In this series, we are examining four specific Watchtower claims which all sincere Jehovah’s Witnesses believe.
Watchtower Claim #2: Only the Watchtower can properly interpret the Bible
Because Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the Watchtower is God’s sole channel of communication, it follows that you and I cannot properly interpret the Bible without them to explain it to us. They cite the situation of the Ethiopian in Acts 8, who needed Philip to explain to him what he was reading. Of course, this ignores the fact that the reason he needed help understanding an Old Testament prophecy about the Messiah was because the New Testament hadn’t been written yet!
“Consider, too,” the Watchtower says, “the fact that Jehovah’s organization alone, in all the earth, is directed by God’s holy spirit or active force.[1] (Zech. 4:6) Only this organization functions for Jehovah’s purpose and to his praise. To it alone God’s Sacred Word, the Bible, is not a sealed book… How very much true Christians appreciate associating with the only organization on earth that understands the ‘deep things of God’!”[2]
Not only do Witnesses believe that outsiders can’t understand the Bible without the Watchtower organization to explain it to them; they also believe that they themselves cannot properly interpret the Bible without the organization’s overseers (they don’t call them “leaders”) to explain it to them. In the Jehovah’s Witness mindset, everything is organizational. Therefore, individuals cannot properly interpret the Bible: “Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the Bible. For this reason the Bible cannot be properly understood without Jehovah’s visible organization in mind.”[3]
These are by no means isolated statements. This has been the teaching of the Watchtower organization for more than 100 years. Promoting its six volume “Studies in the Scriptures” at the beginning of the 20th century, the Watchtower organization made this claim:
If the six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES are practically the Bible topically arranged, with Bible proof-texts given, we might not improperly name the volumes—the Bible in an arranged form. That is to say, they are not merely comments on the Bible, but they are practically the Bible itself…
Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the divine plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see, also, that if anyone lays the SCRIPTURE STUDIES aside, even after he has used them, after he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had merely read the SCRIPTURE STUDIES with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the light at the end of the two years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures.[4]
Even though the official Watchtower teaching is that the Bible is infallible and inspired by God and that Watchtower publications are not, in practice Jehovah’s Witnesses often believe Watchtower literature over the plain words of the Bible. Why? Because they believe that they can’t understand Bible truth without the Watchtower to explain it to them.
This aspect of the Jehovah’s Witness mindset explains why, when you are trying to get through to Jehovah’s Witnesses, questions work far better than statements. They don’t think you have any Bible understanding worth sharing with them. As representatives of “Jehovah’s organization,” they expect to be the teachers and you to be their student.
It also explains why they insist on using Watchtower literature. To counter this, try to get them to lead you through a study of Galatians or Romans verse by verse in its original context:
- Point out that in Acts 8, Philip witnessed to the Ethiopian using the book of Isaiah the man was reading, not outside literature published by an organization.
- Say something like this: “Then please show me the truth out of the Bible itself, read in context, the way Philip did with the Ethiopian.”
- Ask them if Watchtower literature is infallible and inspired like the Bible itself. They will answer no. Then say, “Then I prefer to study God’s Word itself.”
- Don’t let them hopscotch the Bible citing isolated and often unrelated proof texts. Insist on studying all the Bible book’s points in the order in which the inspired apostle wrote them.
If the Witnesses are willing to set aside their Watchtower literature and study the Bible alone, you have a much better chance of getting through to them with the truths of God’s Word. Because of their organizational mindset, however, they are unlikely to be willing to forego the use of Watchtower publications. In that event, say something like, “I don’t understand. If you have the truth, why is it that I am willing to go by God’s infallible Word alone and you are not?” Even if they don’t show it, this thought should trouble them because you will have effectively set up a tension between the infallibility of Scripture and the Witnesses’ reliance on the Watchtower organization.
Your turn:
Have you been able to get Witnesses to use only the Bible and not Watchtower literature? How you been able to get Witnesses to go through a Bible book with you in context rather than skipping around from one Watchtower proof text to another?
Share your thoughts in the comments.
Footnotes:
[1] The Watchtower Society teaches that the Holy Spirit is not God nor even a person, but rather an impersonal force. For this reason, they usually refer to the Holy Spirit as “holy spirit.”
[2] The Watchtower, “Praise Jehovah with His People”, 7/1/73, p. 402
[3] The Watchtower, “Finding Freedom with Jehovah’s Visible Organization”, 10/1/67, p. 587
[4] The Watch Tower, 9/15/1910, pp. 298-299
Leave a Reply
454 Comments on "Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Organizational Mindset: The Only Reliable Bible Interpreter"
In the 2013 edition of the New World Translation, 16:13 contains footnote which claims that the masculine pronouns are a personification of an impersonal force which is “holy spirit.” I would expect Jehovah’s Witnesses to parrot that claim.
How then, Brian, would a Witness explain the difference between the ‘it’ applied to the Holy Spirit and the ‘he’ applied to the same Spirit? In terms of Anglophones, I’ve given the German example; it happens in many other languages, not just English.
http://allthingslinguistic.com/post/25113486541/grammatical-gender-versus-natural-gender
Are you suggesting, Brian, that Bill Mounce has misunderstood New Testament Greek in relation to gender and the Spirit?
“And as we have seen both from the examples I’ve cited, and the facts that Mounce cites, namely, “the gender and meaning of a word are unrelated.”…and “Hebrew and Greek follow grammatical gender.”….” I believe this is YOUR understanding, Brian. I don’t believe that either the Greek grammar or the Scriptures support this position.
I’m quoting Mounce here, directly from the source as provided by you. And you are right; it is my understanding. I agree with Mounce.
So, are you claiming that this professor of NT Greek is wrong?
On his rules of grammar, no. On his immediate assumption that they don’t really apply here, I disagree. As I asked originally, where does the NT say the Spirit is a person other than John 16?
Which specific part of his statement is Greek Professor Mounce “wrong?”
If you remember the German example, Grammatical gender doesn’t dictate natural gender. Have you examples, where this rule is different in Greek?
Do you believe that the Holy Spirit has attributes?
Do you believe that a Spirit has a gender, Brian? If you answer no, then you can’t believe that God has a gender, since God is spirit – John 4:24.
The issue isn’t really gender but person-hood.
God , strictly speaking does not have the human quality of gender. He refers to himself as male as an anthropomorphism.
And I agree, the issue is person-hood.
Can other members of the Trinity also share in this anthropomorphism, if they were seen to be part of a monotheistic, triadic God?
Did you answer this, Brian?
So, agreeing that the issue is about Person-hood, do you believe that God has Person-hood or perhaps is a person?
Jews believe God is a person, Trinitarians do also. You do. I agree
In what sense is God a person, Brian, differently to us, since He is a spirit (John 4:24)…like the Holy Spirit? How is God’s spirit different to His Holy Spirit?
Is God a person?
The Watchtower says both He and Jesus are.
Yes, of course. I guess even they get some things right.
If God is a person (and a spirit), how is His spirit different to the Holy Spirit or Jesus as spirit?
Why ‘He’ rather than ‘She’ or ‘it’ since God isn’t human? Can we speak of God as ‘it’?
