Posts by UnDisfellowshipped

457

TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else

by UnDisfellowshipped in

trinity challenge using only the new world translation of the holy scriptures -- let us debate and reason on the scriptures about whether god almighty is a trinity, or is only one person.. on another thread, bane said that we know for a fact immediately that nearly all religions other than jehovah's witnesses are false because almost all of them believe in the trinity.

and bane claims he can "out-scripturize" anyone with the help of jehovah.

* the son was praying to the father.

UnDisfellowshipped

I apologize -- there was some sort of formatting glitch in my post above. I will try to make sure that doesn't happen again, if I can figure out what happened. lol

457

TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else

by UnDisfellowshipped in

trinity challenge using only the new world translation of the holy scriptures -- let us debate and reason on the scriptures about whether god almighty is a trinity, or is only one person.. on another thread, bane said that we know for a fact immediately that nearly all religions other than jehovah's witnesses are false because almost all of them believe in the trinity.

and bane claims he can "out-scripturize" anyone with the help of jehovah.

* the son was praying to the father.

UnDisfellowshipped

djeggnog said:

"I have read many of the threads in which you either started or in which you were an active participant, @Undisfellowshipped, but I'm pretty sure that you are not able to discuss your faith in Trinity, let alone debate it reasonably with others (you wrote "debate and reason"), so I'm just going to do my best here to help you to focus on your own topic, assuming this is something that you believe you are prepared to do. Anything extraneous that you decide to inject into this discussion will not be given any consideration and such will be unceremoniously "shown the door," as it were, since these discussions about the Trinity do tend to go off the proverbial rails, and I, like the man, Jehonadad (about whom I'm sure folks that have read the Bible and do not just make John 1:1, John 8:58 and John 20:28 their "gospel" and whole reason for living), do not tolerate any rivalry toward Jehovah. I suppose it's just a character defect, so I've learned to live with it."

My Reply:

I commend you for not tolerating any rivalry toward Jehovah and for being like Jehonadad. I give you my word that I will do my utmost to remain focused on the topic (Trinity Debate using the New World Translation) and will do my best not to allow myself to get distracted or go off-topic.

djeggnog said:

"Were someone to issue to them such a taunt, I can appreciate how one might be a bit reluctant to step into the fray and ruckus that typically accompanies such "anything goes" discussions had about the Trinity. If I happen to someone that believes the things the Bible says to have been written to Jehovah's Witnesses that they might survive the coming day of judgment, then it is a reasonable conclusion to draw that I must also be of the belief that all other religions, whether they be of the "Christian" variety or any of the non-Christian and atheist "faiths," are false, regardless of whether any one of these Christian or non-Christian faiths should believe the Trinity to have some merit or believe Elvis is still alive. Now I don't know Bane and have only read some of the messages that he has posted to this forum, and while he strikes me as being someone that is full of faith, he also comes off as someone that enjoys patting himself on the back for the things of the spirit that he has come to learn as if he did not receive what things he knows from someone else. (1 Corinthians 4:7)"
My Reply:

I was not trying to "taunt" anyone, but was attempting to get Bane to reason from the Scriptures and compare Scripture with Scripture instead of just making baseless claims and name-calling and condemning everyone here to Gehenna.

I think your assessment of Bane is probably accurate (1 Corinthians 4:7).

I was simply letting everyone (including any "observers" or onlookers watching this thread) know that the Trinity Doctrine I believe in is the same one that is taught by the majority of churches. In other words, I had not come up with a new or strange "Trinity Doctrine."

djeggnog said:
"Anyway, I numbered each of the eight (8) items you mentioned above so that we can focus on just these items as you go on to prove each one of them using the NWT Bible."

Thank you! That was a smart helpful idea.

djeggnog said:
"Note that excluded from your list are the following items which are unacceptable in a discussion of the Trinity where the discussion centers around the three Persons said to be one God, for there is nothing at all "three-ish" in any of the following six (6) items that had been included in your post: [...] I don't say that you cannot or even should not believe any of these things in your list that are excluded, for you are certainly free to believe whatever it is you wish to believe, even as I also have such freedom, but you don't get to "stack the deck" by tossing into this discussion things that are totally irrelevant to it."
My Reply:

I will do my utmost to make sure I only include information that is relevant to our discussion/debate.

djeggnog said:
" All I ask is that you do your best to stay focused, for I will withdraw from this discussion (or debate) if you should introduce arguments that have nothing at all to do with proving the Trinity to be a Bible-based doctrine using the New World Translation of the Holy Scripture. "
My Reply:

