JD if AE wants a lesson in the Trinity, I'm sure she'll be the first one to ask
Angel Eye needs an education on the identity and nature of Christ
Maybe you should go back and read the initial post. This isn't bullying, believe me.
I have no need or desire to go back and reread your post. I don't care about the trinity, or what argument you make on behalf of it. But you mentioned a poster specifically by name, in the title of your thread. That's calling a person out where I come from.
And why is it so important to you to "correct" this one individual? I could tell you that your own belief system is equally flawed, because it is based on a book of myths, written centuries ago, by superstitious men, to explain what they could not understand. But what you personally believe on the matter is of no consequence to me. Live and let live is my philosophy.
where is the initial post?
Biblically and scripturally speaking, Jesus IS ONE with God, he says so in John.
The son of God
The Messiah, the Christ
Of the exact same form as God
The first born of all creation and all things were created through him
Nowhere does it state that Jesus is God, nor does the Trinity state that Jesus is God THE Father, but God, the son, but the Trinity is not biblical or scriptural, it is a latter interpretation of the relationship of The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit.
To go beyond what is plainly stated in the bible is fine, we all do it, but we have to be honest with ourselves when we do it.
Nowhere does it state that Jesus is God, nor does the Trinity state that Jesus is God THE Father
Not true. Isaiah 9:6 (NWT) provides "For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be on his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." The child born is named Eternal Father. Not the creature, but the divine person who assumed a human nature.
You are making the same mistake AE is by not distinguishing the God-man of the hypostatic union or understanding the difference between economic and immanent Trinity. The creature, Jesus, is not the Almighty. The created humanity of Jesus is not the Almighty. The Word, however, is referred to as God at John 1:1 but I prefer to view that as a conclusion drawn after putting all other verses into context, which is what the JWs ultimately argue. Your analysis needs to go deeper. Start here if you want to discuss the Jesus is God issue of trinitarianism. The proof is very extensive, but you will never understand it if you don't take the time to read up on it and understand what mainstream Christian theology teaches. These aren't my arguments. You might be surprised at what you will learn.
The amount of evidence that the Word was and is God the Son is staggering. Look here, I fell for that JW line of Arianism until I took the time to read up on it. I was shocked to discover how wrong the JWs are on this point.
where is the initial post?
The first entry of this thread. It's strong, I agree, but it is meant to be.
Biblically and scripturally speaking, Jesus IS
The first born of all creation .......
The Word (God the Son) was not the first thing created because He is eternal. This is a major, major JW misconception and distortion. "First born" does not mean created but is a common term of art describing a special relationship. As usual, the JWs read it too literally.
“First-born” or “first-born of” is not limited to a member of a group of creatures but has broad application. According to Strong and Vine’s, “firstborn” (Greek protokos) with reference to the preexistent Christ is used “of His relationship to the Father, expressing His priority to, and preeminence over, creation, not in the sense of being the first to be born. It is used of superiority of position (cf. Ex 4:22; Deut 21:16, 17)” (ibid., 218).
(Prototokos) Firstborn is used (1) of Christ as born of the Virgin Mary (Mt 1:25; Lk 2:7), (2) of His relationship to the Father, expressing His priority to, and preeminence over, creation, not in the sense of being the first to be born. It is used of superiority of position (cf. Ex 4:22; Deut 21:16, 17). (3) Chronologically, the four passages relating to Christ as firstborn, first begotten, may be set forth thusly: (3a) Col 1:15, where His eternal relationship with the Father is in view, and the clause means both that He was the firstborn before all creation and that He Himself produced creation (the genitive case being objective, as v. 16 makes clear); (3b) Col 1:18 and Rev 1:5, in reference to His resurrection; (3c) Rom 8:29, His being firstborn among those living by faith alone in God the Father; (3d) Heb 1:6, first begotten, stresses His superior position, His preeminence over all; His second advent in contrast to His first advent, at His birth, being implied. (Strong and Vine’s, 218)
As such, the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong in their interpretation of “first-born” at Colossians 1:15, 16, and Trinitarian Christians are correct in saying “that the ‘first-born’ here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished. Thus, Christ could be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those whom he created,” (Reasoning, 408). This is particularly true in light of the unequivocal language of Colossians 1:17 which says “He is before all things” (RSV).
In Isaiah 7v14 we see Jah was saying a virgin birth, this was written in 732 BCE then in Isaiah 9v6 that came true. This is announcing the birth of christ that Jah spoke of. Jesus wasnt and isnt God....he is Jehovahs first born and through him all things were created. Jehovah gave his first born in ransom for us.
Anyway,your welcome to keep your beliefs but I will stay with the truth......and i prefer people who dont outright attack one person...Jesus was loving and his followers are likewise,thats how I see who true christians are and there are many on this forum :)
Good day to you.
JD, if you want to start a discussion on the Trinity, go for it. However, singling out an individual as needing "an education" is very poor form.
The rest of you, why are keeping this thread alive if it bothers you so?
In Isaiah 7v14 we see Jah was saying a virgin birth, this was written in 732 BCE then in Isaiah 9v6 that came true. This is announcing the birth of christ that Jah spoke of. Jesus wasnt and isnt God....he is Jehovahs first born and through him all things were created. Jehovah gave his first born in ransom for us
My reply: Who does Isaiah say God's messenger will be preapring the way for? WHo does Matthew say the way was prepared for?
Firstborn: Read Collosians 1:15-19 and you will see 'firstborn' means first in rank....as the context shows Jesus to be first in everything, including the firstborn from the dead. He was not the first to rise from the dead.