Must see video on Youtube where a JW is clearly defeated on the trinity subject...

by Tuesday 347 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Chalam

    Hi reniaa,

    You need to get and meditate on these verses to understand John 13:16, John 14:28 and such which show the humility of Jesus.

    Philippians 2:5-8 (New International Version)

    5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
    6 Who, being in very nature God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
    7 but made himself nothing,
    taking the very nature of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.
    8 And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    and became obedient to death—
    even death on a cross!

    All the best,


  • Chalam

    An interesting point is the NWT rendering of verse 6.

    NWT who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.

    Interesting that the NWT translators here choose to leave the greek "Theos" as God and not change it to "Jehovah" as they have predominantly.

    Otherwise it would read thus

    NWT who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to Jehovah.

    No wonder the translators want to remain anonymous and not answers any questions how they switch the rendering of certain greek words without reason save to substantiate the doctrine of the WT.

    All the best,


  • Tuesday

    Hi Reniaa,

    Thank you for watching the video(s). Let me start off with a couple of points before I get in to the bulk of your comments. I am very much of the feeling that all religions have backing in the bible, whether it’s three scriptures or five, I feel that any teaching has scriptures that support it and that don’t support it. The reason I brought to your attention this video is to simply show you that the trinity does indeed have a biblical backing to it. Secondly before getting into this, I despise bible ping-pong for this exact reason. Everything can be proved, disproved and proved again using the bible. So while I’m commenting on your posts, I’ll get into points if you’d like me to, but I don’t like bible ping-pong and I don’t feel it will go anywhere hence why I don’t reference a lot of scriptures in my posts. I’ll try to get to as many posts as I can, I’m only commenting on the stuff you talked about specifically dealing with the video, your side posts and stuff…eh there’s just too much of it for me to get into.

    i listen to firstborn argument he tricked them but they were undone by lack of bible knowledge on that one.

    ephraim got the firstborn blessing instead of the rightful firstborn menessah which is acknowledge by Jehovah in Jeremiah.

    So basically firstborn does mean firstborn but in this case the younger son was given the blessing for firstborn and Jehovah stood by that acknowledgement. the guys uses this eroneously to make a case that firstborn doesn't mean firstborn which is silly.

    I think here you’re being a bit fallacious yourself. If Jeremiah wanted to say received the firstborn blessing he would’ve, in this case I do feel that the speaker used it fine to show that firstborn did not necessarily mean first born in the physical sense. Even if he received the first born blessing (which he did) it does not make him the first born, it simply means he received the first born’s blessing.

    just watched 5 his way of dealing with proverbs 8 is to say that it is not dealing with Jesus, that wisdom is just wisdom. /sigh

    He did say that he understood where that impression would come from and acknowledged it. I would hold off judgement on his view that it’s wisdom until he further explained why he held that viewpoint.

    number 7 he played the isaiah says only one God card so john 1:1 must be god not a god, ignoring the grammer that has been corrected to show this is rightly "a god"

    The grammar actually as “a God” is incorrect, this has been shown numerous times through numerous sources. Regardless, if there is only one God I don’t see how the word could be A God in general.

    1 Corinthians 8:5-6 (New International Version)

    5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

    that show that he accepts that there can be gods lesser to him and supposed gods but he is THE GOD

    If you’re to accept that there were restrictions put on Christ because he was God in human form, then it makes perfect sense why he would be a lesser God.

    the bible allows for a lesser god in all the examples above and so with the correct grammer in John 1:1 is not a contradiction but a again recognition that you can be godlike and even called a god as moses was but that doesn't make you The God.

    he was weak because he had to deny grammer to prove his point of view.

    He didn’t deny grammar though, he also went into this regarding Satan being considered a God, he said people can make a God his belly right. He mentioned legitimate God. So you’re basically saying here that Jesus was not a legitimate God?

    Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son.

