My views compared with JW beliefs

[Bill the Cat]

I did this a while ago, so it is really crude. I wanted to post it for some creative criticism so I can refine my essay. When JW's come to my door, I can just sit down with them and have a go!! Thanks!!


Belief: Bible is God's Word and is truth
Scriptural Reason Given: 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; 2 Pet. 1:20, 21; John 17:17

I accept this belief.

Belief: Bible is more reliable than tradition
Scriptural Reason Given: Matt. 15:3; Col. 2:8

I accept this as well

Belief: God's name is Jehovah
Scriptural Reason Given: Ps. 83:18; Isa. 26:4; 42:8, AS; Ex. 6:3

I disagree with this to a certain degree. The JWs believe that Jehova is literally God’s name that He gave to Moses. However, if you will look at the text of Exodus from a literal translation, it says

Exo 3:14 And God saith unto Moses, `I AM THAT WHICH I AM;' He saith also, `Thus dost thou say to the sons of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.' (Young’s 1898 Literal Translation)

Exo 3:14 And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM; and He said, You shall say this to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you. (2000 Literal Translation of the Holy Bible published by Sovreign Grace Publishers)

The word used in the Hebrew text for the name of God is hvhy or the Tetragrammaton. According to a Rabbinic tradition the real pronunciation of Jehovah ceased to be used at the time of Simeon the Just, who was, according to Maimonides, a contemporary of Alexander the Great. At any rate, it appears that the name was no longer pronounced after the destruction of the Temple. The Hebrews call him Yahweh today. Jehovah is an English rendering of the 4 consonants in the Hebrew word. So technically, Jehovah is not His name, but this is mere semantics.

Belief: Christ is God's Son and is inferior to Him
Scriptural Reason Given: Matt. 3:17; John 8:42; 14:28; 20:17; 1 Cor. 11:3; 15:28

They had me up until the AND. Is Christ inferior to God? Let’s examine this in the scriptures.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Mar 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
Mar 2:6 But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
Mar 2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
Mar 2:10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins.

Joh 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

Isaiah prophesied that the Messiah would be called Immanuel, that is, God with us (Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:22-23).
Isaiah 35:4-6 shows that Jesus is God: "Behold, your God… he will come and save you." This passage goes on to say that when God comes the eyes of the blind would be opened, the ears of the deaf would be unstopped, the lame would leap, and the tongue of the dumb would speak. Jesus applied this passage of Scripture to Himself (Luke 7:22) and, of course, His ministry did produce all of these things.
Isaiah 40:3 declares that one would cry in the wilderness, "Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God." John the Baptist fulfilled this prophecy when he prepared the way for Jesus (Matthew 3:3); so Jesus is the LORD (Jehovah) and our God.
Micah 5:2 proves that the Messiah is God. "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah… out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
Thus the Old Testament clearly states that the Messiah and Savior to come would be God Himself.

According to Acts 20:28, the church was purchased with God's own blood, namely the blood of Jesus.
Paul described Jesus as "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13; NIV has "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ").
Peter described Him as "God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (II Peter 1:1; NIV and TAB both have "our God and Savior Jesus Christ").
Our bodies are the temples of God (I Corinthians 3:16-17), yet we know Christ dwells in our hearts (Ephesians 3:17).
The Book of Colossians strongly emphasizes the deity of Christ. "For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9; see also 1:19). According to these verses of Scripture, Jesus is not just a part of God, but all of God is resident in Him. If there were several persons in the Godhead, according to Colossians 2:9 they would all be resident in the bodily form of Jesus. We are complete in Him (Colossians 2:10). Whatever we need from God we can find in Jesus Christ alone.

It can be concluded that the New Testament testifies to the full deity of Jesus Christ

Belief: Christ was first of God's creations
Scriptural Reason Given: Col. 1:15; Rev. 3:14

Christ is God plain and simple. He was not created. See reference in above explanation. John the Beloved also explains it like this

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Joh 1:15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
Joh 1:16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
Joh 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.



Belief: Christ died on a stake, not a cross
Scriptural Reason Given: Gal. 3:13; Acts 5:30

The ISBE lists the word stauros, as "a cross," "the crucifixion" but lists skolops, "a stake," "a pole". The word most commonly used in the Greek is stauros. It goes further to say:

As an instrument of death the cross was detested by the Jews. "Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree" (Gal_3:13; compare Deu_21:23), hence, it became a stumbling-block to them, for how could one accursed of God be their Messiah? Nor was the cross differently considered by the Romans. "Let the very name of the cross be far away not only from the body of a Roman citizen, but even from his thoughts, his eyes, his ears" (Cicero Pro Rabirio 5). The earliest mode of crucifixion seems to have been by impalation, the transfixion of the body lengthwise and crosswise by sharpened stakes, a mode of death-punishment still well known among the Mongol race. The usual mode of crucifixion was familiar to the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, Persians and Babylonians (Thuc. 1, 110; Herod. iii.125, 159). Alexander the Great executed two thousand Tyrian captives in this way, after the fall of the city. The Jews received this form of punishment from the Syrians and Romans (Ant., XII, v, 4; XX, vi, 2; BJ, I, iv, 6). The Roman citizen was exempt from this form of death, it being considered the death of a slave (Cicero In Verrem i. 5, 66; Quint. viii.4). The punishment was meted out for such crimes as treason, desertion in the face of the enemy, robbery, piracy, assassination, sedition, etc. It continued in vogue in the Roman empire till the day of Constantine, when it was abolished as an insult to Christianity. Among the Romans crucifixion was preceded by scourging, undoubtedly to hasten impending death. The victim then bore his own cross, or at least the upright beam, to the place of execution. This in itself proves that the structure was less ponderous than is commonly supposed. When he was tied to the cross nothing further was done and he was left to die from starvation. If he was nailed to the cross, at least in Judea, a stupefying drink was given him to deaden the agony. The number of nails used seems to have been indeterminate. A tablet, on which the feet rested or on which the body was partly supported, seems to have been a part of the cross to keep the wounds from tearing through the transfixed members (Iren., Adv. haer., ii.42). The suffering of death by crucifixion was intense, especially in hot climates. Severe local inflammation, coupled with an insignificant bleeding of the jagged wounds, produced traumatic fever, which was aggravated the exposure to the heat of the sun, the strained of the body and insufferable thirst. The swelled about the rough nails and the torn lacerated tendons and nerves caused excruciating agony. The arteries of the head and stomach were surcharged with blood and a terrific throbbing headache ensued. The mind was confused and filled with anxiety and dread foreboding. The victim of crucifixion literally died a thousand deaths. Tetanus not rarely supervened and the rigors of the attending convulsions would tear at the wounds and add to the burden of pain, till at last the bodily forces were exhausted and the victim sank to unconsciousness and death. The sufferings were so frightful that "even among the raging passions of war pity was sometimes excited" (BJ, V, xi, 1). The length of this agony was wholly determined by the constitution of the victim, but death rarely ensued before thirty-six hours had elapsed. Instances are on record of victims of the cross who survived their terrible injuries when taken down from the cross after many hours of suspension (Josephus, Vita, 75). Death was sometimes hastened by breaking the legs of the victims and by a hard blow delivered under the armpit before crucifixion. Crura fracta was a well-known Roman term (Cicero Phil. xiii.12). The sudden death of Christ evidently was a matter of astonishment (Mar_15:44). The peculiar symptoms mentioned by John (Joh_19:34) would seem to point to a rupture of the heart, of which the Saviour died, independent of the cross itself, or perhaps hastened by its agony. (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Dying on a stake implies either impalement or being tied to a stake. Noah Websters 1898 Bible Dictionary states that impalement is “To thrust a stake up the fundament, and thus put to death; to put to death by fixing on a stake; a punishment formerly practiced in Rome, and still used in Turkey”. Infoplease.com lists it as “to pierce with a sharpened stake thrust up through the body, as for torture or punishment.” This would have broken the spine causing Death. But that is contrary to Scripture. “Joh 19:36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.” Being tied to the stake always ended in burning or being devoured by an animal, so it can’t apply.

For an accurate rebuttal of this belief from inside the JW camp, go to http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/jw/jrharp.htm
The following is an excerpt from that site

Has the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society always held that Jesus Christ was tortured on a stake? Apparently not!! There is a book by judge Rutherford called "The Harp of God" written in 1921 and published in 1928. Judge Rutherford was the President of the Watchtower Society, the voice of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and his word is beyond despute to any Jehovah's Witness. There is not one mention of a torture stake to be found in this book. It can only be taken that judge Rutherford, although denying many biblical truths and doctrines, did believe in the cross of Christ. This is also true of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society who supply the "preface" in the book.


Belief: Christ's human life was paid as a ransom for obedient humans
Scriptural Reason Given: Matt. 20:28; 1 Tim. 2:5, 6; 1 Pet. 2:24

They are partially right. This belief is a kind of exclusiveness. Christ’s life was given as a ransom for all men.

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

All we need to do is accept Him as our Lord and Saviour

Gal 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love

2Th 1:10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

Rom 3:28 Then we conclude a man to be justified by faith without works of Law.

Belief: Christ's one sacrifice was sufficient
Scriptural Reason Given: Rom. 6:10; Heb. 9:25-28

I agree with this one

Belief: Christ was raised from the dead as an immortal spirit person
Scriptural Reason Given: 1 Pet. 3:18; Rom. 6:9; Rev. 1:17, 18

This is kind of vague. If they mean as glorified or spirit, He was raised as neither.

Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Luk 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Belief: Christ's presence is in spirit
Scriptural Reason Given: John 14:19; Matt. 24:3; 2 Cor. 5:16; Ps. 110:1, 2

OK, I can see where this is going. Christ still has a body as shown above, but He is in Heaven. Now we can get into the trinity, but I don’t have space, so I’ll let it rest.

Belief: We are now in the 'time of the end'
Scriptural Reason Given: Matt. 24:3-14; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; Luke 17:26-30

Yep!!!

Belief: Kingdom under Christ will rule earth in righteousness and peace
Scriptural Reason Given: Isa. 9:6, 7; 11:1-5; Dan. 7:13, 14; Matt. 6:10

Not in the manner they think. JWs believe that the present Earth is where we’ll be for ever. Notice the text of Revelation and Isaiah

Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Isa 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Also, I was directed to this verse in 2 Peter
2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Now, the JWs believe it will be merely changed. The Hebrew word used in Isaiah for create is bara'. It is the same word used in Genesis 1:1

Belief: Kingdom will bring ideal living conditions to earth
Scriptural Reason Given: Ps. 72:1-4; Rev. 7:9, 10, 13-17; 21:3, 4

See above answer

Belief: Earth will never be destroyed or depopulated
Scriptural Reason Given: Eccl. 1:4; Isa. 45:18; Ps. 78:69

Once again see above, especially ref to 2 Pet 3:10

Belief: God will eliminate present system of things in the battle at Har-Magedon
Scriptural Reason Given: Rev. 16:14, 16; Zeph. 3:8; Dan. 2:44; Isa. 34:2; 55:10, 11

True. He will establish the Millennial Reign.

Belief: Wicked will be eternally destroyed
Scriptural Reason Given: Matt. 25:41-46; 2 Thess. 1:6-9

JW’s believe this refers to complete oblivion. But note the judgement in Rev.

Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Eternal torment not oblivion. See my debate on universal salvation where I touch on this a bit.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=276567

Belief: People God approves will receive everlasting life
Scriptural Reason Given: John 3:16; 10:27, 28; 17:3; Mark 10:29, 30

OK. I can accept that.

Belief: There is only one road to life
Scriptural Reason Given: Matt. 7:13, 14; Eph. 4:4, 5

True. It is not in people, denominations, or anything. That road is the Jesus Highway, The Messiah Way. The Lord Avenue, Prince of Peace Drive. Lamb Boulevard.

Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Belief: Human death is due to Adam's sin
Scriptural Reason Given: Rom. 5:12; 6:23

Agreed

Belief: The human soul ceases to exist at death
Scriptural Reason Given: Ezek. 18:4; Eccl. 9:10; Ps. 6:5; 146:4; John 11:11-14

Um….. no. Read below:

Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Belief: Hell is mankind's common grave
Scriptural Reason Given: Job 14:13, Dy; Rev. 20:13, 14, AV (margin)

Huh?

Psa 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.

Psa 86:13 For great is thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell.

Belief: Hope for dead is resurrection
Scriptural Reason Given: 1 Cor. 15:20-22; John 5:28, 29; 11:25, 26

OK. But I think it should be hope for the living is resurrection.

Belief: Adamic death will cease
Scriptural Reason Given: 1 Cor. 15:26, 54; Rev. 21:4; Isa. 25:8

Agreed

Belief: Only a little flock of 144,000 go to heaven and rule with Christ
Scriptural Reason Given: Luke 12:32; Rev. 14:1, 3; 1 Cor. 15:40-53; Rev. 5:9, 10

Uh, no.

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Rev 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
Rev 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Rev 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.

Belief: The 144,000 are born again as spiritual sons of God
Scriptural Reason Given: 1 Pet. 1:23; John 3:3; Rev. 7:3, 4

Once again partially correct

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Belief: New covenant is made with spiritual Israel
Scriptural Reason Given: Jer. 31:31; Heb. 8:10-13

Jesus is the new covenant. It was made on Calvary.

Belief: Christ's congregation is built upon himself
Scriptural Reason Given: Eph. 2:20; Isa. 28:16; Matt. 21:42

Yep.

Belief: Prayers are to be directed only to Jehovah through Christ
Scriptural Reason Given: John 14:6, 13, 14; 1 Tim. 2:5

Many have debated this one, so I won’t touch it. Once again I could go into the whole Trinity thing, but time does not permit.

Belief: Images should not be used in worship
Scriptural Reason Given: Ex. 20:4, 5; Lev. 26:1; 1 Cor. 10:14; Ps. 115:4-8

True

Belief: Spiritism must be shunned
Scriptural Reason Given: Deut. 18:10-12; Gal. 5:19-21; Lev. 19:31

Depends what you are talking about. The Spirit of the Lord is not to be shunned.

Belief: Satan is invisible ruler of world
Scriptural Reason Given: 1 John 5:19; 2 Cor. 4:4; John 12:31

For now!

Belief: A Christian ought to have no part in interfaith movements
Scriptural Reason Given: 2 Cor. 6:14-17; 11:13-15; Gal. 5:9; Deut. 7:1-5

Not sure I follow here. Do they mean interdenominational (Baptist, Pentecostal, Church of Christ) movements or interfaith (Muslim, Buddhist, Mormon, JW) movements?

Belief: A Christian should keep separate from world
Scriptural Reason Given: Jas. 4:4; 1 John 2:15; John 15:19; 17:16

This is a strangely worded belief. We are to be separate from the things of the world, not the people in the world. We are to be a light unto a darkened world.

Belief: Obey human laws that do not conflict with God's laws
Scriptural Reason Given: Matt. 22:20, 21; 1 Pet. 2:12; 4:15

OK


Belief: Taking blood into body through mouth or veins violates God's laws
Scriptural Reason Given: Gen. 9:3, 4; Lev. 17:14; Acts 15:28, 29

It never mentions through the veins. These passages are talking about things we eat. Please take verses in context.

Belief: Bible's laws on morals must be obeyed
Scriptural Reason Given: 1 Cor. 6:9, 10; Heb. 13:4; 1 Tim. 3:2; Prov. 5:1-23

But we are not slaves to the law. See Grace.

Belief: Sabbath observance was given only to Israel and ended with Mosaic Law
Scriptural Reason Given: Deut. 5:15; Ex. 31:13; Rom. 10:4; Gal. 4:9, 10; Col. 2:16, 17

Actually, Israel observed the Sabbath faithfully until the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Also, the Mosaic law was not “ended.” See this Verse from Jesus

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Belief: A clergy class and special titles are improper
Scriptural Reason Given: Matt. 23:8-12; 20:25-27; Job 32:21, 22

Then why did Paul write to Timothy about Deacons (a title)

1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Also, why did God say He would take to Himself priests and Levites. (Clergy class)

Isa 66:21 And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the LORD.

Belief: Man did not evolve but was created
Scriptural Reason Given: Isa. 45:12; Gen. 1:27; Matt. 19:4

That’s right

Belief: Christ set example that must be followed in serving God
Scriptural Reason Given: 1 Pet. 2:21; Heb. 10:7; John 4:34; 6:38

He is our prime example in everything.

Belief: Baptism by complete immersion symbolizes dedication
Scriptural Reason Given: Mark 1:9, 10; John 3:23; Acts 19:4, 5

This has been a great debate for 2 thousand years. I believe it is a part of sanctification and identifying yourself with Christ.

Belief: Christians gladly give public testimony to Scriptural truth
Scriptural Reason Given: Rom. 10:10; Heb. 13:15; Isa. 43:10-12

I agree, but this must be done carefully. We don’t want to sound like a know-it-all.

[Non-Trinitarian]

Today @ 09:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=343951#post343951)
Bill the Cat:

I did this a while ago, so it is really crude. I wanted to post it for some creative criticism so I can refine my essay. When JW's come to my door, I can just sit down with them and have a go!! Thanks!!
I am a JW and I will, overtime, address some of your differences. Some of them I will not because it's not a salvation issue.


Belief: God's name is Jehovah
Scriptural Reason Given: Ps. 83:18; Isa. 26:4; 42:8, AS; Ex. 6:3

I disagree with this to a certain degree. The JWs believe that Jehova is literally God’s name that He gave to Moses. However, if you will look at the text of Exodus from a literal translation, it says

Exo 3:14 And God saith unto Moses, `I AM THAT WHICH I AM;' He saith also, `Thus dost thou say to the sons of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.' (Young’s 1898 Literal Translation)

Exo 3:14 And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM; and He said, You shall say this to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you. (2000 Literal Translation of the Holy Bible published by Sovreign Grace Publishers)

The word used in the Hebrew text for the name of God is hvhy or the Tetragrammaton. According to a Rabbinic tradition the real pronunciation of Jehovah ceased to be used at the time of Simeon the Just, who was, according to Maimonides, a contemporary of Alexander the Great. At any rate, it appears that the name was no longer pronounced after the destruction of the Temple. The Hebrews call him Yahweh today. Jehovah is an English rendering of the 4 consonants in the Hebrew word. So technically, Jehovah is not His name, but this is mere semantics.


Actually, JW's DO NOT think God's name was literally "Jehovah". We know that no one knows how to pronounce the name. We use Jehovah because it is the most widely known usage. What's important is to recognize God has a name and use it, whether it's Yawheh, Jehovah or some other form that distinguishes the Person of God from other gods the pagans worshipped. It reminds me of Charleston Heston's movie about the 10 Commandments. One of the lines he says about Pharoah is this-"Then he (pharoah) will have to know that God is God." Such a phrase is pretty stupid. How much better to say Jehovah or Yahweh is God.

[yxboom]

Non-Trinitarian:
Actually, JW's DO NOT think God's name was literally "Jehovah". We know that no one knows how to pronounce the name. We use Jehovah because it is the most widely known usage. What's important is to recognize God has a name and use it, whether it's Yawheh, Jehovah or some other form that distinguishes the Person of God from other gods the pagans worshipped. It reminds me of Charleston Heston's movie about the 10 Commandments. One of the lines he says about Pharoah is this-"Then he (pharoah) will have to know that God is God." Such a phrase is pretty stupid. How much better to say Jehovah or Yahweh is God.

Reasonable enough.

