More on the Spirit, and Quoting-A Response to Accusations by Guy Bearman

The purpose of this page is to address certain accusations made in public against me recently by Guy Bearman, concerning my use of quotes and the personality of the holy spirit, and in so doing I hope to demonstrate the poor reasoning that seems to follow:

As posted elsewhere...

Punkish/Guy did bring something interesting to my attention that Vine's uses to promote the personality of the holy spirit. "The full title with the article before both pneuma and hagios..."the Spirit the Holy," stresses the character of the Person, e.g., Matt. 12:32; Mark 3:29..."
But is this really so? I collected these examples from the LXX and the Greek NT:
Dan 9:20 TOU OROUS TOU AGIOU The holy the mountain
Ex 26:33 ANA MESON TOU AGIOU KAI ANA MESON TOU AGIOU The holy place and the holy place
Is 63:15 TOU OIKOU TOU AGIOU The holy the house
Ps 104:42 TOU LOGOU TOU AGIOU The holy the word
Acts 4:30 TOU ONOMATOS TOU AGIOU The holy the name
Acts 6:13 TOU TOPOU TOU AGIOU The holy the place
Rev 21:2 THN POLIN THN AGIAN The holy the city
Rev 21:10 THN POLIN THN AGIAN The holy the city
Rev 22:19 THS POLEWS THS AGIAS The holy the city
As we see, this is quite a stretch, for no one would really consider the above instances examples of something stressing the character of the Person.

Replied by Guy, in my absence, on another board:

> Guy> (minor point) I've dropped the moniker
> "Punkish" since this was posted
> on Heinz's site. To be honest, I didn't see the
> point in responding.  But
> since he wishes to misrepresent the discussions and
> his own website (!) I
> will respond. Yes, the primary meaning of "spirit"
> is "breath" and doesn't
> have a person attached to it (in terms of wind -
> this is the exception: a
> person breathes, while you would not call the breath
> itself a "person",
> humanly speaking.) In the case above, we are
> discussing God. Heinz's reply
> changes the focus from spirit to created things. The
> divine Spirit is not a
> thing (Hebr 9:14) That's a red herring, folks.
> Observe how he does not deal
> with the quoted verses first (eg Mark 3:29) That is
> not exegesis.
>

Reply: The point of Vine's bringing up verses, like Mark 3:29, was that this, plus the others mentioned, was to prove that the resumptive use of the article (Mark 3:29 has TO PNEUMA TO hAGION) "stresses the character of the person." Vine's was using this to prove that the holy spirit is a person. My list showed that the resumptive use of the article does nothing of the kind. I finally realized that don't you fully understand many of these arguments. In fact, I find that when discussions turn technical, you become quiet, or feel the need to leave due to illness, only to see you pop up elsewhere. Perhaps this is all beyond you?

> If we look up the meaning of "holy" (Vine's complete
> Expository Dictionary
> pp307-308) we find something interesting. In every
> case, it defines the
> calling, the being, or the practise of, a *person*
> (with the exception of
> 'things' ie  that which is created, BUT the Holy
> Spirit is eternal cf Hebr
> 9:14 hence this is excluded) - as a separation to
> God  (something a person
> does.) It is predicated of God, as the absolutely
> Holy One, it is used of men
> and things, in terms of consecration. (A thing
> cannot consecrate itself, but
> a person can, and can also consecrate things made -
> yet the Spirit of the
> LORD is not made.)  Vine's lists the interesting
> point that a `saint is the
> temple of God figuratively - a temple is not a
> person but a saint is! Why
> didn't Heinz mention this?
>

Reply: The question should be, "what is the point of mentioning this?" Despite the attempts at capitalization in some Bibles, Hebrews 9:14 does not refer to THE holy spirit, the third person of God. Of Hebrews 9:14, Vincent's Word Study says:

