The Duality -- The Father and The Son

by UnDisfellowshipped 218 Replies latest watchtower bible

fjtoth

Undisfellowshiped,
I think tonight this discussion is early getting a bit out of hand. You wrote:
I don't mean to seem rude,
In a sense, you are being rude, but not in the way you have in mind. What I mean is this: You wrote some very, very long essays in the early part of this thread. I took the time to deal with every single one of the points you raised with me. I did it from the Bible. What I would like to see is a follow through from you. Instead of dealing with my responses to your long essays, you are bringing up new points as if I never wrote those responses. Instead of raising new questions, questions I will be happy to deal with in time, why don't you give some consideration to my rebuttal of your essays?
This thread is about "The Duality" even though Trinitarians believe in "The Triality." I would like to see us stick to the theme rather than going off in many directions, if you don't mind.
As for John 1:1, again there is a noticeable error in the way Trinitarians read the Scriptures. The verse says, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God."
Trinitarians read that as if it said, "in the beginning was Jesus the Son, and Jesus the Son was with God, and Jesus the Son was God." Why not be a bit more flexible? After all, if the word "was God," why not read it this way: "In the beginning was God, and God was with God, and God was God"? My point is that Trinitarians pounce upon the slightest hint of evidence for their theory and read into verses what they do not say.
Explaining what you mean by a possible appearance of rudeness, you wrote:
I have to understand what you mean.
I'm not being coy when I tell you I've already answered your question. I think the problem is that you haven't given due consideration to what I've written in response to your lengthy essays. In fairness, I think you should focus on what I've already written rather than give the impression that I'm ignoring your questions when I certainly have not.
With respect,
Frank
UnDisfellowshipped

Frank,
I agree. I should respond to your posts above. That one statement you made just jumped out at me, and slapped me in the face.
I am not ignoring any of your posts. Free time is extremely hard to come by right now (working two jobs, Christmas season, etc.)
Yesterday and today, I already started writing replies to your posts above, and I will post asap.
fjtoth

Undisfellowshiped,
In a post addressed to me earlier, you wrote:
I do not base my beliefs on man-made creeds without checking them against the Bible. I would never take my doctrine from creeds instead of the Bible.
In view of that, I was taken aback by this very recent remark you made:
I believe Jesus over any angel, any spirit, any man.
Do you believe the entire Bible, or only parts of it? I tend to believe any angel sent by God, such as Gabriel was, ought to be believed 100%, yet your expression is evidence that you might not believe such an angel. I'm reminded that when Zachariah questioned the angel, he was struck deaf and dumb. What say you?
Frank
UnDisfellowshipped

Frank (fjtoth), you said:
Do you believe the entire Bible, or only parts of it?
Every single word and every single jot and tittle of the Scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation (excluding the Apocrypha), is God-breathed, inspired directly by The Holy Spirit. It is infallible, incorruptible, perfect, nothing should ever be added to it or taken away from it. It is the revelation of God to man. It is the only such inspired writing on earth.
Jesus promised that every word of the Old Testament would never pass away, and He made the same promise about His own Words.
Now, when it comes to individual translations, I would have to examine and comment on them on a case by case basis. I use several translations, KJV, NKJV, NIV, NLT, NCV, ESV, Amplified, CEV, Good News Bible, Living Bible (not for serious study), and others. I even use the NWT and KIT when talking to JW's. I use Catholic Bibles when talking to Catholics.
By the way, which translation do you prefer to use (I can start using it in my posts if you want).
Frank said:
I tend to believe any angel sent by God, such as Gabriel was, ought to be believed 100%, yet your expression is evidence that you might not believe such an angel. I'm reminded that when Zachariah questioned the angel, he was struck deaf and dumb. What say you?
I believe everything in the Bible. I believe everything Gabriel said in the Bible. Gabriel is a holy, perfect, heavenly angel who stands in the very presence of The Father. He should definitely be obeyed.
I believe what Gabriel said in the Bible, but I do not believe or agree with YOUR interpretation and explanation of what he said.
Also, if an angel approached me today and said he was Gabriel, I would put him through the same test as anyone else in deciding if he was teaching the truth, just as Paul and John said:
Galatians 1:8-9 (ESV): But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
1 John 4:1 (ESV): Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
After all, if I am not mistaken, Muslims claim that it was the angel "Gabriel" who gave Muhammed his message. So, you should not just believe any angel who appears to you or speaks to you, even if they claim to be Gabriel.
But, as I said, I believe everything Gabriel said in the Bible.
fjtoth

