Just like the early Christians

[NonTrinitarian]

JW's come to Jesus the same way early Christians did. We don't automatically come to him thinking he is part of a three-headed God. We are perhaps sceptical of who he is and ask for proof of such. In the same way, it is obvious the apostles in NO WAY believed he was God the first day they met him.

Apparently, according to Trinitarians, the apostles must have seen or heard something that made them think Jesus was God. What is it that the JW's keep missing in the Gospels that the apostles saw that made them realize Jesus was 1/3 of God who came to the earth and so had to give up some ofhis godly qualities but yet was still Almighty God?

[Trout]

That's a good question NT, I guess conversion is a spiritual occurance whereby God chooses to reveal Himself to us. Maybe after or during this process He grants us discernment of His Word whereby we can discover who He really is?

[k4cym]

That's a good question NT, I guess conversion is a spiritual occurance whereby God chooses to reveal Himself to us. Maybe after or during this process He grants us discernment of His Word whereby we can discover who He really is?

Amen to that...

Matthew 16:15-17 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Life in Him,
John

[Sparko]

We don't automatically come to him thinking he is part of a three-headed God....

JWhat is it that the JW's keep missing in the Gospels that the apostles saw that made them realize Jesus was 1/3 of God who came to the earth and so had to give up some ofhis godly qualities but yet was still Almighty God?
OK, nontrin, you make a big deal about how you used to be a trinitarian until you saw the light. But then you make ignorant statements like that, that show you never really had a true understanding of the trinity.

We don't believe God is a three headed God, nor that God is split up into 3 pieces.

Jesus is FULLY God. The Father is Fully God. The Holy Spriit is Fully God. Three persons revealed in one being.

It isn't 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1 it is 1 x 1 x 1 = 1

[NonTrinitarian]

OK, nontrin, you make a big deal about how you used to be a trinitarian until you saw the light. But then you make ignorant statements like that, that show you never really had a true understanding of the trinity.

We don't believe God is a three headed God, nor that God is split up into 3 pieces.

Jesus is FULLY God. The Father is Fully God. The Holy Spriit is Fully God. Three persons revealed in one being.

It isn't 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1 it is 1 x 1 x 1 = 1
What verse was the 1x1x1=1 thing taught at?

Additionally, you don't believe Jesus is fully God. You believe he has a God over him who tells him what to do. That makes one Almighty God and one God who is somewhat less than the Alimighty.

[Sparko]

Nope. I believe Jesus is the SAME God as the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Jesus = God
Father = God
Holy Spirit = God

One God revealed in three persons.

That the son submits some things to the Father does not mean he is a lesser God. Any more than my giving my father respect makes me a lesser human being.

[Trout]

Additionally, you don't believe Jesus is fully God. You believe he has a God over him who tells him what to do. That makes one Almighty God and one God who is somewhat less than the Alimighty.

No, he wouldn't believe that, he wants to be consistent with scripture.

[NonTrinitarian]

Nope. I believe Jesus is the SAME God as the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Jesus = God
Father = God
Holy Spirit = God

One God revealed in three persons.

That the son submits some things to the Father does not mean he is a lesser God. Any more than my giving my father respect makes me a lesser human being.
Hmm. Go before Pharoah and bow down to his slave standing next to him and right before Pharoah has your head removed, you can tell him, 'It's okay. He's just as much a human as you are.' Furthermore, by your argument there is only one human being!

And this still doesn't address the purpose of this post. What made the disciples finally come to realize Jesus was Almighty God?

[Trout]

Hmm. Go before Pharoah and bow down to his slave standing next to him and right before Pharoah has your head removed, you can tell him, 'It's okay. He's just as much a human as you are.'

Slaves are less human that their masters?


NT:
Furthermore, by your argument there is only one human being!

Do you think God is a human being?


NT:
And this still doesn't address the purpose of this post. What made the disciples finally come to realize Jesus was Almighty God?

It's God who has given us understanding of who He is, same with the disciples.

[Sparko]

Right, non-trin. Attack the analogy. That's always effective.

[NonTrinitarian]

Right, non-trin. Attack the analogy. That's always effective.
Just pointing out how inconsistent you are. You selectively pick and choose your points. Like wanting to take the part where the Father is the same nature as the Son but not wanting to take the part where the son is younger than the Father. How convenient!

I guess no one can come up with WHEN the disciples thought Jesus was God. Troutk13 apparenlty wants me to say accept the idea that God zapped the whole Trinity doctrine into their heads. Funny, it took multiple counsels and huge amounts of debate over decades for everyone else to get it but God just zapped it into the heads of his apostles. So when did he do this TroutK13? Because there are verses all the way through the gospels that show the disciples did not think Jesus was God. If your answer is that God zapped it into their brain then fine. Show me when he did that.

[Trout]

Just pointing out how inconsistent you are. You selectively pick and choose your points. Like wanting to take the part where the Father is the same nature as the Son but not wanting to take the part where the son is younger than the Father. How convenient!

I guess no one can come up with WHEN the disciples thought Jesus was God. Troutk13 apparenlty wants me to say accept the idea that God zapped the whole Trinity doctrine into their heads. Funny, it took multiple counsels and huge amounts of debate over decades for everyone else to get it but God just zapped it into the heads of his apostles. So when did he do this TroutK13? Because there are verses all the way through the gospels that show the disciples did not think Jesus was God. If your answer is that God zapped it into their brain then fine. Show me when he did that.

Right NT, now you're getting it.

Kind of like when you went to school and took "english" classes, you already knew how to speak english, but the classes explained what you already knew.

Such are the Councils and Synods, they define what is already known.

[NonTrinitarian]

Right NT, now you're getting it.

Kind of like when you went to school and took "english" classes, you already knew how to speak english, but the classes explained what you already knew.

Such are the Councils and Synods, they define what is already known.
No, I'm not getting anything except your word on it. WHERE in the Bible did God FIRST zap their brain with the Trinity? Show me the verse when they figured it out. Because I have statements from them after they supposedly thought Jesus was God showing they didn't think he was God.

I don't hold your comments as gospel. So show me the scriptures to prove your point. At some point they finally figured out Jesus was God (according to you). Where?

[Trout]

No, I'm not getting anything except your word on it. WHERE in the Bible did God FIRST zap their brain with the Trinity? Show me the verse when they figured it out. Because I have statements from them after they supposedly thought Jesus was God showing they didn't think he was God.

I don't hold your comments as gospel. So show me the scriptures to prove your point. At some point they finally figured out Jesus was God (according to you). Where?

I pretty sure that I can't convince you of anything in the Bible, I watched you sidestep the Archangel Michael debate, which is very clear from scripture.

Like I said at the get go, it's God who explains the scripture to His children, without His help the Bible is rendered ineffective.

NT I'm going to pray that God will grant you the wisdom and discernment to learn from the Bible Who He is, and how that affects you.

[NonTrinitarian]

I pretty sure that I can't convince you of anything in the Bible, I watched you sidestep the Archangel Michael debate, which is very clear from scripture.

Like I said at the get go, it's God who explains the scripture to His children, without His help the Bible is rendered ineffective.

NT I'm going to pray that God will grant you the wisdom and discernment to learn from the Bible Who He is, and how that affects you.
Don't want to answer? That's fine. I don't blame you. Neither did the religious leaders in Jesus' day. (Mark 3:4)

And please show me where I side-stepped something in any discussion. The only one side-stepping is you, as is obvious from this post.

[Trout]

Don't want to answer? That's fine. I don't blame you. Neither did the religious leaders in Jesus' day. (Mark 3:4)

And please show me where I side-stepped something in any discussion. The only one side-stepping is you, as is obvious from this post.

Do you remember when Jesus met the people on the road after His resurrection? He went and had supper with them and explained the scriptures to them, I'm sure they had heard the scriptures before, but when Jesus taught them, they suddenly knew what they meant.

And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

So it is with us NT, until God Himself opens up the scriptures they're just words on a page.

[NonTrinitarian]

Do you remember when Jesus met the people on the road after His resurrection? He went and had supper with them and explained the scriptures to them, I'm sure they had heard the scriptures before, but when Jesus taught them, they suddenly knew what they meant.

And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

So it is with us NT, until God Himself opens up the scriptures they're just words on a page.
Yes, and what is interesting about that account is these men obviously did not think Jesus was God at this point in time. Yet they had obviously been with Jesus long enough that he considered them close enough companions to visit after his resurrection. Read Luke 24:19-21. It's plain that even though they were obviously intimately familiar with Jesus they didn't think he was God. I suppose your only hopeful argument would be that Jesus explained to them that he was God. Only, Luke doesn't write that part down. He writes how Jesus explained to them how the Messiah would have to die and be resurrected again. I have a hard time believing Luke would have mentioned that but left out the part where Jesus tells them he's ALMIGHTY GOD. What do you think?

[Sparko]

I have a hard time believing Luke would have mentioned that but left out the part where Jesus tells them he's ALMIGHTY GOD. What do you think?
I have a hard time believing that if Luke did do such a thing, it would make one whit of difference to you. The Gospel of John says he is God in the first sentence and has Jesus claim he is "I Am", being crucified for making himself equal with God and Thomas calling Jesus God to his face and that has not stopped you from rationalizing it away with a few hand-waves.

[Trout]

Yes, and what is interesting about that account is these men obviously did not think Jesus was God at this point in time. Yet they had obviously been with Jesus long enough that he considered them close enough companions to visit after his resurrection. Read Luke 24:19-21. It's plain that even though they were obviously intimately familiar with Jesus they didn't think he was God. I suppose your only hopeful argument would be that Jesus explained to them that he was God. Only, Luke doesn't write that part down. He writes how Jesus explained to them how the Messiah would have to die and be resurrected again. I have a hard time believing Luke would have mentioned that but left out the part where Jesus tells them he's ALMIGHTY GOD. What do you think?

I know you have a hard time believing, that's my point, the Bible clearly explains the fact that Jesus is God, but you are blind to it's content. Just like the disciples were:

And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me. (45) Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

They had spent quite a bit of time with Jesus while He ministered on earth, but it wasn't until He "opened their understanding" that they were able to truly grasp what the scripture was saying.

There is a spiritual aspect to understanding the scriptures NT, and I'm going to continue to pray that God will grant it to you.

[NonTrinitarian]

Obviously neither one of you are capable of answering the question or even willing to try for that matter. You come to the Bible already believing Jesus is God. You never ask yourself what the hundreds of verses that differentiate Jesus from God would have meant to people back then. You just assume they understood them the way you do today. You don't derive your understanding from the text, you read it into the text.

And did you ever consider may that it's not my eyes that need to be open? I'll keep praying for you because "no man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me draws him.-Jesus"

[Trout]

Obviously neither one of you are capable of answering the question or even willing to try for that matter.

I answered your question. :huh:


NT:
You come to the Bible already believing Jesus is God.

No, I didn't.


NT:
You never ask yourself what the hundreds of verses that differentiate Jesus from God would have meant to people back then.

Yes I did.


NT:
You just assume they understood them the way you do today.

No I didn't.


NT:
You don't derive your understanding from the text, you read it into the text.

No, I don't.


NT:
And did you ever consider may that it's not my eyes that need to be open?

That's exactly what I used to say before Christ explained the scriptures to me.


NT:
I'll keep praying for you because "no man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me draws him.-Jesus"

Thanks NT.

[Sparko]

Ditto what troutk13 said.

[Captain Ochre]

What verse was the 1x1x1=1 thing taught at?

What Trinitarian used the formulation 1/3+1/3+1/3?
Your request for a scriptural citation is a red herring. The math formulas are illustrations (leaving aside their mutual inadequacy for the moment).

Additionally, you don't believe Jesus is fully God. You believe he has a God over him who tells him what to do.

That's a non sequitur (logical fallacy). There is nothing inconsistent in one person having another person in authority over him when both persons are one god.
1) There is only one god.
2) There is only one God (the Father, who is god).
3) There is only one Christ (who is god).
4) There is only one Spirit (who is god).

That makes one Almighty God and one God who is somewhat less than the Alimighty.

As I show above via those four points (which is non-heretically Trinitarian, afaics), the proper phrasing of your statement should be: "That makes one person of the godhead in charge and another person in the godhead who is under the authority of that other person."
Trinitarians teach that the authority of the Father over the Son (and the Holy Spirit, ftm), is based on submission rather than on some qualitative difference with their respective godness.

To illustrate, suppose there were two of you who were identical in every respect except for having separate consciousness. We'll assume that you are a man. Is one more man than the other? Is one greater in his manness than the other? What if one of you decided to do as the other directed, as a matter of submission? Does that reduce his manness?
The Trinitarian would say "no". The one in submission remains exactly "man" in every relevant respect. Only if that submission were forced would we have reason to conclude that one had greater strength or whatever quality of manness enabled him to force his will on the other.

Scripture does not show a Jesus who is forced to do the bidding of the Father, but a Jesus who willingly submits.

A Jesus who is scripturally credited with the creation of all things, I might add.

[NonTrinitarian]

That's a non sequitur (logical fallacy). There is nothing inconsistent in one person having another person in authority over him when both persons are one god.
1) There is only one god.
2) There is only one God (the Father, who is god).
3) There is only one Christ (who is god).
4) There is only one Spirit (who is god). The inconsistency is this is not taught. IE, christ is not taught to be god. There are hundreds of verses clearly showing he is not God (and note I said "God", not "God the Father") Trinitarians read into these hundreds of verses their already held doctrine that God doesn't mean God as in all of God, you read it as God means "God the Father". Thus, even if every other verse in the Bible had Jesus saying "I am not God" you would just reinterpret that to mean that he was saying he was not "God the Father."



As I show above via those four points (which is non-heretically Trinitarian, afaics), the proper phrasing of your statement should be: "That makes one person of the godhead in charge and another person in the godhead who is under the authority of that other person."
Trinitarians teach that the authority of the Father over the Son (and the Holy Spirit, ftm), is based on submission rather than on some qualitative difference with their respective godness. Accept the hundreds of verses don't say "Godhead" is in charge of another person in the "Godhead". They say "God", period, is separate from Jesus. I can only come to your doctrine if I redefine practically every instance the term God appears in the NT.

To illustrate, suppose there were two of you who were identical in every respect except for having separate consciousness. We'll assume that you are a man. Is one more man than the other? Is one greater in his manness than the other? What if one of you decided to do as the other directed, as a matter of submission? Does that reduce his manness?
The Trinitarian would say "no". The one in submission remains exactly "man" in every relevant respect. Only if that submission were forced would we have reason to conclude that one had greater strength or whatever quality of manness enabled him to force his will on the other. Ah, but let's not stop there with your illustration. Don't forget that these are two separate men. Are you wanting to say there are two separate gods? And it is commonly understood that there are millions of men and ONE God. Only by already assuming God is more than one person can you come to your conclusion.

Let's say there is only one President and that the President told Bob what to say to Joe and then he sent Bob to see Joe. Then when Bob got to Joe he said 'What I'm about to tell you are not my words, they are the President's, who sent me. When you hear these words you will know if they are my ideas or the Presidents.'

Now does Bob need to explain to Joe that he's not the president? Does Joe leave this conversation thinking Bob is the President? No. The only way Joe might think Bob is the President was if he knew the President was a multi-person entity in which one person (Bob) subjected himself to the other person who is commonly called Mr. President. But they're not two presidents because somehow they combine to become one President though nothing else on earth is like that. Unless Joe ALREADY believed in a singular and yet multi-personal President, he would never assume Bob was also the President. And if Bob acted with a certain amount of Presidential authority, Joe would assume that the President gave him that authority.

Be like Joe.

Scripture does not show a Jesus who is forced to do the bidding of the Father, but a Jesus who willingly submits.

A Jesus who is scripturally credited with the creation of all things, I might add.[/QUOTE]

[Captain Ochre]

The inconsistency is this is not taught.

IOW, you admit that your earlier implication that the Trinitarian formula itself is inconsistent was a falsehood?

IE, christ is not taught to be god.

The Gospel of John, 1,1:
1 In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

If Jesus is the Word, and the word is [g]od, then Jesus (Christ) is taught to be god.

There are hundreds of verses clearly showing he is not God (and note I said "God", not "God the Father")

Why don't you give us your best example, so that we can compare it with my fine example that contradicts your claim?

Trinitarians read into these hundreds of verses their already held doctrine that God doesn't mean God as in all of God, you read it as God means "God the Father".

On the contrary, the Trinitarian make the choice between a god pantheon or some sort of henotheism (the alternative embraced by Jehovah's Witnesses), and the option of understanding that while there is only one god (as scripture teaches), the additional scriptural teaching that Jesus is god ("The Lord of Me and the God of me" as the disciple Thomas put it) shows us that Jesus is a true manifestation of the one true God.

Thus, even if every other verse in the Bible had Jesus saying "I am not God" you would just reinterpret that to mean that he was saying he was not "God the Father."

If the context was not compatible with the view that both the Father and Jesus are god, then you are wrong, afaics. As it stands, the verses that you (fail to) cite specfically against Trinitarianism are compatible with the Trinitarian view as taught by theologically astute Trinitarians.
Since you can't show an inconsistency via that route, you commit the fallacy of attacking Trinitarianism based on the supposed motives of the Trinitarian interpreter.

Accept the hundreds of verses don't say "Godhead" is in charge of another person in the "Godhead". They say "God", period, is separate from Jesus.

I have yet to see a single one of your hundreds of proof-texts.
Pretty good way to keep them safe from criticism.
:wink:

I can only come to your doctrine if I redefine practically every instance the term God appears in the NT.

Well, I didn't have to do that, but if that's the only way you can arrive at correct doctrine, then I suggest you get started on it right away.
:smile:

Ah, but let's not stop there with your illustration. Don't forget that these are two separate men. Are you wanting to say there are two separate gods? And it is commonly understood that there are millions of men and ONE God. Only by already assuming God is more than one person can you come to your conclusion.

Lord, please spare me from idiots who insist on taking analogies past their intended point of comparison.
"Son, the eye is like a camera"
"Well, Dad, let's not stop there with the analogy. If the eye is really like a camera, then why doesn't the camera ever cry?"

Analogies, properly used, are intended to communicate an idea regarding a particular point of comparison. It is either bad thinking or an intent to manipulate by use of rhetoric to take an analogy past the intended point of comparison.

My point in the analogy has been made, and apparently you accept it since you wished to take the analogy still further in order to make a point of your own. Evidently you agree that the man is submits is not necessarily any less man than the one who does not.

