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

by Tuesday 347 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Yizuman


    Adam was perfect until AFTER he ate the forbidden fruit. Then he became imperfect because he then gained the knowledge of Good and Evil.

    The reason Adam was perfect because he did not know the difference between good and evil, right from wrong. Now after he ate that fruit, he knows it all now.

    Jesus was born perfect because he lacked one main ingredient, the seed of man.

    Yet he grows with the knowledge of sin, but overcame it when he was tempted by Satan for 40 days and nights. The reason He overcame it was simply because he lacked that one main ingredient that Satan would have loved to exploit.

    Now, another thing, yet you're insisting that God is limited because you cannot believe God is capable of becoming man while at the same time still sit on the throne. You had initially agreed from early on this thread that God has no limitations, yet your beliefs says He is.

    If God loved us, why not show that love by coming to earth as a man and offer Himself as a sin offering to atone for man's sins? He wanted to rescue us from our sins. So why not God do it? Would that show to be love?

  • UnDisfellowshipped

    My Replies to both Reniaa and Pilchard in one post, right here:

    Reniaa said:

    "he then uses the old "Jesus must be god because he said he would raise himself. I can see them heading for getting stumped again but here is the answer from Jw's.

    Did Ezekiel really destroy Jerusalem as he said he did? Did Jeremiah really destroy kingdoms as Jehovah said he would do? Did Jesus really resurrect himself as he said he would? Why were Ezekiel and Jeremiah given credit for something they didn't do? And would the same reason apply in the case of what Jesus said? 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.

    My Reply:

    Okay, the problem with this interpretation is Moses. You claim that Jesus is "a god," a representative of Jehovah just like Moses was. What happened to Moses when Moses took credit for bringing the water out of the rock in the wilderness? That's right, God was very angry with Moses, and He forbade Moses from entering into the Promised Land. Why? All because Moses, "a god," Jehovah's very own spokesman on earth, took credit for bringing water out of a rock instead of giving the credit to Jehovah.

    So, why is it that Jesus Christ, on earth, was able to take credit for His own Resurrection, and yet this was a good thing in God's eyes, but it was an abomination in God's eyes for Moses to take credit for bringing the water out of a rock?

    In addition to that, according to the Footnote on Ezekiel 43:3 in the NET Bible, it should not read "I" but "he" ["God"]. Look at the Footnote:

    "6 tc Heb “I.” The reading is due to the confusion of yod (‏?‎, indicating a first person pronoun) and vav (‏?‎, indicating a third person pronoun). A few medieval Hebrew mss, Theodotion's Greek version, and the Latin Vulgate support a third person pronoun here." (—NET Bible Notes - First Edition)

    That is why the New American Standard Bible (NASB), English Standard Version (ESV), New International Version (NIV), New Living Translation (NLT), Contemporary English Version (CEV), Douay-Rheims Bible, Good News Bible, GOD'S WORD Translation, and Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) all read either "He" or "God" in Ezekiel 43:3.

    Jeremiah 1:10 has Jehovah saying to Jeremiah that He is appointing him a "deputy" to speak destruction to nations and kingdoms, to figuratively "pluck them up" and "tear them down." Jeremiah himself did not take credit for doing any such thing.

    Why should I interpret Jesus' words according to your interpretation (actually from The Watchtower, June 1, 1973, Page 351) especially in light of the fact that Moses ("a god") was severely rebuked by God for taking credit for bringing the water out of the rock?

    If you can give a sound, logical, Bible-based explanation for the interpretation that Jesus was NOT promising to resurrect Himself, then I will accept your conclusion. If not, then the only option left is that Jesus promised that He was going to resurrect His own physical body from the dead.

    Reniaa said:
    "You either apply this to all or none of them. if Jesus by virtue of being called ' a god' is The God himself by trinitarian reasoning then moses angels satan are also The God too. he tried to say legitimate gods as a distinction but the bible doesn't say these are ordinary ' a gods' but Jesus is the legitimate 'a god'. There is no reason to think Jesus is not with the a gods' as the bible calls them quite the contrary."

    My Reply:

    As I (and others) have repeatedly asked you, are there any Koine Greek scholars or experts today who believe that the BEST way to translate John 1:1 is to say that "The Word was a god"? If there are any, please let me know. I want to know their names. I have never seen any modern Greek expert or scholar say that this is the BEST way to translate John 1:1. If you can show me one, then I will take your claims more seriously.

    I am assuming you are not an expert in Koine Greek, correct? Well, neither am I. I have to rely on dictionaries, lexicons, scholars, Interlinear Bibles, and experts.

