TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else

by UnDisfellowshipped 457 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • PSacramento

    Not going BEYOND what is written, we have:

    God, Our Father, the one God, creator of all.

    Jesus, the son of God, BEGOTTEN of God and as such, the same nature as God, the exact form of God, the Word of God, all that God is, Jesus is.

    The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and of Jesus, as such it has all the qualitites of God and the very same nature as God since it is God.

    It was through Jesus that ALL was created ( the process of creation) and Jesus is begotten of God and ALL OTHERS are creations THROUGH Jesus By God.

    Jesus can be viewed as an angel (messenger) but he is certainly not "just" an angelic being since ALL of them were CREATED through Jesus and none were begotten as Jesus was.

    So we have in Order:

    God & God's HS that beget Jesus and THEN we have the beginnings of creation from which al the rest come from, including angels.

  • djeggnog

    @issacaustin wrote:

    [Jesus'] god is the Father. That simply shows submission to the decision-maker by the agent who carries out those decisions. That does not disprove the Father and Son sharing the same nature.

    @djeggnog wrote:

    You are correct on all three fronts in what you say here.... While it is true that all of the angels of God -- and that would include Jesus and Satan -- are spirit beings, gods that are all sharers of the same divine nature as Jehovah, after Jesus' resurrection, only he came to share bodily that divine quality of which only Jehovah had been in possession, immortality. (Colossians 1:19; 2:9) So it is only with respect to immortality have both the Father and the Son become sharers of this divine quality. Those of the first resurrection will all of them be given immortality, too.

    @issacaustin wrote:

    They share [omnipotence], omniscience and omnipresence.

    Is Jehovah almighty and all-knowing? Exodus 6:3 underscores Jehovah's almightiness and at Mark 13:32, Jesus underscores Jehovah's omniscience, when he said that "[c]oncerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father." Jesus attests to Jehovah, his Father, as being an all-knowing God. Although Jesus himself is now an immortal God, at John 14:28, Jesus also indicated that "the Father is greater than I am." So while it is true regarding omnipotence and omniscience that both Jehovah and Jesus share both, Jehovah's power and knowledge are without equal.

    While it is true that Jesus Christ is now "Lord to the glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2:11) and after the "great tribulation" he is destined to return with his angels "in the glory of the Father" (Matthew 16:27), Jehovah has made clear in His word that "to no one else shall [He] give [His] own glory. (Isaiah 42:8) In fact, "Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but [was glorified by him] who spoke with reference to him: 'You are my son; I, today, I have become your father,'" which promise was fulfilled when Jehovah brought Jesus back to life as His immortal Son. (Hebrews 5:5; Acts 13:32-34)

    Yes, Jehovah glorified His son, Jesus, not only when He resurrected Him, thus making Jesus His spiritual Son in fulfillment of Psalm 2:7, but in His also giving to Jesus an indestructible life His own. (Hebrews 7:16)

    Jehovah has committed all the judging to Jesus, so that we might "honor the Son just as [we] honor the Father ... who sent him." (John 5:22, 23) Thus Christians today honor Jesus by taking his name upon ourselves -- Jesus' name -- by declaring ourselves to the world as being Christians, and by our living up to Jesus' name by exhibiting conduct that is becoming to the Christ. To be teaching anyone that Jesus is almighty God and that he was equal to God in love, justice, wisdom and power, when Jesus didn't teach these things about himself, would be to dishonor Jesus and his name. Anyone putting faith in Jesus also puts faith in Jehovah since what things Jesus taught belonged to his father, and He it was that sent Jesus to teach us about Himself and His purposes. (John 7:16; 12:44) One more thing:

    Anyone that denies the things that Jesus taught, denies the existence of the Father since Jesus is the proof that God exists.

    I saved the last thing you mentioned -- omnipresence -- for last.

    Where is God's house? Where does He live? What is God's location? At Acts 7:48, we read that "the Most High doesn't dwell in houses made with hands." Continuing with verses 49 and 50, same book and chapter, Stephen says "'The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What sort of house will you build for me? Jehovah says. Or what is the place for my resting? My hand made all these things, did it not?'"

    God's throne is located in the heavens, the earth is God's footstool, and what kind of materials would one use to make a house in which God might dwell. So whether a structure could be made here on earth of gold, silver or some other precious stone, or even wood, God's house is not a church, not a cathedral, not a mosque, not a Kingdom Hall. It's not a house "made with hands."

    A person is a "being possessing or forming the subject of personality," so God is a person, just like a man is a person, a woman is a person. A dog is not a person. A cat is not a person. Jehovah is a person, so he must have specific dwelling, for every intelligent person has location, but where is it?

    So then is it true that God is everywhere at the same time, He's a part of and in everything? No, this is not true; God is not everywhere. God is somewhere. So where would we find God? Where exactly is God located? Well, what did Jesus say at Matthew 6:9? I know you know this scripture, for in the King James Version even young children learned what Jesus taught his followers to pray, "Our Father which art in heaven...." So where is God? Does this mean that God is in the sky? Is He in the clouds, or where the sun is, where the stars are, where the planets are, or in our solar system somewhere?

