@djeggnog:
All I ask is that you do your best to stay focused, for I will withdraw from this discussion (or debate) if you should introduce arguments that have nothing at all to do with proving the Trinity to be a Bible-based doctrine using the New World Translation of the Holy [Scriptures].
@Undisfellowshipped:
I will do my best to stay focused. And I understand why you would withdraw if this debate or discussion goes "off-track" or off-topic.
Reading back what I wrote, I came off as if I were here dictating rules for a thread that you started, and I'm not doing that. I just wanted to let you know in advance that I will withdraw from this thread if it should go off topic (I realize that his may not be anyone's fault necessarily, but I assume that other people may be contributing to this discussion/debate as well), but I was only letting you know that I will withdraw if this thread goes off the rails, and there doesn't seem to be a way to get it back on the track.
@Undisfellowshipped:
We are agreed that this debate/discussion will be about whether the Trinity Doctrine is taught or supported in the Bible, using the New World Translation.
Agreed.
@Undisfellowshipped:
With that said, would it be acceptable to you that if we have a disagreement about the meaning of a word or phrase, or, for instance, if I lack knowledge about what a certain word or phrase means, we can use dictionaries (Bible dictionaries and English dictionaries) to determine the proper meanings?
Also, the New World Translation that I am using is the 1984 New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures with References (Footnotes). Would it be acceptable to you for us to also discuss the further information that is found in the Footnotes and Appendix in that Translation?
In addition, would it be acceptable to bring into this discussion certain information that we find helpful from the "Insight" Books or "Reasoning" Book (Published by Jehovah's Witnesses)? For example, if there is information in those books which give the meanings of certain words or phrases or passages of Scripture that may have a bearing on the Trinity? (We could even call this supplemental information from the "Insight" and "Reasoning" Books "Translators' Notes" since they were published by the same group that translated the New World Translation).
My main points will all be taken from the New World Translation Reference Bible, and if you prefer, we will use only the New World Translation and NO other Watchtower Publications. Your choice there.
I would prefer that we use the NWT and nothing more, "main points" or otherwise. Of course, you can consult whatever reference book you wish, whether published by the WTS or by some other book publishing outfit, but I'm going to just be using the NWT.
@djeggnog:
Why do you care that folks are making a "study in the Scriptures" and that they are thinking for themselves if you are not, as you say, here promoting either a church or a religious group?
@Undisfellowshipped:
I am a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ, and I am humbly trying to do my small part in obeying my Lord's "Great Commission" to go and preach and teach and make disciples of people for the Lord.
Well, you seem to have formed a sect of your own, for after the "Great Commission," when the spirit was poured out on that Pentecost day in 33 AD, congregations of Christians were formed as the number of those receiving the spirit increased from 120 to 3,000 to 5,000 in really no time at all. You cannot help God's organization do the work by your being outside of God's organization.
@Undisfellowshipped:
Jesus said "Come to Me", He did not say "Come to this certain church building or church group."
What about those taking the lead in the congregations of God? (Hebrews 13:17) How can you "be obedient" when you are doing your own thing and preaching your own gospel?
@Undisfellowshipped:
John 17:3 says that getting to know (or "taking in knowledge of") God and Jesus means everlasting life. That sounds pretty important to me, and I am sure it is equally important to you as well.
You cannot take in knowledge of God and Jesus (except maybe second-handedly) when you are outside of God's channel from which progressive truths flow today.
@Undisfellowshipped:
I try to imitate Paul, the Noble-Minded Beroeans (Acts 17:11) and most of all, Christ Jesus.
Ok.
@Undisfellowshipped:
Having a personal relationship with God, believing in the Ransom, and having His Spirit is far more important than belonging to a certain group or going to a certain building. (John 4:21-24)
But your actions in separating yourself and preaching your own gospel strongly suggests that you do not have God's spirit and aren't being led by it.
@djeggnog:
Do you think that encouraging others to take up a study of the Scriptures, as you are doing, isn't the same as your promoting a sect?
@Undisfellowshipped:
The same accusation was made against Paul and the early disciples, and probably was made against the Noble-Minded Beroeans of Acts 17:11-12, as well.
You didn't answer my question. Maybe you'll decide to answer it later.
@Undisfellowshipped:
How can it ever be wrong to encourage people to study the Scriptures daily? In fact, isn't that posted on the outside of one of the Bethel buildings in New York?
Hey! Isn't that a non-sequitur? What possible difference would it make if Staples Center has the words "Read God's Word Daily" emblazoned on one of the walls? I'm missing your point since my question to you wasn't so much about what you were doing, but why you were doing it outside of God's organization as a sect.
@djeggnog:
Please explain why someone that doesn't believe that the Trinity doctrine has scriptural support should not believe in Unitarianism? I don't follow your logic here, considering that Trinitarianism is not the same as Unitarianism, and unless you are claiming that Unitarianism is the very antithesis of belief in the Trinity -- which I don't believe you are saying here -- then it makes no real sense for you to have said this.
