Me? A Master? I'm overwhelmed, sir. But the Council elects its own members. They will never accept this.
Is the Holy Spirit God Himself or a force like in Star Wars?
by I_love_Jeff 224 Replies latest jw friends
-
Twitch
-
Jeffro
Just like 'the Force' in Star Wars, the Holy Spirit is also fictitious. Within the biblical narrative, it seems to be given some personal attributes, but many of the interpretations are just fan fiction. It's not real, so it doesn't matter too much.
Isn't this the one unforgiveable sin?
Only if you're a fan. If it makes you uncomfortable, just pretend I'm mocking one of the religions you don't believe in instead.
-
Twitch
Death is a natural part of life. Rejoice for those around you who transform into the Force. Mourn them do not. Miss them do not. Attachment leads to jealousy. The shadow of greed that is.
-
jonathan dough
Truthseeker: But I say to you, if Jesus never had a beginning then why call him the Son, surely a Son comes after his Father generationally speaking.
You're assuming "son" when referring to God the Son, the Word, is meant generationally, but it isn't. The word "Son" in Greek (huios) has various meanings. "Primarily the word stresses the quality and essence of one so resembling another that distinctions between the two are indescernible," Vine's at 256 [5207]. Hebrews 1:2-3 illustrates this well. See also Heb. 1:8, where the Son is called God. "Son" is used in many non-generational contexts. (see Gal. 3:7 and Luke 20:36)
You should begin your analysis with the proof texts that show the Word is eternal, that he could not have been created.http://www.144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-5.html#20
Then ask yourself if "son" should apply in a generational context. Throw away the Watchtower glasses and the NWT and look at Col. 1:17 where it says the Word is "before all things." Since the Word is before all things, the Word can't be a thing, can't be created. That is precisely why the Company inserted the word "other," claiming the Word is "before all [other] things," because a true reading of this verse undermines their arian creationist heresy.
You're asking me to believe that Jesus never had a prehuman existence and that he always existed at the same time as his Father and that Father's active force is also a person.
I'm not asking you to believe anything. I think I've already covered in detail, several times, this false idea that the Holy Spirit is only God's active force, because it isn't. It is also a spiritual Person as that term is used in trinitarian and New Testament thought. I'm not going to go over that again.
... that Jesus never had a prehuman existence and that he always existed at the same time as his Father ...
Well, I covered this before as well and I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up unless you feel a need to get the last word in, but it illustrates how you, and many other JWs and xJWs don't understand the Trinity or how Christian theology views the nature of Jesus. Jesus was, and is, God-man. Baby Jesus, the created humanity, the man of the God-man, did not exist until He was born to Mary. It was the Word that existed in a preincarnate state as God the Son. Jesus was a divine person who assumed a human nature, fully God and fully man.
Read this: http://www.144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html#5
The Jehovah's Witnesses preach, incorrectly, that trinitarian Christians teach that the created humanity of Jesus, the creature, is God Almighty; but that is false. Orthodox Christians - the overwhelming majority of Catholic and Protestant churches - offiicially teach that: “The humanity of Christ is a creature, it is not God” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 922).
The Word had a prehuman existence, but baby Jesus, the man of the God-man, did not. Understand this and many confused doors in your mind will open.While official Watchtower theology claims the "Word" was in the beginning a created angel, as explained in detail below, many Jehovah's Witnesses fail to separate them and erroneously combine the two concepts. This error lies in part at the root of the Jehovah's Witnesses’ harsh attacks on the Trinity and allows them to get away with distorting Trinitarian teaching. It is the means by which they are able to convince many people, who otherwise would know better, that the Trinity is utterly illogical and false when it is true and reasonable, even if certain aspects are grounded upon a measure of faith.
Immanent (theological) Trinitarianism, refers to the essence of God the Almighty, his hypostatic three-fold nature and his absolute and perfect being, before creation. It deals with the “infinite, blessed communion of the divine Persons among themselves, without reference to creation,” (B. Brobrinskoy, The Mystery of the Trinity [New York, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1999], 2, 3) (Mystery). It is the triune God as he is in himself (J. Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God [Munich, Germany, SCM Press, Ltd., 1981], 151) (Trinity and the Kingdom).
This should not be confused with economic Trinitarianism (God for us), the concerted activity of the three Persons in creation as they “maintain and restore the created world to a state of well-being and communion with God” (ibid., 2). “Economic” refers to “divine management of earthly affairs” (The Encyclopedia of Religion [New York, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987], 54) (Encyclopedia of Religion). “It is oriented to the concrete history of creation and redemption: God initiates a covenant with Israel, God speaks through the prophets, God takes on flesh in Christ, God dwells within as Spirit” (ibid., 54). It is also called revelatory Trinity because the triune God reveals himself through his dispensation of salvation (Trinity and the Kingdom, 151).
