Dakota,
If we cannot trust that God can preserve His word, then what can we trust? If the Catholic Church added that verse, then what else could they have added? If you follow these thoughts down to conclusion then you will come up with 2 things: (1) The Bible has been corrupted; (2) God cannot preserve His Word. Since, according to you, the Bible has been corrupted, then Jesus's own Words have failed. Matthew 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." And then we can no longer do this: 2 Timothy 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." If the Catholic Church were to add a verse like 1 John 5:7 (which really doesn't need to be there), then why didn't they just adjust the Bible to their doctrines? Scripture still condemns the Catholic Church. The Bible's teachings is in many cases the complete opposite of the Catholic Churches teachings. What was stopping the Word of God from being tampered with then?
The Trinity
by meadow77 740 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
SwedishChef
-
herk
SwedishChef,
Bruce Metzger is just about the most respected biblical scholar alive today. Who do you respect? You mentioned that there are other scholars, and you said they don't agree with Metzger. Well, what exactly do they say? The more you check into this, as I have, the more you will see that the majority agree with Metzger and not with you. You will also discover that the Textus Receptus and the KJV are simply loaded with flaws. At a time like this, when so many better translations are available, a person is surely handicapped by using the KJV. It is no way to know God and Christ as well as possible.
The majority of Bibles agree with Metzger, as illustrated by the following sampling. It should be noted that the last mentioned, the Wycliffe translation, is much older than the KJV.
He who was manifested in the flesh. (American Standard Version)
He was made visible in human flesh. (Amplified Bible, preferred rendering)
He who was seen in the flesh. (Bible in Basic English)
Christ came as a human. (Contemporary English Version)
Which was manifested in the flesh. (Douay-Rheims Bible)
He was manifested in the flesh. (English Standard Version)
He was manifested in the flesh. (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
He who was revealed in the flesh. (New American Standard Bible)
He was shown to us in a human body. (New Century Version)
He appeared in a body. (New International Version)
Christ appeared in the flesh. (New Living Version)
He was revealed in flesh. (New Revised Standard)
He was manifested in the flesh. (Revised Standard Version)
He appeared in human form. (Today's English Version)
That thing that was showed in flesh. (Wycliffe's Translation)The context doesn't support Trinitarianism at all. The apostle John is the speaker from verses 1 to 7. In verse 7 he quotes from the Old Testament concerning Christ. But Christ doesn't speak until verse 11. Another voice speaks in verse 8. You say it is Christ, but most translations show that it is God, not Christ. Then, the voice of John returns in verse 9.
Verse 8 says the Alpha and Omega is God the Amighty. In verse 11, the KJV seems to apply Alpha and Omega to Christ. But scholars recognize the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 11 as spurious. It isn't found in the American Standard Version, Douay-Rheims Bible, Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, New Century Version, New English Bible, New Living Translation, New Revised Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, Todays English Version, and a host of other versions.
In verse 8, many Hebrew translations produced from 1599 to 1979 say "Jehovah" instead of "the Lord," showing clearly that over several centuries scholars have been aware that the verse does not apply to Christ.
Christian conquerors are "sons" of the Alpha and Omega, according to Revelation 21:6, 7. That is never said of the relationship between Christ and his followers. Jesus spoke of them as his "brothers," not his sons. (Matthew 12:50; 25:40; Hebrews 2:11) On the other hand, the "brothers" of Christ are referred to as "sons of God." (Galatians 3:26; 4:6) So, all the evidence supports the conclusion that the title Alpha and Omega applies to Almighty God, the Father, and not to the Son.
It isn't wise to reject the Jewish understanding of Genesis 1:26. For centuries they had the correct understanding. Jesus didn't change what Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah and others believed. He said, "We worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews." (John 4:22)
A plural noun in Hebrew is accompanied by plural verbs when the word is meant to be numerically plural. But Hebrew has another type of plural. In English we call it the plural of majesty. It isn't usually accompanied by plural verbs. Elohim when applied to God is such a word. It suggests the uniqueness of God, not that there is something plural about his nature or being. Persons who really want to know the truth about God will not reject this established fact about the Hebrew language, as if he or she knows the Hebrew language better than those who actually speak it.
