Knowing Your Enemy: Satan's Attacks On SDAs

[Musicman1228]

The web page that wayfinder posted shows that there are others that believe as do I about the nature of the Holy Spirit (Ruach). Let me know what you think.

[John317]

John317, check this link, it is interesting.

http://www.joyintheworld.info/index.html?/teachings/ruachkodesh

I think a lot of what that link says is true, but it also has some things in it that are not right.

For instance, this line:

Quote:

This is not to say that Yahweh is a "trinity", as in three persons or beings, but rather ONE Elohim (Mighty One) which is composed of numerous attributes, in accordance with the Sh''ma passage of Deuteronomy 6:4. "Hear O Yisra''el, Yahweh your Elohim, Yahweh is ONE."

This seems to say that Christ is only an attribute of God rather than a person of the Godhead. I believe-- and the SDA church teaches-- that God is a Trinity composed of three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these are three distinct, personal beings who constitute the one true, living God.

[John317]

I read it and will need to study more closely before I give a complete response.

But in the meantime, could you give a response to my post #410874 ?

[Musicman1228]

John,

I am going to pull a 'Jesus' on you and ask you a question in response. After you give me your answer I will THEN give you my response to your previous post.

If it is critical to our understanding to be able to parse Greek and understand the structure and usage of the language to be able to know truth then it is impossible for the average person to be able to find truth without expert help.

The reason that the RCC kept the laity from reading the Bible for themselves during the Dark Ages is because they wanted to completely control the flow of information to the unwashed masses, so they would not be able to understand Scripture for themselves, thus giving the RCC complete control of the people.

Did Jesus say the following?

"When the Holy Spirit comes She will lead you into ALL truth, as long as you can read Greek from the original text." No, John, Jesus did not say this.

Question: is it your understanding that the statement in the bold type above is true, and if so how do you reconcile it with what Jesus said in the following text:

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. John 16:13.

[John317]

...If it is critical to our understanding to be able to parse Greek and understand the structure and usage of the language to be able to know truth then it is impossible for the average person to be able to find truth without expert help.

...Question: is it your understanding that the statement in the bold type above is true, and if so how do you reconcile it with what Jesus said in the following text:.....

No.

What's necessary is to have a good, competantly translated New Testament, and no one can translate the NT without knowing Greek and understanding the structure and usage of the language.

The question is, what should we do when people who don't know the language make false claims about the translation of the Greek? Is it not then a good thing to know whether that claim is true or not?

So my answer to your question is that it is usually only necessary to have one or two dependable translations in English, but when people come along making claims about the translation(such as on page 122, 123 of The Spirit of the Church) which prove to be false, then it may be necessary to look at the original language to see if the claim is true or not. In this case, it was your claim to be tell your readers how the Greek should read that makes it necessary to examine the claim.

Notice that in your book, you use the false information about the Greek language to support your view that it was the devil who inspired the people on the Day of Pentecost instead of the Holy Spirit. I believe it is important to know whether your claim about the Greek is true or not. It would generally be enough merely to read some good English translations, but in this case, you are telling your readers that their translations are in error (since no translation reads as you say it should).

The real question that comes to my mind is, why would anyone go to press with those kind of errors in a book that claims to be based on years of study and scholarship? (See page 7,8, where mention is made of 12 years of study and research prior to the writing of the book.)

If these things are any indication of the kind of scholarship that went into the writing of the book, it needs a complete overhaul before it deserves to be taken seriously.

I can see why no self-respecting scholar or teacher has appeared on your program. When any of them look closely at the book, all that passes through their mind is that whoever wrote the book is not really serious about the topic and is evidently capable to deceiving people into believing things that are completely and manifestly false.

How many people have read your book and probably believe everything you said in it, including your views found on pages 122, 123? Don't you feel responsible for leading people to believe those false teachings?

I would think at the very least you would put a disclaimer in any additional copies that you distribute or sell. It is, after all, claiming to teach people the Truth. So if we really respect and value the truth, we will do all we can to warn people of the false information once we discover it's in a book we've authored.

