|
PrehistoricMan
-
Posts
484 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Forums
Calendar
Store
Musicbox
Posts posted by PrehistoricMan
-
-
You guys are the ones who are to be pitied. You will find out that you entire belief system was wrong. My hands are free from your blood.
I have courage. The mob doesnt. We cannot even have a conversation without you bullies giving me reds. Notice I havent given any of you reds.
Because you are ignorant bullies. You know nothing of the Bible and refuse to even consider you might be wrong. My verses destroyed your points. Did you even consider them? No. Because you live in an echo chamber.
IF I continue here with people that do not want to reason, you will just gang up on me bullying me with reds. That is not cool and you are not real christians by your actions.
But again these writings are not for you. IT is for others that might read this. JWs do not go door to door anymore. The latest info is we will not be offering bible studies anymore. You people have had enough time. The next time we go door to door will be just to tell the people they will die. That will be a sad yet exciting time.
Trinity — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY (jw.org)
Trinity
Definition: The central doctrine of religions of Christendom. According to the Athanasian Creed, there are three divine Persons (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost), each said to be eternal, each said to be almighty, none greater or less than another, each said to be God, and yet together being but one God. Other statements of the dogma emphasize that these three “Persons” are not separate and distinct individuals but are three modes in which the divine essence exists. Thus some Trinitarians emphasize their belief that Jesus Christ is God, or that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are Jehovah. Not a Bible teaching.
What is the origin of the Trinity doctrine?
The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.
In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.
According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.
John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.
Even though, as Trinitarians acknowledge, neither the word “Trinity” nor a statement of the Trinitarian dogma is found in the Bible, are the concepts that are embodied in that dogma found there?
Does the Bible teach that the “Holy Spirit” is a person?
Some individual texts that refer to the holy spirit (“Holy Ghost,” KJ) might seem to indicate personality. For example, the holy spirit is referred to as a helper (Greek, pa·raʹkle·tos; “Comforter,” KJ; “Advocate,” JB, NE) that ‘teaches,’ ‘bears witness,’ ‘speaks’ and ‘hears.’ (John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:13) But other texts say that people were “filled” with holy spirit, that some were ‘baptized’ with it or “anointed” with it. (Luke 1:41; Matt. 3:11; Acts 10:38) These latter references to holy spirit definitely do not fit a person. To understand what the Bible as a whole teaches, all these texts must be considered. What is the reasonable conclusion? That the first texts cited here employ a figure of speech personifying God’s holy spirit, his active force, as the Bible also personifies wisdom, sin, death, water, and blood. (See also pages 380, 381, under the heading “Spirit.”)
The Holy Scriptures tell us the personal name of the Father—Jehovah. They inform us that the Son is Jesus Christ. But nowhere in the Scriptures is a personal name applied to the holy spirit.
Acts 7:55, 56 reports that Stephen was given a vision of heaven in which he saw “Jesus standing at God’s right hand.” But he made no mention of seeing the holy spirit. (See also Revelation 7:10; 22:1, 3.)
The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God.” (1967, Vol. XIII, p. 575) It also reports: “The Apologists [Greek Christian writers of the second century] spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally.”—Vol. XIV, p. 296.
Does the Bible agree with those who teach that the Father and the Son are not separate and distinct individuals?
Matt. 26:39, RS: “Going a little farther he [Jesus Christ] fell on his face and prayed, ‘My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.’” (If the Father and the Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father’s will.)
John 8:17, 18, RS: “[Jesus answered the Jewish Pharisees:] In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.” (So, Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and distinct from the Father.)
See also pages 197, 198, under “Jehovah.”
Does the Bible teach that all who are said to be part of the Trinity are eternal, none having a beginning?
Col. 1:15, 16, RS: “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth.” In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”? (1) Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons. (2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof? (3) Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says “in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him”? The Greek word here rendered “all things” is panʹta, an inflected form of pas. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this “all . . . other”; JB reads “any other”; NE says “anyone else.” (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to panʹta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, “by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him.” Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God.
Rev. 1:1; 3:14, RS: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him . . . ‘And to the angel of the church in La-odicea write: “The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [Greek, ar·kheʹ] of God’s creation.”’” (KJ, Dy, CC, and NW, as well as others, read similarly.) Is that rendering correct? Some take the view that what is meant is that the Son was ‘the beginner of God’s creation,’ that he was its ‘ultimate source.’ But Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon lists “beginning” as its first meaning of ar·kheʹ. (Oxford, 1968, p. 252) The logical conclusion is that the one being quoted at Revelation 3:14 is a creation, the first of God’s creations, that he had a beginning. Compare Proverbs 8:22, where, as many Bible commentators agree, the Son is referred to as wisdom personified. According to RS, NE, and JB, the one there speaking is said to be “created.”)
Prophetically, with reference to the Messiah, Micah 5:2 (KJ) says his “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Dy reads: “his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity.” Does that make him the same as God? It is noteworthy that, instead of saying “days of eternity,” RS renders the Hebrew as “ancient days”; JB, “days of old”; NW, “days of time indefinite.” Viewed in the light of Revelation 3:14, discussed above, Micah 5:2 does not prove that Jesus was without a beginning.
Does the Bible teach that none of those who are said to be included in the Trinity is greater or less than another, that all are equal, that all are almighty?
Mark 13:32, RS: “Of that day or that hour no ones knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Of course, that would not be the case if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coequal, comprising one Godhead. And if, as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?)
Matt. 20:20-23, RS: “The mother of the sons of Zebedee . . . said to him [Jesus], ‘Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.’ But Jesus answered, . . . ‘You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.’” (How strange, if, as claimed, Jesus is God! Was Jesus here merely answering according to his “human nature”? If, as Trinitarians say, Jesus was truly “God-man”—both God and man, not one or the other—would it truly be consistent to resort to such an explanation? Does not Matthew 20:23 rather show that the Son is not equal to the Father, that the Father has reserved some prerogatives for himself?)
Matt. 12:31, 32, RS: “Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” (If the Holy Spirit were a person and were God, this text would flatly contradict the Trinity doctrine, because it would mean that in some way the Holy Spirit was greater than the Son. Instead, what Jesus said shows that the Father, to whom the “Spirit” belonged, is greater than Jesus, the Son of man.)
John 14:28, RS: “[Jesus said:] If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.”
1 Cor. 11:3, RS: “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” (Clearly, then, Christ is not God, and God is of superior rank to Christ. It should be noted that this was written about 55 C.E., some 22 years after Jesus returned to heaven. So the truth here stated applies to the relationship between God and Christ in heaven.)
1 Cor. 15:27, 28 RS: “‘God has put all things in subjection under his [Jesus’] feet.’ But when it says, ‘All things are put in subjection under him,’ it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.”
The Hebrew word Shad·daiʹ and the Greek word Pan·to·kraʹtor are both translated “Almighty.” Both original-language words are repeatedly applied to Jehovah, the Father. (Ex. 6:3; Rev. 19:6) Neither expression is ever applied to either the Son or the holy spirit.
Does the Bible teach that each of those said to be part of the Trinity is God?
Jesus said in prayer: “Father, . . . this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:1-3, RS; italics added.) (Most translations here use the expression “the only true God” with reference to the Father. NE reads “who alone art truly God.” He cannot be “the only true God,” the one “who alone [is] truly God,” if there are two others who are God to the same degree as he is, can he? Any others referred to as “gods” must be either false or merely a reflection of the true God.)
1 Cor. 8:5, 6, RS: “Although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” (This presents the Father as the “one God” of Christians and as being in a class distinct from Jesus Christ.)
1 Pet. 1:3, RS: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!” (Repeatedly, even following Jesus’ ascension to heaven, the Scriptures refer to the Father as “the God” of Jesus Christ. At John 20:17, following Jesus’ resurrection, he himself spoke of the Father as “my God.” Later, when in heaven, as recorded at Revelation 3:12, he again used the same expression. But never in the Bible is the Father reported to refer to the Son as “my God,” nor does either the Father or the Son refer to the holy spirit as “my God.”)
For comments on scriptures used by some in an effort to prove that Christ is God, see pages 212-216, under the heading “Jesus Christ.”
In Theological Investigations, Karl Rahner, S.J., admits: “Θεός [God] is still never used of the Spirit,” and: “ὁ θεός [literally, the God] is never used in the New Testament to speak of the πνεῦμα ἅγιον [holy spirit].”—(Baltimore, Md.; 1961), translated from German, Vol. I, pp. 138, 143.
Do any of the scriptures that are used by Trinitarians to support their belief provide a solid basis for that dogma?
A person who is really seeking to know the truth about God is not going to search the Bible hoping to find a text that he can construe as fitting what he already believes. He wants to know what God’s Word itself says. He may find some texts that he feels can be read in more than one way, but when these are compared with other Biblical statements on the same subject their meaning will become clear. It should be noted at the outset that most of the texts used as “proof” of the Trinity actually mention only two persons, not three; so even if the Trinitarian explanation of the texts were correct, these would not prove that the Bible teaches the Trinity. Consider the following:
(Unless otherwise indicated, all the texts quoted in the following section are from RS.)
