the errors of trinitarians considered

[Delores]

Jesus said he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). This is what is written in the scriptures. As you said, "anything other than what the scripturtes teach, is error."

If you believe that there is ANOTHER God IN ADDITION to the Father, you are in error. You know what the word ONLY means, don't you?

Hi Babylon

since you are not here at this hour...I will just leave this for you...And if you want we can talk about it later...

No one is saying that Jesus is another God...He is not another...He is God "in the flesh" according to the scriptures...

Yes it is true,that Jesus says that His Father is the only true God John 17:3...

Jesus says that he is the Son of man (Adam) a human being - Jesus also says that he is the Son of God... John 5:25-27...

Finally Babylon,Jesus say these words also (I Am) in John 8:58... Note,these are the same words that YHWH (Jehovah) spoke in Exodus 3:14...So it seems to me too Babylon,that the scriptures teach that there is but ONE God and He calls himself , I Am...

So the scriptures are not in error Babylon...You are.

"Oneness" believers would have the rest of us to believe that Jesus prayed to himself in the Garden of Gethesame... This is absurd Error

"Modalist" would have the rest of us to believe that the Father and not the Son,died on the cross... This is absurd Error as well..

Jehovah's witnesses would have ALL of us to believe that Jesus is a second or lesser god...This is absurd error...It is also polytheism...

Now,if i were to say that Trinitarians believe in the one and only true God...I would be defending them,right?

I do not defend Trinitarianism...I understand it...

Trinitarians unknowingly commit idolatry...I can say this,because i used to be one... So i know what i use to believe...Moreover
Trinitarians do believe in the ONE and ONLY true God,Babylon...

Where as Jehovah witnesses,based on their own translation of John 1:1 in the NWT...Shout aloud that they do believe in more than one God...

Why else would the passage read (and the word was a god) in your very own translation?

You are a polytheist Babylon...No one really cares,but you should own it tho...Since it is you who chose in the first place to speak that John 1:1 is not a proof text for truinity...Remember?

However,If you would rather say no,i am not a polytheist...It is that my leaders,the Watch Tower organization,were caught in their own folly or craftiness...They purposely mis-translated this passage,in an attempt to destroy the deity of Christ...

They (TWT folks) believe that he (Jesus) is a lessor god,so they just said so,in John 1:1(NWT)...They believed that John 1:1 in the KJV and in other versions,did prove triunity of the Godhead...So they had no choice,but to make their own translation...

You can say that if you want to,ok...You are free..So it is up to you Babylon...

Delores

[IncRus]

Jesus said he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). This is what is written in the scriptures. As you said, "anything other than what the scriptures teach, is error."

If you believe that there is ANOTHER God IN ADDITION to the Father, you are in error. You know what the word ONLY means, don't you?

No one is saying that Jesus is another God...He is not another...He is God "in the flesh" according to the scriptures...

Yes it is true,that Jesus says that His Father is the only true God John 17:3...

Explain to me HOW Jesus is "God in the flesh" while saying at the same time that the Father (NOT Jesus) is the ONLY true God.

Jesus says that he is the Son of man (Adam) a human being - Jesus also says that he is the Son of God... John 5:25-27...

Jesus say these words also (I Am) in John 8:58... Note,these are the same words that YHWH (Jehovah) spoke in Exodus 3:14...So it seems to me too Babylon,that the scriptures teach that there is but ONE God and He calls himself , I Am...

So the scriptures are not in error ...You are.

Of course, the scriptures are NOT in error! But you are in error for believing that Jesus is "God in the flesh." How can these sayings of Jesus OVERRIDE his declaration that the Father is the ONLY true God? You are saying that Jesus CONTRADICTED himself, aren't you?

"Oneness" believers would have the rest of us to believe that Jesus prayed to himself in the Garden of Gethesame... This is absurd Error

"Modalist" would have the rest of us to believe that the Father and not the Son,died on the cross... This is absurd Error as well..

Jehovah's witnesses would have ALL of us to believe that Jesus is a second or lesser god...This is absurd error...It is also polytheism...

Now,if i were to say that Trinitarians believe in the one and only true God...I would be defending them,right?

I do not defend Trinitarianism...I understand it...

Trinitarians unknowingly commit idolatry...I can say this,because i used to be one... So i know what i use to believe...Moreover
Trinitarians do believe in the ONE and ONLY true God,

Who is this "ONE and ONLY true God" whom Trinitarians believe?

Is this Trinitarian God the same as the "ONLY true God" of Jesus as he declared in John 17:3?

[Delores]

Jesus said he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). This is what is written in the scriptures. As you said, "anything other than what the scripturtes teach, is error."

If you believe that there is ANOTHER God IN ADDITION to the Father, you are in error. You know what the word ONLY means, don't you?

Yes IncRus i know what ONLY it means...

Do you know what the fullness of the Godhead (Godhood) dwelled in the body of Christ mean? Colossians 2:9

[Delores]

Explain to me HOW Jesus is "God in the flesh" while saying at the same time that the Father (NOT Jesus) is the ONLY true God.


