Posts by peacedog

457

TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else

by UnDisfellowshipped in

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.. on another thread, bane said that we know for a fact immediately that nearly all religions other than jehovah's witnesses are false because almost all of them believe in the trinity.

and bane claims he can "out-scripturize" anyone with the help of jehovah.

* the son was praying to the father.

peacedog

Think About It:

I see nothing in Rev 3:12 that says "Jehovah" is the name of the Father. Thanks for the effort though.

Podo:

I will reply with frankness and honesty and without derisory comment.

Says podo in a post where he speaks with derision...

If there is nothing else, podo, perhaps you could refrain from making comments to me. All the best to you.

eggnog:

Still waiting:

5For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: "You are my son; I, today, I have become your father"? And again: "I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son"?

13But with reference to which one of the angels has he ever said: "Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet"?

Please explain how the word "ever" fits with (and supports) your interpretation of these verses. Perhaps you might even explain why the bible writer chose to include the word, when you yourself have omitted it when "explaining" the meaning of these verses. Thank you kindly.

Perhaps another jw "apologist" would like to make the attempt in your stead...

457

TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else

by UnDisfellowshipped in

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.. on another thread, bane said that we know for a fact immediately that nearly all religions other than jehovah's witnesses are false because almost all of them believe in the trinity.

and bane claims he can "out-scripturize" anyone with the help of jehovah.

* the son was praying to the father.

peacedog

eggnog:

Your argument is simply a rehashing of JW-Furuli's, which has been refuted on the Internet numerous times.

Shall I now quote scholarly sources that refute Furuli?

Robertson's Word Pictures:

My Lord and my God (Ho kurio mou kai o qeo mou). Not exclamation, but address, the vocative case though the form of the nominative, a very common thing in the Koin. Thomas was wholly convinced and did not hesitate to address the Risen Christ as Lord and God. And Jesus accepts the words and praises Thomas for so doing

Shall I go on?

What next? You'll quote JW-Stafford? Then I'll include sources that refute him?

John 20:28 says: "Answered Thomas and said to him [Jesus]: The Lord of me and the God of me."

My take home point: Once again, you are unwilling to accept the verse as it is written; once again, you insist the verse means something other than what it plainly says.

Those words of debator are ringing in my ear again: "...deny the obvious and bible written [sic]... resorting to saying the scripture is not saying saying [sic] what it obviously is"

457

TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else

by UnDisfellowshipped in

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.. on another thread, bane said that we know for a fact immediately that nearly all religions other than jehovah's witnesses are false because almost all of them believe in the trinity.

and bane claims he can "out-scripturize" anyone with the help of jehovah.

* the son was praying to the father.

peacedog

Playing dumb to drawn attention away from the fact that the Holy Ghost doesn't have a name? Jesus was a Jew.......you known the name of his Father and God.

I see. You don't have a verse that gives "the name of the Father as Jehovah", and you're trying to draw attention away from that fact. Tricksy...

457

TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else

by UnDisfellowshipped in

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.. on another thread, bane said that we know for a fact immediately that nearly all religions other than jehovah's witnesses are false because almost all of them believe in the trinity.

and bane claims he can "out-scripturize" anyone with the help of jehovah.

* the son was praying to the father.

peacedog

Trinitarians could have at least come up with a "name" for the Holy Ghost

I'm curious. Do you also criticize the apostles for not "coming up with a name for the Holy Ghost"? How about for not using the word "Jehovah"? Do you criticize them for that?

Or is it just modern day Christians you have a problem with?

(PS - Which verse are you thinking of that gives "the "name" of the Father as Jehovah"? )

32

Is the WTBTS mistaken or deceptive?

by exwhyzee in

when i look back at history, i see the great lengths people have gone to, to prove their devotion to god and to carry out what they though to be his will.. do you think the watchtower organization is truly trying to deceive people and cover things up or do you think they are honestly misguided or mistaken in some of their beliefs and policies ?

if so, what purpose would they have for doing this?.

peacedog

I'm with Flipper. While they are definitely mistaken on a great many things, they are also incredibly deceptive as has been shown numerous times on this site. (This post comes to mind...)

Edit: This one too...

