"Should You Believe in the Trinity?"

[serapha]

Hi there!


:hi:

I was reading on the official Watchtower site about the available publications there and I ran across this brochure described as...

http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/index.htm


Should You Believe in the Trinity?

Answers such questions as: What is the Trinity? Does the Bible teach it? Is Jesus Christ the Almighty God and part of the Trinity? What is the holy spirit, and how does it function? Illustrated.

And since this publication is available to everyone online, (yet copyright restrictions do apply) I thought that it might be good to have a discussion on common ground, with common materials, discussing one of the primary differences between mainstream Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses, that of the Doctrine of the Trinity.


Now... I think two or three rules would be nice and should be followed by everyone... since I expect this thread to become a little lengthy and possibly a little heated :fencing: :argh: :fight: :bonk: :whack:

For example, the copyright restrictions on this forum limit cut-n-paste postings to two paragraphs or half the article, whichever is the lesser, and that citations to the original site is required.

Second, let's agree to limit the discussions/debates to the topic... no red herrings, no strawmen, :hijacked:

let's try real discussion. :chat:

and since everyone here is supposed to be professing Christianity, either Orthodox or Nonorthodox.... let's pretend for one thread, to think before posting..... what would Jesus say?


This.... :stupid: :shrug: :troll:


Or this... :candle: :pray:

And, since this will be a continuing discussion, I will post a reference to a new page each day. There are nine pages, so there will be nine different discussions. When a new page is posted, let move on to the new information, and if you want to continue the discussion/debate, take the material and open a new thread.

Can/would everyone agree to that? :deal:


First posting to follow.


~serapha~

[serapha]

Hi there!

:hi:

Section one.

"Should You Believe It?"

You may read the entire text here...

http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/index.htm

but to summarize it...


...generally the Trinity teaching is that in the Godhead there are three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; yet, together they are but one God. The doctrine says that the three are coequal, almighty, and uncreated, having existed eternally in the Godhead.



Others, however, say that the Trinity doctrine is false, that Almighty God stands alone as a separate, eternal, and all-powerful being. They say that Jesus in his prehuman existence was, like the angels, a separate spirit person created by God, and for this reason he must have had a beginning. They teach that Jesus has never been Almighty God's equal in any sense; he has always been subject to God and still is. They also believe that the holy ghost is not a person but God's spirit, his active force.



If the Trinity is true, it is degrading to Jesus to say that he was never equal to God as part of a Godhead. But if the Trinity is false, it is degrading to Almighty God to call anyone his equal,

And the text of the page and the question for the first day is...

"What, exactly, is the Trinity? How do supporters of it explain it?"





~serapha~ walks off mumbling.... "What would Jesus say, What would Jesus say?


===============
"Well"

~serapha~ beats back the crowd of applicants and says

"let me go first!"





What, exactly, is the Trinity? How do supporters of it explain it?"

I'm an orthodox Christian, therefore, I believe in the Triune nature of God. Many times, it's a concept that people cannot picture, but I wrote a poem... or maybe I should say, God gave me this poem as an understanding of the triune nature of God... co-existing, co-eternal.... not different modes of the same God, but unified in purpose, immutable, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient.


Let me go down to the sea again...



Let me go down to the sea again, down to the seaside shore,
Let me see the waves again crashing on ships that moor.
Let me smell the salty air that rises from the sea,
That air I breathe reveals in full, the sea’s vitality.


I look to the ocean and then I see as I come to realize,
The living water of the sea holds a doctrine that is so wise.
The ocean is the essence of God, the totality of the Three,
The Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, the Blessed Trinity

From that total essence of God, rising from the turbulent sea,
The waves form and roll along, where the current sends them to be.
But while I see the waves, beating upon the shore,
I know that the wave is still a part of the ocean and yet more.

That wall of water is Jesus the Christ, the incarnation of God
It rises and falls at the beck and call of the current on which it rides.
I can see the wave and feel its force as it touches me in life
Yet it never separates from its source, its unity, not strife.

The Holy Spirit is the salty air arising from the ocean course
I cannot see the salty air, but I know the salt air’s source
To inhale the salty air, it seems, I am breathing in the sea,
And the salty scent is evidence of the Salty Spirit in me

Let me go down to the sea again, down to the seaside shore,
Let me see the waves again crashing on ships that moor,
Let me smell the salty air that rises from the sea,
That air I breathe reveals in full, the life that lives in me.

[Sparko]

Serapha, just a note. You are also not allowed to post back to back posts on this site. You need to wait till someone responds before posting more. I am going to combine your last two posts and let the first one slide as the intro.

[Shazard]

You can find meny information about this exact broschure on the net. Just type the name. There are several tactics WT uses (nothing new under the sun).

First. They use strawman tactics. They represents trinity similary as some pagan triades or something like "three-part" not "triune". So actually what they are fighting is not trinity but their understanding of trinity. It is like saying "christians says that 2x2=5" and then they do big work to proove that 2x2=5 is pagan origin and in reality 2x2=3 therefore it can't be 5. This is tipical strawman tactics. And thats very understandable, as I have never met any JW who understands what is trinity as christians shows it.

Second! The brochsure uses MENY misquotes or christianity-trasher quotation. You can search i-net and find which quotes exactly are taken out of context and which of them are changed to suite WT needs.

Question for JW. If WT has truth, then why do they misquote different sourcs in the broschure?

[serapha]

You can find meny information about this exact broschure on the net. Just type the name. There are several tactics WT uses (nothing new under the sun).

First. They use strawman tactics. They represents trinity similary as some pagan triades or something like "three-part" not "triune". So actually what they are fighting is not trinity but their understanding of trinity. It is like saying "christians says that 2x2=5" and then they do big work to proove that 2x2=5 is pagan origin and in reality 2x2=3 therefore it can't be 5. This is tipical strawman tactics. And thats very understandable, as I have never met any JW who understands what is trinity as christians shows it.

Second! The brochsure uses MENY misquotes or christianity-trasher quotation. You can search i-net and find which quotes exactly are taken out of context and which of them are changed to suite WT needs.

Question for JW. If WT has truth, then why do they misquote different sourcs in the broschure?

Hi there!

:hi:

Thank you for sharing your comments about the brochure in general; however, I was looking for a discussion this particular part of that publication. Perhaps you would like to share





And the text of the page and the question for the first day is...

"What, exactly, is the Trinity? How do supporters of it explain it?"

If you support the Doctrine of the Trinity, perhaps you would/could explain, define, or give an example of the trinitarian nature of God?



~thanks~

[apostoli]

Hi serapha,


If you support the Doctrine of the Trinity, perhaps you would/could explain, define, or give an example of the trinitarian nature of God?A very quick reply would be to quote 1 John 4 "God is love".

This was Augustines starting point. The Orthodox churches believe he took the concept a little two far, whereby the Father loves, the Son is the one loved and reciprocates that love and the Holy Spirit is the emanation of their love to us.

The Orthodox view is simpler and based on scriptures such as 2 Cor 13:14 "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you. Also have a read of Romans 8:8-11.

At 1 John 4:9 it says "In this was manifested the love of God towards us that God sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him."

[spitndirt]

Hi there!

:hi:

Section one.

"Should You Believe It?"

You may read the entire text here...

http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/index.htm

but to summarize it...









And the text of the page and the question for the first day is...

"What, exactly, is the Trinity? How do supporters of it explain it?"





~serapha~ walks off mumbling.... "What would Jesus say, What would Jesus say?


===============
"Well"

~serapha~ beats back the crowd of applicants and says

"let me go first!"






I'm an orthodox Christian, therefore, I believe in the Triune nature of God. Many times, it's a concept that people cannot picture, but I wrote a poem... or maybe I should say, God gave me this poem as an understanding of the triune nature of God... co-existing, co-eternal.... not different modes of the same God, but unified in purpose, immutable, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient.


Let me go down to the sea again...



Let me go down to the sea again, down to the seaside shore,
Let me see the waves again crashing on ships that moor.
Let me smell the salty air that rises from the sea,
That air I breathe reveals in full, the sea’s vitality.


I look to the ocean and then I see as I come to realize,
The living water of the sea holds a doctrine that is so wise.
The ocean is the essence of God, the totality of the Three,
The Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, the Blessed Trinity

From that total essence of God, rising from the turbulent sea,
The waves form and roll along, where the current sends them to be.
But while I see the waves, beating upon the shore,
I know that the wave is still a part of the ocean and yet more.

That wall of water is Jesus the Christ, the incarnation of God
It rises and falls at the beck and call of the current on which it rides.
I can see the wave and feel its force as it touches me in life
Yet it never separates from its source, its unity, not strife.

The Holy Spirit is the salty air arising from the ocean course
I cannot see the salty air, but I know the salt air’s source
To inhale the salty air, it seems, I am breathing in the sea,
And the salty scent is evidence of the Salty Spirit in me

Let me go down to the sea again, down to the seaside shore,
Let me see the waves again crashing on ships that moor,
Let me smell the salty air that rises from the sea,
That air I breathe reveals in full, the life that lives in me.
No....God is not triune in the sense of '...three distinct persons existing in eternity past...'.

First God is, and God is Spirit. Then God is 'personified and embodied' - as per Proverbs 8:22-36. Now we have the Father and His Word - the Christ of creation. This 'Word' becomes the mediator between God and His intended creation - Adam.

Think about this: Prior to, and apart from creation, Did God have any use for 'speach'? If He did He is NOT a God possessing 'omni' attrubutes. Would God need to tell Himself things He already 'knows', or to 'do' things that are perpetually done, or to 'go' to where He already 'is'? Nope! The 'Word' therefore came to be with God's personification. And this for the purpose of creating and sustaining - two things that cannot apply to God Himself.

Another thing: It is written that Jesus, the Christ of God, was a man in whom the fullness of the 'Godhead' dwelt bodily. Now, if the Godhead consists of 'three' then the man Jesus Christ becomes a 'fourth'. Hmmmmm.........

Just a couple of reasons that stick out for me. And I am a 'christian' belonging to no religious organization - Protestant, Catholic, JW, Mormon, or otherwise. So this observation is wholly unbiased.

Peace

[serapha]

Hello all,

:hi:

The second part of the brochure can be read here...


http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/index.htm

After a couple of brief selections concerning an explanation of the Doctrine of the Trinity, then the primary argument against the doctrine is that God is not a God of confusion, therefore... it must not be...



Thus, the Trinity is considered to be "one God in three Persons." Each is said to be without beginning, having existed for eternity. Each is said to be almighty, with each neither greater nor lesser than the others.

Is such reasoning hard to follow? Many sincere believers have found it to be confusing, contrary to normal reason, unlike anything in their experience. How, they ask, could the Father be God, Jesus be God, and the holy spirit be God, yet there be not three Gods but only one God?




"Not a God of Confusion"

HOW could such a confusing doctrine originate?


In view of that statement, would God be responsible for a doctrine about himself that is so confusing that even Hebrew, Greek, and Latin scholars cannot really explain it?


What say ye?


~serapha~

[JAY-PC]

Hello all,

:hi:

The second part of the brochure can be read here...


http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/index.htm

After a couple of brief selections concerning an explanation of the Doctrine of the Trinity, then the primary argument against the doctrine is that God is not a God of confusion, therefore... it must not be...










What say ye?


~serapha~




The argument that the Trinity doctrine is confusing or something that we can’t understand and so it must be wrong is just plain foolishness and doesn’t stand when all is said and done.

There are many things in the physical world that maybe confusion to many people (Quantum physics, black holes, ect) but that doesn’t mean that they are untrue. Also just because something defies rational everyday human experience doesn’t mean that it is untrue. For those who hold that the Bible is the word of God we find people being raised from the dead (I never seen someone rise from the dead but I believe it because the Bible teaches it), I don’t know how a woman can have a baby without ever having had sex with a man (I believe Mary did because God says it happened). So just because something is hard to understand or maybe confusing doesn’t mean it’s wrong or untrue.

Why do some (JW’s, and the like) people think that God’s nature should be easily understandable?

I don’t understand how God can be eternal, omnipotent, ect, yet I believe it.

This argument by the Watchtower society is a clever deception but doesn’t stand when we think about all the things in this physical universe as well as the Bible that don’t make sense to us or we just can’t understand.

[serapha]

Section #3 from

http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/index.htm

Is It Clearly a Bible Teaching?



"Trinity" in the Bible?


A PROTESTANT publication states: "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century." (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary)



Testimony of the Hebrew Scriptures


WHILE the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible, is at least the idea of the Trinity taught clearly in it? For instance, what do the Hebrew Scriptures ("Old Testament") reveal?

The Encyclopedia of Religion admits: "Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity."





Testimony of the Greek Scriptures


WELL, then, do the Christian Greek Scriptures ("New Testament") speak clearly of a Trinity?

The Encyclopedia of Religion says: "Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity."




Taught by Early Christians?


DID the early Christians teach the Trinity? Note the following comments by historians and theologians:

"Primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds."—The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.



Thus, the testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter.


What say ye?

[Pythagoras]

Hi Jay-Pc,



There are many things in the physical world that maybe confusion to many people (Quantum physics, black holes, ect) but that doesn’t mean that they are untrue.


Ofcourse there are many phenomena in the physical world humans do not completely understand . But such phenomenon do not defy the law of non-contradiction.To speak an untruth is to violate the law of non-contradiction.

For example, those of us who believe in the inerrancy of the bible understand from it that God cannot lie. To call God a liar therefore is to viloate the law of non-contradiction.In the same way, we have ample proof from the bible that 3 is not 1. To say God is 3 persons 1 being is to say 3 is 1 . We know 3 is not 1. To say God is 3 persons 1 being is either to violate the law of non-contradiction or to equivocate words like "person" , "being", "distinct","separate". .




Also just because something defies rational everyday human experience doesn’t mean that it is untrue.

Something which defies rationality is untrue, indeed. For instance, to say 3 is 1 is to deny rational everyday human experience, logic , common sense, and the law of non-contradiction.

It is fair to characterize the trinity doctrine as insanity, for it is insane to say 3 is 1. I know many Hindu mystics( believers in Braham, Vishnu, Shiva, the Trimuthi) and (was told ) many trinitarians, when they probe too deeply into the trinity doctrine, literally do go mad ; many others like C.S. Lewis spend the bulk of their time writing fables and drawing cartoons,-- "Narnia" comes to mind! . Their logical faculties tend to break down sooner or later. On the other hand, those who believe in the One absolute true God like like Newton and Einstein, go on to discover Calculus and the special laws of relativity.


So be careful Jay Pc.


For those who hold that the Bible is the word of God we find people being raised from the dead (I never seen someone rise from the dead but I believe it because the Bible teaches it),

The law of non-contradiction is not violated by rising from the dead. If you read your OT, you will find out that even Elijah raised a boy who was dead. But the OT consistently tells us 3 is not 1.




I don’t know how a woman can have a baby without ever having had sex with a man (I believe Mary did because God says it happened).


Again, there is nothing illogical about a woman giving birth without a man. Infact modern day science can accomplish such a feat. -- it's called invitro fertilization.



So just because something is hard to understand or maybe confusing doesn’t mean it’s wrong or untrue.


The trinity is not hard to understand, it's simply untrue. The Athanasian creed stipulates:

(a) The Father is God.
(b) The Son is God.
(c) The Holy Spirit is God.
(d) All three persons are separate and distinct.
(e) Yet there are not three Gods but one God.

(e) is false in light of (a),(b),(c) and (d) above.



I don’t understand how God can be eternal, omnipotent, ect, yet I believe it.

These concepts do not violate the law of non-contradiction as dictated in the OT. However to say the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God and still mantain there is one God is to speak an untruth.


best wishes,

[apostoli]

Hi JAY-PC,


The argument that the Trinity doctrine is confusing or something that we can’t understand and so it must be wrong is just plain foolishness and doesn’t stand when all is said and done.Quite true. Even Arius, the so called originator of Arianism, believed in the Trinity. Though he explained it in a tri-theist type sence, starting with the premise "God Himself then, in His own nature, is ineffable by all men"

"Thus there is a Triad, [but] not in equal glories. Not intermingling with each other are their subsistences. One more glorious than the other in their glories unto immensity. Foreign from the Son in essence is the Father, for He is without beginning. Understand that the Monad was; but the Dyad was not, before it was in existence. It follows at once that, though the Son was not, the Father was God. Hence the Son, not being (for He existed at the will of the Father), is God Only-begotten" (Fragment 2)
http://home.zonnet.nl/chotki/fragments%20from%20arius.htm

[Shazard]

If you support the Doctrine of the Trinity, perhaps you would/could explain, define, or give an example of the trinitarian nature of God?
~thanks~

Definition (or better - poore reflection of it) is found in creeds. There nothing new. The problem people have is how something one can be three and still be the one.

The simplest illustration is paper triangle. It's nature is "paper" and you can name each of corner "Father" "Son" and "HSpirit". Not one corner is each of other two, but they all still are paper and all of them still are the triangle.
This is only POORE example.

Other POORE example is Sun. You can't see the Sun (Father) what you see is Light coming from Sun (Son). Sun itself is invisible but the light of it reveals it to us. But when you look into the sky you see allways thing and act as you see Sun itself, not it's revealing light. If you close your eyes and sit into black box, you can still feel the heat of the Sun (Holy Spirit), but if somebody will ask you, you will say, that you feel Sun itself.

Other POORE example is space. It is length height and width. Non of which is other two, but they all are space, and you even can't distniguishe it from space.

Other POORE example is water. Ice, Steam and Liquid all of them are Water. When you speak "Water" you imply liquid state of water element. When you speak "Ice" or "Steam" you actually are speaking about the same Water (as nature) but refering to specific state (person) of water. So nature of Ice, Steam and Liquid is the same - WATER, but they are different, but still there are no 3 waters, but one water!

I can keep going... and most funny thing, with this understanding I don't have any contradictions about God and his nature. You can easely ask - how you can breath Steam but still break your head against Ice brick if they both are Water... If you will define that Water is ONLY Liquid Water, then everybody will laugh at you, but JW are very serious about prooving that Ice can't be Water, coz how it can be Water if it is sayed that you can swim in water. They tray to hide but can't

Trinity is very logical, if you come out of box!

BTW there is sayed that God is one. There is no claim, that God is one person. BTW even definition of "person" is unclear, and that's what JW use to "disaproove" personality of Holy Spirit!

And yes... one warning, you will get cought in paradoxes each time you will try to understand nature of God!

[Shazard]

Ouh and I forgot the best illustration of trinity.

Imagine that some book is written in Chinese language. And all people on the earth knows only english and russian language. When you get this book, you can get only some part of knowledge about it, but you are not able to read it. It is written with some pictures which are not close to known letters. They are SO meny, you even are not sure in what direction you read or do you even read it or what. The Book is objective truth.
Now... somebody translates the book into Russian and into English. You will get 2 separate books... Enlgish and Chinese... They are DIFFERENT Books by form. Thee second is not the same as the original. Even english is different from russian. But you atleast can share the languages and see what is written there.
Now if you read English but I read Russian book we will get the same objective knowledge about what is written. It is not dependent on the form of letters!
So what we got.

We got Father (Chinese book) which is hidden and invisible from us. We have Son (English and Russian book) which reavels the Father to us. And when russian and american reads they get the same Spirit, the same Information, the same stuff into their subjective minds.

We have 3 separate "books" but still it is the one and the same book. And you can't say that English book is not the Chinese book coz the letters are different, that it is sayed that nobody can read Chinese, so it can't be the same book, coz I can read English book! Etc. if you put the JW claims against this example of trinity you will see that JW claims are just poore men trying to proove something he does not understands!

[NonTrinitarian]

Ouh and I forgot the best illustration of trinity.

Imagine that some book is written in Chinese language. And all people on the earth knows only english and russian language. When you get this book, you can get only some part of knowledge about it, but you are not able to read it. It is written with some pictures which are not close to known letters. They are SO meny, you even are not sure in what direction you read or do you even read it or what. The Book is objective truth.
Now... somebody translates the book into Russian and into English. You will get 2 separate books... Enlgish and Chinese... They are DIFFERENT Books by form. Thee second is not the same as the original. Even english is different from russian. But you atleast can share the languages and see what is written there.
Now if you read English but I read Russian book we will get the same objective knowledge about what is written. It is not dependent on the form of letters!
So what we got.

We got Father (Chinese book) which is hidden and invisible from us. We have Son (English and Russian book) which reavels the Father to us. And when russian and american reads they get the same Spirit, the same Information, the same stuff into their subjective minds.

