The Holy Spirit

Originally posted by RJHinds
You quoted Matthew 28:19 and concentrated on the "name" and completely
ignored that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are grouped together
there. If the Father and the Son are persons, it does not make sense to me
to say the Holy Spirit is not a person and is the only one being personified
here. But even if your understanding of the "name" is co ...[text shortened]... ever answered my question about Satan. Is Satan
also personified in your opinion?

==============================
In Acts 5:3 Peter said "Ananias, why has
Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back some of
the price of the land?" Then Peter continues, "You have not lied to men,
but to God." You can not "lie" to a force, only a person can be lied to.
And Peter believes the Holy spirit is God. You could use your logic to
say God the Father and God the Son are also personified, if you pick out
the right verses.
===============================

Thankyou. It bears repeating.

Amen.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually the term used in the context of the creation is different from those which
you quoted,

The Greek pneuma (spirit) comes from pneo, meaning “breathe or blow,” and the
Hebrew ruach (spirit) is believed to come from a root having the same meaning.
Ruach and pneuma, then, basically mean “breath” but have extended meanings
beyond that ...[text shortened]... h is
also translated “wind” and by other words that denote an invisible active force as above.

Although it is true the the Hebrew word "ruach" can have a number of
meanings, such as breath, wind, courage, strength, spirit, Spirit (Holy Spirit),
in the context of Genesis 1:2, the universal consensus of Bible scholars is
that the translation should definitely be rendered "the Spirit of God" and
that there is no warrant for any other translation in this context. To
translate it "the wind of God" or "the breath of God" does not fit well with
the context of the creation by God to me and most Bible scholars.

Originally posted by jaywill
===================================
Lacks personal identification.
Since God himself is a Spirit and is holy and since all his faithful angelic sons are spirits and are holy, it is evident that if the “holy spirit” were a person, there should reasonably be given some means in the Scriptures to distinguish and identify such spirit person
===== entification problem you JWs have is that you do not accept that Jesus Christ is Lord.

haha, thats rich when its us that's out doing the Lords work!

Originally posted by RJHinds
Although it is true the the Hebrew word "ruach" can have a number of
meanings, such as breath, wind, courage, strength, spirit, Spirit (Holy Spirit),
in the context of Genesis 1:2, the universal consensus of Bible scholars is
that the translation should definitely be rendered "the Spirit of God" and
that there is no warrant for any other translation in t ...[text shortened]... oes not fit well with
the context of the creation by God to me and most Bible scholars.

Gods active force is Gods spirit.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Gods active force is Gods spirit.

I hope you can accept that just as there is error in the Roman
Catholic Dogma there is also error in the Jehovah's Witnesses
Dogma. The Holy Bible definitely teaches that the Holy Spirit
is a person in the Godhead. Even though He can produce an
active force He is definitely a person and definitely God. The
logical conclusion for you would be, since the Father is declared
God and the Son is declared God and the Holy Spirit is declared
God and because They are distinct persons, then there are
three persons in the Godhead because there is only one God.
I know it is hard to understand, but no where does the Holy
Bible declare God is easy to understand.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I hope you can accept that just as there is error in the Roman
Catholic Dogma there is also error in the Jehovah's Witnesses
Dogma. The Holy Bible definitely teaches that the Holy Spirit
is a person in the Godhead. Even though He can produce an
active force He is definitely a person and definitely God. The
logical conclusion for you would be, since t ...[text shortened]... it is hard to understand, but no where does the Holy
Bible declare God is easy to understand.

I agree with you. People will nonetheless try to form God into something they can
grasp and understand.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree with you. People will nonetheless try to form God into something they can
grasp and understand.
Kelly

Yes, and then there are those that because they do not understand
God and His ways declare, there is no God. The following is wisdom
from Proverbs 3:5-7 NASB:

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And do not lean on your own
understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make
your paths straight. Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the Lord
and turn away from evil."

I think the Holy Spirit is trying to reach Robbie through us. What do
you think about that? Maybe, we are helping plant a seed. I hope
we can help him.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I hope you can accept that just as there is error in the Roman
Catholic Dogma there is also error in the Jehovah's Witnesses
Dogma. The Holy Bible definitely teaches that the Holy Spirit
is a person in the Godhead. Even though He can produce an
active force He is definitely a person and definitely God. The
logical conclusion for you would be, since t ...[text shortened]... it is hard to understand, but no where does the Holy
Bible declare God is easy to understand.

No i cannot accept a doctrine which i believe is essentially Pagan, of which Christ
himself did not mention, no not once, which Paul himself did not mention and which did
not enter into Church dogma until the fourth century. Even prior to becoming a
Jehovahs Witness i did not believe nor accept the idea, for its does not make any
sense nor do i concur with Jaywill who states that its a divine mystery for i do not think
God would confuse his servants with something as inexplicable as the trinity,
considering that the teachings of the Christ are so clear by way of comparison.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No i cannot accept a doctrine which i believe is essentially Pagan, of which Christ
himself did not mention, no not once, which Paul himself did not mention and which did
not enter into Church dogma until the fourth century. Even prior to becoming a
Jehovahs Witness i did not believe nor accept the idea, for its does not make any
sense nor d ...[text shortened]... s the trinity,
considering that the teachings of the Christ are so clear by way of comparison.

