Posts by JosephMalik

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

JosephMalik

Exodus 3:14 From the Septuagint in Greek Ego Eimi Ho On translated I AM WHO I AM. The large name of God.

Ginsosko,

In Zondervans Septuagint it is translated I AM THE BEING.

Ginsosko said: 3. Exodus 3:14 From the septuagint in greek Ho On translated I AM. The short form of God.

The Ho Ohn is translated again THE BEING for the second time. While not a short form of Gods name it does mean something like THE GOD or ONLY TRUE GOD as compared to other uses of such terms.

But the point was good. And your argument valid. The only proper way to represent the I AM in Hebrew is I AM THE BEING in Greek the way the Septuagint rendered it which is something our Lord did not say.

Joseph

Edited by - JosephMalik on 6 December 2002 0:9:37

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

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

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

JosephMalik

UnDisfellowshipped,

That all Jews did always react the same is not suprising. But we are discussing the nature of God literally and looking for absolute proof one way or the other. Incidents such as the one described do not change the overall situation already discussed. Some Jews were highly jealous, some highly protective of their status with the people, some were more knowledgeable than others. We see all such characteristics in them but they still had an obligation to give up all such old ways, nearly all their views and texts in fact and be born again into a Faith radically altered from everything they knew.

I just noticed you post on the Holy Spirit and how you attempt to show it to be a person. This is a good example of trinitarian thinking and is covered adequately in Beyond Trinitarianism. However how do such examples prove that this Holy Spirit is also true God? People can be called Holy Spirit and even an assembly of Christians can be called Holy Spirt and they are in scripture but does this make them true God? Such use of terms does not a true God make. Notice:

Acts 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

This was a person. One of the brothers in Antioch participating in this meeting. No thunder, no voice from the sky, no vision, no nothing like that. Is this brother true God?

When I comes to doctrine, I really do not care what the doctrine is as long as it agrees fully with scripture and is beyond dispute. Show me the error I am making and I will correct it faster than the speed of lightning. And I search carefully for flaws, weakness and strengths in every view found of interest including my own. But I see really bad interpretation of texts within Trinitarian theology and they should be brought to everyones attention so that good information is available to everyone interested in such doctrine We are individually responsible for what we teach and cannot blame someone else for error.

P.S. Your work with silent lambs was very good and I am looking forward to the rest of your research on that subject. I am not trying to say that everything anyone does is suspect because of a disagreement on one point. Keep up the good work.

Joseph

Edited by - JosephMalik on 5 December 2002 9:0:58

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

JosephMalik

The Title "Son of Man" means Man.

It would seem logical that the Title "Son of God" means God.

Was "Son of God" used as a Special Title for Adam?

I don't think so.

All angels are called "sons of God" -- but is that a Special Title given to them?

Christians are called "sons of God", even now in their Im-perfect condition, Christians are called "sons of God", but is that a Special Title?

The Bible calls Jesus "The Only-Begotten Son", "The Unique Son", "The One-And-Only Son".

Please let me know who else was called by those Titles.

If I went around and called myself THE Son of God, the Pharisees and the Jews would have known what I meant.

Undisfellowshipped,

Well the texts themselves do not agree. Using terms like special title as if that alters the meaning means nothing. This expression was applied in scripture to the ones shown in my earlier thread and nothing offered here changes them.

Joseph

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

JosephMalik

Who is the Creator of the Universe and Everything and Everyone?

What does the Bible say?

Genesis 1:1: In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.

Undisfellowshipped,

Fine so far.

Genesis 1:26: God said, "Let Us make man in Our Image, after Our Likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the cattle, and over all the Earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the Earth."

But here we have proof that the creation of mankind was a task that was delegated. The Being or Beings that make up this Us is not identified but at least we know someone else was also involved.

Genesis 1:27: God created man in His own Image. In God's Image He created him; male and female He created them.

This does not change this fact. It simple does not go into such detail as John, and Paul did.

John 1:10: He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world didn't recognize Him.

Only the world of man capable of recognizing Him is under discussion by John.

Hebrews 1:2: has at the end of these days spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed Heir of all things, through whom also He made the Universe.

Now this is cute. The King James Version states:

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

It also means age like the age of mankind. But worlds is the way Paul also expressed the thought as well when he detailed the structure that made up such worlds like this:.

Colossians 1:14: in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins;
Colossians 1:15: who is the Image of the Invisible God, the Firstborn of all creation.
Colossians 1:16: For by Him were all things created, in the Heavens and on the Earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through Him, and for Him.
Colossians 1:17: He is before all things, and in Him all things are held together.

