Unchained Radio and the Holy Spirit

[Shadow Phoenix]

Alright. Maybe I'm opening up a can of worms for another long long thread. However, Gene Cook had yet another program on unchainedradio.com concerning the Holy Spirit.

To begin with, one JW called in and when asked if there was any other reference that talked about a non-person willing, the JW told Gene to go to John 3:8. The NWT translates this, as do many other translations admittingly, as wind. (Interestingly, the KIT translates it as Spirit.) Furthermore, it's still the same word of "Pneuma." It could be translated as wind, breath, or spirit.

Furthermore, consider how the ANF translated this verse:

Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians:

For though some would have deceived me according to the flesh, yet the Spirit, as being from God, is not deceived. For it knows both whence it comes and whither it goes

Origen de Principiis Book 1:

We must understand, therefore, that as the Son, who alone knows the Father, reveals Him to whom He will, so the Holy Spirit, who alone searches the deep things of God, reveals God to whom He will: "For the Spirit bloweth where He listeth

A Treatise on re-baptism by an Anonymous Writer:

And the Spirit, indeed, continues to this day invisible to men, as the Lord says, "The Spirit breathes where He will; and thou knowest not whence He cometh, or whither He goeth."

However, after all that, Gene asked the JW to answer how the Holy Spirit can will in 1 Cor. 12:11. Immediately, he was hung up on. So now, since one couldn't answer, let's see if any JWs on here can do any better. How can the Holy Spirit distribute gifts as he wills in 1 Cor. 12:11 if he is not a person?

[Sparko]

Actually the question was something like "well what does the verse (1 cor 12:11) mean then? explain it to me."

[Shadow Phoenix]

Actually the question was something like "well what does the verse (1 cor 12:11) mean then? explain it to me."

That was it clearly. I didn't remember everything exactly about it. I do think it's an important point. You can throw what you think is a bad interpretation, but can you replace it with a better one?

[Tsmith]

Alright. Maybe I'm opening up a can of worms for another long long thread. However, Gene Cook had yet another program on unchainedradio.com concerning the Holy Spirit.

To begin with, one JW called in and when asked if there was any other reference that talked about a non-person willing, the JW told Gene to go to John 3:8. The NWT translates this, as do many other translations admittingly, as wind. (Interestingly, the KIT translates it as Spirit.) Furthermore, it's still the same word of "Pneuma." It could be translated as wind, breath, or spirit.

Furthermore, consider how the ANF translated this verse:

Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians:

For though some would have deceived me according to the flesh, yet the Spirit, as being from God, is not deceived. For it knows both whence it comes and whither it goes

Origen de Principiis Book 1:

We must understand, therefore, that as the Son, who alone knows the Father, reveals Him to whom He will, so the Holy Spirit, who alone searches the deep things of God, reveals God to whom He will: "For the Spirit bloweth where He listeth

A Treatise on re-baptism by an Anonymous Writer:

And the Spirit, indeed, continues to this day invisible to men, as the Lord says, "The Spirit breathes where He will; and thou knowest not whence He cometh, or whither He goeth."

However, after all that, Gene asked the JW to answer how the Holy Spirit can will in 1 Cor. 12:11. Immediately, he was hung up on. So now, since one couldn't answer, let's see if any JWs on here can do any better. How can the Holy Spirit distribute gifts as he wills in 1 Cor. 12:11 if he is not a person?


The answer is quite simple in that it is a personification to describe the activity from a human perspective.

[Shadow Phoenix]

The answer is quite simple in that it is a personification to describe the activity from a human perspective.

Except there's no reason I should read this as a personification. Now weren't JWs the one who simply believed what the Bible says? Why not believe this one as is?

[Tsmith]

Except there's no reason I should read this as a personification. Now weren't JWs the one who simply believed what the Bible says? Why not believe this one as is?


There is no reason I shouldn't.

[Shadow Phoenix]

There is no reason I shouldn't.

You're the one making the claim. If you say it's a personfication, give a reason why that should be believed

[Tsmith]

You're the one making the claim. If you say it's a personfication, give a reason why that should be believed

Because personification is very common within Jewish literature.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Because personification is very common within Jewish literature.

Of course personification is common. In the gospels, Jesus's parables are also common but that doesn't mean that all he said was a parable. The question that has to be asked is "Does the text give any indication that this is a personification?"

[Tsmith]

Of course personification is common. In the gospels, Jesus's parables are also common but that doesn't mean that all he said was a parable. The question that has to be asked is "Does the text give any indication that this is a personification?"

The neuter pronouns help.

[Shadow Phoenix]

The neuter pronouns help.

Evil spirits are neuter also. Does that mean we should see demonic activity as personification?

[Tsmith]

Evil spirits are neuter also. Does that mean we should see demonic activity as personification?

Indeed they are, but the key is that if the author here is attempting to show one as a person, he could use the masculine pronoun. He didn't.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Indeed they are, but the key is that if the author here is attempting to show one as a person, he could use the masculine pronoun. He didn't.

Simply because the noun is neuter. THe pronoun has to match. There wasn't a new word invented to define the Holy Spirit. The word was already pneuma so when they spoke of the Spirit, they used the word "pneuma."

[Tsmith]

Simply because the noun is neuter. THe pronoun has to match. There wasn't a new word invented to define the Holy Spirit. The word was already pneuma so when they spoke of the Spirit, they used the word "pneuma."


As Jaltus should be able to tell you, that isn't exactly true. There is grammatical gender and there is sense gender. It is not uncommon for the Greek authors to override the grammatical gender with sense gender, where the pronoun is a different gender than that of the noun.

[Sparko]

As Jaltus should be able to tell you, that isn't exactly true. There is grammatical gender and there is sense gender. It is not uncommon for the Greek authors to override the grammatical gender with sense gender, where the pronoun is a different gender than that of the noun.

You mean like in John 16, where John uses ekeinos?

13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you.

==

didn't you also make a point, TSmith, of saying that the Holy Spirit is never quoted directly as speaking?

Acts 13:2 (NWT) 2 As they were publicly ministering to Jehovah and fasting, the holy spirit said: “Of all persons set Bar´na·bas and Saul apart for me for the work to which I have called them.”

He also calls himself "me" and "I" - very personal pronouns.

also the Holy Spirit speaks directly in

Acts 8.29: The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it."

Acts 10:19: "While Peter thought about the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are seeking you."



Rev. 22.17: The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!"

[Tsmith]

You mean like in John 16, where John uses ekeinos?

13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you.


This is a case of grammatical gender. Why can I say that for certain? Because if we look in John 14:26 we find the same thing, where the masculine pronoun is used, but the key here is that the relative pronoun is actually neuter.



==

didn't you also make a point, TSmith, of saying that the Holy Spirit is never quoted directly as speaking?

Acts 13:2 (NWT) 2 As they were publicly ministering to Jehovah and fasting, the holy spirit said: “Of all persons set Bar´na·bas and Saul apart for me for the work to which I have called them.”

He also calls himself "me" and "I" - very personal pronouns.

also the Holy Spirit speaks directly in

Acts 8.29: The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it."

Acts 10:19: "While Peter thought about the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are seeking you."



Rev. 22.17: The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!"


There are two different verbs in play here, say and speak. Even the law is said to say things, but certainly we do not argue it speaks. As for the personal pronouns, there are a number of views on these, but personally I take this text to be the holy spirit bringing these thoughts to their mind from God, and so logically the holy spirit there uses those pronouns.

[Jaltus]

As Jaltus should be able to tell you, that isn't exactly true. There is grammatical gender and there is sense gender. It is not uncommon for the Greek authors to override the grammatical gender with sense gender, where the pronoun is a different gender than that of the noun.

I think you are referring to "attraction." You are somewhat correct and somewhat incorrect.

In certain instances, a neuter noun will gain a masculine or feminine pronoun. This is the case (IIRC, this is off the top of my head) for the Holy Spirit in Hebrews 2 (masculine pronoun).

[Shadow Phoenix]

I think you are referring to "attraction." You are somewhat correct and somewhat incorrect.

In certain instances, a neuter noun will gain a masculine or feminine pronoun. This is the case (IIRC, this is off the top of my head) for the Holy Spirit in Hebrews 2 (masculine pronoun).

Jaltus. When I look at John 14:26 it seems the first relative (Forgive me but it's hard to write Greek accents in this format) refers to paraklhtos which would be the comforter, the advocate, which the appositive identifies as the Holy Spirit. Since pneuma is there, then we have the second relative pronoun for "which" right after the word hagion. In this case, it refers back to its antecedent of pneuma.

