TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else

by UnDisfellowshipped 457 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Chalam

    peacedog According to scripture, this ONE GOD created the universe UNAIDED.

    Indeed. These verses tell us exactly who Jesus is.

    Isaiah 44:24 (New International Version)

    24 "This is what the LORD says—

    your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb:

    I am the LORD,
    who has made all things,
    who alone stretched out the heavens,
    who spread out the earth by myself

    John 1:1-3 (New International Version)

    The Word Became Flesh
    1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

    3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

    Once again, unless Jesus is God then Isaiah 44:24 is false, i.e. God alone did not create heaven and earth.

    To call Jesus "a god" is to call God a liar in Isaiah 44:24 and many other places.



  • designs

    Was it the great 18th century Baptist John Gill who wrote 'there are Distinct personalities of the Distinct Persons of the Godhead', or 'there is a Trinity of Persons in the unity of the divine essence'.

    And why can't the Holy Ghost clear up the mess about the Filiogue and the identity of Jehovah (God the Son or God the Father).............we were told to wait on Jehovah for the answers, 1800 years and counting.

  • Think About It
    Think About It

    Think About It
    I just can't comprehend the Trinity without it leading me to polytheistic conclusions.
    God is one. Sure, there are multiple persons, but not multiple personalities.

    I was going to stay out of this since my conscience was bothering me about debating the issue of God with Trinitarians who probably are trying to serve God and lead Christian lives, but since you addressed me............your statement above is ridiculous and polytheistic.

    A person would NEVER come to a "God is a Trinity" conclusion by reading the Bible alone, without external influences from Theologians guiding Christian religions by Trinity Creeds. Jesus and the Jewish religion was monotheistic. Pagan religions were polytheistic. Jesus Christ was the Son of God who was divine, but not equal to the Father. The "Holy Ghost" who according to the Athansian Creed is suppose to be on the same par with the Father and the Son always gets the least amount of ink and 3rd billing, because "he" never was a "3rd person" and never will be.

    I have avoided listing scriptures in this debate, because as I have pointed out earlier it is pointless. Smarter men than any of us have debated this issue for centuries. For me to do that would be an exercise in futility. I know most of the Trinitarian pet scriptures, most of the lame defenses against scriptures that conflict the Trinity view, and most of the same defenses using "the Greek" to defend the Trinity. You could probably say the same thing against the Arian view.

    History tells the true story. The monotheism of pure Christianity was turned into Trinitarian polytheism by theologians having Greek philosophical methaphysical influences. Roman state politics decided which side of the debate won, although it is generally acknowledged the the Arian view was more biblical and made more sense.

    P.S. I must add that it has actually been enjoyable doing some religious research after 15 years. Enjoy the rest of the debate people. I'll just read the comments from this point on.

    Think About It

  • peacedog

    Undisfellowshipped: Thank you.


    Half of the Trinitarian world believe Jesus is Jehovah of the OT and the other half believe Jehovah is God the Father

    Sheesh. Exaggerate much?

    Perhaps you meant to say the Watchtower Society would have us believe that half of the Trinitarian world believe Jesus is Jehovah of the OT and the other half believe Jehovah is God the Father. In which case, you'd be spot on...

    Think About It:

    Actually, it's only about an 1800 year old debate, as Jesus and the Apostles didn't teach the Trinity doctrine to the common folk 1st century Christians.

    Funny how the debate rages using nothing but scripture...

    Anyway, I imagine a bilion or two people on the planet would disagree with you. Prolly better if you were to say that in your opinion, Jesus and the Apostles didn't teach the Trinity doctrine

    A person would NEVER come to a "God is a Trinity" conclusion by reading the Bible alone

    "Trinity" is just a word and it is of no consequence.

    For a certainty, people would and have come to the conclusion that Jesus is God by reading the Bible alone.

    For a certainty, people would and have come to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is God by reading the Bible alone.

    For a certainty, people would and have come to the conclusion that the Father is God by reading the Bible alone.

    Would a person choose to label their view "The Trinity"? Prolly not...


    You haven't had the decency to reply to me...

    My dear podo, I replied to you on page 7 of this thread:

    >>"The LORD" is YHWH; "the Lord" is a reference to the incarnate Jesus.

    call me and others strawmen.. typical of a person who flounders on theory and avoids the overwhelming facts

    I didn't call you a "straw man". I labelled your argument a straw man.

    What are you saying about Jesus, is he Jehovah or not? Be plain...

    I've already answered the question, but I will do so again. No, I do not believe that Jesus is Jehovah, nor do I believe the bible teaches that Jesus is Jehovah. I don't know anyone who believes this. Is that plain enough for you?

    stop playing weasel

    What was that you were saying about a person who name calls? Something about floundering and avoiding facts....?


    To call Jesus "a god" is to call God a liar in Isaiah 44:24 and many other places.


  • peacedog


    me: "As I laid out in a previous post, the verse without your commentary excludes ANY angel; the verse with your commentary INCLUDES an angel."

    you: "This is true."

    You mean to say we finally agree on something? :)

    What you say is true. My examples weren't very good, that is, if I was talking about the word "ever" as you seem to be (which I wasn't).

