@quietsparks1 I have explained the trinity to my kids, they are now grown. First off pray does not equal worship, it means to ask. Jesus also was a teacher so he was showing us how we should pray.
Basically Jesus said and did things that only God could do. Yet he is not the Father. So we have to come up with an explaintion.
Also God is beyond anything we can fully understand.
@kgxxx10 I've been to the Kingdom Hall today and it was beautiful. The love and warm welcome was amazing. Now back to you, can you tell me if God can die?
@quietsparks1 I went to church yesterday and it also was beautiful!
Jesus, the second person of the trinity put on flesh. Death is seperation of the Soul from the Body. This happened to Chirst on the Cross. Part of the problem you might be having is that the WTS does not teach what death really is. They have distorted view of it. Consider that death is the seperation of body and Soul, and then yes God did die on the Cross!
@blitzxer017 This is position, not level... You are either God or you are not God. You can't be "A God". The Father is in a supiriour position to the Son, this does not preclude the trinity. BTW... the Son willing submits to the Father. Willing submitting means that he has the ablity to do otherwise.
"The Word as a god" - Funny, that's not what my NA27 or my UBS 4th Edition Greek New Testaments say. What a woeful mistranslation. That's the problem when theology drives the translation.
Even in their KIT(that's in their library) is translated "The Word was God" NWT is a distortion because that verse and hundreds of others teach their doctrines. That poses a big problem to many JW's!
Next time when you come across a JW tell them to read and try to compare Isaiah 43:10 with John 1:1 in their Bible and ask them: If Jehovah is the only true God and no other was created before or will be after why does it say in John 1:1 that Jesus is a god?
@POC777 Wake up Brother Christ is not God read Revelations very carefully Rev.5:1-14 Notice the one on the Throne see him, and the lamb who takes the book out of the right hand of him who sits on the throne The one on the Throne is the Father the lamb is Christ the Son
@920chicago I answered you in private, however John 1:1-2 shows the distinction between the Father and the Word, however there are other verses we need to take into account to make sure we understand this right. Scripture is not a dictionary phrases to be used to determine a theology. If we ignore verses and the like we can make scripture say just about anything. From scripture we know that there is only One God. Therefore either Jesus is God or he is not!
@920chicago So you believe in multiple God's, this is Polytheism, scripture does not support this. There is only one God... so either Jesus is God or he is not.
@relefordnation Oh I know the answers to the questions I asked... I want to know what you believe that the answers are. I've already read much of the writings from 40-400AD and beyond... so I know when the trinity was first defined etc. I was asked when do you believe that it was first written about and by who? Also who was the first to emphatically declare Jesus as God in the Flesh, who and who taught him?
@relefordnation Actualy he never corrected them! And in another place he said the same thing John 8, and again they tried to stone him. Also this was the reason he was crucifed. It was not because he claimed to be the Messiah, many claimed that during that period, Acts 5:34-39. He was curcified becuase under oath he said he was the Son of God. Not a son, but The Son.
Trinity doesnt apear in the bible. Man made doctrine. Jesus clearly makes it known in numerous verses that he is Gods son and they are not equal.. Concluding, If John 1:1 is interperted "was God,it basically invalidates Gods word... U have to go back to drawing board because God "cannot lie." Scripture should interpert scripture..John 1:1 has to be interperted by scripture. not u not me...
@relefordnation Are you refering ot Deut 6:4? The word here is Echad, not yahid. This is the same word as used in Gen 2:24, it can also be applied to groups as well is individuals. If the trinity is a man made doctrine, please tell me where the first time it appeared in writing was? Or outside of the bible who was the first person to declare Christ God? (And who taught this person?)
@relefordnation Are you refering ot Deut 6:4? The word here is Echad, not yahid. This is the same word as used in Gen 2:24, it can also be applied to groups as well is individuals. If the trinity is a man made doctrine, please tell me where the first time it appeared in writing was? Or outside of the bible who was the first person to declare Christ God? (And who taught this person?)
The Word was GOD(JEHOVAH)contradicts the whole bible... I have a son. He is not me and i am not he... When Jesus(THE WORD) says "the Father is greater than I am"John 14:28... "God loved the world so much that he gave his only begotton son"John 3:16.. Crystal clear! so The WORD(Jesus)is GOD(JEHOVAH) is mistranslated! Proverbs speaks of wisdom and discernment.. God cannot lie! Use discernment, cultivate wisdom...
@relefordnation The trinity does not teach that the Father and the Son are the same perosn. Therefore there is no conflict.
John 5 [17] But Jesus answered them: My Father worketh until now; and I work. [18] Hereupon therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he did not only break the sabbath, but also said God was his Father, making himself equal to God.
Jesus here makes himself equal to God!
Now if you want to insert an "a" in John 1:1 you have to insert it in other places too
@relefordnation YHVH is ONE OF THE qualitative NAMES (NOT a given name) of the God, of the ONE GOD: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. YHVH is the name for all three persons of the God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The truth is there is no letter "J" in the Hebrew alphabet. It is impossible that the name of God is Jehovah. You are being deceived by your preachers! They hide you the truth! You want to know when and how that name JEHOVAH existed? Log on to -theoldpath .tv- You have the right to know! Do not waste your money, effort, time and soul to a name of god not anywhere found in the original bible translations...If there is no Bro Eli Soriano then we will be all victim of lies! Glory to God---
if u turn on your T.V or read a thomas nelson inc. KJV bible defin. for the trinity. They all say JESUS is Jehovah God the great I Am. Now isaiah9:6 says Jesus is a Mighty GOD We don't deny that, but he's not Almighty God. They are 2 separate SPIRIT beings. In daniel7:13 was a vision of JESUS getting took to Jehovah to recieve his kingship. Like in matt28:18 he said all authority has been given to him.Hebrews9:24 shows how he went in the presence or before the person of God for us.
@31devildestroyer I really could care less what the TV says or that. I can what the early Church Fathers believed, what scripture says, and what the Church that Christ founded says.
Let me ask you... was Jesus created or did he create ALL things? Becuase if he created ALL things, then he himself could not be created, because the would have created himself.
The trinity is lot of crap wake up you people John 1:1 has nothing to do with the trinity, all I see in that verse 2 person the word Jesus an God Yehovah read verse 18
@takirid This is intersting that you see 2 persons in John 1:1, because you are right, there are two persons talked about in John 1:1. The two persons are the Father and the Son. The point you miss is that the Trinity teaches that the Father and the Son are two distinct persons! Now if you want to say that Jesus is not God, then you have to fix some other scriptures, because in John 1:3 it says that the Son (word) created ALL things! So either the Son created himself, or we have to do some..
@takirid cont... other editing of scriptures to say well he is the first creation of God who then created all OTHER things, or some other stuff. Problem is that when you do this you end up with Polytheism (or the believe in more then one God). Witnesses talk about lesser gods, and the like. They really are polythiests, yet do not recognize it. When Christians say that there is only ONE God we mean it! There are things that are called god, but they are not truly God. To man an Angel can ...
@takirid appear as a god, these beings are exteimly powerfull! However this does not make them gods (even lesser gods). All of these were created by the One TRUE God. This ONE TRUE God has revealed himself to us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Three distinct (yet not seperate) persons with one nature. Person here means center of will and intellect. Nature here means what something is. Humans have both nature and person. God has 1 Nature with 3 Persons. God's nature is not shared or divided.
all other scholars would agree cause they all was raised believing the trinity, its the only scripture they have to back up what their saying, the problem is the scripture is WRONGLY STATED. and it still don't say ALMIGHTY GOD only GOD. the bible calls SATAN gOD in corinthians4:4
@31devildestroyer 2 Cor 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
There is debate among scholars as to exactly who Paul was talking about here. This could be God the Father, Satan or worldly things. Any one of these works for the sentence.
ima Jw, John10:3,4 JESUS said to ONLY listen to his VOICE, John10:36 Jesus said he was GOD'S SON, God spoke out of Heaven in matt3:17 saying Jesus was his SON. PETER in Matt16:16 said Jesus was the Son of the living GOD. John17:3,6,26 says how JESUS prayed to GOD tell him he had made the NAME JEHOVAH KNOWN to the 12, 2JOHN7 says who ever say JESUS was GOD in the FLESH¬ JESUS in the Flesh is the ANTI-christ& the deciever*
@31devildestroyer The problem is that the WTS does not teach the proper trinity, it teaches something closer to modalism which was rejected long before 200AD. So you will not see the trinity in scripture using the WTS definition of the trinity.
@darkeramain How about Jesus calling himself God and the Jews trying to stone him over this? Or the fact that Jesus was Crucified because he declared himself to be God?
@darkeramain John 8: [26] Many things I have to speak and to judge of you. But he that sent me, is true: and the things I have heard of him, these same I speak in the world. [27] And they understood not, that he called God his Father.
Note here the Jews did not understand what Jesus said, yet he continues on by verse 59 they finaly got him:
They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.
@darkeramain John 5 [17] But Jesus answered them: My Father worketh until now; and I work. [18] Hereupon therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he did not only break the sabbath, but also said God was his Father, making himself equal to God. Again he did not correct them rather...
[19] Then Jesus answered, and said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you, the Son cannot do any thing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doth,
@kgxxx10 Thank you very much for the answer sir. John 8:26 read "...But he that sent me" who do you thing Jesus referred in this statement? Himself? Remember Jesus didn't claim in that verse himself as a One TRUE GOD. One thing is clear Jesus didn't recognise himself as equal to GOD how? John 14:28. Mark me if I wrong...
