The Trinity

[1Mind1Spirit]

Why is it so hard for people to answer the question I'm asking, and not answer the question I'm not asking?

Can the effect be greater than the cause?
A) Yes
B) No
C) I don't know

It depends.

Does the cause uphold the effect, or does the effect uphold the cause?

 

[JudgeRightly]

It depends.

Does the cause uphold the effect, or does the effect uphold the cause?

What in the world are you talking about?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

He has a personality...go figure.

Yup.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

What in the world are you talking about?

Back at yuh.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Back at yuh.

If cause A produces effect B, can effect B be greater than cause A?

Yes, no, or I don't know.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I set aside childish ways.

12Now we see but a dim reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

 

[NWL]

I'm not evading any questions, I have stopped reading when you start off on a tangent based on a false assumption with clearly bad logic. If you get tired, start by establishing small things in agreement before trying to build a JW crusade on a foundation that's clearly sand-like.

If I asked you a question and you don't answer it giving no reason for not doing so that's called evading.

Stopping you here. The Jews did not say to Jesus, "you make yourself a god." Curious, is that what the JW bible says in that place? OK, I just checked one of my paper copies. It DOES say "a god" in your bible. That's not just a bad translation, it's a bad translation invented to shape a specific argument. Too bad that won't work with anyone else's bible, or anyone else in history who didn't have the New World translation.

If you correct your question, I'll answer it.

And this is the issue when you refuse to answer my question over and over, the orginal reason and sense as to why I asked gets lost. Repeatedly I've asked this question, when I originally did so I stated to understand the position for the sake of the argument, I also inserted the word "if" which should imply to you that the question is hypothetical thus your answer would not reflect what is said according to your KJV but only if the text read "you make yourself a god" instead of "you make yourself God" in John 10:33.

Please answer the question, you've avoided answering yet again by creating a strawman that the translation of "you make yourself a god" is incorrect when I've already shown that this is an acceptable translation of the Greek and even showed you references from secular scholars stating such a fact.

If for arguments sake Jesus was a little god or secondary god to Almighty God Jehovah, if the Jews said to Jesus "we are stoning for blasphemy because you make yourself a god" and Jesus said "are you not gods" would Jesus comparing himself to them as being "little gods", just like them, be a good defence for an accusation of blasphemy if Jesus was NOT God but a god?

Yes, such would seem to be applicable. Shame it has no application to the scripture at hand. Unless you've got the New World Translation, which was hand made just for this specific argument.

Thank you for answering. Since you've stated that it would be an applicable defence I'm interested to see your response the my question above and whether or not you apply the same consistent standard to an identical scenario.

At this point I'll quote my previous post to you where I showed how the translation "you make yourself a god" in John 10:33 is both contextually and grammatically possible according to the scholarly community, all references below are made by people who are not Unitarian.

Dr. Robert Young: "`makest thyself a god,' not `God' as in C.V. [King James Version or `Common Version'], otherwise the definite article would not have been omitted, as it is here, and in the next two verses, -- `gods .. gods,' where the title is applied to magistrates, and others ...." - Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary, p. 62

NT scholar C. H. Dodd:
"making himself a god." - The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 205, Cambridge University Press, 1995 reprint.

Translator's Handbook by Newman and Nida:
"Purely on the basis of the Greek text, therefore, it is possible to translate [John 10:33] 'a god,' as NEB does, rather than to translate God, as TEV and several other translations do. One might argue on the basis of both the Greek and the context, that the Jews were accusing Jesus of claiming to be `a god' rather than 'God.' "- p. 344, United Bible Societies, 1980.

The New English Bible translation (NEB)of John 10:33
"We are not going to stone you for any good deed, but for your blasphemy. You, a mere man, claim to be a god."​

 

[Truster]

If cause A produces effect B, can effect B be greater than cause A?

Yes, no, or I don't know.

On the subject of Elohim who is the First Cause of all time, matter, spirit and space. There is nothing created that is greater than Him. Who is the Eternal Father, Eternal Son and Eternal Holy Spirit.

Does the word eternal cause anyone a problem?

 

[NWL]

Sorry, I can't get past the disbelief at this point. You are so locked into being a loyal defender of the Watchtower that it is impairing your ability to read simple passages.

... so I take it your answer is yes, you believe that Jacob was praying to the True God (twice) and a created angel. And he asked God and this created angel to "bless the lads." Do you normally advocate making prayers to angels?

Genesis 48:15-16 KJV
(15) And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day,
(16) The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.

You're using the premise that Jacob was praying to God as a basis for your argument. You're saying that since only people pray to God and Jacob was praying to God and mentioned "The Angel which redeemed me from all evil" that the angel must be God. Your premise is the thing that is wrong here.

Where in the text does it state Jacob was praying to God? It doesn't, again, you're assuming it does. Jacob himself was blessing the boys and made a statement that "true God" and "the angel" bless his grandsons. As can be clearly seen in the below verses it was Jacob himself that was evoking the blessing and merely stated that God and the angel bless them and made more references regarding what he hoped God would do.

