by The Searcher 86 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
AGuest:
Notice the statement regarding the Hebrew Yod (yodh)... being a /j/, though... and not a /y/, as man think. Hence, "Yah" is incorrect.
Sounds like you ( [ ju:]) don't understand the International Phonetic Alphabet. The phoneme /j/ is a Y sound.
This is probably the core of the fallacy.
The receipt of holy spirit is not a fallacy, dear Jeffro (peace to you!), but that everyone received it when they were baptized in water is. I posted verses that show this was not the case. It certainly isn't the case today. Indeed, it's not even the case when one partakes of the bread and wine. These two things, water baptism and partaking are separate issues altogether from the anointing, which is an additional event, and they all mean different things.
Misunderstanding THIS truth MIGHT be at the core of the fallacy; however, I think the real "core" is false teachings by those who have never received the holy spirit... but say they have... trying to convince others (and often succeeding) that it is only available to one "class" of people, or to certain "special" (pious) people... or not at all (doesn't even exist). Which the first two do in order to "mislead if possible, even the chosen ones," and the third probably doesn't even know they're doing it ("know not what they do").
Again, peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA
What "Jesus"? How can someone who doesn't exist answer ANYONE? And according to YOU, Jesus doesn't exist. I agree. How then, can you take issue with ME, if I agree with YOU?
God's son is commonly called Jesus. You are saying the person you worship doesn't exist?
Actually, is doesn't. I have no "Jesus"... by ANY name. Because, again, "Jesus" doesn't exist. And no one has to use the exact name that I do - many use "Yeshua," "Yehoshua", "Y'Shua."
Jesus never said you have to use an exact name. It doesn't matter at all.
Sounds like you ( [ ju:]) don't understand the International Phonetic Alphabet. The phoneme /j/ is a Y sound.
Correct on both counts.
I posted verses that show this was not the case. It certainly isn't the case today. Indeed, it's not even the case when one partakes of the bread and wine. These two things, water baptism and partaking are separate issues altogether from the anointing, which is an additional event, and they all mean different things.
I love fan fiction.
Sounds like you ( [ ju:]) don't understand the International Phonetic Alphabet. The phoneme /j/ is a Y sound.
I totally do understand, dear Jeffro (again, peace to you!)... and agree. Which is why my Lord's name, although spelled "Jah Eshua"... is pronounced "Yah eShua." So, for example, I would not pronounce the English name "Joshua" with the hard "j"... but with the "y" sound: "Yahshua". Same with, say, "Joel" - the correct pronunciation is "Yah'El." Meaning "Jah is God." Or, say, "Elijah"... which would be "Eli'Yah" (meaning, "My God is Jah"). Or, say, "Abijah". The correct pronunciation is "Abi'Yah"... which means "My father is Jah." Or... and I learned this from an Armenian gentleman: Noah. The correct pronunciation is "No'Yah"... which the Armenian accent causes them to pronounce as "Noy'Yah."
Lord's name has another syllable, though, which is "eh"; unfortunately, ancient Hebrew had no vowels so that syllable erroneously got dropped. But please know, that while I SPELL my Lord's name "JAHESHUA"... I am SAYING "YAHESHUA". With the "y" sound... and the "eh" so fast... that it ALMOST sounds like "Yahshua". But not quite. Sounded out, it's sounds like "Yoshshua."
Another example is the name of the MOST Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies. Spelled "JaHVeH". Some spell it "YaHWeH," but that's incorrect. "JaHWeH"... would be better, but it's still inaccurate. The "wah" is not a "w" but a "v"... and pronounced as a hard "v"... and not was a "w" (think, "Manischewitz"). Thus, His name, while spelled "JaH-VeH"... it is pronounced "YAH-veh." Because of the same thing: the Yod (yodh) is not a "y" but a "/j/".
Even so, my comment wasn't about the pronunciation, dear one, but the spelling.
God's son is commonly called Jesus.
And here, you are commonly called "EP"... or "Entirely Possible", etc. Which is okay, by those who know OF you, based on their participation here. Is that your name, though? I am SURE that those who actually KNOW you call you something entirely different. That does not mean you're going to let those HERE know your real name, though... right? Because, while we may know OF you, including a few "details"... we don't really KNOW you. Right?
You are saying the person you worship doesn't exist?
The person I worship absolutely exists (neither His name nor His Son's is "Jesus," though); the person YOU say is the son of God... does not.
Nice try, both, though...
A slave of Christ,
SA
Even so, my comment wasn't about the pronunciation, dear one, but the spelling.
My mistake. I misinterpreted your incorrect usage of phonetic notation.
Absolutely NO worries, dear Jeffro (again, peace to you!). What I post is often misunderstood, so I take no offense here. I only ask that folks READ what I post... without the "earphones and "filters" of their strongly entrenched paradigms and/or preconceived notions about what I am "saying." Benefit of the doubt, that's all I ask for.
Again, peace to you!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
So you, now claiming to be a stone slave, somehow are claiming that because I go by a forum name on here that Jesus is not real? Your guy is the same person as Jesus. If you claim one is not real, then neither is the other. It's really that simple.
bttt
I've been meaning to get back to this thread for one last point.