What do you mean by the Spirit being an ‘it?’ Is there any verses to support this?
In Greek, pneuma, is always an ‘it’. Every verse.
Does the grammatical designation ‘it’ of the word ‘pneuma’ always dictate the gender of the person?
Are you still arguing that gender has meaning? Mounce has already addressed this for us: he says no. Also, what does one do about the fact that up until this moment, when Our Lord spoke these words, all believers thought the Holy Spirit to be God’s divine influence in the world, not a person? What about context?
“All believers”? This isn’t factual, Brian. Which believer’s – specifically – say that it is only “God’s divine influence”? Do you have any verses to support this position?
Again, historical context. The OT believers did not think Gods spirit was another person, that is someone other than God. To them Gods spirit was how God influenced the world. Do some unbiased reading in Jewish belief, and OT history as explained in theTalmud and the other Rabbinical writings. The Jews believed in one God, one Person. They did not believe that the Spirit was a separate 2nd person in a godhead. They did not. This is an established historical fact. They believe the same up to today.
Is the view of the OT believers determinative? For example, the Jews expected Messiah to come as a conquering king, not as a suffering servant who would die to atone for sins. They didn’t understand that he would come twice. Only in the NT was that truth made clear.
The NT doesn’t have a verse that says, “Jehovah is a Trinity,” but the concept is certainly there. The NT applies Jehovah-only verses to Jesus (examples: Isaiah 44:24, Psalm 102:27-29 and Hebrews 1:10-12; John 1:3); Isaiah 44:8 and 1 Corinthians 10:4) .
With regard to the Holy Spirit, there are passages such as Acts 5:1-4, 2 Corinthians 3:18, and 1 Corinthians 2:10-11.
These are just some examples.
I’ve had them tell me, “Jehovah created and Jesus organized.”
The problem with that response is that these verses cited above make it clear that Jehovah did it all by himself with no-one else around – single-handedly.
An eminent Jewish rabbi, Simeon ben Joachi, in his comment on the sixth section of Leviticus, has these remarkable words: “Come and see the mystery of the word Elohim; there are three degrees, and each degree by itself alone, and yet notwithstanding they are all one, and joined together in one, and are not divided from each other.” See Ainsworth. He must be strangely prejudiced indeed who cannot see that the doctrine of a Trinity, and of a Trinity in unity, is expressed in the above words.
Quote taken from Adam Clarke’s Commentary On The Bible (e-Sword)
Thanks, Thaddeus.
“Ephesians 3 teaches us that many things were obscure to the people of God prior to the coming of Christ. ” Including a clear, definitive picture of the Triune God of the Bible. God
Agreed. And it is also absent from the NT.
“book of Hebrews, we find no explicit explanation of this New Primary Doctrine in the NT. Why?”
Not true
Where? Which passage does this?
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-oneness-unity-plural-of-majesty-pluralis-majestaticus-royal-we.htm
http://www.studytoanswer.net/judaism/uniplurality.html#notes
Thanks for sharing that.
Brian, you continue to wheel out ‘context’, as do many cults, who believe this is a magic wand. You haven’t given even one example to support your specific ‘context’ claim. This is pure conjecture and opinion.
I think you see God as the Father ONLY. The word ‘God’ is translated as more than just Father in the Bible. “The OT believers did not think Gods spirit was another person, that is someone other than God. ” Where are your proof texts?
“Do some unbiased reading in Jewish belief, and OT history as explained in the Talmud and the other Rabbinical writings.” You mean do your work for you? Provide proof to your assertions?
“This is an established historical fact. They believe the same up to today.” And your proofs are…?
I will do this when I get more time. But, I would suggest that Christians who wish to be informed would aquaint themselves with the history and beliefs of the OT as a matter of course, without having to be dragged to well.
“to the well”
Can you explain, Brian, why the Trinity MUST be proved from the OT to be true?
https://www.amazon.com/YHWH-Triune-God-Dr-Garza-ebook/dp/B007Q4OM5C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1513282494&sr=8-1&keywords=yhwh+the+triune+god
The Trinity from a Jewish perspective.
“They did not believe that the Spirit was a separate 2nd person in a godhead. They did not. ”
That’s good to hear, since Trinitarians don’t believe this false ‘straw man’ position either.
Ok, they believe he is the 3rd. The point is still the same.
Maybe, you should read this from a Jewish perspective:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Trinity-As-Revealed-Old-Testament/dp/1602660182/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1504955472&sr=1-8&keywords=trinity+in+the+old+testament
https://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Trinity-Rabbis-Believed-Father/dp/1439298203/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1504955937&sr=8-1&keywords=the+jewish+trinity
https://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Trinity-Sourcebook-Trinitarian-Testament/dp/1411601467/ref=pd_sim_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=T3C2FJV1W2WREJJR6683
https://www.amazon.com/Elohim-Poly-Monotheism-Became-Through-Prophets/dp/0692392645/ref=pd_sim_14_5?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=T3C2FJV1W2WREJJR6683
https://www.amazon.com/Great-Mystery-Yeshua-Ancient-Hebrew/dp/1499359209/ref=pd_bxgy_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=JCF09AA1AFNRXNY81PC8
http://answering-islam.org/Trinity/morey7.html
http://oldtestamenttrinity.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/
The Trinity: In the Light of the Old Testament and Rabbinical Literature By Elias Newman
http://www.perspectivedigest.org/article/154/archives/20-1/the-holy-spirit-in-the-hebrew-scriptures
http://www.laymanperspective.com/Archive%20articles/Layman_Perspective_Articles/Guest%20Archive%20Papers/Doctrine/Trinity/trinity_in_the_old_testament_Peter%20Wise.html
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/churchman/123-04_341.pdf
https://jewsforjesus.org/answers/dont-christians-believe-in-three-gods/
http://www.perspectivedigest.org/article/109/archives/18-3/the-trinity-in-the-old-testament
Good point, Anonymous. Did Brian provide an answer?
Yes, I did. Directly below his entry.
“all believers thought the Holy Spirit to be God’s divine influence in the world, not a person?” Can you show me from the Scriptures, where even one person says that the Spirit isn’t a person and only a spirit?
No answer, Brian.
Correction to the above answer: ….”wind(ruach, pneuma)”…..
http://apologetics-academy.org/online-training/2017/11/25/is-the-old-testament-trinitarian-a-conversation-with-anthony-rogers
http://speaklife.org.uk/2017/09/01/tep174/
https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Is-the-Trinity-in-the-Old-Testament-Glen-Scrivener-vs-Musharraf-Hussain
http://speaklife.org.uk/2017/08/23/moses-doctrine-of-god-is-not-muhammeds/
http://christthetruth.net/christ-in-ot/
http://feedingonchrist.com/9-traces-of-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity-in-the-old-testament/
The Mystery of the Holy Trinity in Oldest Judaism. By Dr. Frank McGloin. Published by McVey,
http://media1.wts.edu/media/audio/sf607a_copyright.mp3
http://media1.wts.edu/media/audio/sf607b_copyright.mp3
Deity revealed in OT
I’m still trying to establish your proof/evidence for the Holy Spirit being an ‘it’.