    Even Watchtower publications admit that the Greek experts (such as Phillip B. Harner) believe that it should be rendered "The Word had the same nature as God." (See the Reasoning Book under the "Trinity" heading, for example)

    Here is the best webpage I have seen yet about John 1:1. I highly recommend that you read it all, when you have the time:

    Plus, you keep blurring the distinctions between God and "gods". I can't tell what your position is. You have not clearly defined what you mean when you say Moses was "a god" and when you say Jesus was "a god" and when you say The Father is "The God."

    The Bible teaches that there is only ONE True God by Nature. His Name is Jehovah or Yahweh, and there is absolutely NO other true god by nature. (Isaiah 46:5, 9; Isaiah 44:6-8; Isaiah 45:5-6, 21-24; Deuteronomy 32:39; Exodus 34:14; Mark 12:29, 32; James 2:19; Romans 1:20, 25; Galatians 4:8-9)

    Paul taught that there are many other so-called gods, which are god in name or position only. (1 Corinthians 8:5-6) To Paul (and to all Christians) there are only TWO categories or classes of gods: (1) The True God by Nature (Galatians 4:8-9 and Romans 1:20, 25) and (2) The so-called gods. (And the so-called god category includes both the representatives of God and the false gods)

    Paul goes on to separate BOTH The Father and The Son from this so-called god category.

    There absolutely is NO third "god" category (as I will explain in more detail in my response to Pilchard below) -- you are either the True God or you are a "so-called god," not god by nature.

    Therefore, if there are only TWO categories of gods, the so-called gods and The True God by Nature, and Paul says Jesus is NOT one of the so-called gods, then which category of god is Jesus in?

    Not only that, but Paul goes on to explicitly teach that all of the fullness of the Nature of God ("Theotes") permanently dwells in Jesus bodily. (Colossians 2:9) He also declares that Jesus existed in the Very Nature or Form ("Morphe") of God before He came to earth. (Philippians 2:6)

    According to Thayer's Greek Dictionary, the Greek word "Theotes" means "The state of being God." According to Strong's Dictionary, the Greek word "Morphe" means "shape; or figuratively, nature."

    So, according to the Apostle Paul, Jesus existed in the state of being God, and in the shape or nature of God. Paul also referred to Christ as "The Great God" at Titus 2:13 (according to the best Greek scholarship).

    On top of all of that, the Apostle Peter definitely referred to Jesus as "God" in 2nd Peter 1:1, and the Apostle Thomas definitely referred to Jesus as "The God of me!" at John 20:28.

    Were Thomas, Peter, and Paul all wrong about who Jesus was? Should we trust the Watchtower Society instead of Peter, Paul, John, Thomas, and the other disciples?

    Now, keep in mind, I'm not even discussing The Holy Spirit or the Trinity right now, I'm only focusing on whether or not Jesus is God by Nature along with The Father. So, let's stay focused on that and not veer off course.

    If you can show me from the Scriptures where it says that more than ONE True God by Nature exists, then I will believe that Jesus could be a 2nd god by nature. Or, if you can show me from the Scriptures where it says Jesus does NOT have the Nature of God, then I will believe He is just a "spokesman" or "representative" like Moses was.

    Also, in John 1:1, if it was only referring to Jesus as "God" because He is Jehovah's Spokesman or Representative, then why does it say He was "God" BEFORE any thing was ever created? What good is a Spokesman or Representative IF NO ONE ELSE EXISTS? That just does not make sense. John must have been saying that Jesus was "God" in a different sense than just being a "Spokesman" or "Representative" of Jehovah.

    Not only that, but Greek experts also say that John 1:1 should actaully be paraphrased this way, according to what the Greek means:

    "In the beginning of all creation [or, from all eternity], the Word was already in existence. The Word was intimately with God [face-to-face]. And the Word was as to His essence, fully God."

    This fits in perfectly with the belief that God is Agape Love (Selfless Love that puts others first). How could God be Agape Love by Nature (as 1st John teaches) if before creation began He was all alone? There would have been no one for God to express His selfless Agape Love to. But it makes perfect sense for Him to be expressing His Love for all eternity past to His Son, who is the Eternal Life that was with The Father from the beginning. (See 1st John 1:1-3)

    Reniaa said (Quoting Janko):

    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.

    The word “God” or “god” is commonly used regarding a superhuman object of veneration. Thus, in the minds of many people, “god” means either (1) the Supreme Being, the Almighty, or (2) a false god, such as an idol. However, the Bible allows for other usage. We can see this from Psalm 82:1, 2. There the Divine One (Jehovah God) is distinguished from human judges whom the psalmist terms “gods.” Jesus himself later referred to this passage. Because he had spoken of Jehovah God as being his Father, some Jews wanted to stone him. To their accusation that he was ‘making himself a god,’ Jesus responded: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? If he called [those human judges] ‘gods’ . . . 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 10:31-36.