Texts in which a title that belongs to Jehovah is applied to Jesus Christ or is claimed to apply to Jesus
Alpha and Omega: To whom does this title properly belong? (1) At Revelation 1:8, its owner is said to be God, the Almighty. In verse 11 according to KJ, that title is applied to one whose description thereafter shows him to be Jesus Christ. But scholars recognize the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 11 to be spurious, and so it does not appear in RS, NE, JB, NAB, Dy. (2) Many translations of Revelation into Hebrew recognize that the one described in verse 8 is Jehovah, and so they restore the personal name of God there. See NW, 1984 Reference edition. (3) Revelation 21:6, 7 indicates that Christians who are spiritual conquerors are to be ‘sons’ of the one known as the Alpha and the Omega. That is never said of the relationship of spirit-anointed Christians to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them as his ‘brothers.’ (Heb. 2:11; Matt. 12:50; 25:40) But those ‘brothers’ of Jesus are referred to as “sons of God.” (Gal. 3:26; 4:6) (4) At Revelation 22:12, TEV inserts the name Jesus, so the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 13 is made to appear to apply to him. But the name Jesus does not appear there in Greek, and other translations do not include it. (5) At Revelation 22:13, the Alpha and Omega is also said to be “the first and the last,” which expression is applied to Jesus at Revelation 1:17, 18. Similarly, the expression “apostle” is applied both to Jesus Christ and to certain ones of his followers. But that does not prove that they are the same person or are of equal rank, does it? (Heb. 3:1) So the evidence points to the conclusion that the title “Alpha and Omega” applies to Almighty God, the Father, not to the Son.
Savior: Repeatedly the Scriptures refer to God as Savior. At Isaiah 43:11 God even says: “Besides me there is no savior.” Since Jesus is also referred to as Savior, are God and Jesus the same? Not at all. Titus 1:3, 4 speaks of “God our Savior,” and then of both “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.” So, both persons are saviors. Jude 25 shows the relationship, saying: “God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Italics added.) (See also Acts 13:23.) At Judges 3:9, the same Hebrew word (moh·shiʹa‛, rendered “savior” or “deliverer”) that is used at Isaiah 43:11 is applied to Othniel, a judge in Israel, but that certainly did not make Othniel Jehovah, did it? A reading of Isaiah 43:1-12 shows that verse 11 means that Jehovah alone was the One who provided salvation, or deliverance, for Israel; that salvation did not come from any of the gods of the surrounding nations.
God: At Isaiah 43:10 Jehovah says: “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” Does this mean that, because Jesus Christ is prophetically called “Mighty God” at Isaiah 9:6, Jesus must be Jehovah? Again, the context answers, No! None of the idolatrous Gentile nations formed a god before Jehovah, because no one existed before Jehovah. Nor would they at a future time form any real, live god that was able to prophesy. (Isa. 46:9, 10) But that does not mean that Jehovah never caused to exist anyone who is properly referred to as a god. (Ps. 82:1, 6; John 1:1, NW) At Isaiah 10:21 Jehovah is referred to as “mighty God,” just as Jesus is in Isaiah 9:6; but only Jehovah is ever called “God Almighty.”—Gen. 17:1.
If a certain title or descriptive phrase is found in more than one location in the Scriptures, it should never hastily be concluded that it must always refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called “king of kings” (Dan. 2:37; Rev. 17:14); and that Jesus’ disciples were actually Jesus Christ, because both were called “the light of the world.” (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12) We should always consider the context and any other instances in the Bible where the same expression occurs.
Application to Jesus Christ by inspired Bible writers of passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that clearly apply to Jehovah
Why does John 1:23 quote Isaiah 40:3 and apply it to what John the Baptizer did in preparing the way for Jesus Christ, when Isaiah 40:3 is clearly discussing preparing the way before Jehovah? Because Jesus represented his Father. He came in his Father’s name and had the assurance that his Father was always with him because he did the things pleasing to his Father.—John 5:43; 8:29.
Why does Hebrews 1:10-12 quote Psalm 102:25-27 and apply it to the Son, when the psalm says that it is addressed to God? Because the Son is the one through whom God performed the creative works there described by the psalmist. (See Colossians 1:15, 16; Proverbs 8:22, 27-30.) It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is “greater than Solomon” and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon.—Luke 11:31.
Scriptures that mention together the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 are instances of this. Neither of these texts says that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coequal or coeternal or that all are God. The Scriptural evidence already presented on pages 408-412 argues against reading such thoughts into the texts.
McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, though advocating the Trinity doctrine, acknowledges regarding Matthew 28:18-20: “This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity.” (1981 reprint, Vol. X, p. 552) Regarding other texts that also mention the three together, this Cyclopedia admits that, taken by themselves, they are “insufficient” to prove the Trinity. (Compare 1 Timothy 5:21, where God and Christ and the angels are mentioned together.)
Texts in which the plural form of nouns is applied to God in the Hebrew Scriptures
At Genesis 1:1 the title “God” is translated from ’Elo·himʹ, which is plural in Hebrew. Trinitarians construe this to be an indication of the Trinity. They also explain Deuteronomy 6:4 to imply the unity of members of the Trinity when it says, “The LORD our God [from ’Elo·himʹ] is one LORD.”
The plural form of the noun here in Hebrew is the plural of majesty or excellence. (See NAB, St. Joseph Edition, Bible Dictionary, p. 330; also, New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. V, p. 287.) It conveys no thought of plurality of persons within a godhead. In similar fashion, at Judges 16:23 when reference is made to the false god Dagon, a form of the title ’elo·himʹ is used; the accompanying verb is singular, showing that reference is to just the one god. At Genesis 42:30, Joseph is spoken of as the “lord” (’adho·nehʹ, the plural of excellence) of Egypt.
The Greek language does not have a ‘plural of majesty or excellence.’ So, at Genesis 1:1 the translators of LXX used ho The·osʹ (God, singular) as the equivalent of ’Elo·himʹ. At Mark 12:29, where a reply of Jesus is reproduced in which he quoted Deuteronomy 6:4, the Greek singular ho The·osʹ is similarly used.
At Deuteronomy 6:4, the Hebrew text contains the Tetragrammaton twice, and so should more properly read: “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” (NW) The nation of Israel, to whom that was stated, did not believe in the Trinity. The Babylonians and the Egyptians worshiped triads of gods, but it was made clear to Israel that Jehovah is different.
Texts from which a person might draw more than one conclusion, depending on the Bible translation used
If a passage can grammatically be translated in more than one way, what is the correct rendering? One that is in agreement with the rest of the Bible. If a person ignores other portions of the Bible and builds his belief around a favorite rendering of a particular verse, then what he believes really reflects, not the Word of God, but his own ideas and perhaps those of another imperfect human.
RS reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” (KJ, Dy, JB, NAB use similar wording.) However, NW reads: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God.”
Which translation of John 1:1, 2 agrees with the context? John 1:18 says: “No one has ever seen God.” Verse 14 clearly says that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . we have beheld his glory.” Also, verses 1, 2 say that in the beginning he was “with God.” Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God”; so, Jesus as “a god” merely reflects his Father’s divine qualities.—Heb. 1:3.
Is the rendering “a god” consistent with the rules of Greek grammar? Some reference books argue strongly that the Greek text must be translated, “The Word was God.” But not all agree. In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.” He suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Thus, in this text, the fact that the word the·osʹ in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on rendering John 1:1, “The Word was God,” do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb. Thus at John 6:70, JB and KJ both refer to Judas Iscariot as “a devil,” and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as “a prophet.”
John J. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317.
In harmony with the above, AT reads: “the Word was divine”; Mo, “the Logos was divine”; NTIV, “the word was a god.” In his German translation Ludwig Thimme expresses it in this way: “God of a sort the Word was.” Referring to the Word (who became Jesus Christ) as “a god” is consistent with the use of that term in the rest of the Scriptures. For example, at Psalm 82:1-6 human judges in Israel were referred to as “gods” (Hebrew, ’elo·himʹ; Greek, the·oiʹ, at John 10:34) because they were representatives of Jehovah and were to speak his law.
See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, p. 1579.
RS reads: “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am [Greek, e·goʹ ei·miʹ].’” (NE, KJ, TEV, JB, NAB all read “I am,” some even using capital letters to convey the idea of a title. Thus they endeavor to connect the expression with Exodus 3:14, where, according to their rendering, God refers to himself by the title “I Am.”) However, in NW the latter part of John 8:58 reads: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” (The same idea is conveyed by the wording in AT, Mo, CBW, and SE.)
Which rendering agrees with the context? The question of the Jews (verse 57) to which Jesus was replying had to do with age, not identity. Jesus’ reply logically dealt with his age, the length of his existence. Interestingly, no effort is ever made to apply e·goʹ ei·miʹ as a title to the holy spirit.
Says A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson: “The verb [ei·miʹ] . . . Sometimes it does express existence as a predicate like any other verb, as in [e·goʹ ei·miʹ] (Jo. 8:58).”—Nashville, Tenn.; 1934, p. 394.