” Also, what does one do about the fact that up until this moment, when Our Lord spoke these words, all believers thought the Holy Spirit to be God’s divine influence in the world, not a person?” Where is this found?
It is found in the entire OT . Established historical fact
This isn’t an accurate statement. Where’s your evidence?
Does ‘it’ signify natural or grammatical gender? Does this effect the Spirit’s personhood?
No answer, Brian.
So, in the Latin Vulgate, ‘spiritus’ is masculine; does this mean than ‘it’ now becomes ‘he’ and in the Hebrew, the spirit is ‘ruach’ (feminine) so might this mean that the spirit of God can be referred to as ‘she’?
Did you answer this, Brian?
With regard to “poured out,” Paul says he was being poured out. In addition to Phillipians 2:17 (cited by Brian), there’s also 2 Timothy 4:6).
Any response on the “poured out” concept, Brian?
Brian, in what sense do you understand the Scriptures to “convince us of our sin?” Is it by reading them (alone) or by the power of the Spirit?
Both, with a caveat: The scripture correctly understood is an infallible guide; and is God’s witness to mankind. Assiduouly studied, it will reveal its truths to us. It is the Holy Spirit in written form. Does the Spirit help us? Undoubtably, but the method is through the inculcation of the written Word.
If the Spirit isn’t a Person, how can the Spirit help us?
Well, the spirit is God’s spirit. It is Him helping us. But from the standpoint of the spirit being a “thing”, as opposed to being a “person”, it is very common for us to speak of things helping us.
A car helps us to get to work on time. A fire helps us to keep warm. The wind (in Greek, pneuma) helps a sailboat to move. Etc etc
Brian, in what way is God a Person as opposed to the Holy Spirit not being a Person?
What do you by “God’s spirit”, since God is already ‘spirit’ in John 4:24?
What do you see as the difference between Gd as Spirit, God is Spirit and God’s Spirit?
Is there a difference between God helping us outside His Spirit and helping us with or through His Spirit?
Can this “thing” be lied to? Only persons, and not “things” can be lied to.
Figuratively, yes. And additionally, since it is God’s Holy Spirit one is lieing to God.
How can an inanimate object be lied to? Can I lie to my television or shoes?
Perhaps not these two items. But, we often use the word lie in this way. “He lied to the Commission”, for example is an exact parallel, where we say that the person lied to a thing which has no personality itself, but does represent actual persons. Conversely, sometimes we have the thing lieing. Proverbs 23:1-3 from Young’s: 1When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, Thou considerest diligently that which [is] before thee,
2And thou hast put a knife to thy throat, If thou [art] a man of appetite.
3Have no desire to his dainties, seeing it [is] lying food.
Figures of speech.
A Commission involves or includes people. This isn’t an “exact parallel.”
The commission represents the people. The spirit represent God. That is the figurative parallel. Figures of speech. As above: does food literally lie? No.
It still involves decision-making people. If this is your example, then this supports that the Spirit is a Person, like the members of a Commission and not a thing. You still haven’t addressed my questions about the idea of a Person/Person-hood within the Godhead.
Is God a Person (or Jesus pre and post incarnation)?
The commission still represents individual persons, Brian.
“He lied to the Commission”
This is a false example; a commission is composed of people. This is not an inanimate object, or a “thing.”
Does only the Father have a spirit, or does Jesus or any of us have spirits? How do you explain ‘spirit;’ in this context?
How can a ‘thing’ be lied to?
How can a ‘thing’ actively help us?
I gave 3 or 4 examples a few days ago when you asked basically the same question. Are you reading mty answers , Thad ?
You gave responses, Brian. These didn’t answer the question.
Can a spirit be a person, or have Person-hood?
Yes and yes. God, Christ, and the angels, both good and evil are all spirits, and they are persons
Explain how a spirit can be a person?
Another response, but no answer. I understand, Brian.
That is unnecessarily rude. I’ve answered lots of questions. Spent lots of time. And that’s not an easy question is it? It is about a metaphysical reality on which we can only speculate. As far as I know the Scripture does not specifically address this question.
And by the way, after my 30 or 40 answers to your question, I still can’t get a sim
….continued….still can’t get a simple one word answer to a very simple question about. Moses. I suspect your reluctance is because you know the answer is 1, and that it poses a problem for Trinitarians. But, again, it’s just a suspicion, because, after about a month, I STILL CANT GET YOU TO ANSWER! As I said in other posts: fair’s fair. 40 to 1 means I’ve been more than reasonable and accomodating
I’d like to jump in and give my opinion that Moses most likely was unaware of their being more than one Person in the Godhead. On the other hand, he wrote Genesis 18 in which Jehovah is said to appear and speak with Abraham at Mamre. That would seem to give him cause to wonder if there is far more to the nature of God than he understood. In any event, I don’t think what Moses knew or didn’t know is determinative, since much more was revealed in the NT that was unknown in the OT.
“the spirit is God’s spirit.” So, the Father can’t operate without the Spirit and never has? Does Jesus have a spirit, when He is in Heaven also, or does He work independent of a ‘spirit’?
Effectively, it is God using an inanimate, active force to help us. God has worked with His creation directly; why does He need a force or an energy to work on His behalf? Isn’t God omnipotent (unless you believe in the WT god)?
Do you believe that Jehovah’s Witnesses have God’s Spirit?
They study assiduously and have a knowledge of Scripture; is theirs inferior?
As an organization, I think not. As individuals, I assume some do, in such a measure as God sees fit.
But, you can’t be sure?
If they have this Spirit, why are the still Witnesses, since we are called to be set apart?
Well I’m not even sure about the Pope. All I know is that God loves everybody and when you seek his face he is pleased. Why does not everyone who seeks Him receive exactly the same from him? There are probably lots of reasons, the foremost of which is the fact we have free will, which includes lack of education, etc etc. so I suppose that all sorts of people, in various situations, and religious groups must receive some measure of enlightenment from Him. Would you not agree?
I would query having God’s Spirit and “some measure of enlightenment.” Buddhists, Hindus, New Agers and others have enlightenment, but not a personal relationship with God.
“we have free will, which includes lack of education, etc etc.” I can’t see the connection or relationship between “lack of education” and the Spirit of God, Brian?
” This is why I said in other posts that the Spirit seeks to lead us to the Scriptures.” The Spirit, and not God through His Spirit?
Same thing
Again, you’ve side-stepped my questions about the Watchtower, since my question wasn’t about the Pope. I’m looking for scriptural evidence and not personal opinions.
“I’ve met Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics etc who fervently sought Christ and were living lives for his Glory.” Do you believe Catholics are Christians, Brian?
Of course
Despite their ‘salvation by works approach?
Well, no one has everything right. Not me, not you, not David, not the Pope. But He died for us all, nevertheless.
I may have missed the point of your question here. What is it you want to know about the Watchtower exactly?
So, you’re not sure about JWs also?
So why are they still JW’s?
Not enough light
Do you mean the light that gets brighter?
Isn’t this a WT position of not enough light?
I consider it Biblical. Remember the strange passage in Acts, where Paul happens upon some disciples of John the Baptist, who were believers in Christ as well, but because of inadequate teaching, were only baptized in John’s baptism, and new nothing of the Holy Spirit. So Paul, after properly catechizing them, (that is ,giving them “more light”), had them receive a proper Christian Baptism, and they received the Holy Ghost.