    Unquestionably there is only one Almighty God, even as the apostle Paul wrote: “For even though there are those who are called ‘gods,’ whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords,’ there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, . . . and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.” (1 Corinthians 8:5, 6) The Lord Jesus Christ is no false god, no demon god, no mere idol. He ‘is the reflection of Jehovah God’s glory.’ (Hebrews 1:3) Thus it is fitting for John 1:1 to acknowledge Jesus as “a god,” or “godlike” (Johannes Schneider).

    My Reply:

    But, you need to define what you mean by "One Almighty God," and what is it that are exclusive qualities or attributes that ONLY The Almighty God has which no other "god" has? What qualities or attributes does The Father have which The Son does not also have? (Hebrews 1:3) And why do you believe that Jesus is not also the Almighty God, and instead must be just a "representative god"? Not only that, but you need to explain exactly what kind of obeisance you can ONLY give to Jehovah, and which kind of obeisance you can give to Jesus. (Compare John 5:23; Matthew 4:10; Hebrews 1:6)

    If you look at those proclamations by Jehovah in Isaiah Chapters 40-50, you will see that He is not merely challenging the idols, but He is challenging ALL other so-called gods, including the angelic demon spirits which Paul said were being worshiped by idol-worshipers. (1 Corinthians 10:20; Compare Deuteronomy 32:17). That is why God repeatedly, over and over again in Isaiah, declares emphatically that "I am the True God, and there is NO OTHER."

    Where does it say He is only comparing Himself to idols, and not to ALL other so-called gods?

    So, were the angels true gods by nature? Were the Israelite judges true gods by nature? No. Definitely not. But Paul and John teach that Jesus is God by Nature.

    Were Paul and John wrong about Jesus, or was Jehovah wrong about Himself being the Only True God by Nature? Or, are The Father and The Son both One God by Nature together? Two different Persons who share the same Nature?

    Reniaa said:

    "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."
    My Reply:

    The angel in the Book of Revelation FORBIDS John from worshiping him. Paul says we must NOT worship angels (Colossians 2:18). Why is it okay to worship the Special Angel in the Old Testament? What makes Him different from all the other angels? Why was this Angel allowed to refer to Himself as "Jehovah" and allowed to accept worship, prayer, and sacrifices?

    And, are you claiming that The Special Angel in Genesis LIED to Abraham? That He lied when He claimed to be Jehovah? Did God approve of and authorize one of His angels to lie in His Name and impersonate Him?

    Reniaa said:

    "Rather than God makes gods which isn't a trinitarian teaching anyway."

    My Reply:

    In fact, it is indeed one of the most important early Trinitarian beliefs, which was taught by nearly all of the Early Church Fathers. Have you read the Nicene Creed? The following is taken from :

    "The Nicene Creed is the most widely accepted and used brief statements of the Christian Faith. In liturgical churches, it is said every Sunday as part of the Liturgy. It is Common Ground to East Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, and many other Christian groups. Many groups that do not have a tradition of using it in their services nevertheless are committed to the doctrines it teaches.

    Traditional Wording

    "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

    And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made [...]"


    The early Christians believed that Hebrews 1:3 was teaching that The Son was "eternally begotten" in the sense that He was always "proceeding forth" from The Father, like the rays of light are constantly proceeding forth from the sun. Thus, they believed He was "Very God of Very God."

    Reniaa said:

    "lets make one thing clear when trinitarians try and construct trinity they do it in parts because the bible shows no whole for them to use."

    My Reply:

    I would say Unitarians do the exact same thing (especially JW's). Can you show how Unitarianism is true just by using ONE VERSE? If not, then your belief in Unitarianism is also a logical construct.

    Can you show that The Holy Spirit is an impersonal force and not a Person just by using ONE VERSE? If not then that belief is a logical construct.

    In fact, most beliefs from the Bible are logical constructs. Jesus Himself and Paul formed logical constructs based on the Old Testament.

    Reniaa said:

    "or is it that the holy spirit is legitimately god's power as the bible describes"
    My Reply:

    Can you show me from the Scriptures that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force and not a Person?

    Why do you believe that Satan is a person but not The Holy Spirit?

