So Finger what is the consequence in your opinion if a person chooses the Unitarian or Pentecostal idea of Jesus.
TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else
by UnDisfellowshipped 457 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
UnDisfellowshipped
Designs,
If you don't mind me replying to your question:
Jesus Himself answered the question of "What happens to someone who does not believe in Jesus' TRUE IDENTITY" at John 8:24, where, according to the NIV and NLT, Christ said: "If you do not believe that I am the one that I claim to be, you will die in your sins."
-
designs
Undies-
Now we are back to the age old question Which Jesus, there are dozens of views and opinions even within socalled main stream churches, and like the Pentecostals and Unitarians etc. all claim they have it right.
Fun no!
-
UnDisfellowshipped
All claim to have it right. True. That is why each person should study the Scriptures like the Noble-Minded Beroeans and pray to ask for God's guidance (if you believe in God) and you should NOT blindly follow men or an organization when they try to tell you what you HAVE to believe.
You need to test all things and compare all claims to the Bible and see if those things are truly taught in the Scriptures.
The purpose of this thread is to get people to think and reason on the Scriptures for themselves and NOT blindly follow others.
-
djeggnog
@UnDisfellowshipped:
I apologize if you misunderstood the questions I was asking. I was asking rhetorical questions that Jehovah's Witnesses might ASK those who believe in the Trinity (and in fact some of those questions HAVE BEEN ASKED by JW's and by other non-Trinitarians in this thread).
Your questions weren't rhetorical at all! You put those questions forward as if they would not or would not be answered by me, and yet I responded to them. I note that through this entire thread, your arguments for the trinity become increasingly weaker, so that you resorted to strawmans and questions having nothing at all to do with your using the NWT to prove the Trinity doctrine, which you have utterly failed to do.
So, in those posts, I was addressing THOSE points that were brought up earlier in this thread (not necessarily by you). I did not specifically address those posts to you djeggnog. Those were meant for ALL of those people who have been participating in this thread and have brought up those questions/arguments.
That's just nonsense, @UnDisfellowshipped, and you know it. You know full well that I have been your chief respondent in this thread, and if you were, in fact, addressing points "brought up earlier in this thread" other than by me, then the opportunities to have clarified this fact have all disappeared into the ether since it is too late now to be making such inane clarifications of their purpose. Here's what you initially wrote, and a kind of summary of this thread:
TRINITY Challenge using ONLY the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures -- Let us debate and reason on the Scriptures about whether God Almighty is a Trinity, or is only One Person.... I challenged BANE to a debate on the Trinity using only the New World Translation. He has yet to respond. So I am now issuing that challenge to him and ANYONE else who would accept.
On the same "Page 1" of this thread, you promised @EndOfMysteries -- who cited Deuteronomy 32:8, 9, Amos 5:25, 26, Acts 7:42, Mark 12:26 and Psalm 110:1 -- you promised to "go over them and let you know what I think later, but, for whatever reason, you didn't do that.
On "Page 2" of this thread, you cited Isaiah 43:10, Isaiah 44:8 and Deuteronomy 32:39, as well as John 1:1, John 1:18 and John 20:27-29 in order to get this thread "back more on topic," but it was also on Page 2 that I joined this thread, asking you to "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" using the NWT. I then numbered eight of the 14 items you presented and in this thread we discussed at length all eight of these items, but as for the remaining six "excluded" items, I indicated that "you don't get to 'stack the deck' by tossing into this discussion things that are totally irrelevant to it."
The "excluded" items that had initially been included in your list of 14 were as follows:
* Jesus IS Jehovah, but He is NOT The Father or The Spirit.
* The Son is the One who died on the Cross, NOT The Father or The Spirit.
* The Father is the One who sent The Son into the world. (Jesus did NOT send Himself)
* The Son was praying to The Father. (Jesus was NOT praying to Himself)
* While Jesus was on earth (and even after He returned to heaven), The Father had a greater position or rank of authority within the Godhead.
* The Son took on flesh, and became 100% Human in addition to being 100% God. That is why He had certain human limitations while He was on earth.