    It seems that the Father is the unapproachable light, God in all his glory, the holy spirit is God’s active force, however Jesus is God in the flesh. The metaphors for First Born couldn’t apply to God in all his glory or God’s active force, but could to the Son Jesus.

    According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons. (2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? he is the firstborn of creation and part of that group.

    This occurs all the time in every religion, one need look no further than Sodom and Gomorrah’s account. The scripture that describes their sin as “the detestable thing” is translated 42 times elsewhere as idolatry. You’re also misrepresenting that firstborn in all the cases you’re describing are earthly and this Colossians is describing something heavenly.

    the Jws made the mistake of letting him lead them down the 'legitimate path' but the bible doesn't make that distinction. there is Jehovah the One true Almighty God and the other gods that are talked of as gods and a gods but not The God. Jesus in john 1:1 is said to be a god this is the correct translation and he is also said to be with God that scripture basically shows that he is in 'a god' section and that by being with God he cannot actually be God. the structure of it does not allow for that conclusion whether he is a legitimate god or not isn't the issues, Jehovah can call people and things gods but that doesn't make them The Almighty God.

    As his illustration showed, between my arm and my stomach are three things, air, light and heat while they are separate they cannot be separated. This is how you can be with God and God at the same time.

    When charged by opposers with ‘making himself a god,’ Jesus’ reply was: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?” (John 10:31-37) Jesus there quoted from Psalm 82, in which human judges, whom God condemned for not executing justice, were called “gods.” (Ps 82:1, 2, 6, 7) Thus, Jesus showed the unreasonableness of charging him with blasphemy for stating that he was, not God, but God’s Son.

    Jesus didn’t say he was God’s son here though, he’s quoting what the Pharasees are calling him.

    part 9 he uses some personal metaphors to try an explain how Jesus can be God etc these are fine but not biblical and so inadmissable, I'm glad he didn't do God is an egg with 3 bits one that would sound like a bad 'yolk'. :S

    Jesus used metaphor, I wouldn’t say inadmissible, simply not using scripture. It’s a teaching tool. You should try using some yourself, they would probably help clarify your points. Don’t they teach you this in the ministry school.

    It is clear and obvious that Ezekiel and Jeremiah did no such destroying of kingdoms. Ezekiel was in exile and couldn't have possibly had a hand in destroying Jerusalem. But since they foretold it, it was just as if they did it. Since Ezekiel's and Jeremiah's prophecies were inspired and were certain to be fulfilled their uttering the prophecies made them as good as done.

    It was the same with Jesus' prophecy. AS the scriptures say, Jehovah raised Jesus,(“God raised this One up on the third day.”--Acts 10:40)but Jesus could speak of doing so just as Ezekiel spoke of destroying Jerusalem himself and just as Jehovah spoke of Jeremiah as destroying kingdoms himself.

    Additionally, Jesus willingly and obediently laid down his life thus he gained a resurrection for himself.

    I’ll speak on this, I’m pretty sure if you read the scriptures that Jeremiah and Ezekiel talk about doing these things previous verses will say “Here is what Jehovah the Lord of oreo cookies has said…” then later on “I shall destroy whatever city has provoked me this week”. You’re also not drawing a distinction between clearly mortal men who were simply prophets and the divine in Jesus Christ. You’re not taking into account that Ezekiel and Jeremiah could have simply mis-spoke, got into the heat of the moment like Moses did when he said he was providing water from a rock. Jesus however was perfect and wouldn’t have mis-spoke. When he said he was going to raise himself, I have to take what he said at face value.

    they let him say this lack of knowledge is because jesus is limited on earth akkk this is clearly not what the verse is saying, it is making the distinction between father and son. So the SON never has this knowledge whether on earth or in heaven afterwards when he is restored, only the father has this knowledged!

    You’re point is right and his point is right. The Son doesn’t know the day or the hour because he is not God in all his glory (the Father). However God can be on Earth while in heaven, but while on Earth in human form he would not have all the knowledge he has as The Father in all his glory. It is clearly making a distinction, but the distinction by showing that he is now restricted in human form.

