@ Snowbird: Love yer Sylv.....!
TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else
"So you found my insertion of the word "other" in order to convey my understanding of the text at Hebrews 1:5 to have been dishonest in some way? No, Hebrews 1:5 doesn't include the word "other" in it, but I inserted the word as part of what I referred to my "commentary" on Hebrews chapters 1 and 2. If I had indicated in my post that I was quoting from Hebrews 1:5 as rendered in the NWT, then you could rightly object to my inserting the word into the text, but I don't believe I even intimated in my post that I was quoting from any of the verses in either Hebrews chapter 1 or Hebrews chapter 2, did I?"
You weren't quoting it word-for-word, but you were saying that the meaning of the passage was what you wrote. My question is, if you examine only the context of Hebrews chapters 1 and 2, how would anyone ever come to the conclusion that Jesus was one of the angels?
Which verses in Hebrews chapters 1 and 2 would lead someone to believe that Jesus was one of the angels?
"In this thread, @Undisfellowshipped indicated his desire that the NWT be used during this discussion of the Trinity doctrine, and even though you are telling me here how you have found the NWT to be "a biased, sectarian translation," my "commentary" doesn't quote either Hebrews chapters 1 and 2; it merely comments on these two chapters and that's pretty much all I did. Moreover, in a Bible commentary, I can use whatever language I wish in order to convey to others whatever it is I think will convey my point of view. Whatever reasons you might have for bashing the NWT as a suitable Bible translation aside, there doesn't seem to me to have been any discernible reason for your telling me that you didn't like the NWT, although I am well aware that many former Jehovah's Witnesses and non-Jehovah's Witnesses believe other Bible translations to be better and prefer to use those Bible translations over the NWT. I don't care wish Bible you prefer to use, but of what benefit is it to me to know that you don't like the NWT?"
I do agree with you djeggnog that this thread is probably not the correct thread for anyone to be bashing the New World Translation or arguing over how good or how bad of a translation it is.
Whether you like the New World Translation or you don't like it, it is the Bible used by Jehovah's Witnesses, so that is why I am using it when I have discussions with Witnesses of Jehovah.
"How exactly did I change what either of these two verses say when I didn't even quote from Hebrews 1:5 or Hebrews 1:13?"
Well, I do think that your commentary on those verses changed the plain meaning of those verses. I would guess that 95% of people who read Hebrews chapter 1 (without looking at any other part of the Bible) would come to the conclusion that Jesus was not one of the angels, because that is what those verses say.
"I'm just trying to have a friendly Bible-related discussion here with @Undisfellowshipped, with you, with others here. I'm not here to fight with you or with anyone so let's clear the air and start over. Let me know what you believe I've done wrong here so that, if possible, I can take steps to right that wrong, if it should be possible to do so, in order that you and me, and the rest of those that should join and participating in this thread with us, might have a good and robust discussion. Thanks in advance."
I do want to thank you djeggnog for the level of kindness, courtesy, politeness, and friendliness you have shown so far in this thread, and the ability to calmly try to reason on the Scriptures (as opposed to certain other individuals who shall remain Bane-less... oh, I meant nameless. lol)
"I say let everyone have freeness of speech to say whatever they wish in whatever manner they wish to express their own points of view."
"I only just told someone else in a thread I posted yesterday and I'm now telling you that "I do not require you or require anyone at all to post any of the articles that have appeared in any of the WTS publications. I have all of them...." If you wish to define a word, like "Godship," in order to ensure that I understand that by it you mean either "divine nature" or "divinity," that would be enough for me, but all of what you wrote wasn't at all necessary to make your point, @Undisfellowshipped. Had you just asked me the question, my answer as to whether I [knew] what the word "Godship" means would have been "yes." "
I usually post the actual quotes in any debate for the benefit of those who are watching this debate from the "sidelines."
"However, I notice your inclusion here of "the quality of being a god" in your summation of how the Insight book defined "Godship," which may be how you read Insight's definition of "Godship," but this isn't how the word is actually defined in the Insight book as you are suggesting here. I'm going to ask that you please not do this, for, in a decision like this one, I'm paying strict attention to sleights of hand just like this one."
Merriam-Webster defines "sleight of hand" as: "a cleverly executed trick or deception."
Wow, I'm not sure what I wrote that can get me accused of that.
