Acts 10:19, 20 - Destroying the Holy Spirit personification argument

by GOrwell 70 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • AGuest
    AGuest
    I hope that every christian at least agrees on that.

    I do agree, dear PSacto (again, peace to you!). I just fear for those who wish to "create" an entirely unnecessary third "person" and make that one equal to the Most Holy One of Israel... when only One has gained/been granted/deemed worthy of that status... the Holy One of Israel, JAHESHUA, who is the Chosen/Anointed of JAH... and His Holy Spirit. By means of him the Holy and MOST Holy are now one... where any can enter, so long as they go through the Holy/Door. By adding a third "person", they are adding yet another "place/person" in the temple to circumvent... which is an error.

    But other than that... perhaps it's all semantics. We shall see...

    Again, peace to you!

    YOUR servant, sister, and fellow slave of Christ,

    SA

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    I understand your concern Shelby but as you saw, you and BTS ( for example) were agreeing more than disagreeing and I think that the disagreement part really is more of misunderstanding - His leaning towards the trinity and you running aways from it, LOL !

    God is God, there is no doubt.

    Jesus, being begotten of God is God as we being begotten of "man" are Man.

    The Holy Spirit is God's spirit and Christ's spirit, in essense the HS is what Makes Christ and God ONE, just as the HS makes US and Christ One.

    They live in Us and We live in them, with love being the binding force- Jaheshua's Love for Us and His Father and Our Love for Him and Our Father.

    AT least that is how I can accept the Trinity, though I am not a trinitarian simple because I don't think we need to "label" it.

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips

    Aguest, I am a Catholic. This is a Catholic prayer. I use it when I pray the Rosary.

    On your interpretation of the Bible, I do not think you are an authority for anyone except yourself. The Bible is not a comprehensive compendium of Christian teaching, although it contains much of it. The comprehensive compendium of Christian teaching is the Church itself.

    I cannot see where glorifying him as an additional entity is necessary.

    Then why baptize in his name, if he is not an additional entity as Jesus said in Matthew 28?

    baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

    The Christian Bible you hold today is a Catholic book. Christians did not have a Bible composed of the individual books for the first 300 years. Members of the Church wrote the books of the new testament, preserved them, decided what writings were actually sacred scripture, and what writings were not. The decision on what is and is not Scripture was a Catholic (and I include the Orthodox in this) decision.

    Respectfully, when it comes to the interpretation of Christian doctrine and its sacred writings, I give the Church far greater weight than I give you. I go with orthodoxy, and that which has been handed down from the Apostles, not all of which is contained in the Bible.

    God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+3:15&version=NIV

    BTS

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    I know that to some there is a controversy to Matthew 28:19 but I don't know where it came from since the oldest manuscripts HAVE it.

    Heck, even Bart Ehrman agrees:

    The reasons people like Petersen have suspected that Matthew 28:19-20 were ont [sic] original are (1) the verses sound like they embrace the later doctrine of the trinity and (2) they are not found in Eusebius’s quotations. Most scholars have not been convinced, however, primarily because the verses are found in every solitary manuscript of Matthew, whether Greek, Latin, or …. any other ancient language, and are cited by yet other church fathers. Most interpreters think that the later doctrine of the trinity is not necessarily implied by the verses, but that they are simply read that way by people who know about the trinity. But in any event, most textual scholars think that the verses are almost certainly original to matthew. Hope this helps,

    – Bart Ehrman

    From this website:

    http://rdtwot.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/l-ray-smith-and-matthew-2819/

  • jonathan dough
    jonathan dough

    In the New Testament the Spirit of God is both a power and a Person (ibid., 575). The Jehovah's Witnesses regard the supporting verses as mutually exclusive - the Spirit must be either a power or a person, and since it can’t be a person it must be a power. However, Scripture read together cannot accept one meaning at the expense of another, so, as indicated in Strong and Vine’s the power is the “Power of the Holy Spirit” (at 162), which is the Spirit of God (Romans 9:8-11 RSV), and Jehovah (or Lord RSV) is the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17 NWT). The Holy Spirit is not simply an inert unthinking electrical current flowing from Jehovah God. It is a powerful spirit Person.

    “The revelation that the Spirit of God is a Person is gradual” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 575). The majority of NT texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone… (ibid.), but “in the Synoptic Gospels [the Trinitarian formula in Mt. 28.19] clearly speaks of the person of the Holy Spirit.” So even though in most cases “the phrase ‘spirit of God’ reflects the OT notion of “the power of God,” as a result of the teaching of Christ, the definite personality of the Third Person of the Trinity is clear” (ibid.).

    http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-8.html#38

    In the Acts of the Apostles the Spirit’s personality is not overtly demonstrated in the texts although “[t]he statement in Acts 15.28, “the Holy Spirit and we have decided,” alone seems to imply full personality” (ibid., 575). Paul uses the [Greek word for spirit] 146 times. Sometimes it means man’s natural spirit, but more often it signifies the divine sanctifying power (2 Cor 3.17-18; Gal 4.6; Phil 1.19). However, the Trinitarian formulas employed by St. Paul (e.g., 2 Cor 13.13), indicate a real personality” (ibid., 575).