@Undisfellowshipped:
Unitarianism, as I understand it, is the belief that God is only One Person, The Father of Jesus, and that God is NOT a Trinity.
.
.
.
The "other side" of Trinitarians would be those who do not believe in the Trinity, primarily I was referring to those who believe God is the Father of Jesus and NOT Three Persons.
I missed your point. I really don't think anyone here would think a discussion about the Trinity would be a discussion about, I don't know, the oil spill or about anything other than the Trinity.
@UnDisfellowshipped:
I apologize -- there was some sort of formatting glitch in my post above. I will try to make sure that doesn't happen again, if I can figure out what happened. lol
No apology necessary. No one but I could actually notice my many typos unless they resorted to squinting, which was a good thing. (There were just too many typos. <g>)
@Undisfellowshipped:
I hope we both agree that the Hebrew Scriptures teach that there is only One True God, and His Name is Jehovah. I think we have common ground there.
.
.
.
Now, djeggnog, are we in agreement so far? Do you agree that the Hebrew Scriptures teach that there is only One True God, and His Name is Jehovah?
Agreed.
@Undisfellowshipped:
But, what does "Only True God" or "One True God" mean exactly? Look at the following two verses, which help to explain the meaning:
Galatians 4:8:Nevertheless, when you did not know God, then it was that you slaved for those who by nature are not gods.
Romans 1:20:For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable;
Romans 1:25: even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Amen.
The Apostle Paul is explaining that there is only One God who has the true Godship [Nature of God], and this is the Creator (Jehovah). He also explains that all other gods are NOT gods by nature. And we should NEVER venerate or render sacred service to any creature, but only to the Creator.
Djeggnog, are we on the same page so far? Do you agree or disagree with any of the things I have said?
I'm not going to quibble, but no, Paul is not explaining anything about God's nature at Romans 1:20. He is making the point that God's qualities, His "eternal power and Godship" being among them, are perceived by the things made.
@Undisfellowshipped:
Things we have established so far from the New World Translation:
1:) There is only One True God. (1 Kings 8:60)
2:) No other gods exist. (Isaiah 45:5)
3:) The One True God's Name is Jehovah. (Isaiah 43:10-11)
4:) There is only One God who is God by Nature and has the True Godship [Divinity, Divine Nature]. (Romans 1:20, Galatians 4:8)
5:) Christians should never venerate or render sacred service to any creature, but only to the Creator. (Romans 1:25)
6:) There is no other god together with the One True God. (Deuteronomy 32:39)
7:) Anyone who preached any different god besides the One True God was to be put to death. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5)
Djeggnog, do you agree with these 7 points that we just established from the New World Translation?
No. I cannot agree with how you phrased point #4, and as to your point #6, Jehovah did make Moses God to Pharaoh, did He not? (Exodus 7:1) In fact, there are many gods mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures, not the least of which were the judges of Israel (Psalm 82:1, 6, 7). Let's just see where this discussion goes. No need to respond.
@Undisfellowshipped:
And, I also assume we are already in agreement that the Person called "The Father" in the Christian-Greek Scriptures is truly God by Nature.
No, we are not in agreement in described Jehovah as "the Person called 'The Father" [being] "truly God by Nature." I would say that the God of the Christian-Greek Scriptures is the same God in the Hebrew Scriptures and leave it at that since this statement is quite ambiguous, and unless there is some reason for your saying more than this, I'd like to first hear that reason.
@Undisfellowshipped:
So, now I am moving on to the Second Person, known as "the Son," "the Word," "Jesus," and many other names and titles.
No, I cannot agree with this designation of Jesus as being any "Second Person," known also as "the Son," or "the Word." I accept that this is what you intend to prove using the NWT, so I'll just wait until we get there, if we get there.
@Undisfellowshipped:
John opens his Gospel with this declaration: "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." (John 1:1-2)
Ok.
@Undisfellowshipped:
Then he continues writing about this "Word" who became the Man, Jesus Christ:
"No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him." (John 1:18)
Ok.
@Undisfellowshipped:
Toward the end of John's Gospel, he writes about the Apostle Thomas' declaration of faith in the Resurrected Jesus:
"Next he said to Thomas: "Put your finger here, and see my hands, and take your hand and stick it into my side, and stop being unbelieving but become believing." In answer Thomas said to him: "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him: "Because you have seen me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet believe." " (John 20:27-29)
Ok.
@Undisfellowshipped:
So, we can clearly see that the Christian-Greek Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ is "a god," "the only-begotten god," and "My God" [of Thomas at least].
@Undisfellowshipped:
In addition, Isaiah 9:6 teaches that Jesus is "The Mighty God."
What are we to make of this?
I don't know. The book of Isaiah is not a part of the Greek Scriptures, but I agree that the title, "Mighty God," is applicable to the Lord Jesus Christ.
