Objection #1: You didn’t like the inclusion of the word "other" in my "commentary on these two verses.
Objection #2: You didn’t like the fact that the NWT inserts [and] renders these verses "which one" and not just "which," frowning upon the word "one."
Objection #3: You decided [for some reason] that we should be debating the word "ever" used in these verses[--].
1) I said nothing about liking or disliking, actually. I simply pointed out that your inclusion of the word "other" changed the meaning of the verse, as you admitted:
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."
eggnog: "This is true."
Is it common practice for you to include words in your commentary that change the meaning of the text?
Yes, if by my inclusion of such words the meaning of the text under consideration would be enhanced, such as when I "commented" earlier in this thread about the NWT's rendering of Luke 24:37 in commenting on how the word "unclean" wasn't inserted, the word "spirit" that Luke uses in the verse means "demon," so that I would write "unclean spirit" in order to help others understand the entire passage Luke 24:36-43. Luke knew exactly what he meant by "spirit," but most people that read this passage would not appreciate that Jesus is reminding these men that demons no longer have the ability to materialize in flesh and blood bodies, whereas they were beholding what clearly appeared to them to be a human body, and as Jesus was pointing out the obvious to his disciples, he exhibited his hands and feet to them as proof that he wasn't a demon.
Some people reading this passage at Luke 24:36-43 would misunderstand Jesus to have been saying that he wasn't a "spirit," and would wrongly conclude that Jesus had been resurrected in the same body in which he had died that had become "spiritualized" or some such nonsense that someone might imagine Jesus to have meant, especially when they should read the subsequent account that begins at John 20:26, not the one that begins at John 20:19-25, when Jesus made an appearance to his disciples and Thomas wasn't present, which is the parallel account at Luke 24:36-43, but the account at John 20:26-29 relates that appearance that Jesus made especially to Thomas some eight days after Jesus' previous appearance.
It was at this time Jesus had materialized in a body and invited Thomas to examine where there were indications of wounds in both of his hands and where Jesus had been pierced in the side of his torso although we do not know that Thomas did more than see those wounds for the scripture is silent on whether Thomas actually put his finger in these wounds as Jesus had directed Thomas to do at John 20:27. Thomas' exclamation "My Lord and my God" at John 20:28 indicates that Thomas had then become persuaded that Jesus had been resurrected as an immortal God, for Jesus was the first man to become a God, further giving Thomas hope that he, too, would eventually become like Jesus, an immortal God. Not many folks reading this passage comprehend what it was that so thrilled Thomas.
My hope is that after you have read my response here, you, too, will "yet believe." (John 20:29)
Another point I would make here is why do you think Jesus would have gone through all of the suffering he endured as a man here on earth, even to the point of reproaching God's name by his being classed among ungodly men as an evildoer, a seditionist, only to then remove from the altar of God's will the very sacrifice that God Himself had gone to such lengths to provide in transferring Jesus' life to the womb of a human mother so that he could 33-1/2 years later leave this body on the altar as a sacrifice to purchase by ransom mankind to cancel its debt to God by taking that human body back? The uninitiated Bible student would simply not be in a position to comprehend Luke 24:36-43 without their being told that the word "spirit" used in this passage is a synonym for the word "demon."
2) Again, I said nothing about liking or disliking. I simply pointed out that you were building an argument around a word that isn't in the Greek. You then went on to defend your use of a word that doesn't exist in the original bible verse.
It is common practice for you to build an exegetical argument based on words that don't appear in the original verse?
I did not do what you accusing me here of doing. I made no such defense. I merely pointed out to you what in the English language the word "which" carries with it the implication of choosing something and I find nothing wrong with the NWT's insertion of the word "one" at Hebrews 1:5 and at Hebrews 1:13, just as, if I might add here, you would find at Luke 22:24 and at Acts 7:52, the words "which one" are used in the NWT instead of"which," and at Luke 22:27 and at Acts 1:24, the words "which one" are used in the NWT instead of "whether." I suppose you might object to Bible verses being rendered so that they are grammatically correct (e.g., at Luke 20:33, we found in the NWT the words "of which one of them" and not "whose wife of them"), but the verse isn't being changed, but you cannot believe that the of CEV's rendering Hebrews 1:15 and Hebrews 1:13, "God never said to any of the angels" to be consistent with the Greek text, for these words not only change the Greek text, but interprets it!
It appears that your preference is for the nwt OVER the Greek... Is this so?
No, I have a preference for the NWT's rendering of the Greek text over the CEV's rendering of the Greek text.
3) "For some reason"...? Is it unusual that I should ask about a word that appears in the original verse that you chose to ignore in your commentary?
Is it common practice for you to overlook words in the original bible text that affect the meaning of the verse?
I have no idea what you are asking me here.
Now, I realize your (feigned) concern over discussing verses from any translation other than the nwt, so allow me to rephrase my question:
5For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: "You are my son; I, today, I have become your father"? And again: "I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son"?
13But with reference to which one of the angels has he ever said: "Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet"?
In keeping with your goal of discussing the Trinity using the nwt, please explain the meaning of the word "ever" in the above statements. Please explain how the word "ever" fits with (and supports) your interpretation of these verses. Perhaps you might even explain why the bible writer chose to include the word, when you yourself have omitted it when "explaining" the meaning of these verses.
I will not allow you to change your argument. We were discussing the inclusion of the word "one" in rendering Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 1:13 as "which one," and we were never discussing the word "ever," which is not relevant, but which you persist in doing for whatever reason.
Absolutely no one -- not you, not anyone -- is going to be saved by their putting faith in the Trinity doctrine. Even if one should believe in the Trinity -- like you, like so many others -- what would one say to someone that should ask why it is that Jesus didn't seem to think it important to tell any of the apostles -- at the latest when holy spirit was poured out upon them and others on that Pentecost day in 33 AD -- that he was really the true God, one "Person" of ... three "Persons" of a Trinity?
So... much.... nonsense.
This is not "nonsense" at all. Instead of running away from my question, answer the question. Why was the very notion of Jesus being a Trinity kept secret from Jesus' apostles until the fourth century AD, long after all of Jesus' apostles had died? Why did the holy spirit that had been poured out upon them at Pentecost failed to teach them that Jesus was a Person of God, a part of a Trinity? Can you even begin to answer this question or not?
What I wonder is.... Even if one should believe that Jesus is Michael the archangel -- like you, like so few others -- what would one say to someone that should ask why it is that Jesus didn't seem to think it important to tell any of the apostles -- at the latest when Thomas called Jesus "THE GOD OF ME" on that day prior to the ascension -- that he was WAS NOT THE GOD of anyone, but was actually just an angel?
Your question seems convoluted to me, but I'll answer it nonetheless: Jesus didn't have to tell Thomas anything. Thomas was one of Jesus' 12 apostles and he, as had the other 10 faithful apostles, had been taught that Jesus would die and would be resurrected as an immortal God, and so on the occasion when Thomas exclaimed in the hearing of the Lord "My Lord and my God!" Jesus had no need to correct Thomas for Jesus knew that Thomas knew that Jesus' father was the true God and understood that it had finally dawned on Thomas that Jesus had, in fact, been resurrected to immortal life and Thomas also realized at that moment that he, too, would become an immortal God.
Thomas already knew that Jesus had had a prehuman existence as an angel in heaven before being sent by God to die as a ransom to release all mankind from condemnation to sin and death they had inherited from Adam. My question is, Why don't you know this?