    Our earth, it's atmosphere, our solar system, the universe cannot contain Jehovah, for King Solomon makes the point at 2 Chronicles 6:18 that "the heaven of the heavens" cannot contain Him. Now Jesus "became flesh and resided among us" we read at John 1:14, but Jehovah? He is nowhere to be found in our material universe. He's not everywhere; he's not omnipresent.

    Leave the solar system past all of the stars to where the universe ends, if it so ends, and thus cross from this literal physical dimension into a spiritual dimension where the spiritual heavens is, and that is where God is, in another dimension. Isaiah 63:15 says "Look from heaven and see out of your lofty abode of holiness and beauty." This is the heaven where God makes His home, where Jehovah dwells in person.

    But note what we read at Hebrews 8:1, 2 about God's dwelling place, His abode in the spiritual heavens, "We have such a high priest as this, and he has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a public servant of the holy place and of the true tent, which Jehovah put up, and not man." So if it were possible to get out of our universe, out of this creation, that is to say, out of our physical dimension, and enter the spiritual heavens, you would find Jehovah in the spiritual dimension where He resides in person, you would see the palatial home that Jehovah himself put up, the palace where He lives and thrones.

    But the apostle Paul provides this important detail at Hebrews 9:11 that will bear out what I've said here about God's dwelling place, about this "true tent" that Jehovah put up as His own dwelling in the spiritual heavens, for he speaks about "when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come to pass," that he did so, "through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation." Isn't this what Stephen said about God's house at Acts 7:48-50? "What sort of house will you build for me?" IOW, God's 'perfect and true tent,' His abode, is not here on Planet Earth at all. You can look, but you won't find God here anywhere!

    No, @issacaustin, what we see from all of this is that God's home, His dwelling place, is in the heavens, and is "not of this creation."

    @issacaustin wrote:

    The Father, not the Holy Spirit, is Son's god. The Holy Spirit is the helper. This explains how Jesus can be God, yet have a God.

    @djeggnog wrote:

    No, it [doesn't.] The fact that the holy spirit is the active force of God that can bring back to one's mind what things Jesus taught to those that have actually learned these things (John 14:26) (while the holy spirit helps one remember the things learned, it doesn't plant memories into the mind that never existed there!) doesn't explain how Jesus can be God at all. That after his resurrection, Jesus was given immortality by God explains how Jesus is now a God. That Jesus is now immortal is proof that Jesus doesn't have to be the true God to be a God himself, and the fact that [the] God that raised Jesus from the dead gave him immortality is proof that Jesus has a God, someone greater than he.

    @issacaustin wrote:

    Let me say this again if I said it confusingly. I don't think i worded it well. Jesus has a god- the Father, to whom the Son is eternally submissive. Jesus also is God, by nature. In a similar sense we can say Adam and Eve were Cain's head in the Garden. Yet Eve also had a head- whom she was to be submissive, one flesh.

    I think I understand part of your analogy, but let me see if I'm understanding it correctly: Jehovah, the Father, is Jesus' head, and so what you seem to be saying here is that Adam's relationship to his wife, Eve, as being Eve's head corresponds to the relationship that the Father has to His son, as being Jesus' head. Correct?

    Then, to continue the analogy, Jesus is eternally submissive to Jehovah, and so Jesus is 'by nature" God, even as Eve should have been -- let's just say she was -- submissive to her husband, Adam, and so we might conclude that Eve was "by nature" Adam. I'm not sure that this is what you meant to say, but ok.

    You then go on to mention that "Adam and Eve were Cain's head," but you provide no correspondency to this relationship. I believe it could be said that Cain was "by nature" Adam and Eve, since Cain and his parents possessed human nature, but the correspondency I'm missing here is how Cain's submissiveness to his parents relates to anyone else? Do you mean to refer to the submissiveness of the angels in heaven? Or, do you refer to something else altogether? Please clarify this.

    @The Finger:

    c'mon djeggnog in your heart you know Jesus isn't an angel.

    Well, even if Jesus is no longer an angel, then he is certainly a new creation, and so would each one of those in union with Christ be, "a new creation" (2 Corinthians 5:17), each one having spiritual sonship and indestructible lives, all of these created Gods having immortality. Like the apostle Paul wrote at Galatians 6:15, a "new creation is something"!


  • TD
    TD has been one of the resident experts on the Greek language and/or Greek grammar

    That's very kind of you djeggnog, but I'm only in the "competent amatuer" category. We have two PhD's in linguistics participating here who are much more capable in Ancient Greek. "Leolaia" is an historical linguist and "Narkissos" is a professional translator. Both have corrected me more than once. (Probably so gently that few noticed.)

    John 20:28 is not actually in the vocative case, (κυριος would be κυριε if it were) but from the standpoint of antitrinitarianism, that's the whole point. (i.e. That Thomas' statement was not spoken directly to Jesus because it's in the nominative, not the vocative.)