    Reniaa said:
    "But wait you will say it doesn't matter if spirit is NEVER shown in person with God and Jesus"
    My Reply:

    Wait a minute, you claimed that The Holy Spirit is NEVER shown with God and Jesus in the Bible? Have you ever read these verses?:

    John 14:16-17 (ESV): And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

    John 16:13-14 (ESV): 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. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

    Matthew 28:19 (ESV): Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

    2 Corinthians 13:14 (ESV): The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

    1 Corinthians 12:4-6, 11 (ESV): Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. ... All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

    And there are many other passages which show The Father, Son, and Spirit together, yet as different Persons. There is much more Biblical evidence for The Holy Spirit being a Person than there is for believing that Jesus is Michael, or for believing that the "Faithful and Discreet Slave" is made up of the leaders of the modern-day Jehovah's Witnesses, or for believing that the number 144,000 in Revelation is literal.

    Reniaa said:

    "Did you know the original trinity doctrine from 3rd century before caesar put his stamp on it was that the three were......God, Son and ....wisdom because they played the rule that if it is personified and can talk it must be a person....."

    My Reply:

    You have misunderstood the original Trinity Doctrine. Irenaeus said this, "The Word, namely the Son, was always with the Father; and that Wisdom also, which is the Spirit, was present with Him, anterior to all creation."

    So, some of the Early Church Fathers believed that Wisdom was The Holy Spirit, not The Son. So that is why they spoke of The Father, The Word [Son], and The Wisdom [Spirit]. The Trinity has always been Father, Son, and Spirit, no matter which names they were called. There has never been a "4th person" as you claimed. Ever.

    I assume that you, Reniaa, believe that Wisdom in Proverbs 8 is a Jesus because it is spoken of as a person, right? Then why do you reject the idea that The Holy Spirit is a person because He is spoken of as a person? Are you being consistent?

    Reniaa said:

    "Let me just say one thing If I didn't believe the witnesses I would still be an arian believer in God."

    My Reply:

    Are you aware that Arius taught a different version of Arianism than the JW version?

    For example, Arius taught that Jesus had a different kind of nature from The Father, whereas the Reasoning Book admits that Jesus has the same Nature as The Father? And that Arius taught that Jesus, being a creature, could never fully know The Father, whereas the Watchtower Society teaches that Jesus is the only One who fully knows The Father? Plus, Arius taught that the Holy Spirit was a person, whereas the JW's teach that it is an impersonal force.

    There was even a Watchtower article showing the differences between Arianism and JW teaching.

    The Watchtower, August 1, 1984, Page 24:

    "Arius believed the Holy Spirit was a person, but not of the same substance as the Father or the Son and in fact inferior to both. He did speak of a “Triad,” or “Trinity,” but considered it to be composed of unequal persons, of whom only the Father was uncreated."

    The Watchtower, September 1, 1984, Page 24:

    "Because they do not believe in the Trinity dogma, it has been said of Jehovah’s Witnesses that they practice “a form of Arianism.” But the fact that they are not Trinitarians does not make them Arians. In one of the few writings of Arius that has survived, he claims that God is beyond comprehension, even for the Son. In line with this, historian H. M. Gwatkin states in his book The Arian Controversy: “The God of Arius is an unknown God, whose being is hidden in eternal mystery. No creature can reveal him, and he cannot reveal himself.” Jehovah’s Witnesses worship neither the “incomprehensible” God of the Trinitarians nor the “unknown God” of Arius. They say, with the apostle Paul: “There is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are.”—1 Corinthians 8:6."


    Reniaa said:

    "The Greek word ‘morphe’ means an image, impress or resemblance. Human beings are spoken of as having “a form (‘morphe’) of Godliness” (2 Tim. 3:5). and again being in the form of somethings means you are not that something."

    My Reply:

    Robertson's Word Pictures Greek Dictionary says this about Morphe:

    "Morphe¯ means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ."

    That is why the NIV renders Philippians 2:6 this way:

    Php. 2:6 (NIV): Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

    Reniaa said:

    "well here we go the the men arrive at sodom and look they are actually angels, which suggests this is clearly a case of bible representing angels as God doing his work and talking for him. the 3rd angel had stayed back with abraham discussing sodom with abraham trying to save sodom. Notice they ate with lot too lol these angels like their food :) as a side point this clearly shows angels can make themselves physical bodies that can eat as humans."

    My Reply:

    I agree that the Bible clearly says that two of those "men" were angels, but why is the third One called "Jehovah"?

    And yes, it appears that the angels got tired of eating Manna, and they wanted some good ol' earth food! LOL!

    Reniaa said:

    "these scriptures actually use the word firstborn twice in regards to Jesus he is 'firstborn of creation' and 'firstborn of the dead' so your trying to say firstborn here means 'Preeminent one' only? well the word preeminence (biblie john used this word particularily from the kjv version) is used in itself why not use it again at the beginning say he is the 'preeminent one over all creation'? no it uses firstborn."