By "Page 2," @garyneal and @Podobear had both chimed into this thread, and by "Page 3," @peacedog and @leavingwt had all chimed into this thread, so that by "Page 5" I eventually posted my "commentary" on Hebrews chapters 1 and 2, particular in response to one of @peacedog's post. It was on Page 5 that you posted a response regarding my post about the six excluded items and indicated that it was my choice as to how we proceeded in this discussion/debate:
I will do my utmost to make sure I only include information that is relevant to our discussion/debate....
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.
At this point in a subsequent post, you then went on to list in one post the following scriptural citations: Isaiah 45:5, Deuteronomy 32:39, 1 Kings 8:60, Isaiah 44:6-8, Isaiah 43:10, 11, Deuteronomy 4;35, 39, Isaiah 45:21-23, Isaiah 46:9, Joel 2:27, 1 Chronicles 17:20, Deuteronomy 6:4, James 2:19, Galatians 4:8, Romans 1:20, Romans 1:25, Deuteronomy 13:1-5. Then, in a subsequent post, you listed the following citations: John 1:1, 2, John 1:18, John 20:27-29 (again).
I replied to your post as follows:
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.
I specifically indicated that you could consult whatever reference book you wished, but that this discussion would be limited to the NWT, or, to use your words, "we will use only the New World Translation and NO other Watchtower Publications." I didn't make a big deal about this, but you didn't do this.
On "Page 6," in blatant violation of the terms to which we agreed, you paste something from the "Insight" book . You decide to seek agreement on the definition of certain words, and then go on to cite a few scriptures and then you cited 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, followed by Romans 1:25 (again) and Matthew 4:10 and a few other scriptures. At this point, you respond to my "commentary" on Hebrews chapters 1 and 2. I, in turn, address these "definitions" and what you had to say with respect to 1 Corinthians 8:4-6. I even repost something I had earlier posted in response to a post in a different thread that you had evidently not read regarding the Lord Jesus Christ being the archangel Michael. In the meantime, @peacedog on this page and on "Page 7" is vociferously disagreeing with my "commentary" on Hebrews chapters 1 and 2, and specifically my remarks on Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 1:13.
On "Page 8," in connection with your response regarding Deuteronomy 32:39 (and Isaiah 44:6), you decide to violate again the terms that had been established that would govern this discussion/debate by posting various WTS articles. I say nothing. However, you revisit the subtopic of "definitions." On "Page 9," you join @peacedog in arguing my understanding of Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 1:13 to be in error. At one point you decide to use Merriam-Webster. On this same page, @peacedog introduces Jesus' words at John 2:19-21, but we continue to discuss Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 1:13. It is on Page 9 that I digress to make a few remarks based on some of the side comments posted in this thread and in other threads at this same time as well by folks involved in this thread. I then respond to your remarks regarding John 1:1, 2.
On "Page 10," you decide to embed a link to an external webpage, which is another violation of the terms that were established in this thread, but I say nothing. On this page, I point out that no one should be bashing the NWT (as @peacedog had done in his using the CEV) since it was established at the beginning that only the NWT would be used. Then you decide to quote an article from the November 22, 1999 Awake!, another violation of the terms.
On "Page 11," you repeat yourself by citing the same scriptures that you had cited early on in this thread, but your focus on this page is in discussing Romans 1:20 and the meaning of "divine nature and Godship," and also on what it means to "worship." In the meantime, @peacedog is still not clear on my remarks regarding Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 1:13, and that the terms of this discussion/debate is that we would be using the NWT. On "Page 12," I embed a link back to Page 5 of this thread to remind everyone that we have covered the ground that we were still discussing already. It was on this page that @TD asked a question as to when it was that Jesus as made "superior to the angels" and @peacedog continues to indicate his dissatisfaction with my earlier responses.
On "Page 13," I discuss at length the reason for the apostle Thomas' exclamation at John 20:28 over his finally come to realize that Jesus has, in fact, been resurrected, and I specifically respond to a question that @Podobear had put to me regarding John 20:28. Also, @isaacaustin references the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, but I respond to his post.
On "Page 14," I am there responding to one of @Podobear's posts, pointing out that it isn't true that Jehovah God is omnipresent, but that His abode is in the spiritual heavens, and not somewhere in our physical universe, which gets interpreted by @Podobear as if I had really said that Jehovah lives in a "'parallel' universe" (or something to this effect). @yknot makes some comment about prayer, and I point out to her that God doesn't hear the prayers of trinitarians. It is on this same page that you (@UnDisfellowshipped) decide to quote 2 Corinthians 3:3, 6, 8, 15-18 to discuss "the spirit of Jehovah."