The reason the Holy Spirit is neuter is because he's usually identified as to pneuma to hagion, the spirit of holiness, and the writers of the NT did not make up a new word for the Holy Spirit.

[Tsmith]

I think you are referring to "attraction." You are somewhat correct and somewhat incorrect.

In certain instances, a neuter noun will gain a masculine or feminine pronoun. This is the case (IIRC, this is off the top of my head) for the Holy Spirit in Hebrews 2 (masculine pronoun).

It is called constructio ad sensum, where natural gender takes priority over grammatical gender.

[Tsmith]

Jaltus. When I look at John 14:26 it seems the first relative (Forgive me but it's hard to write Greek accents in this format) refers to paraklhtos which would be the comforter, the advocate, which the appositive identifies as the Holy Spirit. Since pneuma is there, then we have the second relative pronoun for "which" right after the word hagion. In this case, it refers back to its antecedent of pneuma.

The reason the Holy Spirit is neuter is because he's usually identified as to pneuma to hagion, the spirit of holiness, and the writers of the NT did not make up a new word for the Holy Spirit.

Nick,

You would be correct, though if you are refering to EKEINOS, it is a demonstrative pronouns, while hOS is the relative pronoun. These are cases of grammatical gender. An example of the constructo ad sensum that I mentioned, where natural gender is used, notice Romans 2:14 where EQHN is neuter while hOUOI is masculine.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Nick,

You would be correct, though if you are refering to EKEINOS, it is a demonstrative pronouns, while hOS is the relative pronoun. These are cases of grammatical gender. An example of the constructo ad sensum that I mentioned, where natural gender is used, notice Romans 2:14 where EQHN is neuter while hOUOI is masculine.

I do notice a change in the style of discourse. I appreciate the civility. There is a difference and it is refreshing.

No. I'm not referring to ekeinos. I do know what a relative pronoun is and a demonstrative pronoun. I'm simply saying that each has a clear antecedent in the text that matches. My argument will still be that there was no need to create a new word for the Holy Spirit so pneuma, a neuter word, would be used.

[Jaltus]

It is called constructio ad sensum, where natural gender takes priority over grammatical gender.

I have not seen this argued for Koine or Classical. I know it happens for Latin languages however (read enough French, for example).

Do you have evidence for this phenomena not being attraction in Greek?

[Jaltus]

I see the Romans 2:14 example. I will look into it and get back to you.

[Shadow Phoenix]

I see the Romans 2:14 example. I will look into it and get back to you.

Jaltus. May I propose a theory seeing as the same kind of thing happens in Matthew 28:19 where eqnh is used, but the pronoun applied is autous, the masculine accusative plural.

We have to remember that the biblical society was patriarchial. Jesus says for instance, "Man does not live by bread alone." Well we know that doesn't exclude women, but the male was often used in a more generic sense to include men and women.

Thus, since the emphasis was on the man, and the nations consisted of males and females, could the masculine plural pronouns be used simply to point to the persons within the nations rather than the nations as a whole themselves?

Just a theory.

[Sparko]

This is a case of grammatical gender. Why can I say that for certain? Because if we look in John 14:26 we find the same thing, where the masculine pronoun is used, but the key here is that the relative pronoun is actually neuter.





There are two different verbs in play here, say and speak. Even the law is said to say things, but certainly we do not argue it speaks. As for the personal pronouns, there are a number of views on these, but personally I take this text to be the holy spirit bringing these thoughts to their mind from God, and so logically the holy spirit there uses those pronouns.


I disagree. The actual words the Holy Spirit said are quoted. It is not like saying "The holy spirit told me to go to damascus"

The Holy Spirit is quoted as speaking exact words. If the HS was just an impersonal force that represented God, then it would have said "God said," etc. instead it attributes the words to the HS directly, and the HS uses the words ME and I.

[Tsmith]

I disagree. The actual words the Holy Spirit said are quoted. It is not like saying "The holy spirit told me to go to damascus"

The Holy Spirit is quoted as speaking exact words. If the HS was just an impersonal force that represented God, then it would have said "God said," etc. instead it attributes the words to the HS directly, and the HS uses the words ME and I.


Actually, if God used the holy spirit to communicate these things to the minds of those disciples, it would rightfully be said that the holy spirit said. Hence, we can find examples where "Isaiah said" and yet "the holy spirit said through Isaiah" or when David said something but we find "the holy spirit said".

[Sparko]

Actually, if God used the holy spirit to communicate these things to the minds of those disciples, it would rightfully be said that the holy spirit said. Hence, we can find examples where "Isaiah said" and yet "the holy spirit said through Isaiah" or when David said something but we find "the holy spirit said".

:ahem:

but in order for that to occur, the holy spirit would have to be a person. How can an impersonal force SAY anything. Hmmm????
you are stretching again.

Isaiah was a PERSON, David was a PERSON. the Holy Spirit is a PERSON.
The plain reading of the text means the Holy Spirit is a person. When is the last time a force referred to itself as "me" and "I"???

[Tsmith]

:ahem:

but in order for that to occur, the holy spirit would have to be a person. How can an impersonal force SAY anything. Hmmm????
you are stretching again.

Isaiah was a PERSON, David was a PERSON. the Holy Spirit is a PERSON.
The plain reading of the text means the Holy Spirit is a person. When is the last time a force referred to itself as "me" and "I"???

But the holy spirit speaks THROUGH the person. It causes the person to say something. The same "I" is attributed to the holy spirit that is attributed to Isaiah that is attributed to Jehovah.

[Sparko]

But the holy spirit speaks THROUGH the person. It causes the person to say something. The same "I" is attributed to the holy spirit that is attributed to Isaiah that is attributed to Jehovah.

First, by saying the holy spirit speaks through a person, you are giving the HS an identity, thereby destroying your own argument.

Second, the quotes I gave you were the Holy Spirit speaking TO people not through them. And the Holy Spirit called himself "ME" and "I" - kinda funny for a force to have an personal pronoun and identity, eh?

[Tsmith]

First, by saying the holy spirit speaks through a person, you are giving the HS an identity, thereby destroying your own argument.

Second, the quotes I gave you were the Holy Spirit speaking TO people not through them. And the Holy Spirit called himself "ME" and "I" - kinda funny for a force to have an personal pronoun and identity, eh?


Not at all. The very fact that the holy spirit speaks through people and not in and of itself is actually a powerful point against the personhood of the holy spirit. Whenever the holy spirit is attributed as saying something, no person or voice ever appears. As I have pointed out, for the holy spirit to say "I" comes as no surprise, for Isaiah said "I" and the words are attributed to him, yet those same words are attributed to the holy spirit. This is divine inspiration, communicated by the holy spirit, nothing more.

[Sparko]

Whenever the holy spirit is attributed as saying something, no person or voice ever appears.

What are you talking about??????

Read the quotes I gave. IT WAS THE HOLY SPIRIT TALKING. SPEAKING. SAYING WORDS. THAT MEANS A VOICE. Personal. hello???

Acts 13:2 (NWT) 2 As they were publicly ministering to Jehovah and fasting, the holy spirit said: “Of all persons set Bar´na·bas and Saul apart for me for the work to which I have called them.”

HOLY SPIRIT SPEAKING WITH A VOICE.


Acts 8.29: The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it."

DITTO


Rev. 22.17: The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!"

RE-DITTO.

Acts 10:19: While Peter thought about the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are seeking you."

RE-RE-DITTO. And if you read previous it specifically says Peter heard a voice telling him to "get up, kill and eat" and logically it is the same voice that is identified in verse 19 as the Spirit.


sheesh!

[Tsmith]

What are you talking about??????

Read the quotes I gave. IT WAS THE HOLY SPIRIT TALKING. SPEAKING. SAYING WORDS. THAT MEANS A VOICE. Personal. hello???

Acts 13:2 (NWT) 2 As they were publicly ministering to Jehovah and fasting, the holy spirit said: “Of all persons set Bar´na·bas and Saul apart for me for the work to which I have called them.”

HOLY SPIRIT SPEAKING WITH A VOICE.


Acts 8.29: The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it."

DITTO


Rev. 22.17: The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!"

RE-DITTO.

Acts 10:19: While Peter thought about the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are seeking you."