Undisfellowshiped,
I have to tell you, your answer to my simple question sure was an example of beating around the bush! I asked you why in one quotation you claimed to go by the Bible and then in another quotation said you would prefer what Jesus said over what an angel said.
As if to answer the question, you said:
I believe what Gabriel said in the Bible, but I do not believe or agree with YOUR interpretation and explanation of what he said.
I'm sure you realize that my interpretation is not what you meant. Your specific words were:
I believe Jesus over any angel, any spirit, any man.
That was in response to what an angel said, as recorded in the Bible! All I wanted to know is if you really believe what you wrote in black and white, and then you go and make an inappropriate remark about my "interpretation" of what the angel said. I did not interpret what the angel said, I quoted him word-for-word and emphasized what he said, that's all, except for asking if you believe his words. Why the cynicism if we're going to have a cordial discussion for the purpose of arriving at truth? Even if my interpretation was at issue, why the statement that "I believe Jesus over any angel"?
Frank
fjtoth

Undisfellowshiped,
You asked:
By the way, which translation do you prefer to use (I can start using it in my posts if you want).
I'm inclined to use the NASB most often, and I have an NIV nearby as well. But the ESV is okay too. I have no preference, really. Occasionally I'll even resort to using the NWT if I'm having a discussion with a JW.
Frank
UnDisfellowshipped

Frank (fjtoth),
I already told you that I believe everything that Gabriel said in the Bible.
The statement I made that you keep talking about was this:
I believe Jesus over any angel, any spirit, any man.
If you have a problem with that statement, I'm sorry you feel that way. My allegiance is to Christ. Do you notice the point I was making? I also said ANY MAN. I was making a statement about your interpretation and explanation.
I was also trying to say that if there is EVER ANY DOUBT about what an angel meant, or if an angel's statement in the Bible SEEMED to contradict Jesus' words, then Jesus' words have FIRST PRIORITY over everything else.
The Bible itself teaches that Jesus Christ's teachings come FIRST, then comes the Apostles' teachings and the prophets' teachings:
Eph 2:20 (ESV): built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,
The Bible also says that we must pay much more attention to what Jesus says than to what the angels said, even though the angels spoke the truth:
Heb 1:1-2 (ESV): Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
Heb 2:1-4 (ESV): Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.
The Bible says to put the Lord Jesus' words FIRST. That being said, a true interpretation and exegesis of the Bible will reveal that the holy angels never contradict Jesus.
The reason why I said what I said was because by what you said ('Gabriel said Jesus was not great before being born') you were claiming that Gabriel was contradicting Jesus' words in John 17:5.
So, if you are correct, I am still going with Jesus' words at John 17:5, however, I know you are NOT correct, because the Bible does NOT contradict itself.
A holy angel would NEVER contradict his Lord and King, Jesus Christ.
In the Bible, Gabriel NEVER, EVER said that Jesus was not great before He was born. Gabriel NEVER said anything about what Jesus did BEFORE coming to earth. He was only describing what Jesus would do in the FUTURE. He was NOT discussing the PAST.
fjtoth

