God is Jesus (page 4)

gravedancer

Why debate one stupid word in one verse when you cannot even provide evidence that the whole book (the Bible) is worth anything?

Alan - you are a riot!!

Valis

Jesus saves!!!! At Kroger...

Sincerely,

District Overbeer

COMF

You boys are getting all distracted with this silly never-ending argument, and you're missing out on the big score. If you paid more attention to the radio, you'd know by now:

Jesus done left Chicago
And he's bound for New Orleans.

Better get on down here, or

You might not see him in person

Don't feel bad, though:

You don't have to worry
'cause takin' care of business is his name.

Aw, take me with ya, Jesus.

COMF

A book of verses underneath the bough,
A jug of wine, a loaf of bread--and thou
Beside me singing in the wilderness
Oh, wilderness were paradise enow!

LucidSky

AlanF - Great posts. Always worth a read.

Good discussion, but I agree that debating the Trinity rarely convinces anyone. There's too much heritage behind it.

If anyone is interested there is a booklet (work in progress I think) that compares scriptures side-by-side showing the arguments from both (actually four) sides. The Great Debate Regarding The Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/grdebate.html

AlanF

To Kenneson:

:: The simple fact is that the Greek theos has an extremely wide range of meaning withing its basic meaning of 'powerful entity, powerful man, powerful ruler, angel, god, etc.'

: Yet John 1:1 also says "the Word was with God."

Literally, the Greek in John 1:1b is:

kai ho logos en pros ton theon
and the word was toward the god Note the definite article ton ("the") before theon ("god"). This construction, plus the context, indicates that "the god" John spoke of is "the One True God" of Jews and Christians, which in English is usually written "God". So here, both a standard New Testament language construction together with the context indicates just which "god" or theos is being spoken of.

: Is the Father also one of those "powerful supernatural beings?"

Of course. That's what theos means.

: Any distinction or do we just have a number of powerful supernatural beings?

Both statements are true, except for the "just". See above.

To gravedancer:

I have my reasons for doing this. Among other things, I dislike the condescending self-assurance that many of the preachers who come on this board display when they try to convert confused ex-JWs over to their brand of cult. This is exactly the same sort of self-congratulatory presumptuousness that so many Jehovah's Witnesses display when they tell themselves, "Only we have the truth!" Most trinitarians, like most JWs, are abysmally ignorant of the basis for their beliefs. Yet they think they know it all. I enjoy showing that they don't.

AlanF

Kenneson

Alan F. writes: "Both statements are true, except for the "just".
See above.

So is the Bible teaching monotheism, polytheism, or henotheism?
Does this make the Father one among equal powerful supernatural beings?

LittleToe

Hi Alan,

Enjoyed your posts, as usual.

As for me oversimplifying the Trinity doctrine, that was my intention.
I wasn't providing supporting evidence for or against the concept, just trying to distill it down into it's most easily digested form.

You raise so many issues in your posts.
Any chance you can condense it down to the main questions or points that you contest?
(That isn't a grievance, incidentally - I really do enjoy your posts and research)

As for the "category" God, I believe the conccept still holds.
There is a category "God" (just the one), therefore any other attempt at being categorised as "a god" renders the occupant of that category a "false god".

Kenneston:
"Does this make the Father one among equal powerful supernatural beings?"
Essentially, yes.

AlanF

To Kenneson:

: So is the Bible teaching monotheism, polytheism, or henotheism?

Henotheism.

Now you answer a question: When the Bible teaches that Satan is "the god of this world", is it lying?

: Does this make the Father one among equal powerful supernatural beings?

Clearly not. The Father is God. Jesus is either God or god (using the Greek meaning of theos). Satan is -- well, you tell me. And of course, the Bible also states that there are many gods.

To LittleToe:

: You raise so many issues in your posts.

That's my intent.

: Any chance you can condense it down to the main questions or points that you contest?

That would be difficult, as there are so many aspects to this topic. Let me give it some thought.

: As for the "category" God, I believe the conccept still holds. There is a category "God" (just the one), therefore any other attempt at being categorised as "a god" renders the occupant of that category a "false god".

Please explain your reasoning, in light of my comments below.

Yes, there is a category "God", and the being we call "God" is the only entity in it. But that ignores the fact that the Bible itself states that there are many gods. How does a trinitarian get around that fact? Simple: they claim that all of these other gods are "false gods". But that doesn't do at all. I've already discussed this in the thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=25376&site=3&page=3 , so I won't repeat it here, except to say that a belief that other gods exist, in the meaning of the Greek theos, is not Biblically wrong. It is the worship of gods other than God that is wrong. This "polytheism argument" is yet another poor argument invented by trinitarians to confuse their opponents.

AlanF

LucidSky

As for the "category" God, I believe the conccept still holds.
There is a category "God" (just the one), therefore any other attempt at being categorised as "a god" renders the occupant of that category a "false god".

Hello LittleToe.

[Adding to what AlanF already stated.]
Calling something either "God" (in the absolute sense) or a "false god" could be considered a false dichotomy. What if there happen to be more than two categories when applying this term? "God", like "Lord", "King", "Father", "Savior", etc. can be applied in an absolute sense, as well as lesser sense without being false. David was called King and Lord but it did not make him false simply because his kingship and lordship was not absolute.

LittleToe

Anyone tackled the experiential aspect of Father Son and Holy Spirit being able to be in simultaneous places at the same time, whereas angels can be delayed (as in Daniel)?

Lucid:
I think that your extra categories fall down because they involve respect, not worship.
When we talk of godship we imply that worship is involved.
Since we are then faced with the conundrum of not worshipping false gods, we have some decisions to make. That issue doesn't really come up with Lord's and kings, unless they set themselves up as gods.

Love the feet, btw

Alan:
I hope you don't mind, but I want to reread that thread, that you refer to, as well as this one, before I reply to your comments.
Like you, I'm not really into rehashing ALL the same arguments time and time again.

Meanwhile, keep raising the issues. It's the only way to make people think, and you do it so well!

God is Jesus

Share this