“It is the Holy Spirit in written form.” Could you explain what you mean by this, Brian.
Well the Scriptural explanation is Heb 4:12, quoted in the post below, and other passages, such as
2 Ti 3:16 and Ps 12:6
Why is this the Hallmark passage, Brian?
Another P.S. As much as I love the venerable Old Version, I only meant to cut and paste that quote once!
Thanks for that, Brian. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is a Person within the Trinity?
No
Thanks, Brian, for being honest. Do you believe that the Scriptures/Bible teaches a Trinity/triune God?
If not, why not?
Many thanks, again.
Are you saying, Brian, that there is absolutely no evidence of the Trinity in the Old or New Testament?
Are you a Jehovah’s Witness yourself?
Brian, you say that God is 1 God (monotheism) and 1 Person. This suggests that Jesus and the Holy Spirit aren’t Persons. In what way was Jehovah’s personhood different to Jesus’?
Do you believe that Jesus was of a different essence or substance.nature to Jehovah?
“countless billions” are not part of the Trinity, and have never claimed to be. I’m speaking specifically (as I had assumed you were) about the Trinity and the idea of personhood.
If God is a Spirit, in what way is Jesus the Son of God ‘in Spirit’?
When did Jesus begin to exist – when He was physical or as a Spirit?
In what way is Jesus’ personhood not the same as the Father’s, especially as Jesus was sinless and can’t be compared to “countless billions”, which is an unfair comparison.?
That’s the trouble with mere text; sometimes a writer’s intent can be misunderstood. That’s why I said the original question seemed strange. And I’m not sure I really get your question still. Look, I’m not sure what you actually believe. Do you accept the later Creeds? Can you describe your doctrine of the Trinity for me?
The Bible teaches that God is ONE in essence/nature/Being, but three in Persons.
Where is this stated? I have read no such passage.
Any version?
This thinking is a bit like Muslims, who ask “Which verse has Jesus saying ‘I am God'” If it doesn’t say that, then it can’t be true. When they are asked where, in the Qur’an the Qur’an is mentioned, they can’t find it…hence it must mean that the Qur’an doesn’t exist. This false reasoning. Where is the Bible does it speak about ministerial servant or presiding overseer or Circuit/District overseer…, but you believed in and accepted these positions for years without question, Brian.
Are you looking for a version that states this verse?
Well the question, frankly, is rhetorical, as there is no such passage. And for any verse, the Version is not that important to me, as I will always check several, and most importantly the original.
In what way is God a person?
How would you describe Jesus as a Person, or having personhood?
Is Jesus a Person in the same way that the Father is, given that, prior to Jesus’ incarnation He was spirit?
That is an interesting question, that theologians have wrestled with for 1700 years. The doctrine of the Two Natures of Christ held by most of the early forms of Christianity, ( but not all), says that He is eternally a God-man, that is, both fully God and man. The Father has never experienced being a man, so there is something of difference there. But I’m not sure it is an essential difference. I’ll have to think about this one a bit more. How would you answer that question?
I would say, as an opener that Jesus wasn’t “eternally a God-man, that is, both fully God and man” as there was a time that Jesus wasn’t incarnated. I would also say that Jesus was never fully God or fully man,, but rather that Jesus was truly God and truly man.
“The doctrine of the Two Natures of Christ held by most of the early forms of Christianity, ” Do you believe that vast majority of the church was wrong?
“But I’m not sure it is an essential difference.” You mean between being God and Man?
Did you come up with any ideas?
I’m unsure of what you are asking here. The way the posts appear on my iphone sometimes makes it hard to tell what the previous reference (post) was.
What were the main doctrinal differences that surfaced for you?
1. Eternal destruction of the wicked. I am a Universalist.
2. Replacement theology (or eschatology); they believe the Church has completely replaced Israel. I believe Israel still figures in God’s Plan
3. The 1975 prophecy failure was so stark that it required a humble admission of failure and repentance toward the general membership and to God for overemphasizing their view, and claiming Divine guidance when such was not the case. Instead they obfuscated and eventually blamed the flock.
4. Too strict a disfellowshipping policy
5. They are wrong on blood transfusions. Especially with regard to underage children
So, you believe that none will be lost and all, eventually, will go to Heaven?
Heaven for the Body of Christ, Paradise for the rest of the world:
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. 1Jn
2:2
Christ’s death pays for all sin:
In like manner therefore, because of the offense of the one there was a guilty verdict to all the children of men, in the same way, because of the righteousness of The One there shall be the victory for Life to all the children of men. Rom 5:18
So, like the Witnesses, you believe in 2 classes of Christians, and most won’t make it into Heaven?
If Jesus’ death pays for all sins, then why two destinations? Will all be saved/born again?
Well, it’s not that simple , but at least during the Millenium and perhaps some of the ensuing eons thereafter, the Kingdom of God will have subjects living under the rule of Christ. The Church, it seems, will be ruling with Christ.
Have you verses that prove this?
The Watchtower teaching that you appear to be encouraging isn’t scriptural. The Watchtower teaches that Jesus is only the mediator for the 144,000; the 144,000 are mediators for the great crowd – the remaining JWs.
Dop you have verses to support this theological position?
Do you believe that Jesus was Michael?
This is different to being, in essence, an Archangel – a Person. This would mean that Jesus had a beginning.
Yes, Arians believe that Christ had a beginning
Do you believe Jesus had a beginning, and was created?
Yes
Can you show me a verse, despite John 1;1, where Jesus had a beginning?
What is Jesus’ essence/substance, as you understand it; how does it differ to the Father’s?
Still no reply, Brian.
Again more umbrella statements, without evidences or proofs.
“First of all, let me repeat, many theologions, including orthodox Trinitarians believe that Christ appears in his Pre-existance in the Role of an angel. ” Not as Michael. Can you show me, where the Bible speaks of Jesus as Michael?
Can you quote these Trinitarian theologians?
Michael was more than a role, Brian. Michael is a spirit; Jesus was the physical body, which was dissolved in the grave, according to the WY. It must be Michael in heaven and not Jesus, but 1 Timothy 2:5 makes it clear that we pray to Jesus or is it Michael the man.
I find the Watchtower teachings on this to be confusing. They say that Jesus is Michael, but they say that when he was on earth Jesus was just a perfect man like Adam, no more, no less. So in what sense was Jesus actually Michael? They also say that man does not have a soul separate from the body. that Jesus’ body never rose from the dead, and that the spirit is just an impersonal life force. So in what sense is Michael now the same person as Jesus?
According to the Watchtower, Michael became Jesus only when he was clothed in a physical Body, which was ultimately ‘dissolved into gasses on the grave/tomb.’ The body was called Jesus; the spiritual was called Michael. Did Jesus or Michael the spirit/ghost resurrect?
I don’t know about that. If that is what they now teach, so be it. I’m not an apologist for them. I can tell you that 40 years ago, Witnessess taught that Michael was just another name for Jesus Christ.
Or is Jesus just another name for Michael, since Jesus is only the physical form of Michael?