Accordingly, much Trinitarian theological discussions about the “One God in three Persons” deals with immanent Trinity, not economic Trinity. The economic aspect of the Trinity includes the created humanity of Jesus, who was not God (The New Catholic Encyclopedia [Washington D.C., The Catholic University of America, 1967], 943) (Catholic Encyclopedia) and not part of the immanent Trinity. But that is precisely where the Jehovah's Witnesses mistakenly inject him resulting in a great deal of unnecessary confusion.
http://www.144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html#2 -
Terry
Holy Spirit is magic. That is, it serves the exact same function as magic does (as an explanation for inexplicable actions).
A magician uses a magic wand and utters nonsense syllables (hocus pocus) to suggest something mysteriously powerful (rather than skill at fooling you) is about to happen.
When you want to know "how" something happens, even a non-information explanation fills that need.
How did a young Jewish woman named Mary who was engaged to be married end up pregnant with the miraculous Jesus?
Magic! I mean...um...she was "overshadowed" by the holy spirit.
Is this an actual information-bearing statement of content or just hocus-pocus?
Define: overshadowed sometime, okay?
Whenever humans with belief systems that are not reality-coherent want to explain their imaginative concoctions they always resort to nonsense explanations. (Think of the Watchtower belief invented by Maria Russell that the "anointed" mysteriously rule the congregations of god.)
The neo-christians had to explain to the orthodox messianic jews HOW and WHY their new hero, Jesus, was the answer to every problem in the world. No factual, common sense, real world explanation could possibly supply that!
Stories of miracles (magical happenings) could not be linked to conjuring or witchcraft. A new and religiously plausible explanation was necessary.
The agency of holy spirit was just the ticket!
Only eventually, with the help of newly converted ex-pagans and neo-Platonic philosophy did the PERSON of holy spirit evolve as an orthodoxy.
It made just as little sense back then as it does today. But, the same mysteriously elusive non-factual arguments are still being presented.
Holy Spirit as PERSON is ordinary AD Hoc fallacy: an "explanation" which is not very coherent, does not really "explain" anything at all, and which has no testable consequences - even though to someone already inclined to believe it, it certainly looks valid.
The very fact that the same arguments still rage illustrates the utterly worthless content of the non-explanations to satisfy basic evidence rules.
Holy Spirit is magic.
-
jonathan dough
Johnathan,
I did read what you had to say and the scriptures.
My scriptual response (if you bothered to read it) is here...
I didn't see that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
I find the concept of the Trinity unworkable. How could God have miraculously and mysteriously walked the earth as Christ? Those that believe that way, they are required to do so without questioning the validity of the "mystery."
Hold it right there. Don't take this wrong, but the JWs have gotten deep into your brain and you have failed to shake out their false teachings. What you're referring to when you say "How could God have miraculously and mysteriously walked the earth as Christ?" is the heresy of patripassianism which has been condemned by the church for centuries. Mainstream Christian theology does not teach that YHWH left heaven and walked the earth as a man.
This distortion, among many put forth by the Jehovah's Witnesses, is referred to as the great heresy of patripassianism. The Jehovah's Witnesses persist in preaching (incorrectly) that mainstream Christians believe that God the Father took the form of Jesus the man on earth, becoming a creature, and that the Father became the suffering incarnate Son. But this is not proper Christology, it does not reflect mainstream Christian thought, and it seriously misstates the doctrine of the Trinity which underlies the very essence of Jesus Christ and the triune nature of God Almighty; that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Christ is deity. The actual mystery lies in how the "God" and "man" of the God-man Jesus are joined together, a mystery the church readily takes on faith, like the resurrection of the dead. Don't know how that is possible, but it is taken on faith nonetheless.Christians have never denied the central role faith plays in their faith. After all, how can one believe in the ability to raise the dead, or the parting of the Red Sea, or manna from heaven, or Jericho's walls tumbling down, or any of the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testament? Certain things must be taken on faith, whether by Jew or gentile.
-
designs
Finally after 8 pages jonathan(godrulz) admits what everyone else knows 'a mystery the church readily takes on faith' and 'don't know how that is possible'. No kidding
-
jonathan dough
When the Bible says that they are one it means they are one in unity not trinity, otherwise this is robbing Christ of the true glory due to him because he did not have to do what he did for us!
Nonsense. Prove it.