    Lol. Of course you weren't talking about it; you ignored the word "ever" because it's the negative assertion that makes the sentence a rhetorical. It's what proves that Jesus IS NOT an angel, and kills your theology. Your denial is understandable...

    You failed to respond to a question in my previous post. You quoted the KJV at which point I asked you to explain the words "at any time":

    5For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

    13But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

    Again, please explain the meaning of "at any time" in the above statements.

    On what basis would you be presuming anything as to what I know or don't know? I'll let you grab your Kingdom Interlinear Bible to do whatever comparisons you may wish. You're talking about apples here and I oranges.

    Erm, how about on the basis that you're harping on a word in your NWT that doesn't exist in the Greek. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and presumed you didn't realize the word you were building a case around isn't even in the original bible verse. Did I presume incorrectly? Perhaps you did realize what you were doing and were simply being.... dishonest.

    Would that be according to the CEV or according to the NWT? I think the former, but in this thread, the focus is on using the NWT to prove that it supports the Trinity doctrine.

    Lol. According to both, actually. The NWT and the CEV say the same thing, remember? One is worded as a rhetorical question ("To which of the angels did God *EVER* say...") and the other as an equivalent assertive ("God never said to any angel").

    You're still anxious to discuss the CEV here. I'm not.

    Red Herring. I couldn't care less what translation we use. As stated, the NWT and CEV (and NIV, KJV, NLT, NASB, etc, etc, etc) all say the same thing in these verses. Some are worded as a rhetorical (negative assertion); others are worded as an equivalent assertive.

    Your inability to grasp the basic concept of a rhetorical question is stunning...

    so nothing that one reads at Deuteronomy 32:39 affects Jehovah's credibility

    Newsflash, Jehovah's credibility is not at issue. The credibility of the WTS and the NWT are.

    God said there are no other gods together with him (Deut 32:39). John 1:1 says (in your bible) there was another god with him. Period. Case closed.

    Jehovah is referring to Gods like himself

    Was he now? And he told you this himself, did he?

    I'll stick with what he TOLD us and leave the inferring to you. "There are no gods together with me."

    As I see it, what we have here is really just a misunderstanding on your part of what John 2:21 means

    John 2:19-21:

    1) Temple will be destroyed, 2) temple will be raised in 3 days, 3) he was talking about the temple of his body

    My understanding:

    Jesus' body would destroyed, Jesus' body would be raised in 3 days. (Oh, and guess what? It happened just so...)

    Your understanding:

    Jesus gave life to the "lifeless corpse" of the "body" of Christians that had been gathered together in that room, for at John 20:21-23 Jesus animated that "body" when he said the following: "'Just as the Father has sent me forth, I also am sending you.'

    "lifeless corpse" of the "body" of Christians..... ?

    "Jesus animated that "body" when he said..... ??

    Yeah, the "misunderstanding" is all mine and I'm the one who's in "spiritual darkness".... lol

  • The Finger
    The Finger

    I have read this thread with interest. As a JW I totally rejected the trinity and for years after; I'm unsure. I tend to favour the trinity as explaining Christ relationship to God. I'm not well read on the subject, I probably should be. Life is busy.

    One question with John 1. In the beginning ect. The word was a god. If no one was there to who was he a god other than God if no one was there to worship him. I'm assuming this is before ALL creation, in the beginnning.

  • peacedog

    The Finger,

    I hear you. It was not much different with me.

    Eventually I came to realize that in terms of scripture pertaining to the nature/identity of Jesus, the least ambiguous verses were the ones that supported his Deity. At the time, my theology was based on an interpretation of the more ambiguous verses, while I was denying the obvious statement of the less ambigous verses.

    For example, Hebrews 1:5,13 eliminates any possibility that Jesus is an angel. And if he's not an angel... what, then?

    John 1:3 says about as clearly as it could possible be said that Jesus created EVERYTHING: without Jesus, "nothing came into being that has come into being." How could this be a true statement if Jesus himself were something "that has come into being"?

    Isaiah 44:24 says that God created all things - heaven and earth - ALL ALONE, BY HIMSELF. Knowing that according to scripture, Jesus created all things, how could God have been "ALONE", "BY HIMSELF" during creation, unless Jesus is God?

    Good question regarding John 1:1. Given there was no one around, in what way was Jesus "a god". I guess he was "a god" to no one... which makes you wonder what would be the point of being called "a god".....

  • The Finger
    The Finger


    Thank you for your comments. I talked with an elder several years ago and discussed Hebrews. I would agree that with this verse that Jesus isn't an angel.

    If I devote myself to money and become a slave to it, it becomes my god. If i devote myself to Christ and am a footstep follower and slave of him he is my god. I cannot serve two gods.

    Worship seems an integral part of the definition of God.

  • designs

    Some here need a little brush up on Homoiosianism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism and that actual surviving scroll from the 1st century 11Q13. Not to mention the Unitarian view. Just a way to understand 'other' views.

    Say, how come the Holy Ghost couldn't get the East and West Bishops to agree on the Filioque...............

  • mkr32208

    I've often thought that the toothfairy, santa, and the easter bunny were all actually the same person! I mean think about it you never see them together!!!

    Or maybe they are all just jesus in disguise!!!!

    I got all the way to page 4 before my head exploded from the stupidity and I added this little jem of a reply.

Share this