You are partly right. There was no such doctrine as the trinity at
the time of Christ and He did not mention it. The doctrine of the
trinity is really a theory in an attempt to explain something about
God that Jesus and His apostles have said. This is the best theory
that anyone has been able to come up with that seems to fit all
that is said in the Bible about three distinct personalities being
God but yet there is only one God. It would be better if it was
identified as a theory and not as dogma. In the same way, the
Jehovah's Witnesses should present their dogma about the Holy
Spirit, the Son, and the Father as a theory. I would have no
problem with that approach since both would be presenting there
theory about God, Who is can not be fully known or understood
since His ways are higher than our ways. But please don't go
door to door representing a lie as the truth.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are partly right. There was no such doctrine as the trinity at
the time of Christ and He did not mention it. The doctrine of the
trinity is really a theory in an attempt to explain something about
God that Jesus and His apostles have said. This is the best theory
that anyone has been able to come up with that seems to fit all
that is said in the ...[text shortened]... s are higher than our ways. But please don't go
door to door representing a lie as the truth.

Points that need to be brought out which have been explained in the past on this subject.

1) The Holy Spirit has never been given a name. If it is a spirit being such as the Father and the Son are, why no name ever given?

2) If the Holy Spirit is a spirit being as the Father and Son are as the Trinity says it is, why do the scripture clearly say that only the Father knows the day and the hour of the destruction of the wicked on the earth in the near future? It says not even the son knows. No mention of the Holy Spirit at all here.

3) No mention in the Bible at all of the Holy Spirit being created by God as the Bible describes Jesus as being God's first creation.

4) No mention of the Holy Spirit being a ruler of anykind and sitting on a throne in heaven.

5) No mention of a command for us to pray thru anyone or anything else to God except thru God's son Jesus. If the Holy Spirit was a spirit being as Jesus is, why can't we pray thru the Holy Spirit to God also?

6) Jesus mentioned that the head of a women is the man. The head of the man is the Christ. The head of the Christ is God. Where does the Holy Spirit fit in here?

7) Jesus mentioned "that his Father is the only true God". Where is the Holy Spirit here? Why not mentioned?

8) Peter mentioned that "Blessed is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ". Where is the Holy Spirit here and why not mentioned?

9) Why is the Holy Spirit never said to be a God in the Bible?

10) The term "Alpha & Omega" is used only when speking of God the Father, never of Jesus or the Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by galveston75
Points that need to be brought out which have been explained in the past on this subject.

1) The Holy Spirit has never been given a name. If it is a spirit being such as the Father and the Son are, why no name ever given?

2) If the Holy Spirit is a spirit being as the Father and Son are as the Trinity says it is, why do the scripture clearly say t ...[text shortened]... Omega" is used only when speking of God the Father, never of Jesus or the Holy Spirit.

No comments?

Originally posted by galveston75
Points that need to be brought out which have been explained in the past on this subject.

1) The Holy Spirit has never been given a name. If it is a spirit being such as the Father and the Son are, why no name ever given?

2) If the Holy Spirit is a spirit being as the Father and Son are as the Trinity says it is, why do the scripture clearly say t ...[text shortened]... Omega" is used only when speking of God the Father, never of Jesus or the Holy Spirit.

You do not give any references for your assertions. But
I have already given references that prove some are
wrong. You apparently did not read everything with any
understanding. Maybe you are like a young child, whos
teacher says he does not understand what he reads.
One of the references, Peter says the Holy Spirit is God.
The Holy Bible never says God created Jesus. Here again,
you do not understand what you read. And the Holy Spirit
prays for us when we do not know what to pray. Since you did
not give any references, I will not either. But it is clear to me,
you read with no understanding.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You do not give any references for your assertions. But
I have already given references that prove some are
wrong. You apparently did not read everything with any
understanding. Maybe you are like a young child, whos
teacher says he does not understand what he reads.
One of the references, Peter says the Holy Spirit is God.
The Holy Bible never says ...[text shortened]... give any references, I will not either. But it is clear to me,
you read with no understanding.

Dude, you're in no position to be attacking the comprehension skills of *anyone* in this forum! ;]

Originally posted by RJHinds
You do not give any references for your assertions. But
I have already given references that prove some are
wrong. You apparently did not read everything with any
understanding. Maybe you are like a young child, whos
teacher says he does not understand what he reads.
One of the references, Peter says the Holy Spirit is God.
The Holy Bible never says ...[text shortened]... give any references, I will not either. But it is clear to me,
you read with no understanding.

I'll give those scriptures to you tomorrow my friend. But I will not insult you as you seem to think it's ok to insult me.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I guess if you think a good model is always going to reflect reality as in what
really happen that is one thing. You must assume quite a bit to be so sure.
Kelly

I guess this is where you and I would disagree. Most science is proven. Not all but most. We understand how the atom works. We understand the mechanics of motion. If I do such and such this is what will result. None of these things should disturb those of faith it just shows design behind it all.



Manny