The Holy Ghost

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is the physical body that the spirit or ghost occupied that is dead.
The spirit is alive. The Holy Spirit never occupied a physical body and
He is alive. 😏

This is ot scriptually indefensible.

In Acts the author talks about "the spirit of Christ in them" and if you read around all of Acts you will see that the "spirit of God" "the holy spirit" and the "spirit of Christ" and used interchangeably.

Elsewhere were learn that "there is one spirit".

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its really quite interesting, for clearly this is an example of bias in translation, they
believed the trinity and they translated the phrase according to their biased view point.
Apparition or ghost is not a valid translation of the Greek term Ruach. Yes i am
uninterested in the trinity, merely in translation.

If it is a biased translaton, why is it of interest to you outside of the alleged manipulation to support a trinitarian dogma?

I think the JW authorised version of the Bible has so much of it's own bias in translation, that maybe you should start there.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I already told you. It is to emphasize that He is a person just like the Father
and the Son. The Holy Spirit is the Holy Ghost or the Holy Person that can
not be touched physically. 😏

P.S. The Holy Ghost may be seen, but not touched.
The Son may be seen and touched.
The Father is never seen or touched.

I don't know where you get your information from - the back of a cereal packet perhaps?

Originally posted by divegeester
This is ot scriptually defensible.

In Acts the author talks about "the spirit of Christ in them" and if you read around all of Acts you will see that the "spirit of God" "the holy spirit" and the "spirit of Christ" and used interchangeably.

Elsewhere were learn that "there is one spirit".

Exactly , this IS the trinity. Three aspects of God's nature all ONE in Spirit NOT separate. Therefore , the doctrine of God the Father / God the Son / God the Holy Spirit. All ONE in the Spirit.

I really don't see the problem. It's a little confusing at first but it's the only honest way of making sense of the NT.

Originally posted by knightmeister
It's a little confusing at first but it's the only honest way of making sense of the NT.

Are you suggesting that because I don't accept the trinity doctrine that I'm dishonest?

Originally posted by divegeester
If it is a biased translaton, why is it of interest to you outside of the alleged manipulation to support a trinitarian dogma?

I think the JW authorised version of the Bible has so much of it's own bias in translation, that maybe you should start there.

I am interested in translation, always have been, nothing more, yes there is some bias
in our translations, but we have not attempted to introduce extra biblical doctrines like
the trinity through it. If you can find any let it be known.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes there is some bias in our translations

Refreshingly open minded of you to admit that.

Originally posted by divegeester
Refreshingly open minded of you to admit that.

nah not really, its self evident, all translations are like editorials, they reflect to some
degree a certain bias, its to what extent that bias exists and why which is the
interesting thing.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nah not really, its self evident, all translations are like editorials, they reflect to some
degree a certain bias, its to what extent that bias exists and why which is the
interesting thing.

A fair comment I would say, and I do agree (having looked into it, albeit not closely) that your OP has some independent interest because whether there is bias or not around the term "holy ghost", it doesn't on it's own support a deconstruction of the trinity doctrine.

Edit I am surprised at how tightly earnest Christians cling to the trinity doctrine; I guess I'm being naive in that respect.

Originally posted by divegeester
A fair comment I would say, and I do agree (having looked into it, albeit not closely) that your OP has some independent interest because whether there is bias or not around the term "holy ghost", it doesn't onit's own support a deconstruction of the trinity doctrine.

yes that's correct, there might have been a valid reason for it, its just i couldn't find
one and thought that those who read the K'J's version might have one. RJH made a
good case for ghost but it still doesn't seem correct, somehow, ill need to look up some
other stuff. No deconstruction of the trinity was intended but sadly no one trusted me. 🙁

yes its really interesting why the cling to it, when i go from house to house, sometimes
i find people who think that anything which suggests that its not valid is blasphemous, i
even had one crazed women who came out her house with a big sign, Jesus Christ is
God and proceeded to put it above her door, after verbally assaulting me, she went
back inside.

Originally posted by divegeester
Are you suggesting that because I don't accept the trinity doctrine that I'm dishonest?

No , that's your idea not mine. I think you just probably haven't understood what it is yet. What I meant is that the trinity is a way of reconciling a load of stuff that is quite confusing. It is a struggle but given the information we get given it's the only thing that makes any sense.