We have 3 separate "books" but still it is the one and the same book. And you can't say that English book is not the Chinese book coz the letters are different, that it is sayed that nobody can read Chinese, so it can't be the same book, coz I can read English book! Etc. if you put the JW claims against this example of trinity you will see that JW claims are just poore men trying to proove something he does not understands!

After reading this, I feel like tossing out all those hundreds of verses that distinguish Jesus from God and become a Trinitarian!

[serapha]

Hello all,



This is a frustrating thread as I can't seem to participate in the discussion....


but... moving on to the next section...

How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop?



The Council of Nicaea did assert that Christ was of the same substance as God, which laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian theology. But it did not establish the Trinity, for at that council there was no mention of the holy spirit as the third person of a triune Godhead.




What role did this unbaptized emperor play at the Council of Nicaea? The Encyclopædia Britannica relates: "Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, 'of one substance with the Father' . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination."



None of the bishops at Nicaea promoted a Trinity, however. They decided only the nature of Jesus but not the role of the holy spirit. If a Trinity had been a clear Bible truth, should they not have proposed it at that time?


The Athanasian Creed

THE Trinity was defined more fully in the Athanasian Creed. Athanasius was a clergyman who supported Constantine at Nicaea. The creed that bears his name declares: "We worship one God in Trinity . . . The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three gods, but one God."


Apostasy Foretold


THIS disreputable history of the Trinity fits in with what Jesus and his apostles foretold would follow their time. They said that there would be an apostasy, a deviation, a falling away from true worship until Christ's return, when true worship would be restored before God's day of destruction of this system of things.
\



Why Did God's Prophets Not Teach It?

...

Are Christians to believe that centuries after Christ and after having inspired the writing of the Bible, God would back the formulation of a doctrine that was unknown to his servants for thousands of years, one that is an "inscrutable mystery" "beyond the grasp of human reason," one that admittedly had a pagan background and was "largely a matter of church politics"?

The testimony of history is clear: The Trinity teaching is a deviation from the truth, an apostatizing from it.




what say ye?

[Shazard]

Hello all,
This is a frustrating thread as I can't seem to participate in the discussion....
but... moving on to the next section...
How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop?
what say ye?

We say - go & read church history! The Bible canon for example was fully developed ony at the end of 4th century. So how can you say that it is will of God, if men put the books togeather and more... these were the same men which accepted the teaching of trinity. So then why Bible canon is OK, but trinity is not?

[anewlife]

We say - go & read church history! The Bible canon for example was fully developed only at the end of 4th century. So how can you say that it is will of God, if men put the books togeather and more... these were the same men which accepted the teaching of trinity. So then why Bible canon is OK, but trinity is not?

Hmmm? Interesting indeed. :blush:

[serapha]

Section 5

http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/index.htm


What Does the Bible Say About God and Jesus?


IF PEOPLE were to read the Bible from cover to cover without any preconceived idea of a Trinity, would they arrive at such a concept on their own? Not at all.

What comes through very clearly to an impartial reader is that God alone is the Almighty, the Creator, separate and distinct from anyone else, and that Jesus, even in his prehuman existence, is also separate and distinct, a created being, subordinate to God.






As "Wisdom" in his prehuman existence, Jesus goes on to say that he was "by his [God's] side, a master craftsman." (Proverbs 8:30, JB) In harmony with this role as master craftsman, Colossians 1:16 says of Jesus that "through him God created everything in heaven and on earth."—Today's English Version (TEV).

So it was by means of this master worker, his junior partner, as it were, that Almighty God created all other things. The Bible summarizes the matter this way: "For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things . . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things." (Italics ours.)—1 Corinthians 8:6, RS, Catholic edition.

It no doubt was to this master craftsman that God said: "Let us make man in our image." (Genesis 1:26) Some have claimed that the "us" and "our" in this expression indicate a Trinity.


What say ye?

[Jeckle&Hyde]

I was never too interested in discussing this type of question/thread...does one really think that G-D can be narrowed down to such discussions?

Just looking at Jesus should suffice...but then we argue about him too..LOL

[Shazard]

Section 5

IF PEOPLE were to read the Bible from cover to cover without any preconceived idea of a Trinity, would they arrive at such a concept on their own? Not at all.



Why do you ask question and then answer yourself? This is exact tactics of WT for implanting doubts and info into human mind. I do not agree with your answer. More. I will say, that it is likely some reader of Bible will come to trinity then to teachings of WT. BUT, go read gospel of John especially ending of chapter 20. It is sayed, that Author has written all this stuff, that everyone could read, comet to faith about identity of Christ and be saved. The same claim is in the begining of Gospel of Luke. So... Actually, you can take ALONE gospels of John and Luke and get faith and get saved. And you still get with all the major doctrines of Christianity in the Gospels. BUT, do the experiment... take ONLY one Revelation out of Bible, and 50% of WT teachings falls apart.
But bottom line is - if you ask question, let the opponent to find the answer! This is my tactics, if JW asks me question I do not let him answer instead of me.



Section 5

hat comes through very clearly to an impartial reader is that God alone is the Almighty, the Creator, separate and distinct from anyone else, and that Jesus, even in his prehuman existence, is also separate and distinct, a created being, subordinate to God.



Well as you probably know, there are people who says, that by correct reading the Bible everyone conclude that Jesus is brother of Satan, and God the Father was men at some point in the history, and all we are going to be Gods.
But most funny thing is that one of the ways how to get disfellowshiped out of WT is Read ONLY Bible without guidance and do not read WT and Awake. Whay it is so? WT has some answers... they say, that without WT and Awake it is likely that such reader will become thrinitarian. How it's possible? Does WT and Awake has more power over Satan's lays than Word of God itself?


Section 5

As "Wisdom" in his prehuman existence, Jesus goes on to say that he was "by his [God's] side, a master craftsman." (Proverbs 8:30, JB) In harmony with this role as master craftsman, Colossians 1:16 says of Jesus that "through him God created everything in heaven and on earth."—Today's English Version (TEV).



Well you have to proove that Proverbs are talking about person of Jesus Christ. It is not obvious, more, if you know the context of the book, it's purpose, then it is not prophetic book, but book of wisdom. But the question is why do WT takes this scripture for BASIS of explaining other scriptures, if the Bible says that New Testament is primary in understanding Old Testament. But here we see that somebody tries to implant Old Testament revelation over New Testament revelation and more... SUCH Old Testament revelation which is NOT obvious. If you can't conclude from Proverbs alone that it is person of Jesus rather then poetic expression to show high Wisdom of God and poetic glorygiving to God, then you can't just jump to New Testament to prove that it is so, and that's why New Testament Jesus Christ is scuh. You get circular logic. But the very basics of Eisegesis is... get very Clear scriptures and explain not so clear. Proverbs do not fall under "very clear" scripture about person of Jesus Christ. So you have to start from other parts. And as I mentioned - 2 books to start are Gospel of John and Gospel of Luke which are written to be sufficient alone to get to faith and get saved. So THESE Books are basic books. So you have to examine Proverbs in Light of "Before Abraham I AM" and "Word was God" expression rather then vice versa! The proof that New Testament revelation is primary over Old Testament is written by the words of Paul (so these are Words of God) in 2 Cor 3


Section 5

So it was by means of this master worker, his junior partner, as it were, that Almighty God created all other things. The Bible summarizes the matter this way: "For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things . . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things." (Italics ours.)—1 Corinthians 8:6, RS, Catholic edition.



Well Isaiah does not agree with this. Will not comment, coz meny things about it is allready sayed. But if you want to proove something USING Bible as reference book, you will probably succeed. But Bible is for other purpose, not to be reference boo, but to save you!


Section 5

It no doubt was to this master craftsman that God said: "Let us make man in our image." (Genesis 1:26) Some have claimed that the "us" and "our" in this expression indicate a Trinity.




Well I doubt. So this "It no doubt" does not put's any duty on me.


Section 5
What say ye?

We say, go read Bible, and starting from New Testament, learn history, learn logic, learn reasoning, learn to think by yourself. That's why God gave us a mind - to think.

[serapha]

Why do you ask question and then answer yourself? This is exact tactics of WT for implanting doubts and info into human mind. I do not agree with your answer.


Hi there!

:hi:

Perhaps I should clarify my position... I didn't write the brochure, nor do I agree with the content. I thought it would be a different approach to use the materials provided by Watchtower on a discussion. It hasn't gone over very well, and no one seems to be interested in discussing the content of the brochure.


~fundamental, Orthodox Christian~

~serapha~

[Science 0f Time]

Let's look at the math!

The


Mathematics


0f


GOD

and the

Satanic

Calculator

A Mathematical Analysis of the Holy Bible

By Bill Sheffield

Letter to Numeric Values



A – 1
B – 2
C – 3
D – 4
E – 5
F – 6
G – 7
H – 8
I – 9
J – 10
K – 11
L – 12
M – 13
N – 14
O – 15
P – 16
Q – 17
R – 18
S – 19
T – 20
U – 21
V – 22
W – 23
X – 24
Y – 25
Z – 26



.
I AM

9 + 1 + 3 = 23

23 / 3 =

7.6666666 – 7




Lamb Of God

12 + 1 + 13+ 2 + 15 + 6 +

7 + 15 + 4 = 75

75 / 9 =

8.3333333…………




God of Daniel

7 + 15 + 4 + 15 + 6 + 4 + 1

+ 14 + 9 + 5 + 12 =

92 / 11

8.36363636…….


God

7 + 15 + 4 = 26

26 / 3 =

8.6666666-7




God Of Heaven

7 + 15 + 4 + 15 + 6 + 8 + 5
+ 1 + 22 + 5 + 14 = 102
102 / 11 =

9.2727272727 - 3




The Lord

20 + 8 + 5 + 12 + 18 + 4 =

67

67 / 7 =

9. 571428, 571428 ……….


Jehovah

10 + 5 + 8 + 15 + 22 + 1 +

8 = 69

69 / 7 =

9. 867142, 857142 ……….



I AM What I AM

9 + 1 + 13 + 23 + 8 + 1 +

20 + 9 + 1 + 13 = 98

98 / 10 =

9.9



Living God

12 + 9 + 22 + 9 + 14 + 7 +

7 + 15 + 4 = 99

99 / 9 =

10


God Of The Armies

Of Heaven

7 + 15 + 4 + 15 + 6 + 20 +

8 + 5 + 1 + 18 + 13 + 9 + 5

+ 19 + 15 + 6 + 8 + 5 + 1 +

22 + 5 + 14 = 221

221 / 22 =

10. 045 45 45 45 45……




The A and The Z

20 + 8 + 5 + 1 + 1 + 14 + 4

+ 20 + 8 + 5 + 26 = 112

112 / 11 =

10. 18 18 18 18 18 ……




God of gods

7 + 15 + 4 + 15 + 6 + 7 +

15 + 4 + 19 =

92 / 9 =

10.2222222…….



Lord Of All

12 + 15 + 18 + 4 + 15 + 6

+ 1 + 12 + 12 = 95

95 / 9 =

10.5555555 – 6



Ancient of Days

1 + 14 + 3 + 9 + 5 + 14 +

20 + 15 + 6 + 4 + 1 + 25 +

19 =

136 / 13 =

10.461538,461538….


Emmanuel

5 + 13 + 13 + 1 14 + 21 +

5 + 12 = 84

84 / 8 =

10.5
Creator Of All Light

3 + 18 + 5 1 + 20 + 15 +

18 + 15 + 6 + 1 + 12 + 12

+ 12 + 9 + 7 + 8 + 20 =182

182 / 17 =

10. 7058823529411764,…



The Mediator

20 + 8 + 5 + 13 + 5 + 4 + 9

+ 1 + 20 + 15 + 18 = 118

118 / 11 =

10. 72 72 72 72 72 – 3


Immanuel

9 + 13 + 13 + 1 + 14 + 21

+ 5 + 12 = 88

88 / 8 =

11



King Of Kings

11 + 9 + 14 + 7 15 + 6 +

11 9 + 14 + 7 + 19 = 122

122 / 11 =

11. 09 09 09 09 ………..

The Creator

20 + 8 + 5 + 3 + 18 + 5 +1

+ 20 + 15 + 18 = 113

113 / 10 =

11.3


Christ

3 + 8 + 18 + 19 + 20 = 68

68 / 6 =

11.33333333………


Most High God

13 + 15 + 9 + 20 + 8 + 9 +

7 + 8 + 7 + 15 + 4 =125

125 / 11 =

11. 36 36 36 36 36 ………



The Lord God Almighty

20 + 8 + 5 + 12 + 15 + 18

+ 4 + 7 + 15 + 16 + 1 + 12

+ 13 + 9 + 7 + 8 + 20 +

25= 205

205 / 18 =

11.38888888 – 9
The Sovereign God

20 + 8 + 5 + 19 + 15 + 22

+ 5 + 18 + 5 + 9 + 7 + 14 +

7 + 15 + 4 = 173

173 / 15 =

11 .5333333………


God Of Hosts

7 + 15 + 4 + 15 + 6 + 8 +

15 + 19 + 20 + 19 = 128

128 / 11 =

11. 63 63 63 63 63 – 4


Lord And Savior

12 + 15 + 18 + 4 + 1 + 14

+ 4 + 19 + 1 + 22 + 9 + 15

+ 18 = 152

152 / 13 =

11. 692307, 692307………


Yahweh

25 + 1 + 8 + 23 + 5 + 8 =

70

70 / 6 =

11. 6666666 – 7
Holy Father

8 + 15 + 12 + 25 + 6 + 1 +

20 + 8 + 5 + 18 = 118

118 / 10 = 11.8




Word Of God

23 + 15 + 18 + 4 + 15 + 6

+ 7 + 15 + 4 = 107

107 / 9 =

11.8888888 - 9


Holy One Of Israel

8 + 15 + 12 + 25 + 15 + 14

+ 5 + 15 + 6 + 9 + 19 + 18

+ 1 + 5 + 12 = 179

179 / 15 =

11.93333333…………



Mighty God

13 + 9 = 7 + 8 + 20 + 25 +

7 + 15 + 4 = 108

108 / 9 =

12

Son Of Man

19 + 15 + 14 + 15 + 6 + 13

+ 1 + 14 = 97

97 / 8 =

12.125


Lord

12 + 15 + 18 + 4 = 49

49 / 4 =

12.25


Prophet Priest And King

16 + 18 + 15 + 16 + 8 + 5

+ 20 + 16 + 18 + 9 + 5 +

19 + 20 + 1 + 14 + 4 + 11

+ 9 + 14 + 7 = 245

245 / 20 =

12.25



Most High

13 + 15 + 19 + 20 + 8 + 9

+ 7 + 8 = 99

99 / 8 =

12.375

Lord Of Lords

12 + 15 + 18 + 4 + 15 + 6

+ 12 + 15 + 18 + 4 + 19 =

138

138 / 11 =

12. 54 54 54 54 – 5


Spirit Of God

19 + 16 + 9 + 18 + 9 + 20

+ 15 + 6 + 7 + 15 + 4 =

138

138 / 11 =

12. 54 54 54 54 – 5


Comforter

3 + 15 + 13 + 6 + 15 + 18

+ 20 + 5 + 18 = 113

113 / 9 =

12.5555555 – 6


Son Of God

19 + 15 + 14 + 15 + 6 + 15

+ 4 = 88

88 / 7 =

12. 571428, 571428, …….
The Word

20 + 8 + 5 + 23 + 15 + 18

+ 4 = 93

93 / 7 =

13. 285714, 285714………



Lord Of Glory

12 + 15 + 18 + 4 + 15 + 6

+ 7 + 12 + 15 + 18 + 25 =

147

147 / 11 =

13. 36 36 36 36 ………….


Holy One

8 + 15 + 12 + 25 + 15 + 14

+ 5 = 94

94 / 7 =

13. 428571, 428571 ……



Lord Jesus

12 + 15 + 18 + 4 +10 + 5 +

19 + 21 + 19 = 123

123 / 9 =

13.6666666 – 7
Jesus Christ

10 + 5 + 19 + 21 + 19 +19

+ 3 + 8 + 18 + 9 + 19 + 20

= 151

151 / 11 =

13. 72 72 72 72 – 73


Savior

19 + 1 + 22 + 9 + 15 + 18

= 84

84 / 6 = 14



Lord Our Righteousness

12 + 15 + 18 + 4 + 15 + 21

+ 18 + 18 + 9 + 7 + 8 + 20

+ 5 + 15 + 21 + 19 + 14 +

5 + 19 + 19 = 282

282 / 20 =

14.1


Jesus

10 + 5 + 19 + 21 + 19 = 74

74 / 5 =

14.8

Holy Spirit

8 + 15 + 12 + 25 + 19 + 16

+ 9 + 18 + 9 + 20 = 151

151 / 10 =

15.1




Spirit

19 + 16 + 18 + 9 + 20 =

82

82 / 5 =

16.4























.
Summations of God


I AM : 23 / 3

God : 26 / 3

Lamb : 28 / 4

Am I God : 39 / 6

O God : 41 / 4

Branch : 46 / 6

Lord : 49 / 4

O Lord : 51 / 5

My God : 64 / 5

The Lord : 67 / 7

Christ : 68 / 7

Jehovah : 69 / 7

Yahweh : 70 / 6

Jesus : 74 / 5

Lord God : 75 / 7

Lamb of God : 75 / 9

Shoot: 77 / 5

Great God : 77 / 8

A and the Z : 79 / 8

Spirit : 82 / 6

Savior : 84 / 6

Emmanuel : 84 / 8

Son Of God : 88 / 8

Immanuel : 88 / 8

God of Daniel : 92 / 11

The Word : 93 / 7

Lord Of All : 95 / 9

Son Of Man : 97 / 8

I AM WHAT I AM : 98 / 10

Most High : 99 / 8

Living God : 99 / 9

God of Heaven : 102 / 11

Lord of Heaven : 105 / 12

O God of Abraham : 106 / 13
O Holy One : 109 / 8

O King of Ages : 109 / 11

Mighty God : 110 / 9

The A And The Z : 112 / 11

The Creator : 113 / 11

Comforter : 113 / 9

Mighty One : 116 / 9

Anointed One : 116 / 11

Prince of Peace : 116 / 16

Wonderful : 118 / 9

Holy Father : 118 / 10

The Mediator : 118 / 11

Lord Jehovah : 118 / 11

Living Tree : 121 / 10

Counselor : 122 / 9

King Of Kings : 122 / 11

Lord Jesus : 123 / 9

Most High God : 125 / 11
God Of Hosts : 128 / 10

Ancient of Days : 136 / 13

Spirit Of God : 138 / 11

Lord Of Lords : 138 / 11

Angel of the Lord : 142 / 14

The Mighty God : 143 / 12

Lord Of Glory : 147 / 11

The Prince of Peace : 149 / 16

Jesus Christ : 151 / 11

Lord of Hosts : 151 / 11

Holy Spirit : 151 / 10

Lord And Savior : 152 / 13

Beginning and the End : 156 / 18

Mighty Savior : 166 / 12

Holy One Of Israel : 179 / 15

Eternal Living One : 182 / 16

Creator Of All Light : 182 / 17

Everlasting Father : 190 / 17
The Lord God Almighty : 205 / 18

God Of The Armies
Of Heaven : 221 / 22

The Everlasting Father : 223 / 20

Prophet Priest And King : 245 / 20

Lord Our Righteousness : 282 / 20

 : 1855 / 19

 : 2341 / 19

 : 6122 / 548

 : 4429 / 38

 : 4565 / 43














Divisors of God


AM I God : 6.5

Lamb : 7

I AM : 7.6666666 - 7 ………

Branch : 7.6666666 - 7

O God of Abraham : 8.153846, ………

Lamb of God : 8.3333333 ………

God of Daniel : 8.36363636………

God : 8.6666666 – 7

Beginning and the End : 8.6666666 - 7

Prince of Peace : 8.923076

God of Heaven : 9.27272727 – 3

The Prince of Peace : 9.3125

The Lord : 9.571428,571428,…

Lord of Heaven : 9.5833333. ……..

Great God : 9.625

Jehovah : 9.857142,857142,…

A and the Z : 9.875

I AM WHAT I AM : 9.9

O King of Ages : 9.90 90 90 .......

Living God : 10

God Of The Armies
Of Heaven : 10.0454545……..

Angel of the Lord : 10.142857

The A And The Z : 10.18181818……

O Lord : 10.2

O God : 10.25

Ancient of Days : 10.461538,…….

Anointed One : 10.5454545

Lord Of All : 10.5555555 – 6

Emmanuel : 10.5

Creator Of All Light : 10.7058823529411764,…

Lord God : 10.714285, ………

The Mediator : 10.72727272 …….

Lord Jehovah : 10.72727272 ………..

King Of Kings : 11.09090909 ……..