"Heb 9:14 -
Through the eternal spirit DIA PHEUMATOS AIWNIOU. For the rend. an.  through = by virtue of. *Not the Holy Spirit*, who is never so designated, but Christ's own human spirit: the higher element of Christ's being in his human life, which was charged with the eternal principle of the divine life. Comp. Rom_1:4; 1Co_15:45; 1Pe_3:18; Heb_7:16. This is the key to the doctrine of Christ's sacrifice. The significance and value of his atonement lie in the personal quality and motive of Christ himself which are back of the sacrificial act."
Robertson's Word Pictures adds:
"Through the eternal Spirit (dia pneumatos aioniou). *Not the Holy Spirit*, but Christ’s own spirit which is eternal as he is. There is thus a moral quality in the blood of Christ not in that of other sacrifices."
The New American Bible also says at Hebrews 9:14, "this expression does not refer either to the holy Spirit or to the divine nature of Christ."
The anarthrous PNEUMATOS is not referring to an individual here, but has a spiritual significance (See PNEUMATOS in Perschbacker's Analytical Lexicon).
This is why the CEV has at Heb. 9:14:
"But Christ was sinless, and he offered himself as an eternal and spiritual sacrifice to God. That's why his blood is much more powerful and makes our consciences clear."
It does not even mention the Spirit here.
Nothing else you have written above proves anything else either, as it really does not make any sense.

> Vine's does continue to list things similar to
> Heinz's list but this is
> secondary in meaning. (eg "the holy place"). Why has
> Heinz begged the
> question here? He pre-assumes that the Holy Spirit
> is not a person, then
> applies this to the definitions.
>

Reply: Again, I really don't think you understand the issue here. Vine's claim was that the resumptive use of the article, as in "the Spirit the Holy" was proof of personality. "The holy place" he mentions on page 307 was not an example of this, in fact, in his list it was often anarthrous. It was not a parallel to my examples above, which actually DO destroy this theory.

> We must also look at HOW the Holy Spirit acts in
> Scripture, not just the
> basic meaning. We find the Spirit does things (Gen
> 1:2, Job 33:4) related to
> creation, and resurrection (Romans 8:11) and
> salvation (conversion, John 3)
> we find we can act towards the Spirit and He reacts
> (eg grief, blasphemy)
> that would not be relevant if the Spirit was a
> non-person (how would a
> non-person be blasphemed/grieved and know it was,
> and react accordingly??? cf
> Mark 3:29). Finally, Heinz has at least one thing
> wrong in his list - (most
> of this list is irrelevant) do JWs check up on what
> apologists write or not?
> (In case someone checked the list, Psalm 104 is
> Psalm 105 in modern bibles.
> This is specific to the Septuagint or LXX)
>

Reply: But sir, I was quoting the LXX. It would be nonsense for me to point someone to a Scripture in the LXX text that was one chapter away. This however demonstrates the level of Guy's accusations, time and again. Most of his counter-points should not even be qualified with a reply.
The Spirit is involved in creation, but Genesis 1:2 and Job 33:4 do not help you. Genesis 1:2 says

"a mighty wind swept over the waters." New American Bible
"a divine wind sweeping over the waters." New Jerusalem Bible
"and the power of God was moving over the water." Good News Bible-TEV
Job 33:4 actually uses God's spirit as a parallel to "the breath of the Almighty." It is like a worker using electricity to perform powerful deeds. This does not make the electricity a person though, does it?
"The Spirit brooding over the primeval waters (Gn. 1:2) and creating man (Gn. 2:7), the Spirit who garnishes the heavens (Jb 26:13), sustains animal life and renews the face of the earth (Ps. 54:30), is the ruah ('breath,' 'wind') of God, the outgoing divine energy and power." The New Bible Dictionary, J. D. Douglas (1962), page 531.
Thanks to the poetic structure of the semitic language, inanimate things are often given personality, like Death, Sin, blood, etc. This though, does not make them persons.
Let me give an example here. Literally, Ezra 1:1 speaks of the "spirit of Cyrus." Yet, the New International Version uses the expression "the heart of Cyrus" instead. We can do the same thing in relation to God's spirit. If the spirit was grieved, it was actually God feeling bad, his heart was made heavy with sorrow.
At Daniel 7:15, Daniel was grieved in his spirit (KJV), yet the New Jerusalem Bible simply says that he was "deeply disturbed."
Also Isaiah 54:6 has "grieved in spirit" (KJV) where the NJB simply has "grief-stricken."
And "his soul was grieved for the misery of Israel" (KJV) simply means "could bear Israel's suffering no longer." NJB Judges 10:16
"Why is thy heart grieved" (KJV) simply means "Why are you so sad." NJB 1 Samuel 1:8
As a parallel to this, God's heart can also be grieved:
"It repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."
Genesis 6:6 ASV (See also 1 Samuel 2:33; Ezek. 13:22)
The heart can be grieved, the spirit can be grieved, the heart can also be happy (Judges 18:20), glad (Eccl 7:3), upright (Job 33:3), it can rejoice (Proverbs 23:16) etc., yet despite these personal emotions, no one would say that the heart is a person. Besides meaning "power" and "breath," spirit can also point to our dispositions and temperament, as was the case with King Cyrus.

