Posts by UnDisfellowshipped

125

The Case for God

by UnDisfellowshipped in

the case for god:.

the "big bang" argument for god:.

the argument for god from evil:.

Wow! I am glad to see that this thread has (hopefully) sparked a good, deep, debate! That's what I was hoping for. That's why I kept my initial post short and concise -- kind of an overview or outline of the arguments for God's existence, and not a long, deep post including every detail of each argument. I will go into the details and logic of each argument in my replies to all of you.

Below I am going to start to reply to everyone in the order that they posted:

JWFacts said:

"Interesting arguments, but each is flawed so not really a proof for God."

Well, I agree that 100% proof does not exist for God (or nearly anything for that matter), and it also depends on what criteria you accept as "evidence" or "proof."

Now, whether or not they are "flawed" is something we can debate here.

JWFacts said:

"[Quoting UnDisfellowshipped: Big Bang - Everything that begins to exist has a cause]. This is not strictly correct, everything did not begin at the big bang, the theory is that there was already a point mass that exploded at the big bang. If you remove the word "begins" it is still falls apart in this theory that states that God exists but without a cause."

Correct me if I am wrong on this, but it is my understanding that the Big Bang Theory says that Time, Space, and Matter all began in an instant, either at the Big Bang Explosion, or right before the Big Bang Explosion. Does science say anything about how or what kind of "point mass" would have existed before Time or Matter or Space existed?

Scientifically speaking, before the instant when Time, Space, and Matter began to exist, wouldn't nothing have existed (at least nothing physical)? If nothing physical existed before the instant when Time, Space, and Matter began, then how is it even possible for Time, Space, and Matter to come into existence, without a cause?

Now, about God not having a beginning: The way I understand it, either Something has always existed, or Some one has always existed . So, it just all boils down to which one makes the most sense logically, and fits into the available evidence best.

Basically, the way I see it, you have three choices as to what to believe about the Origin of the Universe:

1:) The Universe (Time, Space, and Matter) always existed. (But this is shown to be wrong from all of the modern evidence for the Big Bang Theory)

2:) The Universe (Time, Space, and Matter) was caused to exist by some Timeless, Spaceless, Non-Physical Being.

3:) The Universe (Time, Space, and Matter) came into existence on its own, with no cause, from nothing, for no reason.

Option # 2 seems the most reasonable to me out of those three choices.

123

Clarifying the Trinity Doctrine

by UnDisfellowshipped in

since there is so much confusion among ex-jw's, jw's, and christians in general about exactly what the trinity doctrine is, i decided to post this to clarify this teaching.. the historical trinity doctrine of the christian (protestant and catholic) churches has always been this:.

* there is only one true god by nature.. * there are three distinct persons who share equally the nature of god.. * there are not three different gods (that is the false doctrine of tritheism or polytheism).. * there is not one person who is revealed three different ways (that is the false doctrine of modalism).. * however, each person of the trinity does have his own "role" or "function.

" the son willingly obeys the father.

UnDisfellowshipped

Hi Reniaa, how are you? Thank you for your post! Below I will comment some on the verses you posted:

1 Corinthians 11:3
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

I agree wholeheartedly with that Verse, as do all Trinitarians (that I have known). But, think about this: That verse compares the relationship of God and Jesus to that of a husband and wife. The husband is the "head" of the wife in the sense that he has a position of authority over her within the marriage, correct? This headship has nothing to do with their status as human beings, does it? It's not teaching that a wife is a lower-class being, less human than her husband, is it?

In the same way, you cannot properly use that verse to teach that Jesus is a lower-class being, who has a lesser nature than His Father. But, that verse DOES show that The Father has a position of authority over The Son. On that point, at least, we can agree.

To be consistent, if you say that 1 Corinthians 11:3 means Jesus has a lesser nature than God, then that verse is also teaching that a wife has a lesser nature than her husband (she would then be lower than human).

1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

If you please read the context of this verse, you will see that Paul is saying that there are many "so-called gods and lords" that people worship, but for true Christians there is only One God and One Lord. Paul calls The Father "God" and The Son "Lord."

Paul separates Jesus from the "so-called god" category, therefore, Jesus must be a True God. (See John 1:1, Isaiah 9:6, John 20:28)

If Jesus is a True God, but He is a different God from Jehovah, then how many True Gods do you have? That would mean you serve TWO TRUE GODS.

But, the Bible, all the way through, teaches ONLY ONE TRUE GOD (See Isaiah chapters 40-50, for example).