John 5:18. Hereupon therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he did not only break the sabbath, but also said God was his Father, MAKEING HIMSELF EQUAL TO GOD. Yes he did claim equality with God.
@darkeramain You are 100% right, the Father and the Son are not the same person!!! Amen. However they are both equally God. They both have the same nature. The trinity does not teach that the Father and the Son are the same person. Whomever told you this is lying to you.
God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, 3 distinct persons, 1 nature.
@kgxxx10 As we both agree father is not greater than son, we know were true worship we need to practise. I remember when Satan try to temper Jesus devotion from his father written in Matthew 4:10.
@darkeramain Again the trinity does not teach that Jesus (the Son) is greater then the Father. The Father is always greater then the Son (in position). Now a human father and son have a similar nature (ie. both human). The same is true of the divine Father and Son. However since you can't divide a infinite nature, both (all three members of the trinity) equally possess the same nature.
@darkeramain The point I try to make to my witness friends is that the trinity as taught by the WTS is not the trinity that true trinitarians believe. The trinity they teach can't be found in scriptures. Yet the true understanding of the trinity is very very obvious in scripture.
Also the WTS distorts history and misquotes the early Christian writers to make you believe that they did not believe in the trinity.
@kgxxx10 No sir, As I though trinity is a not even accepted in true early Christian nor they base in that particular teach. Jesus tell specific to glorify his ONLY father name, not himself so it is clear that if we follow Jesus we lead our devotion only in one particular GOD father. (notice that bible specific tells the name of every god whether true or false) Good day...
@darkeramain Are you sure that the trinity was not accept among the early Christains? From my reading of their writings it was pretty much universaly accepted. What took time was how to express this correctly in human langauge.
Jesus also said:
John 5:23. That all men may honour the Son, as they honour the Father. He who honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father, who hath sent him.
We are to honour the SON as we honour the Father!!!!
ezekiel 4;12 god makes people eat shit then in malachi 2;3 he spreads shit on ppl faces nice god you retards have. exodus 20;5 and leviticus 20;5 he punishes ppl 7times over and till there 4th generation
You make me laugh.Read your Bible properly mate,(John 1:1 says the word was WITH God! who was he with HIMSELF or was he with his FATHER; HE HAD TO BE WITH HIS FATHER NOT SOME MYSTIC GOD HEAD IN FACT YOU WILL NOT FIND THE WORD TRINITY IN THE BIBLE.Read verse 18 NO MAN HAS SEEN GOD We know that the apostal seen JESUS"NOT GOD ALMIGHTY.In fact the apostal John goes on to say Jesus is the one that has explained him. we know the Bible dose not contradict.THE TRINITY IS A PAGAN TEACHING.
I can read NT greek and have read many many scholars and there is no question that the NT equates Jesus with God. He is the creator, worshipped, and outright called God in many passages. Scholars main question is whether Jesus himself thought he was God or divine or even the messiah. many do doubt this
@kgxxx10 Tertullian taught that the "Wisdom personified" of proverbs 8 was Jesus and twice referred to Jesus (as Wisdom) as being "created" Against Praxeas
@steveparadise1 Tertullian is the one who coined the name Trinity (trinas in Latin). In Against Praxious which the WTS quotes he describes the trinity almost exactly like Nicea in 325 did!
Have you read these men in their entierty?
Irenaous must be quoted with great care, becuase he described the believes of many herectial sects. So taken out of context he can be made to say just about anything.
@steveparadise1 No they are quotes from the Church fathers. However the quote from Tertullian is taken from his talking about the believes of the Monarchins.
@kgxxx10 Back on topic. I agree with the comment by Alvin Lamson The modern popular doctrine of the trinity...derives no support from the language of Justin Martyr and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene fathers (which includes the statements of Tertullian and Irenaeus)..It is true, they speak of the Father. Son and holy spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as 3 in one, in any sense now admitted by trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact
kgxxx10 That fact was just brought to my attention and was quite startled to find how recent it was. As you are the only Catholic I am talking to at the moment I wanted your opinion on it.
You are right, it was a bit off subject and I must apologise for mentioning it
@steveparadise1 Hopefully the information I just posted will help. BTW the church is not perfect in her member, and her member do make just as many mistakes as any other group. The WTS also has it's share of skeletons in it's closet as well. I look at the teachings of the group rather then the actions of it's members. If I do look at the members it is those that keep the teaching of the faith, rather then those who don't.
kgxxx10 It was the date that the last person was executed by the Spanish Inquisition in Valencia, Spain. He was tortured and killed for teaching Deism.
What is your opinion of this and how can the Catholic Church justify this action?
@steveparadise1 Oh... I'm scratching my head to figure out what this has to do with the conversation.
As to the Inquisistion, I suggest that before you condemn it, you study history from secular sources. BTW there were also protestant inquistions. Also it was secular authorities that killed poeple, not the church. Also the spanish inquisition was run mostly by the King and not the church. And the inquistions run over a period of about 300-500 years.
@steveparadise1 Another thing, the Catholic faith is not open to debate or change. Our understanding of it can change, and how we express this can change. But the basic tenents of the Faith, are cast in stone. Becuase they came from Christ himself. If you read about some of the groups like the Cartharas in France, and study their believes you would also reject them as being very very bad.
During the inquisitions the guilty were given two options, fix their believes, or leave.
@steveparadise1 cont... those that did not where turned over to the state to deal with. Also torture was a accepted method of gaining a confession, and was used by secular authorities very often. The Church placed limites on it's use, 1) it could only be used after a preponderence of evidence was found against the accused, 2) It could not cause permanent physical harm, 3) it could only be used once. Also if one of the peices of evidence against a person came from someone who was an enemy of the
@steveparadise1 cont... person, that could not be used in the trial. The goal of all the trials was repentance, not death. Also during the Spanish inquisition the pope at the time was trying to stop the king, and sent several papel legates to deliver the message, for some reason they never made it from the spanish border to the king. :-)
Finaly the Church has appologiezed for this and many other things that have happened over the years.
@kgxxx10 JWs did use the word "worship" for Jesus and thought it was right to do so, though not in the way they attributed "worship" to Almighty God. It is clear from the beginning that JWs do not believe Jesus is God, so it is obvious the problem was how best to distinguish "homage" to Jesus and "worship" to Jehovah.Probably due to their use of the KJV. I agree with the NWT in the use of "obeisance" making a clear distinction between Almighty God and the Mighty God
@steveparadise1 The Greek word προσεκυνησεν literaly means "to kiss the feet". And since it is applied to both man and God, I don't use it to prove the trinity. Also everywhere you see the word worship is not always προσεκυνησεν. In Matt 15:9 the word is σεβονται, In Heb 10:2 we have λατρευοντας.
@kgxxx10 The English word worship has changed over the years. The KJV translated the word worship on all occasions for "proskuneo". Even when the slave bowed to his master they translated as "worship". Back then people new what attitude the "worship" was given and new it was a different form of homage than was due to God.
This can be seen by the use of "worship" in titles to Mayors, Magistrates and Justice of the Peace" . In fact "His, or Her Worship" is still used as honorifics today in the UK
kgxxx10 I have read all articles pertaining to these dates going back to 1874, 5 years before the first Watchtower was published. I have also read most of the misquotes and compared them. How easy it is to mislead the anti JW brigade. I suppose if the 1st century Christians could deal with all the lies and false accusations we must also.
Also why does the WTS in it's book "Should you believe in the trinity?" quote the Early Church Fathers (like Tertullain and Irenaous) and imply that they did not believe in the trinity? I've asked this to many witnesses and not a one can give me an answer... can you?
@kgxxx10 Surely, you are not alluding to 1914 and 1975 ? I would have been sure that someone who looks a bitter deeper into things, would know exactly what the WBTS REALLY said about these dates.
@steveparadise1 Yes I have read what they have written about them. Have you read the original articles that they wrote on these or just the recent ones on this. Also sometimes the reprints are corrected. How about this... did you know that prior to 1954 the WTS said that Jesus could be worshiped?
kgxxx10 Agreed. The disciples were not to know at this time as they were to concentrate on the commission to preach the good news where Peter would use the Keys to open up the way of salvation to the Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles.
Even now, while I believe we are deep in the time period Jesus spoke of in Matt 24,25, we still do not know the day or hour, but we do recognize the season and time period.
@steveparadise1 If Jesus says that it will come like a Thief in the Night (again a wedding tradition), and that no one knows the hour of this... why did the WTS repeataly predict the date of Armageddon?
kgxxx10 I didn't say 99% of what people "believe". I said "readers". There are times when the audience have to be considered, but we are usually alerted to this by the strangeness of the comment to our modern way of thinking and language. For instance "let the dead, bury the dead". Unless you did some research you would assume Jesus was being a bit cold with the young man.
I do not think Matt 24 :26 falls into that category. At Acts 1:7 Jesus showed us he could say "mind your own business"
@steveparadise1 Read what I wrote again... The NT was written for a 1st century audence (who knew these things), not a modern audience. The culture of the time was high context, where there was just alot of times you were assumed to know. Today we opererate in a low context culture where everything is spelled out. Note all of those listening would have recoginized Jesus using the language of weddings when he said this... "I go to prepare a place for you"... "In my Fathers house there are many"
@steveparadise1 In Matt 24, right after vs 37,38, right into marrage, the bride did not know the exact hour her groom would come to claim her. She had to be constantly on the ready to hear the call of the wedding party! Keep in mind there is only ONE Gospel, not four... you have to read them all together to get the full picture.
