The FALLACY of the NWT version of John 1:1.

[IncRus]

JWs believe that Jesus PRE-EXISTED his birth in Bethlehem as Michael the Archangel.

Therefore, the NWT version which reads, "And the Word was a god," refers to Michael the Archangel - NOT Jesus. This would then mean that Michael the Archangel was NOT a CREATED creature because he was in the beginning with God.

And this is CONTRARY to what the NWT itself says about the heavens and everything in it having been CREATED by God: "You are Jehovah alone; you yourself have made the heavens, [even] the heaven of the heavens, and ALL their army,....." (Neh. 9:6; Gen. 1:8). Isn't Michael the Archangel among the "army of the heavens?"

This also makes the NWT version of John 1:18 FALSE because the "only begotten god" is NOT Jesus, the Son of God, but Michael the Archangel who, according to JWS, PRE-EXISTED Jesus.

All this talk about "definitive articles, etc" is but a smoke screen to hide the FACT that JWs CANNOT rationally reconcile their belief that Jesus is the "Mighty God and everlasting Father" (Isaiah 9:6) and their much ballyhooed belief that Jesus is merely a man and the Father is the ONLY true God UNLESS they pervert the TRUTH with their own translation of the Bible to lend credence to their CONTRADICTING beliefs.

[IncRus]

It's been 6 days since this thread was started. To date, 34 has viewed it. Of this number, I wonder how many are JWs, if any. Why has nobody replied to it? Doesn't anyone care about TRUTH anymore?

[faithymom]

Personally, I don't understand what you're getting at and a bunch of this seems to contradict other things you've said, so I don't know what to say about it.
And also, while I agree with the fact that the JW take on this verse is absurd, I realize that the explanation that TRULY makes sense of both this passage and the rest of the Scripture will just be countered with
the TRUTH that Jesus is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).
Those verses don't actually SOLVE any of the PROBLEMS with ANY issue that's been discussed and is about as CONVINCING and EFFECTIVE as the Mormons falling back on their TESTIMONY when confronted with the GLARING fallacies of their church.

My hesitance in opening that can of worms has ZERO bearing on my esteem of Truth.

[IncRus]

Personally, I don't understand what you're getting at and a bunch of this seems to contradict other things you've said, so I don't know what to say about it.

For your clarfication, JWs believe that Jesus is "mighty God and everlasting Father" as written in Isaiah 9:6). At the same time, JWs claim to believe that Jesus is a mere MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

To reconcile these two conflicting beliefs, JWs came up with their own version of the Bible, the New World Translation (NWT) where they altered John 1:1 to make it read that Jesus is the "word that was a god" and John 1:18 to make it read that Jesus is the "only begotten god." By doing this, the JWs can have the best of both world. Depending on whom thay are talking to, they can make it appear that Jesus is a mere MAN or they can make the case that Jesus is ALSO God.

But the problem lies in the JWs belief that Jesus pre-existed his birth at Bethlehem as Michael the Archangel.

Therefore, the JW teaching that "the word was a god" in John 1:1 and "the only begotten god" in John 1:18 refer to Jesus is FALSE, because, if Jesus indeed pre-existed his birth as Michael the Archangel, then it was Michael - NOT Jesus who was in the beginning with God and was a god. And Michael - NOT Jesus is the "only begotten god."


And also, while I agree with the fact that the JW take on this verse is absurd, I realize that the explanation that TRULY makes sense of both this passage and the rest of the Scripture will just be countered with
Originally posted by IncRus
the TRUTH that Jesus is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

Of course. you're correct! Who else can claify the TRUTH for us but the words of Jesus?


Those verses don't actually SOLVE any of the PROBLEMS with ANY issue that's been discussed and is about as CONVINCING and EFFECTIVE as the Mormons falling back on their TESTIMONY when confronted with the GLARING fallacies of their church.

Falling back on the words of Jesus is NOT even close to falling back on the words of Joseph Smith! By making such absurd comparison, you are demeaning the words of Jesus, aren't you?


