Posts by Pilchard

347

Must see video on Youtube where a JW is clearly defeated on the trinity subject...

by Tuesday in

personally i hate bible ping-pong.

i don't think it ever gets anywhere, i don't think it solves anything and i don't think the participants ever make any head room.

however i will say in this case, i have been proven wrong.

Pilchard

stronglogos:

I THANK JEHOVAH THAT I DONT HAVE THIS CONTRADICTION IN MY BIBLE BECAUSE I WOULD THROW IT AWAY!

Pilchard:

What does this mean?

*** Isa 43:10 “You are my witnesses,” says Jehovah, “With my servant whom I have chosen; that you may know and believe me, and understand that I am he. Before me there was no God formed, neither will there be after me.

Q) What does "Before me there was no God formed" mean?

A) Before Jehovah existed there was no God.

Why? Because Jehovah has always existed.

Q) What does "neither will there be after me" mean?

A) After Jehovah finishes existing there will be no God.

Why? Because Jehovah will always exist.

SO:

*** Isa 43:10 ... Before me there was no God formed, neither will there be after me.

No Gods pre-existed Jehovah and no God's will exist after he finishes his existence.

It is a statement of God's eternal nature. That is all.

God exists and there will never be an "after" Jehovah because he will never end just like there was never a "before" Jehovah because he always was.

But DURING Jehovah's Godship he created many gods as the Bible fully shows in many places.

347

Must see video on Youtube where a JW is clearly defeated on the trinity subject...

by Tuesday in

personally i hate bible ping-pong.

i don't think it ever gets anywhere, i don't think it solves anything and i don't think the participants ever make any head room.

however i will say in this case, i have been proven wrong.

Pilchard

stronglogos

One of them mention he as had I believe I could be wrong 20 years experience is that inexperience?

Pilchard:

Whatever the witnesses claimed, they were obviously clueless when it comes to the trinity debate. Anyone who has spent any time whatsoever discussing the trinity with people who are knowledgeable of the Bible would see that those witnesses were spring chickens and out of their depth.

The whole show was a farce. Jim controlled the debate from the get-go and steam-rolled them into whatever corner he chose. They clearly did not even understand half the questions that were being posed. Also they were too polite to press any of the advantages that they did have.

Frankly I would be embarrassed to be seen publicly massaging my ego by inviting some very naive people over just to prove how clever I was.

There was no debate because Jim was arguing against people who simply did not know the subject matter.

If the roles were reversed and you had a knowledgeable JW debating a clueless Christendomite you would get the same slaughter in reverse only I rather think a JW would not be quite so egocentric as to try to gain public kudos from such an easy win.

347

Must see video on Youtube where a JW is clearly defeated on the trinity subject...

by Tuesday in

personally i hate bible ping-pong.

i don't think it ever gets anywhere, i don't think it solves anything and i don't think the participants ever make any head room.

however i will say in this case, i have been proven wrong.

Pilchard

isaacaustinYou did exactly that in trying to make 'firstborn' fit in Ps 89:27

Pilchard:

Not at all. David was the first king Jehovah created in the genetic line leading to Christ.

It carries the meaning of being born (created) and being first. Whereas "preeminant" is a ploy that artfully delets the notion of being born (created) from the definition.

isaacaustin If Jesus wanted us to understand him to be an archangel, or simply a lesser god he also did a very poor job in claiming to do the things only God can do.

Pilchard:

I agree that Jesus had no intention of teaching us about the archangel. It is simply an observation that has no real effect on doctrine whatsoever if it is true or false.

With respect to being able to do the things that Jehovah does it is made clear that Jehovah gave him these powers.

John 5:30 I can of myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is righteous; because I don’t seek my own will, but the will of my Father who sent me.

Matt 28:18 Jesus came to them and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.

347

Must see video on Youtube where a JW is clearly defeated on the trinity subject...

by Tuesday in

personally i hate bible ping-pong.

i don't think it ever gets anywhere, i don't think it solves anything and i don't think the participants ever make any head room.

however i will say in this case, i have been proven wrong.

Pilchard

isaacaustin I see you reasoning there...although not sure if I completely agree with that. However, we also see in Ps 89:27

Also I will make him [my] firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth. ...speaking of David. Here firstborn obviously has nothing to do with creation...nothing to do with out of the womb..in fact the Aid book once made this point very well- possibly not realizing how damaging this is to their doctrine. Clarly, clearly this means preeminance. My use of Manasseh/Ephraim may not have been too strong.

Pilchard:

I would argue that David is Jehovah's first-born king in place of Saul who Jehovah rejected. So I would say it is exactly the same situation where the word "firstborn" is simply being used to shown that Davd (the second king) is to be considered the first. We note that the line of Kings descends from David's children and not Saul's.

