Jesus SEPARATE from Jehovah; calls Jehovah "my God."

[SonOfCaleb]

Do you believe like JWs do that Jesus Christ did not resurrect from the grave?

JW's believe Christ WAS resurrected from the grave and did resurrect others from the grave too, EG Lazurus. If you're going to call our faith out you probably want to familiarise yourself with the Bible which is where we get our doctrines from.

 

[Crucible]

The Bible Canon was closed towards the end of 1AD. The last book being added to the Christian Greek scriptures was Revelation which John wrote on the Island of Patmos close to the end of 1AD. No other books after 1AD are considered canon. The Muratorian Fragment is THE premier authoritative and oldest known source on the Bible Canon which itself is dated to late 2AD.
The Trinity was not accepted as Catholic dogma until the 4AD. Secondly the Trinity was completely UNKNOWN to the Jews and Christians of 1AD. Even the early so called Church fathers were barely familiar with the Trinity myth. So your claim is obviously false.

The Christian Bible was the Jewish canon, with an added understanding of Jesus. A canon wasn't necessary- the New Testament, except for Revelation, is a collection of letters in which you all have 'closed' by a basically arbitrary standard.

The Trinity doctrine was established in the 2nd Century, and it, along with the canon, were both simultaneously established when Christianity became a formal religion.

You're the one making things up. You have no justification for denying the Trinity, you're just in vain rebellion with your own religion is all.

 

[steko]

JW's believe Christ WAS resurrected from the grave and did resurrect others from the grave too, EG Lazurus. If you're going to call our faith out you probably want to familiarise yourself with the Bible which is where we get our doctrines from.

Where is the physical body of the Lord Jesus which died on the cross?

 

[SonOfCaleb]

The Christian Bible was the Jewish canon, with an added understanding of Jesus. A canon wasn't necessary- the New Testament, except for Revelation, is a collection of letters in which you all have 'closed' by a basically arbitrary standard.

Wrong again. There were a number of conditions that had to be met when determining the canonicity of a book which were certainly not arbitary or whimsical. As in respect of the Hebrew scriptures the books that were considered Canon were read to the people of Israel which included the Mosaic Law. Noncanonical books were not included in religious instruction.

The Hebrew scriptures makes up one half of the Bible canon. The Greek scriptures is obviously the second half hence the logical deleniation between the two books which has been observed since the Holy Bible was compiled and the Canon closed in 1AD.

Heres the list of Canon books as compiled in the Muratorian Fragment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragment around 2AD.

The Trinity doctrine was established in the 2nd Century, and it, along with the canon, were both simultaneously established when Christianity became a formal religion.

No it wasn't. I've already told you when the Trinity doctrine was introduced into Catholicism/Christendom. The Trinity was not included in Catholic Church doctrine until AFTER the Council of Nicea which was 325AD EG the 4th Century AD. Either way the early Christians knew nothing of Trinity Myth which is fact. Theres ZERO evidence that you could even try to produce that can dispute that fact. It was simply unknown to them and the Jews. So your purported date not only is wrong its also irrelavent when attempting to consider the 'validity' of the Trinity myth.

http://www.christadelphia.org/trinityhistory.htm

Seeing as you're insistent on believing the Trinity Myth was established in 2nd Century provide the evidence.........

You're the one making things up. You have no justification for denying the Trinity, you're just in vain rebellion with your own religion is all.

I have every justification in denying the Trinity myth of which i've provided ample refutation.
Everything i've said are verifiable facts. Unlike yourself im more than happy to provide the proof that back up and support my position.

 

[SonOfCaleb]

Where is the physical body of the Lord Jesus which died on the cross?

Who cares? Why does that even matter?

Jesus died on a stake and was raised to life on earth briefly, spending time with his Apostles and disciples and then he ascended to heaven where he resides again as a spirit creature.

Acts 1:9-11 "After he had said these things, while they were looking on, he was lifted up and a cloud caught him up from their sight. 10 And as they were gazing into the sky while he was on his way, suddenly two men in white garments stood beside them 11 and said: “Men of Galʹi·lee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus who was taken up from you into the sky will come in the same manner as you have seen him going into the sky".

All we can conclude from the verse above is Jesus materialised back into a spirit being and his material body was dispensed with in the process. Either way i dont see what the relavence is as Jesus wasn't the first person to do that. The disobedient Angels pre-flood did the same when they returned to Heaven.