See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, pp. 1582, 1583.
JB reads: “Be on your guard for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you the overseers, to feed the Church of God which he bought with his own blood.” (KJ, Dy, NAB use similar wording.) However, in NW the latter part of the verse reads: “the blood of his own [Son].” (TEV reads similarly. Although the 1953 printing of RS reads “with his own blood,” the 1971 edition reads “with the blood of his own Son.” Ro and Da simply read “the blood of his own.”)
Which rendering(s) agree with 1 John 1:7, which says: “The blood of Jesus his [God’s] Son cleanses us from all sin”? (See also Revelation 1:4-6.) As stated in John 3:16, did God send his only-begotten Son, or did he himself come as a man, so that we might have life? It was the blood, not of God, but of his Son that was poured out.
See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, p. 1580.
JB reads: “They are descended from the patriarchs and from their flesh and blood came Christ who is above all, God for ever blessed! Amen.” (KJ, Dy read similarly.) However, in NW the latter part of the verse reads: “from whom the Christ sprang according to the flesh: God, who is over all, be blessed forever. Amen.” (RS, NE, TEV, NAB, Mo all use wording similar to NW.)
Is this verse saying that Christ is “over all” and that he is therefore God? Or does it refer to God and Christ as distinct individuals and say that God is “over all”? Which rendering of Romans 9:5 agrees with Romans 15:5, 6, which first distinguishes God from Christ Jesus and then urges the reader to “glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”? (See also 2 Corinthians 1:3 and Ephesians 1:3.) Consider what follows in Romans chapter 9. Verses 6-13 show that the outworking of God’s purpose depends not on inheritance according to the flesh but on the will of God. Verses 14-18 refer to God’s message to Pharaoh, as recorded at Exodus 9:16, to highlight the fact that God is over all. In verses 19-24 God’s superiority is further illustrated by an analogy with a potter and the clay vessels that he makes. How appropriate, then, in verse 5, the expression: “God, who is over all, be blessed forever. Amen”!—NW.
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states: “Rom. 9:5 is disputed. . . . It would be easy, and linguistically perfectly possible to refer the expression to Christ. The verse would then read, ‘Christ who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.’ Even so, Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as a being of divine nature, for the word theos has no article. . . . The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology directed to God.”—(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1976), translated from German, Vol. 2, p. 80.
See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, pp. 1580, 1581.
KJ reads: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” (Dy has the same wording. JB reads: “he did not cling to his equality with God.”) However, in NW the latter portion of that passage reads: “who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure [Greek, har·pag·monʹ], namely, that he should be equal to God.” (RS, NE, TEV, NAB convey the same thought.)
Which thought agrees with the context? Verse 5 counsels Christians to imitate Christ in the matter here being discussed. Could they be urged to consider it “not robbery,” but their right, “to be equal with God”? Surely not! However, they can imitate one who “gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.” (NW) (Compare Genesis 3:5.) Such a translation also agrees with Jesus Christ himself, who said: “The Father is greater than I.”—John 14:28.
The Expositor’s Greek Testament says: “We cannot find any passage where [har·paʹzo] or any of its derivatives [including har·pag·monʹ] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize,’ ‘****** violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense ‘grasp at’ into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’”—(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1967), edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. III, pp. 436, 437.
KJ reads: “In him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead [Greek, the·oʹte·tos] bodily.” (A similar thought is conveyed by the renderings in NE, RS, JB, NAB, Dy.) However, NW reads: “It is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.” (AT, We, and CKW read “God’s nature,” instead of “Godhead.” Compare 2 Peter 1:4.)
Admittedly, not everyone offers the same interpretation of Colossians 2:9. But what is in agreement with the rest of the inspired letter to the Colossians? Did Christ have in himself something that is his because he is God, part of a Trinity? Or is “the fullness” that dwells in him something that became his because of the decision of someone else? Colossians 1:19 (KJ, Dy) says that all fullness dwelt in Christ because it “pleased the Father” for this to be the case. NE says it was “by God’s own choice.”
Consider the immediate context of Colossians 2:9: In verse 8, readers are warned against being misled by those who advocate philosophy and human traditions. They are also told that in Christ “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” and are urged to “live in him” and to be “rooted and built up in him and established in the faith.” (Verses 3, 6, 7) It is in him, and not in the originators or the teachers of human philosophy, that a certain precious “fulness” dwells. Was the apostle Paul there saying that the “fulness” that was in Christ made Christ God himself? Not according to Colossians 3:1, where Christ is said to be “seated at the right hand of God.”—See KJ, Dy, TEV, NAB.
According to Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, the·oʹtes (the nominative form, from which the·oʹte·tos is derived) means “divinity, divine nature.” (Oxford, 1968, p. 792) Being truly “divinity,” or of “divine nature,” does not make Jesus as the Son of God coequal and coeternal with the Father, any more than the fact that all humans share “humanity” or “human nature” makes them coequal or all the same age.
RS reads: “Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” (Similar wording is found in NE, TEV, JB.) However, NW reads: “while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of the Savior of us, Christ Jesus.” (NAB has a similar rendering.)
Which translation agrees with Titus 1:4, which refers to “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior”? Although the Scriptures also refer to God as being a Savior, this text clearly differentiates between him and Christ Jesus, the one through whom God provides salvation.
Some argue that Titus 2:13 indicates that Christ is both God and Savior. Interestingly, RS, NE, TEV, JB render Titus 2:13 in a way that might be construed as allowing for that view, but they do not follow the same rule in their translation of 2 Thessalonians 1:12. Henry Alford, in The Greek Testament, states: “I would submit that [a rendering that clearly differentiates God and Christ, at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle’s way of writing.”—(Boston, 1877), Vol. III, p. 421.
See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, pp. 1581, 1582.
RS reads: “Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.) However, NW reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’” (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.)
Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon Jehovah’s throne.” (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.
Hebrews 1:8, 9 quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, concerning which the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: “The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the·osʹ] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the·osʹ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo·himʹ] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the·osʹ] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26.
KJ reads: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” (Dy also includes this Trinitarian passage.) However, NW does not include the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.” (RS, NE, TEV, JB, NAB also leave out the Trinitarian passage.)
Regarding this Trinitarian passage, textual critic F. H. A. Scrivener wrote: “We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim.”—A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Cambridge, 1883, third ed.), p. 654.
See also footnote on these verses in JB, and NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, p. 1580.
Other scriptures that are said by Trinitarians to express elements of their dogma
Notice that the first of these texts refers to only the Son; the other refers to both Father and Son; neither refers to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and says that they comprise one God.
By what he here said, did Jesus mean that he would resurrect himself from the dead? Does that mean that Jesus is God, because Acts 2:32 says, “This Jesus God raised up”? Not at all. Such a view would conflict with Galatians 1:1, which ascribes the resurrection of Jesus to the Father, not to the Son. Using a similar mode of expression, at Luke 8:48 Jesus is quoted as saying to a woman: “Your faith has made you well.” Did she heal herself? No; it was power from God through Christ that healed her because she had faith. (Luke 8:46; Acts 10:38) Likewise, by his perfect obedience as a human, Jesus provided the moral basis for the Father to raise him from the dead, thus acknowledging Jesus as God’s Son. Because of Jesus’ faithful course of life, it could properly be said that Jesus himself was responsible for his resurrection.
Says A. T. Robertson in Word Pictures in the New Testament: “Recall [John] 2:19 where Jesus said: ‘And in three days I will raise it up.’ He did not mean that he will raise himself from the dead independently of the Father as the active agent (Rom. 8:11).”—(New York, 1932), Vol. V, p. 183.
When saying, “I and the Father are one,” did Jesus mean that they were equal? Some Trinitarians say that he did. But at John 17:21, 22, Jesus prayed regarding his followers: “That they may all be one,” and he added, “that they may be one even as we are one.” He used the same Greek word (hen) for “one” in all these instances. Obviously, Jesus’ disciples do not all become part of the Trinity. But they do come to share a oneness of purpose with the Father and the Son, the same sort of oneness that unites God and Christ.
In what position does belief in the Trinity put those who cling to it?
It puts them in a very dangerous position. The evidence is indisputable that the dogma of the Trinity is not found in the Bible, nor is it in harmony with what the Bible teaches. (See the preceding pages.) It grossly misrepresents the true God. Yet, Jesus Christ said: “The hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:23, 24, RS) Thus Jesus made it clear that those whose worship is not ‘in truth,’ not in harmony with the truth set out in God’s own Word, are not “true worshipers.” To Jewish religious leaders of the first century, Jesus said: “For the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’” (Matt. 15:6-9, RS) That applies with equal force to those in Christendom today who advocate human traditions in preference to the clear truths of the Bible.
Regarding the Trinity, the Athanasian Creed (in English) says that its members are “incomprehensible.” Teachers of the doctrine often state that it is a “mystery.” Obviously such a Trinitarian God is not the one that Jesus had in mind when he said: “We worship what we know.” (John 4:22, RS) Do you really know the God you worship?