    So the context establishes that the Almighty is hurling a challenge at the so-called gods of the nations. Being mere idols with no divine power, they certainly are not gods to be worshiped; they are really nothings. Jehovah continues: “Does there exist a God besides me? No, there is no Rock. I have recognized none. The formers of the carved image are all of them an unreality, and their darlings [cast from metal or carved from wood] will be of no benefit.” (Isaiah 44:8-17) Consequently, the context of Isaiah 43:10 makes it clear that Jesus is not being considered; the “gods” under consideration are the impotent idols of the nations.

    He may be speaking to the God’s of the other nations, but he is however stating for all the world “there are no Gods before me or After me”. It’d be no different than me saying to someone claiming to be the greatest wrestler on the face of the earth that “I am the best there is, best there was and best there ever will be.” (Bret Hart reference for the wrestling fans out there). So no one in the past, present or future is better than me, that context doesn’t only apply to the person I’m speaking to (that I’m simply better than him) but to all things. Same deal here.

    part 11 he just goes off into his own explanation of how Abraham could have been said to be with God. he doesn't even mention the bible itself allows for the angel of God to represent him as the answer.

    I agree in that even I when a witness would’ve brought this up. I believe though the word used here was not the simple form for God but the more direct word for Jehovah. I’ll have to research that a little bit though.

    Just saw it to the end bible bible jim was congratulating himself. he shut down the Jw with effected methods diverting to the other guy if it looked like the main Jw was going to bring a scripture in he didn't want to address. he is clearly intelligent and knows his bible but I can't decide whether he knew the scriptures that refute some of his views hmmm

    I wouldn’t say he was congratulating himself, he was explaining how he got through to this man who clearly was in attack mode from the outset. When someone is a steam-breathing bull to prove their beliefs it’s hard to reason with them regarding anything, so that’s more-so what he was discussing. If you have a youtube account I suggest just sending him a message, more than likely he’ll talk to you. He responded to my message within a few hours, you could call him and ask to discuss the things in the video I’m sure he’d love to do so. I don’t believe that those were plants, I do believe the meeting was pre-arranged and hence he got his material ready. Those from the looks of it to me, were just three different translations of the bible.

  • isaacaustin

    Isaacaustin-hi chalam 'exact representation' 'exact likeness' 'image'

    these all actually prove Jesus isn't God none of these can be the original. just like man is made in the image of god but he too isn't god. image is not the original.

    If you are like something you are like it but you are not it.

    when you represent something you are not it.

    these are simple proofs that Jesus is not God.

    My reply: Wrong and faulty reasoning Reniaa.

    verse 3: who is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being, and who sustains all things by his mighty word.

    He is the refulgence, or reflection, or radiance of God's glory. But the Bible says that God will not share, or give his glory to anyone else. From the NWT:

    Isaiah 42:8 I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory, neither my praise to graven images.

    Isaiah 48 "11 For my own sake, for my own sake I shall act, for how could one let oneself be profaned? And to no one else shall I give my own glory

    Whose glory does Isaiah see here in Isaiah 6:

    1 In the year that King Uz·zi´ah died I, however, got to see Jehovah, sitting on a throne lofty and lifted up, and his skirts were filling the temple. 2 Seraphs were standing above him. Each one had six wings. With two he kept his face covered, and with two he kept his feet covered, and with two he would fly about. 3 And this one called to that one and said: “Holy, holy, holy is Jehovah of armies. The fullness of all the earth is his glory.” 4 And the pivots of the thresholds began to quiver at the voice of the one calling, and the house itself gradually filled with smoke.

    5 And I proceeded to say: “Woe to me! For I am as good as brought to silence, because a man unclean in lips I am, and in among a people unclean in lips I am dwelling; for my eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of armies, himself!”