    The personality of the Holy Spirit is very obvious in the theology of the apostle John and is “very rich in meaning” (ibid.).

    The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth (Jn 14.17; 15.26; 16.13; cf. 1 Jn 4.6; 5.6), and “another helper,” the “paraclete” (Jn 14.16). The Spirit is “another” helper because, after Christ’s Ascension, he takes Christ’s place in assisting the disciples, in teaching them all that Jesus himself had not yet told them, in revealing the future to them, in recalling to their minds that which Jesus had taught them, in giving testimony concerning Jesus, and in glorifying Him (14.26; 16.12-16; 15.26; 1 Jn 2.27; 5.6). (Catholic Encyclopedia, 575)

  • AGuest
    AGuest
    Aguest, I am a Catholic. This is a Catholic prayer. I use it when I pray the Rosary.

    Okay, dear BTS (again, peace to you!)...

    On your interpretation of the Bible, you are not an authority for anyone except yourself.

    This is true. No one should be listening to me. Shouldn't be listening to the Catholic Church, either... or any religious "church" or institution for that matter... anything other than the Holy Spirit, but...

    The Bible is not a comprehensive compendium of Christian teaching

    I agree...

    although it contains much of it.

    Not sure I can agree here... as we don't know what all's missing (and hidden in the Vatican... or other... enclaves)... or added, so...

    The comprehensive compendium of Christian teaching is the Church itself.

    Now, here I must disagree. I offer that it is the Holy Spirit... and the anointing with holy spirit. At least, it is for those who walk by faith and not by sight...

    why baptize in his name, if he is not an additional entity as Jesus said in Matthew 28? baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

    I explained that in my previous post, dear one...

    The Christian Bible you hold today is a Catholic book.

    Yes, I know. Which is why I wish we'd all just put it down, every version, and just trust the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, most aren't able to do that nor do they trust anything one says, even if one says they received it from the Holy Spirit... by means of holy spirit... unless they also see it written in the Bible...

    Christians did not have a Bible composed of the individual books for the first 300 years.

    YES!!! And so how did they know anything? True, Paul and others wrote letters (most many, many years later), but even those contained error.

    Members of the Church wrote the books of the new testament, preserved them, decided what writings were actually sacred scripture, and what writings were not.

    Ummmm... that's not accurate, dear BTS... on so many levels. First, none of the writers of the NT contents were members of the [Catholic] Church (surely, you know this). Second, the NT doesn't contain any "books" - it contains 21 letters, 4 accounts of the acts of Christ and one of the acts of the Apostles, and account of a revelation given to John. Third, none of the writers preserved the writings, or decided which were "sacred" or not... or would be included in a compilation. Indeed, with the exception of John (who was told to write), they would have told you and me to go to Christ and not them. The fact that "many" undertook to write an accounting... but only four are accepted... and even these contain some differences... should show us not only that God didn't intend for them to BE written, but also the folly of "making [so] many books" and giving "much devotion to them." Which is indeed wearisome to the flesh.

    According to the scriptures, the NEW Covenant wasn't to be written on [stone] tablets... but on tablets of flesh; on the heart. And even one writer (Paul) stated, "Not that we are masters over your faith." Because no one is, but Christ. Yet, the "Church" has its "leader"... and teachers... in spite of the fact that in their book Christ is recorded to say that we should call NO ONE our teacher nor should anyone [besides him] be our leader.

    Then there is the whole thing about Peter... and he being the first "pope" (seriously?)... and the Church being built on him as the rock-mass... which is an utter error... as the rock mass is Christ and the church is built... by him... on FAITH in him... which is what Peter demonstrated and Christ meant when he said, "Oh this rockmass I will build my temple."

    And finally, the thing were men "decided" what was actually sacred and "scripture" and what was not... in direct opposition to what Christ said was "scripture". For example, Paul's first letter to the Corinthians was not considered scripture and so is not included, yet his second and third are... and titled as if they were his first and second.

    And I could go on... but it's all moot, really...

    The decision on what is and is not Scripture was a Catholic (and I include the Orthodox in this) decision.

    Yes, I know. I was raised Lutheran and my best friend was Catholic and we both attended catechism and were "confirmed", so I get that. That doesn't override the truth, however, that the decisions were completely flawed... and still are...

    Respectfully, when it comes to the interpretation of Christian doctrine and its sacred writings, I give the Church far greater weight than I give you.

    And you are entitled to do so, dear one. We are all entitled to believe who and what we will. I only shared with you what I received from Christ, the Holy Spirit... who does not lie. For some time now, I've tended to trust and believe him more than man, though... and that works for me. Has saved me a LOT of confusion... and given me quite a lot of freedom.