Your point, which is to be kept separate from my own seems to be that since two different men are not the same man, therefore two different persons (theologically speaking) cannot be the same god.
If that's not your point via the analogy, I invite you to spell it out for us.

Let's say there is only one President and that the President told Bob what to say to Joe and then he sent Bob to see Joe. Then when Bob got to Joe he said 'What I'm about to tell you are not my words, they are the President's, who sent me. When you hear these words you will know if they are my ideas or the Presidents.'

Now does Bob need to explain to Joe that he's not the president?

He does if we have reason to believe that Bob has presidential powers.
John 1:2,3
2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 All things were created through Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created that has been created.

Apart from that, no. But that takes us away from the situation we've got in the Scriptures.

Does Joe leave this conversation thinking Bob is the President? No.

If Joe has witnessed Bob exercising presidential powers, then the answer will not necessarily be "no".

The only way Joe might think Bob is the President was if he knew the President was a multi-person entity in which one person (Bob) subjected himself to the other person who is commonly called Mr. President. But they're not two presidents because somehow they combine to become one President though nothing else on earth is like that.

Corporations are like that, and regardless your argument would force us to regard God as impossible since there's nothing else on earth like God.

Unless Joe ALREADY believed in a singular and yet multi-personal President, he would never assume Bob was also the President. And if Bob acted with a certain amount of Presidential authority, Joe would assume that the President gave him that authority.

Be like Joe.

The Joe who has seen Bob manifest presidential powers, or the Joe who is assisting in a misleading illustration?
:huh:

Scripture does not show a Jesus who is forced to do the bidding of the Father, but a Jesus who willingly submits.

A Jesus who is scripturally credited with the creation of all things, I might add.

You did not deal with the above either directly, or via your illustration.

[NonTrinitarian]

IOW, you admit that your earlier implication that the Trinitarian formula
itself is inconsistent was a falsehood? No, I didn't say that at all. What part of that sentence made you think I was saying that? The Trinity is a falsehood nowhere taught in Scripture. You read scripture with a preconceived view of it.

The Gospel of John, 1,1:

1 In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God.



If Jesus is the Word, and the word is [g]od, then Jesus (Christ) is taught
to be god. How original. Gee, I wish I had read that verse before. I guess this means Moses is God, Solomon is God, in fact, all the Israelite kings are Gods, Peter is Satan and Judas is the Devil.


NT said,
There are hundreds of verses clearly showing he is not God (and note I
said "God", not "God the Father")

CO replied,
Why don't you give us your best example, so that we can compare it with my
fine example that contradicts your claim? Go here and start reading.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15883


But here's one of many.

"Jesus in turn answered them, "What I teach is not mine but belongs to him that sent me. If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality."- John 7:16,17

Now note here the point of this whole thread that I started was that JW's don't come to the Bible already assuming Jesus is God and then look for ways to explain verses like this away. We come to Jesus trying to understand who he is, the same as the people who heard him say these words. Now I already know what your explanation will be. But what about the people who heard these words? Will they walk away and say this? 'Well he's full-god and full-man and so he had to give up some of his godly qualities when he came to the earth. When he said "God" he didn't mean God, he meant God the Father sent him and God the Father had to tell Jesus what to say because Jesus subjected himself to God the Father when he came to the earth. So don't let what Jesus just said fool you. He can say the things he is telling us are God's and not his but he is still God.'

You see, unless you ALREADY believe in the Trinity, it's impossible to read John 7:16,17 and not draw the conclusion that Jesus is not God. There are hundreds more like this, clearly showing Jesus is someone other than God.


NT said
Trinitarians read into these hundreds of verses their already held
doctrine that God doesn't mean God as in all of God, you read it as God
means "God the Father".

CO dodged the question by going off on a tangent by saying,

On the contrary, the Trinitarian make the choice between a god pantheon or
some sort of henotheism (the alternative embraced by Jehovah's Witnesses),
and the option of understanding that while there is only one god (as
scripture teaches), the additional scriptural teaching that Jesus is god
("The Lord of Me and the God of me" as the disciple Thomas put it) shows us
that Jesus is a true manifestation of the one true God.
Good dodge there. Hope you didn't hurt you neck doing it. The scriptures call a number of people God due to representing God. Angels are called face to face by the name "Jehovah" because they represent God. And this diversion you are trying to create to avoid the fact that you replace the term God with God the Father is noted. In fact, even if Jesus said directly "I am not God" you would say 'Well this doesn't mean Jesus isn't God, it just means he is God the Father. Jesus isn't God the Father but he is God. So that's why Jesus' saying 'I am not God' does not mean he is not God.'

By the way you do that the hundreds of other times Jesus is spoken of as being someone other than God (note God, not God the Father, God, period) why would you not do it if Jesus said "I am not God"?


NT said,
Thus, even if every other verse in the Bible had Jesus saying "I am not
God" you would just reinterpret that to mean that he was saying he was not
"God the Father."

OC responded,
If the context was not compatible with the view that both the Father and
Jesus are god, then you are wrong, afaics. As it stands, the verses that you
(fail to) cite specfically against Trinitarianism are compatible with the
Trinitarian view as taught by theologically astute Trinitarians.
Since you can't show an inconsistency via that route, you commit the fallacy
of attacking Trinitarianism based on the supposed motives of the Trinitarian
interpreter.
Theologically astute Trinitarians? Hmm. Did they exist in the first century? Nice job of demonstrating your a priori in interpreting scripture. The farmers and fishermen in the first century didn't interpret Jesus' words like you do. They didn't already have a belief of a three-headed God and so when Jesus said he was someone other than God, they believed him. You on the other hand, do not.



NT said,
I can only come to your doctrine if I redefine practically every
instance the term God appears in the NT.

In sheer denial CO replies,
Well, I didn't have to do that, but if that's the only way you can arrive at
correct doctrine, then I suggest you get started on it right away. Yes you did. Let's take one and prove it.
"A Revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave to him to show his slaves the things..."-Rev 1:1

Now here we have God giving Jesus the Revelation. What do you mean by God? I thought Jesus was God? If Jesus is God then who is this other person called "God" who had to give Jesus the Revelation? Every Trinitarian I have ever read or spoken with has said that "God" means "God the Father" when it's contrasted with Jesus. Will you break rank and say it doesn't? And if so, I'd like to hear your meaning of the term "God".

Here's another one:
"Exercise faith in God. Exercise faith in me ALSO." John 14:1

Wait. Isn't Jesus God? Did he just repeat himself? He just distinctly separated himself from God? So what is your explanation on why this would not tell anyone that Jesus is someone other than God? Who was Jesus calling God so that he felt it was necessary to say after he told them to exercise faith in God that they needed to exercise faith in him too?

When you come back and say "God" means "God the Father" you have just done what I said you would do and what you said you do not do.


NT said,
Ah, but let's not stop there with your illustration. Don't forget that
these are two separate men. Are you wanting to say there are two separate
gods? And it is commonly understood that there are millions of men and ONE
God. Only by already assuming God is more than one person can you come to
your conclusion.

CO replied,

Lord, please spare me from idiots who insist on taking analogies past their
intended point of comparison.
"Son, the eye is like a camera"
"Well, Dad, let's not stop there with the analogy. If the eye is really like
a camera, then why doesn't the camera ever cry?"

Analogies, properly used, are intended to communicate an idea regarding a
particular point of comparison. It is either bad thinking or an intent to
manipulate by use of rhetoric to take an analogy past the intended point of
comparison.

My point in the analogy has been made, and apparently you accept it since
you wished to take the analogy still further in order to make a point of
your own. Evidently you agree that the man is submits is not necessarily any
less man than the one who does not.

Your point, which is to be kept separate from my own seems to be that since
two different men are not the same man, therefore two different persons
(theologically speaking) cannot be the same god.
If that's not your point via the analogy, I invite you to spell it out for
us. Goodness. Now I have to teach Trinitarians about Illustrations? I picked your illustration apart because it didn't address the analogy you are trying to show. The purpose of your illustration was to show the NATURE of God. It doesn't do that. You're trying to use an illustration to show how two persons can be the same God. Correct? How does your idiotic illustration show that? Two persons are not the same human. They are two different humans. You're not just talking about equality. You are talking about equality of nature and the most fundamental aspect of human nature is that we are all separate humans.

Illustrations take an aspect that is similar to something else. For instance, Jesus was trying to compare how the Kingdom of God was going to grow from a small origin to a huge kingdom and so he used the illustration of a mustard seed. A very small seed that ends up being huge when it reaches maturity. Abusing that illustration would be saying 'Lord, is your kingdom going to be rubbed on a slab of bread?' That wasn't Jesus' point. His point was that something very small that grows into something very big is what his Kingdom will do.

But now let's say that mustard seeds didn't grow very big at all. Let's say they only sprouted 1 inch out of the ground. Is that really illustrating the growth of God's Kingdom well? No. And someone could say to Jesus 'But Lord, the mustard seed grows to be a very small plant.' Is Jesus going to say 'Well you're taking my illustration too far'? I think the answer is obvious. Jesus chose the illustration of the mustard seed because it illustrates his point on the growth of the kingdom. That's why he didn't use a seed that hardly grows at all.

Let me illustrate God and Jesus for you. God has a Son. He is called God's Son. Just as a Father is ALWAYS older than the Son, so God is ALWAYS older than Jesus. Just as a Father is always a different human, animal, insect or bird from his son, so God is different from His Son. Just as the Father ALWAYS gives life to his son, so God gives life to His Son. And just as the son does not exist until his Father gives him life, so the Son did not exist until God gave him life.

And you know what's interesting? The Bible supports my illustration by saying 1.) God is a distinct person from the Son (note it says "God", not "God the Father", which you like to replace God with at every convenience) 2.) God gave life to the Son. Where is your illustration taught at in the Bible? You know, the verse where Jesus says 'Just as a human son is equal with his father, so is God's Son equal with God.'


NT said
Let's say there is only one President and that the President told Bob
what to say to Joe and then he sent Bob to see Joe. Then when Bob got to Joe
he said 'What I'm about to tell you are not my words, they are the
President's, who sent me. When you hear these words you will know if they
are my ideas or the Presidents.'

Now does Bob need to explain to Joe that he's not the president?

CO replies,

He does if we have reason to believe that Bob has presidential powers.
John 1:2,3

2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 All things were created through
Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created that has been created.

Apart from that, no. But that takes us away from the situation we've got in
the Scriptures. Really? I bet everyone but Captain Ochre would think that the President gave Bob some Presidential authority, not that the President had sprouted another head that divided from the President and walked over to Joe and yet this sprouted head still spoke of the President as someone else. Let's test your little theory.

It was believed that only God could forgive sins. There's your 'Presidential power'. Now you say that if anyone else saw someone forgive sins, they would immediately know that this person was God. Jesus forgave sins. Did people do as you say they would do an conclude that he is God because he displayed God powers? No. The account in Matthew says that after the people saw Jesus forgive sins and heal the man, "The praised God who had given such authority to men."

So if the above scenario with the President, Bob and Joe really causes you to think that the President and Bob are part of some multi-person human, you have real problems CO. REAL problems, more than I can help you with.

Furthermore, this illustration doesn't take us away from what we have in scripture. Jesus said almost the EXACT same words (except replace President with God and Bob with Jesus). The people who heard those words would have walked away from that clearly thinking Jesus was someone other than God. Just like anyone but apparently you would have walked away from Bob clearly thinking he was not the President.


NT asked,
Does Joe leave this conversation thinking Bob is the President? No.

CO replied,
If Joe has witnessed Bob exercising presidential powers, then the answer
will not necessarily be "no". Ah, but your answer is merely your opinion. I have scriptures that clearly show that when Jesus did something supposedly only God could do, the people didn't walk away thinking he was God. They walked away thinking that God had given Jesus that authority.


NT said,
Unless Joe ALREADY believed in a singular and yet multi-personal
President, he would never assume Bob was also the President. And if Bob
acted with a certain amount of Presidential authority, Joe would assume that
the President gave him that authority.

Be like Joe.

CO replied,

The Joe who has seen Bob manifest presidential powers, or the Joe who is
assisting in a misleading illustration? Misleading illustration? Again, you know nothing about illustrations. Replace the terms President with God, Bob with Jesus and Joe with the crowds who heard Jesus. You have John 7:16,17.

My illustration is that if ANYONE else on the face of this earth had said the SAME EXACT words Jesus said, NO ONE would walk away thinking he is God. ONLY because you ALREADY believe Jesus is God and you believe in the Trinity do you see it any differently. CO, you don't come to the Bible trying to find out who Jesus is. You have your mind made up and you reinterpret everything contrary to how you would for anything else. By replacing the words God with President and Jesus with Bob, I have illustrated that point. I have also, with a scriptural example, refuted your argument that displaying 'presidential powers' in no way would cause anyone (except you maybe) to conclude that the President was actually a multi-person human.


Scripture does not show a Jesus who is forced to do the bidding of the
Father, but a Jesus who willingly submits.

A Jesus who is scripturally credited with the creation of all things, I
might add. Rookie Trinitarians. What are we going to do with them?
And scriptures show a bunch of humans who ALSO are not forced to do the bidding of the Father. Christians do it willingly. I guess that makes us equal to God in your mind. Zeeesh!

We talked about whether Jesus was the Creator in another thread. I'm not rehashing that one again unless you have an argument that wasn't already addressed.

[Sparko]

Sarcasm is not an argument, Non-Trin, it's an attack.

[Captain Ochre]

No, I didn't say that at all. What part of that sentence made you think I was saying that?

The whole thing:
"The inconsistency is this is not taught."

You wrote that after you wrote this:
"That makes one Almighty God and one God who is somewhat less than the Alimighty."

Your charge was a fallacious non sequitur and I showed why. The math illustration you used (that 1+1+1 thing) is traditionally an attempt to show that Trinitarian doctrine is not self-consistent. You have been (afaics) forced to admit that the non-strawman version of the Trinity doctrine is not correctly illustrated by that math illustration, and as a result you clarified your position as being that the Trinity is supposedly inconsistent simply because it is inconsistent with Scripture.

The Trinity is a falsehood nowhere taught in Scripture. You read scripture with a preconceived view of it.

How original. Gee, I wish I had read that verse before. I guess this means Moses is God, Solomon is God, in fact, all the Israelite kings are Gods, Peter is Satan and Judas is the Devil.

It means that you probably have a difficult time considering context where it doesn't support your preconceived view of Scripture ...

But here's one of many.

"Jesus in turn answered them, "What I teach is not mine but belongs to him that sent me. If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality."- John 7:16,17

Now note here the point of this whole thread that I started was that JW's don't come to the Bible already assuming Jesus is God and then look for ways to explain verses like this away. We come to Jesus trying to understand who he is, the same as the people who heard him say these words. Now I already know what your explanation will be. But what about the people who heard these words? Will they walk away and say this? 'Well he's full-god and full-man and so he had to give up some of his godly qualities when he came to the earth. When he said "God" he didn't mean God, he meant God the Father sent him and God the Father had to tell Jesus what to say because Jesus subjected himself to God the Father when he came to the earth. So don't let what Jesus just said fool you. He can say the things he is telling us are God's and not his but he is still God.'

Are you willing to consider the context of each verse?
The verse I presented from the Gospel of John is a brief cosmology centered on the person of Christ. It is intended to explain who Jesus is in relation to God.
The verse that you presented has a context of questioning the authority of Jesus, specifically regarding his teaching from Scripture when Jesus was apparently untrained.

You see, unless you ALREADY believe in the Trinity, it's impossible to read John 7:16,17 and not draw the conclusion that Jesus is not God.

Likewise, you cannot read the opening to the Gospel of John and come to any other conclusion than "Jesus is god".
The problem is that scripture teaches that there is but one god, Yahweh.

I agree that those in the crowd who listened to Jesus would not, from his statements at that time, think to conclude that Jesus was himself god.
But you believe in progressive revelation, right?

There are hundreds more like this, clearly showing Jesus is someone other than God.

Try to avoid moving the goalposts.
"God" as written in English typically stands in for "The God" which is MOL a name (as "Dad" serves as a name). It is reasonable to suppose that the term as used by the Jews effectively represented their relationship with God the Father.

NT accidentally added a bit of editorial to the text attributed to me:
CO dodged the question by going off on a tangent by saying,

You didn't ask a question. You made an assertion, and I countered it.
:bonk:
You assert eisegesis on the part of Trinitarians, and I provide an alternative explanation (one that you apparently don't like and one that perhaps you have no way of explaining away) involving exegesis.

Good dodge there. Hope you didn't hurt you neck doing it.

I haven't dodged at all.

The scriptures call a number of people God due to representing God.

Correct, but in Revelation we have an angel representing God, and that angel refuses worship/obeisance, which Jesus did not refuse.

Angels are called face to face by the name "Jehovah" because they represent God.

Well, it's also possible that those angels were Jesus, OTOH. But if you've got your mind made up when you read the verse, then you'll certainly conclude otherwise.
:smile:

And this diversion you are trying to create to avoid the fact that you replace the term God with God the Father is noted. In fact, even if Jesus said directly "I am not God" you would say 'Well this doesn't mean Jesus isn't God, it just means he is God the Father. Jesus isn't God the Father but he is God. So that's why Jesus' saying 'I am not God' does not mean he is not God.'

I had forgotten the difficulty that JW's have with words that have more than one meaning (except when it comes to "proskuneo" :lol:).
Different meanings are associated with the same symbol, thus "God" is going to have a number of different meanings. Some will become apparent by reading the context, while others might only become apparent based on the principle of progressive revelation.

By the way you do that the hundreds of other times Jesus is spoken of as being someone other than God (note God, not God the Father, God, period) why would you not do it if Jesus said "I am not God"?

Again, "God" (the God) is reasonably taken as having the identical meaning to "God the Father" just as "Dad" means "Mr. Smith" to the Smiths and "Dad" means "Mr. Jones" to the Joneses.

Theologically astute Trinitarians? Hmm. Did they exist in the first century? Nice job of demonstrating your a priori in interpreting scripture.

:lol:
Nice job of arguing via unsupported assertion. I gave no shred of evidence regarding insinuation of previously-held beliefs into the text.

The farmers and fishermen in the first century didn't interpret Jesus' words like you do. They didn't already have a belief of a three-headed God and so when Jesus said he was someone other than God, they believed him. You on the other hand, do not.