But, most importantly, if 1 Corinthians 8:6 is saying that ONLY The Father is God for Christians, and NOT Jesus, then, by the same reasoning, it is equally teaching that ONLY Jesus is Lord for Christians, and NOT The Father. But that cannot be true, because the New Testament teaches that The Father is Lord too.

If 1st Corinthians 8:6 is NOT saying that The Father cannot be Lord, then it is also NOT teaching that Jesus cannot be God.

Romans 8:17
Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

This is speaking about positions or authority or rank, and is not discussing nature or essence.

Matthew 24:36
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

True, as a Human, there were some things Jesus did not know on earth. But, the Bible also teaches that the Resurrected Jesus knows all things, and can read hearts and minds, and that Jesus hears and answers all of His people's prayers, things ONLY Jehovah can do.

John 17:3 (New International Version)

3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

This verse does not prove that Jesus is not God. Jude 1:4 says Jesus is our ONLY LORD -- does that mean The Father is not our Lord also?

1 Corinthians 15:24
Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.

The Son is in subjection to The Father. Always has been, and always will be. On this point, we actually agree.

125

The Case for God

by UnDisfellowshipped in

the case for god:.

the "big bang" argument for god:.

the argument for god from evil:.

UnDisfellowshipped

The Case for God:

The "Big Bang" Argument for God:

1:) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2:) The Universe began to exist (at the Big Bang).

3:) Therefore, the Universe has a Cause that is timeless, spaceless, and non-physical (because time, space, and matter came into existence at the Big Bang).

(Nothing cannot create or cause something to exist)

____________________________________________________

The Moral Argument:

1:) Every human has a built-in "moral code" (the conscience).

2:) A built-in "moral code" points to the existence of a Moral Law-Giver, Someone (or something) that placed within each of us, a moral compass.

____________________________________________________

The Argument from Reason:

1:) Every human uses rational inference (reaching conclusions based on the premises of an argument).

2:) If only the physical Universe exists, there would have to be a physical explanation for rational inference.

3:) There are no physical explanations for rational inference.

4:) Therefore, there must be a non-physical Cause for the existence of rational inference within the human mind.

____________________________________________________

The Argument from Design:

1:) The Universe and the things in it show an incredible level of design and purpose.

2:) The Universe appears to be extremely fine-tuned. If things in the Universe were slightly different, life wouldn't exist, and humans wouldn't exist.

3:) Therefore, if the Universe is designed and fine-tuned, there must be an Intelligent Designer.

____________________________________________________

The Argument from Need:

1:) Everything physical that the human craves actually exists (for example, humans get hungry, so we seek for food, and food actually exists; humans get thirsty, so we seek for water, and water actually exists, etc.)

2:) Humans crave a Supernatural Supreme Being.

3:) Therefore, if every physical thing that humans crave actually exists, then this would point to towards the actual existence of the Supernatural Being that is craved by humans as well.

____________________________________________________

The Argument FOR God from evil:

1:) Humans recognize that there is good and evil in the world -- we know the difference.

2:) If the physical Universe is all that exists, there is no real good or evil. Things just happen.

3:) However, the fact that we can measure whether something is evil, points to the fact that there is a Perfect Standard of Goodness that we use to compare everything to.
____________________________________________________

There are more arguments, but this is the main "Case for God."

123

Clarifying the Trinity Doctrine

by UnDisfellowshipped in

since there is so much confusion among ex-jw's, jw's, and christians in general about exactly what the trinity doctrine is, i decided to post this to clarify this teaching.. the historical trinity doctrine of the christian (protestant and catholic) churches has always been this:.

* there is only one true god by nature.. * there are three distinct persons who share equally the nature of god.. * there are not three different gods (that is the false doctrine of tritheism or polytheism).. * there is not one person who is revealed three different ways (that is the false doctrine of modalism).. * however, each person of the trinity does have his own "role" or "function.

" the son willingly obeys the father.

UnDisfellowshipped

The Watchtower's brochure entitled "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" makes the following claims:

"Summing up the historical evidence, Alvan Lamson says in The Church of the First Three Centuries: “The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity . . . derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ."

[...] "However, this is no proof in itself that Tertullian taught the Trinity. The Catholic work Trinitas—A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity, for example, notes that some of Tertullian’s words were later used by others to describe the Trinity. Then it cautions: “But hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from usage, for he does not apply the words to Trinitarian theology.” "

The Watchtower issue of August 1, 1992, Page 19 said this:

"the Trinity doctrine was not taught by Jesus and his disciples nor by the early Church Fathers. "

The Watchtower issue of October 15, 1978, Page 32 said this:

"in the time of Justin [c. 100-165 C.E.], and long after, the distinct nature and inferiority of the Son were universally taught; and that only the first shadowy outline of the Trinity had then become visible.”—The Church of the First Three Centuries, p. 34."