My hesitance in opening that can of worms has ZERO bearing on my esteem of Truth.

I wish I could believe you! But I can't because if you truly care for the truth, you wouldn't hesitate to open a million cans of worms.

[faithymom]

For your clarfication, JWs believe that Jesus is "mighty God and everlasting Father" as written in Isaiah 9:6). At the same time, JWs claim to believe that Jesus is a mere MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

To reconcile these two conflicting beliefs, JWs came up with their own version of the Bible, the New World Translation (NWT) where they altered John 1:1 to make it read that Jesus is the "word that was a god" and John 1:18 to make it read that Jesus is the "only begotten god." By doing this, the JWs can have the best of both world. Depending on whom thay are talking to, they can make it appear that Jesus is a mere MAN or they can make the case that Jesus is ALSO God.

But the problem lies in the JWs belief that Jesus pre-existed his birth at Bethlehem as Michael the Archangel.

Therefore, the JW teaching that "the word was a god" in John 1:1 and "the only begotten god" in John 1:18 refer to Jesus is FALSE, because, if Jesus indeed pre-existed his birth as Michael the Archangel, then it was Michael - NOT Jesus who was in the beginning with God and was a god. And Michael - NOT Jesus is the "only begotten god."
I'm well aware of the JW position and mistranslations.
I just have no idea what your point is...



Of course. you're correct! Who else can claify the TRUTH for us but the words of Jesus? Well then...I guess it's good that those are the only words of Jesus we have... :ahem:


Falling back on the words of Jesus is NOT even close to falling back on the words of Joseph Smith! By making such absurd comparison, you are demeaning the words of Jesus, aren't you? They don't fall back onto Smith's words, they use their 'burning in the bosom' and ignore everything else.
You fall back to these two verses as a trump for anything that anyone says that doesn't fit your notion of Jesus. You don't even listen to what they say nor have you EVER NOTICED that those verses do absolutely no damage to the Trinitarian position!!!!
Your stance has huge, gaping, irreconcilable holes in it and requires you to ignore God's Word when it doesn't fit the god you have chosen to follow.



I wish I could believe you! But I can't because if you truly care for the truth, you wouldn't hesitate to open a million cans of worms.
well, I wish you would engage in an actual discussion instead of simply doing your best impression of a broken record.

[IncRus]

For your clarfication, JWs believe that Jesus is "mighty God and everlasting Father" as written in Isaiah 9:6). At the same time, JWs claim to believe that Jesus is a mere MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

To reconcile these two conflicting beliefs, JWs came up with their own version of the Bible, the New World Translation (NWT) where they altered John 1:1to make it read that Jesus is the "word that was a god" and John 1:18to make it read that Jesus is the "only begotten god." By doing this, the JWs can have the best of both world. Depending on whom thay are talking to, they can make it appear that Jesus is a mere MAN or they can make the case that Jesus is ALSO God.

But the problem lies in the JWs belief that Jesus pre-existed his birth at Bethlehem as Michael the Archangel.

Therefore, the JW teaching that "the word was a god" in John 1:1and "the only begotten god" in John 1:18refer to Jesus is FALSE, because, if Jesus indeed pre-existed his birth as Michael the Archangel, then it was Michael - NOT Jesus who was in the beginning with God and was a god. And Michael - NOT Jesus is the "only begotten god."
I'm well aware of the JW position and mistranslations.
I just have no idea what your point is...

The point is, the JW is as FALSE as the LDS, the RCC and ALL the protestant churches who teach the FALSE Trinity doctrine.



Of course. you're correct! Who else can claify the TRUTH for us but the words of Jesus?
Well then...I guess it's good that those are the only words of Jesus we have...

Regarding who he is and who the ONLY true God is, these are indeed the ONLY words of Jesus that matter - John 8:40 where Jesus says he is a MAN and John 17:3 where Jesus identifies the Father as the ONLY true God.