    My Reply:

    The Bible writers do this all the time. They use a variety of words that have the same meaning in the same passage. Especially in the Psalms and Proverbs. So why couldn't Paul?

    Reniaa said:

    "Did Jesus die? so when it says he is the firstborn from the dead he is literally the firstborn from among the dead so you are not arguing here that he didn't die and was actually the preeminent one from among the dead? and so in the same scriptures it says he is the 'firstborn of creation' again here the context would show that is the same as the other firstborn used he was one of them, among them, the firstborn of them!"
    My Reply:

    I see your point. You may be correct that it is saying Jesus is the Preeminent One inside of creation. I'll have to do more research on that particular point.

    However, even if that is true, the book of Hebrews teaches that God created Jesus' HUMAN Body. (Hebrews 10:5) So, His Human Nature is part of creation. Therefore, Colossians 1:15 would still be teaching that Jesus, as a Man, is the Preeminent One within creation (based on Psalm 89:27), it would not be teaching that He was the first one created by God.

    Reniaa said:

    "hebrew 1:6 proskunea aka obeisance/worship is a hotly debated subject it is clear it isn't limited to just worship and can mean the obeisance you give a king which Jesus is. Worship or obeisance is decided by context or in the case or bible translations apparently also by the translators doctrines - I will say it means obeisance, you will say it means worship and so we are deadlocked."
    My Reply:

    You are correct about the context determining the meaning of proskyneo. As I showed you on another thread, the Watchtower Society and the New World Translation taught for decades that Hebrews 1:6 said "worship" not "obeisance." In fact, as late as 1992 they taught that it may be "worship" not "obeisance."

    The main reasons I believe it is worship are (1) it was a quote from an Old Testament verse where the angels were worshiping Jehovah, and (2) the purpose of Hebrews 1:6 was to show that Jesus is far superior to the angels. If Jesus was only receiving the same type of "obeisance" that can be given to representative angels or kings, then how would this prove that Jesus was far superior to the angels?

    Reniaa said:
    "'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:

    I think it only proves that Jesus is not The Father. It does not prove that He's not God by Nature.

    For example, a human son can be like his father, but they are not the same person even though they are both equally human by nature, and even though the father has more authority than the son, it does not mean he has a better nature than the son.

    Hebrews 1:3 is saying that Jesus is the Exact Imprint of The Father's Nature or Essence.

    Psalm 89:6 says that absolutely no heavenly creature is anything like Jehovah, yet Hebrews 1:3 teaches that Jesus is exactly like The Father. How do you explain this? Was Psalm 89:6 wrong, or is Jesus One with Jehovah in Nature?

    Reniaa said:

    "I am arguing that when God says Jesus is his son he actually is just his son!"

    My Reply:

    But, how literal should we take the "Father" and "Son" illustration? Should we take it so literally that we have to believe that God had a wife who gave birth to Jesus in heaven as the Mormons teach?

    Reniaa said:

    "Trinity is a mis-matched mix of odd scriptures and part scriptures fitted together like a jigsaw trying to prove Jesus is God"

    My Reply:

    Just curious, what is an "odd scripture"? Can you tell me which Scriptures are "odd" and which are not?

    Colossians 2:9, John 1:1, John 1:18, John 20:28, Hebrews 1:8, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, Romans 9:5. I guess those are all just "odd scriptures" to you, huh?

    Reniaa said:

    "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,"
    My Reply:

    "Nature" comes into it at Hebrews 1:3, Romans 1:20, Colossians 2:9, and John 1:1. Speaking about God's "Nature" is very Biblical, not Pagan.

    Reniaa said:

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

    My Reply:

    What does "Almighty" mean? Does it not mean that you "have all power or authority"? I recommend you re-read Revelation 22:12-13, 16, as well as Revelation 1:8. Not to mention Matthew 28:18.

    Also, the Jews in Jesus' day understood "The Son of God" to be a claim to Deity, to have the same nature as The Father. That is why they accused Him of blasphemy and tried to stone Him for claiming to uniquely be "The Son of God."

    Reniaa said:
    "When I looked up trinity belief on the persons I was surprised to learn apparently God cannot be the 3 persons at the same time? The doctrine of Trinitarianism states that there are three distinctions, called "Persons" or "Hypostases," in one divine Substance, but only one distinction or "Person" can be manifested at any given time. This definition of God contradicts that of the Modalist, who claims that the single divine Substance can manifest itself in all three modes (or "Persons") at the same time. is this correct? if so it made me think of this scripture..."

