I hate the Watchtower but I really still hate the Trinity Jesus is NOT God!

by Witness 007 343 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  MOG

  Press on the yellow next to the red A then cover your mouse over what you want to copy then paste ,( it will all go yellow,if you can understand that your clever

  testing..
• 

  mouthy

  testing..?
• 

  MOG

  testing..?

  I was expecting..YOUR CLEVER..hahahah..thanks..
• 

  Terry

  bit off-topic now we are discussing trinity not debunking the bible, which if you want to put on as a topic could be interesting terry :) how do you explain pontious pilate stone, the house of david stone etc

  Stop and think about what you've just said. The archeological evidence is what you are referring to. Right?

  How many John Grisham books have you read? All the details, facts, technology and historical leaders are firmly accurate in Grisham's thrillers. Does that make the content of the stories non-fiction? Or, does it serve to help the reader suspend disbelief?

  Tales of Robin Hood cannot be proved by demonstrating there was a King Richard or Prince John. The discovery of Sherwood forest doesn't either.

  Besides, if you are going to allow archeological evidence to sway you to the point of utter conviction; I'm afraid you'll find this a sword with two edges which goes far to disproving substantial parts of scripture as well.

  When a court of law swears in a witness to give testimony they ask them to swear to what exactly?

  Is it just the "truth"?

  No.

  Is it just the "truth" and the "whole truth" and leave it at that?

  No.

  A witness has to swear to tell:

  1.The Truth

  2.The Whole Truth

  3.Nothing but the Truth

  Stop and think about why all three of these are necessary and you'll see my point.

  What we leave out of our evidence gathering is often just as important as what we include.

  Knowing there existed a Pontius Pilate does not prove his deeds vis a vis Jesus.

  Knowing there was a House of David does not tell us that the Hebrew Scriptures storyline is accurate.

  When you say this is only a discussion about the Trinity and NOT about the Scriptures which serve to bolster the Trinity (or defeat it); I think you are introducing a fallacy of omission.

  Can we actually purport to discuss or prove or disprove the Trinity and ignore Scripture as a valid or invalid source of unimpugned veracity?

  I think you can see that the Trinity rests on scripture or vanishes into mythos forthwith.
• 

  reniaa

  Mmm I wonder if you'd use the leaders are mentioned only answer like in fiction, but the bible also mentions verifyable grunts/workers too, I can't research the immediate archaelogical info but in one example it mentions nebuchnessars lower down workers and it was confirmed by a stone mentioning the same people, place and Neb and event too.

  You can't just dismiss archaelogical as "thats just archaeology" as back up confirmation because that ignores the fact of how much archaeology there is for the bible (more than any other ancient writing) , places, people, events (often the oppositions side) and practices.. a slave price changes through centuries and archaeologist were able to verify that the slave price asked for in the bible at a particular century was exactly right from other sources. Would a fiction writer be able to get that right oops let me qualify that would a fiction writer get all that right without the aid of libraries, internet, computers TV documentaries, as the bible writers had none of these resources.

  reniaa
• 

  BurnTheShips

  I think you can see that the Trinity rests on scripture or vanishes into mythos forthwith.

  Contrary to my Unitarian sola scriptura friends here, I do not believe the belief of the Trinity stands on Scripture alone. So no, I do not believe it is either/or as you comment above.

  Cheers,

  Burn
• 

  fjtoth

  MOG,

  You made some good points. Yes, God himself is the one who labeled others like Moses and David, as well as Jesus, with the title "God."

