by Amazing1914 26 Replies latest jw friends
Well, just looking at the sentence tells us that the Holy Spirit issued a command, and that the words 'I' and 'me' are used within the sentence to reference the Holy Spirit.
Does this mean the writer was indicating that the Holy Spirit was a person? Not necessarily, and I would say that there is insufficient information contained in this one example to enable one to make a definite conclusion as to the nature of the Holy Spirit.
--VM44
Forgive the short responses from me. The question is not an easy one to try to answer. I have actually been thinking about this for the last few hours. I was even going to look up the sentence in my Kingdom Interlinear to try to gain more insight, but I cannot find my copy of it right now.
--VM44
The Holy Spirit instructed those in Antioch to something for "me" and claims to have personally called them.
I know of no other example of an object being referred to with a singular personal pronoun, but it seems reasonable there might be examples of concepts having a voice given to them as though they were speaking. However, in this case it seems so very specific. It also corresponds nicely to John 14-16.
(KJV) John 16:7, 8 — Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. 8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
Again a personification and a list of things he will do. But I do not believe a difinitive answer is possible, nor do I think it is fruitful or necessary to know this detail.
For those who use the fact that the Holy Spirit filled many people as proof it is not a person, Christ is also spoken of dwelling in us—is Christ also not a person? Christ also poured himself out, is he not a person? Just an extra tidbit to think on.
But, Amazing1914, I don't think there is anything to go on that is concrete enough to argue with either side of this issue. I am convinced by other means that this is not simply a force like electricity. But I also do not believe the divine are as distinctly separate as our temporal mind wants to make them. Trying to fully and distinctly comprehend their nature is a bit like an earthworm attempting to comprehend ours. Doesn't mean the earthworm shouldn't try, though.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul (of the "Earthworm" class)
AuldSoul,
Thanks for the input. I am not looking to prove anything, nor attempt to establish the Trinity. That thread was done separately. I am trying to see how everyone attempts to reason on a clearly stated sentance. Use context surrounding the sentance. Use Bible commentaries like Vines, or Matthew henry's, etc.
Here is what I am seeing. If I were to place any name in the subject sentance, such as the Father, or Jesus, Satan, or Bozo the Clown, everyone would find it easy to agree that the sentance shows the person speaking is a person.
But somehow, the Watchtower has so effectively structured our minds, that when we put the Holy Spirit there, we find it uterly uncmfortable to agree on the meaning. In fact, many seem to want to dance all over the place to excuse the exercise.
If after years of being out of the Watchtower we still stumble over a simple sentance, such that a normal discussion is made awkward and disjointed, just how much power and mind-control did the Society really have over us?
Just read the above responses besides yours. Your comments still showed some awkwardness, but you seem more flexible than the rest. Do you see a pattern in how people react when it comes to a sentance like this? There are no technical problems like John 1:1.
What I see is that the sentance shows the Holy Spirit is speaking in first person, and therefore one should say that in this case, it is a person actually talking. He is telling someone to do something. And then it was obeyed. I am not adding or subtracting anything from it. I have not said that the Holy Spirit is God, nor part of a Trinity. I am not even trying to imply such things. I am simply seeing a holy spirit person talking. Yet the majority seem to want to complicate it, or make it indeterminable, fuzzy, and uncertain.
No wonder Bible reading becomes an exercise in mental gymnastics. The Watchtower has fixed soem things in our minds that will not ever be deprogrammed.
Thanks for your input, I do appreciate it.
Jim Whitney
At the end of the day when all is said and done does it matter which way it is understood? Does it change the meaning or message of Christ?
Maybe the Holy Spirit has duality like electrons. Sometimes they behave like matter with mass, momentum and position and at other times like waves with wavelength.
You are getting at the Trinity issue, and for me the matter is closed by the overall picture presented in the New Testament which clearly shows that there is no Trinity. There is direct evidence that negates the Trinity concept and not indirect such as because three angels appeared to Abraham, that proves the existence of a Trinitarian God.
Narkissos, Spectrum, and Greendawn
Nark: Yes, I saw your linked post on my parody thread. You miss the point of language. If a person says that a car whined, we know that they are using personification, because we know that cars are inanimate non-sentient beings. Common sense demands such, and that is how we know they are using personification in the first place. If I say a soul cried out, am I speaking of a person or energy? Some people believe that souls refer to persons, and some people believe the soul is merely your life force. In some cases, soul can mean both. In a historical narrative, the author is not suddenly waxing poetic, and so there is no basis to employ personification in the interpretation. Angels are Spirits, and they are Holy. God is a Spirit and is Holy. So, when they speak, are they persons or are they personifications of Love or goodness, or some other energy forms?
