of the Scriptures, be held to have corrupted the integrity of our holy faith. And let us therefore believe this, since it is most faithful that Jesus Christ the Son of God is our Lord and God; because "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. The same was in the beginning with God."276 And, "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt in us."277 And, "My Lord and my God."278 And, "Whose are the fathers, and of whom according to the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for evermore."279 What, then, shall we say? Does Scripture set before us two Gods? How, then, does it say that "God is one? "Or is not Christ God also? How, then, is it said to Christ," My Lord and my God? "Unless, therefore, we hold all this with fitting veneration and lawful argument, we shall reasonably be thought to have furnished a scandal to the heretics, not assuredly by the fault of the heavenly Scriptures, which never deceive; but by the presumption of human error, whereby they have chosen to be heretics. And in the first place, we must turn the attack against them who undertake to make against us the charge of saying that there are two Gods. It is written, and they cannot deny it, that "there is one Lord."280 What, then, do they think of Christ?-that He is Lord, or that He is not Lord at all? But they do not doubt absolutely that He is Lord; therefore, if their reasoning be true, here are already two Lords. How, then, is it true according to the Scriptures, there is one Lord? And Christ is called the "one Master."281 Nevertheless we read that the Apostle Paul also is a master.282 Then, according to this, our Master is not one, for from these things we conclude that there are two masters. How, then, according to the Scriptures, is "one our Master, even Christ? "In the Scriptures there is one "called good, even God; "but in the same Scriptures Christ is also asserted to be good. There is not, then, if they rightly conclude, one good, but even two good. How, then, according to the scriptural faith, is there said to be only one good? But if they do not think that it can by any means interfere with the truth that there is one Lord, that Christ also is Lord, nor with the truth that one is our. Master, that Paul also is our master, or with the truth that one is good, that Christ also is called good; on the same reasoning, let them understand that, from the fact that God is one, no obstruction arises to the truth that Christ also is declared to be God.

Note:

At times, I have avoided the whole section simply for sake of brevity but have included just enough context. If you wish to check the writings yourself, go to earlychristianwritings.com, find the gospel of John, then go to chapter 20 and verse 28.

Not one reference is to anyone but Christ. All state the same thing unequivocally. Christ is the God of the universe.


Better read a bit more closely. Ignatius quotes the text, but provides no interpretation and does not attribute Christ to being his Lord and God, but simply that he said it to Christ.

Tertullian, if I recall correctly, worked based on the Latin text, not the Greek. The Latin has an ambiguity not found in the Greek.

Regardless, the text no way denotes Christ as being the Almighty God. As BDAG even noted, one who brought about salvation was regarded as deity in ancient (including Jewish) thought. Christ had done this through his death and resurrection, and thereby it would be highly fitting for Thomas to apply such a title to Christ, though I do not believe he here did, for the statistical reason I mentioned, amoung others.

[Tsmith]

Punkish> The evidence says this....

Tsmith> :eek:

:lol:

This is precisely the reason why Christians should witness to JWs, because their apologetic is inadequate; it is not rooted in the application of truth. I shall spend one more post answering tsmith's selective citations from BDAG, and then I want to discuss other issues, such as the spiritual resurrection of Jesus, faith and works, Abaddon, and other wonderful twists and turns the Watchtower presents its readers.


ROTFL. Your evidence was my spelling mistake, nothing more!

BDAG, even though applying texts I do not agree with to Christ only damages your position, because it provides a definition for "God" for those texts that is not in line with Trinitarian thought, but perfectly in agreement with my own. It has Christ as "QEOS" outside of the sense of the monotheistic God of the Jews, which is exactly my position.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Better read a bit more closely. Ignatius quotes the text, but provides no interpretation and does not attribute Christ to being his Lord and God, but simply that he said it to Christ.

Tertullian, if I recall correctly, worked based on the Latin text, not the Greek. The Latin has an ambiguity not found in the Greek.

Regardless, the text no way denotes Christ as being the Almighty God. As BDAG even noted, one who brought about salvation was regarded as deity in ancient (including Jewish) thought. Christ had done this through his death and resurrection, and thereby it would be highly fitting for Thomas to apply such a title to Christ, though I do not believe he here did, for the statistical reason I mentioned, amoung others.

Let's see. Thomas says to Christ "My Lord and my God" and that's not clear enough? Do you need a map drawn or something?

Ah! So now you can read Latin as well! If only Tertullian had had Greek he would have clearly understood.

And then based on this, YHWH simply brought about salvation for Israel. Maybe we should just refer to him as a deity as well.

TSmith. Look at what they said really. They're all clear in what they believe and I notice there was no answer for Novatian. I'm just hearing "My mind is made up! Don't confuse me with the facts!"