Undisfellowshiped,
I wish you would get over your antagonism. All I wanted was a clarification, not an argument. This last time you did well. You answered my question, even though a lot of unnecessary stuff surrounded your answer. You wrote:
I was also trying to say that if there is EVER ANY DOUBT about what an angel meant, or if an angel's statement in the Bible SEEMED to contradict Jesus' words, then Jesus' words have FIRST PRIORITY over everything else.
That's all I wanted to know, even though it is a bit of a stretch from what you actually wrote, an expression that stunned me momentarily and raised a question in my mind.
But you sort of ruined your answer by what followed. You wrote:
The Bible itself teaches that Jesus Christ's teachings come FIRST, then comes the Apostles' teachings and the prophets' teachings:
That clearly says you don't believe all parts of the Bible are equally inspired and of equal value. I think a Christian should accept the entire Bible. If the angel is speaking on behalf of God the Father, his words should be as good as if Jesus himself had spoken them. So I don't know where you're coming from if you believe the words of the angel of the Lord are of less value than the words of Jesus.
What is your point in quoting the first few verses of Hebrews? Doesn't it say "God spoke" through those prophets, etc. Are you saying God's words were of less value in the Old Testament than his words in the New Testament? You've got me going in circles here.
And you completely ignored the context in quoting Hebrews 2:1-4. The comparison is between what was spoken under the Law and what was spoken by Christ and by his followers. The comparison is not between the persons speaking, but it has to do with the message. There is nothing in the context to indicate that the words of the Law were of less value to those obligated to keep them. Death was the consequence, very likely eternal death. What could be of greater value than obedience to those words?
But the superiority of the Christian message is that it is about "such a great salvation," a salvation that embraces immortality. That was not mentioned in the Old Testament message, and that is why the Christian message has such great value and must be obeyed. True, "It was declared at first by the Lord [Jesus]." But that wasn't the end of it. "It was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the holy spirit distributed according to his will."
My point is that your use of Bible texts here does not prove your point at all. You are trying to say that the words of Christ are more important than the words of the holy angels, and the Bible just doesn't support your erroneous view.
But nice try!
Up above you wrote:
Every single word and every single jot and tittle of the Scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation (excluding the Apocrypha), is God-breathed, inspired directly by The Holy Spirit.
This contradicts what you wrote about "Jesus Christ's teachings come FIRST, then comes the Apostles' teachings and the prophets' teachings:"
If all the words of the Bible are "inspired directly by The Holy Spirit," whom you claim is a member of the Trinity, it seems to me you should be saying the words of Jesus, the apostles and the prophets are all of equal value. Or do you believe the words of the third member of the Trinity are of less importance than the words of the second member? There's something that strikes me as very odd about your reasoning here. But I'll look for your explanation, just to be sure.
Frank
fjtoth