So genetically speaking David is the first-born of a long line of kings leading to Christ.

In my opinion the early church spent hundreds of years trying to fuse Greek philosophy into the scriptures and isolating special word usage like this and using it as an excuse to argue a different definition for the word is one of the tools they used to achieve this.

The Bible could have stated the trinity very simply. It is not hard. Jesus came to explain God and if God is a trinity then Jesus did not make a very good job of it. It took men hundreds of years to explain what Jesus failed at.

I'd rather take what the Bible says at face value rather then be scurrying around the scriptures looking for reasons why I don't have to believe that "first-born" actually means "first-born".

347

Must see video on Youtube where a JW is clearly defeated on the trinity subject...

by Tuesday in

personally i hate bible ping-pong.

i don't think it ever gets anywhere, i don't think it solves anything and i don't think the participants ever make any head room.

however i will say in this case, i have been proven wrong.

Pilchard

isaacaustin

I am not completely following your logic. Elohym can mean God, can mean angels. The point you are trying to make (I think) is that Elohym is translated as angels in some translation...but is unanimously translated as 'angels' in its application in Hebrews...It is clearly a term with multiple meanings. But beyond that ....Are the angels also called "Theos"...or better yet "Ho Theos"

Pilchard:

Bible Greek was written by Hebrew people and so their concept of the word "theos" is entirely shaped from the Hebrew scriptures as a translation of the word "Elohym" which means "gods".

So the Greek Jews took "theos" to mean "elohym" or "gods".

So when the Greek Jews read Ps 8:5, in Hebrew they thought of the word "gods".

Paul quotes from the LXX which translates elohym as "angels".

This tells us that Greek Jews thought that "angels" was a valid translation of the word "elohym" and we know that they thought that "theos" was a valid translation of the word "elohym" also.

So Paul has no problem thinking of angels as gods and using the term interchangably.

347

Must see video on Youtube where a JW is clearly defeated on the trinity subject...

by Tuesday in

personally i hate bible ping-pong.

i don't think it ever gets anywhere, i don't think it solves anything and i don't think the participants ever make any head room.

however i will say in this case, i have been proven wrong.

Pilchard

Manasseh was the first to be born of Israel:

*** Gen 41:45: Joseph called the name of the first-born Manasseh, “For,” he said, “God has made me forget all my toil, and all my father’s house.”

God, through Israel, then gave the first-born rights to Ephraim:

*** Gen 48:14 Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it on Ephraim’s head, who was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh’s head, guiding his hands knowingly, for Manasseh was the first-born.

This in Jeremiah Jehovah is simply restating this re-assignment of first-born rights from Manasseh to Ephraim.

*** Jer 31:9 They shall come with weeping; and with petitions will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by rivers of waters, in a straight way in which they shall not stumble; for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my first-born.

So in Jeremiah we simply have the word "first-born" being applied to the younger (second-born) as an expression to convey which one gained the first-born rights.

It is really not an excuse to find a new definition for the word that conveniently suits an ulterior purpose.

Nothing about re-assigning the first-born rights should remove the connotation of "birth" from the concept. All the sons are "born" and a decision is being made as to which one of those "born" is to come first with respect to inheritance rights.

But trinitarians have found this neat trick of redefining the word to exclude the connotation of being "born" based on the fact that God uses the word 'first-born' as a means to convey the fact that the second-born received the first-born rights.

Example.

When someone takes on a role that are often referred to as being that role even if it contradicts their natural status.

If there are not enough men at a ballroom dance class then some women may need to have women dance partners.

In that situation one of the women needs to decide who is going to be the 'man'.

That does not mean that we need to redefine the word "man" because a woman is not a man.

It means we just recognise that for the purposes of deciding who follows which dance steps one of the woman takes on the role of the man.

So the expression "this woman was the man" makes sense when we know that context of the situation and no one needs to redefine any words at all.

It is exactly the same with the word "first-born" in Jeremiah. It is simply saying that the younger is taking the part of the first-born.

But the word "first-born" still means first out of the womb. And it still conveys the thought of having been born.

347

Must see video on Youtube where a JW is clearly defeated on the trinity subject...

by Tuesday in

personally i hate bible ping-pong.

i don't think it ever gets anywhere, i don't think it solves anything and i don't think the participants ever make any head room.

however i will say in this case, i have been proven wrong.

Pilchard

isaacaustin: Where are angels referred to as gods here?

Pilchard:

You are arguing from a translation. The original Hebrew uses the word elohym (gods), not singular 'God'.

Some translations seem to use the word "angel" here in line with the LXX.

KJV:

Ps 8:5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

Psalm 8:5 (New International Version)

5 You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor.

Psalm 8:5 (Amplified Bible)

5 Yet You have made him but a little lower than God [or heavenly beings], and You have crowned him with glory and honor.

Psalm 8:5 (Darby Translation)

5 Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and splendour.