Falling back on the words of Jesus is NOT even close to falling back on the words of Joseph Smith! By making such absurd comparison, you are demeaning the words of Jesus, aren't you?
They don't fall back onto Smith's words, they use their 'burning in the bosom' and ignore everything else.

You fall back to these two verses as a trump for anything that anyone says that doesn't fit your notion of Jesus. You don't even listen to what they say nor have you EVER NOTICED that those verses do absolutely no damage to the Trinitarian position!!!!

Your stance has huge, gaping, irreconcilable holes in it and requires you to ignore God's Word when it doesn't fit the god you have chosen to follow.

Is this "burning in the bosom" thing found in the Bible? Of course, John 8:40 and John 17:3 "trump" anything that says Jesus is God because these are sayings of Jesus. Anyone who does NOT do the things that Jesus say will NOT be saved.

And only die-hard, fanatical Trinitarians and religious leaders who materially benefit from this FALSE Trinity doctrine claim that these verse "do absolutely no damage to the Trinitarian position. I used to be a Trinitarian for most of my adult years before my eyes were opened to the TRUTH that Jesus is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God.



I wish I could believe you! But I can't because if you truly care for the truth, you wouldn't hesitate to open a million cans of worms.
well, I wish you would engage in an actual discussion instead of simply doing your best impression of a broken record.

I have been in these forums for about six years. That's how long I have been listening to Trinitarians' "broken recording" of Trinitarian rationalization. If you think John 8:40 and John 17:3 are "broken records," you are correct, because the words of Jesus will endure until he comes again to take his SHEEP with him to the kingdom of God.

[faithymom]

The point is, the JW is as FALSE as the LDS, the RCC and ALL the protestant churches who teach the FALSE Trinity doctrine.



Regarding who he is and who the ONLY true God is, these are indeed the ONLY words of Jesus that matter - John 8:40 where Jesus says he is a MAN and John 17:3 where Jesus identifies the Father as the ONLY true God.

But you freely ignore the very passage you reference in the OP which says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
If it doesn't fit your preconceptions of what you want god to be, then you just dismiss it.


Is this "burning in the bosom" thing found in the Bible?
Yes, they base it on the passage where the resurrected Christ speaks to the men on the road to Emmaus

Of course, John 8:40 and John 17:3 "trump" anything that says Jesus is God because these are sayings of Jesus. Anyone who does NOT do the things that Jesus say will NOT be saved. And the parts where the word of God says Jesus created everything and where Jesus himself says he existed prior to his human body being formed in Mary's womb are just ignored by you.
You just pick which verses you like and give zero creedence to the rest.

And only die-hard, fanatical Trinitarians and religious leaders who materially benefit from this FALSE Trinity doctrine claim that these verse "do absolutely no damage to the Trinitarian position. I used to be a Trinitarian for most of my adult years before my eyes were opened to the TRUTH that Jesus is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God.
and you refuse to even look at the evidence that your stance is wrong by just repeating the same 2 verses over and over.
this is what I mean by broken record... you offer no other 'evidence' than these 2 verses which, when understood in light of the totality of Scripture, mesh perfectly in the Trinitarian view.

I have been in these forums for about six years. That's how long I have been listening to Trinitarians' "broken recording" of Trinitarian rationalization. If you think John 8:40 and John 17:3 are "broken records," you are correct, because the words of Jesus will endure until he comes again to take his SHEEP with him to the kingdom of God. I didn't say the verse were, I said YOU are.

I have been on here for a while and I have seen that you glom onto these 2 verses out of the whole of Scripture as your 'proof'. You don't even answer anyone most of the time, you just repeat, repeat, repeat...and ignore, ignore, ignore the many passages that prove your interpretation wrong.
Jesus claimed to be God and the Father himself calls the Messiah God. God's word says that Jesus created everything. But those verses you just choose to ignore.
You just refuse to take God at his word in those passages. You are following a god of your own making.