RE-RE-DITTO. And if you read previous it specifically says Peter heard a voice telling him to "get up, kill and eat" and logically it is the same voice that is identified in verse 19 as the Spirit.


sheesh!


You are mixing up the word "say" and "speak". You can say things by speaking, but in Greek they are two very different verbs. Many things are said to "say" things in scripture, but not "speak". The only time the holy spirit is ever said to "speak" is when it is done through a person, never on its own.

[exaJeet]

You are mixing up the word "say" and "speak". You can say things by speaking, but in Greek they are two very different verbs. Many things are said to "say" things in scripture, but not "speak". The only time the holy spirit is ever said to "speak" is when it is done through a person, never on its own.


ROFL.... you cant be serious????




:badger: <--- Tsmith doing his syntactical gymnastics again.


...look, mom, a dancing bear!


:popcorn: <--- exaJeet





exaJeet.

[Tsmith]

ROFL.... you cant be serious????




:badger: <--- Tsmith doing his syntactical gymnastics again.


...look, mom, a dancing bear!


:popcorn: <--- exaJeet





exaJeet.


Exajeet, are you seriously going to try and argue that every time we find LEGW that speaking is involved? Such a notion is extremely easy to disprove!

[Sparko]

You are mixing up the word "say" and "speak". You can say things by speaking, but in Greek they are two very different verbs. Many things are said to "say" things in scripture, but not "speak". The only time the holy spirit is ever said to "speak" is when it is done through a person, never on its own.

ROFL!!!

:rofl:

Exajeet is right. You are trying to play your semantics card again.

It specifically says Peter HEARD A VOICE in the last example I gave. It specifically says that the Holy spirit SAID and then quoted the exact words in the other examples as well.


Acts 13:2 (NWT) 2 As they were publicly ministering to Jehovah and fasting, the holy spirit said: “Of all persons set Bar´na·bas and Saul apart for me for the work to which I have called them.”

The word used for "said" is "epo" which is translated as "speak" 57 times in the KJV. The definition is "to SPEAK, say"

I guess if you are right and the greek word for "speak" is only used for a person, you just shot yourself in the foot again.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Even if it does mean other things at other times, what is the basis for saying that it mean that necessarily in the case of the Holy Spirit? When the text says they heard a voice and 1 Tim. 4:1 even uses the word "rhema" for words the Holy Spirit is saying, then there's still strong evidence.

[Tsmith]

ROFL!!!

:rofl:

Exajeet is right. You are trying to play your semantics card again.

It specifically says Peter HEARD A VOICE in the last example I gave. It specifically says that the Holy spirit SAID and then quoted the exact words in the other examples as well.


Acts 13:2 (NWT) 2 As they were publicly ministering to Jehovah and fasting, the holy spirit said: “Of all persons set Bar´na·bas and Saul apart for me for the work to which I have called them.”

The word used for "said" is "epo" which is translated as "speak" 57 times in the KJV. The definition is "to SPEAK, say"

I guess if you are right and the greek word for "speak" is only used for a person, you just shot yourself in the foot again.


I don't know what Greek text you are supposedly reading from, but the word there is EIPEN, a form of LEGW, not LALEW, the verb for speaking.

[Tsmith]

Even if it does mean other things at other times, what is the basis for saying that it mean that necessarily in the case of the Holy Spirit? When the text says they heard a voice and 1 Tim. 4:1 even uses the word "rhema" for words the Holy Spirit is saying, then there's still strong evidence.


Care to explain to me as to how you see RHTWS helping your position? The word simply means that it is exactly what the spirit is saying. The law could RHTWS LEGEI too.

[Sparko]

I don't know what Greek text you are supposedly reading from, but the word there is EIPEN, a form of LEGW, not LALEW, the verb for speaking.

The transliterated word is "Epo" Smith. I would figure that a greek expert like you would know that. :teeth:

here is the information on the word.

http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2036

Defintion: to speak, say

translated words in the KJV: as speak 57 times.

funny how a word that doesn't mean speaking is translated as speak 57 times in the bible, huh? Want me to find all 57 times for you to prove that it is used for actual speaking, with a voice and everything?

You don't seem as sure of your self on this thread as you were in the other one. What happened? Doesn't the watchtower cover this verse?

[Tsmith]

The transliterated word is "Epo" Smith. I would figure that a greek expert like you would know that. :teeth:

here is the information on the word.

http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2036

Defintion: to speak, say

translated words in the KJV: as speak 57 times.

funny how a word that doesn't mean speaking is translated as speak 57 times in the bible, huh? Want me to find all 57 times for you to prove that it is used for actual speaking, with a voice and everything?

You don't seem as sure of your self on this thread as you were in the other one. What happened? Doesn't the watchtower cover this verse?

You are confusing a translation provided by a Bible with a meaning. Indeed you can say things by speaking, but as I pointed out, there is actually a verb that means speak, and LEGW is not it. LEGW has a variety of uses outside of speaking.

[Sparko]

You are confusing a translation provided by a Bible with a meaning. Indeed you can say things by speaking, but as I pointed out, there is actually a verb that means speak, and LEGW is not it. LEGW has a variety of uses outside of speaking.

:rofl: funny that the bible translates it as "speak" 57 times but it doesn't mean 'speak' and greek only has one word that really means 'speak' but the silly authors kept using the wrong one.

Just like in english, the greek can have various words that mean 'speak' like in english we have say, talk, speak, yap, yell, preach, orate, verbalise and so on. The word LEGW or Epo means "speak"

You are so funny.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Care to explain to me as to how you see RHTWS helping your position? The word simply means that it is exactly what the spirit is saying. The law could RHTWS LEGEI too.

Find the text and we'll discuss it.

[Tsmith]

:rofl: funny that the bible translates it as "speak" 57 times but it doesn't mean 'speak' and greek only has one word that really means 'speak' but the silly authors kept using the wrong one.

Just like in english, the greek can have various words that mean 'speak' like in english we have say, talk, speak, yap, yell, preach, orate, verbalise and so on. The word LEGW or Epo means "speak"

You are so funny.


LEGW does not mean speak, but can be carried out by means of speaking. Your position is refuted by Acts 8:26 where both "speak" and "say" are used for the same reference.

[Tsmith]

Find the text and we'll discuss it.


I don't need to find such a text, we are talking about language. It is about the meaning of the word.

[Shadow Phoenix]

I don't need to find such a text, we are talking about language. It is about the meaning of the word.

Oh! I see I see! You're allowed to make unsubstantiated claims! Okay. Geez. I just remember seeing you say this.

Care to explain to me as to how you see RHTWS helping your position? The word simply means that it is exactly what the spirit is saying. The law could RHTWS LEGEI too.

I guess we're in the position of saying things are in Scripture that aren't now. Come on T. You made the claim. Back it.

[Tsmith]

Oh! I see I see! You're allowed to make unsubstantiated claims! Okay. Geez. I just remember seeing you say this.



I guess we're in the position of saying things are in Scripture that aren't now. Come on T. You made the claim. Back it.


It is not unsubstantiated. I could say "the Bible says exactly" or something similar. It is the same thing to say as much in Greek. It is just grammar. I don't need to provide a verse to write a sentence, now do I?

[Shadow Phoenix]

It is not unsubstantiated. I could say "the Bible says exactly" or something similar. It is the same thing to say as much in Greek. It is just grammar. I don't need to provide a verse to write a sentence, now do I?

Again, you made a claim. It is up to you to back it. You would require it of me. If you cannot, then 1 Tim. 4:1 stands.

By the way, on the same standard, Acts 13:2 says something similar to our point so it counts as well then.

[Sparko]

LEGW does not mean speak, but can be carried out by means of speaking. Your position is refuted by Acts 8:26 where both "speak" and "say" are used for the same reference.

uh Speak and Say mean the same thing. We can use different words to mean the same thing and so can greek.

and your position is refuted by the 57 times it is translated as "SPEAK" in the bible and every other example of it being used when people are saying words out loud. Why would acts 13:2 be any different? And even if it were not out loud speech it is still speech and the HOLY Spirit SAID the words. The holy spirit USED THE WORDS that are attributed to him. A literal translation of EIPO 'epo' is 'used the words' and that is what the HS did. The words are therefore quoted to him.

And Acts 8:31 Eipen (epo) is used when the Ethiopian speaks OUT LOUD, VERBALLY. Just like it is used in 8:29 when it says the HS SAID UNTO PHILIP, "go to that chariot"

[Tsmith]

Again, you made a claim. It is up to you to back it. You would require it of me. If you cannot, then 1 Tim. 4:1 stands.