17

Is talking about the Trinity, Michael, prophecies, etc, boring...

by serenitynow! in

maybe because i was in so long, and "studied" so much it just got tiresome.

maybe because i no longer believe in god i can't be bothered with any of the things i was forced to "learn.

" having read comments of bona fide atheists, they sometimes seem to know more about the bible than christians.. does anyone else just have a lack of desire to try to understand those more complicated parts of the bible?.

peacedog

incredibly so....

457

TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else

by UnDisfellowshipped in

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.. on another thread, bane said that we know for a fact immediately that nearly all religions other than jehovah's witnesses are false because almost all of them believe in the trinity.

and bane claims he can "out-scripturize" anyone with the help of jehovah.

* the son was praying to the father.

peacedog

Think About It:

C'mon.......you're kidding, right?

I seems to me that if one were of the opinion that the Holy Ghost is God, and the name of God is YHWH, then, by extension, the name (or, at least, one name) for the the Holy Ghost would be YHWH.

So, yeah. I'll go with that. That, or Led Zeppelin. :)

Podo:

Podo, podo, podo. Please read through my post s-l-o-w-l-y....

Why are you unable to spell out what you mean...

Podo, I asked you to tell me specifically what you would like me to speak to with regard to the 6 verses you cited. Your response was that I give you "a comment on the Scripture". Which I did. Now it appears that was not what you wanted after all...

How can I 'spell out what I mean' if you won't clarify what you want me to speak to?

how do you know that my own view on the Deity of Christ is different from your own.

How do I "know"? Podo, if you re-read my previous post, you will find that I said I "doubt" our views are the same. Do you understand the difference between "doubting" something and "knowing" something? Again, I feel compelled to ask whether you have some problem with reading comprehension...

clarify who the Father and God of Jesus in Revelation 2:7-12 is

That would be God the Father.

Why is that such a difficult question to answer. To me it is obvious. Jesus (exalted) still has a God and Father...

Who said it was difficult? Besides you, I mean? It's patently obvious that "the Son" has a Father, and that as "the Son", he is subservient to "the Father". If not this, then what do the titles "Father" and "Son" imply to you?

Nothing here speaks to the *nature* of Jesus. That is the issue, podo. What is the nature of Jesus? (A question I asked you several posts ago, which you still have not answered...)

Why the fuss over the obvious?

Honestly, podo, you are the only one I see fussing here...

@djeggnog: Perhaps you can explain to peacedog that the exclamation by Thomas is written in the NOMINATIVE case and no the Vocative.

@peacedog: Perhaps you can explain to podo that what Thomas said was not an "exclamation" at all. Ok, I will. You see Podo, we know that Thomas was not making an "exclamation" for the simple reason that Thomas directed his words to Jesus. An exclamation, as we know, is an abrupt outburst of feeling directed to no one in particular. An examination of the Greek at John 20:28 reveals that in no uncertain terms Thomas said his words "to Jesus":

"Thomas answered [Jesus] and said *to Him*, "My Lord and my God !" (Literal Greek: "the Lord of me and the God of me")

Oh, btw, in the next verse, Jesus commends Thomas for his belief...

"no demeaning language...it is so unnecessary."

Now this is just funny. Aren't you the one who called me a "weasel"? In fact, podo, you're the only one here whose language I would consider "demeaning". Unless bane posted on this thread...

djeggnog:

I will not allow you to change your argument. We were discussing the inclusion of the word "one" in rendering Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 1:13 as "which one," and we were never discussing the word "ever," which is not relevant, but which you persist in doing for whatever reason.

You will not allow me to change my argument, huh? That's funny... kinda weird, too... but still funny.

Let's try this:

I have nothing more to say regarding the inclusion of the word "one" in the nwt. My point is that the word is not present in the Greek, and that point has now been made (ad nauseam...).

Please share any concluding remarks you may have regarding the insertion of the word "one" into the nwt so that we may move forward.

After sharing your concluding remarks regarding the inclusion of the word "one", please answer the following question so that we might move forward in our discussion of the Trinity and the nwt:

5For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: "You are my son; I, today, I have become your father"? And again: "I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son"?

13But with reference to which one of the angels has he ever said: "Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet"?

Please explain how the word "ever" fits with (and supports) your interpretation of these verses. Perhaps you might even explain why the bible writer chose to include the word, when you yourself have omitted it when "explaining" the meaning of these verses. Thank you kindly.