[Non-Trinitarian]

Belief: Christ died on a stake, not a cross
Scriptural Reason Given: Gal. 3:13; Acts 5:30

The ISBE lists the word stauros, as "a cross," "the crucifixion" but lists skolops, "a stake," "a pole". The word most commonly used in the Greek is stauros. It goes further to say:

As an instrument of death the cross was detested by the Jews. "Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree" (Gal_3:13; compare Deu_21:23), hence, it became a stumbling-block to them, for how could one accursed of God be their Messiah? Nor was the cross differently considered by the Romans. "Let the very name of the cross be far away not only from the body of a Roman citizen, but even from his thoughts, his eyes, his ears" (Cicero Pro Rabirio 5). The earliest mode of crucifixion seems to have been by impalation, the transfixion of the body lengthwise and crosswise by sharpened stakes, a mode of death-punishment still well known among the Mongol race. The usual mode of crucifixion was familiar to the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, Persians and Babylonians (Thuc. 1, 110; Herod. iii.125, 159). Alexander the Great executed two thousand Tyrian captives in this way, after the fall of the city. The Jews received this form of punishment from the Syrians and Romans (Ant., XII, v, 4; XX, vi, 2; BJ, I, iv, 6). The Roman citizen was exempt from this form of death, it being considered the death of a slave (Cicero In Verrem i. 5, 66; Quint. viii.4). The punishment was meted out for such crimes as treason, desertion in the face of the enemy, robbery, piracy, assassination, sedition, etc. It continued in vogue in the Roman empire till the day of Constantine, when it was abolished as an insult to Christianity. Among the Romans crucifixion was preceded by scourging, undoubtedly to hasten impending death. The victim then bore his own cross, or at least the upright beam, to the place of execution. This in itself proves that the structure was less ponderous than is commonly supposed. When he was tied to the cross nothing further was done and he was left to die from starvation. If he was nailed to the cross, at least in Judea, a stupefying drink was given him to deaden the agony. The number of nails used seems to have been indeterminate. A tablet, on which the feet rested or on which the body was partly supported, seems to have been a part of the cross to keep the wounds from tearing through the transfixed members (Iren., Adv. haer., ii.42). The suffering of death by crucifixion was intense, especially in hot climates. Severe local inflammation, coupled with an insignificant bleeding of the jagged wounds, produced traumatic fever, which was aggravated the exposure to the heat of the sun, the strained of the body and insufferable thirst. The swelled about the rough nails and the torn lacerated tendons and nerves caused excruciating agony. The arteries of the head and stomach were surcharged with blood and a terrific throbbing headache ensued. The mind was confused and filled with anxiety and dread foreboding. The victim of crucifixion literally died a thousand deaths. Tetanus not rarely supervened and the rigors of the attending convulsions would tear at the wounds and add to the burden of pain, till at last the bodily forces were exhausted and the victim sank to unconsciousness and death. The sufferings were so frightful that "even among the raging passions of war pity was sometimes excited" (BJ, V, xi, 1). The length of this agony was wholly determined by the constitution of the victim, but death rarely ensued before thirty-six hours had elapsed. Instances are on record of victims of the cross who survived their terrible injuries when taken down from the cross after many hours of suspension (Josephus, Vita, 75). Death was sometimes hastened by breaking the legs of the victims and by a hard blow delivered under the armpit before crucifixion. Crura fracta was a well-known Roman term (Cicero Phil. xiii.12). The sudden death of Christ evidently was a matter of astonishment (Mar_15:44). The peculiar symptoms mentioned by John (Joh_19:34) would seem to point to a rupture of the heart, of which the Saviour died, independent of the cross itself, or perhaps hastened by its agony. (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

Dying on a stake implies either impalement or being tied to a stake. Noah Websters 1898 Bible Dictionary states that impalement is “To thrust a stake up the fundament, and thus put to death; to put to death by fixing on a stake; a punishment formerly practiced in Rome, and still used in Turkey”. Infoplease.com lists it as “to pierce with a sharpened stake thrust up through the body, as for torture or punishment.” This would have broken the spine causing Death. But that is contrary to Scripture. “Joh 19:36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.” Being tied to the stake always ended in burning or being devoured by an animal, so it can’t apply.

For an accurate rebuttal of this belief from inside the JW camp, go to http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/jw/jrharp.htm
The following is an excerpt from that site

Has the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society always held that Jesus Christ was tortured on a stake? Apparently not!! There is a book by judge Rutherford called "The Harp of God" written in 1921 and published in 1928. Judge Rutherford was the President of the Watchtower Society, the voice of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and his word is beyond despute to any Jehovah's Witness. There is not one mention of a torture stake to be found in this book. It can only be taken that judge Rutherford, although denying many biblical truths and doctrines, did believe in the cross of Christ. This is also true of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society who supply the "preface" in the book.


I am not going to make much of this because it doesn't matter whether Jesus died on a two beamed cross or a one-beam stake. JW's used to believe he died on a cross but I think after examining the meaning of the greek term and maybe reading what some other scholars said, they concluded that it was a single beam, not a cross.

More importantly is that we do not idolize a piece of wood or plastic because of its shape. Idolatry is idolatry and putting two beams at 90 degree from each other does not all of a sudden make idolatry ok. Now I know many people will say they don't worship the cross but being in other religions for many years, my experience has been the opposite. A number of my preachers would turn around in church and face the cross whenever they said a prayer. I was taught to kneel in front of the cross when I prayed as a child and many people hold onto the cross when they pray. To me, if anything borders on idolatry, this is does. I think JW's are just concerned that the cross is not of Christian origin and a pagan symbol. It certainly was not a "christian" symbol as early Christians refused to depict the object of the Lord's Passion because of the OT prohibition of idolatry. So JW's are, in my opinion, taking a 'better safe than sorry' stance on this.

[Non-Trinitarian]

Belief: Christ's human life was paid as a ransom for obedient humans
Scriptural Reason Given: Matt. 20:28; 1 Tim. 2:5, 6; 1 Pet. 2:24

They are partially right. This belief is a kind of exclusiveness. Christ’s life was given as a ransom for all men.

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

All we need to do is accept Him as our Lord and Saviour

Gal 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love

2Th 1:10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

Rom 3:28 Then we conclude a man to be justified by faith without works of Law.


Not sure if we're getting hung-up on semantics on this one. JW's believe, and let me stress this, that we CANNOT EARN our salvation. It is by faith alone. We simply believe that IF you have TRUE faith, you will display it by works. We are not universalists and while we believe that ALL men can benefit from Jesus' sacrifice, they have to have a strong love and faith in God. "And this is what the love of God means, that we obey his commandments."-1 John 5:3. Note that I am not saying that the actual obeying of the commandments is what save us. I am saying that the obeying of the commandments is what identifies our love of God. It identifies our faith. Thus, in order to benefit from Jesus' sacrifice, we have to have true faith. And true faith produces works and makes us obedient. I see many people get hung-up on semantics with us on this issue but most agree that faith without works is dead. That's all JW's are saying.

[dizzle]

Is idolatry worshipping anything other than God?

[Jedidiah]

Non-Trinitarian,

What's important is to recognize God has a name and use it, whether it's Yawheh, Jehovah or some other form that distinguishes the Person of God from other gods the pagans worshipped.

Since there is only one God it is pointless to insist that we use "His" name. Why would the only God need a name to distinguish Himself from nothing? Also you did not address the "I AM THAT WHICH I AM" point. If He is saying I am the God who IS then it becomes pointless to insist on that as a name. There are no others to name besides Him.

beeman

[Bill the Cat]

Non-Trin, thanks for helping me with my article. In my 2 1/2 years of studying the Mormons, I have come to find that it's better to ask questions of the person you are investigating than just going to former members' web sites or counter-cult ministries exclusively. I try to build a framework from both sides and discuss from there. It is much better this way IMHO.


Yesterday @ 05:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=344068#post344068)
Non-Trinitarian:


I am a JW and I will, overtime, address some of your differences. Some of them I will not because it's not a salvation issue.



Actually, JW's DO NOT think God's name was literally "Jehovah". We know that no one knows how to pronounce the name. We use Jehovah because it is the most widely known usage. What's important is to recognize God has a name and use it, whether it's Yawheh, Jehovah or some other form that distinguishes the Person of God from other gods the pagans worshipped. It reminds me of Charleston Heston's movie about the 10 Commandments. One of the lines he says about Pharoah is this-"Then he (pharoah) will have to know that God is God." Such a phrase is pretty stupid. How much better to say Jehovah or Yahweh is God.

Well, the belief and scriptural justification are copied directly from the Watchtower's web site of beliefs. That's what I have to go on. There was no evidence at all on the page that this was debated and the 2 JW's I know agreed that His name was absolutely Jehovah, and nothing else.

Yesterday @ 05:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=344096#post344096)
Non-Trinitarian:



I am not going to make much of this because it doesn't matter whether Jesus died on a two beamed cross or a one-beam stake. JW's used to believe he died on a cross but I think after examining the meaning of the greek term and maybe reading what some other scholars said, they concluded that it was a single beam, not a cross.

More importantly is that we do not idolize a piece of wood or plastic because of its shape. Idolatry is idolatry and putting two beams at 90 degree from each other does not all of a sudden make idolatry ok. Now I know many people will say they don't worship the cross but being in other religions for many years, my experience has been the opposite. A number of my preachers would turn around in church and face the cross whenever they said a prayer. I was taught to kneel in front of the cross when I prayed as a child and many people hold onto the cross when they pray. To me, if anything borders on idolatry, this is does. I think JW's are just concerned that the cross is not of Christian origin and a pagan symbol. It certainly was not a "christian" symbol as early Christians refused to depict the object of the Lord's Passion because of the OT prohibition of idolatry. So JW's are, in my opinion, taking a 'better safe than sorry' stance on this.

If it matters so little, then why include it in the core beliefs? While it's true that it really does not matter what shape it was, to make a direct bold statement either way is to misunderstand the cross and it's significance. We as Christians look to the cross the way we look at a picture on the wall. It's the same as we look at the bread and cup of Communion..."Do this in remembrance of Me" Now bowing down to it, using it to pray to God, etc, IMO is flirting too much with idolatry. But to wear it as a symbol, as I do, is not idolatry. It simply lets those I never talk to know who and what I am.

[Non-Trinitarian]

Today @ 06:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=345291#post345291)
beeman:

Non-Trinitarian,



Since there is only one God it is pointless to insist that we use "His" name. Why would the only God need a name to distinguish Himself from nothing? Also you did not address the "I AM THAT WHICH I AM" point. If He is saying I am the God who IS then it becomes pointless to insist on that as a name. There are no others to name besides Him.

beeman


At this point I am not going to begin going in deep on these issues because I am giving an overall review of Bill's views of us. However, the personal name of God appears nearly 7,000 times in the Bible. Apparently the Israelites didn't see things your way. I find it odd that people bash us for using God's Name where God used His name. If He felt it was important to have it put in the Bible thousands of times, why do you insist on not using it? Your explanation above is not scriptural. Now whether it should be in the NT is a more detailed discussion but personally, shame on all of those Bible translations that eliminate it from the OT. I prefer the NWT and the New Jerusalem Bible since they include God's name in the OT.

[Bill the Cat]

Yesterday @ 05:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=344134#post344134)
Non-Trinitarian:



Not sure if we're getting hung-up on semantics on this one. JW's believe, and let me stress this, that we CANNOT EARN our salvation. It is by faith alone. We simply believe that IF you have TRUE faith, you will display it by works. We are not universalists and while we believe that ALL men can benefit from Jesus' sacrifice, they have to have a strong love and faith in God. "And this is what the love of God means, that we obey his commandments."-1 John 5:3. Note that I am not saying that the actual obeying of the commandments is what save us. I am saying that the obeying of the commandments is what identifies our love of God. It identifies our faith. Thus, in order to benefit from Jesus' sacrifice, we have to have true faith. And true faith produces works and makes us obedient. I see many people get hung-up on semantics with us on this issue but most agree that faith without works is dead. That's all JW's are saying.

I agree with what you said, and I think it is semantics too. A Calvinist would disagree with me on this. It seems to be a statement that could have been worded better. It seems to imply Limited Atonement, like Christ died only for the elect, and not for all.

[Non-Trinitarian]

Belief: Christ was raised from the dead as an immortal spirit person Scriptural Reason Given: 1 Pet. 3:18; Rom. 6:9; Rev. 1:17, 18

This is kind of vague. If they mean as glorified or spirit, He was raised as neither.

Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Luk 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.


-We believe Jesus was raised a spirit person and that he does not have a fleshly body in heaven. Jesus did manifest himself in a fleshly body when appearing to his apostles but it appears he manifested himself in different bodies on different occasions, often to the extent that people did not even recognize him. The best write-up I’ve seen for a physical body was by NT Wright in his “The Resurrection of the Son of God” book but after reading it
I feel comfortable believing Jesus is a spirit being, just as God is.


Belief: Kingdom under Christ will rule earth in righteousness and peace Scriptural Reason Given: Isa. 9:6, 7; 11:1-5; Dan. 7:13, 14; Matt. 6:10

Not in the manner they think. JWs believe that the present Earth is where we ’ll be for ever. Notice the text of Revelation and Isaiah

Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Isa 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Also, I was directed to this verse in 2 Peter
2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Now, the JWs believe it will be merely changed. The Hebrew word used in Isaiah for create is bara'. It is the same word used in Genesis 1:1


-If your disagreement is on whether it will be a new earth as in new soil, rock, etc., or a new society of people, we don’t need to make too much of an issue of this. Yes, we do believe God’s original purpose for the earth will be fulfilled as a Paradise. One reason we believe it will still be this earth is because Peter
likens the future destruction of this earth to the days of Noah. But it wasn ’t the earth that was destroyed (this is the same earth), it was the wicked people. Also, we believe the ‘new heavens and new earth’ prophecies in Isaiah have already been fulfilled on this earth. We understand the new earth to be a new righteous society of people. So if we both agree we will be living on earth in a paradise, at least we have that hope in common.


Belief: There is only one road to life
Scriptural Reason Given: Matt. 7:13, 14; Eph. 4:4, 5

True. It is not in people, denominations, or anything. That road is the Jesus Highway, The Messiah Way. The Lord Avenue, Prince of Peace Drive. Lamb Boulevard.

Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.


We believe there is only one true congregation that God works through. The scriptures show the early Churches were all connected together and doctrinal decisions were passed along by a governing body of older men. (See Acts 15 on the circumcision issue)


Belief: The human soul ceases to exist at death
Scriptural Reason Given: Ezek. 18:4; Eccl. 9:10; Ps. 6:5; 146:4; John
11:11-14

Um….. no. Read below:

Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.


Of course, we don’t believe the writer of Eccl was contradicting himself between 9:5,19 and 12:7. What does he mean by “spirit”. Eccl 3:19 says we have the same spirit as animals. The spirit is the breath of life that exist in both man and animals and keeps us alive. Note that we don’t think this breath of life floats back to God. We understand this to mean the prospect of future life lies with God. It’s His spirit, not ours.


Belief: Hell is mankind's common grave
Scriptural Reason Given: Job 14:13, Dy; Rev. 20:13, 14, AV (margin)

Huh?

Psa 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.

Psa 86:13 For great is thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell.


These two verses do not contradict the belief that hell is the common grave of mankind. The wicked shall be thrown into the grave and God had delivered David out of the grave, prematurely. That is, David is in his grave now (not in heaven-see Acts 2:34) but God spared him from a premature death attempt by his enemies. I’ve heard people today say that God saved them from death, etc. This doesn’t mean the person thinks he will never die.


Belief: Only a little flock of 144,000 go to heaven and rule with Christ
Scriptural Reason Given: Luke 12:32; Rev. 14:1, 3; 1 Cor. 15:40-53; Rev.
5:9, 10

Uh, no.

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in
their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Rev 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
Rev 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Rev 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.


I am before God’s throne right now. I don’t have to be in heaven to be before the throne. (Heb 12:22) We can learn where the Great Crowd is by comparing Rev 7:15-17 and Rev 21:2-6 where these things happen on the Earth.


Belief: A Christian ought to have no part in interfaith movements
Scriptural Reason Given: 2 Cor. 6:14-17; 11:13-15; Gal. 5:9; Deut. 7:1-5

Not sure I follow here. Do they mean interdenominational (Baptist,
Pentecostal, Church of Christ) movements or interfaith (Muslim, Buddhist, Mormon, JW) movements?


Christians should not have interfaith movements with false religion. We believe all the religions you mentioned are false (accept the JW’s of course!)


Belief: A Christian should keep separate from world
Scriptural Reason Given: Jas. 4:4; 1 John 2:15; John 15:19; 17:16

This is a strangely worded belief. We are to be separate from the things of the world, not the people in the world. We are to be a light unto a darkened world.


We agree. JW’s obviously are not separate from the people of the world. Note John 17:14-18. We are separate from the world (no part of it as in its attitudes, desires, etc) but at the same time we are in the world and Jesus sent us into the world to preach.


Belief: Taking blood into body through mouth or veins violates God's laws Scriptural Reason Given: Gen. 9:3, 4; Lev. 17:14; Acts 15:28, 29

It never mentions through the veins. These passages are talking about things we eat. Please take verses in context.


Since taking something into veins back then was unheard of, it’s quite impossible for them to forbid it. There is no qualifier at Acts as in not eat or drink, it just said abstain from it. In the same way, there was no qualifier for fornication (as in homosexuality, beastiality, etc.) IN other words, there is no acceptable way to fornicate. There is no acceptable way to take blood into our bodies. If the Bible said to abstain from alcohol, (which it doesn’t), we would not say it was okay as long as we inject it in our veins through a needle. I think people get upset about this because it’s a medical issue. But if it was non-medical, say blood transfusions didn’t exist, but if taking it through mouth or veins made us have blue eyes, people would probably point to this verse and say we shouldn’t do that. Again, JW’s take abstain to mean just that. Others attempt to put qualifiers on it. Who’s right? Obviously each one of us thinks he is so each have to make their own decision.


Belief: Bible's laws on morals must be obeyed
Scriptural Reason Given: 1 Cor. 6:9, 10; Heb. 13:4; 1 Tim. 3:2; Prov. 5:1-23

But we are not slaves to the law. See Grace.


“DO NOT BE MISLED, NEITHER FORNICATORS, NOR IDOLATORS, …WILL INHERIT GOD’S
KINGDOM.” -1 Cor 6:9,10 Grace does not give us a free pass to do whatever we want. Who was it that said not to use God’s underserved kindness as an excuse for loose conduct? Not sure what you mean by “slaves to law”. When Paul said it he was referring to the Mosaic law. We are slaves to Christ and
must live like it. Don’t fool yourself into thinking you can do whatever you want.


Belief: Sabbath observance was given only to Israel and ended with Mosaic Law Scriptural Reason Given: Deut. 5:15; Ex. 31:13; Rom. 10:4; Gal. 4:9, 10;
Col. 2:16, 17

Actually, Israel observed the Sabbath faithfully until the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Also, the Mosaic law was not “ended.” See this Verse from Jesus

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.


The scriptures supporting that statement DO say the Mosaic law was abolished when Christ was nailed. Jesus fulfilled the law when he died. It was then made obsolete and yet, obsolete as it is, Jesus still fulfilled it. Also, we know the Jews kept the sabbath, when we say the Sabbath ended with the law, we are referencing God’s people (Spiritual Israel, the church)


Belief: A clergy class and special titles are improper
Scriptural Reason Given: Matt. 23:8-12; 20:25-27; Job 32:21, 22

Then why did Paul write to Timothy about Deacons (a title)

1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Also, why did God say He would take to Himself priests and Levites. (Clergy class)

Isa 66:21 And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the LORD.


We do have positions in the congregation as “elder” and “ministerial servant” but we don’t call each other “elder so and so.” The term describes a position, not a title. Elders are not paid, do not have their own parking spots or wear special clothing. They are fellow workers no more loyal or no more full of spirit than anyone else can be.


Belief: Christians gladly give public testimony to Scriptural truth
Scriptural Reason Given: Rom. 10:10; Heb. 13:15; Isa. 43:10-12

I agree, but this must be done carefully. We don’t want to sound like a know-it-all.


Agreed. I appreciate your demeanor thus far, Bill.

[Non-Trinitarian]

Yesterday @ 11:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=344435#post344435)
Dee Dee Warren:

Is idolatry worshipping anything other than God?

Depends on how you use the word "worship" but in general I would say yes. People worshipped (offered proskyneo) to both King David and Jehovah but I would not say they were committing idolatry. Same with the worship Jesus said some of his followers would receive. These ones were/are God's representatives. A piece of wood is not, in my opinion.

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 08:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=345725#post345725)
Non-Trinitarian:



-We believe Jesus was raised a spirit person and that he does not have a fleshly body in heaven. Jesus did manifest himself in a fleshly body when appearing to his apostles but it appears he manifested himself in different bodies on different occasions, often to the extent that people did not even recognize him. The best write-up I’ve seen for a physical body was by NT Wright in his “The Resurrection of the Son of God” book but after reading it
I feel comfortable believing Jesus is a spirit being, just as God is.

OK, so the raising up was at the ascension, not the resurrection then? That makes more sense. I can appreciate that view although I have never given it too much study.