 

[Crucible]

I have every justification in denying the Trinity myth of which i've provided ample refutation.
Everything i've said are verifiable facts. Unlike yourself im more than happy to provide the proof that back up and support my position.

You stating some 'verifiable facts' and adding fiction to them is what you are doing. There was no motive to call Jesus God, except in that it was just a matter of fact by the early Christians.
Tertullian, in the 2nd Century, was the first to establish the Trinity, and as a means of explaining the paradox of Jesus' Deity. It was in opposition to 'modalism', which is the belief that Jesus, the Spirit, and the Father are 'modes' rather than three distinct beings.

You think that God has figured "Oh, you can worship Jesus, he's an exception to my golden rule"?
Sorry, brofessor, that's not how He operates.

The Trinity has been Christianity all the way from then until now, by virtually every theologian in history including the very people who inquired the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church in the 16th Century. You just have a chip on your shoulder with Christian orthodoxy- you probably hold other heretical views as well. It's typical of anti-Trinitarians.

 

[SonOfCaleb]

You stating some 'verifiable facts' and adding fiction to them is what you are doing.

Then call out SPECFICALLY which bit of what i said is fiction then.

Tertullian, in the 2nd Century, was the first to establish the Trinity, and as a means of explaining the paradox of Jesus' Deity.

Wrong again. Tertullian didnt't establish the Trinity myth. While he wrote extensively about a Triune God head he A)Considered Jesus subordinate to God and B) Was seen as a heretic by his contemporarys for promulgating his doctrine. In addition the Catholic Church which was responsible for the establishment of the Trinity didnt adopt the Trinity doctrine until 325AD by which point it was an establised Church. So you're 2 centurys out with your spurious dates/claims.

The Trinity has been Christianity all the way from then until now

You can repeat this lie as many times as you like and its not any truer than the last time you said it. If you expect me to take you seriously then provide proof of this claim and i'll happily debunk it. As there is ZERO proof of the Trinity existing as a doctrine from the establishment of Christianity in early 1AD. There's not a single Theologian or academic scholar you could quote who will support your false assertion as its well known the Trinity wasnt introduced into Christianity until 4AD. Over 300 years later.

You probably hold other heretical views as well. It's typical of anti-Trinitarians.

Whatever. I treat the blasphemous Trinity myth with the contempt it deserves. I'm not bothered if that sits well with you or not as i have ample evidence and proof to back up EVERYTHING i've said. You on the other hand are mentally compromised and limited in your lack of reason which is why you have to do the mental gymnastics required to legitimize the ridiculousness notion that the Trinity myth is.

 

[freelight]

freelight bytes.......

freelight bytes.......

Then call out SPECFICALLY which bit of what i said is fiction then.



Wrong again. Tertullian didnt't establish the Trinity myth. While he wrote extensively about a Triune God head he A)Considered Jesus subordinate to God and B) Was seen as a heretic by his contemporarys for promulgating his doctrine. In addition the Catholic Church which was responsible for the establishment of the Trinity didnt adopt the Trinity doctrine until 325AD by which point it was an establised Church. So you're 2 centurys out with your spurious dates/claims.


You can repeat this lie as many times as you like and its not any truer than the last time you said it. If you expect me to take you seriously then provide proof of this claim and i'll happily debunk it. As there is ZERO proof of the Trinity existing as a doctrine from the establishment of Christianity in early 1AD. There's not a single Theologian or academic scholar you could quote who will support your false assertion as its well known the Trinity wasnt introduced into Christianity until 4AD. Over 300 years later.


Whatever. I treat the blasphemous Trinity myth with the contempt it deserves. I'm not bothered if that sits well with you or not as i have ample evidence and proof to back up EVERYTHING i've said. You on the other hand are mentally compromised and limited in your lack of reason which is why you have to do the mental gymnastics required to legitimize the ridiculousness notion that the Trinity myth is.

:thumb:

Research articles by JWs are generally sound concerning the Trinity and promoting a more Unit-arian Christology which I use myself in study references, but one should consult all the data available to draw their own conclusions on doctrinal matters and history. On that note,...its true that it wasnt until the 4-5th centuries that the definitions (fine points) of the Trinity were fleshed out especially during the Arian Controversy where that and other Christological debates were arising.