[Musicman1228]

John,

Thank you for your council on our book, but you still haven't answered my question about the Holy Spirit having the feminine attributes of God.

The Spirit of the Church is not about the Greek language and how it should be used to understand the New Testament; we only included our understanding of how the Greek is used to help the reader understand our perspective NOT to prove we are qualified (by degree) Greek scholars. While the book has good scholarship it is not meant to be a scholarly work such as in a dissertation; I believe we even point this out in the introduction. The book was designed to get people THINKING about what they believe, not to tell them WHAT to believe. To this purpose it even worked for you.

In your paragraph 3 you are doing the same thing Paul does when he tries to explain his understanding of the gospel. You say one thing and then take it back to say another. This is circular reasoning, at which apparently you and your mentor Paul are expert. First you say that you only need two good translations of Scripture in English to get the proper understanding (I use 18), and then you say that this is not good enough for some situations, at which time you need to know Greek to come to a full understanding. Which is it?

The reference to the 'tongue' of fire originally stemmed from reading the KJV and looking up the Greek word for tongues. At the time we were studying this we had not thought to question the account in Acts 2, we just wanted a deeper understanding as to why God would give the Holy Spirit to His disciples before He ascended to Heaven and why He felt it necessary to give the Holy Spirit AGAIN to those same disciples at Pentecost. Did He make a mistake the first time? Was the giving of the Holy Spirit the first time not sufficient to accomplish His purpose? If God made a mistake about this issue where else did God make a mistake? And since God DOES NOT MAKE MISTAKES what is the most logical explanation as to why Pentecost occurred?

When we looked for the Greek work in Strong's we found that the word for tongue was 'glossa', the literal meaning of which is: 1100 glossa gloce-sah' of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication, a language (specially, one naturally unacquired):--tongue. We then wondered, 'Why did the translators make this word plural rather than use it (as it is written) in the singular. Using deductive reasoning based on our own research and that of others, we came to to conclusion (for right or wrong, you decide) that there was only a SINGLE tongue of fire that alighted on each in the house in turn, and not multiple tongues as of fire that appeared at the same time over the heads of those present. This coupled with the image that a 'cloven' or split tongue suggests as being the tongue of a serpent we drew the conclusion that we did.

The explanation of the Greek language as 'anarthoris' which was used within the confines of a non-academic work, while not as detailed as some would like, is sufficient to convey and support the idea presented, and is fully within the 'honesty envelope' of how the Greek language was translated into English. So, there is no need, and we will not, put any disclaimer in or on our work pursuant to this or any other issue you might find 'challenging' in our book. It is as it stands, and the reader is responsible for their own understanding, based on their own belief system. There are, however, any number of things with we could add that we have discovered over the past 4 years that more fully and even more impressively support our conclusions about Paul as being a deception of Satan.

Finally, John, you suggest that the reason that someone has not come onto our radio program "The Bible On Trial" is that we are too scared of the challenge that we have not invited anyone. This is just not the case. Every week we invite ANYONE to call the show and talk with us about any of the topics about which we have spoken. We have had numerous guests call in and ask us questions to which we have given answers. We treat all callers or those that come in on chat with respect as we pursue our discussions. We are a very small show with a small regular listenership (just in the thousands). We have asked several 'experts' to come on our program but so far none have been able to find the time due to the time slot that we are in (Friday at 9 AM PT). We have even invited you, John, to come and join us so you can 'put us in our place'. I will even go further and invite you to my place where we do our broadcast, you can have breakfast with us and then be our guest for the program. We will even advertise that you will be the guest and that you will challenge us to a 'duel' of sorts on any issue your heart desires. How about it, John. Will you accept the challenge and come on our show?

I will be preparing my home for Thanksgiving over the next few days, so I may not be on the forum as much as usual. In case I don't get back here before Thursday I wish each of you a blessed Thanksgiving, as we remember WHO it is that supplies ALL our needs.