Let us examine that full Insight Book statement once again, to see if there was any "sleight of hand" going on:
"At Romans 1:20 the apostle refers to the undeniable visible evidence of God’s “invisible qualities,” particularly his “eternal power and Godship [Thei·o´tes].” Other translations read “Godhead” or “deity” (KJ, NE, RS, JB), conveying to many the idea of personality, the state of being a person. However, according to Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, the Greek word thei·o´tes means “divine nature, divinity.” (P. 788) So there is a basis for rendering thei·o´tes as referring to the quality of being a god, not the person of God, and this is supported by the context. The apostle is discussing things that are discernible in the physical creation. For example, while the creation does not reveal the name of God, it does give evidence of his “eternal power”—needed to create and sustain the universe. The physical creation also displays his “Godship,” the fact that the Creator truly is God and is worthy of our worship."
The Insight Book quotes Liddell and Scott's and says "the Greek word thei·o´tes means "divine nature, divinity." (p. 788)" Then, immediately afterwards, the Insight Book says: "So there is a basis for rendering thei·o´tes as referring to the quality of being a god."
Can you explain to me why you thought I was being deceptive by quoting the Insight Book, which is your own Organization's Bible Commentary/Dictionary/Encyclopedia?
Obviously the Insight Book is saying that the Greek word thei·o´tes can mean "the quality of being a god." In fact, the Insight Book continues on and says that such a meaning is supported by the context of Romans 1:20.
I suggest you re-read over that Insight Book statement again, and see if you can explain more fully why you believe that I am being deceptive.
"The Insight book doesn't use Thayer's definition of the word "Godhead," which you claim to be the same as "Godship," when Thayer defines "Godhead," and not "Godship," as "the state of being God," except in your previous post you stated that Thayer defined "Godship" as "the quality of being a god," and you are the one that has added "the Essence or Being of God," which I do not accept as a definition for "Godship." "
Is there a difference between "Godhead" and "Godship"? Wouldn't you agree that it is more important to find out what the GREEK words behind the English words mean? The Insight Book, when comparing the Greek word used in Romans 1:20 [thei·o´tes] to that which is used in Colossians 2:9 [the·o´tes], says this:
"Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon defines the·o´tes in basically the same way it does thei·o´tes, as meaning “divinity, divine nature.” "
So, the Insight Book is saying that the "Godship" in Romans 1:20 has basically the same meaning as the "Godship" in Colossians 2:9 (See the Footnote on Colossians 2:9 in NWT Reference Bible), and this meaning is "divine nature, divinity."
Djeggnog, how do you define "divine nature" and how do you define "divinity"?
"Just to be clear, Jesus is the "only-begotten" son of God, because Jehovah God is Jesus' Father, or "Begetter," in the sense that a human father begets a son or a daughter."
That is not the definition that the Insight Book gave. The Insight Book said this about the Greek word "Monogenes":
Insight Book, Volume 2, Page 556:
"The Greek word mo·no·ge·nes´ is defined by lexicographers as "single of its kind, only," or "the only member of a kin or kind." (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1889, p. 417; Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1968, p. 1144)"
Most modern Bible dictionaries I have seen say that the definition of "Monogenes" is "Unique" or "Only" or "One-and-Only."
According to most modern scholars and reference works that I have read or heard, the word "begotten" should be dropped from the English word because it does not accurately reflect what the Greek word actually means.
There was even a new Watchtower article (I think it came out in a 2009 or 2008 issue of the Watchtower) which said explicitly that the Greek word Monogenes means "only one of its kind" (or very similar wording).
So, I think you have an "Old Light" definition of Monogenes. But, if you truly believe that is the correct definition, then of course you are free to stick with it.
You said that Jehovah begets Jesus in the sense that a human father begets a son or daughter. What exactly do you mean? Surely you are not saying that God the Father has sexual relations with some kind of heavenly female, and then she becomes pregnant and she then gave birth to Jesus, are you?
"That Jehovah and Jesus are two separate individuals is clear from what the apostle Paul states at 1 Timothy 2:5 about Jesus being the "one mediator between God and men."
Since you are going to strictly check everything I say (which is a good thing), I will do the same to you.
1 Timothy 2:5 does not mention the name "Jehovah" anywhere in it, so we can throw out your statement.
Now, if you want to re-phrase your statement like this, "That God and Jesus are two separate individuals is clear from what the apostle Paul states at 1 Timothy 2:5 about Jesus being the "one mediator between God and men," then we can continue on...
"A "mediator" is by definition a separate party that mediates, that is to say, reconciles, the differences that may exist between two other parties. A mediator is typically a neutral party. Jesus essentially became the "go-between" with his Father on one side and mankind on the other side, which demonstrates that Jesus and Jehovah are two separate individuals."
