Pronouns & the Holy Spirit: A Reply to a Jehovah's Witness

[sousley]

LOL! So we are to accept you as the authority on the matter? Case settled because you copy the back and forth on CAF and call it your “papers”?

And scholarly too:shrug:

FYI: Note to anyone who did bother looking at the link and is unaware: The NASB is not “another Catholic” version. According to the Lockman Foundation, (the current publisher):
The translators come from Presbyterian, Methodist, American Baptist, Disciples, Southern Baptist, Nazarene, General Association of Regular Baptist, Congregational, Independent Baptist, Free Methodist, and still other denominations.
Not a Catholic to be found in the list of names.

Starting to look like Franz de-ja-vu all over again

 

[DelsonJacobs]

And thus ends the hour of waiting for Andrew’s reply as well.

Until then keep up the good work of demanding they demonstrate what they claim. Keep them on track.

Or better yet don’t let them take it this far. It’s always going to end this way, I fear. Have we not seen that each and every time?

Perhaps it is best to report them and get them banned immediately once we have evidence to show that they are no longer responding to points and questions raised and are just proselytizing via their “cut and paste” technique from Watchtower-approved arguments.

God bless.

 

[SteveVH]

And thus ends the hour of waiting for Andrew’s reply as well.

Until then keep up the good work of demanding they demonstrate what they claim. Keep them on track.

Or better yet don’t let them take it this far. It’s always going to end this way, I fear. Have we not seen that each and every time?

Perhaps it is best to report them and get them banned immediately once we have evidence to show that they are no longer responding to points and questions raised and are just proselytizing via their “cut and paste” technique from Watchtower-approved arguments.

God bless.

 

[Mystophilus]

Reply,

Here is a full reply on the above, I have provided a link to my papers:

letusreason.thoughts.com/posts/john-16-13-and-ekeinos

The “reply” is merely a reposting of your comment here, and the “papers” are actually blog posts.

 

[po18guy]

The “reply” is merely a reposting of your comment here, and the “papers” are actually blog posts.

Well, I guess that I will not cause further shock by alleging that JWs are not Christian…

 

[andrewgraham195]

So, in effect you have not a single answer and the link provided, is where I keep all papers and yes it my own blog, but I say again, where are your rebuttals, where are your examples of where I am wrong and I have yet to see a single instance of the terms “God” and “spirit” being used with plural pronouns and verbs!

I have been on other forums and when encountering Catholics, or other such Trinitarians, such as I have on here, the rhetoric, spin, cliches and polemics are all the same, but still no examples!

Can any of you please, show me in any one place in the bible, if the term “God” is pluralistic, i.e. that “God” is constituted of three persons and not one person and non of you have answered the simple question on John 17:3 and that is, when Jesus calls the Father, “you, the only true God” then what sort of God is Jesus, when he calls another person “you, the only true God”, is he a false God or simply “a god” and again take notice, note the use of the singular personal pronoun “you” and the singular adjective “only”!

You Catholics in the know, how does one manage to glide the singular sense of the pronoun and adjective into terms that are plural, so that the term “God” can now constitute 3 persons in the “one God” instead of there being just 1 persons constituting the “one God”?

Is it time again for some more of the spin and rhetoric…= get out clauses!

I look forward to your scholarly answers WITH examples, of course!

 

[themic]

With this ends my time here on CAF.

“Live and let live… We can inspire others through witness so that one grows together in communicating. But the worst thing of all is religious proselytism, which paralyzes: ‘I am talking with you in order to persuade you,’ No. Each person dialogues, starting with his and her own identity. The church grows by attraction, not proselytizing.”

Delson Jacobs

Funny the papa would say that…because the BIBLE SAYS THIS:

(Acts 18:3, 4) . . … 4 He would give a talk in the synagogue every sabbath and would persuade Jews and Greeks.

AND THIS:
(Acts 26:28, 29) . . .But A·grip′pa said to Paul: “In a short time you would persuade me to become a Christian.” 29 At this Paul said: “I wish to God that whether in a short time or in a long time, not only you but also all those who hear me today would become men such as I am, with the exception of these prison bonds.”

AND THIS:
(Acts 28:23-25) 23 They now arranged for a day to meet with him, and they came in even greater numbers to him in his lodging place. And from morning to evening, he explained the matter to them by bearing thorough witness concerning the Kingdom of God, to persuade them about Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets. 24 Some began to believe the things he said; others would not believe. 25 So because they disagreed with one another, they began to leave, and Paul made this one comment:. . .