[Dr. Rich]

John, so your belief that the Holy Spirit came on the day of Pentacost and caused people to look as if they were drunk is acceptable? Perhaps you would fit right in with Benny Hinn and others like him.

As one who has actually experances such behaviour, it is MY OPINION that you are the one that is wrong and are attempting to diss the book ("The Spirit Of The Church") by using a flimsy excuse instead of looking at the picture as a whole. If that is your best shot, it is a really poor one. Why don't you take another shot at it and we then can discuss that?

Like--answer why Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to His disciples as found in John 20:21-22? Was not the Holy Spirit actually given at that time? Since John wrote his 'gospel' many years later, would not have John known about the Pentacost event-and have written about that? So too with Matthew and Mark?

[Twilight]

John,

The reference to the 'tongue' of fire originally stemmed from reading the KJV and looking up the Greek word for tongues. At the time we were studying this we had not thought to question the account in Acts 2, we just wanted a deeper understanding as to why God would give the Holy Spirit to His disciples before He ascended to Heaven and why He felt it necessary to give the Holy Spirit AGAIN to those same disciples at Pentecost. Did He make a mistake the first time? Was the giving of the Holy Spirit the first time not sufficient to accomplish His purpose? If God made a mistake about this issue where else did God make a mistake? And since God DOES NOT MAKE MISTAKES what is the most logical explanation as to why Pentecost occurred?

Jesus gave the "breath of life", the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Upper Room.

Then there was a season of prayer and fasting.

During this period Jesus taught them about the "kingdom of God", which is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Then at Pentecost, a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit was given.

That was for "evangelism", and was given because the disciples were ready for it.

So we have a process here:

1. Gift of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

2. Education about the kingdom of God (indwelling of the Holy Spirit - coupled with a season of prayer and fasting).

3. Outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Mark

[Twilight]

John, so your belief that the Holy Spirit came on the day of Pentacost and caused people to look as if they were drunk is acceptable?

That was the accusation being made against them by their enemies.

[John317]

John,

Thank you for your council on our book, but you still haven't answered my question about the Holy Spirit having the feminine attributes of God.

I answered your questions in the last post you wrote: #411069.

You said, "After you give me your answer I will THEN give you my response to your previous post."

I answered your question. Now please do as you said and respond to post #410874.

[Musicman1228]

Who said it was 'enemies' that made the OBSERVATION (not accusation) that those in the upper room were behaving as if they were drunk? Jesus in speaking of the bondservant that knows that his Master is delaying His coming says that THAT servant is eating and drinking with DRUNKARDS (Matt. 24:42-51). Jesus is NOT saying that these people are actually drunk with alcohol, but that they are inebriated and put to sleep by what they believe. The HOLY SPIRIT (Ruach) does not make people insensate to the truth. Rather, the HOLY SPIRIT leads people into ALL truth (John 16:13).

Why do people think that when Jesus gave His disciples the Holy Spirit before His ascension it was only for the purpose of giving them the breath of life? They already HAD this type of breath because the already were alive. No, the Spirit that Jesus gave His disciples was the Holy Spirit (Ruach) that promoted in them the desire to accomplish the task for which Jesus had spent a year training them, and gave them the ability and power to accomplish that task. There was NO NEED for any other 'outpouring' of that Spirit after this, because Jesus as God would not need more than one try at giving His Spirit to anyone; He would have, and did, succeed the first time.

Also, if Jesus had actually said for His disciples to 'wait in the city for an outpouring of His Spirit in power' don't you suppose that Matthew and Peter (Mark) would have hear that statement and written it in their gospels? As it is ONLY Luke has Jesus making that statement. It is that statement alone that sets up the event of the 'tongue' (singular) of fire coming upon those in the upper room, which has been termed an outpouring of the 'Holy' Spirit. If this event was so earthshaking and important as the central event which inaugurated the Christian church is it not reasonable to assume that Matthew, Peter and John would have acknowledged it in their writing? After all, all three wrote their gospels long after the events of Pentecost took place. Why did not Peter write about this event in his epistle and confirm that those events took place as described in Acts?

