- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 29 2007,20:46) Hi Oxy,
I know your stand and know also such a scripture cannot be found in what we find true doctrine in- The Words of God.
I can make a fine scriptural mixture by taking individual ingredient verses and putting them all together to make one tasty looking cake that would satisfy my mind, but that is not how we find the truth given to us by God. He states things and backs up those statements.It is men that make alloyed “truths”.
Ahh Nick, so pleased to see you referring to the words of God. I have been blessed in that I am not dependant in concocting my own interpretations of the Scriptures, but the Holy Spirit has shed light on Scripture for me in His role as described:Joh 16:13 However, when He, the Spirit of Truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth. For He shall not speak of Himself, but whatever He hears, He shall speak. And He will announce to you things to come.
In fact, my pastors, who recognise my prophetic giftings, say that they know of few people who have been blessed with such open dialogue with our Lord, but I wouldn't know.
Hi Oxy,
So the Teacher shows you truth from the Words of God.
Trinity is not found there yet you teach it.
What gives?Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 30 2007,06:36) Hi Oxy,
So the Teacher shows you truth from the Words of God.
Trinity is not found there yet you teach it.
What gives?
You're right Nick, trinity is not mentioned in the Bible, but there are three, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are three, hence the word trinity. As I have stated previously, the word trinity does not mean 3 coequal parts of one God as some seem to believe.Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 30 2007,18:09) Hi Oxy,
So is the Spirit of God not the Spirit of God?
According to Scripture, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. In like manner the Word (Jesus), is the Word of God.The Word is not the Father, but is still the Word of God.
The Spirit is not the Father, but is still the Spirit of God.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 30 2007,22:13) Hi Oxy,
So the Spirit of God is another person and not the Spirit of God?
read aboveHi Oxy,
1 cor 2 seems to show that the Spirit of God is an integral aspect of God, in a similar relationship to the one we have with our spirit, and not another person.9But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
Quote Isn't it amazing how the smallest word can render Scripture useless. And the Word was A god. How dare they take that away from Jesus who suffered and died for us? 
Who also rose again from the dead and is coming again. How dare they? NOT JUST “A GOD,” LIKE OTHER “gods”
The NWT Translation Committee recognized that the noun “theos” was primarily qualitative as well as being indefinite. It was considered primarily qualitative because of the Greek word order. If the verb, a form of 'I am', comes before the anarthrous predicate nominative then, as a rule, it would be considered primarily indefinite. If after, primarily qualitative. But the noun would not be wholly qualitative, the noun would not lose its indefinitness or definitiveness. What would this mean to our understanding of John 1:1c? Well, the meaning of “and the Word was a god,” would then be that the Word was “godlike”-divine, holy, powerful and not just “a god,” in the sense he was just one of many “gods,” in the class of “gods.” (Yet John 1:18 shows that the Word was in a 'god class' of it's own for the Word was the “only begotten” theos). The Word was a “divine one.” Or, as one German translator puts it: “and godlike sort was the Logos.”-Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 1978, by Johannes Schneider.For anyone to say that the Word was God, “the only true God,” would be contrary to what the apostle John proves by the rest of his writings.
JOHN 1:34
“And I have seen [it], and I have borne witness that this one is the Son of God.””
(What did John the Baptist bear witness to regarding Jesus?)JOHN 1:49
“Nathańael answered him: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel.”” (How did Nathanael identify Jesus?)JOHN 11:27
“She [Martha] said to him: “Yes, Lord; I have believed that you are the Christ the Son of God.”” (What did Martha believe about Jesus?)JOHN 20:31
“But these have been written down that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.” (Why did John write what he did? What did he want us to believe?)JOHN 1:34
“I have borne witness that this one is the Son of God.” (Did John bear witness that Jesus was God Almighty, or God’s Son?)1 JOHN 4:15
“Whoever makes the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God . . .” (According to John, if we are to remain in union with God, what must confess?)1 JOHN 5:5
“Who is the one that conquers the world but he who has faith that Jesus is the Son of God?” (According to John, what must we have faith in–that Jesus is God, or the “Son of” God?)