-If your disagreement is on whether it will be a new earth as in new soil, rock, etc., or a new society of people, we don’t need to make too much of an issue of this. Yes, we do believe God’s original purpose for the earth will be fulfilled as a Paradise. One reason we believe it will still be this earth is because Peter likens the future destruction of this earth to the days of Noah. But it wasn ’t the earth that was destroyed (this is the same earth), it was the wicked people. Also, we believe the ‘new heavens and new earth’ prophecies in Isaiah have already been fulfilled on this earth. We understand the new earth to be a new righteous society of people. So if we both agree we will be living on earth in a paradise, at least we have that hope in common.

I'l have to disagree with you about the "new Heavens and New Earth" belief, but the rest is acceptable.


We believe there is only one true congregation that God works through. The scriptures show the early Churches were all connected together and doctrinal decisions were passed along by a governing body of older men. (See Acts 15 on the circumcision issue)

The Body is composed of many members as Paul said. How this is divvied up is for Jesus to know

Of course, we don’t believe the writer of Eccl was contradicting himself between 9:5,19 and 12:7. What does he mean by “spirit”. Eccl 3:19 says we have the same spirit as animals. The spirit is the breath of life that exist in both man and animals and keeps us alive. Note that we don’t think this breath of life floats back to God. We understand this to mean the prospect of future life lies with God. It’s His spirit, not ours.

Ecc 3:19 says breath. Do you distinguish between soul and spirit? If so, can you define them?

These two verses do not contradict the belief that hell is the common grave of mankind. The wicked shall be thrown into the grave and God had delivered David out of the grave, prematurely. That is, David is in his grave now (not in heaven-see Acts 2:34) but God spared him from a premature death attempt by his enemies. I’ve heard people today say that God saved them from death, etc. This doesn’t mean the person thinks he will never die.

Hell has no hold on New Testament believers. Abraham's Bosom is no longer the abode of the Old Testament saints either. Jesus took then into Heaven with Him That's why there are, in Rev, saints there prior to the resurrection.
Rev 6
9 When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained;
10 and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"
11 And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also.



I am before God’s throne right now. I don’t have to be in heaven to be before the throne. (Heb 12:22) We can learn where the Great Crowd is by comparing Rev 7:15-17 and Rev 21:2-6 where these things happen on the Earth.

I think you miss this one. Those before the throne described in Rev 7:15-17 are the same who were in Rev 6:9-11. OK, gotta develop this a bit...
Rev 4
1 After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven, and the first voice which I had heard, like the sound of a trumpet speaking with me, said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after these things."
2 Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne was standing in heaven, and One sitting on the throne.
3 And He who was sitting was like a jasper stone and a sardius in appearance; and there was a rainbow around the throne, like an emerald in appearance.
4 Around the throne were twenty-four thrones; and upon the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white garments, and golden crowns on their heads.

6 and before the throne there was something like a sea of glass, like crystal; and in the center and around the throne, four living creatures full of eyes in front and behind.

OK, John's in Heaven and sees there the throne of God, the elders, and the living creatures...
Rev 5
6 And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth.
7 And He came and took the book out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne.
8 When He had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.


OK, I think we both can agree that the Lamb is Christ. He takes the book while in Heaven. He does not return to Earth at this time.
Rev 6
1 Then I saw when the Lamb broke one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures saying as with a voice of thunder, "Come."
2 I looked, and behold, a white horse, and he who sat on it had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer.


John is still in Heaven where the seals are being broken by evidence of the presence of the living creatures

9 When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained;


So these souls under the altar are in heaven because John is still in heaven with the Lamb breaking the seals.


Christians should not have interfaith movements with false religion. We believe all the religions you mentioned are false (accept the JW’s of course!)

OK, it was worded a bit strange and I wanted clarification. Thanks.


We agree. JW’s obviously are not separate from the people of the world. Note John 17:14-18. We are separate from the world (no part of it as in its attitudes, desires, etc) but at the same time we are in the world and Jesus sent us into the world to preach.

Agreed.



Since taking something into veins back then was unheard of, it’s quite impossible for them to forbid it. There is no qualifier at Acts as in not eat or drink, it just said abstain from it. In the same way, there was no qualifier for fornication (as in homosexuality, beastiality, etc.) IN other words, there is no acceptable way to fornicate. There is no acceptable way to take blood into our bodies. If the Bible said to abstain from alcohol, (which it doesn’t), we would not say it was okay as long as we inject it in our veins through a needle. I think people get upset about this because it’s a medical issue. But if it was non-medical, say blood transfusions didn’t exist, but if taking it through mouth or veins made us have blue eyes, people would probably point to this verse and say we shouldn’t do that. Again, JW’s take abstain to mean just that. Others attempt to put qualifiers on it. Who’s right? Obviously each one of us thinks he is so each have to make their own decision.

If you will notice in Acts, Peter is told that nothing God made makes us unclean. JW's cling to this part of the OT law while ignoring the prohibitions of mixing fibers in garments(Lev 19:19), eating shellfish(Lev 11:9), and trimming the beard(Lev 19:27)

This also ignores transubstantiation(?) For Jesus said "This is my blood. Take and drink."


“DO NOT BE MISLED, NEITHER FORNICATORS, NOR IDOLATORS, …WILL INHERIT GOD’S
KINGDOM.” -1 Cor 6:9,10 Grace does not give us a free pass to do whatever we want. Who was it that said not to use God’s underserved kindness as an excuse for loose conduct? Not sure what you mean by “slaves to law”. When Paul said it he was referring to the Mosaic law. We are slaves to Christ and
must live like it. Don’t fool yourself into thinking you can do whatever you want.


Agreed. True faith will naturally produce good works.


The scriptures supporting that statement DO say the Mosaic law was abolished when Christ was nailed. Jesus fulfilled the law when he died. It was then made obsolete and yet, obsolete as it is, Jesus still fulfilled it. Also, we know the Jews kept the sabbath, when we say the Sabbath ended with the law, we are referencing God’s people (Spiritual Israel, the church)


But keeping the Sabbath is not wrong. Paul said

16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day--

and
Romans 14
5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.


So if someone chooses to celebrate the Sabbath, it's not forbiddden. It did not end, but it was no longer an absolute requirement.


We do have positions in the congregation as “elder” and “ministerial servant” but we don’t call each other “elder so and so.” The term describes a position, not a title. Elders are not paid, do not have their own parking spots or wear special clothing. They are fellow workers no more loyal or no more full of spirit than anyone else can be.


Yeah, the elders' robes are kind of funny to me. We really have no way of knowing what the early church called their leaders.


Agreed. I appreciate your demeanor thus far, Bill.

See my first reply to you. It makes for much better dialogue.

[Non-Trinitarian]

In regards to my response to your question regarding the Divine name, you stateed

Today @ 01:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=345708#post345708)
Bill the Cat:
Well, the belief and scriptural justification are copied directly from the Watchtower's web site of beliefs. That's what I have to go on. There was no evidence at all on the page that this was debated and the 2 JW's I know agreed that His name was absolutely Jehovah, and nothing else.

The page you looked at was not an indepth discussion. Here is a link on that same website that discusses it in more detail:
http://www.watchtower.org/library/na/article_02.htm

In regards to the cross, you state,

If it matters so little, then why include it in the core beliefs? While it's true that it really does not matter what shape it was, to make a direct bold statement either way is to misunderstand the cross and it's significance. We as Christians look to the cross the way we look at a picture on the wall. It's the same as we look at the bread and cup of Communion..."Do this in remembrance of Me" Now bowing down to it, using it to pray to God, etc, IMO is flirting too much with idolatry. But to wear it as a symbol, as I do, is not idolatry. It simply lets those I never talk to know who and what I am.

I apologize if I gave the impression that it did not matter to us. It does matter. We believe it is a pagan symbol used in false worship long before Jesus came to the earth. Also, it's a fact that early christians refused to depict the cross because they considered it idolatry. (I can provide sources if you want but perhaps not in this particular forum) We are simply trying to imitate the early christians

[Non-Trinitarian]

Ecc 3:19 says breath. Do you distinguish between soul and spirit? If so, can you define them?

I believe the Hebrew word at Eccl 3:19 is the same word at 12:7. Your Bible may not translate it that way but it's the same word if I remember.


Hell has no hold on New Testament believers. Abraham's Bosom is no longer the abode of the Old Testament saints either. Jesus took then into Heaven with Him That's why there are, in Rev, saints there prior to the resurrection.
Rev 6
9 When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained;
10 and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"
11 And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also.



This should be a different thread else this is going to explode into a million topics. In brief, David is not in heaven (Acts 2:34) and Revelation is highly symbolic.



I think you miss this one. Those before the throne described in Rev 7:15-17 are the same who were in Rev 6:9-11. OK, gotta develop this a bit...

And you did a good job of developing it but in short, we don't believe the Great Crowd is the same group as the Rev 6. And we believe Rev 7 and Rev 21 are parallels that show they are on the earth, whether it's a new earth or this one.


If you will notice in Acts, Peter is told that nothing God made makes us unclean. JW's cling to this part of the OT law while ignoring the prohibitions of mixing fibers in garments(Lev 19:19), eating shellfish(Lev 11:9), and trimming the beard(Lev 19:27)

This also ignores transubstantiation(?) For Jesus said "This is my blood. Take and drink."

Actually, it doesn't come from the OT Law, though it does mention it. The command was first given to Noah long before the OT Law. Additionally, it was re-stated to Christians TWICE in the NT in the book of Acts. And we do not believe the wine actually turns into blood.


But keeping the Sabbath is not wrong. Paul said

16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day--

and
Romans 14
5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.


So if someone chooses to celebrate the Sabbath, it's not forbiddden. It did not end, but it was no longer an absolute requirement.

Didn't mean to imply it was wrong to keep the Sabaath. We just recognize that we don't have to keep it.

[Jedidiah]

Non-Trinitarian,

At this point I am not going to begin going in deep on these issues because I am giving an overall review of Bill's views of us.

Deep? You did not address the two questions I asked in even a shallow manner.

What is the name of God? Is it a name or a desription?

I have no problem using either Jehovah or Yaweh, I use both. But, I do not make it into some sort of requirement. I also use it in the same way when I call Him the 'One True God', or the 'God who really is.'

beeman

[Lazy Agnostic]

I call him Mr Big&Tall.

LA, this forum is generally for discussion between theists with the exception of special allowances by moderation. Thank you. -AV

[dizzle]

OK, so the raising up was at the ascension, not the resurrection then? That makes more sense. I can appreciate that view although I have never given it too much study.



Sorry Bill, it makes no sense at all.

Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.


That reduces all else to rubble.

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 06:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=348461#post348461)
Dee Dee Warren:



Sorry Bill, it makes no sense at all.

Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.


That reduces all else to rubble.

So Dee Dee, is there evidence that Jesus still has a physical body the same way now, while He's in Heaven, as when Thomas touched Him? I really haven't given it too much thought...(Bill needs a smilie rubbing chin in a hmmmm like manner)

[Non-Trinitarian]

Yesterday @ 11:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=347777#post347777)
beeman:

Non-Trinitarian,



Deep? You did not address the two questions I asked in even a shallow manner.

What is the name of God? Is it a name or a desription?

I have no problem using either Jehovah or Yaweh, I use both. But, I do not make it into some sort of requirement. I also use it in the same way when I call Him the 'One True God', or the 'God who really is.'

beeman


Ex 3:14 is not God's name. The Israelites didn't go around calling God the "I AM", they referred to Him as Jehovah nearly 7,000 in the OT. Moses asked God the question of who he should say sent him. Jehovah was telling him that they will see shortly who sent Moses after God displays His powerful works. In other words, "I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be" (a more accurate translation of the term) was a statement that in a short while God will offer PROOF of who sent Moses. God then, in the VERY NEXT VERSE, tells Moses that his name is Jehovah. You have to understand that the answer to Moses' question isn't just contained in verse 14, it's contained in verse 15 too! Don't think verse 14 is the answer to Moses' question and stop reading, that’s cutting God’s reply off in midstream. The full answer is contained in verse 15.

“Then God said once more to Moses:
“This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.” -Ex 3:15

Here are a few more of thousands of verses showing God’s name is Jehovah.

“And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God Almighty, but as respects my name Jehovah I did not make myself known to them”-Ex 6:3

“That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.”-Ps 83:18

“And in that day you will certainly say: “Give thanks to Jehovah, you people! Call upon his name. Make known among the peoples his dealings. Make mention that his name is put on high.” -Is 12:4

“For from the sun’s rising even to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place sacrificial smoke will be made, a presentation will be made to my name, even a clean gift; because my name will be great among the nations,” Jehovah of armies has said.”-Malachi 1:11

“ ‘And I shall certainly sanctify my great name, which was being profaned among the nations, which you profaned in the midst of them; and the nations will have to know that I am Jehovah,’ is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, ‘when I am sanctified among you before their eyes.” -Ex 36:23

God’s name is a name, though it is a description as well. The name means “He causes to become” but that doesn’t mean it’s not His name. Nearly every name in the OT means something but it’s still the person’s name. I’m not sure why the reluctance to use God’s name but your reason for it not being important is your opinion and is nowhere expressed in scripture. At the end of the day, no matter how many reasonings and theories you come up with, the final toll is in black and white in God’s Word, thousands of times. The Jews also knew there was only one God and yet they used God’s name constantly. In fact, “Jehovah” appears in scripture more than “God.” So you tell me how important it is.

[Non-Trinitarian]

Bill, I am going to address one argument at a time, starting with the NT. Now granted, these arguments will probably not convince you or many others. We would think too highly of ourselves as to think we can convince everyone of anything. Even Jesus couldn’t do that while he was on Earth and he performed miracles. So, I will address your argument and you can respond. I may respond back if you have a good counter-argument or I may just acknowledge your response and leave it for others to decide which one they agree with. If we get into a 4 page debate on EACH scripture it will be a jumbled mess. So let’s view this as an opportunity to express each side and let others decide what to believe.

My approach will be in this manner: Each scripture will be considered on its own unless it absolutely necessary to cross-reference. In other words, I reject an argument that says ‘John 1:1 means Jesus is “God” because Jesus was worshipped, forgave sins, raised the dead, was called God by ten different people, etc., etc., etc.’ That’s asking me to answer 50 arguments in one. What this means is that we will not be able to prove Jesus is God by John 1:1 alone. Nor can I prove that John 1:1 is not calling Jesus God in one swipe. We can both present our arguments based on that scripture but recognize that many more lie ahead. At the end of the day will we be able to surmise our final argument.

However, some arguments may require a cross-reference scripture. I am certain John 8:58 will show up with Ex 3:14 or an Isaiah passage. That’s okay because it is necessary for your argument.

How does this format sound to you? I propose this method because I have been observing debates and discussions and they become ridiculous, full of attacks and spend 6 pages on one scripture. People need to recognize that after they have made their point, they need to move one. Agreed? Or do you propose a different method?

[AVmetro]

Bill the Cat:

So Dee Dee, is there evidence that Jesus still has a physical body the same way now, while He's in Heaven, as when Thomas touched Him? I really haven't given it too much thought...(Bill needs a smilie rubbing chin in a hmmmm like manner)

1Tim 2:5.

-AV

[AVmetro]

Non-Trinitarian:

Bill, I am going to address one argument at a time, starting with the NT. Now granted, these arguments will probably not convince you or many others. We would think too highly of ourselves as to think we can convince everyone of anything. Even Jesus couldn’t do that while he was on Earth and he performed miracles. So, I will address your argument and you can respond. I may respond back if you have a good counter-argument or I may just acknowledge your response and leave it for others to decide which one they agree with. If we get into a 4 page debate on EACH scripture it will be a jumbled mess. So let’s view this as an opportunity to express each side and let others decide what to believe.

My approach will be in this manner: Each scripture will be considered on its own unless it absolutely necessary to cross-reference. In other words, I reject an argument that says ‘John 1:1 means Jesus is “God” because Jesus was worshipped, forgave sins, raised the dead, was called God by ten different people, etc., etc., etc.’ That’s asking me to answer 50 arguments in one. What this means is that we will not be able to prove Jesus is God by John 1:1 alone. Nor can I prove that John 1:1 is not calling Jesus God in one swipe. We can both present our arguments based on that scripture but recognize that many more lie ahead. At the end of the day will we be able to surmise our final argument.

However, some arguments may require a cross-reference scripture. I am certain John 8:58 will show up with Ex 3:14 or an Isaiah passage. That’s okay because it is necessary for your argument.

How does this format sound to you? I propose this method because I have been observing debates and discussions and they become ridiculous, full of attacks and spend 6 pages on one scripture. People need to recognize that after they have made their point, they need to move one. Agreed? Or do you propose a different method?

If you decide to discuss a topic that is not unique to the WTBTS, you need to start the thread in 'Christology 101'. That is the place where, for example, Jn1:1 as it relates to the {true} deity of Christ would be the most appropriate. However, if you're going to discuss verses surrounding the issue of the "144K", it would be perfectly appropriate in this forum.

God bless--AV

[Bill the Cat]

Non-Trin... here's that thread. It's dedicated for you and me, so no interruptions or distractions, ok?

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15883

[Non-Trinitarian]

Today @ 02:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=352636#post352636)
Bill the Cat:

Non-Trin... here's that thread. It's dedicated for you and me, so no interruptions or distractions, ok?

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15883

Okay. I will be unavailable after today until next Monday.

[Busheses]

Gosh, I need to come around this area more often. This is a very interesting conversation. BTW, this is my input if I may:

What would be the point of anybody having a name if we are not to be called by our name? There is only one God and therefore there is no need to say his name when talking to him directly, since He knows we are talking to Him and Him only, however, it is important that we ensure that we know and worship his name as the bible tells us to do so. It is also important that our children, neighbors and anybody that we come in contact with know that we worship Jehovah or otherwise they could asume that we worship Zeus, or whoever.

Regarding idolatry, I do not see any problem with anybody having a cross, a statue, or carved image of anything else if it is an expression of art and it is meant as a display of our appreciation toward art. However in no way it should be a display of our beliefs or the God we worship. Jehovah made it crear that we should not worship anybody or anything else other than Him and our obligation is to obey this command. Same goes for jewelery or anything else that we wear on us or anything around our homes, workspaces, etc. We have the word of Jehovah God and that should be more than enough for people to know exactly who we worship and why.

[Non-Trinitarian]

Bill,
Was I supposed to start in the Tennis court or am I waiting on you?

Thanks
N-T

[Bill the Cat]

You can start with where you were and what got you looking at non-trinitarianism. Sorry I didn't make that more clear :metro:

[Tara]

I did this a while ago, so it is really crude. I wanted to post it for some creative criticism so I can refine my essay. When JW's come to my door, I can just sit down with them and have a go!! Thanks!!

Belief: Christ's one sacrifice was sufficient
Scriptural Reason Given: Rom. 6:10; Heb. 9:25-28

I agree with this oneAfter reading your entire case, I can't help but wonder why you are not focusing your passion for Christ towards other people that are much more lost than JW's. In spite of all the 'trivial' matters, their hearts are in the right place and they do witness to the righteous as well as the unrighteous, who are we to judge when it comes to the disputable matters of the bible?

Mark 9:40-41

For whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.

[twohumble]

After reading your entire case, I can't help but wonder why you are not focusing your passion for Christ towards other people that are much more lost than JW's. In spite of all the 'trivial' matters, their hearts are in the right place and they do witness to the righteous as well as the unrighteous, who are we to judge when it comes to the disputable matters of the bible?

Mark 9:40-41

For whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.
Tara

Let me explain the 3 types of heresy that lead to eternal separation by their very nature.
1. A misconception and incorrect teaching on the nature of man.
2. A misconception and incorrect teaching on the nature and person of God.
3. A misconception and incorrect teaching on the relationship of God with man.

All false religions fall into one, or more, of these catagories. In the JW's case, they clearly fall into #2. To deny Christ is the only unforgivable sin. It is a doctrine from Satan himself. Its funny how the Muslims, LDS, and JW's all claim heretical views regarding Jesus. As CS Lewis so aptly put it in Screwtape Letters, the deception of the demons may not be to dissuade us from being "good, or religious", but lead us to a false teaching that in the end makes the one unrecoverable mistake: Denying Christ.

[NonTrinitarian]

Tara

Let me explain the 3 types of heresy that lead to eternal separation by their very nature.
1. A misconception and incorrect teaching on the nature of man.
2. A misconception and incorrect teaching on the nature and person of God.
3. A misconception and incorrect teaching on the relationship of God with man.

