[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

You’ve Never Seen THIS Side Of Donald Trump President Donald Trump Nominates Former Florida Rep. Dr. Dave Weldon as CDC Director Joe Rogan Tells Josh Brolin His Recent Bell’s Palsy Diagnosis Could Be Linked to mRNA Vaccine President-elect Donald Trump Nominates Brooke Rollins as Secretary of Agriculture Trump Taps COVID-Contrarian, Staunch Public Health Critic Makary For FDA F-35's Cooling Crisis: Design Flaws Fuel $2 Trillion Dilemma For Pentagon Joe Rogan on Tucker Carlson and Ukraine Aid Joe Rogan on 62 year-old soldier with one arm, one eye Jordan Peterson On China's Social Credit Controls Senator Kennedy Exposes Bad Jusge Jewish Land Grab Trump Taps Dr. Marty Makary, Fierce Opponent of COVID Vaccine Mandates, as New FDA Commissioner Recovering J6 Prisoner James Grant, Tells-All About Bidens J6 Torture Chamber, Needs Immediate Help After Release AOC: Keeping Men Out Of Womens Bathrooms Is Endangering Women What Donald Trump Has Said About JFK's Assassination Horse steals content from Sara Fischer and Sophia Cai and pretends he is the author Horse steals content from Jonas E. Alexis and claims it as his own. Trump expected to shake up White House briefing room Ukrainians have stolen up to half of US aid ex-Polish deputy minister Gaza doctor raped, tortured to death in Israeli custody, new report reveals German Lutheran Church Bans AfD Members From Committees, Calls Party 'Anti-Human' Berlin Teachers Sound Alarm Over Educational Crisis Caused By Multiculturalism Trump Hosts Secret Global Peace Summit at Mar-a-Lago! Heat Is Radiating From A Huge Mass Under The Moon Elon Musk Delivers a Telling Response When Donald Trump Jr. Suggests FBI recovers funds for victims of scammed banker Mark Felton: Can Russia Attack Britain? Notre Dame Apologizes After Telling Hockey Fans Not To Wear Green, Shamrocks, 'Fighting Irish' Dear Horse, which one of your posts has the Deep State so spun up that's causing 4um to run slow? Bomb Cyclone Pacific Northwest

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: Trinity
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Feb 27, 2009
Author: Various -- Bible
Post Date: 2009-02-27 12:16:15 by richard9151
Keywords: None
Views: 905
Comments: 49

Trinity

Definition: The central doctrine of religions of Christendom. According to the Athanasian Creed, there are three divine Persons (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost), each said to be eternal, each said to be almighty, none greater or less than another, each said to be God, and yet together being but one God. Other statements of the dogma emphasize that these three “Persons” are not separate and distinct individuals but are three modes in which the divine essence exists. Thus some Trinitarians emphasize their belief that Jesus Christ is God, or that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are Jehovah. Not a Bible teaching.

What is the origin of the Trinity doctrine?

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

Even though, as Trinitarians acknowledge, neither the word “Trinity” nor a statement of the Trinitarian dogma is found in the Bible, are the concepts that are embodied in that dogma found there?

Does the Bible teach that the “Holy Spirit” is a person?

Some individual texts that refer to the holy spirit (“Holy Ghost,” KJ) might seem to indicate personality. For example, the holy spirit is referred to as a helper (Greek, pa·ra82;kle·tos; “Comforter,” KJ; “Advocate,” JB, NE) that ‘teaches,’ ‘bears witness,’ ‘speaks’ and ‘hears.’ (John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:13) But other texts say that people were “filled” with holy spirit, that some were ‘baptized’ with it or “anointed” with it. (Luke 1:41; Matt. 3:11; Acts 10:38) These latter references to holy spirit definitely do not fit a person. To understand what the Bible as a whole teaches, all these texts must be considered. What is the reasonable conclusion? That the first texts cited here employ a figure of speech personifying God’s holy spirit, his active force, as the Bible also personifies wisdom, sin, death, water, and blood. (See also pages 380, 381, under the heading “Spirit.”)

The Holy Scriptures tell us the personal name of the Father—Jehovah. They inform us that the Son is Jesus Christ. But nowhere in the Scriptures is a personal name applied to the holy spirit.

Acts 7:55, 56 reports that Stephen was given a vision of heaven in which he saw “Jesus standing at God’s right hand.” But he made no mention of seeing the holy spirit. (See also Revelation 7:10; 22:1, 3.)

The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God.” (1967, Vol. XIII, p. 575) It also reports: “The Apologists [Greek Christian writers of the second century] spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally.”—Vol. XIV, p. 296.

Does the Bible agree with those who teach that the Father and the Son are not separate and distinct individuals?

Matt. 26:39, RS: “Going a little farther he [Jesus Christ] fell on his face and prayed, ‘My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.’” (If the Father and the Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father’s will.)

John 8:17, 18, RS: “[Jesus answered the Jewish Pharisees:] In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.” (So, Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and distinct from the Father.)

See also pages 197, 198, under “Jehovah.”

Does the Bible teach that all who are said to be part of the Trinity are eternal, none having a beginning?

Col. 1:15, 16, RS: “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth.” In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”? (1) Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons. (2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof? (3) Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says “in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him”? The Greek word here rendered “all things” is pan82;ta, an inflected form of pas. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this “all . . . other”; JB reads “any other”; NE says “anyone else.” (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to pan82;ta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, “by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him.” Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God.

Rev. 1:1; 3:14, RS: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him . . . ‘And to the angel of the church in La-odicea write: “The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [Greek, ar·khe82;] of God’s creation.”’” (KJ, Dy, CC, and NW, as well as others, read similarly.) Is that rendering correct? Some take the view that what is meant is that the Son was ‘the beginner of God’s creation,’ that he was its ‘ultimate source.’ But Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon lists “beginning” as its first meaning of ar·khe82;. (Oxford, 1968, p. 252) The logical conclusion is that the one being quoted at Revelation 3:14 is a creation, the first of God’s creations, that he had a beginning. Compare Proverbs 8:22, where, as many Bible commentators agree, the Son is referred to as wisdom personified. According to RS, NE, and JB, the one there speaking is said to be “created.”)

Prophetically, with reference to the Messiah, Micah 5:2 (KJ) says his “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Dy reads: “his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity.” Does that make him the same as God? It is noteworthy that, instead of saying “days of eternity,” RS renders the Hebrew as “ancient days”; JB, “days of old”; NW, “days of time indefinite.” Viewed in the light of Revelation 3:14, discussed above, Micah 5:2 does not prove that Jesus was without a beginning.

Does the Bible teach that none of those who are said to be included in the Trinity is greater or less than another, that all are equal, that all are almighty?

Mark 13:32, RS: “Of that day or that hour no ones knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Of course, that would not be the case if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coequal, comprising one Godhead. And if, as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?)

Matt. 20:20-23, RS: “The mother of the sons of Zebedee . . . said to him [Jesus], ‘Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.’ But Jesus answered, . . . ‘You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.’” (How strange, if, as claimed, Jesus is God! Was Jesus here merely answering according to his “human nature”? If, as Trinitarians say, Jesus was truly “God-man”—both God and man, not one or the other—would it truly be consistent to resort to such an explanation? Does not Matthew 20:23 rather show that the Son is not equal to the Father, that the Father has reserved some prerogatives for himself?)

Matt. 12:31, 32, RS: “Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” (If the Holy Spirit were a person and were God, this text would flatly contradict the Trinity doctrine, because it would mean that in some way the Holy Spirit was greater than the Son. Instead, what Jesus said shows that the Father, to whom the “Spirit” belonged, is greater than Jesus, the Son of man.)

John 14:28, RS: “[Jesus said:] If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.”

1 Cor. 11:3, RS: “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” (Clearly, then, Christ is not God, and God is of superior rank to Christ. It should be noted that this was written about 55 C.E., some 22 years after Jesus returned to heaven. So the truth here stated applies to the relationship between God and Christ in heaven.)