It was a decision Jesus made with his own free will that he lowered himself for a time and came to earth as Jesus Christ and later voluntarily die for our sins.
Jesus didn't lower himself, the Word emptied himself humbly, if you read Phil. 2:6. See my previous post on your Christological confusion with respect to the nature of Christ Jesus.
Jesus is the mediator, as pointed out at 1 Timothy 2:5-6: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and man, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself—a ransom for all, a testimony at the proper time."
I wish you would articulate your arguments better. I think you are trying to argue that based on this verse Jesus could be nothing more than a man, the official JW stand on this; but this verse doesn't imply that Jesus was just a man, that's not possible. Again, approach this first by reading up on why the God-man Jesus is not just a man and is God the Son, divinity, the God-man.http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-5.html#20
Then, go read Psalm 49:7-9 which states that no man can redeem another man, let alone mankind. If Jesus were just a man, He could not be a ransom sacrifice reconciling man to the Almighty, mankind could not be redeemed, and Jesus died for nothing.
Also Jesus can not be greater than himself if he is God.
What are you trying to say, and where is the scriptural evidence supporting this? Can you rephrase this? Jesus greater than himself? I don't understand what you are saying.
John 14:28: "You have heard Me tell you, 'I am going away and I am coming to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I." Is he going to ascend to himself?
The God of the God-man Jesus is God the Son, not God the Father. And the man of the God-man wouldn't be ascending to himself because the creature that was baby Jesus was not in heaven before. God the Son, of the hypostatic union that is the God-man Jesus, ascended to be where he had been before, if he even left in totality at all. See my previous post regarding your confusion and belief in the heresy of patripassianism.
In heaven Jesus is still subject to his Father: Matthew 20:23 "He told them, "You will indeed drink My cup. But to sit at my right and left is not mine to give; instead, it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by My Father."
You misunderstand how trinitarians regard the concept of "equality." God the Father and God the Son, the Word, are not regarded as equal in every sense of the word. They are equal in nature and power. Let me try and explain.The equality of Christ and God - Is God superior because God is the head of Christ and sent Him on His mission?” - (1 Corinthians 11:3)[Top]
The Jehovah's Witnesses argue that Jesus could not have been God’s equal because Christ had a God above him and therefore God is superior in every way and Christ inferior, stating:
Not only is Almighty God, Jehovah, a personality separate from Jesus but he is at all times his superior. Jesus is always presented as separate and lesser, a humble servant of God. That is why the Bible plainly says that “the head of the Christ is God” in the same way that “the head of every man is the Christ.” (1 Corinthians 11:3) (Should You Believe, Chapter 7)
“Is not the sender superior to the one sent?” (ibid., Chapter 7)
First, as noted earlier, Trinitarians actually do believe that the created humanity of Jesus, who was not God, was a humble servant of God and inferior (see section 5).
Secondly, the Jehovah's Witnesses neglected to quote all of the relevant portions of verse 3, leaving out the reference to husband and wife which helps put these verses into proper context: “…the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” The Greek word for ‘head’ is kephale and in this passage it is used “metaphorically, of the authority or direction of God in relation to Christ, of Christ in relation to believing men, of the husband in relation to the wife, 1 Cor 11:3” (Strong and Vine’s, 138). It is not intended to mean that one is inherently superior by nature to another as the Jehovah’s Witnesses would have you believe.
Paul is referring to authority possessed and exercised and an ordering of their relationship, but as the Jehovah's Witnesses interpret verse 3, a husband would be inherently superior as a person to his wife the inferior being, but we know that not to be true. In that culture, and in some contemporary matrimonial roles, the wife voluntarily assumes a particular subservient role. But just because a husband sends his wife down to the corner market for some milk, or the husband has the final decision with respect to, say, financial matters, that does not make his wife inferior to him as a person any more than the President of the United States is superior, as a human being, to any citizen of the United States of America. Your employer is not a superior individual, either, but only exercises authority over you.
The divine person of Christ, even if sent by God the Father, and even if He voluntarily subjected Himself, did not in so doing become less equal to God with respect to His essential being, nature and essence. When the Word assumed a human nature he did not cease being God, but willingly assumed a different relationship; a different grade, order or manifestation as Tertullian theorized. His incarnation and obedience did not diminish the divine essence of His being or make Him less consubstantial. The divine Person of Jesus was still fully God, who chose a veiled glory.