(Genesis 48:9,20) "..So Joseph said to his father: “They are my sons whom God has given me in this place.” At this he said: “Bring them to me, please, so that I may bless them.” after Joseph tried to stop Jacob it reads "So he [Jacob] continued to bless them on that day, saying: “Let Israel mention you when they pronounce blessings, saying, ‘May God make you like Eʹphra·im and like Ma·nasʹseh.’” Thus he kept putting Eʹphra·im before Ma·nasʹseh..."

So to answer your question, no, people do not normally pray to angel. This account however isn't a pray to God or an Angel but rather Jacob himself blessing his grandsons.

Compare these two citations regarding the same account:

(Matthew 8:5-13) "..When he [Jesus] entered Ca·perʹna·um, an army officer came to him, pleading with him [Jesus] 6 and saying: “Sir, my servant is laid up in the house with paralysis, and he is suffering terribly.” 7 He [Jesus] said to him: “When I get there, I will cure him.” 8 The army officer replied: “Sir, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but just say the word and my servant will be healed. 9 For I too am a man under authority, having soldiers under me, and I say to this one, ‘Go!’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come!’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this!’ and he does it..”

(Luke 7:1-9) "..When he [Jesus] had completed what he had to say to the people, he entered Ca·perʹna·um. 2 Now an army officer’s slave, who was dear to him, was seriously ill and about to pass away. 3 When he heard about Jesus, he sent some elders of the Jews to him to ask him to come and make his slave well. 4 They came up to Jesus and began to plead with him earnestly, saying: “He is worthy of your granting him this, 5 for he loves our nation and he himself built our synagogue.” 6 So Jesus went with them. But when he was not far from the house, the army officer had already sent friends to say to him: “Sir, do not bother, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. 7 That is why I did not consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. 8 For I too am a man placed under authority, having soldiers under me, and I say to this one, ‘Go!’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come!’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this!’ and he does it..”

I ask you this, in the above account, who spoke to Jesus, the Army officer himself or the elders of the Jews? Are the "Elders of the Jews" and the "Army officer" the same person?

 

[NWL]

You should have stopped here. I'll stop you here, because it seems we need to. When Jesus says, "No man has seen God at any time" he is clearly not speaking in the manner of witnessing physical manifestation. He is speaking about the truest purest sense of the glory of God, the aspect that God stopped just short of revealing to Moses. Your error is in attempting to take that one statement out of its intended context and apply it to mean that it is impossible for God to appear in a form that is visible for us to see with the naked eye.

Take scripture for what it says and not what you want it to say! This is the main difference between you and I, I take scripture for what it says, you do not.

Where in John 1:18 does it state that "no man seeing God" is NOT in reference to seeing physical manifestation of God but rather "speaking about the truest purest sense of the glory of God, the aspect that God stopped just short of revealing to Moses"? It doesn't, you just assume it does. As I've said too many times now your reasoning is riddled in assumptions and claims NOT backed up by evidence. All the scripture states is that "no man has seen God at any time", as I said you would you twist the scripture and apply a meaning to it that is not stated in the verse.

Take scripture for what it says, if scripture states "no man has seen God at any time" then believe it and stop twisting and applying your own thoughts into the text.

Rosenritter, please confirm you believe that when John 1:18a states "No man has seen God at any time" this doesn't actually mean what it says on face-value and that man has seen God in some type of way.

By the way, it's intended context? It's to demonstrate that Jesus IS God. Read John chapter 1.

John 1:18 KJV
(18) No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 17:5 KJV
(5) And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Jesus has seen God, yet we are told that no man has seen God in this way.

This is laughable, the context, seriously? John 17:5 is many many chapters after John 1, moreover nothing that is stated in John 17:5 modifies John 1:18 so how can you say I'm missing the intended context by comparing these two completely separate statements.

For you to claim that Jesus is God by comparing the two verses you would firstly need to have already assumed trinitarism or modalism prior to reading the verse, you believe in modalism so this is no doubt what you have done. The scriptures state Jesus was Gods "firstborn" (Col 1:15), this places Jesus as part of creation and also makes him the highest thing in creation, Jesus was God first creation. I say these thing in relation to Jesus not out of a personal belief but what the definition of "firstborn of creation" when applied to Jesus dictates. Since the Father created all things through Jesus he was no doubt with God "before the world was", therefore Jesus asking to be at the fathers side with the glory he had next to God does not prove Jesus is God, but simply, that he was with the Father before the world was.

We are told in the book of Hebrews that Jesus is no angel. There aren't any other categories left. There is Creator God (Jesus) and there are created men and angels. And some animals and plants and rocks.

The book of Hebrews does not say Jesus is not an angel, it states the exact opposite. I find it strange that you state that Jesus is no angel, yet in your argument on a different post you're trying to prove that Jesus, namely God to you, was an angel.