    I go with orthodoxy, and that which has been handed down from the Apostles

    Again, you are entitled. I go with Christ... and that which I receive from him. I mean, it's a little "cleaner", you know, since it doesn't have to pass through "certain men" before making its way to me...

    , not all of which is contained in the Bible.

    Yeah, and why is that, exactly? I mean, since only Christ himself can open up the scriptures to his followers it's not like folks can figure anything he doesn't want them to. Right?

    God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

    I agree... that God's Household is the church of the living God, the congregation of the Firstborn, and Body of Christ... that some are pillars and some are stones... built upon the Foundation... which are the Apostles. It's not what the Apostles taught, however, but what they DID that created this foundation: they stuck with him during his trials and they build their "houses" UPON him, the Rock-Mass... by means of FAITH in him... and his resurrection... so that when the wind came and blew (i.e., the persecution/tribulation started), they did not waver. Even to death. Because of their faith in him... and his resurrection.

    The Church that is the Body of Christ is, indeed, the House/Household/Temple of God. But they don't worship God in handmade temples, they don't look to priests and teachers other than Christ, the Holy Spirit... and they have no other Leader than Christ. They call NO ONE Father, other than the Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies, who is the God and Father of Christ, and they don't look to the Law written in books, Bibles, or on stone tablets: they look to the Law written on their hearts... by Christ and no other.

    Anything else... is adultery, dear BTS. And those who truly have received the promised holy spirit know this. Thus, they separate themselves and QUIT touching the unclean things... ALL golden calves... and ALL harlots... no matter what such idols and adulteresses call themselves... or who their leaders are.

    Again, I bid you peace!

    YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

    SA

  • GOrwell
    GOrwell

    @Aguest - I'm pretty perplexed by what you believe. You say that Christ IS the Holy Spirit. Yet, you don't believe in a triune God. Yet there still exists someTHING called holy spirit. Can you point me to some scriptures to reason on your belief that Christ IS the person of the Holy Spirit?

  • AGuest
    AGuest

    Can you point me to some scriptures to reason on your belief that Christ IS the person of the Holy Spirit?

    I can point you to three examples in the NT that directly state so, dear GOrwell (again, peace to you!), starting with 2 Corinthians 3:17, where Paul (and/or whoever assisted him) stated:

    "Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, who with unveiled faces reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit."

    Now, you might say that Paul (or whoever wrote to the Corinthians here) was speaking of the Father... or someone else... but not the Son. I would say, however, based on 2 Corinthians 1:2, 3; 4:5; 8:9; 11:31; and 13:14 the writer(s) definitely appeared to have considered Christ to be "the "Lord"... and NOT God, whom they also mention. (NOTE: The Greek words for "Spirit" and "holy spirit" were not capitalized; however, it makes sense to capitalize it at 2 Corinthians 3:16, 17, while it doesn't at 13:14, given what the writer(s) meant.)

    The second would be 1 John 2:1, 2, where, in his letter to the "little children", the writer (John ?) helps us to understand who Christ is:

    "My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate/helper/Comforter (Greek, "parakletos") with the Father—[Jesus] Christ, the Righteous One."

    This is the same "advocate/helper/Comforter" (parakletos) that my Lord said the Father would send when he said:

    "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you."

    And when he initially appeared, he BLEW on them and said,"Receive holy spirit." (John 20:22)

    This "breath"... is the same "spirit" which made Adham a "living soul." It is God's holy spirit.

    We also can know that it was himself he was speaking of because he said, "Look! I am with you all the days"... or "I am always with you"... until the end of the age/system. Yet, he said of the Holy Spirit:

    "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you an advocate to help you and be with you forever— the Spirit of truth."

    Yet, he says of himself: "I am... the Truth."

    He said of the Spirit:

    "The world cannot receive him, because it neither sees him nor knows him."

    What "him"? Again, himself, the one the Jews were unable to receive because they neither saw... nor knew him... just as it is with the world. Which he clarifies even further:

    As to that Holy Spirit -"But you know him, for he lives with youand will be in you."

    As to himself - "... you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you."

    As to himself and the Father - “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them."

    Just as Paul wrote to the Romans, in the third example that I will give you:

    "You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the spirit,if indeed the spirit of God dwells in you. And if anyone does not havethe spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. Butif Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin,the spirit gives lifebecause of righteousness. And ifthe spirit of him who raised [Jesus] from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because ofhis spirit that lives in you."

    Now, the verse says that the spirit gives life, and that is true: a living soul is one with spirit... or breath... in him. However, Christ is also recorded to have said "... that one will live... by means of ME." Not, "... that one will live by means of the Holy Spirit (as a separate entity)." HE is the life-giving Spirit.

    I hope this helps, dear GOrwell, and again, peace to you!

    YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

    SA

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    That is a very trinitarian view you have there Shelby ;)

  • aqwsed12345

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit