Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Fallacious Trinitarian argument concerning Holy Spirit

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post

    These are pragmatic specialized usages derived well after the time of the NT, and have no bearing on how the NT authors used the term (which fits perfectly with the generalized usage at the time). And it's clearly not your area of expertise, or you would have realized why this does not support your contentions.
    You need to really retract your false assertion instead of giving lame excuses.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by John Milton View Post

      You need to really retract your false assertion instead of giving lame excuses.
      You (and Steven Avery) need really to learn the language and how to read lexical evidence so that you stop making false accusations. I'll expect that about the time that the Lord returns.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post
        Fake analogies, like fake news, fail before the real world usage of the word. You can as surprised as you like, but that doesn't alter reality.
        Your excuses are in fact lame. And that is a kind word.

        The reality is that your claim that a paraclete is always a "person", and thus must be a "person" in the New Testament, was ludicrous, and was busted by about five references so far, plus the New Testament. Angels, gods and goddesses, inanimate objects, and the Holy Spirit are all examples of a Comforter that does not have to fit your doctrinal hobby-horse of a "God-person".

        You are the one with doctrinal blinders. You think of everything through doctrinal presuppositions and work backwards.

        Plus, your claim was illogical, since 10 or 100 references in court cases or some human helpers don't tell you about ontological reality. This is an easily understood fallacy of previous usage. If it was impossible for the New Testament c. 50 AD to have a paraclete that was not a person, then it was impossible for the Jews of 200 BC or 300 AD.

        However, I did accurately predict that you would not acknowledge either error.

        Your problem here is, once again, that you are very weak on Logic 101 in discussing basic Bible matters.

        Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post
        no bearing on how the NT authors used the term (which fits perfectly with the generalized usage at the time). .
        A perfect example of your logic weakness.

        The "general usage of the time" was future heavenly indwelling entities? Please. Stop trying to fool yourself.

        Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post
        the term is used exclusively of people throughout Greek literature.
        Oh, no, yet another Hofstetter blunder.

        Where are your layers of qualifications? Amazing.

        And who made up this theory that a Comforter must be a person? My conjecture: Barry Hofstetter, sans any scholarly reference.

        These blunders would not be so bad, if Barry Hofstetter could acknowledge his errors.
        Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-21-19, 10:59 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by steven avery View Post
          your excuses are in fact lame. And that is a kind word.

          The reality is that your claim that a paraclete is always a "person", and thus must be a "person" in the new testament, was ludicrous, and was busted by about five references so far, plus the new testament. Angels, gods and goddesses, inanimate objects, and the holy spirit are all examples of a comforter that does not have to fit your doctrinal hobby-horse of a "god-person".

          you are the one with doctrinal blinders. you think of everything through doctrinal presuppositions and work backwards.

          Plus, your claim was illogical, since 10 or 100 references in court cases or some human helpers don't tell you about ontological reality. This is an easily understood fallacy of previous usage. If it was impossible for the new testament c. 50 ad to have a paraclete that was not a person, then it was impossible for the jews of 200 bc or 300 ad.

          However, i did accurately predict that you would not acknowledge either error.

          Your problem here is, once again, that you are very weak on logic 101 in discussing basic bible matters.

          A perfect example of your logic weakness.

          The "general usage of the time" was future heavenly indwelling entities? Please. Stop trying to fool yourself.

          Oh, no, yet another hofstetter blunder.

          Where are your layers of qualifications? Amazing.

          And who made up this theory that a comforter must be a person? My conjecture: Barry hofstetter, sans any scholarly reference.