[Alucard]

I was under the impression that the JWs believe that Christ (as Michael) was created at the beginning of Creation, rather than being eternally begotten of the Father.

[Sparko]

Incrus,

How do YOU think John 1:1 should be translated?

[faithymom]

I was under the impression that the JWs believe that Christ (as Michael) was created at the beginning of Creation, rather than being eternally begotten of the Father.

I think that they would say that 'begotten' equates with 'created' ...I don't know how they deal with the 'eternally' part of that, but there are lots of their Scripture twisting that baffle me...

[IncRus]

The point is, the JW is as FALSE as the LDS, the RCC and ALL the protestant churches who teach the FALSE Trinity doctrine.

Regarding who he is and who the ONLY true God is, these are indeed the ONLY words of Jesus that matter - John 8:40where Jesus says he is a MAN and John 17:3where Jesus identifies the Father as the ONLY true God.
But you freely ignore the very passage you reference in the OP which says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

If it doesn't fit your preconceptions of what you want god to be, then you just dismiss it.

Apparently, you have not come across my previous posts that deal with John 1:1. The "word" is God's "mental emanation" or plan comcerning His son whom he "foreordained before the foundation of the world" (1 Peter 1:20). It is similar to God's "word" when He created light (Gen. 1:3).

Of course, God's "word" or "mental emanation" or "plan" was WITH God in the beginning just as my "word" is WITH me all the time.

And, of course, the "word" WAS God is a metaphor to describe the power of God's "mental emanation" or "plan" concerning His son of being CERTAIN of fulfillment as SPOKEN by God in Numbers 23:19, thus: "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent; hath he said and he shall not do it? or hath he spoken and shall he not make it good?"

The phrase, "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made," means that "all things were made BECAUSE OF him and nothing was made without him" because everything was made "FOR him" (Col. 1:16). Hence, the Bible teaches that Jesus is the "FIRSTBORN over all creation" (Col. 1:15).

Your allegation that If it doesn't fit your preconceptions of what you want god to be, then you just dismiss it" is FALSE. I have no preconception of what I want God to be. In fact, if there were, it would be a "triune" God because I was born a Trinitarian. My parents and siblings are still Trinitarians as we speak.

The truth is, I dismiss as FALSE any interpretation, opinion or conclusion that Jesus is God because it CONTRADICTS what Jesus and the apostles preached concerning Jesus and God as written in the Bible. And I dismiss as MISTRANSLATION anything written by the apostles or the prophets that make Jesus appear to be God for the same reason.



Of course, John 8:40and John 17:3"trump" anything that says Jesus is God because these are sayings of Jesus. Anyone who does NOT do the things that Jesus say will NOT be saved.
And the parts where the word of God says Jesus created everything and where Jesus himself says he existed prior to his human body being formed in Mary's womb are just ignored by you.
You just pick which verses you like and give zero creedence to the rest.

While John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 read that all things were made "by" him and "through" him, I don't believe that Jesus ACTUALLY created everything (thereby making him God) because the Old Testament teaches that it was "God who created the heavens and the earth and everything in them" (Neh. 9:6) and this God is the Father (Isaiah 63:16; 64:8).

God has NO beginning (Psalm 90:2) while according to Jesus himself, he "proceeded forth and CAME from God" (John 8:42).

Therefore, I understand John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 to mean that everything was created BECAUSE of Jesus and FOR Jesus.

Jesus NEVER said himself that he existed PRIOR to his birth to Mary. I would be glad to see any verse where Jesus ACTUALLY said this himself. That's only in Trinitarians' imagination of everything Jesus said in their futile attempt to justify their FALSE belief that Jesus is God. .



And only die-hard, fanatical Trinitarians and religious leaders who materially benefit from this FALSE Trinity doctrine claim that these verse "do absolutely no damage to the Trinitarian position. I used to be a Trinitarian for most of my adult years before my eyes were opened to the TRUTH that Jesus is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God.
and you refuse to even look at the evidence that your stance is wrong by just repeating the same 2 verses over and over.
this is what I mean by broken record... you offer no other 'evidence' than these 2 verses which, when understood in light of the totality of Scripture, mesh perfectly in the Trinitarian view.