(It seems that John bore witness that Jesus was the “Son of” God, that he wrote what he did so that we would believe that Jesus was the “Son of” God, telling us to have faith that Jesus is the “Son of” God, and to confess that Jesus is the “Son of” God.)We also note that in John 1:1 the Word was “with” God, and hence, not the “God” that he was with. A distinction is made. You'd have to already believe some mysterious incomprehensible belief for you to ignore these things.
In the expression “the Word was God” in the original Greek, the word for “God” does not have the definite article “the.”
In the earlier expression “the Word was with God,” the word for “God” is definite, that is, it does have the definite article.
This makes it unlikely that the two words have the same significance.Hence, some translations bring out the qualitative aspect in their translations. For example, some render the expression “the Word was divine.” (An American Translation, Schonfield) Moffatt renders it “the Logos was divine.” However, indicating that “divine” would not be the most appropriate rendering here, John Robinson and the British textual critic Sir Frederick Kenyon both pointed out that if that was what John wanted to emphasize, he could have used the Greek word for “divine,” thei′os. The New World Translation, correctly viewing the word “God” as indefinite, as well as bringing out the qualitative aspect indicated by the Greek structure, uses the indefinite article in English: “The Word was a god.”
Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, comments on this approach:
“A possible translation . . . would be, ‘The Word was a god’. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.” However, The New English Bible does not render the verse that way. Rather, John 1:1 in that version reads: “When all things began, the Word already was. The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the Word was.” Why did the translation committee not choose the simpler rendering? Professor Dodd answers: “The reason why it is inacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole.”—Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, Volume 28, January 1977.
I don't think it actually does run counter to Johaine (John) thought, although it does run counter to popular trinitarian thought.
John's thoughts.
John 1:18 says: “No one has ever seen God.”
John 1:14 clearly says: “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . we have beheld his glory.”
Also, verses 1, 2 say that in the beginning he was “with God.”JOHN 1:34
“And I have seen [it], and I have borne witness that this one is the Son of God.””
(What did John the Baptist bear witness to regarding Jesus?)JOHN 1:49
“Nathańael answered him: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel.”” (How did Nathanael identify Jesus?)JOHN 11:27
“She [Martha] said to him: “Yes, Lord; I have believed that you are the Christ the Son of God.”” (What did Martha believe about Jesus?)JOHN 20:31
“But these have been written down that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.” (Why did John write what he did? What did he want us to believe?)JOHN 1:34
“I have borne witness that this one is the Son of God.” (Did John bear witness that Jesus was God Almighty, or God’s Son?)1 JOHN 4:15
“Whoever makes the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God . . .” (According to John, if we are to remain in union with God, what must confess?)1 JOHN 5:5
“Who is the one that conquers the world but he who has faith that Jesus is the Son of God?” (According to John, what must we have faith in–that Jesus is God, or the “Son of” God?)
(It seems that John bore witness that Jesus was the “Son of” God, that he wrote what he did so that we would believe that Jesus was the “Son of” God, telling us to have faith that Jesus is the “Son of” God, and to confess that Jesus is the “Son of” God.)In the last book of the Bible, namely, in Revelation 19:13, John calls him “The Word of God,” saying: “And his name is called The Word of God.” (AV; Dy)
Note that his name is not called “God the Word,” but is called “The Word of God,” or God’s Word. Hence John 1:1 must mean, at most, that the Word was of God.Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 01 2007,07:48) Hi Oxy,
1 cor 2 seems to show that the Spirit of God is an integral aspect of God, in a similar relationship to the one we have with our spirit, and not another person.9But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
Scripture is true. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. And God sent Him to reveal to us the things of God. Why make it more complicated than what it is?Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 01 2007,18:31) Hi Oxy,
And the Spirit of God is actually the Spirit of God?