On "Page 15," you take me to take for my earlier digression (on Page 9) and then accuse me of claiming that "the truth" is not found in WTS publications, when what I had said was that the truth as Jehovah's Witnesses understand it at that time in found in WTS publications, but when adjustments are made, some of what we read in these publications become dated, old, obsolete, because we do not believe those things to be true any longer. I then respond to some remarks made by@yknot regarding the non-existence of the letter "j" in Hebrew, about "divine nature" and a few other insignificant remarks.
I also address @UnDisfellowshipped's failure to comprehend the Bible's use of figures of speech. I also respond to a couple of @The Finger's posts regarding John 1:1 and the fact that Jesus had been an angel in his prehuman existence before his becoming a man. It is on Page 15 that @yknot decides to quote something from the "Insight" book regarding "divine nature" in violation of the terms of this discussion/debate as she also tells me that she's been one of Jehovah's Witnesses for much longer than I have been, as if even if this were so, her time being in what she refers to as the "conscious class" meant she was more competent than I am as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I say nothing about this to her about her "Insight" book quote though.
On "Page 16," @Podobear quotes something from the "Reconciliation" book, which isn't relevant to the discussion/debate that we are having in this thread, and then @yknot attacks me for using the e-Sword Bibles and the e-Sword commentaries, when I do not use the e-Sword commentaries at all(!) and discusses the "Faith in Action" DVD. Then @elderelite chimes in and suggests that English isn't my first language because he hold a view different than I do about what the Bible says about how disfellowshipped Christians are to be treated (which remarks were a part of my digression (on Page 9). @Undisfellowshipped associates himself with @Podobear's remarks, claiming that I had been rude to him, as he goes on to quote something from the "Insight" book and another WTS publication in violation of the terms to which we agreed would govern this discussion/debate. In the meantime, @Essan takes me to task for being a "M.B.B." because he doesn't like my unwillingness to assist @Podobear in trying to convince a couple of Pentecostal pastors that God isn't omnipresent, and he also rises up in defense of @yknot because he doesn't like my remarks to @yknot.
On "Page 17," I respond to @Essan's assault, as well as to @yknot's disdain over my remarks that don't sit well with her, and I post the text from the opening ten minutes of the "Faith in Action" DVD. On this page, I try to get this thread back on topic by responding to one of your (@UnDisfellowshipped's) posts and at this time ask @yknot to prove that she is in the truth, but she provides in response to the two questions I put to her something she calls "organization answers." On this same page, you posted an article from the "Insight" book, again in violation of the terms of this discussion/debate, to chide me (I guess) for the remarks I had made to @yknot.
On "Page 18," you post yet another article from the "Insight" book, in connection with the Greek word _arche_ used at Revelation 3:14. You clearly lied when you agreed that you would only be using the NWT in this thread, but I'm sure you knew in the beginning that you were being dishonest. In a subsequent post, you cite Psalm 16:9, 10, Acts 13:35, Psalm 40:6, 7, Hebrews 10:5-7, Deuteronomy 32:43 and Hebrews 1:6 in response to my having pointed out to you that the apostle Paul, at Hebrews 2:7, had quoted Psalm 8:5.
On "Page 19," in furtherance of your ideas on the significance of Deuteronomy 32:39 to your argument that the NWT proves the Trinity doctrine, or at least that is what I'm thinking at the time is what you have been seeking to prove in this thread, you mention Isaiah 44:24, John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:10, and, in subsequents post, Acts 13:1-4 and Acts 5:3, 4, 1 Corinthians 12:4-11 and John 16:13-16, because you do not really understand how the holy spirit, an impersonal force, operates in connection with God's will, believing the figure of speech that Jesus and Paul use in personifying the holy spirit to mean that the holy spirit is a "Person" of the so-called "Holy Trinity."