The Watchtower issue of August 15, 1956, Page 504, said this:

"there can be no doubt about the fact that none of these [early church fathers] believed in a trinity in which ‘God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost are coequal, cosubstantial and coeternal.’"

Are those claims true? Is it true that NONE of the church fathers for the first 300 years after Jesus' death taught The Trinity? Is it true that Tertullian did not teach "Trinitarian theology"? What are the actual facts? What did the Early Church Fathers actually say about God and Jesus? Well, let's find out right here, right now:

What the Early Church Fathers taught about God and Jesus:

Ignatius said (circa 105 C.E.):

"God Himself was manifested in human form [...] Continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God. [...] I pray for your happiness forever in our God, Jesus Christ. [...] Jesus Christ was with the Father before the ages."

Justin Martyr said (circa 160 C.E.):

"We reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place. [...] The Word ... is Divine. [...] The First-Begotten Word of God, is even God. [...] Next to God, we worship and love the Word [...] He deserves to be worshipped as God and as Christ. [...] Christ, as God, strong and to be worshipped. [...] The Son ministered to the will of the Father. Yet, nevertheless, He is God, in that He is the First-Begotten of all creatures. [...] If you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the Only, Unbegotten, Unutterable God. [...] This is He who existed before all, who is eternal Priest of God, and King, and Christ. [...] This Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created. [...] The Word of Wisdom ... is Himself this God, begotten of the Father. The Son is also God and the Angel."

Melito said (circa 170 C.E.):

"God was put to death, the King of Israel slain! [...] He is Creator together with the Father. [...] He is God who is from God. He is the Son who is from the Father. He is Jesus Christ, the King for evermore. [...] We are worshippers of His Christ, who is truly God the Word, existing before all time. [...] Being at once both perfect God and perfect man, He gave us sure indications of His two natures ... He concealed the signs of His Deity, although He was the true God existing before all ages."

Tertullian said (around 200 C.E.):

"We pray at a minimum not less than three times in the day. For we are debtors to Three: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. [...] The Trinity of the One Divinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. [...] I testify that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other. ... My assertion is that the Father is one, the Son is one, and the Spirit is one--and that they are all distinct from each other."

123

Clarifying the Trinity Doctrine

by UnDisfellowshipped in

since there is so much confusion among ex-jw's, jw's, and christians in general about exactly what the trinity doctrine is, i decided to post this to clarify this teaching.. the historical trinity doctrine of the christian (protestant and catholic) churches has always been this:.

* there is only one true god by nature.. * there are three distinct persons who share equally the nature of god.. * there are not three different gods (that is the false doctrine of tritheism or polytheism).. * there is not one person who is revealed three different ways (that is the false doctrine of modalism).. * however, each person of the trinity does have his own "role" or "function.

" the son willingly obeys the father.

UnDisfellowshipped

yknot, Hi, how are you? I'm glad you're posting here. I like to have good Bible-related, God-related discussions whenever I can.

You said:

"While I appreciate the scriptures cited......I don't see conclusive proof. Ultimately we are given snippets here and there in the Bible that either side can use as 'proof'. Why does this have to be such a dividig issue?"

That is why learning proper exegesis is so important, and always reading the verses in context.

I don't want to divide anyone from Christ -- I only desire that people know the truth about Christ.

You said:

"I don't see anything that says we all have to agree on the concept nature within the heavenly family to embrace salvation. The requirements were quite simply to believe and exercise faith in Jesus Christ and if possible lead lives that followed the lamb...(for those not in slavery of sorts) Can't there be unity in the agreement that Jesus was the Christ......"

You are correct -- the Bible does not say we all have to agree on our understanding of the nature and relationships within the Godhead to be saved.

But, the Bible does say that we must know the true identity of Jesus and trust in Him alone for salvation (see John 8:24). And we are saved only by trusting in Him and what He has done for us (His perfect Sacrifice and Resurrection in our place for our sins)

123

Clarifying the Trinity Doctrine

by UnDisfellowshipped in

since there is so much confusion among ex-jw's, jw's, and christians in general about exactly what the trinity doctrine is, i decided to post this to clarify this teaching.. the historical trinity doctrine of the christian (protestant and catholic) churches has always been this:.