I will do my best to stay focused. And I understand why you would withdraw if this debate or discussion goes "off-track" or off-topic.
We are agreed that this debate/discussion will be about whether the Trinity Doctrine is taught or supported in the Bible, using the New World Translation.
With that said, would it be acceptable to you that if we have a disagreement about the meaning of a word or phrase, or, for instance, if I lack knowledge about what a certain word or phrase means, we can use dictionaries (Bible dictionaries and English dictionaries) to determine the proper meanings?
Also, the New World Translation that I am using is the 1984 New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures with References (Footnotes). Would it be acceptable to you for us to also discuss the further information that is found in the Footnotes and Appendix in that Translation?
In addition, would it be acceptable to bring into this discussion certain information that we find helpful from the "Insight" Books or "Reasoning" Book (Published by Jehovah's Witnesses)? For example, if there is information in those books which give the meanings of certain words or phrases or passages of Scripture that may have a bearing on the Trinity? (We could even call this supplemental information from the "Insight" and "Reasoning" Books "Translators' Notes" since they were published by the same group that translated the New World Translation).
My main points will all be taken from the New World Translation Reference Bible, and if you prefer, we will use only the New World Translation and NO other Watchtower Publications. Your choice there.
djeggnog said:
"Why does it matter that the Protestant and Catholic churches teach the Trinity doctrine? There are non-denominational churches that teach that embrace the teaching on the Trinity, too, churches like yourself, for example, since I did read one of your messages in this thread in which you indicated that you do not promote any "church or religious group," so why bring this up when it is enough that you and your church of one is out here in the world defending the Trinity?"
My Reply:

I posted that in an effort to show that I do not agree with those who claimed to be Trinitarians of past ages who abused or murdered people (in the "Catholic Ages") and also with anyone nowdays who claims to worship the Trinity and who wrongs others.

The Watchtower Society is always "exposing" Trinitarian religions of the past (and modern times) for all of their "wickedness" and "hypocrisy" and for failing to apologize or acknowledge their past sins, and are therefore bloodguilty before Jehovah.

I was attempting to show that I do not agree with evil actions of people who claim to worship the Trinity, and am sorry that they have does such wicked things in the Name of God, just as I am sure you feel the same about those individuals who have done wicked things in the Name of Jehovah, or who claimed to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

With that being said, I do not believe it is fair to judge a doctrine based solely on the actions of professed believers. If so, we would have to throw out the entire Bible due to wicked people claiming to follow the Bible.

So, we should not judge the Trinity Doctrine based on the actions of some of its professed believers, just as we should not judge Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrines based on the harmful actions of some individuals claiming to be Jehovah's Witnesses.

djeggnog said:
"Why do you care that folks are making a "study in the Scriptures" and that they are thinking for themselves if you are not, as you say, here promoting either a church or a religious group?"
My Reply:

I am a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ, and I am humbly trying to do my small part in obeying my Lord's "Great Commission" to go and preach and teach and make disciples of people for the Lord.

Jesus said "Come to Me", He did not say "Come to this certain church building or church group."

John 17:3 says that getting to know (or "taking in knowledge of") God and Jesus means everlasting life. That sounds pretty important to me, and I am sure it is equally important to you as well.

I try to imitate Paul, the Noble-Minded Beroeans (Acts 17:11) and most of all, Christ Jesus.

Having a personal relationship with God, believing in the Ransom, and having His Spirit is far more important than belonging to a certain group or going to a certain building. (John 4:21-24)

Luke 9:49-50 (NWT):
In response John said: "Instructor, we saw a certain man expelling demons by the use of your name and we tried to prevent him, because he is not following with us." But Jesus said to him: "Do not you men try to prevent [him], for he that is not against you is for you."

djeggnog said:
"Do you think that encouraging others to take up a study of the Scriptures, as you are doing, isn't the same as your promoting a sect?"
My Reply:

The same accusation was made against Paul and the early disciples, and probably was made against the Noble-Minded Beroeans of Acts 17:11-12, as well.

How can it ever be wrong to encourage people to study the Scriptures daily? In fact, isn't that posted on the outside of one of the Bethel buildings in New York?

djeggnog said:
"When you say this, are you not also speaking to the atheists among us here? Why should they be interested in joining your sect when most atheists do tend to think for themselves, and typically they don't profess believe in a god, in any god (let alone a "Trinity" God!), which is kind of why these folks often refer to themselves as atheists?"
My Reply:

I am not promoting a "sect" or a "group" of any kind. My only goal here is to point people toward the True God, the True Jesus, the True Spirit, and the Holy Inspired Word of God, that they may have a personal relationship with God and be saved. Then, as God leads them, they can join any church or group that they believe teaches the truth of the Bible. Or, they can choose not to join any group. That is the freedom they have.