It is on this same Page 19, that @yknot, feeling belittled by me for having pointed out in my posts that she doesn't really know the truth, as was her claim, declares me to be "an imposter or apostate" and issues an apology to you for hijacking your thread. On this page, I respond to your post, but you decide to barrage me with a series of questions, seven of them being strawman arguments, among them questions as to the identity of the one identified as the "Alpha and the Omega," and then tossing into this discussion your thoughts about the "anarthrous predicate noun" that precedes the verb at John 1:1c ("... and the Word was God") per Harner, and the "Colwell Rule," quoting btw from the "Reasoning" book in violation of the terms of this discussion/debate, except it is clear to me that you didn't understand Harner's argument (although you may now after my subsequent post!) because a trinitarian wouldn't use Harner to prove the trinity. But that's what you did!
djeggnog, Who is "The Firstborn, the most high of all the kings of the earth" spoken of at Psalm 89:27?
I'd suggest that you go back through this thread so that you might review my responses to your "rhetorical" questions, and you will find that you have asked this question and I have answered it. Face it, you've not proved the trinity using the NWT.
Regarding my comment that you were violating your own rules by substituting the word "worship" into the NWT's rendering of Hebrews 1:6, I pointed out to you:
[T]he New World Translation -- the Bible translation that you stated at the outset of this thread you would be using to prove that the Bible supports belief in God being a trinity -- does not use the word "worship" at all!
But when you say in reply --
When we agreed on the "rules" for this debate, I very clearly stated that I would be using the New World Translation WITH REFERENCES and FOOTNOTES, and that I would also use the Appendixes of the New World Translation.
-- I never agreed to your using anything but the NWT. Now I don't have to like the fact that you chose to violate your own rules, but you misstate the case here, @UnDisfellowshipped. Remember I've been here with you in this thread from the beginning.
@djeggnog wrote:
Furthermore, God can certainly make a law for human beings that would not have the same "teeth" or would even be "toothless" with regard to the angels of heaven, and, similarly, God can make a law for angelic host that would be totally inapplicable to human beings. For example, whereas it is not unlawful for human beings to engage in sexual relations with someone to whom they have become "one flesh" and procreate, it is unlawful for an angel to engage in sexual relations and procreate with a human being for sexual relations between angels and humans is unnatural. However, a law forbidding an angel to not engage in sexual relations with a human being to whom he is not married would have no teeth and would be totally unnecessary just as a law forbidding a human being from trying to enter the spiritual heavens with his or her flesh-and-blood body would be toothless since this is impossible for a human to do!
@UnDisfellowshipped wrote:
This is a very interesting argument. I have to hand it to you. You are getting somewhat more creative. By saying that God has a DIFFERENT STANDARD of Exclusive Devotion for humans than He has for angels.
That's funny, because at Matthew 4:10, Jesus was SPEAKING TO AN ANGEL (Satan) when He delcared "‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’"
When Jesus was speaking to Satan at Matthew 4:10, was Jesus a man or a angel? I know you cannot answer this and that you must believe as a trinitarian that Jesus was some hybrid -- a "God-man," as it were, even though 1 Corinthians 15:40, 44, 48, says such an idea is just nonsense when there is only a physical body and a spiritual body -- but what Jesus said to Satan was applicable then, but, as I have already pointed out in a previous post, the apostle Paul stated at Hebrews 1:6 that as to this statement --
And let all God's angels do obeisance to him.
-- that is yet future, for this doesn't take effect until God "again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth," meaning during Jesus' second coming.
Also, djeggnog, you have never responded to what I said about ALL HUMANS AND ANGELS WORSHIPING THE LAMB AND THE FATHER at Revelation 5:13-14. And you have never responded to what I said about ALL HUMANS rendering sacred service to The Son of Man at Daniel 7:14.
What you are saying simply isn't true, @UnDisfellowshipped. I believe I have responded to everything you have written, including many of your absurd remarks. As to this question you are asking me regarding Revelation 5:13, 14, and Daniel 7:14, I responded on Page 6 in my Post #63:
Bending the knee to give honor to our king, Jesus Christ, isn't the same as worshipping Jesus, for Christians give honor to Jesus to the glory of God and worship God through Jesus. In fact, Christians honor the Father when they honor the Son. (John 5:22, 23) Similarly, belief in Jesus is in reality putting one's faith in God, the One that sent Jesus, and it is through Jesus and not to Jesus that Christians make their approach to God. (John 12:44; Hebrews 7:25) Also, it is through Jesus that "the 'Amen' [is said] to God for glory." (2 Corinthians 1:20)
You actually quote from my Post #63 on Page 9 in your Post #2727, and, in a subsequent post, I again quote something from this same Post #63 on Page 10 in my Post #68, which in the post in which I also respond to your follow-up question, "How do you know the "bending the knee" to Jesus is not the same as worship?" If you're not willing to take care to read my responses, then you have no legitimate right to complaint that I haven't responded to any of your questions.