    My Reply:

    That is absolutely NOT the historical, orthodox Trinity Doctrine. The actual Trinity Doctrine says that The Three Persons are different Persons who interact with each other and have a personal relationship with each other, therefore, they obviously all Three co-exist at the same time.

    It is Modalism, not the Trinity Doctrine, which teaches that God is only One Person who reveals Himself 3 different ways (or modes) to people.

    Pilchard said:

    "I think being the "Alpha andd the Omega" simply means Jehovah is the beginning and the end of matters. What he begins he finishes. He is the beginner and finisher of all things. ... What he starts he brings to completion."

    My Reply:

    Really? Is that all God meant in Isaiah when He claimed to be The First and The Last?

    Isaiah 44:6-8 (ESV): Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. Who is like me? Let him proclaim it. ... And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any."

    It looks pretty obvious that when Jehovah said He was The First and The Last, He was declaring to be the One and Only True God by Nature.

    So, what was Jesus claiming in Revelation when He declared that He was The First and The Last?

    Pilchard said:

    "*** Ps 89:27 I will also appoint him my firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. This is clearly indicating that Christ (firstborn of creration) will be appointed the first to be born in some future respect. Of course Paul explained that for us by telling us that this prophecy of a future birth related to Jesus being born again through resurrection to heaven."

    My Reply:

    So, instead of Firstborn having the obvious meaning of "Most High" in Psalm 89:27, it has some extra-complicated, confusing meaning that doesn't make sense with the immediate context? Yeah, right. Sure it does. (I'm being sarcastic there)

    And, why couldn't "Firstborn from the dead" simply mean that Jesus is the Preeminent One of all those who will rise from the dead?

    Pilchard said:

    "No, but there was a time when there was no one to experience Jehovah's Wisdom. So the witness to Jehovah's Wisdom began with the first creature to experience it. Jesus Christ, the "wisdom of God" "

    My Reply:

    Wow, that's kind of a stretch there, don't you think?

    That is not at all what Proverbs Chapter 8 actually says. It actually says that God's Wisdom was either (1) produced OR (2) possessed by God in the beginning.

    Those are your options. Either God did not have Wisdom and had to produce it, or God always possessed Wisdom.

    Reniaa said:

    "Jesus cannot be with God if he is God."

    My Reply:

    Why not? If Jesus (One Person) has the Nature of God, why can't He be with a 2nd Person who also has the Nature of God (The Father)?

    After all, can't a human son (one person) who has the nature of a human be with a 2nd person who also has the nature of a human (his father)?

    Reniaa said:

    "This is Jesus talking to john in revelation after Jesus is already ascended to heaven. Here Jesus is clearly saying 'My God' 4 times and it isn't the only place Jesus constantly refers to his father as 'My God' from earth to heaven. Trinitarians try to blur this by saying well he can call another part of himself 'my God' which just isn't logical but the bigger problem is NEVER does the father call jesus 'My god' Jehovah the father doesn't call anyone this because HE IS GOD."

    My Reply:

    Yes, Jesus (especially as a Man) has a God over Him. His Father has a higher position over The Son within the Nature of God. This is true even after returning to heaven.

    Why is this "not logical" according to you? How does it violate any principles of logic? Please explain.

    The Father never calls Jesus "My God" because The Father has a higher position within the Nature of God. But The Father does call Jesus "God" at Hebrews 1:8. And Thomas calls Jesus "My God" at John 20:28.

    The Father, Son, and Spirit are co-equal IN RELATION TO HUMANS AND ANGELS, but in their personal relationships with each other, they each have a different role. They are also co-equal in Nature, Qualities, and Attributes.

    Pilchard, so if you are going to go with the Septuagint rendering of Proverbs 8:22, does that mean you believe that God did not have Wisdom at one point and He had to create His own Wisdom?

    Pilchard said:

    "*** 1 Cor 8:5b as(hosper) there are many “gods” and many “lords;” In ADDITION to those there are many ACTUAL gods and lords. The Greek word (hosper-"just as") *demands* these are an additional group"

    My Reply:

    Robertson's Word Pictures says this about that verse:

    "For though there be (kai gar eiper eisi). Literally, “For even if indeed there are” (a concessive clause, condition of first class, assumed to be true for argument’s sake)."

    So, Paul is actually saying "Even if indeed there are so-called gods in heaven or on earth--as indeed there actually are many so-called "gods" and many so-called "lords."

    According to Robertson, Paul was NOT adding a third category of gods at all. There are still only TWO categories of gods, and Jesus is NOT in the so-called category.

    Pilchard said:

    "the Father. Not the son and not the ghost. Out of all the gods, Christians have only one God, the Father."

    My Reply:
    Well, that same exact passage says Christians have only one Lord, out of all lords, only Jesus is Lord for Christians.