>
> Guy> The fact is, Heinz has been shown again and
> again what is wrong with his
> website, and while correcting broken links he won't
> correct things factually
> wrong.

Reply: Guy has never actually corrected anything, besides typos and broken links though. Guy suffers from a superiority complex in thinking that he is always right, and I am always wrong. I believe that Guy is sincere, but he is not actually aware of his own arrogance, something we see alot of in JW-bashers.

Guy> For instance, he uses Buzzard - who does not
> believe in the pre
> existance of Christ - as a means of *arguing* His
> pre existance! He also
> admits Buzzard is 'bad' ie his arguments are, so why
> use them at all?

Reply: Well,  let us nip this in the bud, once and for all. Here is how this went down.
Back about Feb 2002, Guy wrote:

"For instance, on your page you sometimes quote the
unitarian Buzzard (eg on Proverbs 8, as part of your John 1.1 page),
and I've pointed that out to you on AOL that he denies the pre-
existance of Christ, and have you removed these quotes? How about the
previous debate we had, where I asked for Colwell's definition
of "definite" and you give one closer to what Professor BeDuhn says
(who seems to deny the personality of the pre existant Word), and a
reading of Colwell (from the quotes given by Harner!) disagrees with
what you wrote! Please, Heinz, how convincing is this?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BiblicalChristianity/message/994
And then from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BiblicalChristianity/message/1016
"Punkish> This is amazing. Buzzard doesn't believe in the pre
existance of Christ. In order for your argument to be parallel,
Heinz, Paul would have had to quote an atheist. How can you use
Buzzard as the MEANS of your argument *defending* the pre-existance
of Christ?"
Now, I did not want to have to do this, but you leave me no choice here. My use of Buzzard's quote on my John 1:1 page was NOT about pre-existence at all. I have never even mention pre-existence in any argument on this page. It was not for this purpose at all. I used Buzzard's paraphrase of John 1:1, as I used many other renditions of this verse, including many of whom I do not even agree with. You simply set up a straw man, only to knock it down and claim victory for yourself. I was embarrassed for you then, I am embarrassed for you now. Time after time you have brought things up that are completely irrelevant to anything being discussed. Again, you have shown yourself inept at handling yourself here, including your reference to Colwell, of which you simply do not understand complicated things. You "asked for Colwell's definition
of 'definite'."
Colwell does not give a *definition of "definite".*
He doesn't need to. If you don't know what "definite" is before you read his article, then you are not going to get anything out of it anyways. I am constantly puzzled as to why you bring these things up, and this only hastened my departure from your group. Instead of educating yourself further in these matters, here you are, 8 months later, claiming victory over a battle that only existed in your mind. That is one cheaply bought trophy.
As for your hangup on JW's quoting anyone,  I do not however have to agree with anyone in toto to quote them in certain aspects. To demand such holds me to a standard that is not required of anyone else.
Does the Apostle Paul, though quoting the pagan Aratus, agree with him totally (see Acts 17:28)?

