Must see video on Youtube where a JW is clearly defeated on the trinity subject...
by Tuesday 347 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Pilchard
Manasseh was the first to be born of Israel:
*** Gen 41:45: Joseph called the name of the first-born Manasseh, “For,” he said, “God has made me forget all my toil, and all my father’s house.”
God, through Israel, then gave the first-born rights to Ephraim:
*** Gen 48:14 Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it on Ephraim’s head, who was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh’s head, guiding his hands knowingly, for Manasseh was the first-born.
This in Jeremiah Jehovah is simply restating this re-assignment of first-born rights from Manasseh to Ephraim.
*** Jer 31:9 They shall come with weeping; and with petitions will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by rivers of waters, in a straight way in which they shall not stumble; for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my first-born.
So in Jeremiah we simply have the word "first-born" being applied to the younger (second-born) as an expression to convey which one gained the first-born rights.
It is really not an excuse to find a new definition for the word that conveniently suits an ulterior purpose.
Nothing about re-assigning the first-born rights should remove the connotation of "birth" from the concept. All the sons are "born" and a decision is being made as to which one of those "born" is to come first with respect to inheritance rights.
But trinitarians have found this neat trick of redefining the word to exclude the connotation of being "born" based on the fact that God uses the word 'first-born' as a means to convey the fact that the second-born received the first-born rights.
Example.
When someone takes on a role that are often referred to as being that role even if it contradicts their natural status.
If there are not enough men at a ballroom dance class then some women may need to have women dance partners.
In that situation one of the women needs to decide who is going to be the 'man'.
That does not mean that we need to redefine the word "man" because a woman is not a man.
It means we just recognise that for the purposes of deciding who follows which dance steps one of the woman takes on the role of the man.
So the expression "this woman was the man" makes sense when we know that context of the situation and no one needs to redefine any words at all.
It is exactly the same with the word "first-born" in Jeremiah. It is simply saying that the younger is taking the part of the first-born.
But the word "first-born" still means first out of the womb. And it still conveys the thought of having been born. -
Pilchard
I am not completely following your logic. Elohym can mean God, can mean angels. The point you are trying to make (I think) is that Elohym is translated as angels in some translation...but is unanimously translated as 'angels' in its application in Hebrews...It is clearly a term with multiple meanings. But beyond that ....Are the angels also called "Theos"...or better yet "Ho Theos"
Pilchard:
Bible Greek was written by Hebrew people and so their concept of the word "theos" is entirely shaped from the Hebrew scriptures as a translation of the word "Elohym" which means "gods".
So the Greek Jews took "theos" to mean "elohym" or "gods".
So when the Greek Jews read Ps 8:5, in Hebrew they thought of the word "gods".
Paul quotes from the LXX which translates elohym as "angels".
This tells us that Greek Jews thought that "angels" was a valid translation of the word "elohym" and we know that they thought that "theos" was a valid translation of the word "elohym" also.
So Paul has no problem thinking of angels as gods and using the term interchangably.
-
isaacaustin
Manasseh was the first to be born of Israel:
*** Gen 41:45: Joseph called the name of the first-born Manasseh, “For,” he said, “God has made me forget all my toil, and all my father’s house.”
God, through Israel, then gave the first-born rights to Ephraim:
*** Gen 48:14 Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it on Ephraim’s head, who was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh’s head, guiding his hands knowingly, for Manasseh was the first-born.
This in Jeremiah Jehovah is simply restating this re-assignment of first-born rights from Manasseh to Ephraim.
*** Jer 31:9 They shall come with weeping; and with petitions will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by rivers of waters, in a straight way in which they shall not stumble; for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my first-born.
So in Jeremiah we simply have the word "first-born" being applied to the younger (second-born) as an expression to convey which one gained the first-born rights.
It is really not an excuse to find a new definition for the word that conveniently suits an ulterior purpose.
Nothing about re-assigning the first-born rights should remove the connotation of "birth" from the concept. All the sons are "born" and a decision is being made as to which one of those "born" is to come first with respect to inheritance rights.