The Everlasting Father : 11.15

Everlasting Father : 11.17647059

The Creator : 11.3

Christ : 11.3333333 ……….

Most High God : 11.36363636 ……..

Eternal Living One : 11.375

The Lord God Almighty : 11.38888888 - 9

The Sovereign God : 11.53333333 …….

God Of Hosts : 11.63636363 - 4

Yahweh : 11.6666666 – 7

Lord And Savior : 11.692307,692307,….

Holy Father : 11.8

The Mighty God : 11.916666 - 7

Holy One Of Israel : 11.9333333 …..

Living Tree : 12.1

Son Of Man : 12.125

Mighty God : 12.222222 …….
Lord : 12.25

Prophet Priest And King : 12.25

Most High : 12.375

Spirit Of God : 12.54545454 …..

Lord Of Lords : 12.54545454 …..

Comforter : 12.5555555 - 6

Son Of God : 12.571428,571428,…

My God : 12.8

O Lord : 12.8

Mighty One : 12.888888 - 9

Wonderful : 13.1111111 …….

The Word : 13.285714,285714,…

Lord Of Glory : 13.36363636 …….

Counselor : 13.555555 - 6

O Holy One : 13.625

Lord Jesus : 13.6666666 – 7

Jesus Christ : 13.727272727 – 3

Lord of Hosts : 13.727272727 - 3
Mighty Savior : 13.8333333 .........

Savior : 14

Lord Our Righteousness : 14.1

Jesus : 14.8

Holy Spirit : 15.1

Shoot : 15.4

Spirit : 16.4

 : 111.947368421052631578

 : 123.210526315789473684

 : 11. 1 71532846, 71532846

 : 116.5526315789473684210

 : 106.162790697674418604651


Satanic Numbers


Bel : 19 / 4

Baal : 16 / 4

Gog : 29 / 3

Hell : 37 / 4

Death : 38 / 5

Abadon : 41 / 6

Belial : 41 / 5

Magog : 43 / 5

devil ( descriptive ) : 52 / 5

Satan : 55 / 5

Dragon : 59 / 6

Balberith : 78 / 9

Beelzebub : 80 / 9

Evil One : 82 / 7

the devil ( descriptive ) : 85 / 8

O Lucifer : 89 / 8

Creature : 91 / 8

Serpent : 97 / 7

Apollyon : 110 / 8

The Creature : 124 / 11

Destroyer : 129 / 9

Mighty Ones : 135 / 10

Evil Creature : 139 / 12

Evil Spirit : 139 / 10

False Prophet : 141 / 12

Horrible Thing (Hitler) : 145 / 13

the Destroyer : 162 / 12

evil Mighty Ones : 183 / 14












Satanic Divisors


Baal : 4

Abadon : 5. 857142, ………..

Bel : 6.333333 .........

Belial : 6. 833333 …………

Death : 7. 6

Balberith : 7. 8

Magog : 8. 6

Beelzebub : 8. 888888 - 9

Hell : 9. 25

Gog : 9. 666666 - 7

Dragon : 9. 8333333 …………

devil ( descriptive ) : 10. 4

the devil ( descriptive ) : 10. 625

Satan : 11

O Lucifer : ( A King ) 11.125

Horrible Thing ( Hitler ) : 11. 153846, …………

The Creature : 11.272727 ………….

Creature : 11. 375 (Rev 13:5) Blasphemous

Evil Creature : 11. 5833333 ………..

Evil One : 11. 714285

False Prophet : 11. 75

Evil Mighty Ones : 13.0714285

Mighty Ones : 13.5

the Destroyer : 13.5

Apollyon : 13. 75

Serpent : 13. 857142, ……….

Evil Spirit : 13. 9

Destroyer : 14.333333 .........


Finding a Common String


To find a common string linking all the Holy names, calculate each Holy name as defined under calculating a name.
Total of specific name sums:
23 + 26 + 28 + 39 + 41 + 49 + 51 + 64 + 67 + 68 + 69 + 70 + 74 + 75 + 75 + 79 + 82 + 84 + 84 + 88 + 88 + 92 + 93 + 95 + 97 + 98 + 99 + 99 + 102 + 105 + 106 + 108 + 112 + 113 + 113 + 116 + 118 + 122 + 123 + 125 + 128 + 136 + 138 + 138 + 147 + 151 + 151 + 152 + 156 + 179 + 182 + 205 + 221 + 245 + 282 = 5971

Then add the number of letters of each name and divide:
3 + 3 + 4 + 6 + 4 + 4 + 5 + 5 + 7 + 7 + 7 + 6 + 5 + 7 + 9 + 8 + 6 + 6 + 8 + 8 + 8 + 11 + 7 + 9 + 8 + 10 + 8 + 9 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 9 + 11 + 11 + 9 + 11 + 11 +11 + 9 + 11 + 10 + 13 + 11 + 11 + 11 + 11 + 10 + 13 + 18 + 15 + 17 + 18 + 22 + 20 + 20 = 537
5971 / 537 = 11.119180633147113594040968342644 ???????
Add “Lord of Hosts” (151 / 11 = 13.x )
5971 + 151 = 6122, and 537 + 11 = 548
6122 / 548 = 11.1 71532846, 71532846, ……
or: by a specific sum total of names and the number of names used:
4565 / 43 = 106.162790697674418604651,…
With this it can be said:
(  = 5971 / 537 ) or (  = 4565 / 43 ) or (  = 6122 / 548 )

The above can be stated as true, but it would be infinitely more preferable if we had equations established for each set of names that shared a common string set sum value for each mathematical set of the names in each category relative to the Trinity. Having a common string set sum value will become necessary for establishing relative placement of all values. The total summations and divisors can each be separated into three distinct categories, and calculated to find a common denominator, if you will, for each name set. Since all values of each name have equal equivalent numeric relativity, mathematical calculations can be simplified by adding the number of names to divide against each summation. Both methods yield the same common string set, or string set value. I suggest the readers simply do the math themselves rather than try to present every possible mathematical variation in one literary work. Once segregated sum each portion of each triad, or thusly:
God

2127 / 19 =

111. 947368421052631578,………….

or

1855 / 17 =

109. 1176470588235294,…………….

Jesus

2341 / 19 =

123. 210526315789473684,…………
Holy Spirit

151 + 113 = 264

264 / 19 =

13. 894736842105263157,………….

or :


Holy Spirit

371 / 3 =

123. 6666666 - 7

Add: 1855 + 2341 + 371 = 4567

Divided by: 17 + 19 + 3 = 39


Holy Trinity

4567 / 39 =

117. 102564,………………


Subtract “Spirit Of God” value 138 from

“GOD” 1855

1855 – 138 = 1717

Likewise “HOLY TRINITY” becomes:

4567 – 138 = 4429

Divide Again:

4429 / 38 = 116. 5 5263157 8 9473684 210

5 5263157 8 9473684 210, 526315789473684 210,

“Jesus” string : 210 526315789473684,

“God” string :

9473684 210 52631578,

“Holy Spirit” string :

8 9473684 210 5263157,

Calculated Again:

God

1855 / 17 =

109. 1176470588235294,…………….

Subtract “Jehovah” value 1855 – 69 = 1786


Add “God” value: 1786 + “Holy Spirit” value: 371


1786 + 371 = 2157

2157 / 19 = 113 . 5263157 8 9473684 210

5263157 8 9473684 210, 526315789473684 210,


“Jesus” string: 210 526315789473684, …


“GOD” string :

9473684 210 52631578,..


“Holy Spirit” string :

8 9473684 210 5263157



Assignment of a mathematical value to the numerical names of “God”, “Jesus”,

and the “Holy Spirit” separately all contain the unique divisor string set of :

“ 210526315789473684 ”

Sum String Value : 81

in repetition. This string set all appears in the mathematical makeup of all names

combined, and classified as the “Holy Trinity” acting together.

The “Holy Trinity” can be assigned the mathematical value of:

God:

( G = 2127 / 19 ) or (  = 2127 / 19 )

Holy Spirit:

( HS = 264 / 19 ) or (  = 264 / 19 )

Jesus:

( J = 2341 / 19 ) or ( = 2341 / 19 )

God and the Holy Sprit:

( GHS = 2157 / 19 ) or (  = 2157 / 19 )

as observed in the calendar BC, ( Before Christ ).

Holy Trinity:

( T = 4429 / 38 ) or (  = 4429 / 38 ) and (  = 4565 / 43 )

as observed in the calendar AD, ( After Death )










.

[Science 0f Time]

Please do not double-post

[serapha]

Let's look at the math!

The


Mathematics


0f


GOD

and the

Satanic

Calculator

A Mathematical Analysis of the Holy Bible

By Bill Sheffield

.....


.


Hi there!


:smile:



I don't understand your point... but then... the farthest I went in math was calculus. By any chance to you understand that numbers can be manipulated to represent whatever is needed for the time... ask any accountant.

Does this theory work when

a = 0
b = 1

etc?


~thanks~

[roostafish]

Wow, the mathmatics made my brain try to divide by zero. It lost me on the point. Anyway, this is a fascinating discussion. These things steered me away from the Watchtower Society. First, why can't I read ONLY the bible. Why does the governing body have final say, and why, when I read a translation that is much easier to follow (say, the NKJV, or even the NIV) the message is much more clear than the New World Translation (NWT), is that apostasy and a disfellowshipping offense? I think the bible, even the NWT is clear enough for the masses. The point being this; Jesus (who's name, Yeshua, literally means YHWH is with us) clearly proclaims His own deity in the gospels (yes, even in the NWT). I have not found the clear evidence defining separate, equal identity for the Holy Spirit, but I'm rather an amateur at this, so can anyone drive me to scripture (and include translation suggestion) that would clear the separate and equal deity of the Holy Spirit for me?

[Topherlee]

Wow, the mathmatics made my brain try to divide by zero. It lost me on the point. Anyway, this is a fascinating discussion. These things steered me away from the Watchtower Society. First, why can't I read ONLY the bible. Why does the governing body have final say, and why, when I read a translation that is much easier to follow (say, the NKJV, or even the NIV) the message is much more clear than the New World Translation (NWT), is that apostasy and a disfellowshipping offense? I think the bible, even the NWT is clear enough for the masses. The point being this; Jesus (who's name, Yeshua, literally means YHWH is with us) clearly proclaims His own deity in the gospels (yes, even in the NWT). I have not found the clear evidence defining separate, equal identity for the Holy Spirit, but I'm rather an amateur at this, so can anyone drive me to scripture (and include translation suggestion) that would clear the separate and equal deity of the Holy Spirit for me?

Just to point out, Yeshua does not mean YHVH with us, you're thinking about Immanuel, which means "God with us". This name was given to the Son of God per prophecy. God his Father, who is YHVH, named his Son, our Lord, "Jesus". The HS on the other hand is never named.

[roostafish]

Just to point out, Yeshua does not mean YHVH with us, you're thinking about Immanuel, which means "God with us". This name was given to the Son of God per prophecy. God his Father, who is YHVH, named his Son, our Lord, "Jesus". The HS on the other hand is never named.
Thanks for the clarification, but I still want scripture pointing me to the separate identity and deity of the Holy Spirit. I would much appriciate this. More than one reference would be great too, since I'm having discussions with my still JW sis.

[Sparko]

Thanks for the clarification, but I still want scripture pointing me to the separate identity and deity of the Holy Spirit. I would much appriciate this. More than one reference would be great too, since I'm having discussions with my still JW sis.

Well He is the Spirit of God, I don't know how else to show to show he is divine. The Holy Spirit is said to have all the attributes of God, even to being creator (Gen 1)

But we know he is a distinct person too:

John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

The Father sends him, and he will teach and remind us, and he is shown to speak (acts 13:2).

[Topherlee]

Thanks for the clarification, but I still want scripture pointing me to the separate identity and deity of the Holy Spirit. I would much appriciate this. More than one reference would be great too, since I'm having discussions with my still JW sis.

You will find no such scripture that points out the deity of the HS. You can only speculate or come to a biased conclusion that the HS is a deity. An unNamed deity. I would listen to whom Jesus speaks of as the Almighty (one containing deity, God). It is certainly not of himself.

[Topherlee]

Well He is the Spirit of God, I don't know how else to show to show he is divine. The Holy Spirit is said to have all the attributes of God, even to being creator (Gen 1)

But we know he is a distinct person too:

John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

The Father sends him, and he will teach and remind us, and he is shown to speak (acts 13:2).

The HS is the Spirit of God as you say and as it is so, cannot be distinct. Because it is of God, not an attribute or essence of God. John 4:24 points out that "God is a Spirit". How can there be two spirit gods and only one be considered holy. Is not God himself Holy?

The Holy Spirit is the one true God speaking, it is of God. God manifests Himself as such. God manifisted his HS as a dove when Jesus was baptized.

Genesis 1:2 says "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters".

How many spirit gods are there?

[Sparko]

The HS is the Spirit of God as you say and as it is so, cannot be distinct. Because it is of God, not an attribute or essence of God. John 4:24 points out that "God is a Spirit". How can there be two spirit gods and only one be considered holy. Is not God himself Holy?

The Holy Spirit is the one true God speaking, it is of God. God manifests Himself as such. God manifisted his HS as a dove when Jesus was baptized.

Genesis 1:2 says "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters".

How many spirit gods are there?


Well Gorsh! Maybe you need to take it up with Jesus then, because he said the Father would send another counselor to teach the church. He didn't say the Father would come himself, but the Father would send. And he identified the counselor as the Holy Spirit. Sounds like a distinction to me.

Of course, despite Jesus actually SAYING the counselor (or comforter in some translations) would be the Holy Spirit, the Watchtower teaches that THEY are the counselor. Anyone who reads the passage can tell they are flat out LYING. And you trust people like that to tell you the truth?

[Cal_Minian]

The problems with the Trinity fall into a number of categories:

1) In spite of the fact that this doctrine is central to Trinitarian "Christianity," no bible writer teaches it, in context. This doctrine is a world view for Trinitarian "Christians". It is the foundation for their understanding of Salvation and Redemption. No other foundational doctrine of Trinitarian "Christianity" is arrived at systematically. All legitimate foundational Christian doctrine is taught in at least its basic form by at least one bible writer, generally several witnesses, in context as a clear teaching.

2) Trinitarian proof-texts generally speak of only two persons, not three. Therefore we know the Trinity is not in view. Because these verses are taken out of a context which is not Trinitarian they are a pretext.

3) Trinitarian proof-texts frequently rely upon suspect textual variants such as 1Ti 3:16 and 1John 5:7.

4) Trinitarian proof-texts frequently rely upon a certain ambiguity in the Greek text dealing with grammar (Titus 2:13) or punctuation (Romans 9:5).

5) It is necessary to rationalize the non-ambiguous texts which support MonoPersonalTheism (John 17:3; John 14:28). Trinitarianism is PolyPersonalTheism.


No, lovers of bible truth accept what bible writers teach as doctrine for their foundational world-views.

We should not believe in the Trinity.

[Sparko]

When you actually know something about trinitarianism, get back to us Cal. until then you are doing nothing but burning straw and strewing about red herrings.

:strawburn: :redherring:

[Cal_Minian]

When you actually know something about trinitarianism, get back to us Cal. until then you are doing nothing but burning straw and strewing about red herrings.

:strawburn: :redherring:
Dear Sparko,
The way one learns to spot counterfeit money is not by studying counterfeit money. It is by studying authentic money. When one can identify authentic money it is always possible to spot the counterfeits.

The Trinity is a counterfeit foundational doctrine which can be distinguished from true foundational doctrine because:

1) True foundational doctrines are taught in at least their basic forms by bible writers in context.

2) True foundational doctrines do not rely upon ambiguities of Greek grammar or punctuation.

3) True foundational doctrines do not rationalize the clear teachings of bible writers such as those found in John 17:3 and John 14:28.

[Krusader]

Dear Sparko,
The way one learns to spot counterfeit money is not by studying counterfeit money. It is by studying authentic money. When one can identify authentic money it is always possible to spot the counterfeits.

The Trinity is a counterfeit foundational doctrine which can be distinguished from true foundational doctrine because:

1) True foundational doctrines are taught in at least their basic forms by bible writers in context.

2) True foundational doctrines do not rely upon ambiguities of Greek grammar or punctuation.

3) True foundational doctrines do not rationalize the clear teachings of bible writers such as those found in John 17:3 and John 14:28.

I hope you know tht the counterfeit money analogy was something that appeared in "The Kingdom of the Cults" by Walter Martin (one of the JWs and anti-Trinitarians biggest foes) - lately here I've been seeing it used by more and more JWs. That is really funny.

"True foundational doctrines do not tely upon ambiguities of Greek grammar or punctuation," - agreed. Tell that to the Watchtower Society in relationship to their John 1:1 translation.

[zuqiu85]

The argument that 1+1+1 is not equal to 1 is quite a popular argument! Even Isaac Newton did not believe in the Trinity (apparently on these grounds, as well as his own studies of the Bible).

However, just because the math doesn't work out doesn't mean the idea is useless. Perhaps many of us have heard of the idea of 2-D people living in a 3-d environment; or more specifically, a sphere. Suppose you draw a triangle on the sphere, with one point on the North Pole and the other two somewhere on the equator. The inside angles of a triangle must normally add up to 180 degrees, but in this case, the sum clearly exceeds 180. To us, this idea makes sense, but there is no way that a 2-d person could ever conceive of such a triangle.

Of course, this example can't prove anything, but since God is not limited to our dimension, perhaps he CAN be three in one.

Another comment:


This doctrine is a world view for Trinitarian "Christians"

I'm not sure what this statement means. Is there (or should there) really a fundamental difference between the worldview of a Trinitarian and a non-Trinitarian? I personally believe in the idea of the Trinity, but I don't see that it is a "do-or-die" kind of belief. For example, if I say "I was filled with the Holy Spirit", I could mean that God's presence is with me (Trinitarian) or that God has filled me with his power (non-Trinitarian). In either case, the credit goes to God. The reason I believe the Holy Spirit is God is that looking at the Holy Spirit as some incorporeal "substance" that gives us a spiritual boost is kind of weird. I agree with previous posts pointing out that Jesus calls the Holy Spirit "the helper", which can't possibly be some angel. After all, God already became man to die for our sins. What's to stop him from personally ministering to us as the Holy Spirit?

[Sparko]

Dear Sparko,
The way one learns to spot counterfeit money is not by studying counterfeit money. It is by studying authentic money. When one can identify authentic money it is always possible to spot the counterfeits.

Quite true, which is why we can spot your counterfeit so easily. You like to put on airs as if you were a true scholar when your arguments show you to be nothing but a counterfeit.


The Trinity is a counterfeit foundational doctrine which can be distinguished from true foundational doctrine because:

1) True foundational doctrines are taught in at least their basic forms by bible writers in context.

Sure are. That is why we believe in the trinity. Jesus is called God several places in the bible and John goes to great lengths to explain it in his gospel, and it is quite clear to anyone reading it in plain language despite the scripture twisting and pseudo-scholarship of people such as yourself.




2) True foundational doctrines do not rely upon ambiguities of Greek grammar or punctuation.

Again true. that is why it is funny to see people such as yourself try to disprove the trinity by citing made-up Greek grammatical rules to dismiss passages such as John 1:1.


3) True foundational doctrines do not rationalize the clear teachings of bible writers such as those found in John 17:3 and John 14:28.

But according to you it is OK to rationalize such passages as John 1:1, John 1:3, John 8:58, John 5:17, John 5:22-23, 2 Peter 1:1 Titus 2:13, John 20:28, Hebrews 1:8, 2 Tim 3:16, and all of the obvious parallels in the Old and New Testament where it says YHWH is the only savior and only rock and only Judge and in the New Testament where it gives those functions to Jesus.

Yeah, we can see a counterfeit easily enough and you sir, are it.

[Cal_Minian]

I hope you know tht the counterfeit money analogy was something that appeared in "The Kingdom of the Cults" by Walter Martin (one of the JWs and anti-Trinitarians biggest foes) - lately here I've been seeing it used by more and more JWs. That is really funny.

"True foundational doctrines do not tely upon ambiguities of Greek grammar or punctuation," - agreed. Tell that to the Watchtower Society in relationship to their John 1:1 translation.

John 1:1 is not an example of a verse which JWs rely upon to support a foundational doctrine. It is a verse which Trinitarians attempt to use to prove their doctrine.