To demonstrate how inept your reasoning is, you replied in our Buzzard posts:
>>Yes, Aratus did share a _similar_ worldview to Paul - they both
believed God exists!<<

And WHAT!!! Anthony Buzzard,  who holds a Masters in Theology, who is on staff at Atlanta Bible College, DOES NOT BELIEVE GOD EXISTS??!! AMAZING REASONING!
Other examples:
I see that the Blue Letter Bible site and the Christian Research Insititute are using Bruce Metzger to bash Jehovah's Witnesses and their Bibles with his views on the Bible, yet I don't think they would agree totally with his modernistic tendency to question the authenticity of certain books of the Bible (see http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/germans.htm )

Hank Hanegraaff, no enemy of Walter Martin, uses very strong language in his anti-abortion document, "Annihilating Arguments for Abortion", yet, I wonder if Mr. Hanegraaff is as upset as Assistant Professor Donald P. Shoemaker of Biola University regarding Walter Martin's liberal views on abortion.

Julius R Mantey once bashed the New World Translation's non-traditional rendering of John 8:58
But Mantey, writing the Foreward in the *New Testament in the Language of the People" by Charles B. Williams, called it "the most accurate and illuminating translating in the English language, yet it also uses a non-traditional rendering of John 8:58, namely, "I existed before Abraham was born." It is obvious that Mantey does not agree in toto with Williams.

Walter Martin simultaneously uses Thayer's for support, and bashes him for being an Unitarian in his polemics against JW's. Incidentally, Thayer was not an Unitarian, but a Congregationalist. See http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/theotes.htm

Ankerberg and Weldon in their dishonest missive, Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, use the BAGD, Bruce Metzger, Thayer, Walter Martin, Ray Franz, though I am quite confident that they do not agree in toto with all these people.

Many Christians use the Hebrew grammars, lexicons, and manuscripts/texts of Jews, like Gesenius, the Masoretes, etc., though they deny Jesus as Messiah

In fact, it makes for a better case if we find support from others who do not share our world-view on things, which is why non-Christian scientists are sought for support in the Evolution/Creation debate. It is what Schubert Ogden calls "the strange witness of unbelief."

Michael Joseph Brown, Assistant Professor of NT and Christian Origins, adds nicely,

"When reading scholarship we must be careful to look at the evidence carefully. Scholars do the best they can in analyzing the evidence at their disposal, but sometimes their analysis is wrong. Later evidence may prove the analysis to be wrong. Or a scholar may simply be unaware of available evidence that disproves his or her analysis.
Regardless of the reasons for a mistaken analysis, being wrong on some issues does not make one Wrong on all issues. Likewise, being correct when it comes to most things does not mean that we are correct on everything. As an astute reader of biblical scholarship, you must exercise the same caution in reading a scholar's analysis of a biblical text that you would in reading the Bible itself. As we noted regarding Rule of Thumb 20, scholars have prejudices like everyone else, and these prejudices can color their understanding of certain biblical texts in a way that the weight of the evidence will prove to be wrong."
What They Don't Tell You-A Survivor's Guide to Biblical Studies, pp. 128, 129, under the heading, "RULE OF THUMB 24: While a scholar may be correct on some matters, this does not mean he is correct on all matters."

Scholar Edgar Foster puts it succintly and to the point:

"By saying certain scholars or theologians “corroborate” the Witness view, I do not mean to imply that theologians discussed in this work consciously agree with Jehovah’s Witnesses or even purposely do so. Nor do I think that these thinkers share the same Weltanschauung as that of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This type of consensus is neither realistic nor necessary. Those who expect Jehovah’s Witnesses to only cite authorities who agree in toto with the Witnesses are
manifesting a unique form of bias that is not shown toward more “orthodox” writers."
See http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/christology.htm
I will finish off with a quote from E.H. Broadbent where the much beloved group, the Waldenses and the Albigenses, did the same thing
"They considered that in all times and in all forms of churches there were enlightened men of god. They therefore made use of the writings of Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, Bernard of Clairvaux and others, not accepting,  however, all they wrote, but only that which corresponded with the older, purer teaching of Scripture." The Pilgrim Church, p.120
Oh, and BTW, I do promote Anthony Buzzard's books on my website, and I consider him a friend, without having to agree with him 100%.