All false religions fall into one, or more, of these catagories. In the JW's case, they clearly fall into #2. To deny Christ is the only unforgivable sin. It is a doctrine from Satan himself. Its funny how the Muslims, LDS, and JW's all claim heretical views regarding Jesus. As CS Lewis so aptly put it in Screwtape Letters, the deception of the demons may not be to dissuade us from being "good, or religious", but lead us to a false teaching that in the end makes the one unrecoverable mistake: Denying Christ.
Denying Christ is very wrong. JW's don't do that. We are in full line with scripture:


1 John 4
15If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God

[Tara]

Tara

Let me explain the 3 types of heresy that lead to eternal separation by their very nature.
1. A misconception and incorrect teaching on the nature of man.
2. A misconception and incorrect teaching on the nature and person of God.
3. A misconception and incorrect teaching on the relationship of God with man.

All false religions fall into one, or more, of these catagories. In the JW's case, they clearly fall into #2. To deny Christ is the only unforgivable sin. It is a doctrine from Satan himself. Its funny how the Muslims, LDS, and JW's all claim heretical views regarding Jesus. As CS Lewis so aptly put it in Screwtape Letters, the deception of the demons may not be to dissuade us from being "good, or religious", but lead us to a false teaching that in the end makes the one unrecoverable mistake: Denying Christ.
To me, it's funny how most Christians forget the actual teachings of Christ, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength and to love your neighbor as yourself. Or where He teaches not to judge because the same measure will be used to judge you. I visit with JW's all the time, they know God very well and they do not deny Christ - I will never be a JW or a Baptist or a Methodist for that matter, Colossians 2:20 asks since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to it's rules...These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings.

There is only ONE church and only ONE Christ and only through Him do we become closer to God. All denominations boil down to the teachings/leadings of one or more group of HUMANS. So by your above standards all Christian churches are false religions....

[twohumble]

To me, it's funny how most Christians forget the actual teachings of Christ, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength and to love your neighbor as yourself. Or where He teaches not to judge because the same measure will be used to judge you. I visit with JW's all the time, they know God very well and they do not deny Christ - I will never be a JW or a Baptist or a Methodist for that matter, Colossians 2:20 asks since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to it's rules...These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings.

There is only ONE church and only ONE Christ and only through Him do we become closer to God. All denominations boil down to the teachings/leadings of one or more group of HUMANS. So by your above standards all Christian churches are false religions....
Sorry Tara, I had not marked this thread so I didn't see your response. I hope you get mine.

I never like to use the 'never, always, all, none' terms. However, I agree that all of mans religions are but our attempt to know God. The only True religion is the Holy Scripture God has provided. Certainly I could be wrong, but I bet my whole existence I am not. To deny the nature of Christ, denies not only God Himself, but also the sacrafice of the only One who can provide a complete enough offering to count for ALL of our sins. No "angel" or substitute for God will do. To relegate Christ to a role of 'substitute' is to miss the entire nature of who He is. If a JW is reading this, he will disagree, and thats ok, but Tara, as a Christian, you and I may disagree on a whole bunch of stuff, but the nature of who and what Jesus is, is not one of them. To deny Christ in nature is to deny the Father. It is the one sin (denying God) that is not atoned for if left alone. We must acknowledge Christ as or "LORD" and savior, and no one is our Lord save God Himself. No substitute is going to judge our sin, or forgive our sin. Only God Himself. Do not miss the Gospel, or be deceived by the "morality" of the cults. They seem nice, and righteous, even coming close to the mark, but don't forget, many are on the broad path, the True path is narrow.

God Bless, and no disrpect to those who disagree, I understand any JW's will not agree, but then again, they think WE are on the broad path.

[Tara]

Sorry Tara, I had not marked this thread so I didn't see your response. I hope you get mine.

I never like to use the 'never, always, all, none' terms. However, I agree that all of mans religions are but our attempt to know God. The only True religion is the Holy Scripture God has provided. Certainly I could be wrong, but I bet my whole existence I am not. To deny the nature of Christ, denies not only God Himself, but also the sacrafice of the only One who can provide a complete enough offering to count for ALL of our sins. No "angel" or substitute for God will do. To relegate Christ to a role of 'substitute' is to miss the entire nature of who He is. If a JW is reading this, he will disagree, and thats ok, but Tara, as a Christian, you and I may disagree on a whole bunch of stuff, but the nature of who and what Jesus is, is not one of them. To deny Christ in nature is to deny the Father. It is the one sin (denying God) that is not atoned for if left alone. We must acknowledge Christ as or "LORD" and savior, and no one is our Lord save God Himself. No substitute is going to judge our sin, or forgive our sin. Only God Himself. Do not miss the Gospel, or be deceived by the "morality" of the cults. They seem nice, and righteous, even coming close to the mark, but don't forget, many are on the broad path, the True path is narrow.

God Bless, and no disrpect to those who disagree, I understand any JW's will not agree, but then again, they think WE are on the broad path.I guess that's the part that stumps me....JW's don't deny Christ. Jesus said any man that's not against me is for me and in John 14:21 it says "Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and SHOW MYSELF TO HIM."

So according to the scriptures that you and I believe in - WHOEVER obeys the commands of Christ, which is to love God and your neighbor, will be loved by the Father and the Son and eventually the true nature of Jesus will be shown to them. So rather than being critical of other's beliefs - - shouldn't a true Christian instead encourage them, even if some of their concepts aren't in line with their own denominational beliefs?? Isn't this the true nature of Jesus?

[twohumble]

I guess that's the part that stumps me....JW's don't deny Christ. Jesus said any man that's not against me is for me and in John 14:21 it says "Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and SHOW MYSELF TO HIM."

So according to the scriptures that you and I believe in - WHOEVER obeys the commands of Christ, which is to love God and your neighbor, will be loved by the Father and the Son and eventually the true nature of Jesus will be shown to them. So rather than being critical of other's beliefs - - shouldn't a true Christian instead encourage them, even if some of their concepts aren't in line with their own denominational beliefs?? Isn't this the true nature of Jesus?
Tara, you are missing the point if you think they don't deny Him. Read the Nicene Creed, or any of the creeds for that matter. As orthodox Christians we hold that no one other than the One True God, is sufficient to provide for our sins. No one other than God can pay the dept. The nature of God is a triune being in our belief. In this belief, to deny Christs nature as the second person of the Trinity, is to deny God Himself.

In regard to obeying laws: no one obeys laws well enough, or completely enough. We are accorded our righteousness by our faith, not by the law. The deception of evil is not always colored in uglyness. Sometimes its a simple misdirection of the nature of what we think God is. To lead people into a "moral law" abiding life, seems to be a 'good' thing. To be sure, it is not bad in and of itself. The problem is that it totally distracts the followers from the principle issue that we are saved by the Grace of our Lord and Savior, and denying Christ's deity is in fact a HUGE heresy. I would love to encourage anyone to believe and accept Christ for Who and What He is, but I won't encourage belief in a system that sounds morally good, only to lead people down the wrong path.

[NonTrinitarian]

Tara, you are missing the point if you think they don't deny Him. Read the Nicene Creed, or any of the creeds for that matter. Or Tara, you could simply read the bible-
"If anyone confesses Jesus Christ as the Son of God, God remains in union with him."- 1 John 4:15
I confess this.

"This means eternal life, their knowing you, The Only True God, and the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." John 17:3

Jesus said his Father is the only true God and separates himself from the only true God, saying he was sent by the only true God. So by Jesus' own words he is not the only true God, his Father is.

Creeds or Bible? You decide. But you are right in one very important matter I want to commend you on. Jesus said 'By their fruits you will recognize them.' Doctrine can be confusing to people but fruitage is there for all to see.

TwoHumble is a Presbyterian I believe. His religion, along with most others, won't give a second thought to killing members of their own religion who live in another country if we went to war with that country. Sound like Christians to you?

[bar Jonah]

Bill, just a side note but it seems to me the title of the thread is a misnomer.

We shouldn't give a rat's tuchis whether one person's views on scripture contradict the JWs. As you so astutely addressed in your initial thread, the issue is how scripture contradicts the JWs. And it does, in spades.

My God is the God of Jeremiah 23:5-6. YHWH says the name of the messiah is YHWH. What can be more clear? In Hebrews 1, the Father God speaks to the Son (Jesus) and says, "Your throne, o God, will last forever and ever." What can be more clear?

I do agree with Non-Trin about one thing, tho. Many of these issues are not worth debating. Go for the jugular. Go for the rock-bottom issues.

Jesus is God, the Son. He is the Angel of the Lord and the Commander of the Armies of the Lord in the OT. He appeared before not only Moses in bodily form but before 72 elders of the Israelites in the wilderness, in bodily form. He is God. And yet.... no one has seen the Father, according to Jesus. The OT says the messiah is God. In Hebrews, the Father says that the Son is God.

The gospel of salvation is by grace through faith apart from works. No ifs, ands or buts. Paul says that if anyone, including an angel or even himself, comes bringing a different gospel than the one he brought (of salvation by faith only, not of works), then such a person should be considered anathema! Rejected, cast out of the body, not one to have fellowship with as a fellow believer. Such a person is "accursed." Paul is repeatedly emphatic that the Mystery of the Gospel of the Gentiles is one of justification by faith only. There is absolutely no getting around this.


Stick to the critical issues and do not waste time on secondary (much less tertiary) stuff.


You know I love ya, Bill!

:cheers: Dispy Pride! :highfive:

[bar Jonah]

Oh, and TwoHumble, Non-Trin is right about one other thing.

Creeds and confessions have no place in this discussion. I am absolutely on your side about the Trinity and the full deity of Christ! But the words of mere, fallible men are not evidence for absolute truth! Far as I'm concerned, they have value historically and for describing a person's own views in a concise way, but when it comes to looking for evidence of what is true or not, they are as worthless as garbage.

God's word is the evidence that the Watchtower is wrong, wrong, wrong.

[Tara]

Tara, you are missing the point if you think they don't deny Him. Read the Nicene Creed, or any of the creeds for that matter. As orthodox Christians we hold that no one other than the One True God, is sufficient to provide for our sins. No one other than God can pay the dept. The nature of God is a triune being in our belief. In this belief, to deny Christs nature as the second person of the Trinity, is to deny God Himself.

In regard to obeying laws: no one obeys laws well enough, or completely enough. We are accorded our righteousness by our faith, not by the law. The deception of evil is not always colored in uglyness. Sometimes its a simple misdirection of the nature of what we think God is. To lead people into a "moral law" abiding life, seems to be a 'good' thing. To be sure, it is not bad in and of itself. The problem is that it totally distracts the followers from the principle issue that we are saved by the Grace of our Lord and Savior, and denying Christ's deity is in fact a HUGE heresy. I would love to encourage anyone to believe and accept Christ for Who and What He is, but I won't encourage belief in a system that sounds morally good, only to lead people down the wrong path.
I no longer judge people by their denominations, Jesus never judged the Samaritans or the Jews, I prefer to live by His example. As I said before I actually 'talk' to JW's not simply judge them on the bias of their beliefs. They are kind, gentle, loving, tolerant and very peaceful....maybe your personal one-on-one experiences with them have been different. They talk to me about Christ, they believe He was the son of God and they believe in only one God. So based on just those facts I feel as a Christian I am responsible for upholding the commandments of Christ - - in my bible, I don't remember Jesus offering any if's, and's, or but's. Of course every person's salvation is up to them, in 1 John its very clear that anyone who does not love remains in death.....why take a chance? I don't hold to creeds and doctrines I live by Christ. You speak of obeying laws.... but I am not sure if you are refering to the Laws of Christ or the self-made laws of man. The laws I get from my interpretation of the gospels are not in line at all with what you've stated above. Where is the Nicene creed from....who wrote it??? I don't remember reading it anywhere in the old or new testament.....do you have any scripture references to back it up???

Not that I am doubting you but maybe that would be a stronger argument in my eyes seeing as how I don't hold to creeds or doctrines. Every day of our lives we have an opportunity to serve God...if we are too busy judging others then that opportunity whizzes right past our closed eyes and ears and one day when we face our own judgment, I sure don't want God to say, why didn't you talk to those sweet women I sent to your door....didn't you know they needed to hear the truth?

[twohumble]

I no longer judge people by their denominations, Jesus never judged the Samaritans or the Jews, I prefer to live by His example.
Tara, Jesus was the 1st to point out doctrinal mistakes to the ruling class leaders, and teachers of the law. I don't judge anyones potential to be a citizen of Heaven...thats Gods job. But we are called to judge behavior,and told to test all things according to scripture. This response is NOT for 'nontrinitarians', I am strictly talking to Tara, and any other trinitarian. The point is Christ is your savior, and you accept Him for who, and What He is, and that is the second person of the trinity, and NOT some angelic substitute, as the JW's claim. To deny Him in this manner is PURE blasphemy, and a classic heresy that is classic of EVERY cult, including Islam, Mormons, and the JW's. Each one denies Christs diety, and His nature. Now, I am all for loving the JW's, and sharing the Gospel with them, praying for them, and being charitable to them. But, to think for one minute that you do them a favor by NOT judging their doctrine is a BIG mistake for a Christian to make. Remember John's warnings about being led astray by fancy teachngs?
I too prefer to live by His example, and pointing out errors in the way people see and understand God is one of them.

As I said before I actually 'talk' to JW's not simply judge them on the bias of their beliefs. They are kind, gentle, loving, tolerant and very peaceful....maybe your personal one-on-one experiences with them have been different.
Tara, I have had 3 work for me, and one still does, and has for 13 years. I have engaged her and her kingdom hall leaders in many many discussions, all of which are kind and without divisiveness. I don't judge them as people, only their heresy from the Watchtower.


they believe He was the son of God and they believe in only one God.
Let me make this plain... THEY DENY CHRISTS DEITY, AND THE TRINITY I don't know how much simpler that can be. They deny the very nature of your God. Certainly they believe in a god, and say Jesus is His son. But this in the THE GOD, not YOUR God. Certainly I know the JW's disagree, and thats ok, this is not about them at the moment, but a discussion with another trinitarian.


I don't hold to creeds and doctrines I live by Christ. You speak of obeying laws.... but I am not sure if you are refering to the Laws of Christ or the self-made laws of man. The laws I get from my interpretation of the gospels are not in line at all with what you've stated above.
Really Tara? What laws that you hold are NOT inline with what I said?



Where is the Nicene creed from....who wrote it??? I don't remember reading it anywhere in the old or new testament.....do you have any scripture references to back it up???
go here

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/indexf.html

You will see the position statement with reference numbers above them, and click any reference number for scriptural references. You will find each opinion sufficiently backed up by scriptural references.
On the left hand side of the page, you will find "Historical documents" and "Creeds", you will find the history of them, and the scriptural references to back them up.
If you go through the Westminster Confession, you can read each heading, and I suggest you read the one on the Trinity.

if we are too busy judging others then that opportunity whizzes right past our closed eyes and ears and one day when we face our own judgment, I sure don't want God to say, why didn't you talk to those sweet women I sent to your door....didn't you know they needed to hear the truth?

I AGREE!!! Thats why its SO necessary to explain to the JW"s why they have MISSED the boat regarding Jesus. They are under the deception of the evil one, and their Watchtower has become his pawn to blind their followers with nice theory that leads them on the wrong path!! It IS your job to tell the sweet lady thats a member of that group that its blasphemy to deny Christ as the incarnate God of Abraham, the One who provides the only sufficient sacrafice for our sins, and is from the very substance of God Himself!!! DON"T LET THEM MISS THIS BOAT TARA, Love them enough to tell them who Christ REALLY IS!!!!

[bar Jonah]

If you are under the mistaken notion that Christians are not to judge, I strongly encourage you to visit a thread I just created, just for people of such a view, which can be found here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30931).


The JWs are not another Christian "denomination." They deny Christ. The Mormons deny Christ. The Unification Church denies Christ. These are not Christians we are talking about, here. This is not some little flap about infant baptism or the exact nature of the Imago Dei.

[Tara]

Tara, Jesus was the 1st to point out doctrinal mistakes to the ruling class leaders, and teachers of the law. I don't judge anyones potential to be a citizen of Heaven...thats Gods job. But we are called to judge behavior,and told to test all things according to scripture. This response is NOT for 'nontrinitarians', I am strictly talking to Tara, and any other trinitarian. The point is Christ is your savior, and you accept Him for who, and What He is, and that is the second person of the trinity, and NOT some angelic substitute, as the JW's claim. To deny Him in this manner is PURE blasphemy, and a classic heresy that is classic of EVERY cult, including Islam, Mormons, and the JW's. Each one denies Christs diety, and His nature. Now, I am all for loving the JW's, and sharing the Gospel with them, praying for them, and being charitable to them. But, to think for one minute that you do them a favor by NOT judging their doctrine is a BIG mistake for a Christian to make. Remember John's warnings about being led astray by fancy teachngs?
I too prefer to live by His example, and pointing out errors in the way people see and understand God is one of them.

Let me make this plain... THEY DENY CHRISTS DEITY, AND THE TRINITY I don't know how much simpler that can be. They deny the very nature of your God. Certainly they believe in a god, and say Jesus is His son. But this in the THE GOD, not YOUR God. Certainly I know the JW's disagree, and thats ok, this is not about them at the moment, but a discussion with another trinitarian.

DON"T LET THEM MISS THIS BOAT TARA, Love them enough to tell them who Christ REALLY IS!!!!
I understand your point of view....all I am saying is you are ineffective in the way in which you try to express (change) it. Being a Christian means not only believing in Christ but doing things the way in which He did them. Jesus constantly talked of lost sheep and tares among the wheat....have you ever really thought about what this meant? Lost sheep are everywhere, they are hiding in various religions...Buddhism, Hinduism, Paganism - - but Jesus said you will know them by their fruit. If you cut down every tree, the fruit dies with it.

I guess my question for you is have you picked apart your own doctrines? Jesus said to pluck the plank from your own eye before worrying about the speck in somebody elses, can you defend every single part of your faith without a shadow of a doubt? We as individuals, professing to be Christians, will be judged by the same measure in which we judge others. So if there is anything in your own beliefs that is not completly in-line with the TRUTH, you will be judged for that (because you choose to judge others for theirs)

Last I heard there was only one God....do you honestly believe that their God is different? I read over the site you recommended and I didn't see any scripture to support the concept of the Trinity as you (and others) seem to understand it. It just amazes me that normal people can sit so righteously and claim that they have the nature of the relationship between the Father, Son & Holy Ghost all figured out. Whoever believes that (trinitarians, non-trinitarians, JW's, etc.) I would imagine is in for a rude awakening come Judgment day. In the bible, Jesus teaches us how to get to heaven (through Him), He lived in order to show us how to live and He died to show us what we should be willing to die for. Jesus Christ did NOT live and die to be worshipped - - he NEVER asked to be worshipped ANYWHERE in the scriptures, all things He did on earth were for God the Father.

I am honestly not trying to be confrontational here - - I just don't see any valid points with scriptural support. Jesus was the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE, define those words and think about the WAY He showed us how to do things, the TRUTH He taught us and the LIFE He promised us through His blood and then compare the way you feel about the beliefs of the JW's to how you think Jesus would feel towards them....

[bar Jonah]

Jesus is not to be worshipped? Where did you learn this heresy?

Jesus is God/YHWH/Creator ....... John 1:1, Hebrews 1, Jer. 23:5-6

God is to be worshipped. This is a no-brainer, so surely we have no disagreement there.

So, how can you possibly argue that Jesus is not to be worshipped??? Anyone that denies this simply is not within the realm of Christianity.

Jesus is the Lord, and He rose from the dead. One cannot compromise on these doctrines and yet rightly claim to be a Christian.

Tara, I don't know where you get your teaching from, but it sounds like you're not getting it from God's word...

[NonTrinitarian]

Jesus is not to be worshipped? Where did you learn this heresy?

Jesus is God/YHWH/Creator ....... John 1:1, Hebrews 1, Jer. 23:5-6

God is to be worshipped. This is a no-brainer, so surely we have no disagreement there.

So, how can you possibly argue that Jesus is not to be worshipped??? Anyone that denies this simply is not within the realm of Christianity.

I actually started a thread on whether or not Jesus was worshipped in this forum. Maybe you will be able to answer it better than the rest have thus far.