Christ possessed equality with God prior to His incarnation, and then for a time veiled that glory, being always God in all of the co-equal attributes, but in the incarnation never using His Godly powers to better Himself. He was fully God, fully man, God taking on the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3), not a man adding Godliness. (Strong and Vine’s, 42)
9) Could Jesus be God Almighty if he prayed to the Father and referred to God as His Father? If he was God’s submissive servant? If He entrusted His spirit to God at death?[Top]
The Jehovah's Witnesses argue that Jesus could not have been God because He worshipped God, called this God “Father,” prayed to God, and “since Jesus had a God, his Father, he could not at the same time be that God (Should You Believe, Chapter 7).
Once again, the Jehovah's Witnesses fail to understand the nature of the God-man Jesus; that He is fully God and fully man; and, that the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that “the humanity of Christ is a creature, it is not God” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 943). If Jesus the created human, the “man” in the God-man equation of the hypostatic union of Trinitarianism, were claiming to be that God Almighty the Father, the Jehovah's Witnesses’ objections might be relevant, but that’s not accurate dogma.
Therefore, it was entirely proper (and did not diminish Christ’s divine nature) that the created humanity of Christ the man prayed to God the Father, was subordinate to the Father (Should You Believe, Chapter 7), worshipped God, called Him Father (ibid.), could be regarded as God’s submissive servant (ibid.), was seen as distinct from God (ibid.), was not as “good” as God (ibid.), and could function as a separate entity or witness about himself in addition to God (ibid.).
Jesus could also have a will separate from God (ibid.), received God’s anointing to declare the good news (ibid.), taught what belonged to God (ibid.), and could rightfully claim that “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). It was this suffering man Jesus who could call out to His God from the cross (ibid.), and to whom he could entrust his spirit at death because the humanity of Christ is a creature, not God (ibid.). And because Jesus the man recognized his limitations he knew it was not for Him to grant seats at his right and left hand in His kingdom (Should You Believe, Chapter 7).
Furthermore, since God Almighty is an invisible spirit person (Colossians 1:15), that is the God Jesus was referring to when he said at John 1:18 “No one has ever seen God.” He was not referring to himself in his created human capacity, naturally, since He was visible to the human eye. And with respect to what that man saw, he saw God fully and completely due to Christ’s beatific intuitive human knowledge as more fully explained in section 13(A) below.
Finally, because Jesus of the Bible is a miraculous product of the hypostatic union, it was the divine Person of Christ (the “God” in the God-man equation) that the prophet Habakkuk was including by definition in his reference to God when he stated “O my God, my Holy One, you do not die” (Habakkuk 1:12 NWT; “we shall not die” RSV).
The above are all “reasons” why the Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus is not God, but their arguments are baseless and do not disprove the Trinitarian concept that “Jesus is God.”
As a matter of fact, the view which the Jehovah's Witnesses ascribe to Trinitarians - the exaggerated view of Noetus which identified “Christ with the Father,” was rejected by the church many centuries ago along with similar heretical distortions (Catholic Encyclopedia, 296).In its extreme form it may suggest that the whole of God was, for example, present in Jesus - that heaven was empty when Jesus walked on earth. In relation to the cross, it may imply that, because there is no distinction between Father and Son, the whole of God suffers equally as Jesus dies, and indeed God dies entirely on the cross …. (Oxford, 1211)
This and similar notions are precisely some of the “pitfalls” the “doctrine of the Trinity sets out to avoid …” (Oxford, 1211). Any implications or explicit assertions by the Jehovah's Witnesses to the contrary are untrue - they are false accusations.
10) When God exalted the risen Jesus to His right hand it did not thereby make Jesus superior to God - (Philippians 2:9)[Top]
Another line of argument advanced by the Jehovah’s Witnesses denies Christ’s divine preincarnate status by incorrectly interpreting Philippians 2:9 to mean that under the doctrine of the Trinity the exalted Christ would have returned to a position in heaven superior to God. They write:
Speaking of the resurrection of Jesus, Peter and those with him told the Jewish Sanhedrin: “God exalted this one [Jesus] … to his right hand.” (Acts 5:31) Paul said: “God exalted him to a superior position.” (Philippians 2:9) If Jesus had been God, how could Jesus have been exalted, that is raised to a higher position than he had previously enjoyed? He would already have been an exalted part of the Trinity. If, before his exaltation, Jesus had been equal to God, exalting him any further would have made him superior to God. (Should You Believe, Chapter 7).