1 Cor. 15:27, 28 RS: “‘God has put all things in subjection under his [Jesus’] feet.’ But when it says, ‘All things are put in subjection under him,’ it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.”

The Hebrew word Shad·dai82; and the Greek word Pan·to·kra82;tor are both translated “Almighty.” Both original-language words are repeatedly applied to Jehovah, the Father. (Ex. 6:3; Rev. 19:6) Neither expression is ever applied to either the Son or the holy spirit.

Does the Bible teach that each of those said to be part of the Trinity is God?

Jesus said in prayer: “Father, . . . this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:1-3, RS; italics added.) (Most translations here use the expression “the only true God” with reference to the Father. NE reads “who alone art truly God.” He cannot be “the only true God,” the one “who alone [is] truly God,” if there are two others who are God to the same degree as he is, can he? Any others referred to as “gods” must be either false or merely a reflection of the true God.)

1 Cor. 8:5, 6, RS: “Although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” (This presents the Father as the “one God” of Christians and as being in a class distinct from Jesus Christ.)

1 Pet. 1:3, RS: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!” (Repeatedly, even following Jesus’ ascension to heaven, the Scriptures refer to the Father as “the God” of Jesus Christ. At John 20:17, following Jesus’ resurrection, he himself spoke of the Father as “my God.” Later, when in heaven, as recorded at Revelation 3:12, he again used the same expression. But never in the Bible is the Father reported to refer to the Son as “my God,” nor does either the Father or the Son refer to the holy spirit as “my God.”)

For comments on scriptures used by some in an effort to prove that Christ is God, see pages 212-216, under the heading “Jesus Christ.”

In Theological Investigations, Karl Rahner, S.J., admits: “˜µÌ [God] is still never used of the Spirit,” and: “ 1; ¸µÌ [literally, the God] is never used in the New Testament to speak of the À½µ06;¼± 1;³¹¿½ [holy spirit].”—(Baltimore, Md.; 1961), translated from German, Vol. I, pp. 138, 143.

Do any of the scriptures that are used by Trinitarians to support their belief provide a solid basis for that dogma?

A person who is really seeking to know the truth about God is not going to search the Bible hoping to find a text that he can construe as fitting what he already believes. He wants to know what God’s Word itself says. He may find some texts that he feels can be read in more than one way, but when these are compared with other Biblical statements on the same subject their meaning will become clear. It should be noted at the outset that most of the texts used as “proof” of the Trinity actually mention only two persons, not three; so even if the Trinitarian explanation of the texts were correct, these would not prove that the Bible teaches the Trinity. Consider the following:

(Unless otherwise indicated, all the texts quoted in the following section are from RS.)

Texts in which a title that belongs to Jehovah is applied to Jesus Christ or is claimed to apply to Jesus

Alpha and Omega: To whom does this title properly belong? (1) At Revelation 1:8, its owner is said to be God, the Almighty. In verse 11 according to KJ, that title is applied to one whose description thereafter shows him to be Jesus Christ. But scholars recognize the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 11 to be spurious, and so it does not appear in RS, NE, JB, NAB, Dy. (2) Many translations of Revelation into Hebrew recognize that the one described in verse 8 is Jehovah, and so they restore the personal name of God there. See NW, 1984 Reference edition. (3) Revelation 21:6, 7 indicates that Christians who are spiritual conquerors are to be ‘sons’ of the one known as the Alpha and the Omega. That is never said of the relationship of spirit-anointed Christians to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them as his ‘brothers.’ (Heb. 2:11; Matt. 12:50; 25:40) But those ‘brothers’ of Jesus are referred to as “sons of God.” (Gal. 3:26; 4:6) (4) At Revelation 22:12, TEV inserts the name Jesus, so the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 13 is made to appear to apply to him. But the name Jesus does not appear there in Greek, and other translations do not include it. (5) At Revelation 22:13, the Alpha and Omega is also said to be “the first and the last,” which expression is applied to Jesus at Revelation 1:17, 18. Similarly, the expression “apostle” is applied both to Jesus Christ and to certain ones of his followers. But that does not prove that they are the same person or are of equal rank, does it? (Heb. 3:1) So the evidence points to the conclusion that the title “Alpha and Omega” applies to Almighty God, the Father, not to the Son.

Savior: Repeatedly the Scriptures refer to God as Savior. At Isaiah 43:11 God even says: “Besides me there is no savior.” Since Jesus is also referred to as Savior, are God and Jesus the same? Not at all. Titus 1:3, 4 speaks of “God our Savior,” and then of both “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.” So, both persons are saviors. Jude 25 shows the relationship, saying: “God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Italics added.) (See also Acts 13:23.) At Judges 3:9, the same Hebrew word (moh·shi82;a59;, rendered “savior” or “deliverer”) that is used at Isaiah 43:11 is applied to Othniel, a judge in Israel, but that certainly did not make Othniel Jehovah, did it? A reading of Isaiah 43:1-12 shows that verse 11 means that Jehovah alone was the One who provided salvation, or deliverance, for Israel; that salvation did not come from any of the gods of the surrounding nations.

God: At Isaiah 43:10 Jehovah says: “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” Does this mean that, because Jesus Christ is prophetically called “Mighty God” at Isaiah 9:6, Jesus must be Jehovah? Again, the context answers, No! None of the idolatrous Gentile nations formed a god before Jehovah, because no one existed before Jehovah. Nor would they at a future time form any real, live god that was able to prophesy. (Isa. 46:9, 10) But that does not mean that Jehovah never caused to exist anyone who is properly referred to as a god. (Ps. 82:1, 6; John 1:1, NW) At Isaiah 10:21 Jehovah is referred to as “mighty God,” just as Jesus is in Isaiah 9:6; but only Jehovah is ever called “God Almighty.”—Gen. 17:1.

If a certain title or descriptive phrase is found in more than one location in the Scriptures, it should never hastily be concluded that it must always refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called “king of kings” (Dan. 2:37; Rev. 17:14); and that Jesus’ disciples were actually Jesus Christ, because both were called “the light of the world.” (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12) We should always consider the context and any other instances in the Bible where the same expression occurs.

Application to Jesus Christ by inspired Bible writers of passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that clearly apply to Jehovah

Why does John 1:23 quote Isaiah 40:3 and apply it to what John the Baptizer did in preparing the way for Jesus Christ, when Isaiah 40:3 is clearly discussing preparing the way before Jehovah? Because Jesus represented his Father. He came in his Father’s name and had the assurance that his Father was always with him because he did the things pleasing to his Father.—John 5:43; 8:29.

Why does Hebrews 1:10-12 quote Psalm 102:25-27 and apply it to the Son, when the psalm says that it is addressed to God? Because the Son is the one through whom God performed the creative works there described by the psalmist. (See Colossians 1:15, 16; Proverbs 8:22, 27-30.) It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is “greater than Solomon” and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon.—Luke 11:31.

Scriptures that mention together the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit

Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 are instances of this. Neither of these texts says that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coequal or coeternal or that all are God. The Scriptural evidence already presented on pages 408-412 argues against reading such thoughts into the texts.

McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, though advocating the Trinity doctrine, acknowledges regarding Matthew 28:18-20: “This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity.” (1981 reprint, Vol. X, p. 552) Regarding other texts that also mention the three together, this Cyclopedia admits that, taken by themselves, they are “insufficient” to prove the Trinity. (Compare 1 Timothy 5:21, where God and Christ and the angels are mentioned together.)

Texts in which the plural form of nouns is applied to God in the Hebrew Scriptures

At Genesis 1:1 the title “God” is translated from ’Elo·him82;, which is plural in Hebrew. Trinitarians construe this to be an indication of the Trinity. They also explain Deuteronomy 6:4 to imply the unity of members of the Trinity when it says, “The LORD our God [from ’Elo·him82;] is one LORD.”