But the real killer for the translation "God" is the fact that Paul quotes this scripture in Hebrews:

Heb 2:7 You made him a little lower than the angels. You crowned him with glory and honor.

So clearly Paul considers the Hebrew word elohym (gods) to be properly translated into Greek as "angels" (aggelos).

347

Must see video on Youtube where a JW is clearly defeated on the trinity subject...

by Tuesday in

personally i hate bible ping-pong.

i don't think it ever gets anywhere, i don't think it solves anything and i don't think the participants ever make any head room.

however i will say in this case, i have been proven wrong.

Pilchard

Mad Dawg:Pilchard, my friend. Are you agreeing that you are a polytheist?

Pilchard:

I am not any kind of "ist". If you wish to apply some label to me that's your choice.

The word "polytheist" has the distinct connotation of someone who worships multiple gods, even though the strict definition allows for people who only worship one god but acknowledge the existance of many.

So it is obvious you want to apply the strict definition to me that then allow the emotional weight of the perceived meaning to carry your argument for you.

I have no interest in debating using such tactics. The Bible speaks of many gods.

That is good enough for me. No one should be ignoring what the Bible actually says because of some tricky word.

So please keep your word. Do what you will with it. I'll stick with the Bible thanks.

347

Must see video on Youtube where a JW is clearly defeated on the trinity subject...

by Tuesday in

personally i hate bible ping-pong.

i don't think it ever gets anywhere, i don't think it solves anything and i don't think the participants ever make any head room.

however i will say in this case, i have been proven wrong.

Pilchard

Mad Dawg wrote:

Ummm, Pilchard, are you a Mormon? Seriously. This is exactly what Mormons teach. That there are many gods, but we only have one of the many for ourselves. Are you or have you ever been a JW? You do realize that if you believe that if there are many gods, regardless of whether or not we worship them, you are a polytheist, right?

Pilchard replies:

That is what the Bible teaches. I only care what the Bible says rather then some fancy words like "polytheist".

The Bible teaches that there are many gods, so that is what I believe. The Bible teaches that we must worship only one god so that is what I believe.

booby wrote:

Pilchard. Are all humans the progeny of adam and eve? If so and I think they are then of whom are these genuine, bona-fide gods the progeny of and if it is Jehovah which it seems they must be what does this tell us? Just a question I have.

Pilchard replies:

Jehovah created all the angels and they are referred to as 'gods' in the Hebrew text Ps 8:5.

Jesus is referred to as a god in John 1:1.

Satan is called the 'god' of this world. Obviously he was created by Jehovah as an angel.

The Hebrew word for "god" means "mighty one". But to the Hebrews there is only one almighty "mighty one".

We get bogged down in our personal theological understanding of what "god" is but at the end of the day the first Christian's understanding of the word "theos" (god) is guided by the Hebrew understanding of the equivalent Hebrew word "el". It means simply "mighty one".

But all accounts Jesus is a "mighty one" or a god. But then so are all the angels.

From the perspective of the first century Christians also Satan, being a "mighty one" is aptly called a "god". Created angelic, turned demon.

So I would say all the angels and all the demons are all genuine examples of "gods" or "might ones".

And in addition to those there are things that men have falsely believed were 'gods'. Things that they believes had the powers of "mighty ones" but which did not. These are the idols and the statues in the image of false gods. They are lifeless and powerless. They are gods in name only.

besty wrote:

seems a strange approach given that this is a JW discussion forum, but perhaps speaks to the quality of the NWT?

In this case of the trinity and JW's the translation is a product of the doctrine - to disregard the effect of the NWT prevents you from engaging in a properly informed debate on the doctrine. No?
Pilchard replies:

I never use the NWT because I want to discus doctrine rather then get bogged down in "my bible is better than your bible" sidetracks.

There is no requirement to use the NWT to debate JW beliefs. Remember JW beliefs were developed a LONG time before they produced the NWT.

347

Must see video on Youtube where a JW is clearly defeated on the trinity subject...

by Tuesday in

personally i hate bible ping-pong.

i don't think it ever gets anywhere, i don't think it solves anything and i don't think the participants ever make any head room.

however i will say in this case, i have been proven wrong.

Pilchard

isaacaustin: The Bible does not show Jesus to be a firstborn (as in first created) son....not when you understand the terms firstborn and son as they mean to the Jews. His son-ship is an identity...son of God- showing his godship....son of man- showing his humanity...

Pilchard:

What trinitarians really mean is that as long as you change the definition of the word "firstborn" to mean something that no longer contradicts trinity theory then you can remove one of the most obvious Bible objections.