I don’t think it makes any difference, but again, you’d gave to ask them what they think. Christ in His Pre-existance, was known by at least one other “name” or “appelati
I’m asking you, since you still hold to JW doctrines.
……or “appellation”, namely, “the Word”. That being, that person, became flesh, became the man, Jesus.
So, you don’t believe that Jesus existed prior to his incarnation on earth?
No, you are somehow misreading what I am saying. I am an Arian. I repeat the above: Jesus was known as The Word in his pre-existence. Same person, different name. Jesus existed as a real living person before His Incarnation. He was also known as The Son of God.
Like other Arians (JW) do you believe that Jesus was “a god?” (John 1:1)
As I said before, I view the ‘theos’ of the last clause of Jn 1:1 as an adjective
The Greek makes it clear that it’s an attribute, not an adjective. How would John have written the Greek to say that “the Word was God.”
That’s what an adjective is; namely it describes the qualities (attributes) of the subject noun. So if I am understanding you correctly, we agree about the ‘theos’ of the last clause of Jn 1:1?
That doesn’t answer my question, Brian; do you believe that Jesus was ‘a god?’
I notice Jesus as ‘a god’ becomes ‘a God’ with the Father. Why the small ‘g’ to a big ‘G?’
If Jesus is called the same as the Father, then are they not both God/s?
” Jesus existed as a real living person before His Incarnation. ” Not a spirit?
So, Jesus is only Michael in fleshly form?
I guess that is how they might put it.
How would you put it? Michael or Jesus came first?
Well you may recall, I have doubts about whether or not Michael is another name for The Logos. So I am somewhat ambivalent about the whole question. If they are the same person then the question makes no sense. If not, then of course, Christ came first.
What does ‘the Word’ mean for you?
And you still believe this.
????? See the above comment
Your above comment speaks of “they”; you’re not a plural form, are you?
You asked: “So, Jesus is only Michael in fleshly form?” about what JW s think, is how I took it. So my answer was : “I guess that is how they might put it.”
As I’ve said: I have my doubts about identifying Michael with Jesus.
This still teach that Jesus and Michael are the same with different names.
That’s because you think of them as 2 different persons. JWs don’t . As I said before, to them Michael is just another name for the Word, and the word is another name for Jesus. 3 names for the same person.
Jesus and Michael are two separate people, from the Bible.
Maybe. Some Authentic Trinitarian scholars disagree with you
Which “Authentic Trinitarians” are they?
You haven’t answered my question about Jesus and Michael.
Sorry. Which specific question. Please repeat it.
Which “Authentic Trinitarians” are they, that believe Jesus=michael?
This is false teaching about Jesus’ physical resurrection, Brian.
“was eventually re-formed as the Son of God, a spirit, at His Resurrection.” The WT teaches reincarnation, not resurrection, Brian.
Again, you refuse to answer simple questions, Brian. It matters because I’ve asked the question.
Is Jesus a created angel?
So, how can Jesus be a created angel (Michael) if you acknowledge that ” Our Lord is NOT an angel. So, for at least the 2nd time, no Christ is not a created angel”?
You, like the JW’s, (only for the opposite reason) are making too much of this word angel. Angel can be a role. Many valid prominent evangelical preachers and theologians believe that Christ appears in the OT as an angel. It does not diminish His Stature any more than his appearance as a man does. JW s think him being Michael proves he was not God. They are wrong. You think Him acting in the Role of an Angel in the OT diminishes His position. It does not.
http://www.studytoanswer.net/judaism/uniplurality.html#notes
Was Jesus an angel (I’m not speaking about His role as a messenger).
No.
Incidently, both words means the same thing, with the only difference that in English, if we are speaking about heavenly creature, we use ‘angels’.
How do you accept that John 1:1 is “technically acceptable”, Brian, when it even contradicts Greek grammar and the Emphatic Diaglott?
Do you believe that Jesus was ‘a god?’
Interestingly, in John 20:28, Thomas says, “the Lord of me, and the God of me,”…not ‘a god.’
Also, in Isaiah 9:6, Jesus is referred to as ‘mighty God’ not mighty god. Is there a reason, why Jesus is God/god, since God is reserved for Jehovah??
Everything about the nature of God is important, Brian. I’ve never had an answer to this question, They’ve all been dismissed as “not important.”
You haven’t addressed this. Trinitarians are not blinded; you appear to suggest that we ignore the evidence and facts. You still haven’t answered these questions.
So, once again, you’ve decided to dismiss my questions and just answer your own, Brian?
You haven’t addressed Jesus being referred to as ‘God.’
You’ve totally ignored John 20:28, where Jesus is referred to as ‘God.’
No, I gave my answer in the post above
This was a response. Can you cut and paste this, as I can’t see your response, only talk about Isaiah 9:6?
” Again, the verse in John: while I think this verse was simply an exclamation ” and Jew would be horrified to hear you say that Thomas used God’s name as an exclamation. Where is your proof for this?
” I think the context overrides the Trinitarian pre-conceived notion of this verse.” And the context that overrides this is…?
Your whole response is based on opinion and conjecture. No evidence and proof at all. 1 Peter 3:15 …check it out.
……..continued……..Every one in that room believed that their God, the LORD God of Israel was in Heaven, NOT that He was standing there in front of them. They were all coming to realize that this miraculous sight before them, their Risen Lord, was in fact the long foretold Messiah.
3.Your whole response is based on opinion and conjecture. No evidence and proof at all. 1 Peter 3:15 …check it out.
You are correct, these opinions are probably not provable, they are simply more in context than the alternatives.
I think you use ‘context’ to side-step answering. Lack of time appears to be another side-step.
I think you ignore context. And I do answer, with the context in mind. And even though I said “lack of time” , I ended up giving a pretty lengthy answer.
Have you found the time to answer my questions above?
” that I won’t give now for lack of time” another side-step?
All the major Greek scholars say that this is an impossible translation. There is a difference between stretching and twisting Scripture. If the Holy Spirit had wanted to say that ‘the Word was God’, how would you suggest this might be written?
If the Watchtower had added an extra definite article here – e.g. the Word was the God’ this would mean in Greek that everything about God could be found in Jesus; this is modalism.
Also, even in the next couple of verses (vv. 6, 12, 13, 18) the WT breaks its own rules.
In what way misleading?
The way or order this chat gets posted sometimes is a bit confusing. I think you are referring to the NWT translation ‘a god’ , and my saying it is misleading.
Well, it can mislead people into thinking that there are 2 Gods. That is not what JWs or Arians believe. There is only one Supreme God.
“But the most irritating is their relegating Christ to a mere cog in the wheel of prayer, and completely under-estimating His role both in God’s plan, and in our spiritual lives. He is to be the object of our greatest affection, and they miss all that.”
Do you believe that Jesus deserves the same respect or honour as God Himself, since God doesn’t share His glory with anyone else (Isaiah 42:8; 48:11)?
Would you be open to discussing the Trinity?
Well, we have already been doing so. I’ve been doing so for 47 years with others. However, I have posed several questions to you over the last bit of time. You don’t respond. That might be a reasonable place to start
Is that ‘yes’ or ‘no’?