@kgxxx10 99.9999% of bible readers would not know anything about Jewish wedding traditions and even if they did would probably not equate it with the words of Jesus.
If that is what Jesus meant then he is not telling us a whole lot. You make a very weak defence for a verse that clearly calls in to question your theology. As much as you and I enjoy looking a bit deeper into scripture I don't think God intends that level of scrutiny to appreciate his truth
@steveparadise1 It really does not matter what 99% of modern bible readers believe, what is important is what did Jesus mean when he said that. And what would the first people who read this believe that he meant.
BTW this verse used to puzzle me until I recognized wedding theme running throughout the OT and NT and did some research into Jewish wedding customes. But I also coupled it with Acts 1:7 and other verses and figured that he did not want to tell us. Also Jesus was fully human...
@steveparadise1 cont and it is possible that he when he walked the earth did not know things like he would in his Divine nature. However in other places he said that the end would come like a thief in the night, and that we are to be ready etc, along with Acts 1:7 kind of told me that this was not something we should know. Learning to understand scripture takes a long time. It is not possible to just pick up the bible and come up with a common understanding of what it means.
kgxxx10 In Matt he says "only the Father knows" He was not "deferring", he did not know. In Acts he tells us why neither he nor anyone else knew, its in his Fathers Jurisdiction. Then we have the so called 3rd member of the trinity, the Holy Spirit. Why didn't he know?
Jesus is teaching us something more important than disciples "mind your own business". If Jesus said "only the Father knows" I believe him.
@steveparadise1 If you take the time to study Jewish wedding customs of the first century, you will see that what I am saying is true. Just if I were to say that "It is raining cats and dogs", you would not go out and call the ASPCA to come pick up all the stray cats and dogs. This is a similar phrase. Remember scripture was written 2000 years ago in a very different culture then today, to attempt to read it with modern eyes will result in errors. It must be read in context.
@steveparadise1 Any first century reader would have immediately recognized that Jesus was using the language of weddings to talk to the Apostles, and would have understood the phrase "it is up to the father" in those terms. Just as you today would understand "raining cats and dogs".
@steveparadise1 No the son knew... he just deferred to the father. This is called honoring your Father and Mother. This was Jewish custom. This is how life was in a patriarchal society that the Jews lived in.
@kgxxx10 What these to verses have in common is they both put knowledge of certain time periods as exclusively the Fathers. This excludes everyone else, including Jesus at Matt 24.
No matter what analogy you use, there are things Jesus did not know
@kgxxx10 These are the words of Peter at John 21:17, naturally he would feel that way.
Jesus did say to his disciples at Acts 1:7 "It does not belong to you to get knowledge of times and seasons which the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction"
Matt 24:36 says "No one knows the day and the hour, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son of man, but only the Father".
These are clear statements " only the Father knows".
@steveparadise1 Read Acts.. "It does not belong to you to get knowledge of times and seasons" It is not yours to know. In ancient Jewish wedding customs, after the marrage contract was defined between the two people, the groom would go back to his house (fathers house) and prepare a place for his bride to be. It was the fathers responsibility to state when the place was ready. So when friends asked the groom what the time of the wedding feast was, he would respond by saying Only the father ...
@steveparadise1 cont... knows the time of the feast. Now the groom knew when the bridal feast was to be. Yet the father was the one to announce this. Then the groom with his party would go and claim the bride and bring her back to the place the groom had prepared and there would be the feast. Now if you recognize a lot of this you will see that the last supper was besides a passover celebration a wedding nuptial ceremony. And there is a wedding theme running throughout the OT and NT. ...
@steveparadise1 cont so we can see that Christ at the last supper was not saying I don't know, but it is not my place to reveal this to you! And it is not for you to know at this time. So there is no lack of indicating knowledge of anything.
@steveparadise1 John 21:17 ...And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. ... Now if you are referring to him saying that only the Father knows when time is going to end, this is basically an expression saying it is not for you to know, so don't ask! Look up Jews wedding customs of the 1st century.
@steveparadise1 No idea... I only know the Trinity that has been taught for the last 2000 years, this is the only one I believe. BTW I was right about the hypostatic union continuing after the resurrection. The PERSON of Christ has two natures, one human, one divine. There was some early debate about whether Christ was two persons melded together or one person. This was settled at Nicea and some later councils.
kgxxx10 Do you not think there is a difference between "willingly submitting", and earning, being rewarded and being given ? Of course he submitted himself but his position in heaven, at Gods right hand, is much less than what almighty God would have by right.
@steveparadise1 John 17:5 And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself, with the glory which I had, before the world was, with thee. Christ had Glory with the Father before the world was! He said so himself! We also know that the Father shares his Glory with no-one. Therefore we have to assume that Christ is God.
@steveparadise1 I would have to check the exact teaching on this. But I think that it is from the moment of his conception in Mary's womb on. He was assumed bodily into heaven, flesh and bones (his blood being all spilled). This term is used in Heb 1:3. It basically is used to denote the oneness of the person of Jesus in both his human and divine nature. This is just a fancy technical term.
kgxxx10 Why is it that after the glorified Jesus ascended in to heaven with "all authority" with "a name above every name that every knee should bend" he is still in a subordinate position to the Father?
@steveparadise1 The Son willing submits to the will of the Father. Scripture I do not believe answers this question clearly. However the Father is always in a superior position to the Son. However just because he is in a subordinate position to the Father does not make him any less God then the Father. The same with a human Father and Son. Both are equal human, yet the Son is always subordinate to the Father (or should be).
@steveparadise1 First born is more a title than an indication of brith order. Becuase if a woman had 10 girls then a boy, the boy would be called Firstborn. This is a title the has to do with inheritence rather then birth order. Only-begotten is a synonym with only-child. Origin means beinging of everything. Now we know that Jesus is the Only Son of the Father and of Mary. He was born to Mary in the flesh. At times the bible writers are refering to his humanity and at other times to his divinity
@steveparadise1 cont I think the point is that the WTS makes the assumption that Jesus is a created being, and adjust scripture to fit this believe, rather then letting scripture speak for itself. As Christians we have what we call the Hypostatic Union, where we believe that Christ is 100% God and 100% Man. He has basicly two natures. So sometimes scripture is talking about one nature over the other. His human nature has a begining with Mary, however the person of Christ is eternal.
kgxxx10 Many authorities state the first meaning of "motsaah" is "origin". Hence the reason many trinitarian translations use "origin" at Micah 5:2. I'm sure if there was another word more acceptable to their theology they would have used it as some incorrectly do for "firstborn" at Col 1:15 and "beginning" at Rev 3:14.
Your quote from the DR is similar to the AV but certainly not how most bibles translate.
Which in fairness, the numbers game is not in itself proof.
@steveparadise1 This is correct. This is why I got lots of college level text on Biblical Greek by well know and respected scholars and learned to read it myself. This way I can understand the original better. There are also some subtlites that just don't make it into the translations, becuase Greek is a richer language then English. Mic 5:2 talks about the messiah being from Old or Ancient times, to the Jews this would mean from the creation of the world.
@kgxxx10 Exactly my point. God has always been, his wisdom has always been as one of his outstanding qualities. Proverbs says he produced wisdom (Jesus) as the beginning of his way 1 Cor 1:24,30. Gods wisdom cannot be "produced" it had no beginning, the wisdom mentioned here did have a beginning. Jesus did have a beginning. Firstborn, beginning, Micah 5:1,2 says of Jesus "whose ORIGIN is from old. How plain does it need to be?
You are not talking to the WBTS I'm using Gods Word mostly the NAB
Micah 5:2. AND THOU, BETHLEHEM Ephrata, art a little one among the thousands of Juda: out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity.
The LXX uses the αρχης The same word John used in John 1:1. και αι εξοδοι αυτου απ αρχης εξ ημερων αιωνος
The Literal hebrew is: "his goings long the days of eternity"
Basicly Micah 5:2 does not prove that Christ had a beginning.
@steveparadise1 Actually scripture tells us that Jesus is Uncreated, it is the WTBS that tells us that he was created. They do this by adding words to scripture. John 1:3 says that NOTHING was not created by Christ! Or EVERYTHING that is created was made by him! Therefore unless he made himself, the WTBS has this wrong.
@kgxxx10 You gave an accurate account of 1 cor 8;6. The Father is the source of creation. Jesus is the instrument through which all creation came into being. That God is the creator there is no doubt as Jesus himself testified at Mat 19:4 "He himself created them man and woman"
Without the source and power of the Father operating through him could Jesus create? Apparently not. Without Jesus could the Father Create? Absolutely.
@steveparadise1 Christ is the Very WORD of God. God's word is not created, nor is his wisdom. God always has his word and wisdom. These are uncreated and part of God.
@kgxxx10 When you consider the verses we have looked at 1 Cor 8:6, Col 1:16, John 17:3 you have to ask yourself... How could anyone come up with the doctrine of the trinity as you describe it?
Go back a verse in Colossians 1 :15 where Jesus is clearly called the "firstborn (prototokos) of all creation". Or in Revelation 3:14 where John describes Jesus as the "beginning (arche) of the creation of God"
@steveparadise1 With Col 1:16 what we have here is that Jesus created everything! This is what Paul is stressing here and John in John 1:3. From the OT we know that God created everything. Therefore both Paul and John are equating Jesus with God. Angels are created beings, and since Jesus created all things (including Angels), he is God. There is no one verse that will prove the trinity, you have to take the whole bible to get the teaching.