They didn't have the Gospel of John, or the Revelation of John. I do. I believe in progressive revelation.
Do you?

Yes you did. Let's take one and prove it.
"A Revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave to him to show his slaves the things..."-Rev 1:1

No, I didn't. I know from the fact that Jesus is god (Gospel of John) and that Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega--along with God, that when "God" gives something to Jesus it doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus isn't God in some particular sense. As noted earlier, it is sensible to understand "the God" as referring to the person of God the Father, especially if one wishes to avoid the contradiction of scripture that JW's tradionally fall into (Scripture teaches the existence of one god, yet JW's believe in at least 2 gods).

Now here we have God giving Jesus the Revelation. What do you mean by God? I thought Jesus was God? If Jesus is God then who is this other person called "God" who had to give Jesus the Revelation? Every Trinitarian I have ever read or spoken with has said that "God" means "God the Father" when it's contrasted with Jesus. Will you break rank and say it doesn't? And if so, I'd like to hear your meaning of the term "God".

Here's another one:
"Exercise faith in God. Exercise faith in me ALSO." John 14:1

Wait. Isn't Jesus God? Did he just repeat himself? He just distinctly separated himself from God?

He either distinguished himself from God, or he identified himself with God.
I believe that the latter is more correct, in context.
"You can count on your McDonald's manager. And you also can count on me."
"Huh? My manager just said that to me ... he must have MPD--either that or he has resigned as manager ..."

So what is your explanation on why this would not tell anyone that Jesus is someone other than God? Who was Jesus calling God so that he felt it was necessary to say after he told them to exercise faith in God that they needed to exercise faith in him too?

See above.

When you come back and say "God" means "God the Father" you have just done what I said you would do and what you said you do not do.

To be "redefining" something I would have to be changing it from the proper definition--wouldn't I? So when did I change it? There is no default meaning for "God". Meaning is always derived from the context.

Goodness. Now I have to teach Trinitarians about Illustrations? I picked your illustration apart because it didn't address the analogy you are trying to show. The purpose of your illustration was to show the NATURE of God.

Right, but only with respect to the supposed inconsistency between Jesus and the Father being God compared to the allegation that Trinitarianism teaches the existence of more than one god.

It doesn't do that.

Apparently it does, since you dropped the implication of internal inconsistency in favor of inconsistency with Scripture.
Are you trying to belatedly change your mind?
:smile:

You're trying to use an illustration to show how two persons can be the same God. Correct?

No, I'm showing how submission doesn't make one god any less a god.

From your own quotation of me:
"Evidently you agree that the man is submits is not necessarily any
less man than the one who does not."

How does your idiotic illustration show that? Two persons are not the same human. They are two different humans. You're not just talking about equality. You are talking about equality of nature and the most fundamental aspect of human nature is that we are all separate humans.

No, I'm not. Read what I wrote.
You are being silly.

Let me illustrate God and Jesus for you. God has a Son. He is called God's Son. Just as a Father is ALWAYS older than the Son, so God is ALWAYS older than Jesus.

You just smeared God's kingdom on a slice of bread, my friend.
Jesus is God's son in terms of heirship, and by having the essential traits of his father. Take it to indicate chronological ordering, and you either contradict or add to scripture.
"In the beginning was the Word ..."

Just as a Father is always a different human, animal, insect or bird from his son, so God is different from His Son. Just as the Father ALWAYS gives life to his son, so God gives life to His Son. And just as the son does not exist until his Father gives him life, so the Son did not exist until God gave him life.

I guess an adopted kid cannot be the son of his adopted father, since you have specified that the father "ALWAYS" gives life to his son.

Here's the real problem, however: God created everything--no? If God created everything, then what isn't his son in terms of being generated by God? Nothing, obviously. Therefore, it would be redundant for the primary meaning (if any meaning at all) to be the idea that Jesus was "created by" God. And in scripture we find that idea completely and specifically refuted, for we find that not only is Christ the creator of all things, we find that not even one thing was created without Jesus Christ. Logically, this leaves absolutely no room for the notion that Jesus was created. You have to redefine the verse to read it otherwise.
:smile:

And you know what's interesting? The Bible supports my illustration by saying 1.) God is a distinct person from the Son (note it says "God", not "God the Father", which you like to replace God with at every convenience)

Trinitarianism teaches that God is a distinct person from the Son (how come you don't realize that by now?).

2.) God gave life to the Son. Where is your illustration taught at in the Bible? You know, the verse where Jesus says 'Just as a human son is equal with his father, so is God's Son equal with God.'

I've given that illustration already, albeit you tried to turn it into an illustration of how two persons could be one god.
The human father is a man. The human son is a man.
Is the human father more man than his son?

Really? I bet everyone but Captain Ochre would think that the President gave Bob some Presidential authority, not that the President had sprouted another head that divided from the President and walked over to Joe and yet this sprouted head still spoke of the President as someone else.

We find it unusual to see presidential authority spread around like that.
:smile:

Let's test your little theory.

It was believed that only God could forgive sins. There's your 'Presidential power'. Now you say that if anyone else saw someone forgive sins, they would immediately know that this person was God.

Jesus forgave sins. Did people do as you say they would do an conclude that he is God because he displayed God powers? No. The account in Matthew says that after the people saw Jesus forgive sins and heal the man, "The praised God who had given such authority to men."

I'm guessing that you don't want to talk about the people who saw the act as blasphemy.
Tell you what: Just leave that part out.
:smile:

So if the above scenario with the President, Bob and Joe really causes you to think that the President and Bob are part of some multi-person human, you have real problems CO. REAL problems, more than I can help you with.

You're right, because it's hard to sell me on fallacious reasoning--and that's what you're selling.
I simply said that Bob should make clear that he's not the President if he's wielding presidential powers, and you've got me concluding that there's some multi-person human.
If, in my experience, Bob's statements were utterly reliable and he told me that he was one with the President, and the President had always existed, and Bob had always existed, then I might begin to conclude that the President was a multi-person human.

Furthermore, this illustration doesn't take us away from what we have in scripture. Jesus said almost the EXACT same words (except replace President with God and Bob with Jesus). The people who heard those words would have walked away from that clearly thinking Jesus was someone other than God. Just like anyone but apparently you would have walked away from Bob clearly thinking he was not the President.

Ah, but your answer is merely your opinion. I have scriptures that clearly show that when Jesus did something supposedly only God could do, the people didn't walk away thinking he was God. They walked away thinking that God had given Jesus that authority.

Yet you believe in progressive revelation, right?

Misleading illustration? Again, you know nothing about illustrations. Replace the terms President with God, Bob with Jesus and Joe with the crowds who heard Jesus. You have John 7:16,17.

Where is John 1:1-3 in the illustration? :huh:

Rookie Trinitarians. What are we going to do with them?

:lol:
The JW's helped cement my Trinitarianism by being so obvious about taking scriptures out of context. My JW visitors always ended on the defensive regarding the person of Christ, including the local chief elder. None of them can explain how Jesus can create everything that has been created while being himself created.
They can't do it because it cannot be done without abandoning logic.

And scriptures show a bunch of humans who ALSO are not forced to do the bidding of the Father. Christians do it willingly. I guess that makes us equal to God in your mind. Zeeesh!

Apparently you've conveniently forgotten that Jesus created all things.
What have you created lately, NT?
:lol:

We talked about whether Jesus was the Creator in another thread. I'm not rehashing that one again unless you have an argument that wasn't already addressed.

Good idea, since you're toast if you try to address it.

[NonTrinitarian]

NT said,

But here's one of many.

"Jesus in turn answered them, "What I teach is not mine but belongs to him that sent me. If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality."- John 7:16,17

Now note here the point of this whole thread that I started was that JW's don't come to the Bible already assuming Jesus is God and then look for ways to explain verses like this away. We come to Jesus trying to understand who he is, the same as the people who heard him say these words. Now I already know what your explanation will be. But what about the people who heard these words? Will they walk away and say this? 'Well he's full-god and full-man and so he had to give up some of his godly qualities when he came to the earth. When he said "God" he didn't mean God, he meant God the Father sent him and God the Father had to tell Jesus what to say because Jesus subjected himself to God the Father when he came to the earth. So don't let what Jesus just said fool you. He can say the things he is telling us are God's and not his but he is still God.



CO replied, kinda sorta,
Are you willing to consider the context of each verse?
The verse I presented from the Gospel of John is a brief cosmology centered on the person of Christ. It is intended to explain who Jesus is in relation to God.
The verse that you presented has a context of questioning the authority of Jesus, specifically regarding his teaching from Scripture when Jesus was apparently untrained.

The question, in case you didn’t understand it, was what the people in Jesus’ day would have thought when they heard this. They walked away thinking he wasn’t God because of what Jesus said here. You would too if you didn’t already have a preconceived belief. You don’t want to consider all of the evidence, you only want to take your Trinitarian beliefs, for Jesus into God, then come back and evaluate the rest of the verses that show he is not God. I do consider the context of each verse and from this verse it is clear the things Jesus taught were not his, but Gods. Of course you’ll replace God with God the Father.

Likewise, you cannot read the opening to the Gospel of John and come to any other conclusion than "Jesus is god".
The problem is that scripture teaches that there is but one god, Yahweh.

I agree that those in the crowd who listened to Jesus would not, from his statements at that time, think to conclude that Jesus was himself god.
But you believe in progressive revelation, right?

Oh really huh? “In the beginning was the word and the word was WITH the god and the word was god. The same was in the beginning WITH the god.” I read this and come to an immediate conclusion that Jesus is not “The God”, he is WITH “The God” and is also called God. But my OT heritage knows that kings of God’s Nation, Israel, were also called Gods. So if Jesus is King then, like all other Israelite kings, he can be called God.

And I see you are now moving on to progressive revelation. So when did the disciples FIRST realize Jesus was God? And why would not the hundreds of verses that separate Jesus from God not cause people to think he is not God? Because they developed the Trinity first?

Try to avoid moving the goalposts.
"God" as written in English typically stands in for "The God" which is MOL a name (as "Dad" serves as a name). It is reasonable to suppose that the term as used by the Jews effectively represented their relationship with God the Father.

Uh, in the OT the True God is addressed by the term “Jehovah” THREE TIMES as often as he is addressed as “God”. The name of Jehovah is used more often in the Bible than the TITLES God, Lord, Father, Creator, Almighty and Maker combined! So don’t give me your opinionated and unsupported rhetoric on God being the name for God the Father. Face it, you automatically rip out the word “God” in all of these verses and replace with “God the Father”, dividing God from one into more than one.

NT accidentally added a bit of editorial to the text attributed to me:
CO dodged the question by going off on a tangent by saying,

You didn't ask a question. You made an assertion, and I countered it.
You assert eisegesis on the part of Trinitarians, and I provide an alternative explanation (one that you apparently don't like and one that perhaps you have no way of explaining away) involving exegesis.[/quoted]

You’re right, it wasn’t a question, it was an assertion that you dodged. You didn’t address it at all. I asserted that you automatically replace God with God the Father whenever it suits your needs. That is not exegesis. You automatically assume God is a Trinity and whenever you come to a problem text where Jesus is clearly said to be someone other than God you say ‘Oh, no problem. I’ll just replace the word God with the phrase God the Father and everything is fine and dandy. Look at me. I can do this hundreds of times too!’ Some exegesis. So tell me CO, what DOES the Bible have to say to convince you Jesus isn’t God?

[quote]I haven't dodged at all.

This is what you said in response to my assertion that you automatically pick and chose your definition of God

“On the contrary, the Trinitarian make the choice between a god pantheon or some sort of henotheism (the alternative embraced by Jehovah's Witnesses), and the option of understanding that while there is only one god (as scripture teaches), the additional scriptural teaching that Jesus is god ("The Lord of Me and the God of me" as the disciple Thomas put it) shows us that Jesus is a true manifestation of the one true God.”

What part of that is addressing the assertion? I said you automatically replace God with God the Father and this doesn’t even address the assertion. Do you admit you automatically replace God with God the Father at your whim and a priori of the Trinity?

NT said, The scriptures call a number of people God due to representing God.

Co replied
Correct, but in Revelation we have an angel representing God, and that angel refuses worship/obeisance, which Jesus did not refuse.

Why do you jump off to tangents like this? In other parts of the Bible we have humans receiving proskyneo and they don’t refuse it. Does this mean they are God? Oh, maybe you think because it’s in the book of Revelation that it makes it special? Well, in Revelation we have humans receiving proskyneo too. They don’t refuse it. Does this mean they are God?
Angels are called face to face by the name "Jehovah" because they represent God.



NT said, Angels are called face to face by the name "Jehovah" because they represent God

CO replied,
Well, it's also possible that those angels were Jesus, OTOH. But if you've got your mind made up when you read the verse, then you'll certainly conclude otherwise.
file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CBreanna%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_image007.gif

As far as Jesus being the angels and thus supposedly being called Jehovah because he is, you need to brush up on your reading. Lot calls TWO angels both by the name Jehovah. Unless Jesus was both angels at the same time…



NT said,

And this diversion you are trying to create to avoid the fact that you replace the term God with God the Father is noted. In fact, even if Jesus said directly "I am not God" you would say 'Well this doesn't mean Jesus isn't God, it just means he is God the Father. Jesus isn't God the Father but he is God. So that's why Jesus' saying 'I am not God' does not mean he is not God.



CO replied
I had forgotten the difficulty that JW's have with words that have more than one meaning (except when it comes to "proskuneo" file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CBreanna%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_image008.gif).
Different meanings are associated with the same symbol, thus "God" is going to have a number of different meanings. Some will become apparent by reading the context, while others might only become apparent based on the principle of progressive revelation.

Progressive revelation again? Why don’t you call it what it really is. Bringing your preconceived beliefs to the text. I noticed you didn’t address the point about what if Jesus had said “I am not God.” Probably because you’d do exactly what I said you’d do. You see, you can only divide God up into three persons in order to refute the hundreds of verses that differentiate Jesus FROM God AFTER you have created the Trinity. So until people had a well formulated doctrine of the Trinity, they would read these verses and think Jesus is Not God.

Again, "God" (the God) is reasonably taken as having the identical meaning to "God the Father" just as "Dad" means "Mr. Smith" to the Smiths and "Dad" means "Mr. Jones" to the Joneses.

God had a name and it appears nearly 7000 times in the Bible. Further, the Jews believed in only one God. So to say “God” to them didn’t mean “God the Father, the first person of the Trinity”. To a Jew in Jesus’ day, it meant all of God. PERIOD. All of God sent Jesus and told him what to say. That’s how Jews who didn’t already have a preconceived belief in the Trinity would see these verses.

NT said, The farmers and fishermen in the first century didn't interpret Jesus' words like you do. They didn't already have a belief of a three-headed God and so when Jesus said he was someone other than God, they believed him. You on the other hand, do not.

Co replied
They didn't have the Gospel of John, or the Revelation of John. I do. I believe in progressive revelation. Do you?

This just gets better and better. So basically you’re saying that for the next 60+ years between Jesus dying and the book of John being written, people didn’t know the truth about Jesus? The 3000 Jews who got baptized at Pentecost 33CE. Did they get baptized knowing Jesus is God?




No, I didn't. I know from the fact that Jesus is god (Gospel of John) and that Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega--along with God, that when "God" gives something to Jesus it doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus isn't God in some particular sense. As noted earlier, it is sensible to understand "the God" as referring to the person of God the Father, especially if one wishes to avoid the contradiction of scripture that JW's tradionally fall into (Scripture teaches the existence of one god, yet JW's believe in at least 2 gods).


Okay, this explain why you go off on tangents and ignore the arguments. You don’t comprehend English well enough. CO, I said that when you read Revelation 1:1, you (in your mind) automatically replace God with “God the Father”. That what I argued. You say “No, I didn’t” THEN JUST TWO SENTENCES DOWN YOU SAID THIS! “it is sensible to understand "the God" as referring to the person of God the Father,”

My goodness! I told you I was going to prove to you that you automatically replace God with God the Father and you reply you don’t then you immediately turn around and say it’s sensible to understand God as referring to “God the Father.” You do comprehend what I’m writing don’t you?!

He either distinguished himself from God, or he identified himself with God.
I believe that the latter is more correct, in context.
"You can count on your McDonald's manager. And you also can count on me."
"Huh? My manager just said that to me ... he must have MPD--either that or he has resigned as manager ..."

This is so pathetic I can’t tell if your serious or jerking my chain. If this really did happen (And I am questioning it) then your former manager is a nut or he resigned and is no longer a manager. If he is not a manager then by the same token Jesus is not God. Since you haven’t established that Jesus was Almighty God you can’t use the resigned argument for him.

And you’re explanation does not answer my question on why people would not have thought Jesus was not God at John 14:1. Your options are that Jesus was a schitzophrenic or that he resigned as God. I don’t think either of those are what the disciples would have thought.



Nt said,

When you come back and say "God" means "God the Father" you have just done what I said you would do and what you said you do not do.



CO replied
To be "redefining" something I would have to be changing it from the proper definition--wouldn't I? So when did I change it? There is no default meaning for "God". Meaning is always derived from the context.

And the context is that God is one and Jesus is saying he is someone other than God. The writers could have put God the Father (which would have supported the Trinity BTW) but instead they say “God” You replace their word with your own. Plain and simple.

Apparently it does, since you dropped the implication of internal inconsistency in favor of inconsistency with Scripture.
Are you trying to belatedly change your mind?
file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CBreanna%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_image007.gif

I don’t even know what you are talking about. The trinity is internally inconsistent. Namely because it defies all logic and there is no evidence for it.

You just smeared God's kingdom on a slice of bread, my friend.
Jesus is God's son in terms of heirship, and by having the essential traits of his father. Take it to indicate chronological ordering, and you either contradict or add to scripture.
"In the beginning was the Word ..."

Man, you are so unfamiliar with JW beliefs. Why don’t you do some reading up on it so I don’t have to refute these week arguments. Who else was in the “beginning” of John 1:1? (Anticipating you’ll say “No one but God and Jesus”) Hint: Think angels who existed BEFORE Genesis 1:1

I guess an adopted kid cannot be the son of his adopted father, since you have specified that the father "ALWAYS" gives life to his son.