That's what the Scriptures say and that's what Jesus said.Quote According to Scripture, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. In like manner the Word (Jesus), is the Word of God. It is God's spirit, the holy spirit.
It is God's Son, Jesus Christ.The Father is the God of Jesus.
Jesus Christ is not a possession of the holy spirit.
The holy spirit is something that is God's, and that is used by him and his Son.Looking at “the holy spirit” “Jehovah God” and “Jesus Christ” we see they are used in different ways.
Example: Several times we're told that the Father (Jehovah) is the God of Jesus. (Yet, never that the holy spirit is Jesus' God, or that Jesus is the God of the holy spirit or the Jesus is the God of Jehovah or that the holy spirit is the God of Jehovah.)
Another example: The holy spirit is spoken of as a possession, something that is God's. (Yet, never is God spoken of something that is the holy spirits'. Or Jesus isn't spoken of as belonging to the holy spirit, etc.)
The following taken from here:
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworl….1.1.htmAs it might be thought that what Dr BeDuhn has written regarding how best to render QEOS EN HO LOGOS as “the Word was divine” and this somehow undermines the rendering of “the Word was a god” and even obviates the Witnesses 'use' of Dr BeDuhn regarding the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, the following may prove helpful to explain a little more this scholars reasons for his preference in both translation _and_ understanding. Dr BeDuhn himself has written:
“It is true that the most formal, literal translation of the words in John 1:1c would be “and the Word was a god.” The grammatical rules involved in this passage weigh very heavily against the more commonly seen, traditional translation, “and the Word was God.” However, translation is not only about rendering a passage word-for-word. It involves also consideration of broader syntax and the meaning of a passage as a whole.
“The grammatical construction used here can be called the qualitative or categorical use of the indefinite. Basically, that means x belongs to the category y, or “x is a y.” The examples I used in a letter now widely circulated are “Snoopy is a dog”; “The car is a Volkswagen”; and “John is a smart person.” The common translation “The Word was God” is as erroneous for this construction as it would be to say in English “Snoopy is dog”; “The car is Volkswagen”; or “John is smart person.” The indefinite article is mandatory because we are talking about a member of a class or category.
“Sometimes in English we can accomplish the same syntactical function by using a predicate adjective in place of the indefinite noun phrase. In the examples I gave above, this only works with “John is a smart person,” which means the same thing as “John is smart.” What Harner calls the qualitative sense is the same as what I call the categorical sense. In the many examples throughout the New Testament of the same grammatical construct as found in John 1:1c, the indefinite noun used is always a class or category to which the subject is said to belong. But in several of these examples, the category is used to suggest the quality the subject has, as in the many “a son of x” expressions found in the New Testament.
“Because of this evidence, we cannot rule out the possibility that for John quality was the center of focus rather than category”” Being honest to the original Greek, we cannot narrow the range of acceptable translation of John 1:1c any further than to say it is EITHER “And the Word was a god” OR “And the Word was divine.” I can, if pressed, explain at length why these two translations amount to the same thing FOR JOHN. But I also recognize that they leave open interpretation to a range of possible understandings. I am afraid I cannot do anything about that. If I were to say that the NWT translation is the only possible one, I would be committing the same offense as those who have said that “And the Word was God” is the only possible translation. The whole point of my work is to get us past these false assertions, and follow the original Greek, and follow it only as far as it takes us.