That being said, the construction found at John 1:1c, the Preverbal Anarthrous Predicate Nominative is frequently rendered in Trintarian bibles as:

[John 1:1 ] [QEOS HN HO LOGOS .................. the Word was God.]
[Mark 6:49 ] [FANTASMA ESTIN ............................It was a ghost]
[Mark 11:32] [PROFHTHS HN ........ ..............he was real a prophet]
[John 4:19 ] [PROFHTHS EI SU ........................you are a prophet]
[John 6:70 ] [DIABOLOS ESTIN .................... one of you is a devil]
[John 8:44 ] [ANQRWPOKTONOS HN ............... he was a murderer]
[John 8:44 ] [YEUSTHS ESTIN .................................. he is a liar]
[John 9:17 ] [PROFHTHS ESTIN ...........................he is a prophet]
[John 10:1 ] [EKEINOS KLEPTHS ESTIN .................... he is a thief]
[John 10:13] [MISQWTOS ESTIN .......................he is a hired hand]
[John 10:33] [SU ANQRWPOS .............................you being a man]
[John 12:6 ] [KLEPTHS HN .................................. he was a thief]
[John 18:37] [BASILEUS EI SU ..............................you are a king]
[John 18:37] [BASILEUS EIMI ................................... I am a king]


Finally, read the link in my sig on John 1:1 and see how this phrase would have been understood by Jews and Christians in the 1st and 2nd centuries.

[Sparko]

like i said. you pseudo scholarship fools no one.

[Cal_Minian]

Quite true, which is why we can spot your counterfeit so easily. You like to put on airs as if you were a true scholar when your arguments show you to be nothing but a counterfeit.



Sure are. That is why we believe in the trinity. Jesus is called God several places in the bible and John goes to great lengths to explain it in his gospel, and it is quite clear to anyone reading it in plain language despite the scripture twisting and pseudo-scholarship of people such as yourself.





Again true. that is why it is funny to see people such as yourself try to disprove the trinity by citing made-up Greek grammatical rules to dismiss passages such as John 1:1.



But according to you it is OK to rationalize such passages as John 1:1, John 1:3, John 8:58, John 5:17, John 5:22-23, 2 Peter 1:1 Titus 2:13, John 20:28, Hebrews 1:8, 2 Tim 3:16, and all of the obvious parallels in the Old and New Testament where it says YHWH is the only savior and only rock and only Judge and in the New Testament where it gives those functions to Jesus.

Yeah, we can see a counterfeit easily enough and you sir, are it.

You, Sir, are making false accusations. I do not rationalize any of those verses. In addition you commit the fallacy of presuming you are correct without providing any proof. Which of those verses proves that God is three persons?

[Cal_Minian]

The argument that 1+1+1 is not equal to 1 is quite a popular argument! Even Isaac Newton did not believe in the Trinity (apparently on these grounds, as well as his own studies of the Bible).

However, just because the math doesn't work out doesn't mean the idea is useless. Perhaps many of us have heard of the idea of 2-D people living in a 3-d environment; or more specifically, a sphere. Suppose you draw a triangle on the sphere, with one point on the North Pole and the other two somewhere on the equator. The inside angles of a triangle must normally add up to 180 degrees, but in this case, the sum clearly exceeds 180. To us, this idea makes sense, but there is no way that a 2-d person could ever conceive of such a triangle.

Of course, this example can't prove anything, but since God is not limited to our dimension, perhaps he CAN be three in one.

Another comment:



I'm not sure what this statement means. Is there (or should there) really a fundamental difference between the worldview of a Trinitarian and a non-Trinitarian? I personally believe in the idea of the Trinity, but I don't see that it is a "do-or-die" kind of belief. For example, if I say "I was filled with the Holy Spirit", I could mean that God's presence is with me (Trinitarian) or that God has filled me with his power (non-Trinitarian). In either case, the credit goes to God. The reason I believe the Holy Spirit is God is that looking at the Holy Spirit as some incorporeal "substance" that gives us a spiritual boost is kind of weird. I agree with previous posts pointing out that Jesus calls the Holy Spirit "the helper", which can't possibly be some angel. After all, God already became man to die for our sins. What's to stop him from personally ministering to us as the Holy Spirit?

I don't make the arguments with which you start this post. I do not claime that 1+1+1 cannot equal 1. I claim that no bible writer does that math for you, in context.

As for word-view, if you do not consider the Trinity essential then you probably don't fall into the category of Evangelical. Evangelicals teach that not only is this doctrine essential but that without it one cannot understand other essential doctrines such as Salvation.

As for the holy spirit, it is a misconception that JWs teach it is merely an impersonal force. When it is compared by JWs to things like electricity it is a metaphor.

When the holy spirit does this or that or feels this or that it is another way of saying that a person did this or that or felt this or that. In most cases it is the God and Father of Jesus Christ as the referent.

As Daniel Wallace put it, the holy spirit is frequently used as a "circumlocation for the divine name." That is loosely quoted, I can get you word for word references from his article on Greek Grammar and the Personhood of the Holy Spirit.

[Sparko]

You, Sir, are making false accusations. I do not rationalize any of those verses. In addition you commit the fallacy of presuming you are correct without providing any proof. Which of those verses proves that God is three persons?
making false accusations? I was merely agreeing with your assertions and providing examples of how they apply to yourself.

I am sorry if they offend you but you did bring them up.

[Cal_Minian]

making false accusations? I was merely agreeing with your assertions and providing examples of how they apply to yourself.

I am sorry if they offend you but you did bring them up.

I am not offended. I am correcting you. In none of those verses does a bible writer teach that God is three persons, in context. Therefore I have no need to "rationalize" anything.

On the other hand, John 17:3 and John 14:28 are examples where one person is called the only true God and where one of the members of the Trinity says that the other one is greater than he is.

In context, John 17:3 teaches the JW doctrine of Monopersonaltheism = 'one person is God.' There is no passage where a bible writer teaches TriPersonalTheism.

To arrive at TriPersonalTheism one must mix and match passages from multiple writers each teaching a DIFFERENT context.

[Cal_Minian]

like i said. you pseudo scholarship fools no one.


There you go again! Making false accusations that I employ pseudo scholarship without even an attempt to prove it!

You are just making me look good, Sparko!

[Sparko]

I am not offended. I am correcting you. In none of those verses does a bible writer teach that God is three persons, in context. Therefore I have no need to "rationalize" anything.

On the other hand, John 17:3 and John 14:28 are examples where one person is called the only true God and where one of the members of the Trinity says that the other one is greater than he is.

In context, John 17:3 teaches the JW doctrine of Monopersonaltheism = 'one person is God.' There is no passage where a bible writer teaches TriPersonalTheism.

To arrive at TriPersonalTheism one must mix and match passages from multiple writers each teaching a DIFFERENT context.


So your argument is that since there is not one inclusive verse in the bible that states explicitly that Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit are three persons in one God that it must be false?

LOL

So if the bible calls the Father "God"in one place, Jesus "God" in another, and the Holy Spirit "God" in another and also categorically states that there is only ONE God, that is not good enough for you?

Have you ever had any logic training? Because you apparently are not using it.

John 1:1 cannot be calling the Word "a God" because that would be polytheism. Jesus can't be "a" god. John 1:3 goes on to say that the Word (Jesus) created everything and nothing that was made was made without him. Sounds like God to me. Sounds like John was specifically going on to explain in no uncertain terms what he meant in John 1:1. That Jesus IS God, the creator himself.

Now you can try to rationalize that away or make-up false Greek grammatical rules all you want, but context clearly shows Jesus to be God and there is only ONE God.

And the bible goes on to show such facts over and over in multiple places.

[Cal_Minian]

So your argument is that since there is not one inclusive verse in the bible that states explicitly that Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit are three persons in one God that it must be false?


No, please pay attention to what I posted starting here[http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1508267&postcount=33] and do not attempt to change it into a straw-man argument which you CAN handle. I gave my argument in the preceding posts. What I recently posted proves that MonoPersonalTheism IS taught in one verse. I do not expect you to furnish just one verse, but I do expect you to furnish one PASSAGE where a bible writer teaches that three persons are one God. I had actually said:



I am not offended. I am correcting you. In none of those verses does a bible writer teach that God is three persons, in context. Therefore I have no need to "rationalize" anything.

On the other hand, John 17:3 and John 14:28 are examples where one person is called the only true God and where one of the members of the Trinity says that the other one is greater than he is.

In context, John 17:3 teaches the JW doctrine of Monopersonaltheism = 'one person is God.' There is no passage where a bible writer teaches TriPersonalTheism.

To arrive at TriPersonalTheism one must mix and match passages from multiple writers each teaching a DIFFERENT context.



Sparko continues:

So if the bible calls the Father "God"in one place, Jesus "God" in another, and the Holy Spirit "God" in another and also categorically states that there is only ONE God, that is not good enough for you?

No because you have completely ignored the context. The Greek word QEOS (god) has more than one sense. You have not proved that in each of these locations it has the same sense. QEOS can mean 'the only true God' or one who is the representative of the only true God. (Ex 7:1, LXX and Hebrew call Moses elohim/QEOS)



Have you ever had any logic training? Because you apparently are not using it.

I have enough experience to understand that what you present above is Equivocation.



John 1:1 cannot be calling the Word "a God" because that would be polytheism. Jesus can't be "a" god.

Read the post from my signature on John 1:1. BDAG compares Exodus 7:1 where Moses is elohim/QEOS as the representative of God, not God himself. JWs do not teach that the Son is a god in the sense that the Father is God at all, so there is no polytheism. We are MonoPersonalTheists (one person is really God) and you, Sir, are a PolyPersonalTheist.



John 1:3 goes on to say that the Word (Jesus) created everything and nothing that was made was made without him.

Your statement is riddled with problems.

1) You misquote the verse and rely upon an ambiguity in the punctuation. The latest Greek manuscripts do not place a period after hO GEGONEN. Thus the Greek does not say that all things were made through him that were made. The ANF Fathers that quoted this verse changed their punctuation to your preferred reading when they were trying to refute the pneumoamachians who taught that the holy spirit was the first thing the Father created through the Son. This happened hundreds of years after it was written. NA27 and USB4 both punctate differenty, contra you.

2) The verse does not say the Word created. It says that God created through him (DIA and EN AUTWi). The Word is not the Ultimate agent of this activity but the intermediate agent of the activity. This proves that the Word is not the creator because he did not create Ex Nihilo. The Father was the Ultimate agent.

3) Before you object that the Son could not be created go back and read my point #1. You rely on an inferior punctuation. Secondly all that was created by the Father was EN AUTWi and therfore the Son was involved in all creation, even himself!

[Sparko]

Dude. The greek has NO punctuation. You are the one making stuff up.

I think I will rely on professional translators and Greek scholars and not Cal-minian if you don't mind.

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.


And again in Col 1

15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. 17And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Sounds like God to me. Looks like God, Acts like God, Creates Like God, Keeps everything running like God. Is CALLED God.

YEP Jesus is God.

buh-bye.

[Cal_Minian]

Dude. The greek has NO punctuation. You are the one making stuff up.

The uncial manuscripts did not have punctuation. However the quotes from the Anti-Nicene Fathers did have punctuation. The critical apparatus fromt he USB3 that I have shows a clear change starting about 300AD.






I think I will rely on professional translators and Greek scholars and not Cal-minian if you don't mind.

Fine, look at the USB critical apparatus.




And again in Col 1

15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. 17And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Sounds like God to me. Looks like God, Acts like God, Creates Like God, Keeps everything running like God. Is CALLED God.

YEP Jesus is God.

buh-bye.

Your selective citation proves nothing. The Greek of this passage gives the role of Ultimate agent in Creation to the Father and intermediate agent to the Son. Creation is done "in him" (Greek EN AUTWi). BDAG calls this the dative of association.... that all things were created "in association" with him. This reference is to the new creation who were created in him (the body of Christ) by the Father with the Son as the head. Just as the Son is part of the body, the head, he is also part of creation in verse 15, the firstborn of Creation.

No Trinity here!

[Krusader]

The uncial manuscripts did not have punctuation. However the quotes from the Anti-Nicene Fathers did have punctuation. The critical apparatus fromt he USB3 that I have shows a clear change starting about 300AD.






Fine, look at the USB critical apparatus.



Your selective citation proves nothing. The Greek of this passage gives the role of Ultimate agent in Creation to the Father and intermediate agent to the Son. Creation is done "in him" (Greek EN AUTWi). BDAG calls this the dative of association.... that all things were created "in association" with him. This reference is to the new creation who were created in him (the body of Christ) by the Father with the Son as the head. Just as the Son is part of the body, the head, he is also part of creation in verse 15, the firstborn of Creation.

No Trinity here!

Firstborn is a title not a chronological statement. It means being pre-eminent over creation, not the first created thing. If Paul wanted to mean first created creature he would have used another word. Here is an explanantion:

http://www.reachouttrust.org/indexlinks/answers/answer01.htm

[Cal_Minian]

Firstborn is a title not a chronological statement. It means being pre-eminent over creation, not the first created thing. If Paul wanted to mean first created creature he would have used another word. Here is an explanantion:

http://www.reachouttrust.org/indexlinks/answers/answer01.htm

Dear Crusader,
That is an argument from silence. That being said, the word firstborn, in context in Colossians 1, militates against the view that it merely means pre-eminent.

1) The word in verse 15 is used in parallel with another occurence in verse 18. In verse 18 the first-born is the first of a group, the beginning (ARXH) of that group, but part of the group. This supports that in verse 15 it is also part of that group.

2) The syntax of PRWTOTOKOS PASHS KTISEWS (first-born of creation) places the word first-born as the head noun of a genitive phrase. In every instance where this structure is found in the combined LXX/GNT the first-born is part of the group that follows. Similarly, in most of the instances of firstborn the one who is the firstborn is both first in time in a group and pre-eminent.

3) The Son of God is described in multiple ways in these parallel passages (15-20) where the Son is both first in time as well as pre-eminent in a group. He is the first-born from the dead; He is both before all things but also used by God to bring all things into existence; He is the head of the congregation while being part of the congregation.

To state that the Son of God in verse 15 is MERELY pre-eminent with respect to his being first-born and not first in time would destroy Paul's argumentation.

[Krusader]

Dear Crusader,
That is an argument from silence. That being said, the word firstborn, in context in Colossians 1, militates against the view that it merely means pre-eminent.

1) The word in verse 15 is used in parallel with another occurence in verse 18. In verse 18 the first-born is the first of a group, the beginning (ARXH) of that group, but part of the group. This supports that in verse 15 it is also part of that group.

2) The syntax of PRWTOTOKOS PASHS KTISEWS (first-born of creation) places the word first-born as the head noun of a genitive phrase. In every instance where this structure is found in the combined LXX/GNT the first-born is part of the group that follows. Similarly, in most of the instances of firstborn the one who is the firstborn is both first in time in a group and pre-eminent.

3) The Son of God is described in multiple ways in these parallel passages (15-20) where the Son is both first in time as well as pre-eminent in a group. He is the first-born from the dead; He is both before all things but also used by God to bring all things into existence; He is the head of the congregation while being part of the congregation.

To state that the Son of God in verse 15 is MERELY pre-eminent with respect to his being first-born and not first in time would destroy Paul's argumentation.

Good grief, you didn't even read that link, did you? Where does it say "he is the head of the congregation?" That's JW baloney. Are you one of the 144,001? If not, how can you understand anything spiritual since you have not been born-again according to the Word of God? Spiritual truths are discerned by those who are spiritual, remember?

It is not an argument from silence, as you assert, but an argument pointing out that firstborn is used as a title not a chronological statement.

[Cal_Minian]

Good grief, you didn't even read that link, did you? Where does it say "he is the head of the congregation?" That's JW baloney. Are you one of the 144,001? If not, how can you understand anything spiritual since you have not been born-again according to the Word of God? Spiritual truths are discerned by those who are spiritual, remember?

It is not an argument from silence, as you assert, but an argument pointing out that firstborn is used as a title not a chronological statement.


Dear Crusader,
If you want to make an argument, please make it. To say that Paul would have used a different word (I assume PRWTOKTISTOS) instead of PRWTOTOKOS (firstborn) IS an argument from silence. Additionally the word is the only one which fits the context of both verse 15 and 18 which are parallel.

It does not apear you have read Colossians 1. The phrase "head of the body" is appositional to "the church" (ie the congregation).

NAS Colossians 1:18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything.

He is the head of the body and the head is PART of the body. The body is the NEW CREATION. This follows the description of the LITERAL CREATION in verse 15. He is also part of that as well.

Now you and other Trinitarians argue against the firstborn of all creation as being a partative genitive, but as I have shown, in every instance where the Son is given a title in this cohesive passage he is part of the group, the head part or the first part or both.

[Sparko]

Your selective citation proves nothing. The Greek of this passage gives the role of Ultimate agent in Creation to the Father and intermediate agent to the Son. Creation is done "in him" (Greek EN AUTWi). BDAG calls this the dative of association.... that all things were created "in association" with him. This reference is to the new creation who were created in him (the body of Christ) by the Father with the Son as the head. Just as the Son is part of the body, the head, he is also part of creation in verse 15, the firstborn of Creation.

No Trinity here!

LOL.

Typical JW response.

As Crusader pointed out, you are full of it.

Firstborn refers to pre-eminence here, not creation. For it says that ALL things were created by him, ALL things. meaning he is uncreate. Again, refer back to John 1:3 - I know the NWT likes to stick in [other] between all and things, but that just shows their dishonesty.

maybe instead of trying to come up with obscure ways of defining Greek grammar and definitions you should listen to this 'sage' advice someone recently gave me:


2) True foundational doctrines do not rely upon ambiguities of Greek grammar or punctuation.


So far that is all you have done. try to bamboozle people into thinking you actually know what you are talking about, while it seems pretty apparent you seem to be parroting some JW literature.

The fact is, Jesus is called God and assigned functions that God reserved only for himself so many times that taken as a whole it completely destroys the JW position and forces them to become polytheistic in order to accomodate the clearly taught doctrines in the NT. They have to begin to admit that 'Jesus IS God, but then they say but he is another God. God is just a 'title' after all, blah blah blah.' and end up being polytheists.

There is only ONE Creator, only ONE God. And your only recourse is to try to play divide and conquer with the NT and try to twist each scripture verse that says Jesus is God into saying something else.

Well if Jesus is NOT God, then the writers of the NT did a really crappy job making that clear didn't they? What was John thinking when he wrote chapter one? He must have been a complete idiot to write it the way he did because of the confusion it causes. It leads any reader to conclude one of two things: Jesus is God, or Jesus is a second God.

Not to mention all of the other verses. And even the Pharisees tried to stone Jesus for making himself equal to God. Sheesh, even Jesus must have been dumber than a rock to do something that blatently stupid. I mean, wasn't he smart enough to make it clear to the Pharisees that he was not really God?

So in order for you and the JW's to be right, every writer of the NT had to be an idiot and so did Jesus. They purposefully spoke and wrote the NT in such a way as to lead normal everyday readers into thinking Jesus was God, and only supersmart 'scholars' like the Watchtower could figure it out.

Riiiiight.

'scuze me if I fall over laughing...

:lmbo:

[Krusader]

Dear Crusader,
If you want to make an argument, please make it. To say that Paul would have used a different word (I assume PRWTOKTISTOS) instead of PRWTOTOKOS (firstborn) IS an argument from silence. Additionally the word is the only one which fits the context of both verse 15 and 18 which are parallel.

It does not apear you have read Colossians 1. The phrase "head of the body" is appositional to "the church" (ie the congregation).

NAS Colossians 1:18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything.

He is the head of the body and the head is PART of the body. The body is the NEW CREATION. This follows the description of the LITERAL CREATION in verse 15. He is also part of that as well.

Now you and other Trinitarians argue against the firstborn of all creation as being a partative genitive, but as I have shown, in every instance where the Son is given a title in this cohesive passage he is part of the group, the head part or the first part or both.

So, everything was made by Him and for Him, but He was part of the creation that He created. Real brilliant!

[zuqiu85]

I don't make the arguments with which you start this post. I do not claime that 1+1+1 cannot equal 1. I claim that no bible writer does that math for you, in context.

As for word-view, if you do not consider the Trinity essential then you probably don't fall into the category of Evangelical. Evangelicals teach that not only is this doctrine essential but that without it one cannot understand other essential doctrines such as Salvation.

As for the holy spirit, it is a misconception that JWs teach it is merely an impersonal force. When it is compared by JWs to things like electricity it is a metaphor.

When the holy spirit does this or that or feels this or that it is another way of saying that a person did this or that or felt this or that. In most cases it is the God and Father of Jesus Christ as the referent.

As Daniel Wallace put it, the holy spirit is frequently used as a "circumlocation for the divine name." That is loosely quoted, I can get you word for word references from his article on Greek Grammar and the Personhood of the Holy Spirit.


