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

by Witness 007 343 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  BurnTheShips

  How could they be practicing false religions, demonic religions, weird and depraved religions disconnected from any real "truth" about the true God----AND YET GET THE VERY NATURE OF GOD (i.e.Triune-ness) CORRECT?

  Mind boggling.

  Or...

  ....Or it IS the nature of God, as people in disparate cultures and traditions have percieved in their own ways.

  Let's face it, the idea of Three Gods with only ONE identity is a contradiction in terms. The nature of SUPERnatural is that it cannot invade what is in our nature to think, or think about, or understand, or explain to ourselves.

  Or you are wrong about the supernatural. That it can and does invade. And that by being in a part supernatural ourselves, we dimly percieve supernatural realities.

  A singularity of identity cannot be parsed into separate identities with names and descriptions.

  Because it is a singularity of being that is parsed into different components. An electron can be in two places at the same time and be a single electron. Parse that!

  http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jun/

  A hundred years ago, we took the first steps in recognising, at the level of elementary physical events, the dual character of nature that had been postulated in natural philosophy. Albert Einstein was the first who saw Max Planck’s quantum hypothesis leading to this dual character. Einstein suggested the photon have an electromagnetic wave character, although photons had previously been considered as particles. That was the quintessence of his work on the photoelectric effect. Later in 1926, it was deBroglie that recognised that all the building blocks of nature known to us as particles - electrons, protons, etc. - behave like waves under certain conditions.

  In its totality, therefore, nature is dual. None of its components can only be considered as a particle or as a wave. To understand this fact, Niels Bohr introduced in 1923 the Complementarity Principle: simply put, every component in nature has a particle, as well as a wavelike character, and it depends only on the observer which character he sees at any given time. In other words, the experiment determines which characteristic one is measuring - particle or wave.

  Burn
• 

  BurnTheShips

  You're continuing your ridiculous charade. There's got to be something wrong with a man who says an answer is a "refusal" to "answer my two questions."

  Well then maybe I am confused. If you provide a clear and concise answer to my two questions you will put my confusion to rest and we can continue this discussion.

  Here they are again for your perusal:

  Is the Bible the only thing to define what we believe as Christians?
  How do you know which writings constitute Scripture?

  You can take your time and answer them carefully if you like, I will be away for a while.

  Burn
• 

  fjtoth

  Burn,

  Well then maybe I am confused.

  Yes, indeed you are! The only other thing I can imagine is that, like the scribes and Pharisees, you are trying to set up a trap of some kind. Why else would you seem incapable of moving on? You just can't seem to move forward because you've reached a roadblock. That roadblock is my inability to read your mind or what you perceive to be my refusal to play your little game. Such is the method of Trinitarians generally. You can't prove your doctrine with Scripture, so you dream up schemes and tactics that just might lead your opponent to play into your hands. Non-trinitarians are bound by the truth of the Scriptures. We don't need gimmicks. Trinitarians, instead of acknowledging how scripturally defenseless they are, try to plod on with trifles and diversions, hoping something will open up where they can make a big win, a win that never comes.

  fjtoth
• 

  fjtoth

  Burn,

  Jews (the religion, not the people) believe that Jesus was not the Christ. ... Should Christians abandon these beliefs to make their faith more palatable to them as well?

  Before the pagan Trinity was added to Christianity, thousands upon thousands of Jews became Christians. According to the book of Acts, there were occasions when thousands of Jews converted in one day. We will never see such a thing again until theologians re-examine Christianity and "abandon these beliefs to make their faith more palatable to" sincere truthseekers of all nationalities and religious groups.

  fjtoth
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Before the pagan Trinity was added to Christianity, thousands upon thousands of Jews became Christians. According to the book of Acts, there were occasions when thousands of Jews converted in one day. We will never see such a thing again until theologians re-examine Christianity and "abandon these beliefs to make their faith more palatable to" sincere truthseekers of all nationalities and religious groups.

  That's funny. After the Church defined the doctrine of the Trinity, millions upon millions--billions even-- of people of all nations became Christians. We have such things as what happened in Acts occur throughout the history of the Church age. It isn't the charge of theologians to make the faith palatable, but to explain it accurately. Christ said: "Upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it." And again: "I will be with you until the end of the world". He has kept His promise.