The plural form of the noun here in Hebrew is the plural of majesty or excellence. (See NAB, St. Joseph Edition, Bible Dictionary, p. 330; also, New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. V, p. 287.) It conveys no thought of plurality of persons within a godhead. In similar fashion, at Judges 16:23 when reference is made to the false god Dagon, a form of the title ’elo·him82; is used; the accompanying verb is singular, showing that reference is to just the one god. At Genesis 42:30, Joseph is spoken of as the “lord” (’adho·neh82;, the plural of excellence) of Egypt.

The Greek language does not have a ‘plural of majesty or excellence.’ So, at Genesis 1:1 the translators of LXX used ho The·os82; (God, singular) as the equivalent of ’Elo·him82;. At Mark 12:29, where a reply of Jesus is reproduced in which he quoted Deuteronomy 6:4, the Greek singular ho The·os82; is similarly used.

At Deuteronomy 6:4, the Hebrew text contains the Tetragrammaton twice, and so should more properly read: “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” (NW) The nation of Israel, to whom that was stated, did not believe in the Trinity. The Babylonians and the Egyptians worshiped triads of gods, but it was made clear to Israel that Jehovah is different.

Texts from which a person might draw more than one conclusion, depending on the Bible translation used

If a passage can grammatically be translated in more than one way, what is the correct rendering? One that is in agreement with the rest of the Bible. If a person ignores other portions of the Bible and builds his belief around a favorite rendering of a particular verse, then what he believes really reflects, not the Word of God, but his own ideas and perhaps those of another imperfect human.

John 1:1, 2:

RS reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” (KJ, Dy, JB, NAB use similar wording.) However, NW reads: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God.”

Which translation of John 1:1, 2 agrees with the context? John 1:18 says: “No one has ever seen God.” Verse 14 clearly says that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . we have beheld his glory.” Also, verses 1, 2 say that in the beginning he was “with God.” Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God”; so, Jesus as “a god” merely reflects his Father’s divine qualities.—Heb. 1:3.

Is the rendering “a god” consistent with the rules of Greek grammar? Some reference books argue strongly that the Greek text must be translated, “The Word was God.” But not all agree. In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.” He suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Thus, in this text, the fact that the word the·os82; in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on rendering John 1:1, “The Word was God,” do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb. Thus at John 6:70, JB and KJ both refer to Judas Iscariot as “a devil,” and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as “a prophet.”

John J. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317.

In harmony with the above, AT reads: “the Word was divine”; Mo, “the Logos was divine”; NTIV, “the word was a god.” In his German translation Ludwig Thimme expresses it in this way: “God of a sort the Word was.” Referring to the Word (who became Jesus Christ) as “a god” is consistent with the use of that term in the rest of the Scriptures. For example, at Psalm 82:1-6 human judges in Israel were referred to as “gods” (Hebrew, ’elo·him82;; Greek, the·oi82;, at John 10:34) because they were representatives of Jehovah and were to speak his law.

See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, p. 1579.

John 8:58:

RS reads: “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am [Greek, e·go82; ei·mi82;].’” (NE, KJ, TEV, JB, NAB all read “I am,” some even using capital letters to convey the idea of a title. Thus they endeavor to connect the expression with Exodus 3:14, where, according to their rendering, God refers to himself by the title “I Am.”) However, in NW the latter part of John 8:58 reads: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” (The same idea is conveyed by the wording in AT, Mo, CBW, and SE.)

Which rendering agrees with the context? The question of the Jews (verse 57) to which Jesus was replying had to do with age, not identity. Jesus’ reply logically dealt with his age, the length of his existence. Interestingly, no effort is ever made to apply e·go82; ei·mi82; as a title to the holy spirit.

Says A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson: “The verb [ei·mi82;] . . . Sometimes it does express existence as a predicate like any other verb, as in [e·go82; ei·mi82;] (Jo. 8:58).”—Nashville, Tenn.; 1934, p. 394.

See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, pp. 1582, 1583.

Acts 20:28:

JB reads: “Be on your guard for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you the overseers, to feed the Church of God which he bought with his own blood.” (KJ, Dy, NAB use similar wording.) However, in NW the latter part of the verse reads: “the blood of his own [Son].” (TEV reads similarly. Although the 1953 printing of RS reads “with his own blood,” the 1971 edition reads “with the blood of his own Son.” Ro and Da simply read “the blood of his own.”)

Which rendering(s) agree with 1 John 1:7, which says: “The blood of Jesus his [God’s] Son cleanses us from all sin”? (See also Revelation 1:4-6.) As stated in John 3:16, did God send his only-begotten Son, or did he himself come as a man, so that we might have life? It was the blood, not of God, but of his Son that was poured out.

See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, p. 1580.

Romans 9:5:

JB reads: “They are descended from the patriarchs and from their flesh and blood came Christ who is above all, God for ever blessed! Amen.” (KJ, Dy read similarly.) However, in NW the latter part of the verse reads: “from whom the Christ sprang according to the flesh: God, who is over all, be blessed forever. Amen.” (RS, NE, TEV, NAB, Mo all use wording similar to NW.)

Is this verse saying that Christ is “over all” and that he is therefore God? Or does it refer to God and Christ as distinct individuals and say that God is “over all”? Which rendering of Romans 9:5 agrees with Romans 15:5, 6, which first distinguishes God from Christ Jesus and then urges the reader to “glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”? (See also 2 Corinthians 1:3 and Ephesians 1:3.) Consider what follows in Romans chapter 9. Verses 6-13 show that the outworking of God’s purpose depends not on inheritance according to the flesh but on the will of God. Verses 14-18 refer to God’s message to Pharaoh, as recorded at Exodus 9:16, to highlight the fact that God is over all. In verses 19-24 God’s superiority is further illustrated by an analogy with a potter and the clay vessels that he makes. How appropriate, then, in verse 5, the expression: “God, who is over all, be blessed forever. Amen”!—NW.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states: “Rom. 9:5 is disputed. . . . It would be easy, and linguistically perfectly possible to refer the expression to Christ. The verse would then read, ‘Christ who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.’ Even so, Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as a being of divine nature, for the word theos has no article. . . . The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology directed to God.”—(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1976), translated from German, Vol. 2, p. 80.

See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, pp. 1580, 1581.

Philippians 2:5, 6:

KJ reads: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” (Dy has the same wording. JB reads: “he did not cling to his equality with God.”) However, in NW the latter portion of that passage reads: “who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure [Greek, har·pag·mon82;], namely, that he should be equal to God.” (RS, NE, TEV, NAB convey the same thought.)

Which thought agrees with the context? Verse 5 counsels Christians to imitate Christ in the matter here being discussed. Could they be urged to consider it “not robbery,” but their right, “to be equal with God”? Surely not! However, they can imitate one who “gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.” (NW) (Compare Genesis 3:5.) Such a translation also agrees with Jesus Christ himself, who said: “The Father is greater than I.”—John 14:28.

The Expositor’s Greek Testament says: “We cannot find any passage where [har·pa82;zo] or any of its derivatives [including har·pag·mon82;] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize,’ ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense ‘grasp at’ into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’”—(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1967), edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. III, pp. 436, 437.

Colossians 2:9:

KJ reads: “In him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead [Greek, the·o82;te·tos] bodily.” (A similar thought is conveyed by the renderings in NE, RS, JB, NAB, Dy.) However, NW reads: “It is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.” (AT, We, and CKW read “God’s nature,” instead of “Godhead.” Compare 2 Peter 1:4.)

Admittedly, not everyone offers the same interpretation of Colossians 2:9. But what is in agreement with the rest of the inspired letter to the Colossians? Did Christ have in himself something that is his because he is God, part of a Trinity? Or is “the fullness” that dwells in him something that became his because of the decision of someone else? Colossians 1:19 (KJ, Dy) says that all fullness dwelt in Christ because it “pleased the Father” for this to be the case. NE says it was “by God’s own choice.”