Serious questions confront each one of us: Do we sincerely love the truth? Do we really want an approved relationship with God? Not everyone genuinely loves the truth. Many have put having the approval of their relatives and associates above love of the truth and of God. (2 Thess. 2:9-12; John 5:39-44) But, as Jesus said in earnest prayer to his heavenly Father: “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3, NW) And Psalm 144:15 truthfully states: “Happy is the people whose God is Jehovah!”—NW.
-
On 11/2/2021 at 11:49 AM, Markinsa said:
[Jhn 5:39-40 NASB20] 39 "You examine the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is those [very Scriptures] that testify about Me; 40 and [yet] you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.
AGain for the uneducated....The bible is written so MAN can understand it. It is NOT Gods thoughts to say streets of gold. IT is an earthly term to describe heaven to a man. But again, you think everything is literal and all are gods thoughts. How about Judas turning against JEsus? Did God um, think that up? Or did it really happen?
AGain for the third time, please markinsa put ALL your thoughts into one post. That way I dont have to respond 8 frickin times. But this is what I am against folks. Fighting with 4 people here. THEY dont have the courage to go one on one against me. They love to dogpile.
-
1
-
2
-
-
On 11/2/2021 at 11:25 AM, keylime said:
Amen and Amen!
Jesus is the Word. Jesus is perfect. Jesus is The Truth. Not some of the truth. Thus, God's Word is perfect and True.
Very simple a child can understand and believe. But not so much a person who fancies themselves so learned but never knows the truth.
Yup a simple child can understand it. Hebrews 5:8 New International Version
Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered
New Living Translation
Even though Jesus was God’s Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered.Jesus is supposed to be ALMIGHTY ALL KNOWING God, aaanndddd yet he is so dumb he has to LEARN. Wait...doesnt God know eveyrthing?
Again your entire belief system falls apart.
-
1
-
2
-
-
On 11/2/2021 at 10:39 AM, new york kevin said:
Thank you for that piece of undeniable PROOF that you are not a Christian ! That at best you are a agnostic in Christian clothing. All Christians believe the Bible from the first page to the last page. Where there seems to be a incongruency is the Holy Spirit highlighting a area God wants you to study more on. But with you and your omnipotence , you are more logical than God's omnipotence so you pick and choose . Thus, the satanic lie that cause lucifer and 1/3 of the angels of Heaven to be cast out of Heaven.
Say, you are in a hospitals ER. Your chest feels as if an elephant is dancing on it. You’re gasping for air. Sweat is glistening on your face. You are in the emergency room of a hospital. Nurses are hooking wires all over your chest. Another nurse is searching for a vein to start an I.V. Another nurse is putting a small pill under your tongue. After looking at the monitor and the EKG tape, the doctor informs you that you are having a heart attack. It’s a frightening scene. Other tests prove that there is a blockage in your heart. The doctor tells you what has happened to your heart and then proceeds to explain what needs to be done to repair your heart so that you can continue to live.
Are you going to believe everything he says? Or are you going to pick and choose what you want to believe and disregard the rest, which could cost you your life? Your life depends on believing everything the doctor tells you. There are people who believe the whole of the Bible.
There are people like you, who don’t believe anything in the Bible. When you don't believe one thing about the bible you do not believe it all. But how can a person believe just some of the Bible? How does a person pick and choose what parts of the Bible are true and what parts are not true? How can a person believe that Jesus died on the cross to take the sins of the world away and yet not believe that Jesus rose from the dead? How can a person believe that Jesus did miracles, but that Jonah could not have spent three days in the belly of a great fish?
What is true and what is not true? The Bible is God’s Word. Not believing some of the Bible will lead to doubting all the Bible. The Bible is not a collection of human ideas and thoughts. The Bible is God’s Word, given word for word by the Holy Spirit to human writers. If any part of the Bible is merely human thoughts, and not God’s Word, then all of God’s Word can’t be trusted. If it is God’s Word, then all of it is true and is to be believed.
True Christians believe the entire Bible is God’s Word and it is true. Our belief is not founded on shaky ground, as is your pseudo faith. First, there is more evidence for the documents of the Bible than for any other ancient book. Second, all the writers of the New Testament wrote within the first century of Christ’s birth. They all knew Jesus. Third, even historical facts cited by the writers have been proven to be true. Fourth, God promised that the writers would tell the truth. The Holy Spirit guided them so that they did just that.
Christians believe all of the Bible because in it God tells us that he loves us sinful human beings so very much that he sent His Son Jesus to live, suffer, die and rise for us so that we could be with him in heaven. That is why God tells us that his words “are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31).
God’s Word is all true. You can trust every word of it from beginning to end. As it is written .
Nah, it is you that doesnt believe in the Bible. John 17:3 New International Version
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
New Living Translation
And this is the way to have eternal life—to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent to earth.
English Standard Version
And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.Jesus here calls the father the ONLY true God. Jesus doesnt say I also am the true God does he? If the father is the only true God, then Jesus cannot be it.
I am not going to heaven. OF course you have no idea what the Bible says. How about Psalms 37:29? Phony christians ignore that one.
Does Almighty God worship other Gods? John 20:17 New International Version
Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
New Living Translation
“Don’t cling to me,” Jesus said, “for I haven’t yet ascended to the Father. But go find my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”Um, how can Jesus HAVE a God? IF he is supposed to BE God?
Your entire belief system fails.
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
On 11/2/2021 at 10:12 AM, Markinsa said:
OH No, Keylime, you're spot on.
@PrehistoricMan thinks, I believe everything in the Bible is Literal, thus I added the "NOT LIteral" phrase as a Jab. Plus he's trying to insinuate that I've said things I have not. He cannot dispute the Word of God, so he tries to intimidate me.
You believe in floating gold. Therefore you believe everything is literal. Heck you think a spirit creature has a back. You have already been defeated multiple times here.
-
1
-
1
-
2
-
-
On 11/2/2021 at 6:51 AM, keylime said:
Not sure what you are saying. HE is talking to His Spirit who moved over the waters. And the WORD which had not been made Flesh yet on earth (Jesus) but is The WORD that was WITH God and WAS God.
I mean it's right there in black and white. Or am I lying that that is what I quoted?
You are lying. It doesnt say who he is speaking to. You are assuming because you want to believe in a trinity that he is speaking to the son and a holy spirit.
-
1
-
2
-
-
On 11/2/2021 at 6:40 AM, Markinsa said:
Funny how you keep missing that Word. Who's he talking too, HIS NOT literal Holy Spirit and Son?
Liar.
Since it doesnt say who God is talking to....you are the liar by stating it is the son or holy spirit. Liar.
-
1
-
-
On 11/2/2021 at 6:30 AM, Markinsa said:
You are a LIAR, prove me wrong. Provide the links I requested above. You can't.
[Jhn 8:44 NASB20] 44 "You are of [your] father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he tells a lie, he speaks from his own [nature,] because he is a liar and the father of lies.
.
Show me where I quoted the nwt. If you cannot then you are the liar. I dont care if you quote 8:44 It means nothing to me. Show me the proof where I quote nwt in my writings.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 11/2/2021 at 5:58 AM, keylime said:
You are wrong again. I notice you didn't quote the original King James version which is considered THE officially canonized Word and Holy Scriptures.
Do you know the concept of "In the Beginning...?" "1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness...."
Okay. That verse refers to God. Yes? In the beginning. Yes? "And God SAID..." You know...SAID....to speak....? So we see God "Said" all of this in existence...."The SPIRIT of God moved upon the face of the waters." Oh oh....We now have the "SPIRIT" of God. HIS SPIRIT....Hmmm...that's Two. God who SAID, and God His SPIRIT moving....This is getting good...VERSE 26 "
Ahhhh...."And God SAID..." There's that SAID again....but wait it continues...."Let US make man in OUR image." Oh my goodness. So now you have GOD in the Beginning who SAID things in existence while HIS SPIRIT moved over the waters making man in "OUR image." And He SAID "Let US" US. Who is US? I see it is GOD. I see it is HOLY SPIRIT. But who is there three? Hmmm...
Let me go to John. You know the Gospel of John that is also in the Bible. And just so happens to be the FIRST BOOK of the New Testament like Genesis is the FIRST BOOK of the Old Testament. And what is the first verse or verses of John. Fascinatingly similar to those of Genesis.
"1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
I believe we have a BINGO!
The SAID of Genesis is the exact same WORD in John. Because you know, when you say something, that is known as words you speak. So allow me to break this down for you.
"In the Beginning..." There's it is. There's that "Beginning" again. That gives us our timeline, the exact one that begins Genesis. So now we know when we are at. Now let's see who we are dealing with.
"In the beginning was the Word. And the WORD was WITH God." Ahhh...looky looky. That SAID, which was the WORD which was IN THE BEGINNING, was WITH God. So that is who God was talking to when HE SAID let US...and in OUR....But wait...there's more...You're going to love this. Or maybe not since everything I am showing you you already know but somehow, ignorantly and stubbornly reject even though it is in black and white. But I will continue because the next part of this verse says it all. A nice wrap up like a bow on a present which I am giving you. And I quote from the KVJ Bible which no where has the word Demon in it....but I digress...