By the way, on the same standard, Acts 13:2 says something similar to our point so it counts as well then.


I just backed it up with a nice English sentence to prove my point. I could write it in Greek for you, but you wouldn't be able to read it, so that wouldn't do much good now would it?

[Shadow Phoenix]

I just backed it up with a nice English sentence to prove my point. I could write it in Greek for you, but you wouldn't be able to read it, so that wouldn't do much good now would it?

T. That's a nice assertion. And here I thought you were wanting to discuss Greek.

T. I can read Greek actually. In fact, Jaltus would tell you as such as I've just recently sent him my translation of 1 John as I've sent it to exajeet as well.

Now do you want to back your claim in Greek as I was going to suppose you would do or just use unsubstantiated claims?

[Tsmith]

T. That's a nice assertion. And here I thought you were wanting to discuss Greek.

T. I can read Greek actually. In fact, Jaltus would tell you as such as I've just recently sent him my translation of 1 John as I've sent it to exajeet as well.

Now do you want to back your claim in Greek as I was going to suppose you would do or just use unsubstantiated claims?

See Nick, you entirely miss the point. The same sentence I wrote in English would be found in Greek. Look up the word in a lexicon if you like. Don't argue just to argue as you seem to be doing.

[Shadow Phoenix]

See Nick, you entirely miss the point. The same sentence I wrote in English would be found in Greek. Look up the word in a lexicon if you like. Don't argue just to argue as you seem to be doing.

Actually, I did. I got out my Strong's and looked for the word "Rhema" and didn't find the text that you said was there. That's what I want. The specific text. Now you wanna send Jaltus your translation of 1 John sometime? I actually can read Greek, even if you think I'm blowing smoke.

[Tsmith]

Actually, I did. I got out my Strong's and looked for the word "Rhema" and didn't find the text that you said was there. That's what I want. The specific text. Now you wanna send Jaltus your translation of 1 John sometime? I actually can read Greek, even if you think I'm blowing smoke.

Strong's is not really a lexicon, it provides how the word is translated by the KJV, but does not actually look at the real meaning of the word.. Geat a REAL lexicon. So anyway, my original point stands on the use of the word.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Strong's is not really a lexicon, it provides how the word is translated by the KJV, but does not actually look at the real meaning of the word.. Geat a REAL lexicon. So anyway, my original point stands on the use of the word.

Actually, I use Vine's and Mounce's both. Now it's interesting that everything else has to be explicitly stated in Greek, except what you say.......

Come on T. Either it's there or it isn't. Which is it?

[Tsmith]

Actually, I use Vine's and Mounce's both. Now it's interesting that everything else has to be explicitly stated in Greek, except what you say.......

Come on T. Either it's there or it isn't. Which is it?


We are talking about the meaning of the word. You are arguing it means something it simply doesn't mean. I've given you the meaning.

[Shadow Phoenix]

We are talking about the meaning of the word. You are arguing it means something it simply doesn't mean. I've given you the meaning.

Ah. So all of a sudden, appealing to the Greek isn't an authority. T. You made a claim that you couldn't back. Why not just admit it?

[Tsmith]

Ah. So all of a sudden, appealing to the Greek isn't an authority. T. You made a claim that you couldn't back. Why not just admit it?


What claim did I make? Nothing more than an example of what you COULD say. I backed it up by simply saying it.

[Shadow Phoenix]

What claim did I make? Nothing more than an example of what you COULD say. I backed it up by simply saying it.

Care to explain to me as to how you see RHTWS helping your position? The word simply means that it is exactly what the spirit is saying. The law could RHTWS LEGEI too.

I want to see the Scripture that says this.

[Tsmith]

Care to explain to me as to how you see RHTWS helping your position? The word simply means that it is exactly what the spirit is saying. The law could RHTWS LEGEI too.

I want to see the Scripture that says this.


I didn't say it helps my position, I said it doesn't help yours.

[Shadow Phoenix]

I didn't say it helps my position, I said it doesn't help yours.

T. You made a claim and it wasn't backed. It's best to just admit that.

[Tsmith]

T. You made a claim and it wasn't backed. It's best to just admit that.


Nick, what claim did I make? HOW a word can be used? Yes, I did claim that. Consult a lexicon and see for yourself. Don't be ignorant please. What I stated was entirely grounded in fact, I'm sorry if you have not studied sufficiently to be aware of that, but I gave you a nice English sentence, so if you can read English you can see my point as correct.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Nick, what claim did I make? HOW a word can be used? Yes, I did claim that. Consult a lexicon and see for yourself. Don't be ignorant please. What I stated was entirely grounded in fact, I'm sorry if you have not studied sufficiently to be aware of that, but I gave you a nice English sentence, so if you can read English you can see my point as correct.

T. Ya know, this is what we meant in the other thread. ;-)

Anyhoo. I wasn't wanting an English sentence. I was wanting a Greek one. It's amazing that we can just flip back and forth between the languages as long as we get one that works.

[Tsmith]

T. Ya know, this is what we meant in the other thread. ;-)

Anyhoo. I wasn't wanting an English sentence. I was wanting a Greek one. It's amazing that we can just flip back and forth between the languages as long as we get one that works.

What Nick? That you can't deal with the simple facts? Whatever....

You want me to write a Greek sentence? I've given you the English equivolent. Here is some Greek for you.

hO NOMOS RHTWS LEGEI...

Happy?

[Shadow Phoenix]

What Nick? That you can't deal with the simple facts? Whatever....

You want me to write a Greek sentence? I've given you the English equivolent. Here is some Greek for you.

hO NOMOS RHTWS LEGEI...

Happy?

hehehe. This is getting funny.

You see, earlier, the big deal was made on what words were used. legw vs. lalew. Now, when we come to specific Greek words, it doesn't matter. Yeah. I know you can write down a Greek sentence like that. I'd like to have it seen in Scripture.

Meanwhile, I so love the ranting and such.

[Tsmith]

hehehe. This is getting funny.

You see, earlier, the big deal was made on what words were used. legw vs. lalew. Now, when we come to specific Greek words, it doesn't matter. Yeah. I know you can write down a Greek sentence like that. I'd like to have it seen in Scripture.

Meanwhile, I so love the ranting and such.


Nick,

You argued that the word somehow made the holy spirit speaking, which demonstrated to me that you do not even know the meaning of this word. I gave you an example of an application of the word that could be made, because the definition is nothing like you seem to believe. Your demand to give a scriptural example of it is an impossible request because it is only used ONCE in scripture. However, I've given you the meaning of the word and I've used the word in a sentence to prove my point. If you cannot accept that, you demonstrate that you really do not know what honest scholarship is and that you are arguing simply to argue. Anyone that has a lexicon and can lookup the meaning of the word can see that it has no direct relation to speaking, but it can be involved in communication of any form.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Nick,

You argued that the word somehow made the holy spirit speaking, which demonstrated to me that you do not even know the meaning of this word. I gave you an example of an application of the word that could be made, because the definition is nothing like you seem to believe. Your demand to give a scriptural example of it is an impossible request because it is only used ONCE in scripture. However, I've given you the meaning of the word and I've used the word in a sentence to prove my point. If you cannot accept that, you demonstrate that you really do not know what honest scholarship is and that you are arguing simply to argue. Anyone that has a lexicon and can lookup the meaning of the word can see that it has no direct relation to speaking, but it can be involved in communication of any form.

T. lol. Ad hominems won't help yer case here. It's only making it that much more amusing.

All you had to say is "That specific Scripture isn't in there." It would have been so much easier. Instead, this dodging was going on throughout the whole thing.

Now let's look at the first four words of Mounce's lexicon definition for rhma shall we?

That which is spoken.

He goes on to include dclaration, saying, speech, word.

That which is spoken. Wasn't that the main issue here? The HOly Spirit said but didn't speak? Mounce says "spoke."

[Tsmith]

T. lol. Ad hominems won't help yer case here. It's only making it that much more amusing.

All you had to say is "That specific Scripture isn't in there." It would have been so much easier. Instead, this dodging was going on throughout the whole thing.

Now let's look at the first four words of Mounce's lexicon definition for rhma shall we?

That which is spoken.

He goes on to include dclaration, saying, speech, word.

That which is spoken. Wasn't that the main issue here? The HOly Spirit said but didn't speak? Mounce says "spoke."