[John317]

...The Spirit of the Church is not about the Greek language and how it should be used to understand the New Testament; we only included our understanding of how the Greek is used to help the reader understand our perspective NOT to prove we are qualified (by degree) Greek scholars.

But you proved that your understanding is false. If you don't even know, and aren't willing to concede, that your understanding on those pages is false, then what does this mean for the rest of your understanding of the issues you write about?

If you would put false information about the Greek language in your book, while believing the information to be factual, such errors say a great deal about the book and the trust-worthiness of the scholarship that went into it.

It's true your book is not primarily about the Greek language, but it does contain critical information about the Greek language. You must have thought that this information was important at the time you wrote it.

Are you going to claim that it doesn't matter that you put in it false information or that what it says is irrelevant?

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

John,

Thank you for your council on our book, but you still haven't answered my question about the Holy Spirit having the feminine attributes of God.

I answered your questions in the last post you wrote: #411069.

You said, "After you give me your answer I will THEN give you my response to your previous post."

I answered your question. Now please do as you said and respond to post #410874.

No, John, you didn't answer my specific question about the Holy Spirit/Ruach being the feminine attribute of God. You dodged it by giving a lesson in the use of the Greek language. My question was based on the web page that wayfinder gave you, which confirms my understanding that the Holy Spirit is in fact the feminine characteristic of God. I do not believe that you can answer this question honestly because to do so would be to admit to something that you cannot ever admit to and still maintain a firm belief in Paul.

If it is a requirement of yours that I know Greek vocabulary, usage and syntax in order to formulate my understanding of truth then you truly don't believe that the Holy Spirit can guide me to the truth except as a function of that specific knowledge. This is an elitist point of view that I see mostly in the Adventist clergy. But I also see this in people who believe that their opinion about what is true (based on that knowledge of ancient languages, and other specialized knowledge) should be the opinion that everyone should have in order to be saved.

I have not ever stated that anyone must believe anything that I believe to be true to be saved; not here on this forum or any other, in my writing for our web site, or in my book, The Spirit of the Church. It is evident, John, that you do believe that I must believe as do you, otherwise I am lost; you have stated this in no uncertain terms several times. I don't know how you can live with that kind of pressure in feeling responsible for someone's belief system. This is aside from the fact that if I am actually saved by grace through faith (as you believe) then none of this matters anyway, so why all the anxiousness over the meaning of a word or two.

Also, let me know if you are willing to come on our Blog Talk Radio program. We would LOVE to have you as a guest.

[John317]

...you didn't answer my specific question about the Holy Spirit/Ruach being the feminine attribute of God.

Please quote the question about this that you want answered. What post number did you originally ask this question?

[John317]

...First you say that you only need two good translations of Scripture in English to get the proper understanding (I use 18), and then you say that this is not good enough for some situations, at which time you need to know Greek to come to a full understanding. Which is it?

A knowledge of Greek is needed when someone such as yourself comes along and tries to tell people false information about the Greek.

I could prove to you from the English translations themselves that you are wrong. But you are claiming in your book that the English translations are wrong and do not correctly translate the Greek.

That is a false claim, and it should be obvious that when you put forth such false claims, it is then necessary to show whether your claim is valid or not.

It is not necessary to know the Greek langauge in order to have the proper understanding of Acts 2 or any other part of the Bible, but it becomes important to know the Greek when someone claims that the Greek has not been translated correctly.

Here is the way the Greek should be translated, just as it reads in the KJV and the ESV and many others:

Acts 2:3

And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

Acts 2:3

And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them.

You falsely claim in your book, page 123, that the "more credible translation of this verse could be:

And there appeared unto them a cloven tongue like as a fire, and it rested upon each of them in turn."

Your book falsely claims that this alternate translation supports your understanding that it was the Devil who inspired Peter at the day of Pentacost.