John 8:40 and John 17:3 will NEVER "mesh perfectly in the Trinitarian view more so, "in light of the totality of Scripture."

The Old Testament teaches that Jesus WAS a MAN of sorrows (Isaiah 53:3) and a MAN sitting at the right hand of God (Psalm 80:17). The Old Testament teaches that God is NOT a MAN and does NOT lie (Numbers 23:19). God says He does NOT change (Mal. 3:6). The Old Testament teaches that there is NO other God beside Him (Isaiaah 45:21; 46:9) and that only one God is the Father (Isaiah 63:16; 64:8).

The New Testament that Jesus is a MAN (John 8:40; Acts 2:22; Acts 17:31; Rom. 10:9; 1 Tim. 2:5). The New Testament teaches that the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3; Eph. 4:6; 1 Coir. 8:6).

The TRUTH is, John 8:40 and John 17:3, these two verses which Trinitarians find abhorrent,, NEGATE the Trinitarian view "when understood in the light of the totlity of Scripture."



I have been in these forums for about six years. That's how long I have been listening to Trinitarians' "broken recording" of Trinitarian rationalization. If you think John 8:40and John 17:3are "broken records," you are correct, because the words of Jesus will endure until he comes again to take his SHEEP with him to the kingdom of God.
I didn't say the verse were, I said YOU are.

I have been on here for a while and I have seen that you glom onto these 2 verses out of the whole of Scripture as your 'proof'. You don't even answer anyone most of the time, you just repeat, repeat, repeat...and ignore, ignore, ignore the many passages that prove your interpretation wrong.

Jesus claimed to be God and the Father himself calls the Messiah God. God's word says that Jesus created everything. But those verses you just choose to ignore.

You just refuse to take God at his word in those passages. You are following a god of your own making.

You are the one who IGNORE my posts.

If you didn't, you would have seen by now that Jesus did NOT create everything, Jesus did NOT claim to be God, Jesus did NOT claim to be equal to God, and Heb. 1:8 was lifted from a MISTRANSLATED version of Psalm 45:6.

All these are explained in my posts which I keep repeating over and over, hoping that one day, God may open your eyes to these TRUTHS.

[IncRus]

Incrus,

How do YOU think John 1:1 should be translated?

I have no problem with how John 1:1 is written in versions of the Bible other than the New World Translation, which is the JW's own translation of the Bible.

[IncRus]

I was under the impression that the JWs believe that Christ (as Michael) was created at the beginning of Creation, rather than being eternally begotten of the Father.

Yes, JWs believe that Michael the Archangel was created and Jesus pre-existed his birth as Michael the Archangel. Of course, I don't believe this is true and the OP proves the fallacy of this doctrine.

Tell me, where in the Bible does it say that Jesus is "eternally" begotten?

[Sparko]

I have no problem with how John 1:1 is written in versions of the Bible other than the New World Translation, which is the JW's own translation of the Bible.

and what did the Word that was God do?

hint: John 1:3

and what was IN this Word?
hint: John 1:4

and what happened to this Word that was God?
hint: John 1:14

[IncRus]

I have no problem with how John 1:1is written in versions of the Bible other than the New World Translation, which is the JW's own translation of the Bible.
and what did the Word that was God do?

hint: John 1:3

Wrong question. The question should be, "what did the FLESH that the word of God turned into do?" Answer: Nothing! John 1:3 is telling us that "All things were made BECAUSE OF him, and nothing was made without him" because "all things were made FOR him" (Col. 1:16).


and what was IN this Word?
hint: John 1:4

Again, wrong question. The question should be: "what was in the flesh that the word of God turned into?" Answer: The FLESH that the word turned into was called Jesus who said, "I am the way, the truth and the life" (John 14:6). And this is who John 1:4 is talking about - Jesus, NOT the word.


and what happened to this Word that was God?
hint: John 1:14

The word that was God turned into or BECAME flesh or human being whose name was called Jesus (John 1:14; Matt. 1:21).