    Does that exclude The Father from also being Lord of Christians? Because the New Testament also calls The Father Lord of Christians? Is the Father only "Lord" in a lesser sense than The Son is?

    Reniaa said:

    "If Jesus is Born from God he will have qualities from his father that are divine."

    My Reply:

    Are you saying Jesus has the same Nature as The Father? If so, that is exactly what the Trinity Doctrine says.

    Reniaa said:

    "trinitarians will argue this point but when you have invented a whole unbiblical doctrine to allow you to worship the son instead of the Father and put a cross representing the son on all your altars I will stand by what I say."
    My Reply:

    We worship The Father, The Son, and The Spirit.

    The question is, do you honor The Son just as you honor The Father? (John 5:23) If not, then you are not honoring The Father at all. Period. No middle ground there.

    Pilchard said:

    "What trinitarians really mean is that as long as you change the definition of the word "firstborn" to mean something that no longer contradicts trinity theory then you can remove one of the most obvious Bible objections."

    My Reply:

    What does Firstborn mean in Psalm 89:27 and in Exodus 4:22?

  • reniaa

    Yizuman I do not put limits on God he put limits on himself....

    1/ God cannot die....Jesus died

    2/God knows everything - Jesus doesn't know certain things including the date of armageddon.

    3/ God is almighty....Jesus is always in subservient to God and hands all his authority back to God when he has done God's work

    4/ No one can actually see God and live - People saw Jesus! Athough Jesus is the nearest we will have to seeing God because he is the image of his father and sent to reconcile us to his father Jehovah. A careful study of scripture will show you that angels were used to speak for and be God's own representatives in the hebrew scriptures for close up contact situations. Can you put a whole ocean in a glass especially if it is all around you?

    5/ YHWH is One JEhovah - NOWHERE in the bible does it say 3 in 1 as trinitarians unbiblically say.

  • HintOfLime

    Look at this giant 17 page mess, let alone all the differing opinions and religious sects all based on different interpretations of a vauge and bizzare text. On and on it will go, because the bible is EPIC FAIL when it comes to conveying a message in a timeless, comprehensive way.

    Someone needs to give God a big fat "W" (Work On) in his theocratic ministry school slip under "Clear and Understandable".

    - Lime

  • reniaa

    hi undisfellowshipped.

    Jesus prophesised in the first person and as I established God had already allowed this with other prophets and also Jesus fulfilled the requirements to be the first ressurrected so in that sense he did raise himself by doing what was needed. When someone takes an exam they will say I passed it even if the examiners are who gave him the pass.

    the moses situation didn't involve prophecy at all, I compare people prophecying like Jesus so apples and apples and you compare apple and oranges to make you point hmmm

    Paul separates Jesus not to call him God but to call him Lord he puts him again separate from God, I do not argue that as the firstborn of creation Jesus is unique only that the bible uses 'a god' or Godlike' if you prefer for those that are not god and Jesus himself is put into the 'a god' catagory as well as been said to be WITH god therefore definitely separate from God. Your reasoning that separating Jesus makes him God is flawed unless Paul ascribe the One God to Jesus but HE DOESN'T he goes on separate Jesus again and gives him the LORD.

    The use of pauls grammer keeps God and Jesus firmly in separate catagories you just blur this by saying by you own rules if they are not in the first one they must be together in nature but it is faulty reasoning because he doesn't put them together under Godship AT ALL in fact his words show Jesus isn't god. but as a trinitarian you have to persuade yourself there is no separateness when you read that scripture which is sad.

    there are many expressions in the greek sriptures in line of with blessing to God and his son Jesus some have been blurred by trinity to be try and make them refering to one person but in the majoroty they are kept separate, translation errors I think are the issue here.