No, it does not. Your alternate translation is completely false and has no support whatsoever. Therefore your understanding is not at all supported by this verse. It contradicts your understanding that it was the Devil. It supports what you deny, that it was the Holy Spirit that inspired Peter and the other disciples on the day of Pentecost.

[Musicman1228]

John,

Just because you say so MUST make it true. I am presenting an alternate scenario based on my own understanding. You, on the other hand, are declaring categorically that I am wrong and that you are correct. You are a braver man than I am, Charlie Brown.

[Musicman1228]

Here is the web page again, John.

Wayfinder wrote, " John317, check this link, it is interesting."

http://www.joyintheworld.info/index.html?/teachings/ruachkodesh Feminine Holy Spirit

[John317]

...I have not ever stated that anyone must believe anything that I believe to be true to be saved; not here on this forum or any other, in my writing for our web site, or in my book, The Spirit of the Church.

The mere fact that you haven't ever stated that people must believe what you say in order to be saved is no excuse for telling people falsehoods such as are contained in your book.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

It is evident, John, that you do believe that I must believe as do you, otherwise I am lost; you have stated this in no uncertain terms several times. I don't know how you can live with that kind of pressure in feeling responsible for someone's belief system.

I have never said that you or anyone else must believe as I do or you or they will be lost.

Please give the quote of what I said and give the post number where the statement occurs.

[John317]

Here is the web page again, John.

Wayfinder wrote, " John317, check this link, it is interesting."

http://www.joyintheworld.info/index.html?/teachings/ruachkodesh Feminine Holy Spirit

You said I did not answer your question yet. But this is not a question-- it is a web-page, which I already read.

Also, it was posted by Wayfinder, not by you. And you said that if I answered the question on post #411069, you would then give me your response to my previous post.

Now you are saying I need to discuss a web-page that Wayfinder posted before you respond to my previous post.

I answered your question on post #411069. Now please do as you said and respond to post #410874.

[Dr. Rich]

Twilight- that is not what it states in Acts 2. "They" all (everyone as in verse 6-9) received what they said what the spirit-so how could their enemies be there too? It does say "others" in verse 13, but then WHY didn't the Holy Spirit (if it really was) come to them too? As an investigator, this whole 'story' is very fishy.

Take Peter' sermon on Joel's prophecy for instance. I don't have the time or space to write it all down, but look at it (Act. 2:14-21). Now tell me the truth--DID this prophecy come true on the day of Pentecost? NO!--of course not! We who have hindsight now the truth about this. So why would Peter say this if NOT being led by the wrong spirit? What I see here is that even Peter was fooled by this act--IF it was really true. But since Mark wrote for Peter's gospel, and Mark does not give the account of the Pentecost, it just does not sit right with my investigative thinking.

[John317]

John,

Just because you say so MUST make it true. I am presenting an alternate scenario based on my own understanding. You, on the other hand, are declaring categorically that I am wrong and that you are correct. You are a braver man than I am, Charlie Brown.

Let me give you an illustration. If you and I are singing or playing a song out of a book of music, and I tell you that a note in the book is C flat when it is actually F sharp, would you be impressed if I kept insisting I was right and you are wrong? Would it help if I claim that no one can be sure what note it is? Would it make it better if I tell you that you can't be so sure whether I am wrong and you are correct? Would you have good reason to tell me I must not know how to read music?

That's like the situation here where you are telling me that I can't be sure of how Acts 2: 3 should be translated. It is as clear as the notes in the music book. The fact that you would go on defending your error or that you would try to make it appear that no one can be sure of what it says is as foolish as someone continuing to insist that an F sharp on a sheet of music is actually C flat.

[John317]

John,

I am going to pull a 'Jesus' on you and ask you a question in response. After you give me your answer I will THEN give you my response to your previous post.

If it is critical to our understanding to be able to parse Greek and understand the structure and usage of the language to be able to know truth then it is impossible for the average person to be able to find truth without expert help.