Whoops, I thought I was an evangelical =)
I have personally never heard that evangelicals believe that understanding of the Trinity is a prerequisite to understanding salvation (maybe I need to read more books). I have also never heard of anyone (a Trinitarian) saying that they actually understood the Trinity!

So what exactly do JWs believe about the Holy Spirit?

[Cal_Minian]

So, everything was made by Him and for Him, but He was part of the creation that He created. Real brilliant!


The Son is not represented as Creator in any sense. In every instance he is represented as the intermediate agent used by his God and Father, the Ultimate agent. Creation Ex Nihilo means to create from nothing. The Father is the source of all creation. The Son as his agent cannot be considered Creator. This includes Colossians 1 and John 1.

[Cal_Minian]

Whoops, I thought I was an evangelical =)
I have personally never heard that evangelicals believe that understanding of the Trinity is a prerequisite to understanding salvation (maybe I need to read more books). I have also never heard of anyone (a Trinitarian) saying that they actually understood the Trinity!

So what exactly do JWs believe about the Holy Spirit?

*** g99 1/8 pp. 26-27 What Is God’s Holy Spirit? ***


It would not be quite accurate to say that the holy spirit is God’s power. This is because power can be latent, or inactively resident, in someone or something, such as power stored in a charged but unused battery. The Scriptures, however, present God’s spirit in the context of being in motion, somewhat like the electric current that flows from a battery in use. (Genesis 1:2) Hence, God’s holy spirit is his projected energy, his active force.

The Bible sometimes speaks of the holy spirit as accomplishing a certain task or of its being in a different location from God. (Matthew 28:19, 20; Luke 3:21, 22; Acts 8:39; 13:4; 15:28, 29) Some who have read such passages assume that the holy spirit has its own identity apart from God. Why is this language used in the Scriptures? Is the holy spirit an entity separate from God?

Almighty God exists on a plane completely beyond that of his material creation. He is a spirit, invisible to our limited senses. (John 4:24) The Bible says that Jehovah God dwells in the heavens and that from there he gazes on mankind. (Psalm 33:13, 14) This is understandable. The Creator must be greater than the elements he isworking with. He masters them, manipulates them, forms them, and controls them.—Genesis 1:1.

From his invisible dwelling place, God can cause things to happen anytime and anywhere. Hence, he does not need to be at thelocation at which his active force operates. He can send his spirit to accomplish a task. (Psalm 104:30) This may be easily understood by people in modern times who operate household appliances by means of wireless remote control. Today we recognize the power of invisible forces such as electricity or infrared waves. Likewise, with his invisible holy force, or spirit, God can accomplish whatever he sets out to do, without transferring himself from one place to another.—Isaiah 55:11.

In Bible times this concept may have been difficult to grasp. Speaking of the holy spirit as a separate force undoubtedly helped readers to comprehend how God exercises his power even though he does not personally place himself at the location of its operation. When the Bible refers to the holy spirit as having done this or that, it is in effect saying that God himself has projected or exerted his power on persons or things to accomplish his will.

[Cal_Minian]

LOL.

Typical JW response.

As Crusader pointed out, you are full of it.

Firstborn refers to pre-eminence here, not creation. For it says that ALL things were created by him, ALL things. meaning he is uncreate. Again, refer back to John 1:3 - I know the NWT likes to stick in [other] between all and things, but that just shows their dishonesty.

maybe instead of trying to come up with obscure ways of defining Greek grammar and definitions you should listen to this 'sage' advice someone recently gave me:




So far that is all you have done. try to bamboozle people into thinking you actually know what you are talking about, while it seems pretty apparent you seem to be parroting some JW literature.

The fact is, Jesus is called God and assigned functions that God reserved only for himself so many times that taken as a whole it completely destroys the JW position and forces them to become polytheistic in order to accomodate the clearly taught doctrines in the NT. They have to begin to admit that 'Jesus IS God, but then they say but he is another God. God is just a 'title' after all, blah blah blah.' and end up being polytheists.

There is only ONE Creator, only ONE God. And your only recourse is to try to play divide and conquer with the NT and try to twist each scripture verse that says Jesus is God into saying something else.

Well if Jesus is NOT God, then the writers of the NT did a really crappy job making that clear didn't they? What was John thinking when he wrote chapter one? He must have been a complete idiot to write it the way he did because of the confusion it causes. It leads any reader to conclude one of two things: Jesus is God, or Jesus is a second God.

Not to mention all of the other verses. And even the Pharisees tried to stone Jesus for making himself equal to God. Sheesh, even Jesus must have been dumber than a rock to do something that blatently stupid. I mean, wasn't he smart enough to make it clear to the Pharisees that he was not really God?

So in order for you and the JW's to be right, every writer of the NT had to be an idiot and so did Jesus. They purposefully spoke and wrote the NT in such a way as to lead normal everyday readers into thinking Jesus was God, and only supersmart 'scholars' like the Watchtower could figure it out.

Riiiiight.

'scuze me if I fall over laughing...

:lmbo:

Dear Sparko,
A summary =)

1) You tried to quote the KJV/Textus Receptus version with a punctuation which is not well attested. NA27/USB4 do not put a full stop after hO GEGOGEN which means that the rendering "all things were made in him that were made" cannot be supported. Therefore you cannot prove that the Son was used to create all things that were created. This includes himself!

2) Colossians 1:16 and EN AUTWi (in him) according to BDAG has a reference to what was created "in association with" the Son which is the new creation. The Son was the first-born of all creation and then all others were created in association with him... thatis what BDAG says.


Your proof-texts for the Trinity have been found wanting (MENE MENE TEKEL PARSINS). They are your proofs and you have not borne the burden of proof.

Repent before it is too late =)

[Sparko]

LOL.

Funny how every bible including the Watchtower's NWT disagrees with you Cal.

NWT: John 1:3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

you can stick your "stop" wherever you like. The verse still says ALL things came into existence through him and that NOTHING came into existence without him.

John's only purpose in saying that was to make it crystal clear to any readers that the Word was UNCREATED and was in fact the CREATOR.

Any other explanation requires that we assume John was a complete idiot and didn't know how to write without causing complete confusion in anyone reading his work and that only high-faluting scholars such as yourself (yes, that IS sarcasm) could figure out what he REALLY meant.

And BDAG doesnt say what you think it does. It is a lexicon, not a doctrinal handbook. You keep quoting it as if it were some doctrinal sourcebook, completely ignoring the fact that the authors ARE TRINITARIANS!!!!

[Cal_Minian]

LOL.

Funny how every bible including the Watchtower's NWT disagrees with you Cal.

NWT: John 1:3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

you can stick your "stop" wherever you like. The verse still says ALL things came into existence through him and that NOTHING came into existence without him.

John's only purpose in saying that was to make it crystal clear to any readers that the Word was UNCREATED and was in fact the CREATOR.

Any other explanation requires that we assume John was a complete idiot and didn't know how to write without causing complete confusion in anyone reading his work and that only high-faluting scholars such as yourself (yes, that IS sarcasm) could figure out what he REALLY meant.

And BDAG doesnt say what you think it does. It is a lexicon, not a doctrinal handbook. You keep quoting it as if it were some doctrinal sourcebook, completely ignoring the fact that the authors ARE TRINITARIANS!!!!

Dear Sparky,

What you fail to comprehend is that the Greek speaking Anti-Nicene Fathers had to change the way they punctuated the verse in order to prove that the holy spirit was not created by the Father through the Son. Without that period after hO GEGONEN the Greek simply cannot be forced to mean what you are desparately trying to prove.

Additionally the Greek word XWRIS merely must mean that nothing came into existence independantly of the Son. Nothing was created before the Son existed.

Now, here is the clincher. Without your forced punctuation, the Greek actually reads "What came to be in him was life." This literally says that life first came into existence in him. This is speaking about the creation of the Son AS LIFE.

That is another reason why the punctuation issue is so crucial for Trinitarians.

This was not a problem for Athanasius because at that time they taught that the Son always pre-existed in the Father, but not as a person. Athanasius taught that the Son became a person in the beginning. He applied Proverbs 8 to this as well.

Hardly the Trinitarianism of today, eh?

[Sparko]

Dear Sparky,

What you fail to comprehend is that the Greek speaking Anti-Nicene Fathers had to change the way they punctuated the verse in order to prove that the holy spirit was not created by the Father through the Son. Without that period after hO GEGONEN the Greek simply cannot be forced to mean what you are desparately trying to prove.

Additionally the Greek word XWRIS merely must mean that nothing came into existence independantly of the Son. Nothing was created before the Son existed.

Now, here is the clincher. Without your forced punctuation, the Greek actually reads "What came to be in him was life." This literally says that life first came into existence in him. This is speaking about the creation of the Son AS LIFE.

That is another reason why the punctuation issue is so crucial for Trinitarians.

This was not a problem for Athanasius because at that time they taught that the Son always pre-existed in the Father, but not as a person. Athanasius taught that the Son became a person in the beginning. He applied Proverbs 8 to this as well.

Hardly the Trinitarianism of today, eh?

Yeah what I see is a bunch of smoke an mirrors and assertions with absolutely NO proof.

Strange how every single bible including the NWT get it wrong and only YOU seem to have the right way. Maybe you need to go contact the watchtower and tell them they translated the bible wrong? Ooops. That would mean they are not Jehovah's mouthpiece on earth then wouldn't it? You would be. I don't think they will take to kindly to that. Maybe you should keep it to yourself after all.

When your OWN twisted NWT bible disagrees with you Cal, I think it is safe to say you don't have a leg to stand on here.

You know, I can excuse most Jehovah's Witnesses for being misled by the watchtower and their misinterpretations and scripture twisting, they don't know any better and never bother to really read the bible to check on things themselves. But YOU... YOU sir, who claim to be a scholar and who claims to be able to actually read Greek, for you to deny the clear teaching of the bible regarding the divinity of Jesus, well, all I can say it that you are either being dishonest to everyone around you and you do know the truth (which would make you evil) or you are actually completely clueless and just a pretend scholar who has no real formal training in Greek other than some watchtower based classes and apologetic books.

Now, I am NOT a Greek scholar and never claim to be, but even I can read a Greek/English interlinear translation and see how full of crap you are.

[Cal_Minian]

Yeah what I see is a bunch of smoke an mirrors and assertions with absolutely NO proof.

Strange how every single bible including the NWT get it wrong and only YOU seem to have the right way. Maybe you need to go contact the watchtower and tell them they translated the bible wrong? Ooops. That would mean they are not Jehovah's mouthpiece on earth then wouldn't it? You would be. I don't think they will take to kindly to that. Maybe you should keep it to yourself after all.

When your OWN twisted NWT bible disagrees with you Cal, I think it is safe to say you don't have a leg to stand on here.

You know, I can excuse most Jehovah's Witnesses for being misled by the watchtower and their misinterpretations and scripture twisting, they don't know any better and never bother to really read the bible to check on things themselves. But YOU... YOU sir, who claim to be a scholar and who claims to be able to actually read Greek, for you to deny the clear teaching of the bible regarding the divinity of Jesus, well, all I can say it that you are either being dishonest to everyone around you and you do know the truth (which would make you evil) or you are actually completely clueless and just a pretend scholar who has no real formal training in Greek other than some watchtower based classes and apologetic books.

Now, I am NOT a Greek scholar and never claim to be, but even I can read a Greek/English interlinear translation and see how full of crap you are.


Dear Sparky,
Let's not forget that John 1 and Colossians 1 are supposed to be YOUR proofs that God is three persons! I do not bear the burden of proof, you do, Sir.

I have provided citations from your very own Trinitarian BDAG which don't agree with your theology.

My foundational theology and christology is taught, in context, by bible writers.

As John 17:3 states as found in another leading Trinitarian lexicon: "that they may know you, the only one who is really God" (Louw-Nida)

[Sparko]

Dear Sparky,
Let's not forget that John 1 and Colossians 1 are supposed to be YOUR proofs that God is three persons! I do not bear the burden of proof, you do, Sir.

I have provided citations from your very own Trinitarian BDAG which don't agree with your theology.

Actually no you didn't. You seem pretty good at taking BDAG out of context as well as the bible. I seem to remember reading some rebuttals from BDAG against JWs using it to support their nonsense. I will have to go look that up.

By the way, don't you feel the least bit dishonest in using a trinitarian source and claiming it denies that John 1:1 is equating the Word with God? You KNOW that the authors of BDAG believe the Word is God and yet you feel no problem quoting them and saying that they do not.

That is completely dishonest. It would be equivalent to me quoting the watchtower and claiming they believe in the trinity and trying to convince JW's that the watchtower supports trinitarianism.




My foundational theology and christology is taught, in context, by bible writers. yeah? which bible translation? Sure can't be the NWT writers, they didn't know Greek from a hole in the ground. And even THEY got John 1:3 right.

[Cal_Minian]

Actually no you didn't. You seem pretty good at taking BDAG out of context as well as the bible. I seem to remember reading some rebuttals from BDAG against JWs using it to support their nonsense. I will have to go look that up.

There were initially rebuttals for BDAG, but they have pretty much now turned into accusations that the editor, Danker, is too liberal. The entry on QEOS is very, very damaging on a number of fronts.




By the way, don't you feel the least bit dishonest in using a trinitarian source and claiming it denies that John 1:1 is equating the Word with God? You KNOW that the authors of BDAG believe the Word is God and yet you feel no problem quoting them and saying that they do not.

I quote the authors of BDAG as hostile witnesses. The thing about a first class lexicon like BDAG is that they must account for ALL the data. A commentary does not need to do this. Therefore when accounting for ALL the data, the definitions fall into place. It is hard to deny the 2nd century Christian quotes from Dionetus as well as Exodus 7:1 in the LXX when preparing a comphrehensive work like BDAG.



That is completely dishonest. It would be equivalent to me quoting the watchtower and claiming they believe in the trinity and trying to convince JW's that the watchtower supports trinitarianism.

Funny you should bring this up. Trinitarians frequently quote Russel, Rutherford and even current publications in a vain attempt to use them against us. However they take them out of context. I did not do this with BDAG, as can be seen from the LACK of rebuttals on the Language board. See the links in my signature file.




yeah? which bible translation? Sure can't be the NWT writers, they didn't know Greek from a hole in the ground. And even THEY got John 1:3 right.

It is not a matter of translation in this verse. It is a matter of interpretation. It would be a matter of translation if the punctuation issue was not dispatched by NA27 and USB4.

However there is the translation issue with the best attested punctuation. "What came to be in him [the Word] was life." The verb GINOMAI signals a change in the Word. Life was not in the Word prior to the beginning. That is what the text literally says.

Your theology cannot handle this sucessfully, so most generally quote the punctuation which was added later by the ANF to combat the Pneumomachians who taught that the HS was created.

[Cal_Minian]

Hi JAY-PC,

Quite true. Even Arius, the so called originator of Arianism, believed in the Trinity. Though he explained it in a tri-theist type sence, starting with the premise "God Himself then, in His own nature, is ineffable by all men"

"Thus there is a Triad, [but] not in equal glories. Not intermingling with each other are their subsistences. One more glorious than the other in their glories unto immensity. Foreign from the Son in essence is the Father, for He is without beginning. Understand that the Monad was; but the Dyad was not, before it was in existence. It follows at once that, though the Son was not, the Father was God. Hence the Son, not being (for He existed at the will of the Father), is God Only-begotten" (Fragment 2)
http://home.zonnet.nl/chotki/fragments%20from%20arius.htm


It is good to see that you recognize that the Trinity was not taught by Arius. JWs also have an "economic" Trinity. We teach that the Father created all things through his Son by means of the holy spirit. (John 1:1-3; 1Co 8:6; Hebrews 1:1-3; Col 1:16.) That is a Trinity of sorts but we do not use the term.

We do not believe in an ontological Trinity. The Father and the Son are neither the same person or the same being. We also do not consider the HS to be a distinct person from the Father or Son. The only way to make the Father and Son the same being is through equivocation and the presto-magic of Aristotles Medieval Science in the form of the hypostatic union. However we now know that the universe is not made of four primary elements of earth, wind, fire and water.

Therefore we rightly reject the hypostatic union which is built upon the foundation of medieval science.

[Krusader]

The Son is not represented as Creator in any sense. In every instance he is represented as the intermediate agent used by his God and Father, the Ultimate agent. Creation Ex Nihilo means to create from nothing. The Father is the source of all creation. The Son as his agent cannot be considered Creator. This includes Colossians 1 and John 1.

Your attempted denial of Christ as Creator, when the Bible explicitly states that He created all things is a typical ostrich with his head in the hole JW denial. You will never find anything in Scripture which states that Jesus was an "intermediate agent," which is pure Gnosticism - you'll probably find it in the Watchtower, however, along with other false, Gospel-denying statements that set up the "organization" as God's "intermediary" here on earth.

Unfortunately, The Watchtower Society is a false prophet and you've been deceived. Please see:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i3/creator.asp

[Cal_Minian]

Your attempted denial of Christ as Creator, when the Bible explicitly states that He created all things is a typical ostrich with his head in the hole JW denial. You will never find anything in Scripture which states that Jesus was an "intermediate agent," which is pure Gnosticism - you'll probably find it in the Watchtower, however, along with other false, Gospel-denying statements that set up the "organization" as God's "intermediary" here on earth.


Dear Crusader,
The preciseness of the Greek language itself refutes you. A Greek verb like KTIZW (create) is inflected to include the person who did the action of the verb. That is how we know who created, not by reading a catechism.

There is no example where Scritpure when describing creation articulates that the Son is the person who performed the action of the verb create. It is that simple.

As for intermediate agent, you are wrong there as well. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics attributes the Ultimate Agent to the Father and the Intermediate Agent to the Son in every instance. He is Trinitarian, not Gnostic. He does call the Son Creator. He has to because of his theology. However when he speaks regarding what the Greek explicitly says he understands that the Son is the intermediate agent.



John 1:3 PANTA DI AUTOU EGENETO all things came into existence through him

The Logos is represented as the Creator in a “hands-on” sort of way, with the implication that God is the ultimate agent. This is the typical (though not exclusive) pattern seen in the NT: Ultimate agency is ascribed to God the Father (with hUPO,), intermediate agency is ascribed to Christ (with DIA,), and “impersonal” means is ascribed to the Holy Spirit (with EN or the simple dative). [page 434, Wallace, GGBB]




This has troubling implications for Trinitarians. If the Son is the intermediate agent then he can in no way be responsible for Creation Ex Nihilo. He is a tool used by the Father and the Father gives all things into his hands. John 3:35

[Krusader]

Dear Crusader,
The preciseness of the Greek language itself refutes you. A Greek verb like KTIZW (create) is inflected to include the person who did the action of the verb. That is how we know who created, not by reading a catechism.

There is no example where Scritpure when describing creation articulates that the Son is the person who performed the action of the verb create. It is that simple.

As for intermediate agent, you are wrong there as well. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics attributes the Ultimate Agent to the Father and the Intermediate Agent to the Son in every instance. He is Trinitarian, not Gnostic. He does call the Son Creator. He has to because of his theology. However when he speaks regarding what the Greek explicitly says he understands that the Son is the intermediate agent.





This has troubling implications for Trinitarians. If the Son is the intermediate agent then he can in no way be responsible for Creation Ex Nihilo. He is a tool used by the Father and the Father gives all things into his hands. John 3:35

Look, you can cloke your Gnostic Watchtower heresies in all the academic language you have available - but it won't work, buddy. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

[Cal_Minian]

Look, you can cloke your Gnostic Watchtower heresies in all the academic language you have available - but it won't work, buddy. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.


Dear Crusader,
It is not just Daniel Wallace that teaches that the Son is the intermediate agent used in creation by the Father. BDAG teaches it as well.

The entry for the Greek prepostion EN in BDAG says the following:



Christ as intermediary in the creation of the world J 1:3, 10; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16. [BDAG, EN]


So you can poke fun all you like, but it is obvious to all readers of these posts that the Trins are getting beat up pretty bad here :lol:

[Krusader]

Dear Crusader,
It is not just Daniel Wallace that teaches that the Son is the intermediate agent used in creation by the Father. BDAG teaches it as well.

The entry for the Greek prepostion EN in BDAG says the following:



So you can poke fun all you like, but it is obvious to all readers of these posts that the Trins are getting beat up pretty bad here :lol:

Study Gnosticism. You apparently don't understand what you're saying, or don't care. My authority is God's Word, which says all things were created by and for Jesus Christ. Your authority is a bunch of supposedly "spirit-anointed" old guys who wouldn't know truth if it hit them in the face.

[Cal_Minian]

Study Gnosticism. You apparently don't understand what you're saying, or don't care. My authority is God's Word, which says all things were created by and for Jesus Christ. Your authority is a bunch of supposedly "spirit-anointed" old guys who wouldn't know truth if it hit them in the face.