This thread is primarily going to be much more beneficial for those who already believe in the Bible.

I would recommend to any atheists reading this that they research more about the lines of evidence that point to the existence of an Intelligent Designer and Law-Giver.

You would probably want to believe in a God before you debate about whether He is a Trinity or not.

djeggnog said:
"Why do you feel the need to be among the first "to apologize on behalf of all Trinitarians" for anyone's behavior and actions?"
My Reply:

djeggnog said:
"Please explain why someone that doesn't believe that the Trinity doctrine has scriptural support should not believe in Unitarianism? I don't follow your logic here, considering that Trinitarianism is not the same as Unitarianism, and unless you are claiming that Unitarianism is the very antithesis of belief in the Trinity -- which I don't believe you are saying here -- then it makes no real sense for you to have said this."
My Reply:

Unitarianism, as I understand it, is the belief that God is only One Person, The Father of Jesus, and that God is NOT a Trinity.

I was simply saying, if you believe that the Bible teaches that God is Three Persons with One Nature, then you should believe that, however, if you believe the Bible teaches that God is One Person, then you should believe that.

At least (I hope) both of us can agree that the Bible should have the final say on all matters of doctrine or spiritual things or beliefs that we have.

djeggnog said:
"I'm open to hearing your arguments for Trinitarianism, but what is this "other side"? I'm willing to discuss and listen to your interpretation of the Bible texts in the NWT that you claim provide support for the Trinity doctrine, but why should others be open to listening to your arguments or to discussing the Scriptures and your take on what they mean?"

My Reply:

The "other side" of Trinitarians would be those who do not believe in the Trinity, primarily I was referring to those who believe God is the Father of Jesus and NOT Three Persons.

I hope that what I post will spur people on to have a desire to study the Scriptures and seek the truth and the true God with all their hearts, souls, and minds.

It's a free country (here in the USA) and a free Internet (unless you're in China, North Korea, or the Middle East), so anyone who does not wish to read what I post can choose to ignore this thread. That is the beauty of our God-given freedom and liberty.

457

TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else

by UnDisfellowshipped in

trinity challenge using only the new world translation of the holy scriptures -- let us debate and reason on the scriptures about whether god almighty is a trinity, or is only one person.. on another thread, bane said that we know for a fact immediately that nearly all religions other than jehovah's witnesses are false because almost all of them believe in the trinity.

and bane claims he can "out-scripturize" anyone with the help of jehovah.

* the son was praying to the father.

UnDisfellowshipped

Designs said:

"Really, try promoting Unitarianism as Official Church teaching someday, go to the National Council and put that on the voting dockit................ Same goes for any Protestant group, I used the example of the Presbyterian Church and challenging the Westminster Confession , you'll see how open they are real fast. Protestants generally are not as wacky as Stephen and Perry's Fundamentalism, but open to core doctrinal challenges- not close."

By the same token, why not try promoting Intelligent Design ideas in a room full of evolutionists or atheists.

Or, why not try to disprove man-made "Global Warming" in a room full of scientists who work for the U.N. Climate Change Group?

Try promoting Christianity to a gathering of atheists.

See how "open-minded" all of them are.

90

1914 Doctrine is FALSE -- Questions for JW's

by UnDisfellowshipped in

jw
friends

is there any jehovah's witness who can answer these questions about 1914?.

can you demonstrate, using the holy scriptures, that the messianic kingdom was established in 1914, that jesus got the full legal right to become king that year, and that jesus returned invisibly in 1914, and that the "last days" began that year?.

1:) no encyclopedia, no history book, and no archaeology book that i have ever seen have ever said that nebuchadnezzar destroyed jerusalem and the temple in the year 607 bce.

UnDisfellowshipped

This is a formatting test to see what is going on with the formatting on my text when i posted my last post right above.

The letters started out okay, then they shrank and shrank.... and finally faded away.

Does BOLD work? Italics? Underline?

Larger Font?

90

1914 Doctrine is FALSE -- Questions for JW's

by UnDisfellowshipped in

jw
friends

is there any jehovah's witness who can answer these questions about 1914?.

can you demonstrate, using the holy scriptures, that the messianic kingdom was established in 1914, that jesus got the full legal right to become king that year, and that jesus returned invisibly in 1914, and that the "last days" began that year?.

1:) no encyclopedia, no history book, and no archaeology book that i have ever seen have ever said that nebuchadnezzar destroyed jerusalem and the temple in the year 607 bce.