          These blunders would not be so bad, if barry hofstetter could acknowledge his errors.
          you. Don't. Know. Greek. Period.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post

            You (and Steven Avery) need really to learn the language and how to read lexical evidence so that you stop making false accusations. I'll expect that about the time that the Lord returns.
            What did you hope to accomplish with a facile argument based upon a half-truth anyway?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post

              Well, you read the NT from a hyper-theological perspective into which you have to fit all the data, including using false analogies and comparisons. In this case, you might want to start with thinking about what really makes a παράκλητος a παράκλητος, and why the term is used exclusively of people throughout Greek literature.
              παράκλητος is a relatively rare word in Koine Literature to begin with , and Steven has already debunked your assertion that it is always used to connote a person or people.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by John Milton View Post
                παράκλητος is a relatively rare word in Koine Literature to begin with , and Steven has already debunked your assertion that it is always used to connote a person or people.
                Mulitple debunkings.
                In response, Barry gave really weird attempts:

                "pragmatic specialized usages" blah blah was a really lame and pathetic attempt of Barry avoid simply acknowledging his error.

                As if the New Testament Comforter is not a "specialized usage". lol - the one-time indwelling Spirit, unique in all history, thank you Lord Jesus

                ====

                "general usage of the time" - the Comforter of the New Testament is not the "general usage". Lexical Fallacy Alert!

                ====

                Notice how Barry is paralyzed, he cannot defend his refuted claims, so he switches to Plan B.
                The integrity way would be to simply withdraw the claim that a paraclete must be a person, based on a false lexical claim.

                ==================================

                Proverbs 16:18 (AV)
                Pride goeth before destruction,
                and an haughty spirit before a fall.
                Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-22-19, 05:33 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by John Milton View Post
                  What did you hope to accomplish with a facile argument based upon a half-truth anyway?
                  Logically, it made no sense. And it was totally unnecessary,since Barry could argue the personhood of the Comforter by the interpretative way, as is normally done. Of course, you would disagree, but it would be a scholastically honest discussion.

                  So, the only explanation is doctrinal blindness, presuppositionalism.

                  Barry was, and is, buffeted, and quickly winged it with a false claim. Once he stepped in the quicksand, he did not have the sense to quickly get out.

                  This is the same general type of lexical blunder that Naselli and Gons pointed out that so many make with pneuma (a grammatical blunder). Except Barry's paraclete blunder was actually far worse, since he did it all on his own. At least those who make the pneuma blunder can point to various grammarians who took them down the yellow brick road.
                  Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-22-19, 05:28 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Steven Avery View Post
                    Mulitple debunkings.

                    "pragmatic specialized usages" blah blah was a really lame and pathetic attempt of Barry avoid simply acknowledging his error.

                    As if the New Testament Comforter is not a "specialized usage". lol - the one-time indwelling Spirit, unique in all history, thank you Lord Jesus

                    Notice how Barry is paralyzed, he cannot defend his refuted claims, so he switches to Plan B.
                    The integrity way would be to simply withdraw the claim that a paraclete must be a person, based on a false lexical claim.

                    ==================================
                    Yeah, ..not fooled by that baloney . Should really acknowledge his error. But not holding my breath.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by steven avery View Post
                      logically, it made no sense. And it was totally unnecessary,since barry could argue the personhood of the comforter by the interpretative way, as is normally done. Of course, you would disagree, but it would be a scholastically honest discussion.

                      So, the only explanation is doctrinal blindness, presuppositionalism.

                      Barry was, and is, buffeted, and quickly winged it with a false claim. Once he stepped in the quicksand, he did not have the sense to quickly get out.

                      This is the same general type of lexical blunder that naselli and gons pointed out that so many make with pneuma (a grammatical blunder). Except barry's paraclete blunder was actually far worse, since he did it all on his own. At least those who make the pneuma blunder can point to various grammarians who took them down the yellow brick road.
                      you. Don't. Know. Greek. Period.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post

                        you. Don't. Know. Greek. Period.
                        What does that have to do with your false (now debunked) claim that παράκλητος always refers to a person ?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Infact the lack of evidence for the “personality” of the Holy Spirit in the bible has caused Daniel Wallace to conclude that apostle Paul was not a Trinitarian but a Binitarian , in a radio talk show. Below is the extract from the show, here ( check at 24 minutes):




                          Paul says, ‘Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we live, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live’ . What Paul does,… I call it a primitive binitarian viewpoint. It’s not even quite trinitarian. …I should probably clarify this for the listeners. I think there’s a progressive understanding in the New Testament about who Jesus is; and when Paul writes 1 Corinthians in the early 50s, I think he’s very clearly binitarian. I don’t know yet if he has understood the Trinity. My guess is he probably does not and those things get revealed a little bit later on. But here’s the thing.....