Consider the immediate context of Colossians 2:9: In verse 8, readers are warned against being misled by those who advocate philosophy and human traditions. They are also told that in Christ “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” and are urged to “live in him” and to be “rooted and built up in him and established in the faith.” (Verses 3, 6, 7) It is in him, and not in the originators or the teachers of human philosophy, that a certain precious “fulness” dwells. Was the apostle Paul there saying that the “fulness” that was in Christ made Christ God himself? Not according to Colossians 3:1, where Christ is said to be “seated at the right hand of God.”—See KJ, Dy, TEV, NAB.

According to Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, the·o82;tes (the nominative form, from which the·o82;te·tos is derived) means “divinity, divine nature.” (Oxford, 1968, p. 792) Being truly “divinity,” or of “divine nature,” does not make Jesus as the Son of God coequal and coeternal with the Father, any more than the fact that all humans share “humanity” or “human nature” makes them coequal or all the same age.

Titus 2:13:

RS reads: “Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” (Similar wording is found in NE, TEV, JB.) However, NW reads: “while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of the Savior of us, Christ Jesus.” (NAB has a similar rendering.)

Which translation agrees with Titus 1:4, which refers to “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior”? Although the Scriptures also refer to God as being a Savior, this text clearly differentiates between him and Christ Jesus, the one through whom God provides salvation.

Some argue that Titus 2:13 indicates that Christ is both God and Savior. Interestingly, RS, NE, TEV, JB render Titus 2:13 in a way that might be construed as allowing for that view, but they do not follow the same rule in their translation of 2 Thessalonians 1:12. Henry Alford, in The Greek Testament, states: “I would submit that [a rendering that clearly differentiates God and Christ, at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle’s way of writing.”—(Boston, 1877), Vol. III, p. 421.

See also NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, pp. 1581, 1582.

Hebrews 1:8:

RS reads: “Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.) However, NW reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’” (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.)

Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon Jehovah’s throne.” (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.

Hebrews 1:8, 9 quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, concerning which the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: “The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the·os82;] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the·os82; sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo·him82;] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the·os82;] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26.

1 John 5:7, 8:

KJ reads: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” (Dy also includes this Trinitarian passage.) However, NW does not include the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.” (RS, NE, TEV, JB, NAB also leave out the Trinitarian passage.)

Regarding this Trinitarian passage, textual critic F. H. A. Scrivener wrote: “We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim.”—A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Cambridge, 1883, third ed.), p. 654.

See also footnote on these verses in JB, and NW appendix, 1984 Reference edition, p. 1580.

Other scriptures that are said by Trinitarians to express elements of their dogma

Notice that the first of these texts refers to only the Son; the other refers to both Father and Son; neither refers to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and says that they comprise one God.

John 2:19-22:

By what he here said, did Jesus mean that he would resurrect himself from the dead? Does that mean that Jesus is God, because Acts 2:32 says, “This Jesus God raised up”? Not at all. Such a view would conflict with Galatians 1:1, which ascribes the resurrection of Jesus to the Father, not to the Son. Using a similar mode of expression, at Luke 8:48 Jesus is quoted as saying to a woman: “Your faith has made you well.” Did she heal herself? No; it was power from God through Christ that healed her because she had faith. (Luke 8:46; Acts 10:38) Likewise, by his perfect obedience as a human, Jesus provided the moral basis for the Father to raise him from the dead, thus acknowledging Jesus as God’s Son. Because of Jesus’ faithful course of life, it could properly be said that Jesus himself was responsible for his resurrection.

Says A. T. Robertson in Word Pictures in the New Testament: “Recall [John] 2:19 where Jesus said: ‘And in three days I will raise it up.’ He did not mean that he will raise himself from the dead independently of the Father as the active agent (Rom. 8:11).”—(New York, 1932), Vol. V, p. 183.

John 10:30:

When saying, “I and the Father are one,” did Jesus mean that they were equal? Some Trinitarians say that he did. But at John 17:21, 22, Jesus prayed regarding his followers: “That they may all be one,” and he added, “that they may be one even as we are one.” He used the same Greek word (hen) for “one” in all these instances. Obviously, Jesus’ disciples do not all become part of the Trinity. But they do come to share a oneness of purpose with the Father and the Son, the same sort of oneness that unites God and Christ.

In what position does belief in the Trinity put those who cling to it?

It puts them in a very dangerous position. The evidence is indisputable that the dogma of the Trinity is not found in the Bible, nor is it in harmony with what the Bible teaches. (See the preceding pages.) It grossly misrepresents the true God. Yet, Jesus Christ said: “The hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:23, 24, RS) Thus Jesus made it clear that those whose worship is not ‘in truth,’ not in harmony with the truth set out in God’s own Word, are not “true worshipers.” To Jewish religious leaders of the first century, Jesus said: “For the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’” (Matt. 15:6-9, RS) That applies with equal force to those in Christendom today who advocate human traditions in preference to the clear truths of the Bible.

Regarding the Trinity, the Athanasian Creed (in English) says that its members are “incomprehensible.” Teachers of the doctrine often state that it is a “mystery.” Obviously such a Trinitarian God is not the one that Jesus had in mind when he said: “We worship what we know.” (John 4:22, RS) Do you really know the God you worship?

Serious questions confront each one of us: Do we sincerely love the truth? Do we really want an approved relationship with God? Not everyone genuinely loves the truth. Many have put having the approval of their relatives and associates above love of the truth and of God. (2 Thess. 2:9-12; John 5:39-44) But, as Jesus said in earnest prayer to his heavenly Father: “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3, NW) And Psalm 144:15 truthfully states: “Happy is the people whose God is Jehovah!”—NW.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

This is absolutely true. For instance;

Matt. 7:15-20: “Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to you in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will recognize them. . . . Every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit . . . Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men.”

So since there has been many, many years pass since that was said, let us examine what he was talking about, shall we? And, since EVERYONE knows and admits that the Roman church brought the trinity into Christianity NEAR THE END OF THE 4TH CENTURY long after Jesus Christ taught and the apolstolic fathers that he choose were dead, let us listen to the Roman church for just a moment;

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

Did you get that? Do you understand this part? Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.

What does that mean? That neither Jesus Christ nor his apostles taught the trinity. And do not claim to me, as others have done, that he taught it to them in secret, for that makes a liar out of the Christ;

“I have spoken to the world publicly. . . . I spoke nothing in secret.”—JOHN 18:20.

Do you need more?

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

Did you get that? Need more? OK.

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

I sincerely ho´pe that you are noticing that this info does not come only from the Jehovah's Witnesses; they come from all over. So, let us continue.

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

Now, let us repeat what was said BY YOU;

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

Does it have to be any clearer?

Because you can make it as clear as you wish to make it by simply doing what the Scriptures instruct;

By their fruits you will recognize them. . . . Every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit . . . Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men

Does your church, bushie, support the UN and the US government? Does it/did it pray over arms and pray for the success of the government and what it is doing? Did it/does it support the US government in its wars and send pastors into the battlelines to make the soldiers happier?

Is it anything like the Roman church that for 200 years after the Emporer Constantine accepted the trinity and made it an official part of christianity, used murder and the threat of murder to force people to worship the trinity?

Or, perhaps it is as this;

History depicts the long struggle of the Popes for supremacy over other leaders, and the manipulation for power once Constantine removed his presence to Constantinople in the east. A document called "The Donation of Constantine" was produced about the mid-eighth century claiming to be the "will" of Constantine, bequeathed the Roman Empire to the Popes. Not until the fifteenth century was it found to be fraudulent, by which time the fraud had accomplished its objective and imparted a legal authority to the church's supremacy. Today, there is no open challenge to her fraudulent claims, though her beginnings rest upon lies and deception, as was prophesied in the Bible (2 Thessalonians 2:9- 12).

Remembering that this is the organization that brought the trinity into Christianity; you should carefully examine their fruitage before you accept what they teach. Now, would you care to continue this discussion?

