@ justcool/ enigma -

The plain truth is that both your explanations are clearly recognisable by the objective mind as attempts to muscle that which is obvious and plain into your preconceived dogma. I cannot put it any more honestly than that.

And in this I needn't write an epistle. I will merely contrast one set of facts against another and the truth will be obvious to all.

First set of facts. The following beliefs are common to you both -

1. Jesus is divine

2. Jesus was the embodiment of the love of the Father

3. Jesus pre-existed this world

4. Jesus had deep knowledge of the purpose of his mission on earth and the will of the Father

5. Being divine, Jesus knew that which was possible and that which was not

Second set of facts -

1. Notwithstanding Jesus' presumed divine nature, he was unable to stand unflinchingly before the moment of torment even when mere mortals have stood unflinchingly before such

2. Notwithstanding that Jesus presumably was the embodiment of the love of the Father he was not able to summon such unflinching courage as would enable him to make the sacrifice for mankind without seeking a cop-out: notwithstanding that many mere mortals have made such painful sacrifices for their families and loved ones without seeking a cop-out.

3. Notwithstanding that Jesus pre-existed this world he did not know the exact permutations subsequent to Gethsemane thus necessitating that prayer.

4. Notwithstanding that Jesus had deep knowledge of the purpose of his mission and the will of the Father he was unable to resist a plaintive plea to avert that which had been inscribed.

5. Notwithstanding that being presumably divine, Jesus supposedly knew that which was possible and that which was not, Jesus proceeded to make that plea in Gethsemane.

I feel that Justcool entirely misses the point for the the following reason -

1. His example of a "wish" not to enter the morning cold is entirely off centre for the simple reason that that only passes as a momentary acknowledgement of the harshness to follow: it does not constitute an earnest prayer for the avoidance of that harshness: if we must be honest with ourselves, Gethsemane was an honest prayer for the complete avoidance of that which was to follow: and we are made aware of this by the exact words deployed in scripture.

2. For enigma, the old excuse of the human/ divine hypostatis is just tiring: for Christ's sake a divine being in human form must have more torque than a mere mortal. For indeed: why was he without sin? The Divine nature, clearly. That same nature logically must operate to offset human frailties such as fear: just as surely as it operated to offset the human tendency to sin.

^^^ 

OK: we can agree to disagree on whether Jesus showed a will different from the will of the Father.

Back to the purpose of this thread (i.e. whether the Holy Spirit is personal and sentient) and I pose this question once again:

Enigma:
do you now still think that the Holy Spirit is not a personal sentient being? Especially after the following link given earlier above?  http://www.carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/verses-showing-identity-ministry-and-personhood-holy-spirit

Enigma -

I have gone through the verses in the link you provided.

Let me just say again that we need to be careful not to read figures of speech literally. To demostrate this point, I have selected just one of the many verses there:

Rev. 22:17, "And the Spirit and the bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost."

Notice it says that the "spirit and the bride say. . ." - now would you tell me that the bride therein refers to a personal sentient being? I do not know what your perception is, but I know that in christian teaching the bride is a reference to the church. Now, if the bride "says" and yet is not a personal sentient being - why must we in the same sentence and the same context perceive the spirit to be so?

A spirit which is the will of God may teach, comfort and guide - and yet these are not indications of its being personal. I would like that you show me where it is said that it sits on a throne, for example.

^^^

Well, I can only reiterate what we Christians believe: the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

You sought to show that the Holy Spirit is not a personal sentient being. The burden of proof is actually on you and not on us Christians. Nevertheless we Christians on this thread went even beyond what was required --- in the proof that we have provided.

However, you have not met your own intended burden --- to show that the Holy Spirit is not a personal sentient being.

Really, if we say nothing you still have a tough (in fact, impossible) mountain to climb. Indeed we have been indulgent to you in attempting to show you another way of looking at things. It seems advisable once again, for me personally, to wait until I see you show worthwhile 'proof' that the Holy Spirit is not personal and sentient before it is necessary to "continue with the case for the defence."