This reflects a glaring misconception of what the Trinity doctrine teaches and the nature of the hypostatic union. It was not God the Son who was exalted with respect to His essential being, nature and power that defines him as God; conversely, it was not the divine nature of God the Son of the God-man equation that bled on the cross and died because God does not die; otherwise, and for many other reasons beyond this topic, He could not, for instance, have raised himself as he claimed he did. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that God cannot die. Philippians 2:7-11 puts verse 9 into better context, stating that the preexistent Word:
[E]mptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:7-11 RSV)
First, it is self-evident here that the risen Christ is exalted above all creation and every name in the universe, but not God Himself, as He is God the Son. This is indicated in these same verses where the Christian confessional states “Jesus is Lord” which means, among other things, that Jesus is God. (See section 35 for a detailed explanation of this meaning of “Lord”).
Secondly, Philippians 2:9 does not say as the JWs claim that God the Son was “raised to a position higher than he had previously enjoyed.” God the Son, the Word, when He emptied Himself to take the form of a slave never ceased being fully God. It was his Glory that was veiled for a time being; he temporarily resigned his “status.”
Christ possessed equality with God prior to His incarnation, and then for a time veiled that glory, being always God in all of the co-equal attributes, but in the incarnation never using His Godly powers to better Himself. He was fully God, fully man, God taking on the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3), not a man adding Godliness. (Strong and Vine’s, 42)
[I]n the process of the Incarnation, he empties himself of his divine “status” … (Fundamentals of Christology, 317).
The Word never ceased being God the Son when He emptied Himself. It was merely his status or role or relationship that changed. Accordingly, being fully God the Son, the God in the God-man equation was never elevated back or exalted to a position superior to God because He never ceased being God. Hence, he was not exalted to a position superior to God.
Third, the created humanity of Jesus could not have been “raised to a position higher than he had previously enjoyed” as the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim because He was not God and there could not have been a position He previously enjoyed in heaven to be raised back to.
Fourth, the focus is on the humanity of Christ, although this humanity can never be viewed in isolation because, “In Jesus humanity does not exist in itself, but it is the Son who exists as man through his human nature. Jesus gives back his whole divine self to the Father on the cross in and through his humanity (Fundamentals of Christology, 320). He consummates his human experience in all these dimensions only in dying and rising to a new, definitive form of human existence (ibid., 317).
Fifth, the exaltation also refers to the resurrected heavenly Jesus that died on the cross, who does not cease to be human (ibid., 318), a glorified human yet still God the Son to whom every knee shall bow. And any exaltation that God the Son might have enjoyed was with respect to His grade, order, appearance, aspect or manifestation (Tertullian). It would be a change in order of precedence in operation, a change in the relationship, but it would not alter in any way the essential being, nature and power of God; that which defines the triune God as one.
http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-2.html#8
Any perceived inequality is voluntarily assumed. You might be subject to your employer and he might have you cleaning toilets, but that is a voluntary subjection. It does not make your employer better than you as a human being. It does not render the employer superior.
But as to the God in the God-man equation of the union, He never ceased being fully God in His essential nature, during the incarnation being “always God in all of the co-equal attributes” (Strong and Vine’s, 42).
Any subordination of God the Son to God the Father was relational, a change in status or order of precedence, but not in His essential being as He remained fully God, albeit with a veiled Glory. God the Son’s subordination is voluntary. It does not mean He is not equal to God in essence.
-
designs
hehe 'god the father and god the son are not regarded as equal in every sense of the word. They are equal in nature and power. Let me try and explain'. hehe
-
jonathan dough
hehe 'god the father and god the son are not regarded as equal in every sense of the word. They are equal in nature and power. Let me try and explain'. hehe
You have to ask "equal in what sense?" There is subordination of relation and order among the three Persons, but not in nature:
Moreover, the subsistence and operations of the three Persons are marked by a certain order involving a certain subordination in relation, though not in nature. The Father as the fount of deity is First: He is said to originate. The Son, eternally begotten of the Father, is Second: he is said to reveal. The Spirit, eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son, is Third: He is said to execute.
While this does not suggest priority in time or in dignity, since all three Persons are divine and eternal, it does suggest an order of precedence in operation and revelation. Thus we can say that creation is from the Father, through the Son, by the Holy Spirit. (New Bible Dictionary, 1299, 1300)
Any perceived inequality is voluntarily assumed. You might be subject to your employer and he might have you cleaning toilets, but that is a voluntary subjection. It does not make your employer better than you as a human being. It does not render the employer superior.
But as to the God in the God-man equation of the union, He never ceased being fully God in His essential nature, during the incarnation being “always God in all of the co-equal attributes” (Strong and Vine’s, 42).
Any subordination of God the Son to God the Father was relational, a change in status or order of precedence, but not in His essential being as He remained fully God, albeit with a veiled Glory. God the Son’s subordination is voluntary. It does not mean He is not equal to God in essence.
It's all right here: http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html#trinity-home