It is only in the minds of Trinitarians that the singular for "name" in Matthew 28:19 means equality. Revelation 14:1 speaks of "the Lamb" and those "having his name and the name of his Father written on their foreheads." Their names are not the same. The Lord's prayer is addressed to the Father and asks that his name be hallowed. (Matthew 6:9) Jesus also has a name. (Matthew 1:21) The Father should not be called "Jesus," and the Son should not be called "Jehovah." Neither one bears the name "the Holy Spirit." It should be easy to see that Matthew 28:19 has a meaning very different than the one you choose to give it. It says nothing about equality, but speaks instead of basic teachings that must be accepted by those who are baptized.
Regarding 1 John 5:7 you wrote:
Notify me on what the "better translations" are.
The following are just some of many translations that omit the sentence: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
American Standard Version, Bible in Basic English, Contemporary English Version, Darby Translation, English Standard Version, Gods Word Translation, Hebrew Names Version, Holman Christian Standard Bible, Latin Vulgate, New American Standard Bible, New Century Version, New Living Translation, New Revised Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, Todays English Version, Wesleys New Testament, and World English Bible.
Herk
-
herk
Undisfellowshipped,
You wrote:
I am just notifying everyone that I am going to busy for a couple of days.
Just so you know, most of the rest of us are also very busy. We have full time jobs and other responsibilities, and some of us are fully occupied in this thread and others. So, the playing field is quite equal.
Contrary to what you said, I do understand what you were saying about Jesus and the Father being differentiated when they are mentioned in the same verses. The fact is that your argument has no merit. It proves nothing except that the Father and Jesus are two separate persons, something that non-Trinitarians believe very strongly.
You wrote:
Just because I did not explain my points very well on a few comments, and because I did post one point that was not very good (the Revelation 5:13 point), I don't think that should be a cause for people to accuse me of "being on drugs", "being dishonest", and "intentionally spreading falsehoods".
I wonder if you can get away from this. I've already explained why I wrote as I did. Your eyes should be open to the error on your side as well as on the other side. By continuing to show that your feelings are hurt, you give the impression of carrying a grudge. I'm sure you don't, so please try to move on.
The fact is, you were greatly mistaken in your explanation of Revelation 5:13. You tried to read something into it that isn't there, and that is one of my biggest complaints against Trinitarians. You people constantly do that, and then you try to turn the tables on us by telling us that we are the ones who are not reading the Bible correctly. And then, instead of admitting when they're wrong, Trinitarians often say something like, "Well, maybe I didn't explain myself correctly."
There is no reasonable person who will agree with your explanations of John 17:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6. Again you are trying to force the texts to say something that they just don't. We should be willing to accept what the Scriptures simply say. I'll deal with 1 Corinthians 8:6 further down.
First, look at what you've done to John 17:3: Jesus was the speaker. He was praying to God his Father in heaven. He addressed him as "you." He called him "you, the only true God." But that isn't good enough for Trinitarians. They want Jesus to say what they believe, not what he believes. So they desperately try to find other passages in the Bible that will possibly water down Jesus' statement or put new meaning into it. How can they expect to truly know God and Christ if they continually try to force their own theories into the Scriptures?
And, then, they often misinterpret those other passages that they run to for support. For example, look closely at 1 Timothy 6:15, 16. You apply the titles "only Ruler" and "King of kings" to Christ. But even Trinitarian scholars do not do that. The New Living Translation, for example, says: "For at the right time Christ will be revealed from heaven by the blessed and only almighty God, the King of kings and Lord of lords. He alone can never die, and he lives in light so brilliant that no human can approach him. No one has ever seen him, nor ever will. To him be honor and power forever. Amen."
Here's another example among many that could be mentioned: "His appearing will be brought about at the right time by God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and the Lord of lords." (Todays English Version)
And still another: "The appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in His own time. He is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings, and the Lord of lords." (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
Your reference to Revelation 17:14 is not harmonious with Jesus' own statements about himself. Even before his death and resurrection he stated "All things have been delivered to me by my Father." (Matthew 11:27) He later said, "All authority has been given me." (Matthew 28:18) Ephesians 1:19-22, speaking of God, states: "He raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him as head over all things to the church." And Philippians 2:9 adds that "God highly exalted him, and bestowed on him the name which is above every name."