In addition to Deep Sight’s post above, here is another of the scripture references provided in Enigma’s link in an effort to show that the Holy Spirit speaks and is therefore a person:

Acts 28:25-26, "And when they did not agree with one another, they began leaving after Paul had spoken one parting word, "The Holy Spirit rightly spoke through Isaiah the prophet to your fathers, saying, ‘Go to this people and say, "You will keep on hearing, but will not understand."

What scripture was being referred to in the above? Isaiah 6:9. Here (NIV):

8 Then I heard the voice of [i]the Lord [/i]saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?"
And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"
9 He said, "Go and tell this people:
" 'Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.'

Which erases every sliver of doubt anyone still has as to who is actually speaking whenever the Holy Spirit of simply “the Spirit” is said to speak or, in fact, do anything.

^ no pun or insult meant what do u believe in?
My joe

It has been shown that:
- The Holy is ascribed qualities not usually associated with persons, like being poured out, filing things, overshadowing.
- The Father and Son cannot do the above.
- There are no records of the Holy Spirit interacting with anyone, debating, or deliberating.
- Where the Holy Spirit is ascribed personal qualities, such as comforting, this is clearly a figure of speech.
- There is nothing abnormal about the Holy Spirit being ascribed personal qualities, since the Bible does the same with grace, sin, death and love. And we do same in speech.
- The Bible is full of instances of the Father and Son personally reaching out. But not the Holy Spirit.

But Enigma still wants the “burden of proof” activated. It’s an enigma! 

toba:

^ no pun or insult meant what do u believe in?
My joe

God.

But the subject of this thread is. . . Well, you can see it.

MyJoe:

It has been shown that:
- The Holy is ascribed qualities not usually associated with persons, like being poured out, filing things, overshadowing.
- The Father and Son cannot do the above.
- There are no records of the Holy Spirit interacting with anyone, debating, or deliberating.
- Where the Holy Spirit is ascribed personal qualities, such as comforting, this is clearly a figure of speech.
- There is nothing abnormal about the Holy Spirit being ascribed personal qualities, since the Bible does the same with grace, sin, death and love. And we do same in speech.
- The Bible is full of instances of the Father and Son personally reaching out. But not the Holy Spirit.

But Enigma still wants the “burden of proof” activated. It’s an enigma!  

I will only bother to take on one of this, please work out who the "He" is referring to:

He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)

Ephesians 4:10

^^^ Pavlovian.

There is nothing to "work out" in that verse, Enigma. Nothing. 


Ephesians 4:5-12 (New International Version)

5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

7But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8This is why it[a] says:
"When he ascended on high,
he led captives in his train
and gave gifts to men."[b] 9(What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions[c]? 10He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) 11It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up

^^^

You can have it in whatever version you like really.   

Certainly it wasn't the Holy Spirit said to be doing the filling in that instance!

@MyJoe:

Most Deists do not believe God can do all things. Its one thing to say "God is able" and another not to take the alternative path to Truth if it is offered. Maybe its me but where I see a man that chooses wrong over right because he sees (what he believes to be) "gain" in it, I believe such person to have decided God doesn't have the capability to fulfill such persons hence the choice of wrong. Mouthing it is NOT living it!

Another way to look at this is in our primary beliefs - some here insist light is equal to darkness i.e. God is the good side = Satan which is the bad side. That in another way, is a limit being placed on God! Same is the issue of God being impersonal.

BTW, your Acts 28:25 & 26 quote that you have translated to Is 6:9 does something you seem not to have considered - it PROVES that the authors of Acts believe God the Father and the Spirit to be one and the same Person. 1 God manifesting in three ways, remember?

So yes, you are right - when the Spirit is talking, it is God that is talking. Is God then not a personal sentient being? Yet even without that, we have the following

Eph. 4:30, "And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption."

Rom. 8:26, "And in the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words"

Acts 10:19, "And while Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are looking for you."

1 Cor. 2:11, "For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God."

Acts 5:32, "And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him."

John 14:26, "These things I have spoken to you, while abiding with you. "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

^^^
Do you notice so far how many they have "attacked" of the things mentioned in the list in the link?