 Big
> words, no action! From someone who abandons
> discussions on the AOL message
> board? Not once, but twice!  I have many witnesses
> to this.

Reply: Am I married to the AOL board? I will abandon any board that is lacking in intelligence.
For instance, here is one post, which, like many others, was simply copied and pasted from another site at http://gwest59.tripod.com/ChristIsLord/id28.html

Subject: Re: THE BIBLE VS THE WATCHTOWER
Date: 11/18/2001 12:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: Hector3001
Message-id: <20011118154437.10673.00000547@mb-fd.aol.com>
http://gwest59.tripod.com/ChristIsLord/id28.html
>>The sentences in italics are quotes from the website<<

RFTS [Reasoning from the Scriptures] page 205;
"The Watchtower Society is God's visible representative on earth, and should be obeyed as the voice of God."

Reply: Lie #1. I cannot find this this quote in my RFTS on page 205. It actually says, "A key factor is that the Witnesses really believe that the Bible is God's Word and that what it contains is there for our instruction. (2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11) So they do not resort to philosophical arguments to evade its clear statements of truth or to justify the way of life of people who have abandoned its moral standards."

RFTS pages 328, 332-33;
"Scripture alone is insufficient in learning the things of God."

Reply: Lie#2: Again, this quote does not exist. What it really says: "The Bible tells about a man who held a prominent position but who was humble enough to acknowledge his need for help in understanding Bible prophecy. That help was provided by a member of the Christian congregation.-Acts 8:26-38; compare other
references to Philip in Acts 6:1-6; 8:5-17.
Of course, if a person reads the Bible but does not apply it in his life, it does him little good. If he believes it and acts on it, he will associate with God's servants in regular congregation meetings. (Heb. 10:24, 25) He will also join with them in sharing the "good news" with other people.-1 Cor. 9:16; Mark 13:10; Matt. 28:19, 20."

RFTS page 328;
"Without the Watchtower Society and its vast literature, people are incapable of ascertaining the true meaning of the Scripture."

Reply: Lie #3: This quote does not exist here.

RFTS page 328;
"People are not to think for themselves in interpreting Scripture. They are to submit their minds to the Watchtower Society."

Reply: Lie#4, this quote does not exist.

RFTS pages 194-95;
"References to the Father in the New Testament Should be denoted as "Jehovah"

Reply: Another quote that does not exist here.

RFTS pages 408-09;
"Christ was the "firstborn of all creation" and was created billions of years ago."

Reply: Lie #5: This quote does not exist here.

RFTS page 218;
"Christ was created as the Archangel Michael."

Reply: Lie#6, it does not say this here, but for more, go to http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/wilson.htm

RFTS 408-09;
"It was through this angel (Christ) that all other things in the universe were created."

Reply: Lie # (I am actually losing count:)
It does not say this here.

So tell me Guy, why would I persist amongst such slanderous evil? Why is lying promoted and even celebrated amongst your precious AOL group? Does the end really justify the means? Satan is happy with people like this (John 8:44), so why should I cast pearls before his swine? Oh, that is not to say I might "slum" from time to time, but eventually, we are judged by the company we keep.

Finally:

Guy: He also knows I'm unwell continually, so why he
> assumes I'm up to creating a
> webpage is beyond me. I'll try though. I have
> 'threatened' to expose his
> arguments and have done so.

Reply: You are extremely active for someone who is "unwell continually." You are on the AOL boards, you were co-moderator of Biblical Christianity when I left, you are now one of the moderators of another WatchtowerTheology board, you are on the JohnOneOne board, Mona Clark's board, and now evidently, the Jehovah's Witnesses Gathering board. And  who knows how many other boards. Guy, your words run hollow to me as you are the most active continually unwell person I know. If there is a will, there is a way. Or perhaps, you lack the Spirit to do so.

In the meantime, don't prop yourself up at my expense in public. Other than this page, I don't talk about you....ever.