While some will consider this discussion unnecessary, I think it's interesting how many in this forum have shown an interest in it. Despite its comparative short life span, it's had nearly 3,500 visits! Is it just for the cartoons?
The Trinity
by meadow77 740 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
gumby
I like Herks cartoons! I want to learn how he does it. Did you guys know this guy is 70 years old!
-
JosephMalik
So, I am going to post the beliefs of Unitarians (at least what I have found out from this Thread), and here they are (please correct me if I am wrong about anything):
Undisfellowshipped,
I am not concerned with what Unitarians believe. I know a little about the Faith of Abraham and they are head and shoulders better than the WT but I am not familiar with them in any detail. Yet due to the nature of this post, I decided to make a few more comments on it to satisfy your request.
Undisfellowshipped said: The Father is the Only True God. (Which by default makes all other gods NOT true gods).
Not true! It simply makes all other Gods important to man in some way such as having ruler-ship or authority over them in some way good or bad. Context determines use and such context must be considered with each use.
Undisfellowshipped said: The Father will NOT share His worship with ANYONE else.
Not true! The Father expects even requires worship to be given to His Son. But this is not the same as saying share His worship. Worship given judges and Kings and even Saviors is not all the same but described with a common word. Bowing, praying, obeying, gesturing signify worship along with other methods but not all such practices are exclusive to HIS Worship.
Undisfellowshipped said: The Father creates the Word (Jesus).
Not true! How the Word came into existence is not discussed in scripture. How the human Jesus came to be by means of the life contained in the Word is. .
Undisfellowshipped said: The Word is God, but actually The Word is "a god".
Not true! The Word is God or god, makes no difference. The Word is not God to the God this Word was with. This is a contextual discussion John used to clarify such use and both applications literal and relative are used. Later John breaks it down to show specific scriptural examples. Seems everyone misses this point of this text and John's work with this term.
Undisfellowshipped said: The Word is not the True God, and yet, the Word is not a False God either.
Of course. Why Trinitarians cannot understand this is the real mystery. I believe that they do not want anyone reasoning in this way. It is destructive to their Trinitarian doctrine.
Here is an illustration of this point.
Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:
1 Corinthians 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
Using words such as God and Lord is not a problem. And such Gods and Lords are in earth as shown. They are not identified as bad or false since such terms do properly apply to them.
But in the sense that we use it in the Faith, from our perspective and not that of the world where such terms also properly apply we have:
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. {in: or, for}
Contextual use. That is something many cannot see or do not want to see.
Undisfellowshipped said: The Word is the Mighty God, but not the Almighty God, but even if the Word is the Almighty God, the Word is not the Supreme Being.
Funny, but use of terms that are shared with others do not a Trinity make. Such terms are not personal names. And when given in prophecy well then how is it that this WORD did not already possess them? And why did John say WORD and not Son if Son is literally correct and equal to God?
And it goes on and on like this. Not a very good post in my opinion but a good example of how we can get so deeply ingrained in doctrine that we cannot see truth when it is offered. Most of this was already discussed in detail in this thread and not refuted. This is also why the Watchtower has functioned so well for so many years. Their teachings are detrimental to their followers but by repetition and sheer insistence millions embrace it.
Joseph
Edited by - JosephMalik on 5 December 2002 14:42:53
-
herk
SwedishChef wrote:
Micah 5:2 "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting" This passage says the Messiah has an everlasting past. No creator! Can the Deity of Christ be any more obvious than this?
This is a prophecy about the Messiah. It is stated that the Messiah has an EVERLASTING PAST. Who has an everlasting past but God? Don't ever say that I twist scripture when such clearity is used in these passages.
The Messiah is identifed has having an everlasting past.
When I looked at your cross reference to Micah 7:2 I found nothing to compare.
Herk, if you can refute Micha 5:2 then please do! I am very interested in your response.
You still haven't refuted Micah 5:2. The Messiah has an everlasting past. Why don't you stop avoiding Scripture and just accept it. Accept the fact that you can't understand the nature of God, and just trust what the Scriptures say.
Herk, thats all nice, but you never made a refutation to John 1:1 or Micha 5:2. Still waiting.
Micha 5:2 says the Messiah's goings forth have been "from everlasting". He has an everlasting past.
Herk has responded:
You simply have to know that you are deliberately lying here. Compare Micah 5:2 with 7:20 where in each case the same Hebrew idiom is used.
Garboru also wrote:
Michah 5:2: "But you, Bethlehem in Ephrathah, small as you are to be among Judah's clans, out of you shall come forth a governor for Israel, one whose roots are far back in the past, in days gone by." - The New English Bible
So Jesus has a geneology whose roots are far back in the past. Matthew and Luke show us this. How does this show that Jesus is God?
"Everlasting origins" is a biased and misleading translation in Micah 5:2. The promise of the Messiah could be traced "to the distant past." The same Hebrew expression is found in Deuteronomy 32:7. The almost exact wording appears in Micah 7:14, Amos 9:11 and Isaiah 63:9, 11, where even the KJV consistently renders it as "the days of old," having nothing to do with eternity. The Hastings Bible Dictionary translates the expression in Micah 5:2 as "remote antiquity," adding that days of eternity wrongly suggests the eternal preexistence of the Messiah.
Edited by - herk on 5 December 2002 11:50:23
-
herk
Edited by - herk on 5 December 2002 11:23:49
-
-
SwedishChef
Herk, that little tidbit you added in your last post is proof of your unceasing ingorance. "If Trinitarians had their way, Bible truth would be phased out of society..." What a foolish statement. I, and all the other Trinitarians that I am aqainted with, could not give a better recommendation to someone than to read the Bible.
A fundamental Baptist church's mission is the spreading of the Gospel and making diciples.
Your unfounded accusations are just plain lies. You say that we are working for the devil. As I said in my other post, the most God-dedicated people in history have been Trinitarians, making it their life's ambition to humbly serve God and win souls to the cause of Christ. Under the Catholic Church's rule, many sang praises to God as they were being burnt at the stake.
It seems like your major ambition is to make cartoons that mock the Trinity. -
SwedishChef
Herk, you made some good points concerning Micah 5:2.
I have three questions for you:
1) Who is the "most Holy"?
2) Was there a certain time when Jesus was annointed?
3) Who is the King of kings? -
herk
SwedishChef,
Earlier you wrote to me regarding Micah 5:2:
Can the Deity of Christ be any more obvious than this?
It is stated that the Messiah has an EVERLASTING PAST. Who has an everlasting past but God? Don't ever say that I twist scripture when such clearity is used in these passages.
The Messiah has an everlasting past. Why don't you stop avoiding Scripture and just accept it. Accept the fact that you can't understand the nature of God, and just trust what the Scriptures say.
Now you say:
Herk, you made some good points concerning Micah 5:2.
Which is it? Which is the real YOU? Is this FINALLY an admission that the one avoiding Scripture is not me but you instead? An admission that YOU are the one who will not "just accept it" when it comes to Scripture testimony? That YOU are the one who "can't understand the nature of God" or even "just trust what the Scriptures say"? Is it an admission that you DO "twist scripture," after all?
Herk
Edited by - herk on 5 December 2002 14:17:53
Edited by - herk on 5 December 2002 14:19:42
-
herk
Edited by - herk on 5 December 2002 14:47:33