@steveparadise1 However the WTS adds the word "other" to Col 1:16 and John 1:3 so that they can prove that Jesus is a created being. Otrherwise he created himself. Which does not make sense. There are ways Paul could have said Col 1:16 to indicate that Jesus was a created being, yet he did not. In John 1:3 he uses the word "pas" which means general all, so to make sure he adds in "and without him was made nothing that was made." So you get that he means ALL things where made by the Word of God.
@kgxxx10 I fail to see how Col 1:16 supports the trinity unless you have changed your view from your earlier statement of Jesus role in creation. You said "The second Jesus Christ, through...the Greek is di which means through or channel"
I notice in your quote of 1Col 1:16 that you have omitted the word "through" (di) and replaced it with "by".
If anything this verse further emphasises that Jesus is the "master worker" (Proverbs 8 30,31) in creation where the Father is source of the power.
@steveparadise1 Christ is the instrument that God used to create all things. Christ is Wisdom spoken about in Proverbs 8. The word dia denotes channel of an act, through, by etc. The DRC also translates "dia" in 1 Cor 8:6 as "by". From this word dia we get our word diameter ( a line bisecting a circle). Greek prepositions change there meaning depending on the case of the nouns they are used with. Through would not be wrong, if you take it in the instrumental case.
@steveparadise1 Actualy none of the verses that support the trinity are "contraversal". That is what the WTS wants you to believe. I would recommend reading Tertullians "Against Praxesous", to see how he defended the trinity against monoarchism (the believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are differnt modes or aspects of the same being). Keep this in mind while reading him becuase he is emphasizing the uniqueness of each member.
@kgxxx10 I hear this accusation about the WBTS all the time that they "adjust scripture to support their view". They bring out a the NWT and it is immediately jumped on as being "corrupt", mostly due to John 1:1, 8:58 and using the divine name throughout the text. Through my studies I have concluded that their objection is theological, not scholarly. The NWT has much support for the controversial ,those who are anti JW are not going to be crawling over each other to look for it.
Col 1:16. For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him.
@steveparadise1 NWT: because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him.
The word [other] does not occur in the Greek. They did the same to verse 17. This is to prove that Jesus was created by God, rather then that he created all.
@steveparadise1 The witnesses in the video did not lie as such. A lie is to make a statement that is contray from what you believe to be true. If I believe that grass is bright red, then I don't lie if I say so. Now if I know that grass is really green and I go around saying that it is bright red this is a lie. Now the question is, does the WTS lie about John1:1. Judging from many of their translational errors, I would have to say that they are adjusting scripture to fit their views.
@kgxxx10 I would dispute your view of the events of the first few centuries but that would just end up as a "he says, she says" type of argument.
I would say it is quite clear from the writers of the NT that they had no idea of the trinity, as there is not one single statement, or hint, anywhere that they believed in a 3 person one God.
If it is that clear why did it take many councils hundreds of years to come up with a formula that you now believe in?
@steveparadise1 Actualy the writters in from 150 to 280 and beyond used scripture to prove the trinity. They site many verses to prove the tirnity. Much of the proves for the trinity I use come from them.
The believe preceeded the councils by about 300 years. The church does not define things until they are challenged. Arious challenged the teaching on the trinity. Therefore the church defined the doctrine. Also it took them a while to figure out how to express the teaching in human...
@steveparadise1 language. ( A side note, most of the documents the WTS quotes the fathers as not believing in the trinity are from documents where they define the trinity). While the Apostles where alive there was no dispute about the trinity. Most of the NT books were written to answer questions that were in dispute. Now when John wrote his gospel the Diocism was comeing around, that believe that Christ was God, but that he did not come in the flesh. John was trying to correct this in his...
@steveparadise1 Could it be that your understanding of Jesus and Paul are in error? The trinity is expressed in scriptures, however there was not alot of dispute about it until later. We see over a period from about 90AD-150AD the development of how to express this truth. It took the church until 381 to finaly express the doctrine of the trinity correctly in human langauge. The teaching was not changing, but how teaching was express was changing.
@kgxxx10 It was not the decision of the Church that determined what books made up the bible, that was determined by God himself. It is immaterial as to how God protected his word, the point is today, we have a bible that is reliable.
The description you gave of the trinity is how I would have explained it if asked.
"There is ONE GOD (not 3) with 3 distinct persons in the godhead."
Although I have heard many other versions.
I agree with your statement on creation as described at !Cor 8:6.
@steveparadise1 Of course the Holy Spirit Guided these men to choose those books. That is not in question. However these men did not choose books that were contray to the faith. That would make them either ignorant or idiots. Ether way I would not trust their decision if this were the case. These men knew scripture far better then you or me, They were trinitarian, and accepted the books of the NT. In fact many non-trinitrains actualy reject most of the NT becuase it proved the trinity!
Videos dude, no powerpoints allowed. BTW: Charles Taze Russel's wife, a spirit medium, translated this very passage to Russel; this is where it originated.
@steveparadise1 Yes Christ did leave us a method of determining the truth... He left us a CHURCH! The Church wrote the Bible (NT), the church decided which books belong in the bible. The church throughout history has protected the bible from change, even Martin Luther acknowledge and thanked the church for giving the world the bible. So yes he did leave a place to go to find the truth.
@kgxxx10 This is the crunch. If you read these verses and still see a trinity in them then you have a problem. It is not like they are unclear or disputed texts. The issue is that as a trinitarian (and Catholic I presume) you must approach scripture with a 3 person God in mind and read this into any given text. As an ex Catholic (Scots-Irish) I would have died for the faith, now I live for the truth.
Hence the reason I posted on this vid in the first place.
TRINITY IS THE BIGGEST MYTH THAT CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD BY ANYONE.
quietsparks1 23 hours ago
@quietsparks1 The trinity is not a Myth. It is a revalation from God of himself.
kgxxx10 19 hours ago
@kgxxx10 Explain trinity to your children, then come back to me. I am struggling with the fact that Jesus prayed. How can God pray?
quietsparks1 11 hours ago
@quietsparks1 I have explained the trinity to my kids, they are now grown. First off pray does not equal worship, it means to ask. Jesus also was a teacher so he was showing us how we should pray.
Basically Jesus said and did things that only God could do. Yet he is not the Father. So we have to come up with an explaintion.
Also God is beyond anything we can fully understand.
kgxxx10 5 hours ago
@kgxxx10 I've been to the Kingdom Hall today and it was beautiful. The love and warm welcome was amazing. Now back to you, can you tell me if God can die?
quietsparks1 1 hour ago
@quietsparks1 I went to church yesterday and it also was beautiful!
Jesus, the second person of the trinity put on flesh. Death is seperation of the Soul from the Body. This happened to Chirst on the Cross. Part of the problem you might be having is that the WTS does not teach what death really is. They have distorted view of it. Consider that death is the seperation of body and Soul, and then yes God did die on the Cross!
kgxxx10 14 seconds ago
Those scriptures that say God and Jesus Christ,the and is separating The Father and The Son
lhr2731 3 days ago
where did you get the greek English translastions? id like them for my bible study
thanks
drummerchris83 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jesus was not on the same level as God. John 14 28 'the father is greater than i am'.
blitzxer017 3 weeks ago
@blitzxer017 This is position, not level... You are either God or you are not God. You can't be "A God". The Father is in a supiriour position to the Son, this does not preclude the trinity. BTW... the Son willing submits to the Father. Willing submitting means that he has the ablity to do otherwise.
kgxxx10 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The bible doesnt tell you to follow the watchtower or charles taze russel........so why do JW's?
146believe 3 weeks ago
"The Word as a god" - Funny, that's not what my NA27 or my UBS 4th Edition Greek New Testaments say. What a woeful mistranslation. That's the problem when theology drives the translation.
empreme 4 weeks ago
@empreme
Even in their KIT(that's in their library) is translated "The Word was God" NWT is a distortion because that verse and hundreds of others teach their doctrines. That poses a big problem to many JW's!
POC777 4 weeks ago
Next time when you come across a JW tell them to read and try to compare Isaiah 43:10 with John 1:1 in their Bible and ask them: If Jehovah is the only true God and no other was created before or will be after why does it say in John 1:1 that Jesus is a god?
POC777 1 month ago
@POC777 Please read Colossians 1: 15, 16 and 17 and that will answer your question
allen87white 1 month ago
@allen87white
I've studied that Jesus is God I know He is God!
POC777 1 month ago
@POC777 Ok :) thank you for your time.
allen87white 1 month ago
@POC777 I know that Jesus is anything but the true God, the Almighty.
TheGenuineChristian 1 month ago
@POC777 Wake up Brother Christ is not God read Revelations very carefully Rev.5:1-14 Notice the one on the Throne see him, and the lamb who takes the book out of the right hand of him who sits on the throne The one on the Throne is the Father the lamb is Christ the Son
lhr2731 3 days ago
@lhr2731 no1 never saw FATHER! we saw father in Son !
dimitrisfil1987 3 days ago
Read john 1:1-2 and tell me what you think...
920chicago 1 month ago
@920chicago How many Gods are there? One or many?
kgxxx10 1 month ago
@920chicago I answered you in private, however John 1:1-2 shows the distinction between the Father and the Word, however there are other verses we need to take into account to make sure we understand this right. Scripture is not a dictionary phrases to be used to determine a theology. If we ignore verses and the like we can make scripture say just about anything. From scripture we know that there is only One God. Therefore either Jesus is God or he is not!
kgxxx10 1 month ago
Jesus is not God the all mighty he is a god.