This easily explains why "the Lamb" is called "Lord of lords and King of kings." But such titles do not put him in the category of Almighty God. Elaboration is given at 1 Corinthians 15:27, 28: "For he has put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he says, 'All things are put in subjection,' it is evident that he is excepted who put all things in subjection to him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to him, so that God may be all in all."
You and I have already discussed Revelation 15. But you ask who is the one in verse 4 who "alone is holy." As I've already explained in previous posts, that chapter makes plain that God is seated on the throne and the Lamb is in the vicinity of the throne as are other heavenly persons. The one who alone is holy is God the Father, not Christ, in that context. It isn't reasonable or scriptural to say that two or three persons are meant when just one of them is said to be "holy alone."
Acts 3:14 and Revelation 3:7 are superfluous as proofs that Christ is the one who "alone" is holy. Aside from Christ, others are called "holy ones." In fact, Jude 14 says, "Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of his holy ones." That doesn't mean that God is composed of thousands of persons. And it also doesn't take away from the fact that God the Father is holy in a sense that is unique from the holiness of all other persons.
As for 1 Corinthians 8:6, why should you have a problem distinguishing between God and Lord? The text specifically states, "There is but one God, the Father." It does not say there are one God, the Father and the Son. Nor does it say there are one God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It limits godhood to only one Person, namely, the Father. Then Paul adds, "and one Lord, Jesus Christ."
Now, please think for a moment: If "Lord" also means "God," then Paul was saying "There is one God, the Father, and there is one God, Jesus Christ." Obviously, in this context, God and Lord are not equivalents. Otherwise, Paul was teaching that there are two Gods. The only reason anyone would resort to even thinking that way is to prove a doctrine already preconceived. Instead, we should be eager to learn the true meaning and intent of what the Scriptures say.
When Jesus walked the earth, even persons who were not his disciples called him Lord. It was a title given to masters and to persons who were much admired for their wisdom. In none of those instances did the people view Jesus as the Almighty God. And so, to Christians, Jesus is our only Lord. He is such because of the position God gave to him, as explained by several texts that I referred to up above.
Herk
-
herk
Undisfellowshipped,
You wrote:
However, Herk, you seem to be implying that since Peter only called Jesus "The Messiah and the Son of the Living God" then that must mean that Jesus is not God because Peter did not call Him God.
that would mean that since Peter did not call Jesus "Lord" in that Verse, then that must mean that Jesus is not Lord! Since Peter did not call Jesus "Savior" in that Verse must mean that Jesus is not the Savior! Since Peter did not call Jesus "King" in that Verse must mean that Jesus is not our King! Since Peter did not call Jesus "Son of Man" in that Verse must mean that Jesus is not the Son of Man! Do you see my point?
I see the point you are trying to make, but the fact remains that Peter never referred to Jesus as God. Your reasoning, when it comes down to basics, is not an effort to discover what Peter really meant, but merely to prove that Peter believed in the Trinity.
There is no question that Jesus is Lord, Savior, King and the Son of Man. But all those titles were not at issue in Jesus' question to Peter. Jesus knew what others thought of him. He was a great prophet, and probably nothing more. But Jesus wanted to know what the apostles thought. If Jesus was God himself, this gave Peter an excellent opportunity to say so. But he did not! He described Jesus in those terms that were revealed to him by God. God did not tell Peter that Jesus is God. He told Peter that Jesus is "the Messiah, the Son of the living God." It is really your argument that would deny that Jesus is Lord, Savior, King, etc. Peter told Jesus the very most he thought of him, and nothing less. He chose those two titles that embrace everything that Jesus is, namely, Messiah and Son of the living God. It is the Messiah and Son of God who is the Savior, King, Lord, and Son of man. But the Messiah is not God. He is the Son of God.
In answer to my questions, you wrote:
I can't imagine "God" being a title of Israel's King, that seems like it would be completely contradictory to the Ten Commandments.
Does it really matter what you or I "imagine"? Isn't this an admission that you prefer your own personal opinion over the Bible? If the Scriptures plainly identify each of Israel's kings as "God," what grounds do any of us have for saying the Scriptures are wrong? Even Trinitarian scholars like those who translated the NIV point that out, but you don't even agree with them! Isn't that being a bit arrogant and presumptuous? --To pretend that you are wiser than even those who have translated the Bible, some having spent most of their lives in that effort?