[Tsmith]

Let's see. Thomas says to Christ "My Lord and my God" and that's not clear enough? Do you need a map drawn or something?

Ah! So now you can read Latin as well! If only Tertullian had had Greek he would have clearly understood.

And then based on this, YHWH simply brought about salvation for Israel. Maybe we should just refer to him as a deity as well.

TSmith. Look at what they said really. They're all clear in what they believe and I notice there was no answer for Novatian. I'm just hearing "My mind is made up! Don't confuse me with the facts!"

There is good reason for taking this verse as an expression of praise to God in response to Christ's comission to start believing. I would suggest doing a bit of research on the use of KURIOS in the NT when used in address. Doing so might give you a fuller understanding of the grammatical reasons for holding this view.

[Shadow Phoenix]

There is good reason for taking this verse as an expression of praise to God in response to Christ's comission to start believing. I would suggest doing a bit of research on the use of KURIOS in the NT when used in address. Doing so might give you a fuller understanding of the grammatical reasons for holding this view.

There's a good reason for taking this verse as a praise to Jesus also. Answered Thomas and said to him "The Lord of me and the God of me."

Who did Thomas answer? What did he answer him with?

Who else is addresed in the NT as Kurios and Theos?

[Tsmith]

There's a good reason for taking this verse as a praise to Jesus also. Answered Thomas and said to him "The Lord of me and the God of me."

Who did Thomas answer? What did he answer him with?

Who else is addresed in the NT as Kurios and Theos?

We know who he answered, but the real question needs to be what did he answer? He answered Jesus' comission to start believing. It was not a question of who Jesus was, but if Thomas had faith in the prophecies.

Thomas answered that comission given by Jesus and his response was a praise to the Father, who is identified by Jesus as the only true God.

Now, as I said, do a word study, check into the use of KURIOS in address and compare the use of it throughout the NT to see how it compares to John 20:28. Consider then whether John 20:28 is more probably an address to the person before him or an exclaimation of praise to the God who raised Jesus from the dead.

[Shadow Phoenix]

We know who he answered, but the real question needs to be what did he answer? He answered Jesus' comission to start believing. It was not a question of who Jesus was, but if Thomas had faith in the prophecies.

Thomas answered that comission given by Jesus and his response was a praise to the Father, who is identified by Jesus as the only true God.

Now, as I said, do a word study, check into the use of KURIOS in address and compare the use of it throughout the NT to see how it compares to John 20:28. Consider then whether John 20:28 is more probably an address to the person before him or an exclaimation of praise to the God who raised Jesus from the dead.

Slight problem here Dave. THE FATHER ISN'T MENTIONED IN THE TEXT! You're simply reading it in. Thomas answered and said to him. Who did he say it to now? Why would he say to Jesus "The Lord of me and the God of me!"?

Do other texts have Kurios meaning a title simply as Lord or Sir? Absolutely. But the question isn't "What do other texts mean." The question is "What does this text mean?"

[Tsmith]

Slight problem here Dave. THE FATHER ISN'T MENTIONED IN THE TEXT! You're simply reading it in. Thomas answered and said to him. Who did he say it to now? Why would he say to Jesus "The Lord of me and the God of me!"?

Do other texts have Kurios meaning a title simply as Lord or Sir? Absolutely. But the question isn't "What do other texts mean." The question is "What does this text mean?"

There are numerous texts that do not say "Father" and yet "God" is spoken of in clear reference to the Father. He said it to Jesus for the very reason it states in the text, he was answering what Jesus told him to do!

Now, for those other texts, I'm asking you to look at them for a grammatical element. Go and see, unless you are scared to lose a proof text that really doesn't prove anything for you (as I already mentioned, I have no problem with this text either way you wish to look at it, I simply don't see it attributing QEOS to Christ here). What you will find is this. Throughout the NT, KURIOS is used in address over 100 times, aside from one other text that is actually a variant, the nominative form is never used in address, it is always the vocative KURIE. Even if we consider the variable, which is found in Revelation (a book known to have non-standard grammar anyway), that still only leaves one example in the face of well over a hundered, leaving your position statistically unlikely.

[Shadow Phoenix]

There are numerous texts that do not say "Father" and yet "God" is spoken of in clear reference to the Father. He said it to Jesus for the very reason it states in the text, he was answering what Jesus told him to do!