I think to say you are being dishonest would be unfair. What I would tentatively suggest is that you have probably fudged something somewhere without really realizing it. For example , one of the classic fudges JW's make is to negate the divinity of Jesus , whereas it seems clear to me that he was unequivocal in his claims to be God.

Originally posted by divegeester
A fair comment I would say, and I do agree (having looked into it, albeit not closely) that your OP has some independent interest because whether there is bias or not around the term "holy ghost", it doesn't on it's own support a deconstruction of the trinity doctrine.

Edit I am surprised at how tightly earnest Christians cling to the trinity doctrine; I guess I'm being naive in that respect.

Edit I am surprised at how tightly earnest Christians cling to the trinity doctrine; I guess I'm being naive in that respect.
-----------------------------------dive------------------------------------

Maybe it's because we earnestly believe it is the truth?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Edit I am surprised at how tightly earnest Christians cling to the trinity doctrine; I guess I'm being naive in that respect.
-----------------------------------dive------------------------------------

Maybe it's because we earnestly believe it is the truth?

I earnestly believe you are incorrect, and I assure I have not "fudged" anything. My whole approach to Christianity is not one of dogma, creed, organisation or denomination.

I have been a Christian for a long time and don't know much, but one of the few pearls I have is that 3 gods/people/personalities (whatever) in 1, is so fundamentally wrong about the nature of a God who spent the entire OT stating precisely the opposite that I find it hard to understand why people accept it just because they have been taught it.

And on that point - I have never met a trinitarian who wasn't taught the doctrine - not once.

Originally posted by divegeester
I earnestly believe you are incorrect, and I assure I have not "fudged" anything. My whole approach to Christianity is not one of dogma, creed, organisation or denomination.

I have been a Christian for a long time and don't know much, but one of the few pearls I have is that 3 gods/people/personalities (whatever) in 1, is so fundamentally wrong abo ...[text shortened]... nd on that point - I have never met a trinitarian who wasn't taught the doctrine - not once.

is so fundamentally wrong about the nature of a God who spent the entire OT stating precisely the opposite that I find it hard to understand why people accept it just because they have been taught it.
----------------------------------dive---------------------------------

I don't "accept it because I was taught it" - this is a misconception. Another misconception is that we believe God is not ONE. Trinitarians believe that God is ONE just as much as you do. We would not believe in the trinity if we felt that it fragmented God into separate "gods" (which is what the OT was trying to prevent people from doing).

You forget that Jesus said in the NT that He and his Father "are ONE" and he also said that "before abraham was I AM" (and was then hounded for saying he was God). Logically there is no way to explain this other then to realize that Jesus is presenting us with at least the first two parts of the trinity (God the Son and God the Father). Interestingly , though he never fragments God but talks in terms of "we are ONE" . I see no other way round this without fudging things.

You forget that the OT also taught us about the many different aspects of God (ie God the judge , God the merciful etc) would that mean they were saying God is not ONE?

Overall , I fail to see why the God of the Bible would stay up in heaven and not be present with his people. I would not want to worship such a God. Also Jesus was seen by many as contradicting the OT and the Torah , when infact he was fulfilling the law and the prophecies.

However , my main reason for believing the trinity is because it's the only way of making sense of what Jesus taught. He clearly talked about the Holy Spirit and he never used the word IT or talked about it as a "force". He always used the term HIM and gave the Holy Spirit attributes of personality. He said the HS would be the comforter , for example. I fail to see how when I am in distress or sadness that I am going to be comforted by an impersonal force or IT!!!?? It's truly a bizarre idea!

Originally posted by divegeester
This is ot scriptually indefensible.

In Acts the author talks about "the spirit of Christ in them" and if you read around all of Acts you will see that the "spirit of God" "the holy spirit" and the "spirit of Christ" and used interchangeably.

Elsewhere were learn that "there is one spirit".

You do not understand. The Holy Spirit has never been restricted to
occupying a physical body. The phrase "the Spirit of Christ in them" does
not mean that His Spirit is occupying their bodies like a ghost. That
means their spirits are being influenced by Christ's Spirit to do His will.