As I stated, we’ve already been doing so. So, yes, yes, yes. But you don’t answer my questions. You pose questions; I answer them. I pose questions, and you don’t answer them, except by asking another question.
We haven’t; you’ve been declaring that God is one person.
Well if discussing a topic with you means that the person who disagrees with you shouldn’t have an opinion of his own, then the discussion is over.
So, you’ve decided to through in the towel…?
Obviously not, as I said this a month ago…..I was calling you on the unreasonable statement you had just made. And it still stands,; if you think discussing the Trinity means the opposing opinion shouldn’t be voiced, then the discussion is fruitless.
throw in
Why are you putting words into my mouth, Brian, and deliberately misrepresenting me?
I did not! You intimated that my declaration that God is one person is incompatible with discussing this doctrine. That is just plainly against the spirit of open discussion. I disagree with this doctrine, and give the historical reasons thereto. That, is at least part of my contribution to the discussion.
I sure hope that isn’t what you mean, but it sounds like it!
“But, because all of the OT believers were unitarian, as were Mary, Joseph, John the Baptist, Anna the old Prophetess, Peter, James, John, and yes even Thaddaeus! ”
This isn’t an accurate statement. Even today, many Messianic Jews acknowledge that God is a Trinity. There is a sense of Trinity in Jewish writings.
If you believe that OT saints thought God was a Triune God, I don’t know what to say. Other than please, please, please, brush up on your history.
Why do you continue to be dismissive? Ad hominum comments aren’t part of this discussion.
You still haven’t addressed the John 1:1 or the John 20:28 questions.
You haven’t answered this question above.
Which one specifically. Plse restate it, and I will try
In the Shema, it says: שְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהוָ֥ה ׀ אֶחָֽד. The term אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ is translated as ‘our God.’ The word translated is Elohim, which is a plural; what type of plural do you believe it is, since God יְהוָ֥ה is singular?
Plurality in Hebrew is sometimes a figure of speech, used to express excellence or prominence or importance. This is the case when elohim is used in reference to the Supreme. There are other Heb nouns of this sort, e.g. panim, face.
Do you have evidence in terms of this verse? Is there a specific rule of Hebrew grammar covering this, Brian?
“Plurality in Hebrew is sometimes a figure of speech,” why is this the ‘sometimes’ here?
These sound like Watchtower arguments I’ve heard before. Jews and Christians believe in one God. Do you believe that Trinitarians believe in 3 Gods?
I fear you may not be reading some of my previous posts and answers. I plainly and clearly stated that I accept that Trinitarianism as it is expressed in the Creeds, and if properly taught and understood, is Monotheism. But it is NOT the Monotheism of the OT. And subsequently, since the NT does not clearly and plainly abrogate the monotheism of the OT for the new-fangled variety, neither do I.
If you read your own responses, you will find that you’ve stated several times that you’re Unitarian. The NT is specifically Trinitarian. You’ve said you’d like to be convinced of Trinitarianism, which suggests that you’re not.
It also makes a strong case for Trinitarianism.
I can’t tell what you are referring to here
Are you saying that ” I accept that Trinitarianism as it is expressed in the Creeds” but not the Trinitarianism of Scripture?
Don’t take partial sentences and suggest they mean something other than main plain and clear position I am stating. We haven’t time for that
I probably put that a little clumsily. What I meant to say is: I accept that The Nicean Trinitarianism is Monotheism, just not the Monotheism of Scripture.
Trinitarians don’t assign any sense of plurality to the nature of God. Trinity is about Person-hood or Aspect, not to the nature or essence or substance of God.
I understand the teaching. I’ve said or sung the Creed in Church a thousand times. Again the monotheism of the Bible is different from that of the Book of Common Prayer
But you’re not convinced of the Triune nature of God, which includes the personhood/personality of the Holy Spirit?
I don’t accept that you DO understand this teachings, or you’d understand that there are 3 persons in the one God.
I understand the teaching; I just don’t accept it.
I think one of your ‘get out of jail free’ cards is “context”. I haven’t heard the Hebrew Grammar explanation.
“if you care to check with Jewish scholars you find that this is is a rule in Hebrew grammar.”
Can you show me this rule?
Well, that will take a bit of time. I’ll have to look for an exact source. But one could probably just do a search for plurality in Hebrew, and something will come up. I’ll try to get back to this one
Did you have any success with the Hebrew grammar, Brian?
“We share distrust of JW biblical interpretation. Their version, like all others show translator preference based on pre-conceived doctrinal positions. Every one does it. Everyone.” Does this mean that everyone is false and unreliable?
“The passages, however that you quote are figures of speech.” How, in terms of the Holy Spirit in this context?
“We share distrust of JW biblical interpretation.” This would include Mormons, but we would all disagree with what we understand the Bible to teach.
You’ve used the phrase ‘figures of speech’ several times. Can you show me conclusively how these are figures of speech and definitely not a reference to a person?
Why do you assume that I’m guilty of Trinitarian eisegesis?
” that the new light is that God is actually now to be properly understood as 3 persons in the one God.” There is no new light, as the bible is consistent throughout. I’m not really convinced that you’re open to an explanation, since you continually speak about Trinitarian glasses.
“I had enough of that type of exegesis when I was a Witness” the WT has never been guilty of exegesis, bit Eisegesis.
I’ve explained why. I have repeatedly drawn attention to the historical fact that the OT saints believed that God was only 1 person. Yet you seem so far to ignore that fact. And then say “let’s discuss the Trinity”. I think we have been. Now, I’ve answered question after question that you have posed. And I may have missed it, but I don’t think you are answering mine. So let’s start with just one: how many persons do you believe Moses thought were in the Godhead?
“I’ve explained why. I have repeatedly drawn attention to the historical fact that the OT saints believed that God was only 1 person.”
One God in substance and essence, not one person.
Are you saying that the Jews/Rabbi’s never spoke or discussed the nature/substance of God?
I’m sure they did. The Talmud is voluminous
Any examples?
Ah, here’s where I posed a specific question. You didn’t answer. Let me ask it again: how many persons do you believe Moses thought were in the Godhead? My answer is……….One.
Again, Thaddeus, I have answered many of your questions at great length, but I can’t seem to get a simple one word answer to my one simple question. So, please, answer this one: how many persons do you believe Moses thought were in the Godhead?
This doesn’t disprove the Trinity.
What doesn’t?
You’ve asked and answered your own question????
You’ve asked and answered your own question???? Have you a verse, where Moses discusses the issue of persons within the Trinity, since Trinitarians believe the same as Moses= 1 God.
How many persons?
Can you show me, where Moses spoke about only one Person; he spoke about One God. Is there a verse that springs to mind, Brian?
The OT and NT teaches One God, not One Person.
Will you really convert, Brian?
Yes, if I am ever convinced of the Trinity I will. I will not likely remain as any form of Protestant though. I will most likely run, not walk, to Rome.
Back to the cult of Roman Catholicism?
Or, possibly, like Hank Hanegraff, Eastern Orthodoxy.
So, not to Christianity, but to false religions?!
They are Christians
Can you show me conclusively how these are figures of speech and definitely not a reference to a person?