Dear Crusader,
I have quoted Greek Grammarian Daniel Wallace and BDAG which proves that the Greek grammar here places the Son as intermediate agent used by the Father who is the Ultimate agent of creation.

You are drowning, sir. The Trins are getting beat up bad. I am embarrassed for you.

[Krusader]

Dear Crusader,
I have quoted Greek Grammarian Daniel Wallace and BDAG which proves that the Greek grammar here places the Son as intermediate agent used by the Father who is the Ultimate agent of creation.

You are drowning, sir. The Trins are getting beat up bad. I am embarrassed for you.

It's mam to you, not sir. In any case, those commentators prove nothing. There are many others who disagree with them (for instance, see: http://www.ccel.org/j/jfb/jfb/JFB51.htm). There is absolutely nothing in the Scriptures stating Jesus is an "intermediate agent," rather it says all things were created by (in) Him and for Him. Why would God created everything for the Archangel Michael (which is who the WT states Jesus is), who was only one of the chief princes, according to Daniel 10?

Read the first Chapter of Hebrews, where God the Father says to the Son:

"And Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heaven are the works of they hands..." vs. 10

Gee, here we have God the Father speaking to His Son, Whom He calls God as well, and telling Him that He created everything - seems to contradict your WT heresy.

[Sparko]

I think what is confusing Cal is that Trinitarians believe that all three persons of the Godhead were involved in creation. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all involved and "God" or YHWH is THE Creator (the Godhead) - saying that the Father created through the son using the holy spirit is not denying that Jesus is God, it is AFFIRMING it.

So Cal, your BDAG quote does nothing to deny that Jesus is God. You keep concentrating on the word 'intermediary' when you should be concentrating on the fact that it says quite clearly that NOTHING was made without the Son. That means he is NOT created.

[themuzicman]

Dear Crusader,
It is not just Daniel Wallace that teaches that the Son is the intermediate agent used in creation by the Father. BDAG teaches it as well.

The entry for the Greek prepostion EN in BDAG says the following:



So you can poke fun all you like, but it is obvious to all readers of these posts that the Trins are getting beat up pretty bad here :lol:

I think your problem is that you think that if somehow Christ was an "intermediate agent" that this makes a difference.

In fact, it does not. John 1:1-18 only serves to confirm Christ deity an unity in God, and can only be understood in the way that trinitarians present the Father and Son.

John even goes so far as to use Chiastic structures, to make sure we get it.

In the beginning was the word
and the word was with God

and the word WAS God
He was in the beginning with God
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

The key element is in the middle: The Word was GOD. Not another God, not a god, but best understood as "characterized by God", but put in such a way as to clearly communicate to John's audience the concept of what the trinity explains: Father and Son are distinct persons, yet one God, the one who created the unverse as told in Genesis 1.

And, if we weren't clear on that point, John finishes this section with

No one has seen God at any time; the only monogenhV God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained [Him]

The reason I put monogenhV in Greek is to give some clarification to the term. monogenhV is part of the family gimomai, which is one form of the verb "to be". "Mono", as you would expect, means "only."

Thus, a literal translation would be "the one who is the only God, who is in the bosom of the Father." Again, we have a phrase that can only be understood in the trinitarian form of distinct persons, but one God.

As for Colossians 1:

12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light. 13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 15 And He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, [both] in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.

Now, it is good that you think that "Him" in verse 16 refers to Christ, because it does. And, in a sense, there is an instrumentality, or more accurately agency in the en, but it's not as strong as you wish it to be. You're taking Wallace and BDAG where they really aren't going.

If we reflect back to Jesus' ministry, we find that Jesus is doing the will of the Father. In fact, in the garden, Jesus even prays that the Father's will be done.

Thus, the sense of agency that we have here is one of the Father's will, not one of instrumentality, whereby the Father is manipulating the Son like some kind of cosmic hammer. In the trinitarian sense, the Son proceeds from the Father, and in this sense, we see the Son proceeding to do the Father's will in regards to creation. Thus, we don't have an economy of the trinity, but a relationality of the trinity represented, here.

And verse 17 reflects this nicely, since Jesus is (again) before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

pro is before :-- above(2), ago(4), ahead*(2), before(33), in front of(2), just outside(m)(1), prior to(1), right at(m)(1). NAS Greek Dictionaries, and in this case, is clearly temporal, so we see that Christ is before all things, so to say that "firstborn" in this sense refers to Christ's coming into being is contradictory.

Finally, we have verse 18, which further explains "firstborn", and in this case, it's not Christ's "coming into being", but his resurrection from the dead, being the head of the church, having primacy over it, and in the same way, in His resurrection, he has primacy over creation, which is also being redeemed through His death.

So, what we see is CalMinian simply failing to grasp the significance of what's happening in both John 1 AND Colossians 1, mostly in his desire to deny what is obvious from scripture.

Michael

[Cal_Minian]

It's mam to you, not sir. In any case, those commentators prove nothing. There are many others who disagree with them (for instance, see: http://www.ccel.org/j/jfb/jfb/JFB51.htm). There is absolutely nothing in the Scriptures stating Jesus is an "intermediate agent," rather it says all things were created by (in) Him and for Him. Why would God created everything for the Archangel Michael (which is who the WT states Jesus is), who was only one of the chief princes, according to Daniel 10?

Read the first Chapter of Hebrews, where God the Father says to the Son:

"And Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heaven are the works of they hands..." vs. 10

Gee, here we have God the Father speaking to His Son, Whom He calls God as well, and telling Him that He created everything - seems to contradict your WT heresy.

Yes all things were created in him and for him. But he did not do the creating in those contexts. The Father created "in him" and "for him." The text does not say Jesus created "in himself" and "for himself."

I am not relying on a biased and predudicial commentary such as the one that you link above. I am using the standard lexical reference for NT scholarship which is defined by this forum as the standard. That is BDAG. <----- read what it says!


As for Hebrews, the understanding of the passages must be intepreted in light of the premise of the chapter. Let Scripture interpret Scripture!



NAS Hebrews 1:1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high;


Hebrew starts by telling us that the God and Father of Jesus Christ made the worlds through his Son. That is intermediate agency on the part of the Son. When we get to verse 10 the context is the same. The Son does not create Ex Nihilo, the Father does. An intermediate agent who has all things handed to him by the Father (John 3:35) is not the creator.

[themuzicman]

Thus, CalMinian has a contradictory textual issue on his hand, since his exegesis disagrees with John 1:3. He must deny inerrancy.

Michael

[Cal_Minian]

Thus, CalMinian has a contradictory textual issue on his hand, since his exegesis disagrees with John 1:3. He must deny inerrancy.

Michael


My exegesis does not deny John 1:3. It denies your interpretation of that verse. Can't say more than that because you offer no explanation.

[Krusader]

Yes all things were created in him and for him. But he did not do the creating in those contexts. The Father created "in him" and "for him." The text does not say Jesus created "in himself" and "for himself."

I am not relying on a biased and predudicial commentary such as the one that you link above. I am using the standard lexical reference for NT scholarship which is defined by this forum as the standard. That is BDAG. <----- read what it says!


As for Hebrews, the understanding of the passages must be intepreted in light of the premise of the chapter. Let Scripture interpret Scripture!



Hebrew starts by telling us that the God and Father of Jesus Christ made the worlds through his Son. That is intermediate agency on the part of the Son. When we get to verse 10 the context is the same. The Son does not create Ex Nihilo, the Father does. An intermediate agent who has all things handed to him by the Father (John 3:35) is not the creator.

Listen, Trinitarians believe the entire Godhead was involved in Creation - but they do not demote One member of the Godhead to "Intermediate agent," a phrase never found in Scripture. Furthermore, you failed to deal with what the Father has to say to the Son:

"And, Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens ar the works of thine hands."

Now, check your own Bible and see what this vs. is quoting from: Answer: Pslam 102:25-26. And, to whom is Pslam 102 addressed in your own NWT Bible? That's right, it's addressed to Jehovah. So, in Hebrews, God the Father is quoting OT vss. addressed to Jehovah God, and applying them to Jesus.

Gosh, kinda squashes your Arianism there, doesn't it?

[themuzicman]

My exegesis does not deny John 1:3. It denies your interpretation of that verse. Can't say more than that because you offer no explanation.
:lmbo: No, I'm just pointing out the obvious reading of John 1:3, and how it contradicts your interpretation of Col 1.

I've already dealt with your other issues... something you seem unable to repond to.

[Cal_Minian]

Listen, Trinitarians believe the entire Godhead was involved in Creation - but they do not demote One member of the Godhead to "Intermediate agent," a phrase never found in Scripture. Furthermore, you failed to deal with what the Father has to say to the Son:

"And, Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens ar the works of thine hands."

Now, check your own Bible and see what this vs. is quoting from: Answer: Pslam 102:25-26. And, to whom is Pslam 102 addressed in your own NWT Bible? That's right, it's addressed to Jehovah. So, in Hebrews, God the Father is quoting OT vss. addressed to Jehovah God, and applying them to Jesus.

Gosh, kinda squashes your Arianism there, doesn't it?

Not at all! The category of the Son as intermediate agent, as documented by BDAG and Wallace comes from Greek grammar. When there is one person who performs the action of a verb (create or bring into existence) who uses another person as an instrument, that instrument is called an intermediate agent. The grammar also includes the instrumental or locative dative (EN AUTWi) as well as on occasion the preposition DIA (through).

As I posted earlier, Hebrews 1:1-3 teaches that the Father created though his Son (DIA). In verse 10 we are in the same passage. If we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture in verse 10 the activity of the Son is still the same as the setting in verses 1-3. That is of intermediate agency.

John 3:35 tells us that the Father gave all things into the hands of the Son. That means that Jesus did not Create Ex Nihilo.

It is really quite simple when one considers the context.

[Krusader]

Not at all! The category of the Son as intermediate agent, as documented by BDAG and Wallace comes from Greek grammar. When there is one person who performs the action of a verb (create or bring into existence) who uses another person as an instrument, that instrument is called an intermediate agent. The grammar also includes the instrumental or locative dative (EN AUTWi) as well as on occasion the preposition DIA (through).

As I posted earlier, Hebrews 1:1-3 teaches that the Father created though his Son (DIA). In verse 10 we are in the same passage. If we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture in verse 10 the activity of the Son is still the same as the setting in verses 1-3. That is of intermediate agency.

John 3:35 tells us that the Father gave all things into the hands of the Son. That means that Jesus did not Create Ex Nihilo.

It is really quite simple when one considers the context.

Have you ever studied the Christian doctrine of subordinationism in the Trinity? You need to do so.

In any case, nothing these guys say will ever validate that this "intermediate agent" is actually a created angel named Michael. You are just way off. I suggest you sit down and study Christian doctrine without the WT blinders.

[themuzicman]

Ah, John 3:35... the misunderstandings continue....

John uses "all things" in a somewhat odd sense, which is seen more clearly in John 6:37

36 "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. 37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

Here, we have the same constrution (pan divdwsivn and pavnta devdwke, both verbs from didwmi) and it refers to men. It's one of the weird ways that Greek uses "all", and these phrase are related, especially in light of the context of chapter three, especially 3:36

36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

Thus, your exegesis of John 3:35 is incorreect.

Michael

[Cal_Minian]

Have you ever studied the Christian doctrine of subordinationism in the Trinity? You need to do so.

In any case, nothing these guys say will ever validate that this "intermediate agent" is actually a created angel named Michael. You are just way off. I suggest you sit down and study Christian doctrine without the WT blinders.

I understand that Trinitarians teach that the Son is subordinate to the Father. I agree. What no bible writer teaches it that three persons are one God.

Our belief that Christ is Michael is shared by John Calvin and Matthew Henry who both believed he was God as well. The teaching that Christ is Michael is not a foundational belief and not why we do not believe the Trinity.

We do not beleive the Trinity because all foundational world-view Christian teachings are taught in context by one or more bible writers.

We may differ on the intepretation of baptism, eternal punishment, resurrection and the like but we all agree they are legitimate doctrines because bible writers taught them in context.

However the same cannot be said for the Trinity. It stands alone.

I reject it on that basis.

[Sparko]

why does Cal keep ignoring Muz's posts that deal with the Greek that Cal is so fond of using as a smoke screen?

Cal, can you go back and respond to Muz's posts

here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1509744&postcount=75

and here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1509838&postcount=83

:popcorn:

[Krusader]

I understand that Trinitarians teach that the Son is subordinate to the Father. I agree. What no bible writer teaches it that three persons are one God.

Our belief that Christ is Michael is shared by John Calvin and Matthew Henry who both believed he was God as well. The teaching that Christ is Michael is not a foundational belief and not why we do not believe the Trinity.

We do not beleive the Trinity because all foundational world-view Christian teachings are taught in context by one or more bible writers.

We may differ on the intepretation of baptism, eternal punishment, resurrection and the like but we all agree they are legitimate doctrines because bible writers taught them in context.

However the same cannot be said for the Trinity. It stands alone.

I reject it on that basis.

You believe that Jesus was the Archangel Michael because you were told that by the false prophets of Brooklyn. These are the same characters who predicted the end of 6,000 years of human history and Armageddon in October of 1975, and when they saw they were caught in the middle of a false prophecy, blamed it on the poor, dumb slave class who had misunderstood them. However, try to get a hold of a copy of "Life Everlasting in the Freedom of the Sons of God," and read it for yourself. If you can't find a copy down at the hall, there are many organizations specializing in old WT literature who will provide you a copy. You really need to research the organization that you are trusting in for your salvation.

The Trinity is taught through-out the Scriptures, especially in the baptismal formula : Father, Son and Holy Spirit - not the false forumula used by the Society: Father, Son and Spirit-led organization.

[Cal_Minian]

You believe that Jesus was the Archangel Michael because you were told that by the false prophets of Brooklyn. These are the same characters who predicted the end of 6,000 years of human history and Armageddon in October of 1975, and when they saw they were caught in the middle of a false prophecy, blamed it on the poor, dumb slave class who had misunderstood them. However, try to get a hold of a copy of "Life Everlasting in the Freedom of the Sons of God," and read it for yourself. If you can't find a copy down at the hall, there are many organizations specializing in old WT literature who will provide you a copy. You really need to research the organization that you are trusting in for your salvation.

The Trinity is taught through-out the Scriptures, especially in the baptismal formula : Father, Son and Holy Spirit - not the false forumula used by the Society: Father, Son and Spirit-led organization.

Dear Crusader,
Did Matthew Henry believe that Jesus is Michael because of the WTB&TS? What about John Calvin? What about the authors of the Geneva bible. It is in footnotes of their bible. Did they get this from the WTB&TS. The fact is that MOST Protestants believed this way years ago. It was a very common believe to identify Jesus as Michael.



Protestant Reformer JOHN CALVIN said regarding "Michael" in its occurrence at Daniel 12:1:

"I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." J. Calvin, COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET DANIEL, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369.

WILLIAM L. ALEXANDER, DOCTOR OF DIVINITY , stated:

" There seems good reason for regarding Michael as the Messiah. Such was the opinion of the best among the ancient Jews.... With this all the Bible representations of Michael agree. He appears as the Great Prince who standeth for Israel (Dan. xii. I), and he is called "the Prince of Israel" (Dan. x. 21)" --William L. Alexander, ed., A CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE ,originally edited by John Kitto, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: A & C Black, 1886). vol. 3, p. 158

A Bible Dictionary published by Logos International, an evangelical Protestant outfit, says:

" Michael ... in Dan. 10:13,21; 12:1, is described as having a special charge of the Jewish nation, and in Rev. 12:7-9 as the leader of the angelic army. So exalted are the position and offices ascribed to Michael, that many think the Messiah is meant." -- INTERNATIONAL BIBLE DICTIONARY -- ILLUSTRATED (Plainfield, NJ, Logos Internatioanl, 1977), p.35

Regarding the occurrence of "Michael" in Revelation 12:7-10, Methodist commentator ADAM CLARKE remarked:

" By the personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus." (his multi-volume commentary -- not just the 1-volume abridged ed. by Ralph Earle----published by Abingdon Press, vol. 6, page 952).

LANGE'S COMMENTARY calls the figure here (Rev 12:7-10) " the warlike form of Christ." J.P. Lange's COMMENTARY ON THE HOLY SCRIPTURES , s.v. Rev. 12:7

AN EXPOSITION OF THE BIBLE, produced by 27 different scholars, says of Michael:

" It is even itself probable that the Leader of the hosts of light (in Rev. 12:7-9) will be no other than the Captain of our salvation, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.... Above all, the prophecies of Daniel, in which the name Michael first occurs, may be said to decide the point." -- publ. in Hartford, CT, 1910, by the Scranton Co., vol. 6, p.882

Brown's dictionary of the Bible on the words MICHAEL and ANGEL says, that both these words do sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the Archangel. Wood's Spiritual Dictionary teaches nearly, if not exactly, the same thing on this subject that Brown's does.

The former was a Calvinist, the latter a Methodist. Buck, in his Theological Dictionary, under the article ANGEL, asserts that Christ is in scripture frequently called an Angel. Butterworth, Cruden, and Taylor in their concordances, assert that Michael and Angel are both names of Christ. Doctor Coke, a Methodist bishop, in his notes on the Bible, acknowledges that Christ is sometimes called an angel. See his notes of that passage where the Angel of the Lord spake to the people at Bochim. Winchester has taught the same doctrine in the 152 pages of the first volume of his lectures on the prophecies. Whitefield, in his sermon on the bush that burnt and was not consumed, says that the Angel that appeared to Moses in the bush was Christ. Guyse in his paraphrase on the New-Testament, on Rev 12:7, acknowledges that many good expositors think that Christ is signified by Michael; and also gives it as his opinion.

Doctor Watts in his glories of Christ, pages 200, 201, 202, 218, 223 and 224, teaches the same doctrine. Thomas Scott, in his notes on the Bible, says the Angel that appeared to Hagar when she fled from her mistress, one of the three Angels that appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, the Angel that appeared to Moses in the bush, and the Angel that spoke to the Jews at Bochim, was Jesus Christ; and also asserts that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ. See Scott's Bible on Gen. 14:9,10; chapter 18 throughout; Exodus 3:2-7, Judges 2:1-5; Dan. 10:13,21; 12:1; Rev 12:7

John A. Lees, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1930, Vol. 3, page 2048 states:

The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Rev 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Dnl (for a full discussion see Hengstenberg, Offenbarung, I, 611-22, and an interesting survey in English by Dr. Douglas in Fairbairn's BD).




I could mention others writers who have advocated this doctrine, but these are sufficient to prove that it has long been believed among the most eminent trinitarians. These can checked out in any theological library available in your area, so anyone can check for themselves.

As for the baptismal formula. It does not teach that three persons are one God.

JWs teach that the Father created all things through the Son by means of the holy spirit. That is a trinity but we do not call it that. There you have an "economic" Trinity.

But you do not have nor will you ever have an ontological Trinity. There is no bible writer who teaches that three persons are one God.

JWs are MonoPersonalTheists like Jesus (Jn 17:3). Trinitarians are PolyPersonalTheists like Pagans.

[Sparko]

Ahem. Cal?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1509873&postcount=85

[Cal_Minian]

Ahem. Cal?



Need a lozenger?




http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1509873&postcount=85

I am using linear mode. The others are too confusing. I just reply to the last one.

Let me look. I did reply to MUZ once today.

[Cal_Minian]

I think your problem is that you think that if somehow Christ was an "intermediate agent" that this makes a difference.

In fact, it does not. John 1:1-18 only serves to confirm Christ deity an unity in God, and can only be understood in the way that trinitarians present the Father and Son.


You are not addressing BDAG. You are denying it. Ignoring it. The word QEOS is used for one who is the representative of God like Moses at Ex 7:1. It was also used in the 2nd century Diognetus quote to mean that one was "a god" who represented God.




John even goes so far as to use Chiastic structures, to make sure we get it.

In the beginning was the word
and the word was with God

and the word WAS God
He was in the beginning with God
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.



I already addressed the punctuation issue in another thread. NA27 and USB4 do not place a period after hO GEGONEN. This was added by the ANF to combat the teaching of the Pneumamachians that the HS was created. This means that neither the Greek or the Chiastic structure can prove that the Son or the HS was not created. It must come from other sources.


I have posted more on this and also Colossians 1 yesterday and today. I suggest you read those posts so I do not need to repeat myself.

[Cal_Minian]

Ah, John 3:35... the misunderstandings continue....

