Posts by Dean Porter

15

Existing in the nature of God

by ClassAvenger in

i preached to a jw and they used the following verse against me:

phi 2:6

"who existing in the nature of god, did not consider being equal to god something to be held onto," he said that this was one of the texts that disproved the trinity because it does not state that he was god, but that he existed in the nature of god: divine.

Dean Porter

Myxomatosis,

thanks for your replies.

I appreciate your comments and please accept my apologies if I was a little 'severe' in my comments.

It is just the fact that this is a 'pet subject' of mine to which I have gone to some lengths to study and research.

So I get a little irksome when I see the facts being misrepresented.

I have to say that from your initial response I got the impression that you were being a bit cheeky with me. It is difficult to gauge the actual ' tone' of posted comments when they are read. So I accept that I may have misjudged your tone and for that I apologise and hope I wasn't too cheeky myself.

With regard to the Bible , yes I do have a high regard for it and I continue to try and understand it better with an open mind. However there are some subjects like the trinity that I believe I have a fixed understanding and position on.

As gumby said, the biggest trouble with all this is that to learn more about Jesus and scripture you first have to wade through a load of 'rubbish' and be able to discern between the made up and the factual.

If you are interested in knowing more about the term HO OHN in EXODUS 3:14 get yourself an Interlinear bible and have a read at Revelation chapter 1 and see what you can find !

regards

Dean.

38

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 8

by hooberus in

jehovah saith unto my lord, sit thou at my right hand, until i make thine enemies thy footstool.

" psalm 110:1 asv.

unitarians tend to look at psalm 110:1 in this way:.

Dean Porter

Hooberus,

you speak about a unitarian APRIORI VIEW that God is one person. You say this as if the Trinitarian View is

the view that is not APRIORI.

I think you have got this reasoning backwards. The Monotheism of unitarians is surely the same monotheism held by the Jews as taught in the Old Testament. This Monotheism believing that God is One Person IS the original orthodoxy as held by God's covenant people.

Surely it is the case that the onus of proof is on the Trinitarian to PROVE that God is three persons; not for unitarians to prove God is NOT three.

You say that the use of ADONI for the second lord does not exclude it refering to the Messiah as being God.

Well, I think it does exclude that view as ADONI is not used in the O.T. to refer to God.

Adonai is used of God , not adoni. Adoni is used of men and angels.

In another post you refer to Genesis 19:24 as an example of two persons addressed as seperate Jehovah's.

This begs the question : If there is ONE God, but THREE Persons; how many Jehovahs are there ?

Dean.

126

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 10

by hooberus in

the watchtower and other unitarians use scriptures that say that all things were "through" jesus christ in order to reduce him to being less than god.

they reason that since all things are "of" the father and "through" the son that therefore the son is not also jehovah with the father.

those who believe in the deity of jesus believe that both the father and the son are jehovah (though different persons within the one jehovah).

Dean Porter

Hooberus,

Is there a scripture that refers to Jesus or the Son or the Messiah etc. that uses the same expression " of " which is used of God the Father in 1 Cor, 8:5,6. ?

Dean.

15

Existing in the nature of God

by ClassAvenger in

i preached to a jw and they used the following verse against me:

phi 2:6

"who existing in the nature of god, did not consider being equal to god something to be held onto," he said that this was one of the texts that disproved the trinity because it does not state that he was god, but that he existed in the nature of god: divine.

Dean Porter

Myxomatosis,

You have answered my question much as I thought you would.

I asked the question as I believe you were ' taking a liberty ' with the greek text. I don't believe the New Testament says anywhere in the greek text that Jesus is 'ego eimi ho ohn '.

It certainly has Jesus using the expression ' ego eimi' ,but as I suspect you actually realise only too well, that is entirely different to it referring to him as 'ego eimi ho ohn'.

You quoting of John 8.58 and adding an INTERPOLATION of ho ohn into the text is - frankly shocking !

It shows a scant disregard for TRUTH.

Did you honestly think that would convince me !

No, Jesus did not take the title " I AM " from Exodus 3:14 , because if he did the greek text in John would have to read 'ego eimi ho ohn' as it does in the Septuagent'.

Also you state that the hebrew expression Ani Hu is the equivalent of this title in hebrew. Again you are much mistaken.

Ani Hu is indeed the hebrew equivalent of the greek ego eimi, however, the hebrew expression in Exodus 3:14 is not Ani Hu but rather it is EHYEH ASHER EHYEH.

It is the word EHYEH that the greek Ho Ohn translates in the LXX. Thus the title I AM is EHYEH or Ho Ohn.

Ho Ohn does appear in the New Testament , but is not used of Jesus.

So , I think your assertion that Jesus called himself ego eimi ho ohn is wholly untenable and is not warranted by holy scripture.

You asked me to say if I think you are full of crap. Well, I don't know you and I would not want to be offensive

as I don't post on this forum to fall out with people.

However, if I restrict my comments to your scriptural exegesis then I would say it is CRAP.

KAY !

15

Existing in the nature of God

by ClassAvenger in

i preached to a jw and they used the following verse against me:

phi 2:6

"who existing in the nature of god, did not consider being equal to god something to be held onto," he said that this was one of the texts that disproved the trinity because it does not state that he was god, but that he existed in the nature of god: divine.