BDAG: • r`htw/j (adv. of r`hto,j ‘expressly stated’) pert. to what is stated or has been stated as being precisely so, expressly, explicitly

Thayer: r`htw/j (r`hto,j), adverb, expressly, in express words: r`htw/j le,gei,

Friberg: r`htw/j adverb; expressly, explicitly, in these exact words (1T 4.1)

You are mixing up a verb with an adverb. As you can see, the word simply means "expressly" it is not a verb that means "speaks". It can be used of things spoke, but the word itself does not mean spoke, which itself would actually have to be a verb.

You're not helping your case here at all.

[Shadow Phoenix]

BDAG: • r`htw/j (adv. of r`hto,j ‘expressly stated’) pert. to what is stated or has been stated as being precisely so, expressly, explicitly

Thayer: r`htw/j (r`hto,j), adverb, expressly, in express words: r`htw/j le,gei,

Friberg: r`htw/j adverb; expressly, explicitly, in these exact words (1T 4.1)

You are mixing up a verb with an adverb. As you can see, the word simply means "expressly" it is not a verb that means "speaks". It can be used of things spoke, but the word itself does not mean spoke, which itself would actually have to be a verb.

You're not helping your case here at all.

*Makes a note: Next time they ask for Lexicons, don't bother to look it up.

Let's see, if rhema refers to that which is spoken as a noun, then could it be that the adverb wouldn't be that much different?

[Sparko]

Every thread that Tsmith is in gets bogged down into his dogmatic arguing of a greek word, and derails the entire thread.

Why are you afraid to go into the biblical languages forum, Tsmith? I don't seem to recall you ever going over there. That is the place this kind of junk.

I am starting to think that you don't have any actual arguments, so you try to snow people by dragging the discussion into this kind of arguments about what a particular word in the verse means. And no matter how many real Greek experts (even a Greek professor!) tell you you are wrong, you dogmatically just repeat your baseless assertions.

Stop it.

[Tsmith]

*Makes a note: Next time they ask for Lexicons, don't bother to look it up.

Let's see, if rhema refers to that which is spoken as a noun, then could it be that the adverb wouldn't be that much different?


It is tough for me to determine what the lexicon actually said because you didn't actually quote it, but based on other lexical references, it inclines me to believe that you are confusing what the word means with various applications of the word. The word can be applied to speaking, but it does not mean speaking.

The adverb qualifies the verb, or further describes it. In this case, what the spirit says is explicit. It does not say that the spirit speaks it, in fact a quotation is not provided, just a conceptual reference, from the guidance of the spirit. However, in this case it is "explicit" and so RHTWS is used. Notice that it is here considered to be indirect discourse.

___________________________________________________

Well hit me with a stick and call me stupid, the problem here just dawned on me.

You aren't even looking up the word in the text! The word is RHTWS, not RHMA. You are looking up the wrong word! Even RHMA wouldn't help you though, because Clement uses it when talking about what scripture says.

Back to back posts in response to the same poster are not allowed at TWeb. I have merged the two post together, separated by a line.

The posts were made within the 15 minute time limit to self edit posts and you could have added the second post to the first via edit.

[Tsmith]

Every thread that Tsmith is in gets bogged down into his dogmatic arguing of a greek word, and derails the entire thread.

Why are you afraid to go into the biblical languages forum, Tsmith? I don't seem to recall you ever going over there. That is the place this kind of junk.

I am starting to think that you don't have any actual arguments, so you try to snow people by dragging the discussion into this kind of arguments about what a particular word in the verse means. And no matter how many real Greek experts (even a Greek professor!) tell you you are wrong, you dogmatically just repeat your baseless assertions.

Stop it.


John,

As an FYI, I'm 100% correct in this thread. Nick is in error because he is looking up the wrong word. He needs to learn to read the Greek text so he can check and get the correct word before he argues.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Well hit me with a stick and call me stupid, the problem here just dawned on me.

You aren't even looking up the word in the text! The word is RHTWS, not RHMA. You are looking up the wrong word! Even RHMA wouldn't help you though, because Clement uses it when talking about what scripture says.

Fine. My slip-up there. In express words. Expressly.

Perchance then we get back to the point anyhow.

When we see the Holy Spirit communicating personal thoughts, as he even searches the deep things of God, we have no reason to think he isn't a person generally. What reason is there to think otherwise? I've seen the personification card played, but why should anyone think these are personfications?

[Sparko]

John,

As an FYI, I'm 100% correct in this thread. Nick is in error because he is looking up the wrong word. He needs to learn to read the Greek text so he can check and get the correct word before he argues.

Smith you are always 100% right, in your HEAD.

You are dogmatic, unteachable and pride filled. This thread, being basically about the meaning of words, is understandable for deteriorating into a Tsmith grammer mud slinging contest, but I am serious... you need to take these kind of arguments to the biblical languages forum.

Since your one trick pony is to try to devolve a thread into arguing about grammatical nuances of words in greek, why don't you hang out over in Biblical languages? Could it be because you know you are full of it and don't know as much as you pretend to?

:chicken:

[Tsmith]

Smith you are always 100% right, in your HEAD.

You are dogmatic, unteachable and pride filled. This thread, being basically about the meaning of words, is understandable for deteriorating into a Tsmith grammer mud slinging contest, but I am serious... you need to take these kind of arguments to the biblical languages forum.

Since your one trick pony is to try to devolve a thread into arguing about grammatical nuances of words in greek, why don't you hang out over in Biblical languages? Could it be because you know you are full of it and don't know as much as you pretend to?

:chicken:

It has nothing to do with dogmatics, pride or anything. It is the simple fact that Nick has been looking up the wrong word.

[Tsmith]

Fine. My slip-up there. In express words. Expressly.

Perchance then we get back to the point anyhow.

When we see the Holy Spirit communicating personal thoughts, as he even searches the deep things of God, we have no reason to think he isn't a person generally. What reason is there to think otherwise? I've seen the personification card played, but why should anyone think these are personfications?

Well I've already given you one. The neuter pronouns are always used, when the authors had the option if they so chose to use the masculine pronouns. I could just as well ask you, why shouldn't we think these are personifications. As I have pointed out in this thread, Israel (in the OT) did not consider the holy spirit to be an independant person, why should I?

[Sparko]

It has nothing to do with dogmatics, pride or anything. It is the simple fact that Nick has been looking up the wrong word.

yeah and when you pointed it out, he agreed and apologized. Showing that he is NOT dogmatic or boneheaded like you are, Mr. 100% right.

You never did answer my last post on the word epo in here either.

Your whole argument about an adjective with Nick has been a side track anyway. That is your specialty. Drag a thread into a side track back alley to derail the thread till people get so bored or frustrated with your style that they leave and you can 'claim' victory, at least in your own head.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Well I've already given you one. The neuter pronouns are always used, when the authors had the option if they so chose to use the masculine pronouns. I could just as well ask you, why shouldn't we think these are personifications. As I have pointed out in this thread, Israel (in the OT) did not consider the holy spirit to be an independant person, why should I?

As for neuter pronouns, let's define appositives.....

Now let's look at what else Israel didn't believe, assuming for the sake of argument your beliefs on the Holy Spirit in the OT are correct. (Note: I'm just assuming. Not saying.)

The Jews also didn't believe the Messiah would die on a cross for their sins. Why should I?

The Jews also didn't believe in a New Testament that would be gathered later and would be called Scripture. Why should I?

The Jews didn't believe in an individual resurrection of a Messiah but in a general all-encompassing last day's resurrection. Why should I believe in one?

THere's this little thing T called "Progressive Revelation." The NT revealed new truths about the nature of God.

[Tsmith]

As for neuter pronouns, let's define appositives.....

Now let's look at what else Israel didn't believe, assuming for the sake of argument your beliefs on the Holy Spirit in the OT are correct. (Note: I'm just assuming. Not saying.)

The Jews also didn't believe the Messiah would die on a cross for their sins. Why should I?

The Jews also didn't believe in a New Testament that would be gathered later and would be called Scripture. Why should I?

The Jews didn't believe in an individual resurrection of a Messiah but in a general all-encompassing last day's resurrection. Why should I believe in one?

THere's this little thing T called "Progressive Revelation." The NT revealed new truths about the nature of God.

The difference is that one is an interpretation of prophecy and something to look for in the future, while the holy spirit was a present experience for them. Quite different. Jesus said the Jews worshipped what they knew, and that was God. They knew who he was, there was no further revelation needed.

