TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else (page 24)

peacedog

Podo:

Your thoughts on Revelation 3:7-12

OK. What specifically in these verses shall I speak to?

..."Born Again" lurkers and Trinitarian sympathisers...

...with bias towards their Satanic/Pagan doctrine...

...the blatant bastardization of the original text by twisted servants...

...they murdered the Arian sympathizers...

...at the behest of an Evil convert...

Harboring a little animosity, are we?

Peace, podo, peace.

@ peacedog: just a comment on the Scripture will be suffice... thank you.. no animosity here just scriptural and historic fact. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. The facts of history are their own testimony.

Thank you for agreeing that Jesus is not the Jehovah of the Old Testament... now please elucidate on Revelation 3:7-12. You seem to snipe at the feet of others, for a change, let us see the logic of your reasoning throughout Scripture .... Who is the God and Father of Jesus (the exalted, resurrected and Immortal Jesus) in Revelation 3:7-12 please.

How many requests do I have to make? Your humble servant.... Sir,

Podo

djeggnog

@peacedog:

You failed to respond to a question in my previous post. You quoted the KJV at which point I asked you to explain the words "at any time"....

In a thread in which we should only be using the NWT, I believe you will find that I did so in comparing the CEV's rendering of Hebrews 1:13, 14, and Luke 24:37 against a few other Bible translations after you had introduced the CEV to make a side point. Why you would now be asking me why the words "at any time" are used in the KJV, the ASV and the RSV, as if this is not just a way of rephrasing the same question you had asked me earlier about the use of "ever" in the NWT, when this word is not at all used in the CEV's rendering of Hebrews 1:13, 14, I just don't get. (In reality, we had moved to discussing just Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 1:13.)

At any rate, @peacedog, I've strung together how I remember leaving things with you in this thread, and have included sufficient quotes that serve to retain the context of our discussion here. You will find my remarks have been interleaved between the various quotes:

@djeggnog wrote:

HEBREWS 1:5, 6

5 For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: "You are my son; I, today, I have become your father"? And again: "I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son"? 6 But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: "And let all God’s angels do obeisance to him."

[From my "commentary"] Out of all of God's angels in heaven, to which of them did God ever declare to be his son, or to be his father. When during his second coming God next sends his Firstborn into the world, all of God's angels will also serve him even as they serve God directing their worship to God through Jesus.

HEBREWS 1:13, 14

13 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"? 14 Are they not all spirits for public service, sent forth to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation?

[From my "commentary"] To none of the other angels did God ever offer a seat at His right hand or to give to any one of them authority over earth's inhabitants, even though all of them are faithful servants of God whose role is to actively minister to the needs of God's servants on earth.

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?

@peacedog wrote:

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.

@djeggnog wrote:

This just may be a case of your not getting the point of my "commentary." I didn't change the meaning of any of the verses I quoted from Hebrews chapter 1 or in Hebrews chapter 2. Not really. I sought only to emphasize the words at Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 1:13, respectively, "to which of the angels did he..." and "to which of the angels had he..." in my commentary. I suppose I could have written instead "to which [one] of the angels did he..." and "to which [one] of the angels had he...," in lieu of "to which of the [other] angels did he..." and "to which of the [other] angels had he...," but the context of these two Bible passages indicates, as I read the Bible text, that Jesus is a member of the group to which the apostle Paul refers called "angels."

@peacedog wrote:

You offered up some examples (NBA, Kentucky Derby), but in each case you've significantly altered the structure of the sentence, omitting a significant element that appears in the NWT (which appears to be your bible of choice):

nwt: "to which one of the angels did he ever say"

eggnog: "to which of the horses will the purse be given"?

and: "to which NBA team will the championship trophy be awarded"

The verse in Hebrews doesn't say "to which of the angels WILL GOD SAY.....". This is a completely different sentence.

The verse in Hebrews says "to which of the angels DID GOD *EVER* SAY....."

@djeggnog wrote:

What you say is true. My examples weren't very good, that is, if I was talking about the word "ever" as you seem to be (which I wasn't).