                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Daniel Wallace , the Trinitarian with arguably the best Greek credentials and most formidable training from Seminary has basically admitted that apostle Paul did not believe that holy spirit to be God, and consequently that he did not believe it to be "a person."

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by John Milton View Post

                              What does that have to do with your false (now debunked) claim that παράκλητος always refers to a person ?
                              He knows less Greek than you, which actually requires effort, and that means any opinion he offers is worthless. I've already responded to this, and have no desire to respond again. Upon reflection, though, I find the one response interesting, nonetheless. To debunk my claim that παράκλητος doesn't always refer to persons, he includes gods and goddesses, angels, and demons. But wait a minute:

                              Are the gods and goddesses viewed (at least in literature) as personal beings? They think, the speak, they feel, they have gender, they interfere with the lives of mortals (including telling Aeneas that he must leave Dido to fulfill his fate in Italy, the jerks). Sound's like "persons" to me.

                              Are angels personal beings? They speak, they interact with humans, they can carry out the will of God or rebel against him. All features of persons.

                              Demons? Intelligent beings in rebellion against God, who can speak, sense the world around them, interfere with lives of humans, and generally be pests bothering Jesus. Yep, personal beings.

                              So, that totally derails that objection. The other poster was thinking 'person" means "human" and that's not part of the definition.

                              A little stronger evidence is that in later Jewish Rabbinical literature the term was used of various inanimate objects. To clarify my earlier remarks, these are specialized usages with a particular context, and even more problematic, the Talmud and the Targums were not written in Greek, but in Aramaic. This does not establish how the word is ordinarily used in Greek. For that we have to go to documents written in Greek at the time of the NT, and that evidence is that παράκλητος is overwhelmingly used of persons. So THE. PEOPLE. WHO. DO. NOT. KNOW. GREEK. can continue to blather, but it doesn't mean anything.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post

                                He knows less Greek than you, which actually requires effort, and that means any opinion he offers is worthless. I've already responded to this, and have no desire to respond again. Upon reflection, though, I find the one response interesting, nonetheless. To debunk my claim that παράκλητος doesn't always refer to persons, he includes gods and goddesses, angels, and demons. But wait a minute:

                                Are the gods and goddesses viewed (at least in literature) as personal beings? They think, the speak, they feel, they have gender, they interfere with the lives of mortals (including telling Aeneas that he must leave Dido to fulfill his fate in Italy, the jerks). Sound's like "persons" to me.

                                Are angels personal beings? They speak, they interact with humans, they can carry out the will of God or rebel against him. All features of persons.

                                Demons? Intelligent beings in rebellion against God, who can speak, sense the world around them, interfere with lives of humans, and generally be pests bothering Jesus. Yep, personal beings.

                                So, that totally derails that objection. The other poster was thinking 'person" means "human" and that's not part of the definition.

                                A little stronger evidence is that in later Jewish Rabbinical literature the term was used of various inanimate objects. To clarify my earlier remarks, these are specialized usages with a particular context, and even more problematic, the Talmud and the Targums were not written in Greek, but in Aramaic. This does not establish how the word is ordinarily used in Greek. For that we have to go to documents written in Greek at the time of the NT, and that evidence is that παράκλητος is overwhelmingly used of persons. So THE. PEOPLE. WHO. DO. NOT. KNOW. GREEK. can continue to blather, but it doesn't mean anything.
                                The fact that Jewish sources used the term παράκλητος of various inanimate objects is proof that the apostles ( all of them also Jews) would / could have been similarly inclined to use this word, as a reference to a non-personal force of God. It also debunks your assertion that the word
                                παράκλητος was never used of non-persons.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X