To WHOM did Ananias lie? (page 2)

brother devoted

Well since "the spirit of Jehovah" belongs to Jehovah any thing you do to it will effect Jehovah

peace,
Brother devoted

Tyre

Hello Brother,

Well since "the spirit of Jehovah" belongs to Jehovah any thing you do to it will effect Jehovah

What the bible said about HS? How about if the Bible say to you that Name of Holy Spirit = Jehovah? could you please explain to me below ?

If the Holy Spirit were merely an impersonal force, it would be BLASPHEMOUS to give it the name Jehovah. Is 2 Cor 3 blasphemous?

Now Jehovah is the Spirit; and where the spirit of Jehovah is, there is freedom. And all of us, while we with unveiled faces reflect like mirrors the glory of Jehovah, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, exactly as done by Jehovah[the] Spirit. 2 Cor 3:17-18(NWT)

If Jehovah is the Spirit, then He must be the same Spirit that Peter was talking about in Acts 5:9 in the NWT when he spoke of the "spirit of Jehovah." "God is a Spirit," acc. to John 4:24 in the NWT. Is Jehovah God Himself an impersonal active force?

The Holy Spirit is called the "spirit of Jehovah" in these other NWT scriptures, as well:

Judges 3:10, ii Chron.18:23, 20:14, Isa 11:2, 59:19-21,61:1, 63:14, Ezek, 11:5, 37:1, Michah 2:7, 3:8, and Acts 5:9.

Jehovah refers to "His Spirit" in: Gen.6:3, Num. 11:29, Ezek.39:29, Joel 2:28-29, Hag.2:5, Zech.4:6 and 7:12.................:=)))

onacruse

He lied to himself...

what more needs to be said?

Craig

Tyre

Oh, I just LOVE the NWT.................................LOL...................

onacruse

Ya gotta just love these Biblical textologists.

And why do I have the feeling that Tyre and brother devoted are having a cozy little conversation with "each other"?

Gawd, I never imagined that street-corner soapboxes were so expensive, that a dime and and a promise couldn't at least get you folks a decent latte, and a bed under the bridge.

LittleToe

Brother:
What do you make of Phil.1:19?
There the "Spirit" is of Jesus.

Craig:
Stop raining on the parade of others obsessions.
Either contribute to the thread or butt out, ya old royster, doyster, you!!!
LOL

PS the Sheep is for Gumby.

brother devoted

good one lttle toe, (had to meditate on that one for awhile)

well that scripture if you look in the NWT makes reference to

(John 15:26) When the helper arrives that I will send YOU from the Father, the spirit of the truth, which proceeds from the Father, that one will bear witness about me

so yes it is "of Jesus" in that it bears witness about him and he was given authority once he was ressurected to send it forth,

but look closely at the first part "it proceeds from the Father"

Peace,
Brother devoted

LittleToe

BD:
Sorry to press the point, but the cross-reference isn't "inspired". That was inserted by the translators, but help people understand their point of view (POV) by linking other scriptures. I'm not calling down on the translators for doing that, as every bible with marginal references does the same, regardless of the source.

You are taking two texts by different people. One allegedly by John, another by Paul.

If you turn back to Philipians and read the chapter in context you will also see that Paul is entirely consumed with a desire to see Christ. There's no mention of him desiring to be with the Father here.
There's also much reference to "the day of Christ", not the day of Jehovah (v6, 9).

Further, in verse eleven, what are the "fruits of righteousness"mentioned, if not the very fruits of the Spirit? Yet they are attributed to Christ.

Also, Paul is completely consumed with Christ, as evidenced in v21, 23. How do you explain that?

But to be honest, I don't really want to distract you from the main point of this thread which is the original verse I quoted. Paul likely wrote a number of decades before the Gospel of John was penned. If his point was so wrong, and it is obviously not based on another text, then how come it allowed to continue unchallenged? John evidently isn't writing to refute Paul, since that cross-reference is actually a bit of a stretch to attempt to explain what Paul meant. Further, if he was, it would demonstrate an internal inconsistency in the bible, which I suspect you would be even lesws happy with.

So I ask you to look at it again, and perhaps look at the underlying Greek.
Surely such an important point is worth the work, and you don't strike me as the lazy type?

Terry

Is God a spirit? Is God Holy?

Then God is "a" Holy Spirit.

Now, is that in some way different from BEING THE Holy Spirit?

If God is that selfsame Holy Spirit in what way is God different?

If the Holy Spirit shall teach you---how is God involved/not involved?

If the Holy Spirit is omniscient and
omnipotent and if the Holy Spirit resides in Christians and if the Holy
Spirit residing in Christians enables them to understand the meaning of
God's word, then why is it that Christians are unable to "fully" understand
God's word? What is it that Jesus is going to do when he returns that will
suddenly make Christians understand things that the Holy Spirit could not
enable them to understand? Is Jesus more omniscient and omnipotent than the
Holy Spirit? Or is the Holy Spirit just dilly-dallying around and not doing
his job? Inquiring minds want to know.

Terry

LittleToe

Terry:

Inquiring minds want to know.

No you don't. You want to ridicule. Your mind is already made up...

To WHOM did Ananias lie?

Share this