The Trinity

[KingdomRose]

Folks,

Take another gander at how a typical 'sweet' JW takes news that Dr. Ehrman does NOT support her NWT...





Just look at how quickly she turns to rage as her reply.

Just look at how her demon pops-out and is ready for battle!

Oooooo I forget how enraged I can get! I already forgot that post, but I can see, since you bring it up again, that I need to simmer down and keep a mild spirit.....something big I have to work on! I haven't said stuff like that for quite a while. I'll try to be more civil.

:doh:

 

[Serapion]

1. What is this;

Matthew 28:19 New King James Version (NKJV)

19 Go therefore[a] and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

2. Does God have the attributes I listed. If not you are unable to discern the truth of the text of the scriptures.

3. The Bible teaches the doctrine whether you believe it or not.

You're doing a superb job here. I should also note that John 1:1-17 makes the rejection of the eternal deity of our Lord impossible.

This is why most non-Trinitarians eventually try to deny the authenticity of these verses; they cannot reconcile their error with the canonical NT. Or Isaiah for that matter.

 

[Apple7]

JWs don't all "use" Bart Ehrman to prove our points. I have been the only one online or in face-to-face discussions that brings up Ehrman's POV. Probably most JWs aren't familiar with Prof. Ehrman.

His book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture does agree with the NWT in many ways, but his later books cause me to question his position now. He clearly said that Jesus was not proven to be God Almighty in John 1:1 "because 'god' [in "god was the word"] LACKS THE ARTICLE." This is according to the rules of translating Greek into English. This is clear on page 113 of the book.

I don't see how I was "wrongly" presenting what Ehrman said that backed up my point. He actually said what I have been quoting from him.

I am trying to communicate with him to ask him what he really thinks, and why he changed his mind, if indeed he did.

Bart never changed his mind....he changed his wording.

Bart understands Biblical Greek the same way that he did two decades ago.

He also understands that the Greek has always mandated that Jesus is God.

It is you who can't get over this...

 

[keypurr]

No. It's you that are hopeless. At least until you receive Christ
as your Savior, by hearing the true Gospel and placing ALL your
faith in Christ and not your theories and false doctrine.

Every time you post about me you show how little you know about me. The sad part is that folks like you can still vote.

 

[keypurr]

You're doing a superb job here. I should also note that John 1:1-17 makes the rejection of the eternal deity of our Lord impossible.

This is why most non-Trinitarians eventually try to deny the authenticity of these verses; they cannot reconcile their error with the canonical NT. Or Isaiah for that matter.

Welcome to TOL, however your wrong.

I just do not follow the early traditions that are in error.

 

[Nihilo]

Welcome to TOL, however your wrong.

I just do not follow the early traditions that are in error.

Even when traditions are not in error, you don't follow them though, isn't that true? You're largely against traditions of any kind, in general, correct?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Welcome to TOL, however your wrong.

I just do not follow the early traditions that are in error.

You also preach the horrific heretical false doctrine that, God created
His own Son and that His Son has no Deity.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Every time you post about me you show how little you know about me. The sad part is that folks like you can still vote.

Yeah, ain't that a shame? Well, looks like you'll just have to live
with it huh?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

You're doing a superb job here. I should also note that John 1:1-17 makes the rejection of the eternal deity of our Lord impossible.

This is why most non-Trinitarians eventually try to deny the authenticity of these verses; they cannot reconcile their error with the canonical NT. Or Isaiah for that matter.

Yeah, Bright Raven is a good poster. Keypurr, not so much. He's a
heretic at best. He denies the Deity of Christ.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

when I have givin up,you will know, my last breath will be taken, and I will be dead.

But, where will you be? Heaven or Hell?

 

[Nihilo]

Colossians 1:19; 2:9

Philippians 2:6

 

[Right Divider]

I dont care what you think I am or try to do. I am pointing out the logic of "keep reading it till it means what I say" is a dangerous one indeed.My statement holds true.

No, JR... I did NOT say what YOU said that I did.

The scripture I was referring to shows CLEARLY that the Lord Jesus Christ is the LORD of the entire Bible. The fact that you and keypurr do not understand this is your own problem.

Go read and compare Zech 14 with Acts 1 and you will see CLEARLY that Christ is the LORD.

I however am not un teachable, and I admit and my personal stance on this day and moment is agnostic. I JUST DONT KNOW... but I do know doctrines that have to be read over and over is called brainwashing,and it happens daily in the world.