Undisfellowshiped,
Upon reviewing some of your statements about portions of the Bible, I would like to get something settled before I move on. You have me puzzled over where you really stand with regard to the entire Bible. If we are going to proceed, and you make the claim that verses I use are of less weight than those you use, I might as well drop out of the discussion here and now. Despite your very strong assertions that you accept the entire Bible, you have made statements like the following:
I believe Jesus over any angel, any spirit, any man.
You've attempted to clarify that statement, but as I've shown above, you seem to cancel out your explanation by going on to say that doubts could arise about what an angel said, not merely an angel who might appear to you personally, but an angel quoted in the Bible. You say you would then choose the words of Jesus instead of the angel's words, as if the words of an angel are of less value than the words of Jesus.
You wrote:
Also, if an angel approached me today and said he was Gabriel, I would put him through the same test as anyone else in deciding if he was teaching the truth, just as Paul and John said:
Shouldn't you do the same thing if someone approached you and claimed to be Jesus? Jesus said "many" false Christs would arise and that they would mislead many. So, my question is, how does your illustration show that the words of Jesus have greater value than those of the angels? Yes, we are to put to the test the expressions of persons claiming to be angels, apostles and prophets, but we are also supposed to test teachings by those who claim to be Christ Jesus. Isn't that so?
You wrote:
I was also trying to say that if there is EVER ANY DOUBT about what an angel meant, or if an angel's statement in the Bible SEEMED to contradict Jesus' words, then Jesus' words have FIRST PRIORITY over everything else.
Here again I see a problem. You questioned my "interpretation" of what Gabriel told Mary. Are you saying that that's okay but that we should never question the interpetations men give of what was stated by Jesus? The words of both Gabriel and Jesus are within the Bible, and the words of each are subject to interpretation, depending upon who is doing the reading. Isn't it true that, while my "interpretation" of what Gabriel said is up for debate, your "interpretation" of what Jesus said at John 17:5 could also possibly be questioned? So where do you see superiority in Jesus' words over Gabriel's words? The entire Bible is the word of God, as you've acknowledged. Then why should any portion, large or small, be suspect? My point is that one man's wrong interpretation of what Jesus said is just as bad as another man's wrong interpretation of what an angel said.
You wrote:
The Bible itself teaches that Jesus Christ's teachings come FIRST, then comes the Apostles' teachings and the prophets' teachings:
Eph 2:20 (ESV): built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,
You are reading into Ephesians 2:20 what is not there. In fact you are giving to the text the exact opposite meaning of what Paul the writer intended. Your idea is that the teachings of the apostles carry less weight than the teachings of Jesus, but Paul is describing the foundation of the church. The foundation is sturdy. The structure of the church is solid, tightly-held-together, and the reason is its foundation made up of, not only Christ, but of the apostles and prophets as well. Paul is using metaphorical language to show you can't get any better foundation than the founding work of Christ and his apostles and prophets as they preached and taught God's word. So Paul did not teach, as you claim, that the teachings of Jesus come FIRST in the sense that the teachings of the apostles and prophets are in some way secondary or inferior.
You wrote:
The Bible says to put the Lord Jesus' words FIRST.
Please show us where the Bible says this. You wrote:
So, if you are correct, I am still going with Jesus' words at John 17:5, however, I know you are NOT correct, because the Bible does NOT contradict itself.
You are referring to my statement that the greatness of Jesus was yet future, that Jesus was not great at the time of his conception and birth. What is puzzling about your statement is that you will not accept what I wrote, even if it's "correct"! Even if I'm correct, you say, "I am still going with Jesus' words." Should you not have said, instead, that you prefer to go by your interpretation of what Jesus said? Just as I could be wrong about what Gabriel said, though I didn't change his words one iota, could you not be wrong about what Jesus said? I agree that the Bible doesn't contradict itself, but I don't agree that we should immediately reject something because it differs from our own personal interpretation of a text.
This is a matter of serious concern to me. I have to tell you that I object to the idea that some parts of the Bible are less inspired than other parts simply because Jesus was not the speaker. This is why I also object to red-letter Bibles. They mislead people. They give the impression that everything in red is more important than those portions not in red. Everything in red is what the Son of God said, and nothing is in red that God the Father said, as if the Father's words are of less value than those of the Son. Are you of that opinion too?
Frank
fjtoth

Undisfellowshiped,
You wrote:
After all, if I am not mistaken, Muslims claim that it was the angel "Gabriel" who gave Muhammed his message. So, you should not just believe any angel who appears to you or speaks to you, even if they claim to be Gabriel.
It's beyond me what you are trying to prove by saying this. When you wrote "I believe Jesus over any angel" we were not discussing angelic visits outside of the Bible. We were comparing the inspired words of Gabriel and of Jesus. We were not discussing the words of Jesus in the Bible and the words of an angel outside of the Bible. So what are you trying to prove by mentioning that Muhammed was deceived? Was he deceived by Gabriel's words to Mary? If not, what was your point in mentioning this?
Down through history people have been misled by visions of someone they thought was Jesus Christ. If you believe a false Gabriel reflects negatively upon the real Gabriel, do you consistently argue that a false Christ's teachings place under suspicion the teachings of the true Christ? I honestly don't see what you are driving at by your comparison.
Frank

The Duality -- The Father and The Son

Share this