[mickiel]

One could consider what Jesus meant when he said "in vain do they worship me". Well he could only have been refering to believers in him, who actually worship him, albeit , in vain, or uselessness. These he spoke of were obedient, serious followers of him, but he rejected their worship of him. Because they worshipped him under the influence of the traditional thought process of religous men who think they understand God and truth. Men who were more influenced by their own self interpitation, than whats plainly written in scripture. So the belief that worship of Christ can be vain, is supported by Christ himself.

Still, I understand the desire to worship Christ. He certainly derserves it. But Tara is correct, he ever tried to influence humans to worship him, only his Father. Men worship themselves, so the worship of Christ is nothing new. Once Jesus role and reality is properly understood, and seen in Gods eyes-- through the human, then one can begin to know how to relate their adoration towards Christ. That is the proper order of Things, we should view Christ, as God does. God does not worship his son, he adores him, loves him. So should we.

[NonTrinitarian]

One could consider what Jesus meant when he said "in vain do they worship me". Well he could only have been refering to believers in him, who actually worship him, albeit , in vain, or uselessness. These he spoke of were obedient, serious followers of him, but he rejected their worship of him. It’s a misreading of the text to think Jesus was saying these people were worshipping him.

"Isaiah aptly prophesied about you [the wicked religious leaders who were trying to kill Jesus] when he said, "This people honors me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines."-Matt 15:7-9

When Jesus said "me" he wasn’t referring to himself, he was simply quoting Isaiah’s words. Technically, Jesus’ words at Matt 15:9 could be understood as if Isaiah were saying the people were worshipping him [Isaiah]! But since we know no one was worshipping Isaiah we clearly understand Isaiah was writing about someone else. The verse Jesus was alluding to is Isaiah 29:13 and the speaker in that verse is Jehovah. So Jesus was simply quoting Isaiah’s words of which were applied to Jehovah.

How do we know Jesus wasn’t saying that these people were worshipping him (Jesus) in vain? It’s quite obvious from the text. These religious leaders Jesus was speaking to were certainly NOT trying to worship Jesus, not even in a vain way. They thought Jesus was a fraud and a demon possessed man. And it’s obvious that they didn’t understand Jesus as meaning himself when he said "me" because if they did think he was saying that they were trying to worship him they would have no doubt replied, ‘Are you nuts? What in the world made you think we were trying to worship you?’

It’s obvious both from the fact that Jesus was simply quoting Isaiah’s words of Jehovah and the reaction of the people to whom Jesus was speaking to that no one understood Jesus as saying these religious leaders were worshipping Jesus in vain or even trying to worship him at all. So no, Jesus wasn't "refering to believers in him, who actually worship him, albeit , in vain, or uselessness" and these people he was applying Isaiah's prophecy to were not "obedient, serious followers of him." Understanding that is a key in realizing Jesus wasn't referring to himself when he quoted Isaiah's prophecy.

[bar Jonah]

Non-Trin, are we to worship YHWH?

[NonTrinitarian]

Non-Trin, are we to worship YHWH?
Yes, and only him. Now give me those verses you think show Jesus is YHWH.

[bar Jonah]

"Behold, the days are coming," says the LORD,
"That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness;
A King shall reign and prosper,
And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth.
In His days Judah will be saved,
And Israel will dwell safely;
Now this is His name by which He will be called:
THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

The "LORD" here in both cases is YHWH. So, the verse actually reads:

"Behold, the days are coming," says YHWH,
"That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness;
A King shall reign and prosper,
And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth.
In His days Judah will be saved,
And Israel will dwell safely;
Now this is His name by which He will be called:
YHWH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.


YHWH says the name of the Branch of David, the Branch of Righteousness -- the messiah -- is YHWH. Yes, Him and only Him.


Now, you do various gymnastics to explain how that's not what YHWH was really saying. :popcorn:

[NonTrinitarian]

"Behold, the days are coming," says the LORD,
"That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness;
A King shall reign and prosper,
And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth.
In His days Judah will be saved,
And Israel will dwell safely;
Now this is His name by which He will be called:
THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

The "LORD" here in both cases is YHWH. So, the verse actually reads:

"Behold, the days are coming," says YHWH,
"That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness;
A King shall reign and prosper,
And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth.
In His days Judah will be saved,
And Israel will dwell safely;
Now this is His name by which He will be called:
YHWH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.


YHWH says the name of the Branch of David, the Branch of Righteousness -- the messiah -- is YHWH. Yes, Him and only Him.


Now, you do various gymnastics to explain how that's not what YHWH was really saying. :popcorn:This is too funny. You wear that verse out like nothing else, don’t ya? We already had this discussion and you just left without notice. Sure, you continued posting in the thread but you never answered my last reply. Here’s our discussion on Jer 23 and how little support you have for your view.

You originally wrote me:

Non-Trin... if you are a witness of Jehovah, then why are you unaware that the name of the messiah is Jehovah, as it says in Jeremiah 23:5-6? (This has been demonstrated a number of times here at TW in the past. But you are new, so I understand you weren't around at the time.)

This is a messianic prophecy in which Jehovah says that the name of the Branch of David, the Branch of Righteousness, is Jehovah, our righteousness.

YHWH is the messiah. Jesus Christ is the messiah.

Jesus Christ is YHWH. To which I replied:



What made you think I was unaware of that? I just know that such doesn't mean he IS Jehovah. The Messiah is also called Immanuel (God with us) but that doesn't mean he is God. Particulary since a person in Isaiah's day was also called Immanuel and he obviously wasn't Jehovah. AV is right that other names also include Jehovah in them.

Also, note that it doesn't say the Messiah IS Jehovah, or even called Jehovah. He is called "Jehovah is our Righteousness". I understand what point AV is trying to make about the comma but it seems pretty obvious that it is one title "Jehovah is our Righteousness". And is translated as such in every Bible I know.

Furthermore, the city of Jerusalem is also called "Jehovah is our Righteousness" at Jeremiah 33:16. I went and searched TWeb for other discussions on this and apparently even some Trinitarians don't agree with you. I saw your argument about how Jerusalem is not what is referenced in Jer 33:16 but I'd say it appears most Bible translations disagree with you. I do believe Jerusalem is what is given that title too. So with a city given the same title, your argument is not convincing to me. And with other servants of God given titles with God's name in them, this appears to be more of the same.

Now, I predict you'll come back and say it is patently obvious that Jerusalem is not what is being referred to in Jer 33 and that all of these translators are wrong. You'll probably even point out that the pronoun does not really appear in the Hebrew, as if that will buttress your case. But take note:

Nearly every Bible I have seems to reference Jerusalem. And it appears even a number of Trinitarians do not agree with you on this. So I will have to weigh
1.) RightIdea vs nearly every Bible translation there is
2.) RightIdea's interpretation vs a number of Trinitarians who disagree with him

As you can imagine, this argument is not very powerful to me though you have appeared to bring it up several times, thinking it's the 'kill all scripture' against non-trinitarians. And even if Jerusalem was not called this title, if other humans can be called "Jehovah is He", "God has come" and "God with us", I think it's okay for the Messiah to be called "Jehovah is our Righteousness." Sorry, I'm not convinced by your argument from this verse. Too many people and scholars against you, most of whom also believe in the Trinity. So if they don't see things your way, do you really think I should, especially when I don't believe in the Trinity? To which you replied:



Non-Trin, if you are "unaware" of the 1611 King James and the New King James Bible, I am astounded. :lol:

Not to mention the NIV!

Not to mention the New American Standard (NASB)!

Not to mention the American Standard Version (ASV)!

Darby translates it this way, too! "nearly every Bible translation there is," indeed! :lol::lmbo::lol:

Heck, even "The Complete Jewish Bible" translates it as "Adonai, our righteousness" since they wish to preserve the sacredness of the explicit YHWH name!

I never said Emmanuel was proof that Jesus is God, so don't even try to pull that straw man, here. I'm aware other men were named Emmanuel. But show me another man in the Bible whose name us YHWH!

It uses His name (HaShem) earlier in the same passage!

YHWH says the name of the messiah is YHWH, our righteousness.


And really, Non-Trin... I double-dog-dare you to "look us in the eye" and honestly say that you are "unaware" of the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB and RSV translations of the Bible! http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/customsmilies/3720.gif


As for Jeremiah 33, you have a real problem, there. :lol:My own pastor was concerned about this exact issue, until I pointed out what I'm about to tell you. If you'd searched those other threads, you would have seen me point out that the Hebrew text, sans vowels, says the exact same thing at the end of both passages! The only difference is the vowels that distinguish between "his" and "her." My friend Jeff who works in a Messianic Jewish ministry here in Denver looked at the Hebrew text and confirmed this for me, a couple years ago.

And who added the vowels? The Massoretic scholars who added the vowels to the Hebrew language many centuries ago. Jewish scholars who opposed any Christian interpretation of the Bible, and who (according to Jewish friends of mine who have studied the Massoretes), were as a group biased against messianic prophecy in general, even within Judaism!

That leaves you with having to look at the context of each passage to see if there is some real contextual reason to say "her" instead of "he" in Jeremiah 33. There is no such context.

So, your only authority for the Jer. 33 passage saying that Jerusalem's name will be YHWH .... is a bunch of anti-Christian scholars who don't like messianic prophecy in general. What a great source of authority from which to argue Christian doctrine. http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/customsmilies/3729.gif

(Just what are these "nearly all translations" you are aware of, anyway??? Since you've never heard of the ones I listed above!) To which I replied

I think you’re arguing against something I never said. Actually, I’m not even sure what you’re arguing about. Let me restate my arguments a little clearer and you can focus on them instead of concentrating so much on the little smiley faces. I had several arguments so I’ll number them for you.

Jeremiah doesn’t call the Messiah "Jehovah". He is called by the title "Jehovah our Righteousness". There’s a difference between calling someone "Jehovah", which is a specific name, and calling someone a title which has God’s name in it.
As far as the Bible translations, I was referencing them for two points. Neither of which I think you understood. The first was that AV was asking about a comma and the translation being "Jehovah, our Righteousness." None of your translations you proposed translated it that way. So far, I haven’t seen any that do. I’ll deal with the other reference to the Bible translations in a minute.
You said "But show me another man in the Bible whose name us YHWH!" Actually, I did in the last post. Not sure how you missed it. One servant of God has the name "Jehovah is He." I’ll let you research that and find out who it was.and I also wrote in the same post



Oohh. Double-dog dare. Those are pretty powerful words. Especially when I don’t have a clue what your arguing about. The other reason I referenced the Bible translations is to point out to you that the majority of Bibles DO reference Jerusalem in Jeremiah 33:16. I didn’t want to have to quote them all but since you apparently didn’t comprehend what I was arguing (because if you did you’d know the KJV, NKJV and the NASB support me) I’ll go ahead and type them out. Just so you don’t get confused again, here is my argument. NOTE THAT THESE BIBLE REFER THE TITLE TO JERUSALEM-

"And this is the name wherewith SHE shall be called, the LORD our righteousness."-King James

"And this is the name the city will be called: ‘Yahweh_our-Integrity." -Jerusalem Bible

"And this is her name: The LORD is our Righteousness." – New English Bible


"In those days Judah will triumph and Israel live in safety. And this is the name the city will be called: Yahweh is our Saving Justice."- The New Jerusalem Bible

"In that day Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will live in safety. And their motto will be "The LORD is our righteousness."- New Living Translation

"In that day Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will live in safety. And their motto will be "The LORD is our righteousness."- The Living Bible same

"In those days Judah will be safe and Jerusalem shall dwell secure; this is what they shall call her: ‘The LORD our justice.’"-New American Bible

"In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely; and this is the name whereby she shall be called: Jehovah our righteousness."-American Standard Version

"and this is the name by which she will be called: the LORD is our righteousness.'"- New American Standard Bible

"The motto for the city will be, "GOD Has Set Things Right for Us.""-The Message Bible

In those days, Judah will be safe; Jerusalem will have peace and will be named, "The LORD Gives Justice."-Contemporary English Version

"And this is the name by which she will be called: "THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS."- New King James Version

"And this is the name wherewith she shall be called: The LORD Our Righteousness."- 21 Century King James

"And this is the name wherewith she shall be called: Jehovah our Righteousness."- DarbyHave you heard of any of those? All of them are obviously referencing Jerusalem. Now, the following translations may or may not be referencing the city.


"In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. And this is the name by which it will be called: ‘The LORD is our righteousness.’"-The New Revised Standard Version

"And this is the name by which it will be called: 'The LORD is our righteousness.'"-English Standard Version

"And this is the name by which it will be called, The Lord is Our Righteousness (our Rightness, our Justice)".- The Amplified Bible

"And this is the name it will be called: The Lord makes us right and good.'"-New Life Version

"This is the name by which it will be called: ‘The LORD Our Righteousness.'"-New International Version

It’s hard to tell whether they are referencing the city or the Messiah. However, the NIV gives us a clue in a footnote. It says in place of "it", the rendering could be "he". Well, if it’s "he" then it probably would be in reference to the Messiah. Which means the footnote is acknowledging a possibility of referencing the Messiah. Which suggest that the main text and the translation of "it" is not in reference to the Messiah but in reference to the city. Otherwise, if the NIV actually thought the main text was referencing the Messiah, they would have translated it as "he" like in the footnote. So even these translations (or at least the NIV) are most likely referencing the city.Then you told me I had a real problem because I was putting my trust in Bibles translated by anti-Christians to which I replied:



I have a real problem? Look up at the above Bible translations. Are you telling me these were translated by "Jewish scholars who opposed any Christian interpretation of the Bible" and "were as a group biased against messianic prophecy in general"?

Let’s go back to the choices I have to make, as outlined in my earlier post. I have to chose between
RightIdea and his friend Jeff
Practically every Bible translation, translated by scores of scholars and theologions, most of whom are Trinitarians.
That’s a tough one. So, I have over a dozen translations that directly call the city of Jerusalem by the same title. Then I have 5 that use the pronoun "it". Now they could be calling the Messiah an "it" but the footnote to the NIV shows that at least THAT Bible would have used a "he" if they were referring to the Messiah. And I don’t have ANY Bibles that use the pronoun "he" to show they definitely mean the Messiah. So if a city can be called by the same title then either Jerusalem IS YHWH or the title doesn't mean the item being called by it is YHWH. Take your pick.

So like I said many months ago, I have two options:

RightIdea and his friend Jeff
Practically every Bible translation, translated by scores of scholars and theologions, most of whom are Trinitarians.
Again, that’s a real tough choice for me to make. Let's see you convince me that you and Jeff are right and everyone else is wrong. Enjoy your popcorn and feel free to reply to this. I’ve been waiting months for it.

[Tara]

Jesus is not to be worshipped? Where did you learn this heresy?

Jesus is God/YHWH/Creator ....... John 1:1, Hebrews 1, Jer. 23:5-6

God is to be worshipped. This is a no-brainer, so surely we have no disagreement there.

So, how can you possibly argue that Jesus is not to be worshipped??? Anyone that denies this simply is not within the realm of Christianity.

Jesus is the Lord, and He rose from the dead. One cannot compromise on these doctrines and yet rightly claim to be a Christian.

Tara, I don't know where you get your teaching from, but it sounds like you're not getting it from God's word...
Actually I got these teachings from the gospels...you should try reading them sometime (they're not just for Easter anymore). If you have read PAST John 1:1, you would remember that in John 5:30 Jesus says 'By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but Him who sent me.' and in 5:41 he says, 'I do not accept praise from men.' or in 6:38 ' For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me'. I could go on and on, there are many more. Jesus NEVER asked to be worshiped - - that was my statement and it is perfectly in line with the word of God. He asked to be FOLLOWED. He was the WAY. So in my opinion you can not rightly claim to be a Christian if you don't uphold His commandments and try and live the way he lived.

[mickiel]

It’s a misreading of the text to think Jesus was saying these people were worshipping him.

"Isaiah aptly prophesied about you [the wicked religious leaders who were trying to kill Jesus] when he said, "This people honors me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines."-Matt 15:7-9

When Jesus said "me" he wasn’t referring to himself, he was simply quoting Isaiah’s words. Technically, Jesus’ words at Matt 15:9 could be understood as if Isaiah were saying the people were worshipping him [Isaiah]! But since we know no one was worshipping Isaiah we clearly understand Isaiah was writing about someone else. The verse Jesus was alluding to is Isaiah 29:13 and the speaker in that verse is Jehovah. So Jesus was simply quoting Isaiah’s words of which were applied to Jehovah.

How do we know Jesus wasn’t saying that these people were worshipping him (Jesus) in vain? It’s quite obvious from the text. These religious leaders Jesus was speaking to were certainly NOT trying to worship Jesus, not even in a vain way. They thought Jesus was a fraud and a demon possessed man. And it’s obvious that they didn’t understand Jesus as meaning himself when he said "me" because if they did think he was saying that they were trying to worship him they would have no doubt replied, ‘Are you nuts? What in the world made you think we were trying to worship you?’

It’s obvious both from the fact that Jesus was simply quoting Isaiah’s words of Jehovah and the reaction of the people to whom Jesus was speaking to that no one understood Jesus as saying these religious leaders were worshipping Jesus in vain or even trying to worship him at all. So no, Jesus wasn't "refering to believers in him, who actually worship him, albeit , in vain, or uselessness" and these people he was applying Isaiah's prophecy to were not "obedient, serious followers of him." Understanding that is a key in realizing Jesus wasn't referring to himself when he quoted Isaiah's prophecy.





I see the meaning simply as Jesus stated it, he was refering to himself being worshipped, not Isaiah or anyoneelse. Explain to yourself what kind of people worship Christ? Only those who believe in him and follow him, nonelse are anywhere near worshipping him. Jesus is clearly refering to believers of himself. No other group worships Christ, that I am aware of, except believers in him. But I can understand the relutance to think believers can worship in vain. Its a humbling thought. The vainity comes into place with the false doctrinal influence of deception, under the quise of truth. A false church, is still a church. Its just not lead by the God of heaven. The worship of God is just that, but God only accepts those who do so in the spirit of truth, not false influence. More people worship God under false experience, than truth. It has always been that way, according to scripture. Many are those who worship God, many are called, but few are led by him, few are chosen. Few have true spirit led worship.

Who they are who have this truth, I certainly don't know. But I can certainly see the vast majority of the masses who have comprised the deceptive religons of mankind in their perverted pursuit of God. What makes it perverted, is NOT THEIR HEARTS intentions, but the missing link is God inspired leadership. If That ingredient is not there, they search in vain. So In my view, God is responsible for both understanding how to worship, and blindness to worshipping in truth.

[NonTrinitarian]

I see the meaning simply as Jesus stated it, he was refering to himself being worshipped, not Isaiah or anyoneelse. Explain to yourself what kind of people worship Christ? Only those who believe in him and follow him, nonelse are anywhere near worshipping him. Jesus is clearly refering to believers of himself. No other group worships Christ, that I am aware of, except believers in him. But I can understand the relutance to think believers can worship in vain. Its a humbling thought. The vainity comes into place with the false doctrinal influence of deception, under the quise of truth. A false church, is still a church. Its just not lead by the God of heaven. The worship of God is just that, but God only accepts those who do so in the spirit of truth, not false influence. More people worship God under false experience, than truth. It has always been that way, according to scripture. Many are those who worship God, many are called, but few are led by him, few are chosen. Few have true spirit led worship.

Who they are who have this truth, I certainly don't know. But I can certainly see the vast majority of the masses who have comprised the deceptive religons of mankind in their perverted pursuit of God. What makes it perverted, is NOT THEIR HEARTS intentions, but the missing link is God inspired leadership. If That ingredient is not there, they search in vain. So In my view, God is responsible for both understanding how to worship, and blindness to worshipping in truth. Mickel,
Does context of a scripture mean anything to you? Who was Jesus talking to in those verses? People who believed in him and who WANTED to worship him? You haven't answered any of my arguments showing that Jesus was not referring to himself. You just repeated your initial argument inwhich I showed the context doesn't hold. Jesus was NOT saying that these religious leaders were trying to worship him. Look at the context again: Speaking to these wicked people that DID NOT BELIEVE IN JESUS he said

"Isaiah aptly prophesied about you [the wicked religious leaders who were trying to kill Jesus] when he said, "This people honors me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines."-Matt 15:7-9

Now who is the "me" these people are honoring with their lips? Do you see these religious leaders honoring JESUS? No way! The only person they claimed to honor was Jehovah. And who was saying the words that Jesus quoted? Go read Isaiah and you'll see it was Jehovah who was speaking and of whom Isaiah was writing about. Jesus isn't Jehovah and he wasn't claiming to be Jehovah.