[Shadow Phoenix]

The difference is that one is an interpretation of prophecy and something to look for in the future, while the holy spirit was a present experience for them. Quite different. Jesus said the Jews worshipped what they knew, and that was God. They knew who he was, there was no further revelation needed.

Have you read Leon Morris on John 4:22? To quote NICNT page 238.

"Both his 'you' and 'we' are emphatic. He sets Jews and Samaritans in sharp contrast. And he associates himself quite definitely with the Jews. They do know what they worship. Jesus uses the neuter, "that which," and not the masculine, "him whom," as might have been expected. This may point to the whole system of worship. (cf. Goodspeed: "You worship something you know nothing about") and not confine itself specifically to the knowledge of God. The reason for the superior knowledge of the Jews is that salvation (This is John's one use of the term) comes from among them.

What is being said is of course not that they had an exhaustive knowledge of the God who they served. It was that their knowledge was rooted in truth whereas that of the Samaritans was not.

Also, consider what Westcott says

22. Ye (emphatic) worship ye know not what ( that which ye know not ) (Vulg. adoratis quod nescitis )] Your worship, that is, is directed to One with whose character, as He has revealed Himself through the prophets and in the history of His people, you are really unacquainted. You know whom to worship, but you do not know Him. By confining your faith to the law you condemn yourselves to ignorance of the God of Israel. We Jews, on the other hand (the pronoun again is emphatic), worship that which we know; for the promised salvation is of the Jews. The power of Judaism lay in the fact that it was not simple deism, but the gradual preparation for the Incarnation. The Jew therefore knew that which he worshipped , so far as the will, and in that the nature, of God was gradually unfolded before him. Contrast 8:54. ye ... we ...] The sharp contrast between Samaritans and Jews which runs through the narrative (vv. 9, 20, ye say ), and the pointed reference to “the Jews” which follows, fix beyond all reasonable doubt the interpretation of the pronouns. what ...] not Him whom ... The abstract form suggests the notion of God, so far as His attributes and purposes were made known, rather than of God as a Person, revealed to men at last in the Son: 14:9. Compare Acts 17:23 ( o} ou\n ). salvation ] Rather, the promised and expected salvation ( hJ swthriva ) to be realised in the mission of Messiah. So Acts 4:12. Compare Acts 13:26. See also Rev. 7:10, 12:10, 19:1.
is of ...] that is, “proceeds from” ( ejstivn ejk ), not “belongs to.” Comp. John 1:46, note, 7:22, 52, (10:16). The thought is expressed in a symbol in Rev. 12:5.

Also, Jesus does state that the Jews do not know God in John 7:28, but he does.

Also John 1:18 says that Jesus has revealed God to the world. In fact, the word used is the exhghsato is the word we get our word "exegete" from. In essence, Jesus exegetes the Father. Apparently, in Jesus we have a new revelation of God.

And if there is no need of any new revelation anyhow, I might as well chuck out my NT.

[Tsmith]

Have you read Leon Morris on John 4:22? To quote NICNT page 238.

"Both his 'you' and 'we' are emphatic. He sets Jews and Samaritans in sharp contrast. And he associates himself quite definitely with the Jews. They do know what they worship. Jesus uses the neuter, "that which," and not the masculine, "him whom," as might have been expected. This may point to the whole system of worship. (cf. Goodspeed: "You worship something you know nothing about") and not confine itself specifically to the knowledge of God. The reason for the superior knowledge of the Jews is that salvation (This is John's one use of the term) comes from among them.

What is being said is of course not that they had an exhaustive knowledge of the God who they served. It was that their knowledge was rooted in truth whereas that of the Samaritans was not.

Also, consider what Westcott says

22. Ye (emphatic) worship ye know not what ( that which ye know not ) (Vulg. adoratis quod nescitis )] Your worship, that is, is directed to One with whose character, as He has revealed Himself through the prophets and in the history of His people, you are really unacquainted. You know whom to worship, but you do not know Him. By confining your faith to the law you condemn yourselves to ignorance of the God of Israel. We Jews, on the other hand (the pronoun again is emphatic), worship that which we know; for the promised salvation is of the Jews. The power of Judaism lay in the fact that it was not simple deism, but the gradual preparation for the Incarnation. The Jew therefore knew that which he worshipped , so far as the will, and in that the nature, of God was gradually unfolded before him. Contrast 8:54. ye ... we ...] The sharp contrast between Samaritans and Jews which runs through the narrative (vv. 9, 20, ye say ), and the pointed reference to “the Jews” which follows, fix beyond all reasonable doubt the interpretation of the pronouns. what ...] not Him whom ... The abstract form suggests the notion of God, so far as His attributes and purposes were made known, rather than of God as a Person, revealed to men at last in the Son: 14:9. Compare Acts 17:23 ( o} ou\n ). salvation ] Rather, the promised and expected salvation ( hJ swthriva ) to be realised in the mission of Messiah. So Acts 4:12. Compare Acts 13:26. See also Rev. 7:10, 12:10, 19:1.
is of ...] that is, “proceeds from” ( ejstivn ejk ), not “belongs to.” Comp. John 1:46, note, 7:22, 52, (10:16). The thought is expressed in a symbol in Rev. 12:5.

Also, Jesus does state that the Jews do not know God in John 7:28, but he does.

Also John 1:18 says that Jesus has revealed God to the world. In fact, the word used is the exhghsato is the word we get our word "exegete" from. In essence, Jesus exegetes the Father. Apparently, in Jesus we have a new revelation of God.

And if there is no need of any new revelation anyhow, I might as well chuck out my NT.


Robertson attributes it to the Jews having a "fuller revelation of God". Go figure.

As for John 1:18, yes Jesus did reveal God to the world. I don't disagree. And as for the NT, it is not a revelation of who God is, but what God did and the hope for the future.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Robertson attributes it to the Jews having a "fuller revelation of God". Go figure.

As for John 1:18, yes Jesus did reveal God to the world. I don't disagree. And as for the NT, it is not a revelation of who God is, but what God did and the hope for the future.

Heh. Why am I not surprised? Of course they have a fuller knowledge of God, but certainly not complete.

John 1:18. What does it say? He has revealed what he did? No. It says that he has revealed him. What did he reveal about him? Are you going to reduce God to function or will we learn something about his essence?

[Tsmith]

Heh. Why am I not surprised? Of course they have a fuller knowledge of God, but certainly not complete.

John 1:18. What does it say? He has revealed what he did? No. It says that he has revealed him. What did he reveal about him? Are you going to reduce God to function or will we learn something about his essence?


It says Christ revealed him. He didn't reveal anything about his essence or being, but about his purpose.

[Shadow Phoenix]

It says Christ revealed him. He didn't reveal anything about his essence or being, but about his purpose.

Oh geez. All this time I thought him referred to a person. Now it refers to a function.

Ya know, the word for "no one has seen God" refers to seeing with full understanding. The term "No man" is not in there. It means no one, yet Matthew 18 tells us that the angels see the face of the Father. Thus, no one has known God with full comprehension, but the Son has revealed him. He has shown us the nature of God.

Sorry T. Jesus reveals God's nature. The term "him" makes that clear.

[Tsmith]

Oh geez. All this time I thought him referred to a person. Now it refers to a function.

Ya know, the word for "no one has seen God" refers to seeing with full understanding. The term "No man" is not in there. It means no one, yet Matthew 18 tells us that the angels see the face of the Father. Thus, no one has known God with full comprehension, but the Son has revealed him. He has shown us the nature of God.

Sorry T. Jesus reveals God's nature. The term "him" makes that clear.

"See" is not an "understanding" it is "see". Visual.

[Shadow Phoenix]

"See" is not an "understanding" it is "see". Visual.

Westcott again:

No man hath seen God at any time ( ever yet seen )] Comp. 1 John 4:12. In both places the original of “God” is without the article ( qeovn , not to;n qeovn ). By this manner of expression thought is turned to the divine Nature rather than to the divine Person: “God as God” (comp. John 1:1, n.). The Theophanies under the Old Dispensation did not fall under this category. Comp. Exod. 33:12 ff. (32:30). Even Christ Himself was not “seen” as God. The perception of His true divine Nature was not immediate, but gained by slow processes (John 14:9). The words set aside the false views of Judaism and Heathenism (John 5:37, 1 John 5:20 f.). They do not deny the possibility of a true knowledge of God, but of a natural knowledge of God, such as can be described by “sight.” The sight of God is the final transfiguration of man (1 John 3:2). The simple act of vision is marked here ( eJwvraken , seen ), while in the Epistle it is the calm sight of beholding ( teqevatai ). Comp. John 14:9, 12:45.