    6 At that, one of the seraphs flew to me, and in his hand there was a glowing coal that he had taken with tongs off the altar. 7 And he proceeded to touch my mouth and to say: “Look! This has touched your lips, and your error has departed and your sin itself is atoned for.”

    8 And I began to hear the voice of Jehovah saying: “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” And I proceeded to say: “Here I am! Send me.” 9 And he went on to say: “Go, and you must say to this people, ‘Hear again and again, O men, but do not understand; and see again and again, but do not get any knowledge.’ 10 Make the heart of this people unreceptive, and make their very ears unresponsive, and paste their very eyes together, that they may not see with their eyes and with their ears they may not hear, and that their own heart may not understand and that they may not actually turn back and get healing for themselves.”

    He saw Jehovah's glory....right out of the NWT. John 12 says:

    37 But although he had performed so many signs before them, they were not putting faith in him, 38 so that the word of Isaiah the prophet was fulfilled which he said: “Jehovah, who has put faith in the thing heard by us? And as for the arm of Jehovah, to whom has it been revealed?” 39 The reason why they were not able to believe is that again Isaiah said: 40 “He has blinded their eyes and he has made their hearts hard, that they should not see with their eyes and get the thought with their hearts and turn around and I should heal them.” 41 Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory, and he spoke about him. 42 All the same, many even of the rulers actually put faith in him, but because of the Pharisees they would not confess [him], in order not to be expelled from the synagogue; 43 for they loved the glory of men more than even the glory of God.

    The context here is clear- Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus- a person of the Divine being known as Jehovah. Since God does not share his glory with anyone else and Isaiah saw Jehovah's glory- identified as Jesus here..this equates jesus to being God in nature.

    Regarding the exact representation of his very being, or the very imprint of his being....Phil 2:6 says " who, although he was existing in God's form, ..." This says he was in God's form. He has God's appearance. he looks like God in his being. Who else looks exactly like God. No one

    My reply: Reniaa, after looking thru this post...and all the 'proof texts' you have thrown out to try to disprove the trinity...the only thing you have disproved is modalism- the 3 being the same person. And none of us beleived that anyway. You have done nothing (nor could you) to show that Jesus and the Father do not share the same nature and operate as one spiritual flesh.

    hi isaac you found me :)

    Sorry I'm not buying it! my words above work for all version of the trinity god unless you are say there is more than One God and that would make you polytheistic without doubt and so biblically wrong.

    My reply: That is where you have a lack of understanding. We as being are finite. Only one person can exist in our being. You then apply our finite existance to God who is infinite. These three persons are not divided. If they were divided and not in perfect unity they would operate as 3 gods. They do not. They operate in perfect unity and thus are one spiritual flesh...operation as one God.

    if you are the image/or like/ or represent something you are not it.

    Do you believe Jesus is The true God according to your version of trinity? If you believe he is then the above scriptures apply because you cannot be like God and be God at the same time.

    My reply: There are a few renderings of this verse...exact representation, express image..etc. None of these say he is like God, but that he is the exact representation of his very being. Again, who can be exactly like God and not be God?

    Even if you think God is 3 'who's in One What' a title/postion that son/father/holy ghost separate persons all share You are still trying to say God itself is One so if something is like that God it still isn't God. If something is the image of that god it still isn't God like Man isn't god by virtue of being the 'image' of God.

    My reply: wrong analogy here. We were MADE in the image of God. Jesus is the express image of God. Big difference there..

    We've talk on nature before and I posted something I found that clearly shows the word in greek is actually 'form' which again is akin to be a likeness to God not God himself.