You said "I see the meaning simply as Jesus stated it." Well if that's true then by your argument you should think Jesus was talking about these religious leaders trying to worship Joseph because Jesus 'simply stated'

"Isaiah aptly prophesied about you when he said, "This people honors me with their lips, yet th heir heart is far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines."

So if you really think you're taking it as Jesus simply stated then you have "Isaiah...said, "This people honors me[Isaiah]."

I've seen other posts from you that are pretty respectable but this latest argument is looney and so far from the context it doesn't even merrit any more discussion.

[mickiel]

]."

I've seen other posts from you that are pretty respectable but this latest argument is looney and so far from the context it doesn't even merrit any more discussion.
[/size][/QUOTE]



Well, farbeit from me to not know when someone wishes to discontinue a dialog, it shall be as you wish. Still, what I have stated is not an arguement, I only make statements. I simply state my own views of understanding in an exchange of dialog. I do not seek to change other views. I believe one can only view scripture as it is placed in their hearts by God, or by their own tradition. I think it possible for a human to have both of the two, namely their knowledge influenced by God, and also by themselves, or tradition, both at the same time. That then is the war of natures Paul spoke of, the Spirit verses the flesh.

When we misunderstand scripture, It is because of our flesh, ourselves take presedence over the truth, and we manufactor our own truth. This is what the bible calls being given over to the flesh. One of the greatest punishments in the bible, is the human being left to their own understanding. I believe so very much of current understanding of God has been built on human understanding that was abandoned by God. A mind covered with this dynamic, can look at the scripture directly, and walk away knowing nothing, but yet thinking they know all. Like looking into a mirror and forgeting what you see, no definte reality, just vain imagination.

Much of my spiritual journey has been like this. So I seek to humble myself and admit I know nothing. From this point of view, I seek the mercy of God to see his truth. I do not know what is to occur, but I can understand all too well why what you see in me you call looney. Perhaps it is, or perhaps it is not. As of now, even I cannot be for sure. It is unfortunate you prefer to cease this dialog, but I will reapect your withdrawal. God bless your life.

[NonTrinitarian]

Well, farbeit from me to not know when someone wishes to discontinue a dialog, it shall be as you wish. Still, what I have stated is not an arguement, I only make statements. I simply state my own views of understanding in an exchange of dialog. I do not seek to change other views. I believe one can only view scripture as it is placed in their hearts by God, or by their own tradition. I think it possible for a human to have both of the two, namely their knowledge influenced by God, and also by themselves, or tradition, both at the same time. That then is the war of natures Paul spoke of, the Spirit verses the flesh.

When we misunderstand scripture, It is because of our flesh, ourselves take presedence over the truth, and we manufactor our own truth. This is what the bible calls being given over to the flesh. One of the greatest punishments in the bible, is the human being left to their own understanding. I believe so very much of current understanding of God has been built on human understanding that was abandoned by God. A mind covered with this dynamic, can look at the scripture directly, and walk away knowing nothing, but yet thinking they know all. Like looking into a mirror and forgeting what you see, no definte reality, just vain imagination.

Much of my spiritual journey has been like this. So I seek to humble myself and admit I know nothing. From this point of view, I seek the mercy of God to see his truth. I do not know what is to occur, but I can understand all too well why what you see in me you call looney. Perhaps it is, or perhaps it is not. As of now, even I cannot be for sure. It is unfortunate you prefer to cease this dialog, but I will reapect your withdrawal. God bless your life.I didn't withdraw from the discussion. I just said this one argument of yours is way off base, as noted in my comments above. If you have other arguments, that's fine. But I can go to numerous scriptures where Paul quotes Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc and says "I yada yada" or "me yada yada" and you would NEVER argue that Paul was talking about himself. You would just say he was quoting the verse that was applying to God. So why hold a different standard when Jesus does the same thing with Isaiah? When we look at it from that perspective we can see that there is no reason to think Jesus was applying the verse from Isaiah to himself anymore than to think Paul was applying all of the verses he quotes to himself.

[bar Jonah]

This is too funny. You wear that verse out like nothing else, don’t ya? We already had this discussion and you just left without notice. Sure, you continued posting in the thread but you never answered my last reply. Here’s our discussion on Jer 23 and how little support you have for your view.

You originally wrote me:

To which I replied:

To which you replied:

To which I repliedand I also wrote in the same post

Then you told me I had a real problem because I was putting my trust in Bibles translated by anti-Christians to which I replied:

So, I have over a dozen translations that directly call the city of Jerusalem by the same title. Then I have 5 that use the pronoun "it". Now they could be calling the Messiah an "it" but the footnote to the NIV shows that at least THAT Bible would have used a "he" if they were referring to the Messiah. And I don’t have ANY Bibles that use the pronoun "he" to show they definitely mean the Messiah. So if a city can be called by the same title then either Jerusalem IS YHWH or the title doesn't mean the item being called by it is YHWH. Take your pick.

So like I said many months ago, I have two options:

RightIdea and his friend Jeff
Practically every Bible translation, translated by scores of scholars and theologions, most of whom are Trinitarians.
Again, that’s a real tough choice for me to make. Let's see you convince me that you and Jeff are right and everyone else is wrong. Enjoy your popcorn and feel free to reply to this. I’ve been waiting months for it.


You've gotta be kidding me. You're still barking up that tree, Non-Trin? I explained this to you back then, and you simply ignored my answer, because it didn't fit with your preconceived notion of denying the true Christ.

You judge me for going to a Christian Jew who reads the OT in Hebrew. But what would you have us do? You would have us trust non-Christian Jews who hated Christ, in our exegesis of scripture. Or eisogesis in your case. I didn't go into detail last time, but I did explain what is at work here. Perhaps I should have gone the distance.

You once again bring up the tired example of Jeremiah 33. But as I explained the last time we went through this, the "she" reference in Jeremiah 33 does not exist. It is a fabrication, a figment of imagination. The Hebrew word is not there. You are not ignorant of this, but you try to pawn off this notion to us, knowing it has no real foundation.

Let us more closely examine the two passages. First of all, let's back up a little. The idea of a "name" is different in the two passages. In Jer. 23, it is "ha Shem," the name! When Jews read aloud from the Tanakh and get to "YHWH," they instead say, "haShem," or "the name." In other words, the name of God. In Jeremiah 33, however, it does not say "haShem" where we translate it as "name" in English. It is "yasha." This word doesn't even mean "name" at all! The "name" in Jeremiah 33 is implied in a sense. The word for "name" isn't there, once again suggesting these two passages are not truly parallel. The word "yasha" in this instance basically means "what" or "which."

Such as, "and this is what ___ will be called." The "what" being the name. But it isn't parallel, and it is not "haShem."

Next, let's get back to this imaginary "she." Since the she doesn't really exist, where did it come from? The earliest English translators looked to previous translations to guide them, and this is no exception. This interpretation can be traced back to traditional, non-Christian, Jewish translations of the Tanakh.

Since the source of this imaginary "she" in Jeremiah 33 is originally from an antichrist source, we must therefore examine the context of the two verses, side by side, to discern the context of each! When we do this, we see that while the verses aren't written truly parallel in the word usage, the subject of both passages is the same -- not Jerusalem and not Judah but the branch of David is the subject of both passages. I will print the translation of the words in the actual original word order from the Hebrew. Take out the suspect "she" and we have:

Listen, the days come, says YHWH, that I will set up for David a Branch righteous, and will rule a King and act wisely, and will do justice and righteousness in the earth. In His days, will be saved Judah, and Israel will live safely. And this His name which He will be called: Yahweh our Righteousness.

In days those, and at time that, I will make grow up to David a branch of righteousness and He will execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In days these will be saved Judah, and Jerusalem will live in safety and this is what one will call____: Yahweh our righteousness.


But... hey, let's look at what the New World Translation says in Jeremiah 33:15-16, without the imaginary "she."

In those days and at that time I shall make sprout for David a righteous sprout, and he will certainly execute justice and righteousness in the land. In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem itself will reside in security. And this is what ___ will be called, Jehovah...

Even in the words of the New World Translation, when you take out the imaginary "she," the context makes it obvious that the subject of this passage is not Jerusalem! The subject of this passage is the "branch" or "sprout" of David! For the author to suddenly change subjects in the middle of a sentence makes no sense whatsoever. He's writing this whole passage to tell us the name of... Jerusalem? Of course not.


You have no real foundation in the Hebrew to show that the name YHWH Tzidekenu applies to Jerusalem in this verse. The original source of such eisogesis is a group of Christ-hating unbelievers from the 6th century. Jeremiah was writing about the Branch of David in both cases. And he gives the name of that branch, in both cases.

Your "she" is a myth.



Nevertheless! If that still isn't good enough for you, then I don't know what is, on this point, in which case we'd have to move to another area -- namely the Christophenies in the Tanakh, in which God appears in bodily form before men on numerous occasions (including before 72 of the elders of Israel while in the wilderness). And yet Jesus states very clearly that no one has ever seen the Father. Who is the mediator between the Father and mankind, while mankind is fallen in sin and cannot approach the Father? That mediator is the Son. And that Son appeared to men in the Tanakh many times -- to Moses, to all the elders of Israel, to Abraham, to Joshua as the "Commander of the Army of the Lord" who Joshua immediately fell down and worshipped and was not wrong for doing so...

Who is this God who appeared to men, considering that it wasn't the Father?


Unfortunately, as I've stated in other threads, I have spread myself way too thin here at Tweb, so I am being forced by practical necessity to cut myself off from some threads. However, I will watch this thread, and if it is truly important for me to do so, I may respond further. But only if I feel I must. But I'm certainly not running from a challenge; I never have, at Tweb, and I don't intend to start. I simply have too many obligations and I cannot meet them all.

Hopefully, some of my brothers and sisters in Christ can pick up where I left off.

[NonTrinitarian]

You've gotta be kidding me. You're still barking up that tree, Non-Trin? I explained this to you back then, and you simply ignored my answer, because it didn't fit with your preconceived notion of denying the true Christ.Wow, you waited that long to respond and have nothing to say of substance. Are you saying the 20 Bibles I quoted all reference Jerusalem at Jeremiah 33 because of their "preconceived notion of denying the true Christ?" Yeah! Real convincing argument there.

You judge me for going to a Christian Jew who reads the OT in Hebrew. But what would you have us do? You would have us trust non-Christian Jews who hated Christ, in our exegesis of scripture. Or eisogesis in your case. I didn't go into detail last time, but I did explain what is at work here. Perhaps I should have gone the distance.I didn’t go to a non-Christian Jew to determine if both the Messiah AND Jerusalem are referred to by the same title. I went to 20 Bibles, MOST IF NOT ALL of which were translated by your fellow Trinitarians.

You once again bring up the tired example of Jeremiah 33. But as I explained the last time we went through this, the "she" reference in Jeremiah 33 does not exist. It is a fabrication, a figment of imagination. The Hebrew word is not there. You are not ignorant of this, but you try to pawn off this notion to us, knowing it has no real foundation.The scriptures are full of verses where you have to supply the predicate pronoun. Or are you not aware of this? Is this just a "figment of imagination" of all the Bible scholars who translated these Bibles?

And this is the name wherewith SHE shall be called, the LORD our righteousness."-King James

"And this is the name the city will be called: ‘Yahweh_our-Integrity." -Jerusalem Bible

"And this is her name: The LORD is our Righteousness." – New English Bible

"In those days Judah will triumph and Israel live in safety. And this is the name the city will be called: Yahweh is our Saving Justice."- The New Jerusalem Bible

"In that day Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will live in safety. And their motto will be "The LORD is our righteousness."- New Living Translation

"In that day Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will live in safety. And their motto will be "The LORD is our righteousness."- The Living Bible same

"In those days Judah will be safe and Jerusalem shall dwell secure; this is what they shall call her: ‘The LORD our justice.’"-New American Bible

"In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely; and this is the name whereby she shall be called: Jehovah our righteousness."-American Standard Version

"and this is the name by which she will be called: the LORD is our righteousness.'"- New American Standard Bible

"The motto for the city will be, "GOD Has Set Things Right for Us.""-The Message Bible

In those days, Judah will be safe; Jerusalem will have peace and will be named, "The LORD Gives Justice."-Contemporary English Version

"And this is the name by which she will be called: "THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS."- New King James Version

"And this is the name wherewith she shall be called: The LORD Our Righteousness."- 21 Century King James

"And this is the name wherewith she shall be called: Jehovah our Righteousness."- Darby

"In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. And this is the name by which it will be called: ‘The LORD is our righteousness.’"-The New Revised Standard Version

"And this is the name by which it will be called: 'The LORD is our righteousness.'"-English Standard Version

"And this is the name by which it will be called, The Lord is Our Righteousness (our Rightness, our Justice)".- The Amplified Bible

"And this is the name it will be called: The Lord makes us right and good.'"-New Life Version

"This is the name by which it will be called: ‘The LORD Our Righteousness.'"-New International Version


Not ONE of these translations is referencing the Messiah! Either JW’s translated all of these Bibles or your floating out there by yourself, ignored by your own fellow Trinitarians.


Let us more closely examine the two passages. First of all, let's back up a little. The idea of a "name" is different in the two passages. In Jer. 23, it is "ha Shem," the name! When Jews read aloud from the Tanakh and get to "YHWH," they instead say, "haShem," or "the name." In other words, the name of God. In Jeremiah 33, however, it does not say "haShem" where we translate it as "name" in English. It is "yasha." This word doesn't even mean "name" at all! The "name" in Jeremiah 33 is implied in a sense. The word for "name" isn't there, once again suggesting these two passages are not truly parallel. The word "yasha" in this instance basically means "what" or "which."

Such as, "and this is what ___ will be called." The "what" being the name. But it isn't parallel, and it is not "haShem."This is one of the most pathetic arguments I’ve seen. Do you just make this stuff up? On one side of your mouth you’re telling me it is referring to the Messiah and has the same meaning as Jeremiah 23 then when I show you that EVERY Bible translation I can find refers to the city of Jerusalem you start speaking out of the other side of your mouth saying it’s not the same. Furthermore, I don’t give hoot-n-annie what later Jews did once they became superstitious about God’s Name. When the passage was written God’s servants freely used His name and both the Messiah and Jerusalem are given a TITLE that merely has God’s Name IN IT. There is a human in the Bible who has the name "Jehovah is he." I suppose you think he is God too?

Next, let's get back to this imaginary "she." Since the she doesn't really exist, where did it come from? The earliest English translators looked to previous translations to guide them, and this is no exception. This interpretation can be traced back to traditional, non-Christian, Jewish translations of the Tanakh.

Since the source of this imaginary "she" in Jeremiah 33 is originally from an antichrist source, we must therefore examine the context of the two verses, side by side, to discern the context of each! When we do this, we see that while the verses aren't written truly parallel in the word usage, the subject of both passages is the same -- not Jerusalem and not Judah but the branch of David is the subject of both passages. I will print the translation of the words in the actual original word order from the Hebrew. Take out the suspect "she" and we have:






Listen, the days come, says YHWH, that I will set up for David a Branch righteous, and will rule a King and act wisely, and will do justice and righteousness in the earth. In His days, will be saved Judah, and Israel will live safely. And this His name which He will be called: Yahweh our Righteousness.







In days those, and at time that, I will make grow up to David a branch of righteousness and He will execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In days these will be saved Judah, and Jerusalem will live in safety and this is what one will call____: Yahweh our righteousness.Glad you quoted these. Now I’ve bolded the subject of the sentences for you. Note in 23:6 the subject is the Branch of David, "In His days", followed by the action of what would happen, the cities being saved. Then the following sentence pronouns follow the subject of the Branch of David. But in 33:16 the subject is NOT the Branch of David! The Messiah is not even MENTIONED in the sentence. Here’s the sentence:. In days these will be saved Judah, and Jerusalem will live in safety and this is what one will call____: Yahweh our righteousnessThe subject of the sentence is Jerusalem and so EVERY BIBLE TRANSLATION I CAN FIND uses the pronoun in reference to the subject of the sentence, Jerusalem. Even in the words of the New World Translation, when you take out the imaginary "she," the context makes it obvious that the subject of this passage is not Jerusalem! The subject of this passage is the "branch" or "sprout" of David! For the author to suddenly change subjects in the middle of a sentence makes no sense whatsoever. He's writing this whole passage to tell us the name of... Jerusalem? Of course not.Yeah, me and every Bible out there are a bunch of loonies and RightIdea and his buddy Jeff have all the answers. Zjeesh! You add the imaginary "he" and it’s okay but if scores of scholars add the imaginary "she" or "it" and suddenly we’re all a bunch of Christ-hating pagans.


Nevertheless! If that still isn't good enough for you, then I don't know what is, on this point, in which case we'd have to move to another areaNo, it’s not good enough for me. You’ve offered YOUR opinion in the face of every Bible translation I can find. You can’t even correctly identify the subject of a sentence in Jeremiah 33 which is probably why all of the Bible translations disagree with you. And this is supposed to convince me?

Hmmm,

20 Bible translations vs RightIdea, who has not offered any well known translation that supports him. I think I’m gonna have to go with the others on this one. Sorry.

-- namely the Christophenies in the Tanakh, in which God appears in bodily form before men on numerous occasions (including before 72 of the elders of Israel while in the wilderness). And yet Jesus states very clearly that no one has ever seen the Father. Who is the mediator between the Father and mankind, while mankind is fallen in sin and cannot approach the Father? That mediator is the Son. And that Son appeared to men in the Tanakh many times -- to Moses, to all the elders of Israel, to Abraham, to Joshua as the "Commander of the Army of the Lord" who Joshua immediately fell down and worshipped and was not wrong for doing so...

Who is this God who appeared to men, considering that it wasn't the Father?

God didn’t appear in bodily form so Jesus appropriately said no one has seen God. God appeared via angelic representatives. Go read Hebrews 1:1,2 to familiarize yourself with this. Then go read Genesis 19 where Lot in one verse refers to the angels by the name "Jehovah" but then a few verses later notes they are angels. In every instance you listed it wasn’t Jehovah who appeared, it was his angelic representative whom people could appropriately refer to as Jehovah since they came in his behalf. As another example Manoah calls an angel "Jehovah" in one verse but then goes and prays to Jehovah asking him to send his messenger back to him. And I can a list a bunch of instances where people have fallen before persons other than God and gave them proskyneo but I doubt you would want to say they were worshipping then, would you?


Unfortunately, as I've stated in other threads, I have spread myself way too thin here at Tweb, so I am being forced by practical necessity to cut myself off from some threads. However, I will watch this thread, and if it is truly important for me to do so, I may respond further. But only if I feel I must. But I'm certainly not running from a challenge; I never have, at Tweb, and I don't intend to start. I simply have too many obligations and I cannot meet them all.

Hopefully, some of my brothers and sisters in Christ can pick up where I left off. Well, it took you months to get back with me on Jeremiah and I doubt many of your Trinitarian friends are going to want to side up with you on that issue in the face of every common Bible translation in our corner of the Earth. So far you’ve offered nothing but opinions. I recommend you read "Jesus-God or the Son of God" by Brian Holt. You need to brush up on your arguments.

[bar Jonah]

Just like last time, you didn't pay attention to a single word I said, did you? :doh:

That's fine, you stick with fallible translations while I go to the infallible word of God. You're more than welcome to build your case on the fallible work of men, especially insofar as they base their imperfect translations on ancient, antichristian traditions. Heck, the translations you cited can't even make up their mind whether it says "she" or "city." :lol:

And you know darn well I have been gone completely from Tweb for over almost half a year. That is why I stopped responding to the thread, as I told everyone then and recently when I got back.

But I also told you I cannot continue this debate for now. I have other obligations I must meet, here at Tweb and in the "real world." If you want to actually suggest that Joshua worshipped an angel and was never rebuked for it... go ahead. :rofl:

[Tara]

Wow - You two are something. Apparently there is more going on here than the simple word of God. No matter what translation you want to read, God always makes sure that the message is pure, because it's written in your hearts. Hebrews 8:10 (NI) This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. (NWT) For this is the covenant that I shall covenant with the house of Israel after those days, says Jehovah. I will put my laws in their mind, and in their hearts I shall write them. And I will become their God and they themselves will become my people. And they will by no means teach each one of his fellow citizen and each one his brother, saying: Know Jehovah! For they will all know me, from the least one to the greatest one of them.