By accepting only what you want to believe, you are failing to see the true picture. Jesus is "God" in a special way, but not in the Trinitarian way. If it was the Trinitarian way, then the kings of ancient Israel would also be part of God. But they are not, and neither is Jesus. It is no wonder that people believe in the Trinity! They've been trained by their churches to accept only those parts of the Bible that they "imagine" are true.
It means nothing to Trinitarians that the only one in Revelation who properly receives worship is God and he alone. (4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 11:1, 16; 14:7; 15:4; 19:4, 10; 22:9) Never is the Lamb worshipped. Neither is the Holy Spirit. But the heart's desire of every Trinitarian is to find some evidence somewhere which shows that the Son and Holy Spirit are worshipped.
Sometimes I wonder why I spend any time at all with Trinitarians. I just hope their way of thinking never brushes off on me. I would rather accept every word of the Bible than deny even a word or phrase of it as they so often do. All through my life I have found that the average Trinitarian isn't really interested in what the Scriptures actually teach. Time and again, they show that they believe only what they want to believe. Happily, there are some exceptions, and what joy they experience when they finally learn the truth about God and Christ!
I know you're thinking that I'm being mean-spirited. But how else should I feel than the way I've explained up above. You categorically denied what the Bible actually says. You've done this before. Yet, you think that's okay. I find that totally amazing, and yet I shouldn't, since you simply illustrate what's so awfully wrong with the Trinity theory.
You wrote:
What does the Greek word for "midst" mean?
I carefully explained that in my post to you:
"In the midst" means "in front of," according to other translations. Revelation 4:6 mentions others who are also "in the midst of the throne."
I don't think you noticed that. Who are those others? Should they also be worshipped? Do they also share equality with God? The scripture says that "in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind."
Do you have an answer, hopefully from the Bible and not just your opinion???
Herk
-
UnDisfellowshipped
Herk,
Thanks for your reply.
I'm not sure you understand my point.
I'll try to clarify it a little more:
You said:
As for 1 Corinthians 8:6, why should you have a problem distinguishing between God and Lord? The text specifically states, "There is but one God, the Father." It does not say there are one God, the Father and the Son. Nor does it say there are one God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It limits godhood to only one Person, namely, the Father. Then Paul adds, "and one Lord, Jesus Christ."
Now, please think for a moment: If "Lord" also means "God," then Paul was saying "There is one God, the Father, and there is one God, Jesus Christ." Obviously, in this context, God and Lord are not equivalents. Otherwise, Paul was teaching that there are two Gods. The only reason anyone would resort to even thinking that way is to prove a doctrine already preconceived. Instead, we should be eager to learn the true meaning and intent of what the Scriptures say.
The point I was making is this:
If 1st Corinthians is saying that ONLY the Father is God, to the exclusion of Jesus, THEN that same Scripture is also saying that ONLY Jesus is Lord, to the exclusion of the Father!
If that Scripture is saying that ONLY the Father is the TRUE GOD, then that Scripture is also saying that ONLY Jesus is the TRUE LORD.
Why then, does the New Testament call the Father "The Lord"?
Matthew 11:25: At that time, Jesus answered, "I thank You, Father, Lord of Heaven and Earth, that You hid these things from the wise and understanding, and revealed them to infants.
Why then, does the New Testament call the Son "God"?
John 20:28: Thomas answered Him, "The Lord of me and the God of me!"
Edited by - UnDisfellowshipped on 2 December 2002 0:41:26
-
UnDisfellowshipped
Herk said:
I don't think you noticed that. Who are those others? Should they also be worshipped? Do they also share equality with God? The scripture says that "in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind."
Do you have an answer, hopefully from the Bible and not just your opinion???
I have already showed that most Translations do not have the word "Him" as being the One worshiped in that Verse, so I believe, based on the Context, that it is the Father and the Lamb being worshiped.
When I read the Context, I see everyone in the Universe praising the Father and the Lamb equally with a song of praise, and then the Scriptures say they "fell down and worshiped".
Most Translations do not say "they fell down and worshiped Him".