920chicago 1 month ago
@920chicago So you believe in multiple God's, this is Polytheism, scripture does not support this. There is only one God... so either Jesus is God or he is not.
kgxxx10 1 month ago
@920chicago There is no such thing as a god, you should know this, unless you're Pagan.
Tsotne16 1 month ago
@Tsotne16 thank you
nicetailor666 2 weeks ago
@920chicago How to do explain, Isiah 10:20-22
blackmediaenterprise 1 month ago
What does john 1:2 say and this will answer you're question...
920chicago 1 month ago
@kgxxx10 Google "origin of trinity" it may be helpful.. THANK U also for not being "dogmatic" in our discussion..
relefordnation 1 month ago
@relefordnation Oh I know the answers to the questions I asked... I want to know what you believe that the answers are. I've already read much of the writings from 40-400AD and beyond... so I know when the trinity was first defined etc. I was asked when do you believe that it was first written about and by who? Also who was the first to emphatically declare Jesus as God in the Flesh, who and who taught him?
Can you answer these?
kgxxx10 1 month ago
@kgxxx10 keep reading. Dont stop @ verse 18. Jesus clearly says wut he meant..in verse 18 John was merely giving the Jews point of view
;)
relefordnation 1 month ago
@relefordnation Actualy he never corrected them! And in another place he said the same thing John 8, and again they tried to stone him. Also this was the reason he was crucifed. It was not because he claimed to be the Messiah, many claimed that during that period, Acts 5:34-39. He was curcified becuase under oath he said he was the Son of God. Not a son, but The Son.
kgxxx10 1 month ago
Trinity doesnt apear in the bible. Man made doctrine. Jesus clearly makes it known in numerous verses that he is Gods son and they are not equal.. Concluding, If John 1:1 is interperted "was God,it basically invalidates Gods word... U have to go back to drawing board because God "cannot lie." Scripture should interpert scripture..John 1:1 has to be interperted by scripture. not u not me...
relefordnation 1 month ago
@relefordnation Are you refering ot Deut 6:4? The word here is Echad, not yahid. This is the same word as used in Gen 2:24, it can also be applied to groups as well is individuals. If the trinity is a man made doctrine, please tell me where the first time it appeared in writing was? Or outside of the bible who was the first person to declare Christ God? (And who taught this person?)
kgxxx10 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@relefordnation Are you refering ot Deut 6:4? The word here is Echad, not yahid. This is the same word as used in Gen 2:24, it can also be applied to groups as well is individuals. If the trinity is a man made doctrine, please tell me where the first time it appeared in writing was? Or outside of the bible who was the first person to declare Christ God? (And who taught this person?)
kgxxx10 1 month ago
The Word was GOD(JEHOVAH)contradicts the whole bible... I have a son. He is not me and i am not he... When Jesus(THE WORD) says "the Father is greater than I am"John 14:28... "God loved the world so much that he gave his only begotton son"John 3:16.. Crystal clear! so The WORD(Jesus)is GOD(JEHOVAH) is mistranslated! Proverbs speaks of wisdom and discernment.. God cannot lie! Use discernment, cultivate wisdom...
relefordnation 1 month ago 2
@relefordnation The trinity does not teach that the Father and the Son are the same perosn. Therefore there is no conflict.
John 5 [17] But Jesus answered them: My Father worketh until now; and I work. [18] Hereupon therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he did not only break the sabbath, but also said God was his Father, making himself equal to God.
Jesus here makes himself equal to God!
Now if you want to insert an "a" in John 1:1 you have to insert it in other places too
kgxxx10 1 month ago
@relefordnation YHVH is ONE OF THE qualitative NAMES (NOT a given name) of the God, of the ONE GOD: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. YHVH is the name for all three persons of the God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
thank you for your attention
Tsotne16 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The truth is there is no letter "J" in the Hebrew alphabet. It is impossible that the name of God is Jehovah. You are being deceived by your preachers! They hide you the truth! You want to know when and how that name JEHOVAH existed? Log on to -theoldpath .tv- You have the right to know! Do not waste your money, effort, time and soul to a name of god not anywhere found in the original bible translations...If there is no Bro Eli Soriano then we will be all victim of lies! Glory to God---
ilovetruth777 1 month ago
if u turn on your T.V or read a thomas nelson inc. KJV bible defin. for the trinity. They all say JESUS is Jehovah God the great I Am. Now isaiah9:6 says Jesus is a Mighty GOD We don't deny that, but he's not Almighty God. They are 2 separate SPIRIT beings. In daniel7:13 was a vision of JESUS getting took to Jehovah to recieve his kingship. Like in matt28:18 he said all authority has been given to him.Hebrews9:24 shows how he went in the presence or before the person of God for us.
31devildestroyer 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@31devildestroyer I really could care less what the TV says or that. I can what the early Church Fathers believed, what scripture says, and what the Church that Christ founded says.
Let me ask you... was Jesus created or did he create ALL things? Becuase if he created ALL things, then he himself could not be created, because the would have created himself.
kgxxx10 1 month ago
The trinity is lot of crap wake up you people John 1:1 has nothing to do with the trinity, all I see in that verse 2 person the word Jesus an God Yehovah read verse 18
takirid 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@takirid This is intersting that you see 2 persons in John 1:1, because you are right, there are two persons talked about in John 1:1. The two persons are the Father and the Son. The point you miss is that the Trinity teaches that the Father and the Son are two distinct persons! Now if you want to say that Jesus is not God, then you have to fix some other scriptures, because in John 1:3 it says that the Son (word) created ALL things! So either the Son created himself, or we have to do some..
kgxxx10 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@takirid cont... other editing of scriptures to say well he is the first creation of God who then created all OTHER things, or some other stuff. Problem is that when you do this you end up with Polytheism (or the believe in more then one God). Witnesses talk about lesser gods, and the like. They really are polythiests, yet do not recognize it. When Christians say that there is only ONE God we mean it! There are things that are called god, but they are not truly God. To man an Angel can ...
kgxxx10 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@takirid appear as a god, these beings are exteimly powerfull! However this does not make them gods (even lesser gods). All of these were created by the One TRUE God. This ONE TRUE God has revealed himself to us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Three distinct (yet not seperate) persons with one nature. Person here means center of will and intellect. Nature here means what something is. Humans have both nature and person. God has 1 Nature with 3 Persons. God's nature is not shared or divided.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
all other scholars would agree cause they all was raised believing the trinity, its the only scripture they have to back up what their saying, the problem is the scripture is WRONGLY STATED. and it still don't say ALMIGHTY GOD only GOD. the bible calls SATAN gOD in corinthians4:4
31devildestroyer 2 months ago
@31devildestroyer 2 Cor 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
There is debate among scholars as to exactly who Paul was talking about here. This could be God the Father, Satan or worldly things. Any one of these works for the sentence.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
ima Jw, John10:3,4 JESUS said to ONLY listen to his VOICE, John10:36 Jesus said he was GOD'S SON, God spoke out of Heaven in matt3:17 saying Jesus was his SON. PETER in Matt16:16 said Jesus was the Son of the living GOD. John17:3,6,26 says how JESUS prayed to GOD tell him he had made the NAME JEHOVAH KNOWN to the 12, 2JOHN7 says who ever say JESUS was GOD in the FLESH¬ JESUS in the Flesh is the ANTI-christ& the deciever*
31devildestroyer 2 months ago
@31devildestroyer The problem is that the WTS does not teach the proper trinity, it teaches something closer to modalism which was rejected long before 200AD. So you will not see the trinity in scripture using the WTS definition of the trinity.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So you people believe that Jesus is god? What if I show you in your OWN bible that Jesus didn't equal his-self in one true God? You weaked one...
darkeramain 2 months ago
@darkeramain How about Jesus calling himself God and the Jews trying to stone him over this? Or the fact that Jesus was Crucified because he declared himself to be God?
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@kgxxx10 Then let us see when the bible declare Jesus himself as a One TRUE God? Please don't forget that there are many god mention in the bible.
darkeramain 2 months ago
@darkeramain John 8: [26] Many things I have to speak and to judge of you. But he that sent me, is true: and the things I have heard of him, these same I speak in the world. [27] And they understood not, that he called God his Father.
Note here the Jews did not understand what Jesus said, yet he continues on by verse 59 they finaly got him:
They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@darkeramain John 5 [17] But Jesus answered them: My Father worketh until now; and I work. [18] Hereupon therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he did not only break the sabbath, but also said God was his Father, making himself equal to God. Again he did not correct them rather...
[19] Then Jesus answered, and said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you, the Son cannot do any thing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doth,
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@darkeramain cont... these the Son also doth in like manner.
and he continues right along re-enforcing what was said, not correcting. The listeners, because they got it right.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@kgxxx10 Thank you very much for the answer sir. John 8:26 read "...But he that sent me" who do you thing Jesus referred in this statement? Himself? Remember Jesus didn't claim in that verse himself as a One TRUE GOD. One thing is clear Jesus didn't recognise himself as equal to GOD how? John 14:28. Mark me if I wrong...
darkeramain 2 months ago
@darkeramain Perhaps you misunderstand that trinity. Are you a witness?
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@darkeramain
John 5:18. Hereupon therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he did not only break the sabbath, but also said God was his Father, MAKEING HIMSELF EQUAL TO GOD. Yes he did claim equality with God.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@kgxxx10 I have no problem in view of you sir, my point is Jesus and his Father true GOD is not one person or the same.
darkeramain 1 month ago
@darkeramain You are 100% right, the Father and the Son are not the same person!!! Amen. However they are both equally God. They both have the same nature. The trinity does not teach that the Father and the Son are the same person. Whomever told you this is lying to you.