* there is only one true god by nature.. * there are three distinct persons who share equally the nature of god.. * there are not three different gods (that is the false doctrine of tritheism or polytheism).. * there is not one person who is revealed three different ways (that is the false doctrine of modalism).. * however, each person of the trinity does have his own "role" or "function.

" the son willingly obeys the father.

UnDisfellowshipped

Aligot said:

"Well, well, the first thing that appealed to me when I started talking with JWs was their simple approach to God's nature, because, although a catholic, I had never managed to believe this complex trinity thing, which just looked like an unnecessary intellectual exercise, unwothy of a god who wants to let himself known by the humblest persons. I 'm leaving the JWs now, for reasons which are common to many of us, but I think I will stick to their notion of God, more within my intellectual grasp."

I can appreciate that. I like simple answers too, as long as they are truthful simple answers.

But we are talking about the One Being that existed before time and space and matter (before the Universe and the Big Bang), who is Spirit.

We can't even really describe what "Spirit" is. All we have experienced in life is in the physical Universe.

I just want to humbly suggest and recommend that you please examine what the New Testament writers say about Jesus Christ, and who they believed Him to be.

* The Apostle Thomas declared that Jesus is God, and Jesus said that those who believe the same thing are blessed (John 20:28-29).

* The Apostle John wrote that Jesus has the same Divine Nature as God (John 1:1).

* The Apostle Paul wrote that all of the fullness of the Nature of God dwells in Jesus (Colossians 2:9)

* The writer of Hebrews says Jesus is God (Hebrews 1:8) who should be worshiped (Hebrews 1:6).

* Jesus always accepted worship, even though angels refused worship. (Revelation chapter 5; Revelation 19:10)

* The Apostle Paul wrote that Jesus has always existed in Nature or Form of God. (Philippians 2:6)

* Titus 2:13, 2nd Peter 1:1, and Romans 9:5 all say that Jesus is God.

123

Clarifying the Trinity Doctrine

by UnDisfellowshipped in

since there is so much confusion among ex-jw's, jw's, and christians in general about exactly what the trinity doctrine is, i decided to post this to clarify this teaching.. the historical trinity doctrine of the christian (protestant and catholic) churches has always been this:.

* there is only one true god by nature.. * there are three distinct persons who share equally the nature of god.. * there are not three different gods (that is the false doctrine of tritheism or polytheism).. * there is not one person who is revealed three different ways (that is the false doctrine of modalism).. * however, each person of the trinity does have his own "role" or "function.

" the son willingly obeys the father.

UnDisfellowshipped

yknot said:

"What was the point of the temptation of Jesus? If he had chosen to bow down to Satan what would have happened to this triune equation? If he wasn't able to fail, again what was the point of the event?"

This is one of toughest questions to ask about Jesus.

The way I see it, there are two possibilities here:

Possibility # 1:

* Jesus could nothave sinned, because then God's prophecies would have failed, God would have been a liar and a false prophet. (The Bible says it is impossible for God to lie and impossible for Him to sin).

* But Jesus did fully experience all of the temptations that we humans experience, except that He did not have the same sinful nature we have, and He never gave in to the temptations. He never sinned. (The Book of Hebrews teaches that Jesus had to be tempted so that He could identify with us, and be a sympathetic High Priest over us)

* From His human viewpoint, Jesus may have felt or believed that He could sin or fail in His mission (for example, in the Garden of Gethsemane, He thought He might die early before the Cross).

Possibility # 2:

* Jesus could have sinned, as a Man, but God foreknew the free choices that Jesus would make; therefore God knew that Jesus would not sin or fail.

Either way, God knew that Jesus would not sin and would not fail. So, God's purpose and His prophecies were never in jeopardy.

(Some more Scriptural points on this topic are below:)

* The Bible says God cannot be tempted by His own evil desires, because God has no evil desires.

* The Bible says Jesus never had evil sinful thoughts, and He never committed any sin.

* Jesus did say that He could have had angels save Him from His death, but then that would have cancelled God's prophecies.

* Jesus said, unlike normal humans who can choose to disobey God, that He CANNOT do anything except what The Father wants Him to do.

* The Bible says that God had predestined or foreordained that Jesus was successfully die as a sinless sacrifice for our sins.

123

Clarifying the Trinity Doctrine

by UnDisfellowshipped in

since there is so much confusion among ex-jw's, jw's, and christians in general about exactly what the trinity doctrine is, i decided to post this to clarify this teaching.. the historical trinity doctrine of the christian (protestant and catholic) churches has always been this:.