John uses "all things" in a somewhat odd sense, which is seen more clearly in John 6:37

36 "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. 37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

Here, we have the same constrution (pan divdwsivn and pavnta devdwke, both verbs from didwmi) and it refers to men. It's one of the weird ways that Greek uses "all", and these phrase are related, especially in light of the context of chapter three, especially 3:36

36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

Thus, your exegesis of John 3:35 is incorreect.

Michael


That is nice Michael and you are welcome to your opinion. I could quote myself too but I use BDAG who does not agree with you. It says of this verse:



b. PANTA all things, everything. Abs. ... J 1:3; 3:35;


Here you see that in both John 1:1 and 3:35 BDAG makes it the same referent... all things absolutely.

[themuzicman]

You are not addressing BDAG. You are denying it. Ignoring it. The word QEOS is used for one who is the representative of God like Moses at Ex 7:1. It was also used in the 2nd century Diognetus quote to mean that one was "a god" who represented God.

OK, that's because there isn't a direct translation between Hebrew and Greek for Elohim. Elohim has a broader meaning than qeoV, but that's how it was translated. qeos means "God" in Gen 1:1, 1:3, 1:4, and the vast majority of times it appears in the LXX. So, all you've done is engage in special pleading and only make your problem worse by pointing out an exception.

In Greek qeos means God. John's intent is for this to mean "God", not something else. There simply isn't any context to suggest otherwise.


I already addressed the punctuation issue in another thread. NA27 and USB4 do not place a period after hO GEGONEN. This was added by the ANF to combat the teaching of the Pneumamachians that the HS was created. This means that neither the Greek or the Chiastic structure can prove that the Son or the HS was not created. It must come from other sources.

it doesn't matter. The focus of that structure is "The Word was God."


I have posted more on this and also Colossians 1 yesterday and today. I suggest you read those posts so I do not need to repeat myself.

IOW, you got me, but I don't want to admit it.

Michael

[Sparko]

zing!

[Cal_Minian]

OK, that's because there isn't a direct translation between Hebrew and Greek for Elohim. Elohim has a broader meaning than qeoV, but that's how it was translated. qeos means "God" in Gen 1:1, 1:3, 1:4, and the vast majority of times it appears in the LXX. So, all you've done is engage in special pleading and only make your problem worse by pointing out an exception.

No I do not think you understand. BDAG references Exodux 7:1 and its usage of qeos in the LXX, not elohim in the Masoretic text.

The Hebrew has nothing to do with this. The BDAG entry refers to qeos.



In Greek qeos means God. John's intent is for this to mean "God", not something else. There simply isn't any context to suggest otherwise. it doesn't matter. The focus of that structure is "The Word was God."
Michael


Michael,

It is not the rendering of the word as God that is the issue here. It is the interpretation. The word qeos can mean the Almighty God, an angel or a man who represents God. But they are all rendered g-o-d in English.

In BDAG they also quote the 2nd century Christian writer Diognetus in the Greek with the rendering of "a god" for a representative of God.

That sense is not only secure but applied by BDAG to the Son of God.

[Krusader]

No I do not think you understand. BDAG references Exodux 7:1 and its usage of qeos in the LXX, not elohim in the Masoretic text.

The Hebrew has nothing to do with this. The BDAG entry refers to qeos.



Michael,

It is not the rendering of the word as God that is the issue here. It is the interpretation. The word qeos can mean the Almighty God, an angel or a man who represents God. But they are all rendered g-o-d in English.

In BDAG they also quote the 2nd century Christian writer Diognetus in the Greek with the rendering of "a god" for a representative of God.

That sense is not only secure but applied by BDAG to the Son of God.


The Lutheran Church funded your research project to eliminate proof-texts for the Trinity? Did they know you are a Jehovah's Witness? Was it Missouri Synod that did this?

[Cal_Minian]

The Lutheran Church funded your research project to eliminate proof-texts for the Trinity? Did they know you are a Jehovah's Witness? Was it Missouri Synod that did this?

The Lutheran Missoui Synod financed BDAG. The research project is my own. I bought a copy of the Lexicon.

[Krusader]

The Lutheran Missoui Synod financed BDAG. The research project is my own. I bought a copy of the Lexicon.

Okay, so you are the researcher. Ask yourself whether or not BDAG is Trinitarian.

[themuzicman]

No I do not think you understand. BDAG references Exodux 7:1 and its usage of qeos in the LXX, not elohim in the Masoretic text.

The Hebrew has nothing to do with this. The BDAG entry refers to qeos.

Hello? The Old Testament was not written in Greek. If you want to deal with and Old Testament text, you'll have to deal more closely with the language.

Yes, qeoV is used as a gloss for Elohim. That doesn't change the Greek meaning, nor does it change the meaning for John 1 or Colossians 1. You're straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel, here.


Michael,

It is not the rendering of the word as God that is the issue here. It is the interpretation. The word qeos can mean the Almighty God, an angel or a man who represents God. But they are all rendered g-o-d in English.

The only time qeoV is rendered as a man who represents God is when translated from the Hebrew. If it's not translated from the Hebrew, then qeoV doesn't take on that meaning.


In BDAG they also quote the 2nd century Christian writer Diognetus in the Greek with the rendering of "a god" for a representative of God.

Let's get a sense of proportion, here:

1) There are 172 (by my count) references to qeoV listed in BDAG. ONE refers to qeoV cited from the OT, which doesn't mean "god", and you have one instance from the ECFs So, your seriously engaging in special pleading, here.

2) BDAG, of whom you're so fond, defines qeoV in the verses in question as: "God in Israelite/Christian monotheistic perspective, God" for the verses in question. There's simply no basis, from BDAG, to say what you're saying.

NONE.

You simply don't know how (or don't want) to read or use BDAG properly.


That sense is not only secure but applied by BDAG to the Son of God.

In John 10:34, a refernce that as nothing to do with the debate at hand, and, as I've said before, as a gloss for a translation from the Hebrew.

I noticed that you were unable to deal with the rest of my post, which was really more important than the dabbling you're engaging in here.

Michael

[Cal_Minian]

Hello? The Old Testament was not written in Greek. If you want to deal with and Old Testament text, you'll have to deal more closely with the language.

Yes, qeoV is used as a gloss for Elohim. That doesn't change the Greek meaning, nor does it change the meaning for John 1 or Colossians 1. You're straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel, here.



The only time qeoV is rendered as a man who represents God is when translated from the Hebrew. If it's not translated from the Hebrew, then qeoV doesn't take on that meaning.



Let's get a sense of proportion, here:

1) There are 172 (by my count) references to qeoV listed in BDAG. ONE refers to qeoV cited from the OT, which doesn't mean "god", and you have one instance from the ECFs So, your seriously engaging in special pleading, here.

2) BDAG, of whom you're so fond, defines qeoV in the verses in question as: "God in Israelite/Christian monotheistic perspective, God" for the verses in question. There's simply no basis, from BDAG, to say what you're saying.

NONE.

You simply don't know how (or don't want) to read or use BDAG properly.



In John 10:34, a refernce that as nothing to do with the debate at hand, and, as I've said before, as a gloss for a translation from the Hebrew.

I noticed that you were unable to deal with the rest of my post, which was really more important than the dabbling you're engaging in here.

Michael

Dear Michael,
BDAG does indeed cite QEOS at Exodus 7:1 and says to compare that to John 1:1. What you say is therefore not true. It is relevant. You make an artificial distinction between QEOS as a translation of elohim which no scholarly reference makes. If you believe you are correct in this then please supply a valid reference from a standard Hebrew or Greek Lexicon. If you cannot do this then your statement cannot be taken seriously.

Secondly, you continue to ignore the 2nd century quotation from BDAG which was written initially in Greek and is rendered by BDAG as "a god" with the sense of one who represents God. There goes your theory down the drain.

As far as God in the monotheistic tradition you only cite one section of BDAG in QEOS.

Here is the section (section 2) we are discussing in more detail:



BDAG 405-406 2 "Some writings in our lit. use the word Q. w. ref. to Christ (without necessarily equating Christ with the Father and therefore in harmony with the Shema of Israel Dt. 6:4; cp Mk 10:18 and 4a below), though the interpretation of some of the pass. is in debate. In Mosaic and Gr-Rom traditions the fundamental semantic component in the understanding of deity is the factor of performance, namely saviorhood or extraordinary contributions to one's society.

Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: hOS hA PARA TOU QEOU LABWN
EXEI TAUTA TOIS EPIDEOMENOIS XORHGWN QEOS GINETAI TWN LAMBANANTWN one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients (cp. Sb III, 6263, 27 of a mother). (...) In any event Q. certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary
characteristics of deity, in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. hO QEOS 1:a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition. On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 [cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6];



You said:


2) BDAG, of whom you're so fond, defines qeoV in the verses in question as: "God in Israelite/Christian monotheistic perspective, God" for the verses in question. There's simply no basis, from BDAG, to say what you're saying.


You are mistaken. This is from section #3 which follows the section #2 which I cite above. Section #2 is about the Christ. Section #3 is not. Notice in the quote above in section #2 that it is QEOS which refers to the Father (John 1:1a) which is in the "monotheistic context" and that 1:1b with QEOS of the Word it is not.

Here is how it starts:


3. God in Israelite/Christian monotheistic perspective, God the predom. use, somet. with, somet. without the art.

a. o` qeo,j Mt 1:23; 3:9; 5:8, 34; Mk 2:12; 10:18; 13:19 (cp. TestJob 37:4); Lk 2:13; J 3:2b; Ac 2:22b; Gal 2:6 al. With prep. eivj to.n q. Ac 24:15. evk tou/ q. J 8:42b, 47; 1J 3:9f; 4:1ff, 6f; 5:1, 4; 2 Cor 3:5; 5:18 al.; evn tw/| q. Ro 5:11; Col 3:3 (Ath. 21, 1). e;nanti .....


Read it over again if you have your own copy and you will see that I am correct.

[Cal_Minian]

Okay, so you are the researcher. Ask yourself whether or not BDAG is Trinitarian.


I consider BDAG Trinitarian. I quote it as a hostile witness. That being said they do refute many of the common Trinitarian proof-texts... see my sig for details.

[Krusader]

I consider BDAG Trinitarian. I quote it as a hostile witness. That being said they do refute many of the common Trinitarian proof-texts... see my sig for details.

And what do they say about John 1:1 - do they agree with the Watchtower polytheism? A big God and a lessor god?

[themuzicman]

Cal is making the same error here as he did here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1384840&postcount=7)


Yes elohim has a lot of meanings in Hebrew and they carry over into θεοσ in the Greek New Testament.

This is simply an error. Words very rarely transmit their whole meaning from one language to another, and Elohim/qeoV isn't one of them. In Greek, qeoV means "GOD." In Hebrew, Elohim is broader than just God, although that is an important meaning. It can also refer to representatives of God or those who stand in the place of God, as Moses did before Pharoah.

And, when translating Hebrew, Elohim may become qeoV and have some of that connotation, but only when translating from Hebrew. That meaning does not carry over into non-translated uses of qeoV, such as we see in the other 170 times qeoV is used in BDAG.

You've been spanked over and over again for this error, and there is another thread linked in the thread I linked to above where your errors are exposed.

Maybe you should learn something when you are shown your errors.

Michael

[Cal_Minian]

And what do they say about John 1:1 - do they agree with the Watchtower polytheism? A big God and a lessor god?

Their quote is in the link in my sig. It is a post over in the language forums. Basically they compare QEOS in John 1:1 to QEOS/elohim in Exodus 7:1 when used of Moses. This is apparently because both Moses and Jesus were gods in the sense that they represented the God and Father of Jesus Christ.

They also list a 2nd century Greek inscription from a Christian source which renders QEOS as "a god" referring to a person who represents God. Interestingly they use this example in the section which explains how Jesus is QEOS and contrast that with how the Father is QEOS in the monotheistic sense in John 1:1.

[Cal_Minian]

Cal is making the same error here as he did here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1384840&postcount=7)



This is simply an error. Words very rarely transmit their whole meaning from one language to another, and Elohim/qeoV isn't one of them. In Greek, qeoV means "GOD." In Hebrew, Elohim is broader than just God, although that is an important meaning. It can also refer to representatives of God or those who stand in the place of God, as Moses did before Pharoah.

And, when translating Hebrew, Elohim may become qeoV and have some of that connotation, but only when translating from Hebrew. That meaning does not carry over into non-translated uses of qeoV, such as we see in the other 170 times qeoV is used in BDAG.

You've been spanked over and over again for this error, and there is another thread linked in the thread I linked to above where your errors are exposed.

Maybe you should learn something when you are shown your errors.

Michael

Dear Michael,
I am accurately representing BDAG on this issue. You miss the point. BDAG is the leading Greek Lexicon for NT studies for use by Evangelicals. I am merely pointing out that it supports the "a god" rendering in the NWT. That is all.

It is BDAG that compares QEOS at Exodus 7:1 to QEOS at John 1:1b, not me.

It is BDAG that supplies the 2nd century Christian writing of "a god" and applies it to the Son of God, not me.

You quote yourself as an authority and disagree with BDAG. I have already posted to you that if you have some verifiable standard Lexical authority which articulates this view for elohim/QEOS I would like to see it.

Do you have any references? Even if you do, my use of BDAG is secure for the point I have made. But I would like to see them if they exist. I do not think they do.

[themuzicman]

I'm going to type this slowly, because I know you don't always get these things...

No Christian makes the case for the trinity on the basis of "God" in John 1:1b, where it says, "the Word was with God". Furthermore, the Chiastric structure of John 1:1-3 really makes your point moot, as John 1:2 clears up any misconceptions.

The point is that "God" in John 1:1c does make the Word of the character of God, and John 1:18 says that the Word is the only God.

So, when you're done with your hobbie horse, you can come deal with the rest of the argument.

(My BDAG is at home, and I don't recall reading this portion, so I'll have to look again, but it's still moot.)

Michael

[Krusader]

Listen Cal, I went and saw what the lexicon said regarding John 1:1 and you are just totally misrepresenting what the BDAG states. It states that the Logos is not the Father. It in no way agrees with the created god theory-heresy of the Watchtower. I really think you need to stop misleading people here and attempting to twist the words of the BDAG to fit into your own heretical scheme of things.

[Sparko]

Michael,

Doing a little research myself, it seems that Cal's tactic is to start a thread on BDAG, completely misreading it and then when people correct him, he ignores them and repeats himself. then eventually he wanders off for a while hoping everyone will forget and starts in again repeating the same nonsense.

He was trounced on this very point (John 1:1c) by Old Shepherd, Jaltus and AVMetro back in 2003. Here is one of the rebuttals: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=134913&postcount=36

[Cal_Minian]

I'm going to type this slowly, because I know you don't always get these things...

No Christian makes the case for the trinity on the basis of "God" in John 1:1b, where it says, "the Word was with God". Furthermore, the Chiastric structure of John 1:1-3 really makes your point moot, as John 1:2 clears up any misconceptions.

The point is that "God" in John 1:1c does make the Word of the character of God, and John 1:18 says that the Word is the only God.

So, when you're done with your hobbie horse, you can come deal with the rest of the argument.

(My BDAG is at home, and I don't recall reading this portion, so I'll have to look again, but it's still moot.)

Michael

Dear Michael,
One of the points I made earlier that you probably missed was that many texts which Trinitarians try to use are either ambiguous or have textual variants.

In John 1:3-4 the textual variant that you employ to prove that the Son could not have been created is not supported by NA27 or USB4. Additionally with the best-attested punctuation the verse reads "What came to be in the Word was life" which militates against your theology. It does, however, line up well with the proto-Trinitarianism of Athanasius who taught that the Word always existed but became a person with the Father in the beginning.

You example of John 1:18 falls into the same category. The best attested reading is MONOGENHS QEOS. According to BDAG your view is possible but also is the following:



BDAG, MONOGENHS for John 1:18
or a uniquely begotten deity (for the perspective s. J 10:33-36)


Therefore your proof is merely "evidence." The term is also very consistent with JW theology, see above.

[themuzicman]

Dear Michael,
One of the points I made earlier that you probably missed was that many texts which Trinitarians try to use are either ambiguous or have textual variants.

In John 1:3-4 the textual variant that you employ to prove that the Son could not have been created is not supported by NA27 or USB4. Additionally with the best-attested punctuation the verse reads "What came to be in the Word was life" which militates against your theology. It does, however, line up well with the proto-Trinitarianism of Athanasius who taught that the Word always existed but became a person with the Father in the beginning.

I hate to break it to you, but the original didn't have punctuation. Thus, we must read it in context. And in context your view doesn't fit. Period.


You example of John 1:18 falls into the same category. The best attested reading is MONOGENHS QEOS. According to BDAG your view is possible but also is the following:



Therefore your proof is merely "evidence." The term is also very consistent with JW theology, see above.

That's included for historical continuity with "begotten", which is a quirk the church has to deal with, but clearly understands that "begotten" has nothing to do with becoming or being born, here, but has everything to do with existance.

Again, you're abusing BDAG, and no one is impressed.

Michael

[Cal_Minian]

I hate to break it to you, but the original didn't have punctuation. Thus, we must read it in context. And in context your view doesn't fit. Period.



That's included for historical continuity with "begotten", which is a quirk the church has to deal with, but clearly understands that "begotten" has nothing to do with becoming or being born, here, but has everything to do with existance.

Again, you're abusing BDAG, and no one is impressed.

Michael

Michael,
I keep forgeting you jumped into the middle of this and evidently have not read the previous posts. I will give you the brief synopsis, and if you want to answer, look up the original and do it there.

The punctuation to which I refer is from the writings of the Anti-Nicene Fathers who quote this verse. Starting about 300AD they started placing a full stop after the hO GEGONEN to refute the heresy of the pneumomachians who taught that the Father created the HS through the Son.

Before this they quoted the verse as they naturally would with the stop before hO GEGONEN. The reading would then be "what came to be in him was life." Because they believed the Son always existed in the Father but became a person in the beginning this was ok by them (until later). But the Pneumomachians started teaching that the HS was created and they changed it.

The point is that without the punctuation as found in the TR (KJV) one cannot force the text to say that the Father made all things through the Son that were made.

Additionally, with the puncutation as in the NA27 and USB4 (yes they do have punctuation becuase it is necessary for translation into modern languages) the reading is decidedly anti-Trinitarian. That is, at least the Trinitarianism of today.

You are welcome to your view of begotten. I quoted BDAG on it and you can read that for yourself. They do not state that your view is the only possible view.

I am not arguing that I can refute the Trinitarian view here. I am arguing that the JW theology is supported by your own lexicon... and it is....



BDAG, MONOGENHS for John 1:18
or a uniquely begotten deity (for the perspective s. J 10:33-36)


Cheers

[themuzicman]

Michael,
I keep forgeting you jumped into the middle of this and evidently have not read the previous posts. I will give you the brief synopsis, and if you want to answer, look up the original and do it there.

The punctuation to which I refer is from the writings of the Anti-Nicene Fathers who quote this verse. Starting about 300AD they started placing a full stop after the hO GEGONEN to refute the heresy of the pneumomachians who taught that the Father created the HS through the Son.

Before this they quoted the verse as they naturally would with the stop before hO GEGONEN. The reading would then be "what came to be in him was life." Because they believed the Son always existed in the Father but became a person in the beginning this was ok by them (until later). But the Pneumomachians started teaching that the HS was created and they changed it.

The point is that without the punctuation as found in the TR (KJV) one cannot force the text to say that the Father made all things through the Son that were made.

Additionally, with the puncutation as in the NA27 and USB4 (yes they do have punctuation becuase it is necessary for translation into modern languages) the reading is decidedly anti-Trinitarian. That is, at least the Trinitarianism of today.

You are welcome to your view of begotten. I quoted BDAG on it and you can read that for yourself. They do not state that your view is the only possible view.

I am not arguing that I can refute the Trinitarian view here. I am arguing that the JW theology is supported by your own lexicon... and it is....



Cheers
BDAG on monogenhV

Pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique (in kind) of something that is the only example of its category (Cornutus 27)
...
In Johannine Literature ... The rederings of only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences, here.

So, "only" and "unique" are sufficient for Johannine readings. QED.

The discussion you're referring to is speaking about some alternative readings in BDAG regarding John 1:18, between qeoV and `uioV.

SO, we've once again exposed your abuse of BDAG, in spite of what it clearly says.

Oh, and in BDAG v3, there isn't any mention of John 1:1 in part 4a of qeoV.

So, your credibility is shot. No reason to go any further.

Michael

[Cal_Minian]

BDAG on monogenhV

Pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique (in kind) of something that is the only example of its category (Cornutus 27)
...
In Johannine Literature ... The rederings of only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences, here.

So, "only" and "unique" are sufficient for Johannine readings. QED.