Here we go...."And the WORD WAS GOD." What?! Let me write that again....Not only was the WORD WITH GOD....meaning separate...BUT the WORD WAS GOD!!!
I know you can't wrap your incredible intellect around it, but it really is not that hard to swallow. So Genesis tells us God made everything. And John tells us without the WORD nothing would have been made. The same WORD that was WITH and WAS God. Hmmmm.....We move on...
Another BINGO! WOW! So that same WORD that is WITH and WAS God, was made FLESH. And DWELT among us. Well that could only be JESUS! Why my goodness. So JESUS, also given names in the Old Testament by the Prophets, one being Isaiah. Surely, you've heard this since you are such a Bible scholar, which the word Bible is not in the Bible you remember. But that is what it is called.
Isaiah 9:6 "King James Bible
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."So now you have Genesis, three in one. God, Holy Spirit, and the Word(SAID) with US and OUR image. Then you have in Isaiah in another part of the Old Testament, calling JESUS The MIGHTY GOD and EVERLASTING FATHER, and THE PRINCE OF PEACE....Then in John he tells us this very same JESUS was WITH GOD and WAS GOD!
How can this be? I don't know. I just believe what God tells me about HIMSELF. and finally in Revelation I cut and paste this neat little list because I don't have time to type it myself. But I leave this right here. Genesis through Revelation in a quick cursory study of the Trinity which is not in the King James Version but obviously is there in concept, description, and verses. Much like if I tell you picture this animal. It is grey. It has enormous ears. It has a long trunk and tusks. It is over 2000 pounds...You have an ....you can say it...yes an elephant. Wow! You knew what I was refering to without saying the name.....You really are brilliant.
Names or Titles of Jesus in the Book of Revelation
- Jesus Christ …. Revelation1:1
- Faithful Witness ….. Revelation 1:5
- First Begotten of the Dead ….. Revelation 1:5
- Prince of the Kings of the Earth ….. Revelation 1:5
- Alpha and Omega ….. Revelation 1:8-13
- First and Last ….. Revelation 1:8, 11, 13
- Son of Man ….. Revelation 1;13
- He that liveth and was dead ….. Revelation 1:13, 18
- He that holdeth the seven stars ….. Revelation 2:1
- He who walketh midst the golden candlesticks ….. Revelation 2:1
- He who hath the sharp sword with two edges ….. Revelation 2:12
- Son of God ….. Revelation 2:18
- He which searches the reins and hearts ….. Revelation 2:23
- He that hath the seven Spirits of God ….. Revelation 3: 1
- He that hath the seven stars ….. Revelation 3:1
- He that is holy and true ….. Revelation 3:7
- He that hath the key of David ….. Revelation 3:7
- He that openeth and no man shutteth ….. Revelation 3:7
- He that shutteth and no man openeth ….. Revelation 3:7
- The Amen ….. Revelation 3:14
- The faithful and true witness ….. Revelation 3:14
- The beginning of the creation of God ….. Revelation 3:14
- Lord ….. Revelation 4:11
- Lion of the tribe of Judah ….. Revelation 5:5,9
- The root of David ….. Revelation 5: 5,9
- A lamb as it had been slain ….. 5: 6,7
- The Lamb ….. Revelation 5: 8,9
- Lord of Lords ….. Revelation 17:14
- King of Kings …… Revelation 17:14
- Faithful and true ….. 19:11
- Rider of the white horse ….. 19:11
- The Word of God ….. Revelation 19: 13-16
- Christ ….. Revelation 20: 4
- The Lord God of the Holy Prophets ….. Revelation 22:6
- Beginning and the end ….. Revelation 22:13
- The bright and morning star ….. Revelation 22: 16
I asked a simple request and got garbage. You said genesis through revelation it talks about a trinity. I asked you to show me in EACH book that. You didnt. Instead you went on a tangent about genesis 1:26..
Sorry, but OUR does not indicate a number. So it is you that is the liar. There is no three in our. It could be three, it could be eight, it could be millions. No number is mentioned there. Nice try to lie and state a number is there when it isnt.
-
1
-
2
-
3 hours ago, Markinsa said:
Well duh, that's a literal verse.
.
Well duh...then STOP promoting the lie that one needs holy spirit to understand the Bible. You are creating an elite class by doing so.....oh, you dont believe in the trinity? Oh you must not have dat holy spirit then....
-
2
-
-
8 hours ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:
The Word of God CANNOT ever be understood without the Holy Spirit.
Are you telling me that in reality, no one can understand thou shall not steal? You need some kind of special holy spirit to understand that? I just asked my brother who is in prison who I dont think has any holy spirit and he understands it just fine. He chooses not to take the advice at that verse but he understands it.
-
2
-
-
On 11/4/2021 at 11:00 PM, AdamHenry said:
PHM, that's spot on from many parts of the bible. It's a shame you got four rubies for that. I guess many like the idea of eternal torture.
And his response to me.....god can do anything....Um, yeah, that is not a debating point. If God can do anything....WHY did he write the Bible? It is the poor mans debate tactic. They cannot reason on the scriptures, so they make dumb statements like that. Titus 1:2 says God CANNOT do something. So the Bible proves him wrong yet again.
-
2
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, keylime said:
PHM...You truly have zero idea what it means to be a sinner separated from God from an eternal perspective or even from God's perspective. How our sinfulness and His Holiness can't and will never be reconciled. Only He does and that's why He had to do something so drastic that it meant Jesus coming to earth and dying a tortured death on the cross. And there was no other way. That's the thing. Sin couldn't just be covered by the blood of bulls and goats, it had to be completely done away with by the blood of Jesus. You can't even imagine how horrible the sin problem is for that to have been the only answer but you stand there and speak and judge on it in ignorance and zero understanding and rail against the very one who paid the price yelling it's not fair the punishment of eternal damnation! While you reject the fact that He made a way for the free gift of eternal life. You really need to reset your compass.
Keylime got so triggered he had to comment three times. haha....
Right there he cannot see the irony. You say the FREE GIFT OF ETERNAL LIFE. If one is burning forever in a hell, is that not eternal life? So why would God give a gift to wicked people?
Romans 6:23
New International Version
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
New Living Translation
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.
English Standard Version
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Berean Study Bible
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.So....if we pay for our sins at death as this verse says....what are we um, burning for in a hell? The payment for sins is death. So when we die we have PAID for our sins. No need for extra punishment as these psychos state.bUt wHaT aBoUt lAkE of fIrE_ See folks....The psychos that love torture always confuse the lake of fire WITH hell claiming it is the same thing.Rev. 20:13,14 - How Can Death and Hades be Thrown Into the "Lake of Fire"? What Does This Scripture Mean?
Rev. 20:13,14 says,
"The sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire." (KJV)
Some have asked, "How is it possible for Death and Hell to be thrown into a lake of fire and what does this mean?
What Really is "Hell"?
First, it would be beneficial to understand what "Hell" (Hades; Sheol) in the Bible really means.
Many mistakenly believe that "hell" is a fiery place of punishment for sins. But the word "hell" in the same verses in other translations read "the grave," "the world of the dead," etc.
Collier’s Encyclopedia (1986, Vol. 12, p. 28) says this concerning “Hell”:
“First it stands for the Hebrew Sheol of the Old Testament and the Greek Hades of the Septuagint and New Testament. Sheol in Old Testament times referred SIMPLY TO THE ABODE OF THE DEAD.”
So the Hebrew word she'ohl´ and its Greek equivalent hai´des refer, not to an individual burial place, but to the COMMON GRAVE OF DEAD MANKIND. (For more, see: "Why is the word "Hell" an unsatisfactory translation of the original Hebrew and Greek Bible words "She´ohl" and "Hai´des"?"; Search For Bible Truths)
Revelation Chapter 20 Written in Figurative or Symbolic Terms
The book of Revelation is a book full of symbols and Revelation Chap. 20 itself is full of figurative (not literal) language. So when the rest of the Bible clearly shows how when someone dies, they are not conscious of anything (Ps. 146:4; Ecclesiastes 9:5) and that the condition of the dead is one of inactivity - likened to a deep sleep (Ps. 13:3; John 11:11-14; Acts 7:60; 1 Cor. 7:39; 15:51; 1 Thess. 4:13), it would seem reasonable to conclude that what was written at Revelation chap. 20 is indeed phrased in figurative or symbolic terms.
Rev. 20:14 shows that Hell is not the same as the lake of fire. So when Hell (Hades) is finally CAST INTO the lake of fire (which symbolizes eternal destruction), this means that Hades, the common grave of mankind, is totally destroyed. It goes out of existence, being completely emptied of its dead. In addition to resurrecting all faithful worshipers of God, the Bible says that He will also mercifully bring back even unrighteous ones:
“There is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15)-
1
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, AdamHenry said:
I'm sorry, I must re-hash this section. I am a parent, and I stand by my statement of a malevolent god. I'm there, in person, to correct my children and teach them. There is nothing they could do that would make me want to torture them for eternity.