Here's the real problem, however: God created everything--no? If God created everything, then what isn't his son in terms of being generated by God? Nothing, obviously. Therefore, it would be redundant for the primary meaning (if any meaning at all) to be the idea that Jesus was "created by" God. And in scripture we find that idea completely and specifically refuted, for we find that not only is Christ the creator of all things, we find that not even one thing was created without Jesus Christ. Logically, this leaves absolutely no room for the notion that Jesus was created. You have to redefine the verse to read it otherwise.
file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CBreanna%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_image007.gif

Why don’t you do us both a favor and go read the other threads on whether Christ is a created being. All of your silly arguments are discussed there. If you have anything new (so far you don’t), let me know.

Trinitarianism teaches that God is a distinct person from the Son (how come you don't realize that by now?).

Does not. I used to be a Trinitarian and apparently a more informed one than you. Trinitarianism teaches that God the Father is distinct from the God the Son. You are simply playing your teenager word games and substituting the definition of “God the Father” into the word “God”. Try to keep the discussion a little more intelligent.

I've given that illustration already, albeit you tried to turn it into an illustration of how two persons could be one god.
The human father is a man. The human son is a man.
Is the human father more man than his son?

By nature they are both human beings and by nature they are two different human beings. But you cut that last part out in your application.

I'm guessing that you don't want to talk about the people who saw the act as blasphemy.
Tell you what: Just leave that part out.
file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CBreanna%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_image007.gif


Actually, this was discussed in detail in another thread and how Jesus CONDEMEND those who called it blasphemy. Obviously you want to side with the people Jesus condemned. Man, why don’t you do us a favor and peruse some of the threads in this forum. Get a clue.


You're right, because it's hard to sell me on fallacious reasoning--and that's what you're selling.
I simply said that Bob should make clear that he's not the President if he's wielding presidential powers, and you've got me concluding that there's some multi-person human.

This is great! You’re heads so stuck in the sand you can’t even comprehend the most basic argument. Let me explain it to you. If Bob said the President SENT him and that the words he was telling everyone was NOT HIS but were the PRESIDENTS then, dude, he DID just tell you he’s not the President.



If, in my experience, Bob's statements were utterly reliable and he told me that he was one with the President, and the President had always existed, and Bob had always existed, then I might begin to conclude that the President was a multi-person human.

But what if Bob told you that all republicans were one with the President too. Do you now think they are the President? And where did Jesus say he always existed?



NT said, Misleading illustration? Again, you know nothing about illustrations. Replace the terms President with God, Bob with Jesus and Joe with the crowds who heard Jesus. You have John 7:16,17.

Co replied,
Where is John 1:1-3 in the illustration? file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CBreanna%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_image009.gif

In the beginning (of the Presidency), Bob was with the President and Bob was presidential (he had presidential powers). Bob was with the President in the beginning.


file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CBreanna%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_image008.gif
The JW's helped cement my Trinitarianism by being so obvious about taking scriptures out of context. My JW visitors always ended on the defensive regarding the person of Christ, including the local chief elder. None of them can explain how Jesus can create everything that has been created while being himself created.
They can't do it because it cannot be done without abandoning logic.

JW’s don’t have chief elders. Go to the thread on whether Christ is a created being instead of telling me how I can’t answer it. Practically everyone who commons this JW forum has seen and many have been involved with that discussion. Then you come in and start spouting off how no one wants to talk about Jesus being the Creator. You’re making yourself look like an moron.



NT said, And scriptures show a bunch of humans who ALSO are not forced to do the bidding of the Father. Christians do it willingly. I guess that makes us equal to God in your mind. Zeeesh!

CO replied.
Apparently you've conveniently forgotten that Jesus created all things.
What have you created lately, NT?
file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CBreanna%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_image008.gif

Alright folks out there reading this discussion, CO has resulted to the mentality of bird droppings at this point. (I’m starting to think he’s a teenager) He made this statement:

“Scripture does not show a Jesus who is forced to do the bidding of the
Father, but a Jesus who willingly submits.

A Jesus who is scripturally credited with the creation of all things, I
might add.”

To which I rightly pointed out that all Christians do it willingly. I also, in that SAME response, invited him to go see another thread where I talk about Christ as Creator. How does CO reply? He responds to my post by quoting the part where I clearly refuted his idiotic statement that Jesus’ doing things willingly made him God with a point of Christ being Creator. In other words, he took one response of mine and replied to it with a question when I had addressed his question with another response. This is what I should expect from teenagers I guess.

NT said,

We talked about whether Jesus was the Creator in another thread. I'm not rehashing that one again unless you have an argument that wasn't already addressed.



CO replies,
Good idea, since you're toast if you try to address it.

Ha Ha Ha. That’s so cute. I am going to hate the day when CO gets his drivers license and won’t want to stay at home having these discussions anymore!



Tell me CO. Was Jesus the one who healed people when he was on earth?

[Sparko]

Just a comment from the peanut gallery:

You can tell when Non-Trinitarian runs out of arguments and feels he is losing, because he starts in with the ad hominems, sarcastic digs and name calling. His blustering nastiness seems to be in direct proportion to his anxiety.

:peanut:

[NonTrinitarian]

Just a comment from the peanut gallery:

You can tell when Non-Trinitarian runs out of arguments and feels he is losing, because he starts in with the ad hominems, sarcastic digs and name calling. His blustering nastiness seems to be in direct proportion to his anxiety.

:peanut: Peanut gallery indeed. John Sparks, if you have something intelligent to add, feel free to join in.

As far as CO, I'm saving my 'offspring of vipers' and 'dead mens bones in white-washed graves' comments for later. For now I'm just calling out his childish antics, which were plentiful in his last post.

In fact, JS, CO is kinda like you. Dodges arguements, mis-states them and just flat out says a number of stupid things. Re-read my last post for an example. I like the one where he says he doesn't replace God with "God the Father" and then two sentences later says he does. And IM the one running out of arguments?

[Sparko]

Non-trin, I was trying in a slightly humorous way, to point out to you that as discussions carry on, your civility takes a nose dive. You start out nice enough, but then you turn to insults and calling people names. Without providing any really good counter arguments, I might add.

Capt Ochre is not a teenager and his arguments seemed pretty logical to me and it looked like you were getting frustrated and started calling him names. If you find his arguments childish, then just don't answer him (or me)

[Captain Ochre]

It's worth looking back to see what NT failed to address from my previous post, IMO.



The question, in case you didn’t understand it, was what the people in Jesus’ day would have thought when they heard this.

I answered that question in my subsequent comments, as you quote them yourself in the post to which I am replying.
I'll repeat my question to you: Are you willing to consider the context of the verses in question?

They walked away thinking he wasn’t God because of what Jesus said here.

Strictly speaking, you don't know what they were thinking. Probably the crowd, with their limited context, thought one thing. Perhaps the disciples, with a greater knowledge of Jesus' works and words, thought something else.
Beware the fallacy of the hasty conclusion.

You would too if you didn’t already have a preconceived belief.

Or additional evidence (see comment respecting the disciples, just above).

You don’t want to consider all of the evidence, you only want to take your Trinitarian beliefs, for Jesus into God, then come back and evaluate the rest of the verses that show he is not God. I do consider the context of each verse and from this verse it is clear the things Jesus taught were not his, but Gods. Of course you’ll replace God with God the Father.

You're attacking my argument based on my supposed motivations. That's fallacious (ad hominem circumstantial).
Do you deny that God and the Father are the same person? If they are the same person, then why is it wrong to equate them as I do?
If they are not the same person, then who is this "the Father" anyway?

Oh really huh? “In the beginning was the word and the word was WITH the god and the word was god. The same was in the beginning WITH the god.” I read this and come to an immediate conclusion that Jesus is not “The God”, he is WITH “The God” and is also called God. But my OT heritage knows that kings of God’s Nation, Israel, were also called Gods. So if Jesus is King then, like all other Israelite kings, he can be called God.

You don't think it's funny that you castigate me for supposedly redefining "God" as "God the Father" while you redefine "God" into "Israelite kings"?
You're a hypocrite. Admit it.

You cite the verses, and I'll lead you through the context so that you can understand what they mean.

And I see you are now moving on to progressive revelation. So when did the disciples FIRST realize Jesus was God?

I don't know. Why would the time be relevant? In any case, it's evident by the time Colossians was written.

And why would not the hundreds of verses that separate Jesus from God not cause people to think he is not God? Because they developed the Trinity first?

Same reason the WTB&TS could publish a birthday record manual for the congregation yet later teach that birthdays should not be celebrated by Christians?
Seriously, though, the works and words of Jesus indicated his standing in relation to God as a different person, yet with all of the power. Thinking that Jesus was given that power would be considered at first, until one realized that Jesus is not spoken of as having a beginning. He is pre-existent, and not one thing that was created was created without him.

Take time out to draw two separate circles. Label one "created things" and the other one "non-created things". Place a dot representing Jesus in one of the circles. If you placed Jesus in the "created things" circle, you have contradicted the scriptures.
Not one thing has been created without the Word.

Uh, in the OT the True God is addressed by the term “Jehovah” THREE TIMES as often as he is addressed as “God”. The name of Jehovah is used more often in the Bible than the TITLES God, Lord, Father, Creator, Almighty and Maker combined! So don’t give me your opinionated and unsupported rhetoric on God being the name for God the Father. Face it, you automatically rip out the word “God” in all of these verses and replace with “God the Father”, dividing God from one into more than one.

You hypocrite! You turn God into a king of Israel whenever it's convenient!
:lol:
You don't have to accept my argument that "God" is used as a name. I'm correct about it, but it isn't central at all to the issue we're discussing. It's inarguable, however, that "the god"" refers to a particular god (just as would a name).

NT accidentally added a bit of editorial to the text attributed to me:
CO dodged the question by going off on a tangent by saying,

You didn't ask a question. You made an assertion, and I countered it.
You assert eisegesis on the part of Trinitarians, and I provide an alternative explanation (one that you apparently don't like and one that perhaps you have no way of explaining away) involving exegesis.

You’re right, it wasn’t a question, it was an assertion that you dodged. You didn’t address it at all. I asserted that you automatically replace God with God the Father whenever it suits your needs. That is not exegesis.

It's not exegesis if you're correct about what I'm doing--but you provide no evidence that you are correct (it was a mere assertion, as you admit). Moreover, we'll find that you pick and choose your interpretations like nobody's business if we start to compare notes.
Since you provide no evidence, my counter-assertion is more than sufficient as a reply.

You automatically assume God is a Trinity and whenever you come to a problem text where Jesus is clearly said to be someone other than God you say ‘Oh, no problem. I’ll just replace the word God with the phrase God the Father and everything is fine and dandy. Look at me. I can do this hundreds of times too!’ Some exegesis. So tell me CO, what DOES the Bible have to say to convince you Jesus isn’t God?

"Jesus, first-created (protoktistos) of all creation."
Don't bother looking. You won't find it unless & until the Watchtower writes its own Greek text to support their doctrines.
They'd also have to take out a few verses here and there, of course.

NT:
This is what you said in response to my assertion that you automatically pick and chose your definition of God.

CO:
“On the contrary, the Trinitarian make the choice between a god pantheon or some sort of henotheism (the alternative embraced by Jehovah's Witnesses), and the option of understanding that while there is only one god (as scripture teaches), the additional scriptural teaching that Jesus is god ("The Lord of Me and the God of me" as the disciple Thomas put it) shows us that Jesus is a true manifestation of the one true God.”

NT:
What part of that is addressing the assertion? I said you automatically replace God with God the Father and this doesn’t even address the assertion.

It explains it if you know the principles of exegesis.
Exegesis may take into account every context, including contexts accounted for by progressive revelation.

Do you admit you automatically replace God with God the Father at your whim and a priori of the Trinity?

No. I'm telling you that I make sense of the text (giving the author the benefit of the doubt that he has not contradicted himself) by formulating a theory regarding authorial intent.

Why do you jump off to tangents like this? In other parts of the Bible we have humans receiving proskyneo and they don’t refuse it. Does this mean they are God? Oh, maybe you think because it’s in the book of Revelation that it makes it special? Well, in Revelation we have humans receiving proskyneo too. They don’t refuse it. Does this mean they are God?
Angels are called face to face by the name "Jehovah" because they represent God.

The context is always the key. JW's place doctrine higher in importance than probable authorial intent when it comes to Christology.
The rendering of Colossians 1:16 is a classic example. There are some great ones involving kyrios, also.
Revelation 3:9 is no different, and we can contrast it constructively with Revelation 4:9.

The older Watchtower books have some hilarious stuff about Bible interpretation. For example, they brag about having translated the same Hebrew or Greek word with a single corresponding English word in the WTB&TS translations of the Scriptures.
Hilarious stuff.
They had to stop that practice (or at least a halfway plausible claim of that practice) when they had to explain why (for example) Jesus was receiving worship.

As far as Jesus being the angels and thus supposedly being called Jehovah because he is, you need to brush up on your reading. Lot calls TWO angels both by the name Jehovah. Unless Jesus was both angels at the same time…

There needed to be two so that it would be possible that "Jehovah made it rain sulphur and fire from Jehovah." (Gen 19:24, NWT). :poke:

Cite the verse that you claim has lot addressing both as "Jehovah". I'll bet we'll find you straining your translation.

Progressive revelation again? Why don’t you call it what it really is. Bringing your preconceived beliefs to the text. I noticed you didn’t address the point about what if Jesus had said “I am not God.”

I did address that point.

Probably because you’d do exactly what I said you’d do. You see, you can only divide God up into three persons in order to refute the hundreds of verses that differentiate Jesus FROM God AFTER you have created the Trinity. So until people had a well formulated doctrine of the Trinity, they would read these verses and think Jesus is Not God.

Apparently not, since (for example), Thomas called Jesus "the god of me" ("My God").

God had a name and it appears nearly 7000 times in the Bible. Further, the Jews believed in only one God. So to say “God” to them didn’t mean “God the Father, the first person of the Trinity”. To a Jew in Jesus’ day, it meant all of God. PERIOD. All of God sent Jesus and told him what to say. That’s how Jews who didn’t already have a preconceived belief in the Trinity would see these verses.

Irrelevant, considering progressive revelation. Plus there is some impressive evidence for the Trinity in the OT. Who does Jehovah go to when it's time to rain down fire and sulphur on Sodom?

This just gets better and better. So basically you’re saying that for the next 60+ years between Jesus dying and the book of John being written, people didn’t know the truth about Jesus?

I don't know when the books were written, exactly, and I don't know how many people had an explicitly Trinitarian understanding of Father/Son/Holy Spirit at that time--so, no, that's not what I'm saying.
It's possible, though. After all, JW's (“Bible Students”) celebrated birthdays up until somebody set them straight.

The 3000 Jews who got baptized at Pentecost 33CE. Did they get baptized knowing Jesus is God?

Could be.

Okay, this explain why you go off on tangents and ignore the arguments. You don’t comprehend English well enough. CO, I said that when you read Revelation 1:1, you (in your mind) automatically replace God with “God the Father”. That what I argued. You say “No, I didn’t” THEN JUST TWO SENTENCES DOWN YOU SAID THIS! “it is sensible to understand "the God" as referring to the person of God the Father,”

I'm contradicting your assertion that the replacement is automatic.
Counter-assertion is an adequate response to an assertion.
Your assertion that I don't understand English well enough was false, BTW.
:smile:

My goodness! I told you I was going to prove to you that you automatically replace God with God the Father and you reply you don’t then you immediately turn around and say it’s sensible to understand God as referring to “God the Father.” You do comprehend what I’m writing don’t you?!

Yes.
Does your argument go any deeper than bald assertions?

This is so pathetic I can’t tell if your serious or jerking my chain. If this really did happen (And I am questioning it) then your former manager is a nut or he resigned and is no longer a manager. If he is not a manager then by the same token Jesus is not God. Since you haven’t established that Jesus was Almighty God you can’t use the resigned argument for him.

I've never worked at McDonalds. I figured you might be familiar with the setting. Just trying to help. :wink:
Please explain the logic behind your bald assertion that the manager is "a nut or he resigned and is no longer a manager".
Do you know what logic is?

And you’re explanation does not answer my question on why people would not have thought Jesus was not God at John 14:1.

It does, actually, but only if you understand the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam (and why we should not expect people to commit that fallacy automatically).

And the context is that God is one and Jesus is saying he is someone other than God.

No, the context is Jesus giving counsel about the proper object(s) of faith. There's nothing at all about "God is one".

The writers could have put God the Father (which would have supported the Trinity BTW) but instead they say “God” You replace their word with your own. Plain and simple.

Maybe I should try "king of Israel" instead?
:hrm:

I don’t even know what you are talking about. The trinity is internally inconsistent.

Then why did you let me mop the floor with you on that point earlier?
:huh:

Namely because it defies all logic and there is no evidence for it.

If it defies all logic, then you will be able to provide a sound deductive proof demonstrating your claim.
Ready when you are.

Your latter claim has already been shown false, fwiw. The evidence for the Trinity is that the Scriptures teach that there is only one god (not two, or even one and a half).
The scriptures also provide good evidence that Jesus is god, and further that the Holy Spirit is god. You can contest the nature of the evidence, but you can't make it disappear.
Those Biblical truths are Trinitarian teaching in essence.

Man, you are so unfamiliar with JW beliefs. Why don’t you do some reading up on it so I don’t have to refute these week arguments. Who else was in the “beginning” of John 1:1? (Anticipating you’ll say “No one but God and Jesus”) Hint: Think angels who existed BEFORE Genesis 1:1

I don't think that any angels existed before the beginning. I wouldn't put it past the Watchtower to teach something ludicrous like that, however. Please cite the scriptural support (specifically).

Why don’t you do us both a favor and go read the other threads on whether Christ is a created being. All of your silly arguments are discussed there. If you have anything new (so far you don’t), let me know.

Like you're going to surprise me with something new?
:lol:

Does not. I used to be a Trinitarian and apparently a more informed one than you. Trinitarianism teaches that God the Father is distinct from the God the Son. You are simply playing your teenager word games and substituting the definition of “God the Father” into the word “God”. Try to keep the discussion a little more intelligent.

Like claiming that you were a more informed Trinitarian than me, followed by the admission that I'm playing a "word game()" with you?
Your inconsistency is amusing.

By nature they are both human beings and by nature they are two different human beings. But you cut that last part out in your application.

Right, because it's my illustration designed for a specific purpose, which is not the purpose for which you are trying to co-opt the illustration. You can borrow the illustration all you like, but don't confuse yourself into thinking that your separate use of the analogous pairing invalidates my use of it.