Daniel 2:44 “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite;.

richard9151  posted on  2009-02-28   16:25:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Multiple passages tell us that Jesus Christ, who existed as God, took the bodily form of a humble servant so that He could die on the cross in our place.

I am going to answer this separately because this is absolute nonsense.

You, and your fellow believers are thus teaching that Almighty God can die. And, you are completely negating the EQUAL FOR EQUAL nature of the Ransom sacriface of Jesus Christ, which he did for us.

Adam was a perfect man. To be equal, another perfect man had to offer that atoning sacriface. ALMIGHTY GOD COULD NOT DO IT! And Jesus Christ is clearly named in Scripture as a man.

Besides which, once God was dead, since the trinity is inseperable, who raised him back to life?

But why bother, right? Once someone accepts the poisen of the trinity, anything is possible to them, including a complete transformation of what the Bible actually teaches.

Daniel 2:44 “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite;.

richard9151  posted on  2009-02-28   16:32:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Adam was a perfect man.

No, he wasn't. If he was perfect, as you claim, why did he yield to temptation and defy God?

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

James Deffenbach  posted on  2009-02-28   16:42:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

No, he wasn't. If he was perfect, as you claim, why did he yield to temptation and defy God?

The better question, my friend, is why did an angel of God, a perfect creation, turn himself/itself into the Devil (which means slanderer, for calling Almighty God a liar) and Satan (which means opposer).

As for Adam, yes, he was created perfect, because the plan was that he would live forever;

Adam was created perfect; sickness and death were unknown to him. He was soon joined by an equally perfect wife, and together they enjoyed the prospect of eternal life on earth.—Genesis 2:15-17, 21-24.

Daniel 2:44 “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite;.

richard9151  posted on  2009-02-28   17:43:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I keep forgetting that the JW God is limited in what he can do. The Lord has no such limitations and can cause things that man cannot ever explain. Again, your cult teaches that the Lord has limitations. Christianity does not. Just another proof that JW is nothing more than a cult.

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2009-02-28   17:53:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Nowhere does that say that the man God created was perfect. Nor does it say what you claim in the verses you cite. At least not in the KJV.

Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

There was one perfect man who walked among us and his name was, and is, Jesus. Not Adam.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

James Deffenbach  posted on  2009-02-28   17:56:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Nowhere in any of this does the Bible say that man is, or ever was, perfect. I know you sincerely believe the things you say but according to the Bible you are wrong and it doesn't matter how sincere you are.

Here is the basis of the question; was the purpose of Almighty God for Adam and Eve for them to live forever?

Yes, or no.

Daniel 2:44 “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite;.

richard9151  posted on  2009-02-28   18:25:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You asserted that man was perfect. The Bible teaches no such thing. I am not going to play 20 questions with you when I already proved your premise wrong. You are entitled to believe what you wish to believe but the Bible doesn't teach what you claim it does.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

James Deffenbach  posted on  2009-02-28   18:27:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I keep forgetting that the JW God is limited in what he can do.

Of course He is limited, by His very Nature. Tells us that right in the Bible;

Titus 1:2 upon the basis of a hope of the everlasting life which God, who cannot lie

Did you get that? He CAN NOT lie. It does not say that He will not lie; it says; HE CAN NOT LIE. That is a limitation imposed by His Nature. You can take that a step further; He can not do evil.

And yes, He can, and does, create evil. But He always gives a choice that we may chose to live, or to die.

“For everything there is an appointed time; and there is a time for every purpose under the heavens: a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.”—Eccl. 3:1, 8,

In what sense can it be said that Jehovah creates evil? Certainly not in the sense of his creating wickedness or moral badness, for it is utterly impossible for him to do anything wrong. “It is impossible for God to lie.” We are assured, “Good and upright is Jehovah: therefore will he instruct sinners in the way.” Addressing him the psalmist stated: “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of thy throne: lovingkindness and truth go before thy face.” And Moses sang of this theme: “For I will proclaim the name of Jehovah: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. The Rock, his work is perfect; for all his ways are justice: a God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and right is he.”— Deut. 32:3, 4; Ps. 25:8; 89:14, AS; Heb. 6:18, NW.

Throughout the Scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation, Jehovah appeals to our reason and explains his reasons for executing his judgments so that we may have unshaken confidence in his justice.

Jehovah told that he would bring evil or calamity upon Israel because of their evil or wicked course. Moses said: “For I know that after my death you will be sure to act perniciously, and swerve from the way that I appointed you; and in after days evil will befall you, because you will be doing what is evil in the sight of the LORD.” Note also the same in the following, which records a fulfillment of this prophecy. “Then the Israelites did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, by serving the Baals and forsaking the LORD. Then . . . the hand of the LORD was against them for evil, as the LORD had declared.”—Deut. 31:29; Judg. 2:11, 14, 15,

Evil always befall those who forsake Almighty God. If you are curious about that, you should look around you at what is happening in America.

Daniel 2:44 “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite;.

richard9151  posted on  2009-02-28   18:44:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You asserted that man was perfect.

I said no such thing. I asked you if Adam, yes or no, was to live forever. That is one man, not man in general.

I repeat, was it Almighty God's Purpose that Adam was to live forever, yes or no.

Daniel 2:44 “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite;.

richard9151  posted on  2009-02-28   18:46:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I said no such thing.

THIS is from YOUR post!

Adam was created perfect; sickness and death were unknown to him. He was soon joined by an equally perfect wife, and together they enjoyed the prospect of eternal life on earth.—Genesis 2:15-17, 21-24.

And I proved that you were not citing any scripture correctly. Nowhere in the KJV does it teach that man is perfect. This will be my last post to you on this subject. Your mind is made up and you won't accept that the Bible does not say what you claim it says even when it is easily proven. And I don't argue about religion. Believe what you choose to believe but you shouldn't mislead others with your claims about Adam and Eve ever being perfect.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

James Deffenbach  posted on  2009-02-28   18:54:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

but you shouldn't mislead others with your claims about Adam and Eve ever being perfect

Genesis 3:17 And to Adam he said: “Because you listened to your wife’s voice and took to eating from the tree concerning which I gave you this command, ‘You must not eat from it,’ cursed is the ground on your account. In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. 18 And thorns and thistles it will grow for you, and you must eat the vegetation of the field. 19 In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.”

Romans 5:12 That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned— 13 For until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not charged against anyone when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of the transgression by Adam, who bears a resemblance to him that was to come.

Please note this carefully; but sin is not charged against anyone when there is no law.

So until Moses brought the Law to the Israelites, there was no second death; this is referring directly to us being dead; Adam was not designed to die. Then, the solution;

Revelation 21:3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”

Almighty God fulfills His Purposes. If He had not Purposed that man live forever, this promise would not exist. You can not live forever unless you are perfect; Adam was perfect.

Daniel 2:44 “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite;.

richard9151  posted on  2009-02-28   19:13:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

One last time--the Bible does not teach that Adam was perfect. Nowhere! You will not find any such thing in the KJV from Genesis to Revelation. The Bible says you are wrong and you claimed it says that which it does not say. And I will give you the last word if you want it. I am secure in my beliefs and have no need to twist and distort what the Bible actually says.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

James Deffenbach  posted on  2009-02-28   19:20:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Getting desperate aren't you? The concept of a lie like almost everything else you talk about is a human concept, much like the concepts of beginning, end etc. JW try like all other "religions" to put the Lord in a black box in order to try and understand Him. Unfortunately, many religions incorporate man-made concepts and preferences and JW is no different. It's founders just took it to the extreme - ie cult! You believe what you want. I posted the things JW teach and much of it is anti-Christian.

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2009-02-28   21:17:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The concept of a lie like almost everything else you talk about is a human concept,

LOL!! Right. How silly of me to not understand.