In addition, Jesus commanded ALL PEOPLE to honor The Son JUST AS [or, "to the same degree as"] they honor The Father. "Just as" means "Just Like" or "To the same degree as."
@djeggnog wrote:
As to the addition of the word "other" used in the NWT, so what? You are supposed to be proving the trinity using the NWT, which Bible includes the word "other" at Colossians 1:16, 17. These were the terms that you set. Deal with it! We're supposed to be discussing what the Bible teaches according to the NWT and not what statements a Bible study aid like the "Reasoning" book or the "Insight" volumes might include in order to clarify what one reads in the Bible. If you cannot follow your own rules, then I'm going to withdraw from this thread.
@Undisfellowshipped wrote:
djeggnog, first of all, I did NOT address that post to you.
Ok.
Secondly, the New World Translation itself shows that those words were NOT inspired original words, because they put them in SQUARE BRACKETS.
So now I suppose it's ok for me to assume here that you are now addressing this previous post of yours to me. Why would you even bother to say that you didn't address that particular post to me when you are doing it now? Like you, I am an adult, and you're being disingenuous here.
Why should we base our arguments on NON-INSPIRED WORDS which were NOT WRITTEN by the Inspired Writers?
Again, is would seem fair to say that you are now addressing this previous post of yours to me.
@djeggnog wrote:
While at Revelation 1:17, Jesus is there referred to as "the First and the Last," it is to Jehovah and not to Jesus that Revelation 22:13 refers.
@Undisfellowshipped wrote:
Based on what authority do you say this?
I speak by means of the authority given me by God's holy spirit.
@djeggnog wrote:
If you are concerned how the title "the First and the Last" could be applied to both Jehovah and Jesus, consider this: At Hebrews 11:24-26, the apostle Paul refers to Moses as the "Christ." You don't have a problem accepting that the leadership of Moses over God's people as God's anointed one was prefigured by Jesus Christ as God's anointed one, do you? At Matthew 17:11, Jesus, in referring to his second cousin, John the Baptist, tells his disciples that "Elijah has already come." You don't have a problem accepting that the ministry of John the Baptist was prefigured by the prophet Elijah, do you? I suspect figures of speech and anything mentioned in the Bible that foreshadows realities haven't really been your forte.
@Undisfellowshipped wrote:
First of all, on what authority or basis do you claim that Moses was called "The Christ" at Hebrews 11:24-26[?]
I speak by means of the authority given me by God's holy spirit.
Whenever I read that passage, I have ALWAYS understood it to mean that Moses gave up his material possessions and pleasures in order to pursue THE FUTURE MESSIAH.
Then you need to stop guessing and submit to having a Bible study with someone competent to teach you what things the Bible teaches. I can tell you that the Bible neither teaches or supports the teaching of the Trinity doctrine.
What kind of "prefiguring" or "foreshadowing" are you claiming is happening in the SAME BOOK OF REVELATION when in some Verses, Jehovah is called The First and The Last, and in other Verses, Jesus is called The First and The Last?
I would recommend that before you even try to comprehend the deeper things in the Bible, that you first take time out to learn the fundamental teachings of the Bible. I have responded to this question, but you aren't prepared to accept my response because you do not comprehend the scriptural reasons on which my response is based.
I suspect reading the Book of Revelation IN CONTEXT hasn't really been your forte.
I am more familiar with the meaning of the book of Revelation than perhaps most Jehovah's Witnesses with whom you have spoken. What are you saying to me? Actually, you need to accept this fact: That since July 25, 2010, when you asserted that you would prove using the NWT Bible that it supports the Trinity doctrine, you have been unable to do so. The various scriptures that you have presented in this thread have not demonstrate your contention and you have tried in many ways to make your case, but have been unable to do so. We have been 21 days at this (and counting) in this thread and yet you have consistently come up short. All of your speculation and conjecture is certainly not the same as truth. You didn't provide truth and your arguments have proven to be both weak and ineffective.