Now, for those other texts, I'm asking you to look at them for a grammatical element. Go and see, unless you are scared to lose a proof text that really doesn't prove anything for you (as I already mentioned, I have no problem with this text either way you wish to look at it, I simply don't see it attributing QEOS to Christ here). What you will find is this. Throughout the NT, KURIOS is used in address over 100 times, aside from one other text that is actually a variant, the nominative form is never used in address, it is always the vocative KURIE. Even if we consider the variable, which is found in Revelation (a book known to have non-standard grammar anyway), that still only leaves one example in the face of well over a hundered, leaving your position statistically unlikely.

Problem Tsmith:

Answered and said to him: Both are done to the same person.

Also, which definition of QEOS are you meaning as you seem to pick and choose?

Furthermore, are you aware that there are some that even doubt that the vocative form really exists in Greek?

[Tsmith]

Problem Tsmith:

Answered and said to him: Both are done to the same person.

Also, which definition of QEOS are you meaning as you seem to pick and choose?

Furthermore, are you aware that there are some that even doubt that the vocative form really exists in Greek?

Of course they are both to him. How can you answer somebody without saying it to them?

My definition of QEOS comes from BDAG. Notice on the classification for Christ.

As for the doubts of the vocative.. go do a search, see for yourself. You'll see just how improbable the position is that Christ is being directly addressed.

Theodore of Mopsuestia states: “He says to Thomas: Put your finger in here, and look at my hands, and stretch out your hand, and put it into my side, and don’t be incredulous, but steadfast [in your faith]. He [Jesus] says: Because you do not believe, and you think that touch alone will suffice for you to believe-even saying things of this nature-? I have not been unknown to you?-touch with your hand and make the experiment, and learn to believe and not to mistrust. Thomas, indeed, when thus he had believed, says 'My Lord and my God.' [Thomas] is not saying [Jesus] himself is Lord and God, for knowledge of the resurrection was not also teaching that God was he who rose again, but as it were, he [Thomas] praises God greatly for the miracle performed.”

[Shadow Phoenix]

Of course they are both to him. How can you answer somebody without saying it to them?

My definition of QEOS comes from BDAG. Notice on the classification for Christ.

As for the doubts of the vocative.. go do a search, see for yourself. You'll see just how improbable the position is that Christ is being directly addressed.

Theodore of Mopsuestia states: “He says to Thomas: Put your finger in here, and look at my hands, and stretch out your hand, and put it into my side, and don’t be incredulous, but steadfast [in your faith]. He [Jesus] says: Because you do not believe, and you think that touch alone will suffice for you to believe-even saying things of this nature-? I have not been unknown to you?-touch with your hand and make the experiment, and learn to believe and not to mistrust. Thomas, indeed, when thus he had believed, says 'My Lord and my God.' [Thomas] is not saying [Jesus] himself is Lord and God, for knowledge of the resurrection was not also teaching that God was he who rose again, but as it were, he [Thomas] praises God greatly for the miracle performed.”

Excuse me TSmith, but I have two problems.

First off, you gave no reference whereas I can look up this text for myself.

Secondly, can you tell me who Theodore was and when he lived and his role in church history?

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Of course they are both to him. How can you answer somebody without saying it to them?

My definition of QEOS comes from BDAG. Notice on the classification for Christ.

As for the doubts of the vocative.. go do a search, see for yourself. You'll see just how improbable the position is that Christ is being directly addressed.

Theodore of Mopsuestia states: “He says to Thomas: Put your finger in here, and look at my hands, and stretch out your hand, and put it into my side, and don’t be incredulous, but steadfast [in your faith]. He [Jesus] says: Because you do not believe, and you think that touch alone will suffice for you to believe-even saying things of this nature-? I have not been unknown to you?-touch with your hand and make the experiment, and learn to believe and not to mistrust. Thomas, indeed, when thus he had believed, says 'My Lord and my God.' [Thomas] is not saying [Jesus] himself is Lord and God, for knowledge of the resurrection was not also teaching that God was he who rose again, but as it were, he [Thomas] praises God greatly for the miracle performed.”
tsmith,

I've no idea where to start looking, and google isnt my first port of call. care to list scholarly studies on KURIOS, and the interpretation of John 20:28 issue?

thanks

[Tsmith]

Excuse me TSmith, but I have two problems.

First off, you gave no reference whereas I can look up this text for myself.

Secondly, can you tell me who Theodore was and when he lived and his role in church history?


Patrolpgoe. Patropgoe Graecae, Thomus LXVI, Synesius Epics, Theodorus Mopsuestenus, p 783, 784.

He lived from 350 to 428.