@peacedog wrote:

You go on to harp on the significance of the word "one" in Hebrews 1:5 and 1:13....

Presumably you are unaware that the NWT has inserted the word "one" into the verse. Grab your Kingdom Interlinear or just compare with any unbiased translation. This being the case, there is no reason to discuss the word.

Instead of discussing this question as it relates to Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 1:13, you have clearly become argumentative here and it’s really not necessary since I am only going to respond to your questions consistent with my previous remarks.

Objection #1: You didn’t like the inclusion of the word "other" in my "commentary on these two verses.

Objection #2: You didn’t like the fact that the NWT inserts renders these verses "which one" and not just "which," frowning upon the word "one."

Objection #3: You decided that we should be debating the word "ever" used in these verses for some reason.

If you should think that you are going to force me or (maybe) shame me by characterizing my remarks as "harping" on something, when all I’ve been doing here is merely posting responses to your question, you need to know that this "strategy" of yours will not meet with success.

Then you go on to renew your third objection:

@peacedog wrote:

You failed to respond to a question in my previous post. You quoted the KJV at which point I asked you to explain the words "at any time"....

Again, please explain the meaning of "at any time" in the above statements.

@djeggnog wrote:

On what basis would you be presuming anything as to what I know or don't know? I'll let you grab your Kingdom Interlinear Bible to do whatever comparisons you may wish. You're talking about apples here and I oranges.

@peacedog wrote:

Erm, how about on the basis that you're harping on a word in your NWT that doesn't exist in the Greek. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and presumed you didn't realize the word you were building a case around isn't even in the original bible verse. Did I presume incorrectly? Perhaps you did realize what you were doing and were simply being.... dishonest.

@djeggnog wrote:

Would that be according to the CEV or according to the NWT? I think the former, but in this thread, the focus is on using the NWT to prove that it supports the Trinity doctrine.

@peacedog wrote:

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?

@djeggnog wrote:

I have read John's prologue many times and I understand what John 1:1 means, that Jesus existed at the beginning of Jehovah's creative works, for we read at John 1:3 concerning Jesus: "All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence."

@peacedog wrote:

If this is true, then when Deut 32 was penned, Jesus existed, was "a god" (according to you) and was "with God". In which case you have a problem, given that Jah said THERE ARE NO GODS TOGETHER WITH HIM.

@djeggnog wrote:

Why do you so conclude? Jesus was a god when at his begettal, and the only time that he was not a god was when his life had been transferred by God to the human embryo in which he lived for 33-1/2 years until he died in that body and was raised up in a different spiritual body on the third day after that body was forever lost to him in death. When he was raised up by God, the was no longer a mortal angelic god, but became an immortal angelic God, so nothing that one reads at Deuteronomy 32:39 affects Jehovah's credibility, for while there were certainly angelic gods in the invisible heavens that ministered to God, Jehovah is referring to Gods like himself -- Gods having immortality, which He had not given to anyone else at that time, but did give to His only-begotten son some 1,505 years after Moses.

@peacedog wrote:

Newsflash, Jehovah's credibility is not at issue. The credibility of the WTS and the NWT are. God said there are no other gods together with him (Deut 32:39). John 1:1 says (in your bible) there was another god with him. Period. Case closed.

Repeating the above question (for the sake of context):

@djeggnog wrote:

Would that be according to the CEV or according to the NWT? I think the former, but in this thread, the focus is on using the NWT to prove that it supports the Trinity doctrine.

@peacedog wrote:

Lol. According to both, actually. The NWT and the CEV say the same thing, remember? One is worded as a rhetorical question ("To which of the angels did God *EVER* say...") and the other as an equivalent assertive ("God never said to any angel").

@djeggnog wrote:

You're still anxious to discuss the CEV here. I'm not.

@peacedog wrote:

Red Herring. I couldn't care less what translation we use. As stated, the NWT and CEV (and NIV, KJV, NLT, NASB, etc, etc, etc) all say the same thing in these verses. Some are worded as a rhetorical (negative assertion); others are worded as an equivalent assertive.

Your inability to grasp the basic concept of a rhetorical question is stunning...

