Notice that the Holy Spirit speaks, proof that He is not an it/active force. The Spirit does not speak contrary to the Word. If it is, it is a false spirit.
Exactly how many different views of Jesus are there on the Board and doesn't that kind of tell Believers the obvious problem...
by designs 149 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
EntirelyPossible
In that passage, it did. The Spirit spoke to Him and told him where to go. Not scripture.
I wasn't referring to that singular incident, I meant that spoke to him so that he no longer needed scripture at ALL. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
I could only guess - but it stands to reason that if a lot of people hear conflicting things, they are not hearing from the same 'spirit'. (could also be lying, or ill, or misunderstanding)
Then who is to say who is correct?
Notice that the Holy Spirit speaks, proof that He is not an in/active force. The Spirit does not speak contrary to the Word. If it is, it is a false spirit.
Yeah, while I am willing to accept that it is possible, however unlikely, that an invisible spirit creature speaks to people, most of them are just hearing voices.
And what is the Word anyway?
-
godrulz
Word=Scripture=Bible. The articles in the WT that argue for the personality of the devil/demons more than prove the personality of the Holy Spirit (will, intellect, emotions). The anti-trinitarian bias leads to a denial of the Deity of Christ/personality of the Holy Spirit (end result is dead religion without the power and presence of God).
-
EntirelyPossible
Word=Scripture=Bible
Which version? The ones that say jesus said he was god or the ones that didn't? the ones that said jesus became angry when the leper asked to be healed or the ones that didn't? Or the countless other different versions?
-
myelaine
dear Tammy...
in this instance I was refering to two specific scriptures that AGuest contends is false...namely the great commission (matthew 28:19) and the armor of God (ephesians 6:13-17) either the Holy Spirit inspired the apostles to correctly relate what Jesus said and they understood everything regarding their "holy armor" or not. notice I said the apostles and they...there was a unity of purpose in relaying the message. AGuest alone says that they got it wrong...and it should be the way her lord said to her.
love michelle
-
tec
I wasn't referring to that singular incident, I meant that spoke to him so that he no longer needed scripture at ALL. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
I understood you. I was responding to that particular incident... and making a conclusion based on it and something else. My conclusion doesn't necessarily have to be the right one. But you can have the scriptures memorized and understand nothing of them. I don't personally think Phillip needed scripture at all anymore, except to help others who would need to see things in writing. In turn, once they had the Spirit, why would they need the scriptures for anything other than to help others to see too?
John 16:13 - But 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.
But you're right. It doesn't say that he didn't need scriptures at all... or that he did need them.
Then who is to say who is correct?
You would have to look for yourself. Test what is being said - is it in line with Christ's teachings that you do know? Is it in line with love, with doing good to others, or does it cause harm? Even better, ask for the Spirit to guide you into truth. Not everyone can do that, but the more you know Christ, the more you will know the truth from the lies.
Peace,
Tammy
-
EntirelyPossible
I was responding to that particular incident... and making a conclusion based on it and something else.
Beware too few data points before making a conclusion :)
In turn, once they had the Spirit, why would they need the scriptures for anything other than to help others to see too?
Jesus frequently turned to the scriptures. Even if they didn't need them personally, apparently they needed them to teach others, so in essence, they DID need them for at least that.
But you're right. It doesn't say that he didn't need scriptures at all... or that he did need them.
Oh dear, it's not about being right with you :)
My point about what is "correct" is basically that people do all of the things you suggest and come to wildly different conclusions.
I think my personal philosophy can be summed up as "Don't be a jerk. Be a great dad. Get shit done. Listen. See both sides of the issue. Enjoy the ride." I think Jesus could get on board with that.
-
godrulz
possible: There are many good, credible versions. The Greek MSS evidence is 99% pure with no significant doctrine or practice affected by the minor variants. The OT Masoretic text has also been shown to be accurate by recent Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. Virtually every Bible translates Jn. 1:1 as 'the Word was God'. The sectarian NWT puts 'a god'. This is theologically, contextually, grammatically impossible. An introductory Greek student (let alone the many Masters that have commented on it....even see Kingdom Interlinear) can explain why God is the right translation and a god is a polytheistic impossibility. The WT is right to say the correct translation means our salvation.
KJV, ESV, NASB, NIV (2011), etc. are trustworthy (www.biblegateway.com for comparison) with essential agreement. When it comes to any given verse, the art and science of textual criticism helps us get to the bottom of things. Every major version affirms the Deity of Christ. Only cultic perversions deny it (Greber; NWT; Christadelphian Diaglott, etc.). It is a JW/Mormon lie to cast doubt on excellent English versions that contradict their errors.
-
EntirelyPossible
The Greek MSS evidence is 99% pure with no significant doctrine or practice affected by the minor variants.
Pure as compared to what? You have no autographs to compare to.
This is theologically, contextually, grammatically impossible.
Yes, I know, but tons of the older texts that we have differ on theological points (which, even immediately AFTER Jesus, there were dozens of dizens of variants of Christianity). How do you know which is correct on each particular point with respect to the autographs?
KJV, ESV, NASB, NIV (2011), etc. are trustworthy (www.biblegateway.com for comparison) with essential agreement.
Any first year student in textual criticism can tell you that agreement has nothing to do with correctness. How do you know which is correct with respect to the autographs?
When it comes to any given verse, the art and science of textual criticism helps us get to the bottom of things.
Very true, but without the autographs, you still don't know. And on every major point, there are different schools of thought on major theological issues.
It is a JW/Mormon lie to cast doubt on excellent English versions that contradict their errors.
Huh? Pretty much every ancient manuscript contains changes that support whatever their flavor of Christianity was. Of course, the problem that there were hundreds of years between the oldest manuscript we have and the autographs, which themselves were decades AFTER Jesus lived and were the results of interviews and oral history.
To say anything is pure or original is pure speculation at best.
-
tec
My point about what is "correct" is basically that people do all of the things you suggest and come to wildly different conclusions.
Yes, I know. Hence, perhaps, what is 'in' them coming out. I try to concentrate more on what I'm doing. I'm not a leader or a teacher. I'm just trying my best to follow.
I think my personal philosophy can be summed up as "Don't be a jerk. Be a great dad. Get shit done. Listen. See both sides of the issue. Enjoy the ride." I think Jesus could get on board with that.
Eh, its not too shabby a philosophy ;)
I know how much you love your kids. That in itself makes you a great dad. It also shows in how much you support them in what they want to do.
Peace,
Tammy