Link again: http://www.carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/verses-showing-identity-ministry-and-personhood-holy-spirit


PS EDIT @nuclearboy I need to reply an email, sorry about lateness.

Enigma:

^^^

You can have it in whatever version you like really.   

Certainly it wasn't the Holy Spirit said to be doing the filling in that instance!

Right. Still you have no record anyone's being filled with God the Father, or with Christ (to say nothing of being poured out), so my statement stands.

In any case, I don't see what this red herring ("filling", the one point you carefully picked out of the many others to address) proves. Remember God and Christ can dwell in your heart, an obvious figure of speech since your heart is way too small to lodge God. God is the universal sovereign, intangible, infinite, incomprehensible. So, of course, he can fill the universe. And Christ is Godlike, according to the Bible.

^^^ Enigma, I needn't go through each single verse therein to show you that figures of speech are what are at play. I have said before the the spirit does indeed teach, guide and comfort: this does not make it personal, anymore than your conscience would be a personal sentient being because it teaches and guides you?

It is emphatically obvious in every verse in that link that simple figures of speech are at play - the example of the bride speaking I gave above is sifficient to show this.

Also there is no "attacking" anything - there is only each person's view of scripture.

MyJoe:

Right. Still you have no record anyone's being filled with God the Father, or with Christ (to say nothing of being poured out), so my statement stands.

In any case, I don't see what this red herring ("filling", the one point you carefully picked out of the many others to address) proves. Remember God and Christ can dwell in your heart, an obvious figure of speech since your heart is way too small to lodge God. God is the universal sovereign, intangible, infinite, incomprehensible. So, of course, he can fill the universe. And Christ is Godlike, according to the Bible.

Oh I can give you "poured out" alright but I won't bother. As I have said before even if I say nothing more on this thread, I expect to be vindicated ----- because I do not see you or Deep Sight being able to prove that the Holy Spirit is not personal and sentient especially at the same time as proving that the Father is personal and sentient.

Deep Sight:

^^^ Enigma, I needn't go through each single verse therein to show you that figures of speech are what are at play. I have said before the the spirit does indeed teach, guide and comfort: this does not make it personal, anymore than your conscience would be a personal sentient being because it teaches and guides you?

It is emphatically obvious in every verse in that link that simple figures of speech are at play - the example of the bride speaking I gave above is sifficient to show this.

Also there is no "attacking" anything - there is only each person's view of scripture.

Refer to answer above: even if I say nothing more you will not be able to prove that the Holy Spirit is not personal and sentient especially at the same time as proving that the Father is personal and sentient.

In fact I will probably not post again (subject to some exceptions) until I see anything even approaching such proof.

Enigma:

^^^
Do you notice so far how many they have "attacked" of the things mentioned in the list in the link?

Link again: http://www.carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/verses-showing-identity-ministry-and-personhood-holy-spirit


PS EDIT @nuclearboy I need to reply an email, sorry about lateness.

I am surprised you see an attack in thought out responses. So until every Scripture is dissected one-by-one will an impact be made? I see, but that gives you a huge task in this thread.

@nuclearboy
Got to leave here right now. Will respond when I get back - maybe in a day or two.

^^^ What! We are still on about the sentience of the Father? ? ?

Enigma:

Oh I can give you "poured out" alright but I won't bother.

Oh, yeah.

Enigma:

As I have said before even if I say nothing more on this thread, I expect to be vindicated ----- because I do not see you or Deep Sight being able to prove that the Holy Spirit is not personal and sentient especially at the same time as proving that the Father is personal and sentient.

Enigma:

Refer to answer above: even if I say nothing more you will not be able to prove that the Holy Spirit is not personal and sentient especially at the same time as proving that the Father is personal and sentient.

In fact I will probably not post again (subject to some exceptions) until I see anything even approaching such proof.

Great!! Great!!!

@DeepSight & MyJoe:

Please show us the figures of speech used in John 14:26 and Acts 10:19

@Enigma:

Yes I did. Seems very selective yet made to seem all encompassing.

MyJoe:

I am surprised you see an attack in thought out responses. So until every Scripture is dissected one-by-one will an impact be made? I see, but that gives you a huge task in this thread. . . .