Here is the same passage from Titus in the New International Version;

2a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie,

King James Bible

2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

English Standard Version

2(D) in hope of eternal life, which God,(E) who never lies,(F) promised(G) before the ages began[b]

American Standard Version

2 in hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before times eternal;

Want me to continue? Where I get these, there is another, oh, 20 of so Bibles listed. Just in case you are not aware of it, we are made in the image of God. That means, in case you are not aware of it, that we reflect what He is SPIRITUALLY, only, imperfectly, so it is silly to claim that He does not know what it is that we do, how we think, and how we act. He is very much aware of every way that we violate His Law, and well aware that we would think He could lie unless it was explained to us that He CAN NOT.

to put the Lord in a black box in order to try and understand Him.

We do not have to do that. He wrote us a long, long letter, called the Bible, and gave us all of the information neccessary for us to understand enough, in our imperfect state, to gain salvation. Anything else we need to know will be given unto us later.

And, un, do you have trouble using His Holy Name?

Here it is, direct from the King James Bible;

Psalms 83:18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.

I am sorry -- Does that pose a problem, you know, a trinity having TWO names? But the Holy Spirit NOT HAVING ONE?

Unfortunately, many religions incorporate man-made concepts and preferences

You are correct. The problem is being honest when you look to see which ones they are. For instance;

The apostle Paul states that we are not to seek the intervention of an earthly priest for "There is ONE mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 3:5).

I would strongly urge you to take a look at the post; Examing the Roman Catholic Church. You should know as much about that church as possible, because everything that you cling to as coming from Christianity and the Bible, came from that church, as they openly admit.

Daniel 2:44 “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite;.

richard9151  posted on  2009-02-28   22:15:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

One last time--the Bible does not teach that Adam was perfect. Nowhere!

There are many things that the Bible does not teach openly, and which are veiled to those who will not study the Word with an open heart, searching for the Truth and accepting what they learn rather than trying, desperartly, to fit what they see into preconceived ideas and beliefs.

In Romans 5:14 the Christian apostle Paul writes: “Nevertheless, death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of the transgression by Adam, who bears a resemblance to him that was to come.”

We are told right here that Adam resembled Jesus. This is continued further;

Pointing further to that resemblance between Adam and Jesus Christ, the apostle Paul writes in his matchless chapter on the resurrection: “It is even so written: ‘The first man Adam became a living soul.’ The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. For since death is through a man, resurrection of the dead is also through a man. For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.”—1 Cor. 15:45, 21, 22.

Adam is listed in the Bible as a son of God, in Luke. I will quote from the King James Version, which I have used most of my life, just so you can not say I did something sneaky.

Luke 3:38Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Why do we have the problems in the world that we do today?

“As for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.”—Gen. 2:17.

Until Adam ate from the tree, he was a perfect son of God. His sin was wilfull, and we see the result.

As a proof that Adam’s sin was willful, the apostle Paul wrote: “Adam was formed first, then Eve. Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and came to be in transgression.” (1 Tim. 2:13, 14)

Now, there is a principal from the Bible that covers what happened, and it is an eye for an eye and etc. Equal for equal. Here it is explained;

To furnish a “corresponding ransom” for mankind, the Son of God from heaven had to become a perfect man exactly like or corresponding to the perfect Adam in Eden’s garden. To this end he was born as a human child of a virgin Jewish girl, Mary, Jehovah God continuing to be his Father. He was thus miraculously born perfect and sinless; and the sin from Adam did not spread to him. As a man of thirty years of age, when he got baptized in water by John the Baptist to symbolize his dedication to God to do the divine will, Jesus was the full equivalent in a human way of the sinless, perfect Adam in the garden of Eden. He was thus in a position to offer his human life or soul as a “corresponding ransom” for the release of humankind from sin and its penalty death.

Now, what you believe corresponds to what is taught in many so-called churches. If you wish to know where most of that came from, I susgest, and hope, that you will read the post, Examing the Roman Catholic church. Then, I would enjoy speaking some more.

Daniel 2:44 “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite;.

richard9151  posted on  2009-02-28   22:40:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Don't throw Catholic or any other "religion" in an attempt to distract. The Bible says HE is and therefore HE is. I am not Catholic, Baptist or any other religion because I will not accept ideology or personal preferences as part of my faith. JW like Morman has twisted His Word to meet their own preferences/desires. I am a Christian and what is in the Bible is the truth period. I don't twist scripture and don't accept when others twist His Word to satisfy their own personal desires or preferences. If your God is unable to do things man cannot understand then I suggest you might want to keep searching for the Lord.

JW may have some Christian elements but it also has been morphed into a cult thru the desires/wishes/acts of its founders and those who have influenced it.

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2009-02-28   23:04:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

For someone who has never been to RCIA and never been to Mass, you sure make a lot of claims about the Catholic Church that don't hold water.

I recommend attending RCIA and then let us know what you think.

It is now time for Atlas to shrug.

mirage  posted on  2009-02-28   23:24:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Having great experience with all the major man made, devil inspired RELIGIONS - I find that a common thread amongst the cultists is that they had very little to no biblical knowledge before the cult ensnared them. Therefore there's no reference point to counterbalance the B.S. they get brainwashed with.

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara  posted on  2009-02-28   23:27:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (often abbreviated RCIA) is the process through which interested adults are gradually introduced to the Roman Catholic faith and way of life.

Sounds like fun, but I called ahead and they were entirely dismissive of the prospect of letting me drive the modified Falcon GTHO Mel Gibson drove in the first Mad Max film.

The ultimate effect of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools. - Herbert Spencer

Dakmar  posted on  2009-02-28   23:31:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

For someone who has never been to RCIA and never been to Mass,

As I have stated constantly in the 4um; I was raised a Catholic, my wife is a Catholic (but not for much longer), I was an altar boy, went through first communion, confirmation AND I attended a Catholic school when young.

Anything else you would like to claim?

And please point me towards all those there things I know nothing about but am claiming. Perhaps you mean, like, you know, where the trinity came from, for instance? Cause I can show you all kinds of history on such, directly from the Catholic church. Gots all kinds of links saved DIRECTLY FROM THE ROMAN CHURCH ON THE SUBJECT.

Daniel 2:44 “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite;.

richard9151  posted on  2009-02-28   23:35:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Don't throw Catholic or any other "religion" in an attempt to distract.

How can I not when everything you claim is Christian was brought directly into Christianity through the offices of the Roman church? I have posted this info to you constantly, including sources directly from the Roman church as well as other sources. Please explain that.

I will not accept ideology

Yes, you do, when what you believe was not taught by the first century fathers of Christianity. As I have posted to you several times.

Daniel 2:44 “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite;.

richard9151  posted on  2009-02-28   23:39:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I find that a common thread amongst the cultists is that they had very little to no biblical knowledge

LOL!! Funny!! My first Bible was a King James Study Bible. Well marked in countless places. I still use it for reference. I have another 10 or 11 different translations of the Bible. Checked the New World Translation of the Bible (from the Jehovah's Witnesses) against several of them and CONFIRMED THAT IT WAS VERY, VERY CLOSE to the others, only much clearer.

See, unlike yourselves, I do the studies and check EVERYTHING. I am not locked into any one belief; if I can be convinced, I change. RIGHT NOW!

For a 'for instance,' many, many years ago, I found the info about how the trinity was brought into Christianity long, long AFTER Jesus Christ and his Apostles had all died. AND, they never taught ANYTHING like the trinity. They never THOUGHT anything like the trinity. Now it took me a short time after that to confirm what I had learned, but when I found the sources DIRECTLY FROM THE ROMAN CHURCH CONFIRMING THIS, well, let's just say I have never again set foot in a Roman church ... until I got here and went with my wife twice for relatives.

See, that is the difference between me, and you. I can change. Obviously, you can not. And I suspect that what is most important to you is how your friends and relatives would view you if you changed.

I do not even consider such things. If change is called for, I change, and you, and everyone else, can either accept it, or, not. That, is your problem.