Jesus Himself answered the question of "What happens to someone who does not believe in Jesus' TRUE IDENTITY" at John 8:24, where, according to the NIV and NLT, Christ said: "If you do not believe that I am the one that I claim to be, you will die in your sins."
We are now at "Page 20," and you again violate the NWT-only rule that is supposed to govern this discussion/debate. Whatever. Except by your reading into what the apostle John writes in recording Jesus' words at John 8:24, he says nothing at all in this verse to suggest that he is triune. What did Jesus claim to be? What did his apostle Peter claim Jesus to be at Matthew 16:15-17? Let's read this passage together:
[Jesus] said to [his disciples]: "You, though, who do you say I am?" In answer Simon Peter said: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." In response Jesus said to [Peter]: "Happy you are, Simon son of Jo'nah, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in the heavens did."
Please do not let the point of this passage escape your notice, @UnDisfellowshipped: No matter what you choose to believe about Jesus being a part of a trinity and all, Jesus tells Peter on this occasion at Matthew 16:17 that "his Father who is in the heavens" -- Jehovah -- had revealed to Peter Jesus' identity, namely, that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God." No amount of spin on your part is going to change this. Also, at John 10:36, Jesus describes himself at being "the Son of God."
Now some of Jesus' contemporaries falsely accused me of making himself equal to God (why?) because Jesus was "calling God his own Father," and thus, for this reason, they felt that by Jesus claiming God as being his Father was "making himself equal to God." But how does the apostle John identify Jesus at John 20:31? What are John's exact words? These:
But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, you may have life by means of his name.
You wrote:
The purpose of this thread is to get people to think and reason on the Scriptures for themselves and NOT blindly follow others.
No, the purpose of this thread has not been met by you. You want to spin Jesus' words at John 8:24, but you cannot convincingly do so. The onus is upon you, @UnDisfellowshipped, to prove that the Bible supports the Trinity since, as I have said and I continue to say, that it does not do so, so you should really just chalk this up to an argument that you were unable to win.
So with this, I think I should now withdraw from this discussion and leave you to accept the truth about the identity of Jesus Christ or to continue trying to deceive others into believe Jesus to be a part of a trinity, for the only way that anyone is going to be saved and not die in their sins is for them to "publicly declare that 'word in your own mouth,' that Jesus is Lord, and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, for there is "not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved." (Romans 10:9; Acts 4:12)
@djeggnog
-
UnDisfellowshipped
djeggnog,
I can't say I am surprised that you are bowing out. You have been saying you were thinking of bowing out since the first few posts you made in this thread. You have also attempted to add additional "rules" or "boundaries" that we did not agree to.
Your comments about the Watchtower Publications, Penises, Disfellowshipping, Spirits, and other off-topic subjects, and your rude insults and ad hominem attacks have taken this thread far off its original course.
You ridicule and belittle and judge people as if you have some special authority to do so.
You are now attempting to divert attention from my actual arguments by making an issue out of posts I made IN RESPONSE TO OTHERS and which were NOT addressed to you. I never made an agreement with anyone but you to only use the NWT.
If you can't handle a Bible debate without resorting to ad hominem and name-calling and propaganda tactics, then perhaps it is for the best that you bow out.
-
Essan
It's a pity there isn't a poll function on this site for debates such as this to indicate which view the readers feel had been successfully argued. This would stop people from djeggnog from deluding themselves that they are actually making any headway or indeed any sense. I don't say this specifically with regard to the Trinity or as a judgement on the Trinity doctrine, but simply on the quality of the arguments presented.
I'm agnostic about the Trinity, because I personally feel that the Bible is ambiguous on this and find that in itself very telling, but I will say that the Trinitarians almost always make an infinitely superior logical and Scriptural defense of this idea than JW's such as djeggnog do of their belief. In fact, JW's tend to be seriously outmatched in debate on pretty much all doctrinal subjects. What amazes me however, is the degree of arrogance JW's show during a debate and that they are apparently oblivious to the fact that their arguments are being systematically torn apart and exposed as nonsense.
It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
It's even more sad when I consider that I also used to think like that at one time.
The shame.
-
UnDisfellowshipped
That is a great idea! We need to have a "POLL" option where readers can vote on who was ahead and made a better argument in this debate.