I haven’t heard the Hebrew Grammar explanation yet.
I did give the example of the standard translation of “yehowah elohim”. It is not “The LORD Gods”, but, rather “the LORD God”, even though the noun is plural. To get several examples of noted Hebrew Grammars that site the rule I speak of, simply type in “elohim as a plural of excellence” into your search engine and you will find numerous examples.
Please provide the grammatical evidence; it’s not my responsibility to look for proofs to your opinions.
You continue to make statements, that you can’t support with evidence, but only opinions.
OK, here’s the links,( but it is less typing than your response!):
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?119577-Plural-Excellence-in-Hebrew-(ie-elohim-is-plural-
There are many others: This person provides several quotes direct from some of the most renowned Hebrew grammarians:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?119577-Plural-Excellence-in-Hebrew-(ie-elohim-is-plural-but-also-singular)
Can you highlight the specific Hebrew comments?
“In the beginning ‘elohim created the heaven and the earth. – Gen 1:1
Thus, ‘elohim is both singular and plural at the same time.”
This a direct quote from your ‘Excellence in Hebrew’ regarding Elohim.
This demonstrates both singular (Monotheism) and a ‘plural’ (‘persons) within the same idea. In other words, the idea of a Trinity, not a single person.
“Elohim means “divine ones”. From an ancient Hebrew perspective, a “being” above mankind.
So, it could be translated God, or angels, or in some cases rulers/magistrates.
The context of Genesis 1:1 is of the CREATOR, not the created ones (ie: angels).
Angels are created messengers of Almighty God.”
A further quote from your ‘Excellence in Hebrew’ quote. Note that it says “divine ones” (persons) and not ‘divine one’ ( a person). The quote lends itself towards a plurality within the Godhead and not a single entity.
Oops! I hope I did that right. Forgot to enter my name I see.
No, I messed up. that 2 nd link was the same as the first. I’ll have to re-post this more carefully later
“Their version, like all others show translator preference based on pre-conceived doctrinal positions”
This is an inaccurate statement. You’re accusing all translations and translators of being guilty of eisegesis – imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text.
My experience has been to find translator bias. I trust only the original
Who translates the originals for you?
I’ve studied the originals on every theological question I am interested in for decades. Nowadays it is so easy compared to the painstaking process required years ago, when one had to purchase all the Hebrew and Greek texts, lexicons and grammars. My favourite version is the Concordant Version, followed by Rotherham, but I must admit, that of the thousands of verses committed to memory most are from the NWT or the AV. However, the most helpful is the interlinear of both testaments provided by biblehub. It is absolutely an incredible piece of scholarship.
Our experiences don’t constitute proof, evidences, facts…only subjective opinions and anecdotal examples
Agreed. That is why we must widely on every subject including people with the opposing opinion, and the scholarly articles that shed light on the subject, and check the original languages.
Sometimes, but mostly not.
Also, Thaddeus, if I might ask, What is your religious background and current ecclesiastical affiliation?
I’m a biblical Christian
We choose to read Scripture, or listen to facts…we do the actions and approach these sources. The Spirit approaches us. The Scriptures and Science are inactive and passive and have to used; the Spirit is active and addresses us. The argument or position doesn’t stand, Brian.
I reject Pentecostalism in all of its modern forms. The Scripture is God breathed. God and Christ draw us in manifold ways, but the goal is to bring us to his chosen method of communicating to us, as follows:
Heb 4:12: King James Bible For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
It is the Spirit of God, God representing Himself in the world. In that sense we would be blaspheming Him. But again, recognize the figure here. We can and do speak of people blaspheming the Bible, or a religious service. These type of sayings are common. You come to the Scripture already believing that the Spirit is a person of the Godhead, ignoring the historic understanding of this subject by the pre- Christian people of God, and hence are forced to make figures literal to support your pre-conceived notion.
This is why I’m not convinced that you’re open to truly discussing the biblical nature of the Triune God (one in Essence and Three in Persons).
Discuss, please, discuss the Biblical nature of the Triune God. Please, please give me a passage. I’ll even settle for a smidgen of a verse that says God is a Triune God.
Do you believe that Jesus deserves the same respect or honour as the Father?
That’s a difficult question to give a precise answer to. I think in some ways, Our Lord commands more respect, in light of His supreme Sacrificial death. However, at least ultimately, when the conclusion of the eons comes, Our Lord bends the knee, as it were, and yields All to the Father; 1Cor 15:24-28
If we worship Jesus higher than the Father, isn’t this idolatry?
Ultimately, should we honour Jesus equally with the Father or at a lower level?
Jesus deserves MORE respect that the Father (God)? The Bible says different.
I was using hyperbole. After all I am an Arian!
So, you need a verse only and not lots of verses?
Do you rely on “pre-Christians (non-Christians) for your proofs?
“You come to the Scripture already believing that the Spirit is a person of the Godhead” This is a false statement.
“hence are forced to make figures literal to support your pre-conceived notion” Another false statement.
Is it possible that you might stick to the discussion, without barbed, disrespectful, patronizing comments, Brian?
Again, Do you believe that Jesus deserves the same respect or honour as the Father?
“You come to the Scripture already believing that the Spirit is a person of the Godhead” This is a false statement.”
More opinions, Brian, with no proofs.
“It is the Spirit of God, God representing Himself in the world. ” God, the Father, has been shown to speak for Himself; why would He then need a Spirit to speak on His behalf?
Why not, if that is how He chooses. At other times He uses angels, and the Son of God.
“Why not, if that is how He chooses. At other times He uses angels, and the Son of God.”
You haven’t answered my question; why would God use a spirit/Spirit, if He can do it Himself? If He has this ‘active force’ then why would He need angels?
Even humans
We are talking about the spiritual realm, Brian, not the physical. You’r changing the goalposts.
So, sins against an ‘it’ or thing are blasphemous?
So, sins against an ‘it’ or thing are blasphemous?
A service is composed of people; it is not inanimate, Brian. The Church is people, not a thing.
“We can and do speak of people blaspheming the Bible” No-one can blaspheme the Bible, as this is poor grammar. They can blaspheme a person.
“You come to the Scripture already believing that the Spirit is a person of the Godhead, ignoring the historic understanding of this subject by the pre- Christian people of God, and hence are forced to make figures literal to support your pre-conceived notion.” More false and inaccurate ad hominums.
“The “he” is NOT applied to spirit. “Pneuma” (spirit, wind) is neuter in Sacred Greek” The word ‘spirit’ is actually feminine in Hebrew, but neuter in Greek.
How is this explained, since we are talking about the same spirit?
I don’t think it requires explanation. It is just fact . And as we have seen in the Mounce quotes above it has no real significance
Brian, you made a big play on the gender of pneuma as an ‘it’. I’m now exploring this issue in terms of biblical languages and gender. If gender dictates personality, or not, then why this disparity. This question can’t be fobbed off, Brian. Mounce actually doesn’t say anything about “no real significance”, Brian. If God’s Spirit is active in both the Old and New Testament, then it must be the same Spirit. I’m asking you to explain, why the gender (if it refers to person) gravitates from neuter to feminine?