You are ONCE AGAIN making a FALSE accusation.

Just because YOU do not understand something does not make it FALSE.

Zec 14:1-5 KJV Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. (2) For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. (3) Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. (4) And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. (5) And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

Act 1:9-12 KJV And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. (10) And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; (11) Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. (12) Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.​

The Lord left that way and will return in like manner.

But being that you're an agnostic, none of this matters to you.

 

[Crucible]

You can't be a Christian and not believe in the Trinity- as it is the Godhead of Christianity.
There's no debating it- take notice to the other things non-trinitarian churches teach. They are heretical and at best teach a cheap version of Christianity.

There's Islam if you think Jesus is just a glorified subordinate of God :idunno:
You can't have it both ways though, that does not suffice.

 

[KingdomRose]

You're doing a superb job here. I should also note that John 1:1-17 makes the rejection of the eternal deity of our Lord impossible.

This is why most non-Trinitarians eventually try to deny the authenticity of these verses; they cannot reconcile their error with the canonical NT. Or Isaiah for that matter.

What you say is without merit. John 1:1 can be deconstructed and shown to be in error when translated "and the Word was God." Isaiah never called the Messiah the Almighty God, but "the mighty god." Big difference. Human judges were called "mighty gods" in that culture!

"Mighty god" = El Gibbohr

"Almighty god" = El Shaddai

Jesus called "El Gibbohr" but never El Shaddai.

 

[KingdomRose]

Colossians 1:19; 2:9

Philippians 2:6

Have you been asleep? These scriptures have been discussed over and over, and we can't ignore the fact that many, many versions of the Bible translate Philippians 2:6 completely opposite from the KJV and some others. I have posted lists almost as long as my arm, showing that Jesus didn't even give a thought to seizing something he didn't have in the first place.

This is one version, and there are a whole lot more that say the same thing:

"Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider a seizing, to be equal to God." (21st Century New Testament

If you took the time to really look at this issue, you'd look up the scripture in the word-for-word Greek, and you would see that it is so jumbled up that someone could take it more than one way.

"who in form of god subsisting not robbery thought to be equal with god"

You hang your doctrine on THAT?


COLOSSIANS 1:19 & 2:9: Many versions don't use the spurious "Godhead." Most today will spurn that ridiculous form of twisting the scriptures and will say something else that doesn't lead people to believe the verses are talking about more than one person being God.

The NASB renders 1:19 like this: "For it is the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in him."

The New American Bible: "For in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell."

James Moffatt Translation: "For it was in him that the divine Fulness willed to settle without limit."

The New Jerusalem Bible: "Because God wanted all fullness to be found in him."


I could go on. Where is your "Godhead"?? Your arguments would be better served if you would refrain from using these same lame verses that can be taken in more than one way.

 

[KingdomRose]

You can't be a Christian and not believe in the Trinity- as it is the Godhead of Christianity.
There's no debating it- take notice to the other things non-trinitarian churches teach. They are heretical and at best teach a cheap version of Christianity.

There's Islam if you think Jesus is just a glorified subordinate of God :idunno:
You can't have it both ways though, that does not suffice.

I wouldn't push it, Crucible. Jesus is not part of a Trinity, and he knows that if people read his own words they will see that he is not. The doctrine comes from paganism and an unconscionable twisting of the scriptures.

 

[Apple7]

I wouldn't push it, Crucible. Jesus is not part of a Trinity, and he knows that if people read his own words they will see that he is not. The doctrine comes from paganism and an unconscionable twisting of the scriptures.

Only those that worship Yahweh as Triune, are saved.

 

[KingdomRose]

Did Jesus' Followers Think He Was God?


Does anybody know who W.R. Matthews is? Well, he said, "Paul never equates Jesus with God."

Anyway, the gospel writer Luke, for one, never mentions that Jesus is God, always referring to him as the "Son of God." (Nowhere does "God the Son" show up in the Scriptures.) You'd think that he would mention this "basic Christian doctrine."

These days it is common to think of Christianity's doctrine of the Trinity as what Christianity is all about, in spite of no one ever being able to give a logical explanation as to how three who are each called "God" can in fact be "one God." But to believe otherwise is to run the risk of being stamped a dangerous heretic! To the first Christians, however, the idea of a second person in a "Godhead" was unthinkable. They would never have thought of such a thing, and if it was indeed a new teaching, it would have been written about in detail, throughout the New Testament! It would have been the most revolutionary religious concept ever to be considered by the Jewish-Christian community. The novel idea that Jesus was God would have caused a major doctrinal upheaval warranting the closest attention. As one author says: "A new concept about the Deity would certainly have provoked furious controversy." (The Doctrine of the Trinity by Anthony Buzzard & Charles Hunting.)