....Question: is it your understanding that the statement in the bold type above is true, and if so how do you reconcile it with what Jesus said in the following text:

[John 16:13 then quoted].

I answered the above question, and now are you adding Wayfinder's post (which is not a question from you) to the things I must respond to before you answer my previous post.

Is that not clear to you?

[John317]

....This is aside from the fact that if I am actually saved by grace through faith (as you believe) then none of this matters anyway, so why all the anxiousness over the meaning of a word or two.

This shows, again, a gross misunderstanding on your part of the doctrine of righteouness by faith. It doesn't mean that nothing matters. Our belief system and theology is very important. Righteousness by faith does not give people license to teach false doctrine or give out false information about what the Bible teaches or about how it should be translated.

[John317]

...It is that statement alone that sets up the event of the 'tongue' (singular) of fire coming upon those in the upper room, which has been termed an outpouring of the 'Holy' Spirit. ...

Where does the Bible speak of "tongue", singular, coming upon the people in the upper room?

The word translated, tongues [Gk. glossai] is a plural noun. Acts 2: 3.

Let me ask you: Is the word in verse 4 "tongue" or "tongues"?

Should it be translated "they began to speak with other tongue"? Or: "they began to speak with other tongues"?

Answer: in both instances, the word is a plural noun. This is as easy to prove as 1+1=2. How? Look at all the translations in English. Another way is to simply look in your Key Word edition of the New American Standard Bible. Check especially pages 1436 and 2130. Then if you still don't trust all those translations, check out a Greek text book or ask a professor of Koine Greek. And if you still don't believe the translations or the professors of Greek or the Greek text books and the Greek lexicons-- and if you still believe it is a singular noun-- then you can't be helped.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

John,

Just because you say so MUST make it true. I am presenting an alternate scenario based on my own understanding. You, on the other hand, are declaring categorically that I am wrong and that you are correct. You are a braver man than I am, Charlie Brown.

Let me give you an illustration. If you and I are singing or playing a song out of a book of music, and I tell you that a note in the book is C flat when it is actually F sharp, would you be impressed if I kept insisting I was right and you are wrong? Would it help if I claim that no one can be sure what note it is? Would it make it better if I tell you that you can't be so sure whether I am wrong and you are correct? Would you have good reason to tell me I must not know how to read music?

That's like the situation here where you are telling me that I can't be sure of how Acts 2: 3 should be translated. It is as clear as the notes in the music book. The fact that you would go on defending your error or that you would try to make it appear that no one can be sure of what it says is as foolish as someone continuing to insist that an F sharp on a sheet of music is actually C flat.

John,

You are hoist on your own petard. The illustration you used proves beyond any doubt that you are not a musician because it is obvious you have no idea what a 'C flat' actually is (it is actually a B natural). I am by my own admission not an expert in Greek, but I am also certainly NOT the only one that views Paul the way I do. In addition, I have never said that the translation of Acts 2:3 is incorrect the way it reads in the KJV, I only offered an alternative to that translation based on NEW information that suggests a potentially better alternative based on the literal reading of the Greek word for tongue.

Some of my sources for my understanding of textual criticism and the history of the early church are listed in the back of my book The Spirit of the Church. Those listed there are only a few of many that show that there are lots of translation errors in the New Testament that can, have and do reflect the concepts and accuracy of the translators. Not much is know about who these translators were, but one thing we can be sure of is that most (if not all) of them took the perspective of the Roman Catholic church or the Church of England as the basis for how they translated the Greek codex into English (or any other language).

You are making a big issue of the fact that wayfinder cited the web site about the Ruach/Holy Spirit, and have not said what you think of the information given there with respect to the feminine attributes of the Holy Spirit even though I referred you to that site and requested a comment. I do so again. Please let me know your expert opinion as to whether the information on this web page is valid, or not, and why. I am always willing to learn from people who know more that I about a particular subject. That said, it also does not mean that I give up my right to make my own determination as to how I believe, based on that information.