Once again, we can throw out your use of "Jehovah" there, since the Scripture does not mention the name Jehovah at all. I will replace it with "God."
I am not sure why you are trying to prove to me that God the Father and Jesus are "two separate individuals" -- I already believe that they are two different Persons. Each has their own mind, will, thoughts, and personality. The Trinity Doctrine includes this belief.
It is "Modalism" which teaches that The Father and Jesus are the same person. The Trinity Doctrine says that The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit are Three DIFFERENT Persons who share the same Divine Nature.
But 1 Timothy 2:5 doesn't tell us anything about whether or not The Father and Jesus share the same Divine Nature though.
"For you to quote only the two words, "most high" from Psalm 89:27 is to reach for straws since the rest of this stanza reads, "[The most high] of the kings of the earth." This portion of the stanza from which you quoted only the first two words is a reference by David to his seed, who would be given more kingly authority than anyone in the dynasty of Davidic kings. I am saying this just to make it clear that while, as you say, this is one of the phrases that you intend to use during this discussion, any attempt on your part to use this phrase improperly, to misuse it so as to make the reference to Jehovah as the "Most High" at Psalm 7:17, 47:2, 83:18 or 97:9 as being equal to this prophetic reference to Jesus Christ at Psalm 89:27, will lead to my withdrawal from this thread."
First of all, up above you said this: "Moreover, in a Bible commentary, I can use whatever language I wish in order to convey to others whatever it is I think will convey my point of view," and you also said "I say let everyone have freeness of speech to say whatever they wish in whatever manner they wish to express their own points of view."
But now, you are threatening to withdraw from this debate if I choose to define a certain word differently than you do? Wow, what caused the sudden change in your attitude toward this thread?
Why would it be acceptable for you to say anything you want in your commentary on Hebrews chapters 1 and 2 (such as that Jesus is an angel), but it would be totally unacceptable if I were to give a different meaning for "Firstborn" than you do?
Kind of slanting this debate in your favor there, aren't you?
You're allowed to say whatever you want in the debate, but I'm not? What's up with that?
Anyway, just so you know, I was NOT ever planning to say that the word "Firstborn" means "Most High God."
The meaning that I give to the word "Firstborn" is "most high" position over whatever category of things the context is discussing. In Psalm 89:27 the context is discussing "the kings of the earth," so in Psalm 89:27, it means "most high" over all the kings of the earth. In Colossians 1:15, it is discussing all of creation, so in that verse it means "most high" over all of creation.
The context rules and determines the meanings of words.
"I do not accept this designation of God as being "The One True God by Nature." You can use it, of course, as you wish, but I reject the addition of the words "by Nature" as being meaningless and making "The One True God" obscure."
Were Paul's words "by nature" meaningless in Galatians 4:8? What did Paul mean when he said "those who by nature are not gods"? Can you explain what this passage means?
"we might just read the context in order to ascertain what God or god used in a particular verse means."
I couldn't agree more. We should examine the context to determine the meanings of words.
"You specifically mention "The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament," but this lexicon oftentimes leaves one in the proverbial lurch when searching for the meaning of words like the English word "spirit," for example, that is used at Luke 24:37, 39, which word really means "demon," even though many Bible translations, like the NWT, use the literal word "spirit." (I'm really don't know how many Jehovah's Witnesses are competent to explain its use in these two verses, for many would wrongly assume that Jesus is referring to his spirit (divine) nature.)"
How did you arrive at the "correct" definition of "demon" for that Greek word? The Insight Book does not agree with your definition:
Insight Book, Volume 1, Page 131:
"when the resurrected Jesus suddenly appeared in the midst of his disciples, causing them to imagine they beheld “a spirit [Gr., pneu´ma].” (Lu 24:36, 37) Jesus’ words in this situation evidently were not designed to convince them merely of his reality but to assure them that he was appearing before them in a fleshly human form and not in spirit form; hence, he told them to “feel me and see, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you behold that I have.” (Lu 24:38-43; compare Ge 18:1-8; 19:1-3.) There was, therefore, no need for them to be fearful, which was the effect produced on Daniel by an awesome angelic appearance of a completely different nature. (Compare Da 10:4-9.)"
The Insight Book says Jesus was referring to His "spirit form" as opposed to His "fleshly human form."
There is absolutely no mention of demons there, however, if that is what you believe, you are free to keep that definition even though it disagrees with what the Watchtower Society teaches.
