Must see video on Youtube where a JW is clearly defeated on the trinity subject... (page 18)

isaacaustin

the 'a god ' in John 1:1 shows that Jesus is God-like and a god by virtue of possessing many qualities of his father but that still doesn't make him God thats why people over-look the important part of that scripture when dwelling on the 'a god' they ignore it saying 'WITH God' all translations say this with no exception they all agree he is 'with God and that in itself proves he isn't god becasue you cannot be with something and be it that is not the sense of what being with something means. I am with you on this forum but I am not you. Jesus cannot be with God if he is God.

My reply: You again do not think thru deeply what Jh 1:1 is saying. "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God.

The first instance of God is speaking of the person normally thought as as God by the people at that time- the Father. The second occurence speaks of nature. To help you understand this rephrase this as `In the garden was the Woman, and the Woman was with the Human and the Woman was Human.' The first occurrence of `human' refers to a specific person but the second occurrence of `human' refers to their common nature, not to a specific person. John 1:1 is teaching that in the beginning the Word was with the person that is normally thought of as "God', the Father, the Decision-maker. The last portion of the verse adds that the Word had the essential nature of being God. No big mystery here.

isaacaustin

/sigh call me crazy but I want to have a bible translation as near to the original inspired word as possible, maybe going with the majority vote for the last 1700 years is right for some but for me I value truth above conformity.

Reniaa

My reply: Then why would you go to the New World MisTranslation of the Holy Scriptures?? Thy ASV, NASB, NJB to name a few..

donny

Infidels! there is only one true god Allah and Mohamed is his prophet because it says so in the Koran.

Not any longer. He was replaced my Joseph Smith in the eearly 1800's because Elohim and Jesus said so!!

Don

reniaa

hi mad dawg are all those different terms for trinity? trinity had loads of versions? So which is right then?

So to understand trinity-God I have to go to the catholic dictionary?

Silly me! when trying to understand God I thought you only needed to goto the bible ^^

Isaac I accept trinity tries to explain away a lot of these contradictions. So Jesus is god and has a God so why doesn't Jehovah call Jesus 'My god'?

If the Father is the head and Jesus is under him as god then how can he be co-equal in any way?

In the garden was the Woman, and the Woman was with the Human and the Woman was Human.'-isaac

This sentence would never occur in the english language it is just a bad sentence and shows up the foolishness of trinity. Although your say by this God is a race like humans and that would make Jesus, Jehovah and holy spirit 3 Gods of a race and so unbiblically polytheistic.

isaacaustin

Isaac I accept trinity tries to explain away a lot of these contradictions. So Jesus is god and has a God so why doesn't Jehovah call Jesus 'My god'?

My reply: The Father does not call the Son "my God" because the Father is the head. The son is eternally submissive to the Father, thus the Father is his God. There are distinctions in roles, but all are of the same nature and operate as one perfect entity.

If the Father is the head and Jesus is under him as god then how can he be co-equal in any way?

My reply: This has been explained to you numerous times- they are co-equal in nature- not roles.

In the garden was the Woman, and the Woman was with the Human and the Woman was Human.'-isaac

This sentence would never occur in the english language it is just a bad sentence and shows up the foolishness of trinity. Although your say by this God is a race like humans and that would make Jesus, Jehovah and holy spirit 3 Gods of a race and so unbiblically polytheistic.

My reply: It was not for the point of whether it would show up in the English language...it was to illustrate the occurence of God in Jh 1:1, and it does so quite well. Nowhere does this illustration say God is like the human race, it simply illustrates use of the word God in Jh 1:1...Again Reniaa, as you continually miss the point (intentionally) the operation is as one flesh, one God- montheistic. If Jesus did not operate in perfect unity and communication with his Father then, yes, we would have two Gods. But this is not the case.

isaacaustin

hi mad dawg are all those different terms for trinity? trinity had loads of versions? So which is right then?

My reply: Many on here have repeatedly given you the correct definition of what the trinity is. It is unable to process in the mind of one blinded by the WT. There are many inccorect views of what the trinity is- which is not a surprise. Why would the devil try to counterfiet something that is false, anymore than you would go out and find a fake 4 dollar bill. The trinity is a true teaching shown in the Bible, thus Satan has tried to muddy it, and counterfeit it...and deny it.

Yizuman

reniaa is ignoring my question again

booby

reniaa: Is Jesus devine?

isaacaustin

yizuman, that is common with her. All her points she is bringing up on this thread have been dealt with her on another thread..Like many JWs, you explain something to her and she will shift to another point..only to come back to the previous point as though it was not yet discussed.

Mad Dawg

Ren, my dear.

Your understanding of the terms indicate that you don't know what you are arguing against. Your response to Isaac belies your understanding of the historical Christian view of the trinity. Only two of the terms refer to different views of the trinity. The third term is related to a concept related to one of the two views.

There are many theories about Jesus and unitarianism. Using your standard, rejecting the multiple theories, I would have to reject unitarianism (many versions) in favor of trinitarianism (two versions). If you wish to claim that trinitarianism includes more than two lines of thought, please list them. I would be very interested at looking into them.

You can use a Catholic, Baptist, Presbytarian or any other theological dictionary you wish. In fact, why don't you use a WT dictionary? They should define the terms even if they disagree with them.

If one only needs to go to the Bible, why do JW's spend so much time reading WT publications? If all we need is the Bible, show me where it says that blood fractions are acceptable or a matter of conscience. Show me where it says not to vote. Show me where is says that Jesus and Michael are the same person. That the faithful have to fill out time slips. Or that Jerusalem fell 607 years before the common era from the Bible only. It strikes me as hypocritical for the WT to point out that "trinity" or some other term is not in the Bible when so many of their own terms are not in the Bible: "paradise earth," Kingdom Hall," "pioneer," and so forth.

You would have a much easier time on this subject if you were to argue against what trinitarians are actually claiming instead of arguing against the WT caricature of the trinity.

Thank you for your responses. They are much appreciated.

MD

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

Share this