Dean Porter

Myxomatosis,

I was interested to read your last post that Jesus went round telling people that he was the ego eimi ho ohn.

Can you tell me where in scripture Jesus said he was or described himself as ' ego eimi ho ohn' ?

Dean.

72

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 2

by hooberus in

on a previous thread many other "troublesome" verses have been brought up.

i will take some of these and start theads for them.

due to the complexity of the subject, several threads each covering one or two verses will be started, lord willing.

Dean Porter

LittleToe, The subject of Covenent Theology sounds vaguely familiar from a long time ago. By all means, please refresh my memory of these matters. Dean.

133

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 1

by hooberus in

in this series i hope to discuss some common verses used by the watchtower to "disprove" the trinity and deity of the lord jesus christ.

the first one is 1 corinthians 8:6: .

"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.

Dean Porter

LittleToe,

I appreciate the kind words.

I too am enjoying our discussions and in particular the fact that we can discuss these things in a respectful manner.

I used to get so frustrated at the Kingdom Hall when trying to develop deeper thoughts during meetings and realising that it was just going straight over the heads of most there.

By discussing these matters I am finding I am needing to reflect on scripture more deeply and really examine meaning of texts. Thus I am benefitting from the 'study ' I am having to do.

I hadn't picked up a bible in about 6 years before I started visiting this site. I have got the ' interest' again in knowing more about the scriptures and it is of benefit that I am not restricted to a set creed by some man made organisation to hinder my thinking.

Speak to you on your new thread. Lets see if we can agree on more than what we disagree on.

regards,

Dean.

72

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 2

by hooberus in

on a previous thread many other "troublesome" verses have been brought up.

i will take some of these and start theads for them.

due to the complexity of the subject, several threads each covering one or two verses will be started, lord willing.

Dean Porter

LittleToe,

I apologise if I am not making my point clear. I'll try to summarise what I am getting at in this thread.

First , the Timothy scripture. I believe that as the scripture says, Jesus is the Mediator between God and Man. As such I believe this argues against him actually being God as he could not mediate between the two parties if he was in fact one of the parties.

Secondly, the Galations scripture mentions the fact that a mediator is not required. However, I was attempting to explain that the Galations passage is not reffering to the same covenant that the Timothy scripture alludes to.

Galations is referring to the Abrahamic covenent which was in LEGAL TERMS a 'Unilateral Promise'. This did not require a mediator as only one party was obligated under its terms.

Unlike, the Law covenent and the New covenent which does require a mediator due to the fact that two parties are obligated under their terms.

I was merely pointing this out as you alluded to the Galations passage in an earlier thread and seemed to relate it to the Timothy passage.

I hope this makes my reasoning clearer ?

Dean.

133

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 1

by hooberus in

in this series i hope to discuss some common verses used by the watchtower to "disprove" the trinity and deity of the lord jesus christ.

the first one is 1 corinthians 8:6: .

"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.

Dean Porter

LittleToe,

a couple of thoughts on your last post.

1) you are right in saying that a Creative act is being spoken of here ; however,
(and I'm not taking issue with you here) I do find it interesting and a matter for further investigation , that the scripture says "let us MAKE man" the underlying hebrew word here is not (bara) create. Could it be that the angels were being addressed and invited to ' collaberate' as you expressed it earlier ? Something I will need to try to find time to look into.

2) I am not denying the 'feasability' that the seperate persons of the Godhead were having a discussion here. I am only saying that it is one option out of three possible options. ( the least likely option- that is )

3) I see why you don't particularly like the 'joined at the hips twin ' illustration. They do share the same nature and the same D.N.A. but they are 'seperate entities' really; they are not Zephod beeblebrox ( if thats how you spell it) from 'Hitchhikers Guide', if you know what I mean.

All in all, this scripture is actually very VAGUE ! None of us can really say with any certainty what the true meaning is. As we have both suggested there are several possible options of understanding but there is no certain explanation as not even the N.T. quotes it with any interpretation.

Therefore, I can see why certain trinitarians do not insist in using this scripture as a proof text because it really provides no proof of either position.

Shall we call it a 'no score draw' on this one.

By the way, I totally agree about that period of music. The Years '78 to '82 were the best period in british music to my mind.

What do you want to discuss next ?

You were interested in telling me about your understanding of the Holy Spirits personality and Godship ?

Do you want to start a fresh thread so we can discuss this and other lines of reasoning ?

Dean.

72

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 2

by hooberus in

on a previous thread many other "troublesome" verses have been brought up.

i will take some of these and start theads for them.

due to the complexity of the subject, several threads each covering one or two verses will be started, lord willing.

Dean Porter

LittleToe,

are you referring to Galations ? If you are, then the whole point of my post was that a mediator is not required with reference to the PROMISE that Paul is speaking about in Galations. There is only ONE party mentioned here , God. Christ is only mentioned in reference to being the Seed which was the result of the promise.

Thus I am saying that this Galations verse bears no relation to the completely different scenario / legal concept that Paul develops in Timothy regarding a mediator.

You ,in an earlier post, tried to link the Galations verse with the Mediator arguement in Timothy; I am trying to show that there is no link in thought as they address different concepts.

So, Christ is neither 'God', who made the promise nor 'man' who recieves the promise in Galations , he is the promise, the 'Seed'. The point being nonetheless that he stands separate, even here, from God and men.

Dean.