While there were theophanies, no one could see God for he dwelt in unapproachable light. But to see Jesus is to see what God is like. If you have seen me, you have seen the Father. Not for same person but for same nature as he distinguishes himself from the Father.

Furthermore, if it just meant visual seeing alone, then what is the point of it? John is saying that no one has really known God in his essential being, until Jesus. Even the rabbis were still in debate over this before Christ.

[Tsmith]

Westcott again:

No man hath seen God at any time ( ever yet seen )] Comp. 1 John 4:12. In both places the original of “God” is without the article ( qeovn , not to;n qeovn ). By this manner of expression thought is turned to the divine Nature rather than to the divine Person: “God as God” (comp. John 1:1, n.). The Theophanies under the Old Dispensation did not fall under this category. Comp. Exod. 33:12 ff. (32:30). Even Christ Himself was not “seen” as God. The perception of His true divine Nature was not immediate, but gained by slow processes (John 14:9). The words set aside the false views of Judaism and Heathenism (John 5:37, 1 John 5:20 f.). They do not deny the possibility of a true knowledge of God, but of a natural knowledge of God, such as can be described by “sight.” The sight of God is the final transfiguration of man (1 John 3:2). The simple act of vision is marked here ( eJwvraken , seen ), while in the Epistle it is the calm sight of beholding ( teqevatai ). Comp. John 14:9, 12:45.


While there were theophanies, no one could see God for he dwelt in unapproachable light. But to see Jesus is to see what God is like. If you have seen me, you have seen the Father. Not for same person but for same nature as he distinguishes himself from the Father.

Furthermore, if it just meant visual seeing alone, then what is the point of it? John is saying that no one has really known God in his essential being, until Jesus. Even the rabbis were still in debate over this before Christ.

To see Jesus is to see the Father, not in nature though, but in activity, because they saw flesh. Jesus revealed the father through his activity, and by his teachings the Father's purpose.

[Shadow Phoenix]

To see Jesus is to see the Father, not in nature though, but in activity, because they saw flesh. Jesus revealed the father through his activity, and by his teachings the Father's purpose.

Again, you're defining God by function. Essence precedes function and the function flows out of the essence. There is new revelation in the NT. No one has seen God, but the Son has revealed him.

[Tsmith]

Again, you're defining God by function. Essence precedes function and the function flows out of the essence. There is new revelation in the NT. No one has seen God, but the Son has revealed him.


No, I'm defining what the verse is speaking of.

[Shadow Phoenix]

No, I'm defining what the verse is speaking of.

Sorry. Verse 18 doesn't mention a function. It says "him." It's talking about the nature of God. Is it really so hard to believe the NT tells us something new about God in a whole new way?

[Tsmith]

Sorry. Verse 18 doesn't mention a function. It says "him." It's talking about the nature of God. Is it really so hard to believe the NT tells us something new about God in a whole new way?


Yes, Jesus declared God, but how? He speaks of God's plan of salvation, he speaks of the end of times, he speaks of the hope we have, her performs many miracles by means of God. You're again reading a view into the text.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Yes, Jesus declared God, but how? He speaks of God's plan of salvation, he speaks of the end of times, he speaks of the hope we have, her performs many miracles by means of God. You're again reading a view into the text.

Reading into? Excuse me. Where do you see miracles in John 1:18? Where do you see salvation or end times? I see revealing HIM. Not what he does.

[Tsmith]

Reading into? Excuse me. Where do you see miracles in John 1:18? Where do you see salvation or end times? I see revealing HIM. Not what he does.

BDAG has some interesting information on this one that you might consider, a parallel where ones "impart information or reveal divine secrets". Is that not exactly what Jesus did by the means I described? Did Jesus not reveal God by being his image, to the point where if you saw Jesus you saw God?

John 1:18 does little to help you, because as your own position must demand, "God" here is only the Father, not the son or the holy spirit or the "Triune being". What Jesus revealed was the Father, and thus if you saw Jesus you saw the Father.

[Shadow Phoenix]

BDAG has some interesting information on this one that you might consider, a parallel where ones "impart information or reveal divine secrets". Is that not exactly what Jesus did by the means I described? Did Jesus not reveal God by being his image, to the point where if you saw Jesus you saw God?

John 1:18 does little to help you, because as your own position must demand, "God" here is only the Father, not the son or the holy spirit or the "Triune being". What Jesus revealed was the Father, and thus if you saw Jesus you saw the Father.

WOW! Keep this up T and you're on the path to becoming a Trinitarian! This is the most orthodox thing I've ever seen you say! Thanks for the BDAG quote! It fits in so perfectly! To see Jesus is to see the Father. Why? They share the same nature. He is the very image!

Keep it up! You're on the right path!

[Tsmith]

WOW! Keep this up T and you're on the path to becoming a Trinitarian! This is the most orthodox thing I've ever seen you say! Thanks for the BDAG quote! It fits in so perfectly! To see Jesus is to see the Father. Why? They share the same nature. He is the very image!

Keep it up! You're on the right path!


It has nothing to do with nature, but activity. They saw flesh, you can hardly compare that to seeing God.

[Shadow Phoenix]

It has nothing to do with nature, but activity. They saw flesh, you can hardly compare that to seeing God.

Are you familiar with Constantinople and what was affirmed about Jesus there? A person is hardly just flesh. We as Trinitarians also point out that the body of Jesus is not God. It's the divine nature that he had in him. Unfortunately, everything you stated had to do with nature. The activity is a working out of the nature.

[Tsmith]

Are you familiar with Constantinople and what was affirmed about Jesus there? A person is hardly just flesh. We as Trinitarians also point out that the body of Jesus is not God. It's the divine nature that he had in him. Unfortunately, everything you stated had to do with nature. The activity is a working out of the nature.


What they saw was flesh, they did not see spirit, as spirit by nature cannot be seen. Activity is not nature, it can be a result of your nature, but they are not the same thing. In the case of Jesus, his activity was in perfect union with the Father, but that didn't make him the same God as the Father, that is just a view you read into the text.

[Shadow Phoenix]

What they saw was flesh, they did not see spirit, as spirit by nature cannot be seen. Activity is not nature, it can be a result of your nature, but they are not the same thing. In the case of Jesus, his activity was in perfect union with the Father, but that didn't make him the same God as the Father, that is just a view you read into the text.

Oh I agree. Which is why you couldn't even say you've ever seen your best friend or anyone like that. You don't see their real nature. You couldn't take your parents, for instance, to a laboratory and break them down cellularly and say "Ah! This cell is really them!" They're more than their bodies.

I agree. Activity is not nature. It comes out of the nature. Out of the innermost of the heart (Nature) the mouth flows. (Activity.)

Now I'm more concerned about your last statement that the activity didn't make him the same God as the Father. That combined with saying God in John 1:18 isn't the Trinity, which you wanted to be sure I understood, shows me you're not working with my view of the Trinity.

For one thing, 1 John 1:18 is definitely the Father. How do I know that? Because the Son comes from him. That's Trinitarian doctrine. THe Son comes from the Father. It's not that the Son comes from the Son.

Also, you say it doesn't make him the same God as the Father. That seems to imply that we believe in three gods at heart. We don't say Jesus is the same person as the Father nor would I say "The same God as the Father." He shares the same nature as the Father fully in every aspect. There is the one divine essence of which the three fully partake.

Also, if God is clearly invisble, which he is, then what does it mean to say he has an image, and why state a redundancy like "No one has ever seen God?" There are different words used for seeing as commentators on John have pointed out, and chances are, there's more than just eye contact meant here especially since many people in the OT saw God.

[Tsmith]

Oh I agree. Which is why you couldn't even say you've ever seen your best friend or anyone like that. You don't see their real nature. You couldn't take your parents, for instance, to a laboratory and break them down cellularly and say "Ah! This cell is really them!" They're more than their bodies.

I agree. Activity is not nature. It comes out of the nature. Out of the innermost of the heart (Nature) the mouth flows. (Activity.)

Now I'm more concerned about your last statement that the activity didn't make him the same God as the Father. That combined with saying God in John 1:18 isn't the Trinity, which you wanted to be sure I understood, shows me you're not working with my view of the Trinity.