"What are you talking about here? Are you referring to the angel that led the Israelites at Exodus 23:20, 21, who I believe to be Michael, because Exodus 23:21 says about this angel that 'God's name was within him'? This angel as not Jehovah, and so I cannot agree with this definition."
I am saving the discussion about THE Angel of the Lord for a later post. I was just defining it ahead of time.
"the 144,000 are going to be angels, but with a higher station than they, for, unlike the angels, these king-priests are destined to "become sharers in divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4), meaning that they will becomes gods just as Jesus became a god after his resurrection to an immortal spirit. However, these angels not having the divine nature does in no way make them any less "gods" or "godlike ones" (Psalm 8:5), which psalm the apostle Paul quotes at Hebrews 2:7, substituting the word "angels" for "godlike ones.""
Where does the Bible ever say that the 144,000 will become "angels" and especially where does it ever say that the 144,000 will become gods?
The Awake! of November 22nd 1999, Page 6 disagrees with you about the 144,000 becoming angels:
"Let us begin by clearing up two widespread misconceptions about angels. Contrary to popular belief, angels did not begin their lives as humans."
So, let me get this straight, you are saying that the angels (without divine nature) are just as much "gods" as Jesus, who does have the divine nature?
First of all, what do you mean by the word "god" when you apply it to Jesus and when you apply it to the angels?
Secondly, what do you mean when you say "divine nature"?
What was Paul's point about "nature" at Galatians 4:8?
"Nope. I do not and cannot agree with this "by Nature" qualifier that you add to "One True God" for theological reasons."
I took that "qualifier" as you call it, from Galatians 4:8.
"Where in the passage you cite -- 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 -- does the apostle Paul say that there is only "One True God" and only "One True Lord"? Please don't make stuff up. Remember, I'm paying attention to everything you say here, and it seems to me that you could convince the unwary that this passage said exactly what you said it does. However, both you and I know that it really doesn't say this, does it?"
Merriam-Webster defines "True" as "being in accordance with the actual state of affairs," and the Apostle Paul said "to us there is actually one God ... and one Lord."
My point was that Paul is teaching that to Christians, there is in the actual state of affairs, ONE God, and ONE Lord. In other words, to Christians, there is one who is truly God and one who is truly Lord.
If that is not what Paul was teaching, then please explain what he was actually saying.
"No, he isn't; Paul is not at all saying at 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 anything that comes close to what you are saying here about Jehovah and Jesus both being Gods: ... In my opinion, it would be best that you not twist the apostle's words as you have done here."
I am going to strictly point out once again that this passage of Scripture nowhere mentions the name Jehovah, so we will throw it out and replace it with "God the Father" because that is what Paul said here.
I find it interesting that you have accused me of being a deceiver and someone who twists Paul's words. I thought this was supposed to be a "friendly debate"?
"The Bible speaks of those that are "Jews by nature" (Galatians 2:15) as well as those among the uncircumcised that are "such by nature" (Romans 2:27), and when I do a comparison, as you suggest here, of the thought expressed at Romans 1:20, first, I see that unlike what it means to be a Jew or to be a Gentile, what Paul is talking about at Romans 1:20 are the intrinsic qualities of God, and not a thing about God's "nature." "
So, you say that you do not believe Romans 1:20 says one thing at all about God's "nature," and yet, as I showed you before, the Insight Book says that the Greek word for "Godship" which is used in Romans 1:20 means "divine NATURE."
How can you claim that a verse which uses a Greek word that means divine NATURE is not saying anything at all about that nature? That doesn't make any sense.
"No, the fact that these Moses, the angels, etc., may have been God's representatives, this has nothing to do with whether they were in possession of the divine nature. After Jesus' resurrection, he was in possession of the divine nature, too, was he not? And yet Jesus wasn't the "One True God," was he? In fact, Jesus described himself at John 10:36 as being "God's Son," did he not?"
I will address those questions in later posts. I'm trying to go in some sort of logical sequence in my posts. lol.
"No. Paul's having excluded Jesus from among those who are called "gods" has nothing at all to do with whether Jesus is in possession of the divine nature, or because Jesus is "truly God by Nature" as you put it. At Corinthians 8:4-6, Paul is there talking about how it is to Christians there is but "one God the Father" and "one Lord, Jesus Christ." Please don't bother trying to make this passage say something that it really doesn't say, ok?"
Compare and meditate on 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 with Galatians 4:8 and let me know what you think.