The word "attacked" was deliberately in quotes; it was not directed personally; it was directed at a particular selection or two particular selections (one each for you and Deep Sight) from various things on the list.

MyJoe:

. . . .
Great!! Great!!!

I need to address this post because of its implications that 'I am running away from a fight'. Way before the most recent "attempts" by you and Deep Sight --- this is what I already said.

Enigma:

^^^

Well, I can only reiterate what we Christians believe: the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

You sought to show that the Holy Spirit is not a personal sentient being. The burden of proof is actually on you and not on us Christians. Nevertheless we Christians on this thread went even beyond what was required --- in the proof that we have provided.

However, you have not met your own intended burden --- to show that the Holy Spirit is not a personal sentient being.

Really, if we say nothing you still have a tough (in fact, impossible) mountain to climb. Indeed we have been indulgent to you in attempting to show you another way of looking at things. It seems advisable once again, for me personally, to wait until I see you show worthwhile 'proof' that the Holy Spirit is not personal and sentient before it is necessary to "continue with the case for the defence."

Yes, I repeat that for me personally it is an indulgence debating with someone who says that the Holy Spirit is not a personal sentient being until that person shows worthwhile proof that the Holy Spirit is not a personal sentient being. So far, I haven't seen any such proof and neither do I expect to see any. Surprise me!

nuclearboy:

@MyJoe:

Most Deists do not believe God can do all things.

I believe you are genuinely speaking from your perception of things, but I cannot tell whether by “most Deists” you mean the classical deists one can read about on the Internet or the deists you have read on this forum. It’s not a creed. On a general note, though, I am not aware that deists do not believe God can do all things. Perhaps you are aware of the statements credited to some of the foremost champions of deism when asked what they think of the afterlife. They reply that they don't know, but that they completely trust God to take care of it. That is an admission that there is a lot God does that they don't know about.

I think the basic thing about deism is the claim to “rational belief” in God, that is, God is impersonal, does not reveal himself and is not directly responsible for what happens everyday. Some deists believe just one of those items, others believe all three. If that is what you call not believing God can do all things, you can make the charge to any worldview – Christians who don’t believe God can be everything (pantheism/panentheism); Christians who do not believe God can save Moslems; Moslems who don’t believe God can be three or send his son to die, etc.

While “deism” may not completely encapsulate my worldview, it is one label I do not shy away from because it approximates it enough to be useful. I do not believe God deals with us personally, but this is not akin to saying that such things as prayers are not answered. I do not believe God intervenes in human affairs but that is a different matter from intervening on behalf of humanity by, say, sending prophets or even sons. (I don’t know he has, but it’s a possibility I am open to.) That is why you have Christian deists. They attend church and believe God sent Christ to die to save humanity but they think God is impersonal. Personally, I do not see any lie in my position.

nuclearboy:
Its one thing to say "God is able" and another not to take the alternative path to Truth if it is offered.

You are losing me. What path to truth that is not a subject of subjective faith and debates has been offered and is rejected by deists? Or should I read the above as:  "Its one thing to say 'God is able' and another not to take to Christianity once preached to."

nuclearboy:
Maybe its me but where I see a man that chooses wrong over right because he sees (what he believes to be) "gain" in it, I believe such person to have decided God doesn't have the capability to fulfill such persons hence the choice of wrong. Mouthing it is NOT living it!

I don’t get the above at all. I have tried, but really I don’t.

nuclearboy:
Another way to look at this is in our primary beliefs - some here insist light is equal to darkness i.e. God is the good side = Satan which is the bad side. That in another way, is a limit being placed on God!

There may be an issue of inferences here. I am yet to come across a single post equating God and Satan.

nuclearboy:
Same is the issue of God being impersonal.