Actually, this was discussed in detail in another thread and how Jesus CONDEMEND those who called it blasphemy.

You need to look more closely at what they were condemned for. Cite the verse. Better yet, quote it in full.

Obviously you want to side with the people Jesus condemned.

On the contrary, I agree with Jesus that their (those He condemned) problem was unbelief.

This is great! You’re heads so stuck in the sand you can’t even comprehend the most basic argument.

I had just pointed out that you mischaracterized my statement, and you haven't addressed that point.

Let me explain it to you. If Bob said the President SENT him and that the words he was telling everyone was NOT HIS but were the PRESIDENTS then, dude, he DID just tell you he’s not the President.

What, if we assume that there's only one person who is president? Is it okay to make that assumption, particularly when Bob is manifesting presidential powers and authority?

But what if Bob told you that all republicans were one with the President too. Do you now think they are the President? And where did Jesus say he always existed?

Sure, all Republicans would be President. Now show me where Jesus said anything of the kind in parallel.
:grin:

Jesus didn't have to say that he has always existed. It is implied in the title "Alpha and omega" that is attributed to Christ, and is explicitly taught in the Gospel of John (right where it says the Word was King of Israel or thereabouts).

In the beginning (of the Presidency), Bob was with the President and Bob was presidential (he had presidential powers). Bob was with the President in the beginning.

Why don't you just admit that Bob was president?
:smile:
The parallel is more precise that way, certainly.

JW’s don’t have chief elders.

JW's have elders, and I'm calling the guy who wielded the most influence the chief guy.
Quite a stretch, eh? I'd have capitalized it if it were meant as a formal title.

Go to the thread on whether Christ is a created being instead of telling me how I can’t answer it.

How about both?
:smile:
You can't answer it. Not without producing a new set of fallacies, anyway.

Practically everyone who commons this JW forum has seen and many have been involved with that discussion. Then you come in and start spouting off how no one wants to talk about Jesus being the Creator. You’re making yourself look like an moron.

Maybe so, but the smarter ones know that I'm yanking your chain, and probably most of them also already know that the arguments you produced in that other thread are bad arguments.
JW arguments just tend to be that way.

Alright folks out there reading this discussion, CO has resulted to the mentality of bird droppings at this point. (I’m starting to think he’s a teenager) He made this statement:

“Scripture does not show a Jesus who is forced to do the bidding of the
Father, but a Jesus who willingly submits.

A Jesus who is scripturally credited with the creation of all things, I
might add.”

To which I rightly pointed out that all Christians do it willingly.

(which is obviously irrelevant, just like the camera not crying from my earlier illustrational reduction ad absurdum)

I also, in that SAME response, invited him to go see another thread where I talk about Christ as Creator. How does CO reply? He responds to my post by quoting the part where I clearly refuted his idiotic statement that Jesus’ doing things willingly made him God with a point of Christ being Creator.

More properly (lest a straw man spring up in that space), Jesus doing things willingly allows him to be equal to god in terms of god-attributes instead of lacking essential attributes of an Almighty as you intimated before and will probably intimate again. I mentioned Christ as the creator to remind our kooky JW friend that submission doesn't establish the existence of god-attributes.
It's very simple logic, but apparently somewhat beyond NT.

Tell me CO. Was Jesus the one who healed people when he was on earth?[/color]

He was the person initiating the action, but the power for the acts came from the Holy Spirit for the duration of the incarnation until after the resurrection.

Make sure you draw those circles and place the dot. I want to hear about where you place it.

[NonTrinitarian]

I'm only replying to what I consider are worthy points of comment. If you think I skipped something that you feel is important, feel free to point it out and ask it again. But PLEASE make sure I didn't already address it. Case in point:

I'll repeat my question to you: Are you willing to consider the context of
the verses in question? (This is just another example of the shoddy reading CO does, which may explain why he has a problem grasping things.) I replied to your question in the previous post. I clearly said (and please go check it and your eyes) "I do consider the context of each verse and from this verse it is clear the things Jesus taught were not his, but Gods."

Strictly speaking, you don't know what they were thinking. Probably the
crowd, with their limited context, thought one thing. Perhaps the disciples,
with a greater knowledge of Jesus' works and words, thought something else.
Beware the fallacy of the hasty conclusion. Buzz, wrong! This is what I get for debating you when you are only slightly familiar with the Bible. You must just be reading your arguments out of a Ron Rhodes book. Actually, in another thread in Christology the same argument was made. Go read it ("When did the Disciples FIRST realize Jesus was God?" is the title). I provided scriptures that happened AFTER the forgiving of sins where the disciples were asking 'Who is this man, that even the wind obeys him?' along with some other verses that happened after Jesus forgave sins that also showed they, as of yet, did not think he was God.

This comment of yours is perfect though. It really highlights the difference in the level of study here. You read your arguments from Rhodes or some other fluzie "scholar" and are for the most part unaware of the NT writings. Your argument is "Perhaps". Perhaps? That's your argument? I should just grant you that maybe your right? Obviously you've granted whoever your getting your arguments from that they were right. You should've done your own research. I don't have to "perhaps" what the disciples thought. After the account of forgiving sins they still don't know Jesus is God.


You're attacking my argument based on my supposed motivations. That's
fallacious (ad hominem circumstantial).
Do you deny that God and the Father are the same person? If they are the
same person, then why is it wrong to equate them as I do?
If they are not the same person, then who is this "the Father" anyway? Calling it like it is is not ad hominem. Go see what Jesus called the Religious leaders. I don't deny God and the person called the "Father" are the same person. In fact, when we say "God the Father", we mean ALL of God, period. You use "God the Father" in the sense of him not being all of God, but only part of him. You use God the Father so you can divide God. (and don't quote me the Trinity part where they are without division. I know what you say but you don't mean what you say.)


You don't think it's funny that you castigate me for supposedly redefining
"God" as "God the Father" while you redefine "God" into "Israelite kings"?
You're a hypocrite. Admit it.

You cite the verses, and I'll lead you through the context so that you can
understand what they mean. I already know how you'll explain the meaning of any verse I offer. By using the definition of the Trinity. It's developing the Trinity that you can't do. You see, you can't explain away the hundreds of verses that differentiate Jesus from God until AFTER you have already developed the Trinity. Only AFTER you have divided God up into three persons can you say 'Well God here means God the Father, not all of God. So Jesus can say he is separate from God because he doesn't mean GOD, as in GOD, he just means god the Father and of course Jesus is not God the Father. That verse doesn't mean Jesus isn't God.'

Also, God takes on many meanings. The ONE true God, false Gods (singular and plural), Angels, human kings, and even Satan the Devil. But we have verses that elaborate these terms. And we are told over and over that the One God is One, not that the One God is three. We see the One God talking to the Messiah in the OT. (Ps 110:1). You are creating definitions for God that aren't explained in the Bible. Like 'God the Son' and 'God the Holy Spirit' and 'God the whole Trinity'. There is nothing Jesus could have said to convince you he is not God once you've developed the Trinity. If Jesus said "I am not God", would that cause you to believe it? Why? Why not?

NT said,
And I see you are now moving on to progressive revelation. So when did
the disciples FIRST realize Jesus was God?

CO replied

I don't know. Why would the time be relevant? In any case, it's evident by
the time Colossians was written. Because UNTIL they developed the Trinity they couldn't have thought Jesus was God. He and THEY speak as if God is someone else. Only AFTER they develop the Trinity can they even begin to think Jesus could be someone God and speak as if he's not God.


Same reason the WTB&TS could publish a birthday record manual for the
congregation yet later teach that birthdays should not be celebrated by
Christians?
Seriously, though, the works and words of Jesus indicated his standing in
relation to God as a different person, yet with all of the power. Thinking
that Jesus was given that power would be considered at first, until one
realized that Jesus is not spoken of as having a beginning. He is
pre-existent, and not one thing that was created was created without him.

Take time out to draw two separate circles. Label one "created things" and
the other one "non-created things". Place a dot representing Jesus in one of
the circles. If you placed Jesus in the "created things" circle, you have
contradicted the scriptures.
Not one thing has been created without the Word. Jesus is spoken of as having a beginning. Micah 5:2, John 7:56, Col 1:15, Rev 3:14. Try reading these without reading your doctrinal bias into it. Also, I don't know how to draw a circle on TWeb but it would be three circles. Uncreated would be God. Created would be Jesus with a circle in his circle that says "all other created things". We can carry the creation thing on in the other thread. I'm not carrying the same discussion on in two threads.

NT Said: Uh, in the OT the True God is addressed by the term "Jehovah" THREE
TIMES as often as he is addressed as "God". The name of Jehovah is used more
often in the Bible than the TITLES God, Lord, Father, Creator, Almighty and
Maker combined! So don't give me your opinionated and unsupported rhetoric
on God being the name for God the Father. Face it, you automatically rip out
the word "God" in all of these verses and replace with "God the Father",
dividing God from one into more than one.

CO replied:
You hypocrite! You turn God into a king of Israel whenever it's convenient!

You don't have to accept my argument that "God" is used as a name. I'm
correct about it, but it isn't central at all to the issue we're discussing.
It's inarguable, however, that "the god"" refers to a particular god (just
as would a name). You can say your correct about it all you want but that doesn't displace the fact that God's PERSONAL name is in the Bible more than the names Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus combined. Also, the king of Israel as being called God is clearly defined. Where is God defined as three in one? Shoot, why not go ahead and divide God up into four or five persons too? Then you can throw some more definitions of God. What you have done is made it impossible for Jesus to convince you he is not God unless he specifically quoted the Trinity doctrine and then said "that is not true." He could say "I am not God" all day long and you wouldn't believe him.


"Jesus, first-created (protoktistos) of all creation."
Don't bother looking. You won't find it unless & until the Watchtower writes
its own Greek text to support their doctrines.
They'd also have to take out a few verses here and there, of course. More shoddy research I see. Dude, put down the Rhode's book and get some real insight. "firstborn" is used dozens of times to reference people who were brought into existence. Why it can be used dozens of times for other persons with the meaning of bringing into existence but it cannot be used of Jesus is beyond me. Furthermore, the word 'protoktistos' was not in existence in the first century! If you can find ONE instance where this word appears in ANY Greek manuscripts before the late 2nd, early 3rd century, I'll give consideration to your argument. The first documented use of the word protoktistos is found in the writings of Clement. And I mean that word doesn't appear in any biblical, non-biblical, secular, you name it, Greek documents, from the time of Homer (long before Jesus came to the earth) up until Clement. So if apparently NO Greek writer had EVER used that word before nearly 300 years after Jesus was on earth, I guess Paul didn't have that word as an option now, did he? Not that it would have mattered because you accept 'firstborn' to mean to bring into existence a lot of other times.

Cracker Jack apologetics, you gotta love it.


NT asked, Do you admit you automatically replace God with God the Father at your
whim and a priori of the Trinity?

CO replied,
No. I'm telling you that I make sense of the text (giving the author the
benefit of the doubt that he has not contradicted himself) by formulating a
theory regarding authorial intent. Do you have reading comprehension problems? I didn't say you 'automatically replace God with God the Father', period. I said you do it with your whim on the a priori of the Trinity. You just said no and then turn around and said you look at the author's intent, whom you ASSUME believes in the Trinity! So YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, you DO replace God with God the Father when it is convenient for your a priori on the Trinity. Zheessh.

The context is always the key. JW's place doctrine higher in importance than
probable authorial intent when it comes to Christology.
The rendering of Colossians 1:16 is a classic example. There are some great
ones involving kyrios, also.
Revelation 3:9 is no different, and we can contrast it constructively with
Revelation 4:9. Ha Ha Ha. This is great. You assume God is a Trinity and that it is thus possible for Jesus to speak of God as someone totally different from himself who is greater, gave him life, sent him, taught him, etc, and your condemning US for using doctrine to interpret? Ha Ha Ha. Okay, I've gained my composure. You are correct that doctrine does influence our translation (like it doesn't influence yours?, Ha Ha Ha, oh, sorry). In Col 1:15 Jesus is called the firstborn of all creation. If you can find ONE instance in the NT where someone is said to be the firstborn of a group and is not part of that group, I will concede your argument. Deal? Knowing that you won't find an example, I will go on and say since Jesus is thus said to be part of creation, then it's obvious that all "other" things came into existence through him.
uote:

There needed to be two so that it would be possible that "Jehovah made it
rain sulphur and fire from Jehovah." (Gen 19:24, NWT).

Cite the verse that you claim has lot addressing both as "Jehovah". I'll bet
we'll find you straining your translation. So if I quoted a verse where it says "Someone called all the people to Someone" (same name both times) would you tell me that "someone" is at least a two person being?

And on the other, this is just pathetic. I mean it CO, just pathetic. Now I know why you are saying idiotic stuff all over the place. Earlier you couldn't even see that I answered you question on whether I use the context in deciphering a verse. Now you tell me your too lazy to open the Bible to the account of Lot? What? You don't know where it's at? Is that account too much for you to read? I'm sorry but you're an idiot. Plain and simple. Go read Genesis 19 and find it yourself. Show me where I am straining the translation.


NT asked,
The 3000 Jews who got baptized at Pentecost 33CE. Did they get baptized
knowing Jesus is God?

Co replied,
Could be. Another well thought out answer there. I guess your little Trinitarian book didn't address that one.

I'm contradicting your assertion that the replacement is automatic.
Counter-assertion is an adequate response to an assertion.
Your assertion that I don't understand English well enough was false, BTW. It was obvious I meant automatic in light of your a priori of the Trinity, as I had said earlier in the thread. I think my comment on your English hit the nail on the head.

NT said,
Namely because it defies all logic and there is no evidence for it.

CO replied
If it defies all logic, then you will be able to provide a sound deductive
proof demonstrating your claim.
Ready when you are. Jesus is full God
Jesus is full Man
Full God knows everything
Jesus didn't know everything
Jesus is Full God

You can't say A is non-A

I don't think that any angels existed before the beginning. I wouldn't put
it past the Watchtower to teach something ludicrous like that, however.
Please cite the scriptural support (specifically). So if I provide a scripture that tells how the angels were singing and praising God as he was creating the earth (the beginning, Genesis chapter 1) you'll resend your argument? BTW, most religions recognize that angels were around before the creation of the earth. You're only hope is that Genesis 1:1 is dealing with more than the creation of the earth. Before you foolishly say yes, go back and read the WHOLE thread in the 'Christ created being' thread. I know you didn't read it all because in your reply there you said some idiotic arguments that had already been said earlier and refuted.

Like claiming that you were a more informed Trinitarian than me, followed by
the admission that I'm playing a "word game()" with you?
Your inconsistency is amusing. I can say it because I've played your little word game myself with others. Only after I came back to the text with a removed a priori of the Trinity and was determined to make the Bible teach me Jesus is God did I realize Jesus wasn't God.

NT said,
Actually, this was discussed in detail in another thread and how Jesus
CONDEMEND those who called it blasphemy.

CO replied,
You need to look more closely at what they were condemned for. Cite the
verse. Better yet, quote it in full. I did. Man you're lazy. No wonder you are so poorly read on this stuff. Go see the thread in Christology on when the disciples thought Jesus was God. I'm not retyping it all out.

NT said, But what if Bob told you that all republicans were one with the
President too. Do you now think they are the President? And where did Jesus
say he always existed?

CO replied,
Sure, all Republicans would be President. Now show me where Jesus said
anything of the kind in parallel. This is great. How can anyone try to engage in this discussion and be so unaware of the NT?
"That they may be one just as we are one...in order that they all may be one, just as you Father are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they may be in union with us...in order that they may be one just as we are one...in order that they may be perfected into one."-Jesus said this to his Father. He said we would all be one with God.


Jesus didn't have to say that he has always existed. It is implied in the
title "Alpha and omega" that is attributed to Christ, and is explicitly
taught in the Gospel of John (right where it says the Word was King of
Israel or thereabouts). See the thread in Christology on whether Jesus is the Alpha and Omega.

Nt said, In the beginning (of the Presidency), Bob was with the President and Bob
was presidential (he had presidential powers). Bob was with the President in
the beginning.

CO replied,
Why don't you just admit that Bob was president?

The parallel is more precise that way, certainly. Ha Ha. This gets better and better! Get this folks out there watching this thread. It's my example of Bob and the President. I told CO right from the beginning that Bob isn't the President, he was sent by the President and granted some Presidential authority. Not CO is telling me to accept that Bob IS the President! It's MY illustration and MY meaning and he is now telling me that I REALLY mean Bob IS the President. Great! Now CO has the ability to read my MIND too!

Think about what this says of him, people. I can't read John's, Paul's, Peter's etc mind. I can read their comments and see what they say and develop a fairly good understanding of what their thinking but in the end...well, you know. But one thing I DO know is what I am thinking and meaning. Now I have CO telling me that my story is meaning that Bob is the President! I clearly told him he is not and I am telling everyone he is NOT the President. So it's no wonder CO can't accept what the Bible says. He's not letting the Bible tell him what it means. He's telling the Bible what he thinks it means. Shoot. He's even telling me what I mean. I'm about ready to throw this guy on ignore. I'm sure you'll understand if I do.

JW's have elders, and I'm calling the guy who wielded the most influence the
chief guy.
Quite a stretch, eh? I'd have capitalized it if it were meant as a formal
title. The elders function as a body and no elder has more authority than the other elders. No elder can make a decision or over-ride another elder. Admit it, your clueless on this subject.

NT asked, Tell me CO. Was Jesus the one who healed people when he was on
earth?

CO replied,
He was the person initiating the action, but the power for the acts came
from the Holy Spirit for the duration of the incarnation until after the
resurrection. So while he was on earth and while the Gospels say "Jesus healed" you recognize that he was not the true healer (ie, source of the healing power), he was just the medium through which God healed? So replace "healed" with "created" and you'll have our viewpoint of him in creation.

[Sparko]

You know that invisible audience you are playing up to, non-trinitarian? They are laughing their heads off at your antics.

-- Peanut Gallery

[Captain Ochre]

I'm only replying to what I consider are worthy points of comment. If you think I skipped something that you feel is important, feel free to point it out and ask it again. But PLEASE make sure I didn't already address it. Case in point:

(This is just another example of the shoddy reading CO does, which may explain why he has a problem grasping things.)