    Nature comes into it when you goto Greek philosophy which early trinitarians were heavily influenced by and that is where all this metaphysical nature comes from,

    but the bible is very Pure it say Jesus is LIKE god, it says he is 'with God', it says he is sent by God. It says God is his head. it says Jesus is co-heirs with man to God, it says Jesus will give authority back to God, It say Jesus is on the righthand of God, it says Jesus is Gods Son, and yes it even says Jesus is 'a god' like the angels in psalms are

    Psalm 82:1 (English Standard Version)

    1 ( B ) God ( C ) has taken his place in the divine council;
    in the midst of ( D ) the gods he ( E ) holds judgment:

    but it never says Jesus is The Almighty God, Jesus himself only admitted to being God's son, it says Jesus is Gods messenger

    John 13:16
    I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.


    My reply: Greater is positional. Better is nature. I agree the father is greater than the Son- positionally.

    28 Y OU heard that I said to YOU , I am going away and I am coming [back] to YOU . If YOU loved me, YOU would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am

    Greater- a greater postion...and he will glorify Jesus and give him all he has and Jesus will, in turn, send the Holy Spirit to his disciples.

    Heb 1;4 4 So he has become better than the angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.

    He lowered himself to a nature below that of angels..and upon his ascension he was made better (nature), not greater than angels.

  • mraimondi

    i stopped being a witness a long time ago and the trinity still looks utterly ridiculous to me, considering the bible, and history.

    and StAnn, those responses always look really arrogant or ignorant, no offence. "oh. you lost soul, ill pray you see things the way i do one day, cause im right"

    lol... more of the same, same old game.

  • mraimondi

    what it really comes down to, is a game of semantics - in reality it looks like you believe quite similar, but certain things get in the way.

    otherwise, one side is repeating their party line, the other is repeating theirs. all stock responses.

    nothing new, nothing enlightening about it.

  • Tuesday


    My sentiments exactly, I posted the video because I have never seen the trinity explained so simplistically and a JW argument so utterly eviscerated so completely. This man's knowlege of scripture was quite amazing to me.

    For the trinity being ridiculous, parts of it make sense to me, parts of it seem ridiculous to me. I remember in my congregation a brother was giving a talk on the trinity and used the analogy "If I put down three separate dollars I don't have one dollar I have three dollars" and he put down three dollar bills. A trinitarian was there for the sunday meeting stood up and said "Yes you have three dollars, but it's all still money."

    I'm not one for bible ping-pong, I don't think anyone is ever really going to solve the argument. I just feel calling either argument wrong on it's face is utterly stupid, there's scriptures to support nearly anything in the bible. I'd say that support everything in the bible, but I don't feel like this thread getting hijacked into a discussion of things the bible supports vs. things the bible doesn't support.

  • booby

    reniaa. Thank you for commenting on my last post, but why did you not comment on the watchtower article I mentioned. In that article the society explains that Jesus emanated from Jehovah. If he "emanated" from Jehovah and Jehovah is devine does that not make Jesus devine. As I said in that post I believe you use things like the trinity because you feel you have a foot to stand on but avoid many other issues that the society has totally wrong. I have seen you admit many times the errors and misjudgements on their part, but than use the "they are just imperfect men " argument. I think the post by Mary is excellent and points out the futility of arguing the trinity "doctrine" because it is so ambiguous. As others have noted look at where the society has it wrong (John 1:1) a god for example and explain why they can.t get right.

  • mraimondi

    from what i saw, the vid was a stalemate - the witnesses were dull and the bible jim was just spouting the party line, both sides were totally unyeilding, and no one really learned anything.

  • Anti-Christ

    Very good, this guy is good. Of course this would not make me become a Christian lol! But it is a good way to help JW get on the road to see that maybe not all of what the WT teaches can be trusted, one step at a time. I did not go from JW to atheist it took a few steps.

    I liked it when he said "normal thinking people that go to college would say this is a contradiction" and the JW answers "yea that's because they don't believe it's the word of god" Circular reasoning at it's best! I also liked it when Jim tells them when they are making logical fallacies and at the same time all of is beliefs are based on a logical fallacy (any Christian for that mater IMO) I like to see him address all the other problems with the bible.

Share this