Okaaay. I think I am understanding you, now. I also don't doubt that your concerns are genuine. I have already addressed this. God being impersonal is not a limitation. For one thing, God made the laws that govern creation. Saying he put laws in place to govern everything and so not having to deal with us individually is not limiting him – it just shows his awesome power. Imagine a computer programmer that can write a software to govern the whole universe! Our thoughts, words and deeds are recorded. They hang about us and come back to us. God does not need to personally pick up a pen to write down anything because the laws work out perfectly. That is what is meant by God being impersonal.The grace of God abounds in creation. When anything good happens to me I give thanks to God for it even though I don’t believe he personally looked down from this throne this morning and said, “That is MyJoe down there. What do I do for him, today?” I give thanks because it is what he brought into being that makes everything possible. And all this is not the same thing as saying God cannot relate with an individual should he decide to.

nuclearboy:

BTW, your Acts 28:25 & 26 quote that you have translated to Is 6:9 does something you seem not to have considered - it PROVES that the authors of Acts believe God the Father and the Spirit to be one and the same Person. 1 God manifesting in three ways, remember?

If you read both scriptures you will see I have not done any translation. I merely stated what is. I don't think this doctrine is of great importance but am only trying to show that the Bible leans more towards a Holy Spirit that is not a person.

Regular posters and not-so-regular ones like me around here would be quite familiar with your view of the Trinity doctrine: One God who shows himself in three different ways, like Nuclearboy appearing as (1) a businessman (2) a tennis player (3) a loving father of ten kids.  I must say this presents far more problems for me than the classical Trinity, but that is another matter.

nuclearboy:
So yes, you are right - when the Spirit is talking, it is God that is talking. Is God then not a personal sentient being? Yet even without that, we have the following

Yes. The Bible does present God as a personal sentient being and that has never been in contention in this thread. (I do note that Deep Sight wasted good time addressing it.) My understanding of the Bible is that the Holy Spirit is the active force of God, that is, God’s power in action, or the means by which he accomplishes his purposes. Paul’s reference to Isaiah confirms that it was God speaking, using his Holy Spirit, not the Holy Spirit speaking of itself. If you are to accept your own explanation that would mean the Bible is unsure whether God said it when he was manifesting as the Father or when he was manifesting as the Holy Spirit. Or when Jesus said “Concerning that day and hour. . .” can Paul or anyone say “And God said, ‘concerning that day and hour. . .”?

nuclearboy:
Eph. 4:30, "And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption."

“The Holy Spirit of God.” Well put. That confirms my understanding of the Bible Holy Spirit as the active force of God. Like I did acknowledge, there are verses in the Bible ascribing personality to the Holy Spirit. Eph 4:30 does not qualify. It does the reverse.

nuclearboy:
Rom. 8:26, "And in the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words"

Acts 10:19, "And while Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are looking for you."

These verses have been addressed. The Spirit can talk.

nuclearboy:
1 Cor. 2:11, "For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God."

Please read the above verse again: “The spirit of man”. “The spirit of God.” It appears clear that both are used in the same sense. That encapsulates my understanding of the Bible Holy Spirit. In fact, you can forget everything I have written in this thread and take only 1 Cor 2:11 to the bank. 

nuclearboy:
Acts 5:32, "And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him."

And what does this one say? That God gave out God [classic Trinity] or that he gave out himself in another manifestation [your version] or that he gave out his Spirit, his active force [my position on the Bible]? Is the Holy Spirit a person in that verse?

nuclearboy:
John 14:26, "These things I have spoken to you, while abiding with you. "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

This has been addressed.

nuclearboy:

@DeepSight & MyJoe:

Please show us the figures of speech used in John 14:26 and Acts 10:19

Please look at the references to "figures of speech" made in specific cases earlier. They were not random claims, but it was shown from the verse how that is so.

nuclearboy:
@Enigma:

Yes I did. Seems very selective yet made to seem all encompassing.

I am surprised you would write this in endorsement of Enigma’s post making a third person reference to selective “attack”. It is possible, of course, that Enigma candidly sees the tenability of his position in this thread. It’s possible.

Is “attacking” the references one by one necessary? My statement was not all-encompassing but addressed several of the verses – God speaks using his spirit. This happens in several of the scriptures, so that single reference covered those. But in response Enigma talks only about “filling”, and lets on that he can produce “poured out”, a claim that does not appear honest since the only “poured out” references he will find are of people dying, which Enigma, or anyone at all, would be too smart to attempt to parallel with the activities of the Holy Spirit.