For one thing, 1 John 1:18 is definitely the Father. How do I know that? Because the Son comes from him. That's Trinitarian doctrine. THe Son comes from the Father. It's not that the Son comes from the Son.

Also, you say it doesn't make him the same God as the Father. That seems to imply that we believe in three gods at heart. We don't say Jesus is the same person as the Father nor would I say "The same God as the Father." He shares the same nature as the Father fully in every aspect. There is the one divine essence of which the three fully partake.

Also, if God is clearly invisble, which he is, then what does it mean to say he has an image, and why state a redundancy like "No one has ever seen God?" There are different words used for seeing as commentators on John have pointed out, and chances are, there's more than just eye contact meant here especially since many people in the OT saw God.

Well much of that is simply your interpretation of scripture as a whole. You didn't raise any one particular scriptural point, so I'm not going to both actually responding, because it would basically come down to a shouting match of "'you're wrong' 'no, you're wrong'".

[Shadow Phoenix]

Well much of that is simply your interpretation of scripture as a whole. You didn't raise any one particular scriptural point, so I'm not going to both actually responding, because it would basically come down to a shouting match of "'you're wrong' 'no, you're wrong'".

Actually, I listed a number of points and how they differed from your view of my points. If you're expecting everything to be explicit, you'll be lacking. Sorry, but this is part of exegeting the text.

[Tsmith]

Actually, I listed a number of points and how they differed from your view of my points. If you're expecting everything to be explicit, you'll be lacking. Sorry, but this is part of exegeting the text.


Your "points" were all entirely interpretive based on "Trinitarian doctrine", not exegetical based on the text. Now you might be able to make *some* of those same based based on the text (i.e. QEOS in 1:18 is the Father), but you didn't really go into detail to do such.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Your "points" were all entirely interpretive based on "Trinitarian doctrine", not exegetical based on the text. Now you might be able to make *some* of those same based based on the text (i.e. QEOS in 1:18 is the Father), but you didn't really go into detail to do such.

Really? Then explain what all goes into exegesis for me. I'd like to hear it.

[Tsmith]

Really? Then explain what all goes into exegesis for me. I'd like to hear it.

Exegesis is an analysis of what a text says, not reading your view into a text.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Exegesis is an analysis of what a text says, not reading your view into a text.

Swimming can be defined as using your body to move in water. That doesn't tell me how to swim to read the dictionary though. If I'd wanted a definition, I would have asked for the dictionary. I want to know what all goes into the practice of exegesis.

[Cal_Minian]

However, after all that, Gene asked the JW to answer how the Holy Spirit can will in 1 Cor. 12:11. Immediately, he was hung up on. So now, since one couldn't answer, let's see if any JWs on here can do any better. How can the Holy Spirit distribute gifts as he wills in 1 Cor. 12:11 if he is not a person?

Most Trinitarians have an incorrect viewpoint as to what JWs teach on the holy spirit. Interestingly, Trinitarian Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary has just acknowledged a view similar to the JW view and has criticized the standard proof-texts used by Trinitarians to prove the personhood of the holy spirit. First a brief snippet of what JWs teach to illustrate this.


*** g99 1/8 pp. 26-27 What Is God’s Holy Spirit? ***

Power in Action

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

The Bible sometimes speaks of the holy spirit as accomplishing a certain task or of its being in a different location from God. (Matthew 28:19, 20; Luke 3:21, 22; Acts 8:39; 13:4; 15:28, 29) Some who have read such passages assume that the holy spirit has its own identity apart from God. Why is this language used in the Scriptures? Is the holy spirit an entity separate from God?

Almighty God exists on a plane completely beyond that of his material creation. He is a spirit, invisible to our limited senses. (John 4:24) The Bible says that Jehovah God dwells in the heavens and that from there he gazes on mankind. (Psalm 33:13, 14) This is understandable. The Creator must be greater than the elements he isworking with. He masters them, manipulates them, forms them, and controls them.—Genesis 1:1.

From his invisible dwelling place, God can cause things to happen anytime and anywhere. Hence, he does not need to be at thelocation at which his active force operates. He can send his spirit to accomplish a task. (Psalm 104:30) This may be easily understood by people in modern times who operate household appliances by means of wireless remote control. Today we recognize the power of invisible forces such as electricity or infrared waves. Likewise, with his invisible holy force, or spirit, God can accomplish whatever he sets out to do, without transferring himself from one place to another.—Isaiah 55:11.

In Bible times this concept may have been difficult to grasp. Speaking of the holy spirit as a separate force undoubtedly helped readers to comprehend how God exercises his power even though he does not personally place himself at the location of its operation. When the Bible refers to the holy spirit as having done this or that, it is in effect saying that God himself has projected or exerted his power on persons or things to accomplish his will.

The Various Operations of the Holy Spirit

Jehovah made use of holy spirit in the creation of all animate and inanimate things. (Psalm 33:6) God also used it to destroy a violent and unrepentant generation of people by means of a deluge. (Genesis 6:1-22) It was this same active force that God used to transfer the precious life of his Son to the womb of the Jewish virgin Mary.—Luke 1:35.

At times, the spirit energized men to speak the truth boldly and courageously before enemies, often at the risk of their lives. (Micah 3:8) And there are many instances in the Bible, especially involving prophecy, when men and women were given special insight or understanding by means of this force. Since no human can foretell with accuracy what the future holds, this is an outstanding operation of the spirit.—2Peter 1:20, 21.

The spirit can also give individuals miraculous powers. For example, by means of this force, Jesus could control the forces of nature, heal sicknesses, and even raise the dead. (Luke 4:18-21; 8:22-26, 49-56; 9:11) The spirit was instrumental in organizing and energizing the early Christians to serve as God’s witnesses to all the earth.—Acts 1:8; 2:1-47; Romans 15:18, 19; 1Corinthians 12:4-11.


While JW publications have used illustrations and metaphors to help some to see how the holy spirit can accomplish something like electricity that is not the same as saying that we view the holy spirit as equivalent to inannimate electricity.

It is more accurate to say that we view the holy spirit to always refer to the activity of a person like the God and Father of Jesus Christ. Therefore when the spirit wills, it is the will of the Father.

Greek Grammarian Daniel Wallace recently published an article entitled "Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit." In it he said that the proof-texts which try to use grammar to prove the holy spirit is a person because of the personal pronoun "he" in some English bibles are being mis-applied because there is no example where this is legitimate in the Greek text.

He also said that there are no verses where the holy spirit is seen as the primary agent of an activity which is something necessary to prove the personhood of the holy spirit.

Finally he said that all of the texts which are used to show personhood because they appear to present the spirit in a personal way can be understood based upon personification which was prevelant in the OT.

Wallace gives three requirements for proof that the holy spirit is a person and has independant deity.

1) A clear demonstration that the languaage cannot be due to figurative rhetoric or a circumlocution of the divine name.
2) Where he is personal he is also viewed as deity.
3) In those same texts is seen as distinct from the Father and Son.



"Specifically, many of the NT passages that are adduced to show the Spirit's personality or deity find parallels in Philo, intertestamental literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls, or even the OT. Unless we can distinguish the NT from these other ancient sources more clearly, we would either have to say that Philo was a Trinitarian (!) or that the NT authors were not. It is not enough to say either that the Spirit is presented as personal or that he is sometimes not distinguished from God (as in Acts 5:3-4). What also must be done is (1) a clear demonstration that language about the Spirit's personality cannot be due to figurative rhetoric or circumlocution of the divine name, and (2) that where he is viewed as personal he is also viewed as deity, yet, (3) in those same texts, is seen as distinct from both Father and Son." (Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit, Bulletin for Biblical Research 13.1 (2003), pages 123-24)

JWs teach that the holy spirit is presented in exactly the ways that Wallace describes above.

Wallace thus concludes:

“The grammatical basis for the Holy Spirit’s personality is lacking in the NT, yet this is frequently, if not usually, the first line of defense of the doctrine by many evangelical writers. But if grammar cannot legitimately be used to support the Spirit’s personality, then perhaps we need to reexamine the rest of our basis for this theological commitment. I am not denying the doctrine of the Trinity, of course, but I am arguing that we need to ground our beleifs on a more solid foundation -- Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit, Bulletin for Biblical Research 13.1 (2003), ”


I concur.

Cal you were warned specifically via PM not to spam and flood the forum by bumping up old threads and less than an hour later I find you doing it. Not to mention that you were quoting way too much copyrighted text (you can only quote up to two paragraphs of a copyrighted source)