What was the first example?
:wink:

I replied to your question in the previous post. I clearly said (and please go check it and your eyes) "I do consider the context of each verse and from this verse it is clear the things Jesus taught were not his, but Gods."

That is not an answer to my question. I can extrapolate it into an answer for my question, if I am so inclined, but I am trying to get you to answer the question directly (it is a "yes" or "no" question, essentially) prior to discussing the specifics of the verse in question with you.
Rather than discussing the specifics of the verse, you pretend (afaics) to have already held the relevant discussion on your own, so we should simply trust what you say and accept whatever attacks you send my way as being valid.
:smile:

:lol:

Buzz, wrong!

:rofl:
Wrong about what? Be specific.

This is what I get for debating you when you are only slightly familiar with the Bible. You must just be reading your arguments out of a Ron Rhodes book. Actually, in another thread in Christology the same argument was made. Go read it ("When did the Disciples FIRST realize Jesus was God?" is the title). I provided scriptures that happened AFTER the forgiving of sins where the disciples were asking 'Who is this man, that even the wind obeys him?' along with some other verses that happened after Jesus forgave sins that also showed they, as of yet, did not think he was God.

You appear to have imagined that I had just made a claim that the disciples thought that Jesus was God. Try reading it again.
And, fwiw, I didn't make any argument in that portion of text. I asserted what is obvious, that the beliefs of the general crowds and the beliefs of those who knew Jesus well could be at variance.
My point is inarguable, afaics.

This comment of yours is perfect though. It really highlights the difference in the level of study here. You read your arguments from Rhodes or some other fluzie "scholar" and are for the most part unaware of the NT writings.

And to think that I just got done admonishing to beware the fallacy of the hasty conclusion ...

Your argument is "Perhaps". Perhaps? That's your argument?

Do I even need an argument for this point?
AFAICS, the Bible does not impart to us exhaustive knowledge of all things. I don't know what each Bible personality believed at all times--or even most of the time.
Perhaps the Watchtower has published enough volumes for you to have achieved that knowledge, I suppose.

I should just grant you that maybe your right?

If you can avoid fallacious reasoning by so doing, then yes. Are you familiar with the fallacy of the appeal to ignorance?

Obviously you've granted whoever your getting your arguments from that they were right.

Really? With respect to what argument, and based on what evidence that you are familiar with (we'll be watching for the fallacy of the hasty conclusion)?

You should've done your own research. I don't have to "perhaps" what the disciples thought. After the account of forgiving sins they still don't know Jesus is God.

Your argument is AWOL (but the bald assertion remains!).

Calling it like it is is not ad hominem.

Even if we suppose that your insult is correct in essence, substituting that insult for a rebuttal of the argument is question is a logical fallacy.
IOW, you're wrong. "Calling it like it is" is an ad hominem fallacy where insult is used in lieu of a treatment of the argument, and regardless of whether or not there is a treatment of the argument, the insult is an ad hominem (they are functionally synonymous).

Go see what Jesus called the Religious leaders.

Jesus employed ad hominem. The fact that he insulted people doesn't get you off the hook for insulting people, nor even off the hook for committing the fallacy of ad hominem.

I don't deny God and the person called the "Father" are the same person.

Thank you for the unavoidable concession.

In fact, when we say "God the Father", we mean ALL of God, period.

That statement agrees with Trinitarian theology, afaics, though I'm pretty certain you didn't intend it that way. You mean to say that referring to "God the Father" means that Jesus is not god (contradicting the Gospel of John)?

You use "God the Father" in the sense of him not being all of God, but only part of him.

There are no parts to God according to Trinitarianism. There are different persons, but not different parts. The creeds are explicit on this point, iirc.
It's hard for you to avoid arguing a straw man, isn't it?

This co-indwelling may be helpful in illustrating the trinitarian conception of salvation. The first doctrinal benefit is that it effectively excludes the idea that God has parts. Trinitarians affirm that God is a simple, not an aggregate, being. God is not parcelled out into three portions.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Trinity

You use God the Father so you can divide God. (and don't quote me the Trinity part where they are without division. I know what you say but you don't mean what you say.)

:lol:

Argument by bald assertion is generally considered to be a fallacy.


I already know how you'll explain the meaning of any verse I offer.

That's pretty funny, considering that you've already been wrong.

By using the definition of the Trinity. It's developing the Trinity that you can't do.

On the contrary, I've developed the Trinity from Scripture--but you've apparently relegated the barebones description to your editing-room floor in order to pursue your series of doctrinally-biased proof-texts.

I'll review it for you, however.
The Father is god.
Jesus is god.
The Holy Spirit is god.
There is one god.
All of the above are derived from scripture, and three of the four are obvious.

You see, you can't explain away the hundreds of verses that differentiate Jesus from God until AFTER you have already developed the Trinity.

Need I remind you yet again that Trinitarians distinguish between God (the Father) and Jesus? There is no need to "explain away" anything, all that is needed is to look at the revelation in terms of progression.
I'll ask you again, since you won't give me a straight answer (afaics): Do you accept the notion of progressive revelation (an unusual JW you would be if you do not)?

Only AFTER you have divided God up into three persons can you say 'Well God here means God the Father, not all of God. So Jesus can say he is separate from God because he doesn't mean GOD, as in GOD, he just means god the Father and of course Jesus is not God the Father. That verse doesn't mean Jesus isn't God.'

Jesus never says that he is separate from God, afaics. Apparently you infer that meaning from various texts.
Jesus does affirm oneness with God, OTOH.

Also, God takes on many meanings. The ONE true God, false Gods (singular and plural), Angels, human kings, and even Satan the Devil. But we have verses that elaborate these terms. And we are told over and over that the One God is One, not that the One God is three.

We are told that there is one god, in effect. As for "God is one", I expect you to offer specific citations.

We see the One God talking to the Messiah in the OT. (Ps 110:1). You are creating definitions for God that aren't explained in the Bible. Like 'God the Son' and 'God the Holy Spirit' and 'God the whole Trinity'.

Definitions are explained by the context. I'm telling you that the Trinity is derived from the text itself, without preconceptions. You keep denying it without evidence.

There is nothing Jesus could have said to convince you he is not God once you've developed the Trinity. If Jesus said "I am not God", would that cause you to believe it? Why? Why not?

:ahem:
If Jesus said "I am not theos there would be no Trinitiarian doctrine, and on top of that the Bible would contain a fairly certain contradiction, since the Bible is so clear on the deity of Christ that even JW's will admit that Jesus is "a" god (even though they can't justify the "a").

Because UNTIL they developed the Trinity they couldn't have thought Jesus was God. He and THEY speak as if God is someone else. Only AFTER they develop the Trinity can they even begin to think Jesus could be someone God and speak as if he's not God.

Even assuming that your claims are not ridiculous, they are all adequately explained by the principle of progressive revelation.
Shall I ask you yet again?

Jesus is spoken of as having a beginning. Micah 5:2, John 7:56, Col 1:15, Rev 3:14. Try reading these without reading your doctrinal bias into it.

In Micah 5:2, the word translated "origins" literally means "goings out" (Valvoord, Zuck), and it is the only incidence of that word in the OT. Also, the portion rendered "are from of old, from ancient times (NIV) is the attempt to express the literal "days of immeasurable time". If a person had a preconceived notion that the Messiah was created, he might use this as a proof-text, not knowing the literal meaning of the Hebrew word. Otherwise, it serves naught as an evidence that Jesus was created.

No such thing as John 7:56, afaics.

Perhaps you meant John 6:57. I won't correct your misconceptions about that verse until you affirm that it's the one you meant.

Colossians 1:15 unequivocally supports the view that Jesus was not created. You've already effectively admitted that "other" isn't justified by the grammar, thus we have Jesus creating "all things"--without apparent exception (in harmony with the Gospel of John).

Revelation 3:14 refers to the arche of God's creation, and it is possible to translate the word as "beginning", but so translated the term has applications in terms of authority, much akin to the English word "first" (as in "first among equals").
The context gives us little guidance. Plainly the text is not intended as a cosmology, like the introduction to John's gospel. We are left to wrangle over whether it plays up the position of the faithful and true witness to be the first thing created, or to be the ruler of the creation.
I think that the latter is the better fit, but either way it's not a strong proof-text.
http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=greeklexicon&isindex=746

Compare the plural "archangels" where the prefix is the verb form of arche. The prefix denotes higher authority.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/7/1098336594-6163.html

Also, I don't know how to draw a circle on TWeb but it would be three circles. Uncreated would be God. Created would be Jesus with a circle in his circle that says "all other created things". We can carry the creation thing on in the other thread. I'm not carrying the same discussion on in two threads.

Your conception flatly contradicts the scripture, which tells us that not even one thing was created without the Word (Christ).
The Gospel of John is emphatic on this point.

Also, the king of Israel as being called God is clearly defined.

The Father as being called God is clearly defined.
Got any more irrelevancies to bring up?

Where is God defined as three in one? Shoot, why not go ahead and divide God up into four or five persons too? Then you can throw some more definitions of God. What you have done is made it impossible for Jesus to convince you he is not God unless he specifically quoted the Trinity doctrine and then said "that is not true." He could say "I am not God" all day long and you wouldn't believe him.

Irrelevant, since He doesn't--and if he did He'd be contradicting scripture unless He were referring simply to a different person of the Godhead.

More shoddy research I see.

Do tell, and I mean it.
If you think it's "shoddy research" then explain why you think it's shoddy research.

Dude, put down the Rhode's book and get some real insight. "firstborn" is used dozens of times to reference people who were brought into existence.

"Firstborn" is used dozens of times to reference people who were heirs.
Deu 21:16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit [that] which he hath, [that] he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, [which is indeed] the firstborn:

Why it can be used dozens of times for other persons with the meaning of bringing into existence but it cannot be used of Jesus is beyond me.

It can be used of Jesus, but it should not be used of Jesus in Colossians 1:15 because the context strongly prefers the sense of heirship.
Stay away from straw men, there.
Jesus was the firstborn of Mary and Joseph. Nothing wrong with that (and Jesus would have been Joseph's primary heir regardless of subsequent births).

Here comes the wave of fallacies ...

Furthermore, the word 'protoktistos' was not in existence in the first century! If you can find ONE instance where this word appears in ANY Greek manuscripts before the late 2nd, early 3rd century, I'll give consideration to your argument. The first documented use of the word protoktistos is found in the writings of Clement. And I mean that word doesn't appear in any biblical, non-biblical, secular, you name it, Greek documents, from the time of Homer (long before Jesus came to the earth) up until Clement. So if apparently NO Greek writer had EVER used that word before nearly 300 years after Jesus was on earth, I guess Paul didn't have that word as an option now, did he? Not that it would have mattered because you accept 'firstborn' to mean to bring into existence a lot of other times.

1) Your first sentence is based on the fallacy of the appeal to ignorance.
2) Your second sentence talks about my "argument" when all I'm doing is answering a question that you asked as to what Bible statement I would accept as showing that Jesus was created. There is no criticism of my argument, since I set the criterion for what would convince me, afaics (fallacy=non sequitur).
3) Your third sentence is an unsupported assertion leading to an appeal to ignorance (fallacies).
4) Your fourth sentence gives voice to the fallacious conclusion (appeal to ignorance).
5) I accept "firstborn" as being born first where the context favors that translation. See Deuteronomy 21:16 for review.

Cracker Jack apologetics, you gotta love it.

Is that what you would call your replies to my points?
:wink:

Do you have reading comprehension problems?

I don't understand written Russian hardly at all, so I guess I do have reading comprehension problems.
I understand English pretty well, however.

I didn't say you 'automatically replace God with God the Father', period.

I didn't say that you said that I "automatically replace God with God the Father, period".
Now that we've got that out of the way ...

I said you do it with your whim on the a priori of the Trinity.

And I replied to that assertion. Do you have reading comprehension problems?

You just said no and then turn around and said you look at the author's intent, whom you ASSUME believes in the Trinity! So YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, you DO replace God with God the Father when it is convenient for your a priori on the Trinity. Zheessh.

:ahem:
Where did I assume the author believes in the Trinity, apart from your vivid imagination?

Ha Ha Ha. This is great. You assume God is a Trinity and that it is thus possible for Jesus to speak of God as someone totally different from himself who is greater, gave him life, sent him, taught him, etc, and your condemning US for using doctrine to interpret?

I'm condemning JW's for using doctrine to interpret, and I do not assume that God is a Trinity when I interpret. You won't find me doing so. You'll find me referencing clear verses that indicate that Jesus is fully divine, and reconciling those verses with verses that make a distinction between God (the Father) and Jesus Christ, along with verses that insist that there is but one god.
The difference between what I do and what you claim I do could hardly be greater.

Ha Ha Ha. Okay, I've gained my composure. You are correct that doctrine does influence our translation (like it doesn't influence yours?, Ha Ha Ha, oh, sorry).

All translations betray a doctrinal bias to one degree or another. I know how to do word studies and the like, so I'll be less susceptible than most to doctrinal biases that work their way into common translations.
The NWT has some of the most outstanding examples of doctrinal bias of any popular modern translation, of course.
:smile:

In Col 1:15 Jesus is called the firstborn of all creation. If you can find ONE instance in the NT where someone is said to be the firstborn of a group and is not part of that group, I will concede your argument. Deal?

It's up to you whether or not you accept my argument, afaics, but the best reason for doing so would be the fact that the context agrees with the heirship sense of "firstborn".
If you live with the results of your bogus challenge, I might also ask that you accept the fact that the creation itself created Jesus, since the firstborn of cattle was born of a cow, and I'd proceed to challenge you to find any "firstborn" that was not preceded by a member of the group to which it belongs.
I figure you're well past responding to logic, however, so that one will probably go right over your head.

Knowing that you won't find an example, I will go on and say since Jesus is thus said to be part of creation, then it's obvious that all "other" things came into existence through him.
uote:

:lol:
You mean obvious that the creation created Jesus--don't you?
:rofl:

So if I quoted a verse where it says "Someone called all the people to Someone" (same name both times) would you tell me that "someone" is at least a two person being?

Nope, but I'd tell you that either "someone" is at least a two person being or else there are at least two someones.
How many honest-to-goodness Jehovahs are there, IYO?

And on the other, this is just pathetic. I mean it CO, just pathetic. Now I know why you are saying idiotic stuff all over the place. Earlier you couldn't even see that I answered you question on whether I use the context in deciphering a verse.

That wasn't the question. I was asking whether or not you were willing to examine the context in a particular instance. Instead of discussion the context, you merely insisted that your interpretation was MOL wonderful while mine was a product of bias.

Now you tell me your too lazy to open the Bible to the account of Lot?

Are you telling me that you don't realize that the verse I quoted was from the nearby text?

What? You don't know where it's at?

I'm not going to guess as which verse you mean. What I'm seeing here is that you are too lazy to so much as offer the verse citation.
I believe that I have identified the text that you're talking about. I just want you to confirm it before I take the trouble to demonstrate your interpretive excess.
We take away the wiggle room before proceeding to pin the specimen.

Is that account too much for you to read? I'm sorry but you're an idiot. Plain and simple. Go read Genesis 19 and find it yourself. Show me where I am straining the translation.

Am I correct that you're referring to verse 18, O Elusive One?
:smile:

Another well thought out answer there. I guess your little Trinitarian book didn't address that one.

Right. The book I'm using (not that I'm really using one) did personal interviews with only 1,342 of those baptized at Pentecost, so the percentages of who believed what are not absolutely certain. Do you want the stats for the 1,342?
:lol:

It was obvious I meant automatic in light of your a priori of the Trinity, as I had said earlier in the thread. I think my comment on your English hit the nail on the head.

Not nearly as much as my comment about you not having supported your claim hit the nail on the head.

Jesus is full God
Jesus is full Man
Full God knows everything
Jesus didn't know everything
Jesus is Full God

Premise 3 is contested.
The orthodox view of the Incarnation has Jesus divesting himself of the use of his own divine power. It is not at all clear that it would be beyond the ability of an omnipotent/omniscient being to limit its knowledge experientially while retaining the ability to possess full knowledge at any moment.
Put another way, it is not absolutely clear that an omnipotent/omniscient being must know all things at all times.

You can't say A is non-A

No need to, since you have used a controversial premise in your proof.

So if I provide a scripture that tells how the angels were singing and praising God as he was creating the earth (the beginning, Genesis chapter 1) you'll resend your argument?

I woud re-send my argument, but I would not rescind it.
:smile:
Genesis 1 is a bare-bones cosmology. There is no discussion of elapsed time, stages of creation, nor mention of the creation of the angels themselves.
Unless we suppose that angels are eternal, this puts the creation of the angels somewhere in the midst of "the beginning" but certainly not before "the beginning".
Only if we read into the text that "the earth" is "the Earth (as in the planet) and the Earth came into existence at one "in the beginning" creation moment relegated to the physical world would it even begin to be plausible to posit angels existing prior to "the beginning".

BTW, most religions recognize that angels were around before the creation of the earth. You're only hope is that Genesis 1:1 is dealing with more than the creation of the earth.

Genesis 1:1 does mention "the heavens" of which there is a sky and a godly dwelling place, at minimum.
Are you going to try the fallacious appeal to ignorance again?

Before you foolishly say yes, go back and read the WHOLE thread in the 'Christ created being' thread. I know you didn't read it all because in your reply there you said some idiotic arguments that had already been said earlier and refuted.

Pardon me if I find your claim that the arguments were "refuted" rather doubtful.
:smile:
Your reasoning is routinely fallacious.

I can say it because I've played your little word game myself with others. Only after I came back to the text with a removed a priori of the Trinity and was determined to make the Bible teach me Jesus is God did I realize Jesus wasn't God.

Sure you can say it--but that doesn't remove the inconsistency.

I did.

What, in the other thread?
:lol:

Man you're lazy. No wonder you are so poorly read on this stuff. Go see the thread in Christology on when the disciples thought Jesus was God. I'm not retyping it all out.

Man, you're lazy.
:poke:

:wink:

This is great. How can anyone try to engage in this discussion and be so unaware of the NT?
"That they may be one just as we are one...in order that they all may be one, just as you Father are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they may be in union with us...in order that they may be one just as we are one...in order that they may be perfected into one."-Jesus said this to his Father. He said we would all be one with God.

What makes you think I'm unaware of it? It's all about taking away your wiggle-room.
Does the verse you cited say that "they" are one?
Just in case you're inclined to lie, I'll answer for you: It doesn't. The text provides a goal for believers to strive for, just as when we are told to be perfect as the Father in heaven is perfect.
The latter verse does not mean that God is only as perfect as his followers, BTW (praise God).