The discussion you're referring to is speaking about some alternative readings in BDAG regarding John 1:18, between qeoV and `uioV.



You keep forgetting that BDAG gives the following for John 1:18 --

BDAG, MONOGENHS for John 1:18
or a uniquely begotten deity (for the perspective s. J 10:33-36)



SO, we've once again exposed your abuse of BDAG, in spite of what it clearly says.

Oh, and in BDAG v3, there isn't any mention of John 1:1 in part 4a of qeoV.

So, your credibility is shot. No reason to go any further.

Michael

I did not say there was. Section #2 compares John 1:1b with Exodus 7:1 and assigns John 1:1a to the section on its monotheistic usage.




J 1:1b (w. o qeos1:1a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel’s tradition. On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 [cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6];

[themuzicman]

You keep forgetting that BDAG gives the following for John 1:18 --

BDAG, MONOGENHS for John 1:18
or a uniquely begotten deity (for the perspective s. J 10:33-36)

You missed an important part. This section is a discussion of variant readings between "God" and "Son" and how these might vary. Furthermore, there is no commentary on the John 10:33-36, however "begotten" as in "an only-begotten" one, God (acc. to his real being; i.e. uniquely divine as God's son and transcending all others alleged to be gods), is used again, here, but not explained beyond referring to John 10:33-36, so for you to claim that this somehow means that we can claim your view of this passage is silly.

BDAG clearly says that "only" and "unique" are sufficient for allJohannine usaged. What part of that is unclear?




I did not say there was. Section #2 compares John 1:1b with Exodus 7:1 and assigns John 1:1a to the section on its monotheistic usage.




You know what's funny, is that just before this section, he says:

In any event, (referring to 1 J 5:20) qeoV certainly refers to Christ. :lmbo: Kinda makes 1:1b moot

Furthermore, BDAG says:

J 1:1b (w. qeoV 1:1, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's traidition...) and then goes on to mention that John 10:34 is anarthrous, as well, which is an interpretive problem.

However, all this is parenthetical, clarified in the heading to section 2:

(2) Some writings in our lit. use the word qeoV w/ reference to Christ (without necessarily equating Christ with the Father, and therefore in harmony w/ the Shema of Israel...)

Thus, given the purpose of this section, the discussion of 1:1b is in the context of using qeoV in reference to Christ.

So, when we assume the context given by the section heading, your attempts really look silly.

QED.

Michael

[Cal_Minian]

BDAG clearly says that "only" and "unique" are sufficient for allJohannine usaged. What part of that is unclear?
Michael

Dear Michael,
I am quite disappointed in you. Here is the exact quote:



The renderings only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here (so M-M., NRSV et al.; DMoody, JBL 72, ’53, 213-19; FGrant, ATR 36, ’54, 284-87; GPendrick, NTS 41, ’95, 587-600). to.n ui`o.n to.n m. e;dwken J 3:16


The continue and state:


See also Hdb. on vs. 18 where, beside the rdg. monogenhs qeos (considered by many the orig.) an only-begotten one, God (acc. to his real being; i.e. uniquely divine as God’s son and transcending all others alleged to be gods) or a uniquely begotten deity (for the perspective s. J 10:33-36), another rdg. o monogenhs uios is found.



Also, you misunderstood which is the variant reading. The original reading is MONOGENHS QEOS and the varian is hUIOS.

The uniquely begotten diety is not a variant reading. It is considered the original.

[Science 0f Time]

Even the Muslims believe in the Trinity (we). Here is a portion of the Koran interpreted into English. And do NOT expect me to ever post again, the lot of you can quibble over this amongst yourselves!

SURA II.-THE COW1 [XCI.]
And they say, "None but Jews or Christians shall enter Paradise:" This is
their wish. SAY: Give your proofs if ye speak the truth.

But they who set their face with resignation Godward, and do what is right,-
their reward is with their Lord; no fear shall come on them, neither shall
they be grieved.

Moreover, the Jews say, "The Christians lean on nought:" "On nought lean the
Jews," say the Christians: Yet both are readers of the Book. So with like
words say they who have no knowledge.47 But on the resurrection day, God
shall judge between them as to that in which they differ.



SURA III.-THE FAMILY OF (Z)IMRAN [XCVII.]
And remember when the angels said, "O Mary! verily hath God chosen thee,16
and purified thee, and chosen thee above the women of the worlds!

Remember when the angel said, "O Mary! Verily God announceth to thee the Word
from Him: His name shall be, Messiah Jesus the son of Mary,19 illustrious in
this world, and in the next, and one of those who have near access to God;

She said, "How, O my Lord! shall I have a son, when man hath not touched me?"
He said, "Thus: God will create what He will; When He decreeth a thing, He
only saith, 'Be,' and it is."

Remember when God said, "O Jesus! verily I will cause thee to die,22 and will
take thee up to myself and deliver thee from those who believe not; and I
will place those who follow thee above those who believe not, until the day
of resurrection. Then, to me is your return, and wherein ye differ will I
decide between you.

Why should God inflict a chastisement upon you, if ye are grateful, and
believe? God is Grateful, Wise!

Of a truth they who believe not on God and his Apostles, and seek to separate
God from his Apostles, and say, "Some we believe, and some we believe not,"
and desire to take a middle way;

These! they are veritable infidels! and for the infidels have we prepared a
shameful punishment.

And they who believe on God and his Apostles, and make no difference between
them these! we will bestow on them their reward at last. God is Gracious,
Merciful!

The people of the Book will ask of thee to cause a Book to come down unto
them out of Heaven. But a greater thing than this did they ask of Moses! for
they said, "Shew us God plainly!" and for this their wickedness did the fire-
storm lay hold on them. Then took they the calf as the object of their
worship, after that our clear tokens had come to them; but we forgave them
this, and conferred on Moses undoubted power.

And for their unbelief,-and for their having spoken against Mary a grievous
calumny,-

And for their saying, "Verily we have slain the Messiah, Jesus the son of
Mary, an Apostle of God." Yet they slew him not, and they crucified him not,
but they had only his likeness.30 And they who differed about him were in
doubt concerning him: No sure knowledge had they about him, but followed only
an opinion, and they did not really slay him, but God took him up to Himself.
And God is Mighty, Wise!

SURA XXXIII.-THE CONFEDERATES1 [CIII.]
And remember that we have entered into covenant with the Prophets, and with
thee, and with Noah, and Abraham, and Moses, and Jesus, Son of Mary: and we
formed with them a strict covenant,


Verily, Jesus is as Adam in the sight of God.23 He created him of dust: He
then said to him, "Be"-and he was.

Abraham was neither Jew nor Christian; but he was sound in the faith,29 a
Muslim; and not of those who add gods to God.

O ye believers! fear God as He deserveth to be feared! and die not till ye
have become Muslims.


SURA IV.-WOMEN1 [C.]
And already hath He sent this down to you in the Book28 "WHEN YE SHALL HEAR
THE SIGNS OF GOD THEY SHALL NOT BE BELIEVED BUT SHALL BE MOCKED AT."

-END-

BTW: substitute the word "Muslim" for "believer", and we are ALL on the same page!

Bill Sheffield

[Cal_Minian]

Even the Muslims believe in the Trinity (we). Here is a portion of the Koran interpreted into English. And do NOT expect me to ever post again, the lot of you can quibble over this amongst yourselves!



What does this have to do with the fact that BDAG says that John 1:18 can be rendered "a uniquely begotten deity."?



See also Hdb. on vs. 18 where, beside the rdg. μονογενησ θεοσ (considered by many the orig.) an only-begotten one, God (acc. to his real being; i.e. uniquely divine as God’s son and transcending all others alleged to be gods) or a uniquely begotten deity (for the perspective s. J 10:33-36), another rdg. ο μονογενησ υιοσ is found.

[Science 0f Time]

"What does this have to do with the fact that BDAG says that John 1:18 can be rendered "a uniquely begotten deity."?

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


SURA III.-THE FAMILY OF (Z)IMRAN [XCVII.]
And remember when the angels said, "O Mary! verily hath God chosen thee,16
and purified thee, and chosen thee above the women of the worlds!

Remember when the angel said, "O Mary! Verily God announceth to thee the Word from Him: His name shall be, Messiah Jesus the son of Mary,19 illustrious in this world, and in the next, and one of those who have near access to God; She said, "How, O my Lord! shall I have a son, when man hath not touched me?" He said, "Thus: God will create what He will; When He decreeth a thing, He only saith, 'Be,' and it is."

"a uniquely begotten deity." from the Koran of all places!

Except for the point on your head, your debate is pointless.

Bill Sheffield

[Cal_Minian]

"What does this have to do with the fact that BDAG says that John 1:18 can be rendered "a uniquely begotten deity."?

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


SURA III.-THE FAMILY OF (Z)IMRAN [XCVII.]
And remember when the angels said, "O Mary! verily hath God chosen thee,16
and purified thee, and chosen thee above the women of the worlds!

Remember when the angel said, "O Mary! Verily God announceth to thee the Word from Him: His name shall be, Messiah Jesus the son of Mary,19 illustrious in this world, and in the next, and one of those who have near access to God; She said, "How, O my Lord! shall I have a son, when man hath not touched me?" He said, "Thus: God will create what He will; When He decreeth a thing, He only saith, 'Be,' and it is."

"a uniquely begotten deity." from the Koran of all places!

Except for the point on your head, your debate is pointless.

Bill Sheffield

Dear Bill,
The significance of the BDAG rendering of "a uniquely begotten deity" at John 1:18 deals with the sense of the Greek μονογενησ θεοσ. Is not the Koran written in Arabic?

[JAY-PC]

Cal your signature is getting longer and longer.

I wonder whose would be longer if I used all the lexicons, grammars, dictionaries, and commentaries that support the Trinity as my signature.

JAY-PC

[Cal_Minian]

Cal your signature is getting longer and longer.

I wonder whose would be longer if I used all the lexicons, grammars, dictionaries, and commentaries that support the Trinity as my signature.

JAY-PC

Dear Jay,
It is a work in progress which I hope is useful in finding the older posts. Also at some point I might trim it down based upon feedback like yours.

BTW I quote these Trinitarian sources as a hostile witness since as you acknowledge, they are Trinitarian.

So to be completely fair you would need to find quotes from the WT which say that Jesus is God in John 1:1 just like the Father is God and not Moses in Exodus 7:1 or that in Romans 9:5 it just might be Jesus who is called God.

Or pershaps you might need to find them disagreeing with BDAG on Romans 9:5 that Paul would never call Jesus God in that context because that would violate the OT injunction about not having any other Gods.

Cheers!

[JAY-PC]

Dear Jay,
It is a work in progress which I hope is useful in finding the older posts. Also at some point I might trim it down based upon feedback like yours.

BTW I quote these Trinitarian sources as a hostile witness since as you acknowledge, they are Trinitarian.

So to be completely fair you would need to find quotes from the WT which say that Jesus is God in John 1:1 just like the Father is God and not Moses in Exodus 7:1 or that in Romans 9:5 it just might be Jesus who is called God.

Or pershaps you might need to find them disagreeing with BDAG on Romans 9:5 that Paul would never call Jesus God in that context because that would violate the OT injunction about not having any other Gods.

Cheers!



What about quoting the Watchtower society and posting all the corrections, new light, contradictions, and false prophesies that they have made over the years.

You are quoting Trinitarians who disagree on certain verses and place them against each other. I could do the same with the Watchtower society. Let’s take what they have said over the years and see if they are consistent or if they would be shown to be inconsistent. Let’s take the issue of the Cross. The Watchtower taught that Jesus died on a cross and even had pictures depicting this (Life pg205, the Harp of God pg 113) but do they teach that still? No, now they say he died on a stake. What about 1925 being the year that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would be resurrected, do they still teach this? No, now they don't make mention of it. What about the UN? Is the UN still the “Wild Beast” (Pay attention to Daniel’s prophecy pg282), if so why were they involved with the UN’s DPI? Blood transfusion? How about the foot note at John 8:58, have they always explained the reason for translating it "I have been" the same way? No, they originally had the foot note say "Properly rendered in the perfect indefinite tense" (1950), then they changed it to say "Properly rendered in the perfect tense" (KIT 1969), and then "Properly translated by the perfect indicative" (KIT 1985).

See the Watchtower was wrong about things in the past. It might be that they are wrong about the Trinity. New light?


God bless
JAY-PC

[Sparko]

Great News Cal!!!!

I have decided to take a page from your play book and start quoting the Watchtower as a hostile witness and completely twist their words and context around till I can get them to prove that they support the Trinity.

I am going to start with the topic of this thread (what? stay on topic? what's wrong with me??) the booklet "Should you believe in the Trinity"

Well actually according to the Watchtower, YES! You should believe in the Trinity!

Why?

Well the Watchtower does!

Here are some quotes directly from that publication in the watcthower's own words (as hostile witnesses of course)


"DO YOU believe in the Trinity? Most people in Christendom do..In view of this...there could be no question about it."

"In the Godhead there are three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; yet, together they are but one God."

"The three are coequal, almighty, and uncreated, having existed eternally in the Godhead."

"It is founded not only on religious tradition but also on the Bible."

"Christians are those who accept Christ as God."

--Should you believe in the Trinity, WBTS

Wow this is fun! I guess you lose Cal.

[Armor of God]

:lol:

I nominate this for a POTD. Of course, I have no authority to do so from TWEB, but by the power invested in me by me, I hereby nominate it anyway.

Good show!

[Sparko]

:lol:

I nominate this for a POTD. Of course, I have no authority to do so from TWEB, but by the power invested in me by me, I hereby nominate it anyway.

Good show!

Thank you. I should get a job writing for the watchtower, huh?

:hehe:

[OldShepherd]

Hello all,
[...]How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop?
[...]

What role did this unbaptized emperor play at the Council of Nicaea? The Encyclopædia Britannica relates: "Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, 'of one substance with the Father' . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination."
[...]
what say ye?

What the discerning, intelligent, reasonable person must know is that virtually every quote in this piece of pulp fiction is out-of-context, e.g. entire paragraphs are omitted to deceptively bring two separate thoughts together.

Also the above quote from Encyclopedia Brittanica is from the 1971 edition, which does not appear in later editions. But WBTS continues to quote it as valid.

Here from a four page article on Constantine from the 1979 Encyclopedia Brittanica.
JW's love to quote Britannica, but they deliberately practice selective quoting to deceptively project a view opposite to what this excellent source is saying. Britannica is a trusted source that refutes every claim Anti-Trinitarians make to debunk trinity. No wonder the Governing Body has such a dismal reputation.

========================================================

Constantine's second involvement in an ecclesiastical issue followed the defeat of Licinius as promptly as the involvement in Donatism followed that of Maxentius; but the Arian heresy, with its intricate explorations, couched in difficult Greek, of the precise nature of the Trinity, was as remote from Constantine's educational background as it was from his impatient, urgent temperament. The Council of Nicaea, which opened in May 325 with an address by the Emperor, had already been preceded by a letter to the chief protagonist, Arius of Alexandria, in which Constantine stated his opinion that the dispute was fostered only by excessive leisure and academic contention, that the point at issue was trivial and could be resolved without difficulty. His optimism was not justified: neither this letter nor, despite its subsequent authority, the Council of Nicaea itself, nor the second letter, in which Constantine urged acceptance of its conclusions, was adequate to solve a dispute in which the participants were as intransigent as the theological issues were subtle. Indeed, for 40 years after the death of Constantine, Arianism was actually the official orthodoxy of the Eastern Empire. [Constantinople wWhere Contstantine established the seat of his empire]
(Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Britannica.htm#tConstantineb

The above URL above links to all the misleading and deceptive quotes, from the Encyclopedia Brittanica, in the JW anti-Trinity pamphlet. The full Britannica articles on Trinity, Christianity, Constantine, and Arianism, all misquoted/misrepresented in the pamphlet, are posted at this website.

This link also shows how many other sources, approximately 82, are misquoted in the pamphlet. These include Encyclopedia Americana, Adolf Harnack, William Barclay, Robert Bowman, C.H. Dodd, F.F. Bruce, ISBE, to name only a few. I think the WBTS address inside the back cover may possibly be correct.

[OldShepherd]

Thanks for the clarification, but I still want scripture pointing me to the separate identity and deity of the Holy Spirit. I would much appriciate this. More than one reference would be great too, since I'm having discussions with my still JW sis.

The Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit is the third person in the Trinity. He is fully God. He is eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, has a will, a mind, a distinct self, and can speak. He is alive. He is a person. He is not particularly visible in the Bible because His ministry is to bear witness of Jesus (John 5:26).

Some false teaching religions like the Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., say that the Holy Spirit is nothing more than a force (Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 406-407). This is false. If the Holy Spirit were merely a force, then He could not speak (Acts 13:2); He could not be grieved (Eph. 4:30); and He would not have a will (1 Cor. 12:11), a self, (Jn 16:13), or a mind, (Rom 8:27).

The truth is there are seventy two (72) personal characteristics or attributes, listed in scripture for the Holy Spirit and He is a person the same as the Father and the Son are within the Trinity.

Names of the Spirit

1. God -Acts 5:3-4
2. Lord - 2 Cor. 3:18
3. Spirit - 1 Cor. 2:10
4. Spirit of God - 1 Cor. 3:16
5. Spirit of Truth - John 15:26
6. Eternal Spirit - Heb. 9:14

Attributes of (9)

7. Eternal -Heb. 9:14
8. Omnipotent - Luke 1:35
9. Omnipresent - Psalm 139:710
10. Distinct Will from the father and the son– 1 Cor. 12:11
11. Loves - Rom. 15:30
12. Speaks - Acts 8:29; 13:2
13. Distinct Mind from the father and the son – Rom 8:27
14. Distinct Self from the father and the son – John 16:13
15. Alive – John 14:17

Symbols of (3)

16. Dove - Matt. 3:15
17. Wind - John 3:5
18. Fire - Acts 2:3
Sins Against (6)

19. Blasphemy - Matt. 12:31
20. Resist (Unbelief) - Acts 7:51
21. Insult - Heb. 10:29
22. Lied to - Acts 5:3
23. Grieved - Eph. 4:30
24. Quench - 1 Thess. 5:19

Power in Christ's Life (6)

25. Conceived of - Matt. 1:18,20
26. Baptism - Matt. 3:15
27. Led by - Luke 4:1
28. Filled with Power - Luke 4:14,18
29. Witness of Jesus - John 15:26
30. Raised Jesus - Rom. 8:11

The Works of the Holy Spirit (42)

1 Access to God - Eph. 2:18
2 Anoints for Service - Luke 4:18
3 Assures - Rom. 8:15-16; Gal. 4:6
4 Authors Scripture - 2 Pet. 1:20-21
5 Baptizes - John 1:232-34; 1 Cor. 12:13-14
6 Believers Born of - John 3:3-6
7 Calls and Commissions - Acts 13:24; 20:28
8 Cleanses - 2 Thess. 3:13; 1 Pet. 1:2
9 Comforts - Act 9:31
10 Communion with believers – 2 Cor 13:14
11 Convicts of sin - John 16:9,14
12 Counsels - John 14:16
13 Creates - Gen. 1:2; Job 33:4
14 Empowers - 1 Thess. 1:5
15 Empowers Believers - Luke 24:49
16 Fellowship with believers – Phil 2:1
17 Fills - Acts 2:4; 4:29-31; 5:18-20; 9:17
18 Forbids action - Ac 16:6
19 Gives gifts - 1 Cor. 12:8-11
20 Glorifies Christ - John 16:14
21 Guides in truth - John 16:13
22 Helps our weakness - Rom. 8:26
23 Indwells believers - Rom. 8:9-14; Gal. 4:6
24 Inspires prayer - Eph. 6:18; Jude 20
25 Intercedes -Rom. 8:26
26 Interprets Scripture - 1 Cor. 2:1,14; Eph. 1:17
27 Leads - Rom. 8:14
28 Liberates - Rom. 8:2
29 Molds Character - Gal. 5:22-23
30 Produces fruit - Gal. 5:22-23
31 Raises from the dead - Rom. 8:11
32 Regenerates - Titus 3:5
33 Reveals – Luk 2:26
34 Sanctifies - Rom. 15:16
35 Seals - Eph. 1:1314; 4:30
36 Sends - Acts 13:4 Sent - Gal 4:6; 1 Pet 1:12
37 Sent - Gal 4:6; 1 Pet 1:12
38 Strengthens - Eph. 3:16; Acts 1:8; 2:4;1 Cor. 2:4
39 Testifies of Jesus - John 15:26
40 Victory over flesh - Rom. 8:2-4; Gal. 4:6
41 Warns – Acts 20:23
42 Worship helper - Phil. 3:3.