Spectrum: Yes, it matters, because it changes our relationship to God, and it changes how we interact with God. Forget the Trinity. If the Holy Spirit is a mere divine energy, then our receipt of it is little mre than having a share in some divine power to be able to something, perhaps obey God easier, or have some better insight. Who knows. If the Holy Spirit is a person (even if he is not God or part of a Trinity) we are also called to fellowship with him. I don't know how to fellowship with a ball of electricity. But, if a person, fellowshipping means communication and interaction, and a relationship. That adds a new dynamic to my Christian life, and either way, it does matter.
Greendawn: It is obvious that you are either not reading or are deliberately ignoring what is written. This thread was an exercise to understand one sentence from Acts 13:2 (I inadvertantly forgot to write down the verse number). I carefully constructed the exercise to stay away from the Trinity, but instead to focus on what the passage really says as a stand alone statement. If you read what I wrote to AuldSoul above, and if you carefully consider the disjointed responses from the majority, you will see how many if not most are still damaged in their ability to use constructive reasoning. Instead of talking about a mere sentance, most ex-JW brains immediately start squirming about implications of the Trinity, even when it is not on the table. As for your remark about the Trinity, I care not one whit about the terminology. Instead, having studied the history of what early Christian writers clearly stated, and I posted those clear statements on this forum which you should have read, then the issue is settled that they believed the Trinity. When Clement in 190 AD clearly called God a Trinity of three persons, father, son, and holy spirit, I have no other way to understand what he meant. But, again, that is not the issue with my question about Acts 13:2.
Jim Whitney
Jim,
I am in no way talking down to you. I am simply saying that there is no answer as to why the bible writers spoke in the first person that you will be satisfied with. You would have to ask them why. There could be other reasons why other than that they were trying to say the holy spirit is a person. That is all I am saying. You seem to disagree with many people here who are trying to give you a response. The bible writers would not even be familiar with the term "first person". So I am just saying, you will not find the answer you are looking for.
You keep bringing up the same question in different threads. Even though you change the way you are asking, it still comes down to whether or not there is a trinity. What difference does it make? None at all because our salvation does not depend on it.
I in no way at all believe that the holy spirit is a thing. I have experienced it first hand and like many others can tell you that it is real, can influence and help guide and teach. The Holy Spirit of God has led me out of two cults already in my life and helped me lead my family out. God also used it to intervene to keep me from harming myself when I was in a bad emotional state. I have felt the spirit on me many times. No one can truly understand what it is unless you experince it. I am trying to give you first hand testimony but you will not accept it. But in no way is it a thing. Because then I would have to say God is a thing.
The christian experience is unique to everyone. Sometimes we dont need church fathers or language experts to explain things to us. We read the bible and have a personal experience with our God and he lets each of us, as individuals get the understanding he wants us to have.
I think you have gotten some good responses on this thread and others to help you see how people feel. This is a personal choice. No one will agree with you all the times. You are not showing a mild, christian spirit but rather one of arguementation. It makes no difference if we believe in a trinity or not, so why not just let it go? Thats all I am saying.
I was only responded to the wording of your post. If you ask for an honest answer, you cannot tell someone under what guidelines you will accept an answer, it simply is not fair. I have not influenced anyone on this thread, they all have their own opinions.
Please be in peace about the issue.
Lovelylil,
I am always at peace. In your specific response you only said you don't know why the sentence says what it says. But, but then you go one to add all the dancing around the question by talking about what you believe, a belief I already well know, and not about the structure of a sentance. Therefore, you did not really deal with the question. My comments to AuldSoul and Nark above explain what I have observed and where I was headed with the exercise. We ex-JWs have a certain bent molded into our thought processes by the Watchtower. And using thought processes outside the JW box is like a right-handed person trying to sign their name with their left hand. It is extremely difficult and take much practice.
As I think this thread may have reached its end of life, consider this: Angels are Spirits and they are Holy. They are thus, Holy Spirits. Are they perhaps nothing more than personifications of energy? God is a Spirit and God is Holy, therefore God is a Holy Spirit. Is God himself some kind of personification of an energy form, or a mere personification of love or light or goodness? ALL of the arguments that you and others have made in favor of the Holy Spirit not being a person can be applied to God himself and have just as much legitimacy to show that God is a mere force or influence. Having considered the above statements, can you show on what basis you can say that all these other terms, Angels, God, etc. are persons, but that the Holy Spirit is not? What rational, logical, and theological basis is there for drawing a distinction? Take all the time and space you need to respond.
Finally, logically, there are only three basic categories of existence: Persons, places, or things. If the Holy Spirit is not a person, and not a place, then he must be a mere thing. If you now know of a fourth category of existence, to support your assertion that the Holy Spirit is not a person but not a mere thing, then you should publish a paper and win the Nobel Prize!
All the above is said in peace, affection, and with a spirit of friendship. Thanks for your comments,
Jim Whitney