And with this detail we also learn that this Son is not God. What Paul taught is that this Son is the Image of the Invisible God. He did not create the Heavens and Earth either. What this Son did is create the things that are in the Heavens and on the Earth and then goes on to identify such government and common man including the Faith. It is only such things that this Son is before.

Joseph

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

JosephMalik

Also, what did the Pharisees find Jesus guilty of in their "Trial"?

Matthew 26:63: But Jesus held His peace. The high priest answered Him, "I adjure You by the Living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God."

Undisfellowshipped,

The question was are You the Christ which means Messiah or Saviour.

This Christ would be someone uncondemned a true Son of God superior in status before God to them.

Undisfellowshipped said: Then the high priest tore his clothing, saying, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Behold, now you have heard His blasphemy.
Matthew 26:66: What do you think?" They answered, "He is worthy of death!"

So obviously, the Pharisees knew what the Title "The Son of God" meant.

They knew what the Messiah meant. They did not believe that Jesus qualified to be this Messiah. That much is certain. For similar reasons they did not believe that this Jesus was Justified and without sin, worthy to be called Son of God. But to say they knew that The Son of God meant God himself is not obvious nor stated in this text. We must stay with what is written and supported elsewhere in scripture which I did. They often failed to understand our Lords message and this is but one example of their failure. Making oneself God is not the same as being God since making oneself God simply is making oneself superior to them notice.

John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Now that to them is blasphemy just as it is to WT leadership when someone knows more than they do. But scripturally even doing this is not wrong as our Lord proved to them. This is also why our Lord spoke in parables. Notice:

Matthew 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

Matthew 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

Matthew 13:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

To say that they obviously knew what Son of God means is not supported by scripture. What we do know is they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

Joseph

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

JosephMalik

Joseph, then you deny scripture. What I said was taken directly from it.

SwedishChef,

Using the erroneous response the Jews uttered does not a proof make.

You completely misinterpreting these verses, Joseph. The "sons" of God better translate the "children" of God. See for yourself!

Do you thing this plural rendering changes everything somehow?

Son of God

The plural, "sons of God, " is used #Ge 6:2,4 to denote the pious descendants of Seth. In #Job 1:6 38:7 this name is applied to the angels. Hosea uses the phrase #Ho 1:10 to designate the gracious relation in which men stand to God. In the New Testament this phrase frequently denotes the relation into which we are brought to God by adoption #Ro 8:14,19 2Co 6:18 Ga 4:5,6 Php 2:15 1Jo 3:1,2 It occurs thirty-seven times in the New Testament as the distinctive title of our Saviour. He does not bear this title in consequence of his miraculous birth, nor of his incarnation, his resurrection, and exaltation to the Fathers right hand. This is a title of nature and not of office.

This article was written by a Trinitarian and goes on to support trinitarianism but it still shows that singular or plural the titles shown are of nature and not of office. This nature is that of someone without sin and/or justified. That is what Trinitarians fail to grasp.

Joseph

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

JosephMalik

"The Son of God" is one that makes Jesus equal to God.

SwedishChef,

That is what I expected you to say so I did not answer this question until there was a commitment made by someone on this phrase.

Then was Adam equal to God? Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Are the angels equal to God? Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

How about disciples, do they become equal to God?

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: {power: or, the right, or, privilege}

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

1 John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

The Jews did not understand the expression well as it means much more than the forgiveness of sin they sought after. But this expression embraces the thought of Justification and basically means Justified and uncondemned. Having a right standing before God as Adam did before sin entered the world and as angles and faithful disciples led by the Spirit of God have.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God (He who NAS) was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Joseph

Edited by - JosephMalik on 3 December 2002 18:9:9

740

The Trinity

by meadow77 in

top reasons the wts is lying about the trinity.

their translation of john 1:1 is not only a complete farce but falls apart upon closer examination of their own beliefs.

the insertion of the phrase a god, instead of god is just a clear misinterpretation.

JosephMalik

LucidSky,

Well they are close. I see a few problems. But I have spoken with Anthony Buzzard about them and perhaps they will consider that information. Who knows? He liked Beyond Trinitarianism and told me so at a conference where we exchanged talks.

Joseph

11

Is anyone watching "TAKEN"?

by Nathan Natas in

jw
friends

the scifi (science fiction) channel here in the usa is running steven spielberg's mini-maxi-series (2 hours per night for 10 nights!

i watched the first episode last night - it was much better than i expected it to be - it's got hooks!.

often i find myself disappointed with scifi channel series, but not this time.. "science fiction, double feature...".

JosephMalik

Nathan,

Yes, I watched it. The SciFi channel is my equivalent to a soap channel the ladies enjoy. Hi. I also have been watching the assembly of the space station all week on the NASA channel which I can get on my 10 foot dish. Guess I need to break these bad habits soon.

Joseph