John 1:14 should be read following verse 2 which, in the Today's English Version is written thus:

"From the very beginning the Word was with God." "The Word BECAME a human being and, full of grace and truth lived among us. We saw his glory, the glory which he received as the Father's only Son" (John 1:2, 14 TEV).

This only shows that the Bible is not written the way newspapers and magazines or book are written.

[Alucard]

Wrong question. The question should be, "what did the FLESH that the word of God turned into do?" Answer: Nothing! John 1:3 is telling us that "All things were made BECAUSE OF him, and nothing was made without him" because "all things were made FOR him" (Col. 1:16).



Again, wrong question. The question should be: "what was in the flesh that the word of God turned into?" Answer: The FLESH that the word turned into was called Jesus who said, "I am the way, the truth and the life" (John 14:6). And this is who John 1:4 is talking about - Jesus, NOT the word.



The word that was God turned into or BECAME flesh or human being whose name was called Jesus (John 1:14; Matt. 1:21).

John 1:14 should be read following verse 2 which, in the Today's English Version is written thus:

"From the very beginning the Word was with God." "The Word BECAME a human being and, full of grace and truth lived among us. We saw his glory, the glory which he received as the Father's only Son" (John 1:2, 14 TEV).

This only shows that the Bible is not written the way newspapers and magazines or book are written.

So hold on, you don't deny the Incarnation then? You believe that the Word of God did in fact become flesh?

[Sparko]

i am amazed to watch the mind of Incrus work. He can complain about the JW's adding one word (a) to the verse and complain that makes the word another god, but then he can be completely blind to the alternative that the word WAS GOD and became FLESH.

GOD BECAME FLESH!!

it boggles the mind how Incrus can twist scripture so badly.

Watching him argue against cults is like watching Hitler complain that Musolini was an evil dictator.

[faithymom]

:lmbo:

[IncRus]

So hold on, you don't deny the Incarnation then? You believe that the Word of God did in fact become flesh?

What "incarnation" are you talking about? The word is not even mentioned in these verses!

Isn't it true that "the word BECAME flesh?" You can read this in John 1:14. This word that BECAME flesh is the same "word" that was in the beginning WITH God and WAS God in John 1:1.

Therefore, the "word" or "mental emanation" or "plan" of God concerning His son as prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 was FULFILLED, which in John's "word" was written as - BECAME flesh.

[timspong]

My dyslexia is playing up again, I could have sworn this thread was about NTW (i.e. NT Wright).

[IncRus]

i am amazed to watch the mind of Incrus work. He can complain about the JW's adding one word (a) to the verse and complain that makes the word another god, but then he can be completely blind to the alternative that the word WAS GOD and became FLESH.

GOD BECAME FLESH!!

it boggles the mind how Incrus can twist scripture so badly.

Watching him argue against cults is like watching Hitler complain that Musolini was an evil dictator.

You say "GOD BECAME FLESH!" Sparko. Do you want me to believe that there were indeed TWO Gods in the beginning? One, the"word that WAS God" who BECAME flesh; and, two, the God whom the "word that was God" who BECAME flesh was WITH in the beginning. Is this what you and other Trinitarians believe Sparko?

Read John 1:1 again Sparko and realize the FALLACY of your belief. Your alterrnative is as FALSE as the JW's adding an "a" and making the capital "G" into a small "g."

[Sparko]

You say "GOD BECAME FLESH!" Sparko. Do you want me to believe that there were indeed TWO Gods in the beginning? One, the"word that WAS God" who BECAME flesh; and, two, the God whom the "word that was God" who BECAME flesh was WITH in the beginning. Is this what you and other Trinitarians believe Sparko?