As I've shared elsewhere, one can take a Unitarian, Trinitarian or other Christological position, what matters is how one lives their lives and treats others with Jesus as their guide, the Holy Spirit their teacher. Love God and love neighbor. The pure in heart shall see God. Those who do God's will enter his kingdom. All united in Christ who live according to the law of love, shall see life, for Christ in them is the hope of glory (the promise of immortality). Those who are born of the Spirit and make peace abroad are called the sons of God, etc. Spiritual laws and religious principles, ethics, etc. are universal, no matter what label you slap on. In this way, I'm a pure theosophist.

A Unitarian view is rational or practical on a functional level, while one may assume any number of human-divine fusion combinations about how Jesus is constituted, slice and dice as you please. There are just enough Christological heresies (so called in various catagories) to make your head swim. Since I'm an eclectic, I enjoy many different views of Jesus, the orthodox 'forumula' has no monopoly on God or Jesus, despite its profession. Like the old saying goes, you cant put 'God' in a box, he cant be shoehorned. 'God' is Spirit. 'God' is infinite.

 

[Crucible]

Wrong again. Tertullian didnt't establish the Trinity myth. While he wrote extensively about a Triune God head he A)Considered Jesus subordinate to God and B) Was seen as a heretic by his contemporarys for promulgating his doctrine. In addition the Catholic Church which was responsible for the establishment of the Trinity didnt adopt the Trinity doctrine until 325AD by which point it was an establised Church. So you're 2 centurys out with your spurious dates/claims.

This is where your twisting of the matter really shows- Tertullian saw the Trinity in Scripture, but still wasn't a 100% right on the matter- he wasn't deemed a heretic because of that, he was deemed a heretic because a lot of his views were schismatic. When the Christian church was formally established, a whole lot of kinks were worked out.
The fact is, you all may as well be defending any other heresy if you're going to run with anti-trinitarianism.

Whatever. I treat the blasphemous Trinity myth with the contempt it deserves.

Nobody needs to entertain your qualm- your opposition doesn't even deserve a rebuttal. The core of Western philosophy exists right in the Trinity, it is rooted very deep within the very school of thought which gave rise to all orthodoxy. There is no 'blasphemy' or 'contempt' deserved toward the Trinity, it simply makes the Son of God the Son of God, eternally begotten and of the same essence- not your demigod angel or whatever you think of him as.

 

[freelight]

Christology Club.......

Christology Club.......

Nobody needs to entertain your qualm- your opposition doesn't even deserve a rebuttal. The core of Western philosophy exists right in the Trinity, it is rooted very deep within the very school of thought which gave rise to all orthodoxy. There is no 'blasphemy' or 'contempt' deserved toward the Trinity, it simply makes the Son of God the Son of God, eternally begotten and of the same essence- not your demigod angel or whatever you think of him as.

Yes, because most of the church fathers were steeped in neoplatonic philosophy and metaphysics,...of course the Trinity was blended right into the formulation - no surprises.

Regardless,....your belief that Jesus is 'God the Son' in a Tri-une company of 3 persons is just as fantastic or more incredible to believe...than Jesus being an arch-angel having 'Michael' as his heavenly name, or is an Aeon in various gnostic schools, a lower luminary or divine Son, a 'Creator Son' in Urantia Book hierarchy, or Jesus just being a human being anointed , adopted and empowered by God as his Messiah, or any number of possible alternatives - Remember,...many different 'modes' to choose from.

Welcome to the club.


Happy Holdiays!

 

[SonOfCaleb]

This is where your twisting of the matter really shows- Tertullian saw the Trinity in Scripture, but still wasn't a 100% right on the matter- he wasn't deemed a heretic because of that, he was deemed a heretic because a lot of his views were schismatic. When the Christian church was formally established, a whole lot of kinks were worked out.
The fact is, you all may as well be defending any other heresy if you're going to run with anti-trinitarianism.

None of this is relavent to your point as Tertullian did not establish the doctrine which is what you claimed. The Trinity doctrine wasnt even clear to Tertullian which you admit by your own admission.
Like others of his contemporarys he wrote about his conflicting thoughts and misunderstanding, when trying to reconcile Greek philsophy with Christianity.