God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, 3 distinct persons, 1 nature.
kgxxx10 1 month ago
@kgxxx10 As we both agree father is not greater than son, we know were true worship we need to practise. I remember when Satan try to temper Jesus devotion from his father written in Matthew 4:10.
darkeramain 1 month ago
@darkeramain Again the trinity does not teach that Jesus (the Son) is greater then the Father. The Father is always greater then the Son (in position). Now a human father and son have a similar nature (ie. both human). The same is true of the divine Father and Son. However since you can't divide a infinite nature, both (all three members of the trinity) equally possess the same nature.
kgxxx10 1 month ago
@darkeramain The point I try to make to my witness friends is that the trinity as taught by the WTS is not the trinity that true trinitarians believe. The trinity they teach can't be found in scriptures. Yet the true understanding of the trinity is very very obvious in scripture.
Also the WTS distorts history and misquotes the early Christian writers to make you believe that they did not believe in the trinity.
kgxxx10 1 month ago
@kgxxx10 No sir, As I though trinity is a not even accepted in true early Christian nor they base in that particular teach. Jesus tell specific to glorify his ONLY father name, not himself so it is clear that if we follow Jesus we lead our devotion only in one particular GOD father. (notice that bible specific tells the name of every god whether true or false) Good day...
darkeramain 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darkeramain Are you sure that the trinity was not accept among the early Christains? From my reading of their writings it was pretty much universaly accepted. What took time was how to express this correctly in human langauge.
Jesus also said:
John 5:23. That all men may honour the Son, as they honour the Father. He who honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father, who hath sent him.
We are to honour the SON as we honour the Father!!!!
kgxxx10 1 month ago
@darkeramain
No, the early church believed Jesus was God-- look at Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, etc, etc.
skolded1 1 month ago
No they do lie not about John 1:1. The only people who lie are those who stand at the pulpit teaching there congrgation lies about the trinity
takirid 2 months ago
ezekiel 4;12 god makes people eat shit then in malachi 2;3 he spreads shit on ppl faces nice god you retards have. exodus 20;5 and leviticus 20;5 he punishes ppl 7times over and till there 4th generation
sajakram1 2 months ago
You make me laugh.Read your Bible properly mate,(John 1:1 says the word was WITH God! who was he with HIMSELF or was he with his FATHER; HE HAD TO BE WITH HIS FATHER NOT SOME MYSTIC GOD HEAD IN FACT YOU WILL NOT FIND THE WORD TRINITY IN THE BIBLE.Read verse 18 NO MAN HAS SEEN GOD We know that the apostal seen JESUS"NOT GOD ALMIGHTY.In fact the apostal John goes on to say Jesus is the one that has explained him. we know the Bible dose not contradict.THE TRINITY IS A PAGAN TEACHING.
takirid 2 months ago
@takirid How can someone be with himself? And yet not himself?
kgxxx10 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
blah blah blah blah your just as full of shit as any other cultist is
givingmantoo 2 months ago in playlist Bible Students - Jehovah's Witnesses
I can read NT greek and have read many many scholars and there is no question that the NT equates Jesus with God. He is the creator, worshipped, and outright called God in many passages. Scholars main question is whether Jesus himself thought he was God or divine or even the messiah. many do doubt this
agnostaxian 2 months ago
@kgxxx10 Tertullian taught that the "Wisdom personified" of proverbs 8 was Jesus and twice referred to Jesus (as Wisdom) as being "created" Against Praxeas
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 Tertullian is the one who coined the name Trinity (trinas in Latin). In Against Praxious which the WTS quotes he describes the trinity almost exactly like Nicea in 325 did!
Have you read these men in their entierty?
Irenaous must be quoted with great care, becuase he described the believes of many herectial sects. So taken out of context he can be made to say just about anything.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 Irenaeus Against Hersies Bk 3 Ch 18 Pg 7:
He caused man (human nature) to cleave to and
to become, one with God. For unless man had overcome the enemy of man, the
enemy would not have been legitimately vanquished. And again: unless it had been
God who had freely given salvation, we could never have possessed it securely. And
unless man had been joined to God, he could never have become a partaker of
incorruptibility.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@kgxxx10 Are you saying the "Trinity brochure" made up these quotes and they cannot be attributed to these "Church Fathers"?
They said a lot more than that.
Remember it was only a standard 32 page brochure and they were limited with space
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 No they are quotes from the Church fathers. However the quote from Tertullian is taken from his talking about the believes of the Monarchins.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@kgxxx10 Much of what I have read in various encyclopedias and other books about the early church agrees with Alvan lamson
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 Have you actualy read the Church Fathers? And not excepts?
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@kgxxx10 Back on topic. I agree with the comment by Alvin Lamson The modern popular doctrine of the trinity...derives no support from the language of Justin Martyr and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene fathers (which includes the statements of Tertullian and Irenaeus)..It is true, they speak of the Father. Son and holy spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as 3 in one, in any sense now admitted by trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 Oh Realy!!!! Tertullian and Irenaeus did not believe in the trinity?
kgxxx10 2 months ago
kgxxx10 That fact was just brought to my attention and was quite startled to find how recent it was. As you are the only Catholic I am talking to at the moment I wanted your opinion on it.
You are right, it was a bit off subject and I must apologise for mentioning it
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 Hopefully the information I just posted will help. BTW the church is not perfect in her member, and her member do make just as many mistakes as any other group. The WTS also has it's share of skeletons in it's closet as well. I look at the teachings of the group rather then the actions of it's members. If I do look at the members it is those that keep the teaching of the faith, rather then those who don't.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
kgxxx10 It was the date that the last person was executed by the Spanish Inquisition in Valencia, Spain. He was tortured and killed for teaching Deism.
What is your opinion of this and how can the Catholic Church justify this action?
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 Oh... I'm scratching my head to figure out what this has to do with the conversation.
As to the Inquisistion, I suggest that before you condemn it, you study history from secular sources. BTW there were also protestant inquistions. Also it was secular authorities that killed poeple, not the church. Also the spanish inquisition was run mostly by the King and not the church. And the inquistions run over a period of about 300-500 years.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 Another thing, the Catholic faith is not open to debate or change. Our understanding of it can change, and how we express this can change. But the basic tenents of the Faith, are cast in stone. Becuase they came from Christ himself. If you read about some of the groups like the Cartharas in France, and study their believes you would also reject them as being very very bad.
During the inquisitions the guilty were given two options, fix their believes, or leave.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 cont... those that did not where turned over to the state to deal with. Also torture was a accepted method of gaining a confession, and was used by secular authorities very often. The Church placed limites on it's use, 1) it could only be used after a preponderence of evidence was found against the accused, 2) It could not cause permanent physical harm, 3) it could only be used once. Also if one of the peices of evidence against a person came from someone who was an enemy of the
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 cont... person, that could not be used in the trial. The goal of all the trials was repentance, not death. Also during the Spanish inquisition the pope at the time was trying to stop the king, and sent several papel legates to deliver the message, for some reason they never made it from the spanish border to the king. :-)
Finaly the Church has appologiezed for this and many other things that have happened over the years.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@kgxxx10 What is the importance of the date July 31st 1826 to Catholics ?
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 No idea. I did a web search and could not find anything of interest. What is the importants of the date?
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@kgxxx10 JWs did use the word "worship" for Jesus and thought it was right to do so, though not in the way they attributed "worship" to Almighty God. It is clear from the beginning that JWs do not believe Jesus is God, so it is obvious the problem was how best to distinguish "homage" to Jesus and "worship" to Jehovah.Probably due to their use of the KJV. I agree with the NWT in the use of "obeisance" making a clear distinction between Almighty God and the Mighty God
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 The Greek word προσεκυνησεν literaly means "to kiss the feet". And since it is applied to both man and God, I don't use it to prove the trinity. Also everywhere you see the word worship is not always προσεκυνησεν. In Matt 15:9 the word is σεβονται, In Heb 10:2 we have λατρευοντας.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@kgxxx10 The English word worship has changed over the years. The KJV translated the word worship on all occasions for "proskuneo". Even when the slave bowed to his master they translated as "worship". Back then people new what attitude the "worship" was given and new it was a different form of homage than was due to God.
This can be seen by the use of "worship" in titles to Mayors, Magistrates and Justice of the Peace" . In fact "His, or Her Worship" is still used as honorifics today in the UK
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 Yes it has, in modern parlence it means to sing praise and give adoration. However this was not how the word was always used.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
kgxxx10 I can answer that after I deal with "worship Jesus". I
steveparadise1 2 months ago
kgxxx10 I have read all articles pertaining to these dates going back to 1874, 5 years before the first Watchtower was published. I have also read most of the misquotes and compared them. How easy it is to mislead the anti JW brigade. I suppose if the 1st century Christians could deal with all the lies and false accusations we must also.
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 Did you read original copies or reprints?
Also why does the WTS in it's book "Should you believe in the trinity?" quote the Early Church Fathers (like Tertullain and Irenaous) and imply that they did not believe in the trinity? I've asked this to many witnesses and not a one can give me an answer... can you?
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@kgxxx10 Surely, you are not alluding to 1914 and 1975 ? I would have been sure that someone who looks a bitter deeper into things, would know exactly what the WBTS REALLY said about these dates.