"You have made an incredible leap in logic, for what you are saying here is not logical. It's pretty dumb actually since I happen to be one of those people that take away from reading Paul's words at 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 that Paul is saying that to us, that is to say, to Christians, there is but one God the Father. I do not think it at all logical, and I'd doubt that you could find many other people unless they be trinitarians like yourself, to conclude that by Paul was saying that to us [Christians] ... there is one Lord, Jesus Christ and that Jesus could not also be called "Lord." Paul's point is that Christians render worship to the same God the Father ("out of whom all things are") through the Lord Jesus Christ ("through whom all things are"), who is also the very same "one God the Father" that the Lord Jesus Christ renders worship. Paul says not a thing at 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 about any "True Lord." I'm sure you have your reasons for adding this "True Lord" concept to this passage, and I don't mind waiting until you get around to telling me those reasons."
The Logic goes like this:
Jehovah's Witnesses use this argument:
1:) 1 Cor. 8:4-6 says that there is only one God for Christians.
2:) It says The Father is the one God for Christians.
3:) Therefore, Jesus cannot be the God of Christians.
Trinitarians can reverse the same argument to show how improper this argument really is:
1:) 1 Cor. 8:4-6 says that there is only One Lord for Christians.
2:) It says Jesus is the one Lord for Christians.
3:) Therefore, the Father cannot be the Lord of Christians.
So, we can see from this example that if you try to make either one of these arguments, they just do not harmonize with the rest of the Scriptures.
"No, he doesn't. You are the one here lumping "gods" with "lords," saying that "he equates" the two with each other, not Paul. You are here introducing the concept of two "classes" -- "gods" and "lords" -- being equal to one another, a concept that has no scriptural support whatsoever, and unless you are prepared to say to me with a straight face that Sarah, at Genesis 18:12, who refers to her husband, Abraham, as "my lord," could just as well have addressed him as "my god," you should really stop while you are ahead."
Why couldn't Sarah have called Abraham "my god"? After all, "god" can mean that you are a representative or spokesman for God, correct?
"While it is true that Jehovah, who you are calling "the True God," and Jesus, who you are calling "the True Lord," are separate from those who are called, not just "gods," but "lords," too, the fact that you say that the True God and the True Lord are and not "the True God and the True Lord is suggests to me that you are doing your best to make your explanation work, but the "are" is Freudian, isn't it?"
I am glad that we agree at least that The Father and Jesus are separate from the called gods, but out of curiosity, are you aware that the Watchtower Society teaches that Jesus is one of the called gods mentioned by Paul?
"Perhaps you wouldn't mind providing to me the scriptural citation -- just one would be sufficient -- upon which your statement that God commands "all people" to worship Jesus is based. I'd like to read it."
These are the verses that I based my statement on:
Revelation 5:13-14: And every creature that is in heaven and on earth and underneath the earth and on the sea, and all the things in them, I heard saying: “To the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever.” And the four living creatures went saying: “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshiped.
This passage from Revelation clearly and unmistakably shows that The Father and Jesus should receive EQUAL blessing, honor, glory, might, and YES, WORSHIP, from every creature on earth and in heaven. This harmonizes perfectly with John 5:23.
Daniel 7:14: And to him there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him. His rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin.
The word translated as "serve" in Daniel 7:14 is "pelach", and some Bible dictionaries say that its primary meaning is "worship to God," and every other time this word is used in the Bible it always refers to worshiping or giving sacred service to Jehovah or to an idol.
And at Hebrews 1:6, God commands all of His angels to "do obeisance" (or "worship" in older versions of the New World Translation) to Jesus. Should we not imitate the fine example of faithful angels who take the lead in worship?
"Bending the knee to give honor to our king, Jesus Christ, isn't the same as worshipping Jesus, for Christians give honor to Jesus to the glory of God and worship God through Jesus. In fact, Christians honor the Father when they honor the Son. (John 5:22, 23) Similarly, belief in Jesus is in reality putting one's faith in God, the One that sent Jesus, and it is through Jesus and not to Jesus that Christians make their approach to God. (John 12:44; Hebrews 7:25) Also, it is through Jesus that "the 'Amen' [is said] to God for glory." (2 Corinthians 1:20)"
How do you know the "bending the knee" to Jesus is not the same as worship? Based on what? The same Greek word (proskyneo) is sometimes rendered "obeisance" and sometimes rendered "worship" based on the context.