He was pressed on one side by catholic Christians who objected to late second century christology on which the pre-human Jesus was God's instrument of creation. This they considered to be inconsistent with monotheism.
Some of these opponents thought Jesus to be a man empowered and indwelt by God, while others thought that Jesus and the Father were one and the same. That frankly is the extent of Tertuillians works on the matter.
What must be noted first and foremost is Tertullian was a philosopher who was well versed in Hellenism. The same Hellenism that he paradoxically condemned and yet the same Hellenism that he saught to reconcile into Christianity with the introduction of the Triune Gods that the Greeks worshipped. Either way Tertullian never believed that the HS, Jehovah and Jesus were one. He taught they were all indidivual beings. So im afraid yet again your claims fall flat on their face.
And if you dont believe me id encourage you to read Tertullians works yourself and see the truth for yourself.

The core of Western philosophy exists right in the Trinity, it is rooted very deep within the very school of thought which gave rise to all orthodoxy.

Bingo. Game. Set & match.

 

[SonOfCaleb]

:thumb:

Research articles by JWs are generally sound concerning the Trinity and promoting a more Unit-arian Christology which I use myself in study references, but one should consult all the data available to draw their own conclusions on doctrinal matters and history. On that note,...its true that it wasnt until the 4-5th centuries that the definitions (fine points) of the Trinity were fleshed out especially during the Arian Controversy where that and other Christological debates were arising.

As I've shared elsewhere, one can take a Unitarian, Trinitarian or other Christological position, what matters is how one lives their lives and treats others with Jesus as their guide, the Holy Spirit their teacher. Love God and love neighbor. The pure in heart shall see God. Those who do God's will enter his kingdom. All united in Christ who live according to the law of love, shall see life, for Christ in them is the hope of glory (the promise of immortality). Those who are born of the Spirit and make peace abroad are called the sons of God, etc. Spiritual laws and religious principles, ethics, etc. are universal, no matter what label you slap on. In this way, I'm a pure theosophist.

A Unitarian view is rational or practical on a functional level, while one may assume any number of human-divine fusion combinations about how Jesus is constituted, slice and dice as you please. There are just enough Christological heresies (so called in various catagories) to make your head swim. Since I'm an eclectic, I enjoy many different views of Jesus, the orthodox 'forumula' has no monopoly on God or Jesus, despite its profession. Like the old saying goes, you cant put 'God' in a box, he cant be shoehorned. 'God' is Spirit. 'God' is infinite.

Good post. I agree with most of your sentiments. But Theosophy is not anything i have any respect for. Its no different to the mysticism, gnosticism, and occulticism the ancient Chaldeans and Magi practised.

 

[SonOfCaleb]

Regardless,....your belief that Jesus is 'God the Son' in a Tri-une company of 3 persons is just as fantastic or more incredible to believe...than Jesus being an arch-angel having 'Michael' as his heavenly name,

Do you know what the name Micha.El means?

 

[freelight]

Good post. I agree with most of your sentiments. But Theosophy is not anything i have any respect for. Its no different to the mysticism, gnosticism, and occulticism the ancient Chaldeans and Magi practised.

Note that I agree with Theosophy's ethics and moral principles which are universal, about serving others, selflessness, serving the greater good, the concept of universal brotherhood is at its heart. On that note, I'd suggest a bit more research into it, concerning the unity of life and human brotherhood. - thats what I was emphasizing. Theosophy also has some sentiments that do not agree with traditional orthodox Christianity, but that is only in their 'priestcraft', 'rigid dogmatism' and the negative aspects of religious organizations that hinder man's spiritual progress, stunting his evolution.

 

[freelight]

Christ-Michael connection......

Christ-Michael connection......

Do you know what the name Micha.El means?

Indeed, 'he who is like God'. I draw from some different schools on this point, outside of the limited info. in the Bible, and am quite familiar with the JW view. The SDA have a similar view, with different nuances. The Urantia Book also teaches that Jesus is from a group of Creator-Sons called 'Michaels', or from the 'Order of Michael'. - these are divine Sons who go forth to create their own universes, and are wholly devoted to their Father-God, who appear as God to their respective creations, so in this sense a 'Creator-Son' is as 'god' and 'lord' to those created by them. Of Course the Universal Father Alone is the First Source and Center of all creation, but has sent forth Creator-Sons to create the universes of space and time. This may be a side study, but I elaborate more on it here in the UB thread and elsewhere. This is why another title for Jesus is 'Christ-Michael' in UB nomenclature. In any case the 'Christ/Michael' connection is prevelant in both ancient cosmic history and modern, so there must be something to it all.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Who cares? Why does that even matter?