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 Yes I have read what they have written about them. Have you read the original articles that they wrote on these or just the recent ones on this. Also sometimes the reprints are corrected. How about this... did you know that prior to 1954 the WTS said that Jesus could be worshiped?
kgxxx10 2 months ago
kgxxx10 Agreed. The disciples were not to know at this time as they were to concentrate on the commission to preach the good news where Peter would use the Keys to open up the way of salvation to the Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles.
Even now, while I believe we are deep in the time period Jesus spoke of in Matt 24,25, we still do not know the day or hour, but we do recognize the season and time period.
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 If Jesus says that it will come like a Thief in the Night (again a wedding tradition), and that no one knows the hour of this... why did the WTS repeataly predict the date of Armageddon?
kgxxx10 2 months ago
kgxxx10 I didn't say 99% of what people "believe". I said "readers". There are times when the audience have to be considered, but we are usually alerted to this by the strangeness of the comment to our modern way of thinking and language. For instance "let the dead, bury the dead". Unless you did some research you would assume Jesus was being a bit cold with the young man.
I do not think Matt 24 :26 falls into that category. At Acts 1:7 Jesus showed us he could say "mind your own business"
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 Read what I wrote again... The NT was written for a 1st century audence (who knew these things), not a modern audience. The culture of the time was high context, where there was just alot of times you were assumed to know. Today we opererate in a low context culture where everything is spelled out. Note all of those listening would have recoginized Jesus using the language of weddings when he said this... "I go to prepare a place for you"... "In my Fathers house there are many"
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 In Matt 24, right after vs 37,38, right into marrage, the bride did not know the exact hour her groom would come to claim her. She had to be constantly on the ready to hear the call of the wedding party! Keep in mind there is only ONE Gospel, not four... you have to read them all together to get the full picture.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@kgxxx10 99.9999% of bible readers would not know anything about Jewish wedding traditions and even if they did would probably not equate it with the words of Jesus.
If that is what Jesus meant then he is not telling us a whole lot. You make a very weak defence for a verse that clearly calls in to question your theology. As much as you and I enjoy looking a bit deeper into scripture I don't think God intends that level of scrutiny to appreciate his truth
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 It really does not matter what 99% of modern bible readers believe, what is important is what did Jesus mean when he said that. And what would the first people who read this believe that he meant.
BTW this verse used to puzzle me until I recognized wedding theme running throughout the OT and NT and did some research into Jewish wedding customes. But I also coupled it with Acts 1:7 and other verses and figured that he did not want to tell us. Also Jesus was fully human...
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 cont and it is possible that he when he walked the earth did not know things like he would in his Divine nature. However in other places he said that the end would come like a thief in the night, and that we are to be ready etc, along with Acts 1:7 kind of told me that this was not something we should know. Learning to understand scripture takes a long time. It is not possible to just pick up the bible and come up with a common understanding of what it means.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
kgxxx10 In Matt he says "only the Father knows" He was not "deferring", he did not know. In Acts he tells us why neither he nor anyone else knew, its in his Fathers Jurisdiction. Then we have the so called 3rd member of the trinity, the Holy Spirit. Why didn't he know?
Jesus is teaching us something more important than disciples "mind your own business". If Jesus said "only the Father knows" I believe him.
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 If you take the time to study Jewish wedding customs of the first century, you will see that what I am saying is true. Just if I were to say that "It is raining cats and dogs", you would not go out and call the ASPCA to come pick up all the stray cats and dogs. This is a similar phrase. Remember scripture was written 2000 years ago in a very different culture then today, to attempt to read it with modern eyes will result in errors. It must be read in context.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 Any first century reader would have immediately recognized that Jesus was using the language of weddings to talk to the Apostles, and would have understood the phrase "it is up to the father" in those terms. Just as you today would understand "raining cats and dogs".
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@kgxxx10 So at the wedding only the grooms father knew, not the son
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 No the son knew... he just deferred to the father. This is called honoring your Father and Mother. This was Jewish custom. This is how life was in a patriarchal society that the Jews lived in.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@kgxxx10 What these to verses have in common is they both put knowledge of certain time periods as exclusively the Fathers. This excludes everyone else, including Jesus at Matt 24.
No matter what analogy you use, there are things Jesus did not know
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 In Acts Jesus does not say he does not know! In both he says in modern English "It is not for you to know!" Or Mind our own business!
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@kgxxx10 These are the words of Peter at John 21:17, naturally he would feel that way.
Jesus did say to his disciples at Acts 1:7 "It does not belong to you to get knowledge of times and seasons which the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction"
Matt 24:36 says "No one knows the day and the hour, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son of man, but only the Father".
These are clear statements " only the Father knows".
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 Read Acts.. "It does not belong to you to get knowledge of times and seasons" It is not yours to know. In ancient Jewish wedding customs, after the marrage contract was defined between the two people, the groom would go back to his house (fathers house) and prepare a place for his bride to be. It was the fathers responsibility to state when the place was ready. So when friends asked the groom what the time of the wedding feast was, he would respond by saying Only the father ...
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 cont... knows the time of the feast. Now the groom knew when the bridal feast was to be. Yet the father was the one to announce this. Then the groom with his party would go and claim the bride and bring her back to the place the groom had prepared and there would be the feast. Now if you recognize a lot of this you will see that the last supper was besides a passover celebration a wedding nuptial ceremony. And there is a wedding theme running throughout the OT and NT. ...
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 cont so we can see that Christ at the last supper was not saying I don't know, but it is not my place to reveal this to you! And it is not for you to know at this time. So there is no lack of indicating knowledge of anything.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@kgxxx10 Unlike the Father and Son the human father and son are not claiming to be the same person.
If Jesus was 100% God and 100% man while on earth why did he not know certain things?
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 John 21:17 ...And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. ... Now if you are referring to him saying that only the Father knows when time is going to end, this is basically an expression saying it is not for you to know, so don't ask! Look up Jews wedding customs of the 1st century.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@kgxx10 I have spoke to some who believe in the "God-man" while Jesus was on earth and was wondering if it is the same
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 No idea... I only know the Trinity that has been taught for the last 2000 years, this is the only one I believe. BTW I was right about the hypostatic union continuing after the resurrection. The PERSON of Christ has two natures, one human, one divine. There was some early debate about whether Christ was two persons melded together or one person. This was settled at Nicea and some later councils.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
kgxxx10 Do you not think there is a difference between "willingly submitting", and earning, being rewarded and being given ? Of course he submitted himself but his position in heaven, at Gods right hand, is much less than what almighty God would have by right.
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 John 17:5 And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself, with the glory which I had, before the world was, with thee. Christ had Glory with the Father before the world was! He said so himself! We also know that the Father shares his Glory with no-one. Therefore we have to assume that Christ is God.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
Kgxxx10 I missed this one.
"Hypo-static union"
Does this include while he was on earth or only while he is in heaven?
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 I would have to check the exact teaching on this. But I think that it is from the moment of his conception in Mary's womb on. He was assumed bodily into heaven, flesh and bones (his blood being all spilled). This term is used in Heb 1:3. It basically is used to denote the oneness of the person of Jesus in both his human and divine nature. This is just a fancy technical term.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
kgxxx10 Why is it that after the glorified Jesus ascended in to heaven with "all authority" with "a name above every name that every knee should bend" he is still in a subordinate position to the Father?
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 The Son willing submits to the will of the Father. Scripture I do not believe answers this question clearly. However the Father is always in a superior position to the Son. However just because he is in a subordinate position to the Father does not make him any less God then the Father. The same with a human Father and Son. Both are equal human, yet the Son is always subordinate to the Father (or should be).
kgxxx10 2 months ago
"firstborn" does not really mean "firstborn"
"beginning" does not really mean "beginning"
"only-begotten" does not really mean "only-begotten"
"origin" does not really mean "origin"
See the pattern here!
When do the inspired bible writers actually mean what they say?
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 First born is more a title than an indication of brith order. Becuase if a woman had 10 girls then a boy, the boy would be called Firstborn. This is a title the has to do with inheritence rather then birth order. Only-begotten is a synonym with only-child. Origin means beinging of everything. Now we know that Jesus is the Only Son of the Father and of Mary. He was born to Mary in the flesh. At times the bible writers are refering to his humanity and at other times to his divinity
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 cont I think the point is that the WTS makes the assumption that Jesus is a created being, and adjust scripture to fit this believe, rather then letting scripture speak for itself. As Christians we have what we call the Hypostatic Union, where we believe that Christ is 100% God and 100% Man. He has basicly two natures. So sometimes scripture is talking about one nature over the other. His human nature has a begining with Mary, however the person of Christ is eternal.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
kgxxx10 Many authorities state the first meaning of "motsaah" is "origin". Hence the reason many trinitarian translations use "origin" at Micah 5:2. I'm sure if there was another word more acceptable to their theology they would have used it as some incorrectly do for "firstborn" at Col 1:15 and "beginning" at Rev 3:14.
Your quote from the DR is similar to the AV but certainly not how most bibles translate.
Which in fairness, the numbers game is not in itself proof.
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 This is correct. This is why I got lots of college level text on Biblical Greek by well know and respected scholars and learned to read it myself. This way I can understand the original better. There are also some subtlites that just don't make it into the translations, becuase Greek is a richer language then English. Mic 5:2 talks about the messiah being from Old or Ancient times, to the Jews this would mean from the creation of the world.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@kgxxx10 Exactly my point. God has always been, his wisdom has always been as one of his outstanding qualities. Proverbs says he produced wisdom (Jesus) as the beginning of his way 1 Cor 1:24,30. Gods wisdom cannot be "produced" it had no beginning, the wisdom mentioned here did have a beginning. Jesus did have a beginning. Firstborn, beginning, Micah 5:1,2 says of Jesus "whose ORIGIN is from old. How plain does it need to be?