As I stated, Hebrews 1 doesn't deny that Jesus is an angel, it actually implies he is an angelic being. You also mention there is "the creator God", yet you fail to see that God created the world through Jesus according to Hebrews 1:1,2, thus Jesus isn't the creator according to the verse but rather, the one who God used Jesus as a means to create the world. Hebrews 1:9 also states that God was the one who anointed Jesus, "that is why God, your God, anointed you", this was written about Jesus after his ascension to heaven, Jesus, if God, does not have a God, certainly not in heaven, yet the verse states he does. Hebrews is NOT a good book for prove Jesus is God or that the idea of modalism is true.

(Hebrews 1:1, 2) "..God... Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.."

 

[popsthebuilder]

Yes - the trinity is taught in Scripture.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Do you believe adherence to the perspective of the Trinity to be needed for salvation?

Ohhhh; never met you before; welcome.

peace

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

Marhig, I asked a simple question, one that was not answered. Could you please answer the question?

Can the effect be greater than the cause?

I asked you multiple questions.

Still waiting.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

Marhig, I asked a simple question, one that was not answered. Could you please answer the question?

Can the effect be greater than the cause?

How bout the Holy Spirit with Ananias?

Care to talk about that mistake or no?

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

[quote name="Right Divider" post=5061373]Your trying to change scripture? No, it says that they LIED to the Holy Spirit.

Please show us all that missing scripture that says that they HAD the Holy Spirit.


Where does "to do with lying to other people" come from? Distractionary tactic?

Scripture says that the LIED to the Holy Spirit. I'll stick with scripture.
Acts 5:3 (AKJV/PCE)(5:3) But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back [part] of the price of the land?

Indeed, that's why they LIED to the Holy Spirit.


Funniest comment of the year! :french:[/QUOTE]
Soo... You think only St. Peter and St. James had the Holy Spirit or......?

Here, jeez;

Acts: 4. 31. And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness. 32. And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,


Let me know you if you missed it....

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[lifeisgood]

Jesus is the Spirit and he is the temple.

He is all.

And don't forget you say Jesus IS heaven.

 

[lifeisgood]

The official word is that no one can understand the Trinitarian doctrine.

“If you deny the Trinity you will lose your soul. If you try and explain it you will lose your mind.”

-Augustine

My God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is awesome!

 

[lifeisgood]

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Jesus says that to his disciples.

So you, gt, are understanding John 14:16 to be directed ONLY to the disciples in front of Him at that time?

 

[lifeisgood]

Jesus says the Spirit of truth. See John 14:17.

Yes. What is your point?

The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. JESUS IS THE TRUTH. John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

So, in your doctrine, Jesus is physically living inside of you?

Jesus is the One who was living with them.

At that time, yes.

Jesus is the One who will be in them.

So, in your doctrine, Jesus would physically live inside them?

Jesus tells them, “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.”

Yes. I, Jesus, will pray to the Father and the Father will send the Holy Spirit.

Jesus comes to us and lives with those he saves.

So, you are saying that Jesus is physically living inside you?

Jesus said that he would send another comforter, the Holy Spirit. He also said that he would not leave them as orphans that HE WILL COME TO THEM.

Yes, the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, the Paraclete will come and live inside the BElievers.

John 14:18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

This is at the time Jesus told them that he would send them another comforter. Jesus explains to them that it is HE.

So, you are saying that Jesus came to live physically inside them?

 

[God's Truth]

GT, where does 2 Corinthians 3:17 define "that Spirit" within that context? It doesn't say "Holy Spirit" but it does say "that Spirit."

...but there is ONLY ONE DIVINE SPIRIT.

Ephesians 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called;

Ephesians 2:18 Ephesians 2:18
For through Him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

Since God is Spirit, since Jesus is Spirit, then they both must be the SAME ONE and only HOLY SPIRIT.

Just to show you the explanation you might find yourself facing, from the Clarke commentary:

I don't go by Clarke commentary, do you? Clarke is not here to debate. Are you standing in for Clarke to debate?

It seems to me that if it meant to say "Holy Spirit" it could have said that.

Well, Jesus is Holy, so he would be the ONE SPIRIT, the Holy Spirit.

Tell me how Jesus' Spirit lives in the saved if he is not that one and only Divine Holy Spirit?

So if you can show me where "that spirit" is defined in the context of 2 Corinthians 3:17 it would be most helpful.

I have done that and hope that you understand.

 

[Right Divider]

The bible doesn't teach three persons. You teach three persons. Now I'm not saying that makes you necessarily mistaken, but it does mean that I have to ask you the meaning of "person" in this sense. The bible doesn't define "person" for me, so I have to ask you.

It seems like you're looking for excuses instead of knowledge.

The definition of a "person" is not that difficult. A person has these attributes (not an exhaustive list):

• Consciousness
• The ability to speak and listen
• Reason
• Will

God the Father speaks to His Son and the Son speaks to His Father.
The Holy Spirit was lied to (Acts 5:3). You cannot lie to anything but a person.

There are MANY, MANY demonstrations of this throughout scripture.

Luke 22:42 (AKJV/PCE)​

(22:42) Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. ​

TWO wills defined in that verse: the Fathers and the Sons.