“What I can say is that “And the Word was God” is extremely difficult to justify, because it goes against the plain grammar of the passage. Either of the other two translations are acceptable, because the Greek allows them, while it does not obviously allow the traditional translation. What your correspondent needs to understand, in dealing with others on this question, is that the wording “The Word was divine” agrees 100% in meaning with “The Word was a god” and only 50% with “And the Word was God.” What must be given up from the latter wording is the absolute identity between Word and God that the traditional translation tried to impose. John clearly did not intend to make such an absolute identification, and that is precisely why he very carefully manipulates his word in the passage to rule it out. But, yes, John is putting the Word into the “god” or “divine” category, and that is as true if the wording is “a god” or “divine.”“Remember, the Word is not a human person, and John does not use “god” for the Word to say he is talking about a prophet or a leader or an important person. The Word is a superhuman (hence “divine”) essence or being, very intimately connected to The God. How intimately? In what way connected? In what precise relationship? The answers to those questions are much more involved, and must be based on a reading of the Gospel of John as a whole, where John works very hard to make it all clear. And yes, there will be disagreements about how to understand this larger picture John is trying to convey.
“Of course, if your correspondent is using what I have written in arguments with people who favor the traditional translation, they are likely to seize upon my acceptance of “The Word was divine” as somehow a defense of their view. That is also something that cannot be helped. The idea of a Trinity developed over the centuries after the Gospel of John was written precisely as one solution to the questions raised by John's wording. The JWs have a different solution to those same questions. I am not in a position to arbitrate such historical interpretations of the text. I think John went as far as he felt inspired to go in his understanding of things, and I do not fault him for not going further and for not answering all of the additional questions people have been able to raise since his time.
“The bottom line is that “The Word was a god” is exactly what the Greek says. “The Word was divine” is a possible meaning of this Greek phrasing. “The Word was God” is almost certainly ruled out by the phrasing John uses, and it is not equivalent to “The Word was divine” because without any justification in the original Greek it narrows the meaning from a quality or category (god/divine) to an individual (God).”
Jason BeDuhn
Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair
Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion
Northern Arizona University.
10/2/2001For a discussion between Dr J. BeDuhn and a trinitarian who takes issue with the above see:
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworl….l.1.htmQuote (david @ May 01 2007,20:05) Quote According to Scripture, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. In like manner the Word (Jesus), is the Word of God. It is God's spirit, the holy spirit.
It is God's Son, Jesus Christ.The Father is the God of Jesus.
Jesus Christ is not a possession of the holy spirit.
The holy spirit is something that is God's, and that is used by him and his Son.Looking at “the holy spirit” “Jehovah God” and “Jesus Christ” we see they are used in different ways.
Example: Several times we're told that the Father (Jehovah) is the God of Jesus. (Yet, never that the holy spirit is Jesus' God, or that Jesus is the God of the holy spirit or the Jesus is the God of Jehovah or that the holy spirit is the God of Jehovah.)
Another example: The holy spirit is spoken of as a possession, something that is God's. (Yet, never is God spoken of something that is the holy spirits'. Or Jesus isn't spoken of as belonging to the holy spirit, etc.)
Tell me, why does Jesus and the Scriptures continually refer to the Holy Spirit as “He”?How can the Father send the Holy Spirit if the Holy Spirit and the Father are one and the same?
How can the Holy Spirit be offended if not an identity?
How can the Holy Spirit comfort, discern, teach etc if not an identity?
I could go on but it seems pointless. You have made up your minds.
Hi Oxy,
You may relish inference but what is written is that the Spirit is of God.
That is why is is more serious to blaspheme the Spirit of God than the Son of God.
Just learn from scripture about God's Spirit and do not add your own constructs.Quote Tell me, why does Jesus and the Scriptures continually refer to the Holy Spirit as “He”?
Tell me, does the Bible every refer to inanimate things using figures of speech, such as personification? (Yes, without question.)Tell me, Does the Bible ever say: “the holy spirit is my God,” or “holy spirit the God” or “the holy spirit my God”?
Expressions such as this occur 1000 times with reference to Jehovah.
Does the expression: “the holy spirit your God” occur 455 times, as it does of “Jehovah your God”?Tell me, HOW MANY TIMES ARE WE TOLD THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS GOD?
Tell me, DID JESUS FOLLOWERS WORSHIP THE HOLY SPIRIT AS GOD?