UnDisfellowshipped

For BANE:

The Watchtower, August 15th, 1968, Pages 499-501:

Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ. If these two periods run parallel with each other as to the calendar year, it will not be by mere chance or accident but will be according to Jehovah’s loving and timely purposes. Our chronology, however, which is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible), at the best only points to the autumn of 1975 as the end of 6,000 years of man’s existence on earth. It does not necessarily mean that 1975 marks the end of the first 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh creative "day." Why not? Because after his creation Adam lived some time during the "sixth day," which unknown amount of time would need to be subtracted from Adam’s 930 years, to determine when the sixth seven-thousand-year period or "day" ended, and how long Adam lived into the "seventh day." And yet the end of that sixth creative "day" could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years.

31 In regard to Adam’s creation it is good to read carefully what the Bible says. Moses in compiling the book of Genesis referred to written records or "histories" that predated the Flood. The first of these begins with Genesis 1:1 and ends at Genesis 2:4 with the words, "This is the history of the heavens and the earth . . . " The second historical document begins with Genesis 2:5 and ends with verse two of chapter five. Hence we have two separate accounts of creation from slightly different points of view. In the second of these accounts, in Genesis 2:19, the original Hebrew verb translated "was forming" is in the progressive imperfect form. This does not mean that the animals and birds were created after Adam was created. Genesis 1:20-28 shows it does not mean that. So, in order to avoid contradiction between chapter one and chapter two, Genesis 2:19, 20 must be only a parenthetical remark thrown in to explain the need for creating a "helper" for man. So the progressive Hebrew verb form could also be rendered as "had been forming."—See Rotherham’s translation (Ro), also Leeser’s (Le).

32 These two creation accounts in the book of Genesis, though differing slightly in the treatment of the material, are in perfect agreement with each other on all points, including the fact that Eve was created after Adam. So not until after this event did the sixth creative day come to an end. Exactly how soon after Adam’s creation is not disclosed. "Afterthat [Adam and Eve’s creation] God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day." (Gen. 1:31) After the sixth creative day ends, the seventh one begins.

33 This time between Adam’s creation and the beginning of the seventh day, the day of rest, let it be noted, need not have been a long time. It could have been a rather short one. The naming of the animals by Adam, and his discovery that there was no complement for himself, required no great length of time. The animals were in subjection to Adam; they were peaceful; they came under God’s leading; they were not needing to be chased down and caught. It took Noah only seven days to get the same kinds of animals, male and female, into the Ark. (Gen. 7:1-4) Eve’s creation was quickly accomplished, ‘while Adam was sleeping.’ (Gen. 2:21) So the lapse of time between Adam’s creation and the end of the sixth creative day, though unknown, was a comparatively short period of time. The pronouncement at the end of the sixth day, "God saw everything he had made and, look! it was verygood," proves that the beginning of the great seventh day of the creative week did not wait until after Adam and Eve sinned and were expelled from the Garden of Eden.

1975!...AND FAR BEYOND!

34 Bible chronology is an interesting study by which historic events are placed in their order of occurrence along the stream of time. The Watch Tower Society over the years has endeavored to keep its associates abreast with the latest scholarship that proves consistent with historic and prophetic events recorded in the Scriptures. Major problems in sacred chronology have been straightened out either due to fulfillment of Bible prophecies or by reason of archaeological discoveries or because better Bible translations convey more clearly the records of the original languages. However, several knotty problems of chronology of a minor nature are not yet resolved. For example, at the time of the exodus from Egypt when Jehovah changed the beginning of the year from autumn time on the secular calendar to spring time on the sacred calendar, was there, in the Jewish calendar, a loss or a gain of six months?—Ex. 12:1, 2.

35 One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that "concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father." (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end. Make no mistake, it is sufficient that the Father himself knows both the "day and hour"!

36 Even if one cannot see beyond 1975, is this any reason to be less active? The apostles could not see even this far; they knew nothing about 1975. All they could see was a short time ahead in which to finish the work assigned to them. (1 Pet. 4:7) Hence, there was a ring of alarm and a cry of urgency in all their writings. (Acts 20:20; 2 Tim. 4:2) And rightly so. If they had delayed or dillydallied and had been complacent with the idea the end was some thousands of years off they would never have finished running the race set before them. No, they ran hard and they ran fast, and they won! It was a life or death matter with them.—1 Cor. 9:24; 2 Tim. 4:7; Heb. 12:1.