But trinitarians have found this neat trick of redefining the word to exclude the connotation of being "born" based on the fact that God uses the word 'first-born' as a means to convey the fact that the second-born received the first-born rights.My reply: It is not a new definition as you claim. It is what is it, reassignment of rights, or preeminance....I agree it could mean first-created or it can mean firstborn. That is why one needs to look at the context. Doing so in Colossians shows it to mean preeminance, or first in rank. Jesus was not the first to rise from the dead- yet he is firstborn of the dead. It brings out that he is first in everything...obviously speaking of rank.
Example.
When someone takes on a role that are often referred to as being that role even if it contradicts their natural status.
If there are not enough men at a ballroom dance class then some women may need to have women dance partners.
In that situation one of the women needs to decide who is going to be the 'man'.
That does not mean that we need to redefine the word "man" because a woman is not a man.
It means we just recognise that for the purposes of deciding who follows which dance steps one of the woman takes on the role of the man.
So the expression "this woman was the man" makes sense when we know that context of the situation and no one needs to redefine any words at all.
It is exactly the same with the word "first-born" in Jeremiah. It is simply saying that the younger is taking the part of the first-born.
But the word "first-born" still means first out of the womb. And it still conveys the thought of having been born.
My reply: I see you reasoning there...although not sure if I completely agree with that. However, we also see in Ps 89:27Also I will make him [my] firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth. ...speaking of David. Here firstborn obviously has nothing to do with creation...nothing to do with out of the womb..in fact the Aid book once made this point very well- possibly not realizing how damaging this is to their doctrine. Clarly, clearly this means preeminance. My use of Manasseh/Ephraim may not have been too strong.
-
isaacaustin
Pilchard...even taking your Greek usage analysis into account...which shows the different possible uses and terms...it does not refute the fact that Hebrews (as well as other books of the NT) show and attribute to Jesus things only belonging to God...so while the terms have other possible meanings the things attributed to Jesus show what the terms mean. The terms 'firstborn' in Col can mean literally the first one born out of the womb...or can mean preminance, or first in rank. The WT even admitted this. When seeing how Colossians continues on it is obvious what Paul meant. In reading thru Hebrews it is obvious Jesus is no angel, but is God, our creator. When reading thru Revelation and the gospels we see Jesus received and accepted worship. This shows the intended message of the words.
-
Pilchard
isaacaustin I see you reasoning there...although not sure if I completely agree with that. However, we also see in Ps 89:27
Also I will make him [my] firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth. ...speaking of David. Here firstborn obviously has nothing to do with creation...nothing to do with out of the womb..in fact the Aid book once made this point very well- possibly not realizing how damaging this is to their doctrine. Clarly, clearly this means preeminance. My use of Manasseh/Ephraim may not have been too strong.
Pilchard:
I would argue that David is Jehovah's first-born king in place of Saul who Jehovah rejected. So I would say it is exactly the same situation where the word "firstborn" is simply being used to shown that Davd (the second king) is to be considered the first. We note that the line of Kings descends from David's children and not Saul's.
So genetically speaking David is the first-born of a long line of kings leading to Christ.
In my opinion the early church spent hundreds of years trying to fuse Greek philosophy into the scriptures and isolating special word usage like this and using it as an excuse to argue a different definition for the word is one of the tools they used to achieve this.
The Bible could have stated the trinity very simply. It is not hard. Jesus came to explain God and if God is a trinity then Jesus did not make a very good job of it. It took men hundreds of years to explain what Jesus failed at.
I'd rather take what the Bible says at face value rather then be scurrying around the scriptures looking for reasons why I don't have to believe that "first-born" actually means "first-born".
-
Chalam
Hi pilchard,
Good to see you back.
Looks like you missed it so here it is again-all with regards to the God we keep talking about.
Hi Pilchard,
Out of all the gods, Christians have only one God, the Father.
I am following Christ and He is my God, just like Thomas
John 20:28 (New International Version)
28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
Now, I assume you have have time to read the three chapters in Revelation? Anyhow, here is a heads up.
Revelation 1 (New International Version)
Prologue
1 The revelation of Jesus Christ
7 Look, he is coming with the clouds,
and every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him;
and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."
12 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and among the lampstands was someone "like a son of man,"dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.
17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.
Revelation 20 (New International Version)
6 He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. John 4:13 7 He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. Isaiah 9:6
Revelation 21 (New International Version)
12 "Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
16 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."