And just for a refresher;

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

Oh, and if you are confused as to how much I really do know, check with a few in the 4um that have been here for some time. Ask them how accurate I have been about economic forecasts. And how much I know about the subject. Or about the Constitution, or the basis of the Income Tax, and etc. Might surprise you.

Daniel 2:44 “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite;.

richard9151  posted on  2009-02-28   23:56:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Anything else you would like to claim?

Sure. You're a Cradle Catholic who knows nothing of his own faith.

Don't be ashamed of it. Lots of those are out there.

It is now time for Atlas to shrug.

mirage  posted on  2009-03-01   0:25:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Matthew 3: 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

2 Corinthians 13:

14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

Mark 2:

5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.

6 But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,

7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?

8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?

9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?

10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)

11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.

12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

John 20:

28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Hewbrews 1:

8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Acts 5:

3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

John 1:

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

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John 17:

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

John 16:

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Can you show us in Scripture where the following JW theology/beliefs are written?

We must earn our own salvation; salvation will "depend on one's works." and excludes the belief in/acceptance of Christ?

That Jesus is Michael the archangel?

Where the bodily resurrection of Christ did not happen and is a lie?

Where the 144,000 are JWs?

Where all those who are not JWs will be destroyed?

That Jesus' disciples were all Jehovah's witnesses

That all dead people will have a second chance for eternal life at the millennium and if you do not prove worthiness at this time, you'll be destroyed.

That the blood of Christ does not forgive sins.

What happened in 1914 that didn't happen in 1914? Why didn't it happen?

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2009-03-01   0:46:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

That Jesus' disciples were all Jehovah's witnesses

Its almost comical because that sect didn't appear until the Watchtower Society was formed in the 1800s.

Where were they before that? Nowhere.

It was founded by Charles Taze Russell.

Richard's problem is that he doesn't know anything about Catholicism and he fears being wrong. He is projecting his own insecurities on everyone else everywhere else.

He has the "what" down, but doesn't comprehend the "why" and doesn't ask. Any attempt to correct him results in the person trying to help him understand things being ridiculed because he FEARS he made the wrong choices.

The man doesn't understand his own religion at all.

It is now time for Atlas to shrug.

mirage  posted on  2009-03-01   2:58:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Unfortunately, many religious cults are quite successful at brainwashing and controlling those who become members. A good example of another powerful religious cult was the Worldwide Church of God founded/controlled by HW Armstrong. I will never understand how anybody could have bought into that garbage. I guess being human we all have our weaknesses and are subject to far too many influences in our daily lives. The ones I refuse to debate or discuss theology with at any time are the Jews and Hasidic Gentiles bunch. They give new meaning to hateful, wacko religious nuts.

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2009-03-01   8:12:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Unfortunately, many religious cults are quite successful at brainwashing and controlling those who become members.

I guess being human we all have our weaknesses and are subject to far too many influences in our daily lives.

This is all too true.

I'm probably not the finest example of anything as I haven't actually practiced anything for 20 years, but one thing that I do know is this:

They are human. They are not the deity and therefore, they are not the people in charge.

With regards to the Catholic Church, most people don't understand it, particularly people who haven't taken the time to read up on it and understand progressive elaboration or understand that a religion doesn't have to make sense. Many Catholic priests don't comprehend their role in the universe which makes things worse. I've had two sacked myself and taken one through a full run of Ecclesiastical Court....and won.

With regards to the Witnesses, they're fun on occasion. Their missionaries have a script that they run through. You can throw history at them and reboot them and get them to run back through their script again. They don't understand the why of it; they are, however, drilled in the what. A good countermeasure to their "we're in the end times with plague, famine, blah blah" is to say "Oh, you're just talking about the history of China". They don't know how to deal with that because they don't look beyond their noses.

The thing I don't understand is this - religion offers answers to questions that there are no good answers for, such as "where did we come from" and "why are we here" and "what is my purpose". Individuals seek out and discover the particular branch of whatever that fulfills their particular individual needs.

Christianity in particular fills the need of "I've been a bad boy, but I can get forgiveness! Woo hoo!"

Who is right and who is wrong? Does it matter?

Richard gets himself all twisted up in the "I have to be right" problem. Nobody has to be right. They just have to be comfortable that they have found what works for them. Unfortunately, the same zeal that led them to find the group that filled their needs causes them to tell everyone else they have to go that same route.

Its a violation of the Golden Rule right there. They are not doing unto others as they would have the others do unto them. But they never understand that....

It is now time for Atlas to shrug.

mirage  posted on  2009-03-01   11:18:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Sure. You're a Cradle Catholic who knows nothing of his own faith.

Right. So, what would you like to know? Anything you are lacking in understanding, I can supply to you.

Which, I might add, is why I left the church. So go ahead, ask. Don't be shy. LET ME HELP YOU!!

But let's get something on the table.... like..... RIGHT NOW!!

I am a Christian. That means that if the Greatest Teacher who ever lived did not teach it, I will not accpet it. Get that? Understand that?

So when I found 'stuff' like this out, I WAS OUT OF THERE!!

Peter Hebblethwaite, a Jesuit turned writer, recorded in 1978: "Whereas Protestant fundamentalism tends to focus on the literal and eternal truth of the Bible, Catholic fundamentalism attaches itself to the letter of the Councils and will not be budged"

Now, if that is not enough for you, that one writer, I can supply others. But not to worry, cause I well remember you saying that tradition is every bit as good as the Bible.

“‘Do not go beyond the things that are written,’ in order that you may not be puffed up individually in favor of the one against the other. For who makes you to differ from another? Indeed, what do you have that you did not receive? If, now, you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?”—1 Cor. 4:6, 7.

Did you get that first part?! DO NOT GO BEYOND THE THINGS THAT ARE WRITTEN. Interesting, indeed, I find the Bible.

Matthew 15:3 In reply he said to them: “Why is it YOU also overstep the commandment of God because of YOUR tradition? 4 For example, God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Let him that reviles father or mother end up in death.’ 5 But YOU say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother: “Whatever I have by which you might get benefit from me is a gift dedicated to God,” 6 he must not honor his father at all.’ And so YOU have made the word of God invalid because of YOUR tradition. 7 YOU hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about YOU, when he said, 8 ‘This people honors me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me. 9 It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.’”

So you decide what is more important to you; your 'church,' or, your salvation. Cause I assure you, that is the choice you are making.

Daniel 2:44 “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite;.

richard9151  posted on  2009-03-01   16:14:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

You really should not do this. Cause you are exposing that which can not be properly exposed for a trinitarian.

The Nicene Creed reads that ‘...the Heavenly Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods, just one.’

You are very plainly showing that there are three separate and distinct - NOT CONNECTD IN ANY WAY, MANNER, SHAPE OF FORM -- persons and/or powers involved in the Baptism of Jesus Christ.

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

Yep. So it is. And it clearly does not say that the Word was Almighty God; it says, it was a God. Or a god is the same thing.

We are told this in Isaiah as well; Isaiah 9:6 For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

Mighty God is just one of many titles carried by Jesus Christ.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

True statement. Comes back to understanding one little term; only begotten son of God. Oh, and another title by which the Christ Jesus is known; Master Worker.

“God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.”—JOHN 3:16.

Got that? Here is what it means (courtesy of Elliot);

In this case, you are referring to the Greek word monogenes, which is an adjective comprised of two parts, the first part translates as "only" and the second part has multiple possible meanings, most commonly "offspring", "family", "kind".. and sometimes meaning "species" or "race". However, in the case of this particular phrase, the nearly universally accepted meaning of the phrase is "Only offspring"... not to be confused with the possible interpretation of "Only son" (thereby implying a possible daughter) but instead to be understood as saying "only offspring of any kind whatsoever". So, in a sentence, "only begotten son" means "only offspring of any kind", or "only son of God", as in "there are no other children of God of any kind".

