Does it make any sense that the question: "Did God ever say to any angel, 'Sit at my right side, until I make your enemies your footstool?" means that yes, God did say this to one angel Jesus, is ridiculous. The point is that this was said of Jesus, but never to ANY angel. Likewise, no angel could lay claim to be God's Son. Yet, Jesus can because He is not an angel, he is on an altogether different level. Heb. 1:6 commands angels to worship Jesus, but Jesus doesn't reciprocate.
TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else
by UnDisfellowshipped 457 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
OUTLAW
Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another
Bane..
That is from the website you posted a link to..
You can learn to read later..
Fetch the stick Bane..
..............................OUTLAW
-
leavingwt
BANE -- Perhaps in the future you'll be more agreeable to a civil discussion. Until then, best wishes.
-
leavingwt
yet neither one indicated that God and Jesus were one
Please be a little more specific. The Father and the Son are two distinct persons in the Trinity.
-
Think About It
This subject has been debated for centuries. Both sides have their pet scriptures, but politics and not scripture usually determined the outcome of the debates. The Trinity concept was something completely foreign to God's people the ancient Jews and a teaching that doesn't seem to be a clear belief of 1st century Christians. Not until the Counsel of Nicaea in 325 A.D. and presided over by Roman Emperor Constantine did the Trinity doctrine start gaining political favor, which in itself should made the doctrine suspect. A simple reading & study of the Bible would never lead a person to believe in the Trinity without being lead by a Trinitarian theologian or preconceived ideas. Simply stated the Trinity doctrine lacks logic and does not make sense.
Applying Occum's razor to the Trinity leads a person to believe the Trinity is a blatant contradiction.
He displays the problem through the following syllogism:
According to the doctrine of the Trinity:
(1) God is the Father,
and,
(2) Jesus is God.
Therefore, by transitivity, according to the doctrine of the Trinity:
(3) Jesus is the Father.
Yet, according to the doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus is not the Father.
So, according to the doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus both is and is not the Father.
Think About It
-
leavingwt
Think About It -- You are tripping over words.
God is the Father,
You'll never hear a Trinitarian say this. Rather, "God the Father is one person of the Trinity."
(I'm not a theist. As such, these are all fictional characters, to me. This has nothing to do with WHAT the doctrine actually is. I'm trying to encourage accurate discussion on the topic. Are there any Arians reading this that DO understand the doctrine? You can be 100% against the doctrine and yet understand what those who believe it, actually believe. The WT strawman has permeated so many of the comments, here.)
-
Think About It
Think About It -- You are tripping over words.
God is the Father,
You'll never hear a Trinitarian say this. Rather, "God the Father is one person of the Trinity."
That's just it........the whole Trinity concept is just words, taken from the Athanasian Creed below.
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.
So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. What kind of nonsense is this? There is no way a person could come up with this concept of God and true worship from reading the Bible. No way Jesus was teaching this. I grew up in the Baptist church and didn't believe it. Blew my mind when I first started hearing about the Trinity and us Baptists believed it. Not me.
Think About It
-
peacedog
djeggnog,
I'll respond to your earlier post first. I missed it my last time around. Sorry about that.
So you found my insertion of the word "other" in order to convey my understanding of the text at Hebrews 1:5 to have been dishonest in some way?
eggnog, you added a word that completely changes the meaning of the verse:
Pre-eggnog verse: God never said to any of the angels...
Post-eggnog verse: God never said to any of the other angels...
The pre-eggnog verse eliminates any and all angels. The post-eggnog verse does not.
Food for thought: If the ORIGINAL bible verse said "God never said to any of the OTHER angels", and I went ahead and removed the word "other", changing the meaning of the verse to fit my theology, would it be dishonest of me?
on what basis are you saying that you found my explanation to "reek"?