Tell me, DOES THE BIBLE TEACH OR SAY THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS GOD, as it does of Jehovah THOUSANDS OF TIMES?
Tell me, why doesn't the holy spirit know what God knows? MARK 13:32
““Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father.”Tell me, How could the holy spirit be kept in the dark about this very important prophetic event? Are we to believe that it is possible for one member of the Godhead to keep a secret from another member while sharing the same eternal and divine “essence” of “Godself”?
Tell me, A PERSON CAN BE PORTRAYED BY THE IMAGE OF A PERSON–AS JEHOVAH AND JESUS ARE, YET FOR SOME REASON the holy spirit never is. Why?
Tell me why the holy spirit doesn't have a crown or a throne or is never pictured this way?
Tell me, In contrast to God the Father and Jesus Christ, who are consistently compared to human beings in their form and shape, the holy spirit is consistently represented, by various symbols and manifestations. why? WHY?
tELL me why it is given SECONDARY POSITION IN THE SCRIPTURES / GREETINGS…If “the holy spirit” were an integral and personal part of a triune Godhead, then why does “He” not send “His” personal greetings as well? If there were a third person involved, wouldn’t Paul have surely known about it and included “Him” in his greetings to the congregations?
Tell me, why Jehovah has a personal name and Jesus has a personal name, yet the holy spirit doesn't. It is “the” holy spirit, like “The” God or the Christ. Yet, God, Christ and holy spirit are not names. Jehovah and Jesus are names.
Tell me, why is it so often used possesively? —Judg. 3:10; Matt. 3:16; Acts 2:18; Phil. 1:19; Ps 51:11; Joel 2:28,29
Tell me where we are commanded to love the holy spirit? WE ARE COMMANDED TO LOVE JEHOVAH AND JESUS.
Tell me where the love is between the holy spirit and Jesus or the holy spirit and God. We are often told of the love between the Father and son.
Tell me where we are told that the holy spirit loves man, as is said of Jehovah and Jesus.
Tell me why it is USED IN PARALLEL WITH QUALITIES AND OTHER IMPERSONAL THINGS
2 CORINTHIANS 6:6
“by purity, by knowledge, by long-suffering, by kindness, by holy spirit, by love free from hypocrisy,”
ACTS 13:52
“And the disciples continued to be filled with joy and holy spirit.” (Compare Rom 14:17)
ACTS 6:3
“So, brothers, search out for yourselves seven certified men from among YOU, full of spirit and wisdom, that we may appoint them over this necessary business;”
ACTS 6:5
“And the thing spoken was pleasing to the whole multitude, and they selected Stephen, a man full of faith and holy spirit. . . ”
1 THESSALONIANS 1:5
“because the good news we preach did not turn up among YOU with speech alone but also with power and with holy spirit and strong conviction, just as YOU know what sort of men we became to YOU for YOUR sakes;”
ACTS 11:24
“for he was a good man and full of holy spirit and of faith. . . ..”
ACTS 10:38
“namely, Jesus who was from Naźa·reth, how God anointed him with holy spirit and power, and he went through the land . . . “
etc. etc/tell me why there are so many SCRIPTURES WHICH SPEAK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN A WAY THAT INDICATES IT IS NOT A PERSON.
It is referred to as a “gift.” (Acts 2:33; 10:38,45; 1 Timothy 4:14). The spirit of God is said to be divisible and able to be distributed. (Num. 11:17-25)
The holy spirit can ‘fill’ a person, and a person can be “full of holy spirit.” It can be “upon” him and envelop him. (Acts 2:4; 7:55; Eph 5:18; Luke 2:25-27; Exodus 31:3; Judges 3:10; 6:34)
Can a human get filled with another person?