The Context of Revelation Chapter 5 shows that the Lamb is RIGHT NEXT TO THE FATHER because it says He came up to the Father and took the Scroll.
Does it ever say the Lamb moved away from the Throne?
Does it ever say that the Lamb joined in with the worship of the Father?
Can you tell me, if it is ONLY the Father receiving worship, why doesn't it say that the Lamb also worshiped the Father, along with the others?
And, it seems pretty obvious that the Father and the Lamb were already given a SONG OF WORSHIP equally right before the elders fell down and worshiped.
-
UnDisfellowshipped
I see the point you are trying to make, but the fact remains that Peter never referred to Jesus as God. Your reasoning, when it comes down to basics, is not an effort to discover what Peter really meant, but merely to prove that Peter believed in the Trinity.
There is no question that Jesus is Lord, Savior, King and the Son of Man. But all those titles were not at issue in Jesus' question to Peter. Jesus knew what others thought of him. He was a great prophet, and probably nothing more. But Jesus wanted to know what the apostles thought. If Jesus was God himself, this gave Peter an excellent opportunity to say so. But he did not! He described Jesus in those terms that were revealed to him by God. God did not tell Peter that Jesus is God. He told Peter that Jesus is "the Messiah, the Son of the living God." It is really your argument that would deny that Jesus is Lord, Savior, King, etc. Peter told Jesus the very most he thought of him, and nothing less. He chose those two titles that embrace everything that Jesus is, namely, Messiah and Son of the living God. It is the Messiah and Son of God who is the Savior, King, Lord, and Son of man. But the Messiah is not God. He is the Son of God.
So, I'm curious, are you saying that it was not God who revealed to Thomas that Jesus is "The Lord of me and The God of me"?
Did God only reveal information about Jesus to Peter?
I mean was Thomas correct, or was he wrong?
Does the fact that Thomas did not call Jesus "Messiah and the Son of God" mean that Thomas did not think Jesus was the Messiah or Son of God?
Also, what does the Title "Son of God" mean?
Edited by - UnDisfellowshipped on 1 December 2002 21:56:8
-
UnDisfellowshipped
Sometimes I wonder why I spend any time at all with Trinitarians.
I have the same feeling at times with non-Trinitarians.
I just hope their way of thinking never brushes off on me. I would rather accept every word of the Bible than deny even a word or phrase of it as they so often do.
Once again there are the generalizations.
I have never denied anything in the Bible since I have stopped being a JW (as a JW I was required to deny A LOT of the Bible).
All through my life I have found that the average Trinitarian isn't really interested in what the Scriptures actually teach. Time and again, they show that they believe only what they want to believe.
Interesting. Trinitarians probably feel the same way about non-Trinitarians.
Happily, there are some exceptions, and what joy they experience when they finally learn the truth about God and Christ!
Well, if I believed in non-Trinitarians' version of Christ, then that means the Bible teaches that we are supposed to honor a creature just the same as we honor the Creator.
It also means I would be breaking the First Commandment (from the Ten Commandments) because I would be honoring and serving "a created god" just the same as I honor the Creator.
I will get around to posting those Verses about the Ten Commandments ASAP.
Edited by - UnDisfellowshipped on 1 December 2002 22:6:12
-
William Penwell
Reborn,
And the arguments go on and on over a silly old book of filled with myths, legends and superstitions. Now you can see what is wrong with the world. I am sure this is a friendly debate and it is somewhat hilarious. Unfortunately some fanatical followers of man made ideologies take it to the next violent level which is not funny. When do we have to realize as a human race to leave these theological debates behind us and respect each other for who we are? No strings attached.. What is the difference between us and Islamic Fundamentalist that will go to any lengths to convert us over to their way of thinking? It is all dangerous and non productive for the betterment of humankind.
Will
-
herk
UnDisfellowshipped,
You wrote:
Interesting. Trinitarians probably feel the same way about non-Trinitarians
The big difference is that I gave you specific examples. Show me even one instance where I've said I can't accept what the Bible says because I can't "imagine" it's true or that it doesn't "seem" right.
It's easy to accuse without evidence. It's another story when you have to come up with the facts. And remember, it's facts that count, not your interpretations of what I've written.
herk