Read John 1:1 again Sparko and realize the FALLACY of your belief. Your alterrnative is as FALSE as the JW's adding an "a" and making the capital "G" into a small "g."

If the word was God and there is only one God the the word is the one God. And that word who was God became flesh. God became flesh.

Just like 1 Timothy 3:16 says:

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

[IncRus]

You say "GOD BECAME FLESH!" Sparko. Do you want me to believe that there were indeed TWO Gods in the beginning? One, the"word that WAS God" who BECAME flesh; and, two, the God whom the "word that was God" who BECAME flesh was WITH in the beginning. Is this what you and other Trinitarians believe Sparko?

Read John 1:1 again Sparko and realize the FALLACY of your belief. Your alterrnative is as FALSE as the JW's adding an "a" and making the capital "G" into a small "g."
If the word was God and there is only one God the the word is the one God. And that word who was God became flesh. God became flesh.

Just like 1 Timothy 3:16 says:

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

If the "word" is the one God, where did the "God" whom the "word" was WITH in the beginning go?

The truth is, there is only one God - the one WITH whom the "word" was in the beginning and the "word" was not literally God.

Hence, you misunderstand what Paul meant in 1 Tim. 3:16.

[Sparko]

If the "word" is the one God, where did the "God" whom the "word" was WITH in the beginning go?

God is a trinity. The son came down and became flesh.


The truth is, there is only one God - the one WITH whom the "word" was in the beginning and the "word" was not literally God.
but the bible says he is.


Hence, you misunderstand what Paul meant in 1 Tim. 3:16.

The words are very clear, Incrus. even you know what they are saying or you wouldn't be arguing against it, since I gave no interpretation, I just posted the verse.

but hey, I understand that you are insane so I won't push too hard. It might break your fragile psyche

[IncRus]

If the "word" is the one God, where did the "God" whom the "word" was WITH in the beginning go?
God is a trinity. The son came down and became flesh.

Please show me the verses which say that 1. God is trinity; and 2. the son came down and became flesh. Failing to do so, I will presume that these are merely your opinions.



The truth is, there is only one God - the one WITH whom the "word" was in the beginning and the "word" was not literally God.
but the bible says he is.

The "word" does not have a gender. The "word" cannot be literally God because it (the "word") is not a person nor a being. If the "word" were literally God, John would have been saying that there were two Gods in the beginning, which is contrary to what Jews in John's time believed.



Hence, you misunderstand what Paul meant in 1 Tim. 3:16.
The words are very clear, Incrus. even you know what they are saying or you wouldn't be arguing against it, since I gave no interpretation, I just posted the verse.

The words of Paul were, "God manifest in the flesh." This means that "godliness" (1 Tim. 3:15) was evident or shown in the flesh which is a metaphor that describes Jesus' "godliness" or righteous nature.

Paul knew better than to mean that Jesus was God when he knew that God is INVISIBLE and cannot be seen (1 Tim. 6:16; John 1:18).


but hey, I understand that you are insane so I won't push too hard. It might break your fragile psyche

When people start talking like this, psychiatrists say that they are on the verge of a mental breakdown.

[faithymom]

After reading the preceding load of tripe, I just have to echo this statement:


it boggles the mind how Incrus can twist scripture so badly.

Couldn't have said it better myself, Sparko.


Dontcha think that had God meant merely the "godliness" of Jesus, He would have inspired the writers of Scipture to actually WRITE "godliness manifest in the flesh"?
But here we have Paul writing through the inspiration of God and it says "GOD was manifest in the flesh" :huh:

[IncRus]

Dontcha think that had God meant merely the "godliness" of Jesus, He would have inspired the writers of Scipture to actually WRITE "godliness manifest in the flesh"?

But here we have Paul writing through the inspiration of God and it says "GOD was manifest in the flesh" :huh:

That trinitarian translators altered what apostle Paul originally wrote to make it appear that Jesus is God is evident in some verses of the Bible.

Why God would inspire Paul to write something that CONTRADICTS what His "beloved Son" (Matt. 17:5) taught is beyond rational!