I do not wish you to get yourself all worked up about any of this. My interest is in facilitating the discussion that we were having here regarding the legitimate issues that you and others here have raised in connection with this thread using the NWT, and not the CEV, the NIV, the KJV, the NLT, the NASB, the XYZ or any other Bible translation. I think this is all a quibble, but you might think otherwise, and I’m fine with that, and if the "case" should truly be "closed," as you say it is, then why do you persist in repeating yourself over and over and over again?

@djeggnog wrote:

As the apostle John explains at John 2:21, Jesus wasn't referring to his own physical body, but he was rather making reference there to "the temple of his body." Note how the apostle Paul's own words at 1 Corinthians 6:19 makes this point clear: "Do you not know that the body of you people is [the] temple of the holy spirit within you, which you have from God?"

@peacedog wrote:

And just how is this point made clear? At John 2:21 Jesus spoke of "the temple of his body". 1 Cor 6:19 speaks of "the temple of the holy spirit within you". Apples and oranges...

@djeggnog wrote:

Also, Paul makes the very same point at 1 Corinthians 3:16: "Do you not know that you people are God’s temple, and that the spirit of God dwells in you?" And so when was this "temple of the holy spirit" raised up?

It was on the third day when Jesus gave life to the "lifeless corpse" of the "body" of Christians that had been gathered together in that room, for at John 20:21-23 Jesus animated that "body" when he said the following: "'Just as the Father has sent me forth, I also am sending you.' And after he said this he blew upon them and said to them: 'Receive holy spirit. If you forgive the sins of any persons, they stand forgiven to them; if you retain those of any persons, they stand retained.'"

@peacedog wrote:

How is this relevant? At John 2:21 Jesus spoke of "the temple of his body". 1 Cor 3:16 speaks of "God's temple". Apples and oranges...

Jesus spoke of a "temple" that would be "destroyed" and that he would "raise" in three days. John said that the "temple" Jesus was referring to was the temple "of his body".... And just how is this point made clear? At John 2:21 Jesus spoke of "the temple of his body". 1 Cor 6:19 speaks of "the temple of the holy spirit within you". Apples and oranges...

@djeggnog wrote:

There are no apples and oranges. As I see it, what we have here is really just a misunderstanding on your part of what John 2:21 means. You see, Jesus forever gave up his body as a ransom to benefit those that exercise faith in this provision, which is why God was not able to raise Jesus up again in that body for that would defeat the whole reason for his being sent to earth to die for the sins of the world. Without a ransom sacrifice, there is no salvation. Get it?

This is the substance of the gospel, @peacedog, and if you don't get this, then you're in spiritual darkness debating and arguing with folks about whether God and Jesus are two of the three "Persons" of a trinity until "the sign of the Son of man" becomes manifest, at which point you could well be numbered among those weeping and gnashing their teeth because they thought believing God to be a Trinity would be enough to save them instead of their doing the will of the Father so that they might be saved.

@peacedog wrote:

"lifeless corpse" of the "body" of Christians..... ?

"Jesus animated that "body" when he said..... ??

Yeah, the "misunderstanding" is all mine and I'm the one who's in "spiritual darkness".... lol

You are not alone, @peacedog, in being in spiritual darkness. But there is still time remaining so that you can make your mind over and prove to yourself "the perfect will of God." (Romans 12:2) You cannot afford to permit your mind to be adulterated by false religious dribble, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, for the release that only true Christians receive by ransom cleanses them from all sin and spurs them to zeal for fine works. (Titus 2:14)

It is the new world of righteousness that God loved so much actually that motivated him to allow his only-begotten son, Jesus, to provide the legal basis for establishing that new world by means of which ransom those showing themselves appreciative of receiving the release by fine works in acceptance of this free gift from God will be among those that will form the nuclear of this new world. (John 3:16; Romans 3:24)

Absolutely no one -- not you, not anyone -- is going to be saved by their putting faith in the Trinity doctrine. Even if one should believe in the Trinity -- like you, like so many others -- what would one say to someone that should ask why it is that Jesus didn't seem to think it important to tell any of the apostles -- at the latest when holy spirit was poured out upon them and others on that Pentecost day in 33 AD -- that he was really the true God, one "Person" of a three "Persons" of a Trinity? Why did this revelation held back by heaven until 325 AD, until after the last apostle (John) had died during the first century AD? If the Trinity doctrine were a part of the good news that Christians were to preach, why wasn't it preached during the first century AD by Jesus and his apostle? Why did heaven wait until the fourth century AD to reveal this particular doctrine as good news?