37 So too with Jehovah’s faithful witnesses in this latter half of the twentieth century. They have the true Christian point of view. Their strenuous evangelistic activity is not something peculiar to this present decade. They have not dedicated their lives to serve Jehovah only until 1975. Christians have been running this way ever since Christ Jesus blazed the trail and commanded his disciples. "Follow me!" So keep this same mental attitude in you that was in Christ Jesus. Let nothing slow you down or cause you to tire and give out. Those who will flee Babylon the Great and this Satanic system of things are now running for their lives, headed for God’s kingdom, and they will not stop at 1975. O no! They will keep on in this glorious way thatleads to everlasting life, praising and serving Jehovah for ever and ever!

151

God, Morals, and Atheists

by UnDisfellowshipped in

my version of the "moral argument for god": .

(i have derived the following arguments after studying c.s.

lewis', norman geisler's, and victor reppert's arguments, and i want to give credit where credit is due).

UnDisfellowshipped

Bohm said:

"bah, simply not true. So your telling me im a bad atheist because i think rape is 100% wrong? As i allready explained, Evolution WOULD give us morals, because morals has enourmeous UTILLITY."

My Reply:

If you truly believe that only nature and natural laws, processes etc. exist, then there is NO outside authority behind any moral thoughts you may have.

Anyone can do anything they desire and there will be no ultimate Judge or Law-Giver to face.

151

God, Morals, and Atheists

by UnDisfellowshipped in

my version of the "moral argument for god": .

(i have derived the following arguments after studying c.s.

lewis', norman geisler's, and victor reppert's arguments, and i want to give credit where credit is due).

UnDisfellowshipped

Bohm said:

"which is why the bible never tell us slavery is wrong, or that women and men are equal"

Actually, the Apostle Paul did teach that slavery is wrong and that men and women are ONE in Christ.

151

God, Morals, and Atheists

by UnDisfellowshipped in

my version of the "moral argument for god": .

(i have derived the following arguments after studying c.s.

lewis', norman geisler's, and victor reppert's arguments, and i want to give credit where credit is due).

UnDisfellowshipped

Bohm said:

"The societies/tribes which did not have moral laws hard coded into them from birth would either die out, or be out-competed by those who had. Thats why you and I have morals hard-coded into them."

My Reply:

But what scientific evidence do you have that shows that morals evolved naturally, and what does science show about HOW morals would have evolved naturally?

Specifically, what about self-sacrificing morals, such as willingly sacrificing your own life to save a stranger's life?

Or stepping in and putting your life on the line to protect a woman you don't know from being raped?

Does science explain how those morals ever developed or evolved naturally?

How would self-sacrificing morals help that tribe SURVIVE?

If everyone developed self-sacrificing morals, then wouldn't MORE of that tribe die out faster?

151

God, Morals, and Atheists

by UnDisfellowshipped in

my version of the "moral argument for god": .

(i have derived the following arguments after studying c.s.

lewis', norman geisler's, and victor reppert's arguments, and i want to give credit where credit is due).

UnDisfellowshipped

Bohm, here is what I am talking about when I say "atheistic worldview" or "naturalistic worldview":

Definition of "Naturalism" from Wikipedia.com:

"In its broadest and strongest sense, naturalism is the metaphysical position that "nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature." This is generally referred to as metaphysical or ontological naturalism."

Definition of "Naturalism" from Merriam-Webster.com:

"a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance ; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena."

Definition of "Naturalism" from Princeton's website:

"the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations."

Definition of "Naturalism" from Wiktionary.com:

"The doctrine that denies a supernatural agency in the miracles and revelations recorded in the Bible, and in spiritual influences; Any system of philosophy which refers the phenomena of nature as a blind force or forces acting necessarily."

And, here is how Victor Reppert described the Materialistic Naturalist Worldview in his book called "C.S. Lewis' Dangerous Idea":

1:) The physical level is to be understood mechanistically, such that purposive explanations must be further explained in terms of non-purposive substratum.

2:) The physical order is causally closed. No nonphysical causes operate on the physical level. The physical level is a comprehensive system of events that is not affected by anything that is not itself physical.

151

God, Morals, and Atheists

by UnDisfellowshipped in

my version of the "moral argument for god": .

(i have derived the following arguments after studying c.s.

lewis', norman geisler's, and victor reppert's arguments, and i want to give credit where credit is due).

UnDisfellowshipped

Bohm,

You said that it was the atheistic worldview which "

has sure cured a hell of a lot more illnesses than the former thestic explanation."

Bohm, Do you have any references showing that they were atheist scientists who discovered the cures to all those illnesses? Were the original modern scientists atheists? Did they subscribe to an atheist worldview?