So, if the ‘she’ in the OT doesn’t designate a feminine gender, then the ‘it’ that you emphasized doesn’t make the Holy Spirit a “thing”, which you maintain. So, if “Hebrew and Greek follow GRAMMATICALLY gender” than the “thing’ and ‘it’ position doesn’t really hold any water, which has been my contention all along.
This means that, if the Spirit isn’t a “thing” or an ‘it’, then there is the possibility that the Spirit isn’t an inanimate force or energy but something else.
Can you demonstrate that the Spirit is a “thing” as opposed to a person, Brian?
So, Brian, might there be evidence that the Spirit is more than just an active force?
There might, but I’m at a loss to know what it is. The over-riding historical and didactic context from the OT leads me to believe that the Holy Spirit is God expressing his will in the world in a miraculous fashion, and not a Divine Person in the Godhead. The evidence to convince me would be an unequivocal statement in Scripture saying so.
“The over-riding historical and didactic context from the OT leads me” in terms of your own understanding of it?
Would you be open to that discussion?
Well, of course. Tell me where I mis-understand this. Please don’t tell me you think the Jews of the OT believed in the doctrine of the Trinity.
I never said “I think”.
Abdolutely!! I’ve been trying for 3 months to get you to see what most of the rest of Christendom takes for granted as established fact. I will even find some stuff for you read!
This isn’t always how Scripture works. This is like the JW argument, since Trinity isn’t mentioned in the Bible, then it is false. So, where in the Bible is the word ‘Bible’ mentioned?
“The over-riding historical and didactic context from the OT leads me to believe that the Holy Spirit is God ” so you accept that the Holy Spirit is God; that’s excellent. If the Spirit is God, then it follows that He is a Person, since you’ve already stated that the Father is a Person.
You are joking I hope.
Check out the beginning of the verse in John 16, where ekeinos is in the male gender verse – verses 13 and 14 and referring specifically to the Spirit.
Mounce has already addressed this. You asked me before, so I will ask you…..do you disagree with Mounce.
I agree with him; how do you explain ekeinos in relation to the Spirit; what is this make demonstrative pronoun referring to? What is ‘He’ in this sentence?
I support Mounce
Again, you haven’t answered the question.
Yes, you correct. Just because sprit is neuter in Gr. that neither proves or disproves personality We need other direct evidence. So, I again go back to context, in this case historical. We know what the Jews believed up to the time of Christ, and still believe today. It is that the holy spirit of the OT was God expressing his power, or presence, or influence in the world. If they were wrong about this, then Christ and the Apostles should have corrected this error in the NT. They did not.
Jews believe in One God, as do Trinitarians, Brian.
If you got a good answer…?
Show me the passage or give me a good reason why the doctrine is not spelled out for us…..and I will convert on the spot
Really??!!
Yes, really. Tell me why. Why did God not clearly and plainly spell out, state, this doctrine in the Scripture?
http://christthetruth.net/2008/04/29/christ-in-the-old-testament-5/
If it could be shown that the Jews understand a sense of plurality within God, would that influence or shape your thinking?
Why do you believe that an OT understanding nullifies or proves wrong the Shema?
I didn’t say that
“That will not be possible for you to do” So, you’ve already made up your mind, before I’ve had a chance to explain this, Brian?
In this case, yes. I do not believe after a lifetime of reading that you will convince me that all the historians and theologians who believe that the Shema teaches that God is one person, are wrong. This is the Primary Doctrine of the Old Testament. It is an established fact. You will not be able to convince me otherwise. But, as stated earlier, if you take the time to read extensively on the subject, both in the Scripture itself, and other sources, I am sure you will come to see that it is so.
The Shema is about monotheism, not the Personhood of the Godhead.
I will never believe the false doctrine of Unitarianism.
how do you explain ekeinos in relation to the Spirit; what is this make demonstrative pronoun referring to? What is ‘He’ in this sentence?
This hasn’t been addressed, Brian
I will get back to this one. I need to get the Greek text out and read it all over again first.
This is another side-step; the demonstrative pronoun is in the masculine. What is “this” or ‘this one’ referring to in the sentence?
Show me how is isn’t referring to Paracletos?
Just get a Greek text and read it. Or use the Biblehub interlinear. You will plainly see that in the phrase in question, the subject is ‘pneuma’ , not ‘parakletos’.
Ekeinos is translated as ‘that one’ by the WT. It refers to the Holy Spirit in context
Again, I agree with him; how do you explain ekeinos in relation to the Spirit; what is this make demonstrative pronoun referring to? What is ‘He’ in this sentence?
I’m not a Jew, but a Christian, Brian. The NT has a lot to say about the nature of God.
As does the Old. I’m sure you agree “all Scripture is inspired …………et al”
Have you evidence that the Spirit isn’t a HE ontologically, if we regard both Jesus and Father as ontologically male?
if grammatical gender dictates natural gender, as you’ve suggested during this discussion, then the Spirit might just be feminine?
No. My point is the exact opposite. Grammatical gender does NOT dictate natural gender. If somewhere in this discussion I’ve been unclear……my mistake, plse forgive me. Grammatical gender is usually meaningless in these languages. It is just the way they say things. Again, back to Mounce: Quoting: “Holy Spirit is not a “she”, and…….. Hebrew and Greek follow grammatical gender.
So, why have you referred to the ‘it’ (neuter) aspect of the noun ‘pneuma’ to support this position, Brian? Check out your previous comments. I am not here to attack you or score points, but only to work towards an understanding of the true nature of the Holy Spirit.
Grammatical gender is very important in Greek Grammar and exegesis and hermeneutics, but can create issues for those (JWs), who try to play at amateur Greek students.
So, how can you demonstrate conclusively that the Holy Spirit/Ghost is an it, and not a person?
This doesn’t address my question above.
1 Peter 3:15 would challenge you on this, Brian.
I don’t follow your point here. Could you elaborate ?
We have to PROVE all things, not dismiss them.
I don’t just dismiss. I give my reasons
Another dismissive response, and no answer.
This isn’t a explanation, Brian…just another dismissal.
“Thaddeus: you actually state (perhaps unwittingly) the argument for the Jehovah”s Witnesses and others who would deny the personality of the Holy Spirit, with your example of Anglophones assigning gender to impersonal things, namely ships.”
This is not an accurate statement, Brian.
The Greek and Hebrew will show that this statement is false.
“Hence in the English-speaking mind gender is indicative of personality as well. ”
This is not true in Greek or Hebrew.
Yes, exactly my point
Thanks, Brian. I believe it was in Crisis of Conscience that Ray Franz said that Fred would often suggest to him that he read such-and-such commentary regarding some topic. Ray was rather shocked at that, given that those commentaries were written by professors in “Christendom.” The advice clashed with the Watchtower’s rhetoric about the satanic nature of all other religious organizations. Ray thought Fred was suggesting going to Babylon the Great for Bible understanding.
You know, I think on this point, Ray obviously must have come around. I say this because, as I recall from things said in the literature, and I think especially from my discussions with Dr. Penton, that Ray was the de facto Editor in charge of the encyclopedia “Aid” book, (precursor to “Insight on the Scriptures”). The book is full of quotes and references to other scholarly works by Christians of various stripes.