I said it reeks of the Watchtower Society, which is to say it is exactly the sort of tactic they would use to explain a problematic verse: inserting the word "other" to change the meaning of the biblical text. (consider Col 1:15-17)
Now if you believe I did something wrong here by posting my "commentary" on the first two chapters of Hebrews based on how I understand these two chapters to be saying, please tell me what you believe I did wrong here. Before I post another message to you in this thread, I'm going to require an answer from you, because you are treating me here as if I'd done something onerous to you.
eggnog, you have done nothing onerous to me. I have no problem with you posting your opinion on these or any other verses. At the same time, realize that I may not agree with your opinions and I may choose to voice that disagreement. In the case of Hebrews chapter 1, I disagree with you adding the word "other" in order to change the meaning of the biblical text so that it fits with your personal theology.
What "hoops" did I jump through? About what exactly are you accusing me of being in denial?
I was quoting debator who said "deny the obvious and bible written [sic]". You deny the obvious statement of Hebrews 1:5 and 1:13:
5God has never said to any of the angels, "You are my Son, because today I have become your Father!" Neither has God said to any of them, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son!"
13God never said to any of the angels, "Sit at my right side until I make your enemies into a footstool for you!"
You denial is evidenced by your adding the word "other" to change the meaning of the verse to fit your theology.
I recommend re-reading the verses slowly, paying particular attention to the absence of the word "other".
My response to your more recent post:
Moses, for the most part, completes the book of Deuteronomy before his death in 1473 BC, 741 years before Isaiah completes the writing of his book, some 1,505 years before another God came into existence. So Jehovah's declaration through Moses at Deuteronomy 32:39 is true.
Are you seriously suggesting that Jehovah's declaration at Deut 32:39 ("THERE ARE NO GODS TOGETHER WITH ME") is true because Jesus didn't exist at that time?..........
I suggest you re-read John 1:1. When you do so, you will note that the verse begins "In the beginning....". To what would you consider this to be a reference? The beginning of the book of John? The beginning of the week?
But with reference to which one of the angels has he ever said: 'Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet'? Are they not all spirits for public service, sent forth to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation?
Note that Paul says here at Hebrews 1:14 that they, including the angel that 'sits at God's right hand,' are "all [of them] spirits for public service, sent forth to minister for those that are going to inherit salvation."
I hardly know where to start. This is such an obvious misinterpretation of these verses...
What Hebrews 1:13,14 says is that God never said "sit at my right hand....." to *ANY* angel, for (because, as evidenced by) angels are merely servants of those who are going to be saved.
Do you see? Angels are "merely servants of those who are going to be saved". One such as this would not be appointed to sit at the right hand of God.
Consider the CEV rendering, which is quite clear:
God never said to any of the angels, "Sit at my right side until I make your enemies into a footstool for you!" Angels are merely spirits sent to serve people who are going to be saved.
Do you see that God never said "Sit at my right hand....." to "ANY of the angels"? For angels are merely spirits sent to serve, not to sit at the right hand of God.
bane: Stick to video games and pro wrestling.
truthlover:
So did God resurrect himself??
You tell me:
Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" But the temple he had spoken of was his body. (John 2:19-21)
Did Jesus say *HE* was going to raise his body or did he not?
Podo:
I think UnDisfellowshipped as well as others have taken the time to explain this verse for you. "The LORD" is YHWH; "the Lord" is a reference to the incarnate Jesus.
Kenneson:
Does it make any sense that the question: "Did God ever say to any angel, 'Sit at my right side, until I make your enemies your footstool?" means that yes, God did say this to one angel Jesus, is ridiculous. The point is that this was said of Jesus, but never to ANY angel.
So true. While there are certainly difficult passages in the bible, this isn't one of them. God never said this to ANY angel. Period. Therefore, Jesus cannot be an angel. Period.
It seems to me that theology ought to be based on the unambiguous statements of scripture while the ambiguous verses are left open to debate.
-
leavingwt
Think About It -- Two distinct conversations: (1) What is the Trinity doctrine? (2) Is it legitimate?
You don't need to convince me that it's nonsense. I'm not a theist.
-
snowbird
I'm neither Trinitarian nor Arian - I don't believe the Holy Spirit is a person and I don't believe Jesus was created.
I do believe that Jesus is God (YHWH) in the flesh, the Creator, the One who made the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
I understand the Trinity Doctrine perfectly - three divine Beings make up the Godhead.
However, I balk at calling the Holy Spirit a person, and by extension, God.
Syl