Have a great weekend!

^^^

I certainly can produce "poured out" - from the Bible.

@ All

Anyway, those saying the Holy Spirit is not a personal sentient being have not even left the starting blocks. OK, let me be more charitable; they have made a false start and need to return to the starting blocks. Here are a few things they will need to do just to get off the blocks properly:

1. Define what is meant by "personal"
2. Define what is meant by "sentient"
3. Distinguish between "personal" and "sentient"
4. Explain whether corporealty is essential to either personality or sentience
5. When they say God the Father appeared in the Old Testament, distinguish between a Theophany, Christophany or Angelophany e.g. the Bible itself says in a number of places that no man has seen God or that no man can see God and live!
6. Explain the Spirit of God hovering on waters ---- as being just the 'power', 'force', 'will' or whatever of God doing the hovering
7. Explain the Holy Spirit descending as a dove as just the 'power', 'will', 'force' or whatever of God descending
8. Explain the Holy Spirit descending on the 120 as tongues of fire as just the 'power', 'force', 'will' or whatever of God descending
9. Explain whether any of the following is a personal sentient being:
a. The Pre-Incarnation Jesus Christ
b. The Ascended Jesus Christ
c. Today's Jesus Christ (i.e. (b) expressed in another way)
d. Archangels
e. Angels
f. Cherubim
g. Seraphim
h. "Sons of God"
i. Satan
j. Demons/Evil Spirits

For me this is just for them to get off the starting blocks at all. And notice that I have not so far gone on the offensive; I have not so far dissected their own posts which contain inaccuracies, misunderstandings and, frankly, a lot of nonsense!

The fact that the holy spirit once assumed the form of a living creature of a dove during the baptism of JESUS proves it is a living being

^^^ To be sincere, after reading MyJoe's posts above, I was coming here to state that this is to me, a waste of time. Enigma's post above though, will likely bring this discussion back to life. On the other thread about the Holy Spirit, I wrote earlier that I'd have to pass exams to become a lawyer. Whether or not I read wider than all the QCs in the UK, this would still be the case. Maybe thats what this boils down to but I took an exam with the infilling of the Spirit. It was a personal experience and I relate to what I received as a personality that speaks, guides, reasons; not an impersonal force.

I do get MyJoe's points and respect them. If I didn't know what I've experienced, maybe you could convince me but I assure you, thats all just a lot of english and interpretation. Call it delusion or whatever, my reality is different from what you've eisegised. And I use that word deliberately. As it is said "the difference between truth and fiction is that fiction has to make sense".

Thanks for the wishes for the weekend, MyJoe. I wish everyone the same.

And Chukwudi44's input does tip the scale somewhat, doesn't it?

@ nuclearboy

Of course it's a waste of time; remember I said so from the beginning although the importance of your own earlier point about the need to inject at least some truths has also been borne out.

Regarding the infilling and indwelling of the Holy Spirit: that is something no one can take away.

Mr. A: I know a Mr Johnson
Mr. B: Well, I haven't met this your Mr Johnson, so he doesn't exist.
Mr. A: OK -- if you say so!

nuclearboy:

Enigma's post above though, will likely bring this discussion back to life.

I doubt it, as he’d have to define “starting”, “blocks” and a lot more. He’d have to provide a manual detailing the kind of responses that would not constitute “attacks”, “nonsense”, and the like. While at it, he’d also provide a manual that should be followed to write what he can be bothered to respond to. Not that I do sophistic definitionisms, to begin with.

nuclearboy:
On the other thread about the Holy Spirit, I wrote earlier that I'd have to pass exams to become a lawyer. Whether or not I read wider than all the QCs in the UK, this would still be the case. Maybe thats what this boils down to but I took an exam with the infilling of the Spirit. It was a personal experience and I relate to what I received as a personality that speaks, guides, reasons; not an impersonal force.