20 He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon."
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. So who is the Alpha and the Omega? All the best, Stephen -
isaacaustin
Pilchard:
I would argue that David is Jehovah's first-born king in place of Saul who Jehovah rejected. So I would say it is exactly the same situation where the word "firstborn" is simply being used to shown that Davd (the second king) is to be considered the first. We note that the line of Kings descends from David's children and not Saul's.
My reply: But this has nothing to do with creation, or out of the womb.
So genetically speaking David is the first-born of a long line of kings leading to Christ.
My reply: Only by tweaking the definitions a bit.
In my opinion the early church spent hundreds of years trying to fuse Greek philosophy into the scriptures and isolating special word usage like this and using it as an excuse to argue a different definition for the word is one of the tools they used to achieve this.
The Bible could have stated the trinity very simply. It is not hard. Jesus came to explain God and if God is a trinity then Jesus did not make a very good job of it. It took men hundreds of years to explain what Jesus failed at.
My reply: If Jesus wanted us to understand him to be an archangel, or simply a lesser god he also did a very poor job in claiming to do the things only God can do.
I'd rather take what the Bible says at face value rather then be scurrying around the scriptures looking for reasons why I don't have to believe that "first-born" actually means "first-born".
My reply: You did exactly that in trying to make 'firstborn' fit in Ps 89:27.
-
Pilchard
isaacaustinYou did exactly that in trying to make 'firstborn' fit in Ps 89:27
Pilchard:
Not at all. David was the first king Jehovah created in the genetic line leading to Christ.
It carries the meaning of being born (created) and being first. Whereas "preeminant" is a ploy that artfully delets the notion of being born (created) from the definition.
isaacaustin If Jesus wanted us to understand him to be an archangel, or simply a lesser god he also did a very poor job in claiming to do the things only God can do.
Pilchard:
I agree that Jesus had no intention of teaching us about the archangel. It is simply an observation that has no real effect on doctrine whatsoever if it is true or false.
With respect to being able to do the things that Jehovah does it is made clear that Jehovah gave him these powers.
John 5:30 I can of myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is righteous; because I don’t seek my own will, but the will of my Father who sent me.
Matt 28:18 Jesus came to them and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.
-
isaacaustin
isaacaustinYou did exactly that in trying to make 'firstborn' fit in Ps 89:27
Pilchard:
Not at all. David was the first king Jehovah created in the genetic line leading to Christ.
It carries the meaning of being born (created) and being first. Whereas "preeminant" is a ploy that artfully delets the notion of being born (created) from the definition.
My reply: Sorry, but you are wrong here Pilchard. Ps 89:27: Also I will make him [my] firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth. - this second part of this verse defines what is meant by the term firstborn.
If Jesus wanted us to understand him to be an archangel, or simply a lesser god he also did a very poor job in claiming to do the things only God can do.
Pilchard:
I agree that Jesus had no intention of teaching us about the archangel. It is simply an observation that has no real effect on doctrine whatsoever if it is true or false.
With respect to being able to do the things that Jehovah does it is made clear that Jehovah gave him these powers.
John 5:30 I can of myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is righteous; because I don’t seek my own will, but the will of my Father who sent me.
Matt 28:18 Jesus came to them and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.
my reply: Correct, Jesus received all from his father. But the point here is that Jesus cannot act "from himself", he can only act from his Father. To act "from himself" would mean that he was independent of his Father and therefore could not be truly equal to his Father. Jesus is answering the accusations by claiming perfect harmony with his Father. The Father is the source of all decisions. The Son cannot act "from himself" by making the final decisions. The Father has the role of being the source of all decisions and the Son is the perfect agent of those decisions. Jesus is one with the Father because he can do NOTHING "from himself", he can only carry out the Father's will and he does it perfectly. Notice this in John 5:19 & 20
John 5:19 Therefore, in answer, Jesus went on to say to them: "Most truly I say to you, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner."
John 5:20 For the Father has affection for the Son and shows him all the things he himself does, and he will show him works greater than these, in order that you may marvel."
The Son does everything the Father does- exactly as he does it. What else needs to be said. You are trying to say that since the Son receives this authority from the Father he can not be equal in nature. Wrong Pilchard- this only proves that the Father is the source of all authority and decisions...and the Son receives that authority. This proves that Jesus and the Father act as a single entity, a single being, one true God.