Of course, the scriptures are NOT in error! But you are in error for believing that Jesus is "God in the flesh." How can these sayings of Jesus OVERRIDE his declaration that the Father is the ONLY true God? You are saying that Jesus CONTRADICTED himself, aren't you?


Who is this "ONE and ONLY true God" whom Trinitarians believe?

Is this Trinitarian God the same as the "ONLY true God" of Jesus as he declared in John 17:3?

Yes he is...

[Delores]

Yes he is...

No i am not saying that Jesus contradicted himself...Jesus understood exactly what he saying and what he meant...More than you or i could ever understand...

Perhaps you need to understand the difference between the Pre-incarnate (Which is the Word) and the incarnate (which is the Son of God)...

[IncRus]

No i am not saying that Jesus contradicted himself...Jesus understood exactly what he saying and what he meant...More than you or i could ever understand...

Perhaps you need to understand the difference between the Pre-incarnate (Which is the Word) and the incarnate (which is the Son of God)...

The words "incarnate" and "pre-incarnate" are NOT found in the Bible. Th "word" which ws NOT Jesus, BECAME a human being. This human being thatthe "word" TURNED into, was called JESUS by his mother.

Jesus understood exactly that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3), if you TRULY know what the word ONLY means.

[wonbyone]

Are those the only verses in your Bible?

[JB]

The words "incarnate" and "pre-incarnate" are NOT found in the Bible.

So? Are we restricted to only using biblical terms? And if that's the case, can we use them outside of their original application in the Bible? After all, if I'm not mistaken, the term pintakasi is never* used in the Tagalog New Testament (although it does appear to be in the Cebuano translation of Judges), yet that didn't seem to stop Felix Manalo from applying the title to Jesus Christ in Ang Sulo Sa Ikatitiyak Sa Iglesia Katolika Apostolika Romana--because, while it may not have necessarily been a biblical term, or at least was never applied to Christ in the Bible, it nevertheless conveyed a biblical truth. Why should others be begrudged the same liberty in that regard? There's no justification for limiting our terminology to what can be found in Scripture itself; it's the ideas that are important. Now, of course, you no doubt disagree that words like "incarnate" and "pre-incarnate" convey biblical concepts, but let that be where you focus your arguments, then. Sola Scriptura is all fine and well in matters of faith, if you like... but I don't know too many who'd concede it in the realm of vocabulary.

* At the least, I can find it neither in Ang Dating Biblia nor in Ang Salita ng Diyos.


(By the way, IncRus, I'm interested in learning more about the INC. Mind if I PM you about it sometime?)

[IncRus]

Are those the only verses in your Bible?

Perhaps you are not aware that Jesus is the savior whom everyone must believe in order to be saved. And there is no other name under heaven by which we are saved.

While there are probably millions of verses in the Bible other than John 8:40 and John 17:3, these TWO verses are Jesus' words that attest to his being a MAN and the Father's being the ONLY true God.

Unless Jesus himself declares directly that he is God, there is NO other verse in the whole Bible that can make Jesus God. And the Nicean Creed or any INTERPRETATION of ANY verse that seem to make Jesus God is garbage!

[Cow Poke]

........However, in 1954 the Watchtower Society was on trial in Scotland in order to prove that Jehovah's Witnesses were a genuine religion whose members could be exempt from military service, Franz was put to the test regarding his abilities as a translator. I have the scan of the entire transcript of this trial if anyone is interested...............

I normally avoid "really long" sections of text on blogs and discussion boards, but something caught my eye as i "scanned" this one. Ended up reading the entire thing. SOME of the points made are things with which I was already familiar, but never to this extent.

You mentioned a scan of the transcript of the trial in Scotland... I'd be interested in seeing this.

I'd also be interested in any honest rebuttal of any of the points made - "both sides", so to speak. I've never really studied JW at length, but there's certainly a lot about which to be concerned. Very well written, indeed.

[IncRus]

The words "incarnate" and "pre-incarnate" are NOT found in the Bible.

So? Are we restricted to only using biblical terms? And if that's the case, can we use them outside of their original application in the Bible? After all, if I'm not mistaken, the term pintakasi is never* used in the Tagalog New Testament (although it does appear to be in the Cebuano translation of Judges), yet that didn't seem to stop Felix Manalo from applying the title to Jesus Christ in Ang Sulo Sa Ikatitiyak Sa Iglesia Katolika Apostolika Romana--because, while it may not have necessarily been a biblical term, or at least was never applied to Christ in the Bible, it nevertheless conveyed a biblical truth.

Of course, we are not restricted to only using Biblical terms. But when the non-Biblical term that is used DISTORTS or CHANGES the meaning of the verse, then I say it is NOT found in the Bible.

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines the word "incarnate" as: (1) invested with bodily esp. human nature and form: (2) to give bodily form and substance; or (3) to give a concrete and actual form to.

The Bible says "the word BECAME flesh or human being" (John 1:14). On the CONTRARY, Trinitarians say, "the word INCARNATED into a human being." This DISTORTS or CHANGES the meaning of John 1:14.

Whereas, the "word" is IMPERSONAL as it is written in John 1:1, the word "INCARNATED" makes the "word" PERSONAL - a "spirit" that is EMBODIED in the "flesh" or "human being" called Jesus, thereby giving Jesus the nature and characteristics of the "word."