Peace.

457

TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else

by UnDisfellowshipped in

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.. on another thread, bane said that we know for a fact immediately that nearly all religions other than jehovah's witnesses are false because almost all of them believe in the trinity.

and bane claims he can "out-scripturize" anyone with the help of jehovah.

* the son was praying to the father.

peacedog

YHWH, presumably.

457

TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else

by UnDisfellowshipped in

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.. on another thread, bane said that we know for a fact immediately that nearly all religions other than jehovah's witnesses are false because almost all of them believe in the trinity.

and bane claims he can "out-scripturize" anyone with the help of jehovah.

* the son was praying to the father.

peacedog

podo:

just a comment on the Scripture will be suffice

My comment would be that I see nothing in these several verses that conflicts with my position on the biblical nature of Jesus.

Thank you for agreeing that Jesus is not the Jehovah of the Old Testament...

Podo, do not misconstrue my words. I doubt very much that my views on the nature of Jesus or the identify of "Jehovah" support your own. An objective study of the bible has led me to the conclusion that the nature of the Son is DEITY, as the nature of the Father is DEITY.

457

TRINITY Challenge for JW's, Unitarians and Anyone Else

by UnDisfellowshipped in

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.. on another thread, bane said that we know for a fact immediately that nearly all religions other than jehovah's witnesses are false because almost all of them believe in the trinity.

and bane claims he can "out-scripturize" anyone with the help of jehovah.

* the son was praying to the father.

peacedog

djeggnog:

Lots of typing, and yet so little to say....

Objection #1: You didn’t like the inclusion of the word "other" in my "commentary on these two verses.

Objection #2: You didn’t like the fact that the NWT inserts renders these verses "which one" and not just "which," frowning upon the word "one."

Objection #3: You decided that we should be debating the word "ever" used in these verses for some reason.

1) I said nothing about liking or disliking, actually. I simply pointed out that your inclusion of the word "other" changed the meaning of the verse, as you admitted:

me: "As I laid out in a previous post, the verse without your commentary excludes ANY angel; the verse with your commentary INCLUDES an angel."

eggnog: "This is true."

Is it common practice for you to include words in your commentary that change the meaning of the text?

2) Again, I said nothing about liking or disliking. I simply pointed out that you were building an argument around a word that isn't in the Greek. You then went on to defend your use of a word that doesn't exist in the original bible verse.

It is common practice for you to build an exegetical argument based on words that don't appear in the original verse?

It appears that your preference is for the nwt OVER the Greek... Is this so?

3) "For some reason"...? Is it unusual that I should ask about a word that appears in the original verse that you chose to ignore in your commentary?

Is it common practice for you to overlook words in the original bible text that affect the meaning of the verse?

5For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

13But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

Again, please explain the meaning of "at any time" in the above statements.

Now, I realize your (feigned) concern over discussing verses from any translation other than the nwt, so allow me to rephrase my question:

5For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: “You are my son; I, today, I have become your father”? And again: “I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son”?

13But with reference to which one of the angels has he ever said: “Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet”?

In keeping with your goal of discussing the Trinity using the nwt, please explain the meaning of the word "ever" in the above statements. Please explain how the word "ever" fits with (and supports) your interpretation of these verses. Perhaps you might even explain why the bible writer chose to include the word, when you yourself have omitted it when "explaining" the meaning of these verses.

Absolutely no one -- not you, not anyone -- is going to be saved by their putting faith in the Trinity doctrine. Even if one should believe in the Trinity -- like you, like so many others -- what would one say to someone that should ask why it is that Jesus didn't seem to think it important to tell any of the apostles -- at the latest when holy spirit was poured out upon them and others on that Pentecost day in 33 AD -- that he was really the true God, one "Person" of a three "Persons" of a Trinity?

So... much.... nonsense.

What I wonder is.... Even if one should believe that Jesus is Michael the archangel -- like you, like so few others -- what would one say to someone that should ask why it is that Jesus didn't seem to think it important to tell any of the apostles -- at the latest when Thomas called Jesus "THE GOD OF ME" on that day prior to the ascension -- that he was WAS NOT THE GOD of anyone, but was actually just an angel?