If Jesus was himself God, Peter also was given a fantastic opportunity to express that about Jesus' identity. Jesus specifically asked him who he thought Jesus was. Peter said: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Matt. 16:15-17) Simple and clear. It is repeatedly underscored throughout the New Testament.

It is not the Trinity that is the foundation of the Church's faith, but it is the belief that Jesus is the Messiah.


:king:

 

[Nihilo]

Have you been asleep? These scriptures have been discussed over and over, and we can't ignore the fact that many, many versions of the Bible translate Philippians 2:6 completely opposite from the KJV and some others. I have posted lists almost as long as my arm, showing that Jesus didn't even give a thought to seizing something he didn't have in the first place.

This is one version, and there are a whole lot more that say the same thing:

"Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider a seizing, to be equal to God." (21st Century New Testament

If you took the time to really look at this issue, you'd look up the scripture in the word-for-word Greek, and you would see that it is so jumbled up that someone could take it more than one way.

"who in form of god subsisting not robbery thought to be equal with god"

You hang your doctrine on THAT?


COLOSSIANS 1:19 & 2:9: Many versions don't use the spurious "Godhead." Most today will spurn that ridiculous form of twisting the scriptures and will say something else that doesn't lead people to believe the verses are talking about more than one person being God.

The NASB renders 1:19 like this: "For it is the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in him."

The New American Bible: "For in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell."

James Moffatt Translation: "For it was in him that the divine Fulness willed to settle without limit."

The New Jerusalem Bible: "Because God wanted all fullness to be found in him."


I could go on. Where is your "Godhead"?? Your arguments would be better served if you would refrain from using these same lame verses that can be taken in more than one way.

This is really an easy exercise.

These scriptures (Colossians 1:19; 2:9; Philippians 2:6), prima facie, seem to indicate that Jesus is our Maker in the flesh.

That's an interesting idea. Is there any other reason to believe that these scriptures mean what they fairly clearly seem to mean? Or, conversely, is there a compelling reason to think that this prima facie interpretation is incorrect?

As to the latter, we have you, some random anonymous person on the internet who identifies as a JW, which is a still-wet-behind-the-ears new Christian ecclesial community, saying that what it sure looks like Colossians 1:19, 2:9, and Philippians 2:6 is saying, is not what it is saying.

And as to the former we have undisputed secular Church history which shows that the Church has believed and taught from the earliest that our Maker became flesh.

 

[Apple7]

Did Jesus' Followers Think He Was God?


Does anybody know who W.R. Matthews is? Well, he said, "Paul never equates Jesus with God."

Anyway, the gospel writer Luke, for one, never mentions that Jesus is God, always referring to him as the "Son of God." (Nowhere does "God the Son" show up in the Scriptures.) You'd think that he would mention this "basic Christian doctrine."

These days it is common to think of Christianity's doctrine of the Trinity as what Christianity is all about, in spite of no one ever being able to give a logical explanation as to how three who are each called "God" can in fact be "one God." But to believe otherwise is to run the risk of being stamped a dangerous heretic! To the first Christians, however, the idea of a second person in a "Godhead" was unthinkable. They would never have thought of such a thing, and if it was indeed a new teaching, it would have been written about in detail, throughout the New Testament! It would have been the most revolutionary religious concept ever to be considered by the Jewish-Christian community. The novel idea that Jesus was God would have caused a major doctrinal upheaval warranting the closest attention. As one author says: "A new concept about the Deity would certainly have provoked furious controversy." (The Doctrine of the Trinity by Anthony Buzzard & Charles Hunting.)

If Jesus was himself God, Peter also was given a fantastic opportunity to express that about Jesus' identity. Jesus specifically asked him who he thought Jesus was. Peter said: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Matt. 16:15-17) Simple and clear. It is repeatedly underscored throughout the New Testament.

It is not the Trinity that is the foundation of the Church's faith, but it is the belief that Jesus is the Messiah.


:king:

Get some new material.

Yahweh first revealed Himself as Triune in the OT.:cigar::cigar::cigar: