The Trinity

The Trinity


  • Total voters
    121

marhig

New member
No, you're not. You're trying to make it say that Jesus denied being God, and this is the furthest form the truth. When Jesus says "for what good work do you stone me?" that is clearly a rhetorical question, not a statement that he is being stoned for a good work. Neither does he state that the Son of God is anything less than God. That, you see, is a created assumption that is found in a JW doctrinal statement, not the biblical text itself.

From the KJV itself, as it was before: "..Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" (John 10:32-36)

Please answer the question, did Jesus say that they were stoning him and I quote, "because [he] said, I am the Son of God?", did Jesus say that or did he not?

Yes, he did. The Jews said they were stoning him because he made himself equal to God. Jesus said that they said he blasphemed because he said he was the Son of God. These statements do not stand in disagreement, nor did the Jews seem to think there was any difference. It's only the Jehovah's Witness (and other Unitarians) that say there is a difference, not the Jews of Christ's audience.

Just a question, what do you think about these verses? Those who are born of God are sons of God, are they also God?

1 John 3

Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
 
Last edited:

glorydaz

New member
According to you, the false believers don't obey. Let's talk about that instead of your insults.

No, you're twisting my words AGAIN. That's become a horrible habit...I see many others call you on the same thing. Stop it.

You're a false believer, and you claim to obey. We all know you don't, but you claim to. We all see your pride, but you deny it. We all see your lack of spiritual discernment, but you remain blind.


A man can refrain from murder, but he can hate. No man can see into the heart of man. That's where you fail. Claiming to obey, while holding pride and anger in your heart. We'd be fools to believe a word you say. End of story.
 

Rosenritter

New member
Seemed pertinent. Since it's in the Bible and refers to GOD, Man, and the Son of Man.

peace

Didn't go actively looking for this, by the way.

Numbers: 23. 19. God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

does it then follow that all times Jesus refered to Himself as the son of man, He was saying He as a man wasn't the fullness of the One Creator GOD?

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

I don't think this is applicable. It sounds similar to a Unitarian argument I heard that goes something like "God cannot be tempted, Jesus was tempted, therefore he was not God." Their passage that says "God cannot be tempted" comes from James 1:13

James 1:13 KJV
(13) Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Yet we have a passage that tells us that God can be tempted in Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 6:16 KJV
(16) Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.

Rather than an absurd scenario where someone can un-God God by saying "I shall now tempt you with something really evil!" I think it is more accurate to say that God cannot be successfully tempted with evil, because such temptations are not truly tempting.


How does this apply to your passage in Numbers above? We also have passages saying the Lord repented. Genesis 6:6, Exodus 34:14, Judges 2:18, etc. Was this the way you were headed? I'm not sure, but that set behind us, considering:

does it then follow that all times Jesus refered to Himself as the son of man, He was saying He as a man wasn't the fullness of the One Creator GOD?

The title Son of Man as Jesus used it seems to emphasize that he was born as a man, yet he uses the title in conjunction with ways that lead to him also being the One God. I think it is obvious that Jesus in the flesh wasn't the literal fullness of God in power, but I don't think that's what the title "Son of Man" meant, nor that it was related to Numbers 23:19.
 

God's Truth

BANNED
Banned
No, you're twisting my words AGAIN. That's become a horrible habit...I see many others call you on the same thing. Stop it.

I do no such thing.

I am keeping this to remind you:

Jesus says not to murder.

I believe that yet I still murder.

What good is believing?

Those are words only a false believer can utter. :e4e:

You don't know seem to realize that you called a person a false believer for not obeying.

You're a false believer, and you claim to obey. We all know you don't, but you claim to. We all see your pride, but you deny it. We all see your lack of spiritual discernment, but you remain blind.


A man can refrain from murder, but he can hate. No man can see into the heart of man. That's where you fail. Claiming to obey, while holding pride and anger in your heart. We'd be fools to believe a word you say. End of story.

A man can hate and be a Christian?
 

Rosenritter

New member
Do most of you have or have had contact with JW's? I don't believe a Unitarian view intuitive. I always read scripture understanding the Lord Jesus to be God. John 1:1 and John 20:8 are among the most compelling. Before anyone told me of the Johanneum comma wasn't in early manuscripts (not that such makes a difference in and of itself), it too read that there was only one God and somehow Father,Son, and Spirit is/are Him. It seems to me, it is NOT up for a vote. We don't get to decide what 'kind' of God we serve. It seems He gets to dictate that to us. Most of the time, and certainly on TOL, it is the Unitarian who makes it a big deal. "Outsiders" and dissenters tend to rock the boat. If I were convinced the Triune view were wrong, I'd go about this a totally different way and absolutely not on the limited front of forums. I'd study it out, go get my language degrees, and write a book and seek the lecture circuit in well-known churches. To date? Never happened. It makes a non-Trinitarian suspicious at the least, imho. Cults aren't interested in but subversion though. Trying to go the front door? I've not seen it, mostly stuff like here, back door lock-picking and such. This house hasn't many locked doors, but it is still done in such a way that we have hundreds of these threads every couple of years. -Lon

1 John 5:7 may be a minority reading, but it is a well-substantiated minority reading that is part of the original book. The Greek grammar is even broken when the passage is excluded. We can open up a thread on that if there isn't one already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

glorydaz

New member
So you really think the deciding factor to all souls spending eternity in torture beyond imagination is based on if they "believe" Jesus of Nazareth was the eternal GOD in the flesh who killed himself as a payment for himself so you could continue in knowing sin?

It has nothing to do with ones actions, motives, intent, or deed? Just believe Jesus is the eternal GOD even though He expressly said otherwise.

Yeah, you're right on track.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

To think I almost missed this winner. :rotfl:


Thank you for making it clear that you are one of the false brethren here on TOL. I can't say I am surprised.
 

Rosenritter

New member
What discrepancy? Between Petros and petra? Petra is a feminine noun in Koine Greek. The Lord named Peter "petra," but Peter's a man, so it's made masculine when referring to him as a name. In Aramaic (Cephas), there is no such gender issue. So when the Lord said Matthew 16:18 (KJV), He didn't say it in Greek and say "Petros . . . petra," He said, "Cephas . . . cephas." There was zero ambiguity.

And all that, means nothing without the added historical witness, that there was no controversy about what the Lord meant in Matthew 16:18 (KJV) for 1500 years, until a Protestant decided to make up another story.

Please explain why the entire Greek body of manuscripts denote two different words here, to differentiate the subjects of Christ's speech. It did make it rather inconvenient with the people got a chance to actually see the scripture, people started to check what they had been told with what was said...
 
Last edited:

marhig

New member
The work of Christ? Like this, you mean?

Romans 8:3-4 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

What I see is GT's camp (apparently including you, pops) claiming obedience to the law can be fulfilled by them.....in total contrast to what actually occurred. "Fulfilled IN US"....not by us.

Yes those who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit, thus we are not to live by the will of the flesh and walk after it, but rather walk after the Spirit and live by the will of God, which is being obedient to him.

Here are the next few verses

Romans 8:5

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
 

Rosenritter

New member
That's interesting. This user account gave me a neg rep because I called you "moron" and "meathead" too many times.

Perhaps they felt I was stealing their thunder?

GT feels it is "insulting" her when I say that her accusative and insulting approach isn't helping her make any points. You're even a bit more coarse than GT in that regard. You're easier to read, but more crass.
 
Top