Did you get that? Understand? Jesus Christ, in his creation, was the first and ONLY creation directly by Jehovah God his father. After that, Jesus became the Master Worker, under supervision by Jehovah, to create all things, so he rightly bears the title, Mighty God and Master Worker.

15 All things that the Father hath are mine:

??????????? Are you confused about this? All authority has been granted to Jesus Christ in heaven and on earth, until, as explained in Revelation, he hands it back to his Father.

We must earn our own salvation; salvation will "depend on one's works." and excludes the belief in/acceptance of Christ?

Show me where that is promoted by Jehovah's Witnesses.

That Jesus is Michael the archangel?

Possibly. No one knows for sure. It is pure speculation, although a strong case can be made for it.

Where the 144,000 are JWs?

Nope. Do not even go there. I have answered this many, many times already. The collection of the 144,000 started at pentecost in 36 C.E. End of discussion.

Where all those who are not JWs will be destroyed?

Says who? The people that write the garbage that you read about Jehovah's Witnesses because you have no personal knowledge?

That Jesus' disciples were all Jehovah's witnesses

That one is easy;

Isaiah 43:10 “YOU are my witnesses,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that YOU may know and have faith in me, and that YOU may understand that I am the same One. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none. 11 I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.”

12 “I myself have told forth and have saved and have caused [it] to be heard, when there was among YOU no strange [god]. So YOU are my witnesses,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “and I am God.

To understand this better, read all of Isaiah Chapter 43. Basically, He was calling on all of Israel to be Witnesses for Him, and when that changed to spiritual Israel, when He rejected fleshly Israel, upon the command of Jesus Christ, the Apostles went forth and bagan witnessing the good news of the kingdom of God to all of the earth. Anything more?

That all dead people will be resurrected and will have a second chance for eternal life at the millennium and if you do not prove worthiness at this time, you'll be destroyed.

Pay close attention to what I added above, as it is very important. Then, open Revelation, chapter 20;

Revelation 20:120 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven with the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he seized the dragon, the original serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 And he hurled him into the abyss and shut [it] and sealed [it] over him, that he might not mislead the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After these things he must be let loose for a little while.

Pay close attention where the Devil and Satan must be let loose for a little while. To continue;

4 And I saw thrones, and there were those who sat down on them, and power of judging was given them. Yes, I saw the souls of those executed with the ax for the witness they bore to Jesus and for speaking about God, and those who had worshiped neither the wild beast nor its image and who had not received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand. And they came to life and ruled as kings with the Christ for a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Happy and holy is anyone having part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no authority, but they will be priests of God and of the Christ, and will rule as kings with him for the thousand years.

The ones sitting with Jesus Christ and judging are the 144,000 you asked about before.

7 Now as soon as the thousand years have been ended, Satan will be let loose out of his prison, 8 and he will go out to mislead those nations in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Ma82;gog, to gather them together for the war. The number of these is as the sand of the sea. 9 And they advanced over the breadth of the earth and encircled the camp of the holy ones and the beloved city. But fire came down out of heaven and devoured them.

Pretty well explains it. But if you have more questions, please ask.

That the blood of Christ does not forgive sins.

What nonsense. Of course it does.

What happened in 1914 that didn't happen in 1914? Why didn't it happen?

I do not understand the question. Sorry. All I know is what is supposed to have happened in 1914.

Daniel 2:44 “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite;.

richard9151  posted on  2009-03-01   17:06:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

That Jesus' disciples were all Jehovah's witnesses

Its almost comical because that sect didn't appear until the Watchtower Society was formed in the 1800s.

See, that comes from not understanding the Bible. Try reading Isaiah, Chapter 43.

Its almost comical because that sect didn't appear until the Watchtower Society was formed in the 1800s.

Wrong, once again. In the 1800s, and well into the 20th century, they were known only as Bible students. At a convention in the 1930s, they adopted the name Jehovah's Witnesses because of the Bible. If you want the exact date and place of the event, I can find it.

Richard's problem is that he doesn't know anything about Catholicism

Now, that is really sick. And funny.

The man doesn't understand his own religion at all.

Right. I am strongest in not understanding, and in being insecure.

But I notice that you left the post about the trinity strictly alone. Why is that? I would love you to answer it point by point, please, and then fill me in on who does not understand.

Daniel 2:44 “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite;.

richard9151  posted on  2009-03-01   17:13:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I love ya buddy.

I hope your cult thing works out for you; but I know how it ends up.

Stay free in Christ Brother !!!

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara  posted on  2009-03-01   17:16:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Nobody has to be right.

Someone has to right, and His Holy Name is Jehovah.

Unfortunately, the same zeal that led them to find the group that filled their needs causes them to tell everyone else they have to go that same route.

Nope. Not even. I have no wish, and no ability, to convert anyone. BUT, I will post the Truth at all times. Until someone proves me wrong, from Scripture. And when you are coming at me with hell, hellfire, damnation, immortal soul, and the trinity, you have a lot of baggage that ain't going nowhere fast.

I well know where all of it came from, and it is not the Bible. The problem is that people like you can not deal with that type of info. To you, men have to be in charge. How sad.

Daniel 2:44 “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite;.

richard9151  posted on  2009-03-01   17:19:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Richard,

Stop trying to convince Christians to accept your cult propaganda. Christians around the world know what JW is... just another cult that twists Scripture. You are not going be able to fool followers of Christ with your false, satanic BS. JW is a cult. No ifs, no ands, no butts.

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2009-03-01   18:07:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Stop trying to convince Christians to accept your cult propaganda. Christians around the world know what JW is... just another cult that twists Scripture. You are not going be able to fool followers of Christ with your false, satanic BS. JW is a cult. No ifs, no ands, no butts.

The Encyclopedia Canadiana observes: “The work of Jehovah’s Witnesses is the revival and re-establishment of the primitive Christianity practised by Jesus and his disciples during the first and second centuries of our era.”

Referring to the Witnesses, the New Catholic Encyclopedia notes: “They regard the Bible as their only source of belief and rule of conduct.”

Daniel 2:44 “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite;.

richard9151  posted on  2009-03-01   19:16:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Jesus Christ, prior to his life on this earth, was the first, and only, direct creation of Jehovah God; this is why they each have a name. Other terms for the Christ include the Master Worker, because 'and through him all things came into existance.' Jesus Christ did the creating while Jehovah God did the overseeing.

Are you sure about this?

The Holy Prophet Isaiah stated (New World Translation/NWT),Isa. 45:12,"I Jehovah have made the earth and have created even man upon it. I— my own hands have stretched out the heavens, and all the army of them I have commanded.”

And again, 44:24 NWT, "This is what Jehovah has said, your Repurchaser and the Former of you from the belly: “I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth. Who was with me?"

And again, the Holy Prophet states (NWT), 48:13, "Moreover, my own hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my own right hand extended out the heavens. I am calling to them, that they may keep standing together."

"What began in Russia will end in America."- 1930, Elder Ignatius of Harbin, Manchuria.

scooter  posted on  2009-03-01   22:01:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Good to see you 'up and taking nutrition'. ;-)

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara  posted on  2009-03-01   22:09:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Why not try and convert the drug crazed Mexicans you live among, rather than these fine folk.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2009-03-01   22:13:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Someone has to right, and His Holy Name is Jehovah.

That's right, and that is unfortunately, not you.

I've got a little challenge for you. Explain in two sentences the Doctrine of Infallability. Let's see how much you really know. I'm willing to put money on the table that you get it wrong. I can do it in one.

I'll give you hint: In an infinite universe, there are infinite possibilities.

It is now time for Atlas to shrug.

mirage  posted on  2009-03-02   1:17:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

But I notice that you left the post about the trinity strictly alone.

The Trinity is a contrivance to explain multiple faces of God in a manner that humans can easily understand it.

Is this really so difficult for you to comprehend?

It is now time for Atlas to shrug.

mirage  posted on  2009-03-02   1:19:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]