[Tsmith]

tsmith,

I've no idea where to start looking, and google isnt my first port of call. care to list scholarly studies on KURIOS, and the interpretation of John 20:28 issue?

thanks

I have aquired a 200 page study on the matter, however it is an unpublished one. You can do your own search if you'd like through the NT. If you have Bibleworks it will help you, otherwise you can go to www.concordant.info and download their software for free to do the search.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Patrolpgoe. Patropgoe Graecae, Thomus LXVI, Synesius Epics, Theodorus Mopsuestenus, p 783, 784.

He lived from 350 to 428.

Wow. Mohammad lived from 570-632 A.D. That's all I need to know about Mohammad I suppose.

That answers part one. The question had two parts. What was his role in church history?

[Tsmith]

Wow. Mohammad lived from 570-632 A.D. That's all I need to know about Mohammad I suppose.

That answers part one. The question had two parts. What was his role in church history?


Not that it matters, but many consider him a heretic, while others a great theologian. His "role" is not so significant as the fact that he is an ancient source that makes a clear interpretation of the text.

[Tsmith]

Not that it matters, but many consider him a heretic, while others a great theologian. His "role" is not so significant as the fact that he is an ancient source that makes a clear interpretation of the text.
This reference might be useful if you want to learn about him.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14571b.htm

[Shadow Phoenix]

Not that it matters, but many consider him a heretic, while others a great theologian. His "role" is not so significant as the fact that he is an ancient source that makes a clear interpretation of the text.

I'm wondering why this wasn't mentioned first. Why wasn't this guy posted and then said "Oh yeah. He was later condemned as a heretic." Instead, the view given was that this person was entirely orthodox. Rather misleading isn't it?

Now can you try to find a better reference?

[Shadow Phoenix]

This reference might be useful if you want to learn about him.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14571b.htm

By the way, the other references I gave also clearly interpreted the text. I wonder why we should discount their view?

[Jaltus]

There is good reason for taking this verse as an expression of praise to God in response to Christ's comission to start believing. I would suggest doing a bit of research on the use of KURIOS in the NT when used in address. Doing so might give you a fuller understanding of the grammatical reasons for holding this view.

It might also help to notice that Domitian demanded this same address since he wanted to be known as a living deity.

Or did you not notice this in Dio?

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Tsmith, if it doesnt matter whether Theodore was a heretic, why not quote Sun Myung Moon to support the Watchtower's view of Jesus' resurrection?

[Tsmith]

I'm wondering why this wasn't mentioned first. Why wasn't this guy posted and then said "Oh yeah. He was later condemned as a heretic." Instead, the view given was that this person was entirely orthodox. Rather misleading isn't it?

Now can you try to find a better reference?


Now why would I exactly care about orthodoxy? I'm not what you would consider it, am I? He was not Arian at all anyway. The point is that his view is one of the oldest out there.

[Tsmith]

By the way, the other references I gave also clearly interpreted the text. I wonder why we should discount their view?


Tertullian was the only one that did actually.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Now why would I exactly care about orthodoxy? I'm not what you would consider it, am I? He was not Arian at all anyway. The point is that his view is one of the oldest out there.

Actually, I posted four older views out there and now Jaltus has added his own post as well.

If you're going for the oldest view, then you need to reject the Arian translation. For one thing, Arian was responded to because it differed from orthodoxy which shows our belief was older than Arianism.

Furthermore, if anyone is teaching on a certain subject and includes the verse in it, the inclusion itself implies an interpretation. If I was preaching a sermon on the deity of Christ at a church (From an orthodox view since I might have to qualify that) and I included John 20:28, do you really have to wonder "Now how does he understand that verse?" Everything you read is interpreted. The point is, are you giving it the interpretation the author intended.

[Tsmith]

Actually, I posted four older views out there and now Jaltus has added his own post as well.

If you're going for the oldest view, then you need to reject the Arian translation. For one thing, Arian was responded to because it differed from orthodoxy which shows our belief was older than Arianism.

Furthermore, if anyone is teaching on a certain subject and includes the verse in it, the inclusion itself implies an interpretation. If I was preaching a sermon on the deity of Christ at a church (From an orthodox view since I might have to qualify that) and I included John 20:28, do you really have to wonder "Now how does he understand that verse?" Everything you read is interpreted. The point is, are you giving it the interpretation the author intended.

You posted three quotes from one person, and then from another person who actually did nothing but quote the text. Tertullian was technically a heretic too, so go figure.

John 20:28's reading is much fuller if you read it in Greek than English. The case system helps significantly. Of course you simply refuse to do the investigation I requirest. You seem to forget that I actually lack a theological agenda with this verse, as I'm comfortable with it either way. You are the one with the agenda of proving a doctrine this text does not prove.

That having been said, unless you can actually provide some grammatical substance into this thread, I see no reason to continue you. It has become more of a shouting match than anything at this point.