"No, you can't, for the citations you provided here do not do that, they do not indicate that Jesus is "the Divine Creator who deserves our worship," and for you to be suggesting here that these citations prove Jesus to be "the Divine Creator" when the Bible teaches that (a) Jehovah is the Creator and that (b) Jesus is responsible for laying "the foundations of the earth" as well as the heavens, who was (c) begotten by God, thus becoming (d) God's firstborn, (e) a coworker with God, and, although being (f) a creature, the beginning of the creation of God, Jesus is now, just as Thomas stated after his resurrection, (g) a God in his own right, in view of the fact that (h) he alone was the first to be made a God, so that he became (i) the first to whom God gave immortality as well as (j) first in all things. (Isaiah 45:18; Hebrews 1:1, 2, 10; Psalm 102:25-27; John 1:14, 18; 20:28; Colossians 1:15, 18; Proverbs 8:30; Revelation 3:14; 1 Timothy 6:16)"
Where does the Bible say that God created Jesus?
... "If you will conquor I will make you a pillar in the temple of My God; you will never go out of it. I will write on you the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem that comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name. Let anyone who has an ear listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches. "And to the angel of the church of Laodicea write: The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the origin of God's creation.." Revelation 3:11-15.
Why go to all the trouble of explaining that he still has a God and reiterating that he was the origin of God's creation if he was one and the same as Jehovah. The text above spells it out for me...
Author Ann Rice just announced here rejection and resignation from Catholicism and Western Christianity........
Caravaggio's and Dante's dreamworks fantasy is crumbling down............
Psalm 110:1 and all the texts linked through scripture clearly demonstrate that @TWO separate beings are referred to... and that thought continues in the Revelation. cf; particularly to Revelation 3:12 amidst the counsel and praise of the church in Philadelphia. Why would Bible writers pen such a complex meaning as you outline... YHWH to the Lord incarnate? Jesus is clearly separate from his Father after the Resurrection. Period. Nothing complicated... two identifiable and separate beings, not part of a Mystic Godhead.
Trinitarians know that all heavenly visions and scripture logically point to God & Jesus as being separate persons and beings. Something that is very understandable and which as simple reading & study of the Bible would reveal. If you read the Bible through pagan Greek philosophical metaphysical glasses and conform your belief to the Athanasian Creed, you come up with the Trinity belief.
Think About It
@ Snowbird: Love yer Sylv.....!
Thanks, again, for the love that flowed across sea and land to us in the midst of our trials.
We are in your debt, kind sir.
@Think about it: Cheers my friend, I cannot but see the obvious... why do we need complicated and disjointed Trinitaria theses?? Jehovah is the Father of Jesus, a quite separate being.. I am not minded to argue whether Jesus was an angel or not. All we know is that he has been exalted and has been given Immortality alongside his God and Father. How much more plain talk do Trinitarians want?
Howdy Sylv... just sitting typing over lunch break, have completed patient notes and about to start afternoon surgery... think of you all often, delighted that the "Universe" is healing you with its peace... Huggz, Podo
Podobear.......being non-religious now, I really can't believe I've partiscipated in these Trinity discussions. However, to choose between Arianism or Trinitarianism, I think the Bible teaches the Arian view. Growing up in the Baptist church and formulating a belief that God and Jesus were separate beings made more sense, than when you got old enough to see the flawed confussion of the Trinity doctrine explanations. The scriptural debates are pointless. Neither side pays any attention to the pet scripture the other gives as a proof. They just move on to their next pet scripture for defense. Sticking to logic & reason and the historical development & fruits of those expousing the Trinity doctrine for me is the best route to debate it.
Edited: Speaking of the fruits produced over the Trinity debate. John Calvin (Trinitarian) vs. Michael Servetus (Arian) was an interesting debate.
Servetus' final words while being burned alive tied to a stake:
- "Jesus, thou Son of the eternal God, have compassion upon me!"
Yet a heartless modern day Calvinist comments on this saying "This phrase epitomizes the essence of his Trinitarian error" for he said "Son of the eternal God" rather than "eternal Son of God"
Think About It
snowbird If anyone confesses Jesus as Lord, that person is my spiritual brother.
Hi Sylvia, you need to bear these in mind
1 Corinthians 12:3 (English Standard Version)
3 Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus is accursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit.
1 John 4:1-6 (New International Version)
Test the Spirits1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
4 You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. 5 They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. 6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
John 8:42-47 (New International Version)
The Children of the Devil42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47 He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." Blessings, Stephen
As I typed, I had this in mind:
1 Corinthians 12:3 For instance, by using your heads, you know perfectly well that the Spirit of God would never prompt anyone to say "Jesus be damned!" Nor would anyone be inclined to say "Jesus is Master!" without the insight of the Holy Spirit. MSG
Thank you for the caveat, though.