Why don't you stick to the infallible word of God written in your hearts - because that's the only place you're ever going to find the truth.

[bar Jonah]

Wow - You two are something. Apparently there is more going on here than the simple word of God. No matter what translation you want to read, God always makes sure that the message is pure, because it's written in your hearts. Hebrews 8:10 (NI) This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. (NWT) For this is the covenant that I shall covenant with the house of Israel after those days, says Jehovah. I will put my laws in their mind, and in their hearts I shall write them. And I will become their God and they themselves will become my people. And they will by no means teach each one of his fellow citizen and each one his brother, saying: Know Jehovah! For they will all know me, from the least one to the greatest one of them.

Why don't you stick to the infallible word of God written in your hearts - because that's the only place you're ever going to find the truth.
I did that.

What I found there says that you are speaking heresy. :huh: So much for that idea...

[NonTrinitarian]

Just like last time, you didn't pay attention to a single word I said, did you? :doh:

That's fine, you stick with fallible translations while I go to the infallible word of God. You're more than welcome to build your case on the fallible work of men, especially insofar as they base their imperfect translations on ancient, antichristian traditions. Heck, the translations you cited can't even make up their mind whether it says "she" or "city." :lol:That's your argument? You don't get it. ALL of these Bibles have the Hebrew text. They ALL have noted that the subject of the sentence is Jerusalem,as I plainly pointed out above. You're not relying on the "infallible word of God." You're relying on YOUR interpretation of it. Both you and the translations (everyone I've seen to date) have the infallible word of God to go by. But these Trinitarians disagree with YOUR interpretation. Unless you're hearing voices in the air telling you that you're right and everyone else is wrong, you have no support for your position other than the apparent thought that you are the smartest man on earth and everyone else is a moron. And it's hypocritical to say they can't put "she" in it to refer to the city when you put "he" in it to refer to the Messiah. Neither "she" NOR "he" are in the text so we have to go by context and at Jeremiah 33:16 the sentence doesn't even MENTION the Messiah. The subject is Jerusalem and so these scholars let the infallible word of God tell them that since the subject is Jerusalem they should use either the pronoun "she" or "it".

And you know darn well I have been gone completely from Tweb for over almost half a year. That is why I stopped responding to the thread, as I told everyone then and recently when I got back.That's why in the other thread where we were discussing this you continued to post to other persons after you stopped posting to me?

But I also told you I cannot continue this debate for now. I have other obligations I must meet, here at Tweb and in the "real world." If you want to actually suggest that Joshua worshipped an angel and was never rebuked for it... go ahead. :rofl:If you'd focus on theology rather than which smiley face you want to use you might offer an argument of higher caliber. Why don't you show me where Joshua "worshipped" an angel and I'll show you were Joshua merely "bowed down" to the "prince of the army of Jehovah."

I'll also show you where people bowed down to King David and "worshipped" him and where people bowed down before Solomon and "worshipped" him. I'll even show you where people bow down to Christians and "worship" them. Then I'll wait for you to explain why these other instances are not examples of "worship" but Joshua's bowing down to an angel was. The only argument you'll have is that you believe the "prince of the army of Jehovah" was Jehovah. But since that is what we are debating it is merely circular reasoning.

You have to justify translating proskyneo as "worship" in Joshua's case when you don't translate it as "worship" in David's, Abraham's, Solomon's, etc case based on your belief that the person Joshua met WAS Jehovah even though he merely said he was a "prince" of Jehovah's army. Then after you convince yourself that it is proper to translate it as "worship" in Joshua's case you turn around and use your translation to prove that the person in Joshua's account if Jehovah! Let me sum it up for you:

RI: The person Joshua saw was Jehovah
NT: How do you know?
RI: Because Joshua worshipped him
NT: Actually the infallible word of God says Joshua gave him proskyneo. The same thing given to King David, Abraham, Saul, Solomon, etc. Were these men "worshipped"?
RI: No. But the person Joshua gave proskyneo to was "worshipped"
NT: How do you know? Why not assume it obeisance like it was with the other men I listed?
RI: Because in Joshua's accout the person is Jehovah, not an angel or anyone else.
NT: How do you know this person is Jehovah?
RI: Because Joshua worshipped him
NT: You've just gone in circles. You tried to prove the person is Jehovah by saying Joshua worshipped him. You tried to justify your saying Joshua "worshipped" him by saying he was Jehovah.
RI: Yes. If I keep this line of reasoning up, maybe you'll get dizzy and go away

Tara,
We all have different understandings of the scriptures. God isn't writing different things in each persons heart. He gave us His word and it's our humble hearts and His spirit that guide us. When we take a stance that everyone is wrong and I'm right, that says alot about our hearts and the lack of humility. Even worse is that it is TRINITARIAN scholars who disagree with the Trinitarian RightIdea. If all 20 of those Bible's were translated by non-Trinitarians then RightIdea might have a leg to stand on in saying their biased. But they're Trinitarian Bibles. This really shows the lack of humility on his part, along with the lack of people who think his viewpoint is correct. This is why the infallible word of God has no effect on him.

[Tara]

I did that.

What I found there says that you are speaking heresy. :huh: So much for that idea...
You are right - - you sound so much like Jesus I should just shut my mouth.

[twohumble]

You are right - - you sound so much like Jesus I should just shut my mouth.
Tara

I have a few questions:
1. Do you agree that we are to test everything and judge every teaching by scripture?

2. Do you profess Christ as your Lord, the second Person of the Trinity, and your Savior?

3. Do you believe in the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit as one God)?

4. Do you agree that if Christ is God in the Trinity, and you are to profess him to be an angel, you may well be in danger of your eternal soul?

In all seriousness, I would like to know how you stand on these issues.

[bar Jonah]

You are right - - you sound so much like Jesus I should just shut my mouth.
I was only following your suggestion. That was the outcome. You aren't happy? :shrug:

[Tara]

Tara

I have a few questions:.1. Do you agree that we are to test everything and judge every teaching by scripture?

Yes

2. Do you profess Christ as your Lord, the second Person of the Trinity, and your Savior?

Yes

3. Do you believe in the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit as one God)?

I find no undisputable scriptural reference to support the Trinity as one God. Sin against Jesus is forgiveable - but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgiveable. If they were one - how could sin against them be measured differently? After Jesus' baptism by John, all three were present, the Spirit alighted upon Jesus and God said this is my SON in whom I am well pleased. What I do believe, is that God is unmeasurable and uncomprehendable - so who am I to assume that I can define the relationship. I also know that understanding the Trinity is NOT a requirement of my salvation or anyone elses and so I chose neither to regard or disregard any opinions.

4. Do you agree that if Christ is God in the Trinity, and you are to profess him to be an angel, you may well be in danger of your eternal soul?

Jesus is superior to the angels (Hebrews 1:1-14) ...But about the Son he says, 'You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore GOD, Your GOD, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.'

But then again - there we go trying to understand heavenly things. I just don't think Christians have a right to do that (IMHO)


In all seriousness, I would like to know how you stand on these issuesI appreciate your bluntness in posing these questions - - and I answered from my heart even though it was very very difficult to pin down exactly how I feel.

I was only following your suggestion. That was the outcome. You aren't happy? :shrug:Well I am glad that God knows your heart better than I do - because I don't see any Christian Spirit in the response that you made.

[Patroclus]

Sin against Jesus is forgiveable - but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgiveable. If they were one - how could sin against them be measured differently?

I have one quick comment on this one. If to blaspheme means to denegrate the power of God - if we understate God's power, we mock God - then to say that Jesus cannot save you from your sins is to blaspheme. If one continues to reject Jesus, to blaspheme his power, that person is beyond salvation. So, at the judgment, that sin is unforgiveable. Since, I believe, that it is the Holy Spirit who convicts humanity, rejecting Jesus is rejecting the Holy Spirit.

This is just a thought, and I am not going to pretend that this is necessarily theologically sound. This, however, is my consideration of the particular passage that Tara has pointed out since it has always been troubling to me.

Carry on. :pat:

[{Tim}]

I find no undisputable scriptural reference to support the Trinity as one God.
...
What I do believe, is that God is unmeasurable and uncomprehendable - so who am I to assume that I can define the relationship. I also know that understanding the Trinity is NOT a requirement of my salvation or anyone elses and so I chose neither to regard or disregard any opinions.
The doctrine of Trinity is not taught explicitly in the bible; it is our best explanation of how alll the passages about God/Jesus/Holy Spirit fit together. (Unless someone wants to contradict me on that?)
As to whether 'believeng the Trinity' is important... well, ultimately, each person's salvation is for the LORD to decide. However, my view is that God probably will not refuse you for rejecting this doctrine (especially if it is because you genuinely cannot see it supported in the bible), so long as in doing so you do not devalue Jesus or His redemption of us... (eg see Patroclus' post) ... or blatanly reject anything directly taught in the bible (jesus is god's son, messiah, etc).
Of course, I could be wrong about this. I have been wrong before.

(And for the record, I personally believe that the Trinity is scriptural, for various reasons; but I certainly can't claim to understand it.)

Tim

[barryrob]

[QUOTE=(Unless someone wants to contradict me on that?)


Here is somthing to think about.

The "Blessed Trinity"—Is It in the Bible?


SHE was burned to death in England in 1550. Her name? Joan Bocher. Her crime? The Encyclopædia Britannica (1964) says: "She was condemned for open blasphemy in denying the Trinity, the one offense which all the church had regarded as unforgivable ever since the struggle with Arianism."







The Trinity is a fundamental doctrine of the vast majority of churches. But what exactly is the Trinity? The Waverley Encyclopedia defines it as "the mystery of one God in three persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, co-equal and co-eternal in all things." Yet The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1981) says: "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament." This immediately raises questions about the doctrine.







Compounding the matter is a frank admission that the New Catholic Encyclopedia presents in terms of a question that seminary students often ask, "But how does one preach the Trinity?" This Catholic work continues: "If the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their professors. If ‘the Trinity’ here means Trinitarian theology, the best answer would be that one does not preach it at all . . . because the sermon, and especially the Biblical homily, is the place for the word of God, not its theological elaboration."







When did this "theological elaboration" begin? Answers The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1981): "The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies." Does that sound to you like a direct, clear revelation from God? So how can it be a revelation of Holy Scripture, as is claimed?







A Biblical statement that church teachers often use to support the Trinity is Jesus’ command that his followers make disciples, "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit." (Matthew 28:19) This passage certainly mentions three entities, but it does not say that they are three persons or that they are all one. Furthermore, we know the name of the Father (Jehovah) and of the Son (Jesus), but what is the name of the holy spirit? This leads to the question . . .







Is the Holy Spirit a Person?







The fact that the Bible gives no indication of the holy spirit’s having a personal name at least suggests that it may not be a person. You might ask also, ‘Has the holy spirit ever been seen?’ Well, at Jesus’ baptism it was manifested as a dove and at Pentecost as tongues as if of fire. (Matthew 3:16; Acts 2:3, 4) If it is a person, why did it not appear as a person? And if the holy spirit is not a person, what is it? Undoubtedly, it is the active force from God that at Pentecost was ‘poured out’ on the disciples. (Acts 2:17, 18) By this active force, Jehovah performed his acts of creation—"God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters." (Genesis 1:2) The same active force inspired the writers of the Bible.—2 Timothy 3:16.







One of those inspired writers was the prophet Daniel. In Daniel chapter 7 he describes a wonderful vision Jehovah gave to him: "the Ancient of Days" on his heavenly throne, with a multitude of angels ministering to him. Daniel saw also "someone like a son of man [Jesus]," who was given "rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him." (Daniel 7:9, 10, 13, 14) What, though, about the holy spirit? It is not mentioned as a person in this celestial scene.







The final book of the Bible—Revelation—describes other remarkable heavenly visions. The Supreme Being, Jehovah, is depicted there on his throne, and the Lamb, Jesus Christ, is with him. But, again, the holy spirit is not mentioned as a distinct person. (Revelation, chapters 4–6) So even the final Bible book does not reveal that there are three persons in one god. This raises . . .







Another Important Question







The Trinity dogma has been described as "the central doctrine of the Christian religion." If this were true, why did Jesus not reveal it when he was on earth? His disciples, being Israelites, believed that Jehovah is unique. To this day, Jews continue to recite Deuteronomy 6:4: "Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah." There is no suggestion in the Hebrew Scriptures that the Supreme Being is in three persons. You may well wonder, ‘If this were true, why did this "central doctrine" not become dogma until the fourth century—amid bitter controversy that caused widespread confusion?’







Some might argue: ‘But Jesus did say, "I and the Father are one."’ (John 10:30) True. In what sense, though, are they one? Jesus himself clarified this later by saying in prayer: "Holy Father, watch over them [his disciples] . . . in order that they may be one just as we are one." (John 17:11, 22) Hence, the unity of Father and Son is the same as the unity that exists among Christ’s true followers—a harmony of purpose and cooperation.







Still, some may suggest that although Jesus did not spell out the Trinity doctrine, the apostle John did at 1 John 5:7, which, according to the King James Version, says: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." However, more modern versions omit this passage. Why? The Catholic Jerusalem Bible explains in a footnote that this text is not found in any of the early Greek or the best Latin manuscripts of the Bible. It is spurious. It was added, no doubt, to try to support the Trinity.







As you can check in your own Bible, the apostle Paul in the opening of his letters often used expressions like this: "May you have undeserved kindness and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." (Romans 1:7) Why did he not mention the holy spirit as a person? Because Paul knew nothing of the "Holy Trinity." James, Peter, and John used similar phrases in their letters where they likewise do not mention the holy spirit. Why? Because they were not Trinitarians either. The holy spirit is not a person as are God and his Son. But since the Son is a person, the question arises . . .







Is Jesus the Supreme Being?







Believers in the Trinity say yes. Yet you should be more interested in what Jesus said: "The Father is greater than I am." (John 14:28) "The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing." (John 5:19) Paul added: "The head of the Christ is God."—1 Corinthians 11:3.







Consider carefully, too, these questions: Does Jehovah have a God? Obviously not, he is supreme, the Almighty. Does Jesus have a God? After his resurrection Jesus said to Mary Magdalene: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God." The apostle Peter wrote: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."—John 20:17; 1 Peter 1:3.







Has God ever died? ‘Of course not,’ might be your correct response. God is immortal. The prophet Habakkuk said of Jehovah: "My Holy One, you do not die." (Habakkuk 1:12) In contrast, Jesus did die. Then who raised him from the dead? Said Peter: "God raised [Christ] up from the dead." It becomes evident, then, that Jesus is not the Supreme Being.—Acts 3:15; Romans 5:8.







You can go further. Has God ever been seen? "No man has seen God at any time." (John 1:18) Yet thousands saw Jesus on earth. Has God ever prayed to anyone? To whom could he pray? He is the great "Hearer of prayer." (Psalm 65:2) And Jesus? He frequently prayed to his Father, even spending a whole night in prayer. Is God a priest? Obviously not. Is Jesus? We read: "Consider the apostle and high priest whom we confess—Jesus."—Hebrews 3:1.







Is it not abundantly clear that Jesus is not the Supreme Being?







Is the Trinity Dogma Harmful?







Yes. This widespread dogma distorts the simple Bible truths that Jehovah alone is the Supreme Being, that Jesus is his Son, and that the holy spirit is God’s active force. The doctrine causes confusion by presenting God in a haze of mystery, leading to spiritual darkness.







You, however, need not be in that darkness. You can fix clearly in mind some facts:







The Trinity dogma is not mentioned in the Bible. It is a "theological elaboration" that developed centuries after Jesus’ day, and it was imposed under threat of death at the stake. It has downgraded the worship of the Supreme Being, teaching belief in a mystery.





If you have always believed the Trinity, what should you now do? We urge you to study God’s Word and publications like this one that will help you to understand the Bible. Doing so is vital. Jesus said that everlasting life depends on taking in knowledge of him and of Jehovah—"the only true God."—John 17:3.

BarryRob

[{Tim}]

Thanks. Obviously we disagree on this!

I have read a number of threads debating on this topic, judging from them I doubt I will get anywhere trying to argue about it. The thing that most convinces me of the Trinity is passages recording Jesus' claims to be YHWH. However I have seen that the interpretation, and even the translation, of these passages is disputed, so if we disagree on that, obviously we will come to different conclusions.

I would like to add however (in light of a section of your article above), that I find the 'Trinity' no more confusing than trying to find another model of God/(s) that fits Scripture. And there are other arguments I don't find convincing, but I won't go into that...!

Anyway, thank you for sharing your views.

Tim

[twohumble]

Thanks. Obviously we disagree on this!

I have read a number of threads debating on this topic, judging from them I doubt I will get anywhere trying to argue about it. The thing that most convinces me of the Trinity is passages recording Jesus' claims to be YHWH. However I have seen that the interpretation, and even the translation, of these passages is disputed, so if we disagree on that, obviously we will come to different conclusions.

I would like to add however (in light of a section of your article above), that I find the 'Trinity' no more confusing than trying to find another model of God/(s) that fits Scripture. And there are other arguments I don't find convincing, but I won't go into that...!

Anyway, thank you for sharing your views.

Tim

Tim, this is in response to your first post on this thread, and not meant to debate with nontrinatarian interps.

You indicated that belief in the trinity might not be a salvational issue. Let me ask you if you are familiar with the OT concept of the Kinsman Redeemer?
God the Father has promised a "Kinsman Redeemer" for our sins. As I am sure you know, the OT is a picture of things to come, and Christ is the completion of the images and prophecy.
The concept of the Kinsman redeemer includes 3 aspects that are necessary in order for someone to qualify as the Redeemer.
1. Be willing- as Christ was
2. Be a Kinsman- as an incarnate born of woman, Christ is our Kin
3. Have an net worth that is capable of covering the dept, Or a personal ability to fulfill the obilgation owed.- only God is capable of paying this great a dept

This is a fundamental understanding of the nature of Gods Grace, and covenant with Abram. The nontrinatarians have no understanding of this covenant or how a "substitute" is not allowed in Jewish tradition. No bond covenant in Jewish tradition allows for a replacement covenant bearer of less value than the one who made the covenant.

Certainly, an angel, even the first created angel, is less than God, and as such, could NEVER be the one to complete the covenant.

Christ, as the incarnate second person of the Trinity embodies all three. If we are to make Him less than God, He does NOT fulfill all three. To truly be a Christian, we must have faith in an object that is correct and able. To deny Christs nature denies His ability to accomplish the task of the Kinsman Redeemer.

Being a Christian is relational. How can someone TRULY have a relationship with someone that they so TOTALLY misunderstand? How can it not be a denial of the Holy Spirit who reveals the Truth of Christ, if we deny the Trinity? I submit to you that faith in a christ that is less than what He is, is to have faith in a myth, and not faith in a person (yes, Christ is personal, hence a person).

It is not my faith that saves me, but the "Object of my Faith" that saves me. If I have placed my faith in an object that is not representative of Who Christ is, I suggest that is a denial of the Spirit of Truth.

Only God has the ability to pay the dept of mankinds sin....no other, no substitute, no angel, God, and God alone can do that. To deny Christ, is to deny the spirit. We are told that "if you deny me, I will deny you before my Father". The Spirit of God is the third person of the Trinity, and He reveals Truth. To deny the Truth of the Spirit is blasphemy, and I am convinced that it is at risk of our immortal spirit to do so.

[{Tim}]

You indicated that belief in the trinity might not be a salvational issue. Let me ask you if you are familiar with the OT concept of the Kinsman Redeemer?
...
only God is capable of paying this great a debtThanks, you have explained this very well. Yes, I agree that it is necessary for Jesus to be God in order for him to be capable of paytng this debt. And I am convinced that he is God.
What I was not 100% certain of, was whether, supposing someone was not convinced of the Trinity, yet still (inconsistently) believed that Christ was able to pay for their sins, and sought to obey God. In this case I personally think that God may (and I stress may) still consider them part of His Kingdom... but as I said in my post, "I have been wrong before". I think that people who deny the Trinity are on shaky ground, but I would not necessarily consider them all condemned due to misunderstanding the Bible, since I don't know what is in their hearts.