-
UnDisfellowshipped
End Of Mysteries,
I apologize for the delay in replying.
You said:
I'll just show a few scriptures, which without being in 'interlinear' will show how the current teachings are not in harmony with the bible and there is much confusion over the matter.
The bible itself can clear up the mess with a LOT of faith and study, and if God opens your eyes.
The Song of Moses - important, since it's even mentioned in Revelation
Duet 32:8, 9 - When the Most High gave the nations an inheritance, When he parted the SONS OF ADAM from one another, He proceeded to FIX THE BOUNDARY OF THE PEOPLES WITH REGARD TO THE NUMBER OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL. 9 For JEHOVAH'S SHARE is his people; Jacob is THE ALLOTMENT THAT HE INHERITS.
Amos 5:25 - 25 Was it sacrifices and gift offerings that YOU people brought near to me in the wilderness for forty years, O house of Israel? 26 And YOU will certainly carry Sak′kuth YOUR king and Kai′wan, YOUR images, the star of YOUR god, whom YOU made for yourselves
Acts 7:42 - So God turned and handed them over to render sacred service to the army of heaven, just as it is written in the book of the prophets, ‘It was not to me that YOU offered victims and sacrifices for forty years in the wilderness, was it, O house of Israel? 43 But it was the tent of Mo′loch and the star of the god Re′phan that YOU took up, the figures which YOU made to worship them.
Mark 12:26 - 26 But concerning the dead, that they are raised up, did YOU not read in the book of Moses, in the account about the thornbush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob’? 27 He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living. YOU are much mistaken.”
Ps 110:1 - 110 The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is:
“Sit at my right hand
Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.” (WHO IS DAVID'S LORD?)There is much more can post, I am not free to say anything really about this subject, I will caution that your first inclinations will change probably AND that you must be "quick to hear, SLOW to speak".
What I posted should just get you to think that what you've been taught may not be even in harmony with the scriptures, and encourage to read and research them.
MY REPLY:
I'm not sure I know what point you are trying to make with Deuteronomy 32:8-9?
If you are trying to say that the "Most High" is different from "Jehovah", then you should keep in mind Genesis 14:22 which says that Jehovah is the Most High.
This passage is teaching that Jehovah, who is the Most High, separated the land and people of Israel to BE HIS in a special way that no other nation was, a people for His Name.
Amos 5:25 is teaching that Jehovah, the Almighty, is going to punish His people Israel for sinning and violating His Covenant, and worshiping other gods. And they started doing this even in the Wilderness when He first led them out of Egypt.
Acts 7:42 is teaching the same thing.
In Mark 12:26, Jesus is teaching that those faithful ones of old who have died, are still alive with God in Paradise and their bodies will be raised in the future.
(An alternate understanding of this, which the JW's teach, is that Jesus was simply saying that those faithful ones of old who have died are in Jehovah's MEMORY, and He still thinks of them as if they are alive, and so He will definitely resurrect them in the future).
Psalm 110 is where One Divine Person called Jehovah is speaking and making a promise to a 2nd Divine Person called "The Lord of David".
Jehovah promises to make "The Lord" sit at His right hand and to make Him a Priest forever after the manner of Melchizedek.
All of this is explained very well in the Bible book of Hebrews.
-
EndofMysteries
Undisfellowshipped - you pretty much just repeated everything the scriptures appear to say on the outside. Since I was showing a few examples of how our understanding of God and almost everyones is much confused, I'll elaborate a little more only on those scriptures. Could add many more, and I say that so those reading will know that if they do personal study on this subject and looking up the scriptures, they will find more very similar.
Duet 32 - A few big points here, but without going off topic, it shows nations were given as inheritance, if he inherited Israel, from whom? then B. who inherited the 'other' countries?
Amos - consider what is recorded in the bible, what the israelites did, even today their 'star' symbol. It makes you wonder WHO'S orders and WHO they were following. In Ex or Deut, as soon as they did the Golden Calf, the scriptures show they were HANDED OVER to ANOTHER BEING TO LEAD THEM.
Jesus is saying the God of Abraham in Mark, they are mistaken about him and who he is. They dont' even understand the scriptures which they possess.
PS 110 - If God Almighty, or the Most High was David's God, then who is the one speaking to him?
This is just tip of iceberg