Holy spirit was ‘given,’ ‘poured out upon,’ and ‘distributed.’ (Luke 11:13; Acts 10:45; Hebrews 2:4) It can be quenched. (1 Thessalonians 5:19) People can drink of it. (John 7:37-39; 1 Cor 12:13) The holy spirit also renews us (Titus 3:5) and must be stirred up within us (2 Timothy 1:6)
It is also called “the Holy Spirit of promise,” “the guarantee of our inheritance” and “the spirit of wisdom and revelation . . .” (Ephesians 1:13-14, 17).
Some of God’s holy spirit can be taken from one person and given to another. (Numbers 11:17, 25) The holy spirit can become operative upon someone, enabling him to perform superhuman feats. (Judges 14:6; 1 Samuel 10:6)
People can be ‘baptized’ “in holy spirit”; and they can be “anointed” with it. (Luke 1:41; Matt. 3:11; Acts 10:38)
Far from teaching equality with Jehovah, the Scriptures show that the holy spirit is not even a person. Thus John the Baptist stated that Jesus would baptize “with holy spirit and with fire,” even as he was baptizing with water.
To baptize means to immerse, to dip, to submerge. A person can baptize others with water, dipping them into it, as John did, and a person can baptize others with fire by immersing them in flames or causing their destruction; but how can one person baptize others with another person?
Since neither water nor fire is personal, is it not reasonable to conclude that the holy spirit is also not a person?
Peter stated that God poured out ‘some of his spirit’ upon all kinds of flesh. Can we imagine some of a person being poured out on thousands of other persons, as was the case at Pentecost after Peter had preached to the Jews?—Matt. 3:11; Acts 2:17, 38, 41
Mark 1:10 shows that the holy spirit came down upon Jesus “like a dove,” not in a human form. The holy spirit was not some person coming upon Jesus. If it is a person, why did it not appear as a person?
That power from God enabled Jesus to heal the sick and resurrect the dead. As Luke 5:17 says in the Diaglott: “The Mighty Power of the Lord [God] was on him [Jesus] to cure.” Later, at Pentecost, the apostles also were given the power from God to heal the sick and raise the dead. Did that make them part of some “godhead”? No, they were simply given power from God, through Christ, to do what humans ordinarily could not do.
These impersonal characteristics are certainly not attributes of a person. None of these expressions would be appropriate if the holy spirit were a person.“SOMETHING, NOT SOMEONE”–CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA ADMITS
Even though Catholics view the holy spirit as part of the trinity, New Catholic Encyclopedia Encyclopedia must admit: “The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God.” (1967, Vol. XIII, p. 575) It also reports: “The Apologists [Greek Christian writers of the second century] spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally.”—Vol. XIV, p. 296.Tell me why the earliest Christians were claimed to speak too “impersonally” of the holy spirit? Or perhaps, it was later Christians who spoke “twisted things” and “false stories” that spoke of it too “pers
onally.”
Tell me, were the early Christians wrong, or were the weeds who caim later wrong?Please, do tell.
Quote Tell me, why does Jesus and the Scriptures continually refer to the Holy Spirit as “He”? How can the Father send the Holy Spirit if the Holy Spirit and the Father are one and the same?
How can the Holy Spirit be offended if not an identity?
How can the Holy Spirit comfort, discern, teach etc if not an identity?
I could go on but it seems pointless. You have made up your minds.
Please go see the “holy spirit” thread. I've answered all these questions several times there.
Can you answer my questions?
Quote (david @ May 01 2007,20:41) Quote Tell me, why does Jesus and the Scriptures continually refer to the Holy Spirit as “He”? How can the Father send the Holy Spirit if the Holy Spirit and the Father are one and the same?
How can the Holy Spirit be offended if not an identity?
How can the Holy Spirit comfort, discern, teach etc if not an identity?
I could go on but it seems pointless. You have made up your minds.
Please go see the “holy spirit” thread. I've answered all these questions several times there.
Can you answer my questions?
Once again David, we go round in circles. As I said before, I don't see the point because you have made up your mind and we all know that there are none so blind as them that will not see.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