Pressuring people to change their religion is wrong. Certainly, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not act in such a way. Hence, they do not proselytize in the modern meaning of the word. Rather, like the first-century Christians, they preach the good news to everyone. Any who respond voluntarily are invited to take in more knowledge by means of a Bible study. Such interested ones learn to put faith, solidly based on accurate Bible knowledge, in God and his purposes. As a result, they call on God’s name, Jehovah, for salvation. (Romans 10:13, 14, 17) Whether they will accept the good news or not is a matter of personal choice. There is no compulsion. If there were, conversion would be meaningless. To be acceptable to God, worship must come from the heart.—Deuteronomy 6:4,*5; 10:12.

 

[SteveVH]

So, in effect you have not a single answer and the link provided, is where I keep all papers and yes it my own blog, but I say again, where are your rebuttals, where are your examples of where I am wrong and I have yet to see a single instance of the terms “God” and “spirit” being used with plural pronouns and verbs!

I have been on other forums and when encountering Catholics, or other such Trinitarians, such as I have on here, the rhetoric, spin, cliches and polemics are all the same, but still no examples!

Can any of you please, show me in any one place in the bible, if the term “God” is pluralistic, i.e. that “God” is constituted of three persons and not one person and non of you have answered the simple question on John 17:3 and that is, when Jesus calls the Father, “you, the only true God” then what sort of God is Jesus, when he calls another person “you, the only true God”, is he a false God or simply “a god” and again take notice, note the use of the singular personal pronoun “you” and the singular adjective “only”!

You Catholics in the know, how does one manage to glide the singular sense of the pronoun and adjective into terms that are plural, so that the term “God” can now constitute 3 persons in the “one God” instead of there being just 1 persons constituting the “one God”?

Is it time again for some more of the spin and rhetoric…= get out clauses!

I look forward to your scholarly answers WITH examples, of course!

Glad to see that you returned, Andrew. Now will you please answer Delson’s question? That is if you want to have any credibility as a Greek language scholar and have us take you seriously.

To jog your memory, you said:

Originally Posted by andrewgraham
I do not need to Google Greek, as I have studied the language for several decades now and produced several mini thesis papers on several topics and do not have to “pretend”!

Delson very charitably responded:

Originally Posted by DelsonJacobs
I can actually help you in this and validate for others that you do indeed understand Koine Greek without the use of online tools. Since I read and speak the language we can settle this so no one will challenge you from here on out (people on this site know that I do since I’ve demonstrated this often).

Translate the following sentence in Koine Greek:

People who lived far away no longer respect the king’s artisan because of his tyranny and being given to bouts of debauched living.
And while you are at it, render this into modern American English:

καὶ γὰρ ἐν ὄψει ἀνθρώπων ἐὰν κολασθῶσιν ἡ ἐλπὶς αὐτῶν ἀθανασίας πλήρης
This should be easy. I for one give you the benefit of the doubt that you do understand koine Greek, so this should be settled in no time.

Now, will you please not ignore this or talk around it and simply provide your translation?

Thanks a bunch.

Steve

 

[SteveVH]

Funny the papa would say that…because the BIBLE SAYS THIS:

(Acts 18:3, 4) . . … 4 He would give a talk in the synagogue every sabbath and would persuade Jews and Greeks.

AND THIS:
(Acts 26:28, 29) . . .But A·grip′pa said to Paul: “In a short time you would persuade me to become a Christian.” 29 At this Paul said: “I wish to God that whether in a short time or in a long time, not only you but also all those who hear me today would become men such as I am, with the exception of these prison bonds.”

AND THIS:
(Acts 28:23-25) 23 They now arranged for a day to meet with him, and they came in even greater numbers to him in his lodging place. And from morning to evening, he explained the matter to them by bearing thorough witness concerning the Kingdom of God, to persuade them about Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets. 24 Some began to believe the things he said; others would not believe. 25 So because they disagreed with one another, they began to leave, and Paul made this one comment:. . .