See the thread in Christology on whether Jesus is the Alpha and Omega.

I already know the answer.

Ha Ha. This gets better and better! Get this folks out there watching this thread. It's my example of Bob and the President. I told CO right from the beginning that Bob isn't the President, he was sent by the President and granted some Presidential authority. Not CO is telling me to accept that Bob IS the President!

I'm telling you no such thing. You started invoking a parallel to a Bible passage, so I encouraged you to make the parallel perfect by admitting that Bob was president.
My comment exposes your manipulation of the illustration very elegantly, if I do say so myself.
Then you helped out by completely misunderstanding/misrepresenting the intent of the comment ...

It's MY illustration and MY meaning and he is now telling me that I REALLY mean Bob IS the President. Great! Now CO has the ability to read my MIND too!

Straw men galore! Whee!
You invoked a parallel to a Bible passage. I suggested a way to make the parallel closer.
You should be thanking me.
:smile:

Think about what this says of him, people. I can't read John's, Paul's, Peter's etc mind. I can read their comments and see what they say and develop a fairly good understanding of what their thinking but in the end...well, you know. But one thing I DO know is what I am thinking and meaning. Now I have CO telling me that my story is meaning that Bob is the President! I clearly told him he is not and I am telling everyone he is NOT the President. So it's no wonder CO can't accept what the Bible says. He's not letting the Bible tell him what it means. He's telling the Bible what he thinks it means. Shoot. He's even telling me what I mean. I'm about ready to throw this guy on ignore. I'm sure you'll understand if I do.

:rofl:


The elders function as a body and no elder has more authority than the other elders. No elder can make a decision or over-ride another elder. Admit it, your clueless on this subject.

On the contrary, I've served as an elder where all elders were constitutionally equal in authority and all formal decisions were based on unanimous consent. Even in that system, some elders wield greater or lesser authority in the practical sense, and the degree is MOL consistent.
My point stands, and your attempted nitpick remains apparent for what it is.

So while he was on earth and while the Gospels say "Jesus healed" you recognize that he was not the true healer (ie, source of the healing power), he was just the medium through which God healed? So replace "healed" with "created" and you'll have our viewpoint of him in creation.

Sure, if you completely ignore the scriptures that tell us how Jesus humbled himself for purposes of the incarnation.
I don't know why you'd want to do that, unless it's to deliberately undermine the credibility of your claim to an unbiased approach to the scriptures.

[NonTrinitarian]

NT said,

I replied to your question in the previous post. I clearly said (and please go check it and your eyes) "I do consider the context of each verse and from this verse it is clear the things Jesus taught were not his, but Gods."



CO replied,

That is not an answer to my question. I can extrapolate it into an answer for my question, if I am so inclined, but I am trying to get you to answer the question directly (it is a "yes" or "no" question, essentially) prior to discussing the specifics of the verse in question with you.Get this people. I think this will give you good insight into why CO can't grasp much of anything. He asked me if I consider the context of a verse. I replied with this:

"I do consider the context of each verse"

Now can you believe CO said I didn't answer his question?!!!!!!!!!!! He wants to me say "Yes". Somehow "I do" is not the same as "yes" in CO's mind! Goodness, in marriage when you're asked, 'Do you take this woman..., yada yada yada', most people say "I do", and it means the same exact thing as yes! CO is an idiot but I don't mind beating up on him if wants to keep coming back for more.

You appear to have imagined that I had just made a claim that the disciples thought that Jesus was God. Try reading it again.

And, fwiw, I didn't make any argument in that portion of text. I asserted what is obvious, that the beliefs of the general crowds and the beliefs of those who knew Jesus well could be at variance. My point is inarguable, afaics. Ha Ha. You need to be a politician. Here is another example of the word games CO plays. I said it was obvious the crowd didn't think Jesus was God when he forgave sins. (says it right in the Bible) CO replies with this:



"Strictly speaking, you don't know what they were thinking. Probably the crowd, with their limited context, thought one thing. Perhaps the disciples, with a greater knowledge of Jesus' works and words, thought something else."

Consider what I wrote. I said the crowd did NOT think Jesus was God. When you make a direct statement like that you're limiting it to a yes or no on whether they thought Jesus was God. (I'm not talking about what else they MAY have thought about Jesus, IE, Messiah, prophet, whatever, I'm talking ONLY about what they did NOT think). Now look at CO's reply. He said the disciples, with greater knowledge, etc, probably thought something else. The implications is that they thought he was God and that is EXACTLY what CO was meaning! Then when I blew that theory out of the air, he pulls a politician like move and plays word games to avoid getting caught. There were only two options I presented in the argument CO replied to. 1.) They did think Jesus was God or 2.) They did not think Jesus was God. In NO WAY did I address what they may have thought WHO Jesus was, I ONLY augmented for who they did NOT think he was and CO said the disciples may have thought differently. Then to bail out he plays word games. He's an embarrassment to Trinitarians. How I miss AV Metro. We didn't agree on much but he at least had respectable arguments.

AFAICS, the Bible does not impart to us exhaustive knowledge of all things. I don't know what each Bible personality believed at all times--or even most of the time.

Perhaps the Watchtower has published enough volumes for you to have achieved that knowledge, I suppose.No, but God has. I can go to a verse and see what they say and pretty darn close come to what they believed. That's where you fault. If you ever did that you might be surprised that most of the things Jesus did that makes you think he is God didn't make his followers think that.

If you can avoid fallacious reasoning by so doing, then yes. Are you familiar with the fallacy of the appeal to ignorance?Yes, most of what you say is an appeal to ignorance.

NT said, In fact, when we say "God the Father", we mean ALL of God, period.



CO replied,

That statement agrees with Trinitarian theology, afaics, though I'm pretty certain you didn't intend it that way. You mean to say that referring to "God the Father" means that Jesus is not god (contradicting the Gospel of John)?You'd be about the ONLY Trinitarian I know that says that. God the Father does not encompass all of God, according to just about any Trinitarian out there. He does for us. (Bad Trinitarian, BAD!)

NT said, You use "God the Father" in the sense of him not being all of God, but only part of him.



CO replied,

There are no parts to God according to Trinitarianism. There are different persons, but not different parts. The creeds are explicit on this point, iirc.

It's hard for you to avoid arguing a straw man, isn't it?

This co-indwelling may be helpful in illustrating the trinitarian conception of salvation. The first doctrinal benefit is that it effectively excludes the idea that God has parts. Trinitarians affirm that God is a simple, not an aggregate, being. God is not parcelled out into three portions. Yeah, I know what you SAY, but it isn't what you mean. It's words games. One person (part) of God has different roles than another person (part). I can say that in a family too. Part of my family does one thing, the other part does something else. It's all word games CO. Something you're pretty good at.



I'll review it for you, however.

The Father is god.

Jesus is god.

The Holy Spirit is god.

There is one god.

All of the above are derived from scripture, and three of the four are obvious.These are from scripture too

Peter is Satan

Judas is the Devil

Satan is God

Moses is God

Thus: Peter, Judas and Moses are the Trinity of Satan. Hey, it's in the Bible!

NT said,

You see, you can't explain away the hundreds of verses that differentiate Jesus from God until AFTER you have already developed the Trinity.



CO replied,

Need I remind you yet again that Trinitarians distinguish between God (the Father) and Jesus? There is no need to "explain away" anything, all that is needed is to look at the revelation in terms of progression.

I'll ask you again, since you won't give me a straight answer (afaics): Do you accept the notion of progressive revelation (an unusual JW you would be if you do not)?Ha Ha. Oh this is great. I just said he couldn't differentiate Jesus from God without the Trinity and he comes back and says "Trinitarians distinguish..yack yack yack." This is beautiful! What did you do BEFORE Trinitarianism CO! And yes I believe in progressive Revelation but apparently not like you!

NT said,

Only AFTER you have divided God up into three persons can you say 'Well God here means God the Father, not all of God. So Jesus can say he is separate from God because he doesn't mean GOD, as in GOD, he just means god the Father and of course Jesus is not God the Father. That verse doesn't mean Jesus isn't God.'



CO replied,

Jesus never says that he is separate from God, afaics. Apparently you infer that meaning from various texts.

Jesus does affirm oneness with God, OTOH. Well no, of course he didn't say he was separate from God, IF you ALREADY believe in a three headed God! BTW, I affirm my oneness with God too. Please don't fall down and worship me

We are told that there is one god, in effect. As for "God is one", I expect you to offer specific citations.Don't you just love this guy! He's so woefully ignorant of anything not in his Trinity book that he actually thinks I'm gonna have problems providing him with citations showing 'God is one'. Hee hee.

Uh, I'm gonna hold off on that and give you another chance to research this one. I'm feeling nice today. Trinitarians are so tuned into saying there is "One God" but they ignore the verses that say God is one.

If Jesus said "I am not theos there would be no Trinitiarian doctrine, and on top of that the Bible would contain a fairly certain contradiction, since the Bible is so clear on the deity of Christ that even JW's will admit that Jesus is "a" god (even though they can't justify the "a").That wouldn't work for you. You'd want it in a "yes" or "no" format! No, you would say 'Jesus means he is not God the Father but he is still God' OR you'd say 'Well, that only applies because he was on earth and so had to give up his divine nature.' And we admit a lot of other people in the Bible are 'a god' too. So do you.

Your conception flatly contradicts the scripture, which tells us that not even one thing was created without the Word (Christ).

The Gospel of John is emphatic on this point.The gospel of John is limited to the account of Genesis 1:1. That's why they both say 'in the beginning.' Angels were in the beginning too.

"Firstborn" is used dozens of times to reference people who were heirs.

Deu 21:16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit [that] which he hath, [that] he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, [which is indeed] the firstborn: Dozens? I see one. I can provide a few more myself. But you have more than 24 instances where firstborn is used in a way other than first offspring? Let's see 'em. And even still, they are all part of the group. So you can call Jesus heir of creation if you want but he is still part of creation. There are no examples of firstborn not being included in the group he is firstborn over.



NT said,

Furthermore, the word 'protoktistos' was not in existence in the first century! If you can find ONE instance where this word appears in ANY Greek manuscripts before the late 2nd, early 3rd century, I'll give consideration to your argument. The first documented use of the word protoktistos is found in the writings of Clement. And I mean that word doesn't appear in any biblical, non-biblical, secular, you name it, Greek documents, from the time of Homer (long before Jesus came to the earth) up until Clement. So if apparently NO Greek writer had EVER used that word before nearly 300 years after Jesus was on earth, I guess Paul didn't have that word as an option now, did he? Not that it would have mattered because you accept 'firstborn' to mean to bring into existence a lot of other times.





CO, the politician attempts to create a diversion by saying,

1) Your first sentence is based on the fallacy of the appeal to ignorance.

2) Your second sentence talks about my "argument" when all I'm doing is answering a question that you asked as to what Bible statement I would accept as showing that Jesus was created. There is no criticism of my argument, since I set the criterion for what would convince me, afaics (fallacy=non sequitur).

3) Your third sentence is an unsupported assertion leading to an appeal to ignorance (fallacies).

4) Your fourth sentence gives voice to the fallacious conclusion (appeal to ignorance).

5) I accept "firstborn" as being born first where the context favors that translation. See Deuteronomy 21:16 for review.1.) The first sentence is a fact. That you're ignorant on it isn't my problem. I can't prove a negative without posting EVERY Greek writing from Homer to Clement on TWeb and ask you to read them. You go out and find the word 'protoktistos' being used by ANYONE before Clement. Goodluck. The word didn't exist.

2.) The second sentence is laying out my rebuttal to your argument. If the word didn't exist they you have an impossible argument.

3.) The third sentence is a positive statement that you can easily disprove if it's not true. Obviously you can't

4.) The fourth sentence is the same argument as the third sentence.

5.) You can't count sentences

6.) The fifth sentence is the obvious conclusion that since there are no documents containing the word prior to Clement then "apparently" no writer used it before Clement.

NT said,

You just said no and then turn around and said you look at the author's intent, whom you ASSUME believes in the Trinity! So YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, you DO replace God with God the Father when it is convenient for your a priori on the Trinity. Zheessh.



The politician replied,

Where did I assume the author believes in the Trinity, apart from your vivid imagination?Ha ha. I'll let the readers decipher this one out.

I'm condemning JW's for using doctrine to interpret, and I do not assume that God is a Trinity when I interpret. You won't find me doing so. You'll find me referencing clear verses that indicate that Jesus is fully divine, and reconciling those verses with verses that make a distinction between God (the Father) and Jesus Christ, along with verses that insist that there is but one god.

The difference between what I do and what you claim I do could hardly be greater.I don't know if you're a bold faced liar or just.... Explain to me how you can go from believing there is only one God and seeing Jesus say he is someone other than that one God and yet still believe he is that very same God without believing God is a multi-person being?

It's up to you whether or not you accept my argument, afaics, but the best reason for doing so would be the fact that the context agrees with the heirship sense of "firstborn".

If you live with the results of your bogus challenge, I might also ask that you accept the fact that the creation itself created Jesus, since the firstborn of cattle was born of a cow, and I'd proceed to challenge you to find any "firstborn" that was not preceded by a member of the group to which it belongs.

I figure you're well past responding to logic, however, so that one will probably go right over your head.Well, it's obvious your not up to my challenge of finding one instance where the firstborn is not part of the group. But it just so happens I am up to your challenge. (See, I've apparently done a little more research on this subject than CO)

Allow me to quote the book "Jesus-God or the Son of God?"

"We should mention a common argument for not taking the term "firstborn of creation" literally. It is stated that a literal understanding of the term would mean that creation gave birth to Jesus. This is based on the argument that the term "firstborn of Pharoah" designates the first child born to Pharaoh. So if Jesus were the firstborn of creation we would be saying that creation gave birth to Jesus. However, this argument is a hat trick...We would not hold to that explanation if we said the young prince was the "firstborn of Pharaoh's house." We would then understand that the prince, compared to all the other children fathered by Pharaoh, was the first child among his brothers and sisters. Why the difference in meaning?

The first case involves the proper noun Pharaoh. The other example involves a collective noun (house) with the term Pharaoh simply being used as an adjective describing who's house we are referencing. Usually when a collective noun is used the person is understood to be part of the collective noun. Which mode does the term "Firstborn of creation" involve? We note the term "creation" is not a proper noun describing an individual, it is a collective noun describing the group. In this construction no one should honestly understand that the young prince was fathered by Pharaoh's HOUSE or that Jesus was fathered by all of creation. In both cases the individual is included in the group and not fathered by the group."

NT said,

So if I quoted a verse where it says "Someone called all the people to Someone" (same name both times) would you tell me that "someone" is at least a two person being?



CO replied,

Nope, but I'd tell you that either "someone" is at least a two person being or else there are at least two someones.

How many honest-to-goodness Jehovahs are there, IYO?Let's see him back out of this one.

"At that time Solomon proceed to congregate the older men...to Solomon at Jerusalem."

So which is it, CO?

Is Solomon

1.)at least a two person being

2.) there are at least two Solomons

I'm not going to guess as which verse you mean. What I'm seeing here is that you are too lazy to so much as offer the verse citation.

I believe that I have identified the text that you're talking about. I just want you to confirm it before I take the trouble to demonstrate your interpretive excess.

We take away the wiggle room before proceeding to pin the specimen.So far you've needed a lot of wiggle room.

"Then Lot said to THEM, (the two angels) "Not that, Please Jehovah!"-19:18

Genesis 1 is a bare-bones cosmology. There is no discussion of elapsed time, stages of creation, nor mention of the creation of the angels themselves.

Unless we suppose that angels are eternal, this puts the creation of the angels somewhere in the midst of "the beginning" but certainly not before "the beginning".

Only if we read into the text that "the earth" is "the Earth (as in the planet) and the Earth came into existence at one "in the beginning" creation moment relegated to the physical world would it even begin to be plausible to posit angels existing prior to "the beginning".How can someone say so much and say squat? Genesis 1 is a description of the creation of the earth. How DARE me "read into the text" that "the earth" is in reference to the planet Earth!

Ha Ha Ha. Whoo. That's a good one. Yeah, I'M the one squirming here, huh? Am I the only one who thinks Genesis' discussion of the creation of the earth applies to the planet earth?

Genesis 1:1 does mention "the heavens" of which there is a sky and a godly dwelling place, at minimum.

Are you going to try the fallacious appeal to ignorance again?No, you're the one who appeals to logical terms you don't even know what mean. I am appealing to the Bible. Verse 1 says God created the heavens and earth. Then we get a more detailed description of it. In verse 8 we see the "heavens" are the atmosphere, not the spiritual realm. Vs 14, same thing. Verse 20, same thing (birds aren't flying in the spiritual realm) Verse 26, same thing. Verse 28 same thing. Genesis 2:1, same thing. It's not my fault you're ignorant on this.





What makes you think I'm unaware of it? It's all about taking away your wiggle-room.

Does the verse you cited say that "they" are one?

Just in case you're inclined to lie, I'll answer for you: It doesn't. The text provides a goal for believers to strive for, just as when we are told to be perfect as the Father in heaven is perfect.

The latter verse does not mean that God is only as perfect as his followers, BTW (praise God)."That THEY may be one JUST as we are one...in order that THEY all may be one, JUST as you Father are in union with me and I am in union with you, that THEY may be in union with us...in order that THEY may be one JUST as WE are one...in order that THEY may be perfected into one."

Do you see the '"they" are one' in there? And note Jesus said JUST as we are one. (Him and his Father). (I'm predicting you're gonna come back and say 'Yes, we are all part of a multi-person being. We're a Billionity.'

On the contrary, I've served as an elder where all elders were constitutionally equal in authority and all formal decisions were based on unanimous consent. Even in that system, some elders wield greater or lesser authority in the practical sense, and the degree is MOL consistent.

My point stands, and your attempted nitpick remains apparent for what it is.Your serving as an elder in false religion is a far cry from Christian men who are determined to keep the politics out. I used to be in the Church of Christ and there was a huge difference between that elder body where all were "equal" and yet politics were rampant on the elder's friends in the church and who got certain privileges, etc. This is nothing we can prove in this discussion but my own experience is that it is nothing like the elder bodies in false religion. You're master is a divider and he keeps your churches split.