This comment by PSacramento (on page 1 of this thread) moved me to do some research with surprising results:
The HS "baptizes" by "fire" and one is sealed as a Christian ( an annointed one).
For those who aren't aware of the issue this statement brings up, a little WT background is in order. Below is the Reasoning Book explanation of 'baptism by fire.' This represents the current WT teaching on the matter:
*** rs p. 57 - p. 58 Baptism ***
What results from baptism with fire?
Luke 3:16, 17: “He [Jesus Christ] will baptize you people with . . . fire. His winnowing shovel is in his hand to clean up his threshing floor completely . . . The chaff he will burn up with fire that cannot be put out.” (Its destruction would be forever.)
Not the same as baptism with holy spirit, which was for disciples
Acts 1:5: “John, indeed, baptized with water, but you [Jesus’ faithful apostles] will be baptized in holy spirit not many days after this.”
Acts 2:2-4: “Suddenly there occurred from heaven a noise just like that of a rushing stiff breeze, and it filled the whole house in which they were sitting. And tongues as if of fire became visible to them and were distributed about, and one sat upon [but did not envelop or immerse] each one of them, and they all became filled with holy spirit and started to speak with different tongues, just as the spirit was granting them to make utterance.”
When I saw Psac's comment my JW reaction was to sort of dismiss his comment as a blatant mistake. After all, the baptism by "fire" is different from baptism with "Spirit." I did a little research in several hefty commentaries on the subject, expecting to have my view confirmed. Lo and behold, each commentary (NICNT, BECNT and NAC) all sided with PSac's statement.
I wanted to present some of the BECNT's rather fair-handed discussion of the subject (based on Luke 3:16 which parallels Matthew 3:11), where the writer discussed the pros and cons of the two views. View "3" represents the idea that "Spirit" and "fire" represent two distinct baptisms (The Spirit for Christians and "fire" for all others). View "4" represents the idea that "baptism by Spirit and fire" represent just one baptism.
Baker Exegetical Commentary on Luke (Vol I pp.322-23)
3. The reference is to two distinct baptisms, one of salvation (Spirit) and one of judgment (fire). This position goes back at least to Origen, Homilies on Luke 24 (it is also held by Lang, TDNT 6:943; Schurmann 1969: 174-75; Scobie 1964: 71). By far the strongest argument for this view is that fire is a consistant image for judgment in the OT, especially the final judgment associated with the eschaton (Isa 29:6; 66:15; Ezek 38:22; Amos 1:4; 7:4; Zeph 1:18; 3:8; Mal 3:2, 4 [3:19 MT]), an imagery that continues in Jewish literature. The extent and consistancy of this imagery make this view attractive.Of course, the mention of the Spirit refers to the provision of New Covenant hope that associates the Spirit with the end-times (Joel 2; Ezek 36; Isa 32; esp. Jer 31:31-33). The fulfillment of this element is not seen so much in Pentacost as in the provision of the Spirit to all who come to Messiah. However, two points seem to be against the two-baptism view. First, there is only one grammatical object (hymas, you), which speaks against a division into two groups according to two distinct baptisms (Fitzmyer 1981:473). Second, two explicit baptisms would seem to require e ("or") and not kai ("and") in Luke 3:16. Thus, this view, though initially compelling, does have problems.
4. View three musters strong rationale, but the best option seems to be a reference to a single baptism. The Spirit purges and thus divides humankind (Marchall 1978 146-47; Fitzmyer 1981 474; Dunn 1970a: 12-13). The key OT text here is Isa. 4:4-5, which sees a purging of peoples so that some may dwell in God's presence. The key connection is that the Isaiah passage is the only OT text to use Spirit and fire together. Some who hold this view tend to discuss the purging of the righteous at the expense of the judgment concept, but it seems best to keep both in view in light of Luke 3:17 and the nature of OT fire imagery. The Christ comes with the pneumati hagio (Holy Spirit). The Mightier One will test all people and divide them. This approach to the passage is also supported by other texts in Luke: 12:49-53 speaks of the division by fire that Jesus came to bring; 17:29-30 speaks of the day of the Son of Man as a day of fire that divides people; and 12:10, which mentions the blasphemy against the Spirit, may well belong here in that failure to respond to the offer of the Spirit creates an irreversible division among people, with some ending up rejected. So the offer of the Spirit divides people into two camps. One baptism is offered to the world, but it has two consequences. Which consequence a person experiences depends on the individual's decision in regard to the baptism.
Thus, in the baptism of the SPirit and fire there are two sides to Jesus' offer of God's promise. It divides people into two groups. Those who accept it, by accepting the one who brings it, are purged and taken in. Those who do not are thrown to the wind, as [Luke] 3:17 suggests.
Incidentally, the NWT renders Matthew 3:11 (in part) as: ". . .That one will baptize YOU people with holy spirit and with fire. . ." This is almost exactly like the NIV which renders the phrase, "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."
Notice the "with" in front of "fire" in both renderings. A footnote concerning this appears in the NAC commentary of Matthew: "The Greek employs one preposition to govern two nouns functioning as a compound object - with the Holy Spirit and fire (contra NIV's repitition of "with") - most naturally suggesting one baptism with two aspects to it."