Pressuring people to change their religion is wrong. Certainly, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not act in such a way. Hence, they do not proselytize in the modern meaning of the word. Rather, like the first-century Christians, they preach the good news to everyone. Any who respond voluntarily are invited to take in more knowledge by means of a Bible study. Such interested ones learn to put faith, solidly based on accurate Bible knowledge, in God and his purposes. As a result, they call on God’s name, Jehovah, for salvation. (Romans 10:13, 14, 17) Whether they will accept the good news or not is a matter of personal choice. There is no compulsion. If there were, conversion would be meaningless. To be acceptable to God, worship must come from the heart.—Deuteronomy 6:4,*5; 10:12.

Looks like Andrew brought in reinforcements. Great! The more the merrier. The fact is that if you do not proselytize as a Jehovah’s Witness you get in big trouble with the folks in New York. What in the world do you think Jehovah’s Witnesses are doing when they knock on doors? They are filling their monthly quota of approaching people with the sole purpose of turning them away from Christianity and toward your particular belief system. I don’t know who you think you are fooling.

 

[guanophore]

Pressuring people to change their religion is wrong. Certainly, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not act in such a way. Hence, they do not proselytize in the modern meaning of the word. Rather, like the first-century Christians, they preach the good news to everyone. Any who respond voluntarily are invited to take in more knowledge by means of a Bible study. Such interested ones learn to put faith, solidly based on accurate Bible knowledge, in God and his purposes. As a result, they call on God’s name, Jehovah, for salvation. (Romans 10:13, 14, 17) Whether they will accept the good news or not is a matter of personal choice. There is no compulsion. If there were, conversion would be meaningless. To be acceptable to God, worship must come from the heart.—Deuteronomy 6:4,*5; 10:12.

Thank you for laying your agenda forth so clearly!

Certainly no one will claim they could not see it coming.

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

I seem to recall the founder of the JW sect got into a little bit of trouble for exaggerating his knowledge of ancient languages under oath.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

I seem to recall the founder of the JW sect got into a little bit of trouble for exaggerating his knowledge of ancient languages under oath.

According to reports, C.T. Russell took a Baptist preacher to court on the charge of printing and publishing libel.

The preacher, J.J. Ross, had published a booklet entitled *Some Facts and Some More Facts About the Self Styled Pastor C.T. Russell *(a bit redundant and lack of style of a title by today’s standards) in which he made the comment that “Russell does not know the dead languages,” referring to Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, Septuagint and Koine Greek, and Ecclesiastical Latin.

Russell saw this as defamatory and took Ross to court.

The now infamous court discussion between the attorney questioning Russell on the stand about this went like this:

Counsel
Do you know the Greek Alphabet?

Russell
Oh yes.

Counsel
Can you tell me the correct letters if you see them?

Russell
Some of them, I might make a mistake on some of them.

Counsel
Would you tell me the names of those on top of page 447 I have got here.

Russell was shown this page from a copy of a then current edition of the Wescott & Hort Greek Master Text of the New Testament.

Russell - After looking at the page.
Well I don’t know.

Counsel
You can’t tell what those letters are? Look at them and see if you know.

Russell - Proceeding to discuss why he cannot do so.
My way–

Counsel–Purposefully interrupting to get to the point.
Are you familiar with the Greek language?

Russell
No.​

By the way, the above Greek phrase I supplied was in Septuagint Greek. It is a text from the Book of Wisdom.

The English sentence when rendered in Greek would have be a key to helping him translate the verse. All the words in the English sentence are particular to that book and should have pointed him to where the Greek phrase could be found even if he was not familiar enough with the particular dialect of that text.

 

[po18guy]

C.T. Russell is the very foundation upon which the JW house has been built. His teaching, based not upon any claimed revelation or vision, altered the revealed nature of God. It was simply one persuasive man’s opinion.

In other words:he privately interpreted the scriptures, apart from Church authority.

He had zero theology training. 8th grade general education.

In other words: ignorant.

He was sued for divorce by his wife on grounds of mental cruelty. He was accused of fraud for the very dubious claims he made about the high-priced “miracle wheat”

In other words: unstable.

Years before him, a man had written an admonishment to fellow Christians. It cautioned that scriptural prophecy was not a matter of private interpretation. It cautioned against those who twisted and distorted the scriptures. It claimed that those who did these things would bring destruction upon themselves.

That author was Saint Peter.

2 Peter 1:20-21 “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

2 Peter 3:15-16 “And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this[a] as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.”