    Acts 2:36
    "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

    Romans 1:7
    To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

    Paul wrote 13 books of the 27 book New Testament. He uses the word theos ("God") over 500 times in the New Testament. In all these instances, Paul nowhere else refers to Jesus as "God." And as highly respected scholar J. Jeremias has pointed out, the phrase "the great God," is not a term a Jew such as Paul would apply to anyone but his Abba Father. Moreover, Paul is here addressing and trying to persuade the Jewish audience in the Roman church (also see 2:17; 3:9; 4:1; 7:1; 8:3-4, 36). For Paul, there is one God, the Father (1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:6) and he identifies "God" as "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," a statement he makes numerous times. Of course, the Trinitarian will point to Titus 2:13, another seriously flawed Trinitarian interpretation which is variously interpreted among Trinitarians who dispute this passage among themselves. This is the typical way of the Trinitarian, that is, to pile one feeble argument upon another in an attempt to create an illusion of validity. Now if Paul had only written a letter or two there would be little weight in saying he never refers to Jesus as "God." But the plain fact that he wrote over half of the New Testament books, covers all kinds of theological questions, and uses the word "God" over 500 times is very telling. Perhaps, just perhaps, unlike the Trinitarian, Paul did not have a Trinitarian concep of God as the central doctrine of his faith because he had never heard of such a thing. I think we all know how peppered the New Testament books would be with descriptions of Jesus as "God" and "God the Son" if Paul's letters had been written by a person with the mind of today's Trinitarian. The Trinitarian would have us believe that Paul understood Jesus was "God" and the Trinity stood at the center of his faith but he just neglected to mention this concept in all his writings except for two isolated occasions where he makes purely incidental passing remarks describing Jesus as "God," and in passages with grammatical structures that cast serious doubt on the interpretation on top of it all.

    here is the problem for trinity is the gramatically challenged examples they use are the exception not the norm.

    You then go on to say believing in One almighty God Jehovah is a logical construct I had to lol at that, Did the Jews logically construct him? Did Paul who believed in the One God the father also construct him, if you can honestly look at the first jewish commandment acd say believing 'YHWH is One YHWH' is a construct then you really are reading a different bible to me.

    God calls Jesus his son not me, that he uses the term son implies birth (and god later uses many words signifying jesus birth) and that his how God shows his relationship is to his son. Who is putting limits on God now? by saying there must be a female involve? it's clear with god and the angels gender isn't revealed or kept masculine by default it is humans that were made 'male and female'

    You then have to jump into oxymoron rhetoric to try and explain how only Jesus refers to God as 'My God' you sa he is equal but not equal stuff which is fine but NOT BIBLICAL. Show me the scriptures that say this, I already know there are none.

    You then say....

    Why not? If Jesus (One Person) has the Nature of God, why can't He be with a 2nd Person who also has the Nature of God (The Father)?

    After all, can't a human son (one person) who has the nature of a human be with a 2nd person who also has the nature of a human (his father)?

    This for me is a massive problem for trinity that isn't modalism, by making God an IT and jesus, father and ghost Gods in it. you are describing a race of God's. Your God is a polytheistic God if you can say there are three of them and they are with each other exactly like the example you use humans are a race too.

    I would like to wade through all your points but time limits me,

    trinitarianism has tried to put a triad God in the bible but Jews didn't believe it, early christians didn't believe it. So I don't believe it.

    Almighty God Jehovah the blessed one is not a Multiple choice answer he is not an IT either. Amen


  • El Kabong
    El Kabong

    One thing I've noticed from the board lately.


    You are ALL full of shit.

    You all claim to have all the answers. YOU all don't know shit.

    Both sides TWIST scriptures. Borg and the Borg againers (born again xtians), you are turning more people off to God than you are helping.


  • Vinny

    El Kabong writes: "There is NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BORG AND THE BORG AGAIN. You are ALL full of shit. You all claim to have all the answers. YOU all don't know shit. Both sides TWIST scriptures. Borg and the Borg againers (born again xtians), you are turning more people off to God than you are helping.


    **** Yep. I tried to say something like that but with a wee more tact.

  • UnDisfellowshipped

    El Kabong, Vinny, and HintOfLime,

    Have you actually taken the time to read through the arguments. or are you just upset at all religions (or religious beliefs) in general?

    Have you come to the conclusion that it is impossible to understand the truth about religion because too many people have their own ideas about what the Bible teaches?

    Well, if we applied that same reasoning to everything in life, we would never learn anything. For example, if we decided that everything that people disagree about is actually unknowable, then we would know absolutely nothing about history, not much about science, and not much about anything really.

    The important thing with every subject or topic in life (school, work, religion, family, etc.) is to take the time to hear both sides of the argument, use sound reasoning and logic, and common sense, and then do your best to determine what the truth is.

  • UnDisfellowshipped

    El Kabong said:

    "Both sides TWIST scriptures. Borg and the Borg againers (born again xtians), you are turning more people off to God than you are helping. IDIOTS"

    Well, I am glad to know that you know how to use the logical fallacy of ad hominem (personal or name-calling) attacks, instead of focusing on refuting the arguments.

    Not only that, but in order for you to know that BOTH sides are twisting the Scriptures, you would have to know the true meaning of the Scriptures.

    So, if we are BOTH wrong, please enlighten us BOTH as to what the true meaning of the Scriptures is. I await your illumination of God's Word.

  • drew sagan
    drew sagan

    It's threads like this that makes me think 140 character twitter like character limits could useful around here

Share this