And why would God even command people to "LISTEN to His Son" (Matt. 17:5) if He truly intended Paul to CONTRADICT Jesus? Don't trinitarians use their brains nymore?

[faithymom]

And you have proof of these alterations?

[Cowthulu]

And you have proof of these alterations?

Of course he has proof! They contradict his interpretation.

[IncRus]

And you have proof of these alterations?Of course he has proof! They contradict his interpretation.

Correction. My proof is, these verses CONTRADICT what Jesus said in John 8:40 and John 17:3. In John 8:40,Jesus said he is a MAN. And in John 17:3, Jesus identified the Father as the ONLY true God.

I'm sure trinitarians know what the word "ONLY" means, don't they?

[faithymom]

That's not proof, IncRus. That's your opinion based on your faulty understanding.

You do understand that the Bible doesn't say Jesus was ONLY a man or that ONLY the Father is God, right?

[IncRus]

That's not proof, IncRus. That's your opinion based on your faulty understanding.

You do understand that the Bible doesn't say Jesus was ONLY a man or that ONLY the Father is God, right?

That Jesus is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God is NOT my opinion. These are what Jesus says.

Hence, while it is not written in the Bible that Jesus was ONLY a man or that ONLY the Father is God......

....... it is WRONG to say that the Bible does not teach that Jesus was ONLY a man or that ONLY the Father is God because.....

...... that's EXACTLY what Jesus TAUGHT when he said he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

Therefore, IF the Father is the ONLY (meaning, NOBODY else) true God, then NOBODY else (and that includes Jesus) is a true God. All OTHERS recognized by man as "gods" or "Gods" are FALSE Gods or IDOLS (Psalm 96:5).

[xcav8tor]

...Therefore, IF...

Look IncRus, If you want to use logic you have to LEARN how it works first (I suggest focusing on logical fallacies so you will be able to recognize your own), and if you want to claim something is a contradiction you also have to LEARN what qualifies as a genuine contradiction (hint - it's not your say-so).

Go back and do your homework. Until then you are not only doing yourself a disservice, but you are filling the forums with meaningless drivel.

Sorry to be blunt, but your technical ignorance coupled with your obstinacy has wearied me to the point I have lost my patience with you. It's one thing to refuse to accept someone else's POV, but it's quite another not to at least make the effort to understand it, and your very objections prove you have made no such effort.

xcav8tor

Note to all others. Is all this :argh: really necessary?

[Sparko]

:argh: is much easier than discussing anything with Incrus rationally.

[IncRus]

...Therefore, IF...

Look IncRus, If you want to use logic you have to LEARN how it works first (I suggest focusing on logical fallacies so you will be able to recognize your own), and if you want to claim something is a contradiction you also have to LEARN what qualifies as a genuine contradiction (hint - it's not your say-so).

Go back and do your homework. Until then you are not only doing yourself a disservice, but you are filling the forums with meaningless drivel.

Sorry to be blunt, but your technical ignorance coupled with your obstinacy has wearied me to the point I have lost my patience with you. It's one thing to refuse to accept someone else's POV, but it's quite another not to at least make the effort to understand it, and your very objections prove you have made no such effort.

xcav8tor

Note to all others. Is all this :argh: really necessary?

Why don't you tell us how my logic in the following statement stinks:


Therefore, IF the Father is the ONLY (meaning, NOBODY else) true God, then NOBODY else (and that includes Jesus) is a true God. All OTHERS recognized by man as "gods" or "Gods" are FALSE Gods or IDOLS (Psalm 96:5).

Isn't it true that according to Jesus, he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3)? Isn't it true that what Jesus says is true?

IF you say YES to both questions, isn't then true that the Trinity doctrine is what you call a "logical fallacy?"

[IncRus]

:argh: is much easier than discussing anything with Incrus rationally.

That might help in rearranging your brain and might help you get rid of your fanatical cultic belief that Jesus is God.