[Captain Ochre]

Get this people. I think this will give you good insight into why CO can't grasp much of anything. He asked me if I consider the context of a verse.

NT's report is in error (a bit of pattern, there), as had I asked him if he was willing to consider the context of a particular verse, not whether or not he feels that he habitually considers context.

I replied with this:

"I do consider the context of each verse"

And I've already commented on that non-answer, since your claim that you have considered the context of the verse sans the discussion of your (alleged) findings, gives us no more reason to accept your determination regarding that verse than we would have if you had argued fallaciously via bald assertions.
I guess this is the kind of thing John Sparks was referring to when he said that you quote him out-of-context.

Now can you believe CO said I didn't answer his question?!!!!!!!!!!! He wants to me say "Yes".

Exactly! Then we can proceed to parse the text for the author's intent.
Wouldn't you just hate that, NT?
:wink:

Somehow "I do" is not the same as "yes" in CO's mind!

"I do" suggests that you've considered the context but you're not willing to tell what it was you considered about the context. "Yes" tells me (and everybody else) that you're willing to discuss the issue.

Goodness, in marriage when you're asked, 'Do you take this woman..., yada yada yada', most people say "I do", and it means the same exact thing as yes! CO is an idiot but I don't mind beating up on him if wants to keep coming back for more.

Heh. Your best weapon is your persistence in using the ad hominem fallacy.
There aren't many readers here who will accept insult in lieu of a well-constructed argument.

You're supposedly willing to discuss the context. So why haven't you done it yet?

Ha Ha. You need to be a politician. Here is another example of the word games CO plays. I said it was obvious the crowd didn't think Jesus was God when he forgave sins. (says it right in the Bible)

:ahem:
NT infers that the crowd doesn't think Jesus is God based on the reported remark that God has given power (such as that manifested by Jesus) to men. One can almost see NT imagining the scene in his head, as every person in the crowd mouths the words simultaneously indicating their uniform agreement.

CO replies with this:
"Strictly speaking, you don't know what they were thinking. Probably the crowd, with their limited context, thought one thing. Perhaps the disciples, with a greater knowledge of Jesus' works and words, thought something else."

Consider what I wrote. I said the crowd did NOT think Jesus was God.

Right. Now consider the evidence that was presented in support of that view.

When you make a direct statement like that you're limiting it to a yes or no on whether they thought Jesus was God. (I'm not talking about what else they MAY have thought about Jesus, IE, Messiah, prophet, whatever, I'm talking ONLY about what they did NOT think). Now look at CO's reply. He said the disciples, with greater knowledge, etc, probably thought something else. The implications is that they thought he was God and that is EXACTLY what CO was meaning! Then when I blew that theory out of the air, he pulls a politician like move and plays word games to avoid getting caught. There were only two options I presented in the argument CO replied to. 1.) They did think Jesus was God or 2.) They did not think Jesus was God. In NO WAY did I address what they may have thought WHO Jesus was, I ONLY augmented for who they did NOT think he was and CO said the disciples may have thought differently. Then to bail out he plays word games. He's an embarrassment to Trinitarians. How I miss AV Metro. We didn't agree on much but he at least had respectable arguments.

:rofl:
You just described yourself committing the bifurcation fallacy, but as though it's a good thing.
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/f/fallacies.htm#Bifurcation

Luke 5:21
"Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
(NIV)

Mark 2:7
"Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

It's quite obvious from the text that some of the people understood that Jesus was claiming a power reserved only for God.

Isaiah 43:25
I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake.

No, but God has. I can go to a verse and see what they say and pretty darn close come to what they believed. That's where you fault. If you ever did that you might be surprised that most of the things Jesus did that makes you think he is God didn't make his followers think that.

You won’t go to a verse and do anything other than broadly proclaim what the people thought, afaics. In the text we’re currently looking at, you disregard the view of the teachers of the law because Jesus supposedly says that they are wrong (whereas he actually criticizes them for unbelief). You also extrapolate from a fairly ambiguous phrase (credited to the crowd) the supposed notion that the crowd on the whole thought that Jesus was not God/god.
When we go to the context and use non-fallacious reason, NT gets the short end of the stick.

Yes, most of what you say is an appeal to ignorance.

Evidently you do not understand how the fallacy of “appeal to ignorance” is understood, therefore your comment seems to swell your reliance on ad hominem to pad your responses.

You'd be about the ONLY Trinitarian I know that says that. God the Father does not encompass all of God, according to just about any Trinitarian out there. He does for us. (Bad Trinitarian, BAD!)

It’s unclear what you think I’m saying about God that supposedly conflicts with what Trinitarians (those you know) have to say on the subject.
The person of Jesus is not the person of the Father.
Both are fully God.
That’s Trinitarianism. Have a stab at describing where you think I’ve gone wrong in what I wrote, if you can.

Yeah, I know what you SAY, but it isn't what you mean. It's words games. One person (part) of God has different roles than another person (part). I can say that in a family too. Part of my family does one thing, the other part does something else. It's all word games CO. Something you're pretty good at.

Exactly why would I write in agreement with the traditional understanding of the Trinity, then cite a encyclopedia in agreement with what I say about the Trinity, yet supposedly not actually believe what I’m telling you?
:huh:
Wouldn’t I be better of skipping the citation completely?

Seems to me that you wish to insist on treating straw men as my actual argument. If you won’t deal with what I write instead of claiming that I don’t really mean what I write, then I won’t really have to do much at all in order to prove that you are committing the straw man fallacy.
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/f/fallacies.htm#Straw%20Man

These are from scripture too

Peter is Satan

Judas is the Devil

Satan is God

Moses is God

Thus: Peter, Judas and Moses are the Trinity of Satan. Hey, it's in the Bible!

So you don’t believe that “the Father” is God?
Would you be better off attempting a reductio ad absurdum that didn’t lampoon the attempt to make any sense at all of the scriptures?
:lol:
I should cut you a break. You probably learned your logic from the WTB&TS.

Ha Ha. Oh this is great. I just said he couldn't differentiate Jesus from God without the Trinity

You can’t even get your own argument straight. You wrote “…you can't explain away the hundreds of verses that differentiate Jesus from God until AFTER you have already developed the Trinity.”
I simply explained to you that there’s nothing to “explain away” since Trinitarianism distinguishes between the Father and the Son. That’s one reason why Trinitarian dogma gives them different names.
:poke:

and he comes back and says "Trinitarians distinguish..yack yack yack." This is beautiful! What did you do BEFORE Trinitarianism CO! And yes I believe in progressive Revelation but apparently not like you!

Have you got any reasoning to share with us, or will you stick with mindless ridicule, NT?

Well no, of course he didn't say he was separate from God, IF you ALREADY believe in a three headed God! BTW, I affirm my oneness with God too. Please don't fall down and worship me

What if I’m just doing it in recognition of your Nontrinitarianness, as the disciples and whatnot did with respect to Jesus.
You can be … King of the Henotheists. How about that? Now we can “render obeisance” to the King of Henotheists without worshiping you.
:smile:

Don't you just love this guy! He's so woefully ignorant of anything not in his Trinity book that he actually thinks I'm gonna have problems providing him with citations showing 'God is one'. Hee hee.

I fully expect you to be able to provide verses that you think support what you claim. If I can get you to take the trouble to support your claims, then I’ve got the opportunity to publicly interpret the text better than you are able to do, and the argument continues to proceed in my favor.
Whether or not you can trouble yourself to unveil your proof-texts is the only real question.

Uh, I'm gonna hold off on that and give you another chance to research this one. I'm feeling nice today. Trinitarians are so tuned into saying there is "One God" but they ignore the verses that say God is one.

Apparently you want the verses to be ignored, since you cannot be bothered to even cite them by book, chapter, and verse.
I believe that you won’t cite the verses simply because you want your opponent to do any legwork involved in the conversation. It is your way of fallaciously shifting the burden of proof onto your opponent. If I research the verses you’re talking about, then I’m the one who did the legwork. If I research verses you’re not talking about, then you can comfortably tell me that those weren’t the verses you were talking about, and I still get to do all the legwork.
I figure the truth is that you’re an evasive coward.
:smile:

And fwiw, I talk to Mormons too, so I’ve done the research already. It’s just a matter of figuring out which verses NT would try to use to support his position.

That wouldn't work for you. You'd want it in a "yes" or "no" format! No, you would say 'Jesus means he is not God the Father but he is still God' OR you'd say 'Well, that only applies because he was on earth and so had to give up his divine nature.'

It’s pretty funny how reluctant you are to allow me to speak for myself.

And we admit a lot of other people in the Bible are 'a god' too. So do you.

Let’s not equivocate, okay? It’s a fallacy.
I believe that there are many beings (and non-beings) who are called gods for a variety of reasons (chief among them the fact that the thing so called is an object of worship). There is only one entity, however, that is the one true god, known as “the god” (God). If scripture recognizes an entity as truly god (not merely falsely accorded worship, and not merely a messenger of the one true (the) God), then that being is the one true God unless scripture has contradicted itself.

The gospel of John is limited to the account of Genesis 1:1. That's why they both say 'in the beginning.' Angels were in the beginning too.

Non sequitur. “In the beginning” could refer to any number of different beginnings. Genesis 1:1 itself could refer to a number of different beginnings. Apparently JW’s hold that Gen. 1:1 refers to the beginning of the Earth, since the heavens where angels dwell were already created (though the verse itself seems to imply that the heavenly dwelling was created “[ I ]n the beginning”.
Once again, whenever we look at the context, good reasoning leaves NT with the short end of the stick.

Dozens? I see one. I can provide a few more myself. But you have more than 24 instances where firstborn is used in a way other than first offspring? Let's see 'em.[/quote]

I’ll get right on that after you provide the full textual support that shows that “God is one”.
You should be granting my point without argument, however, since the chronologically firstborn was nearly always the heir. The term is rarely used of male humans in the Bible without the sense of heirship attached.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1/1098764817-7596.html

We also see the grammatical pattern that I referred to earlier. “The firstborn of Joseph” is Manasseh, yet Manasseh is not Joseph, nor part of the group “Joseph”.

And even still, they are all part of the group. So you can call Jesus heir of creation if you want but he is still part of creation.

Non sequitur. You’d have to actually argue (rather than merely assert) that the usage of “firstborn” in Colossians actually carries over the pattern that you insist upon.
Otherwise you’re left with yet another instance of argument by assertion (a fallacy).

There are no examples of firstborn not being included in the group he is firstborn over.

There are no examples of “firstborn” meaning “first-created” among any group, ftm. This text is unlike any others to which we might compare it in the Bible, and the text explains itself. Christ is firstborn over all creation because he created all things, and because all thing are by him and for him.
The context tells us the meaning.

1.) The first sentence is a fact. That you're ignorant on it isn't my problem. I can't prove a negative without posting EVERY Greek writing from Homer to Clement on TWeb and ask you to read them. You go out and find the word [/color]'protoktistos' being used by ANYONE before Clement. Goodluck. The word didn't exist.

It wouldn’t be proven even by reading through all the texts you cite and failing to find the word. Doing so would merely leave us with a fallacy of appeal to ignorance, which you apparently don’t yet understand.
Nice job of inserting a “poisoning the well” fallacy into the text, BTW (“CO, the politician attempts to create a diversion by saying,”).

How identifying the fallacies you commit in the course of your argumentation could be a diversion is a story that is yet to be told …

2.) The second sentence is laying out my rebuttal to your argument. If the word didn't exist they you have an impossible argument.

I just explained to you that it isn’t an argument, and you promptly ignore that plain truth.
Leaving aside the fact that you fallaciously argue that the word did not exist at that time, there is no logical problem with me asserting that it would have convinced me if the text had read “first-created” instead of “firstborn”. Obviously, the text doesn’t read “first-created” so you could save yourself a step by calling the so-called “argument” impossible right there.
:ahem:
You cannot rebut an argument that does not exist.

3.) The third sentence is a positive statement that you can easily disprove if it's not true. Obviously you can't

Obviously you can’t avoid supporting your appeal to ignorance with yet another fallacious appeal (argument by assertion, shifting the burden of proof).
:lol:

4.) The fourth sentence is the same argument as the third sentence.

Incorrect. The third sentence is an unsupported assertion that may or not be correct. The fourth sentence included a fallacious conclusion based on an already shaky premise left over from the third sentence.

5.) You can't count sentences

You can’t seem to argue without indulging in fallacy (argument by assertion/ad hominem).

6.) The fifth sentence is the obvious conclusion that since there are no documents containing the word prior to Clement then "apparently" no writer used it before Clement.

It’s not an obvious conclusion at all unless we take fallacious reasoning as our standard. Even using an inductive approach, it should be admitted that Clement very probably wasn’t the first to use the word since we do not have copies of the vast majority of ancient writings.
The chances that we would end up with writings that represent the first usage of the term would be exceedingly small (like unto impossible).
Most understood this to be your fallacy all along, but I don’t mind explaining it in greater detail so that you might have some chance of coming to your senses.
:smile:

Ha ha. I'll let the readers decipher this one out.

No problem. They can see that you have no answer, and that if you do come up with an answer, your rationale will almost certainly consist of fallacious reasoning.
(evasion, cowardice)

I don't know if you're a bold faced liar or just.... Explain to me how you can go from believing there is only one God and seeing Jesus say he is someone other than that one God and yet still believe he is that very same God without believing God is a multi-person being?

Explain how you can use so many fallacies, with the latest being the fallacy of the complex question (Jesus apparently never says that he is someone other than the one God)?
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/f/fallacies.htm#Complex%20Question

Well, it's obvious your not up to my challenge of finding one instance where the firstborn is not part of the group.

Why should I, when you can’t come to grips with the fact that the context favors the meaning of heirship? You just passed over yet another chance to address that issue.

But it just so happens I am up to your challenge. (See, I've apparently done a little more research on this subject than CO)

Allow me to quote the book "Jesus-God or the Son of God?"


How does the quoted bit supposedly answer any challenge?

Let's see him back out of this one.

"At that time Solomon proceed to congregate the older men...to Solomon at Jerusalem."

So which is it, CO?

Is Solomon

1.)[/color][size=2]at least a two person being

2.) there are at least two Solomons

It’s the fallacy of the complex question again. You provide no verse with the form you indicated but instead provided one with additional context.
If you had asked regarding “Someone called all the people before Someone at Somewhere” then you would have received a different answer from me.
As it stands, there is no parallel to the verse we were talking about, making this an apparently pointless diversion. Thus, I ask again:
How many honest-to-goodness Jehovahs are there, IYO?

So far you've needed a lot of wiggle room.

"Then Lot said to THEM, (the two angels) "Not that, Please Jehovah!"-19:18

:rofl:
That’s a poor translation. It’s not the tetragrammaton in use, there.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/l/1098771194-1089.html
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1/1098771200-4383.html


How can someone say so much and say squat?

Seems to me you’re touching on an area of your own firsthand knowledge.
:poke:

Genesis 1 is a description of the creation of the earth. How DARE me "read into the text" that "the earth" is in reference to the planet Earth!

IOW, you don’t realize that you’ve got a plank in your eye.
I’m not surprised.
Genesis 1:1 is a description of the creation of everything, IMO.
The rest of chapter 1 deals with the preparation of the promised land, which is how “land” or “earth” is used with thematic consistency in the Pentateuch.
I’m guessing that they don’t teach you this stuff at the Kingdom Hall.

Ha Ha Ha. Whoo. That's a good one. Yeah, I'M the one squirming here, huh?

Well, yes it does look that way.

Am I the only one who thinks Genesis' discussion of the creation of the earth applies to the planet earth?

Probably not, and you’re probably not the only person to commit the fallacy of argumentum ad populum, either.
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/f/fallacies.htm#Ad%20Populum

No, you're the one who appeals to logical terms you don't even know what mean.

For example?
No?
:smile:

I am appealing to the Bible. Verse 1 says God created the heavens and earth. Then we get a more detailed description of it. In verse 8 we see the "heavens" are the atmosphere, not the spiritual realm.

Verse 1 refers to plural “heavens” while verse 8 refers to a singular “heaven”. Does your interpretation ignore the discrepancy?

Vs 14, same thing. Verse 20, same thing (birds aren't flying in the spiritual realm)
Verse 26, same thing. Verse 28 same thing. Genesis 2:1, same thing. It's not my fault you're ignorant on this.

v. 14: We have no sun, moon, nor stars in our atmosphere. I think that it’s too much to assume that something created in the expanse of the heavens is automatically to be found in the entire plurality of heavens.
v. 20: The birds aren’t flying in outer space, either. I think that it’s too much to assume that something created in the expanse of the heavens is automatically to be found in the entire plurality of heavens.
v. 26: Verse 26 is irrelevant to this point, afaics.
v. 28: Ditto for verse 28.
It’s your fault that you cannot argue without indulging in ad hominem attacks.

"That THEY may be one JUST as we are one...in order that THEY all may be one, JUST as you Father are in union with me and I am in union with you, that THEY may be in union with us...in order that THEY may be one JUST as WE are one...in order that THEY may be perfected into one."[/quote]

IOW, no it doesn’t say that “they” are one just as the Father and Son are one?

Do you see the '"they" are one' in there?

No, I do not.
Perhaps you should dishonestly highlight the words that you need to complete the key sentence regardless of where they occur in the passage.
:wink:

And note Jesus said JUST as we are one. (Him and his Father). (I'm predicting you're gonna come back and say 'Yes, we are all part of a multi-person being. We're a Billionity.'

“So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age”
“For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.”
"For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.“
“Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”
"Lord, teach us to pray just as John also taught his disciples."
“For just as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so will the Son of Man be to this generation.”
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it!”

The wealth of wrong conclusions we could reach by using your logic, NT, is purely heartwarming.
:smile:

Your serving as an elder in false religion is a far cry from Christian men who are determined to keep the politics out. I used to be in the Church of Christ and there was a huge difference between that elder body where all were "equal" and yet politics were rampant on the elder's friends in the church and who got certain privileges, etc. This is nothing we can prove in this discussion but my own experience is that it is nothing like the elder bodies in false religion. You're master is a divider and he keeps your churches split.


You do not appear to have addressed my point during the course of your concluding tirade.

Repeat:
You're master is a divider and he keeps your churches split.

Ever heard of the Dawn Bible Students?
Bible Students Fellowship?
Chicago Bible Students?
Layman’s Home Missionary Movement?

Is your master not a divider, then?