Please don't compare parenting from a loving parent to your malevolent god. It's not even close, and it's insulting.
Judges and juries handing out life sentences??? Those prisoners aren't set on fire for eternity, but they receive three hots and a cot daily. Not even close to a reasonable comparison. Again, malevolent, psychopathic god.
As you can see today, people in charge of the world are partially, and/or fully narcissists or psychopaths. Same type of person that seized and wanted to retain power when civilizations were forming. How better to control others than have them believe that they better be good or they'll burn forever? Malevolent god.
Why do I not believe in hell? I understand what fire is and why it hurts. If we have can burn forever, we're indestructible. If we're indestructible, fire won't hurt, it's not doing any damage. It only hurts us in the here and now because your brain sends you signals to get away from whatever is causing you damage. Fire is energy and causes your skin to react with whatever it is around. It is destroyed.
Freeing myself from this toxic religion was the best thing that ever happened to me.
You are correct. Hell doesnt exist. It isnt taught in the Bible. The ones that want to believe in hell are psychotic. Serial killer material if you will. Real psychopaths. They read into the Bible what they want it to say. Your logic is very sound. I ask them all the time what burns in a hell? If they say the body, well, how can it burn forever? I think a body can burn up inside of a minute or two. IF they say the soul, well...ezekial 18:4 says a soul can die. Therefore the soul is not immortal to be able to burn in a hell.
Dont worry. God did not create a burning hell. When the bible talks of fire, it is trying to convey what people back then knew about what fire does. IT burns things up. They turn to ash and are not around anymore. Period. So when it says someone will be cast into it, it means they will be destroyed. Their life is over for them. It is NOT an eternal torturing and suffering like these wackos want you to believe.
What did God tell Adam and Eve would be the punishment for their sin? An everlasting hellfire and damnation? No. He simply said they would die.
-
1
-
3
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, keylime said:
Is the word Rapture in the Bible? No but we understand the concept of the "snatching away" or Harpazo.
Is the word Bible in the Bible? No but we understand it to be what is called the Holy Scriptures.
Is the word Demon in the Bible? No but the spirits of the dead Nephlim we know are the demons that possess people and Jesus cast out.
Is the word Trinity in the Bible? Of course not, it wasn't used back then. But the concept of three in one is revealed from Genesis to Revelation.
You're dismissed. Class is over.
Come back when you truly have something to add to the conversation instead of your house of cards that gets blown away by true revelation knowledge of the Word. Which will be never since you will "never come to know the truth" because you are already rejecting it.
Rapture isnt in the Bible. It is a madeup word by phony christians.
Bible is the collection of writings. It doesnt need to be in there.
Is Demon in the Bible? Ahem...Mark 5:15 When they came to Jesus, they saw the man who had been possessed by the legion of demons, sitting there, dressed and in his right mind; and they were afraid.
New Living Translation
A crowd soon gathered around Jesus, and they saw the man who had been possessed by the legion of demons. He was sitting there fully clothed and perfectly sane, and they were all afraid.
English Standard Version
And they came to Jesus and saw the demon-possessed man, the one who had had the legion, sitting there, clothed and in his right mind, and they were afraid.
Berean Study Bible
When they came to Jesus, they saw the man who had been possessed by the legion of demons sitting there, clothed and in his right mind; and they were afraid.Keylime, do you even know the bible? I dont think ya do. Dont tell me...me proving you wrong on this one is because....Heck I dont know what excuse you will come up with now...
SHOW me the concept of the trinity used Throughout Gen through REV! Please. ONE verse where it states god is three in one. I am BEGGING you. 10 bucks says ya dont provide the proof. Would love to see ONE verse in EACH of the 66 books of the Bible. Hey YOU said it was from gen to rev right? Show me
-
1
-
-
56 minutes ago, Markinsa said:
Please quote where I said that.
You really do not understand the "Mystery of God".
Again, please quote where I said that everything in the Bible is Literal.
For the last time, please quote where I said anything close to what you mentioned above.
You are a LIAR, like your Father.
Here's something for you to reflect on, this is what you rely on, this Religion that you think is so pure, is full of lies and deceit:
A CRITICAL LOOK AT THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS BIBLE:THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION
by M. Kurt Goedelman
The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT) is the name of the Bible used worldwide by members of the Jehovah's Witness sect. The Watchtower Society claims this work to have been made directly into English from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek languages.
This translation, they claim, was made by "a committee of anointed witnesses of Jehovah," but the Society refuses to divulge the names and credentials of the men who comprised this committee.
The work was originally released in six volumes starting in 1950. In 1961 the entire Bible had been completely "translated" and thus released in a one volume publication. Since that time many additional editions of this Bible have rolled off the Watchtower's presses, complete with changes and alterations.Who Were the translators?
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has failed both the public and its own followers at this most crucial point, as they refuse to give the names and credentials of the translators of The New World Translation. The Watchtower's Bible subject index handbook, Reasoning from the Scripture, states: "When presenting as a gift the publishing rights to their translation, the New World Bible Translation Committee requested that its members remain anonymous. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania has honored their request" (pg. 277).
The reason cited is because the "translators were not seeking prominence for themselves." However, the fact is that the men who comprised this committee had no adequate schooling or background to function as skilled critical Bible translators.
The translation committee was headed by (then vice -president of the Jehovah's Witnesses), Frederick W.Franz. Other members included Nathan H. Knorr (then president of the Jehovah's Witnesses), Albert D. Schroeder, Ceorge D. Gangas and Milton Henschel.
The information as to the identity of the translation committee was made known by former Jehovah's Witness William Cetnar. (See further, We Left lehovah's Witnesses, A Non-Profit Organization; Edmond C. Gruss.) Cetnar was able to supply this information as he worked at the International Headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses during the time the translation was being prepared.
In addition, former member of the Watchtower's Governing Body, Raymond V. Franz, in his book, Crisis of Conscience, lists the translators' names as Franz, Knorr, Schroeder and Cangas. His list omits Henschel. Franz further acknowledges his uncle Frederick Franz as the "principal translator of the Society's New World Translation" (Crisis, pg. 50).
Yet, Frederick Franz's translation ability is open to serious question.
During a court trial held in Scotland in 1954 (during the same period that the New World Translation was being made) Franz was asked if he had made himself familiar with Hebrew. His reply was "Yes." He also acknowledged under oath that he could read and follow the Bible in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German and French. The following day, during the same court trial, his linguistic abilities were put to the test.
He was asked to translate Genesis 2:4 into Hebrew. He failed the test as he was unable to do so. In fact he did not even try, but rather stated "No, I wouldn't attempt to do that." (See, Court of Session, Scotland - Douglas Walsh vs. The Right Honourable James Latham Clyde - November 1954.)Is It Really a Scholarly Translation?
WHAT ABOUT JOHN 1:1 ?
John 1:1 in the vast majority of Bibles reveals the deity of Christ: The Word was God (NKJV). The Word was God (NIV). The Word was God (KJV). In contrast, the NWT renders John 1:1 in a most unusual way:
'In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.'
Much more information on the correct translation of John 1:1 can be found here.To this question the Watchtower has led its followers to believe that although the backgrounds of its translators are not made known, the translation will stand on its own. It does not.
The translation committee is guilty of inventing non-existent Greek grammar (and then following these made-up rules only when necessary to support system" rel="">support the theology of the Watchtower), and when inserting words into Scripture that change the meaning of God's Word.
The 1985 edition of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures states for its readers the guidelines and goals endorsed by the translation committee. The Society claims that, "We offer no paraphrase of Scripture. Our endeavor throughout has been to as literal a translation as possible where the modern English idiom allows for it or where the thought content is not hidden due to awkwardness in the literal rendition" and that "To each major word we have assigned one meaning and have held to that meaning as far as context permitted" (pp. 9-10, 1985 ed.; pg. 10, 1969 ed.)
However, based on these claims for its translation of the Bible, the committee has failed miserably.
Considering the Watchtower's first point, "We offer no paraphrase of Scripture," one need only examine the NWT renderings of John 15:4,5; John 17:26; Galatians 1:16; Romans 8:10; Colossians 1:27 and 2 Corinthians 13:5 to find that the translation committee has paraphrased Scripture to deny the indwelling of Christ in the believer.
Each of the aforementioned verses speaks of Christ living within the Christian ("in him" or "in you"), yet these verses found in the NWT have been paraphrased to read "in union with you (him) " (emphasis added).
Regarding the second point, "Our endeavor throughout has been to give as literal a translation as possible...," this criterion likewise misses the mark of honest scholarship.
An examination of Colossians 1:16, 17 and Philippians 2:9 demonstrates through the addition of words that the committee has not presented "as literal a translation as possible. "(There is so much here, to highlight, that I had to stop and go to bed, but you get the idea. You've been played into a Cult, Sect, Demonic Religion that doesn't teach Christ. You really need to reevaluate your whole faith, because it it seriously lacking in Jesus Christ.)