* there is only one true god by nature.. * there are three distinct persons who share equally the nature of god.. * there are not three different gods (that is the false doctrine of tritheism or polytheism).. * there is not one person who is revealed three different ways (that is the false doctrine of modalism).. * however, each person of the trinity does have his own "role" or "function.

" the son willingly obeys the father.

UnDisfellowshipped

Possible said:

"And "Jehovah" is the name of "the Father" although it is the point which many Trinitarians misunderstand. It is not the common name of "the Father", "the Son", and "the Holy Spirit." [...] In the orthodox Trinity doctrine, the divine name "Jehovah" expresses "the Father." "

Where does the Bible teach that only The Father has the Name YHWH?

When The Angel of YHWH spoke to Moses in the burning bush, He declared that His Everlasting Name was I AM, YHWH. Jesus declared that He was I AM (John 8:58, 8:24).

Who was this Angel? And if Jesus is I AM, then He is YHWH as well.

I agree with you and Narkissos that it is probably less confusing to refer to Jesus as LORD (Kyrios), especially when talking to JW's.

But, keep in mind that in the Septuagint, The Divine Name YHWH is rendered as "LORD" (Kyrios) 6,000+ times, and the most important confession of faith in the New Testament is that Jesus is LORD (Kyrios).

123

Clarifying the Trinity Doctrine

by UnDisfellowshipped in

since there is so much confusion among ex-jw's, jw's, and christians in general about exactly what the trinity doctrine is, i decided to post this to clarify this teaching.. the historical trinity doctrine of the christian (protestant and catholic) churches has always been this:.

* there is only one true god by nature.. * there are three distinct persons who share equally the nature of god.. * there are not three different gods (that is the false doctrine of tritheism or polytheism).. * there is not one person who is revealed three different ways (that is the false doctrine of modalism).. * however, each person of the trinity does have his own "role" or "function.

" the son willingly obeys the father.

UnDisfellowshipped

Sir82 said:

"OK here's what I don't get. Based on statement 1, "The Father" = Jehovah and "The Son" = Jehovah. But Statement 2 says A = C but A <> B. In mathematics, if A = C and B = C, then A = B. What am I missing?"

As Narkissos correctly pointed out, the Trinity Doctrine says there is One "What" and Three "Who's". There are Three Persons (or "Minds," perhaps) who each share the same Being, Nature, or Essence.

Satanus said:

"Why stop at god as 3 persons;)"

Frankly, because that's where the Bible stops. The Bible says The Father is God, The Son is God, and The Spirit is God. It never teaches that anyone else is true God by Nature.

The Bible says there are many other so-called gods, and false gods, but never another true God. (read Isaiah chapters 40-50)

mraimondi said:

"the trinity doctrine is a ridiculous attempt to infuse paganism into "christianity" and it worked. just because the fuckin JW cult got it right (after many other people did the legwork for them) doesnt mean the trinity is ok now."

I agree that we should not accept the Trinity just because the JW's rejected it. That is not a good way to decide what to believe.

However, what evidence can you present to demonstrate that the Trinity Doctrine was infused into Christianity from the Pagans?

There were Pagan Monotheists and Pagans were had more than three gods also. The Pagan religions that did have three gods were tritheists, they worshiped triads, not Three Persons as One God.

123

Clarifying the Trinity Doctrine

by UnDisfellowshipped in

since there is so much confusion among ex-jw's, jw's, and christians in general about exactly what the trinity doctrine is, i decided to post this to clarify this teaching.. the historical trinity doctrine of the christian (protestant and catholic) churches has always been this:.

* there is only one true god by nature.. * there are three distinct persons who share equally the nature of god.. * there are not three different gods (that is the false doctrine of tritheism or polytheism).. * there is not one person who is revealed three different ways (that is the false doctrine of modalism).. * however, each person of the trinity does have his own "role" or "function.

" the son willingly obeys the father.

UnDisfellowshipped

LeavingWT said:

"People have been arguing about this since at least 325 CE. I think we'll settle it here, today, on the Interwebs. At long last. Finally."

LOL!

But, seriously, why couldn't we settle this here, today, at least among ourselves? I mean, there's only so many relevant passages of Scripture to examine before coming to your conclusion.

Just because there have been some people who argue over this doctrine for 2000 years, that doesn't say anything about us today.

We are not any less intelligent than those in the past.