    The problem with this particular objection is that the line between the vocative and the nominative is very, very fuzzy. There are many examples in the LXX and the NT where the nominative case is being used vocatively. We can look at Matthew 16:16 or better yet, compare Matthew 27:46 with Mark 15:34. Even though Matthew and Mark both relate the exact same statement, Matthew uses the vocative case and Mark does not.

  • mkr32208

    It's STUPID because you are arguing whether one made up person is actually three made up people... That is stupid...

  • Podobear

    @peacedog: Not derision Sir, just rebuke. Try being civil to people and stop your churlish approach, and we can enjoy good reading and draw our own conclusions. All the best.

  • Podobear

    @peacedog: I read through your comments as promised; where is the explanation I asked for you. I am attempting to try and understand your reasoning. Who is the God and Father of Jesus as cited in the few Scriptures I have listed? I assert that it is Jehovah, a separate being from Jesus.. I am simply attempting and waiting patiently for your explantion. Thank you.

    Why are you so evasive? If the answer is that you don't have an answer.. why not say so?

    All the best (I am slightly nonplussed at your attitude)


  • Podobear

    @djeggnog: Thank you for your presentation on John 20:28. It was very well put.. Koine Greek is not my forte either (LOL).. but your summary saved me wading through the treacle for peacedog. Great reasoning.

    I am curious as to why peacedog finds it impossible to explain why Jesus himself continues to refer to His God and Father even after his resurrection... why would he need to do so if Jehovah and Jesus were one and the same?

    Would you like to expand your research on the matter, please? Do you think there is sufficient sound argument to show that The Father is Jehovah and that he remains the God and Father of Jesus?

    I think so, so do other posters.. what do you think?... whilst we wait for peacedog.

    Thank you for your fantastic presentations. Very Interesting reading, djeggnog


  • peacedog


    I am curious as to why peacedog finds it impossible to explain why Jesus himself continues to refer to His God and Father even after his resurrection.

    I assume from this that you are of the opinion that Jesus ceased being "the Son" after his resurrection. Otherwise, the question does not make sense...

    On the other hand, I am of the opinion that Jesus continued being "the Son" after his resurrection. This being the case, his reason for referring to "his God and Father even after his resurrection" is self-evident.

    Perhaps the problem here is not my ability to explain, but yours to comprehend...

    Once again I point out that nothing in your question bears on the *nature* of the Son. We know from Heb 1:5 and 1:13 that he is not an angel. What's left? What is his nature?


    me: Please explain how the word "ever" fits with (and supports) your interpretation of these verses.

    eggnog: No, and I believe we're done

    I'm not at all surprised that you refuse to discuss the meaning of "ever" or "at any time" (KJV) in these verses; to do so would ultimately reveal that you are well aware that these verses preclude any possibility of Jesus being an angel. It would also show up your ignorance (read: deceit) in claiming that the wording in the KJV and NWT implies something different than the CEV and NLT.

    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?

    Do you think others don't see through the charade? Your ignorance/deceit has already been noted by those reading this thread: "c'mon djeggnog in your heart you know Jesus isn't an angel".

    I've been at this game long enough to know that jws who frequent so-called "apostate" web sites (in defiance of the WTS) such as yourself have been exposed to the real truth often enough that if they actually cared about TRUTH, they would have embraced it by now.

    You are one of that small group of individuals who (for reasons unknown to me) looks truth straight in the eye, and chooses the lie. My goal in debating persons such as yourself is not to convert you. How could I possibly? You've already seen the truth; you simply don't want it. My goal, eggnog, is to expose you. To expose your faulty reasonings and your illogical arguments and your preference for flip-flopping man-made doctrines over simple statements of scripture. I do this for the sake of others who, unlike you, are truth-seekers.


  • Think About It
    Think About It

    My goal, eggnog, is to expose you. To expose your faulty reasonings and your illogical arguments and your preference for flip-flopping man-made doctrines over simple statements of scripture.

    This thought inside a Trinitarians head shows insanity. Reason & logic equals the Trinity view? You are a nutjob. A flip-flopping man-made doctrine is exactly what historians show the Trinty doctrine is. I looked back at your defense of the Trinity 6 yrs ago and you have gotten no better at defending it and still make it sound ridiculous. You know what would be good? If you did a YouTube video clip defending the Trinity using the Abbott & Costell bit of Who's on First and starring the 3 Stooges. At least we could get a better laugh out of it.

    Think About It

  • yknot

    This disagreement has raged for over a thousand years......

    We once killed each other because of it too....

    Why not be at peace with your opinion and simply pray for the other person..

    Do not go on judging or reviling...

    It only serves to bring out the worst in us all...

    It is a division (not the only one either), that is all it is and it will not be settled until Jesus returns.

    We as Xians are not to seek division but rather unity-- unity in believing Jesus is the Messiah, he completed earthly course and worthy of being King, for us to love God with all our heart, to love others as we love ourself and await his return as faithful servants bearing witness through our lives, words and deeds.

Share this