I thought you would have understood me by now. Your experience is well possible. There are a lot of experiences around, including some revealing the opposite of what you saw. I don’t know the Holy Spirit didn’t appear to you or anyone. Let’s get that straight. What you see is one thing. What is written is another. I am only here talking about what the Bible says on the matter in response to the discussion in the thread – I have made that clear repeatedly. I am not eise-whatever or even stating my own views here. Outside of this discussion, “delusion” on my or anyone's part? Possible. More possible than most of us can imagine, Nuclear.   

^^ Now you are talking. This thread was legalistic and aimed at proving a point, not geared towards finding truth.

Well, let me state something I deliberately kept back during your thread "Inerrancy of the Bible" - The Bible as we know it became available 1, 500 years ago and only in the last 200 years has it been truly available to society at large. Yet Christians/Believers lived all those years. Seth, Noah, Enoch, David, etc. All those years! Yet you would have us believe that answers to all questions are to be found only in it? No, brother, God is inerrant and His witness is true and when there is doubt as exists now, God (or funnily enough, the Holy Spirit, according to Jesus, is the final arbiter). Where you wish to know the position of truth, you'll find it is not doctored to suit any human and usually might even be uncomfortable. What do we gain from saying God is one yet three? Whats the purpose of saying the HS is a personality? You feel its just an act to mystify, to sound different, important? Or an attempt at self-immolation, a desire to be mocked? Which of us here sounds insecure except the one who would assuage his own (self-perceived) inadequacies by trying to ridicule others?

I just saw another thread I've been alternately laughing and shaking my head to, for a few minutes. Please take a look, MyJoe, then tell me what you think of the mindset behind this thread after reading it. Or check almost any thread started by same poster and see what its about or ends up about. https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-342153.32.html

Anyway, thanks for confirming twas but another attempt by DS to again bring his favorite hammer to bear on his favorite victim - the idea of "trinity". Now we know any slowpoke is "great" as long as he has issues with "Trinity" and even hitherto revered atheists become "disappointments" when they refuse to kowtow.

nuclearboy:

^^ Now you are talking. This thread was legalistic and aimed at proving a point, not geared towards finding truth.

I certainly wasn't hoping to make that breakthrough and find "the truth" in this thread. I'd congratulate anyone who has found "the truth".

nuclearboy:
Well, let me state something I deliberately kept back during your thread "Inerrancy of the Bible" - The Bible as we know it became available 1, 500 years ago and only in the last 200 years has it been truly available to society at large. Yet Christians/Believers lived all those years. Seth, Noah, Enoch, David, etc. All those years! [b]Yet you would have us believe that answers to all questions are to be found only in it? [/b]No, brother, God is inerrant and His witness is true and when there is doubt as exists now, God (or funnily enough, the Holy Spirit, according to Jesus, is the final arbiter).

Thanks for giving us an insight into what you deliberately held back in that thread until this moment. I don't understand the point you are making, but I certainly didn't try to have you believe the above.

nuclearboy:
Where you wish to know the position of truth, you'll find it is not doctored to suit any human and usually might even be uncomfortable. What do we gain from saying God is one yet three? Whats the purpose of saying the HS is a personality? You feel its just an act to mystify, to sound different, important? Or an attempt at self-immolation, a desire to be mocked? Which of us here sounds insecure except the one who would assuage his own (self-perceived) inadequacies by trying to ridicule others?

I just saw another thread I've been alternately laughing and shaking my head to, for a few minutes. Please take a look, MyJoe, then tell me what you think of the mindset behind this thread after reading it. Or check almost any thread started by same poster and see what its about or ends up about. https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-342153.32.html

I don't input motives.

nuclearboy:
Anyway, thanks for confirming twas but another attempt by DS to again bring his favorite hammer to bear on his favorite victim - the idea of "trinity". Now we know any slowpoke is "great" as long as he has issues with "Trinity" and even hitherto revered atheists become "disappointments" when they refuse to kowtow.

I spoke for myself and have confirmed nothing. And undertaking to point out that the Bible appears to present the Holy Spirit as a non-person on my part was not conceived to ridicule anyone or anything. I am not up there with the secret formula to truth and laughing at others below. But I guess anyone is free to interpret things as they deem fit.