In both verses cited one finds the word "other" added. (Christ created all "other" things, meaning he is also a creature, a created being.) Thus we find divine attributes of the Lord Jesus Christ removed, namely that He is the creator of all things and that He possesses the name that is above every name.
Finally, the third point, "To each major word we have assigned one meaning and have held to that meaning as far as context permitted," fares no better than the previous statements. The translation committee has again let their theological bias bend their rules for translating.
In Matthew 25:46, 2 Peter 2:9 and Acts 4:21 we find the Greek word kolaoontai that refers to punishment.
However, since the Watchtower denies the teaching of eternal punishment we find the committee rendering two of the passages, those in Matthew and 2 Peter (which refer to eternal punishment) as "cutting off" and the Scripture found in Acts (which refers to physical punishment) as "punish."
Since the Kingdom Interlinear Translation provides a between the lines literal Greek-English Translation and the text of the New World Translation (located in the right hand column), we recommend its use for the documentation of the above Scriptural citations.
Why is the Name "]ehovah " Used in the Christian Greek Scriptures?
The Watchtower Society leads its followers to believe that its translation is also superior on the basis that it has restored the divine name ]ehovah (Yahweh) to the pages of the Bible. The Watchtower's publication, "The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever" announces that it was a "apostate" Christian church that removed the divine name and has substituted "Lord" in its place.
However, they have based, in part, this erroneous idea on some guesswork published by Professor George Howard in an article in the March 1978 issue of Biblical Archaeological Review. Howard's evidence was slim and in a more detailed article published the previous year in The Journal of Biblical Literature he sets forth what he proposes as "a theory." The question that the Watchtower leaders never considered is whether Howard's guesses are supported by the evidence.
This question was addressed by Dr. Albert Pietersma of the University of Toronto. Writing in De Sepuaginta, a collection of scholarly articles, by experts in Septuagint studies, Piertersma carefully reviews Howard's use of the three Old Testament manuscript fragments. He finds that a careful examination does not support system" rel="">support Howard's theory.
Further, the Watchtower's Reasoning book announces, "The divine name appears in translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures into Hebrew, in passages where quotations are made directly from the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. This is merely a rephrasing of the "Restoring the Divine Name" concept found in the Forward of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation (pp. 10ff).
The translation committee has set forth the proposition that a modern translator may render the Greek words Kyrios and Theos as the divine name Jehovah (Yahweh) when the inspired Christian writers have quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures where the divine name appears.
Regrettably, once again the translation committee has followed this rule only when it does not contradict their theology. Philippians 2:10,11 serves as a perfect example. Scripture is clear that one day every knee will bow and every tongue confess that "Jesus Christ is Lord." However the Philippians passage is quoted from Isaiah 45:23 and here we are told that to Jehovah every knee will bow.
Therefore based on the Watchtower's own translation rule, the Lord spoken of in Philippians is none other than Jehovah. Further it is of interest to note that the 1950 edition of the New World Translation of the Christian Scriptures, which contained marginal cross references, cited Isaiah 45:23 as a cross reference to the Philippians 2:11 passage.
Numerous scholars with true credentials in the Biblical languages have condemned the Watchtower's New World Translation as a fatal distortion of God's written Word. For example, see The Bible Collector (July-December, 1971) issue which devotes three articles evaluating the Watchtower scripture.
Thus it has been demonstrated above that the Watchtower Society has, by its own standards, proven its Bible translation to be unreliable and untrustworthy. Those desiring a modern translation would do well to invest in either the New American Standard Version or the New international Version of Scripture to escape the theological prejudice and Biblical untruths found in the New World Translation.
If a Jehovah's Witness Would Say... "Our Bible is Reliable." The Christian should respond that no reputable Greek or Hebrew scholar has given an endorsement of the New World Translation. The Society has at times used both out-of-context quotations from scholars and antiqued statements to make it appear that there are those who give credence to this translation, but this version is only used by Jehovah's Witnesses to promulgate their doctrines.
You may also wish to note that it would be most beneficial if we could check out the scholarly abilities of the men who comprised the translation committee, but the Watchtower organization refuses to release their names or credentials. While some have stated that this is due to the humility of these men, others have made the claim that it is because these men have no qualifications to serve as accurate Bible translators.
Therefore the evidence found both within the Society's own Kingdom Interlinear Translation and other non-Watchtower sources, the latter claim appears to be most true. Remember it is not a sin to "make sure of all things" (1 Thessalonians 5:21) nor to try "them which say they are apostles" (Revelation 2:2).
An additional suggestion: If a Jehovah's Witness should ask who comprised the translation committee of the Bible you use, tell him you will be happy to find out. Inform the Watchtower follower that this information is available and accessible to those who desire to find it out. It is not hidden from nor denied to those who seek it. Some modern day versions of the Bible even include this information in the introduction section of the publication. The names and scholarly credentials for the translators of The New King James Version, The New International Version, The Revised Standard Version and The King James Version are all easily accessible.
The Jehovah's Witnesses have and do use this type of smoke screen to catch Christians off guard. When Christians respond by providing the names and credentials of the men who comprised the various translations of Scripture, it again demonstrates the deceptiveness of the Watchtower Society.
One note of exception: The Watchtower's Reasoning book has cited the New American Standard Version as an example of a translation committee who refuses to divulge the identity of its members. While the Lockman Foundation, the publisher of the New American Standard Version, has, to date, not made known the names of its translation committee, it has provided its readers with numerous facts concerning the making of this translation as found in the preface.
Further, the Lockman Foundation has, over the past few years, increasingly made known more facts concerning the translation of the New American Standard Version. The Watchtower, unlike the Lockman Foundation, has consistently stated when challenged, that its translation will stand on its own. If the need arises the Christian may simply state that he (or she) will be happy to make use of a translation whose translation committee names are available -- if the ]ehovah's Witness will find out the names of the NWT's translation committee.
For additional information dealing with the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation see: The lehovah's Witnesses' New Testament by Dr. Robert Countess (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company) and Apostles of Denial by Edmond C. Gruss (Baker Book House).Kurt Goedelman is director of Personal Freedom Outreach, A Christian research ministry in St. Louis, Missouri.
Again I havent quoted the NWT this entire topic. Ole Markinsa is OBSESSED with it. He keeps talking about it. LOL.
Yeah you believe everything is literal. Floating Gold in heaven anyone?
-
13 hours ago, keylime said:
Again, you think you are making a point about Jesus Christ not being God or think you are. What you continue to mistakenly interpret is believing that because this verse says "there is but One God, the Father and One Lord, Jesus..." that proves they are not the One God in the Beginning that created heaven and earth in Genesis. That is not what that verse is saying. It is acknowledging since the fleshly coming of Jesus God has revealed Himself as not only The Father, but The Son and the Holy Spirit. That verse does not discount that they are 3 separate but unified persons. He is God. Father. Son. Holy Spirit. I know you have difficulty understanding this concept and are not alone but God says " My ways are higher than your ways. My thoughts higher than your thoughts."
I mean you are a finite creation trying to understand your infinite Creator who is not bound by our space, time, or even what we know as reality. And when He seems to communicate with us He must do it much like we would communicate with a 2 or 3 year old child. That's why Jesus simply explained Just come as a child and believe." Don't get so caught up in trying to understand the how that you miss the why. The Why He had to separate Himself into flesh and dwell among us. The Why He returned to sit at the right hand of the Father taking again His place as God with God; and send the Comforter, Holy Spirit, so He, God, can now live inside us " conforming us" to be "like Him." Which is what He "Predestined" us from the very Beginning.
For me I have no problem believing God the Father, God the Son, and God His Holy Spirit are Three separate yet One Being. In fact, I love and embrace that about God. It makes Him so much more than me and yet here I am, a finite nothing in His amazing creation who allows me to know him intimately. And not just me, but everyone who will. God says, "If you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you." And that is what my purpose is everyday.
To seek Him. To get to know Him that I may be conformed to His image. To be just like my Daddy, my Lord and Savior with His Holy Spirit's help. Some days I am better seeking than others but I am always moving forward towards Him. And nothing gives me more joy and peace knowing Him and getting to know Him. I believe like a life long Best Friend you can never completely know Him until we are fully known after this life on earth.
He is so incredible. To sit here and debate you about Jesus being God is so miniscule in what my life is about. I believe Jesus is God. And you do not. You're believing He is not doesn't take away anything from my Lord and Savior Jesus. He told the Pharasees, " Before Abraham, I Am."
They sought to stone Him right there for blasphemy, knowing He was equating Himself and saying He was God, the Great "I Am that I Am" He revealed Himself to Moses to be. They didn't misunderstand what He was saying.
But they didn't like it nor believe it so eventually they killed Him because of what they believed, like you to be the ultimate blasphemy saying He was God. That too was His plan, though Satan didn't know it. Another part of His Amazing marvelousness.
Jesus is God and He died as man for man because man could't save nor die for himself as his own savior. So God had to leave His Godhead and take on flesh to do it. How incredible is He to do that for us?
One day both of us will soon find out and that will end the debate.
Ha!