So, this is what I was trying to say, about the Trinity "not being essential". The Trinity itself (i.e. Jesus' Godhood) is essential, but believing it may not always be.

Thanks!
Tim

[NonTrinitarian]

It's a complete misunderstanding of the ransom that would lead one to think it was God who had to die for man. Only if we throw away chapter 5 of Romans can we even begin to come to TwoHumble's viewpoint of the ransom.

[twohumble]

Thanks, you have explained this very well. Yes, I agree that it is necessary for Jesus to be God in order for him to be capable of paytng this debt. And I am convinced that he is God.
What I was not 100% certain of, was whether, supposing someone was not convinced of the Trinity, yet still (inconsistently) believed that Christ was able to pay for their sins, and sought to obey God. In this case I personally think that God may (and I stress may) still consider them part of His Kingdom... but as I said in my post, "I have been wrong before". I think that people who deny the Trinity are on shaky ground, but I would not necessarily consider them all condemned due to misunderstanding the Bible, since I don't know what is in their hearts.

So, this is what I was trying to say, about the Trinity "not being essential". The Trinity itself (i.e. Jesus' Godhood) is essential, but believing it may not always be.

Thanks!
Tim
Tim

I fully know where you are coming from. I have two JW's who work for me, and for the longest time, I considered them to be another branch of Christianity. The more study I do in the Word it convinces me that if one is touched by the Holy Spirit, with the knowledge of Truth, then then Trinity is accepted and understood (as well as our 3 dimensional minds can comprehend such things). Denying Christs nature is representative of denying the Holy Spirits revelations of Truth. Remember what Jesus said the Holy Spirit would do? He told us that the HS would proclaim 'Me' (Jesus). If the HS's primary job is to proclaim Jesus, and the denial of the HS is the only unforgivable sin, then it seems to follow that denial of Jesus is in fact a denial of the message of the HS.

I reiterate, Christianity is relationship based. It is based on our relationship with Christ. How well can He relate to a person that denies His most fundamental nature? How well can we know Him if we don't know His most fundamental characteristic?

As always, this is for discussion, I respect your compassionate position toward the unbelievers regarding Christs Deity. It is appropriate and I echo the compassion, if not the content.

[{Tim}]

I reiterate, Christianity is relationship based. It is based on our relationship with Christ. How well can He relate to a person that denies His most fundamental nature? How well can we know Him if we don't know His most fundamental characteristic?

As always, this is for discussion, I respect your compassionate position toward the unbelievers regarding Christs Deity. It is appropriate and I echo the compassion, if not the content.
I understand where you are coming from, and I consider it quite possible that you are right... I guess ATM I'm an agnostic regarding this (in that I am not certain of the answer yet). But I'd rather not see anyone take that chance, anyway! So I'm all in favour of respectful debate about the truth of the Trinity. And speaking of which:

It's a complete misunderstanding of the ransom that would lead one to think it was God who had to die for man. Only if we throw away chapter 5 of Romans can we even begin to come to TwoHumble's viewpoint of the ransom.How so? In what way does Romans 5 show that Jesus need not have been God? Also, how "close to God" (in terms of status) does Jesus need to be in order to be an acceptable ransom - can he be merely a man, or must he be something more (but still less than God in your view)?

Thanks!
Tim

[NonTrinitarian]

How so? In what way does Romans 5 show that Jesus need not have been God? Also, how "close to God" (in terms of status) does Jesus need to be in order to be an acceptable ransom - can he be merely a man, or must he be something more (but still less than God in your view)?

Thanks!
TimGood question Tim. Firstly, NOWHERE in scripture does it say that it was the death of God that would be required to release man from his sins. It's not just TwoHumble's posts that have ZERO scriptures to support such a notion, it is every Trinitarian post. They can't provide any scriptures to say that because there are none. The only thing they offer is their opinion. But there is no need to guess at what was required to save mankind because the scriptures speak of it quite often, though Romans 5 is the most prominent in my opinion.


12 (http://12/) That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned—. 13 (http://13/) For until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not charged against anyone when there is no law. 14 (http://14/) Nevertheless, death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of the transgression by Adam, who bears a resemblance to him that was to come.

15 (http://15/) But it is not with the gift as it was with the trespass. For if by one man’s trespass many died, the undeserved kindness of God and his free gift with the undeserved kindness by the one man Jesus Christ abounded much more to many. 16 (http://16/) Also, it is not with the free gift as it was with the way things worked through the one [man] that sinned. For the judgment resulted from one trespass in condemnation, but the gift resulted from many trespasses in a declaration of righteousness. 17 (http://17/) For if by the trespass of the one [man] death ruled as king through that one, much more will those who receive the abundance of the undeserved kindness and of the free gift of righteousness rule as kings in life through the one, Jesus Christ.

18 (http://18/) So, then, as through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, likewise also through one act of justification the result to men of all sorts is a declaring of them righteous for life. 19 (http://19/) For just as through the disobedience of the one many were constituted sinners, likewise also through the obedience of the one many will be constituted righteousNote the bolded text. Repeatedly Paul compares Adam with Jesus. One man brought sin into the world and was able to condemn all men. The other man was able to remove it. In vs 13 Paul says Jesus bore a resemblance to Adam. This resemblance is that both were perfect. No other man on earth could say that as everyone after Adam was born in sin. Jesus didn't inherit adamic sin because he was born of a virgin (note that the sin was passed via the man, not the woman in vs 12). So Jesus was the exact equivalent of Adam. In fact, note these verses as well.


For since death is through a man, resurrection of the dead is also through a man. 22 (http://22/) For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.-1 Cor 15:21,22Again, the comparison of Adam to Jesus is clear. Note it does not say 'death is through a man, the resurrection through God'. It says 'death through a man, the resurrection also is through a man.'

In that same chapter in 1 Corinthians Paul says this:
It is even so written: “The first man Adam became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit"He gives Jesus the title the "last Adam", again, because Jesus resembled Adam, a perfect man. Back to Romans 5:

We note in verse 15 that again it reads that through the tresspass of one MAN all are condemned and through the obedience of one MAN all are saved. It was the disobedience of a perfect man (Adam) that condemned all of his offspring. It is the obedience of another perfect man (Jesus) that redeemed us.

According to the Apostle Paul, it was the resemblance of Jesus to Adam that brought about our salavation. It was through one man we were condemend and through another man (note, man not God) that we are saved.

Now TwoHumble and other Trinitarians will say 'how can a creature save mankind?' or 'how can a creature cover all the sins of mankind?' We might ask them the same question. 'How can the actions of one mere creature condemn all mankind?' What they have done is say that Adam was powerful enough to kill all humans but the perfect man Jesus Christ was not powerful enough to save them. They ignore the many references to the fact that it was the manhood of Jesus Paul is saying saves us. They ignore that Paul's whole argument is built on the fact that Jesus bore a resemblance to Adam and it was that resemblance that was able to undo what Adam done.

A perfect man brought death to the world and it was a perfect man who took it away. Now ask them where the scriptures are that say it was the death of God that took away the sins. You won't get any scriptures. You'll only get assertions and opinions on why the perfect man Adam was strong enough to condemn the world but the perfect man Jesus would not have been strong enough to save it.

[twohumble]

Good question Tim. Firstly, NOWHERE in scripture does it say that it was the death of God that would be required to release man from his sins. It's not just TwoHumble's posts that have ZERO scriptures to support such a notion, it is every Trinitarian post. They can't provide any scriptures to say that because there are none. The only thing they offer is their opinion. But there is no need to guess at what was required to save mankind because the scriptures speak of it quite often, though Romans 5 is the most prominent in my opinion.

Note the bolded text. Repeatedly Paul compares Adam with Jesus. One man brought sin into the world and was able to condemn all men. The other man was able to remove it. In vs 13 Paul says Jesus bore a resemblance to Adam. This resemblance is that both were perfect. No other man on earth could say that as everyone after Adam was born in sin. Jesus didn't inherit adamic sin because he was born of a virgin (note that the sin was passed via the man, not the woman in vs 12). So Jesus was the exact equivalent of Adam. In fact, note these verses as well.

Again, the comparison of Adam to Jesus is clear. Note it does not say 'death is through a man, the resurrection through God'. It says 'death through a man, the resurrection also is through a man.'

In that same chapter in 1 Corinthians Paul says this:
He gives Jesus the title the "last Adam", again, because Jesus resembled Adam, a perfect man. Back to Romans 5:

We note in verse 15 that again it reads that through the tresspass of one MAN all are condemned and through the obedience of one MAN all are saved. It was the disobedience of a perfect man (Adam) that condemned all of his offspring. It is the obedience of another perfect man (Jesus) that redeemed us.

According to the Apostle Paul, it was the resemblance of Jesus to Adam that brought about our salavation. It was through one man we were condemend and through another man (note, man not God) that we are saved.

Now TwoHumble and other Trinitarians will say 'how can a creature save mankind?' or 'how can a creature cover all the sins of mankind?' We might ask them the same question. 'How can the actions of one mere creature condemn all mankind?' What they have done is say that Adam was powerful enough to kill all humans but the perfect man Jesus Christ was not powerful enough to save them. They ignore the many references to the fact that it was the manhood of Jesus Paul is saying saves us. They ignore that Paul's whole argument is built on the fact that Jesus bore a resemblance to Adam and it was that resemblance that was able to undo what Adam done.

A perfect man brought death to the world and it was a perfect man who took it away. Now ask them where the scriptures are that say it was the death of God that took away the sins. You won't get any scriptures. You'll only get assertions and opinions on why the perfect man Adam was strong enough to condemn the world but the perfect man Jesus would not have been strong enough to save it.
Well, let me start by saying that this thread is about the differences in Trinitarians views from JW's views, and not a debate about the trinity. Therefore, I put no effort in quoting scripture, since in discussion with other trinitarians, we have certain inherent assumptions.

Next, NonTrins entire essay above demonstrates the misunderstanding trinitarians believe that nontrinitarians have regarding the covenant made between God and Abram. Way back in Genesis God said HE would walk the covenant path, and did not allow Abram. A thorough understanding of this, in context with Romans 5 sheds a whole different perspective on what you have written, and underlines the differences between us. The covenant required God to pay the dept, not a 'perfect man', although I don't deny that Jesus was and is a perfect man, He is also God incarnate, hence the covenant bond was fulfilled by God, as He promised in Genesis.

[NonTrinitarian]

Well, let me start by saying that this thread is about the differences in Trinitarians views from JW's views, and not a debate about the trinity. Therefore, I put no effort in quoting scripture, since in discussion with other trinitarians, we have certain inherent assumptions.

Next, NonTrins entire essay above demonstrates the misunderstanding trinitarians believe that nontrinitarians have regarding the covenant made between God and Abram. Way back in Genesis God said HE would walk the covenant path, and did not allow Abram. A thorough understanding of this, in context with Romans 5 sheds a whole different perspective on what you have written, and underlines the differences between us. The covenant required God to pay the dept, not a 'perfect man', although I don't deny that Jesus was and is a perfect man, He is also God incarnate, hence the covenant bond was fulfilled by God, as He promised in Genesis.
Who said God didn't pay the debt? Did I say that? No. I said the debt was paid via a perfect man who corresponded to a perfect man. Oh wait, no, that was Paul that said that. God paid it though, with his own Son. (John 3:16) That is an even BIGGER payment than if God paid with his own life. Who of us parents wouldn't sacrifice our own lives rather than our child's? God made the ultimate sacrifice by giving his son as the perfect man rather than doing it himself.

[twohumble]

Who said God didn't pay the debt? Did I say that? No. I said the debt was paid via a perfect man who corresponded to a perfect man. Oh wait, no, that was Paul that said that. God paid it though, with his own Son. (John 3:16) That is an even BIGGER payment than if God paid with his own life. Who of us parents wouldn't sacrifice our own lives rather than our child's? God made the ultimate sacrifice by giving his son as the perfect man rather than doing it himself.
yes, and again, the misunderstanding of "Son" is at hand here. The Son embodies the Godhead and is begotten of the "same stuff" as the Father. So He is capable of paying the dept. Nothing less than "God stuff" would do. No angel, or other creation could accomplish what God Himself promised He would do.

[NonTrinitarian]

yes, and again, the misunderstanding of "Son" is at hand here. The Son embodies the Godhead and is begotten of the "same stuff" as the Father. So He is capable of paying the dept. Nothing less than "God stuff" would do. No angel, or other creation could accomplish what God Himself promised He would do.
All talk, no scripture. And in direct contrast to what the Apostle Paul said.

[twohumble]

All talk, no scripture. And in direct contrast to what the Apostle Paul said.
No, not at all in contrast to Paul.

I am not for a game of verse ping pong, and don't find it fruitful. Saying that I will provide some verses (I don't know why, I can already see whats coming)

Scripture:
Rom. 10:8-10 “But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (a quote from Deut 30:14 But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.)

Compare Paul to the author of Deut. You will see why Christ and God are one.

In addition:
In Isa. 45:5-6: The true God proclaims “I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me.” Isa.44:6: “Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and His redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”

Christ is this God.

This all ignores the doctrines and illustrations that God has given us in the kinsman Redeemer and in the Covenant Bond that prove that Christ is God.

God Bless.

[NonTrinitarian]

No, not at all in contrast to Paul.

I am not for a game of verse ping pong, and don't find it fruitful. Saying that I will provide some verses (I don't know why, I can already see whats coming)

Scripture:
Rom. 10:8-10 “But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (a quote from Deut 30:14 But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.)

Compare Paul to the author of Deut. You will see why Christ and God are one.

In addition:
In Isa. 45:5-6: The true God proclaims “I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me.” Isa.44:6: “Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and His redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”

Christ is this God.

This all ignores the doctrines and illustrations that God has given us in the kinsman Redeemer and in the Covenant Bond that prove that Christ is God.

God Bless.
So there you have it, Tim. Now it's up to you to decide if the ransom is a basis for saying Jesus is God.

[{Tim}]

So there you have it, Tim. Now it's up to you to decide if the ransom is a basis for saying Jesus is God.Well to be honest, this is not the primary reason I accept it... primarily it is because I understand Jesus to have claimed to be God; but as I said in an earlier post, I have seen enough argument over this issue to know that you will not agree with me.

I do have a comment about one of your posts, though:According to the Apostle Paul, it was the resemblance of Jesus to Adam that brought about our salavation. It was through one man we were condemend and through another man (note, man not God) that we are saved.First of all, I don't think Paul is saying at all that it is Jesus' resemblance to Adam that saves us. It looks to me more like he is using the example of Adam bringing death to emphasise something - probably that salvation also comes only through one man, and nowhere else.
Secondly, Trinitarians believe that Jesus Christ was both fully God ane fully man, so saying that "we are saved through one man" is true, and does not require that he is not God (although it also does nothing by itself to say that Jesus is God, either).

He gives Jesus the title the "last Adam", again, because Jesus resembled Adam, a perfect man.Isn't it a little questionable to call adam "perfect"? After all, he caused death to come into the world. But I admit that he was perfect until he sinned. (Hmmm... that sounds like one of those "...well, duh!" comments :wink:) But I don't think that that is what is in mind in the comparison, anyway.

Jesus didn't inherit adamic sin because he was born of a virgin (note that the sin was passed via the man, not the woman in vs 12).

12 That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.OK. So, " ... death spread to all men because they had all sinned", thus because there was no sinful man involved in Jesus' conception, He was sinless. But, if we are to take this verse literalistically like this, does it not imply that since death passed to all men (only), therefore all women are innocent? And that I do not agree with.

However, we need to recall that until very recently, the term "all men" was acceptable usage for referring to the entire human race - it's only recently that feminists have insisted that we change it. So overall I don't see this verse as supporting the view that "Jesus was sinless because he had no (human) father to pass on sin to him". You would have to find other scripture which supports the view that only males can pass on original sin, in order to convince me.


In summary, I'm afraid that I am not convinced that Romans 5 does in fact imply what you believe it does.

Tim

[NonTrinitarian]

I do have a comment about one of your posts, though:First of all, I don't think Paul is saying at all that it is Jesus' resemblance to Adam that saves us. It looks to me more like he is using the example of Adam bringing death to emphasise something - probably that salvation also comes only through one man, and nowhere else.The constant contrast between Adam and Jesus is pretty straightforward. Paul specifically called out Jesus' resemblance to Adam, not any other man. You are correct that salvation comes through only one man.

Secondly, Trinitarians believe that Jesus Christ was both fully God ane fully man, so saying that "we are saved through one man" is true, and does not require that he is not God (although it also does nothing by itself to say that Jesus is God, either).And I wasn't writing all of this to prove Jesus wasn't God. I am only exposing the error that only God could die for our sins. I'm still waiting for ONE verse that says that because all I have now are verses saying it was the "man" side of Jesus (which I believe was his only side while on earth) that died.

Isn't it a little questionable to call adam "perfect"? After all, he caused death to come into the world. But I admit that he was perfect until he sinned. (Hmmm... that sounds like one of those "...well, duh!" comments :wink:) But I don't think that that is what is in mind in the comparison, anyway.
I was going to say "Duh" but you beat me to it:sigh: Adam and Jesus were the only two perfect men on earth. Adam's perfection ended at the Tree of Life. With the repeated comparison of Jesus to Adam, even calling Jesus the "last Adam", I think it's pretty obvious Paul is highlighting a similarity between the two that no other man could claim.

OK. So, " ... death spread to all men because they had all sinned", thus because there was no sinful man involved in Jesus' conception, He was sinless. But, if we are to take this verse literalistically like this, does it not imply that since death passed to all men (only), therefore all women are innocent? And that I do not agree with.No, it doesn't imply at all that women are innocent. Just take it for what it says. Both Adam and Eve sinned and yet Paul said it was through Adam that the sin passed. It passes to both men and women but it is from the man. Not Eve. Jesus was born from a sinful women and yet he, unlike anyone else, came out clean. Why? Compaing Romans 5 with his virgin birth we can see there was no man to pass the sin onto him. Mary didn't pass sin onto Jesus because God placed it on Adam, not Eve.

However, we need to recall that until very recently, the term "all men" was acceptable usage for referring to the entire human race - it's only recently that feminists have insisted that we change it. So overall I don't see this verse as supporting the view that "Jesus was sinless because he had no (human) father to pass on sin to him". You would have to find other scripture which supports the view that only males can pass on original sin, in order to convince me.Well, I've provided scriptures that at least suggest it. Sin came from Adam, not Eve. The whole of Romans 5 and the virgin birth. Unless you have a scripture that shows the woman passes on imperfection and a scripture explaining why Jesus didn't get it, I have scriptures, you have opinion.


In summary, I'm afraid that I am not convinced that Romans 5 does in fact imply what you believe it does.
Tim
I'm not surprised. With the powerful scriptural arguments presented by TwoHumble and the lack of scriptures I've presented, how could anyone agree with me.

Try this: Instead of just critiquing what I've offered. Stand back and ask what's been offered in refutation. Then ask why Non-Trinitarian stands by his opinion and why no one else is throwing out counter scriptures to support their argument.

[{Tim}]

I'm not surprised. With the powerful scriptural arguments presented by TwoHumble and the lack of scriptures I've presented, how could anyone agree with me.Watch out, someone might take you seriously saying that... :wink:

Try this: Instead of just critiquing what I've offered. Stand back and ask what's been offered in refutation. Then ask why Non-Trinitarian stands by his opinion and why no one else is throwing out counter scriptures to support their argument.I appreciate your position! Well, the main reason I wasn't putting out scriptures is because I've seen both the interpretations and translations of them disagreed with elsewhere; and from reading that debate I'm sure that I won't be able to convince you, but neither am I convinced by the counter-arguments; and finally because I don't want to get into a debate over those issues anyway, as I'm no expert in them.

I basically agree with twohumble's view of the kinsman-redeemer theme, and that only God was in a position to redeem us. As to whether, if Jesus were merely human, yet still perfect, He would have been able to save us... I am not certain, but am willing to concede the possibility. However, I believe that Jesus is YHWH, and would not have been capable of sinlessness if he were not (even allowing for him to be free from original sin), which makes the previous point moot. So clearly my view of who Jesus is affects my acceptance of your proposition. (After all, if Jesus were a sinless man and died to save us, then by definition it need not be God who pays for our sins, since you have a counter-example).

Anyways, it has been interesting te hear your views.
Tim