This is analogous to a pupa that BECOMES a butterfly. The pupa DISAPPEARS and in its place is the butterfly which has NONE of the characteristics of the pupa.

On the other hand, a pupa that INCARNATES into a butterfly retains all its characteristics and remains a pupa that LOOKS like a butterfly. I hope I am making myself clear.

The use of "pintakasi" (a Cebuano translation of Judges) in Tagalog is DIFFERENT from the use of the word "incarnate" because it did NOT change the meaning of the intended word when it was used in Tagalog.

For example, if the meaning of "pintakasi" in Cebuano is "judge" and one uses "pintakasi" in Tagalog to refer to a "judge," then there is no harm done.

Why should others be begrudged the same liberty in that regard?

As long as the use of non-Biblical terms does NOT distort nor change the TRUE meaning of a verse, I DON'T begrudge anyone the same liberty as I explained above.

There's no justification for limiting our terminology to what can be found in Scripture itself; it's the ideas that are important.

I agree, as long as the meaning of the terminology CONFORMS with what the Bible ACTUALLY teaches. As I demonstrated above, the word "incarnate" does NOT conform with the word "become" which is what the Bible ACTUALLY teaches.

Now, of course, you no doubt disagree that words like "incarnate" and "pre-incarnate" convey biblical concepts, but let that be where you focus your arguments, then.

Of course, I disagree that words like "incarnate" and "pre-incarnate" convey biblical concepts. And that's precisely where my arguments are focused on right now.

Sola Scriptura is all fine and well in matters of faith, if you like... but I don't know too many who'd concede it in the realm of vocabulary.

Your assessment is correct more so because there are fanatics out there who INSIST on their OWN doctrines and use non-Biblical terminologies to defend these doctrines.

* At the least, I can find it neither in Ang Dating Biblia nor in Ang Salita ng Diyos.

You are referring to the word "pintakasi" I suppose. As I said, the use of "pintakasi" or "judge" in Cebuano in lieu of the Biblical word "hukom" is acceptable because it does NOT distort or change the meaning of the Biblcal word "hukom."

Now, if I hear the word "pintakasi" and did not know its meaning in the Cebuano dialect, I would associate the word with cockfighting where that word is often used. Then I'd say that "pintakasi" is NOT found in the Bible. Of course, I am not that pin-headed NOT to accept the word after I'm convinced that it conveys the SAME meaning as the Biblical word "hukom" that "pintakasi" replaced.

(By the way, IncRus, I'm interested in learning more about the INC. Mind if I PM you about it sometime?)

I'd be delighted if you do! BTW, how did you know about "pintakasi?" This is actually my first time to hear this word used by FYM in reference to Christ.

Are you by any chance a member of the International Church of God (And Dating Daan)? The reason I asked is I often listen to their leader in You Tube and I like most of what he says.

[Bill the Cat]

I see trolls...


:troll2: :troll3:

[wonbyone]

Perhaps you are not aware that Jesus is the savior whom everyone must believe in order to be saved. And there is no other name under heaven by which we are saved.

While there are probably millions of verses in the Bible other than John 8:40 and John 17:3, these TWO verses are Jesus' words that attest to his being a MAN and the Father's being the ONLY true God.

Unless Jesus himself declares directly that he is God, there is NO other verse in the whole Bible that can make Jesus God. And the Nicean Creed or any INTERPRETATION of ANY verse that seem to make Jesus God is garbage!

When Jesus asked the crowd if they were stoning him for the good works he had done what was their responce?

[IncRus]

Perhaps you are not aware that Jesus is the savior whom everyone must believe in order to be saved. And there is no other name under heaven by which we are saved.

While there are probably millions of verses in the Bible other than John 8:40 and John 17:3, these TWO verses are Jesus' words that attest to his being a MAN and the Father's being the ONLY true God.

Unless Jesus himself declares directly that he is God, there is NO other verse in the whole Bible that can make Jesus God. And the Nicean Creed or any INTERPRETATION of ANY verse that seem to make Jesus God is garbage!

When Jesus asked the crowd if they were stoning him for the good works he had done what was their responce?

The Jews response? "For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a man, make yourself God" (John 10:33).

Is it true that Jesus, being a man, MADE himself God, thereby committing BLASPHEMY?

Jesus answered them: "do you say of him whom the Father SANCTIFIED and SENT into the world, "You are 'blaspheming,' BECAUSE I said, 'I am the Son of God?" (John 10:36).

Jesus did NOT make himself God. The Jews THOUGHT wrongly that when Jesus said, "I am the Son of God," he was making himself God, which is what BLASPHEMY is all about.

Jesus could NOT have been making himself God by saying "I am the Son of God" because he had said that "of himself he can do nothing" (John 5:19), "he Father is GREATER than he" (John 14:28), and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

[wonbyone]

Th

e Jews response? "For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a man, make yourself God" (John 10:33).

The NIV John 10:33 "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews,"but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
That proves your assertment that Jesus never claimed to be God a lie.
Why didn't Jesus rebuke Thomas for calling Him God in John 20:28?