Then um....STOP debating me. If it is SOOOOO miniscule on your life, move on. No one has a gun to your head to be here right?
Sorry Jesus is NOT God. Numbers 23:19 God says I AM NOT A MAN. Was Jesus a man? Whammo, then he cannot be God. AMong hundreds of other verses that say he isnt.
John 8:58 is not proof at ALL that he is saying he is God. None at all. Sorry you are so confused.
It simply says Before Abraham was I AM. MEANING he existed before Abraham. Meaning time alive. Not an afirmation that he was God.
Romans 10:2 fits all of you. Without a doubt. None of you have the real truth. You will find out one day everything you have belived is a lie. So sad. Jesus is not God. Notice Habbakuk 1:2 It says God cannot die. Did JEsus die? WHAMMO. Then he cannot be God.
Only dumb people believe in a trinity. Which ALSO is not mentioned in the Bible. Not one time.
-
3
-
-
11 hours ago, new york kevin said:
Those who follow the liar of liars, lie. Be silent liar. Like you the liar has read the Words of God . I am sure it , can quote more of the bible than you, me, Billy Graham, & Dr Truscott combined. Me, I have to look up stuff. Since you have no fruit of understanding the things of God; like the truth of the God Head (triune God) . This is illogical to you and therefore it cannot be true . Yet the bible describes the God head (Triune God , 3 in One) repeatedly. You re-write the word of God, separating out the deity of Jesus from the other two; like I believe the word of God entirely, except this part . Christians believe the Bible , from the first page, to the past page, and every page in between. For what you continue to attempt to do under this thread, and all who think like you Revelation 22:18 is your .
Revelation 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book . So Pre eat and drink of your versions, as for me and mine, we will eat from the Lord's bountiful table. Eventually enjoying all the things of Heaven as co-heir, rightful owners. The Ten Egyptian Plagues of the Bible means completely plagued. Just as the "Ten Commandments" become symbolic of the fullness of the moral law of God, the ten ancient plagues of Egypt represent the fullness of God's expression of justice and judgments, upon those who refuse to repent.
The 10 plagues in the book of Exodus
01 Blood
The waters were turned to blood – the fish in the river died and the Egyptians couldn’t drink the foul water.02 Frogs
Frogs swarmed forth, covering every inch of land and entering houses and bedrooms.03 Lice
All over Egypt, bugs crawled forth from the dust to cover the land.04 Wild animals
Hordes of wild animals destroyed everything in their path.05 Pestilence
A fatal pestilence killed most of the domestic animals of the Egyptians.06 Boils
The Pharaoh, his servants, the Egyptians and even their animals developed painful boils all over their bodies.07 Fiery hail
Hail struck down all the crops in the fields and shattered every tree.08 Locusts
The locusts covered the face of the land and swallowed up every crop and all the fruits of the trees.09 Darkness
A thick darkness over the land of Egypt, so total that the Egyptians had to feel their way around.10 Death of the first-born
All firstborn Egyptian sons (and firstborn cattle) died. Israelites marked lamb's blood above their door and were passed over.So where have I been ? I jumped on last night to crush the foundations of Satan's holiday, and all stand on it. I also wondered if you are still repeating the same old dung that you always sling. Surprise, surprise , you are. I have answered every q's you ever asked of me. You still do not like my answers. Also, I don't fool with fools . Particularly when they got nothing new to say .
I knew you wouldnt believe what the Bible says. It says ONE GOD THE FATHER. Period.
Wait...Now you believe that those that do not believe as you do will inherit egypts plagues? It is not a mythical hellfire for you anymore? IT is now the plagues? HAHA. You guys are so mixed up you dont know what you believe in. ONE GOD THE FATHER. Dontcha think it would have said ANOTHER GOD JESUS? But no it doesnt. And Markinsa is so braindead he thinks LORD means God. If Jesus were God it would have said it at that verse. It doesnt. But hey Markinsa is a guy that believes everything LITERALLY in the Bible.
Notice Proverbs 7:6 which states God looks out his window on his lattice to see man down below. I know I know...Markinsa believes LITERALLY that god has a window. LOL.
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, new york kevin said:
Markinsa, Pre does not want the Lord, he wants to be right is all. What's the biblical history for those who think like him ? Did you ever hear about Lucifer the Angel of Light ? When he tried to do things his way , because he was more logical than God, God caught up with it and cast the whole lot outta heaven, Lucifer became Satan, yada yada like that. There is a shift taking place from heaven, as heaven wrath crushes the 60 year long term plans of Satan and his followers. Their release of covid upon the children of God was the wrong move. I never want to be at the receiving end of God's wrath . Pray for him, but let Pre have as much of God's wrath as he wants if he doesn't want to listen to His voice .
Oh look who is back. You didnt answer my question from a month ago but decided to pop in again I see.
Nah, it is all of you that dont want God. You are dishonest, or just simply not intelligent enough to understand the Bible.
See you read this verse... 1 Corinthians 8:6
New International Version
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
New Living Translation
But for us, There is one God, the Father, by whom all things were created, and for whom we live. And there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things were created, and through whom we live.
English Standard Version
yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
Berean Study Bible
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.
Berean Literal Bible
yet to us there is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we through Him.And even though it says there is ONE GOD, THE FATHER,,..your mental illness thinks it says ONE GOD IN THREE....AAANNNDDDD it doesnt say that. It says ONE GOD the father. Period. And I am the one that doesnt follow the Bible? LOL-
1
-
1
-
-
On 10/28/2021 at 6:57 PM, keylime said:
Unfortunately, people only want to interpret what fits their own doubts and misunderstandings even if the truth is in black and white. You gotta do a lot of heretical gymnastics to not see what the text actually says.
Because Markinsa and you believe God ACTUALLY Has a spinal dorsal....lol. Colossians 1:15 says he is INVISIBLE! Yet you guys think he can be seen. Talk about doing mental gymnastics....You guys are wrong wrong wrong.
1 john 4;12 No man has ever seen God but you guys think people have seen his back. HAHA
It is going to be a shock to your system when Armaggeddon happens. A true shock. Everything you believe in will have been revealed to be a lie.
-
2
-
-
Petra must be invisible...
-
1 hour ago, screwball said:
who is Petra??????? WTF another want a be!
I dont understand how one can be involved in this investment and not belong to every single site out there. Especially since this one has gone basically dark. You should read petras writings. He is quite knowledgeable.
-
1
-
-
On 10/22/2021 at 9:00 PM, keylime said:
What's your point? Obviously, Jesus was here for one reason. So politics didn't matter. However, hmmm, there was a certain man named King David whom God anointed and appointed to be King. Oh and let us not forget Moses, who was an adopted son of Ramses. And by the way, how do you think the Israelites even got to Egypt? Why that was Joseph, second in command because of God's hand. So yes, politics are not antithetical to God's plans for His people, Christians included. Again, you shoot at a target that doesn't exist nor make any sense. God appoints the leaders of countries, the Word says. And the heart of a King is in His hands. Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord and it's leaders and representatives who honor God it will go well with the people. If Christians didn't hold office this country would give itself over to every kind of wickedness. Even with Christians in office we are continuously fighting evil.
So I would much rather live in a country that honors God with it's laws than a pagan country that has no love for righteousness and Goodwill.
We are not living in the First century anymore by the way. The world is a different place where you actually can run for office and influence society with your Christianity through politics. For many Christians in office it is their ministry. And God blesses them and their constituents because of it.
In fact, nowhere in the Bible does God command not to run for office. As, in fact, just the opposite, in that God Himself appointed His leaders. But He does say, if it is in your power to do good and you do not, it is sin. So God wants us to get involved in roles of leadership that we may have the power to do good.
So Give me a break with your crap.
Welp....ALL of the religions your proscribe to are involved in politics. All of them start wars etc. Lets see which religions follow the law of God not to be involved? Yup...pretty much only three. Quakers, Amish, and Jehovahs Witnesses.
When a person you voted for drops a bomb on someone, YOU are at fault in the eyes of God. You picked that guy. You supported him. Therefore you are guilty if they do bad. Because you supported him over God.
-
On 10/21/2021 at 7:38 AM, Markinsa said:
Hover your cell pointer over the below words and the same one in my post above (The link is embedded in those words):
What does it mean that God is spirit?
Jesus, said,
[Jhn 4:23-24 NASB20] 23 "But a time is coming, and even now has arrived, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks [to be] His worshipers. 24 "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."
Yet Moses was somehow able to see the Invisible God.
The simplicity of God's Word is like this link, it is right here in plain view, hidden underneath is the answer that you seek, yet you don't care to investigate or believe.
.
Moses didnt see God. Once again for the 400th time, you are taking something as literal when it is not. If Moses met face to face with God, why, later, was he not allowed to see God’s face? | GotQuestions.org
God is opinion and doesn't care if it's name is Capitalized... or does She?
in Off Topic posts
Posted
Hey Ron,
If you would re read every page, you will notice I never quote from the NWT. I always use other bibles. You seem to be more reasonable than the three I have been debating with.
Sure. How can I talk to you on the phone?