  Burn
• 

  fjtoth

  Burn,

  Again you are greatly mistaken. It is divine truth, not accurate explanations of pagan doctrine, that brings forth good fruitage. You exaggerate not a little when you claim there has been growth such as related in Acts. There has never been an occasion since then where thousands were converted in one day by clear Bible preaching.

  Of course, in line with their pagan teachings, Trinitarian churches have made millions of converts by threatening them with the sword. But that's another story.

  fjtoth
• 

  BurnTheShips

  FJTOTH,

  I am happy you have shared your perspective with me. Although I do not agree with it I appreciate your sincerity. I think you will agree with me in that the love of God is great enough to forgive a sincere heart that labors in error. All of us labor under imperfect knowledge to a greater or lesser degree. To quote Paul: Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. I hope Christ blesses you abundantly.

  Sincerely,

  Burn
• 

  fjtoth

  Burn,

  I agree that it's best to conclude amicably. But I'm more conservative than you about God's view of "a sincere heart that labors in error." Saul of Tarsus engaged in such labor until he saw the light. When his error was shown to him, he made an about-face in his beliefs and life-goal. It's good he did since God doesn't look kindly upon obstinacy and stubbornness. What God expected of Saul, he and Christ expect of us.

  Even while the apostles were alive, some Christians were trusting in "another Christ" to save them. Rather than dismiss that as simply "a poor reflection" of the truth or as "imperfect knowledge to a greater or lesser degree," the apostle Paul gave this chiding and warning: "I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully." (2 Corinthians 11:3, 4)

  Even more forcefully, he scolded: "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! (Galatians 1:6-9) [Underlining mine.]

  I haven't presented "another Christ." I've advocated what the Bible teaches about Christ, not what tradition or orthodoxy teaches. Contrary to the simple truth of the Bible, an entire system of "salvation" has evolved over the past 2,000 years that totally obscures the simple truth of the gospel as Jesus taught it.

  I urge you to look at the picture very carefully. I hope you will take seriously the warnings against "another Christ." I'm sure that heaven will bestow a wondrous outcome.

  God bless,

  fjtoth
• 

  Deputy Dog

  fjtoth

  In Greek, the words for "image" and "form" mean basically the same thing.

  Sorry, but that can not be true. Why doe the passage clearly say "taking the form of a bond-servant..." "... in the likeness (or appearance) of men". This passage would have no meaning at all if you read it your way.

  Php 2:6

  who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

  I believe this passage teaches us that Jesus was the Perfect Servant, a servant obedient to the point of death.

  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."

  I've never read any of Robert Thayer's work. But, if you mean Joseph Henry Thayer, you may want to read a little about his backround, he wasn't all that " well-respected" his work fell out of favor near the time of his death. It seems he had a low view of scripture.

  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?

  That passage does not even address the matter of Jesus being a servant, you are reading it into the text.

  I suppose you think he came disguised as a servant? What would that accomplish ?

  He came to serve as the perfect sacrifice. He served the father perfectly because we could not.
• 

  childofGod

  John 1:18 states 'No man has seen God at any time, the only-begotten god (Jesus) who is in the bosom position with (not as) the Father is the one that has explained him. Now we all know that because Jesus was here on earth that many have seen Jesus, right? So if that's the case how can he be God if there at John 1:18 it says no man has seen God at any time (in heavenly or earthy position). Also John 17:3 Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and his heavenly Father. There he calls his Father 'the only true God'. Jesus could not and would not have made this statement if, as the Trinity doctrine teaches, Jesus and the holy spirit were God to the same degree as the Father. At Matthew 24:36 it reads regarding God's great day, 'concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens, nor the Son,but only the Father.' This scripture discredits the Trinity teaching which states that all tree (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) are equal. If all were one and equal would not the Son also know the day and hour? 1Corinthians 11:3 states '...the head of the Christ is God'. If the Father and Son are equal how could one be head of the other? And the best scripture to refute the trinity is John 5:19 where Jesus himself specifically states '...I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am.'