You are not talking to the WBTS I'm using Gods Word mostly the NAB
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1
Micah 5:2. AND THOU, BETHLEHEM Ephrata, art a little one among the thousands of Juda: out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity.
The LXX uses the αρχης The same word John used in John 1:1. και αι εξοδοι αυτου απ αρχης εξ ημερων αιωνος
The Literal hebrew is: "his goings long the days of eternity"
Basicly Micah 5:2 does not prove that Christ had a beginning.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@kgxxx10 You and I agree with Tertullian and many other early church theologians that the "Wisdom personified" in Proverbs 8 is referring to Jesus.
Vs 22, 23 "The LORD beget me as the beginning of his works long ago; From of old I was formed , at the first, before the earth"
Similar wording to Col 1 :15 and Rev 3:14
Jesus was the first and only being directly created by God. This is what the scripture tells us, not the WTBS.
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 Actually scripture tells us that Jesus is Uncreated, it is the WTBS that tells us that he was created. They do this by adding words to scripture. John 1:3 says that NOTHING was not created by Christ! Or EVERYTHING that is created was made by him! Therefore unless he made himself, the WTBS has this wrong.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@kgxxx10 You gave an accurate account of 1 cor 8;6. The Father is the source of creation. Jesus is the instrument through which all creation came into being. That God is the creator there is no doubt as Jesus himself testified at Mat 19:4 "He himself created them man and woman"
Without the source and power of the Father operating through him could Jesus create? Apparently not. Without Jesus could the Father Create? Absolutely.
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 Christ is the Very WORD of God. God's word is not created, nor is his wisdom. God always has his word and wisdom. These are uncreated and part of God.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@kgxxx10 When you consider the verses we have looked at 1 Cor 8:6, Col 1:16, John 17:3 you have to ask yourself... How could anyone come up with the doctrine of the trinity as you describe it?
Go back a verse in Colossians 1 :15 where Jesus is clearly called the "firstborn (prototokos) of all creation". Or in Revelation 3:14 where John describes Jesus as the "beginning (arche) of the creation of God"
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 With Col 1:16 what we have here is that Jesus created everything! This is what Paul is stressing here and John in John 1:3. From the OT we know that God created everything. Therefore both Paul and John are equating Jesus with God. Angels are created beings, and since Jesus created all things (including Angels), he is God. There is no one verse that will prove the trinity, you have to take the whole bible to get the teaching.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 However the WTS adds the word "other" to Col 1:16 and John 1:3 so that they can prove that Jesus is a created being. Otrherwise he created himself. Which does not make sense. There are ways Paul could have said Col 1:16 to indicate that Jesus was a created being, yet he did not. In John 1:3 he uses the word "pas" which means general all, so to make sure he adds in "and without him was made nothing that was made." So you get that he means ALL things where made by the Word of God.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@kgxxx10 I fail to see how Col 1:16 supports the trinity unless you have changed your view from your earlier statement of Jesus role in creation. You said "The second Jesus Christ, through...the Greek is di which means through or channel"
I notice in your quote of 1Col 1:16 that you have omitted the word "through" (di) and replaced it with "by".
If anything this verse further emphasises that Jesus is the "master worker" (Proverbs 8 30,31) in creation where the Father is source of the power.
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 Christ is the instrument that God used to create all things. Christ is Wisdom spoken about in Proverbs 8. The word dia denotes channel of an act, through, by etc. The DRC also translates "dia" in 1 Cor 8:6 as "by". From this word dia we get our word diameter ( a line bisecting a circle). Greek prepositions change there meaning depending on the case of the nouns they are used with. Through would not be wrong, if you take it in the instrumental case.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@kgxxx10 Don't you think it is strange that most of the main verses for supporting the trinity doctrine come under the heading of "controversial".
What are the verses you use from the 2nd, 3rd century to support the trinity?
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 Actualy none of the verses that support the trinity are "contraversal". That is what the WTS wants you to believe. I would recommend reading Tertullians "Against Praxesous", to see how he defended the trinity against monoarchism (the believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are differnt modes or aspects of the same being). Keep this in mind while reading him becuase he is emphasizing the uniqueness of each member.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@kgxxx10 I hear this accusation about the WBTS all the time that they "adjust scripture to support their view". They bring out a the NWT and it is immediately jumped on as being "corrupt", mostly due to John 1:1, 8:58 and using the divine name throughout the text. Through my studies I have concluded that their objection is theological, not scholarly. The NWT has much support for the controversial ,those who are anti JW are not going to be crawling over each other to look for it.
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 How about this:
Col 1:16. For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 NWT: because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him.
The word [other] does not occur in the Greek. They did the same to verse 17. This is to prove that Jesus was created by God, rather then that he created all.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@dasenuff At what point in this video did the JW lie? I have watched this a few times and cant find it
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 The witnesses in the video did not lie as such. A lie is to make a statement that is contray from what you believe to be true. If I believe that grass is bright red, then I don't lie if I say so. Now if I know that grass is really green and I go around saying that it is bright red this is a lie. Now the question is, does the WTS lie about John1:1. Judging from many of their translational errors, I would have to say that they are adjusting scripture to fit their views.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
to the qustion in the title of this video.....yes
dasenuff 2 months ago
@kgxxx10 I would dispute your view of the events of the first few centuries but that would just end up as a "he says, she says" type of argument.
I would say it is quite clear from the writers of the NT that they had no idea of the trinity, as there is not one single statement, or hint, anywhere that they believed in a 3 person one God.
If it is that clear why did it take many councils hundreds of years to come up with a formula that you now believe in?
Explain my error with Jesus and Paul
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 Actualy the writters in from 150 to 280 and beyond used scripture to prove the trinity. They site many verses to prove the tirnity. Much of the proves for the trinity I use come from them.
The believe preceeded the councils by about 300 years. The church does not define things until they are challenged. Arious challenged the teaching on the trinity. Therefore the church defined the doctrine. Also it took them a while to figure out how to express the teaching in human...
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 language. ( A side note, most of the documents the WTS quotes the fathers as not believing in the trinity are from documents where they define the trinity). While the Apostles where alive there was no dispute about the trinity. Most of the NT books were written to answer questions that were in dispute. Now when John wrote his gospel the Diocism was comeing around, that believe that Christ was God, but that he did not come in the flesh. John was trying to correct this in his...
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 cont... gospel and his first episle. Read the opening of 1 John with this in mind and you can see exactly what he is addressing.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@kgxxx10 So this "authority" of the Church teaches that there is "one God" which comprises of 3 persons Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Jesus and Paul said also there is "one God" and the only member of the one God is the Father
Who is telling the truth here the Church or Jesus and Paul ?
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 Could it be that your understanding of Jesus and Paul are in error? The trinity is expressed in scriptures, however there was not alot of dispute about it until later. We see over a period from about 90AD-150AD the development of how to express this truth. It took the church until 381 to finaly express the doctrine of the trinity correctly in human langauge. The teaching was not changing, but how teaching was express was changing.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@kgxxx10 It was not the decision of the Church that determined what books made up the bible, that was determined by God himself. It is immaterial as to how God protected his word, the point is today, we have a bible that is reliable.
The description you gave of the trinity is how I would have explained it if asked.
"There is ONE GOD (not 3) with 3 distinct persons in the godhead."
Although I have heard many other versions.
I agree with your statement on creation as described at !Cor 8:6.
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 Of course the Holy Spirit Guided these men to choose those books. That is not in question. However these men did not choose books that were contray to the faith. That would make them either ignorant or idiots. Ether way I would not trust their decision if this were the case. These men knew scripture far better then you or me, They were trinitarian, and accepted the books of the NT. In fact many non-trinitrains actualy reject most of the NT becuase it proved the trinity!
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@hartistry1957 I have read a lot of nut job statements about Russell and the WBTS. This is definitely in the top 10.
Where do you get this stuff from?
It originated at John 1:1 nearly 2,000 years ago
steveparadise1 2 months ago
Videos dude, no powerpoints allowed. BTW: Charles Taze Russel's wife, a spirit medium, translated this very passage to Russel; this is where it originated.
hartistry1957 2 months ago
@kgxxx10 The question we have to ask is. Does it seem reasonable that Almighty God, creator of the universe, is unable to protect his written word?
Is it beyond his ability to ensure the truths contained in the bible cannot be discerned by honest hearted seekers of truth?
Would a loving God send his Son to die for our sins then leave us with no direction of how to benefit from it?
As you say " our eternal future is at stake".
Jesus said "you will recognize the truth" I believe that.
steveparadise1 2 months ago
@steveparadise1 Yes Christ did leave us a method of determining the truth... He left us a CHURCH! The Church wrote the Bible (NT), the church decided which books belong in the bible. The church throughout history has protected the bible from change, even Martin Luther acknowledge and thanked the church for giving the world the bible. So yes he did leave a place to go to find the truth.
kgxxx10 2 months ago
@kgxxx10 This is the crunch. If you read these verses and still see a trinity in them then you have a problem. It is not like they are unclear or disputed texts. The issue is that as a trinitarian (and Catholic I presume) you must approach scripture with a 3 person God in mind and read this into any given text. As an ex Catholic (Scots-Irish) I would have died for the faith, now I live for the truth.
Hence the reason I posted on this vid in the first place.
steveparadise1 2 months ago