  I appreciate what you wrote about Hebrews 1:8. That is an excellent example of the meaning of "God" when applied to agents of God the Father. Hebrews 1:8 is a quotation from Psalm 45:6, 7. Originally the words of those verses in Psalms and Hebrews applied to David, as explained by several commentaries. Obviously David was not Almighty God. Showing that it applied once upon a time to the king of Israel in Jerusalem, the New International Version Study Bible says this in a footnote on Psalm 45:6:

  45:6 O God. Possibly the king's throne is called God's throne because he is God's appointed regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as "god." The Davidic king (the "LORD'S anointed," 2 Sa 19:21), because of his special relationship with God, was called at his enthronement the "son" of God (see 2:7; 2 Sa 7:14; 1 Ch 28:6; cf. 89:27). In this psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his “splendor and majesty” (v. 3), it is not unthinkable that he was called “god” as a title of honor (cf. Isa 9:6). Such a description of the Davidic king attains its fullest meaning when applied to Christ, as the author of Hebrews does (Heb 1:8—9).

  Surely, if the words of Psalm 45:6, 7 and Hebrews 1:8 can be applied to David, they can be applied to Jesus. But this certainly does not mean that either David or Jesus is the only true God. The Father is the only unique or "true" God.

  fjtoth
• 

  MOG

  Surely, if the words of Psalm 45:6, 7 and Hebrews 1:8 can be applied to David, they can be applied to Jesus. But this certainly does not mean that either David or Jesus is the only true God. The Father is the only unique or "true" God.

  AGREED
• 

  fjtoth

  Deputy Dog,

  I'm not so sure about that.

  Well, I am sure. As clarified above, the Scriptures plainly show that Jesus is called "God" because he is God's agent, just as Moses, David and others were addressed as "God." But many Trinitarians prefer their own emotional hang-up on this topic. Instead of accepting what the Bible plainly says, they prefer to view Jesus as Almighty God, as the only "true" God, whereas the Scriptures reserve that status for God the Father alone.

  Your quotations from Strong's prove nothing. And your understanding of morphe is very different from what scholars have to say about it. Yes, it's true that Greek uses a different word for "image," but so do we in English. We can say either "image," "carbon copy," "facsimile," "likeness," "replica," "portrait" or some similar word. In Greek, the words for "image" and "form" mean basically the same thing.

  According to Robert Thayer in his well-respected lexicon, morphe (the word for "form") means "the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; external appearance." A person can have similar features as someone else, but that doesn't mean he actually is that someone else. So what is your point in trying to show that "form" has an altogether different meaning than "image" when there actually isn't any difference?

  If the bible tells me that Jesus took the "form"/ morphe¯ of a "servant"/doulos, I believe he did do what it says. You don't "but Christ was never a bond-servant or doulos" (to most people this looks like you don't believe or don't "understand the Scriptures")

  No, I don't believe you accept what the Bible says. Taking on the "form" of a doulos does not mean that Jesus actually became a doulos. As I explained to you earlier, in the parable of the landowner, Jesus clearly showed that he was not a doulous. Why do you prefer to not accept Jesus' own word on the matter?

  I believe God has the ability to become what ever he wants to become.

  Yes, God has the ability to do anything. But he is not a genie who will perform any trick we want him to. We need to ask ourselves, Is God what he says he is, or is my conception of him a better description of him? The Trinity is a concept in the minds of humans that was never put there by God or Jesus. It is an invention of sinful men who introduced the idea centuries after inspired writers completed their writing of the Bible.

  fjtoth
• 

  fjtoth

  Burn,

  You have not answered my questions:
  Is the Bible the only thing to define what we believe as Christians?
  There were many books that claimed to be from God. Many of them are extant but are not part of the Bible. Others are. How do you know which ones belong in Scripture?

  Your questions tell me that you accept the Trinity because you do not feel the Bible is completely inspired of God. My answer to both questions: I'm not of that mindset.

  What authority do you have to tell us what scripture really means?

  I have to tell you that you've posed a very strange question. I'll answer it with a question of my own: "What authority do you have to tell us it's impossible to understand the Bible just because you and others don't understand it?"

  Who defined what is Scripture for Christians? You continue to evade the question.

  I haven't evaded the question. In fact, you quoted it from 2 Timothy 3:16, 17, just above your question.

  fjtoth