On the one hand, @peacedog, I thank my God, Jehovah, for the free gift that He’s given me, and it is for this very reason that I became a minister of the good news in appreciation for the undeserved kindness that He extended toward me, for it is only those to whom this ministry of the reconciliation has been entrusted by Christ that will become recipients of the ransom and of God’s free gift. You, on the other hand, can thank me later for pointing you to that narrow gate and cramped road that leads to life. (Matthew 7:14)

@djeggnog

peacedog

djeggnog:

Lots of typing, and yet so little to say....

Objection #1: You didn’t like the inclusion of the word "other" in my "commentary on these two verses.

Objection #2: You didn’t like the fact that the NWT inserts renders these verses "which one" and not just "which," frowning upon the word "one."

Objection #3: You decided that we should be debating the word "ever" used in these verses for some reason.

1) I said nothing about liking or disliking, actually. I simply pointed out that your inclusion of the word "other" changed the meaning of the verse, as you admitted:

me: "As I laid out in a previous post, the verse without your commentary excludes ANY angel; the verse with your commentary INCLUDES an angel."

eggnog: "This is true."

Is it common practice for you to include words in your commentary that change the meaning of the text?

2) Again, I said nothing about liking or disliking. I simply pointed out that you were building an argument around a word that isn't in the Greek. You then went on to defend your use of a word that doesn't exist in the original bible verse.

It is common practice for you to build an exegetical argument based on words that don't appear in the original verse?

It appears that your preference is for the nwt OVER the Greek... Is this so?

3) "For some reason"...? Is it unusual that I should ask about a word that appears in the original verse that you chose to ignore in your commentary?

Is it common practice for you to overlook words in the original bible text that affect the meaning of the verse?

5For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

13But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

Again, please explain the meaning of "at any time" in the above statements.

Now, I realize your (feigned) concern over discussing verses from any translation other than the nwt, so allow me to rephrase my question:

5For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: “You are my son; I, today, I have become your father”? And again: “I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son”?

13But 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”?

In keeping with your goal of discussing the Trinity using the nwt, please explain the meaning of the word "ever" in the above statements. Please explain how the word "ever" fits with (and supports) your interpretation of these verses. Perhaps you might even explain why the bible writer chose to include the word, when you yourself have omitted it when "explaining" the meaning of these verses.

Absolutely no one -- not you, not anyone -- is going to be saved by their putting faith in the Trinity doctrine. Even if one should believe in the Trinity -- like you, like so many others -- what would one say to someone that should ask why it is that Jesus didn't seem to think it important to tell any of the apostles -- at the latest when holy spirit was poured out upon them and others on that Pentecost day in 33 AD -- that he was really the true God, one "Person" of a three "Persons" of a Trinity?

So... much.... nonsense.

What I wonder is.... Even if one should believe that Jesus is Michael the archangel -- like you, like so few others -- what would one say to someone that should ask why it is that Jesus didn't seem to think it important to tell any of the apostles -- at the latest when Thomas called Jesus "THE GOD OF ME" on that day prior to the ascension -- that he was WAS NOT THE GOD of anyone, but was actually just an angel?

peacedog

podo:

just a comment on the Scripture will be suffice

My comment would be that I see nothing in these several verses that conflicts with my position on the biblical nature of Jesus.

Thank you for agreeing that Jesus is not the Jehovah of the Old Testament...

Podo, do not misconstrue my words. I doubt very much that my views on the nature of Jesus or the identify of "Jehovah" support your own. An objective study of the bible has led me to the conclusion that the nature of the Son is DEITY, as the nature of the Father is DEITY.