Jesus died on a stake and was raised to life on earth briefly, spending time with his Apostles and disciples and then he ascended to heaven where he resides again as a spirit creature.

Although He is now in heaven in a spiritual body He remains "Man":

"But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God" (Acts 7:55-57).​

Here Paul speaks of the Lord Jesus as being in "bodily form:

"For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form" (Col.2:9).​

Here the Greek word translated "dwells" is in the present tense. So Paul is saying that while the Lord Jesus is in heaven He is in bodily form. The Apostle John saw a vision of the "Son of Man" in heaven:

"And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. 16. And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me" (Rev.1:13-17).​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Of Course the Universal Father Alone is the First Source and Center of all creation, but has sent forth Creator-Sons to create the universes of space and time.

Of course it is the Lord Jesus who is credited with the creation of the universe of space and time:

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist" (Col.1:16-17).​

From this we can understand that all created things were created by the Lord Jesus. That eliminates the possiblity that the Lord Jesus is a created being. After all, it is impossible to even imagine that He created Himself.

Add that fact to the fact that He was "before all things" then the only possible conclusion is that He is God!

 

[steko]

Who cares?

I do. Lot's of people do.

Why does that even matter?

Now, that's just the sort of response that I would expect from someone who sees no point in Christ's resurrection other that a demonstration of power.

Jesus died on a stake and was raised to life on earth briefly, spending time with his Apostles and disciples and then he ascended to heaven where he resides again as a spirit creature

.

The Lord Jesus was raised to life physically and permanently.

You are proving my point regarding JW's shabby partial belief in Christ's resurrection.

Acts 1:9-11 "After he had said these things, while they were looking on, he was lifted up and a cloud caught him up from their sight. 10 And as they were gazing into the sky while he was on his way, suddenly two men in white garments stood beside them 11 and said: “Men of Galʹi·lee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus who was taken up from you into the sky will come in the same manner as you have seen him going into the sky".

He was raised physically, ascended physically and will return physically.
Christianity is not Platonism.

All we can conclude from the verse above is Jesus materialised back into a spirit being and his material body was dispensed with in the process. Either way i dont see what the relavence is as Jesus wasn't the first person to do that. The disobedient Angels pre-flood did the same when they returned to Heaven.

Proving my point again. You don't believe in the fullness or the uniqueness of Christ's physical resurrection.
There has been no one in history other than the Lord Jesus who has been resurrected in the sense that He has.

The Bible teaches the redemption and elevation of mankind physically and spiritually through Christ Jesus, the victor over death.

 

[SonOfCaleb]

I do. Lot's of people do.



Now, that's just the sort of response that I would expect from someone who sees no point in Christ's resurrection other that a demonstration of power.

.

The Lord Jesus was raised to life physically and permanently.

You are proving my point regarding JW's shabby partial belief in Christ's resurrection.



He was raised physically, ascended physically and will return physically.
Christianity is not Platonism.



Proving my point again. You don't believe in the fullness or the uniqueness of Christ's physical resurrection.
There has been no one in history other than the Lord Jesus who has been resurrected in the sense that He has.

The Bible teaches the redemption and elevation of mankind physically and spiritually through Christ Jesus, the victor over death.

You're making a lot of casual and most of all illogical assumptions here. Frankly your entire retort says nothing. I've already told you we absolutely believe Jesus was resurrected to life so what exactly is there to disagree on? We believe Jesus was resurrected because thats what the scriptures says. So what on earth does that have to do with Platonism? Or any of these other irrelevant claims you've made?

The only thing i can glean from your post is you think Jesus resides in Heaven now as a 'physical' EG a corporeal being? If thats correct then we certainly don't agree with that as 'physical' beings cannot enter Heaven. Only spirits can.

 

[freelight]

He was raised physically, ascended physically and will return physically.

Christianity is not Platonism.

Yet early fathers and Church theologians were well versed in Platonism, and used greek philosophical terms and metaphysics in helping to describe the Trinity. Its an essential part of the metaphysics involved, as the greek terms demonstrate. It was a battle over 'essence' and 'substance'.....how all divine persons shared it, or how Jesus was 'like' or 'different' from the Father,....a curious con-fusion that later got clarified in creedal statements, as dogmas were formalized.